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

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.

37 AOSC (Airport Obstructions Standards Committee). 2005. AOSC Decision Document #04—Runway/Parallel Taxiway Separation Standards. Washington, DC: FAA, U.S. DOT. Ash, A., and M. Schwartz. 1999. “R2: A Useful Measure of Model Per- formance When Predicting a Dichotomous Outcome.” Statistics in Medicine, 18(4), 375–384. ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau). 2009. ATSB Transport Safety Report: Aviation Research and Analysis AR-2008-018(1) Final—Runway Excursions—Part 1: A Worldwide Review of Com- mercial Jet Aircraft Runway Excursions. Australia. Boeing. July 2009. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents—Worldwide Operations 1959–2008. Brown, D. N., and O. O. Thompson. July 1973. “Lateral Distribution of Aircraft Traffic,” Miscellaneous Paper S-73-56. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Soils and Pavements Laboratory. Civil Aeronautics Authority. 1940. Airport Design Information. Technical Development Division—Airport Section, Washington, DC. Cohen-Nir, D., and R. Marchi. 2003. “Preliminary Analysis of Taxiway Deviation Data and Estimates of Airplane Wingtip Collision Proba- bility.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1850, 49–60. David, R. 1973. “Landing Strip/Runway Safety Area Dimensional Cri- teria.” Paper presented at Design Standards Meeting (FAA internal meeting), Dallas, TX, Oct 4, 1973. Eddowes, M., J. Hancox, and A. MacInnes. December 2001. Final Re- port on the Risk Analysis in Support of Aerodrome Design Rules— AEAT/RAIR/RD02325/R/002 Issue 1 (produced for the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority). Cheshire, UK: AEA Technology. FAA. 1959. Airport Design Recommendations, Airport Engineering Data Sheet No. 24, Washington, DC. FAA. 1963. VFR Airports, AC 150/5300-1, Washington, DC. FAA. 1968. Utility Airports, AC 150/5300-4A, Washington, DC. FAA. 1983. Airport Design Standards—Transport Airports, AC 150/ 5300-12. Washington, DC. FAA. 1989. Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design (with changes). Washington, DC. FAA. 2008. “Missed Approach Rates” (DOT-FAA-AFS-450-48). Oklahoma City, OK: Flight Systems Laboratory. FAA. 2010. FAA Order 5200.11 (FAA Airports [ARP] Safety Manage- ment System). Federal Aviation Agency. 1961. Airport Design, Airport Engineering Branch, Airports Division, Bureau of Facilities and Materiel, Washington, DC. Flight Safety Foundation (FSF). 2000. ALAR Tool Kit, Briefing Note 8.3–Landing Distances, Flight Safety Digest. Flight Safety Foundation. 2009. “Reducing the Risk of Runway Excur- sions,” Report of the Runway Safety Initiative. Hall, J., M. Ayres Jr., D. Wong, A. Appleyard, M. Eddowes, H. Shirazi, R. Speir, D. Pitfield, O. Selezneva, and T. Puzin. 2008. ACRP Report 3: Analysis of Aircraft Overruns and Undershoots for Runway Safety Areas. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Hathi Trust Digital Library. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/ 005745193. HoSang, V. A. February 1975. Field Survey and Analysis of Aircraft Dis- tribution on Airport Pavements (FAA-RD-74-36). Washington, DC: FAA, U.S. DOT. Hosmer, D., and S. Lemeshow. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. Hobo- ken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. ICAO. 1949. “Aerodromes.” Annex 14 to the Chicago Convention, 1st ed. ICAO. 1980. “Doc 9274—Manual on the Use of the Collision Risk Model (CRM) for ILS Operations,” 1st ed. ICAO. November 1981. “Aerodromes.” Annex 14 to the Chicago Con- vention, 1st ed., Amendment 35. ICAO. 1990. “Aerodromes, Aerodrome Design and Operations.” International Standards and Recommended Practices, Annex 14, Volume I, 2nd ed. ICAO. 2004. “Aerodromes, Aerodrome Design and Operations.” International Standards and Recommended Practices, Annex 14, Volume I, 4th ed. ICAO. 2006a. “Aerodrome Design Manual.” Doc 9157-AN/901, Part 1: Runways, 3rd ed. ICAO. 2006b. “Aerodromes, Aerodrome Design and Operations.” International Standards and Recommended Practices, Annex 14, Volume I, 5th ed. IFALPA (International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations). Ac- cessed 2008. IFALPA Runway Safety Policy (09POS01). Available from www.ifalpa.org/positionstatements/09POS01_Runway_Safety.pdf. NTSB. 2009. Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data—U.S. Air Carrier Operations: Calendar Year 2005 (NTSB/ARC-09/01, PB2009-106372, Notation 7502F). Washington, DC. References

36 Acceptable Level of Risk. For regulations and special per- mits, the acceptable levels of risk are established by consider- ation of risk, cost/benefit, and public perception. Accident. An unplanned event or series of events that results in death, injury, damage to, or loss of, equipment or property. Consequence. The direct effect of an event, incident, or acci- dent. In this study, it is expressed as a health effect (e.g., death, injury, exposure) or property loss. Hazard. The inherent characteristic of a material, condition, or activity that has the potential to cause harm to people, property, or the environment. Hazard Analysis. The identification of system elements, events, or material properties that lead to harm or loss. The term “hazard analysis” may also include evaluation of conse- quences from an event or incident. Incident. A near-miss episode, malfunction, or failure with- out accident-level consequences that has a significant chance of resulting in accident-level consequences. Likelihood. Expressed as either a frequency or a probability. Frequency is a measure of the rate at which events occur over time (e.g., events/year, incidents/year, deaths/year). Probabil- ity is a measure of the rate of a possible event expressed as a fraction of the total number of events (e.g., 1 in 10 million, 1/10,000,000, or 1×10-7). METAR. Aviation routine weather report. Nonconformity. Non-fulfillment of a requirement. This in- cludes, but is not limited to, non-compliance with federal reg- ulations. It also includes an organization’s requirements, policies, and procedures, as well as requirements of safety risk controls developed by the organization. Quantitative Risk Analysis. Incorporates numerical estimates of frequency or probability and consequence. Risk. The combination of the likelihood and the consequence of a specified hazard being realized. It is a measure of harm or loss associated with an activity. Risk Analysis. The study of risk in order to understand and quantify risk so it can be managed. Risk Assessment. Determination of risk context and accept- ability, often by comparison to similar risks. Safety. Freedom from unacceptable risk. Often, safety is equated with meeting a measurable goal, such as an accident rate that is less than an acceptable target. However, the absence of accidents does not ensure a safe system. To remain vigilant regarding safety, it is necessary to recognize that just because an accident has not happened does not mean that it cannot or will not happen. Safety Risk Management. The systematic application of policies, practices, and resources to the assessment and con- trol of risk affecting human health and safety and the envi- ronment. Hazard, risk, and cost/benefit analysis are used to support the development of risk reduction options, pro- gram objectives, and prioritization of issues and resources. A critical role of the safety regulator is to identify activities involving significant risk and to establish an acceptable level of risk. Veer-Off. An aircraft running off the side of the runway dur- ing takeoff or landing roll. Worst Credible Condition. The most unfavorable condi- tion or combination of conditions that it is reasonable to expect will occur. Definitions