Planning for Safety Considerations on Airfields

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Information on ACRP • www.TRB.org/ACRP • Regular news and updates

on: o Upcoming and ongoing

research projects o New publications o Success stories o Announcements o Webinars

• Find ACRP on Facebook and LinkedIn

Ways to Get Involved in ACRP

• Submit a research idea, also called a Problem Statement

• Prepare a proposal to conduct research

• Volunteer to participate on a project panel; Travel expenses are reimbursed

• Apply to be an ACRP Ambassador or member of the ACRP Speakers Bureau

• Use our research results

Upcoming ACRP Webinars

• February 24th – Factors that Influence Air Service Development

• March 5th – The Impact of Regulatory Compliance and Through-the-Fence Operations on Small Airports

• March 17th – Next Generation Air Transportation System: A Research Update

You can learn more about these webinars by visiting the www.trb.org/webinars

Today’s Speakers

Moderated by Geoff Baskir, Aircraft/Airport Compatibility, TRB Aviation Committee (AV070)

1) Overview of TRB Aviation Committee on

Aircraft/Airport Compatibility • Geoff Baskir, Committee Chair

2) ACRP Report 96: Apron Planning and Design

Guidebook • Colleen Quinn, Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

3) Overview of ACRP Report 50: Improved Models for

Risk Assessment of Runway Safety Areas • Manuel Ayres, Jr., Airport Safety Management

Consultants, LLC

Additional ACRP Publications on Today’s Topic

ACRP Research Results Digest 15 – Comparison of Airport Apron Management and Control Programs With and Without Regulatory Oversight

ACRP Report 107 – Development of a Runway Veer-Off Location Distribution Risk Assessment and Reporting Template

ACRP Synthesis 22 – Common Airport Pavement Maintenance Practices

ACRP Project 04-18 – Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Risk Assessment Tool

You can learn more about these publications by visiting www.trb.org/publications

TRB Aviation Group Committee Overview

Aircraft/Airport Compatibility

(AV070)

Geoff Baskir, Committee Chair

What is TRB’s Aviation Group? • The Aviation Group consists of

nine committees that… o propose research

o share research findings

o sponsor special activities, programs, and events

o provide a forum for transportation professionals to discuss today's and tomorrow's aviation-related issues.

TRB’s Aviation Group Committees

• Intergovernmental Relations in Aviation (AV010)

• Aviation System Planning (AV020)

• Environmental Impacts of Aviation (AV030)

• Aviation Economics and Forecasting (AV040)

• Airport Terminals and Ground Access (AV050)

• Airfield and Airspace Capacity and Delay (AV060)

• Aircraft/Airport Compatibility (AV070)

• Light Commercial and General Aviation (AV080)

• Aviation Security and Emergency Management (AV090)

Benefits of Participation • Network with colleagues across various regions,

disciplines and perspectives.

• Receive valuable and timely information on new research, technologies and practices.

• Encourage research that addresses problems important to you and your organization.

• Contribute to the broader transportation community by sharing your organization’s research results and practices.

• Connect to TRB’s other aviation-related activities such as ACRP.

Aircraft/Airport Compatibility (AV070)

• Mission Statement "The committee is concerned with the development and application of techniques for analyzing the interface of civil aircraft with the airport and its environs and for providing a basis for decisions concerning design and operations of aircraft and airports that are safe, compatible, integrated, cost-effective and sustainable.”

• Four focus areas • Airfield geometry • Pavement design • Airfield Safety • Geographic Information Systems

• Joint Subcommittee on GIS (AV070, ABJ60) • Research Coordinators – Ernie Heymsfield

and Katie Chou • Communications Coordinator – Antonio

Massidda • Midyear Meeting – June 7, 2015

Aircraft/Airport Compatibility (AV070)

Ways to Get Involved • Contact the committee chair

o Geoffrey Baskir (geoffbaskir@gmail.com) • Become a “friend” of the committee

o Join the committee email distribution list o Volunteer to review research papers, work

on a committee project or give a presentation

o Participate in committee meetings o Visit us on LinkedIn

More information is available at: http://www.trb.org/aviation1/trbcommittees.aspx

ACRP Report 96: Apron Planning and Design Guidebook

Colleen Quinn, Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

ACRP Report 50: Improved Models for Risk Assessment of Runway

Safety Areas Manuel Ayres, Jr., Airport Safety Management

Consultants, LLC

Upcoming ACRP Webinars

• February 24th – Factors that Influence Air Service Development

• March 5th – The Impact of Regulatory Compliance and Through-the-Fence Operations on Small Airports

• March 17th – Next Generation Air Transportation System: A Research Update

You can learn more about these webinars by visiting the www.trb.org/webinars

Thank you!

