How Closing a Parallel Runway at an Airport Reduces Safety and Increases Training Costs and Time

Some airports have the benefit of having parallel runways. While this isn’t the case at all airports, those that do have them sometimes go through the question of “do they really need both runways.” This can be a hard question to answer when considering budgetary concerns related to maintaining extra runways, but there are also safety and operational efficiency considerations that need to be brought into the decision chain.

Generally, closing a parallel runway at a heavily used training airport significantly undermines safety, reduces training productivity, and increases costs for pilots, as it forces reliance on a single runway, exacerbating congestion and operational challenges.

Here are a few ways this plays out when it happens.

Reduced Safety: A single runway concentrates all traffic—training flights, commercial operations, and general aviation—into one operational space. Student pilots, who require more time for takeoffs, landings, and touch-and-go maneuvers, increase runway occupancy, heightening the risk of runway incursions and near-misses. The lack of segregation between novice and experienced pilots amplifies collision risks in the traffic pattern, especially during peak training hours. Air traffic controllers face heightened workloads, managing diverse aircraft with varying performance characteristics, which can lead to errors or delayed responses in critical situations. Additionally, the absence of a backup runway eliminates operational redundancy, meaning any incident, like a stalled aircraft or maintenance issue, halts all operations, potentially stranding aircraft in unsafe holding patterns or forcing them to outlying airports. 

Congestion heightens risks, as student pilots share the runway with diverse aircraft, increasing the chance of runway incursions or mid-air collisions. Novice pilots, still mastering skills, face greater pressure in a crowded traffic pattern, elevating stress and error potential. Without a parallel runway, there’s no buffer for emergencies, amplifying risks during critical training phases.

Reduced Training Productivity: Training airports with only one runway face severe bottlenecks. Repetitive circuits and touch-and-goes, staples of flight training, overwhelm capacity, forcing instructors to limit sessions or schedule during off-peak hours, reducing the number of daily lessons. Students face longer wait times for runway clearance, cutting into actual flight training time. This inefficiency delays skill acquisition and extends the time to earn certifications, frustrating students and instructors alike. A single runway bottlenecks operations, limiting the number of takeoffs, landings, and touch-and-go maneuvers students can perform daily. This restriction forces flight schools to reduce lesson frequency or extend schedules, delaying certifications. Parents, often funding this expensive training, face higher financial burdens as progress stalls, undermining the value of their investment.

Increased Costs for Pilots: Congestion at a single-runway airport often pushes pilots to seek training at alternative airports with parallel runways or lower traffic. This relocation incurs significant costs: additional fuel for transit flights, higher landing fees at busier airports, and potential lodging expenses for students traveling far. For example, flying 50 miles to another airport at 8 gallons per hour and $6 per gallon adds $48 per round trip, excluding time-based instructor fees. These costs accumulate, making flight training less accessible and straining student budgets.

The training provider faces declining productivity as limited runway access restricts flight hours, leading to fewer lessons and delayed student progress. This can erode the provider’s reputation and revenue, as students seek less congested airports. Rising costs from forced relocations to other facilities further strain the provider’s budget and student affordability, potentially reducing enrollment. Safety concerns, like increased collision risks from mixed traffic, also expose the provider to liability and reputational damage.

Closing a parallel runway at a training airport compromises safety by increasing traffic conflicts, hampers productivity by limiting training opportunities, and drives up costs, forcing pilots to seek costly alternatives.

Parents of students training at an airport that has closed [or is considering closing] a parallel runway should be concerned about extended training durations, reduced safety, and a diminished return on their investment in their child’s aviation education. The closure creates a congested environment that disrupts the efficiency and safety of flight training, directly impacting students.

By prioritizing short-term savings over maintaining critical infrastructure, airport management undermines the flight school’s viability and the community’s economic vitality. Students and parents, seeking value and safety, will invest in airports that prioritize their needs, leaving the under-resourced airport and its community with diminished prospects.

Maintaining dual runways where they are available is critical for safe, efficient, and affordable flight training.

