Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 6


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 5
5 However, minimizing FOD in the form of wildlife is not a whereas aircraft parts represented 1%. FOD that could not simple matter. be categorized in these categories was categorized as "other" and made up 14% of the FOD collected. A full 83% of Of the many types of FOD, wildlife is unique. As stated by FOD during this period was collected on the ramp or on MacKinnon (2004, p. 49), "In our enthusiasm to minimize the ramp/taxiway connectors. Foreign Object Damage created by errant aviation hardware, we often forget that FOD also comes in a soft package." This Source: McCreary 2010, p. 122 "soft package" in the form of wildlife, represents "between 15% and 33% of the total FOD costs to the aviation industry" (MacKinnon 2004, p. 49). It is estimated that the annual total In addition to the many types of FOD possible at airports, direct, indirect, and ancillary costs of wildlife-related FOD debris varies greatly in size. As McCreary (2010) explains, equal $1.2 billion worldwide (McCreary 2010). Clearly, large FOD is mostly an issue of safety, whereas small FOD is wildlife FOD makes up a large part of the debris problem at mostly an issue of cost. Larger FOD includes "metal strips, airports and as this threat increases this type of FOD deserves hinges, thrust reverser parts, flap hardware, hose nozzles, fuel special emphasis. Interestingly, evidence from airports with caps, large pieces of pavement, and tire chunks" (McCreary automated FOD detection technology has shown that there 2010, p. 109). If an aircraft strikes an item of this size, it may are many more birds on the runway than were previously sus- result in engine destruction or failure, landing gear collapse, pected (McCreary 2010, p. 93). As explained by MacKinnon tire failure, damage to aircraft control surfaces, and punctures (2004, p. 51): to the airframe. Smaller FOD includes "pieces of gravel, air- craft fasteners, ice, rivet heads, [and] . . . small nuts and bolts" The curtailing of DDT chemical use, successful wildlife conser- (McCreary 2010, p. 109). When ingested into an aircraft vation policies and laws, the reduction in pressure from hunting engine, small FOD can cause nicked, cracked, or broken tur- and natural predators, the availability of highly processed food in bine blades. Small FOD can also create gouges in tires and waste disposal facilities, global warming, and increased breeding success have all contributed to the remarkable population damage to the airframe. increases seen in some North American wildlife populations. In a 2004 study conducted by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (as cited in McCreary 2010), considered the most comprehensive record of runway FOD made pub- "Wildlife control officers and biologists suggest it is not sur- licly available, debris were categorized into 15 clusters by prising to find birds sitting on the runway surface. Ground weight. The most common category of FOD (at 10%) was feeding birds such as finches, sparrows, and thrushes often small debris weighing 0.07 to 0.14 ounces and ranging in land in non-threatening open areas to eat. Game birds, rails, size from 0.8 to 7.9 in. Examples of such FOD include small and crakes are all ground dwelling, and at some airports can be found loitering in grass on the runway edges--presum- bolts, nuts, and aircraft fasteners. The next most common ably because those edge sites offer a combination of suffi- category (at 9%) was heavier objects weighing 5.29 to cient views of the paved surface with some measure of con- 7.05 ounces and ranging in size from 2.4 to 15 in. Examples cealment in the grass. For birds such as geese, flocking of debris in this category include aircraft pins and nose gear behavior means they tend to congregate on the ground in door hinges. The third most common category (also at 9%) open areas. Eating behavior in seagulls and terns means they included objects weighing 14.10 ounces to 1.1 pounds and like hard flat surfaces to break open clams, crabs, and other ranging in size from 5.5 to 23.6 in. Examples of debris in crustaceans by dropping the shells from height. Crows have this category include thrust reverse parts, fuel caps, and been known to drop items on runway and road surfaces as small panel covers. Regardless of the size of debris discov- well. Additionally, birds, snakes, mice, and other ground ered at airports, FOD management programs, according to creatures can be attracted to warm paved surfaces, especially McCreary (2010), must focus on both small and large cate- at night. Such creatures often attract birds of prey such as gories of FOD. owls and raptors, as well as an assortment of foxes, coyotes, and dogs" (McCreary 2010, p. 93). NATURAL MATERIALS Of the types of FOD previously mentioned, the category Living animals are typically targeted by airports as part of of "natural materials" deserves special attention. Natural their wildlife hazard management program. Using either pas- materials are typically plant fragments or wildlife. Plant frag- sive or active techniques, or preferably both, airports can take ments may be in the form of grass clippings as a result of action to minimize wildlife on an airport. Techniques such as mowing or brush that has found its way onto the pavement. habitat modifications, scare techniques, and fencing may Minimizing FOD in the form of plant fragments can be reme- prove quite effective. Although dead animals are quickly cat- died by choosing to perform activities such as mowing dur- egorized as FOD, living animals can represent or even gen- ing down times of airport activity and thoroughly performing erate FOD at an airport, such as shore birds dropping mussels any necessary clean up after the activity has been completed. onto a runway to crack the shells. Whether living or dead,

