Presented to:By:Date:

Airport Safety Technology R&D 

REDAC Recommendation Update

Subcommittee on Airports	

Jim Patterson

 March 15, 2016

*

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #

RECOMMENDATION

STATUS

OPEN/CLOSED

Spring_2010_08 

APP Updates

Implemented

CLOSED

Alternative Paint Marking Material 

Implemented

CLOSED

GPS/Runway Incursion Reductions 

Implemented

CLOSED

Avian Radar Integration into ATC

Implemented

CLOSED

Fall_2010_04

Safety Database Analysis   

Implemented

CLOSED

Fall_2010_05 

Fall_2010_06

Spring_2010_09 

Fall_2011_04

Fall_2011_05

Fall_2011_06

Fall_2011_07

Aircraft Braking Friction

Airport Noise Research

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

CLOSED

CLOSED

CLOSED

CLOSED

AIP Appropriation

NAS Enterprise Architecture - Roadmap

Spring_2012_01

Spring_2012_02

Spring_2012_03

Implemented

Implemented

Implemented

CLOSED

CLOSED

CLOSED

ARFF for Composites

Foreign Object Debris Limited Demonstration

Trapezoidal Runway Groove 

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations
| ID #           | Recommendation                                            | Status      | Open/Closed |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|
| Spring_2012_04 | Aircraft Noise and Sleep Annoyance                        | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2012_05 | Heated Pavements                                          | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2012_06 | Aircraft Braking Friction                                 | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2012_07 | Runway Exit Design Interactive Model (REDIM)              | Implemented | Closed      |
| Fall_2012_16   | Heated Pavements                                          | Implemented | Closed      |
| Fall_2012_##   | Aircraft Braking Friction                                 | Implemented | Closed      |
| Fall_2012_##   | 40-Year Pavement Life                                     | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2013_01 | Aircraft Noise and Sleep Annoyance – AEE coordination     | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2013_02 | Aircraft Noise and Sleep Annoyance – Communication Plan   | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2013_03 | Heated Pavements                                          | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2013_04 | Aircraft Braking Friction                                 | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2013_05 | Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting                         | Implemented | Closed      |

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations
| ID #           | Recommendation                        | Status      | Open/Closed |
|----------------|---------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|
| Spring_2013_06 | Advanced Sensor Technologies          | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2013_07 | Pavement Design and Evaluation        | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2013_08 | Trapezoidal Grooving                  | Implemented | Closed      |
| Spring_2013_09 | High Strength Concrete                | Implemented | Closed      |
| Fall_2013_01   | Trapezoidal Grooving                  | Implemented | Closed      |
| Fall_2013_02   | High Strength Concrete                | Initiated   | Closed      |
| Fall_2013_03   | Safety Databases                      | Implemented | Closed      |
| Fall_2013_04   | Safety Mitigation Plans               | Initiated   | Closed      |
| Fall_2013_05   | New Research Tasks                    | Initiated   | Closed      |
| Fall_2013_06   | Extended Airfield Pavement Life Cycle | Initiated   | Closed      |
||
||

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations
| ID #           | Recommendation                                   | Status      | Open/Closed    |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------|----------------|
| Spring_2014_01 | Advanced Sensor Technologies                     | Implemented | Closed         |
| Spring_2014_02 | Pavement Design and Evaluation                   | Implemented | Closed         |
| Spring_2014_03 | Trapezoidal Grooving                             | Implemented | Closed         |
| Spring_2014_04 | High Strength Concrete                           | Implemented | Closed         |
| Fall_2014_01   | Safety Database                                  | Implemented | Closed 3/30/15 |
| Spring_2015_01 | Airport Planning                                 | Initiated   | OPEN           |
| Spring_2015_02 | ATR – Safety and Capacity vs. Noise Mitigation   | Initiated   | OPEN           |
| Spring_2015_03 | LCGSS                                            | Initiated   | OPEN           |
| Spring_2015_04 | Aircraft Braking Friction - Comment              | Initiated   | OPEN           |
| Fall_2015_01   | RPA Classification                               | Initiated   | OPEN           |
| Fall_2015_02   | Variability of Asphalt and Concrete Mix Designs  | Initiated   | OPEN           |
||

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations
| ID #         | Recommendation                           | Status    | Open/Closed |
|--------------|------------------------------------------|-----------|-------------|
| Fall_2015_03 | Concept of Operations for LCGSS          | Initiated | OPEN        |
| Fall_2015_04 | Overload Criteria for Flexible Pavements | Initiated | OPEN        |
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Fall_2011_04 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

The Subcommittee is concerned with the complexity of the new initiative to conduct research on aircraft braking that involves purchase of a Boeing 737-500 digital anti-skid system from a retired aircraft and of the plans for creating artificial snow for the testing. The Subcommittee wants to receive an update on this project in the spring meeting.

Recommendation:

Ensure that this aircraft braking friction work is coordinated with the ongoing aircraft braking research underway in the Aviation Safety Program at the Technical Center.

FAA Response:

The FAA is pleased to report that the aircraft braking project is progressing well. It is being closely coordinated with the Aviation Safety Program at the Technical Center to ensure that efforts are not duplicated. 

Status History

Current Status:

August 2012 - Coordination with the Aviation Safety Program continues.  This recommendation has been implemented and can be considered. - CLOSED 

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Fall_2011_05 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

The Subcommittee is concerned that the FY 2011 funding for the Airport Technology Research Program was held to the FY 2010 level. This is a reduction of $4,745,000 from the FY2011 request. It is anticipated that this reduced funding level will continue into FY 2012. This could delay the start of important new research including the initiation of a program to conduct noise measurements across airport communities as well as concurrent public surveys and sleep disturbance studies. The data collected would be used to guide national aviation noise policy, determinations of community impacts from aircraft noise, Federal land use compatibility guidelines around airports, and noise mitigation funding.

Recommendation:

The Subcommittee believes the new start on noise research is a high priority initiative. It should be included in the FY 2012 program even if it has to start at a reduced funding pace.

FAA Response:

FAA is pleased to report that the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 appropriation has been enacted. The Airport Technology Research Program was fully funded at the requested FY 2012 amount of $29.2 million. We intend to fully fund the noise study research program and held the initial planning meeting with the Technical Center staff at Headquarters in November. 

Status History

Current Status:

August 2012 - We were able to initiate the noise study research program at FY12 funding levels, as recommended. This recommendation has been implemented and can be considered. - CLOSED

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Fall_2011_06	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

The Subcommittee is aware of the House reauthorization provision that would prohibit use of AIP funding for both Airport Technology Research and Airport Cooperative Research. If these research programs must be absorbed within the already reduced Research and Development appropriation it would require dramatic reductions in both programs.

Recommendation:

As the Airport research programs benefit the airport community the Subcommittee recommends that the FAA support keeping these research programs within the AIP appropriation.

FAA Response:

The FAA agrees and has included the Airport Technology Research program within the AIP (Airport Improvement Program) appropriation in the President’s budget request for FY 2012 and FY 2013 to Congress.

Status History

Current Status:

August 2012 - This recommendation has been implemented and can be considered. - CLOSED

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Fall_2011_07 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

The subcommittee was pleased with the briefing on the NextGen airport research roadmap.

Recommendation:

That a draft update of the NAS Enterprise Architecture - Airports Infrastructure Roadmap be sent to the Subcommittee and several airports for review and comment.