Airport management that fails to recognize the adverse effects of closing a parallel runway is not acting in the best interest of a large training provider based at the airport. A major training provider relies on high operational efficiency to serve numerous students, maintain schedules, and ensure safety. By ignoring the increased congestion, heightened safety risks, and reduced training capacity caused by a single runway, management undermines the provider’s ability to operate effectively.

Management’s oversight disregards the provider’s role as a key stakeholder driving airport activity and economic benefits. Prioritizing short-term cost savings over maintaining dual runways jeopardizes the provider’s long-term sustainability, contradicting the airport’s responsibility to support its largest tenants and the broader aviation community’s safety and efficiency.

How a Parallel Runway Significantly Helps Increase Safety and Efficiency in Training at Airports

A parallel runway at a heavily used training airport significantly enhances safety by segregating traffic, reducing congestion, and minimizing collision risks. Training airports host numerous student pilots practicing takeoffs, landings, and touch-and-go maneuvers, which increase runway occupancy time and airspace complexity. A parallel runway allows simultaneous operations, separating training flights from other traffic, such as commercial or general aviation, thereby reducing the likelihood of conflicts.

Parallel runways enable air traffic controllers to assign dedicated runways for training activities. Student pilots, who may have slower response times or less predictable maneuvers, can operate on one runway, while more experienced pilots or larger aircraft use the other. This segregation minimizes the risk of runway incursions, where an aircraft inadvertently enters an active runway, a critical concern at busy training airports.

Parallel runways alleviate congestion. Training flights often involve repetitive circuits, leading to high traffic density. A single runway can become a bottleneck, increasing the chance of go-arounds or mid-air collisions in the pattern. Dual runways distribute this load, allowing smoother flow and reducing controller workload, which enhances situational awareness and decision-making.

Parallel runways provide operational flexibility during adverse conditions. For instance, if one runway is closed due to maintenance or weather, training can continue on the other, maintaining safety without halting operations. This redundancy is vital for airports with high training volumes.

Parallel runways also support emergency preparedness. In case of an incident, such as a gear-up landing, the unaffected runway ensures continued safe operations. By reducing traffic conflicts, easing congestion, and offering operational resilience, parallel runways create a safer environment for training airports, protecting both novice pilots and the broader aviation community.

At airports, especially those that have busy training operations, a parallel runway can allow air traffic control to separate faster inbound and outbound traffic, such as jets, from those that are slower and needing to do multiple takeoff and landing operations. The ability to separate dissimilar aircraft operations onto different runways allows ATC to provide better traffic separation and increase safety.

There is no doubt that an airport with a well-run parallel runway operation increases safety and allows for greater efficiency in flight training operations. Training at an airport like this is a significant benefit when it is available.

[Whitepaper] Safeguarding Pilot Quality and Airman Development Through Robust FAA Testing and Oversight Systems

Safeguarding Pilot Quality and Airman
Development t
hrough Robust
FAA Testing and Oversight Systems

Executive Summary

By Jason Blair

April 21, 2025

Civilian airmen development and training has historically gone beyond simply issuing certification for individuals who have completed training. The U.S. system of training has relied upon testing airmen at multiple points as they progress through training to validate that they are developing the base, and then advanced, skills, knowledge, and risk management abilities to make the competent airmen for eventual service in professional pilot careers. Our system, other than military pilot selection, has had little or no pre-screening to assess probability of success, safety attitude, or technical aptitude for these individuals prior to starting training processes. This makes the testing process critical to the evaluation and progression of our airmen. Testing is an important part of making sure the training completed meets and/or exceeds the minimum standards and produces pilots who will safely operate in our national airspace system and provide commercial pilot service to the general public for passenger and cargo transport.

Under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation Part 61, minimum knowledge and performance standards are defined for pilot ratings, including training and minimum experience requirements.  FAA regulation Part 141 provides a slightly different set of requirements, including a reduced experience requirements under FAA approved training course outlines. Military pilot trainees are tested and graded on everything, every day.  A single failure may result in the pilot candidate “washing out” of the entire training program.  This results in very high-quality pilot graduates. Neither FAA Part 61 or Part 141 have equivalent “washout” criteria or regulations.  A civilian student pilot may fail and retest multiple times; finally with a passing grade.  Civilian flight schools thus “train to pass the test” and “test until the applicant eventually passes the test.”

