I think the detection time is rather important in enhancing the profitability of an airport. Assuming the four systems approved by FAA have the same FOD detection capability, a shorter detection time will allow the airport management to increase the frequency of aircraft take offs and landings, thereby enhancing the appeal and ultimately the profitability of that airport.

The bottom line of an FOD Detection System is to ensure the airport is safe for aircraft take offs and landings but a shorter detection will definitely help in enhancing the profitability of that airport

“In summary, I completely agree with you i.e. that any FOD detection system has to have a database with the parameters that you describe. And that’s why, while in my previous role as Tarsier Product Manager, the first thing I did was to build one.

I actually have a presentation on exactly this subject which I plan on posting to Slideshare.net sometime soon.”

Did you ever post this presentation or do you have anymore information on this topic please?

Thanks for the comments, you state in your reply:

“Thus, in your example, you should assume (in some cases) that both slow and fast systems can detect with probability of 95%.”

Yes, I agree with you. I do try and make it clear that it is quite possible for systems based on different technologies to have a shorter detection time and a better probability of detection, when I say :

“So, does this mean that systems with a longer detection time are better?
No, I wish it were that simple, but it’s impossible to compare the trade-off between probability of detection and detection time across systems that are based on different technologies. It’s quite possible that a system based on one form of technology will have a better probability of detection, and a shorter detection time.”

Maybe I should have been clearer and stated that as well as the technology used, the configuration is also a factor. The aim of the article was not really to describe every factor that can be used to determine the absolute value of the key parameters, its aim was to demonstrate that detection time should not be the main design aim. Is having a short detection time good? absolutely yes, and if you can achieve this while maintaining a high probability of detection (by increasing the number of sensors, increasing radar power output, adding lights to camera based systems etc) then it is a very worthwhile pursuit.

The Risk Calculator spreadsheet (and now also a web page) takes this into account by allowing detection time and probability of detection to be entered as independent variables.

Thanks again for the comments.

Mark

First thing, I agree with you that detection time is not the “only” parameter for a FOD detection system and reducing FOD risk. It is obviously an important factor, together with probability of detection, False Alarm rate, visual interrogation capabilities, System availability in different weather conditions, etc. All these are all covered in the FAA’s AC, so nothing new here.

However, I have a technical comment regarding your analysis. Detection time is not only a sensitivity issue. That is, you claim that decreasing detection time would decrease detection sensitivity (or increase false alarm rate). I claim that detection time is also a function of the coverage area. The smaller the coverage area is, the faster it can be scanned. That is, a system using more sensors to scan the runway, can perform faster without impacting the detection performance. Thus, in your example, you should assume (in some cases) that both slow and fast systems can detect with probability of 95%.

I’m not sure if you have seen an earlier article I wrote questioning why there isn’t “an App” for the recording of FOD data? With the capabilities of today’s smartphones it seems like there should be.
http://fod-detection.com/2010/06/11/found-some-fod-theres-an-app-for-that/

Mark

I couldn’t agree with you more. The reason I don’t discuss the risk reduction that can be achieved through analysis of FOD data is only because the sole purpose of the article was to look at a system’s detection time (it was designed to bust a particular myth that seems to exist currently).

The Tarsier Toolbox (a product I developed while at QinetiQ) is designed to do exactly what you suggest. It allows analysis of the FOD data, both spatially and temporally, for example, it allows the generation of heat maps that can be overlaid onto a map of the runway, showing problem areas. It contains details not only of the location and time of a FOD find, but also an image of the FOD item and the weather conditions when the FOD was detected. The sole purpose of the Tarsier Toolbox is to enable better (more focused) preventative measures to be taken. But, the ability to catalog and analyze FOD data has always existed, FOD detection is new. I don’t think that any “new” preventative measures, however well informed, can reduce the risk from FOD to around 10% (which is what a FOD detection system can do). The current FOD detection systems on the market (all of them) represent a step-change in the ability to detect FOD and therefore reduce risk. The systems do not just “see FOD”, they enable that FOD to be removed up to 6 hours before it would have been removed without the detection system.

A FOD detection system will also result in a larger, and better populated database of FOD items. Larger, as it will find more FOD than is found via manual inspections alone, and better, as it will find FOD that won’t be found (or cataloged) by manual inspections. For example, animals that are on the runway at night (either to eat, or to keep warm on the surface) won’t be found via a manually inspection, but will be detected by a FOD detection system.

In summary, I completely agree with you i.e. that any FOD detection system has to have a database with the parameters that you describe. And that’s why, while in my previous role as Tarsier Product Manager, the first thing I did was to build one.

I actually have a presentation on exactly this subject which I plan on posting to Slideshare.net sometime soon.

Your article argues the facts that FOD risk reductions are based on the accuracy and frequency of a system’s “sweep time and sensitivity to detecting FOD”. However, it doesn’t discuss the critical nature of a systems ability to collect data and to analyze and manage the data it collects. Any FOD detection process, whether human or automated, must not only reliably detect potential damaging FOD and cause the removal of same but should integrate and record FOD data and resolution into its system.

Safety Risk Management will become a key fundamental of any airports Safety Management System (SMS), soon to become regulatory for certificated airports and air carriers. SMS, like an airports Pavement Management Systems (another FAA requirement for airports), depends upon the ability to not only collect data but to provide meaningful analysis of that data that gives airport decision makers the means to justify spending more (or less) on FOD management and other linked safety efforts. In the long run without knowing what you’re finding, where it was located, where it came from and what you did with it (simple key performance indicators) you simply have a very expensive radar system that “sees FOD” but does nothing about it. And in that case you’re no smarter for the money spent or time taken to use the technology.

All the Best,
Rick Paddock