stolport dsu paper

8/12/2019 STOLport DSU Paper

1/33


2/33

Delta State University- FAA Design Competition for Universities

2

Concept for a Future Maritime STOLport to Relieve US Airport Capacity Issues

FAA Design Competition for Universities 2013-2014 Category IV Airport Management and Planning

Robert L. Petty

Dr. C. Daniel Prather, A.A.E., CAM

Delta State University

2014


3/33


3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Forecasts for future air travel demand indicate that passenger traffic will increase significantly in the

next 10 years with US commercial air carriers projected to transport 1.23 billion enplaned passengers a

total of 1.57 trillion passenger miles by 2032 according to the Federal Aviation Administrations

Aerospace Forecast 2012-2032. The assumption is that the nations airport infrastructure will grow toaccommodate the expansion in airline operations; however, tight financial budgets and the demands

placed on improving existing facilities make large scale expenditures for the construction of more

conventional runways and new terminal space unlikely. Innovative and cost effective methods of

relieving airport congestion are needed by 2032.

In the early 1970s the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), as well as various private organizations, and airports, addressed the idea of over

congestion at large airports and initiated the development of an alternative concept that would allow

passengers to fly directly from city centers using short takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft from small

(under 3,000 feet long) runways designated as STOLports. This effort addressed STOL aircraft

technology, noise abatement, social acceptance, and economic feasibility. During the time of the study

many of the technologies that were addressed were considered insufficient to develop as a large-scale

national initiative. STOLports and STOL aircraft, however, met the basic performance criteria to operate

successfully together during the early studies, unfortunately negative public sentiment towards aircraft

noise and poor STOL aircraft cruise performance over longer hauls made the concept an unviable

alternative to conventional airline travel in the 1970s.

Today, NASA and industry have partnered together in designing aircraft that address the deficiencies

of previous STOL designs. The performance limitations due to high induced drag and the unacceptable

noise levels for departing and arriving aircraft from an inner city runway were design points in NASAs

recent study, known as the Cruise Efficient Short Take and Landing (CESTOL) aircraft project. The result

of this NASA study has led to the revitalization of the 1970s STOLport concept. This effort along with

advances in maritime based runway structures for STOL aircraft is the bases of this paper. Proof of

concept maritime runway structures which were successfully tested in Japan in the 1990sand advances

in other applicable maritime structures developed since then has proven the feasibility of the design and

construction of a maritime STOLport. By placing these structures in waterways adjacent to large cities,

where under-capacity is, and remains a problem and with inherent off-shore noise abatement

operations have been proven, the concept of maritime STOLports can be examined as a possible

solution to intercity airline departures for short to medium haul airline routes.

Combining the latest NASA findings and the successful designs of current maritime runways thispaper addresses the plausibility of a future maritime STOLport, which would provide short to medium

haul service between shore-lined city-pairs.


4/33


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 Problem Statement and Background

Section 2 Summary of Literature Review

Section 3 Summary of Market Review

Section 4 Problem Solving Approach

Section 5 Safety Risk Assessment

Section 6 Technical Design

Section 7 Interaction with Airport Operators

Section 8 Project Impacts on Industry and FAA Goals

Appendix A List of Contact Information

Appendix B Description of the College

Appendix C Description of Non-University Partners

Appendix D Sign Off Form

Appendix E Evaluation of the Educational Experience

Appendix F Reference List of Citations


5/33


5

SECTION 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

The National Aeronautics Plan of 2004, has the goal of increasing the capacity of the air

transportation system to accommodate two to three times the air traffic than it handled when the plan

was developed. To do this the FAA plans to introduce new airspace technologies that will enable aircraft

to fly with less separation between their flights, relying on the new Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system. The increase in aircraft traffic makes the already congested airport terminal

facilities the bottleneck in the increased flow of traffic.

In an effort to remove the constraint of overcrowding US airports and terminals on the future traffic

flow the FAA plans to revitalize unused or underutilized runways and terminal space. In the long term,

the administration foresees airlines operating point-to-point service from small runways scattered

throughout the country, moving aircraft activity away from the hub-and-spoke system with greater

reliance on linear routing. The FAA and NASA believe that 3rdgeneration Short Takeoff and Landing

(STOL) aircraft will be able to successfully operate from congested metroplex airports by 2025, which

will promote aircraft designs that provide over 70% of a reduction in noise decibel readings around a

STOLport, a better than 75% reduction in LTO NOx emissions, and a better than 70% reduction in aircraft

fuel burn performance. These benefits are the result of the NASA CESTOL study effort.

Recently, the NASA CESTOL study concluded with the emergence of aircraft designs that were

capable of meeting the STOLport performance challenges that thwarted early STOL aircraft and

STOLport developers.

The key to application of STOL short haul transportation is its potential capability to economically

alleviate the significant problems faced by the National Air Transportation System (NATS).

It appears to be general agreement that congestion of the major airports and noise are the mostimportant factors inhibiting the growth and prosperity of the NATS industry, both long and short-haul.

MARITIME STOLPORT CONCEPT

The design and development of large floating structures for ocean space utilization has been

underway since 1995 when the Technological Research Association of Megafloat (TRAM) began with

design studies in Tokyo, Japan. Earlier concepts in Japan for floating runways started as early as 1973

when airport planners were assessing concepts for the construction of the Kansai International Airport.

