Silly.

Does not fix crosswinds problems.
Trades runway length for a three-dimensional landing problem.
Does not increase the use of runways. If you could land two planes behind each other, it could be done now.
I think this is a joke, or a basic nutty person trying to solve a problem of no land in Europe.

Interesting, of course. I learned to fly in the 1990s, but have not flown in 15 years. I read the comments here and have these replies:

(1) As for the problems with crosswind, I assume that for landing and take-off you would be given a pattern and runway than brings you head-on into the wind for touchdown (or take-off). After that, it would be a matter of controls to keep the wings level on the ground.

(1.a.) It would depend on how large the circle is. Most runways are a mile long. Commercial runways are two miles long. But you need much less than that in good conditions. At small county airport, you can land on the numbers (end of the runway) and take the first turnoff ... but at a large commercial airport, the event is different. A circle is just a set of straight lines, really. But if the intent is to create a 2-km runway as a circumference of a circle 600 m in diameter, then it is going to be dicey learning.

(1.b.) When you learn to "fly", you are really learning to land. Planes pretty much are built to fly; anything will fly if you push it hard enough. It is landing that is the challenge. The last minute is the hardest. Then you push in the throttle, take off and practice again... and again... and again...

(2) The actual test was run with fighter pilots. They tend to be a bit better than the private pilots who go out for a $100 hamburger once a month.

(3) Before we see a blossoming of circular runways and a complete restructuring of 100,000 American county airports, teleportation or high-speed tunnels or a quantum leap in virtual reality (or just a "quantum leap" in something else we do not yet know about), will change the social structure.

These people wouldn't happen to be from Colorado, would they? This is the kind of idea that could only result from smoking dope. I don't see the feasibility of landing a 100 or 200 ton airliner on a banked circle track at 140+ mph without having major issues with the landing gear.

Hmmm. Looks heavily banked like a NASCAR track. Maybe it could work. I suspect pilots would need to begin training with smaller lighter planes before landing a big one. Who knows, next would be a circular aircraft carrier you could land a B52 on, LOL!

Most runways are designed to support takeoff and landing operations in low visibility (1/8 of a mile, 600 RVR) and in less then optimum runway contamination due to rain snow and ice. Adding to the directional control oroblems does nit help, even on a clear day. The approach and departure procedures need to likewise be designed to stay clear of obsticles and terrain in the vicinity of the airport. This concept may look cute on paper but has not use in a practical world, in the opinion of this airline captain and retired navy fighter pilot.
Cheers,

Not being an expert in this field...
my first reaction is this has probably been copied and re-posted on the web
since, I guessing... April 1st ??

Not to dish on "outside the box" stabs at innovation, but in context of basic physics alone this would introduce a whole lot of complexity to an already complex and critical phase of flight. In addition, congestion is not just a problem on the ground - every plane in transit to and from an airport has to be routed to and from that airport. There is a certain level of congestion in the air that acts as a limit to air traffic, independent of the limitations of runways.

And just imagine the uneven tire wear and the bills for tire rotation. Seriously, I'm thinking this would likely require a complete redesign of aircraft tires to handle the massive added lateral forces, particularly (but not exclusively) on landings.
.

It does fix crosswind problems by being able to land into the wind no matter which direction the wind is coming from. Fighting a cross wind on a straight runway creates the same problem of trying to keep the plane level while attempting to land with a wind trying to lift one wing on one side. This idea was floated about 30 years ago and makes sense. It would take a large loop and bank to allow for putting the plane down and then not requiring a tight turn with all taxiways then coming off the inside of the circle and moving to the terminal eliminating cross traffic over runways and other obstacles.

flew jets for 40 years...interesting concept...crosswinds would be a major safety issue...which would change as you land in a circle and become a tailwind because once you are into ground effect, the airplane will fly round and round...

I would love to see a banked circular runway on top of Airport Mesa here in Sedona, Az, It would be a gas! When It's not in use rent it out as a racetrack! LOL

I once met a guy pushing another great idea for airports. He said they should all be built on top of a hill with the runways sloping down from the terminals. That way you use less fuel building up speed to take off and you don't need to brake as much when you land.

Wonder how Harrison Ford would handle this?

I shudder to think of the kind of retraining program, for pilots of all grades, on how to take off and land with the wheels turned clockwise. Whew! Are they sure about this?!? I understand the appeal of efficiency--you would never have to worry about where the wind was blowing. But still...!

Yeah. I would think the plane would have a higher stall speed when banking. The narrator said there have been successful trials. It would be neat landing on one. I'm disappointed that the technical aspects of commercial planes hasn't changed in my lifetime. I imagined all planes would fly faster and at supersonic speeds. They've improved engine efficiency, but it still takes nine hours to get to Europe from Chicago.