< Previouswww.shgm.gov.trCAPACITYINFRASTRUCTUREAVITATION350 DestinationsFlight NetworkServing more than 350 destinations, The New Airport will be one ofthe world’s biggest hubs.150 MillionsPassenger CapacityWith a capacity of 150 million passengers, the new airport is expected to become one of the world’s largest airports.6 RunwaysThe new airport will feature six runways and terminal buildings withan expandable capacityof up to 200 millionpassengers.DESIGNA Unique FacilityImpressive ArchitectureThe New Airport’smodern and functional architectural design will also reflect the architectural character and richness of Istanbul.5th MOST CONNECTED CITY of the WORLDISTANBUL THE LARGEST AIRPORT IN THE WORLDIstanbul, the largest airport in the world, will be inaugurated in 2018!Aircraft operational performances, at landing or take-off, strongly depend on runway surface conditions. Inclement weather conditions such as rain, snow, and ice may severely degrade runway surface conditions. For obvious safety reasons, pilots need relevant, reliable information about the nature of contaminants, the depth and coverage of contamination, and their effect on friction between the runway and the aircraft’s wheels. With the objective of updating existing safety-related provisions and developing a harmonized Global Reporting Format (GRF) for assessment and reporting of runway surface conditions, ICAO established the Friction Task Force (FTF), comprised of international experts and stakeholders from key industry groups. The result is a new set of Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) regarding operations on contaminated and slippery runways – impacting ICAO Annexes 3, 6, 8, 14, and 15 and Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) Aerodromes and Air Traffic Management. The new SARPs and PANS will be applicable as of late 2018 with an implementation target of 2020.To help aviation stakeholders better understand the new SARPS and PANS, the Service Technique de l’Aviation Civile (STAC), the French civil aviation technical centre (part of the Direction générale de l'aviation civile – DGAC), organized an international Symposium on Runway Surface Conditions Assessment and Reporting this past spring in Paris. The event was attended by 183 aerodrome operators, regulatory authorities, air carriers, aircraft manufacturers, equipment providers, and other participants from countries such as Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Norway, Turkey, Russia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, USA, and of course France.The Symposium was co-chaired by Armann Norheim, Norway Civil Aviation Authority (rapporteur of the ICAO FTF), and Mickaël Thiéry from DGAC-STAC.GLOBAL REPORTING FORMATThe Global Reporting Format (GRF) is defined by these key elements:■■A Runway Condition Report (RCR)■■A Runway Condition Code (RWYCC)■■A Runway Condition Assessment Matrix (RCAM)■■A standardized terminology and phraseology for the characterization of the runway surface conditions.The RCR is a comprehensive standardized report relating to runway surface conditions and its effect on the aeroplane landing and take-off performances. It is based on objective assessments that are directly tied to contaminant type and depth categories determined according to aeroplane manufacturers’ requirements. The RCR is comprised of a code (RWYCC between 1 and 6) and a description of the runway surface (type, depth, and coverage of contaminants) for each one-third section of the runway.DR. MICKAËL THIÉRY He is deputy head of the Airfield Infrastructures Department in the French Direction General de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) Service Technique de l’Aviation Civile (STAC). He served as co-chair of the Symposium on Runway Surface Conditions Assessment and Reporting.JEAN-LOUIS PIRAT He is a Scientific Counselor and International Affairs in the French Direction General de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) Service Technique de l’Aviation Civile (STAC) with particular focus on airports, environmental, and safety matters. He is chairman of the ICAO Aerodrome Design and Operations Panel.A NEW GLOBAL REPORTING FORMAT FOR RUNWAY SURFACE CONDITIONS ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016 39 RUNWAY SAFETY40 ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016XXXXX40 ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016RUNWAY SAFETYThe basic procedures for the determination of the RWYCC are described in the ICAO PANS-Aerodromes (Doc 9981) through the use of the RCAM and its associated procedures. It represents a foundation for the assessment by aerodrome operators of runway surface conditions and their report to pilots. However, runways worldwide are exposed to various climatic conditions and consequently a significant difference in the conditions to be reported. The RCR corresponds to a basic methodology applicable for all climatic variations and is structured with a built-in flexibility.The main objective of the Symposium was to launch the implementation phase of the RCR so that the involved stakeholders can be ready by 2020. It is the first of a series of events to facilitate orderly and timely worldwide applications.Symposium speakers illustrated forthcoming evolutions of the regulatory framework, shared feedback about the implementation of these modifications, and presented state-of-knowledge, practices, and research/innovation in process. The presentations are available on the STAC website (www.