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 32
32
for arrestors with a manufacturer contract was 3.0, while the their physical condition over time. Representatives from the
weighted average maintenance for arrestors without a manu- FAA indicated that such sensing methods may or may not be
facturer contract (maintenance was performed either by local feasible for the future due to several technical complications.
contractors or airport personnel) was 2.7. Laboratory tests have underscored the difficulties associated
In addition to providing numerical responses, airport oper- with this concept.
ators provided verbal commentary on the maintenance require- Costs for an EMAS appear to exceed the expectations of
ments. When asked to describe the negative traits of their EMAS FAA Order 5200.9 with regard to the three main categories:
systems, many cited maintenance problems. Their responses preparation, installation, and maintenance. While the survey
are summarized as follows: included more airports than the original data set used to create
Order 5200.9, it did not include all EMAS systems installed at
· Arrestor beds require continual maintenance and inspection, U.S. airports. It is possible that the average costs could shift
which are both expensive and inconvenient; once the remaining airports were included.
· The durability of the arrestors is uncertain, and the effect
of possible deterioration on performance is unknown;
· Airports with arrestors installed prior to 2003 mentioned 3.8. Perception of Active Arrestor
that the top layer of the beds tended to deteriorate; and 3.8.1. Survey of U.S. Airport Operators
· The arrestor beds are susceptible to being damaged by airport
operations vehicles. Airport operators were asked how comfortable they would
be with installing a net-based or cable-based active arrestor
When airport operators were asked about what changes for civil aircraft. The possible responses were not comfortable,
should be made to the arrestor design, the durability was again low, moderate, and highly comfortable. The results are shown
a significant concern. Comments pertaining to durability and in Figure 3-12. A full 86% of respondents were either not
maintenance are summarized below: comfortable or had low comfort with use of an active arrestor
for civil aircraft. None of the operators responded with "highly
· A means should be developed for assessing the arresting comfortable."
capability of an installed arrestor;
· The inconvenience of maintaining the bed should be 3.8.2. Other Aviation Organizations
decreased;
· Adherence of paint should be improved; and As part of the survey effort, 23 individuals, many repre-
· The method of taping and caulking to seal tops of bed senting pilot organizations, were contacted to provide input
blocks could be improved. on the appropriateness of active arrestors for civil aircraft.
Appendix B provides a list of the organizations contacted.
It should be noted that the manufacturer has developed a These individuals were selected to provide insight into the
second-generation top--colored plastic as opposed to the perspective of pilots and other aviation personnel.
first-generation painted cement board--that it claims is more
durable.
Low
22%
3.7. Observations for Survey
Regarding EMAS
The survey respondents and site visit personnel had a
variety of opinions, ideas, and desires regarding the current
EMAS technology. Issues regarding maintenance varied
due to differences in region, bed age, etc. With respect to the
maintenance-related responses, it should be considered that Moderate
14%
EMAS designs have been improved over time, and now use
different environmental protection measures than in the past. Not
Not all user responses reflected experience with the most Comfortable
64%
recent version of available EMAS designs.
Many respondents expressed a desire to incorporate inte-
grated sensing technologies into the arrestor beds to monitor Figure 3-12. Level of comfort with active arrestor.
