Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions -- Special Report 272 (2003)

Airport-related research in the United States covers a wide spectrum of needs and topics. At one end of the spectrum, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies conduct research to support their own responsibilities in managing and overseeing the safety, security, and environmental compatibility of the national aviation system. This research can be characterized as mission- or function-oriented and is focused primarily on each agency’s particular responsibilities. At the other end of the spectrum, research is more aptly described as problem- or product-based. It is the outcome of the work of thousands of airport operators, aircraft operators, consultants, and suppliers on site-specific issues, development of proprietary products, and practical solutions to everyday problems.

Largely missing from this mix is a middle layer of research that addresses problems shared by many airports, large and small. In particular, federal requirements present the nation’s airports with many complex challenges. Examples are the need to find environmentally acceptable—but still safe, economical, and fast—aircraft deicing methods and the need to design airport terminals that both expedite passenger traffic and enhance security. Federal agencies conduct research to support their own requirements. Airport operators need research to solve the problems created by the multiple demands that are placed on them not only by several federal statutes and agencies but also by state and local governments, airlines, and other airport users.

The nation’s airports represent a mostly public resource overseen, managed, and financed by all levels of government. Research that helps find and integrate solutions to shared airport problems can confer large public benefits by allowing more effective responses to government rules and requirements, more productive use of public resources, and better service to airport users. Inasmuch as the federal government alone collects billions of dollars each year from airport users and returns much of this money to state and local airport operators to reinvest in their facilities, both the public sector and the traveling public should have a keen interest in ensuring the performance of such research.

Some basic criteria for identifying kinds of airport research that are candidates for a national airport cooperative research program (ACRP) are offered in the next section. Specific examples of research needs are then given. The examples, which are not exhaustive or ranked in order of priority, reveal the nature and breadth of research needs.

Not all airport research needs are best addressed through cooperative means. For instance, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) mission is to undertake longer-range research that is inherently risky but that has the potential to yield major aviation improvements. Much of the research conducted by NASA on topics such as quieter aircraft propulsion systems and artificial vision systems to display airport runways and obstructions would be poorly suited to an application-oriented, cooperative research program. By necessity, FAA’s research is directed mainly at supporting its own regulatory activities, grant programs, and other mission requirements. Likewise, many of the product-oriented R&D activities of the commercial sector are not suitable for cooperative research. Indeed, proprietary R&D, which is crucial to the introduction of new airport products and procedures, is by no means being neglected by private industry. Airport operators rarely lack a wide selection of competing products and services. What they often do need is objective, research-based information to choose among the many product and service offerings.

The following questions are helpful to consider in trying to identify the kinds of research that are suited to a national ACRP.

• Is the research need routinely overlooked by existing research programs?

Certain topics receive limited attention because they do not relate directly to the mission of major sponsors of airport-related research. For example, FAA focuses much of its research on improving the airside features and functions of airports, which are major recipients of federal aid and directly relevant to the performance of the national aviation system. The agency undertakes comparatively little research on routine maintenance of passenger and cargo facilities, which is viewed primarily as a local responsibility. Even though operators across the country collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on maintenance and share many related problems, none of FAA’s current airport research projects can be described as concerned with maintenance.

• Will many airports benefit from the research and its results?

Some operators will always need their own research capacity to address problems unique to their airports. National research, however, may be a more productive approach in addressing problems common to many airports across the country. For example, all airport operators are currently taking steps to strengthen security. As they do so, they are being presented with many similar problems, such as how to minimize crowding near security lines, strengthen perimeter protections around airfields, and retrofit terminal facilities to accommodate new passenger screening and explosive detec-tion systems. As another example, many operators find themselves faced with similar challenges in attempting to meet federal environmental requirements. Addressing such needs through cooperative research would prevent duplication of effort and allow development of more widely accepted and transferable results.

• Can the research be performed with a reasonable expenditure of time and effort?

Meeting some challenges, such as reducing airport noise exposure in adjacent communities, will require much research over a long period of time. Broad problem areas, such as airport noise, may be a general category of cooperative research. However, the key to retaining the interest and participation of airport operators in the research is to focus on finding timely and practical solutions to well-defined problems—for instance, guidelines for retrofitting homes for noise abatement.

