Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 4

The National Academies | 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 3
3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Airlines at a `typical' airport of 300,000 movements per year can expect to spend $12 million per year on the direct and indirect cost Foreign Object Debris Defined of FOD and bird strikes on the runway. For an airport of 400,000 movements the total climbs to just under $16 million per year. Foreign Object Debris (FOD) has been defined by National Aerospace FOD Prevention, Inc. (NAFPI) as "a substance, Regardless of how FOD damages are quantified, they repre- debris, or article alien to a vehicle or system which would sent a significant expense for the aviation industry, both in the potentially cause damage" (NAFPI n.d., p. 4). By defining United States and globally. In addition to the economic costs FOD so broadly, any material that could possibly be found on of FOD, in extreme cases it can cause aircraft accidents result- the air operations area (AOA) could be defined as FOD. Out- ing in loss. As Reid (2004, p. 28), explains, "EVERYTHING side the airport environment, small items such as nails, screws, not nailed down can create big trouble." and aluminum cans would only be considered a minor nui- sance; however, if any of these items are ingested by an air- craft engine, they can lead to catastrophic results. Currently FOD Strikes Bird Strikes the FAA defines FOD as "Any object, live or not, located in an inappropriate location in the airport environment that has Total strikes per 4.0 2.1 10,000 movements the capacity to injure airport or airline personnel and damage Runway strikes per 2.1 0.7 aircraft" (FAA 2010a, p. 1). The Australasian Aviation 10,000 movements Ground Safety Council (AAGSC) defines FOD as "any object Damage on the 1.6 0.1 that is left in an area where it could possibly cause damage. runway per 10,000 Such debris includes, but is not restricted to, metal (e.g., tools, movements nuts, bolts, and lock wire), wood, stones, pavement fragments, FOD Strike Bird Strike sand, plastic wrapping, and paper" (AAGSC 2003, p. 21). Direct Costs Direct Costs Despite these definitions, at present no standard international definition of FOD exists. The FAA is currently working with Average cost per strike $10,000 $23,000 Average cost per $32,000 $47,000 the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to 10,000 movements develop a standard definition of FOD for the international Average cost per $2,000 N/A aviation community. tire strike Average cost per $33,000 N/A engine strike Introduction to Foreign Object Debris Direct + Direct + Indirect Cost Indirect Cost FOD may be present on runways, taxiways, aprons, or ramps, of FOD + of FOD + and can affect an aircraft in a variety of ways. Because of Bird strikes Bird strikes where FOD is typically located, aircraft can be directly (in all areas) (runway only) affected during critical phases of flight, such as take-off. Esti- mates place the worldwide direct costs of FOD, including Economic value $5.216 billion $2.675 billion damages caused by bird strikes, at $1.26 billion annually. lost to U.S. Direct plus indirect costs of FOD and bird strikes, such as Economic value $4.347 billion $2.229 billion those costs created by flight delays, cost the global aviation lost to EU industry $13.9 billion annually. In the United States alone, Economic value $13.910 billion $7.133 billion lost worldwide direct and indirect costs of FOD and bird strikes total $5.2 bil- lion. When considering the direct and indirect costs of FOD EU = European Union. not including damages caused by bird strikes, the United Note: Larger airports may experience 300,000 to 500,000 or more States experiences losses of $2.1 billion annually. At the top movements annually. Large airlines may conduct 600,000 move- ten U.S. airports, FOD and bird strikes on runways alone cre- ments annually. ate costs of $28.3 million annually (McCreary 2010). Accord- Source: McCreary 2010, pp. 20, 158 ing to McCreary (2010, p. 247),

OCR for page 3
