Ask the pilot

On a bright sunny day with clear skies from Maine to Florida, passengers waiting at La Guardia airport are startled to learn their flight to Boston will be held up for almost an hour due to "weather problems" at Logan. Just before the new departure time, the delay is extended for the same mysterious reason. Finally the flight takes off, but 15 minutes from landing, somewhere over Providence, the captain's voice comes over the P.A. "Unfortunately, due to airport congestion at Logan, we're gonna have to enter a holding pattern for the next 30 minutes." There's a collective groan from the cabin. A 40-minute hop has become a three-and-a-half-hour hassle.

This scenario is repeated dozens of times every year. Flights into Logan, whether originating in New York, Los Angeles, or anywhere in between, are often subject to extended waits and holding patterns, even in good weather. The problem is runways. Specifically, their orientation. Logan's airside complex is not, shall we say, meteorologically correct. Aircraft take off and land into the wind, and when that wind happens to blow in from the Northwest at a velocity of more than about 20 knots, Logan can use only one of its five runways -- namely, runway 33L. This is the "weather problem" that so befuddles passengers.

Like much of Boston's infrastructure, its airport, erected on harbor fill and hemmed in by skyline and sea, was planned decades ago for a capacity long exceeded. Today controllers are forced to marshal a dizzying ballet of takeoffs and landings using an antiquated design. Even when two or three runways are simultaneously operational, anything other than optimal weather can bring on havoc, as Logan's runways are not only short, but intersect at several locations. Takeoffs and landings need to be carefully staggered, and any combination of fog, snow, wind, ice, and peak-hour flight schedules has passengers cursing and scrambling for cellphones.

The economic and environmental impact is enormous. A large jet can burn 500 gallons of fuel languishing in queue for takeoff. In a holding pattern overhead, 1,000 gallons is not uncommon. As the effects trickle down, they become harder to measure: connecting flights must be rerouted and rescheduled, causing delays in other cities; meetings are missed; appointments are canceled; hotel rooms go empty. Not to mention the mental stress put on flight crews, air traffic controllers, and the traveling public.

The Massachusetts Port Authority has proposed the construction of a so-called STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing) runway to serve as a relief strip. Situated along the airport's southern edge and aligned to deal with those troublesome northwesterlies, it would be used solely by the smaller regional aircraft that make up nearly half of all movements on the property, freeing up 33L for mainstay jets and greatly reducing delays.

What seems a simple fix has become a 10-year battle between airport officials and nearby residents. From the vitriol spewed forth by anti-runway activists, you'd think Massport is planning to build a whorehouse next to a high school. Critics have whipped up opposition citing noise, pollution and safety concerns -- the very things the new runway will alleviate. This "expansion" of Logan is not designed to invite more airplanes into the airport, but to more efficiently handle those already on hand. The most recent court decision has given Massport the go-ahead to build, but after years of protests, appeals and the constant slinging of misinformation, I'll believe it the day I see a plane touching down.

If you're curious how single-runway airports like Gatwick or Osaka handle similar climatic trouble, they're normally compassed with prevailing winds in mind, and tend to be longer. Extra length can sometimes compensate for performance hits during tailwind or crosswind conditions.

Of the in-town facilities mentioned thus far -- La Guardia, National, Logan, Midway and Lindbergh -- all have a reputation among pilots as challenging places to fly. Making things more complicated, crews have to follow specially tailored departure profiles when departing over close-in neighborhoods. At Washington, throw in a cluster of no-fly zones over government buildings and you've got a fourplex of stress: small, intersecting runways; noise abatement; and G-men with rockets making sure you don't stray toward the White House.

OK, I'm getting sensationalist, which is something I hate to do. Having to handle a high workload at a congested airport is a case of multitasking that all crews are trained for and confront with extreme routine -- a long way from anything dangerous. It's all relative, and pilots scale their tasks by complexity and effort just like anybody else.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Do you have questions for Salon's aviation expert? Send them to AskThePilot and look for answers in a future column.

• View blog reactions