FAA Response:

The FAA agrees. We will share a draft update on the NAS Enterprise Architecture - Airports Infrastructure Roadmap with the Subcommittee and with airports for their review and comment. We will continue to provide these briefings at the upcoming reviews.

Status History

Current Status:

August 2012 - We will continue to provide updates on the NAS Enterprise Architecture at all future meetings, as recommended.  This recommendation has been implemented and can be considered. -CLOSED.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Spring _2012_01 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

The subcommittee was pleased with the progress to date on research underway in assessing extinguishing agents, methods and quantities for new composite aircraft materials and firefighting strategies for cargo aircraft.  Current research is focused on aircraft skin penetration testing, and developing of test protocols for evaluating agent application and forcible entry.  Aircraft skin penetration testing is focusing on how to best approach events on the upper decks of the new large aircraft (A380 and B747-8).  The height of the second deck requires longer booms and needs to have proven penetration capability from a variety of angles (which is proving to be a difficult task). 

Recommendation:

The subcommittee is pleased with the progress made on this research and considers this as a high priority issue.

FAA Response:

FAA Response: We appreciate the comments and will continue to keep the Subcommittee informed on the progress of the various projects related to fire fighting agents, composite material firefighting, and cargo aircraft fire fighting tactics and strategies.

Current Status:

August 2012/ March 1013 - We will continue to provide updates on our research involving ARFF. - CLOSED.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Spring _2012_02 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

Research into Foreign Object Debris (FOD) detection systems is bearing fruit.  The Subcommittee was impressed with a video from a FOD system used at Singapore Airport where the device immediately detected a blown tire on a departing aircraft, which left a large part of the tire on the runway.  The pilot was not aware what happened, because of the FOD system the pilot was notified, and the large piece of the tire was quickly removed from the Runway.

Recommendation:

Though existing technologies have proven adept at identifying FOD, U.S. airports have concerns with these technologies because of cost, liability, and perceived additional manpower requirements.  It is recommended that an AIP-supported FOD pilot program be initiated at a number of airports as a method for better understanding the operational issues associated with the technology.

FAA Response:

The FAA is currently pursuing the establishment of an AIP-supported FOD Limited demonstration program at three selected  U.S. airports. As part of this program, researchers will closely monitor the operation and performance of these detection technologies to validate the costs, liabilities, and perceived manpower requirement concerns that exist.  In addition, the FAA will continue work collecting data on the type and number of FOD items being found at our nation’s airports. 

Current Status:

August 2012/ March 2013 – Work continues to deploy FOD systems as part of a limited demonstration – awaiting action by APP. - CLOSED.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Spring _2012_03 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

Research into trapezoidal runway grooving is promising and shows potential benefits as a method for more quickly removing water from runways and reducing the possibility of hydroplaning.

Recommendation:

Issues such as proprietary cutting technology and questions regarding hydroplaning tests have slowed finalization of this research and publication of FAA guidance.  FAA needs to take positive steps to indicate how they plan to close out this research (additional hydroplaning analyses, evaluation of other cutting technologies, publication of technical notes, or further studies).

FAA Response:

The FAA is currently addressing the issues with regards to the trapezoidal runway grooving, with a goal towards finalizing the research.  At the present time, we are coordinating with hydroplaning experts to develop a computer model that will provide comparative hydroplaning results to the standard pavement groove that is in use today.  The issue of the cutting technology being proprietary has been addressed, and is no longer a factor.  The final Technical Note summarizing this research effort will be published in FY-2012. 

Current Status:

August 2012/ March 2013 – The computer model assessment was completed, the Technical Note has been published, and issues with patents have been resolved. - CLOSED.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Spring _2012_04 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

The Subcommittee is pleased that work has begun to progress on aircraft noise and sleep annoyance.  The surveys and analyses that established FAA’s noise significance levels are 34 years old and need updating.  Even with all the advances made in reducing the noise levels of modern aircraft, noise is still a significant issue for the aviation industry, affecting airports abilities to expand and FAA’s desires to redesign the airspace.  This is expected to be a multi-year study and the results will be a very important component of future efforts to expand the capacity of the NAS.

Recommendation:

To assure full coordination and make use of available expertise it is recommended that a member of the Environment and Energy Subcommittee be appointed to liaison with FAA and Airport Subcommittee staff on this project.

FAA Response:

We will contact the Environment and Energy Subcommittee and request that a member serve as a liaison between the subcommittees to ensure full coordination of efforts, increase communication, and lend expertise to both groups. 

Current Status:

August 2012 – We have identified Jim Hileman and Becky Cointin (FAA Noise Division Mgr.) as being a members on the E&E Subcommittee, and continue to include both on emails/discussions. - CLOSED.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Spring _2012_05 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

Research on heated pavement as a means of melting precipitation during winter storm events is evaluating renewable energy sources as a means for pavement heating.  Two demonstration projects are under consideration.  1. An electrically conductive heated pavement overlay powered by solar power and 2. A hydronic heated concrete apron utilizing geothermal energy.

Recommendation:

The committee is concerned whether this project will ever be a cost effective alternative to existing deicing technologies.  The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA provide subcommittee members additional information on this project before the August meeting.  The information should clearly spell out the definition of success, discuss the risk of a successful outcome, a cost/benefit analysis, and discuss the probability of eventual operational implementation.

FAA Response:

The FAA is developing a Risk Analysis report for research on heating of pavements in airport environments as a means of melting precipitation during winter storm events.  The Risk Analysis, which will be forwarded to the Subcommittee in advance of the August, 2012 meeting, will address the definition of project success, risks of a successful outcome, a cost/benefit analysis, and an evaluation for the probability of eventual operational implementation. 

Current Status:

August 2012/ March 2013 – We have developed a Risk Analysis that was briefed/presented at August 2012 Subcommittee Meeting. - CLOSED

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Spring _2012_06 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

The aircraft braking friction project is conducting testing of aircraft anti-skid brake systems on contaminated runway surfaces to enable more accurate prediction of aircraft landing performance.  This research is partially in response to the Southwest Airlines overrun at Midway Airport in 2005 and the subsequent recommendations by NTSB to FAA for improving the capability of transport category aircraft to calculate, record and convey the braking ability required by an aircraft to stop a landing roll during winter time precipitation conditions.  The project is a multi-year research effort that began in 2010.

Recommendation:

The investment and risk associated with this research is significant.  The Subcommittee has requested that the FAA provide additional detail on this project that outlines the definition of project success and break down the research schedule into go/no go milestones that can be assessed as the research effort proceeds.

FAA Response:

The FAA is developing a Risk Analysis report for research on evaluating aircraft braking friction during landings on contaminated runway surfaces (i.e. wet, ice, slush, and snow).  The Risk Analysis, which will be forwarded to the Subcommittee in advance of the August, 2012 meeting, will address the definition of project success, risks associated with a successful completion of the project, and a research schedule identifying go/no go milestones for proceeding with major project elements based on criteria established in the risk analysis. 

Current Status:

August 2012/ March 2013 – We have developed a Risk Analysis that was briefed/presented at August 2012 Subcommittee Meeting. - CLOSED

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Spring _2012_07 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

The Runway Exit Design Interactive Model (REDIM) is used by airports for sitting high-speed runway exits and was developed by Virginia Institute of Technology with FAA and NASA support in the 1990s.  This model has not been updated since it was originally produced and does not include realistic aircraft exit speeds as it excludes most of the aircraft in the current commercial fleet relies on performance data from older aircraft.

