Use of Stop Bars

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION
FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
EUROCONTROL
Runway Safety - Use of Stop Bars

24H
Edition Number : 1.0

Edition Date : September 2008
Status : Released Issue
Intended for : General Public
EUROPEAN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

Runway Safety - Use of Stop Bars 24H
DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS
TITLE
EATMP Infocentre Reference:

Document Identifier Edition Number: 1.0
Edition Date: September
2008
Abstract
Stop bars operated 24 hours per day in all weather conditions are considered a significant safety
benefit by Pilot, Drivers working on the manoeuvering area and Air Traffic Controllers. Controller
workload is considered acceptable given an appropriate procedure and co-location of the stop bar
switches with the Controller working position.
Keywords
Stop bars Controller workload Conspicuity Pilot
Vehicle driver Working position Safety benefits Procedure
Local controller
Contact Person(s) Tel Unit

Yvonne Page +32 2 729 3789 DAP/AOE
STATUS, AUDIENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY

Status Intended for Accessible via
Working Draft General Public ; Intranet
Draft EATMP Stakeholders Extranet
Proposed Issue ; Restricted Audience Internet (www.eurocontrol.int)
Released Issue Printed & electronic copies of the document can be obtained from
the EATMP Infocentre (see page iii)
ELECTRONIC SOURCE
Path: C:\apr_rwy_saf_2006\P5 Procurement\Red Stop Bars 24hr On HBRUPX00R
Host System Software Size

Windows_NT Microsoft Word 10.0 2547 Kb
Page ii Released Edition Number: 1.0

EATMP Infocentre
EUROCONTROL Headquarters
96 Rue de la Fusée
B-1130 BRUSSELS
Tel: +32 (0)2 729 51 51

Fax: +32 (0)2 729 99 84
E-mail: eatmp.infocentre@eurocontrol.int
Open on 08:00 - 15:00 UTC from Monday to Thursday, incl.
DOCUMENT APPROVAL
The following table identifies all management authorities who have successively approved
the present issue of this document.
AUTHORITY NAME AND SIGNATURE DATE

Please make sure that the EATMP Infocentre Reference is present on page ii.
Runway Safety
16/09/2008
Project Manager
Yvonne Page
APR Programme
17/09/2008
Manager
Eric Miart
Head of Unit 17/09/2007
Paul Wilson
Page iii Released Edition Number: 1.0

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD
The following table records the complete history of the successive editions of the present
document.
EDITION EDITION INFOCENTRE PAGES

REASON FOR CHANGE
NUMBER DATE REFERENCE AFFECTED
1.0 2008 Documentation Creation ALL
Page iv Released Edition: 1.0

CONTENTS
DOCUMENT CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................................ii
DOCUMENT APPROVAL ..........................................................................................iii
DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD..............................................................................iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................1
1.1 Preventing Runway Incursions .................................................................................................3
1.2 Context ......................................................................................................................................3
1.3 Objectives .................................................................................................................................4
1.3.1 ICAO..................................................................................................................................4
1.3.2 UK CAA differences to ICAO.............................................................................................4
1.4 Purpose .....................................................................................................................................5

1.5 Scope ........................................................................................................................................5
2. Study Description................................................................................................6
2.1 Description of Actual Manoeuvring Area Operations................................................................6
2.1.1 Signs..................................................................................................................................8
2.1.2 Holding Point location and markings .................................................................................8
2.1.3 Lighting ..............................................................................................................................8
2.1.4 Microwave sensors............................................................................................................8
2.1.5 RIMCAS Logic ...................................................................................................................9
2.2 Actions to prepare the trial ........................................................................................................9
2.2.1 Aerodrome Operator .........................................................................................................9
2.2.2 Air Traffic Control.............................................................................................................10
2.2.3 Aircraft operator...............................................................................................................11
2.2.4 Pre trial awareness..........................................................................................................11
3. Trial Findings.....................................................................................................12
3.1 Work in progress .....................................................................................................................12
3.2 Lights.......................................................................................................................................13
3.3 Consistent use of Stop Bars ...................................................................................................13
Edition: 1.0 Released Page v

3.4 Impact on throughput ..............................................................................................................13

3.5 Human Machine Interface design - stop bar control switch panel ..........................................13
3.6 Pilot awareness and consequent safety net effectiveness .....................................................14
3.7 Airport Vehicle Drivers - consistent placing of stop bars ........................................................14
3.8 Measured Safety Benefits .......................................................................................................15
3.9 Human Factors analysis and Recommendations ...................................................................15
3.9.1 Controller Feedback ........................................................................................................15
3.9.2 Pilot Feedback.................................................................................................................17
3.9.3 Airfield Operations Feedback ..........................................................................................19
3.9.4 Airfield Fire Service Feedback ........................................................................................21
3.9.5 Safety ..............................................................................................................................22
3.9.6 Training............................................................................................................................22
4. Trial Outcome and Conclusions ......................................................................23

4.1 Holding Point Location and Markings .....................................................................................23
4.2 Lighting....................................................................................................................................23
4.3 Throughput..............................................................................................................................23
4.4 Stop Bar Contingency .............................................................................................................23
4.5 ICAO Provisions Update .........................................................................................................24
4.6 Emergency Situations .............................................................................................................24
4.7 Human Machine Interface Design...........................................................................................24
4.8 Controller Workload ................................................................................................................25
4.9 Pilot Situational Awareness and Workload .............................................................................25
4.10 Airfield Operations Workload ..................................................................................................25
4.11 Training and Awareness .........................................................................................................25
4.12 Key Performance Enablers And Critical Success Factors......................................................26
4.13 Possible Future Use................................................................................................................26
Page vi Released Edition: 1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this study; to examine the feasibility of using stop bars that protect the
runway 24 hours per day in all weather conditions e.g. sunshine / bright light / rain / snow /
ice, day and night has been fulfilled with the following key findings:
1. Operating of stop bars to protect the runway 24 hours per day was considered a
significant safety benefit by pilots, drivers and air traffic controllers;
2. Airports using Stop Bars today typically equip the CAT III holding point as a
compliment to the pavement marking and signage according to ICAO. To move from
operating a Stop Bar during low visibility conditions and at night, to 24 hour
operations may require a number of changes to procedures, airport lighting, holding
positions, training and organisational stop bar use policies.
3. Throughput was maintained at the same levels as prior to the trial;
4. Operation of the stop bars in all categories of weather and light conditions was
considered to require an acceptable workload from air traffic controllers given an
appropriate procedure and co-location of user-friendly stop bar switches with the
controller working position;
5. Stop bars were visible in all weather conditions for Pilots and Drivers, irrespective of
the shape of the stop bar or the variety of the lamps in use, however a straight line of
lamps was preferred compared to a ‘V’ formation;
6. Stop bars improve situational awareness;
7. Key enablers to the successful use of stop bars 24 hours per day are:
• A clear stop bar policy from each significant organisation: aircraft operators,
air navigation service providers and aerodrome operators. These policies may
be enforced by the local regulator;
“Never cross (instruct others to cross) a red stop bar”
• A clear stop bar operating procedure defined by the air navigation service
provider;
• Contingency procedures for when the stop bar is unserviceable, to avoid the
crossing of a red stop bar;
• A clear strategy for the planning and implementation of maintenance or other

works on the manoeuvring area;
• Ergonomic design of the human machine interface of the air traffic control
lighting panel and stop bar switches;
• Independence of the stop bars from other air ground lighting;
Page 1 Released Edition Number: 1.0

• A single, consistent method for using stop bars is required by pilots to ensure
a robust safety net:
“Red Lights Mean Stop”
This study and consequent work was undertaken by the Local Runway Safety Team of
Manchester Airport. Due to the successful outcome of the trial, the use of stop bars 24 hours
per day to protect the runway will be continued as part of normal operations at Manchester
Airport.
Photograph by Blue Sky Services
Page 2 Released Edition: 1.0

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preventing Runway Incursions

