Operating aircraft near runway/taxiway construction projects adds extraordinary complexity for everyone involved. Today’s risk mitigations consequently have the best chance of success under a blame-free, open communication approach with all airport stakeholders well versed in the latest safety resources and planning tools, says a current U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) educational campaign.
Pilots, for example, already may be familiar with U.S. air traffic controllers’ use of special clearance phraseology during such projects. However, clearance wording introduced last September to heighten flight crew awareness of reductions in available takeoff/landing distance is just one of many defenses against human error and safety system issues related to temporarily shortened runways.
Threats to flight operations from construction-related communication issues and other factors have necessitated these extra mitigating actions, says Jim Krieger, chairman of the FAA’s Airport Construction Advisory Council (ACAC) and staff manager, Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) Air Traffic Control Tower. Relevant safety events at ORD in 2009 (Table 1) were among many analyzed before taking these actions.
| Event Date and Description | |
|---|---|
| May 6 — The flight crew of a Bombardier CRJ landed on Runway 10 and rolled into the relocated threshold area.2
Context and Causal Factors: Closure of this construction area occurred one day earlier than originally planned. Placards at ORD ATC control positions had correct closure information but showed an effective date of May 7. Appropriate NOTAMs were in effect; the relocation coincided with the airport chart revision date. Pilots’ Jeppesen 20-9 chart contained information about the construction area; the airport diagram did not. When ATC issued the landing clearance, the controller gave the flight crew the option to roll out to Taxiway M5. Controllers had been briefed about this closure weeks in advance. However, the incident controller was unaware that the Runway 28 threshold had been relocated at this time. Investigators learned that NOTAM data on tower information systems was scrollable — that is, hidden from users’ view unless they scroll the page. Safety Issues and Mitigations: ORD ATC supervisors changed their standard practice to conducting briefings in advance of closure and on the day of closure. They adopted a policy of placing support personnel in the tower when closure/modification takes place to answer questions, give guidance and ensure complete understanding of construction effects. They warned tower personnel about the potential for “hidden” NOTAM data on tower information system displays. They took steps to enable placement of specific closure wording on the ATIS broadcast in advance of the effective date with a toggle for controllers. They routinely initiated highly visible, internal and external advertising campaigns about construction safety issues in the days leading up to major closures. |
|
| May 14 — The flight crew of an MD80, landing on Runway 28, touched down in the relocated threshold portion of the runway; the crew saw the construction barricades and then conducted a go-around.
Context and Causal Factors: ATC cleared the flight crew for a visual approach and told them that the ILS glideslope was out of service. The event occurred after a pilot awareness campaign had been conducted in the airline operations area. The airline community also had been briefed through the ATCSCC. Safety Issues and Mitigations: Broadcast ATIS information about the relocated threshold was missing from the version printed on the aircraft flight deck via ACARS. In response, the ATC tower took steps to ensure that all pertinent ATIS information would be transmitted via ACARS. Stakeholders asked if the Runway 28 construction environment looked “too normal.” The warning chevrons on the closed pavement met standards but were hard to see from a distance so the airport doubled the width of the chevrons. The removal of runway markings during construction had left a “clean” concrete surface that looked from the air like freshly painted runway markings. The airport installed REILs at the new threshold. Visible changes were made to the closed portion of Runway 28 to make it look less like a runway. In one change, the original touchdown area was scarified (abraded by a grinder) to make the appearance “out of the norm.” In another change, the scarified centerline and touchdown area were painted black to visibly blend with the blackened (rubber) portions of the original touchdown zone. ATC subsequently selected the Runway 28 edge lights to constant “ON” whenever the runway was active. The airport also painted a new blast fence in an aviation orange/white checkerboard pattern just prior to installation. |
|
| September 9 — The flight crew of a Boeing MD-10 entered Runway 10 from Taxiway ZH then conducted their takeoff with less than 6,000 ft (1,829 m) available.