However, the idea of a floating runway structure was not accepted in favor of an artificial island concept

for the Kansai airport. Despite the failure to accept the floating airport concept the Japanese

government funded the development of two national floating oil stockpiles based in Kamigoto andShirashima Island, Japan.


6/33


6

Figure 1. Kamigoto Floating Crude Oil Storage Facility

Based on early successes with the off-shore floating oil storage facilities the Japanese funded work

through TRAM for a Phase I and II project that saw the design, construction, and testing of a floating

runway system.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. a) Megafloat under tow for assembly; b) Megafloat constructed; c) Meagfloat aircraft

approaches and landing experiments.

Phase I (1995-1997), which established the basic technology of large floating structures using 300

meter long floats that were joined at sea, investigated engineering methods of interlocking the

platforms and their hydro-elastic properties. Phase II (1998-2001) was focused on the construction of a

1000 meter floating runway concept that culminated in the precision approach and landing of aircraft on

to its surface. Phase II verified:

1) The applicability of the TRAM hydro-elastic response simulation conducted during the design

and development of the floating runway.

2) General research on STOLport designs.

3)

The precision recovery of aircraft on the floating structure with navigational aids, which was

tested and verified by the Japanese Civil Aviation Bureau.

4) The level of environmental impact of a floating runway system.


7/33


7

The TRAM Phase II project successfully verified that an Instrument Landing System could be devised

that allowed aircraft to fly precision approaches to the floating runway. The landing system used a

localizer, a glide slope, and a precision approach path indicator (PAPI) to orient the pilot to the approach

course of the runway. Initial concerns over aligning Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) while preparing for

departure from the floating structure was raised, but after successful experiments with an INS onboard

the structure, the concern was laid to rest. The landing experiments were preceded by ground based

simulation to determine if there would be significant signal instability throughout the approach a

moving deck. The simulator study was followed by actual approaches and landings to the floating

runway, which were conducted will little or no difficulty (Sasajima pg.4).

Figure 3. TRAM Megafloat Layout

Concerns over the environmental impact of a large floating structure were analyzed during the TRAM

Phase II project. The main concern was the impact to undersea wildlife, particularly seaweed beds and

shell life caused by sun and oxygen deprivation under the shadow of the structure. A bottom airspace

was initially designed into the structure to allow for air to pass between the floating structure and the

surface of the water. It was confirmed that impact to these species were very unlikely. The TRAM PhaseII floating structures program was $95 million.

There are many benefits of a maritime STOLport. Maritime STOLports can be placed far enough away

from urbanized areas where the noise decibel levels can be minimized. They can be deployed where

long flat terrain features are not available for conventional runway development (e.g. small islands,

mountainous regions, swamps, etc.). And, if readily available, the system could be used in emergency

situations were a relatively quick deployment of a runway structure is needed along a coast or waterway

for receiving emergency responders and equipment.

The STOLportsapplication as a reliever airport facility and its impact on commercial aviation has

been studied in the past by NASA and others in the aviation industry. Maritime STOLports have be

considered in the past by various municipalities and airport managers as a way to minimize congestion

at a primary or large airport. In the past, the deficiencies of STOL aircraft made the STOLport idea an

unattractive one. Today, the STOLport is being revived by NASA through various studies and research

efforts to improve upon the misgivings of earlier STOL aircraft. Specifically, cruise speed and noise.

NASAs STOL aircraft initiative is focused on technology that it will yield a passenger transport concept

that can arrive and depart from a STOLport over a short-haul to medium-haul market.


8/33


8

QUIET SHORT HAUL AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND THE AMST

The late 1970s saw a US national research thrust into Vertical/Short Take Off and Landing aircraft

(V/STOL) technologies. The Quiet Short-Haul Research Aircraft (QSRA) program developed by Ames

Research Center was a flight facility for research in to terminal area operations. The aircraft used in the

research program was heavily modified de Havilland DHC-5 Buffalo (NASA C-8A Bisontennial) with ashort-span Boeing wing that incorporated two split-flow turbofan engines based on the Rolls-Royce

Spey. Later a second DHC-5 was modified into the QSRA aircraft. Equipped with four Avco Lycoming

YF102 high by-pass turbofan engines, which were mounted above the wing in order to take advantage

of the Coanda effect the demonstrated exceptional takeoff and landing performance. Confidence in the

aircraft leads to aircraft carrier trials of the QSRA aircraft in 1980, from the USS Kitty Hawk. Take-offs

and landings were accomplished without the aid of catapults or arresting gear.

Despite the accomplishments of the QSRA aircraft its speed was slow. The landing gear was not

designed to retract, the leading edge of the wing was fixed, and the fuselage was designed for slow

tactical aircraft operations, limiting the aircraft to 190 knots.

Figure 4. NASA C-8A QSRA

In 1968 the United States Air Force began studies into an Advanced Medium STOL Transport (AMST)

designed to replace the Lockheed Aircraft Companys venerable C-130 Hercules. The Boeing AircraftCompany and the McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company each submitted entries into the program with

the YC-14 and YC-15, respectively. Both designs represented different approaches to developing

remarkable STOL aircraft performance using upper surface (i.e. YC-14) and under surface (i.e. YC-15)

blowing techniques.


9/33


9

Figure 5. Boeing YC-14 and McDonnell Douglas YC-15

Upper Surface Blowing (USB) technology, as demonstrated in the YC-14, utilizes the high bypass ratio

engines exhaust to generate lift by directing it across the top of the wing and along the trailing edge flap.