Signs markings and lighting act as safety nets to prevent drivers or pilots from
entering a runway incorrectly. Today stop bars that protect the runway are used
differently across the ECAC area resulting in pilots and drivers systematically
crossing red lights and degrading their value as a safety net.
This report describes the potential safety benefits of using stop bars that protect the
runway 24 hours per day in all weather and light conditions. The intention of 24 hour
use is to consistently reinforce instructions given by air traffic control, to protect traffic
using the runway correctly.
This study and consequent work was undertaken by the Local Runway Safety Team
of Manchester Airport.
1.2 Context
The European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions (EAPPRI) was
first released with the full support of the EUROCONTROL Provisional Council in
2003.
The EAPPRI contains 56 recommendations that are targeted at specific stakeholder

groups, i.e. Regulators, Aircraft Operators, Air Navigation Service Providers,
Aerodrome Operators, Safety Managers, and Aeronautical Information Managers.
The EAPPRI contains several recommendations applicable to the use of stop bars:
Aircraft Operators 4.4.2 Pilots shall not cross illuminated red stop bars when lining
up or crossing a runway, unless contingency procedures are in force, for example to
cover cases where the stop bars or controls are unserviceable.
Air Navigation Service Providers 4.5.5 Aircraft shall not be instructed to cross
illuminated red stop bars when entering or crossing a runway unless contingency
measures are in force, e.g. to cover cases where the stop bars or controls are
unserviceable. Stop bars that protect the runway must be controllable by the runway
controller.
The role of the Aerodrome Operator is addressed by recommendation 4.2.1 Verify

the implementation of ICAO Annex 14 provisions and implement maintenance
programmes relating to Runway operations e.g. markings, lighting, signage. Ensure
that signs and markings are clearly visible, adequate and unambiguous in all relevant
conditions.
Local Runway Safety Teams 4.1.3 Confirm that all infrastructure, practices and
procedures relating to runway operations are in compliance with ICAO provisions.
Edition: 1.0 Released Page 3

The approach taken to preventing runway incursions continues to address issues and
concerns about runway safety together with the stakeholders.
1.3 Objectives
As an aid to preventing runway incursions, the objective of this study is to examine
the feasibility of using stop bars that protect the runway 24 hours per day in all
weather conditions e.g. sunshine / bright light / rain / snow / ice, day and night.
The study considers the following aspects:
1.3.1 ICAO
Use of stop bars 24 hours per day is compared to the current ICAO standards
and recommended practices for the use of red stop bars in category II/III
weather operations.
ICAO provisions act as the benchmark for the purpose of measuring the effect
of any changes.
The ICAO definition of a runway incursion is used as the basis for this study.
“Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an

aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for
the landing and take off of aircraft”
Applicable 25 November 2004
UK NATS has adopted this definition and further interpreted it for practical use
as shown in appendix A.
1.3.2 UK CAA differences to ICAO
The trial airport is governed by UK regulation and requires stop bars to be

provided at each runway holding point (UK CAA CAP168), irrespective of
category.
In accordance with CAP 168 the CAT II/III holding point is placed at 137m.
The local air traffic control procedure is contained in the UK Manual of Air
Traffic Services Part 2 General Operating Instructions Chapter 11 paragraph
11.2 (Localiser Sensitive Area).
At Manchester Airport there were two sets of stop bars, one at the visual and
CAT I holding point (90m or 105m depending on location) and one at the CAT
II/III holding point (137m). Runway Guard Lights (wig wags) were co-located
with each of the stop bars. This is a typical lighting configuration for UK
airports.

1.4 Purpose
This study has explored the feasibility of 24 hour use of stop bars to protect
the runway. 24 hour use of stop bars could enable the consistent operation of
stop bars internationally, providing a safety net with improved integrity
compared to the variety of operational practices available at aerodromes
today.
1.5 Scope
There are a variety of ways to use stop bars to protect a runway in current
operational practice.
This study includes (Appendix B) a procedure for use by Air Traffic Control
that when correctly applied, permits current levels of throughput to be
maintained.
This study has been based upon live operational trials of the use of stop bars
that protect the runway 24 hours per day, in all light conditions, at a busy
international airport.
The trial included operations during high season traffic peaks and low season
workload peaks with a variety of weather conditions.
The following aspects have been considered by the participating pilots, drivers
and air traffic controllers, human factors and safety experts:
• Preliminary Hazard Assessment used as input to the stop bar procedure,

temporary operating instructions, contingency procedures and other
preparations for the trial discussed in this report;
• Proposed air traffic control procedures;
• A view of air traffic control human machine interface requirements;
• Effect on air traffic controller workload;
• Training and transition;
• Aerodrome infrastructure, e.g. Air / Ground lighting, markings;
• Equipment e.g. light intensity, stop bar selection, position of switches, lamp
configuration;
• Maintenance and contingency on the manoeuvring area;
• Safety effectiveness and operational efficiency;

2. STUDY DESCRIPTION
More than 3600 (January – May 2008) hours of live traffic has been observed
during 24 hour operations using the stop bars protecting the runway.
2.1 Description of Actual Manoeuvring Area Operations
In recent years the trial airport has had an average of 188 hours per year of
safeguarded operation. This is made up of:
22 hours of low-visibility operations due to low cloud (200ft or below)
76 hours of low-visibility operations due to low visibility (600m runway

visual range or less)
90 hours of precautionary safeguarding where weather is just above

these limits.
50 % of UK operations on average are in darkness (UK Met Office)
Snow is unusual at Manchester, disruption due to snowfall is experienced on

average two days per year. Ice operations are negligible as pre-emptive de-
icing is carried out. Snow and ice were not experienced during the trial.
Peak traffic - 70 movements per hour, dependent parallel runways, operated

in segregated mode.
Runway configuration changes typically occur 4 times per day.

Figure 1. Manchester Airport Aerodrome chart

2.1.1 Signs
Signage at Manchester airport is ICAO compliant.
2.1.2 Holding Point location and markings
The CAT II/III holding point is placed at 137m as opposed to the ICAO
standard 90m. There is a CAT I visual holding point in use at 90m or 105m
depending on location; at the runway ends, the distance is permitted to be
reduced to 75m in the UK under CAP168.
This is a typical lighting configuration for UK airports and is a filed difference

from ICAO.
In conjunction with NATS, the Airport Operator started a programme of moving

the runway holding points and stop bars to a common distance of 137m
across the airfield. The south side crossing points for runway 23R/05L (BZ1,
DZ1, FZ1 and HZ1) are set up in this way.
Once complete, there will be a single holding point at each runway entrance
location which will be used in all conditions and will be accompanied by a
Pattern A painted marking, a red stop bar and Runway Guard Lights (wig
wags).
It is believed that a single holding point reduces complexity and confusion

when pilots and drivers are manoeuvring their aircraft or vehicles close to the
runway. It also provides an added safety net for the controller as there is
more time to identify and correct errors.
2.1.3 Lighting
Red stop bars are fitted at all taxiway access points to the runway, an
exception is made for the South Fire Station where emergency vehicles can
access at a location where no stop bar is provided. This situation is being
addressed by the airport operator. Vehicles are not allowed to enter the
runway from service roads; they must use the runway entrance points.
Taxiway routing guidance is provided by the use of green taxiway centreline

lighting at night and in CAT II/III conditions based upon the “sea of green”
principle – individual route guidance is not provided unless specifically
requested except where the Runway Visual Range falls below 200m
2.1.4 Microwave sensors
The crossing points on runway 23R/05L are fitted with microwave incursion
sensors that provide a visual and audible alert to the air controller (and in
some cases the pilot) if an aircraft crosses an illuminated stop bar. Where the
stop bars have been relocated to 137m this system illuminates the original

visual stop bar closer to the runway at the same time as the alert is generated
to the controller.
2.1.5 RIMCAS Logic
The surface movement radar is also fitted with a Runway Incursion Monitoring
and Collision Avoidance System (RIMCAS) which operates independently
from these sensors and provides visual alerts to controllers where a risk of
collision is detected.
2.2 Actions to prepare the trial
2.2.1 Aerodrome Operator
2.2.1.1 Stop bar policy