Some airport problems may already be well understood, and solutions may be available. The solutions may not have been adopted for a variety of reasons—political, institutional, or economic. Pricing as a means of reducing runway congestion is one example. In such cases, careful consideration will be required to ensure that the scope of the problem is narrowed so that the research can yield useful results.

• Can the product of the research be well articulated?

It is not possible to anticipate all the potential uses and benefits of research. Yet, definition of a tangible research product at the outset is crucial for an applied research program. A particular product in a particular format—for instance, a standards manual or a revision of a guidebook of best practices—is more likely to meet the practical needs of airport operators. Such applied research might take the form of technical studies in support of the development

and revision of specific FAA advisory circulars and airport industry engineering, maintenance, and operational guidelines, as discussed in the next section.

Commercial-service airports in particular can be large and complicated enterprises. Many employ hundreds or even thousands of personnel; maintain relations with scores of airlines, concessionaires, and suppliers of equipment and services; and are visited by thousands of airline passengers and other users on a daily basis. They often have multiyear planning, construction, and procurement programs for numerous facilities, ranging from access roads and parking garages to terminals, runways, and storage buildings. Some large airports are communities in their own right. They house or operate numerous parking facilities, public transportation systems, warehouses, fueling stations, fire and rescue services, police forces, road networks, medical facilities, restaurants, and hotels. The sheer size and complexity of many airport enterprises present a rich array of problems and research needs.

The following examples of research topics are intended to illustrate the diversity of needs in several broad research categories: operations and safety, maintenance, design of infrastructure and equipment, finance and administration, planning and environment, and security. The examples, which have the characteristics described in the preceding section, are well suited to being performed through an ACRP.¹

Some large airports handle hundreds of aircraft landings and takeoffs in a single hour. Many different kinds of aircraft operating on multiple runways, taxiways, and parking areas and the movements of hundreds of tugs, baggage and cargo conveyors, passenger bridges and buses, refueling trucks, service vehicles, and other ground-support equipment and personnel are involved. Thousands of people may pass through a single terminal in an hour as they board and transfer to other flights, wait for arrivals, and are processed by security, customs, and immigration services. The orchestration of these airside and terminal operations, especially during peak periods and adverse weather,

requires planning and coordination among airlines, air traffic control, and airport operators.

As chief conductors of this large operation, airport operators need information to make the decisions and preparations to ensure smooth and safe performance. Many research needs arise involving what appear to be straightforward practices and procedures. For instance, the free movement of passenger traffic in terminals requires information on how best to set the speeds of escalators and moving sidewalks and how to design and locate “way-finding” signs that provide the necessary information to travelers without causing them to congregate in hallways. Such problems have been evaluated and addressed at individual airports throughout the world, and varieties of solutions have undoubtedly been found and implemented. Yet, no comprehensive source of information concerning the types of solutions devised, let alone their relative effectiveness, now exists. Research that collects information on these solutions and that evaluates them for effectiveness under a range of circumstances would likely provide guidance on ways to improve passenger traffic flow at many airports.

Airside operations also present many problems and research needs. Aircraft operations are managed by airline and air traffic control procedures that are outside the purview of airport operators. However, airport operations are affected by these procedures, and airport operators need to understand how they are affected in order to make the necessary adjustments in infrastructure and equipment. As an example, federal rules governing Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), which are issued by FAA’s Flight Standards Office, set forth certain obstacle clearance criteria in the approach and landing zone around runway ends. Slight modifications in these criteria, such as the treatment of taxiing aircraft as obstructions, can alter the distances aircraft must move from gates and taxiways to holding and runway positioning and affect the design and configuration of the runways and taxiways themselves. Such changes can have far-reaching implications, which aircraft operators must recognize and understand. The operators need to be involved in the modeling and other research performed to evaluate changes in TERPS and many other air traffic control procedures.