The flow of exhaust produces the Coanda effect, which results in a downward deflection of thrust and

super circulation that enables the design to generate greater amounts of lift.

The YC-15 utilized a blown flap technique that directs engine exhaust underneath the wing and

across the extended flap. The accelerated flow increases the pressure differential between the upper

and lower wing surfaces and with the downward directed flow due to the flap results in added lift. These

engine-wing combinations work to maximize the efficiency of the aircrafts performance during takeoff

and landing. Technologies such as this have helped to make STOLport operations from a commercial

viewpoint a technological reality.

EXPERIMENTS IN COMMUTER STOL SERVICE

In the mid-1960sNASA began studying the possibility of developing short-haul airline service to

relieve congestion at large airports. In conjunction to these studies Eastern and American Airlines

experimented with the concept of STOLport airline operations using the Breguet 941/ McDonnell

Douglas MD188 aircraft. The FAA, US Department of Transportation and various port authorities

cooperated in the demonstration.

Trials were conducted over select routes beginning in 1968 in the north-eastern region of the United

States. The aircraft, which has a maximum airline seating configuration for 64 passengers, cruises at a

speed of 215 knots, takes-off within 700-1,000 feet and lands within 600-400 feet, was considered very

capable for the mission. Plans underway by Eastern Airlines at the time of the demonstration were to

develop a STOL airliner capable of at least 350 knots and able to transport 100 passengers.

Experimenters found the demonstration to be very convincing of the usefulness of theSTOL concept

in air transport. If the cruise speed can be increased there is no doubt that STOL will be a tremendous

attraction to airlines. (Flight International 17 Oct 1968pg. 614)


10/33


11/33


11

the McDonnell Douglas Model 188. The aircraft could routinely takeoff in 700 feet, after a rotation at 65

knots and land within 600 feet after a 60-65 knot approach. Between 1968 and 1969 Eastern and

American Airlines flew the aircraft to determine the feasibility of commercial STOL operations. When

McDonnell Douglas was considering the MD188 for the US domestic market it was in competition with

another McDonnell Douglas project, the DC-9, which performed well on short-range routes along the

eastern seaboard of the US. (STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to a Large STOL Transport and the

C-17, Bill Norton).

The technology that drove the aircrafts STOL performance was the concept of externally blown flaps.

Deflecting the propeller slip stream across the flap enabled the aircraft to generate more lift than a

conventional aircrafts flap system. This is possible because the high energy slipstream energizes the

boundary layer of air that flows along the surface of the airfoil. Normally, as the aircrafts wing is

increased in angle-of-attack, the lift of the wing is increased. However, as this angle reaches a critical

angle (e.g. 18-20 degrees) the boundary layer flow of air over the wing becomes detached from the

wings surface and turbulent flow results. Once this occurs a loss of lift, or a stall, has resulted and the

aircraft begins descending. The externally blown flap can reduce the onset of a stall by allowing theaircraft to fly at a higher angle-of-attack without stalling. This method is often used today in large

transports such as the Boeing C-17 or Airbus A380 where high lift is needed, however, the maintenance

associated with blow flaps is high and reduces the number of designs likely to use to the technology.

TODAYS EFFORTAT COMMERCIAL STOL AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT

Figure 8. NASA-Cal Poly CESTOL Design

NASA CESTOL Aircraft Concept

The NASA Subsonic Fixed Wing (SFW) Project, which began in 2005, was a multidisciplinary

technology exploration project to address engine-airframes configurations for the general aviation

community. From this project came various designs including the CESTOL concept. The CESTOL (Cruise


12/33


12

Efficient Short Take-Off and Landing) vehicle was designed to address the congestion issue of large

airports by designing 90-150 passenger commercial transports that could operate from short reliever

fields (3,000ft long runways) and cruise at Mach 0.8 and 30,000 ft. to its destination. Historically, STOL

aircraft have poor top speed performance due to their inherent high lift designs and high levels of drag.

With the design point of operating from smaller air fields, large congested airports can reduce delays

with less time spent idle waiting on taxiways or in an en-route hold. CESTOL was also designed to fly

steep climb-out and approaches to reduce the noise levels outside of the airports boundaries. Its

engines are positioned on top of the wings to help mask the noise signature recordable from the ground

and its Upper Surface Blowing engine-wing interaction helps to generate lift during approach and

takeoff to climb and approach at steeper angles.

NASA examined possible CESTOL operations using Newark Liberty International (KEWR) as a test case. In

the case study the CESTOL aircraft would utilize KEWRs runway 29/11, designated for turboprop

aircraft, which would free up space on KEWRsother runways (4L, 4R, 22L, and 22R) designated for large

commercial aircraft. When NASA looked at 34 major airports in the study that would utilize CESTOL

aircraft flying between them, NASA found that a delay reduction was propagated through the airspacesystem. Improvements up to 64% in delay reduction were calculated for impacted airports and 23%

improvement for the network.(Hange, Craig 2011 pg. 32)

Figure 9. NASA-Cal Poly STOL Airliner Concept Landing in an Inter-City Airport

The NASA study also examined commercial tilt rotor concepts that could cruise at 300-350 knots. The

concept at using STOL and VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) designs in the study was to allow for the

maximum use of small airfields, decentralizing large commercial airline operations from large airports to

small airports located closer to urban areas, in order to achieve efficiency for the entire air transport

system. Floating platforms, whether a STOLport or a vertiport, can both utilized the maritime STOLport

concept.