The airport operator at Manchester Airport has a zero tolerance policy on
crossing illuminated red stop bars:
“Never cross a red stop bar. If instructed to cross a red stop bar, challenge the
controller to switch off the stop bar, or provide an alternative routing.”
A runway incursion at Manchester Airport includes when an aircraft, vehicle or

pedestrian is cleared to enter the runway and does so, as instructed and
intended, but before the red stop bar has been deselected.
2.2.1.2 When a stop bar is out of service

UK CAA rules (MATS Part 1 Section 2, Chapter 1, Paragraph 9.3.4) allow the
use of “follow me” vehicles where runway stop bars fail. The airport operator
at Manchester will not permit the use of this procedure unless no alternative
exists; generally where a stop bar cannot be extinguished the link will be taken
out of service in favour of an alternative.
2.2.1.3 Lighting
Lighting software was updated to allow use of red stop bars at runway
entrance links during daylight hours when the full ground lighting system was
not required. This was done to allow lighting to be used to reinforce the air
traffic control instruction; and to prevent misleading traffic onto or across a
runway.
All air ground lighting is manually switched on and off by the air traffic
controller e.g. stop bars are manually de-activated (switched off).
The position of the lighting switches was adjusted for ease of use by the Local
controller.

2.2.1.4 Driver Training

At Manchester Airport drivers receive a specific training and a permit to drive
on the manoeuvring area. The permit and training is reviewed every twelve
months. Drivers permitted to operate in areas close to the runway receive
specialist training; the Airfield Operations drivers in particular require a
uniquely high level of skill and are required to undertake monthly competency
sign-off. These drivers are typically involved in runway inspections and bird
control duties.
2.2.2 Air Traffic Control
2.2.2.1 Stop bar policy

The air navigation service provider, NATS has the following policy on the use
of stop bars at Manchester Airport:
“Never instruct an aircraft or vehicle to cross a red (lit) stop bar.”
2.2.2.2 Stop Bar Operating Procedure

Air Traffic Controller Trial Procedures (Appendix B) and Temporary Operating
Instructions (Appendix C) provided formal stop bar procedures that were
issued for the trial period. Key points are listed below. See the relevant
appendix for full information.
When issuing a conditional clearance - extinguish the stop bar only when the
subject of the condition has passed and it is safe for the aircraft or vehicle to
enter the runway at that entry point at that time.
Use of green taxiway centreline lights was decoupled from the stop bars.
During daylight hours, only the stop bars protecting the runway were
illuminated.
At night taxiway centreline lights were illuminated on the taxiway. The lights
are coupled to the stop bar so that when a stop bar is deselected the green
centreline lights are activated.
The stop bars are re-lit manually by the controller to assure that all crossings
and entries are complete prior to re-illumination. There is no automated action,
except for links where only vehicles will normally enter the runway in the
selected configuration. In such cases a “quick drop” function enables the
controller to de-select a stop bar which then illuminates automatically after ten
seconds.
The unprotected entrance used by the fire service was controlled under strict
procedures that included local briefing and training for the fire service staff.
The taxiway green centreline lights extinguish in timed stages at crossing

points to allow crossing traffic to complete the cross after the stop bar is re-
selected.

Runway Guard Lights (wig wags) are co-located with stop bars and are always
on when the runway is in use.
2.2.2.3 Conditional Clearances

Conditional clearances for lining up on a runway are permitted at Manchester
but their use is discouraged and strict conditions apply. The use of stop bars
provides a re-enforcement of the conditional clearance as the stop bar will not
be dropped until the condition has passed.
2.2.2.4 Human Machine Interface design

At Manchester Airport tactile buttons are used by the Local Controller to
activate stop bars. This means the lights can be reliably switched without the
controller having to be distracted from looking out of the visual control room to
look down at a touch screen.
2.2.3 Aircraft operator
2.2.3.1 Policy
Most aircraft operators employ a “never cross a red stop bar” policy. If
instructed to cross a red light, pilots should challenge the controller to switch
off the red lights, provide a “follow me” vehicle or use an alternative entrance.
However, as there is some difference in the approach to stop bar use
internationally it is difficult for flight crews to apply this principle in a consistent
manner.
As mentioned above, UK CAA rules (MATS Part 1 Section 2, Chapter 1,

Paragraph 9.3.4) allow the use of “follow me” vehicles where runway stop bars
fail. Where this procedure is in place, experience shows that most flight crews
comply.
A Local Runway Safety Team briefing included the participating airlines.
2.2.4 Pre trial awareness
A Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) was created by the airport Local Runway Safety
Team to make all airport users aware of the changed use of stop bars.
Local Runway Safety Team members participated in a hazard analysis of the

trial, specifically the air traffic control procedure. Air traffic controllers were
advised via their shift briefings and the Air Traffic Controller Trial Procedures
(Appendix B) and Temporary Operating Instruction (Appendix C). Drivers were
briefed by the Airport Operator and aircraft operators were asked to notify their
pilots. The Local Runway Safety Team took responsibility for all aerodrome
users having the possibility to know about the trial, this includes the police, fire
service etc.

3. TRIAL FINDINGS
Measurement of the effectiveness of safety measures represented in this

report – such as the use of stop bars 24 hours per day – takes account of
quantitative data in terms of runway incursion alerts generated from surface
movement radar data, runway incursion reports and qualitative data from user
feedback.
During the previous twenty years Manchester Airport has worked on
establishing and improving its safety culture. Many runway incursion hot spots
have been eliminated at certain intersections during that time (T1 entry point
23L – JA entry point 23R – D1 crossing point 23R). The all time peak of
runway incursions was 17 in 2006 with two serious incidents (severity class A)
having taken place in 2002 and 2004. It is worth noting that almost all
incursions at Manchester are made by aircraft rather than vehicles.
The runway incursion rate increased during the trial, year to date (January to
May 2008) there were 20 recorded incursions. It is believed that this has been
due to aircraft crossing stop bars that should have been deselected when
aircraft were cleared to enter the runway.
This issue is believed to be a transition problem with a minority of controllers;

the fact that such events have been recorded would suggest that controllers
are keen to address the issue and ensure full compliance.
26 air traffic controllers, 29 pilots, 23 drivers and 16 fire service staff

completed questionnaires (Appendix D). All feedback was analysed and is
included in the following findings.
3.1 Work in progress
Issues regarding periods when air traffic control loses control of Airfield
lighting due to maintenance were identified. Improved airfield lighting
handover procedures have been developed to minimise disruption of
throughput due to runway / taxiway maintenance.
It was felt in the pre-trial planning that it would not be acceptable to switch off
the stop bars and revert to voice-only when there is a lighting failure or a
maintenance requirement. This has led to a more formalised approach to the
management of works in progress (WIP) between the Air Navigation Service
Provider (ANSP) and the Airport Operator. Now the ANSP hands sections of
the airfield over to the Airport Operator for maintenance; this includes the
runways and has been successful. The process is largely derived from
successful practices used by the UK railway industry.
A specific occurrence resulted in 5 incursions in the same circumstances.
During a taxiway closure aircraft were required to enter runway 23R from link
AF to backtrack and vacate at B (see airport diagram, figure 1). The runway
entry point at this location is AF1 which is directly adjacent to the rapid exit
taxiway (RET) at AE. RET AE is protected from the taxiway side by a
permanently illuminated red stop bar as runway entry at RETs is not permitted

at Manchester. However, when cleared to enter the runway at AF1 (with the
stop bar deselected) several aircraft crossed the red stop bar at AE and
entered the runway via the RET. This area is marked with an ICAO “Pattern
A” painted runway holding point marking and “no entry” signs in addition to the
red stop bar.
Investigations revealed that this area is difficult to navigate in smaller aircraft.

