National Academies Press: OpenBook

Developing Improved Civil Aircraft Arresting Systems (2009)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Survey of U.S. Airport Operators

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Literature Review
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of U.S. Airport Operators." 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 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of U.S. Airport Operators." 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 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of U.S. Airport Operators." 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 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of U.S. Airport Operators." 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 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of U.S. Airport Operators." 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 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of U.S. Airport Operators." 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 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of U.S. Airport Operators." 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 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of U.S. Airport Operators." 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 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Survey of U.S. Airport Operators." 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 33

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.

25 To obtain information and opinions regarding the existing EMAS from end-users, a survey was taken of 14 U.S. airports, and site visits were made to three. This section summarizes the findings of the survey data and personnel interviews. As such, the information is a mixture of objective data and subjective opinions. The opinions and ideas expressed are those of the participating individuals and do not reflect the positions or recommendations of the ACRP. 3.1. Site Visits In July 2007, site visits were made to three airports with EMAS arrestors: John F. Kennedy International (JFK), LaGuardia Airport (LGA), and Minneapolis–St. Paul International (MSP). At each of these airports, discussions were held with operations, maintenance, and management personnel regarding their experiences with EMAS. 3.1.1. JFK Airport Site Visit JFK has two arrestors installed at the facility, as detailed in Table 3-1. Runway designations indicate the departure end of the runway where the EMAS is installed. Several overrun incidents have occurred at JFK since the installation of the arrestor beds. Airport management per- sonnel believe that two or three of these overruns could have resulted in aircraft damage or occupant injury if the arrestor systems had not been present. JFK has a maintenance agreement with the manufacturer, which performs quarterly inspections; on-site maintenance personnel perform daily visual checks of the arrestors. The beds experience some washout of material. Personnel have related that there does not seem to be a good method at present for determining moisture content inside the arrestor beds. Painting and re-caulking have been historical maintenance issues with the bed and are included in the manufacturer maintenance agreement. Site preparation was a significant cost for the airport at the time of installation. Since installation, landing light arrays that come up through the bed are difficult to access due to the obstruction created by the arrestor blocks. Factors that JFK personnel identified for future improve- ment to the arrestor included better quantification of life-cycle characteristics, such as (1) the effects of rainfall on the arrestor bed, (2) the effects of freeze–thaw cycles on degradation of the arrestor material, and (3) the effects of good or poor mainte- nance on long-term performance. 3.1.2. LGA Airport Site Visit LGA airport has two EMAS arrestors installed at the facility, as shown in Table 3-2. LGA has a maintenance agreement with the manufacturer, which performs quarterly inspections; on-site maintenance personnel perform daily visual checks of the arrestors. Painting and joint re-caulking have been historical maintenance issues with the bed, and are included in the manufacturer maintenance agreement. The painting and caulking repairs typically must be done at night due to the associated runway closure, but night temperatures and the required cure times can make this dif- ficult. Drainage seems to be an issue; water can be seen to seep out of the arrestor for a day after a substantial rain. Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 show some maintenance issues; repair of such issues is fairly routine. Factors that LGA personnel identified for future improve- ment to the arrestor included similar life-cycle considerations as for the JFK facility. Additionally, they expressed a desire to see future arrestor construction handled more like other paving projects, with standardized ASTM material tests/ specifications and multiple vendors that could bid on the work. They hope to see strides made toward including embedded sensors in future arrestors, allowing for ongoing monitoring of the internal environment of the arrestor blocks. They would like metrics for characterizing the aging of an arrestor, allowing C H A P T E R 3 Survey of U.S. Airport Operators