The STOL airline concept is envisioned to operate in a simultaneous non-interfering (SNI) manner

with conventional traffic by using high maneuverability combined with steep approaches at low-speed in

the terminal area. CESTOL technology is available over the near term with a number of new technologies

that will give designers more latitude in CESTOL configurations and engine types.


13/33


13

SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

A review of the literature regarding maritime STOLports has been limited to papers written on

Japanese maritime runway development and US short-haul STOL aircraft and US STOLport development.

Most of the serious maritime runway concepts were developed between 1975-1995 with significant

work being accomplished and published by the Department of Environmental Engineering & OceanEngineering at the University of Tokyo and by the Technological Research Association of Megafloat

(TRAM), which is an industry lead partnership between the maritime structures industry, Japanese

universities, and the Japanese government.

Many of the manuscripts regarding STOLport design, development, and research, were obtained from

NASA studies conducted in the 1960s-1970s. Most of these works involve the technical aspects of

STOLport and STOL aircraft design, operation from a STOLport, and feasibility studies on passenger and

airport community acceptance. Later works regarding CESTOL, ESTOL, and hybrid short-haul aircraft

designs that would be applicable to STOLport operations were acquired through NASA.

The challenge of this paper is the integration of modern and near term STOL aircraft with the current

state-of-the-art maritime structures to determine the feasibility of deploying this technology for

metroplex point-to-point transportation. The chosen markets for maritime STOLports were based on

literature provided by early NASA studies and current articles regarding interest in floating runways.

Works used in this paper are cited in Appendix F.

SECTION 3 SUMMARY OF MARKET REVIEW

In the early 1970s a number of cities began to look at developing STOLports to relieve airline

congestion at their large area airports. Studies were commissioned to determine the operational,

economic, environmental, social, and engineering feasibility of utilizing STOLports for center-city to

center-city airline passenger travel. New York operated a STOLport at the LaGuardia Airport (1,096 ft.

long), Bostons Logan Airport developed a designated STOLport (1,800 ft. long), and the Walt Disney

World opened their STOLport in 1971. All were short lived airport projects.

The demand for STOLports began to diminish in the early 1970s as airports began adding and

extended their runways, implementing technology that helped to reduce aircraft enroute separation

and hence, reduce delay, and new engine technologies that reduced aircraft noise enabled operations

around-the-clock, without the need for limited hours of operation.

Today, there is a resurgent interest in STOLports as fuel prices continue to escalate and metro-city

areas continue to sprawl, encroaching on existing airports and limiting their expansion. STOL aircraft

technology is also developing rapidly with the use of composite materials in airline construction, Upper

Surface and External Surface Blowing aircraft designs for STOL use, and direct routing with new

navigation systems. STOLport technology is technically feasible, however, its public acceptance and

economic viability that may determine its success.


14/33


14

Maritime STOLports have yet to find success despite encouraging experiments in very large floating

structures, such as TRAMs Megafloat. However,many of the factors that prevented floating runways

from becoming a reality (e.g. the concerns during the design of the Kansai Airport and the floating

runwaysenvironmental impact) are being resolved with engineering solutions.

Presented here is a brief summary of some of those studies and a review of contemporary interest inmaritime STOLports.

San Francisco Floating STOLport Study 1975

In 1972 the Northern California STOL (NORCALSTOL) group was assembled for a three year period to

encourage and study the feasibility of a quiet short haul air transport system between the business

centers of the San Francisco Bay Area and urban centers of outlying cities of Northern California.

NORCALSTOL, organized by the FAA and NASA-Ames Research Center, developed the study of a floating

STOLport in two possible locations in San Francisco Bay. The results of the study determined that the air

service from the Bay STOLport was technically feasible. Their method of construction was to use older

ship hulls that were once placed in dry dock, which could be reconditioned to provide the floatation

system for a runway deck and terminal facility. Unfortunately, the study revealed the local population

near the planned runway locations were vehemently opposed to another airport in their city, which in

their opinions would add to the noise and pollution levels. The results of the study concluded that the

maritime STOLport was not a feasible option for the flying public in the Bay Area due to concerns over

noise pollution.

Figure 10. San Francisco Bay 1975 Concept for a maritime STOLport


15/33


15

Floating Interim Manhattan STOLport Study of 1967

In 1967 the Floating Interim Manhattan STOLport (FIMS) study, conducted by the FAA and American

Airlines, addressed the idea of a floating STOLport to be located in the Hudson River near W. 30 thStreet.

The analysis addressed the technical feasibility of designing a floating system that would accommodate

either aircraft up to 60,000 lbs gross weight or 200,000 lbs gross weight. The estimated cost of these

two runway systems were $12 million and $14.5 million, respectively. The plan was considered very

reasonable to many in local government officials who signed letters of consent with the concept,

however a local organization, known as the Chelsea Against the STOLportgroup, petitioned and raised

concerns over the location of the STOLport, saying what is true for Chelsea holds true for any other city

across our country. We will see to it that the environment of our cities is not destroyed on the pretext of

our finding ways to reach them faster and thereby polluting them faster.(Howard, pg. 96)

Figure 11. New York Citys Hudson River STOLport 1967 STOLport Concept


16/33


16

Current Interest in STOLports

San Diego PSP Runway

In 2003 a plan was considered to either expand San Diegos Lindbergh Field or place funds into a

floating STOLport. Airport designers considered a floating platform known as the Pneumatic Stabilized

Platform (PSP) that would be anchored three miles off the tip of Point Loma. However, the concept was

rejected in October of 2003 due to high costs, problems of accessing the airport, the difficulty in

providing utilities that far off shore, their failure to address security concerns such as terrorist attacks,

and inadequate room for high speed exits and taxiways.