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/manifestation/friction_symposium_2016_CR.php).Richard Thummel, Deputy Head of the Direction de la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (DSAC), the French oversight authority of civil aviation, opened the Symposium, stating: “It is clear that ineffective braking is often related to the presence of contaminants or water on the runway. There is no doubt that poor reports of runway surface characteristics have already contributed to many safety events. Thus, the origin of the concept of RCR stems from a real operational need to improve safety. The RCR enables to eliminate most shortfalls in accuracy and timeliness of current procedures, which are not always perfectly consistent across States and airport operators and even, sometimes, not representative of stopping performances of aircraft.“The Symposium agenda featured four sessions:1. TALPA Experimentations – past and present experimentations organized by the States to test the RCR and its assessment tools, in particular the RCAM and the procedures for downgrading and upgrading the RWYCC. 2. Reporting Solutions: Procedures and Systems – existing or forecast tools that airports may implement to assess the RCR.3. Maintenance – assessment of slippery wet conditions and the definition of Maintenance/Minimum Friction Levels. 4. On the Way to Implement the RCR – essential steps to implement the ICAO amendments by 2020. TALPA EXPERIMENTATIONSFollowing the landing overrun of a Boeing 737 at Midway International Airport, Chicago, USA in December 2007, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) formed the Takeoff and Landing Performance Assessment – Aviation Rulemaking Committee (TALPA-ARC) to review the related FAA regulations and policies, as well as industrial practices. TALPA-ARC worked on a concept of assessment matrix (TALPA-ARC Matrix) as a basis for the aerodrome operator to assess and report the runway conditions to the flight crews, and for the pilot to interpret the information. TALPA-ARC worked in parallel with the ICAO FTF to converge toward more objective and timely practices at a global level for the assessment and reporting of runway surface conditions.The FAA conducted two successive trial programs during the winters of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Other States organized their own experimentations. At the Symposium, the USA, Japan, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Italy, France, and Norway presented their feedbacks of their TALPA trials. The objectives of these trials were threefold:■■Validate the correlation between the aerodrome and pilot reports to verify the Matrix assessment against the braking performances experienced by the pilots.The 25 speakers of the Symposium on Runway Surface Conditions Assessment and Reporting. XXXXX ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016 41■■Check the Matrix usability/applicability, both for airport operators and flight crews.■■Prepare the implementation of the concept of Ground Friction Measuring (GRF) by 2020.TALPA experimentations are managed by the State with common principles:■■A panel of voluntary airports representative of the country’s climate■■Air traffic control, air carriers, and, in some cases, aircraft manufacturers are involved■■Guidance materials prepared by the State ■■Training sessions carried out for air carriers, pilots, and aerodromes in order to ensure uniformity of application of the procedures■■A validation team analyzes the results and identifies inconsistencies in the reported information, mostly the pairing of pilot reports (PIREPs) versus airport reportsThis last step is essential to compare the aerodrome information (RWYCC, contamination types/depths/coverage, temperature) near the time of landing. Data are analyzed at the State level and each pairing is categorized according to the type of contaminant and three conditions of consistency, i.e.:■■Match: The RWYCC generated by the runway condition description based on the Matrix matches the PIREP■■Favourable: The RWYCC is lower than the PIREP■■Unfavourable: The RWYCC is higher than the PIREPThe amount of collected pairs, RWYCC/PIREP, varies across the experimentations (slightly less than 100 for France during winter 2014-2015 and more than 1000 for the USA during winter 2010-2011). Climatic conditions are different across countries. For example, Japan, Norway, and the USA experience winter conditions with a predominance of snow and ice, while France and Italy encounter water, slush, and wet conditions (less than 3 mm water). Variations in the specific practices and procedures of each State in the collection of data and the application of the assessment matrix, particularly regarding the downgrading procedures of the RWYCC, are responsible for disparities in the results. For instance, even if not reported to flight crews, the runway friction measuring device readings remain, for some States, key elements for the assessment of the RWYCC, in conjunction with the evaluation of the effectiveness of clearing actions. Choice of the maximum time interval for pairing of RWYCC and PIREPs also varies across States. The TARPA trials highlighted the need to improve the accuracy of the collection, assessment, and reporting of data. Training, particularly for pilots, plays a key role to increase the level of consistency and the amount of collected PIREPs.REPORTING SOLUTIONS – PROCEDURES AND SYSTEMSThe Symposium was highly concerned with the importance of the quality of data. Exchange of information needs to be trustworthy, and uncertainty of measurements, traceability, and measurement processes needs to be appraised at a global level. It was outlined that timeliness is fully achieved when the entire aeronautical data chain from the point of