ACRP Report 96: Apron Planning and Design

Guidebook

Colleen E. Quinn, P.E. Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

19

Colleen E. Quinn, P.E. Principal Investigator

• Vice President – Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

• BS Civil Engineering – University of Illinois

• Professional Engineer (P.E.) – States of Illinois, Florida, and Pennsylvania

20

Project Panel • Jorge E. Panteli, McFarland-Johnson, Inc.(Chair) • Mark B. Gibbs, Elko Regional Airport • Stacy L. Jansen, Burns & McDonnell • James McCluskie, Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority • Kiran Merchant, Port Authority of NY and NJ • Kenneth P. Stevens, University of Westminster • Stephen R. Maher, TRB Liaison • Michael A. Myers, FAA Liaison • Christopher J. Oswald, ACI Liaison • Theresia H. Schatz, TRB Senior Program Officer

ACRP Report 96 Oversight Panel

21

Research Team • Ricondo & Associates, Inc. • Airport Development Group, Inc. • Aviation Safety and Security Education

Training, LLC • Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. • Two Hundred, Inc.

ACRP Report 96 Research Team

22

Research Objectives • Identify best practices for planning, designing, and marking apron areas of all sizes and types in the U.S.

• Describe best practices for comprehensive apron planning and design that enhances operational efficiency, safety, and flexibility of aprons

Research Objectives

Challenge: lack of comprehensive and complete guidance in a readily accessible form

Opportunity: consolidate guidance without presenting a prescriptive approach

23

• Literature search: identify existing apron planning and design guidance

• Evaluate literature: identify limitations and enhancements of existing guidance and inform site visits

• Performed apron observations at a variety of airports to explore best practices for planning and operating apron facilities

Observations &

Research

Research Approach

24

Research Applicability

• Diverse Apron Environments: terminal aprons, hold pads, cargo areas, hardstand positions, deicing areas, remote aprons, maintenance areas, heliports, other facilities/operations

• Plan and design apron facilities that are safe and economical while maintaining flexibility to accommodate reasonably anticipated changes in a dynamic industry

• Optimize the use of airport infrastructure

Aprons can be active and congested areas with personnel, activities, and equipment in close proximity to aircraft.

25

Overview • Project need and justification • Apron environment (multiple

stakeholders is common) – Physical – Environmental – Business – Operational

• Nature of the demand – Quantitative / Qualitative – Current / Future

Understand the Apron Project

26

Understand Apron Environment

• Understand types of activities that will occur – examples include: ‒ Power-in/power-out or

tug operations ‒ GSE staging (pre-arrival) ‒ Common use,

preferential use or exclusive use facilities

‒ Contact or non-contact parking positions (PLBs)

‒ Apron flexibility: fleet variation markings

‒ Truck fueling or hydrant system fueling

‒ Dependent or independent or combination parking

‒ Passengers, bags, equipment (cart-mounted) on apron

27

Understand Apron Environment

• Understand physical environment, including such elements as: ‒ Utility infrastructure

(electrical, stormwater, other)

‒ Proximity of airfield elements

‒ Aeronautical surfaces ‒ Proximity of buildings or

structures

‒ Pavement grades and elevations

‒ Hydrant fuel systems (distribution, transmision, fueling pits)

‒ Vehicle service road system ‒ Adjacent leases

28

Stakeholder Input

• Stakeholder input = critical – Primary users – Regulatory agencies – Airport representatives – Parties responsible for the cost, operation,

environmental impacts, and safety

• Benefits – Needs and priorities of relevant users are considered

in planning/design process – Stakeholder support – Inform planner/designer of appropriate operational

procedures and other considerations

29

Conclusions - Stakeholders

Agencies • Water Quality

(deicing) • Stormwater

Management

Airlines / FBOs / Tenants • Safety • Schedule Integrity • Flexibility • Fleet Evolution • Ramp Management

Emergency Response • ARFF • Security • Structural

Firefighting

Airport • Safety • Management of

limited resource • Capex/ Opex FAA / CBP / TSA

• Safety • Standards & regulations • Security

Service Providers • Personnel safety • Equipment safety • Efficiency

30

• Functional Apron Capacity – Accommodate anticipated demand, irregular ops, new

users / tenants, and/or future aviation demand

• Operational Efficiency – Measure of how apron supports day-to-day operations – Minimize dependencies in operations, aircraft parking,

taxi flows, aircraft servicing

• Flexibility – Accommodate diverse fleets, changing operating

characteristics, and irregular operations – Plan aprons for multiple purposes (e.g., single apron

for deicing, remote overnight parking, aircraft holding)