Research into other aspects of airport operations also holds the potential for improvements in efficiency and safety performance. For example, ways to enhance the safety of ground-vehicle operations, protect ramp workers from lightning strikes, and discourage perching by birds could be investigated. A

starting point for such investigations is to survey and synthesize current practices. The results will point out research needs and provide ideas for improving safety programs.

Virtually any element of the airport enterprise can affect airport operations and safety. For example, environmental rules governing the runoff and disposal of aircraft deicing materials, which are designed to safeguard bodies of water near airports, have significant impacts on aircraft deicing operations. Deicing operations, in turn, affect overall airport operations. Indeed, many of the research needs identified in the following research categories are germane to operations. They suggest the importance of having airport operations managers intimately involved in the research process.

Good maintenance is crucial to an airport’s ability to provide efficient, safe, and reliable service. It also represents a significant expense. Maintenance materials, supplies, and services typically account for 20 percent or more of annual operating budgets and are often second only to personnel as the largest single expense item.² The neglect or deferral of maintenance can have significant long-run implications: it can present safety hazards that reduce airport capacity and require costly repairs and renovations. Yet federal aid, which can be used for capital improvements, seldom covers expenses associated with routine maintenance.³

As steward of the large federal investment in airport facilities, FAA has an interest in research that identifies and promotes sound maintenance practice. However, this interest is indirect, especially as it applies to passenger terminals and other landside facilities. FAA’s concern with aircraft operations and safety does intersect directly with airport maintenance in the maintenance of airside facilities, especially runways. FAA sponsors research on runway paving materials, sealers, repair methods, and snow- and ice-control methods and materials. Airport operators have research needs even with regard to runway and taxiway maintenance, since they must evaluate the many products offered by commercial vendors to repair and maintain these facilities.

Airport maintenance is a prime example of how operators would benefit from research providing them with objective information and means for evaluating commercial products and services. While the commercial sector is adept at offering proprietary solutions to maintenance challenges, airport operators do not always have the objective information to find the products that are best suited to their conditions and constraints. Even the apparently straightforward choice between types of terminal flooring material (e.g., carpet or terrazzo) can present an array of issues that require careful balancing of initial costs with durability and maintainability.

At a more general level, airports need better tools for managing their maintenance programs—for instance, monitoring the condition of their assets, prioritizing maintenance activities, and managing maintenance personnel and contractors. Given the large number of airports and maintenance practices, the biggest payoff in maintenance research may not be from the development of new maintenance materials, techniques, and equipment, but rather from a synthesis of the experience of airports and communication of that experience through handbooks and training materials.

Various types of airside equipment and infrastructure are eligible for federal funding aid, such as field paving and lighting, security systems, snow and ice removal, noise abatement equipment, fire-fighting equipment, and weather monitoring stations. Funding eligibility is more restricted for terminals and other landside features, but federal aid can be used for public facilities that are directly related to the movement and processing of passengers, such as baggage-handling equipment, passenger boarding bridges, central waiting rooms, and security and inspection areas.⁴

FAA issues guidelines and standards governing the design of airport facilities and equipment paid for with federal assistance. In most cases, the airport grant recipient must comply with the specific design standards set forth in a series of FAA advisory circulars. The topics covered by many of these circulars are given in Table 2-1. FAA contractual agreements typically allow grant recipients to use alternative designs if convincing evidence that the alternative design is equivalent to or better than the one specified in the

circular is offered. For practical reasons, however, deviations are rare. Proving that an alternative design is comparable with the one specified can be time-consuming and risky because most of the design standards in circulars are not accompanied by clear performance specifications. Rather than take a chance on a novel design, most airport operators and their suppliers simply follow the design standards laid out in circulars.

FAA develops and revises its circulars by using its own technical staff and by adapting the codes of other standard-setting bodies such as the American Society of Civil Engineers and the National Fire Protection Association. The Airport and Aircraft R&D Division, headquartered at FAA’s Hughes Technical Center, provides much of the technical support for the circulars. In addition, FAA occasionally relies on the technical work of industry, as exemplified by its recommended use of the Uniform Airport Signing and Graphics System for the content and placement of signs inside terminal buildings. This system was developed by a joint research task force of the Airports Council International, the American Association of Airport Executives, the Air Transport Association, and the Airport Consultants Council. The FAA circular does not require compliance with this system; instead, the recommendations are advisory in nature. About one-quarter of all airport-related advisory circulars are exclusively advisory.

