National Academies Press: OpenBook

Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems (2009)

Chapter: Appendix B - Survey Details

« Previous: Appendix A - Bibliography
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Details." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14340.
×
Page 173

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

162 B.1. Survey of U.S. Airport Operators A copy of the survey submitted to the sixteen airports that participated in the Survey of U.S. Airport Operators, dis- cussed in Chapter 3, is provided in this section. Furthermore, the responses of the airports are given in summary form. In some cases, the fields from the surveys contained sparse or unusable information. In other cases, fields included lengthy verbal commentary that could not be included in the tabular form. In both cases, such fields were not included in the tables summarizing the response of the airports. Cost information was omitted. B.1.1. Copy of Survey Given in pages following. A P P E N D I X B Survey Details

163 Airport Information 1. Facility name 2. Location ID 3. Facility Address (City, State, Zip) 4. ARFF Index A B C D E 5. Number of annual operations 6. Approach Precision Non-precision 7. Navaids (ILS) CAT I CAT II and above Point of Contact Information Point of Contact 1 1. Name: 2. Telephone: 3. Email: 4. What is your position/job title? 5. List the areas of airport management you are involved with: Maintenance Airport operations Engineering General Management 6. How long have you worked in this position? (yr) (mo) 7. How long have you worked in this industry? (yr) (mo) Point of Contact 2 1. Name: 2. Telephone: 3. Email: 4. What is your position/job title? 5. List the areas of airport management you are involved with: Maintenance Airport operations Engineering General Management

164 6. How long have you worked in this position? (yr) (mo) 7. How long have you worked in this industry? (yr) (mo) Point of Contact 3 1. Name: 2. Telephone: 3. Email: 4. What is your position/job title? 5. List the areas of airport management you are involved with: Maintenance Airport operations Engineering General Management 6. How long have you worked in this position? (yr) (mo) 7. How long have you worked in this industry? (yr) (mo) Facility Questions 1. Is the airport land-locked by bodies of water, drop offs, highways, railroads, or buildings, which would prevent extension of the runway safety areas to satisfy FAA RSA requirements? Yes No 2. If yes to previous, how many runways ends are affected? 3. Does the airport have declared distances? Yes No 4. If yes to previous, which runways?

Questions for Facilities with EMAS Arrestors General 1. How many EMAS arrestors are at the facility? 2. What are the EMAS arrestors dimensions and performance levels? Runway Designation Set Back from Runway End (ft) Bed Dimensions (ft) Aircraft Exit Speed EMAS Arrestor 1 Length: Width: EMAS Arrestor 2 Length: Width: EMAS Arrestor 3 Length: Width: 70 knots (standard) Less than 70 knots 70 knots (standard) Less than 70 knots 70 knots (standard) Less than 70 knots 3. What is it about this facility that makes EMAS necessary? 4. Were alternatives to the EMAS arrestor considered? (Declared Distances, shortening runways, etc) Yes No 5. If yes to previous, why was the EMAS approach chosen? 6. What are the negative traits of the EMAS arrestor? 7. What are the positive aspects of the EMAS arrestor? 8. If there were one thing that could be changed about the EMAS arrestor, what would it be? 165

166 Installation 1. What was the time and cost associated with installing each of the EMAS arrestors at your facility? (estimates are sufficient) Year Installed Per Runway End Cost ($M) Preparatory Paving Cost ($M) Time to Install (days) EMAS Arrestor 1 $0.00 $0.00 EMAS Arrestor 2 $0.00 $0.00 EMAS Arrestor 3 $0.00 $0.00 2. Were there any special installation conditions (night-only, limited hours per day, etc)? 3. Installation inconvenience: 1 2 3 4 5 (None) (Severe) Maintenance & Repair Which of the following maintenance issues have the EMAS arrestors experienced and to what degree? 1. Peeling paint 1 2 3 4 5 (None) (Severe) 2. Leaching of the material (chalky white) 1 2 3 4 5 (None) (Severe) 3. Caulking failure 1 2 3 4 5 (None) (Severe) 4. Joint tape debonding 1 2 3 4 5 (None) (Severe) 5. Soft tops 1 2 3 4 5 (None) (Severe)

167 6. Drainage problems 1 2 3 4 5 (None) (Severe) 7. Has your facility undertaken substantial repairs beyond scheduled maintenance? Replacement of blocks Substantial joint re-sealing/replacement Substantial repainting Other None 8. If yes to previous, have the repairs conducted been due to a deficiency in scheduled/expected maintenance? Yes No 9. Has the EMAS arrestor been out of service (NOTAM) due to damage from an overrun by aircraft or ground vehicle? Yes No 10. If yes to previous, how long did it take to repair the EMAS arrestor to service condition? (mos) 11. What type of maintenance agreement/approach is the facility using for the EMAS arrestor? Maintenance contract with ESCO Use of local contractors Use of facility maintenance personnel 12. What do you estimate is the annual maintenance and repair cost for the EMAS arrestor (including maintenance agreement, if applicable)? $0.00 Performance 1. Perception: do you believe your current EMAS arrestor will likely perform to original specifications if it arrested an aircraft today? Yes No No Opinion 2. What aircraft type and speed is the EMAS arrestor system designed to arrest? Aircraft 1 Speed (knots) Aircraft 2 Speed (knots) Aircraft 3 Speed (knots) Aircraft 4 Speed (knots)