Planning/Design Considerations

31

• Operational Factors – Reflect unique characteristics of airport – Consider types of operations (cargo, deicing, GA),

aircraft turn times, fleets, lease types, airline operation (hubbing/O&D, international/domestic)

• Site Constraints – Understand specific site constraints – Consider both physical and operational (ground

flows, aeronautical surfaces, clearance areas, tower line of sight, and environmental considerations)

Planning/Design Considerations

32

Apron Demand

• Methodology depends on type of apron project – Defining apron requirements to support master

planning is different from forecasting demand for reconfiguration of an existing apron.

• Sources – Airport operator, tenant or lessee – Historical relationships – FAA or national forecasts – Aircraft fleet orders – Planned developments/leases – Based/itinerant aircraft – Air service marketing

33

• Changes in fleet may drive changes to physical layout and operational considerations – Wingtip devices – Newer large aircraft (A380, 747-8) – Trend of increasing wingspans – Equipment needs

• Phase out of models or sizes of aircraft

Fleet Evolution

34

• FAA: guidance on nose-to-building clearances but not on wingtip clearances in apron areas

• ICAO: provides criteria for wingtip clearances • Wingtip clearances often determined by airport

or apron lessee – GSE activity – Emergency vehicles – Reduced horizontal

wingtip clearances or vertical clearances may be acceptable

– Airport may mandate clearances for all aircraft apron positions or at a minimum between leaseholds

Dimensional Clearances

35

• Apron-related Airfield Marking - FAA – Taxiways, taxilanes, holding positions, non-movement

area boundaries, and roadways

• Apron Markings – No guidance currently published by FAA – Industry guidance available (summarized in Guidebook) – Markings vary among airports and aprons, influenced

by operation and size of apron – Determined by airport operators and/or

apron lessees

Apron Markings

36

• Comply with aeronautical surfaces and runway/taxiway areas

• Pushback areas may reduce taxi congestion • Vehicle service roads can be placed in front of

(head-of-stand) or behind (tail stand) aircraft • Ensure sufficient space for GSE storage and

staging, either locally or remotely • Consider visibility from ATCT or ramp towers

Apron Configuration

37

• Computer-aided design (CAD) allows analysis of different apron configurations

• Add-on programs to simulate aircraft and vehicle movements and aircraft servicing – Path tracking – Jet blast velocity tracking – Aircraft servicing layouts – Passenger loading bridge analysis

• Pavement design software – FAARFIELD (FAA) supports

design of new and modified airfield pavements

Technology / Planning Tools

38

Design Consideration Examples

• Pavement type (rigid, flexible) • Drainage: current regulations and long-

term expansion potential • Constructability / construction impacts

– Construction phasing – Apron replacement may require operational

plans to route aircraft around construction – Consider weather-related

limitations

39

Design Consideration Examples

• Hydrant fueling: meet NFPA requirements; consider aircraft parking positions and loading bridge operational ranges

• Paint and reflective materials: consider durability, weather conditions, and cost

• Lighting: Illuminating Engineering Society guidelines

40

Research Uses • Use to enhance safety and manage apron utilization

• May extend operational capacity • Examples:

– Lease stipulations requiring minimum apron utilization – Require vehicle and aircraft parking and flow plans – Varying lease types (exclusive, preferential, common) – Mandate wingtip clearances between parking positions

or between leaseholds – Deicing and fueling consortiums

Management / Operational Policies

41

Research Objectives • Guidebook consolidates best practices for planning, designing, and marking apron areas of all sizes and types in the U.S.

• Guidance is not prescriptive – responsibility of the planner/designer to apply the guidance appropriately

Conclusions

Challenge: lack of comprehensive and complete guidance in a readily accessible form

Opportunity: consolidate guidance without presenting a prescriptive approach

42

ACRP 09-02

Additional Information

• Published December 2013

• ACRP Website: http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/169964.aspx

• Colleen E. Quinn ce_quinn@ricondo.com

ACRP Report 50: Improved Models for Risk

Assessment of Runway Safety Areas (RSAs)

Manuel Ayres, Ph.D.

