Publications 

Costs results

Overview per runway event and associated costs.

1. 2015

2. 2016

3. 2017

4. 2018

5. 2019

papers

1. Cost-benefit analysis arresting systems

2. Safety assessment of performance landing factors of business type aircraft.

3. Estimated cost-benefit analysis of runway reduction based on actual EMAS arrestments.

4. Estimated runway closure duration

5. Abstract ICTTE 2016

6. Abstract 2017 Safety forum

7. Early Cost analysis runway safety events

Presentations

1. EBACE 2014

2. EBACE 2015

3. EBACE 2016

4. EBAA technical Vienna 2016

5. EBASCON 2016 public

6. ICTTE 2016

7. Modern Africa

8. ICAO runway safety conference 2017

9. EBAA Bizavsafety conference 2018

10. FSS final event Brussel 2018

11. Runway Safe, Saarbrucken part 1 2018

12. Runway Safe Saarbrucken part 2 2018

13. EBAA Biz av safety conference 2019

letters and documents

1. Future financing runway safety improvements

2. Runway safety risk analysis and policy prioritising

4.  

runway safety reference material

1. Risky runways

PROJECTS

1. RMT 0296 NPA 2016-11

2. EU Drone evaluation

3. OVV report Schiphol

4. GEMSS

Reference material

(Scroll down for articles)

• Risk

• ALARP

• Local runway safety team

• Risky runway

risk 

The risk of a runway accident can be defined as the danger of fatality, injury, damage to equipment and property, operational disturbance and liability. Risk reduction can be achieved by reducing the likelihood and / or mitigating the severity of a runway occurence.

Three different organizations meet each other on the runway: the airport as owner, the ATC as director and the aircraft operator as user. Reliance on perfect interfaces between these three is required to safeguard runway safety. A runway accident has a negative effect on aviation safety and to business as well. Therefore is it recommended that the runway safety risk in in line with the ALARP level. 

ALARP

As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) is a commonly used risk acceptance criterion that is not exclusively based on fixed risk level targets, but on a systematic and documented process to reduce safety risk below the maximum allowed by regulations or standards, or when the risk is otherwise considered unacceptable.

ALARP means that the safety risk is managed to a level as low as reasonably practicable whilst at all times staying below the maximum allowed risk. It also implies that the risk level should be monitored, and ALARP considerations applied to any new identified risk mitigation measures to contribute to a further reduction in the risk level. An increase in the risk level at any time should be considered unacceptable even if the safety risk is below the maximum allowed.

Consideration should be given both to the technical feasibility of further reducing the safety risk and the cost. Acceptance criteria with regard to the costs of implementing mitigation measures, and the expected benefits are to be defined by senior management. Showing that the safety risk is ALARP means that any further risk reduction is either impracticable or grossly outweighed by the cost. It should, however, be borne in mind that when an organisation ‘accepts’ a safety risk, this does not mean that the safety risk has been completely eliminated. In the case where a residual safety risk remains, the organisation has accepted that this residual safety risk is sufficiently low that it is outweighed by the benefits.

Related responsibilities and decisions should be documented to justify why no further risk reduction measures have been implemented, and that the risk finally retained is still acceptable

LOCAL RUNWAY SAFETY TEAM

Runway safety is recognized as one of the most important aviation safety hazards. 59% of all aviation occurrences are related to approach, landing and take off.  A runway is a high-risk area, not only for safety but also for financial repercussions. The risk should be in line with the accepted level of safety.

A local runway safety team (LRST) is a great asset in identifying and reducing the local risk by addressing interface challenges between the various users. The LRST consists of all dealing with the runway and its environment. As a minus should representatives from ATC, aircraft operators and the aerodrome operator, be joined in the LRST.  An effective LRST enables to bring the runway safety risk to the As Low As Reasonably Practicable level (ALARP).

If there is no LRST established, we could help setting it up. If an LRST is established we can provide tailor-made analysis, evaluation and consult. This could serve as an indication of compliance to the appropriate authority.

risky runway

Runways with an evaluated risk profile can be identified by several methods. One is the FA ACRP, that mainly derives its information via airports. We believe that operational data from users could also be a valid indication of a potential risky runway. 

Based on the "three oranges is red principle" (prof. dr. Hudson), seem sit possible to identify a risky runway when any combination of 3 out of the following list occurs. 

• No ICAO standard Runway End Safety Area or Strip

• Insufficient bearing capacity of the runway strip

• Non grooved or porous friction asphalt runway surface

• A short or narrow runway

• Heavy rubber deposits

• Obstacles, ditches or terrain features near runway surroundings

• Special procedures (e.g. steep or curved approaches, etc)

• Take-off or landing performance penalties or weight restrictions

• High density runway operations

• Frequent adverse weather