Get help from the best in academic writing.

Foreign Object Damage: Prevention, Costs and Detectors

Abstract
There has been significant concern to reduce Foreign Object Damage. (FOD) debris found on the surface of a ramp on an airport includes rocks, screws, fasteners, nails, tools, wire, and rivets. FOD debris can find their way into the strangest places and do considerable damage. Foreign Object Damage poses a perennial hazard to aircraft operations and passenger safety. Aircraft repairs, flight delays and airport maintenance stemming from FOD cost the global aerospace industry an estimated $4 billion a year. This paper focuses on FOD prevention, cost, human factors, and FOD detectors.
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………2
Table of Contents……………………………………………………..3
Background of the Problem………………………………………………4
Cost………………………………………………………………5
FOD Prevention………………………………………………………6
Human Factors……………………………………………………….7
FOD Detector………………………………………………………..9
Conclusion…………………………………………………………11
Reference………………………………………………………….13
Background of the problem
Foreign Object Damage (FOD) is the debris found on the surface of a ramp on an airport. Such are rocks, screws, fasteners, nails, tools, wire, and rivets. FOD debris can find their way into the strangest places and do considerable damage. FOD can have devastating effects on a jet engine because the intakes operate like giant vacuum cleaners, sucking up anything and everything in their path. Some of the aircraft engines are close the ground and they could be extremely susceptible to FOD because of its powerful engine, large intake, and proximity to the ground (England, 2002).
Bits of rock, sand, metal, and even ice and snow ingested into a jet engine can cause significant damage to the compressor blades and other internal parts. This translates into a lot of money to repair or replace a FOD-damaged engine. FOD can be found on the parking aprons, taxiways, and runways of almost every airport and airbase in the world (England, 2002).
The most publicized FOD incidents are caused by maintenance or operations personnel leaving tools, parts, checklists and flight publications in or near a jet engine intake. The jet sucks them in and you instantly have a FOD incident that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Debris dragged onto the ramps, taxiways and runways is the number one FOD problem (Doyle, 2004).
FOD is a major concern and must be prevented. A Singapore Airlines 747-400 crashed in 2000 at Chiang Kai-shek International Airport in Taiwan due to FOD damage, apparently after striking an object on the runway. The aircraft was bound for Los Angeles and had 179 passengers and crew members aboard. At least 79 people died in the fiery crash (Leib, 2000).
The crash of an Air France Concorde in July 2000 was attributed to a piece of titanium that apparently detached from a departing jet only a few minutes before the supersonic transport began its takeoff roll at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris. Investigation indicates that FOD shredded a landing gear tire, which punctured a fuel tank and ignited a fire. All 109 passengers and crew and four people on the ground were killed (Phillips, 2008).
Cost Federal Aviation Administration representative Jim Patterson, airport safety specialist in the airport technology research and development branch at the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center stated that it is estimated that foreign object debris (FOD) costs the global airline industry more than $4 billion annually, chiefly from ingestion of debris into jet engines and damage to airframes. One U.S. airline has reported $1.8 million in FOD damage per month fleet-wide, according to Patterson. Per Patterson the FAA does not collect FOD information from airlines or airports but does require runway inspections (Phillips, 2008).
FOD cost airliners significant amount of money. Hawaiian Airlines is one example. In June of 2003 Hawaiian Airlines suspended its service between Honolulu and Pago Pago (PPG), American Samoa, after two of its aircraft suffered significant engine damage from foreign object debris on the airport’s main Runway. Hawaiian initially canceled two roundtrip flights, scheduled to complete an assessment of the runway and determine when to resume operations. The carrier notified the FAA of its concerns and asked the agency to send its own inspectors to evaluate the operational integrity of the runway, which is listed at roughly 10,000 ft. in total length. The first problem occurred June 13, when Hawaiian Flight 465, a Boeing 767, sustained foreign object damage to both engines on arrival at PPG. Repairs delayed Hawaiian’s return Flight 466 to Honolulu for 17 hours. The same thing happened to a different 767 on June 23 and the return flight to Honolulu was delayed by 19 hours while repairs were finished. FOD cost the airlines delays, damage to engines that ultimately resulted in cost damage to the airlines (Lott, 2003).
FOD Prevention
The prevention and control of FOD is key to the preservation of an aircraft and the safety of those personnel working on the aircraft. This starts with awareness of its presence on the parking ramp, taxiways, runways, and even the roads that lead into and out of these areas. Good housekeeping on the parking ramp will go a long way in preventing hardware, stones, rocks, rubbish, and clothing from finding its way into a jet engine. This is the responsibility of every aircrew member, mechanic, technician, and driver who works around the airfield. If an individual see FOD, must pick it up and dispose of it properly. That means place it in a sealable container and dispose of it far away from the field so it can’t find its way back lodged in the tires of someone’s vehicle (England, 2002).
