A Guidebook for Airport Winter Operations (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

114 Opportunities to improve winter operations performance will require changes to current strategies, tactics, or procedures. There may be multiple alternatives that can effectively reduce or eliminate performance shortfalls. However, the diversity of airports, winter operations pro- grams, and operating environment prevents a one-size-fits-all alternatives selection process that can apply to every airport and improvement opportunity. The necessary level of evaluation as part of the selection process must be determined by individual airports, but will likely be influ- enced by the following: • Importance of the investment to the airport and/or its stakeholders, • Size of the investment relative to the size of the airport, • Number of alternatives being considered, and • Consequences of an incorrect decision. No matter the scale of the improvement opportunity, improving performance requires thoughtful, purposeful, and planned change. This chapter presents high-level considerations for implementing an alternatives selection process. 14.1 Establish Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria assist in the application of an evaluation process by ensuring that alterna- tives are evaluated consistently and against measures of strategic importance to the airport and its stakeholders. Evaluation criteria can be identified prior to or after improvement alternatives are identified. Identifying criteria in advance may help ensure that necessary information about each alternative is collected before starting the evaluation. Criteria for consideration in evaluat- ing winter operations improvement alternatives are summarized in Table 14-1 and categorized as implementation, safety, and financial. 14.2 Develop Alternatives To facilitate effective application of the evaluation process, alternatives must be adequately developed. Seek out relevant information from product vendors or other airports utilizing similar equipment or practices. If evaluation criteria were established in advance, ensure that data are col- lected that align with that criteria. Document the scope of alternatives, as well as key assumptions. 14.2.1 Scope Defining the scope of alternatives for improving winter operations performance will facilitate consistency in understanding for all involved in the process. It will also mitigate the potential for C H A P T E R 1 4 Selecting Winter Operations Improvement Alternatives

Selecting Winter Operations Improvement Alternatives 115 critical components of a proposed alternative from being inadvertently excluded from evalu- ation. Identify how the proposed alternative will meet new or existing performance goals and supporting objectives, and address the root cause of a significant performance shortfall, if applicable. Example components required to fully imple- ment a proposed alternative may include: • Equipment (e.g., mobile, fixed, electronic, etc.); • Infrastructure (e.g., modifications to existing or con- struction of new); • Staffing (e.g., equipment operators, mechanics, supervisors); • Training; • Tactical changes; and • Procedural changes. 14.2.2 Key Assumptions Define and document key assumptions upon which the subsequent evaluation will be based. This will facilitate consistency and further shared understanding through- out the evaluation. The level of confidence in key assump- tions should be considered when evaluating risk posed by improvement alternatives. Example assumptions related to a proposed investment may address: • Traffic forecasts, • Air service changes, • Aircraft flight schedule, • Aircraft fleet mix, • Airfield improvements, Category Criteria Description Implementation Ease Anticipated effort required to implement an alternative (e.g., high, medium, or low) Demonstrated Equipment or procedures have been proven effective and reliable at a similar airport under similar conditions Effectiveness Anticipated percentage of performance shortfall eliminated through the implementation of an alternative Potential Disruption Potential risk of disruption to airport operations if alternative is ineffective (e.g., high, medium, or low) Compatibility Compatibility with current and planned future systems or infrastructure Safety New Hazard Alternative introduces a new potential safety hazard requiring a risk assessment and risk mitigation, if determined necessary by the airport Hazard Mitigation Alternative mitigates the risk of a known safety hazard by reducing its likelihood of occurrence or potential consequences Financial Life-cycle Cost Estimated total cost including total capital, operating, maintenance Equivalent Annual Cost Annualized capital, operating, and maintenance costs (excluding labor) Labor Net change in staff required for implementation, operation, and maintenance (may be negative, zero, or positive) Impact Impact on airport fees, rates, and charges Table 14-1. Example evaluation criteria. BEST PRACTICE—SRE Procurement Analysis Close coordination is required between maintenance staff and airport finance staff in the procurement of SRE and in the development of an equipment replacement program. The lowest priced vehicle may not be the most cost-effective vehicle. Maintenance can assist finance by providing guidance, equipment performance reliability, actual maintenance costs, and other data (e.g., airline delay costs) that could be used to conduct more thorough analyses when con- sidering the type and number of vehicles required to meet snow removal goals and objectives. In addition to standard financing costs, other factors that must be considered when specifying equipment include airport geometry, vehicle maneuverability, airfield egress and ingress, fueling requirements, warranty periods, life-cycle maintenance costs, and additional required maintenance and storage facility space and layout. It is highly recommended that initial and on- going training costs be written into equipment speci- fications and into subsequent purchase agreements.

116 A Guidebook for Airport Winter Operations • Target winter event, • Climate change, • Technology advancements, • Fuel and material costs, and • Labor costs. 14.3 Evaluate Alternatives Each set of alternatives should be evaluated independently. The evaluation process using defined evaluation criteria should result in the identification and elimination of non-viable alternatives and ultimately the selection of a preferred alternative. However, many potential improvement alternatives incorporate tactics or procedures that present an obvious low opera- tional risk and cost of implementation. These alternatives can be defined, planned, and imple- mented without extensive evaluation on a trial and error basis because they do not present serious ramifications should they fail to achieve a desired outcome. Additionally, they may require the reallocation of existing resources rather than a significant new investment. Avoid overanalyzing these alternatives since it may unnecessarily tie up staff resources and offer little benefit in return. 14.3.1 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Some alternatives require a more rigorous evaluation due to their potential implementation, safety, or financial implications. The comparative analyses presented in this section will apply criteria described earlier to a range of alter- natives. The analyses can facilitate alternative comparison by enabling ranking or numerically rating of each alternative. Figure 14-1 presents methods for comparing alternatives originally presented in ACRP Report 99: Guidance for Treatment of Airport Stormwater Containing Deicers. Comparative analysis methods are intended to assist in the evaluation of multi ple alternatives and the selection of the preferred alternative. If the imple- mentation, safety, and financial criteria categories are used in comparative analy- ses, it is suggested that the analyses be conducted in the following sequence: 1. Implementation—Eliminate alternatives that are technically infeasible or unacceptable, 2. Safety—Eliminate alternatives that present an unacceptable safety hazard that cannot reasonably be mitigated, and 3. Financial—Eliminate alternatives that present unacceptable costs. 14.4 Plan Alternative Implementation Once an alternative is selected, the planning process begins. The amount and duration of planning required for implementation of an alternative is dependent on the nature and scale of the alternative. Equipment procurement may take a year or more depending upon funding available, while other changes in operation may take days, weeks, or months. As part of the planning process, revisit winter operations goals, objectives, and performance measures and make any necessary adjustments to accommodate the changing winter operations program (see Chapter 6). Additionally, update winter operations documentation to reflect the changes.

Selecting Winter Operations Improvement Alternatives 117 Figure 14-1. Methods for comparative analysis of alternatives (8, pp. 59–60).