Click for next page ( 6

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 5
5 Literature Review Airport Deicing Questionnaire were received, including the type of PDPs used by approximately 100 airports (including Information was assembled through a comprehensive search urea, KAc, NaAc, NaF, ethylene glycol-based fluids, propy- of literature and data sources to review damage reported to air- lene glycol-based fluids, and others), and contact information craft components and airfield infrastructure in association with from the 50 busiest U.S. airports that reported using PDPs as the use of traditional or modern PDPs and to identify critical well as several foreign airports including CPH (Copenhagen, knowledge gaps on this topic. The search was carried out Denmark), LGW (LondonGatwick, United Kingdom), and using a variety of tools, including TRIS online, Google Scholar, OSL (Oslo, Norway). SCIFinder Scholar, Google, etc. Relatively limited informa- tion in academic peer-reviewed literature was found and thus The EPA questionnaire did not provide information specif- industry peer-reviewed publications and reports published by ically related to the effects of PDPs on aircraft and airfield the FAA, aircraft brake manufacturers, airframe manufactur- infrastructure. Thus, a survey was created under the guidance ers, airlines, airports, and PDP manufacturers were incorpo- and review of the technical panel members to solicit input rated in the review process with caution. Information sources from many stakeholder groups: airframe and aircraft com- included, but were not limited to: ponent manufacturers, airport infrastructure management, U.S. General Accounting Office--results from a survey air carriers, military aviation, and industry and government of the nation's 50 busiest commercial service airports. groups. Early in the survey (see Appendix A), respondents SAE Working Groups (A-5A Brake Manufacturers, were directed to any of four sections based on their role in G-12F Catalytic Oxidation, G-12F Cadmium Corro- the field of aviation: aircraft component manufacturing, air- sion, and G-12F Fluid Residues). port management, PDP manufacturing, or air carriers. There SAE specification documents AMS 1431 and AMS 1435. were 43 responses to the ACRP survey. The distribution of JP--Finnish De-icing Project reports. responses based on perspective is shown in Figure 1, with Innovative Pavement Research Foundation (IPRF). more detailed information of survey respondents available Industry groups such as the ACINA, AAAE, NASAO, in Appendix B. and ATA. Government groups such as the FAA, Transport Canada, ORGANIZATION OF SYNTHESIS and U.S. Air Force. Airlines [Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, ANA, The following chapter will describe the use of PDPs at air- British Airways, Continental Airlines, FlyBe, KLM, ports based on results from the 2006 EPA questionnaire and Northwest Airlines, SRTechnics (formerly Swissair), the ACRP survey distributed for this synthesis. Chapter three StockholmArlanda, and United Airlines]. offers detailed information about the effects of PDPs on air- Airframe and component manufacturers (Airbus, Boeing, craft, including catalytic oxidation of C/C composite brakes, Bombardier, Honeywell, Goodrich, and Messier cadmium corrosion, and interaction with aircraft deicing and Bugatti). anti-icing fluids. Chapter four presents the currently avail- PDP manufacturers (ADDCON Nordic, Clariant, Cryo- able information on the effects of PDPs on asphalt and con- tech Deicing Technology, Dow Canada, Kilfrost, and crete airfield pavements, as well as the limited information Old World Industries). available on other airfield infrastructure. These chapters describe the problems attributed to PDPs with possible sci- Survey entific mechanisms of damage, as well as mitigation mea- sures and knowledge gaps. Finally, chapter five summarizes With the support of the ACRP project manager and technical the findings related to the effects of PDPs on aircraft and air- panel members, a portion of the responses to the 2006 EPA field infrastructure. Industry or Airport Management Government Groups 35% 7% Airframe and Aircraft Component Manufacturing 23% PDP Manufacturers 5% Military Aviation Air Carriers/Airlines Other 2% 21% 7% FIGURE 1 Classification of survey respondents.