OCR for page 5
6 wildlife is not compatible with operations being conducted on the AOA, and the detection and management of living Select WildlifeFOD Accidents and dead animals on the AOA is one aspect of FOD man- Watertown, USA, 1975 agement that rests with the airport operator. Although wildlife is typically the focal point of a wildlife manage- On June 14, 1975, a NA265 Sabreliner crashed following ment plan, it is possible to integrate a FOD management takeoff after ingesting gulls in both engines. Both wings were plan with a wildlife management plan. Rather than exist- torn off, resulting in a significant fire. Three of six people on ing in isolation, these two plans can be complimentary. board were injured and the aircraft was destroyed as a result In essence, the wildlife management plan exists to miti- of the crash and post-crash fire. The city of Watertown, which was sued by the Safeco Insurance Company, was gate aircraftwildlife incursions and FOD in the form of found guilty of failing to warn the pilot of the presence of wildlife. Although this synthesis does consider wildlife as birds. Judgment for the full value of the destroyed aircraft was FOD, the report only addresses FOD (including wildlife) entered against the city. and does not refer to wildlife hazard management pro- grams, which is the subject of ACRP Report 32: Guide- New York, USA, 1995 book for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports (2010). Airports may also wish to refer On June 3, 1995, an Air France Concorde struck Canada to Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual for geese during its approach and landing at John F. Kennedy Airport Personnel, published by the FAA in cooperation International Airport. Two of the four aircraft engines sub- with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Thus, sequently caught fire and were destroyed. Air France sued the definition of wildlife for this study is limited to wild- the airport operator, the Port Authority of New York and life, whether living or dead, that would be characterized New Jersey, for the $6 million cost of the two engines. After as FOD. extensive legal costs for both sides, the parties reportedly set- tled for $5.3 million on the day before the trial. The airport, Because pilots are often the first to detect debris in the form in this case, was faulted for not warning the flight crew of of wildlife, it is important for pilots to always report any known Canada geese activity. wildlife FOD accidents/incidents or near misses to the appro- Source: MacKinnon 2004, p. 52. priate authorities, whether that is the airport operator, Air Traffic Control (ATC), operations personnel, or a fixed-base operator (FBO) operator/employee. More information on mit- igating the presence of wildlife on or near airports may be Damage Caused by Foreign Object Debris found in AC 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports (FAA 2007a). Although the FAA offers In the industry, FOD also refers to Foreign Object Damage. no guidance in this area and these systems are not specifically As defined by the NAFPI in this regard, FOD is "any damage designed for this purpose, FOD detection technology can also attributed to a foreign object that can be expressed in phys- aid the airport operator in preventing cases of wildlife FOD. ical or economic terms which may or may not degrade the Some fixed radar-based detection systems have the capability product's required safety and/or performance characteristics" to detect birds and other animals that are present at the airport. (NAFPI n.d., p. 4). Damage caused by FOD can result in inci- When these detections are made, operations personal can dents that range from a nick on an engine fan blade, a cracked remove the wildlife and ATC or the airport operator can windscreen, or, rarely, an aircraft accident. FOD creates the inform pilots of any hazards that may exist. In most instances, potential for significant losses, whether financially or in wildlife as debris can be handled the same as other forms of human terms. According to E. Gervais of Boeing Aircraft, FOD, in that it is continuously monitored and inspected for, "jet engines are basically just big vacuum cleaners" (as cited as well as removed and documented according to the airport's in McCreary 2010, p. 49). Further, McCreary (2010, p. 49) FOD management program. explains that engines are at greatest risk of FOD damage when at "high suck" and "low speed conditions." Thus, the danger Airports are strongly encouraged