The key to FOD prevention and control is constant vigilance and immediate action to remove the hazards from the area. The mission – especially depends on assets being fully mission capable. That can only happen when everyone does their part to prevent FOD. When an individual drives a vehicle, must inspect tires before driving onto the ramp or taxiway. If a thorough vehicle FOD inspection is not conducted the vehicle tires can pick up rocks and deposit them on the ramp area or taix areas. Every attempt must be made to stay on paved surfaces. Individual also must avoid driving on the dirt or grass whenever possible. These simple FOD-prevention measures can avoid millions of dollars and hundreds of man-hours to spend to repair or replace the damage (England,2002).
Human Factors
Human elements involved with the mission can be a major contributor to an accident. They are ingrained into our brains from day one, especially for those of us in aircraft maintenance. Mishap prevention efforts dedicated to reducing human factors refated Foreign Object Damage (FOD) are no exception. Most incidents are the ones caused by inappropriate human factors behavior – such as not following written guidance, complacency, and preoccupation. Human factors play a big role in FOD prevention. Because we’re all supposed to be trained to identify potential hazards and eliminate them before they become a link in the “chain of events” that often leads to injury, damage, or mission degradation (Roller, 1999).
A single engine FOD incident on an F-15 can cost anywhere from $200,000 to over $1 million, depending on the extent of the damage. Human error cost the Air Force more than $370,000. The following is one example that cost Air Force lots of money. The engine run was to be performed by an experienced staff sergeant with several years of engine run experience. The aircraft’s assigned crew chief, not knowing the jet needed an engine run, had begun putting his aircraft to bed by installing the aircraft covers. He only had the chance to install the left secondary heat exchanger inlet cover before he was called away to assist with a defuel on another aircraft. The run man arrived at the aircraft moments later to review the forms and to start his pre-run checks. As he walked up to the aircraft, he noticed the aircraft covers on the ground and assumed all the covers were removed. He performed his pre-run intake inspection; then he and the crew chief (now finished assisting on the defuel task) performed a walk-around inspection of the aircraft… without either noticing and/ or removing the one cover previously installed. A 30-minute double engine run was accomplished with no defects noted. After engine shutdown, a post-run intake inspection of both engines was performed, which resulted in the discovery of foreign object damage to the left engine. The secondary heat exchanger inlet cover was ingested by engine (Roller 1999).
In order to minimize human factors associated causes from mishaps, especially those associated with FOD, supervisors need to identify potential sources of danger which cause risk. The bottom line is that human factors involved with a FOD mishap not only involve the last person who touched the object, it can be anyone in the process without regard to rank or position. We all need to work hard at seeing the big picture to eliminate the human factors that cause incidents, because only then can we eliminate the potential mishap. Preventing FOD is an individual responsibility. You can do your part to eliminate potential sources of FOD through good housekeeping practices and good work habits. Preventing FOD requires a focused attention on our part – alertness and attention to detail – but the results will always be worth it in the end. So, whether it’s a screw about to be ingested into an aircraft engine or a rag binding a landing gear, FOD is a danger. Do your part in FOD prevention each and every day (Roller, 1999).
FOD Detectors
Federal Aviation Administration is in the process of evualuting Tarsier Foreign Object Debris FOD Technology checking for runway debris. TF Green Airport in Warwick, Rhode Island, is the first commercial airport in the United States to install and operate Tarsier Foreign Object Debris technology. The system developed by the UK’s QinetiQ is currently being tested and evaluated there by the University of Illinois Center of Excellence in Airport Technology (CEAT) on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Checking for runway debris is currently performed manually with visual inspections several times a day. The new, fully automated system provides continuous scanning of the runway area and alerts airport operations specialists about foreign objects that are detected. Workers recover and keep a record of all debris that is recovered (Air Safety, 2007).
Tools such as QinetiQ’s FOD system improve the way we operate and help improve the safety conditions of air travel. The FAA has an ongoing program to evaluate the performance of FOD detection systems at commercial airports. The studies are being conducted at the FAA’s William A. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ, as part of the Airport Safety Management Program. The performance evaluation program at TF Green Airport began in June of 2007. Upon completion it is expected that the FAA will publish an Advisory Circular that will assist airports in safety management activities related to FOD (Air Safety, 2007).
Two Tarsier radar units are in place at TF Green Airport’s North- South runway for the six-month long performance assessment that will test the FOD system in a variety of weather and lighting conditions, including wind, rain, snow and darkness.
The units are housed in towers that resemble small lighthouse beacons. A display unit (a high tech computer) in the airport’s operations center provides a visual image of the runway and radar imagery. Upon detection of FOD, an alarm sounds and airport staff proceed to the area in question, performing a visual inspection and recovery.
QinetiQ’s Tarsier system is presently in use at Vancouver International Airport and is being installed at Dubai International Airport. The FAA evaluation at TF Green is hugely important chance to demonstrate to the FAA that fully automated runway FOD inspections are now possible (Air Safety, 2007).