Context and Causal Factors: At the time of the takeoff, several vehicles had been staged in the construction area waiting for entire runway to close. On Sept. 10, the Chicago Department of Aviation notified ORD of damage to the blast fence on Runway 10-28. Only one aircraft — the MD-10 — had departed Runway 10 the previous evening. Investigators discovered that the event flight crew actually had 5,975 ft (1,821 m) available, despite telling the local controller that they were too heavy to use Runway 22L, which had 8,075 ft (2,461 m) available. The pilots’ decision was not challenged by ATC. Investigators found evidence suggesting that the airplane barely cleared the blast fence, and they said that the consequences of the takeoff could have been catastrophic. Safety Issues and Mitigations: Numerous NOTAMs were in effect at ORD, and notification of the Runway 28 relocated threshold was far down the six-page list. The relocated threshold information was missing from the ATIS broadcast. ORD ATC personnel subsequently received a face-to-face briefing about speaking up to break the causal chain, with the reminder “If it seems wrong, it is wrong.” The laptop computer used for performance calculations on the flight deck reportedly was not linked with the NOTAM system. In the past, the event air carrier’s flight crews commonly used Taxiway ZH as their point for initiating takeoffs on Runway 10. The phraseology of ORD ATIS messages was revised to include the warning “Runway 10-28 has been shortened … check NOTAMs.” A panel was formed to produce the safety risk management document for the 2010 Runway 32L relocation project to address these issues and prevent a recurrence. |
|
| September 20 — The flight crew of a Boeing 747 departed Runway 10, mistakenly believing that they had 13,000 ft (3,962 m) of runway available.
Context and Causal Factors: The flight crew later said that they had inadvertently selected a thrust setting less than required and “upon reaching V1,3 barricades became visible, full takeoff thrust was selected resulting in an immediate rotation and clearance of the runway.” They recalled that “no sign of construction was visible” during the event because of the angle of the sun as the aircraft crossed Runway 10 at Taxiway ZH. They also said that they knew all about the runway relocation from the NOTAM but selected Runway 10 for departure instead of Runway 14R, the runway with 13,000 ft available. Their ATC clearance had included instructions to taxi to Runway 10 “full length.” The crew later said that their aircraft performance calculations had been done assuming the full length of the runway was available, and they cited ATC’s use of the term full length as a contributing factor in the event. ORD ATC later decided that the term full length no longer would be used for operations on shortened runways. Safety Issues and Mitigations: ORD ATC subsequently required controllers to issue the remaining distance to flight crews for all Runway 10 intersection departures, and briefed controllers to discontinue the use of the term full length for operations on shortened runways. |
|
Acronyms: ACARS = aircraft communications addressing and reporting system; ASDA = accelerate-stop distance available; ATC = air traffic control; ATIS = automatic terminal information service; ATSCC = FAA Air Traffic Control Systems Command Center; FAA = U.S. Federal Aviation Administration; ILS = instrument landing system; LDA = landing distance available; NOTAMS = notices to airmen; REIL = runway end identifier lights; TODA = takeoff distance available; TORA = takeoff run available
Notes
Source: U.S. Federal Aviation Administration |
Latent effects of runway/taxiway construction are often difficult to predict or even to detect, Krieger said. “Many serious events have happened because of airport construction, and it is difficult to see them coming,” he said. “If the closure pattern and sequence are not well planned, for example, bottleneck intersections and extra runway crossings raise the safety risk, so it’s important to get the details right. A big red flag for the ACAC is when we hear someone say, ‘This is just a taxiway project,’ or ‘We have done this a million times.’
“This effort is not about blame because that approach gets us nowhere. The key in any given safety event is to determine why everything made sense to the individuals involved at the time. Once we know that, we have something to work with.”