Recommendation:

The Subcommittee recommends that a new research project be initiated to update the REDIM model or create a new one for determining optimal exit taxiway locations to minimize runway occupancy time.

FAA Response:

FAA Response: We understand that the Subcommittee recommends that a new research project be initiated to update the RDSIM fast-time simulation model (or create a new one) for determining optimal exit taxiway locations to minimize runway occupancy time (ROT.)  We will investigate to determine if the task is feasible in terms of cost and time.   We'll take a look at the model to see how labor intensive it would be to make a change to the code. We will investigate the various parameters that need to be taken into consideration that affect the ROT. We will brief  the Subcommittee at our next meeting with our findings.

Current Status:

August 2012/ March 2013 – This recommendation has been implemented, we will continue to update the Subcommittee on our progress. - CLOSED

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Fall _2012_01 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding: 

Regarding Research Project Description (RPD) 155, Heated Airfield Pavements, the Subcommittee felt that additional information was needed regarding the business case justification for heated pavement installations, which would include defining the conditions under which these pavements can be used beneficially.  Because the concept of use, benefits and life-cycle costs associated with heated pavements are not fully understood, the Subcommittee also felt that the project schedule should incorporate explicit decision points together with “go/no go” criteria to manage the risks associated with the research project.

Recommendation: 

The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA complete its review and assessment of existing heated pavement installations (e.g., Oslo, Helsinki, Stockholm) and the prototype heated pavement sections at Binghamton Airport.  The assessment of existing heated pavements should include a review of what drove the business case for the heated pavement installation and what proven benefits these existing systems can provide.  The Subcommittee also suggests that the project schedule include explicit decision points together with “go/no go” criteria to its project schedule so research funds can be conserved in the event this research does not prove fruitful.

FAA Response:

The FAA has completed an assessment of airfield heated pavement installations at airports known to have such installations.  The assessment includes the business decisions used to justify the heated pavement installation, the proven benefits for such a system, as well as the life-cycle costs for the installation.  A detailed analysis of the prototype heated pavement installation at the Greater Binghamton Airport has been delayed because of  funding issues with construction; those issues have been resolved and construction has begun with completion expected by early summer 2013.  Data on winter system performance will be available for the 2013-2014 winter season.   The research project schedule will include explicit decision points with “go/no go” criteria so that research funds can be conserved in the event that proposed heated pavement research initiatives do not lead to beneficial outcomes.

Current Status: 

March 2013 – This recommendation in being investigated, we will continue to update the Subcommittee on our progress. Status will remain OPEN until Binghamton Airport completes construction.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Fall _2012_02 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

Regarding RPD147, Aircraft Braking Friction, the Subcommittee believes that the research plan is very challenging and has significant risks that may impact its successful completion.  To help manage the risks associated with the project, the subcommittee believes that the project schedule should incorporate explicit decision points together with “go/no go” criteria to manage the risks associated with the research project.

Recommendation:

The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA add decision points together with “go/no go” criteria to its project schedule its project schedule so research funds can be conserved in the event this research does not prove fruitful.

FAA Response:

We understand the Subcommittees' concern. The FAA project schedule has been modified to include a Gant Chart identifying the duration of all major project tasks and linkages between these tasks.  Decision points, with “Go/No Go” criteria, will be identified at significant milestones in the FAA project schedule.  These decision points will provide a means for managing risk based on an objective evaluation of progress at significant project milestones. 

Current Status:

March 2013 – This recommendation has been implemented, we will continue to update the Subcommittee on our progress.  - CLOSED

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

ID #: Fall _2012_03 	Subcommittee: Airports

DFO Name: James White 		Recommendation Assignee Name: James White

Finding:

Regarding RPD145, 40-Year Pavement Life, the Subcommittee found that additional information was needed regarding the definition of what a 40-year pavement is as well as what would constitute a successful project outcome.  To help manage the risks associated with the project, the subcommittee believes that the project schedule should incorporate explicit decision points together with “go/no go” criteria to manage the risks associated with the research project.

Recommendation:

The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA provides the Subcommittee with a working definition of 40-year life and a list of expected pavement maintenance activities associated with 40-year pavement life-cycle at or before the next Subcommittee meeting. The Subcommittee also recommends that the FAA continues to solicit advice from the FAA Pavement Working Group, which meets twice a year, on this project.  Finally, as with RPDs 155 and 147, the Subcommittee recommends that the FAA add decision points together with “go/no go” criteria to its project schedule so research funds can be conserved in the event this research does not prove fruitful.

FAA Response:

The FAA is in agreement with the recommendation and will have a working definition of pavement life and a list of maintenance activities by the next Subcommittee meeting. The FAA will also continue to solicit advice from the participants of our yearly Working Group Meeting as well as add "go/no go" criteria to the 40-year pavement life project schedule.

Current Status:

March 2013 – This recommendation in being investigated, we will continue to update the Subcommittee on our progress. 

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

(1) Finding: The Subcommittee reiterated the need for continuing coordination between noise and sleep disturbance projects within the FAA Office of Energy and Environment's research and development program (e.g., PARTNER Projects #24: Noise Exposure Response: Annoyance and #25: Noise Exposure Response: Sleep Disturbance) and the noise study currently underway within the Airport Technologies Program (Airport Sleep and Annoyance/Aircraft Noise (RPD149)).

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment and the Subcommittee on Airports receive regular briefings regarding each subcommittee's noise projects to ensure that redundancy among these projects is minimized.

FAA Response:  The FAA will coordinate with the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment and the Subcommittee on Airports to develop a method for the two to exchange information on projects being conducted under each Subcommittee. This may be accomplished through briefings or through telecons. The FAA will investigate this further, and work with each Subcommittee to develop an agreeable process.	

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

(2) Finding: Regarding RPD 149, the Subcommittee would like to ensure that airport operators are informed about planned noise survey efforts well in advance of administration of these surveys.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the RPD149 project team meet with airport noise and environmental specialists at the airports where noise perception surveys will be administered to review the survey contents, research objectives, and survey plan (e.g., communities that will be surveyed and survey sample sizes) in advance of administration of the surveys.

FAA Response:  A communications plan for RPD 149 (Airport Sleep & Annoyance Data) is currently under development that will address the research objectives and plans for surveying the community and will cover not only communication with the airports participating in the study, but communications with other interested parties. With respect to the 20 airports, the plan will also instruct how the airport can address any questions or concerns they receive from the community during the data collection phase. It is important to note that the communication plan will balance the need to inform interested stakeholders with the need to ensure that the survey results will not be skewed by too much publicity regarding the project.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

(3) Finding: The Subcommittee appreciates the work to evaluate existing heated pavement installations in Heated Pavements (RPD 155), but had concerns about whether advanced materials research should take place before more convincing evidence can be provided regarding the circumstances under which heated pavement systems are cost effective.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee has reviewed the 2013 and 2014 work plans for the RPD155, but would like to continue to receive detailed briefings concerning project progress. We strongly recommend that the FAA describe the circumstances under which heated pavements are likely to be cost beneficial (high-speed exits, critical turn locations, aprons) as well as the rationale behind this assessment. We also recommend that additional efforts be put forward to estimate the life-cycle costs of these systems. The Subcommittee recommends that this work take place before additional work is performed on advanced heated pavement materials.