origin to the point of use are able to identify and dispatch the operationally significant information to the user in real time. Modern automated technologies should make this possible.Focus was put on training aspects. The presence of trained personnel on the ground is crucial since their assessment has a direct impact on the information used by the flight crew. All personnel involved in the information chain from data gathering, assessment, dissemination, phraseology, and operational use should also be adequately trained.The RCAM is particularly suited to serve as a reference method because it provides a framework transcending international boundaries and compatible with usual inspection practices (temperature readings, use of a graduated rule, etc.). The objective is now to investigate by 2020 complementary tools and procedures, tailored to the various climatic exposures, which could make the assessment of the RWYCC more reliable, objective, and up-to-date while remaining consistent with the RCAM principle. Some of the means presented in the Symposium pertain to research and innovation projects such as H2020 Future Sky Safety or the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) programme:■■Implementation of built-in runway sensors able to describe contaminants in a more reliable, robust, and automated manner. Technologies exist and are already used in the roadways sector – and by some aerodromes – but their performance in terms of accuracy, range of measurement, and capacity of providing real-time information and feasibility of installation on a runway must be further assessed in relation to ICAO requirements.■■The predictive modelling of runway surface conditions according to weather records and forecast. Developments are expected regarding the prediction of water thickness based on the dynamics of rainfalls and the topography of the runway.■■The use of braking data provided by on-board systems to assist pilots with their PIREPs and to participate in runway condition assessments by considering the aircraft as an airborne friction measuring tool.■■The development of GFM devices able to emulate the braking conditions of aircraft (tires, weight, anti-skid braking systems, etc.). Models are currently in development to physically correlate ground friction coefficients to real stopping performances of aircraft.In the near future, aerodrome operators will therefore dispose of multiple cues to determine a consolidated and reliable RCR. To guide them, decision-support models able to compile all available indicators from the traditional to the complex need be developed. Such an approach requires effective information sharing between all stakeholders. Beyond the objective of improving safety and knowledge of runway conditions, these efforts will improve use of runway capacity thanks to more precise information. RUNWAY SAFETY42 ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016MAINTENANCEThe Symposium focused on how to address the concept of Minimum Friction Level (MFL) and thus the detection of slippery wet conditions related to degraded runway surface characteristics (due to rubber deposit, polishing of aggregates, etc.).ICAO has abandoned the single use of friction measuring devices to determine if a runway’s surface friction characteristics fall below or above a threshold fixed according to the technology. The basic problem is that a fixed reference cannot be established for friction measuring devices due to the difficulty to maintain the readings stable in time, to the existence of different uncertainty levels according to the measuring technology and even the device used. The concept of MFL can be addressed by monitoring the trends of surface friction characteristics and a decision should not be based solely on one measuring method. A more holistic approach of friction should take into consideration, including the topography of the runway, the macrotexture of the surface, skid resistance, and operational feedback.Another way to consolidate the principle of MFL is to reduce the uncertainty of friction measurements leading to errors in the assessment of friction characteristics of runway surfaces. Comparisons based on statistical correlation with a reference device employed according to principles of control of uncertainties and time-stability and training of personnel are a way to assess the conformity of measuring systems.ON THE WAY TO IMPLEMENT THE RCRThe Symposium shared feedbacks on the way to implement the RCR concept. These will impact the development of guidance material at global and regional levels to meet users’ needs and expectations.TALPA trials prepare the deployment by 2020 of the GRF with the production of guidance materials, training procedures, etc., following the TALPA-ARC approach for the transition phase according to a voluntary approach, i.e. without rulemaking. Many interrelated changes and updates in documentation have already been done by the FAA or are scheduled in the very near future. An advisory circular (150/5200-30D) has been published providing guidance to aerodrome operators in assessing and reporting runway surface conditions. EASA has established a rulemaking task about aeroplane performance requirements, taking as reference the ICAO Aeroplane Performance Manual under development by the ICAO Friction Task Force. The ICAO Circular 329, Assessment, Measurement and Reporting of Runway Surface Conditions, will also be revised by the end of 2016.It is important that every stakeholder make the necessary adjust-ments in their management and operations – in a timely manner – including development of additional means, methodologies, and procedures, in