The PSP concept was unique in that it utilizes encapsulated air to remain afloat as the structure was

composed of a number of cylindrical shaped components clustered together in a rectangular pattern to

form a module that can be expanded by linking multiple modules.

Haneda Airport in Tokyo

The Haneda Airport in Tokyo has developed an artificial jetty with steel structures holding up the

airports new runway. The planning team for Haneda considered a floating structure instead of one

which is moored to the bottom with steel poles. Tsunami in the region of Japan are of particular concern

for a floating airport design and was ruled out over a structure that is permanently mounted in position.

US Navy Office of Naval Research

The US Navy has been conducting studies on the technical feasibility and costs of building a mobile

offshore base. A mobile offshore base is a self-propelled, modular, floating platform that can be

assembled into lengths on the order of one mile to provide logistic support of US military operations

where fixed bases are not available. (Taylor, 2003)

Current Overcrowding at Major US Airports

According to Travel and Leisure Magazine the worst airports to fly to and from, primarily due to

delays, are:

1.

LaGuardia Airport (KLGA)

2. Los Angeles International Airport (KLAX)

3. Philadelphia (KPHL)

4. New York (KJFK)

5.

Newark (KEWR)6. Chicago OHare (KORD)

7. Washington Dulles (KIAD)

8. Boston (KBOS)

9. Houston (KIAH)

10.Atlanta (KATL)


17/33


17

Many of these cities, which are listed as the worst airports in the US, are collocated next to large

bodies of water that could potentially utilize the concept of a maritime STOLport. In fact LaGuardia and

Boston have had designated STOLports in the past, while New York has considered a floating STOLport in

the Hudson River and San Francisco (not listed among the worst) have considered maritime STOLports.

The primary concerns for their rejections were publically unacceptable noise levels.

JFK Airport, New York

Terminals 3 and 4 at the John F. Kennedy Airport in New York are consistently rated by travelers as

being very crowded. Travelers to New York can typically expect crowds no matter which of the three

airports they will fly from (JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark airports). Jamaica Bay, which has a natural

barrier island for a water break could contain the sea state for the use of a maritime STOLport.

Los Angeles International Airport

A 2010 J.D. Power & Associates survey rated LAX as the third-worst airport in the U.S., and crowding

was a big contributing factor. Long security lines (which go hand-in-hand with overcrowding) and delaysgetting through customs are other big complaints for travelers using LAX. A manmade seawall or water

break could be built in between the Pacific Ocean and the maritime STOLport making it a possible future

candidate for additional runways.

OHare International Airport, Chicago

Originally built to alleviate crowding from Chicagos Midway Airport, OHare is now one of the most

crowded airports in the worldso much so that it was recently named the Worst Airport in America.

The primary reason is flight delays, which results in passenger overcrowding. Lake Michigan offers a

closed body of water where the relatively calm sea state would allow for the positioning of a maritime

STOLport along the coast of Chicago.

(http://www.farecompare.com/travel-advice/the-5-most-overcrowded-airports )

London City Airport as a Model for Maritime STOLport

Figure 12. London City Airport
http://www.farecompare.com/travel-advice/the-5-most-overcrowded-airportshttp://www.farecompare.com/travel-advice/the-5-most-overcrowded-airportshttp://www.farecompare.com/travel-advice/the-5-most-overcrowded-airportshttp://www.farecompare.com/travel-advice/the-5-most-overcrowded-airports


18/33


18

For this concept paper London City Airport (ICAO EGLC) is an interesting airport model to examine in

terms of intercity STOLport design, operation, and community relations. It is located on a former dock

site 6.9 miles from the City of London. The financial district, which is closest to the airport, is the primary

user of the facility. The runway is 4,900 ft. long (1500m), which allows aircraft to operate from the

airport with field performance over the US 3,000 ft. STOLport criteria. In 2013 the airport served over

3.3 million passengers, which is a 12% increase from 2012. The airport is constructed from concrete and

has one runway strip that only allows STOL capable aircraft with certified crews that can fly the 5.5

degree glideslope approach.

Figure 13. London City Airport Layout

When the airport originally opened in 1988 the runway was 3,543 ft. long and had a glideslope of 7.5

degrees for noise abatement. The only aircraft that used the airport were STOL DeHavilland Dash 7 and

Dornier Do228s. The runway was extended and opened in 1992 allowing British Aerospace BAe 146

STOL aircraft to operate at EGLC. Passenger enplanement increased from 133,000 passengers in the first

year to 1,580,000 passengers five years later. In 2006 the Docklands Light Railway opened a branch line

from the financial district to the airport with 2.3 million passengers flying from the airport that year. The

airport now accepts arriving transatlantic aircraft from John F. Kennedy International Airport with

specially configured Airbus A318 aircraft. (Only the eastbound leg is transatlantic due to the weight

restrictions for the aircraft departing EGLC.) Current plans are to expand to allow more aircraft stands

and gates by 2030. There are 11 airlines that currently utilize the airport, airlines such as Alitalia, British

Airways, Lufthansa, and Swiss International Airways.