However, 4 out of 5 incursions involved aircraft of Boeing 737 size or above
(including one Boeing 747). Neither the Airport Operator nor the ANSP were
able to interview the crews concerned, but it appears that the desire to take
the shortest route and hence minimize runway occupancy time overrode the
desire not to cross an illuminated red stop bar. Consequently there has been
no tangible change (reduction or increase) in the number of runway incursions
for the trial period.
3.2 Lights
Manchester Airport is gradually migrating from using traditional tungsten bulbs

to the use of LED fittings upon the recommendation of the field maintenance
engineers. Operational staff did not comment on a significant difference in
luminosity or conspicuousness of the lights due to the type of lamp in use. A
straight line of lights was preferred to a V shape.
It was important to assure the Independence of the stop bars that protect the
runway from other air ground lighting to avoid switching on all or unnecessary
air ground lights when operating the stop bars.
3.3 Consistent use of Stop Bars
There was a feeling that the 24 hour use of runway stop bars was “a good
idea” and moving to a permanent procedure has been popular with controllers
as it provides an opportunity for consistency in stop bar operating procedure.
3.4 Impact on throughput
Traffic throughput was recorded at the same levels before and during the trial.
3.5 Human Machine Interface design - stop bar control switch panel
The design and location of the stop bar control switch panel is fundamental to
the successful operation of stop bars 24 hours per day.
The stop bar control switch panel must be co-located with the Local Controller
working position. For the trial, Manchester Airport placed the switch closer to
the controller to minimise the arm reach required. Occupational health
analysis has since concluded that the revised panel design is satisfactory only
in the short-to-medium term (i.e. for a period of months) and that any new
panel must be better suited to the ergonomic requirements of 24 hour stop bar
operation.

A new panel will be introduced later this year. Through controller feedback, it
is proposed that the new lighting controls will be of a modern touch-screen
design, but that the runway stop bar controls remain as traditional tactile
buttons. Operating stop bars that protect the runway through touch screens is
not appropriate when the controller needs to be heads up, looking out of the
visual control room to the manoeuvring area. Tactile buttons allow sensory
acuity of actions stop bar selection and de-selection taken.
Further design considerations may be given by industry to the quality of the

control buttons.
3.6 Pilot awareness and consequent safety net effectiveness
At the local Flight Operations Safety Committee (FLOPSC) it was suggested

that pilot briefings prior to the trial were not sufficient, possibly accounting for
the increased number of runway incursions. Aircraft operators attending the
FLOPSC were briefed in detail – this includes most local operators. The
Airport Operator issued a NOTAM on the subject of the use of stop bars.
It has become clear through this trial and other recent events at Manchester
that pilots do not always correctly assimilate NOTAM information, even when it
has reached the flight deck. Although outside the direct scope of this report,
this issue warrants further investigation as many local procedures (especially
during works-in-progress) rely upon the correct interpretation of NOTAM
information for their integrity.
It would appear that awareness measures to compliment the use of NOTAMs

as a primary source of communication with pilots is required from the aircraft
operators.
A consistent use of stop bars internationally is expected to influence pilot

behaviour favourably improving the reliability of the safety net.
3.7 Airport Vehicle Drivers - consistent placing of stop bars
All drivers (including Fire Service personnel) responded well to the briefings.
A comprehensive briefing and awareness programme was carried out, both

through the Local Runway Safety Team and through the Airport Operator’s
driver training unit. The airport has operated a zero-tolerance approach to
vehicles crossing red stop bars for some time, so the training and briefing
requirements were not onerous. The procedure already in use during the
hours of night and in poor weather was simply extended to 24 hour operation.
Driver feedback indicated that the brightness/visibility of stop bars was

generally satisfactory. Some specific recommendations for improvements
were made.
It is worth noting that the only vehicle incursion during the trial period occurred
during CAT III operations at a location where stop bar protection is only
available at the CAT I holding point. This is the only such location at

Manchester; vehicle drivers rely on special training and blue edge markers in
order to position themselves correctly in this area (this is not ICAO compliant).
The controller saw the incursion by using the surface movement radar and the
situation was resolved; reports were filed both by vehicle driver and controller
enabling a full investigation. The importance of having the stop bars in “the
right place” was emphasized by this incident and the Airport Operator has
sought to urgently remedy the situation at this link.
3.8 Measured Safety Benefits

Almost everyone involved in the trial has stated that the 24 hour use of runway
stop bars is a positive step.
The trial has proved that runway stop bars can be used without adverse
effects on controller workload, traffic throughput or energy use by lamps.
3.9 Human Factors analysis and Recommendations
A sample of the air traffic control questionnaire is appended – the

questionnaires to other user groups were based upon this so are not
individually included.
The findings from Human Factors questionnaires provide a set of conclusions
regarding the impact of the introduction of 24 hour use stop bars for each of
the participating groups, namely controllers, pilots, airfield operations drivers
and the fire service. The information is summarised into a set of overall
conclusions. Recommendations are also provided and, for ease of use, these
are referenced in brackets in the body of the text.
3.9.1 Controller Feedback
3.9.1.1 Lighting Panel

Overall, the lighting panel was not acceptable for use without modification in
the long term but it was sufficient as an interim measure until the move to the
new tower.
The tactile user feedback from the lighting panel was acceptable for both
current and future operations without modification but it was noted that a
greater degree of tactile feedback would be advantageous. The back
indications (i.e. the indication of actual lighting status on the panel) from the
lighting panel were also acceptable for current and future use with no further
modifications. However, the back indications could be difficult to see in
daylight operations and thus some improvement in this respect would be
beneficial.
The two-button press functionality of the lighting panel was only acceptable as
an interim measure as it was labour-intensive and prone to induce errors. It

was suggested that a one-press button would be more efficient for crossing
aircraft. The two-button press functionality resulted in an increase in the
number of incorrect selections particularly when crossing aircraft in westerly
dual operations. This was attributed to the size and position of the buttons and
the speed of execution needed during dual operations, especially during the
day when it is harder to discern the back lighting indications. As such, the
buttons on the lighting panel would benefit from being larger and/or more
spaced apart to reduce the number of incorrect selections made. However,
they were acceptable in their current form until the move to the new Tower.
The use of 24 hour stop bars increased the amount of physical movement
required to access the lighting panel, particularly for the Air 1 controller and
the Air 2 controller who were more negatively affected than the Ground
Movement Controller. The Alpha stop bar was explicitly mentioned as being in
a difficult position. It was also noted that the positioning of the panel could be
problematic for left-handed controllers to operate.
3.9.1.2 Workload
The use of 24 hour stop bars increased overall controller workload because it
was an additional task which detracted controller attention from the primary air
traffic control task. Moreover, the panel was poorly positioned and difficult to
use which introduced the potential for errors (i.e. pressing buttons
accidentally).
On the whole, the use of 24 hour stop bars did not have any effect on R/T
workload. However, it was noted that co-ordinating the de-selection of stop
bars with R/T transmissions was sometimes difficult.
3.9.1.3 Planning
Overall, the use of 24 hour stop bars had little effect on controller ability to
plan ahead or to execute this plan. However, disparate results made it difficult
to ascertain whether the use of 24 hour stop bars had any notable effect on
controller ability to prioritise air traffic control tasks.
3.9.1.4 Situational Awareness (SA)

