Upload
hoangkhuong
View
215
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 ([email protected]) • 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 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
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 [email protected]
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
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
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 [email protected]