A national ACRP could help FAA develop a stronger and more current technical basis for the guidance offered in its advisory circulars. In particular, research could be undertaken to survey and evaluate airport use of the circulars and to better prioritize those circulars that warrant early updating and further technical support. A number of circulars have not been updated in two or three decades, and in many cases the revisions have been modest (see Table 2-1). For instance, FAA’s circular on the design of airport drainage systems was last revised in 1970. Although they are dated in many respects, these older circulars still provide crucial technical guidance to airport operators lacking other sources of information. Noteworthy examples in this regard are the design standards for taxiway centerlines, signage visibility, and wingtip clearances. These standards were introduced decades ago and were based on the heights, wheelbases, and wingspans of aircraft that are no longer in significant use, such as the DC-3 and DC-6. Although the standards have been modified to account for changes in the dimensions of modern aircraft, they have not been revised fundamentally

to account for such factors as improved aircraft controllability and visibility from the cockpit.

It is important for airport operators and users to have the most technically sound standards. To illustrate using the previous example, taxiway design standards that are too conservative—because they are based on simple extrapolations—may require airports to redesign or relocate taxiways at significant cost. Thus, airport operators, airlines, and FAA all have incentives to ensure that the standards are appropriate.

Modern airports of all sizes must be run by administrators with a variety of skills. The administrators must be able to maintain relations with workers, users, and suppliers, as well as the many elected officials of the communities they serve. They must be able to manage and account for public funds—even airports that derive significant revenues from tenants and concessions are responsible for public funds, and the services that airports provide with these funds are crucial to the community at large. Like executives in other industries, airport managers can draw on rules of thumb and conventional wisdom. However, as the airport environment has grown in complexity and airport managers face budgetary constraints and closer public scrutiny, research in support of sound management practices has become increasingly important.

Examples have already been given of research needs to better manage airport maintenance. Similarly, examples can be given of research needs for many other administrative and management functions. Airport managers, facing shortfalls in government aid, are increasingly expected to tighten budgets and find innovative sources of financing. They need standardized metrics to compare, or “benchmark,” their financial and operational performance and to evaluate alternatives. The possible uses of congestion-based pricing for financing airport capacity enhancements, strategies for reducing bond and insurance expenses, and more effective airport property and concession management are other examples of research topics that are likely to be of interest to these administrators, as well as their boards of directors. More specifically, individual research projects might address such topics as the handling of federal “buy America” requirements, life-cycle costing for bid evaluations, and the use of design–build methods for project development, management, and finance. Collectively, individual airports have experience

with a range of innovative financing techniques. Systematic surveys and syntheses of how innovations such as design–build have fared and the circumstances under which they have been used would likely prove beneficial to operators across the country.

Because personnel are crucial to nearly all airport activities, research on such human-resource topics as worker safety, recruitment and retention strategies, low-stress working conditions, and incentives to reduce absenteeism is likely to be of interest to airport managers. Although such concerns are widespread, airport operators face many new human-resource challenges. More demands are being placed on airport workers as security concerns have heightened, while airport managers face a potentially diminishing supply of eligible and interested workers. Other industries, such as nuclear power, have had to adopt personnel recruitment and retention strategies commensurate with a security imperative. Research that systematically surveys and synthesizes such practices, both within and outside the aviation sector, can provide airport operators with much-needed insight and information.

Airports are planned with regard to both local needs and their function within the overall aviation system. Because so many elements of an airport are interdependent, a single airport capability—such as limited ground access—can influence an airport’s overall capacity. In turn, this can affect the performance of the larger system of airports that serves a metropolitan area, region, or the entire country. Consequently, FAA has long allowed operators to use federal funds for master planning and state and metropolitan planning organizations to engage in system-level airport planning. Yet, FAA research in support of its master planning guidance has tended to be piecemeal. As a practical matter, it is more difficult for the agency to justify significant expenditures on research aimed at improving airport planning capabilities than to justify expenditures on research promising tangible new products and technologies, such as improved runway markings or fire-extinguishing agents.