It was generally agreed that the use of 24 hour stop bars had no effect on
controller ability to maintain situational awareness. However, it was noted that
operating the stop bars in daylight conditions served to draw controller
attention towards the operating panel and thus away from the runway.
Furthermore, the use of stop bars 24 hours a day did not have any effect on
controller ability to scan for information via the runway, lighting panel or strip
display.
3.9.1.5 Memory
On the whole, the necessity to remember to re-select the stop bar had no
effect on a controller’s ability to plan ahead or execute air traffic control tasks.
However, the use of 24 hour stop bars did result in an increase in the number

of times controllers forgot to re-select the stop bar after turning it off,
particularly in the Air 1 and Air 2 positions. It was suggested that the panel
does not lend itself to rapid operation and it was again noted that the amount
of time and attention required to operate the panel detracts controller attention
from their primary task.
3.9.1.6 Safety
The use of 24 hour stop bars resulted in an increase safety at Manchester
Airport. Moreover, controllers were reassured by the extra layer of security the
introduction of this measure provided with regard to runways incursions.
However, some concern was expressed regarding the fact that controller
attention is necessarily directed towards the lighting panel rather than looking
at the traffic outside. Nevertheless, it was generally agreed that with an
improved panel and adequate practice, such distraction should be minimised.
3.9.1.7 General
General comments suggested that concern over the lighting panel is a major
limiting factor to the benefit of using 24 hour stop bars, particularly the two-
button press functionality and the size and position of the buttons.
Concerns about pilots and vehicle drivers crossing red stop bars were
countered by examples of pilots asking for a clearance when a stop bar did
not match their expectations from the air traffic control instructions received.
However, it is apparent that the rules around stop bars are not uniform across
all airports, which may result in pilot confusion. It was suggested that the
implementation of 24 hour stop bars should be standard practice at all airfields
to minimise the risk of such confusion. Furthermore, concerns were raised
over the potential for confusion at the end of this trial when stop bars are no
longer used during daylight hours.
3.9.2 Pilot Feedback
3.9.2.1 Workload
Overall, the use of 24 hour stop bars had no effect on pilots’ overall workload
in daylight, darkness or low visibility conditions. This was also the case with
regard to pilots’ R/T workload although it was noted that, on repeated
occasions, it was necessary to call air traffic control to ask for a stop bar to be
dimmed.
In general, the use of 24 hour stop bars had no impact upon pilot ability to
monitor for relevant information. However, in some cases the stop bars
improved pilot ability to monitor for such information.

3.9.2.2 Planning and execution of tasks

The use of 24 hour Stop Bars did not have any effect on pilot ability to
prioritise tasks or their ability to respond to air traffic control requests in a
timely manner.
3.9.2.3 Situational Awareness

The introduction of 24 hour stop bars increased pilot ability to maintain
situational awareness in daylight, darkness and low visibility conditions. The
use of 24 hour stop bars served as a useful reinforcement of air traffic control
instructions, which reassured pilots that they were navigating accurately
around the airfield. In addition, they acted as a cue to boosting mental
awareness.
On the whole 24 hour stop bars did not have any effect on pilot ability to scan
the runway for information. However, in some cases pilot ability to scan for
information on the runway increased in daylight, darkness and low visibility
conditions.
3.9.2.4 Visibility of Stop Bars

It was generally agreed that the stop bars were sufficiently visible at all times
and in all conditions (i.e. daylight, darkness, low visibility and ambient light).
However, it was noted that there was variation in the intensity of the lighting,
with some being more effective others. LED lights were more visible than
tungsten bulbs. However, some pilots were unable to differentiate between
tungsten and LED lighting or were unaware that two different types of bulbs
were in use.
Perpendicular stop bars were more visible than V-shaped stop bars. It was
also noted that, since perpendicular stop bars were more common
internationally, this design was less open to interpretation and thus most
beneficial.
3.9.2.5 Procedures
On the whole, having received an air traffic control clearance, pilots would
always wait for a stop bar to be de-selected prior to entering the runway in
daylight, darkness or low visibility conditions. However, the pilot might elect to
cross a red stop bar in the event of an emergency which meant that not doing
so would endanger their aircraft; similarly, if the stop bar could not be
deselected due to malfunction – although local procedures at Manchester do
not permit this.
Having received an air traffic control clearance and seen that the stop bar was
de-selected, all pilots would ensure they read back the clearance before
entering the runway. Moreover, if a garbled transmission was received from
air traffic control, a clearance would always be clarified prior to entering the
runway even if the stop bar was de-selected.

Pilots stated they would not enter a runway if the stop bar was de-selected but
an air traffic control clearance had not been given.
3.9.2.6 Safety
It was generally agreed that the use of 24 hour stop bars had improved safety
at Manchester Airport.
3.9.2.7 Training
On the whole, there would not be any need for additional training if the use of
24 hour stop bars was introduced on a permanent basis. However, a short
brief or a NOTAM would be useful to clarify what was expected of pilots.
3.9.2.8 General
Pilots are familiar with the use of red stop bars but the variability of practice
surrounding stop bars internationally is a cause for concern.
3.9.3 Airfield Operations Feedback
3.9.3.1 Workload
On the whole, the use of 24 hour stop bars did not have any effect on the R/T
workload or overall workload of airfield operations staff in daylight, darkness of
low visibility conditions. However, overall workload was increased by the
necessity to enter the runway from the south side fire station to inspect runway
23L/05R when it was closed as stop bars could not be de-selected at the
normal entry point.
3.9.3.2 Planning and execution of tasks

The introduction of 24 hour stop bars did not have any effect on the ability of
airfield operations staff to carry out their planned runway duties in daylight,
darkness or low visibility conditions. Furthermore, the use of 24 hour stop bars
did not impact upon the ability of airfield operations staff to respond to an air
traffic control request or cross the runway in a timely manner.

Overall, the use of 24 hour stop bars had no impact on the ability of airfield
operations staff to maintain situational awareness. However, it was also noted
that the reassurance provided by having the extra safety barrier of 24 hour
stop bars in place was beneficial.

On the whole, the type of lighting fitting (LED lighting or tungsten bulbs) did
not appear to have any effect on the ability of airfield operations staff to see

the stop bars. However, it was noted that the LED lighting was easier to see
from an angle.
The stop bars were sufficiently visible in daylight, darkness and low visibility
and ambient conditions. In terms of ease of viewing and visibility, there was no
preference for either the v-shaped or perpendicular design of stop bar.
However, there was concern regarding an increased potential for error with
the v-shaped stop bar as it was less likely be seen when rushing.
Furthermore, areas where the ground is raised or sloping hindered the
visibility of the v-shaped stop bars.
3.9.3.5 Procedures
Having received air traffic control clearance, airfield operations staff would
always wait for the stop bar to be de-selected before entering the runway. If it
were not possible to de-select a stop bar, they would select another entry
point to avoid having to cross a red stop bar.
On the whole, having received an air traffic control instruction and seen the
stop bar drop, airfield operations staff would read back the clearance before
entering the runway. Furthermore, if the air traffic control transmission was
garbled, the clearance would be clarified before entering the runway.
If a stop bar were de-selected but no air traffic control clearance had been
received, airfield operations staff would not enter the runway.
In general, a red stop bar would not be crossed for either an aircraft
emergency or an airfield operations emergency. However, this might be
overruled in the case of aircraft emergency where air traffic control was unable
to de-select the stop bar but could provide clearance. Most staff felt risk of life
was a sufficient motive to cross a red stop bar, if an air traffic control clearance
was given.
3.9.3.6 Safety
Overall, safety was increased at Manchester Airport following the introduction
of the use of 24 hour stop bars.
3.9.3.7 Training
Additional training was not generally considered necessary for the introduction
of 24 hour stop bars on a permanent basis. However, if training were to be
provided, it was suggested that it should be minimal, explaining why 24 hour
stop bars had been introduced and the impact on the users.
3.9.3.8 General
The consensus of opinion was that the use of 24 hour stop bars is a positive
move, which will help to prevent runway incursions. It was suggested that

airfield operations staff would benefit from a basic knowledge of what can and
cannot be achieved with the stop bars in all modes of operation and that it
would be a good opportunity to identify all the reasons for runways incursions
and to review the airfield operations SMS at an operational level.
3.9.4 Airfield Fire Service Feedback
3.9.4.1 Workload
Overall, the introduction of the 24 hour stop bars did not have any impact on
either the overall workload or the R/T workload of the Airfield Fire Service
(AFS) in daylight, darkness or low visibility conditions. Moreover, the use of
24 hour stop bars did not have any effect on the AFS crews’ ability to monitor
for relevant information.
3.9.4.2 Planning and Execution of Tasks

In general, the use of 24 hour stop bars had no effect on the AFS crew’s ability
to prioritise tasks in daylight, darkness or low visibility conditions.
Furthermore, it had no effect their ability to respond to a request in a timely
manner in any of the three conditions. However, it was noted that crossing the
runways from north to south, and vice versa, incurred some delays and any
delay in response time could have life threatening consequences in the event
of an emergency. This comment has been noted by ATC.

