National Academies Press: OpenBook

Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards (2011)

Chapter: Appendix F - Aircraft Database Summary

« Previous: Appendix E - Sample of Normal Operations Data
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Aircraft Database Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Aircraft Database Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Aircraft Database Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Aircraft Database Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Aircraft Database Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Aircraft Database Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Aircraft Database Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Aircraft Database Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Aircraft Database Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 100

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.

G-1 Appendix G of the contractor’s final report is not published herein, but is available on the TRB website at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165180.aspx. A P P E N D I X G Summary of FAA/Boeing Taxiway Deviation Studies

H-1 A P P E N D I X H Analysis of MOS Cases

H-2 This section summarizes the information collected in the MOS survey and presents results for application of the methodology described in Appendix A to each MOS case. Table H-1 shows the airports included in the MOS survey. Table H-1. Airports included in MOS survey. Case # Airport ID NPIAS MOS Type FAA Region 1 Philadelphia, PA PHL LH TWY/TWY AEA 2 Anchorage, AK ANC MH TWY /OBJ AAL 3 Addison, TX ADS RL RWY/TWY ASW 4 Bridgeport, CT BDR GA RWY/TWY ANE 5 Accomack, VA MFV GA RWY/OBJ AEA 6 Lincoln Park, NJ N07 RL TLN /OBJ AEA 7 New York JFK, NY JFK LH TWY/TWY AEA 8 Newark, NJ EWR LH TWY/TWY* AEA 9 Minneapolis, MN MSP LH TWY/TWY AGL 10 Chicago, IL ORD LH TWY/TWY AGL 11 Chicago, IL ORD LH TWY /OBJ AGL 12 Barnstable, MA HYA NH RWY/TWY ANE 13 Laconia, NH LCI GA RWY/TWY ANE 14 Seattle-Tacoma, WA SEA LH RWY/TWY ANM 15 Seattle-Tacoma, WA SEA LH TWY/TWY ANM 16 Aspen, CO ASE NH RWY/OBJ ANM 17 Nantucket, MA ACK NH TWY/TWY ANE 18 New Castle, DE ILG GA TWY/TWY AEA 19 Leesburg, VA JYO RL RWY/OBJ AEA 20 Taunton, MA TAN GA RWY/TWY ANE Table H-2 summarizes the cases by type of MOS; the majority of the cases were MOS for runway/taxiway separation and taxiway/taxiway separation. Table H-2. Number of cases for each MOS type. MOS Type Airport Number of Cases Runway/Taxiway ADS, ASE, BDR, HYA, LCI, SEA, TAN 7 Taxiway/Taxiway ACK, EWR, JFK, MSP, ORD, PHL 6 Runway/Object JYO, MFV 2 Taxiway/Taxilane SEA 1 Taxiway/Object ANC, ILG, N07, ORD 4 Total 20

H-3 Table H-3 summarizes the cases by type of justification used to approve the MOS by the FAA, and Table H-4 presents a summary of the restrictions imposed due to the MOS. Table H-3. Justifications used to obtain MOS approval. MOS Justification Runway/ Taxiway Taxiway/ Taxiway Runway/ Object Taxiway/ Taxilane Taxiway/ Object Total Advisory Circular acceptable level of safety 2 3 1 1 2 9 Airport facilities’ capacity 2 2 1 1 2 8 Communications 1 1 Delays/Congestion 2 2 Economic constraints 2 1 1 1 5 Environmental constraints 2 1 1 4 Operations capacity 3 1 1 5 Prior ADG standards compliance 2 1 3 Physical constraints 5 4 1 1 2 13 Runway/Taxiway separation 1 1 Security 1 1 Each MOS may have more than one justification Table H-4. Number of cases for each MOS restriction by MOS type. MOS Restriction Runway/ Taxiway Taxiway/ Taxiway Runway/ Object Taxiway/ Taxilane Taxiway/ Object Total Aircraft exit angle 1 1 Aircraft speed 1 1 Aircraft type/ weight/wingspan 6 4 2 1 2 15 Construction requirements 1 1 Dedicated facility use 1 3 4 Exemption/order terms 1 2 3 Markings and lighting 1 1 1 1 1 5 Operations time of day 1 1 Simultaneous facility operations 1 1 Vehicle type/ dimensions 1 1 Each MOS may have more than one restriction