comparison of current expected performance as a percentage of the original level. 3.1.3. MSP Airport Site Visit MSP airport has one EMAS arrestor installed at the facility, as shown in Table 3-3. It should be noted that this bed was installed in 1999, and it featured an older version of the current EMAS technology. It was later refurbished, but not replaced, to provide for improved drainage; maintenance issues for this bed should not be considered typical since the construction was atypical. The MSP arrestor has exhibited unusual degradation prob- lems, with severe “soft tops” occurring on multiple blocks in the bed. The tops appear cup-shaped, and walking on the surface of the bed produces an atypical crunching sound (Figure 3-3). This deformation can be visually observed to increase after a rain or when the temperature rises. The material inside apparently deteriorated, leading to washout of a substantial volume (Figure 3-4). Explanations for the basis of the dete- rioration vary, and include things such as inadequate main- tenance, poor drainage, or insufficient techniques for the refurbishment process. Airport personnel speculated that moisture entrapment in the arrestor combined with the severe freeze–thaw cycles of the Minneapolis climate led to the degradation. In response to the deterioration issues, MSP engaged in small-scale research efforts. The humidity inside the bed was measured and found to be approximately 100% (9). Rough in-situ compression tests were performed on blocks of the bed prior to removal and replacement (10). Though the tests only produced approximate measurements, they indicated that there was a substantial loss of compressive strength in the material. A notable change in compressive strength would have performance implications when compared with the original design specifications of the bed. MSP used the manufacturer for arrestor maintenance on an as-needed basis until 2006, when MSP assumed such tasks. The manufacturer continues to perform annual inspections and undertakes repairs. MSP considered positive aspects of the arrestor design to include its passive nature, minimal mechanical complexity, and minimal impact on airport operations. During discussions with MSP personnel regarding future development, some interesting observations were made. MSP has seen a decrease in mid-size aircraft traffic at the airport, with the majority of air traffic falling into smaller (under 99K lb) or larger (over 300K lb) size brackets; this could influence the design process as it affects the set of design aircraft for a facility. Secondary arrestors, such as fail-safe net arrestors positioned at the end of the arrestor bed, were considered a favorable concept. Similar to JFK and LGA, there was a strong desire for 26 Parameter EMAS 1 EMAS 2 Runway 4R 22L Length 392 ft 405 ft Width 200 ft 227 ft Setback 35 ft 35 ft Table 3-1. EMAS specifications for JFK airport. Parameter EMAS 1 EMAS 2 Runway 22 13 Length 275 ft 327 ft Width 170 ft 170 ft Setback 35 ft 35 ft Table 3-2. EMAS specifications for LGA airport. Figure 3-1. LGA arrestor (left) out-washing of material and (right) peeling of joint tape.

instrumentation, embedded or otherwise, that could char- acterize the arrestor bed’s internal condition and expected performance capabilities. 3.2. Participating Survey Airports Surveys were sent to 16 airports, and 14 of those airports returned completed surveys. The airport names, location IDs, aircraft rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) indexes, approximate number of annual operations, and number of EMAS arrestors are shown in Table 3-4. 3.3. Standard EMAS FAA AC 150/5220-22a defines an EMAS as standard if it has the capacity to arrest an aircraft at 70 knots (1). A non-standard EMAS is compliant if it has the capacity to arrest an aircraft at the minimum exit speed of 40 knots. To assess airport conformity with these requirements, airports with an EMAS were asked whether each of their arrestors was standard. Airports that returned surveys had installed 11 arrestors altogether. Four of those 11 arrestors were listed as standard, and 7 of them were listed as non-standard (Figure 3-5). Each EMAS receives an exit speed rating for all the aircraft that it must service. Typically, some aircraft can be arrested at higher exit speeds than others. Airports were asked to provide the design aircraft and corresponding exit speed ratings for each EMAS. For the 11 arrestor systems of the survey, 37 aircraft/ exit-speed combinations were reported. These combinations constituted the design cases for the arrestors. The distribution of design cases over intervals from 0 to 80 knots is shown in Fig- ure 3-6. Of all the design cases, 14% of the aircraft had design exit speeds below 40 knots; 62% had design speeds between 40 and 70 knots; and 24% had design exit speeds greater than 70 knots. For the cases below 40 knots, it should be noted that the arrestor beds involved still met the 40-knot standard for a number of aircraft, but not all aircraft listed. 3.4. FAA Requirements As part of the survey, airport operators were questioned about FAA requirements pertaining to arrestors. When asked whether FAA requirements for arrestor bed performance are too rigid, 8% responded yes, 54% responded no, and 38% responded no opinion. Similarly, when asked whether FAA requirements for RSA dimensions are too rigid, 31% responded yes, 46% responded no, and 23% responded no opinion. These results are also shown in Figure 3-7. Airport operators were also asked to provide verbal commen- tary on FAA requirements concerning arrestor bed perfor- mance and RSA dimensions. Those comments are summarized in the following list: • The 70-knot requirement for the standard arrestor could be lower; • FAA regulations could consider that, in some cases, an RSA with an arrestor is safer than an RSA that satisfies general dimensional requirements; and • FAA regulations could consider permitting damage to nose gear in extreme overrun scenarios. 27 Figure 3-2. LGA arrestor: peeling paint. Parameter EMAS 1 Runway 12R Length 160 ft Width 216 ft Setback 630 ft Table 3-3. EMAS specifications for MSP airport. Figure 3-3. MSP Airport: soft tops on EMAS blocks.