by the FAA to voluntar- of FOD is most pronounced during critical stages of flight, ily report wildlife strikes with civil aircraft by means of the such as takeoff and landing. A 2008 study found that the FAA Wildlife Strike Reporting Form, which is available world's 300 busiest airports deal with more than 60,000 inci- online. The FAA estimates that it takes 5 min to complete the dents of FOD each year (McCreary 2008). The study esti- 24 items on the form. Reporting strikes ensures that these mated that $20 million worth of FOD damage is incurred at events will be included in the National Wildlife Strike data- each airport annually, as the airports work to prevent, detect, base, which is currently searchable online. The database and remove FOD from airport surfaces. Additionally, the includes more than 108,000 records of wildlife strikes occur- average U.S. airline incurs $250,000 worth of maintenance ring between 1990 and 2009 (FAA n.d.). There is room for costs from damage caused by FOD for every 10,000 move- progress with such reporting, as only 39% of the wildlife ments performed by the airline. If an aircraft engine is dam- strikes at all Part 139 airports were reported between 2004 aged it may require blade burnishing, blade replacement, fan and 2008 (Dolbeer 2009). changes, or a complete engine overhaul (Figure 1). If the fuse-

OCR for page 5
7 FIGURE 1 Results of engine ingestion of FOD. Source: Jim Stephan, Delta Air Lines Corporate Safety, Oct. 25, 2005, FOD/ Wildlife, An Airline's Perspective presentation. [Online]. Avail- FIGURE 3 Result of tire damage from FOD. Source: Jim able: http://www.fodnews.com/FOD_For_FAA-gif/slide001.htm. Stephan, Delta Air Lines Corporate Safety, Oct. 25, 2005, FOD/ Wildlife, An Airline's Perspective presentation. Available: http:// www.fodnews.com/FOD_For_FAA-gif/slide001.htm. lage is damaged, it may require the repair of dents and holes (Figure 2). Tire damage results in the replacement of tires with cuts, loss of pressure, or complete failures (Figure 3). It caused by FOD. Historically, helicopters have had signifi- can be noted, however, that damage from FOD more likely cant trouble with regard to FOD when landing in sandy and results from debris being thrown by prop wash or jet blast, not rocky areas (Fails 1978). Technologies have been developed necessarily from sucking debris into an engine. As summa- to prevent sand, dirt, rocks, and other items from being blown rized by McCreary (2010, p. 28), "FOD strikes are unlikely to into helicopter engines, such as portable helipad mattings cause a major catastrophe, yet are the most expensive of the that may be placed on landing areas. The U.S. Army is cur- four identified runway risks" (the others being incursions, rently testing how successful these items are at minimizing excursions, and birds). Interestingly, FOD strikes that cause FOD. In addition, helicopters can also cause debris to be dis- actual damage are 5,500 times more likely to occur than even persed to other areas of the AOA, which requires vigilance minor damage from an incursion (McCreary 2010). by airport operators of helipads and helicopter operating areas (Brower 2004). In addition to damages to fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters may also be damaged by FOD. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft, Clearly, FOD is a true risk with significant consequences helicopters are less susceptible to catastrophic FOD damage to the aviation industry. Whether a large or small airport, mil- such as engine failures through ingestion, because the engine itary or civilian, FOD not only impacts safety of operations, intake is on top of the helicopter. Even so, FOD-related dam- but also the bottom line. FOD also inconveniences airline age to helicopters can occur over time through the accumu- passengers and results in thousands of hours of delayed flights lation of dust, sand, and other fine particles passing through each year. It is therefore extremely important for any airport the engine. Seventy-five percent of U.S. helicopter accidents to be aware of FOD and to have plans in place to detect and in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq this past decade were directly remove debris, as well as minimize the frequency of FOD on the AOA. Although rare, engine ingestion of FOD has also caused fatal aircraft accidents. A well-publicized accident with FOD as one of the casual factors occurred on July 25, 2000. On this day, Air France Flight 4590 was scheduled to depart from Charles de Gaulle International Airport in Paris, France, bound for New York. During the takeoff roll, the Concorde blew a tire after running over a piece of metal on the runway. Debris from the Concorde's blown tire imme- diately punctured the underside of the Concorde, which subsequently ruptured a fuel tank. Two of the aircraft's FIGURE 2 Result of fuselage damage from FOD. Source: Jim Stephan, Delta Air Lines Corporate Safety, Oct. 25, 2005, FOD/ engines lost power as the result of an electrical short caused Wildlife, An Airline's Perspective presentation. Available: http:// by fuel rushing out of the ruptured tank. These occurrences www.fodnews.com/FOD_For_FAA-gif/slide001.htm.

