Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 23

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

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 22
22 Electro-optical Sensors Location of surveillance areas, Detection equipment precision and sensitivity, Yet another type of technology utilizes electro-optical sensors. Detection equipment maintenance requirements, One system currently on the market using this technology fea- Airport climate, and tures self-calibrating cameras, automated scene analysis, and Ability of personnel to respond to alerts and recover FOD configurable scan resolution for different object sizes. These from runway surfaces. remotely placed electro-optical sensors provide continuous surveillance of the runway surface on a 24/7 basis. Objects These factors, when considered in light of the available can be detected at night without supplemental illumination, resources, will guide airports in (1) deciding if an automated although because it is optical the detection capability of the system is appropriate, and, if so, (2) which specific system system may be affected by certain types of weather ("Iferret" to acquire. n.d.; Patterson 2008). FOREIGN OBJECT DEBRIS RISK ASSESSMENT Hybrid Immediately after FOD has been detected, a decision is made Some technology is considered hybrid in that it utilizes both about how to handle it. This involves an assessment of risk, radar and electro-optical sensors. One product currently on and takes place whether FOD has been detected manually or the market is promoted as "dual technology." This product through automated means. In actual practice, risk assess- combines a millimeter-wave radar sensor and an optic sen- ment in a FOD management program is a two-part process. sor that scans a portion of the runway and analyzes the data At the point of FOD detection, an instantaneous, and possi- locally to detect foreign objects. In cases of positive detection, bly subconscious, decision process is carried out by the indi- the operator receives both an audio and visual alert. With multi- vidual detecting the debris in determining how to initially sensor deployment, an airport's runway and taxiway surfaces handle the FOD item. In simple terms, just as an individual can be scanned in as little as 30 s. Generally, the sensors that decides whether to drive, walk, or take a taxi to work, the are collocated with runway edge lights are located on every FOD inspector immediately makes several decisions, includ- or every other edge light, based on airport requirements ing how to move and dispose of the debris, whether certain ("FODetect" n.d.; Patterson 2008). areas of the AOA need to be closed for further removal or inspection, and how best to document the FOD. As men- tioned, in most instances, this form of a risk assessment hap- Decision Process pens instantaneously, and the inspector may be unaware that a risk-based decision process has been carried out; nonethe- Although airports may be hesitant to investigate automated less, the process has taken place. FOD detection technology owing to the cost, it is prudent to consider how automated technology may improve an airport's With the Proposed Rule, Safety Management System for overall FOD detection capability. As explained by McCreary Certificated Airports, issued by the FAA in 2010, this process (2010, pp. 3132), by comparing findings from automated of risk assessment will likely be required at all certificated detection systems and findings from visual runway inspections: airports in the near future. Specifically, the proposal would require a certificate holder to establish a Safety Risk Man- Unassisted visual runway inspections may find better than 80% of the debris present at the time of inspection, but are in total agement process to identify hazards and their associated risks no more than 34% effective in terms of finding and removing within the airport's operations. Under a Safety Risk Man- all items present on the runway throughout the operational agement (FAA 2010b), the airport would be required to: day. This means that airports relying on visual inspections are in fact exposing their airline customers to a relatively high strike risk, and thus to higher operating costs than is otherwise Identify safety hazards; necessary. Ensure that mitigations are implemented where appro- priate to maintain an acceptable level of safety; In deciding which of the FOD detection systems to acquire, Provide for regular assessment of safety level achieved; airports are encouraged to consider many different factors Aim to make continuous improvement to the airport's affecting the success of the system in their specific airport overall level of safety; and operating environment. The FAA, through AC 150/5220-24, Establish and maintain a process for formally document- encourages airport operators to consider the following factors ing identified hazards, their associated analyses, and man- (FAA 2009a): agement's acceptance of the associated risks. Number and type of aircraft operating, A more in-depth discussion of risk assessment is presented in Number and size of surveillance areas, chapter five.