The FAA is evaluating a series of automated systems designed to detect and report foreign object debris on airport surfaces, leading to development and publication of performance standards for these emerging technologies as early as 2009. The agency is focusing its tests on four mature designs. These include U.K.-based Qinetiq’s Tarsier system that uses millimeter-wave radar mounted on pylons near a runway, U.S.-based Trex Enterprise’s FOD Finder that uses infrared cameras and millimeter-wave radar mounted on the roof of a vehicle, Israel’s X-Sight FOD Detect that combines high-resolution cameras and millimeter-wave radar mounted on existing airport lighting systems and Singapore-based Stratech’s iFerret design featuring high-resolution cameras on towers (Phillips, 2008).
At this time Qinetiq’s Tarsier radar system has been operating for the past eight months at T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, R.I. Stratech’s equipment is awaiting final design approval by the FAA and is scheduled for installation by the summer of 2008 on Runway 27L at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. The X-Sight system was recently installed on Runway 15R at Boston Logan International Airport and began initial operations in March. In addition, the FAA has collected preliminary data using the mobile Trex installation that was deployed in March at Chicago’s Midway Airport (Phillips, 2008).
Evaluation of the four systems, scheduled for a minimum of 12 months each, will lead to development of automated FOD-detection system performance standards that will be published in an FAA Advisory Circular (AC) per FAA representative Patterson. In addition, the AC will allow commercial airports to apply for federal funding to acquire FOD systems. All four technologies have the capability to detect and report the presence of FOD on a runway surface and significantly improve an airport operator’s ability to quickly locate and remove items. The systems, which vary in cost from about $200,000 to $1 million, can detect small items such as screws and washers (Phillips, 2008).
To help administer the field evaluations, the FAA is teaming with the University of Illinois’s Center of Excellence in Airport Technology (CEAT). Cooperation between the agency and academia allows universities to perform investigative research along with the FAA, and provides graduate students with an opportunity to gain real-world engineering experience. The research process uses a multiple-step approach that “allows researchers to challenge each technology” on its ability to consistently detect, sample and report the presence of FOD on a taxiway or runway (Phillips, 2008).
The year-long trial period ensures that each system will be exposed to a wide variety of weather conditions, especially snow, where the technologies will be particularly challenged to differentiate actual FOD from accumulating snow. Throughout the year, the FAA/CEAT team travels to each test location to conduct research. For initial trials, a set of special calibration targets are placed at preselected points along the runway and then the system scans the surface. Each month, the same targets are placed at the same points to check the system’s ability to repeat detection and reporting. A second test uses typical FOD items such as fuel caps, rocks, airport signs and other objects placed at predetermined positions on the runway. Although the positions of items remain the same from month to month, they are changed at random and rotated 45 deg. to test the system’s ability to detect FOD regardless of its orientation to the sensor. A final challenge, known as “blind testing,” involves using unknown FOD items placed at random points on the runway. This is as close to the real world as researchers can get to evaluation of a system. The system will not know where to look or what to look for as it scans the surface and is graded on the number of items it can detect (Phillips, 2008).
The FOD work is attracting international interest and has led other countries to begin FOD programs. France is investigating the use of FOD systems and Eurocontrol has initiated research that could lead to development of a performance standard acceptable to the International Civil Aviation Organization. The FAA has taken a proactive approach to automatic detection technology and is interested in participating in an international program to develop, certify and adopt these systems (Phillips, 2008).
Conclusion
We must be thoroughly aware of FOD and its associated hazards. We must also do all we can to prevent and control FOD. Damage to aircraft and equipment caused by FOD ingestion can be very expensive. FOD containers (cans, buckets, pouches, or bags) should be available in every vehicle in an airport and in every work area. FOD containers also should be attached to toolboxes and ground equipment. FOD containers must be empty daily and the place must be kept clean to reduce hazards. An addition to that when someone drives a vehicle, must inspect the tires before driving onto the ramp or taxiways. If a thorough vehicle FOD inpection is not conducted the tires can pick up rocks and deposit them in the ramp area. Every attempt must be made to stay on paved surfaces and avoid driving on the dirt or grass whenever possible. These simple FOD-prevention measures can avoid millions of dollars and hundreds of man-hours aviation industries currently spend to repair or replace the damage. Finally FAA must continue to do research and development on new and updated FOD equipment to reduce the risk of FOD.
References
Air Safety Week. (2007). FAA tests British runway safety device. New York Vol. 21, ISS. 39
Doyle, R. (2004). FOD in the AOR. Flying Safety. Washington: Vol. 60, Iss. 3, 3
England, B. J. (2002). FOD. Combat Edge. Langley AFB. Vol. 11, Iss. 7, 10-11
Leib, J. (2000). Debris scouts keep wary eye on runway. Denver Post Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: C.01
Lott, S. (2003). Hawaiian stops pago pago flights after FOD damage. Aviation Daily. 07
Roller, C. (1999). Human factors and FOD prevention. Combat Edge. Langley AFB. Vol. 8, Iss. 1, 12-15
Phillips, H. E. (2008). FAA testing automated foreign object systems. Aviation Week