FAA Response:  The FAA will continue to provide detailed briefings on RPD155 (Heated Pavements) concerning its progress with research work on heated pavements. A significant portion of the research funding will be devoted to developing site specific information for several U.S. airports where heated pavements could be the most beneficial to airport operations. The site analysis will determine the best method of heating pavement and estimate lifecycle costs at the given location using currently available technologies. Recognizing the tremendous impact that heated pavements could have on winter operations while realizing the limitations of current heated pavement technologies, the FAA believes that a portion of the research dollars should be devoted toward advanced material research and construction techniques that could lower winter operational costs and improve airport safety. These funds should be prudently allocated toward emerging functional technologies, and to minimize risk, future project funding will be based upon meeting established research milestones and obtaining successful experimental results.		

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

(3) Finding: The Subcommittee appreciates the work to evaluate existing heated pavement installations in Heated Pavements (RPD 155), but had concerns about whether advanced materials research should take place before more convincing evidence can be provided regarding the circumstances under which heated pavement systems are cost effective.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee has reviewed the 2013 and 2014 work plans for the RPD155, but would like to continue to receive detailed briefings concerning project progress. We strongly recommend that the FAA describe the circumstances under which heated pavements are likely to be cost beneficial (high-speed exits, critical turn locations, aprons) as well as the rationale behind this assessment. We also recommend that additional efforts be put forward to estimate the life-cycle costs of these systems. The Subcommittee recommends that this work take place before additional work is performed on advanced heated pavement materials.

FAA Update:  March 2014 – The recommendation is being investigated; we will continue to update the Subcommittee on our progress. Below are specific items of interest:

•	A review of the use of heated pavement internationally has been completed and the requirement to heat the pavement was based on environmental concerns and safety reasons. No economic impact analysis was performed on the heated pavement.

•	The prototype heated pavement installation at the Greater Binghamton Airport was delayed due to funding issues and weather delays. Currently, the project is set to open at the end of April 2014 and a report will be provided on economic impact after a full winter of data collection.

•	A grant has been awarded to Iowa State University, through the PEGASAS Center of Excellence, to provide an economic analysis for heated pavement (“go/no go” criteria). This project started in August 2013 and a report will be provided by December 2014.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

(4) Finding: FAA has provided improved explanations of the objectives, research plan, and progress associated with RPD147, Aircraft Braking Friction. They have also included '"go/no go" decision points in the project schedule as requested by the Subcommittee. However, the Subcommittee continues to have concerns about the project's complexity and challenges associated with producing meaningful research results.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee will continue to closely monitor this project. We recommend that the FAA present results of dry/wet braking tests at our September 2013 meeting to assess project progress. In addition, if data from winter condition tests that will be performed during the Winter 2013-2014 season isn't available for reporting by the Subcommittee's Spring 2014 meeting, the Subcommittee recommends holding a special coordination call with FAA staff to discuss these results in May or June 2014 to assess progress.

FAA Response:  We understand the Subcommittee's concern regarding the production of meaningful research results on Aircraft Braking Friction. The FAA is currently working to prepare the Braking Research Aircraft for testing with the nose gear brakes on dry/wet pavement surfaces during the summer of 2013 and will be prepared to present the results of this testing to the Subcommittee at the upcoming September (fall) meeting. In addition, the FAA will continue preparation for main landing gear testing in snow/slush/ice conditions during the winter of

2013/2014 and will be prepared to present the results of this testing to the Subcommittee during the spring 2014 meeting. Should the data and results not be available for the spring 2014 meeting, the FAA will coordinate a special call with the Subcommittee to discuss the results. This special call would be planned as soon as the data is analyzed, but no later than June 2014.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

(5) Finding: The Subcommittee is pleased to see that many of the FAA's aircraft and rescue and

firefighting projects are concluding successfully.

Recommendation: As Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) project technical reports – particularly those associated with cargo aircraft-become available, we encourage the FAA to distribute widely to key stakeholders, including airport ARFF representatives and cargo airline representatives.

FAA Response:  The FAA will take action to ensure that cargo related ARFF project technical reports are being widely distributed to key stakeholders. Plans are underway to increase awareness of the research and the availability of the reports on FAA's public accessible Web site, as well as distributable electronic media that will contain all recent ARFF related technical documents that have been published over the last decade. The FAA will also investigate the possibility of advertising the availability of the reports through airport and airport firefighting related organizations.

FAA Update: Since the Spring meeting, the ARFF program has attended two major ARFF related events (ICAO Rescue and Firefighing Working Group and the ARFF Working Group) and has handed out electronic media with all recent ARFF related technical documents that have been published over the last few years.  In addition, we are exploring the development of an electronic subscription service in which a user could sign up to receive email notification anytime a new technical document is added to our web site.  This may have benefit to both the pavements and safety sides of  the house.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

(6) Finding: The Subcommittee believes that the FAA is making good progress on several research projects that deal with advanced sensor technologies (i.e., foreign object debris (FOD) detection in Airport Design (RPD 133), avian radar in Wildlife Hazards Research and Development (RPD 150), and low cost surface surveillance in RPD 151 ), but would like to see additional focus on the operational integration of these systems in the field environment. There is also a desire to utilize identified operational needs as the basis for technology specifications, rather than starting from current vendor system capabilities, which may exceed these operational

needs.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends explicit consideration of operational integration of the aforementioned airport sensor technologies into the airport environment and the development of operational justifications for the specifications developed under the research program.

FAA Response:  With respect to the integration of avian radar technology into the civil airport operational environment, the FAA concurs with the Subcommittee's Finding and Recommendation. Current research of commercial avian radar systems is in its final stage of Operational Integration for airport wildlife management applications with ongoing projects at Chicago O'Hare, Dallas Fort-Worth, and Seattle-Tacoma International airports where issues of wildlife hazards management are the focus. The FAA has also recently initiated a study to

identify the feasibility, practicability, and cost effectiveness of utilizing bird radar information in the Air Traffic Control (ATC) environment. The preliminary stages of studying integration into ATC are underway where operational justifications, user requirements, and Concepts of Operation (CONOPs) are being established and coordinated through the FAA's NextGen Concepts Development and Validation Branch.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

FAA Response Continued:  FAA is also engaged in studying the effective operational integration of FOD detection systems at airports. While the publication of Advisory Circular AC 150/5220-24 Foreign Object Debris

(FOD) Detection Equipment in 2009 established a performance specification and determined the technical capabilities of various systems, it is yet to be determined to what extent and how the available features of these FOD detection systems and equipment will be best utilized in the airport environment in order to improve safety. Through cooperation with a few large airports, the FAA is facilitating the deployment of automated FOD detection systems to study operational integration including a comparative analysis between using automated FOD detection systems current best practices of FOD management.

FAA Update:  The FAA has issued a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with ANG-C43 (Concepts and Validation Branch) to facilitate integration of the avian radar technology into the Air Traffic Control environment. In addition, current avian radar system deployment efforts are being heavily focused on identifying their operational feasibility. 

The FAA has issued a “Other Transaction Agreement” (OTA) with MassPort to facilitate further testing of the Xsight FOD Detection system at BOS, and is currently awaiting further information from  AAS on potential deployments of other detection systems. 