On the whole the use of 24 hour stop bars had no effect on the ability of the
AFS to maintain situational awareness in daylight, darkness or low visibility
conditions.

It was generally agreed that the stop bars were visible in daylight, darkness or
low visibility conditions. Moreover, the design of the stop bar (i.e.
perpendicular or v-shaped) did not have any effect on the ability to the AFS to
see them.
Stop bars that used LED lighting were generally considered more visible than
those with tungsten bulbs. However, it was suggested that the LED stop bars
could be slightly raised and enlarged to increase their visibility.
3.9.4.5 Procedures
The AFS would not enter the runway when a stop bar was de-selected without
having received an air traffic control clearance to do so. However, it was
further noted that most fire service officers would feel uncomfortable waiting at

a stop bar when any time delay could be critical in saving lives, as their
response time is critical in emergency scenarios.
Having received an air traffic control clearance and noted that the stop bar had
been de-selected, the AFS would read back the clearance before entering the
runway. Furthermore, if the transmission were garbled, they would clarify the
clearance before entering the runway.
3.9.5 Safety
It was generally agreed that safety at Manchester Airport had increased due to
the use of 24 hour stop bars. However, the introduction of a possible delay in
responding to an emergency was highlighted as an issue.
3.9.6 Training
It was generally agreed that additional training would be required if stop bars
were to be used 24 hours a day on a permanent basis. Suggestions for such
training included briefings, one day courses, the opportunity to practise
crossing at speed (i.e. within the 10 second limit) and the inclusion of
additional training during driver re-validation checks or on the annual runway
incursion course. Presentations, lectures, and scenario-style practice sessions
were also suggested.

4. TRIAL OUTCOME AND CONCLUSIONS
Operating stop bars to protect the runway 24 hours per day was considered a
success by pilots, drivers and air traffic controllers and will continue at
Manchester airport.
4.1 Holding Point Location and Markings
Airports using stop bars today typically equip the CAT III holding point as a
compliment to the pavement marking and signage according to ICAO. To
move from operating a stop bar during low visibility conditions only, to 24 hour
operations may require a number of changes to procedures, airport lighting,
holding points, training and organisational stop bar use policies.
Red lights at a CAT III holding point in Visual Meteorological Conditions are
confusing to pilots when the Runway Guard Lights (wig wags) are on at the
CAT I holding point.
The CAT I marking is typically the last holding point the pilot expects to see
before the runway. A CAT II/III marking can be misleading if it is in fact the
last holding point before the runway.
4.2 Lighting
Stop bars were visible in all weather conditions experienced. LED lighting was
preferred to tungsten bulbs by the aerodrome operator, particularly when
viewing the stop bar from an angle. Moreover, it would be beneficial to have a
common design in use i.e. a straight line of lamps.
Note: Stop bars protecting the runway do not look different to those used on
intermediate taxiway holding points and may be confused with background
lights. Manchester Airport plc is now conducting a trial with a stop bar at one
link (FZ1) containing twice (1.5m spacing instead of 3m) the number of LED
lamps recommended by ICAO. The trial stop bar configuration is instantly
distinguishable from taxiway lights and other background lights. The intensity
of the lights during the day could be increased from 30% brilliancy to 80%
without a significant increase in energy consumption.
4.3 Throughput
Traffic throughput was maintained at the same levels as prior to the trial.
4.4 Stop Bar Contingency

A robust procedure is required for dealing with situations where the stop bars
are not available and/or switchable. The main consideration during the trial
was where the lighting system was required to be under the control of
engineers (instead of air traffic control) for software upgrades to be installed.

A process was devised where certain elements of the system could be

surrendered to the engineers without handing over the whole system.
Where a runway is taken out of service, the use of stop bars is maintained
except where control (possession) of the runway is taken by the Airport
Operator. This way, vehicle drivers are in no doubt that when a runway is
under the control of air traffic control, a positive clearance is required to enter
a runway and stop bars will be in use that they must not cross.
The study shows that well thought out contingency in the event of an
unserviceable stop bar is essential to the provision of a robust safety net.
Pilots and drivers are expected to challenge a controller instructing them to

cross a lit stop bar.
A good contingency plan requires air traffic control and the airport operator to
stop using an intersection with a permanently lit stop bar until it is repaired or,
to marshal aircraft across a stop bar that is unserviceable and for vehicles to
drive around the red lights, not cross over them.
The study shows that well thought out contingency in the event of an
unserviceable stop bar is essential to the provision of a robust safety net.
4.5 ICAO Provisions Update

The main risk which has been identified during the trial is the lack of an
international standard for the use of runway stop bars. Flight crew feedback
indicates that the use of stop bars differs at many airports, with some evidence
that pilots are instructed to cross illuminated stop bars as a matter of routine at
some airports. This leads to confusion as to what is expected of flight crews.
4.6 Emergency Situations

One concern was raised regarding attitude towards air traffic control during
emergency situations. The introduction of 24 hour stop bar use had a positive
impact on safety at Manchester Airport. However, the airfield fire service
(AFS) expressed concern that it might result in a delay in their response time
to an emergency. As such, although the AFS would generally wait for a stop
bar to be de-selected before entering the runway, this might not be the case if
there was an aircraft emergency in progress. Moreover, pilots and airfield
operations drivers felt they would also cross a red stop bar unless in the event
of an emergency in which life was at risk.
4.7 Human Machine Interface Design
Although it was sufficient as an interim measure until the move to the new
Tower, the lighting panel was not acceptable for use with 24 hour stop bars in
its current format in the long term. This was due to the increase in usage and
thus the number of incorrect controller selections resulting from the two-button
press functionality and the size and position of the buttons. Moreover, the

positioning of the lighting panel resulted in some minor controller discomfort

when being used on a 24 hour basis.
Co-location of the stop bar operating switch with the operational controller
position is essential.
Stop bar control switches are best when tactile, allowing the controller to
remain heads up, looking out of the Visual Control Room.
Re-lighting a stop bar is best controlled manually.
4.8 Controller Workload

Operation of the stop bars in all categories of weather operation was not
considered an extra workload by the controllers.
Actual controller workload increased due to the introduction of 24 hour stop
bars and there was a negative impact on controller memory with regard to
remembering to reselect a stop bar. However, there was no effect on
controller R/T workload, ability to plan ahead and to execute a plan.
Furthermore, the controller’s ability to maintain situational awareness and to
scan for information was not affected.
4.9 Pilot Situational Awareness and Workload
The use of 24 hour stop bars had a positive impact on pilot situational
awareness, serving as an effective means of reinforcing air traffic control
instructions. There was no effect on either overall workload or R/T workload.
There was no impact on pilot ability to monitor for relevant information or
prioritise and respond to air traffic control requests in a timely manner.
4.10 Airfield Operations Workload
The introduction of 24 hour stop bars resulted in a minimal increase to airfield

operations drivers’ overall workload. There was no impact on R/T, the ability of
staff to carry out planned runway duties or to respond to an air traffic control
request to cross the runway in a timely manner. Moreover, although the use of
24 hour stop bars had no impact on the ability of airfield operations staff to
maintain situational awareness, the reassurance of having the extra safety
barrier was beneficial.
The use of 24 hour stop bars did not have any effect on AFS situational
awareness, overall workload, R/T workload or ability to monitor for relevant
information. In addition, the use of 24 hour stop bars did not have any effect
on AFS ability to prioritise tasks or to respond to a request in a timely manner.
4.11 Training and Awareness
Pilots and airfield operations staff would require minimal, if any, additional
training if the use of 24 hour stop bars was introduced on a permanent basis.