Characteristic Hazards
Operations on runways shortened due to construction represent the riskiest type of activity that involves air traffic control (ATC), Krieger said. “These operations are the only situation in which we intentionally put aircraft, people, vehicles and sometimes other objects on the same piece of pavement all at the same time,” he said.
The common denominator in recent construction-related flight safety events has been that “pilots, controllers and airfield personnel sometimes are just not aware of construction notices to airmen [NOTAMs],” Krieger said. “At the moment of truth, for whatever reason, people don’t know something has been altered on the runway, taxiway or wherever. While this is not new, the consequences of missing such information at the times that they need it most — like during the takeoff or landing phases of flight — cannot be overlooked. Sometimes people knew about the NOTAM at one point and later forgot; on other occasions, they simply never knew about the construction NOTAM at all.”
At major U.S. airports, aviation professionals sometimes have struggled to handle the high volume of raw data, to “separate the wheat from the chaff” in Krieger’s words. He noted that ORD typically publishes six pages of NOTAMs a day, and other U.S. airports publish 15 pages or more.
“When a serious 2009 safety event happened one evening in Chicago involving a shortened runway, more than 70 NOTAMs were in effect,” Krieger said. “The NOTAM that made all the difference in the world to this flight crew was buried in the list at about no. 56. The list’s no. 1 NOTAM, prioritized by currency, was, ‘Runway 22L windsock unlit’ — not too important in the grand scheme of things.”
The ACAC concluded in 2010 that causal factors in aircraft safety events associated with runway/taxiway construction include missed, forgotten or obsolete construction information that affects dispatchers, pilots and ATC; ineffective ATIS broadcasts; potential airport diagram improvements; confusion surrounding ATC’s use of the term “full length”; missing or ineffective visual cues on the airport surface to reinforce or back up pilot/driver alertness to construction effects such as shortened runways; numerous unprioritized NOTAMs; and diverse human factors issues.
Key Web Page
The ACAC’s leaders urge the aviation community to take advantage of the FAA’s free and continually updated Runway and Taxiway Construction Web page www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/runway_construction. The Web page provides graphically enhanced NOTAMs called construction notices; a simple interface for searching, sorting and checking NOTAMs; a partial runway construction closure checklist; runway-taxiway construction best practices and lessons learned; and airport construction frequently asked questions. Using this Web page already has been shown to improve recognition of significant items within NOTAMs, enabling pilots and dispatchers to reduce the risk of missing construction-related information, Krieger said.
“We expect more website capabilities to be added as needed in the future, along with fillable online construction checklists for air traffic managers,” he said. The ACAC also has made presentations to many industry conferences. These have included advising aircraft operators and their flight operations safety specialists to note all the other changes. This will help to ensure that pilots recheck aircraft performance on shortened runways, he added.
Although rollout of changes within the FAA1 has met expectations, early data show lower Web page traffic from pilots than planned, Krieger said. The ACAC expects continued support from a dozen industry groups2 in promoting routine use of the Web page while other communication channels and materials — such the FAA’s What’s on Your Runway? promotional card — evolve.
Persuading non-FAA stakeholders to take advantage of the appropriate tools — especially if they may require updates to standard operating procedures — has been a challenge. “Getting the information out is the crux of what we are facing,” Krieger said. “We have different audiences — the pilot community, dispatchers, airport managers, the air traffic manager community and air traffic control [ATC] facility personnel. The pilot crowd is tough to reach because they are a diverse group using different types of communication. So, we’ve started with the Web page. But we will have failed if pilots do not know about the improved NOTAM access tools, construction notices, other safety information and where to find all these online.”
Highlights of Work
The ACAC was put together in 2010 as an ad hoc effort, said David Siewert, air traffic manager, John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Air Traffic Control Tower, and a leader-spokesman for the ACAC, along with Krieger, Robert Berlucchi and Rebecca Plentl.3 Early this year, the FAA asked the ACAC to write a charter to become a permanent part of the Air Traffic Organization (ATO). As of July, the charter was in near-final form, he said.