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

(7) Finding: Regarding Pavement Design and Evaluation (RPD 145), the Subcommittee believes that the FAA has addressed our recommendations from our Fall 2012 meeting on a conceptual level. These recommendations included (1) definition of the term “40-year design life” and (2) description of project success criteria. This said the Subcommittee would like to see refinement and embellishment of these definitions as the project proceeds. There was also a desire to have opportunities for more robust industry participation of the project by subject matter experts (SME) in both asphalt & Portland cement concrete design.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends forming a SME advisory panel with selected members of the Subcommittee and the Airfield Pavement Working Group that can collaborate with the FAA project team directly in its refinement and execution of the RPD 145 work plan, leaving the subcommittee free to focus on the higher level aspects of the pavement research program.

FAA Response:  The FAA is in agreement with the recommendations and will have a Subject Matter Expert (SME) advisory panel in place consisting of a concrete Industry representative (Gary Mitchell), an asphalt Industry representative (Monte Symons), both Mitchell and Symons are also members of the Subcommittee, two Airport Authority Representatives (Scott Murrell – PANY/NJ & Kathy Masters - AHJIA), and an Airports Consultants Council representative (Dean Rue – CH2M Hill). Several of these representatives are also members of the FAA Pavement Working Group. The panel will collaborate with the FAA project team headed by Jeffrey Gagnon

FAA Update:  The SME Group is currently made up of the following:

1.Jeff Gagnon (ANG-E262)	2. David Brill (ANG-E262)	3. Greg Cline (AAS-100)	4. Joe Herbert  (APP-500)

5. Gary Mitchell –(ACPA)	6. Monte Symons (AI)		7. Scott Murrell (PANY/NJ) 	8. John Rone (HJAIA )	

9. Dean Rue (CH2M Hill)

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

(8) Finding: The Subcommittee believes that research conducted by the FAA demonstrates that trapezoidal transverse, pavement grooves improve runway drainage and reduce groove wear in comparison to conventional rectangular transverse grooves.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee encourages the FAA to make necessary modifications to its advisory guidance-particularly Advisory Circular 150/5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces- so that airport operators can utilize trapezoidal grooves to improve runway drainage and friction under wet conditions should they desire.

FAA Response:  The FAA appreciates the support of the Subcommittee regarding the success of the trapezoidal pavement grooves. The FAA will continue providing the Office of Airports with the required technical information to support modifications to Advisory Circular 150/5320-12C that will allow for airport operators to begin utilizing trapezoidal grooves, should they desire.

FAA Update:  As of August 12th, this issue is still under review in the Office of Airport Safety and Standards.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2013

(9) Finding: The Subcommittee encourages the National Airport Pavement Test Facility (RPD 138) project to continue investigating high strength concrete effects on pavement fatigue life. The current research results indicate that high strength (e.g., flexural strength of approximately 1000 psi) PCC surface layers perform as well or better than medium strength PCC surface layers (e.g., flexural strength of 750 psi) assuming that the PCC layers are of the same thickness. While these results provide evidence that the FAA’s flexural strength design limits can be relaxed provided pavement section thicknesses are held constant, they do not address the important relationship between pavement strength and pavement thickness. The Subcommittee believes that the significant benefit of using higher strength materials lies in being able to reduce construction costs through the use of thinner PCC surface layers. Many local areas are able to achieve higher strength concrete with normal construction practices. Making use of this phenomenon is logical and can help reduce construction cost.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends the FAA continue research on the effects of higher strength concrete on concrete pavement fatigue life by investigating the pavement life when reducing pavement thickness proportionally to the increase pavement strength. Until such research is completed, relaxation in maximum flexural strength limits for PCC surface layers should be conditioned on the retention of “conventional” PCC surface layer thicknesses.

FAA Response:  The FAA will continue to investigate high strength concrete effects on pavement fatigue life through both laboratory fatigue tests and full-scale studies considering the relationship between concrete flexural strength and thickness. We will seek to obtain further validation for relaxed upper flexural strength limits from field studies at airports where the design slab thickness is intentionally less than would be allowed given the current maximum design flexural strengths, but is nevertheless consistent with high concrete strengths normally achieved in the field. We will prefer projects where high flexural strength is achieved conventionally, without relying on excessive cement content, additives, or other extraordinary means.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

FALL 2013

(1) Finding:  Research on Trapezoidal Grooves is ready to be translated into practice.  The Subcommittee notes that FAA Office of Airports has not yet taken action on the Subcommittee’s recommendation that FAA Office of Airports make necessary modifications to its advisory guidance—particularly Advisory Circular 150/5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces—so that airport operators can utilize trapezoidal grooves to improve runway drainage and friction under wet conditions should they desire.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee reiterates its recommendation that FAA Office of Airports make necessary modifications to its advisory guidance—particularly Advisory Circular 150/5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces—so that airport operators can utilize trapezoidal grooves to improve runway drainage and friction under wet conditions should they desire.

FAA Response:  The FAA appreciates the support of the Subcommittee regarding the success of the trapezoidal pavement grooves.  Airport Technology R&D Branch personnel will continue providing the Office of Airports with the required technical information to support modifications to Advisory Circular 150/5320-12C that will allow airport operators to begin using trapezoidal grooves on our nation’s runways, should they desire.  As of August 12th, this issue is still under review in the Office of Airport Safety and Standards.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

FALL 2013

(2) Finding:  High strength concrete research should incorporate material properties considerations.  regarding RPD138, the Subcommittee appreciates the progress the FAA continues to make regarding how use of high strength concrete may affect pavement fatigue life.  However, the team also notes that constructability, quality, and practicability considerations can be significant when high strength concrete is used.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the RPD138 project team include consideration of constructability, quality, and practicability considerations in its evaluation of high strength concrete pavements, especially when it comes to the development of new or revised design standards for these pavements.

FAA Response:  The FAA agrees with the Subcommittee’s recommendation and recognizes that high concrete strength should not be achieved by compromising constructability, quality, or practicability.  Current mix design standards for concrete pavement (in particular, applicable standards for cementitious materials content) may need to be revised if current limitations on concrete design strength are relaxed.  The FAA will work to develop data to support any such proposed change as part of RPD 138.  Maximum cementitious materials contents used at the NAPTF for full-scale testing were in the range of 650 – 700 pounds for the 1,000 psi (high-strength) mix.  This is not considered excessive and no negative effects on quality or constructability were observed in the full-scale tests.  The FAA will consider other potential sources of data that may support new or revised mix design requirements for higher strength concrete as well as the relevant experience of other agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Defense.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

FALL 2013

(3) Finding:  Greater situational awareness needed among research programs when it comes to Safety Database Development and Management.  The Airport Technology Program is currently engaged in the development of an airport safety database as part of RPD141.  This database fuses information from the FAA’s wildlife strike database as well as accident and incident reports from FAA and NASA databases.  Subcommittee members would like to ensure that this database is being developed in coordination with other FAA lines of business, particularly when it comes to the use of these databases to drive new standards and advisory guidance.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the development of databases—especially safety databases—be readily available to other research programs, particularly those underway within the Aviation Safety and NAS Operations portfolios to ensure that other lines of business and research teams are aware of them.  We also suggest that there be some means of coordination among the various FAA research programs when it comes to the development and use of these databases.