Facilities Layout Applied in the General Aviation Airport Planning Industry

Facilities Layout Applied in the General Aviation Airport Planning Industry

Abstract

Purpose: This paper discusses how facilities layouts can further aid to improve airport planning within the general aviation industry. A well-designed airport allows for easier travel for individuals as well as faster travel. This creates a more holistic and user-friendly customer service experience.
Design/methodology/approach: The paper is in the form of literature review. Covering related research from various platforms, which have been studied, explored, discussed, synthetized and concluded and which are now being presented.
Findings: It was found that general aviation facilities layout is important and needed. The general aviation industry contributes to various operations which account for over 5 percent of the national GDP. There are many parts of the facilities layout with regards to general aviation. Each airport has site-specific needs depending on upon the aircraft, climate, frequency, and the type of operation(s) at that particular general aviation airport. There are many facility layout planning models. The real-world examples found for general aviation facilities layout were pairwise exchange method and graph-based method.
Research limitations/implications: Searching through only peer review articles some magazine and trade articles may become lost. But by narrowing the scope of search and basing the conclusion on more rigorous investigation limit the peer review was selected. Due to picking general aviation airports instead of commercial airports it was harder to collect information. There are limitations to the Pairwise Exchange Method and the Graph Based Method.
Originality/value: This work is a synthesis of the latest advancement in the field of facilities layout, with emphasis on general aviation airport planning, providing a base for researchers in this field to work on future advancement.
Keywords
Airport Planning-General Aviation-Facilites Layout-Literature Review-Industrial Engineering
1. Introduction
The field of airport planning, specifically regarding general aviation faces many challenges today. General aviation or GA is defined as the largest category of aviation and consists of all activity not considered to be commercial service or military. [1] Aviation is an important and necessary part of the modern-day era—it is the most popular method for people traveling internationally. In today’s globalized world economy consumers require faster, more accurate, more convenient, and flawless service. Facilites layout consists of all equipment, machinery, and furnishings within a building’s envelope. The facilities layout is important because each consumer will be interacting with parts of the layout while traveling through an airport to reach their destination.