H-4 The methodology was applied to each of the 20 MOS cases, and the following sections provide a summary of the issues involved, as well as characterization of the airfield separations. For each case, the methodology developed in this study was applied, and a summary of results is presented. Case Study #1 - Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) MOS Issue Taxilane/Taxilane Approval Date 6/7/1999 Separations OFA Centerline Wingtip Standard 423 ft 198 ft 27’ Existing 330 ft 153.5 ft 23’ Airport Ref Code C-III and C-IV Critical Aircraft Aircraft 1 Aircraft 2 Model Dash 8-300 Boeing 767 ADG III IV Wingspan 90’ 171’ Synopsis One of the parallel taxilanes would be designed to serve only Terminal F (Group III aircraft) while the other taxilane would be designed to serve both Terminals E and F (Group III and IV aircraft). Proposed OFA separation distance is 330 ft. Restrictions Use of southernmost taxilane is permitted to Group IV (Boeing B-767) or Group III (Dash 8-300) aircraft. Use of northernmost taxilane is limited to Group III aircraft (Dash 8-300). Justification Handle the high traffic volume, minimize delays. Adequate clearance when the northernmost taxilane is limited to commuter aircraft no larger than 90 ft wingspan. Restrict the use of the taxilane to aircraft with wingspans up to 90 ft. Accidents/Incidents 13 accidents and incidents were identified between 1982 and 2009. Figure H-1. Cross-section of existing separation at PHL. Application of Methodology Risk Plot Figure AA-21 Wingtip Sep 23’ Severity Major Risk Level < 1.0E-09 Conclusion Low Risk Acceptable

H-5 Case Study # 2 - Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC) MOS Issue Taxiway/Object Approval Date 6/14/2004 Separations OFA Centerline Wingtip Standard 193 ft 193 ft 62 ft Existing 174 ft 174 ft 43 ft Airport Ref Code D-VI Critical Aircraft Aircraft 1 Aircraft 2 Model A-380-800 N/A ADG VI Wingspan 262’ Synopsis With the introduction of ADG VI (i.e., Airbus 380-800) to the airport operations, ANC proposed to reconstruct Taxiway R and widen it to 100 ft to meet the new ADG requirements. The projected taxiway width left an available taxiway OFA of 174 ft between the centerline of Taxiway R and the tug road vs. the required 193 ft OFA centerline separation based on AC 150/5300-13, Chapter 4, Table 4-1. Restrictions Maintain Airbus A388 characteristics as most demanding aircraft. Handle the tug road as an operational item with Antonov 124 aircraft operations. Justification Limited space availability; Cost efficiency; Security of airport operations area; Limited communication ability with tug operators; Maintain current level of cargo aircraft parking capacity. Airport already accommodates ADG VI on the existing runways and taxiways. Conditions for Approval Tugs and vehicles operating on tug road between Taxiways Q and T are limited to maximum height of 14 ft. Commuter simulation indicates jet blast from A388 on tug road should not be a problem. If drivers report jet blast related problems, airport authority must submit a proposed mitigation plan. Accidents/Incidents Nine accidents and incidents were identified between 1982 and 2009. Figure H-2. Cross-section of the existing separation at ANC.

H-6 Application of Methodology Risk Plot AA-13 Centerline Sep 174 ft Severity Major Risk Level < 1.0E-09 Conclusion Low Risk Acceptable Case Study # 3 - Addison Airport (ADS) MOS Issue Runway/Taxiway Approval Date 11/18/2008 Separations OFA Centerline Wingtip Standard 400 ft 282 ft Existing 300 ft 182 ft Airport Ref Code C-III Critical Aircraft Aircraft 1 Aircraft 2 Model B-737 B-737 ADG III III Wingspan 118’ 118’ Synopsis The existing separation between Runway 15/33 and parallel Taxiway A is 300 ft, less than the required 400 ft as established in AC 150/5300-13, Chapter 2, Table 2-2 for the airport’s ADG III using approach categories C and D. Relocating the parallel taxiway or the runway were not feasible options due to the limited area available to the airport for further development. Restrictions Maintain B-737 characteristics as most demanding aircraft. Justification Limited area available for relocating either Runway 15/33 or the parallel taxiway due to existing road and industrial developments. Airport safety will not be impeded by the proposed modification to the runway/taxiway separation. Conditions for Approval None specified Accidents/Incidents Two accidents and incidents were identified between 1982 and 2009. Figure H-3. Cross-section of the existing separation at ADS.