FAA Response:  The Airport Technology Research and Development Branch’s Airport Safety Database was created to be a tool for the Office of Airports to use in determining where future airfield improvement and/or research and development efforts should be directed to address the top risk areas on our Nation’s airports.  One of the challenges of developing this tool was the amount of data mining that was required to extract data from the accident and incident reports in which hazards on the airport or the geometry of the airport itself were found to be a contributing factor.  All the data that is in the Airport Safety Database was taken from other databases already being used by other FAA lines of business.  It is important to remember, however, that the Airport Safety Database only includes data points that are of specific interest to the Office of Airports for the specific purpose of identifying top risk areas on airports.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

FALL 2013

(4) Finding:  Better definition is needed regarding “Safety Mitigation Plans” to be developed as part of the Airport Safety Database Project and these plans should be coordinated with stakeholders outside of FAA.  As part of their briefings on RPD141, the FAA noted that an upcoming task will be development of “safety mitigation plans”.  However, it was unclear what the content of these plans would be. Subcommittee members expressed concern that if such plans include airport-specific recommendations—rather than systemic recommendations—they must be coordinated with affected airport operators and other stakeholders.

Recommendation: We recommend that the FAA establish an informal “safety working group” similar to the already established “40-year design life working group”, which can be used as a sounding board by the FAA regarding the feasibility, effectiveness, and priorities of identified mitigation strategies.  We also recommend that the FAA more clearly define the intent and scope behind the terminology “safety mitigation plans”.

FAA Response:  The Safety Mitigation Plans that were mentioned to the Subcommittee in describing the Airport Safety Database are internal FAA documents created to outline future research efforts that the Office of Airports should pursue to mitigate the top risk areas identified in the Airport Safety Database.  The FAA did form teams to develop each of the safety mitigation plans.  The teams were comprised of subject matter experts, data analysts, and specialists from within the Office of Airports to ensure all aspects of safety were covered.  The Safety Mitigation Plans are intended solely for the use of the Office of Airports.  At the Spring 2014 meeting, the FAA will provide the Subcommittee with a clearer description of this research effort to eliminate any confusion on the purpose of the database and the mitigation efforts.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

FALL 2013

(5) Finding:  The Subcommittee should be more involved in the development and prioritization of new research tasks.  In recent years, the Subcommittee has not taken a very active role in developing and reviewing new or revised research tasks that are undertaken by the Airport Technologies Research Program.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA seek input and advice from the Subcommittee when new research requirements are developed.  We believe that Subcommittee member expertise can help to strengthen and/or focus these research requirements and will provide the Subcommittee with improved situational awareness regarding new research the FAA is undertaking.

FAA Response:  The FAA agrees that the Subcommittee members’ expertise can help to strengthen and/or focus our research requirements.  In the past, Subcommittee members have been contacted to provide input and suggestions for the future research direction of the Airport Technology R&D Program.  As an example, during the last several meetings the Subcommittee was provided with a draft of the Airport Technology 10-Year Research Plan for comments and suggestions.  Those comments were all carefully considered and integrated into the final document.  The FAA appreciates the Subcommittee’s offer to provide input and advice on new research requirements and will solicit their advice when possible.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

FALL 2013

(6) Finding:  FAA Research into Extended Airfield Pavement Life-Cycles needs to include consideration of paving and subbase material characteristics.  Regional paving material and subbase characteristics can have a significant impact on pavement life and should be considered in the FAA’s “40-year airfield pavement project” (RPD146).

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that regional paving material and subbase characteristics and their impacts on pavement design life be explicitly addressed in RPD146.

FAA Response:  The FAA agrees with this recommendation.  The FAA recognizes that base and subbase characterization based solely on the subgrade California Bearing Ratio (CBR) number may be ignoring other characteristics that contribute to pavement life.  We will continue to collect subgrade material samples from various regions for characterization in our laboratory.  We are currently characterizing in-situ subgrade, subbase, and base materials during airport pavement construction (three airports completed to date).  We will also consider extending the field sample collection element under the 40-year life project to include subbase and subgrade material samples wherever possible.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2014

(1) Finding:  The Branch staff's request for a modest budget increase in FY 2016 for the Airport Technologies Research Program appears justified in light of the Branch's ongoing and planned future research projects.

Recommendation: We recommend that the FAA fund the Airport Technologies Research Program in accordance with FAA Branch staff requests.

FAA Response:  Although the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Airport Technology Research budget request is still a draft until the FAA budget for FY 2016 is formally submitted to Congress next year, the FAA is pleased for the support received from the Subcommittee.

FAA Update: None.

CLOSED at FALL 2014 Meeting.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2014

(2) Finding:  Regarding the aircraft braking friction studies, the Subcommittee remains very interested in the Phase 1 goal of the project, which is to establish real relationships between surface conditions and tire dynamics. Branch staff continued to make progress on its data collection efforts for this important project over the past six months, despite a variety of technical challenges that have emerged during the testing program. Due to mechanical issues related to the test aircraft, only limited data was collected from snow-contaminated pavements during this past winter season. The Subcommittee is very interested in seeing if these data provide promising bases for evaluating pavement-tire interactions for snow-contaminated pavements. It appears that additional data collection efforts for snow-contaminated pavements will likely be needed next winter season.

Recommendation: We recommend that Branch staff provide an updated project schedule and "go/no go" decision points based on the need for additional data collection efforts during next year's winter season. We also recommend that staff assess ways in which the management of technical and schedule risks during the data collection process can be improved next season.

CLOSED at FALL 2014 Meeting.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

(2) Finding (con’t):

FAA Response:  The FAA Project Team successfully completed nose gear brake testing on manufactured snow on April 9 and 10, 2014. Data was collected and recorded during 17 aircraft test runs with the nose gear tires running through manufactured snow test beds and application of braking. Analysis of the data, which was completed on June 30, 2014 has shown that Project Team engineers were successful in collecting good, valid data during the tests runs. In addition, analysis has shown that the data correlates to the data that was collected during earlier test runs on both wet and dry pavement. An interim report highlighting the results of the testing on the manufactured snow test beds is being drafted and will be briefed to the Subcommittee during the fall meeting. An initial go/no go decision point was the evaluation of the effectiveness of data collection from testing on manufactured snow in being able to capture the full Mu-S lip Curve of the nose gear tires. This go/no go decision will be discussed at the next fall meeting. The next go/no go decision point will come at the end of the next winter season, in April 2015. This go/no go decision point will be based on the level of success of the FAA Project Team in conducting data collection during aircraft braking friction testing on natural winter contaminants (i.e., snow, slush, and ice) on the ACY Runway with the main gear braking system.

	The FAA Project Team will conduct an assessment to determine the most effective ways to manage both technical and schedule risks associated with the data collection process. Managing technical risks will include identifying aircraft items considered to be most vulnerable to failure during future testing and to maintain replacements for these items. Managing schedule risks will include ensuring that the aircraft is maintained in the proper operating condition to conduct testing during any predicted winter weather event. Managing schedule risk will also include conducting additional braking friction testing on manufactured snow.

FAA Update: The REDAC Subcommittee will be briefed on the results of braking friction testing conducted with the B727 Aircraft nose gear on manufactured snow.  The briefing will include data plots for all forces acting on the nose gear, brake pressure, and wheel slip during aircraft runs on both virgin snow and tracked snow.  Mu-Slip Plots will also be presented based on the data generated. CLOSED at FALL 2014 Meeting

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2014

(3) Finding:  The Subcommittee notes that FAA Office of Airports has still not yet taken action on the Subcommittee's recommendation that FAA Office of Airports make necessary modifications to its advisory guidance-particularly Advisory Circular 150/5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces - so that airport operators can use trapezoidal grooves to improve runway drainage and friction under wet conditions should they desire.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee reiterates its recommendation that FAA Office of Airports make necessary modifications to its advisory guidance-particularly Advisory Circular 150/5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces- so that airport operators can use trapezoidal grooves to improve runway drainage and friction under wet conditions should they desire. If additional research is needed to address outstanding design, reliability, or durability issues, we recommend that the FAA expedite the development of research project requests for these additional activities and move ahead with this research quickly.