The FAA is an integral part of maintaining the quality of civilian pilot training. This role is currently in jeopardy and faltering as economic pressures drive increasing civilian pilot training to simply fill pilot shortages instead of focusing on development of highly qualified pilots for commercial aviation.

Critical issues include:

    • A gap exists between certificate test readiness and true airman competency.
    • Focus on “teaching to the test” has produced pilots who excel at scripted maneuvers but falter when faced with unexpected real-life scenarios;
    • Aggressive recruitment from the existing CFI pool for airline hiring has reduced CFI tenure from an average of 24-36 months to 12-15 months. Less experienced CFIs teaching student pilots is lowering the overall quality of pilot training;
    • FAA resource constraints pose a challenge. FAA Air Safety Inspector (ASI) staffing and compensation levels have not kept pace with aviation growth.

As a seasoned professional in the ab initio pilot training pathway, I posit that:

    • The FAA must maintain and enhance the existing independent Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) testing system. Applicants for airman certification and/or ratings must be independently tested to ensure training providers maintain training quality;
    • Airmen certification must not be allowed to be completed in a manner where “the fox is watching the henhouse,” where the training providers are the judge of their own training quality;
    • The FAA must prioritize external oversight and impartial evaluation over reliance on self-interested training providers “certifying” their students to push certification numbers through. This must be done to safeguard pilot quality and maintain public trust and safety.

To do this it is critical that:

    • The FAA must be authorized and funded to recruit highly qualified and industry-competitive staff at industry-competitive compensation rates to provide oversight, guidance, and support to the training and testing system;
  •  
    • The FAA must implement the recommendations from the Designated Pilot Examiner Reforms Working Group (DPERWG)to improve the standardization of testing provision through the FAA DPE program and to improve the efficiency of training provision in our system;
  •  
    • A refocus on airmen quality over production of more pilots must be made to ensure our next generation of pilots will continue to maintain and improve on the current levels of air safety.

These key points are discussed in significant detail in the following whitepaper. A valid and current discussion is needed in this industry right now to avoid having these points degrade the continued advancement of safety, or worse, increase the degradation of in the U.S. national airspace system.

Click here to see and download a
PDF of the entire paper

or

Click here to see the paper on this website.

Click here to see where this
paper was submitted to the
FAA Federal Register in response to
the FAA Part 141 Modernization Initiative.

The Potential to Enhance Pilot Training Efficiency Through Pre-Training Candidate Screening

The aviation industry faces mounting pressure to produce high-quality pilots efficiently, driven by persistent shortages and the increasing complexity of modern flight operations. A significant challenge within this landscape is the high washout rate in training programs, especially programs that are academy-style and focused on shorter training footprints. This washout rate includes students who fail to complete training due to skill deficiencies, financial constraints, or motivational issues.

Historically, flight schools and training programs have addressed struggling students by offering additional training or retraining, extending instruction to bridge gaps in performance. While well-intentioned, this reactive approach often proves costly, time-consuming, and inefficient, straining resources and delaying certification pipelines. A more effective solution may lay in introducing better screening of pilot training candidates in these programs before training begins. This can help to identify those likely to succeed at a particular time and reduce washout rates from the outset. This can save wasted training resource time and costs associated with washing students out. It also makes sure we don’t reduce overall pilot production capacity on candidates that are unlikely to complete training.

Implementing more robust pre-training screening may offer a proactive strategy for training providers to enhance overall training system efficiency, surpassing the limitations of remedial efforts for students already enrolled.

The Washout Problem: Scope and Impact

Washout rates in pilot training represent a significant inefficiency in the aviation ecosystem. Data from multiple reports seems to indicate that 20-30% of students enrolled in private pilot programs under 14 CFR Part 61 or Part 141 fail to complete their training. These washout rates are observed in both private training and training that is oriented toward developing airline-bound pilots. Reasons for dropping out vary: approximately 40% cite financial barriers, 30% struggle with skill acquisition, and 20% lack the motivation or resilience to persevere, based on some survey data. These dropouts not only disrupt individual career paths but also burden training organizations, which invest resources—aircraft, fuel, instructor time—in students who ultimately leave.

Continue reading