their operational information systems, and their training programmes … with tight interaction between the various adjustments.At State and regional levels, the establishment of an RCR-dedicated Implementation Team is recommended to ensure proper planning and coordination.Patrick Gandil, Director of the DGAC, closed the Symposium with these remarks: “The French DGAC applauds the efforts of the ICAO Air Navigation Commission, Aerodrome Panel and Friction Task Force, as well as the FAA and TALPA-ARC for their works to progress this matter. [We expect] considerable benefits for a more harmonized format when reporting runway surface conditions. It will allow almost real-time communication by the aerodrome operator of the surface conditions to flight crews with a clear terminology directly related to aircraft performances.”The development of regulations and standards at a suitable level for pilots and air carriers, supported by technology and thorough training of personnel, is crucial to ensure consistency of implementation across borders. The master word for success is to install a truthful cooperation and coordination between the various stakeholders in the validation and transition toward the Global Reporting Format, leading to ownership and confidence. Left to right, Richard Thummel, Deputy Head of the French oversight authority of civil aviation, DGAC; Chuck Enders, Aviation Safety Inspector, Air Carrier Operations, US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); Armann Norheim, Aerodrome Inspector, Norway Civil Aviation Authority, ICAO-FTF rapporteur, and co-chair of the Symposium; Patrick Gandil, Director of the DGAC. 140 individual work programmes and deliverables which are fully aligned with the ICAO Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP), the Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBUs), and the Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP). Vision 2020 is now embedded in the DNA of CANSO and its members. It is how we organize ourselves, how we relate to each other; it drives our activities and priorities. Second, linked with that, are our relationships, in terms of partnership with ICAO and with our industry partners such as the airlines and airports, which are working much more effectively now. We genuinely have a seat at the top table when important issues are discussed in ICAO and elsewhere. Our views are sought and respected. We provide representatives to a number of key ICAO working groups and task forces, and we are working widely with States and industry partners on all of the issues affecting aviation and air traffic management. Third, we are particularly proud of the World ATM Congress. It is now the global event for the air traffic management industry, and provides a unique forum for education, policy discussions, best practice exchanges and so on. It has more than 7,000 people attending, more than 225 exhibitors and a top-class conference of about 80 education sessions. From zero to that in four years.What’s next?There is an enormous amount of work we still have to do. We are on the cusp of transforming the global performance of air traffic management with various new technologies. Our priorities are firstly to improve safety – always our number one priority. We do that through the CANSO Standard of Excellence in Safety Management Systems and work on safety maturity systems in air navigation service providers. Secondly, we need to build and modernize the ATM structure across the globe, and do that on an integrated regional basis, not continue to build on a national basis. And we need to work much more on harmonization of airspace and efficiency of operations through new technology and new procedures. “TANTALIZINGLY CLOSE”AN INTERVIEW WITH JEFF POOLE, DIRECTOR GENERAL, CIVIL AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES ORGANISATION (CANSO)This is the seventh in a series of interviews with world aviation leaders.Celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) is one of the youngest major global aviation trade associations. Based near Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, CANSO Members support over 85% of world air traffic. Its members consist of the world’s air navigation service providers (ANSPs) as well as industry suppliers. CANSO positions itself as “the global voice of air traffic management (ATM)” with a mission to transform global ATM performance and deliver seamless airspace globally. CANSO Region Directors are based in Brussels, Belgium; Johannesburg, South Africa; Mexico City; Amman, Jordan; and Singapore. CANSO’s Director ICAO Affairs is based in Montréal, Canada.Jeff Poole became Director General in December 2012 and within six months launched CANSO’s Vision 2020, its strategic framework for the ATM industry and supporting work programme. He joined CANSO from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), where on behalf of airlines he drove reductions in airport costs, air navigation charges and aviation taxes. He had previously worked at Airbus, mainly on the development programme for the A3XX (now the A380).