transportation research board acrp 4-08 - improved models for risk assessment of runway safety areas...
TRANSCRIPT
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
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
April 19, 2023
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
DProject 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
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
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
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
Briefing Outline
• Background• Project Objective• Project Tasks• Data & Models• Risk Approach• Consequence Approach• Analysis Software• Validation
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
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
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
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
Goal was to develop methodology with capability to analyze either or combination of these alternatives
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
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
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
Project TasksLiterature Review
Collection and Preparation of Data Accident & Incident
Aircraft Normal Operations
Development of Risk Models
Development of Test Plan
Development of Software Outline
Interim Meeting
Development of Analysis SoftwareExecution of Test Plan
Select airports Collect airport data
Run analysis for selected airports Validate models & software
Testing of Analysis Software
Revised Software
Final report
Literature Review
Collection and Preparation of Data Accident & Incident
Aircraft Normal Operations
Development of Risk Models
Development of Test Plan
Development of Software Outline
Interim Meeting
Development of Analysis SoftwareExecution of Test Plan
Select airports Collect airport data
Run analysis for selected airports Validate models & software
Testing of Analysis Software
Revised Software
Final report
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
Database of Accidents and IncidentsDatabase 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
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
Events Counts of Collected DataEvents Counts of Collected Data
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
Three-Part Risk Model ApproachThree-Part Risk Model Approach
• Three -Part Risk Model
Eventprobability
Locationprobability
operating conditions (airplane performance, type of
operation, runway distance available and elevation,
weather conditions)
RSA characteristics, geometry,
presence of EMAS
type, size and location of obstacles
Consequences
• Three -Part Risk Model
Eventprobability
Locationprobability
operating conditions (airplane performance, type of
operation, runway distance available and elevation,
weather conditions)
RSA characteristics, geometry,
presence of EMAS
type, size and location of obstacles
Consequences
• Three -Part Risk Model
Eventprobability
Locationprobability
operating conditions (airplane performance, type of
operation, runway distance available and elevation,
weather conditions)
RSA characteristics, geometry,
presence of EMAS
type, size and location of obstacles
Consequences
Risk Classification
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
Frequency ModelsFrequency Models
...33221101
1}_{ XbXbXbbe
OccurenceAccidentP
RSA
x
y
Stop Location Probability Distributions
Based on accident, incident, normal operations and aircraft performance data
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
Location Models – Example for OverrunsLocation Models – Example for Overruns
xyRSA
Distance x from runway end
Pro
bab
ility
loca
tion
Exc
eed
s x
x1
P{Loc > x1}
naxexLocationP }{
Xrwy end
Prob=exp((-.00321)*X**(.984941))R2=99.8%
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Distance X from Runway End (ft)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
babi
lity
of S
topp
ing
Bey
ond
X
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
Consequence Approach
Lateral LocationProbability Distribution
y
Obstacle
yc yf
Psc
w1
Lateral LocationProbability Distribution
y
Obstacle
yc yf
Psc
w1
Obstacle
1/3 WS
Wingspan (WS)
a)
Obstacle
1/3 WS
Wingspan (WS)
b)
Obstacle
1/3 WS
Wingspan (WS)
a)
Obstacle
1/3 WS
Wingspan (WS)
b)
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
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)
Risk of Accident - Summary of ResultsOverall Results Risk Analysis Summary of Results by RunwaySummary Table Risk in Events per Million Movements
06 24
LDOR 4.57E-08 6.09E-08
LDOR 5.6E-08 >100 1.7 >100 TOOR 3.36E-07 2.50E-07
TOOR 2.8E-07 >100 4.8 >100 LDUS 1.50E-07 1.56E-07
LDUS 1.5E-07 >100 3.0 >100 LDVO 1.69E-06 2.69E-06
LDVO 2.0E-06 >100 9.0 >100 TOVO 9.04E-07 8.16E-07
TOVO 8.7E-07 >100 17.8 >100
Total 1.7E-06 >100 18.0 >100 Average # of Years Between Accidents
Airport Annual Volume: 4,500 06 24
Expected Traffic growth rate: 0.00% LDOR >100 >100
Target Level of Safety (TLS): 1.0E-06 TOOR >100 >100
LDUS >100 >100
Airport: Ugnu-Kuparuk LDVO >100 >100
Date of Analysis: 11/24/2010 TOVO >100 >100
Analyst: Hamid Shirazi
Percent Events Above TLS
06 24
LDOR 1.07 1.95
TOOR 6.20 4.13
LDUS 3.03 2.95
LDVO 9.10 8.85
TOVO 17.87 17.68
LDOR 2230
TOOR 2235 Summary of Operations Challenging the RSAsLDUS 2230 Movements Challenging each RSA
LDVO 2230
TOVO 2235 06 24
Total 11160 LDOR 746 1484
TOOR 758 1477
LDUS 1484 746
LDVO 1484 746
TOVO 1477 758
Total 5949 5211
1
RSAType of Accident
Type of AccidentAccident
Average Probability
Avrg # of Years to Critical Incident
% Ops Above TLS
Avrg # of Years to Critical Incident for
TLS
Accident NOD
Note: fields in yellow may be changed by user
Type of Accident
Type of Accident
RSA
RSA
RSA
Histogram of Total Risk
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
6.5E-08
2.0E-07
3.3E-07
4.6E-07
5.9E-07
7.2E-07
8.5E-07
9.8E-07
1.1E-06
1.2E-06
1.4E-06
1.5E-06M
ore
Probability Interval
Freq
uenc
y of
Ops
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cum
ulati
ve %
Ops
Frequency
Cumulative %
Notes1 - Fields in orange may be directly changed in spreadsheet by user2 - Results for overrun and undershoot consider all movements challenging each RSA adjacent to the ends of each runway3 - The total risk for the airport is per movement (landing and taking-off)4 - Each takeoff will challenge the RSA adjacent to the departure end for overruns and the lateral safety areas for veer-offs5 - Each landing will challenge the RSA adjacent to the arrival end for undershoots, the RSA adjacent to the departure end for overruns and the lateral safety areas for veer-off6 - Histogram for the whole airport is for any type of event and include each movement challenging the RSA
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
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)
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
DValidation
Incidents
Accidents
TRANSPORTATIONRE
SE
AR
CH
BO
AR
D
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