3.5. Installation 3.5.1. Cost Airport operators were asked to provide the preparatory paving cost and installation cost for each arrestor installed at their airport. A total of 8 airports provided preparatory paving and installation costs for a total of 11 arrestors. These arrestors were installed from 1999 to 2007. By way of comparison, the cost design values according to FAA Order 5200.9 were based on 5 separate EMAS installations. The mean cost values reported by the airports are shown in Table 3-5. They were normalized by the associated pavement and bed areas. The survey costs were corrected for inflation and are expressed in 2007 dollars. For comparison, the suggested values of preparatory paving cost and installation cost from FAA Order 5200.9 are included in the table, in 2007 dollars (30). 28 Figure 3-4. MSP airport: material out-wash. Airport Name Loc. ID ARFF Index Annual Operations No. EMAS 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 Minneapolis–St. 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 Table 3-4. Airports participating in the survey of U.S. airport operators (29).

As shown, the mean reported paving and installation costs were significantly higher than the design costs estimated in FAA Order 5200.9. Figure 3-8 compares the total cost to establish an EMAS (CTEE) based on the survey data and cost estimates from Order 5200.9. The CTEE is the sum of the preparatory and installation costs. Individual data points indicate the costs for the arrestor beds from the surveyed airports. For the purposes of comparison, the survey and estimated Order 5200.9 costs were normalized to a runway width of 150 ft and converted to 2007 dollars. Figure 3-9 compares the estimated life-cycle cost over a 20-year period, calculated per the methods outlined in Order 5200.9. The life-cycle costs are based on a combination of the CTEE, the annual maintenance costs, and a full bed replace- ment after 10 years. Using this method, the life cycle costs can be calculated using either the reported survey costs or estimates based on Order 5200.9. In the plot, the longer-dashed line defines the maximum feasible cost in FAA Order 5200.9, which is considered the per-RSA upper cost threshold for EMAS. If life-cycle costs for the RSAs are calculated using the estimated EMAS costs from Order 5200.9, the data points fall below the maximum feasible cost line. However, when actual reported costs from the sur- vey are used, the overall cost trend is substantially higher than the threshold. A point of contrast with the CTEE data is that the life- cycle costs are calculated per RSA, rather than per EMAS bed. Typically, a runway has an EMAS located on only one end. However, for one of the surveyed airports, two EMAS beds were on the same runway. This case is shown in the right-most two data points of Figure 3-8, which are merged into one per-RSA data point on the right side of Figure 3-9. 3.5.2. Inconvenience Airport operators were asked to rate the inconvenience of installing an EMAS from one (none) to five (severe). Eight operators responded, and the results are shown in Figure 3-10. 29 Non- Standard 64% Standard 36% Figure 3-5. Percentage of standard and non-standard EMAS. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 Fr eq ue nc y Exit Speed [kts] Figure 3-6. Exit speed histogram for design aircraft cases of survey. No 46% Yes 31% No Opinion 23% No 54% Yes 8% No Opinion 38% FAA RSA Dimension Requirements Too Rigid? FAA Bed Performance Requirements Too Rigid? Figure 3-7. Airport operator perception of FAA requirements.

30 FAA Order 5200.9 Survey Normalized Preparatory Paving Cost per Square Foot $15 $48 Normalized Installation Cost per Square Foot $85 $134 Cost to Establish EMAS (CTEE) per Square Foot $100 $182 Cost for 150 x 300-ft Bed $4.5M $8.2M Table 3-5. Normalized mean costs from survey compared with FAA Order 5200.9 (2007 dollars). 300 Bed Length [ft] Co st [$ M] 350150 10 0 2 4 6 8 12 14 16 200 250 400 Survey CTEE Fit - Survey CTEE Order 5200.9 CTEE Fit - Order 5200.9 CTEE 450 Figure 3-8. Comparison of cost to establish EMAS (CTEE) per bed from Order 5200.9 and project survey (2007 dollars). 300 Bed Length [ft] Co st [$ M] 350150 10 15 20 30 25 0 5 35 200 250 400 Fit - Order 5200.9 Life- Cycle Cost Fit - Survey Life-Cycle Cost Survey Life-Cycle Cost Order 5200.9 Max Feasible Cost Order 5200.9 Life-Cycle Cost 450 Figure 3-9. Comparison of life-cycle costs for EMAS per RSA from Order 5200.9 and project survey (2007 dollars). From the figure, installation of an EMAS was moderately inconvenient, with an average rating of 3.4. Operators were also asked to provide verbal commentary on the cost and inconvenience of installing the arrestor beds. These comments are characterized as follows: • Installing the arrestors is too expensive; • The need to repave the surface supporting the arrestor is expensive and inconvenient; and • Future arrestor installations will be subjected to wetland and environmental permit approval.