OCR for page 5
8 In advising airports on this issue, the FAA issued Cert resulted in a fire that caused the wing to melt and the plane Alert No. 09-06, Closing Active Runway for FOD Checks to crash. A thorough investigation revealed that the accident Increases Safe Operation (2009b). It states, in part: could be attributed to a small titanium strip that had fallen off a DC-10 that had landed on the runway before the Con- The FAA's Office of Safety and Standards has been made aware corde's departure. This accident resulted in the loss of 113 of instances where some airports have failed to take immediate and positive action following a report of FOD (on or near the lives in the aircraft and on the ground, financial losses for runway) from flight crews. In one instance, operations on an the airline, and the eventual grounding of the entire fleet of active runway continued for several minutes following a report Concorde aircraft in operation. In December 2010, Conti- of loose aggregate material (of a size that posed a threat to air- nental Airlines and one of its mechanics were found guilty craft operations) on the runway. Stressful situations have added of criminal negligence in the Concorde crash. Even so, legal fuel to this debate by fostering opportunities where a controller or pilot reports FOD but operations are continued until someone proceedings were expected to continue. arrives to clear the debris from the runway. While the temptation to continue operations on a contaminated surface may be strong, Source: BEA Accident Reports (2002); "Airline Guilty over particularly during periods of increased traffic movement, air- Concorde Crash" (2010). ports must never lose sight of the primary goal, which first and foremost is safety of flight. Addressing Foreign Object Debris The manner in which airports accomplish this primary goal of safety of flight may vary, but an effective FOD man- To effectively mitigate FOD, airports develop comprehen- agement program is integral to achieving that goal. The FAA, sive management programs. Although the airport operator in AC 150/5210-24, has identified the four main components maintains the responsibility for a FOD management program, of a FOD management program (FAA 2010a) as follows: airlines, construction companies, and other agencies that have access to the AOA may have their own programs. 1. FOD Prevention Regardless of whether a tenant or contractor has a unique a. Awareness FOD management program of their own, their support of the i. Program existence and status airport's overall FOD management program is encouraged to ii. FOD policy and management support minimize the risk of FOD in the airport operating environ- iii. Safety culture. ment. Indeed, Chaplain and Reid (2004) promote the concept b. Training and education of an Integrated FOD Team, which includes everyone con- i. Audience cerned for the safety of the airport, such as flight crews, office ii. Features staff, tenants, and visiting contractors and vendors. iii. Training objectives iv. Training documentation. c. Maintenance programs. 2. FOD Detection Sample Airport Use License Clause a. General The Licensee shall in exercising its privileges: b. FOD risk assessment a) At all times keep the airside surfaces free of all foreign c. FOD detection operations objects and litter; i. Inspection areas b) When directed by the Licensor acting reasonably, remove ii. Methods and techniques. immediately from the airside surfaces or a portion thereof, d. FOD detection equipment. its equipment and anything related to its operations; 3. FOD Removal c) At all times keep the Licensor's facilities in a neat, clean, a. Background and orderly condition, free from litter, debris, refuse, b. Equipment characteristics petroleum products, or grease that may accumulate i. Mechanical systems thereon as a result of the use of the Licensor's facilities by ii. Non-mechanical systems its passengers or its employees, contractors, or others ser- iii. Storage systems. vicing and operating its aircraft; c. Performance d) Require its employees to abide by and comply with the i. Operational standards Licensor's AVOP (Airside Vehicle Operator's Permit) Pro- ii. Testing/validation. gram and shall cooperate with the Licensor in airside safety d. Removal operations. matters and enforcement of the AVOP Program; and e) Not engage in or allow any activities which may result in 4. FOD Evaluation a nuisance or that may cause annoyance to adjoining a. Data collection and analysis occupants or any other users of the Airport, the whole as i. Documentation determined by the Licensor, acting reasonably. ii. Reporting iii. Investigation (Larrigan 2004, p. 69). iv. Database. b. Continuous program improvement.

