1. Using Data to Reduce The Risk of Runway Excursions
In late 2006, the Flight Safety Foundation was approached by several international aviation organizations and asked to initiate a multi-disciplinary, international effort to address the challenge of runway safety.
Jim Burin
Director of Technical Programs

2. Participants Airbus EASA Embraer CANSO ACI IFALPA IATA FAA/CAST ERA
Eurocontrol
AAPA
US NTSB
AEA
Honeywell
ALPA
EASA
CANSO
IFALPA
FAA/CAST
LVNL
Boeing
DGAC France
Flight Safety Foundation
IFATCA
NLR
ALTA
These are the 22 international aviation organizations that participated in the RSI effort

3. Runway Safety Issues Runway Incursions Runway Confusion
To many (most?) of the people in the world runway safety means runway incursions:
e.g. NTSB Runway Safety Forum Topic: Runway Incursions Eurocontrol runway safety effort – Incursions FAA runway safety office – Incursions
The RSI team initially looked at all aspects of runway safety to include:
Runway Incursions Runway Confusion Runway Excursion
Runway Excursion

4. Runway Excursion:
When the wheels of an aircraft on the runway surface depart the end or the side of the runway surface. Runway excursions can occur on takeoff or on landing.
They consist of two types of events:
Veer-Off: Excursion in which an aircraft departs the side of a runway
Overrun: A runway excursion in which an aircraft departs the end of a runway
This is the definition that the RSI team used for a
runway excursion

5. We have proven several times each year that if you try to abort a takeoff past V1 or land long and fast with a tailwind on a contaminated runway, the consequences are predictable
An excursion is not like CFIT, which by definition is “…without prior knowledge of the crew”
- An excursion is normally not a total surprise to the crew.

6. The Players Aircraft Manufacturers Operators - Aircrews - Management
Airports
As you saw from the makeup of our RSI team, we had all aviation stakeholders as participants…..
Each of these has an important role to play in reducing the risk of runway excursions
ATC
Regulators

7. What role did the airport play in this accident ?
ATC ?
The Regulator ?

8. Runway Data Safety Incursion Excursion Confusion Data on Runway Safety
Lots of data out there – FAA, NTSB, NLR, CASA, IATA
Does not all agree – Why ?
What Aircraft are addressed ?:
* Jet (commercial and corporate?), Turboprop, Piston ?
* Western built /Eastern Built ?
What type of damage criteria do they use?
* Hull loss, major, substantial, incidents, fatal ?
Now fatal is the easiest classification to use, and a very popular one today. However, if you list excursion accidents by this criteria, then this………..

9. Isn’t on the list. I’m sorry, but this sure looks like it should be an accident to me.

10. Runway Safety Accident Data 1995–2009 1,508 Total Accidents
Number Percent of Total
Incursions: (.7/year) %
Airclaims Data Base
1995 thru Years
Western and Eastern built jets and turboprops
Accidents only (Major or Substantial Damage)
So damage only accidents – no incidents or events with no damage – which are at least two or three times as many
Overall look at data by type of runway safety events
As you can see combined, we average one incursion and confusion accident a year
And we average almost 30 runway excursions a year
1.0/year
Confusion: (.3/year) %
Excursions: (29.8/year) %
Confusion: 1. Lexington CRJ August 2006
2. Lagos,Nigeria B Nov 2003
3. Jackson Hole King Air 4 Jan 2000
4. Singapore Air/Taipei B Oct 2000

11. Runway Safety Data 1995–2009 Runway Excursion Data
36% of jet accidents
Breakdown of excursions by Jets and Turboprops
1 in 3 Commercial jet accidents is an excursion
1 in 4 Commercial turboprop accidents is an Excursion
24% of turboprop accidents

12. Fatal and Non-Fatal Runway Accidents by Type, 1995 Through 2009
Runway Confusion
Non-Fatal
Runway Incursion
As you can see by this graph, the majority of the runway safety accidents and fatalities occur in the runway excursion area.
Most excursions are survivable, and only a small % are fatal. However, the overall number of excursions is so large that even that small % adds up to a lot of fatalities. In fact, over 800 fatalities over these 15 years.
Runway Excursion
Number of Accidents

13. Just a reminder that not all excursions are on landing.

14. 79% 21% As a matter of fact, about 1 in 5 excursions occur on takeoff.
And of course the interventions to prevent a takeoff excursion are quite different from those to prevent a landing excursion.
Now let’s look at the primary risk factors in runway excursions – the top- 10………………………….
21%
FSF RSI - E Weener
9/20/2018

15. Takeoff Excursions – Top 10 Factors
No big surprises here – particularly at #1.
One to note is #4 – the percent of takeoff excursions when the abort is initiated prior to V1 (28%)
Now to the top ten factors in Landing Excursions

16. Landing Excursions – Top 10 Factors
Again, no big surprises here in the top of the factors.
The number one factor – go around not conducted, is actually comprised of two separate and distinct issues:
Go Around not considered
Go Around considered and not conducted

17. The Go-Around
Lack of go-arounds is the leading risk factor in approach and landing accidents
Lack of go-arounds is the #1 cause of landing runway excursions
---However---
Many approach and landing accidents result from poorly executed go-arounds
Data proves that the risk of an approach and landing accident increases with an unstable approach.
However, it should be noted that the go around itself can present some extra risk
And there is a time when a go-around is not appropriate
When is it appropriate NOT to go around: - Wheels on the runway - Deceleration devices activated (e.g. brakes, spoilers, thrust reversers)

