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 28
28 Figure 3-4. MSP airport: material out-wash. 3.5. Installation cost design values according to FAA Order 5200.9 were based on 5 separate EMAS installations. 3.5.1. Cost The mean cost values reported by the airports are shown in Airport operators were asked to provide the preparatory Table 3-5. They were normalized by the associated pavement paving cost and installation cost for each arrestor installed at and bed areas. The survey costs were corrected for inflation and their airport. A total of 8 airports provided preparatory paving are expressed in 2007 dollars. For comparison, the suggested and installation costs for a total of 11 arrestors. These arrestors values of preparatory paving cost and installation cost from were installed from 1999 to 2007. By way of comparison, the FAA Order 5200.9 are included in the table, in 2007 dollars (30). Table 3-4. Airports participating in the survey of U.S. airport operators (29). Airport Name Loc. ID ARFF Annual No. EMAS Index Operations Anchorage International ANC E 289,472 0 Baton Rouge Metropolitan BTR C 94,852 1 Boston Logan International BOS E 409,066 2 Denver International DEN E 586,151 0 MinneapolisSt. Paul International MSP E 475,000 1 Nashville International BNA C 215,830 0 New York Kennedy International JFK E 411,145 2 New York La Guardia Airport LGA D 404,990 2 Pittsburgh International PIT D 237,696 0 Roanoke Regional ROA B 86,091 1 San Diego International SAN D 220,485 1 Seattle Tacoma International SEA E 340,058 0 Teterboro TEB E 250,000 1 Ronald Reagan Washington National DCA C 278,151 0
OCR for page 29
29 12 10 Standard 36% 8 Frequency 6 4 Non- 2 Standard 64% 0 0-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 Exit Speed [kts] Figure 3-5. Percentage of standard Figure 3-6. Exit speed histogram for design and non-standard EMAS. aircraft cases of survey. As shown, the mean reported paving and installation costs per-RSA upper cost threshold for EMAS. If life-cycle costs for were significantly higher than the design costs estimated in the RSAs are calculated using the estimated EMAS costs from FAA Order 5200.9. Order 5200.9, the data points fall below the maximum feasible Figure 3-8 compares the total cost to establish an EMAS cost line. However, when actual reported costs from the sur- (CTEE) based on the survey data and cost estimates from vey are used, the overall cost trend is substantially higher than Order 5200.9. The CTEE is the sum of the preparatory and the threshold. installation costs. Individual data points indicate the costs for A point of contrast with the CTEE data is that the life- the arrestor beds from the surveyed airports. For the purposes cycle costs are calculated per RSA, rather than per EMAS of comparison, the survey and estimated Order 5200.9 costs bed. Typically, a runway has an EMAS located on only were normalized to a runway width of 150 ft and converted one end. However, for one of the surveyed airports, two to 2007 dollars. EMAS beds were on the same runway. This case is shown Figure 3-9 compares the estimated life-cycle cost over a in the right-most two data points of Figure 3-8, which are 20-year period, calculated per the methods outlined in Order merged into one per-RSA data point on the right side of 5200.9. The life-cycle costs are based on a combination of the Figure 3-9. CTEE, the annual maintenance costs, and a full bed replace- ment after 10 years. Using this method, the life cycle costs can 3.5.2. Inconvenience be calculated using either the reported survey costs or estimates based on Order 5200.9. Airport operators were asked to rate the inconvenience of In the plot, the longer-dashed line defines the maximum installing an EMAS from one (none) to five (severe). Eight feasible cost in FAA Order 5200.9, which is considered the operators responded, and the results are shown in Figure 3-10. FAA Bed Performance FAA RSA Dimension Requirements Too Rigid? Requirements Too Rigid? Yes 8% Yes 31% No No No 46% Opinion 54% 38% No Opinion 23% Figure 3-7. Airport operator perception of FAA requirements.
OCR for page 30
30 Table 3-5. Normalized mean costs from survey From the figure, installation of an EMAS was moderately compared with FAA Order 5200.9 (2007 dollars). inconvenient, with an average rating of 3.4. Operators were also asked to provide verbal commentary FAA Order Survey 5200.9 on the cost and inconvenience of installing the arrestor beds. These comments are characterized as follows: Normalized Preparatory Paving $15 $48 Cost per Square Foot Normalized Installation Cost per $85 $134 · Installing the arrestors is too expensive; Square Foot · The need to repave the surface supporting the arrestor is Cost to Establish EMAS (CTEE) $100 $182 expensive and inconvenient; and per Square Foot · Future arrestor installations will be subjected to wetland Cost for 150 x 300-ft Bed $4.5M $8.2M and environmental permit approval. 16 14 Survey CTEE 12 Order 5200.9 CTEE 10 Cost [$M] Fit - Survey CTEE 8 Fit - Order 5200.9 CTEE 6 4 2 0 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Bed Length [ft] Figure 3-8. Comparison of cost to establish EMAS (CTEE) per bed from Order 5200.9 and project survey (2007 dollars). 35 30 Order 5200.9 Max Feasible Cost 25 Survey Life-Cycle Cost Cost [$M] 20 Order 5200.9 Life-Cycle 15 Cost Fit - Survey Life-Cycle 10 Cost 5 Fit - Order 5200.9 Life- Cycle Cost 0 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Bed Length [ft] Figure 3-9. Comparison of life-cycle costs for EMAS per RSA from Order 5200.9 and project survey (2007 dollars).