This agency support has enabled the ACAC to expand its composition, do more to publicize the changes already made, furnish on-site technical support for local airport construction projects and follow up on further proposed changes, Siewert said.4
Milestones include JFK and ORD construction reviews in December 2009 and April 2010, respectively, which led to the ACAC’s formation in April 2010; the initiation of the best practices and lessons learned document and the construction closure checklist for air traffic managers in May 2010; initiation of the downloadable construction notices in July 2010; acceptance of a safety risk management document, an element of the ATO’s safety management system (SMS), in May 2011; issuance of FAA Information for Operators, Runway Construction and Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) Messages (InFO 11015), effective Sept. 1, 2011; the FAA policy changes for air traffic managers, NOTAMs and ATIS that became effective Sept. 22, 2011; and the FAA’s decision to make the ACAC permanent.
In 2012, the ACAC has focused on addressing new safety issues involving runway/taxiway construction, adding people and organizations that bring wider expertise and perspectives, and joining forces with international efforts and non-U.S. counterparts.
For example, adding the Airline Dispatchers Federation to the ACAC has complemented outreach to pilots by the council, Krieger said. “Dispatchers are the ones who handle all the information that goes to airline flight crews, so getting those folks on board has filled a gap in ACAC communications.” Similarly, the ACAC’s connections to airport operators through the American Association of Airport Executives and Airports Council International–North America have begun to identify airport companies that exemplify some of the leading safety practices in airport runway/taxiway construction. “A lot of airports are doing things the right way, and we need to speed the replication of safe practices at every opportunity,” he said.
Initiative Details
Some changes that the ACAC championed in 2010 now remind or warn pilots about their situation. One was made in FAA Order JO 7110.65S, Air Traffic Control. The policy requires that the words warning and shortened be added to ATIS broadcasts to say, for example, “Warning Runway 14R shortened, 9,800 ft [2,987 m] available, consult NOTAMs.” Also, the word shortened has been adopted by ATC for takeoff and landing clearances; for example, “Runway 10 shortened, cleared for takeoff [or cleared to line up and wait]” and “Runway 10 shortened, cleared to land.” Use of this phraseology continues for at least 30 days following the completion of construction when operations involve permanently shortened runways, or until the FAA Airport/Facility Directory has been updated with a new airfield diagram, whichever is longer.
These context-specific ATIS messages “should trigger a review of the available runway length (TORA [takeoff run available]) during the construction period,” the FAA’s announcement said. “These changes should prevent [pilots and operators] from assuming that the [shortened] runway in use is the published (maximum) length.”
The policy change also has eliminated the word “full length” in ATC phraseology when clearing pilots to take off or line up and wait on a shortened runway. The ACAC’s 2010 analysis had documented some runway safety events in which U.S. and non-U.S. pilots cited confusion about ATC use of the term.
“Phraseology changes are only a last line of defense, a memory jogger when the pilot or flight crew received a briefing about the runway shortening but a lot of things transpired between that briefing and when pilot is taxiing,” Siewert said. “We continue to address the systemic problems further back in the process. So we are still working diligently with FAA NOTAM specialists to come up with more ways to improve the NOTAM system.”
Other policy changes for ATC management were adopted into FAA Order JO 7210.3V, Facility Operation and Administration. These include the required notification of the ACAC about all construction projects at U.S. airports; training of ATC personnel prior to construction, if possible; and a pre-broadcast review of ATIS messages by a person other than the message originator.
Timely notification of the ACAC about airport construction through an email inbox — as now required of air traffic managers — also has been an important advance, Krieger said. This and other ACAC-recommended changes have been incorporated into the FAA handbooks for controllers and ATC managers. “If we don’t know about a project, we can’t help anybody involved or steer them in the right direction as far as our tools and resources,” he said. Similarly, the new policy requires air traffic managers to read the latest ACAC best practices and lessons learned document and to use the construction closure checklist.
