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).