3.6. Maintenance Airport operators were asked to provide the annual cost of maintaining their arrestors. Six airports provided annual maintenance costs for eight beds. Those maintenance costs were divided by the area of the associated arrestor bed to obtain a cost per square foot of arrestor bed. There was a sig- nificant amount of scatter in the maintenance costs reported by airports, and the average was significantly higher than the values suggested by FAA Order 5200.9. The results are shown in Table 3-6. Mean, high, and low costs are included in the table and compared to the value in Order 5200.9. For com- parison, the survey values were divided by the Order 5200.9 value to provide a ratio to its value. To assess the durability of the current EMAS technology, airports were asked to rate the severity of maintenance require- ments for the arrestors on a scale of 1 (none) to 5 (severe). Airports were questioned about maintenance requirements in the following six categories: peeling paint, leaching of the material, caulking failure, joint tape debonding, soft tops on arrestor bed, and drainage problems. The severity of main- tenance requirements by category, with respect to the year that the arrestor was installed, are shown in Figure 3-11 (left). Responses for arrestors that were installed in the same year were averaged. Average maintenance, which is the average of the maintenance numbers from each of these six categories, is included in Figure 3-11 (right). From Figure 3-11, airport operators perceive the current EMAS to require a significant amount of maintenance. In fact, for all years prior to 2006 (except 2004), the average mainte- nance requirement was above three. That is, in most cases, airport operators perceive the arrestors to require mainte- nance closer to severe than to none. Whether the airport had a maintenance contract with the manufacturer had little effect on the average mainte- nance required. That is, the weighted average maintenance 31 None (1) 0% Mild (2) 12% Moderate (3) 50% Substantial (4) 25% Severe (5) 13% Figure 3-10. Inconvenience of arrestor system installation. Mean Low High Order5200.9 Maintenance Cost [$/ft2] $3.05 $0.11 $6.89 $0.36 Ratio of Order 5200.9 8.5 0.3 19.1 1.0 Table 3-6. Maintenance costs from survey compared with Order 5200.9 values. M ai nt en an ce R eq ui re m en ts Year Peeling paint Leaching Caulk failure Tape debonding Soft tops Drainage problems M ai nt en an ce R eq ui re m en ts Year Figure 3-11. Maintenance by category (left) and average maintenance (right).

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

Of the 23 individuals contacted, only 3 completed the cir- culated questionnaire. Therefore, available comments from this group cannot be taken as representative of the broader aviation or pilot communities. However, their comments, which are summarized below, provide some insight into how deployment of an active arrestor for civil aircraft would be received. • Active arrestors are inappropriate for civil aircraft: – Active arrestors involve too many potential complications. – Net-based or cable-based engagement would likely hinder passenger egress once the aircraft has stopped. • Any activation of the arrestor should be under the control of the pilot, not the air traffic controller. • The location of any arrestor at an airport should be noted on airport diagram charts using a standardized format. 3.9. Observations for Survey Regarding Active Arrestors Overall, the concept of an active arrestor was not well received by the survey participants. Contributing issues that have been identified include the historical need for personnel to activate such an arrestor, determining whether ground personnel or pilots would have control over the activation, and a sense of unreliability due to the mechanical complexity of such systems. Countering these concerns, several automated triggering concepts have been developed that could remove the need for manual activation, and pilot control or override can be incor- porated in such systems (Section 7.7). Later sections discuss that the reliability of active systems can actually be higher than that of the current EMAS technology, even though passive systems have no moving parts (Section 5.2.2). 33

Next: Chapter 4 - Review and Documentation of FAA Parameters »
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!