2. Background
The following five themes will be explored to properly outline the term paper’s goals.
General aviation airports are important.
There are four main types of aviation. These include commercial airlines, non-scheduled air transport operations, military, and general aviation. Commercial airlines are the type of aviation most people use to travel long distances. Examples of such airlines include American Airlines, Delta, JetBlue, Emirates, Lufthansa, etc. A non-scheduled airline offers unscheduled air transport services of passengers or goods at an hourly or per mile/kilometer charge for chartering the entire aircraft along with the crew. [2] Another type of aviation is military, this is pretty much self-explanatory. Finally, general aviation includes all civilian flying except scheduled passenger airline services. [3] These operations consist of business, sightseeing, search and rescue, training, recreational, survey, aerial ambulance, and a variety of other purposes used to complete the world’s transportation system. Ranging in size from a small two-seat to a large airline-size aircraft, these operations contribute significantly to the economies of the nations in which they fly. [4] GA is used mainly for four types of operation including business, recreation, training, and special.
It is also important to note that GA activity can occur at any airport and sometimes uses a joint airport that utilizes more than one type of aviation. An example of this would be a joint commercial airlines and GA airport. An example of this is the General Aviation Terminal at Raleigh-Durham International Airport.
Over 90 percent of the civilian aircraft registered in the United States are GA aircraft. Also, almost 5/6 or 83.33 percent of the United States pilots fly GA airplanes.

Figure 1: General Aviation Airplane Shipments and Billings Worldwide (1994 – 2016) [5]
In Figure 1, millions of dollars were made from GA airplanes being sold and being shipped. Some of these general aviation aircraft include the single-engine piston, multi-engine piston, turboprop, and business jets.
Aviation accounts for more than 5 percent of our [the United States] Gross Domestic Product, contributes $1.6 trillion in total economic activity and supports nearly 11 million jobs. [6] Thus, it is evident that GA is of critical importance to our nation’s economy.
Facilities layout for general aviation airports is needed.
Facilities layout is one of the three critical parts of the facilities design process. The generation and evaluation of layout alternatives is a critical step in the facilities planning process, since the layout selected will serve to establish the material flow patterns and physical relationships between activities. Recognizing that the layout ultimately selected will be either chosen from or based on one of the alternatives generated, it is important to for the facilities planner to be both creative and comprehensive in generating a reasonable number of layout alternatives. [7]

While there is much information on facilities layout with regards to commercial airports, the facilities layout of GA is critical too. Evidently, in today’s modern era, a well-planned and facilities layout is much needed with regards to GA airport planning. Current guidance for GA facility layout is limited and does not reflect the changes occurring in the industry. [1] This point is further highlighted in Figure 1.
The Federal Aviation Administration or FAA decrees that each GA airport must have an airport master plan. One of the critical parts of the master plan is the Airport Layout Plan or ALP. An ALP is package of plans that present the existing and future development of the airport. As a condition of receiving grants, the FAA requires airport sponsors to maintain a current ALP all times. The ALP is developed following specific guidelines identified in FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design. [1] The ALP is a facilities layout.

