ACRP 4-08 - Improved Models for Risk Assessment of Runway Safety Areas (RSA)

1
ACRP 4-08 - Improved Models for Risk Assessment
of Runway Safety Areas (RSA)
Objective develop and validate a user-friendly
software analysis tool that can be used by
airport and industry stakeholders to quantify
risk and support planning and engineering
decisions when determining RSA requirements to
meet an acceptable level of safety for various
types and sizes of airports
Completion Date 02/15/2011
December 17, 2020
2
Project Panel

• Chair
• Mr. Dana L. Ryan Cleveland Hopkins Airport
  System
• ACRP Staff Representatives
• Ms. Theresia H. Schatz Program Officer
• Mr. Joseph J. Brown-Snell Program Associate
• Members
• Mr. Steven G. Benson - Coffman Associates
• Ms. Diana S. Dolezal - Greater Toronto Airports
  Authority
• Mr. Alex M. Kashani - Metropolitan Washington
  Airports Authority
• Ms. Deborah T. Marino - Greater Orlando Aviation
  Authority
• Mr. Phillip C. Miller - California DOT
• Dr. Xiaosong "Sean" Xiao - Tetra Tech Inc.
• Liaison Representatives
• Dr. Michel Hovan - Federal Aviation
  Administration
• Mr. Matthew J. Griffin - Airports Council
  International - North America
• Dr. Richard Pain Transportation Research Board

3
Project Team

• Principal Investigator
• Manuel Ayres Applied Research Associates
• Co-Principal Investigator
• Richard Speir Applied Research Associates
• Project Manager
• Hamid Shirazi Applied Research Associates
• Team Members
• Regis Carvalho Applied Research Associates
• Robert E. David RED Associates
• Derek Wong Consultant
• John Gadzinski Four Winds Consulting
• Jim Hall - Applied Research Associates
• Edith Arambula Applied Research Associates

4
Briefing Outline

• Background
• Project Objective
• Project Tasks
• Data Models
• Risk Approach
• Consequence Approach
• Analysis Software
• Validation

5
Background

• 55 of jet aircraft fatal accidents occurred
  during landings and takeoffs (Boeing 2010)
• Aircraft overruns, veer-offs and undershoots
  account for most accidents in the immediate
  vicinity of the runway
• Runway safety areas (RSA) are capable of
  mitigating the consequences of many of such
  events
• Many airports were built before current RSA
  standards were set and some airports can not
  accomodate larger areas due to physical and
  environmental restrictions
• FAA has embarked upon a program (Order 5200-8) to
  improve non-standard RSA

6
Alternatives to Improve RSAs

• Extend the RSA
• Modify or relocate the runway
• Use declared runway distances
• Implement arresting systems (e.g. EMAS)

Goal was to develop methodology with capability
to analyze either or combination of these
alternatives
7
Project Goals

• Update the ACRP Report 3 accident/incident
  database and collect data on aircraft runway
  veer-off events
• Develop risk models for frequency and location
  for each type of incident landing overruns
  (LDOR) landing undershoots (LDUS) landing
  veer-offs (LDVO), takeoff overruns (TOOR), and
  takeoff veer-offs (TOVO).
• Develop approach to evaluate declared runway
  distances on risk
• Develop approach to assess impact of EMAS on risk
• Develop approach to model incident consequences
• Develop user-friendly analysis software
• Validate the new approach and software

8
Project Tasks
9
Database of Accidents and Incidents

• Organized in Microsoft Access
• 1414 events, 300 fields
• Worldwide sources NTSB, FAA AIDS, FAA/NASA ASRS,
  Canada TSB, UK AAIB, French BEA, Australian TSB,
  New Zealand TAIC, Singapore AAIB, Ireland AAIU,
  Spain CIAIAC
• Date, location, summary, airport/runway data,
  flight data, weather conditions, consequences,
  wreckage location, causal and contributing factors

10
Events Counts of Collected Data
11
Three-Part Risk Model Approach
12
Frequency Models
Based on accident, incident, normal operations
and aircraft performance data
Stop Location Probability Distributions
RSA
x
y
13
Location Models Example for Overruns
x
y
14
Consequence Approach
15
Software Capabilities

• RSA risk analysis
• Risk of aircraft overruns, veer-off and
  undershoots
• Consideration of specific airport operational and
  weather conditions
• Assess impact of declared runway distances
• Assess impact of Engineered Material Arresting
  Systems (EMAS)
• User-defined RSA and EMAS configuration
• Consideration of obstacles (dimensions, location,
  type)

16
Field Test Airports for Validation

• Miami International (MIA)
• Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC)
• Lambert-St Louis International (STL)
• Spokane International (GEG)
• Joe Foss Field (FSD)
• Yeager (CRW)
• Deer Valley International (DVT)
• Ft Lauderdale Executive (FXE)

17
Validation
Incidents
Accidents
18
Opportunities to Use the New Tool

• Analysis of RSA alternatives in support of
  cost/benefit studies
• Prioritization of RSA improvements within an
  airport
• Statewide and Nationwide RSA improvement programs
• Support for decision making
• Evaluate impact of modifying RSA standards