FAA Response:  The FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards is currently reviewing the need for further research to evaluate the performance of trapezoidal shaped runway grooving in comparison with the rectangular shaped runway grooving in Advisory Circular 150/5320-12C. They intend to complete this review and provide an update at the fall REDAC Subcommittee meeting.

FAA Update:  To be provided by AAS.

CLOSED at FALL 2014 Meeting

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

SPRING 2014

(4) Finding:  The Airport Technology Program is currently engaged in the development of an airport safety database as part of Research Planning Description (RPD)141. This database fuses information from the FAA's wildlife strike database as well as accident and incident reports from FAA and NASA databases. Subcommittee members would like to ensure mechanisms exist for airport operators to view and assess the data for their facilities.

Recommendation: The Subcommittee recommends that mechanisms be established for airport operators to access the data in the airport safety database for their airports.

FAA Response:  The FAA concurs and will establish a process to provide any airport in the airport safety database, upon their request, an individual report summarizing all data collected for that airport.

FAA Update:  ATR continues to work with AAS on the determining the best way to provide customized data reports to airport operators. 

CLOSED at FALL 2014 Meeting

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

FALL 2014

Opportunities Need to Be Provided for Airport Operators to Review Safety Data Developed as Part of the Airport Safety Database Project

Finding 1: The Airport Technology Program is currently engaged in the development of an airport safety database as part of RPD141. This database fuses information from the FAA’s wildlife strike database as well as accident and incident reports from FAA and NASA databases. Subcommittee members would like to ensure mechanisms exist for airport operators to view and assess the data for their facilities. At the Summer 2014 Subcommittee Meeting, FAA staff reported that because the safety database relies on confidential safety reports from ASIAS and ATSAP, it cannot be released directly to airport operators. In response, the Subcommittee requested that a communication mechanism be established that would enable airport operators to determine how the safety database is being used by the FAA to develop safety and infrastructure recommendations for their airports.

Recommendation 1: The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA (1) identify a point of contact within FAA that airport operators can approach regarding data and findings/recommendations FAA has developed using the Airport Safety Database and (2) disseminate information to airport operators regarding this point of contact, a description of the Airport Safety Database, and how the FAA is using it.

FAA Update:  The POC for this effort will be John Dermody, AAS-100.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

FALL 2014

Aircraft Braking Friction Studies

Finding 2. The Subcommittee was pleased to see that Branch staff were able to collect a limited sample of data for snow-contaminated pavements before the end of 2013-2014 winter season. These data are promising and suggest that the B727 braking friction test vehicle is able to collect reliable data regarding aircraft tire/pavement interactions. Branch staff also discussed their preparations for the data collection in the 2014-2015 winter season and was satisfied that staff had taken appropriate steps to reduce manage schedule risks associated with the data collection effort this winter. The Subcommittee is interested to see the results of additional data collection efforts this winter season and will reassess project progress at our Spring 2015 meeting.

Recommendation:  n/a

FAA Update:  Closed at Spring Meeting 3/30/15.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

Spring 2015

Airport Planning RPD 132

Finding 1. The Subcommittee generally accepts and supports the Airport Technologies Program’s FY2017 budget. However, research needs identified by FAA staff in the field of Airport Planning (RPD 132) appear to exceed the amount allocated to this research project area.  These identified needs include modernizing the FAA’s runway exit design interactive model (REDIM), research to support improved FAA guidance regarding critical design aircraft designations, and developing training and guidance materials to support the FAA’s new runway simulator model.

Recommendation:  The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA review the RPD 132 budget and determine if sufficient funding exists to meet FY2017 needs as well as if ongoing planning projects need to be reprioritized in light of new planning research needs.

FAA Update:  DRAFT - The FAA concurs with the recommendation. Work performed under RPD 132 will be reviewed and integrated with other Airport Planning work conducted under RPD 139. These two RPD’s, and the associated funding, will be combined under the header of an “Airport Planning” Research Program Area. This new RPA will be the primary vehicle to conduct airport planning research. Prior to FY-17, the FAA’s Airport Technology Research Branch will work closely with the FAA’s Airports Planning Office to review and if needed, reprioritize the various airport planning research projects.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

Spring 2015

Airport Technologies Research Program (RPD 157)

Finding 2. Although the Subcommittee supports many of the proposals for new environmental research projects that will be funded within the Airport Technologies Research Program (RPD 157), we note that both safety and capacity must be considered included when assessing new types of noise mitigation techniques that can be applied to flight procedures, particularly higher glide slope approaches, delayed deceleration approaches, and the use of displaced arrival thresholds for noise abatement.  Safety and operational risk assessments should be integral to the assessment of all of these techniques.  Such assessments should involve subject matter experts from the pilot, air traffic, flight standards, and airport operator perspectives.

Recommendation:  The Subcommittee recommends that the FAA take steps to incorporate safety and capacity assessments into the RPD 157 research program as well as better define how the aforementioned perspectives from the pilot, air traffic, flight standards and airport operator communities will be incorporated onto its research plan.

FAA Update:  DRAFT - The FAA concurs with this recommendation and will take the necessary steps to consider safety and capacity when conducting environmental research.  The goal of the noise mitigation research is to find balance between noise and efficiency, so representative from the applicable office will be involved throughout the research phases.   The research will entail working with other FAA lines of business and subject matter experts to conduct safety and operational risk assessments for each operation identified to be preferable for community noise purposes, while maintaining flight procedure efficiency.  A second layer of safety and capacity validation will also be performed by the Airport Planning Research Program Area. 

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

Spring 2015

Low Cost Ground Surveillance Systems (LCGSS)

Finding 3. The Subcommittee appreciates that the proof of concept work associated with the low cost ground surveillance systems (LCGSS), particularly the optical surveillance system that has been pilot tested at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.  However, given the ongoing development of alternative surface surveillance systems, continuing reductions in the costs associated with automated dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transponders, and the oncoming 2020 ADS-B equipage deadline, the Subcommittee is interested in understanding the role LCGSS are likely to play at airports if and when they are available for implementation before significant additional research into these systems is conducted.

Recommendation:  The Subcommittee recommends that Branch staff develop a concept of operations that defines the roles and applications of the LCGSS in the National Air Transportation System given other surface surveillance programs and technology deployments that are underway, particularly surface surveillance systems that rely on ADS-B technology.  The concept of operations should consider what unique capabilities or deployment opportunities would exist for LCGSS as well as those capabilities that are likely be duplicated by ADS-B based surface surveillance systems.

FAA Update:  DRAFT - The FAA concurs with this recommendation. A concept of operations document for Low Cost Ground Surface Surveillance (LCGSS) will be prepared that will provide a description of LCGSS systems and their detailed role in enabling enhancements to the safety, operations and surveillance capacity of airports.  The description of the role of LCGSS will take into account the heterogeneous and evolving situation with respect to available surface surveillance technologies, the coincidence with Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) systems and interface with legacy surveillance systems. LCGSS will be considered as an independent system for small to mid-sized airports and as a complementary system to existing surveillance systems at larger airports. 