The main ‘parts’ to create the ‘whole’ and the ‘parts’ interiors are vital to the airport facility layout.
The ‘parts’ needed to create the ‘whole’ facility layout often vary upon the aircraft, climate, frequency, and the type of operation(s) at a general aviation airport. Each airport must assess the specific needs of its individual location. No two airports are alike and, therefore, require individual planning to meet site-specific needs. [1] These site-specific needs include aircraft services, ground services, airport operation services, and general aviation facilities. Aircraft services includes but not limited to aircraft parking, aircraft storage, fueling services, aircraft maintenance, aircraft rental, flight services, and aircraft washing. Ground services includes but not limited to waiting areas, ground transportation, vending/catering, and pilot services. Airport operation services includes but not limited to grass mowing, snow removal, and aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF). General aviation facilities include but not limited to runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars (conventional and T-Hangars), fueling facilities, heliport and helicopter parking pad, airfield lighting/signage/navigational aids, terminal/administrative building (including FBO or fixed-based operators), airport rescue and firefighting, automobile parking and landside access, aircraft wash facility, other buildings, and security.
The site-specific ‘parts’ listed above is a relatively through list of potential ‘parts’ that could make up the ‘whole’ of the facility layout (some if not many of these ‘parts’ will be used). However, a GA airport and its user typically need the following main ‘parts’ for a facility layout: GA terminal building, aircraft parking apron, hangars, fuel facilities, automobile parking, wash racks, fixed-base operations (FBOs), and helicopter parking.
GA Terminal Building
The terminal building is the focal point for basic meeting/greeting and pilot services. GA terminals should at least provide the services of a passenger lounge, restrooms, vending, and a pilot lounge. The building square footage or BSF can be found using equation 1. Peak-Hour Operations is a number taken from the Master Plan and an area of 100 to 150 square feet of space per person is considered adequate during peak-hour traffic. [1] A sample GA terminal building is seen below in Figure 4.
(1)

Figure 2: Sample GA Terminal Building Layout [1]
Aircraft Parking Apron
An aircraft parking apron (or airport apron), sometimes known as the tarmac, is the area of an airport where aircraft are parked/boarded, loaded/unloaded, or refueled. An aircraft apron is typically the largest facility on an airport, except for the runway and possible the parallel taxiway (paths connecting runways. There are two different ways to approach the sizing of an apron. One is based on the space available in the location chosen for the apron; the other is based on the number of tie-down parking positions needed. [1] A sample apron layout is seen below in Figure 5.

Figure 3: Sample Apron Layout [1]
Hangars
There are two types of hangars which are conventional and T-Hangars. Conventional hangars are based on the square/rectangular or box shape. T-Hangars are rectangular shaped hangars split into numerous sections, often in the shape of a “T” that store multiple smaller aircraft. In Figures 6 and 7, the two different types of hangars are respectively shown. Hangars have considerable cross-over with other facilities such as apron planning, access planning, and mobile parking planning. Making hangars parallel and perpendicular to other facilities and airfield infrastructure provides for safer traffic flow and expendability. [1] A sample hangar apron configuration is in Figure 8 with no aircraft parking.

Figure 4: Conventional (Box) Hangar Layout [1] Figure 5: T-Hangar Layouts [1]

Figure 6: Sample Layout of Hangar Pod with no Aircraft Parking [1]
Fuel Facilities
A fuel farm facility can be one of the costliest facilities on an airport that has limited or no funding from state or federal sources. The size of an aviation fuel farm will depend on the amount and types of fuel needed. [1] A sample fuel farm with sample dimensions is shown below in Figure 9.

Figure 7: Sample Fuel Farm Layout with Sample Dimensions [1]
Automobile Parking
Providing access and parking areas for airfield facilities should be integral to planning each of the facilites. Once a location is chosen, the size of the parking lot and the number of parking spaces will need to be determined. The size of each parking space and the number of spaces will most likely be determined by local parking guidelines. [1] A sample with automobile parking with 18 regular and 1 handicap spaces is shown below in Figure 10.