OCR for page 5
9 In addition to the areas spelled out in AC 150/5210-24 (FAA 2010a), other resources are available to airport operators Conducted by airport operations bi-weekly, with a for developing an effective FOD management program. For notice sent to tenants at least 24 h in advance. instance, Dave Larrigan (2004, pp. 7077) in chapter five of Surprise inspections conducted twice during every Make it FOD Free! suggests the following ten elements of an six month campaign. effective FOD prevention program: Airlines are given a score per gate that is averaged, with FBOs and cargo airlines given a single score Management's strong, visible commitment for their entire leasehold. Airlines compete by air- Local FOD committees line size. Housekeeping performance standards Found FOD is photographed, with a score assigned Training and awareness based on the number of pieces found. 0 pieces of FOD = 100% Selection and maintenance of ground support equipment 12 pieces of FOD = 90% (GSE) and airfield maintenance equipment 34 pieces of FOD = 75% Spare parts and tools 5 or more pieces of FOD = 50%. Airport construction projects Scores are maintained in a database and tenants Motivating construction crews to understand FOD threats have the opportunity to raise scores by participat- Monitoring and inspection ing in FOD committee meetings and FOD squad Seasonal considerations. walks. FOD squad walks Furthermore, Simmons and Stephan (2004, pp. 9597) sug- Scheduled and coordinated by airport operations gest the following components of a FOD prevention program: Lasts one hour Food and beverages are provided Organization Incentives Policies and procedures Find a gold bucket, earn a gift card Vision Turn in a FOD bag and pick either a FOD Measurement tools t-shirt or cap. Investigations of incidents and accidents Group photo after every FOD walk. Feedback procedure Awards ceremony Establishing goals. Six month and annual Awards based on FOD inspection score, FOD squad walk participation, and FOD committee participation San Antonio International Airport (SAT) has a well-devel- First place receives trophy with second place receiv- oped FOD prevention program that according to Ryan ing a certificate. Rocha, Interim Assistant Aviation Director, cost approxi- mately $10,000 to establish and costs $6,000 per year to The program at SAT has been successful in preventing the maintain. The vision of their program is to "develop and accumulation of FOD, increasing FOD awareness, increas- maintain a FOD Prevention Program that addresses and ing participation from stakeholders, and increasing com- resolves FOD issues and establishes a culture of safety that munication with stakeholders resulting in cleaner gates, promotes a zero-tolerance policy for airfield FOD through aprons, and airfield areas; in industry recognition; and a encouragement, training, collaboration, and commitment." proactive approach to a Safety Management System (SMS). To accomplish this, they first involved stakeholders, includ- Source: Ryan E. Rocha, San Antonio Airport System, Nov. 18, ing the aviation department, airlines, FBOs, and air cargo. 2010, San Antonio International Airport FOD Prevention Program They developed a FOD committee with one representative Presentation [Online]. Available: http://www.faa.gov/airports/ from each organization, mostly from the manager level. This great_lakes/airports_news_events/2010_conference/Media/A-5_ committee, which meets monthly, sets policy for the FOD FOD_Program.pdf. program and exhibits management commitment to the FOD program. The FOD Squad is comprised of the mem- bers of each organization involved in the FOD program and Although variation exists in how to best structure a FOD meets at quarterly FOD squad walks. The FOD prevention management program, to allow for the most efficient organi- program at SAT enhances awareness and participation by zation of collected data, this report has been organized around developing a new FOD campaign every six months, with a the following five main areas: new design to be placed on t-shirts, posters, and stickers. Each campaign has the following components: 1. Inspection FOD inspections 2. Detection Inspections of each airline gate area, air cargo ramp 3. Removal area, and every FBO area. 4. Documentation 5. Training and Promotion.