SECTION 4 PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACH

The technology of maritime STOLports is readily available as demonstrated by the research

conducted in Japan in 2005. The TRAM association developed a 1,000 meter long by 121 meter wide

experimental floating runway at the Yoksuka Port in the Tokyo Bay or Tokyo, Japan. The design,

connected to the shoreline by free-pivotal bridge for public access and moored to an underwater

mooring structure to prevent its movement, the maritime STOLport was used to conduct various

studies, including structural fabrication at sea, structural stability, environmental impact, and aircraft


19/33


19

terminal navigation and takeoff/landing experiments. The Japanese data on maritime runways was the

basis of developing the concept of an operational STOLport to relieve US airport congestion in cities that

border large bodies of water.

After examining the Japanese maritime runway structures and their experimental data an effort was

made to examine the work on STOLports and STOL aircraft by NASA was conducted. Significant work onSTOL aircraft technology and the feasibility of STOLports in the US was reviewed for this paper. Next, a

design effort was made to develop a maritime STOLport layout with adequate facilities to accommodate

airlines operating STOL aircraft and the passenger facilities needed to process arriving and departing

passengers. Additional effort was taken to consider the application of future STOL aircraft designs that

NASA has deemed as possible solutions to the problems of early STOL airline aircraft. These designs,

such as NASAs CESTOL andESTOL, were included in this research. This paper further addresses the

social issues of STOLports in high density populations where noise, pollution, and operational hazards

may reduce public acceptance of STOLports and how a maritime STOLport may provide some solutions.

SECTION 5 SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT

Addressing the safety concerns of a maritime STOLport AC 150/5200-37 Introduction to Safety

Management Systems for Airport Operators was reviewed and five phases of Safety Management

Systems (SMS) was applied to each element of the design. Describing the system, identifying the

hazards, determining the risk, assessing the risk, and developing ways to mitigate the risks are

addressed.

Maritime STOLport Risk

The general risks associated with typical US airline and airport operations are assumed and not

specifically addressed in this paper, although the operations that have elevated levels of risks that are

shared with airline and airport operations that are associated with the operations of a maritime

STOLport are included.

A floating runway structure, that is not positioned in an enclosed body of water (e.g. a lake or river),

is subject to high sea states and needs to be designed with breaks, barrier islands, or seawalls to prevent

unnecessary movement that could damage the structure or subject aircraft or passengers to

unnecessary risks. The sea state of the chosen location for a maritime STOLport should be determined

through oceanographic studies to determine the acceptability of a maritime STOLport design.

Aircraft operations to, from, and on maritime STOLports are exposed to the possibility of a ditching

events. Examples include aircraft that touches down prior to the STOLport, overruns the STOLport, or

inadvertently taxis off of the STOLport, increase the level of risk while operating at a maritime STOLport.

Designing the runway environment with adequate approach and runway/taxiway lighting will help to

mitigate the risk of off runway events. Specially designed rails or arresting barriers created to prevent

taxiing off the runways or taxiways if an aircraft fails to be recovered on the runway. Specific rescue


20/33


20

procedures, equipment (i.e. moored rescue boats, floatation gear) and safety personnel trained to

rescue and recover passengers and aircraft that ditch around a maritime STOLport will help to be

prepared in the event of a ditching.

Propeller or jet blasts that can impact passengers, personnel, equipment, or facilities on confined

taxiways and ramp areas could be a potential risk. Designing blast barriers between aircraft operationsareas and protected areas will significantly reduce the risk of injury.

Unique visual navigational queues that guide aircraft towards the STOLport may require specific

familiarization with the unique approach procedures so as not to cause undue hazard to the aircraft, its

passengers and persons or property, especially in heavily congested areas. Visual navigation aid placed

in waterways produce a potential waterway hazard.

Environmental concerns due to fuel spills and water runoff into the waterway environment is a real

concern. Methods of capturing runoff with guttering and spill cleanup will reduce the amount of

contaminants that would find its way to the water.

Noise levels in a metroplex or high population density area can cause health concerns for local

residents. By tailoring the approach and departure corridors along less populated areas and to utilize the

often steep approach and climb capabilities of STOL aircraft the noise can be mitigated. New aircraft

designs are accounting for high noise levels in their design and will become more tolerable for

operations in congested areas.

The maritime structure must be guarded against catastrophic failure or collapse, such as sinking due

to an aircraft accident or extreme wave conditions, or the failure of a mooring system. The TRAM

Megafloat structure, which is divided into a large number of watertight compartments, resisted sinking.

Also, simulations conducted by TRAM on aircraft crashing into the structure revealed that damage waslimited due to the compartmental nature of the float structure, which isolated the damage to the

impacted cells.

Fluctuations in glideslope of precision instrument landing systems (ILS), precision approach pass

indicator (PAPI), and future navigation systems due to hydro-elastic responses were examined by TRAM

and found to be negligible.

TRAM conducted trial calculations of target safety levels for their Megafloat concept if used as large

international airport and placed its annual probability of failure low, while placing its consequence of

failure high. This result indicates that it is very unlikely to have a catastrophic event, however, if a

catastrophic event did occur the effects could promulgate throughout the Megafloat. The smallerSTOLport concept would limit the scale of the effect, although the probabilities would remain the same.