Figure 8: Sample Parking Lot Layout with 18 Regular and 1 Handicap Spaces [1]
Wash Racks
Aircraft wash facilites (wash racks) provide GA aircraft owners with a common area with access to water to wash and clean their aircraft. Wash racks are usually sized to accommodate one single aircraft a time however, depending on the demand and layout, multiple aircraft can be accommodated at the same time. A good rule of thumb would be to take the aircraft with the largest wingspan and greatest length that the airport would like to accommodate and add 10 feet (5 feet to each side). The 10 feet will capture overspray and provide room for personnel to walk around the aircraft. [1] A sample wash rack layout is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 9: A Sample Wash Rack Layout [1]
Fixed-Base Operations (FBOs)
An FBO building is very similar to a GA terminal building. They generally serve the same function except that a FBO building is usually privately or publicly owned and leased to a private entity. [1]
Helicopter Parking
Planning for a helicopter parking area on an airport requires special consideration given the nature of helicopter operations and the impact of rotor wash on the surrounding area. The size of the parking area will depend on the size and number of rotorcraft area. [1] A sample helicopter parking is shown below in Figure 11.

Figure 10: A Sample Helicopter Parking Layout [1]
Various facility layout planning models will be discussed.
An Airport Layout Plan or ALP requires the following elements: airport layout drawing, airport airspace drawing, inner portion of the approach surface drawing, terminal area drawing, land use drawing, airport property map, and airport departure surfaces. The drawings are critical to the facility layout planning models.
Most facility layouts can be viewed at two levels: the block and the detailed layout. The block layout shows the location, shape, and size of each planning department. The detailed layout shows the exact location of all equipment, work benches, and storage areas within each department. [7] Figure 2 is a block layout of a sample GA terminal building. Figure 7 is a detailed layout of a sample fuel far.
Basic types of layout include product layout, product family layout, process layout, fixed product layout, and hybrid layout. While a fixed position layout is used in aircraft assembly because the workstations are brought to the material. This does not work once the GA airplane is being moved around the airport because the workstations or ‘parts’ are stationary, and the plane is now mobile. Such ‘parts’ are the aprons, hangars, sample wash rack, helicopter pads, etc.
Another type of layout planning is the Systematic Layout Planning or SLP. SLP uses input data to create a flow of materials (from-to chart) and activity relationship analysis (activity relationship art. From these two charts a relationship diagram is developed. The relationship diagram positions activities spatially. These proximities are used to reflect the relationship between pairs of activities. The amount of space assigned to each activity is determined (using departmental service and area requirement sheets). Once the space assignments have been made, space templates are developed for each planning department, and the space is then hung on the relationship diagram to obtain the space relationship. Based on considerations that may be modified and practical limitations, several layout alternatives are developed and evaluated (such as the graph-based method). The preferred alternative is then identified and recommended. While the involvements in performing SLP is relatively straightforward, it does not necessarily follow that difficulties do not arises in its application. The SLP procedure can be used to develop a block layout or a detailed layout for each planning department. [7]
Layout algorithms can be also classified according to their primary function: improvement versus construction. Improvement-type algorithms start with an initial layout and seek to improve the objective function through incremental changes in the layout. A construction-type layout algorithm assumes the building dimension are and are not given. [7]
Layout algorithms can be also classified according to their objective function. First, minimize the sum of flow times distance. This is more suitable when the input data is expressed as a from-to chart (or a material flow matrix). Second, maximize the closeness or adjacency. This is helpful when comparing two or more alternate layouts. One of the ways to solve this is the Pairwise Exchange Method. The Pairwise Exchange Method is an improvement layout algorithm. [7] This distance-based objective function (or “total cost” or TC for short) for the existing layout is the relationship (or flow) vector multiplied by distance vector. The original objective function is found via TC of department 1 to department n. The possible number of pairings varies depending on how many n departments there are. Then TC is calculated for each pairing. This is done by switching the places of the departments. If one of the new TC’s based on switching the departments via pairings is lower than original TC than another iteration takes placing making the lowest TC an almost ‘new’ original. This process continues until none of the new TC’s based on switching the departments via pairings a is lower than ‘newest’ original TC. This will result in the most optimal arrangement.
Graph based method is a construction-type algorithm. The method starts with an adjacency relationship chart. Then we assign weight to the adjacency relationships between departments. The relationship chart is converted from the from-to chart. The steps to graph based method are as follows. Step 1 is to select a department pair with the largest weight. Step 2 is to select a third department based on the largest sum of the weights with the two departments selected. Step 3 is to select the next unselected department to enter by evaluating the sum of weights and place the department on the face of the graph. The face of the graph is a bounded region of a graph. Step 4 is to continue step 3 until all departments are selected. Step 5 is to construct a block layout from the planar graph. [7]
Examples of general aviation airports applying facility layout planning models will be shown.
The first example utilizes the Pairwise Exchange Method on Ningbo Airport Logistics Park. [8] With pairwise exchange method has no guarantee of optimality because the final solution depends on the initial layout. Also, the pairwise exchange method does not consider the size and shape pf the departments. [7] The results are:
Table 1: Logistics Volume V ad the Distance D [8]