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

Spring 2015

Aircraft Braking Friction (RPD 147)

Finding 4. The Subcommittee continues to be pleased by the progress Branch staff are making to manage risks and reduce uncertainties associated with RPD147,  Aircraft Braking Friction.  These efforts include addressing safety issues associated with the test aircraft, enhancing the test aircraft’s braking systems to better represent those currently in use, and securing the services of a highly qualified test pilot.  Branch staff have responded positively to Subcommittee concerns about the project and the Subcommittee believes that the Branch be in a good position to collect high quality data in early FY2016.

Recommendation:  N/A

FAA Update:  DRAFT - Since the last REDAC Subcommittee Meeting the Project Team has made significant progress in preparing the R&D 40 Aircraft for planned testing in FY2016.  The Anti-Skid Brake System (ASBS) on the R&D 40 has been upgraded from a Hydro-Aire Mark II to a Hydro-Aire Mark III Advanced System. Braking tests were conducted with the R&D 40 at ACY on a wetted runway which successfully validated the performance of the upgraded ASBS.  The upgraded ASBS provides performance characteristics representative of modern commercial aircraft.  Also, work is currently ongoing to upgrade the data acquisition system on the aircraft and to incorporate programmable valves and diverter valves for independently controlling the in-board main gear brakes.  It is anticipated that all work will be accomplished and validated by the end of the fiscal year so that the project will be well-positioned for the collecting of high quality data during aircraft brake testing on varying contaminated runway surfaces beginning in early FY2016. 

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

Fall 2015

RPA Reclassification

Finding 1.  The Subcommittee believes that the Airport Technology Research Program is on a solid footing and supports the allocations of program funds for FY2016 and 2017 presented by Branch staff. The Subcommittee also believes that FY2018 project priorities are appropriate, excepting the minor comments in contained in subsequent findings and recommendations contained in this report. The Subcommittee applauds the Branch staff’s efforts classify its research projects on the basis of subject-matter based research program areas (RPAs) rather than solely on the basis of individual research projects. The Subcommittee believes that this classification will improve our effectiveness in reviewing research program accomplishments and identifying future funding needs.

Recommendation:  The Subcommittee recommends that Branch staff expedite their efforts to classify projects by RPA and provide budget and spending reports using these classifications well in advance of the Subcommittee’s Spring 2016 meeting so we have ample time for review and comment.

FAA Update:  DRAFT - We concur with the recommendation. For FY-17 and beyond, projects will now be re-classified by Research Program Areas (RPA’s) and RPA budgets will be provided to the Subcommittee two weeks ahead of the 2016 Spring meeting.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

Fall 2015

Variability of Asphalt and Concrete Mix Designs

Finding 2. In the review of the long life pavement design project, information as to the variability of engineering properties of materials that meet FAA specifications. It has been known that local materials—especially aggregates—can meet FAA specifications but may result in a wide range of resulting performance. As the system moves towards more engineering based designs understanding this variability and accounting for it in the design process is critical in providing consistent long-life pavements.

Recommendation:  A study should be initiated that looks into the variability of asphalt and concrete mix designs that meet FAA specifications. Special attention should be paid to a range of local materials—especially aggregates—that meet national specifications that are known to have marginal performance.

FAA Update:  DRAFT - We concur with the recommendation. There are two concurrent projects in progress that can provide data/information to study the variability of asphalt and concrete mix designs that meet FAA specification. Pavement material samples collected from airport sites under Extended Life project and Field Instrumentation & Testing project can be used for the study. In addition, we will work with FAA HQ to investigate whether FAA Regional Offices could augment our database by providing mix designs and material samples from specific construction projects at airports in their region. FAA’s NextGen Pavement Materials Testing Laboratory is fully equipped to perform strength and performance tests on these materials/samples collected.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

Fall 2015

Concept of Operations for LCGSS

Finding 3. As we noted in our Spring 2015 report, the Subcommittee appreciates that the proof of concept work associated with the low cost ground surveillance systems (LCGSS), particularly the optical surveillance system that has been pilot tested at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. However, given the ongoing development of alternative surface surveillance systems, continuing reductions in the costs associated with automated dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transponders, and the oncoming 2020 ADS-B equipage deadline, the Subcommittee is interested in understanding the role LCGSS are likely to play at airports if and when they are available for implementation before significant additional research into these systems is conducted. We also recognize the need for this research to be coordinated with other research programs within the FAA—particularly the air traffic management and safety research programs—as well as with NASA, which is engaged in a significant airport surface management research effort of its own.

Recommendation:  The Subcommittee reiterates our recommendation that Branch staff develop a concept of operations that defines the roles and applications of the LCGSS in the National Air Transportation System given other surface surveillance programs and technology deployments that are underway, particularly surface surveillance systems that rely on ADS-B technology. The concept of operations should consider what unique capabilities or deployment opportunities would exist for LCGSS as well as those capabilities that are likely be duplicated by ADS-B based surface surveillance systems. We also strongly recommend increased collaboration among the FAA’s research programs and with NASA regarding both surface surveillance and airport surface management. 

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

Fall 2015

Concept of Operations for LCGSS  (Continued)

FAA Update:  DRAFT - We concur with the recommendation.  A concept of operations for Low Cost Ground Surface Surveillance (LCGSS) will be prepared and will provide a description of LCGSS systems and their detailed role in enabling enhancements to the safety, operations and surveillance capacity of airports.  The description of the role of LCGSS will take into account the heterogeneous and evolving landscape of other available surface surveillance technologies, the coincidence with Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) systems and interface with legacy surveillance systems. LCGSS will be considered as an independent system for small to mid-sized airports and as a complementary system to existing surveillance systems at larger airports.  Our approach will include increased collaboration among other relevant research programs within the FAA and with NASA with respect to airport surface surveillance and surface management. 

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

REDAC Recommendations

Fall 2015

Overload Criteria for Flexible Pavements

Finding 4. The Subcommittee agrees that research is needed to develop rational overload criteria for flexible pavements (e.g., asphalt concrete pavements). The current ICAO overload criteria for flexible pavements limits overload to 10 percent above the reported pavement classification number (PCN); for rigid pavements (e.g., Portland cement concrete), the limit is 5 percent above the reported PCN. The research shows that the 10 percent flexible pavement overload may be overly conservative for thin flexible pavements. In addition, many general aviation airfields with rigid pavements have performed well and exceeded their design lives while supporting loads that far exceed the rigid pavement design strength. This suggests that the ICAO 5 percent rigid pavement overload criteria are may also be overly conservative as well.

Recommendation:  The Subcommittee recommends the overload project be expanded to reevaluate the 5 percent overload criteria for rigid pavements and 10 percent overload criteria for flexible pavements.

FAA Update:  DRAFT - We concur with the Subcommittee’s recommendation. Current full-scale testing at the NAPTF in Construction Cycle 7 is intended to evaluate the 10 above PCN overload criterion for flexible pavements and to recommend more rational criteria. Preliminary results from CC7 confirm that the 10 percent criterion is highly conservative. We plan to use the first phase of testing in Construction Cycle 8 (CC8) to similarly evaluate the 5 percent above PCN overload criterion for rigid pavements.

*

FAA Airport Safety R&D

March 2016

Airport Safety R&D

FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center

Airport Safety R&D Section

ANG-E261, Building 296

Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405

Jim.Patterson@faa.gov  609-485-4989

www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov

*