21/33


21

Figure 14. TRAM Megafloat Concept and target safety level

SECTION 6 TECHNICAL DESIGN

The maritime STOLport concept is based on the TRAM Megafloat design Phase 2 structure and the

design requirements set forth in the ICAO STOLPORT Manual Doc 9150-AN/899 and FAA Advisory

Circular AC 150/5200-37. The Megafloat, which is 1,000 meters long (3280 feet) and 60 meters wide

(196 feet), provides the basic cellular structure for the papers maritime STOLport concept with minor

changes to relate some of the lessons learned from the TRAM experiment. The design is also scaled up

to allow for a variety of STOL category aircraft that have higher cruise performance (i.e. higher cruising

speeds often result in higher approach and landing speeds requiring greater field lengths).

ICAO identifies a STOLport as a field of less than 800m (2,624ft) in length. For this study the field

length was increased to accommodate the latest aircraft designs that have STOL capabilities as well as to

consider future designs under development. Although, it is not a large runway its size is modeled after

the operational London City Airport in London, England, which accommodates BAe 146, ATR 42/72, DHC

7, Do 328, and Saab 340 passenger aircraft.

The proposed maritime STOLport is a low profile floating structure that uses a breakwater or natural

terrain barrier, a mooring unit, and a gangway for passenger access. The large (4,000ft long) low profile


22/33


23/33


23

the TRAM experiment. The maritime STOLport would include coatings, cathodic protection, corrosion

allowance and corrosion monitoring as a strategy to maintain the integrity of the structure.

Figure 16. Megafloat Structural Arrangement

The floating structure would be moored to the seabed using a maritime dolphin mooring system.

The mooring is anchored to the seabed with free floating piers that allow the attached floating structure

to traverse up and down with the tide, while not being able to translate side-to-side. This prevents

undue stress on the floating structure and its mounts during tidal activity, while maintaining a relatively

fixed position on the surface of the water.

Figure 17. Dolphin Mooring Method

The dolphin mooring system was successfully tested by TRAM. It was manufactured on the surface

and then carefully positioned using a barge and crane float. The mooring mast was lowered to the

seabed where it was adjusted and secured on the floor.


24/33


24

Figure 18. Dolphin Moor Being Lowered

The maritime STOLport would be designed with a land based terminal facility to handle all passenger

ticketing, baggage, security screening, and holding. This would minimize the amount of the floating

structures surface area thatwould be required to provide for passenger related operations. For thisstudy the Port of San Diego Broadway Pier Cruise ship Terminal was used as a basis for developing the

passenger facilities. The handling and movement of passengers around dockside facilities lent cruise ship

facilities as a relevant model for planning. See Figure 19.

Once the passengers are released to the floating structure, they would migrate down the pier

supported gangway to the free-pivotal ramp that is on the floating structure. A narrow terminal finger

along the edge of the floating structure would accommodate the passengers as they board their

individual airline through a jetway. Once all passengers have boarded their aircraft the jetway is

removed, the aircraft pushed back with a tug, and the aircraft taxis under its own power to the run-up

and hold short threshold. An operational control tower would issue all ground and terminal area

clearances on the STOLport. Once cleared for takeoff the airliner would proceed to depart the runway

and enter the rest of the National Airspace System.

Figure 19. Notional Terminal, Passenger Lounge, and Gangway

Upon arrival aircraft would be vectored for an approach to the STOLport from the area approach

controller. The TRAM organization successfully experimented with Instrument Landing System (ILS) and

Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) for visual approaches to their Megafloat runway. A Global

Positioning Satellite (GPS) system, ILS (Category I with minimum visibility of 800 meters and 60 meter

decision height), and PAPI would be considered for approach to the maritime STOLport. Since the

STOLport uses dolphin mooring systems that allow for the float to rise and settle with the tide a unique


25/33


25

Optical Landing System (OLS) could be utilized to guide aircraft in during the final phase of the approach.

The OLS considered here is similar to the US Navys Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System

(IFLOLS) often used on aircraft carriers. This system accounts for any movement in the landing deck due

to wave action from its gyroscopically stabilized mount. Landing on the deck would be accomplished as

a normal landing with Aiming Point and Touchdown Zone markings painted on the runway surface.

Following the centerline markings the aircraft would proceed to the end to the runway and on to the

taxiway. From there the aircraft would be given a taxi clearance to proceed to their designated gate. The

aircraft would recycle for its next flight.

Figure 20. TRAM Megafloat and IFLOL System

Ramp services would be available through fuel, lavatory, potable water, and electrical service

conduits that would run underneath the deck. These systems would be serviced through a barge system

that delivers fuel and water to the STOLport and removes sumped fuel and wastewater, bringing it back

to the mainland. Electrical power is provided by high power electrical lines that run under the surface of

the water.

Figure 21. Concept Maritime STOLport Utilities
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/FS_CdG_Optics.jpg


26/33


26

The design, which places the runway structure offshore, could be further removed from the shoreline

and populated area by allowing passengers to access the airport through a fixed or floating bridge

system or ferryboat. The design is scalable and could accommodate larger aircraft, as the Japanese have

studied as a potentially feasible option for their airport needs.