“IATA gave me the opportunity to view the air traffic management industry from the perspective of the users. The CANSO DG role was an opportunity to move to the other side of the table and see how improving the ATM industry could be influenced from within,” Poole told ICAO Journal Editor Rick Adams. In the four years since you became CANSO leader, what do you consider the organization’s key achievements?The first is Vision 2020, under which our objective is to transform the performance globally of air traffic management. We have ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016 43WORLD AVIATION LEADER INTERVIEW“ We’re on the cusp of transforming the global performance of air traffic management.” States are at different levels, which is why ICAO has its No Country Left Behind initiative. CANSO could say similarly that one of our objectives is that no ANSP is left behind.The SESAR and NextGen programmes are delivering new technologies, new processes and new ways of working, which are consistent with the ASBUs and helping to modernize the industry. There is still a long way to go before we fully modernize everything and have really transformed performance on a global basis. How far along are we with the ATM roadmap?Tantalizingly close, I would say. Both the SESAR and NextGen programmes have struggled for different, very understandable, reasons. It would be easy for some people to be critical of the cost of the programmes and the length of time they have taken, but given all of the institutional, financial and bureaucratic hurdles, there has been some very good work done. We are in the deployment phase for many of the technologies and processes and new ways of working. Once we see significant deployment of the SESAR and NextGen outputs then we should equally begin to see major change in the industry and its performance. Of course, deployment needs investment. As air navigation service providers are virtually all government-owned or subject to government financial controls or constraints, it is really important that governments understand the importance of the SESAR and NextGen programmes and deployment of their technologies. Governments either provide the funding for the air traffic management infrastructure improvements or at least approve and authorize the ANSP to seek the necessary funding. There are good business cases but sometimes there are bureaucratic processes and approvals to be managed.How do we move beyond the concept of individual States each managing their own airspace?We have to overcome what is hidden behind the word ‘sovereignty.’ Every State has sovereignty over its airspace and is responsible for the provision of air traffic management in its airspace. That does not mean to say that the State has to carry out its air traffic management itself. There is lots of scope for States delegating their airspace, joining airspaces together, agreeing on a common service provider across swathes of airspace and so on. But there is also a real nationalistic sovereignty barrier to making such progress in ATM.It is clearly better to run ATM on the basis of the operational requirements of airspace users rather than national boundaries. So there is growing pressure to run things on a network basis with proper air traffic flow management. The other factor that is really going to change things, in my view, is the introduction of new technologies and processes which mean that ATM activities do not need to be carried out at individual airports. The outreach of an ANSP can be significantly more than it used to be historically, potentially even providing coverage for another country’s airspace. And we can see this happening in different places already. One of the major topics currently is integration of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) into the airspace. What is CANSO’s perspective?It has quite a focus for us. We have a collaborative airspace working group that reviews everything that is in and going through airspace. We are working with the RPAS and drone user associations as well as other industry associations, such as IATA and Airports Council International (ACI), and the ICAO working group on RPAS. The challenge for everybody is to be able to react at the speed with which the drones and the technologies are being introduced. This is a fast-moving game and one of the things we are trying to do is bring together the big players to ensure that we have a cohesive framework around the globe. Not only the airline organizations and safety organizations but also regulators like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) so we all deal with the issue in a consistent way. As with everything else in aviation and ATM, we need to act and be treated as a global industry; the last thing we want is to have a very fragmented approach – local regulation, different regulations, and different approaches.Air traffic management is going through a major modernization with interconnected programmes such as the ICAO ASBUs, Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR), and NextGen in the US. What has happened in recent years has been very encouraging in the sense of setting a clear roadmap for aviation and the ATM industry. We are very strong supporters of the ICAO ASBUs; they are a high priority for us and a fundamental part of the Vision 2020 programme. Implementing the ASBUs will improve safety, enhance efficiency and improve connectivity. ASBUs provide a common roadmap for everybody, but one that also allows individual States and individual ANSPs to be flexible in how they are implemented, particularly on the timings. That is really important because not everybody is on the same level of maturity and there are different systems in place. There is very significant recognition that different WORLD AVIATION LEADER INTERVIEW44 ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016“ We have to overcome what’s hidden behind the word ‘sovereignty.’ ”– Jeff Poole, Director General, CANSO ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016 45WORLD AVIATION LEADER INTERVIEWWe need operational and technological pressure for change. What will really help us to change is when we hit gridlock, when there are real capacity constraints and people experience the loss of economic growth because there is no scope for further growth in aviation. I think that it is only a matter of time before capacity constraints will lead to political pressure to ensure effective regional initiatives, and we certainly have the operational and technical capability to make regional airspace initiatives work today.Are there currently such capacity constraints?Yes, absolutely. There are some well-known bottlenecks in the Middle East, which also affect other regions because the Middle East provides significant airways from Europe to Asia or Africa. There are also capacity constraints around some of the conflict zones. Individual States will have bottlenecks depending on their capacity in air traffic management and technology. CANSO and other organizations have called for ‘better regulation.’ What does that mean to you?For us, we see that many regulations are very prescriptive, inefficient and conflicting. They add cost and do not actually help improve performance. What we want to see is performance-based regulation that is focused on achieving agreed measurable outcomes, with the service provider being held responsible for how those performance requirements are met. It is not an easy issue to address because there is a cultural mindset as well as purely a regulatory one. And it will take time. We know what good performance-based regulation looks like but we do not yet understand how best to achieve it. We believe that it will be more effective to focus on new areas for regulation where there is scope to influence things from the outset. Two examples are remotely piloted aircraft systems and remote air traffic control towers.There is always some concern and resistance when change is implemented. We need to make sure that the operational, technical and social side of remote towers is matched by an appropriate regulatory framework.There’s a push on for remote air traffic control towers, but not everyone is onboard.The traditional argument of air traffic management has been that the human eye is better than technology. That is why we have high airport towers that overlook airport runways. But that is no longer true with fantastic technologies allowing much better visibility, especially in adverse weather conditions. Automation and digitization really do reduce the workload on the individual controller. I think the air traffic controllers are seeing that the digitised technology that is required for remote towers is actually improving their workstations and their working conditions. It provides much greater visibility over the areas where they are responsible and reduces stress as well. That has to be a good thing overall. Final thoughts?We do have significant challenges and none of us can handle those in isolation. We have to work together; we have to have good relationships with ICAO and individual States; and we have to work closely with our industry partners in the airlines, airports and manufacturing community. Partnership is itself a ‘technology’ at which we are getting better; we are seeing much more happening now in a more cohesive partnership style. To work in partnership is not necessarily easy; it requires more forethought and initiative to make things happen than when acting alone, but the results are very significantly better. Jeff Poole, Director General, CANSO46 ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016XXXXX Has civil aviation reached the point that fire suppression systems installed on new aircraft being produced today cannot be maintained for the lifespan of the aircraft? More than 20 years since the production of halon was banned (because of scientific evidence that halon contributes to the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer), there remains a lack of progress in replacing halon in civil aircraft, heightening concerns that the civil aviation community is unprepared for a future without halons.Before the Montréal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer called for an end to halon production (1994 in developed countries and 2010 in developing countries), halons found extensive use worldwide as clean, safe, and very effective fire suppression agents. Halon was considered ideal for use around aircraft equipment and structures because it is non-corrosive, non-combustible, leaves no residue, is effective in small quantities, and considered safe for humans in passenger cabins and crew cockpits.Two halons emerged as the agents of choice for many fire protection applications: halon 1301, used in fixed total flooding fire extinguishing systems; and halon 1211, used for streaming applications, primarily in portable fire extinguishers.Designs of new military facilities and equipment no longer use halons – with the exception of commercial derivative aircraft. In the merchant shipping sector, halons were banned from use in new ships 24 years ago. In contrast, the commercial aviation industry has lagged behind in adopting alternatives and new technologies for new systems. AIRCRAFT STILL HALON-DEPENDENTHalon is used for fire suppression on civil aircraft in lavatory trash receptacle extinguishing (lavex) systems, handheld extinguishers, engine nacelle/auxiliary power unit (APU) protection systems, and cargo compartment extinguishing systems. All civil aircraft coming off the production line continue to use halon 1301 for engines, auxiliary power unit (APU), and cargo compartment protection systems and halon 1211 for handheld extinguishers. Although there has been little progress in the implementation of halon alternatives in civil aviation in the past couple