Pilot suggestions included a short brief or NOTAM while airfield operations

would favour an explanation of the rationale behind the introduction of 24 hour
stop bars and the consequent impact on the users. The AFS noted a need for
training if the use of 24 hour stop bars was introduced on a full time basis and
suggested the integration of information on stop bars into their runway
incursion course or driver re-validation checks. Furthermore, presentations or
lectures would be useful.
4.12 Key Performance Enablers And Critical Success Factors
Consistent use of a stop bar builds a reliable safety net.

A clear procedure for stop bar use must be agreed by all airport partners with
operational staff working on the manoeuvring area.
To obtain full benefits from using stop bars 24 hours per day, airports around
the world need to switch the stop bars off before permitting an aircraft or
vehicle to enter or cross a runway.
The possible effects of other measures such as taxiway maintenance on

runway safety should be considered.
4.13 Possible Future Use
Consideration could be given to the development of a Europe-wide policy on

the routine use of stop bars 24 hour, including failure modes and the specific
responsibilities of pilots, air traffic controllers and vehicle drivers.
It is also possible that the use of stop bars could be integrated with technology
such as Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control (A-SMGCS) to
use A-SMGCS derived data to lock stop bars in certain configurations when a
collision hazard is detected by surveillance equipment. Surveillance data is
used in combination with the operation of lights by the Federal Aviation
Authority’s (FAA) Runway Status Light system. It is possible that this
technology could be adapted to make use of RIMCAS logic to obtain the
outcome of locked stop bars when a collision hazard is detected.
Nothing in the trial findings suggests that the 24 hour use of stop bars would
conflict with the emerging technologies such as Runway Status Lights, which
are designed to operate independently of stop bars.

Figure 2. Simultaneous proximity warning of collision hazard

that could be derived from A-SMGCS data.

Appendix A -
An application of the ICAO Runway Incursion definition
issued as a NATS Air Safety Notice for this study
The following if the guidance to NATS/NSL incident investigators regarding the

classification of incidents as “runway incursions”.
NATS’ Runway Incursion Definition Information & Guidance Introduction
This notice is intended to provide guidance to investigators regarding the

criteria for assessing runway incursions and events or observations, which
may be related to runway safety, whether or not they are classified as
“incursions”.
In order to align with ICAO and Eurocontrol, the CAA now defines a runway
incursion as:
‘Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an

aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated
for the landing and take-off of aircraft.’
Regardless of the cause of an incident we need to ensure we are aware of all

events concerning runway safety, regardless of fault.
In addition to the CAA’s decision, recent refinements to STAR have given us a

greater ability to categorise, analyse and track runway safety related incidents
and observations - whether or not they merit classification as an “incursion”.
The following explanations are intended to provide further clarification:
“Protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of

aircraft”.
This is to be interpreted as the physical surface of a runway, from the

centreline to the holding point appropriate to the type of runway. Where
operations are being conducted under Low Visibility Procedures, this should
be the holding point appropriate to the procedures in force. The “protected
surface” includes the ILS glide-path and localiser critical areas at all times, and
the ILS sensitive areas during Low Visibility Procedures.
“Incorrect presence”
This should be interpreted as the unsafe or undesirable presence, or

movement of, an aircraft, vehicle or pedestrian.

Helicopter Operations
Classification of incidents involving rotary wing aircraft as incursions should

only be made when the aircraft was taxiing (whether ground or hover) or when
actually taking off or landing from the runway. In other words, incidents
involving aircraft crossing a runway in flight (i.e. transit) should not be
categorised as runway incursions.
Similarly, incidents involving rotary wing aircraft should only be recorded as

incursions if the incident relates to the “protected area of a surface designated
for the landing and departure of aircraft”. In other words, incidents where
helicopter movements are being made on parts of the manoeuvring area,
other than a runway, which is not designated and protected by the appropriate
markings and holding points, are not classified as incursions. They should,
however, be recorded as “Runway Safety – NOT Incursion” events.
Until recently, within STAR, only a single “runway incursion” category was
available. This meant that the only way to identify incidents with runway
safety implications was by classifying them as incursions. However, it is now
possible to grade an incident or observation as “Runway Safety – Runway
Incursion” or “Runway Safety – NOT Incursion”. The selection of either of
these categories generates a further “runway safety” page within STAR, where
more detailed information regarding the type of event may be entered. The
benefit of this is that we are now able to identify all events, which may have
runway safety implications, including non-MOR reports.
Classification
The following table provides examples of the types of incidents to be classified

as either “Runway Incursions” or “Runway Safety – NOT Incursion). These
guidelines are not intended to be fully comprehensive and there will be
occasions where further clarification is required. These should be referred to
the Runway Safety Focal Group (RSFG), via the unit RSFG representative or
to Manager Safety, Airport Services, for clarification.
These following examples are intended as guidance only:

Example Runway Safety – Runway Safety –

Runway Incursion NOT Incursion
Aircraft, vehicle or pedestrian is cleared, X

correctly, to enter or cross a runway and
proceeds as cleared, but does not read-
back the clearance.
Aircraft is cleared, correctly, to land or X

take-off and proceeds as cleared, but
does not read back the clearance.
Aircraft lands without clearance. X
Aircraft lands without clearance and X

evidence shows that the pilot was acting
appropriately in accordance with Loss of
Communication procedures due to R/T
failure.
Aircraft takes off without clearance X
Aircraft, vehicle or pedestrian enters X

runway without clearance.
Aircraft, vehicle or pedestrian is cleared X

to enter the runway and does so, as
instructed and intended, but before the
red stop bar has been “dropped”. (this
also applies to traffic lights where so
positioned)
Aircraft, vehicle or pedestrian enters the X

runway at the incorrect holding point
Aircraft, vehicle or pedestrian vacates at X

the incorrect holding point
Controller incorrectly clears an aircraft, X

vehicle or pedestrian to enter or cross
runway
Controller incorrectly clears an aircraft to X

land or take-off.
Aircraft lines-up out of instructed X

sequence.

Appendix B - Air Traffic Controller Trial Procedures
Text from NATS Manchester Airport TOI 02/008
Trial of 24 hour Stop Bar Use

INTRODUCTION
Manchester Airport plc and NATS have agreed to a Eurocontrol proposal to conduct a trial
to evaluate the use of Runway Red Stop Bar lights 24 hour. Manchester Airport is the
principal location for the study. Experience will also be drawn from Luton Airport.
Manchester Airport has a mature safety culture and therefore the ability to accommodate
and then feed back information from such a trial.
Additionally, MA has included the intention to provide 24 hour Red Stop Bars in their
ongoing Runway Safety Plan, therefore it becomes vital to trial current systems before
such a procedure is implemented.
The feedback from Air Traffic Controllers, pilots and airfield drivers will be absolutely
essential in determining the success or otherwise of the trial and the means of air traffic
control recording any appropriate data are described later.
To help facilitate this trial, modifications have been made to improve the ergonomics of
the Lighting Panels - the Lighting Panels in all Controller positions have been moved and
re-housed approximately 10cm forward of their previous positions, in order to reduce the
reach to the input buttons.
PROCEDURE
All active Runway Holding Point Red Stop Bar lights will be selected 24 hour in both
Single and Dual Runway operations and deselected for aircraft and vehicles entering the
Runway.
Red Stop Bars on Runway exits [one way – taxiway side] will also be illuminated 24 hour
and will require deselecting for vehicle access to the runway [e.g. for runway
inspections].
NIGHT TIME AND POOR WEATHER OPERATIONS