Table 2: The Location of Available Assigned Points of These Five Regions [8]

Table 3: Initial Planning Program [8] [8]

Table 4: Objective Function Value W [8]

Table 5: The First Improved Program [8]

Table 6: Objective Function Value W’ [8]

Table 7: Final Planning Program [8]

The most optimal arrangement is DABCE.
The second example utilizes the Graph Based Method on Brisbane International airport. [9] The Graph Based Method utilizes a relationship with various weights. Some of the limitations are the adjacency score does not account for distance, nor does it account for relationships than those between adjacent departments. Also, we are attempting to construct graphs, called planar graphs, whose arcs do not intersect. The results are:

Figure 11: Departure activities of airport terminal [9]

Figure 12: modified Business Process Model (mBPM) for the check-in process [9]

Figure 13 Figure 14
Figure 13: Graph Representation of Check-In Facilities [9]
Figure 14: Turning Non-Planar Graph into Planar (G) using Intersecting Vertices [9]

Figure 15: A Possible Representation of Floor Plan Layout [9]

Figure 16: Block Layout from Planar Graph [9]

3. Methodology
This paper will be in the form of a literature review. This will include analyzing research papers from various accredited scientific platforms. Discussions and conclusions will be further presented to show the emphasis that facilities layout is having on general aviation airport planning.

4. Results
General aviation airports contribute to business, recreation, training, and special operations. By contributing to these operations general aviation is part of the aviation sector which accounts for over 5 percent of the US’ GDP. Thus, it evident that GA is of critical importance to our nation’s economy.
GA facility layout models have real-world applications and limitations.

5. Discussion
GA was chosen to be analyzed due to 90 percent of the aircraft in the US being GA aircraft. Thus, I decided it was worth analyzing. This is unlike most reports done on facility layout in aviation airport planning because most literature reviews analyze commercial airports and not general aviation aircraft. As such it was harder to find articles, websites and other sources of information regarding general aviation airport planning regarding facility layout. I eventually found documents to support the themes I wanted to discuss but it took a lot of research on my part finding the right journals, articles, etc. in scientific databases. The report contains a lot of data and information. I wish this paper could be over 10 pages, so I could do more analysis. Thus, to save space some figures are side-by-side instead of standing alone. I enjoyed this project and feel more informed about the subject.

6. Implication
The model illustrated will be a guideline for Industrial Engineers aiming to not only develop facilites layouts in the general aviation industry but beyond to other industries and applications. This will also enhance the quality of customer service by creating a more user-friendly environment for all individuals involved.
7. Conclusion
Aviation has only been around for a little over a hundred years. And within that timespan it has become a critical part of our modern world and people’s everyday lives. Not only is GA facilities layout important its needed. Each airport has site-specific needs. The main ‘parts’ to create the ‘whole’ GA layout design are described and analyzed. Various facility layout planning models are discussed, compared, and identified in figures included in the file. Finally, these models are applied to real-world examples. Limitations to these models are also explored. Furthermore, a well-planned facility layout will be able to better suit the needs of an airport general aviation consumers thus increasing customer service.

References
Sander, D. E., Chapman, R. B., Ward, S. A., Marr, S.,

[casanovaaggrev]