H-7 Application of Methodology Risk Plot AA-33 and AA-43 Centerline Sep 300 ft Severity Catastrophic Risk Level Airborne 1.1E-9 Risk Level Ground 1.0E-7 Annual Vol. Operations 133,600 Expected # Years > 140 years Conclusion Medium Risk Mitigation Recommended Case Study # 4 - Igor I. Sikorsky Memorial Airport (BDR) MOS Issue Runway/Taxiway Approval Date 8/04/2003 Separations OFA Centerline Wingtip Standard 300 ft 221 Existing 268–300 ft (variable) 189–221 ft Airport Ref Code C-II Critical Aircraft Aircraft 1 Aircraft 2 Model ADG II II Wingspan Max 79 ft Max 79 ft Synopsis The required separation between runway and taxiway at BDR is specified as 300 ft based on AC 150/5300-13, Chapter 2, Table 2-2. Locating the centerline of 35-ft-wide Taxiway D at the required distance through its length would position the end of the taxiway (i.e., toward the approach end of Runway 11) in a tidal ditch. To avoid the ditch incursion, the taxiway centerline needed to gradually decrease from the required 300 ft to 268 ft. Based on the wingspan dimension of the critical aircraft, it was determined that adequate clearance would remain between the end of Taxiway D and the runway Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ). In addition, no part of the critical aircraft would go beyond the 200 ft half-width OFZ limit for Runway 11/29, which is a modified width permitted for ADG II within category C per AC 150/5300-13, Chapter 3, Table 3-3 notes. Restrictions Runway Safety Area for aircraft Approach Category C reduced to 200 ft half-width due to ADG II as per Table 3-3 in AC 150/5300-13. Justification Space limitation imposed by a deep tidal ditch. Satisfactory clearance of Runway Safety Area by ADG aircraft. Conditions for Approval Location of taxiway holding position at 250 ft from runway centerline. Accidents/Incidents Two accidents and incidents were identified between 1982 and 2009.

H-8 Figure H-4. Cross-section of existing separation at BDR. Application of Methodology Risk Plot Plots AA-31 and AA-42 Centerline Sep 268 ft Severity Catastrophic Risk Level Airborne 1.1E-10 Risk Level Ground 1.1E-7 Annual Vol. Operations 64,000 Expected # Years > 100 years Conclusion Medium Risk Mitigation Recommended Case Study # 5 - Accomack County Airport (MFV) MOS Issue Runway/Object Approval Date 12/15/1992 Separations OFA Centerline Wingtip Standard 400 ft Existing 360 ft Airport Ref Code C-II Critical Aircraft Aircraft 1 Aircraft 2 Model ADG II Parked aircraft Wingspan Max 79 ft Max 79 ft Synopsis The aircraft parking area and agricultural storage shed located near the existing terminal building had a separation distance to the runway of 360 and 400 ft, respectively. Based on AC 150/5300-13, Chapter 2, Table 2- 2, the standard required runway OFA for a C-II design aircraft is 400 ft, larger than the existing separation of 360 ft between the runway and the parking area. Restrictions Maintain type C-II as most demanding aircraft. Justification Maintaining aircraft parking and keeping agricultural storage shed facilities operational. Adequate clearance when compared to the available distance between the runway and the terminal building of 360 ft. Conditions for Approval None specified Accidents/Incidents No accidents and incidents were identified between 1982 and 2009.

Next: Appendix G - Summary of FAA/Boeing Taxiway Deviation Studies »
Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 51: Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards is intended to be used to support requests for modification of standards in those circumstances where the design criteria for separations between taxiways/taxilanes and other taxiways/taxilanes and fixed or movable objects as well as separations between taxiways and runways cannot be met.

The following appendices, included in the pdf and print version of the report, will be helpful in understanding the methodology.

  • Appendix A: Risk Assessment Methodology presents a methodology for five different types of circumstances: taxiway/taxilane to taxiway, taxiway to object, taxilane to taxilane, taxilane to an object, and runway to taxiway/taxilane or object;
  • Appendix F: Aircraft Database Summary presents a summary of aircraft characteristics by model; and
  • Appendix H: Analysis of MOS Cases summarizes information collected in the modification of standards survey and presents results of application of the methodology described in Appendix A to each modification of standards case.

Other report appendices, which are available online only, provide detail and information on the development of the methodology.

In addition, the project developed a

PowerPoint presentation

that may be useful for introducing and explaining the methodology to stakeholders.

In July 2021, an errata was posted for this publication: In Table 7 on page 25, the LDVO coefficient was changed from -3.088 to -13.088. The online version of the report has been corrected.

  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!