168 Questions for Facilities without EMAS Arrestors 1. Do all of your runways meet the FAA’s RSA requirements (e.g., nominal 1000’ length and 500’ width)? Yes No 2. Is your facility planning to install an EMAS arrestor in the future? Yes No If yes, how soon? (mo) How many? (qty) 3. Is the cost of an EMAS arrestor ($2M to $5M per runway end) too high for your facility to reasonably afford to install arrestors? Yes No N/A 4. What factors have prevented your facility from installing an EMAS arrestor? Cost Maintenance Other construction projects Lack of need Other Questions for All Facilities 1. How would you rate the need of your facility for an arrestor system: Low Moderate High 2. Has your facility experienced overruns in the past 5 years? Low risk, slight overrun QTY: High risk, substantial overrun QTY: 3. If a new system could be developed for the future, would lower cost or better stopping performance be more important to your facility? Lower Cost Improved Performance Both Neither would matter 4. Does your facility use active arrestor systems for military aircraft? Yes No 5. Would you feel comfortable with a net-based or cable-based arrestor system for civil aircraft? Not Comfortable Low Moderate Highly Comfortable 6. If yes to question 4, what comments do you have regarding: Cost, Performance, Reliability, and Maintenance? 7. Do you consider the FAA requirements for airports regarding RSA dimensions too rigid? Yes No No Opinion 8. Do you consider the FAA requirements for airports regarding arrestor bed performance too rigid? Yes No No Opinion 9. If yes to previous, what changes should be made to existing requirements? 10. Do you have any other comments?

Airport Name Anchorage International Baton Rouge Metropolitan Boston Logan International Denver International Minneapolis–St. Paul International Nashville International New York Kennedy International New York La Guardia Airport Pittsburgh International Roanoke Regional San Diego International Seattle Tacoma International Teterboro Washington National Location ID ANC BTR BOS DEN MSP BNA JFK LGA PIT ROA SAN SEA TEB DCA City Anchorage, AK Baton Rouge, LA East Boston, MA Denver, CO Minneapolis, MN Nashville, TN New York, NY New York, NY Pittsburgh, PA Roanoke, VA San Diego, CA Seattle, WA Teterboro, NJ Washington, D.C. ARFF Index E C E E E C E D D B D E E C Precision Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Non- precision Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No Annual Operations 289,472 94,852 409,066 586,151 475,000 215,830 411,145 404,990 237,696 86,091 220,485 340,058 250,000 278,151 Table B-1. Selected data from survey of U.S. airport operators. 169 (continued on next page)

170 Airport Name CAT I only CAT II and above Land- locked runways No. land- locked runway ends Declared distances Runways with declared distances Anchorage International Yes Yes No 0 No Baton Rouge Metropolitan Yes No Yes 4 Yes 4L-22R, 4R-22L, 13-31 Boston Logan International No No Yes 5 No Denver International Yes Yes No 0 Yes 8, 34R, 25 Minneapolis–St. Paul International No Yes Yes 8 Yes 12L Nashville International Yes No Yes 2 Yes 1331 New York Kennedy International Yes Yes Yes 3 No New York La Guardia Airport Yes No Yes 2 No Pittsburgh International No Yes Yes 1 Yes 28R Roanoke Regional Yes No Yes 3 Yes 24 San Diego International Yes No Yes 2 Yes 9, 27 Seattle Tacoma International No Yes No 0 Yes All Teterboro Yes No Yes 2 No Washington National Yes No Yes 4 No Table B-1. (Continued). (continued)

171 Airport Name No. EMAS Arrestors EMAS 1 R/W Designati on EMAS 1 Set Back [ft] EMAS 1 Length [ft] EMAS 1 Width [ft] EMAS 1 Standard 70 knots Anchorage International 0 Baton Rouge Metropolitan 1 31 75 300 150 Yes Boston Logan International 2 4L 5 190 170 No Denver International 0 Minneapolis–St. Paul International 1 12R 630 160 216 Yes Nashville International 0 New York Kennedy International 2 4R 35 392 200 No New York La Guardia Airport 2 22 35 275 170 No Pittsburgh International 0 Roanoke Regional 1 33 300 299 169 Yes San Diego International 1 27 65 315 218 No Seattle Tacoma International 0 Teterboro 1 24 35 251 170 No Washington National 0 Table B-1. (Continued). (continued on next page)

172 Airport Name EMAS 2 R/W Designation EMAS 2 Setback [ft] EMAS 2 Length [ft] EMAS 2 Width [ft] EMAS 2 Standard 70 knots? Anchorage International Baton Rouge Metropolitan Boston Logan International 15R 15 158 170 No Denver International Minneapolis–St. Paul International Nashville International New York Kennedy International 22L 35 405 227 Yes New York La Guardia Airport 13 41 327 170 No Pittsburgh International Roanoke Regional San Diego International Seattle Tacoma International Teterboro Washington National Table B-1. Selected data from survey of U.S. airport operators. (continued)

173 Table B-2. The comments of respondents were discussed in Section 3.8.2. Organization No. people contacted Survey returned A.A.A.E. 2 No South Central A.A.A.E. 1 No I.C.A.O. 3 Yes A.C.I. 1 No A.L.P.A. 2 No A.O.P.A. 1 No Flight Safety Foundation 2 Yes Flag Air Carriers/Delta 1 No U.S. Airways 3 No Southwest Airlines 1 No United Airlines 2 No F.A.A./F.S.D.O. 3 No Aviation consultant 1 Yes Table B-2. Aviation organizations. B.2. Other Aviation Organizations The names of aviation organizations, number of individu- als contacted from each, and their survey status are shown in

Next: Appendix C - EMAS Calculations »
Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 29: Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems explores alternative materials that could be used for an engineered material arresting system (EMAS), as well as potential active arrestor designs for civil aircraft applications. The report examines cellular glass foam, aggregate foam, engineered aggregate, and a main-gear engagement active arrestor system.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!