Airport planning, especially the longer-range planning needed for major capital projects, involves a great deal of uncertainty. Operators must anticipate how their facilities will be used decades from now by an aviation sector that has been characterized by dynamic changes in technology, consumer demands, and industry business practices. Few operators, if any, anticipated the

rapid introduction of larger jet airliners during the 1960s, the shift to hub-and-spoke air carrier networks and the emergence of express air package services during the next decade, and the sharp decline in private general aviation (GA) activity during the 1980s. More recently, airports have had to accommodate the replacement of turboprops by larger regional jets (RJs), the expanded use of business aircraft resulting from fractional ownership programs, and a heightened focus on airport security. To illustrate just one of the economic implications of such uncertainty, the growth in the use of RJs by airlines has forced investment in new passenger bridges that can serve these lower-profile jets—bridges that can be difficult to design to work from existing terminal facilities while also meeting other requirements such as those of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Similarly, the introduction of very large aircraft can affect the design, configuration, and size of passenger waiting areas; runway and taxiway geometry; passenger loading bridges; and even the design and layout of seats in passenger lounges (which are typically designed for 10-year service lives).

In this environment, airports need reliable and timely information derived from research for both longer-range master planning and shorter-range planning in support of individual projects and procurements. The focus need not be exclusively on such broad topics as modeling passenger and cargo demand (which FAA can be expected to research), but on the practical needs of planners. Examples of research that airports are likely to find useful for planning are studies of passenger counting technologies and methods, alternative ways to measure customer satisfaction and service quality, and means to improve ground access through changes in terminal curb and garage functions.

Environmental issues are especially important considerations in planning airport projects. Again, FAA offers federal funds for assessing environmental impacts and mitigating them. While aircraft noise has been the subject of much federal research, airport operators must address many other environmental issues that require careful planning and evaluation. Operators must plan ways to curtail and manage not only noise, but also air pollutant emissions, groundwater and soil contamination, wetlands degradation, and habitat loss. Credible ways to measure these environmental effects and technical information on mitigations pertinent to airport settings are essential for conducting environmental impact assessments in conformance with federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. Yet, such information is often not available or is incomplete.

Environmental effects that are the subject of federal laws and regulations are often topics of federal research programs, but they are not the only environmental effects that operators must understand and alleviate. As noted in Chapter 1, low-frequency noise and vibration are gaining the attention of state and local governments, and airports are being asked to evaluate and ameliorate these impacts of airport operations. Operators in California and elsewhere are currently being required to evaluate the effects of airport development projects on emissions of air toxics, such as the aldehydes in aviation fuel that are potential carcinogens, and the potential health risks associated with such emissions. Confronted with a limited base of research on these subjects and a lack of accepted protocols for conducting the studies, airports have little reliable guidance on which to base the evaluations they are required to undertake (see Box 2-1 for more details on this example research need).

Environmental scrutiny has been increasing at all jurisdictional levels, and litigation associated with federal and state environmental documentation processes has been growing. Thus, the list of environmental issues that will present further modeling, evaluation, and planning challenges for airports across the country can be expected to grow. To the extent that operators of individual airports are obliged to address such issues as air toxics and associated health risks on a case-by-case basis, there is the potential for inconsistent analyses and conclusions. In turn, the difficulty of establishing scientifically reliable and legally defensible methods to evaluate the problem may increase.

Security is a major concern of airports and the federal government. It pervades all aspects of airport operations, planning, and development. Moreover, a new federal agency, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), has been given primary responsibility for ensuring aviation security. Fast-changing security demands and new institutional arrangements and responsibilities have presented major challenges at airports, where most of the security changes must be implemented. Security is now enmeshed in airport decision making. It must be factored into all airport plans and actions along with economic, environmental, safety, and operational effects. Operators must be responsive to the needs and expectations of TSA while also meeting those of FAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, other federal agencies with relevant regulatory responsibility, and state and local governments.