Ideally, the new policy’s mandatory training of controllers prior to the start of a specific runway/taxiway construction project will use advanced methods. “We would like to see training done in an ATC simulator if the facility has access to one,” Krieger said. “Controllers shouldn’t have to learn this with live traffic on the day of the runway/taxiway closure. They should be able to see the impacts of the closure with relevant simulated traffic.”
Many FAA air traffic managers have realized they had been approaching these types of construction projects based on their unique life experiences and professional experiences, Siewert said. “Before the ACAC, there was no common or consistent set of tools for them,” he said. “The biggest benefit of the policy changes has been consistency. They now have the same tool box, the same checklist and the same help network available to them. We are very pleased with the level of consistency that is now being applied by tower managers.”
Construction Notices
The Aeronautical Information Service office in ATO Mission Support invented the construction notices to address pilot-reported shortcomings of the NOTAM system — focusing on the difficulty for pilots and dispatchers in recognizing and prioritizing the scattered information pertaining to runway/taxiway construction. “We believe that construction notices are the most intuitive way to communicate this NOTAM information,” Krieger said.
Each construction notice developed as part of a trial program has a simplified airport diagram with overlaid red “X” marks that show construction project areas with letters and arrows indicating corresponding NOTAMs, start dates and finish dates in an adjacent legend. Based on updates and verification of closures by FAA headquarters staff — currently performed weekdays excluding holidays — the construction notices are hosted on the National Flight Data Center website.
The FAA Aeronautical Information Office is planning to automate the labor-intensive, manual method of preparing a few dozen construction notices from NOTAM text and a geographic information system (GIS) database, Krieger said. “Automating the process means that more airports could have construction notices and, therefore, more pilots would benefit, making their potential widespread use a reality,” he said.
The ACAC expects construction notices to be generated within minutes of airport operators entering new construction-related NOTAM data that can be combined with GIS data, and upon approval, transferred quickly over networks to the FAA Web pages, Apple iPad applications, flight management systems, electronic flight bags and other communication points. The ACAC has proposed, as a priority, that the FAA’s 35 Operational Evolution Partnership airports be covered first, with towered airports next, and then other U.S. airports.
Positive Signs
Proposed airfield signs, as already approved for experimental use at ORD, indicate at runway intersections that a runway has been shortened and show pilots the TORA from that point. “We’ve asked the FAA Office of Airports to allow all airports to temporarily install approved signage at certain intersections that both the airport manager and the air traffic manager agree are most used by departing aircraft,” Krieger said. This office agreed to expedite its response to this request but a firm time frame has not been announced, he said.
The latest version of prototype lighted signage tested at ORD under a waiver of existing standards contains the message format “RWY 14R SHORTENED, TORA 9,685 FEET.” Signage showing runway remaining from taxiway intersections already is used by some non-U.S. airports, according to Krieger and Siewert. They have proposed the use of “safety orange” and a pattern of alternating diagonal white and orange stripes as a standard for temporary airport construction-related signage and markings. This color already is used for airport obstacles. Some ATC facilities, in cooperation with airports, may add temporary construction-related signage to communicate that a runway has been shortened.
“The Office of Airports is exploring the human factors aspects of the ACAC’s request to use this color on all runway and taxiway signage related to active construction closures,” Krieger said.
Ideally, this color alone would cause people to intuitively know they are in the vicinity of a construction area and “perhaps stop people from doing something that they didn’t intend to do by asking themselves, ‘What has changed here? Is there something about this runway that maybe we have overlooked or forgotten?’” he said.
Evidence of Value
Siewert said that many reports from the field offer preliminary evidence that the ACAC initiatives overall are making a difference to some pilots and other stakeholders. While providing on-site support during construction at Lafayette (Louisiana, U.S.) Regional Airport, ACAC representatives heard controllers report that pilots often follow up a clearance to land containing “shortened” with questions about the partial runway closure, such as “Which end is shortened and by how much?”