decades, there are new developments and initiatives that hopefully will lead to progress. For handheld extinguishers, a new alternative known as 3,3,3-trifluoro-2-bromo-prop-1-ene or 2-BTP has the potential to be a near “drop-in” replacement with minimal space and weight impact for some aircraft. Airbus anticipates using 2-BTP for in-production aircraft by the end of this year and also plans to retrofit existing aircraft. Boeing’s implementation has been delayed, owing to internal US regulatory review requirements, but they expect to introduce 2-BTP on all in-production aircraft in the near future. THE LOOMING HALON SUPPLY GAPTIME IS RUNNING OUT FOR OPERATORS TO ADDRESS AIRCRAFT FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMSAVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT46 ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016DAVID CATCHPOLE A consultant with Petrotechnical Resources Alaska, and serves as co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Halons Technical Options Committee (HOTC).DANIEL P. VERDONIK Director of Regulatory Programs at Jensen Hughes, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, USA, and serves as co-chair of the UNEP HTOC.The views and conclusions presented in this article are those of the authors alone and are not necessarily the views of their employers, the UNEP HTOC, or its parent Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. XXXXX ICAO JOURNAL – ISSUE 3 2016 47 AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAircraft manufacturers, who until recently had been working separately to find halon alternatives, have pooled their resources to form the Halon Alternatives for Aircraft Propulsion Systems (HAAPS) consortium. This international collaboration among aircraft manufacturers, fire extinguishing system suppliers, engine/APU/nacelle companies, and other key stakeholders aims to identify a common, environ-mentally acceptable, non-halon fire extinguishing solution for use in engine and APU fire zones. The HAAPS consortium has set a target date of the end of 2017 for completion of the programme.The International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA) has formed the Cargo Compartment Halon Replacement Working Group (CCHRWG) to provide a recommended date to ICAO for requiring the use of a halon alternative in the cargo compartment of newly designed aircraft. The search for a halon alternative for cargo compartments has been complicated by the need to also address the potential fire hazard of lithium and lithium ion batteries. The ICCAIA CCHRWG has proposed a date of 2024. HARMONIZING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTSIn 2010, the ICAO Council adopted Assembly Resolution A37-9, establishing a mandate for the replacement of halon in lavatory fire extinguishing systems, handheld fire extinguishers, and engine nacelle/APU fire extinguishing systems. In 2011, this mandate resulted in amendments to Annexes 6 and 8 of the Chicago Convention that set specific requirements for the use of halon replacements. The 2016 ICAO Assembly is expected to take up proposals for a timeframe for requiring the use of a halon alternative in the cargo compartment of newly designed aircraft. European Commission (EC) regulations differ from the ICAO amendments in some of the dates and the inclusion of a retrofit requirement. In response to the ICAO amendments and EC regulation, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) to require the use of halon replace-ments in the lavatory trash receptacle and handheld extinguishers on new production aircraft. This NPA is expected to result in an EC regulation in 2017.The differences between the ICAO, EC, and EASA requirements are summarized in Table 1 on page 44.UNCERTAIN FUTURE SUPPLIES In May 2012, ICAO issued a State questionnaire on the status of halon reserves. It asked the States if they anticipated that there will be enough halon to meet the civil aviation needs of their State and if they know the quantity of halon reserves accessible to their civil aviation industry. The replies (or lack thereof) from States that are home to major airframe manufacturers were the most telling. One such State indicated that all of the halon for their aircraft coming off their production line came from outside their State and that they were unsure if there would be enough halon to meet their civil aviation needs. Another State replied that they did not require halon or any other specific agent; they only require that aircraft have adequate fire protection. Only 13 States provided known quantities of halon 1301 for their civil aviation industry, representing a fraction of what civil aviation will ultimately need. These responses confirm that civil aviation has also lagged behind other sectors in establishing stockpiles needed for the future.A significant percentage of the global aviation halon needs are supplied by a very small number of halon recycling companies that search the global community to identify “used” halon, mostly from decommissioned systems and extinguishers that have reached the end of their useful life. However, as is true for all finite resources, the supply of used halons will diminish and eventually disappear. While some airlines may have taken the necessary steps to ensure a secure supply, it appears that most rely on service companies. Over the past few years, prices for recycled halon 1301 have increased significantly (doubling in some markets), indicating there is some concern over future availability. Given that service companies have on hand only a 3-4 month supply of halon, there is a potential for short-term supply disruption.Next >