Airport operators have research needs that cut across the traditional boundaries of individual agencies. All parties have a fundamental interest in attaining the desired levels of security while performing other transportation functions, but airport operators have a pressing need to achieve these goals on a daily basis. Whereas some measures to enhance security may adversely affect an airport’s ability to meet one or more of its other objectives, other measures may accommodate multiple needs. Airports have a strong incentive to find these mutually beneficial solutions.

As an example, TSA has placed signs at airports instructing travelers on security procedures. Operators have extensive knowledge of how travelers react to and interpret signs and of their effects on crowding and traffic movements throughout the airport. Cooperative research by operators and TSA on

the design, content, and placement of signs could strengthen security processing while ensuring that airport functions are not impaired.

In the case of GA airports, finding cost-effective ways to secure the airfield perimeter and based aircraft is a key security challenge. Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the concern of many smaller airports was in preventing theft and vandalism; today, the managers of these airports—as well as officials of TSA and FAA—are also concerned about securing their airfields and aircraft to prevent acts of terrorism. More research is needed to identify effective and affordable technologies and procedures for securing the country’s thousands of small airports.

The recent challenge of deploying explosive detection systems (EDS) for scanning checked luggage in all commercial airports provides another example of how cooperative research can have far-reaching benefits. In planning for EDS deployment, TSA developed passenger and baggage flow models for use in airports. Unfortunately, TSA did not have at its disposal mechanisms to work with airport operators and airlines in developing the models, which led to a lack of confidence by some of those who would need to implement the models. Consequently, many operators and airlines performed their own modeling and analytic studies, which were essential in assessing longer-term infrastructure investment planning. A joint development effort, bringing to bear the accepted research and expertise of the various parties, will likely result in a useful product for the continuation of TSA capital programs to improve airport security.

FAA has its own requirements for the design of passenger terminals. A research effort of the type just described would benefit from FAA’s involvement to ensure that resulting methodologies and guidelines do not conflict with FAA requirements. In designing passenger facilities, airports must now factor in the added space and layout requirements of passenger screening and EDS, the introduction of more “meeter/greeter” halls outside sterile areas, blast-containing structures for housing explosive detectors, the availability of secure passenger evacuation areas, and the design of spaces that reduce vulnerable passenger crowding and provide broad fields of vision for surveillance. Not only must security be considered in all aspects of the design of passenger terminals, it must also be factored into plans for such services and facilities as air cargo terminals, fuel depots and on-airport storage and distribution systems, parking garages, and utilities. Security is especially important for the communications, navigation, and surveillance facilities at and

near airports. Even the designs for airport drainage systems are candidates for reevaluation in light of security concerns. Indeed, the determination of instances in which security ought to be given more explicit consideration in the development of airport and aviation facilities is a general example of where cooperative research is needed.

Much of the airport-related research conducted at the national level is aimed at supporting the specific operational, regulatory, and policy-making requirements of the individual federal agencies that sponsor it (e.g., FAA, TSA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). From the perspective of individual operators, however, the requirements and expectations of these federal agencies are intertwined with those of state governments, local communities, and airport users. The result is that operators must seek and implement solutions to problems that stem from a complex mix of constraints, challenges, and demands. A national cooperative research program offers the potential for operators to identify and prioritize research needs from their own perspective as practitioners and problem solvers.

As large and complex operations, airports have many research needs involving a number of disciplines. Operators need practical and reliable results that can be applied quickly. A number of examples of research needs are identified in this chapter, from airport operations and design to finance, administration, and environmental protection and planning. The challenges that all concerned parties face in trying to ensure security while continuing to operate safely, efficiently, and conveniently exemplify these practical research needs. For instance, in planning new facilities, operators need information and guidance on designs that can simultaneously expedite passenger movements and facilitate security screening and processing—and they often need to be able to achieve these goals under tight budgetary constraints.

By having a research capability that can focus on problems from this implementation perspective, airport operators stand a better chance of meeting the varied demands and expectations placed on them—a desirable outcome for operators, government agencies at all levels, and airport users. Specific options for achieving such a research capability are considered in the following chapters.