Evaluating the Behavior of General Aviation Aircraft and Design of General Aviation Runways towards Mitigating Runway Excursions THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Eunsun Ryu Graduate Program in Civil Engineering The Ohio State University 2017 Master's Examination Committee: Seth Young, Advisor Mark McCord Philip Smith Copyrighted by Eunsun Ryu 2017 Abstract A runway excursion is an event whereby an aircraft has strayed from a declared runway during takeoff or landing. Runway excursions are the most frequent of all runway related accidents. Aviation authorities such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommend runway design standards with additional safety areas to protect an aircraft in the case of a runway excursion. Despite their precautions, runway excursions remain a significant issue in the aviation industry. Previous research on the development of runway excursion risk models focused primarily on commercial aviation with relatively little attention paid to general aviation (GA). In this research, to further understand the characteristics of general aviation runway excursions, various statistical analyses were conducted on several years of runway excursion accident and incident data from publicly available sources including FAA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The analysis included the determination of potential differences in runway excursion rates between commercial and general aviation operations, operations at towered vs. non-towered GA airports, varying weather conditions and runway dimensions. In some instances, where data such as national totals of general aviation operations and flight hours was not available, estimation models were developed based on the known data for the State of Ohio. ii The results of the analysis performed found that: the risk of general aviation excursions is significantly higher than for commercial aviation. In addition, general aviation operations were revealed to have a higher risk of excursions in good visibility and ceiling “visual” meteorological conditions (VMC) rather than poor “instrument” meteorological conditions (IMC), which is a different result from that for commercial operations. That is, visibility and ceiling may be a less important factor for general aviation excursion than considered in previous models for commercial excursions since GA pilots tend to less fly under the IMC condition and less trained for bad weather condition. Furthermore, runway dimension and the presence of an air traffic control towers were also found to be factors. In general aviation, the non-towered GA excursion risk is higher than that for airports with air traffic control towers. Airports with smaller runways are also found to have a higher risk of runway excursions than airports with larger runways. In order to gain further insights into what may cause general aviation runway excursions, this research also included an empirical study performed to investigate how much general aviation aircraft deviate from a runway centerline upon landing. This research was performed by analyzing aircraft trajectory data collected through LiDAR sensor systems on a runway at The Ohio State University Airport. Collected trajectories from 18 landing aircraft were analyzed based on their longitudinal and vertical distance change. Initial findings from this analysis revealed that aircraft tend to oscillate around the centerline in the early stage of the landing roll, immediately after touchdown. Much iii of the lateral movement is thought to be the result of pilots attempting to correct their trajectory to get as close to, and stay on, centerline. As an aircraft moves toward the runway end, pilots had less correction in their lateral direction, as they either got close to centerline, or maintained a consistent distance away from the centerline. In addition, it was found that when aircraft land farther away laterally from a runway centerline, the aircraft had more deviation than aircraft that touch down closer to the centerline. The findings from this study may guide research into the relation between failing to properly correct deviation from centerline during touchdown and runway excursions. iv Acknowledgments One of the great fortune in my life is that I could have Dr. Seth Young as my academic advisor. I could not finish this thesis without his valuable guidance and comments. I would never forget two years of research experience with Dr. Young’s mentorship. Valuable support from Dr. Mark McCord and Dr. Philip Smith was another navigation for this study and conception for future research. I should not leave behind huge support and encouragement from my parents and brother. This great chance to study in the United States was from my family’s trust and dedication. My friends in Columbus and Korea, who are another family, allowed me to overcome difficulties in a new country. Lastly, the experience with the FAA PEGASAS program provided me invaluable opportunities to expand my perspective not only as a researcher but also a student who is involved in aviation industry. I am grateful that I could have great experience at the Ohio State University. v Vita February 2008 ...............................................Sawoo High 2014 ...............................................................B.S. Air Transportation, Hanseo University 2014 to present ..............................................Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Civil Engineering vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... v Vita ..................................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Analysis of Runway Excursion Incidents and Accidents ............................... 38 Chapter 3. Empirical Study of Runway Centerline Deviation .......................................... 71 Chapter 4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 93 References ....................................................................................................................... 100 Appendix A: Glossary.................................................................................................... 104 Appendix B: An Example of the Application of Runway Length Corrections .............. 107 Appendix C: Combined Accident and Incident Dataset ................................................. 109 Appendix D: List of Non-towered General Aviation Airports in Ohio [34] .................. 128 Appendix E: Non-towered Airport Operation Estimation based on 2014 Ohio Flown Hour [35] ......................................................................................................................... 133 Appendix F: The Longest Runways at Airports in Ohio [33], [34] ................................ 136 Appendix G: Calculation of VMC and IMC operations based on flown hours .............. 142 vii List of Tables Table 1. Percentage Difference of Each Type of Runway Excursion [12] ......................... 7 Table 2. Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) of FAA [18] .............................................. 11 Table 3. Aircraft Design Group (ADG) of FAA [18] ....................................................... 11 Table 4. Aeroplane Reference Field Length of ICAO [19] .............................................. 12 Table 5. Standard for Greatest Main Gear Span and Wingspan of ICAO [19] ................ 12 Table 6. Comparison of Airport Design Group of FAA and ICAO ................................. 13 Table 7. Airplane Weight Categorization for Runway Length Requirements [23] .......... 13 Table 8. A Runway Width Minimum based on the RDC by FAA [18] ........................... 17 Table 9. Runway Width Recommendation based on the Aeroplane Code Letter and Number by ICAO [25] ...................................................................................................... 18 Table 10. A Runway Shoulder Width Minimum based on the RDC by FAA [18] .......... 19 Table 11. Runway Safety Area Dimension Requirements by FAA [18] .......................... 20 Table 12. Obstacle Free Zone Dimension Requirements by FAA [18] ............................ 21 Table 13. Runway Obstacle Free Area Dimension Requirements by FAA [18] .............. 21 Table 14. Runway Protection Zone Dimension Requirements by FAA [18] ................... 23 Table 15. Required Runway Strip Dimension Not Allowing Fixed Objects [25] ............ 24 viii Table 16. Required Runway Strip Dimension Not Allowing Mobile Objects during Takeoff and Landing [25] ................................................................................................. 25 Table 17. Prepared Area Dimension for Differences in Loading Bearing Capacity [25] . 25 Table 18. RESA Minimum Dimension based on the Aircraft Code Number [25] ........... 26 Table 19. RESA Recommended Length based on the Aircraft Code