4 Sources of Foreign Object Debris aircraft FOD and 19% were caused by misplaced tools and FOD can be difficult to mitigate because of its unique charac- equipment. Highlighting how the long-term effects of FOD teristics. First, it can be generated from a number of sources. can be more detrimental to safety than short-term cata- According to Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5210-24, Airport strophic accidents, of the 116 FOD occurrences only one Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Management, FOD can be resulted in engine ingestion and failure, and three resulted in produced by: a tire blowout. According to the findings, 80% of the FOD occurrences did not adversely affect the safety of the flight in Personnel any manner (Australia Transport Safety Bureau 2010). Airport infrastructure (pavements, lights, and signs) Environment (wildlife, snow, and ice) Equipment operating on the airfield (aircraft, airport oper- Types of Foreign Object Debris ations vehicles, maintenance equipment, fueling trucks, other aircraft servicing equipment, and construction Although the FAA definition of FOD includes any item that equipment) (FAA 2010a, p. 7). could be found in the airport environment, some items are more common than others. Indeed, a one year airport study Construction activities on an airport can be prolific genera- on FOD (FAA 2010a) discovered that nearly two-thirds of tors of FOD if proper precautions are not implemented. Con- foreign objects removed from airfield pavement are com- struction at an airport routinely causes debris, as construction posed of metal. Rubber was the next most common category items (e.g., as nails, screws, wood, or stone) can be blown onto at 18%. Additionally, data released by Delta Airlines in 2005 the AOA. For this reason, among others, the FAA issued AC showed that 45% of the FOD damage sustained by its aircraft 150/5370-2E, Operational Safety on Airports During Con- engines was caused by aircraft parts, including fasteners struction. The AC provides guidance on how to minimize haz- (McCreary 2010). Furthermore, according to AC 150/5210- ards (including FOD) generated by construction activity (FAA 24, typical FOD includes the following (FAA 2010a): 2003). Specifically, the AC recommends adopting a safety plan with FOD control provisions spelled out. Section 3-14 of the Aircraft and engine fasteners (nuts, bolts, washers, safety AC, Foreign Object Debris Management, explains that: wire, etc.); Aircraft parts (fuel caps, landing gear fragments, oil Waste and loose materials, commonly referred to as FOD, are sticks, metal sheets, trapdoors, and tire fragments); capable of causing damage to aircraft landing gears, propellers, and jet engines. Construction contractors must not leave or place Mechanics tools; FOD on or near active aircraft movement areas. Materials Catering supplies; tracked onto these areas must be continuously removed during Flight line items (nails, personnel badges, pens, pencils, the construction project. We also recommend that airport opera- luggage tags, soda cans, etc.); tors and construction contractors carefully control and continu- ously remove waste or loose materials that might attract wildlife Apron items (paper and plastic debris from catering and (FAA 2003, p. 12). freight pallets, luggage parts, and debris from ramp equipment); FOD also has the ability to self-relocate, as debris collects Runway and taxiway materials (concrete and asphalt on or near ground support equipment and in and around gate chunks, rubber joint materials, and paint chips); areas it can be picked up and propelled by jet blast or prop Construction debris (pieces of wood, stones, fasteners, wash. FOD can also be relocated from runway and taxiway and miscellaneous metal objects); shoulders or grassy safety areas and propelled onto pavement Plastic and/or polyethylene materials; surfaces by larger aircraft with outboard engines. Further- Natural materials (plant fragments, wildlife, and vol- more, FOD can be relocated by helicopters as they maneuver canic ash); and over freshly mowed grassy areas or areas with loose dirt. Contaminants from winter conditions (snow and ice). Helicopter rotor wash can also produce FOD, as lightweight equipment may become airborne when subjected to rotor wash (FAA 2010a; McCreary 2010). HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport is consid- ered to have one of the most effective FOD management programs relying on visual inspections. During 20082009, Many foreign nations and agencies, such as ICAO, Euro- the airport documented the removal of 886 pieces of FOD pean nations, and Australia are also conducting research and over the course of 487 days. This equates to 10.6 pieces of leading the way in FOD prevention. A ten-year study con- FOD for every 10,000 commercial aircraft movements, ducted from 19982008 by the Australia Transport Safety equivalent to one piece of FOD for every 1,000 commercial Bureau found that of the 398 ground-related aviation acci- aircraft movements. During this period, luggage and pas- dents/incidents during the study 116 (30%) were FOD senger equipment represented 46% of the FOD collected, related. Of the FOD-related accidents, 25% were caused by concrete and bitumen 21%, ground vehicles and tools 18%,