18. Data Study Over 1 million flights analyzed
3.5% of approaches were unstable (35,000)
Only 1.4% of them lead to a Go-Around (490)
Here is some information from a current Airbus study
Even with a good stabilized approach policy and a no-fault go around policy, we find that only a small percentage of unstable approaches go around
And in looking at he high risk landing events, we found some interesting data
This is not the expected result.
Landings with High Risk events
Unstable Approach % (80,000)
Stable Approach % (62,000)
This was not the expected result ---- or was it

19. The keys to minimizing the risk of a landing runway excursion accident
Stabilized Approaches
Go arounds (properly conducted)
New element – and extension of the unstable approach concept --- stabilized landings
During our RSI work, we discovered a gap in our risk interventions– the stabilized approach, while very important as a risk reduction factor, only took you up to the threshold.
Over half of the runway excursions started as an unstable approach
If you add stabilized landing guidelines, over 85% of landing runway excursions are from an unstable approach or an unstable landing – or in many cases both !
Stabilized Landings

20. Stabilized Landing Concept
An adjunct to stabilized approach criteria
Influenced by stabilized approach criteria, but a separate risk area
This not in place of, but in addition to the stabilized approach concept.

21. Stabilized Landing Guidelines
A landing is stabilized when all of the following criteria are met:
- The runway conditions are properly assessed and accounted for
- The aircraft achieves a threshold crossing height of 50 feet plus or minus 10 feet
- The aircraft speed at the threshold is not more than Vref + 5
- Tailwind conditions not more than 10 knots for a dry runway, and nil for a wet or contaminated runway
This is a concept that is currently in work
We hope it will assist in the reduction of the risk of runway excursions
- The aircraft touches down in the landing zone and is promptly transitioned to the desired deceleration condition (brakes, spoilers, thrust reverse)

22. Corp/Biz Aircraft vs. Full Fleet - Landing Excursions
This is a very important slide.
It compares the total landing excursion data set (all aircraft over 12,500# MTOW in red) to just business aviation (in light blue) and shows that the pattern and priority of risk factors is similar for all aircraft and for business aircraft.
This was very similar to the Foundation’s ALAR work where it was discovered that it really didn’t matter what type of aircraft you were flying, A340 or a Lear 35, the primary risk factors were very similar……
And the good news is that the interventions to reduce risk are similar also

23. Runway Safety Observations
Data shows we are being effective in preventing runway incursion accidents, but the number of incidents and severity still indicates a very high risk
Data shows runway excursions are the most common type of runway safety accident (96%) and the most common type of fatal runway safety accident (80%)
Here are some observations from the overall Runway Safety Initiative effort:
Not many Runway Incursion accidents – but many incidents – the risk is still very high (RI IMPORTANT)
Excursions are by far the most common type of runway safety accident (96%) and fatal runway safety accident (80% accidents, 75% of fatalities)
The determination of the severity and survivability of a runway excursion is dependent on the aircraft and the airport
Now to some of the conclusions of the excursion study
Severity of runway excursions dependent on: Energy of aircraft when departing the runway Airport layout, geography, and rescue capability

24. Conclusions
Unstable approaches increase the risk of landing runway excursions
Failure to recognize the need for and to execute a go-around is a major cause of landing runway excursions
Contaminated runways increase the risk of runway excursions
Combinations of risk factors have a synergistic effect on the risk of an excursion
There were 10 Conclusions – each with several recommendations. Here are the top 5 Conclusions:
1. As with ALAR – unstable approaches increase the risk of an excursion
2. This second one is just a follow on to the first one – 99% of the time crews will get away with not going around when they should. But most of the accidents are in that 1% that don’t go around
Remember, not every unstabilized approach ends up as a runway excursion
But many runway excursions start as an unstabilized approach
Contaminated runways increase the risk of excursions
If risk of contaminated = x, long=y, risk of both >x+y
4. The aviation community has been searching for over 20 years for a universal standard of runway condition measurement and reporting. Good, fair, mu, CRFI. We need to stop searching and come up with something.
Universal standards related to runway condition measurement and reporting would assist in reducing the risk of runway excursions

25. Basic Plan 3 Critical Items for Success:
1. Identify high risk areas (with data)
2. Develop interventions to reduce the risk in the highest risk areas
In any safety effort to reduce risk, data is instrumental in highlighting high risk areas:
The Flight Safety Foundation showed in its ALAR work that a non-precision approach has 5 times the risk as a Precision Approach – and this information was used extensively to try to eliminate non-precision approaches.
New ALAR data shows the decrease in NPA’s, and the ALA rate
The RSI team used data to identify the high risk areas in runway excursions, then developed ways to reduce the risk in these areas
Finally, and most importantly, it is important to get these interventions out to the people who can put them to use
3. Get information out internationally in a user friendly format to the people who can use it

26. Here are three ways that is being done:
The report on the RSI effort titled “Reducing the Risk of Runway Excursions” --- data, interventions for all the players
An updated ALAR tool kit with the basic ALAR data updated, plus additional runway excursion information
The ICAO/IATA RERR, 2nd Edition with several tools to assist in reducing risk

27. Everyone involved with aviation plays a role in runway safety
Everyone involved with aviation plays a role in runway safety. It is a high risk area, and needs our attention.
The RSI team was made up of all the aviation disciplines because a runway excursion is not, as some believe, strictly a pilot problem . Everyone plays a role in in preventing runway excursions.
A lot of great work is being done in the area of runway incursions,
But more needs to be done to address and reduce the risk of runway excursions

28. FSF Goal: Make aviation safer by reducing the risk of an accident
This is the Flight Safety Foundation’s goal
We have had great success toward achieving this goal, but there are still challenges that need to be addressed - like runway excursions.
In aviation the risk will never be 0 so we face a constant challenge
The Runway Safety Initiative addressed this challenge and is an example of using data to reduce the risk of runway excursions.