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.
29Â Â The amount of automated data collection pavement condition surveys in regular use at airports is uncertain. The findings in the synthesis indicate that this is not the state of the prac- tice, but perhaps it is state of the art, or at least will be in the foreseeable future. The survey was sent to approximately 600 airports, agencies, and consultants; of those 600, there were 56 usable respondents. BWI Airport surveyed its runways and high-speed taxiways using automation in the form of data collection vans. There are other instances where automation is being studied by the FAA and NHBA. Others, like ATL Airport, use automation as a supplementary evaluation method to augment PCI findings. The most extensive example found is PANYNJ, which uses automated data collection on both airside and landside pavements. It has used this method for nearly 15Â years with success. This synthesis report aimed to help form a baseline for the establishment of automation in the aviation sector. It was found that the use thus far is not as widespread as may be expected, and additional study of automated data collection pavement conditioning may be needed before more airports decide to conduct these inspections. Most general aviation (GA) airports are part of a statewide system of airports where pavement condition inspections are the responsibility of the state. These system-wide inspections can be done by consultants, state staff, or a combination of both. Most GA airports that may be interested in automated data collection are not involved in the process of selecting the pavement evaluation method or contracting for the service. Each airport receives an individual airport pavement condition report after the process is completed for the entire airport system. Of the GA airports that do perform or contract their pavement inspections, there may not be enough knowledge about what services are available beyond the familiar manual method. There is concern that automated data collection may eliminate the value staff gains by walking the pavement. By seeing the pavement and the conditions that may contribute to specific distress, staff may be more aligned in understanding the pavement management needs. GA airport and state aviation staff unfamiliar with automated data collection may not be sure what type or level of services are available, how to develop an RFP, or who to include in the release of an RFP. There is concern that if automated data collection is more costly, the FAA may not be willing to fund the additional cost. Although there are airports that want a 100% sampling, there is not a well-defined benefit to having more data. Most airports are satisfied with a valid PCI report that can be used for CIP planning. Agencies that contract for PCI inspection services have con- strained budgets and are not willing to increase their budget. In general, the uneven levels of common knowledge about automated data collection including the benefits, process, and cost, C H A P T E R Â 5 Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Study
30 Automated Pavement Condition Survey Practices at Airports coupled with issues of trust in a new system of data, may encourage airports and states to continue using traditional methods. During surveys, it is important that the limited airside pavements remain open to traffic as much as possible; therefore, the type of pavement management method is extremely important. The respondents to the current survey answered unanimously that automation took less time and caused less interference to operations. In the coming years, with greater miniaturization of UAS sensors and more robust AI and other tools for automated real-time data processing, the attraction of such technology-driven processes may encourage more buy-in. The issues that stem from providing traditional data through new collection systems and methods need to be better defined. Issues such as the inability to measure vertical distresses or difficulty distinguishing grooves from cracks may provide an opportunity to consider the importance of each distress in determining the correct maintenance and rehabilitation application for specific pavements. The benefits of having 100% sampling need to be identified. Can PCI data collection provide efficiency by supporting other endeavors? A guide that helps airport staff and state staff navigate the process of contracting automated data collection and clarifies PMP improvements and associated costs would likely move automated data collection forward in the industry. Much of the development in automated data collection is proprietary, so details across multiple projects are difficult to gather. Even with technological innovations, manual inspections are almost always the choice in pavement condition surveys. An inspector equipped with GIS-integrated handheld tools can interact with PAVER in real project time and deliver PCI values instan- taneously (that is, as soon as the upload of data is completed from the field). In comparison, imagery-based procedures need to process the data and prepare orthomosaics or composite imagery for further analysis. The time to deliver a PCI result can be significant and is an area where study efforts can be focused to reduce the time between data collection and deliverables completion. UAS-based systems currently face challenges with battery technology. Current generation UAS platforms require frequent battery swaps because of short battery life. This requires the operator to have available a significant number of batteries on hand to allow quick swaps to complete the operation. In addition, the sensors used for pavement inspections need further miniaturization to allow higher-resolution imagery collection. Lifting height restrictions and allowing data collection from a greater height will allow wider data collection and reduce required flight time. Additionally, the miniaturization of sensors to be comparable to those mounted on DCVs will help UAS to be able to deliver comparable performance.
