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.
1Â Â The importance of pavement management programs (PMPs) in the airport industry is well documented. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5380-7B provides the details of the requirement and the benefits of having a proper PMP. Beyond the prerequisites, there are details such as data collection methods that can be addressed in innovative ways. In individual pavement management programs, there is an emergent trend to collect data for pavement condition indexing through automated methods. The scope of this study is to document the state of the practice for the use of automated pavement condition surveys at airports, identify lessons learned, and record observations that may influence future study. There is an impression in the aviation industry that automated pavement condition survey procedures have been in widespread use at airports in recent years. However, the findings of the current synthesis indicate this is not the case. It is not the state of the practice, although it may represent the state of the art. The survey was sent to almost 600 primary airports, all 50 state aviation agencies, multiple consulting firms, and airports listed by the National Association of State Aviation Officials and the American Association of Airport Executives. The useable responses totaled 56. Of those 56, six proved to be involved in automated data collection. The response from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) included five major airports. New Hampshire only had one airport used in their unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) test project, but it represents 25 public-use airports. The total number of airports represented is 38 if the New Hampshire Department of Transportationâs Bureau of Aeronautics (NHBA) is included. Several examples of airports were found that either have previously used or are currently using automated data collection methods. Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI) surveyed runways and high-speed taxiways using data collection vans that employed the Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS). John Glenn Columbus International Airport (CMH) uses LCMS to inspect its main roadways as a part of its regular PMP update every 3Â years. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) did a small pilot project in 2017 using UAS but did not find it beneficial enough to discontinue manual surveys. ATL does use UAS to supplement routine inspections to assess pavement concerns. When compared with other case examples, PANYNJ has the most extensive use of automated methods. Automated data collection is currently its primary means and has been since 2008. All airports interviewed that currently use or have tested automated data collection methods also use manual data collection. Manual data collection is used for larger portions, particularly airside. Airports managed by PANYNJ use manual collection in areas not practical for automated sensor use. The instances of automated data collection gathered from the survey were few and varied, making it difficult to draw many solid conclusions. There are possible difficulties mentioned Automated Pavement Condition Survey Practices at Airports S U M M A R Y
2 Automated Pavement Condition Survey Practices at Airports in this study, and questions about cost, not only for data collection but also for data processing. There are also questions about reliable compatibility between collection methods. Improve- ments in safety, cost, time, and datasets, as well as expanded data usability, have been observed. The maturation of automated data collection for pavement condition indexing may need additional study, funding, and industry leadership. Other than the firms providing automated services, there is a large gap in knowledge about automated services. Airport managers and state staff interested in automated data collection are unsure about the benefits, who to contact for advice, and how to establish an automated inspection program. There may not be enough incentive to switch to automated methods when traditional manual data collection works.