The notional maritime STOLport designed for this study is presented in Figure 22. A 4,000 ft. x 90 ft.

runway, it is designed as a Group II runway able to accommodate aircraft with wingspans of up to 118 ft.

and tail heights of up to 30 ft. Runway extensions of 175ft are found at both ends with localizer landing

aids at both ends. Glideslope antennas are positioned at 800ft distances from each end of the runway

thresholds.

Figure 22. Notional 4,000 ft. Maritime STOLport with Nine Gates

Group II category runways allow for aircraft approaches between 91-121 kts. This enables aircraft

that are in the commuter and regional jet categories to fly approaches to the runway from either end.

SECTION 7 INTERACTION WITH AIRPORT OPERATORS

The STOLport concept was discussed with Thomasville Regional Airport (KTVI) Manager Mike

Woodham and KTVI Operations Specialist Robert Dukes. They related some of their 20 years of airport

management and operations insight into the operational realities of operating an airport with

suggestions towards the STOLport Concept.

KTVI Manager Mike Woodham

882 Airport Road

Thomasville, GA 31757


27/33


28/33


29/33


29

APPENDIX A

List of Advisors and Team Members

Student Team Member: Robert L. Petty- [email protected]

DSU Faculty Member: Dr. C. Daniel Prather, [email protected]


30/33


30

APPENDIX B

Delta State University is a public institution providing a comprehensive undergraduate and graduate

curriculum to over 4,000 students representing all of the states and more than 20 countries. Dozens of

degree programs on the undergraduate level provide educational opportunities in the Colleges of Arts

and Sciences, Business, and Education and in the Robert E. Smith School of Nursing. Graduate programson the masters, educational specialist, and doctoral levels provide advanced training in a broad range of

disciplines.

Acknowledging its beginnings as a teachers college, the University sustains excellence in teacher

education while continuing to expand offerings in traditional as well as unique programs of study. From

the core disciplines such as arts, humanities, and sciences, to unique programs such as Commercial

Aviation, the Delta Music Institute, and the nationally-recognized Geospatial Information Technology

program, the University is committed to meeting the evolving needs of the students it serves.

Source: Delta State University Website (http://www.deltastate.edu/about-dsu/)

APPENDIX C

Non-University Partners

APPENDIX D


31/33


31

FAA Design Competition for Universities

Design Submission Form (Appendix D)Note: This form should be included as Appendix D in the submitted PDF of the design

package. The original with signatures must be sent along with the required print copy of

the design.

University

List other partnering universities if appropriate

Design Developed by: Individual Student Student Team

I f I ndividual Student

Name

Permanent Mailing Address

Permanent Phone Number Email

I f Student Team:

Student Team Lead

Permanent Mailing Address

Permanent Phone Number Email

Competition Design Challenge Addressed:

I certify that I served as the Faculty Advisor for the work presented in this Design submissionand that the work was done by the student participant(s).

Signed Date

NameUniversity/CollegeDepartment(s)Street AddressCity State Zip CodeTelephone Fax


32/33


32

APPENDIX E

EVALUATION OF EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE

The educational experience obtained during this project was to examine all of the airports functions

and create a unique reliever airport concept which would consider the latest NASA technology and

foreign technological solutions. A review of NASA literature and research into the latest Japanese

technologies into offshore airport designs provided ample opportunity to learn about airport planning,

design and development in this creative concept of maritime STOLports.


33/33


APPENDIX F

REFERENCES

Federal Short Takeoff and Landing Programs- Status and Needs, Report to Congress by the Comptroller

General of the US

Gorham, John A. Study to Determine Operational and Performance Criteria for STOL Aircraft Operating

in Low Visibility Conditions. AMES Research Center, May 1978

Higgins, T.P., Stout, E.G., Sweet, H.S. Study of Quiet Turbofan STOL Aircraft for Short Haul Transportation

NASA-CR-135481,. Lockheed-California Company July 1973

ICAO Stolport Manual, Doc 9150-AN/899, 2ndEd

Kanafani, Adib. An Analysis of Short Haul Airline Operating Costs NASA CR 137763, October 1975

Norton, Bill. STOL Progenitors: The Technology Path to a Large STOL Transport and the C-17A. AIAA Case

Study- Library of Flight. 2002

Overview of Megafloat: Concept, Design Criteria, Analysis, and Design, Hideyuki Suzuki, 19 July 2005

Department of Environmental & Ocean Engineering, University of Tokyo

San Francisco Floating Stolport Study NASA-TM-X-72432 Feb 1974

Shovlin, Michael D., Cochrane, John A. An Overview of the Quiet Short-Haul Research Aircraft Program,

NASA Tech Memorandum 78545, November 1978

Taylor, R. (2003). MOB project summary and technology spin-offs, Proceedings of the International

Symposium on Ocean Space Utilization Technology, NRMI, pp. 29-36, January 28-31, Tokyo, Japan

Technical Feasibility of Floating Interim Manhattan Stolport, Report No. FAA-RD-70-67, Sept 1970

Tsach, S., London, L. ESTOL (Extremely Short Take-off and Landing)., Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI),

Ben Gurion Intl. Airport, 70100, Israel

Watanabe, E., Wang, C.M., Utsunomiya, T., and Moan, T. Very Large Floating Structures: Applications,

Analysis & Design. Department of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Kyoto University Kyoto 606-

8501, Japan

stolport dsu paper

Documents