“These pilots said they did not know that the runway had been shortened until they heard our ‘Runway XX shortened’ phraseology,” Siewert said. “We also have received that feedback from other places. The tools that we have implemented are taking hold and have had an effect on enhancing safety.”
Similarly, numerous air carrier crews questioned ATC at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) about the state of the runway upon receiving their clearance to land with the “shortened” phraseology, Krieger added. “If our phraseology prompts them to ask these questions about what’s closed on that runway, that’s great,” he said. “That’s exactly the kind of response that we were hoping for — an opportunity for clarification and increased awareness. Without the information exchange, I don’t think that pilots were always aware of partial closures that could affect aircraft performance and safety.”
In a few cases, controllers also have responded to questions about shortened runways from airline crews that infrequently operate into an airport. “One crew called ORD clearance delivery to ask which end of a runway was shortened temporarily and by how many feet,” Krieger said. “The controller thought that was odd because, when he looked over to the parking spot, he did not see that aircraft and then 10 minutes later, he saw them touching down on the runway in question. The crew apparently needed to verify that they had sufficient information prior to landing.”
Global Dimensions
The ACAC also collaborates on flight safety issues involving runway/taxiway construction with stakeholders around the world, Krieger said. In 2012, the ACAC briefed the secretariat of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Air Navigation Bureau in February and the ICAO Air Navigation Commission in March. In response to ICAO’s request, the ACAC during July presented proposed construction-related revisions to ICAO Doc 9137, Airport Services Manual, Chapter 8, “Airport Operational Services.” “ICAO also has indicated that they will likely request ACAC participation in future Runway Safety Panel meetings,” he added.
“Our perspective is that pilots operating from one continent to another should hear and see the same types of mitigations,” Krieger said. Eurocontrol has requested information from member states on their relevant practices to enable comparisons, identify gaps and exchange best practices with the ACAC, Krieger said. “One state in Africa and one in Europe have indicated that collaboration on phraseology and other initiatives has merit for them,” he said. “A major European airport also contacted the ACAC after learning what we have done to improve safety in the United States.”
“Our perspective is that pilots operating from one continent to another should hear and see the same types of mitigations,” Krieger said. Eurocontrol has requested information from member states on their relevant practices to enable comparisons, identify gaps and exchange best practices with the ACAC, Krieger said. “One state in Africa and one in Europe have indicated that collaboration on phraseology and other initiatives has merit for them,” he said. “A major European airport also contacted the ACAC after learning what we have done to improve safety in the United States.”
In summary, Krieger said, “It’s risky to let the scope of a runway/taxiway construction project lull people into thinking that they don’t have to be concerned about flight operations safety. The ‘small’ projects have caused just enough confusion to result in accidents with many fatalities. We simply cannot afford to let down our guard.”
Notes
- The FAA entities primarily involved in the ACAC are the Air Traffic Organization [ATO] Mission Support Service; Air Traffic Control System Command Center; ATO Communications; ATO Safety and Technical Training; the FAASTeam; Flight Standards; Office of Airports; Technical Operation Service; and Terminal Services.
- Non-FAA collaborators include the Airline Dispatchers Federation; Airlines for America; Airports Council International–North America; American Association of Airport Executives; Air Line Pilots Association, International; AvWeb; Eurocontrol; Flight Safety Foundation; ICAO; International Air Transport Association; International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations; National Business Aviation Association; and National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
- Berlucchi is air traffic manager, Fort Lauderdale (Florida, U.S.) International Airport Air Traffic Control Tower. Plentl is assistant regional manager, Runway Safety Program, FAA Southwest Region.
- ACAC leaders received direction, resources and administrative flexibility within the ATO from Joseph Teixeira, vice president, Safety and Technical Training, and Tony Mello, acting director, Terminal Operations Headquarters.