ASM Consultants

44

Manuel Ayres, Ph.D. Principal Investigator

• Founding Principal, ASM Consultants

• Airport Engineer • Former Principal Engineer at

Applied Research Associates

45

ACRP Report 50 Oversight Panel

Dana L. Ryan – Cleveland Hopkins Airport System, Chair Steven G. Benson - Coffman Associates Diana S. Dolezal - Greater Toronto Airports Authority Alex M. Kashani - Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Deborah T. Marino - Greater Orlando Aviation Authority Phillip C. Miller - California DOT Xiaosong "Sean" Xiao - Tetra Tech Inc. Michel Hovan, FAA Liaison Matthew J. Griffin , ACI-NA Liaison Richard Pain , TRB Liaison Theresia H. Schatz , ACRP Program Officer Joseph J. Brown-Snell – ACRP Program Associate

46

Research Problem • Sometimes standard RSAs are not feasible

and alternatives must be evaluated • Prior to this study, risk could not be quantified

when evaluating RSA improvement alternatives

• ACRP Report 3 approach is the basis for the improved methodology

• Goal was to develop and validate improved risk models, and user-friendly analysis software tool to quantify risk and support planning and engineering decisions to improve RSAs

Some airports were built before current RSA standards were established (worldwide)

Which options do I have and how do I figure out which one is best?

The RSA is the most critical area protecting airfield incidents There may be physical and environmental restrictions to extend existing RSAs

Overview

48

RSA Improvement Alternatives • Extend the RSA

• Simply extend or relocate runway

• Use declared runway distances • Implement EMAS RSA Analysis

• Cost • Physical, environmental

and social constraints • Capacity • Time to implement • Risk?

capability to analyze either or combination of these alternatives

49

Research Product • Models based on accident, incident and normal operations

data • Impact of declared runway distances and availability of EMAS

beds • Presence of obstacles (type, location and configuration) • RSAs of different sizes, shapes and types of surface • Models and methodology were validated • Analysis software tool with User Manual • Published July 2011

RSA

naxexLocationP −=> }{Stop Location

Probability Distribution

50

Modeling Approach Three-Part Model

Probability

• Operation conditions

• Weather conditions

Location

• RSA configuration

• Type of RSA

Consequences

• RSA limits • Obstacles

(type, size, location)

Risk Classification

( )...2211011

+++−+= XbXbbRE e

P naxL eP −=

51

Analysis Software Input • Airport

• Operations data for each runway and weather data for same period (1-2 years)

• Number and designation of runways • Annual traffic volume & annual growth • Elevation, • Target level of safety

• Each runway (multiple runways) • Declared distances • RSA characteristics

• Shape and size • Type (paved, unpaved, EMAS) • Boundaries and obstacles

52

Analysis Software

53

Analysis Software Output • Risk for each type of

runway excursion and undershoots

• Total risk for the airport and for each RSA

• Average number of years for accident

• % of operations above the target level of safety

• Risk estimates to compare alternatives

• Requires MS Office Professional 2007

54

Practical Analysis of Results • Comparing risks between existing, standard and alternative

RSA conditions • Finding which RSA improvements lead to lowest risk levels

for the entire airport • Finding out if percentage of high risk operations is too high • Comparing estimates to available risk criteria and checking if

residual risk is acceptable • Evaluating RSA lengths to minimize risk for a given runway

Location Probability

55

Example: Study for SFO

Case Study - SFO

Existing Conditions

Example Results - SFO Average Probability for all Movements (Existing) 0.141 events in 1,000,000 ops Average Probability for all Movements (Standard) 0.075 events in 1,000,000 ops

Alternative 1 - Existing with EMAS (available area) Rank Total Airport Probability (events per 1,000,000 ops) 0.094

5 RSA 01R 01L 19R 19L RSA Contribution to Airport Probability Decrease 0.5% 0.2% 3.4% 9.1% % Protection Relative to FAA Standard 80% Alternative 6 – Rwy Shift + EMAS (available area) Total Airport Probability (events per 1,000,000 ops) 0.079

3 RSA 01R 01L 19R 19L RSA Contribution to Airport Probability Decrease -0.5% 0.1% 9.3% 14.7% % Protection Relative to FAA Standard 95% Alternative 8 – Standard EMAS Total Airport Probability (events per 1,000,000 ops) 0.072

1 RSA 01R 01L 19R 19L RSA Contribution to Airport Probability Decrease 0.3% 0.2% 9.8% 19.6% % Protection Relative to FAA Standard 105%

58

For additional information:

ACRP Report 50: Improved Models for Risk Assessment of Runway Safety Areas

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/165581.aspx

• Manuel Ayres mayres@asmcons.com