Procedures will be exactly as at present.
TRIAL MODE - DAYTIME OPERATIONS - VISIBILITY > 1500M AND CLOUD CEILING
ABOVE 300 FEET
‘Day Override’ must be selected ‘ON’ via the Lighting Panel in order to illuminate runway
red stop bars and taxiway green centreline lights.
The procedure for de-selecting and then re-selecting Stop Bars is exactly as per the
current procedure for Night and Poor Weather Ops.
Note: The Trial Procedure only applies to Runway Stop Bars [an aircraft being
held tactically at e.g. J2 will not require a Red Stop Bar].
Runway Incursion sensors [at crossing points] will operate as normal [i.e. will alert if a
Red Stop Bar is crossed].
RUNWAY 05R/23L CLOSURE PERIODS

When the control of Runway 05R/23L [i.e. closure periods] is assumed by the GMP AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROLLER, it is not possible for the controller to access the lighting panel
and control Red Stop Bars, as required, for vehicular access to the runway. Therefore,

MA Ops have agreed that during the period of the trial, when 05R/23L is closed for
aircraft movements, all vehicles will be required to request access to the runway via the
South Side Fire Station Access Road. There is currently no Stop Bar at this position:
normal R/T procedures will apply.
If Runway 05R/23L is required for an aircraft movement during the closure period [e.g.
emergency traffic] then control of the runway reverts to either Air 1 or Air 2, either of
whom have control of the lighting panel for normal use of runway entry points.
AGL FAILURE
Under no circumstances is it permissible for an aircraft or vehicle to cross a Red Stop Bar
in order to proceed onto a runway.
If a failure or lock-up of the AGL or Lighting Panel results in the loss of control of Stop
Bar switching at a runway entry point, then that entry point must not be used for
runway access until a temporary procedure to enable aircraft to enter the
runway is agreed between the ADM and the air traffic control WM.
Due to the numerous potential combinations of failures, it is not possible to be totally
prescriptive for all failure situations. Consideration will be given to factors such as the
ability to handswitch AGL, the availability of alternative entry points, the mix of pending
traffic and the availability of Ops vehicles to monitor the holding points.
The ADM and air traffic control WM will conduct a ‘Level 3 Hazoperations’ to establish any
temporary procedure.
Landing aircraft may continue to use the runway provided that runway entry points
continue to be protected either by Stop Bars [failed to “on”] or by “Follow Me” vehicles in
position at the holding points.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER Feedback

Trial data will be collected by various means; Pilot and Driver surveys, Runway Incursion
sensor history and, vitally, Air Traffic Controller feedback.
Controllers are encouraged to complete an Air Traffic Controller feedback Form following
any period of working in Air 1 or Air 2. Copies of these will be kept on the WM desk in the
VCR [part-completed to indicate that they are reference to the Stop Bar Trial only and to
ease Air Traffic Controller workload to complete]. Any observations whatsoever are
welcomed, particularly with reference to the ergonomics and switching of the Lighting
Panel. It is also requested that controllers record any Stop Bar “event”, where noticed,
such as:
1) An aircraft or vehicle is cleared to cross/enter a runway but crosses the Red Stop
Bar before the controller had time to deselect it.
2) A controller forgets to deselect the Stop Bar but the aircraft/vehicle crosses it
anyway.
3) Functionality/switching of the Lighting Panel prevents the Stop Bar being

deselected in good time or at all.
4) An aircraft/vehicle has a clearance to enter the runway but will not enter until the
Stop Bar is deselected.
If an aircraft/vehicle crosses a Runway Red Stop Bar that is its clearance limit, then that
is a Runway Incursion and normal MOR reporting action is required.
As this is a trial of Red Stop Bars 24 hour, feedback is requested for any occurrences
whenever they occur, day or night.
Towards the end of the Trial period, all Air Traffic Controllers plus all MA Ops drivers, a
cross section of AFS drivers and pilots (local and non-local), will be requested to

complete a comprehensive HF questionnaire about the Trial. All data will be collected
locally and a summary of conclusions will be submitted for the final report to Eurocontrol.
GENERAL NOTES
• Pilots and aircraft operators have been advised of the Trial by means of
NOTAM action, the contents of which are reproduced:
“ILLUMINATED RUNWAY HOLDING POINTS IN OPERATION 24 hour [LIT
RED]. PILOTS MUST NOT CROSS ILLUMINATED STOP BARS.”
• Additionally, pilots and operators will be advised via the FLOPSC and also
by publicity material circulated by MA/NATS.
• Airfield Driver training already encompasses awareness that under no

circumstances may a vehicle cross a Red Stop Bar. MA plc will be
conducting additional briefings to all airside driving agencies regarding
the 24 hour Trial of Runway Stop Bars.
• An ATIS message of the above NOTAM text will be broadcast to advise

pilots of 24 hour Stop Bar use.

Appendix C – Supplementary Instruction
Text from NATS Manchester Airport SI53/07 (since incorporated into MATS 2)
Use of Runway Stop Bar Lights
Introduction
Manchester Airport has, for many years, been accustomed to using Red Stop Bar lights to
protect runway entry points during night time and poor weather operations. The method
of selection and de-selection of these Stop Bars has always been an accepted good
practice which has never actually been a formal procedure.
Having been made aware of varying methods of the use of Stop Bars at other airfields
(e.g. at more than one UK airfield the Red Bar can be de-selected whenever a clearance
to enter a runway is given, even if it is a conditional clearance against a landing aircraft
and that aircraft is still on final approach – this would not be acceptable at Manchester) it
has become necessary to formalise our existing procedures.
This is consistent with continuing initiatives to improve Runway safety and is also
necessary ahead of the forthcoming trial of the use of Runway Red Stop bars 24 hour, as
we endeavour to demonstrate that the Manchester mode of operation should be ‘best
practise’ for all UK and European airfields.
This instruction should be read in conjunction with MATS pt 2 ADC Chapt 6 ‘Aerodrome
and Obstruction Lighting’, which details the display and operation of Airfield Lighting
during day/night and in varying weather conditions.
The methodology detailed below is our current mode of operation and refers specifically
to runway Holding Point Stop Bars – Taxiway Stop Bar operation is covered in MATS pt 2.
Procedure
During operations at night time or when the Visibility is less than 1500m or cloud ceiling
300’ or below, Aerodrome Groung Lighting (AGL) Taxiway and Stop Bar Lighting is
required.
AGL Taxiway and Stop Bar Lighting is selected either by:
1) switching the Lighting panel to a ‘Night’ setting (selection 1, 2 or 3, depending
on the visibility),
2) selecting ‘Primary Routes’ at each operational postion (Air 1, Air 2 and GMC,
as required), or
3) selecting ‘Day Overide’ on the main panel.

Once AGL is selected, in both single and dual runway configurations, taxiway green
centerline lights illuminate and all Runway entry/crossing points and exits are protected
(from the taxiway side) by a Red Stop Bar.
In CAT 1 operations at runway entry points, Red Stop Bars illuminate at the designated
CAT 1 Holding Points and and in LVPs at the designated CAT 3 Holding Points (in order to
protect the LSA of the landing runway). Therefore, the procedures detailed below apply
to aircraft/vehicles entering/crossing a runway in either Normal or LVP operations, as the
same method applies.

For an aircraft or vehicle to be able to enter the runway, when so cleared, at a

designated entry or crossing point, the following procedure is to be used:
1. At Departure Entry Points

A runway entry point Stop Bar is required to be manually de-selected for an
aircraft or vehicle to proceed onto the runway at that position, when so cleared. A
single push of the green lead-on light button de-selects the Red Stop Bar and
illuminates green lead on lights. The Red Stop Bar is not to be de-selected until air
traffic control clearance has been given for the aircraft/vehicle to enter the
runway and, if it is a conditional clearance ,the conditional aircraft has passed
and it is safe to enter the runway at that position (subject to the normal
restrictions governing the use of conditional clearances).
Once an aircraft is then seen to be turning onto the runway centerline (i.e. lead
on lights no longer required) the Red Stop Bar shall be re-selected by a single
push of the green lead on button. For successive departures which are in a queue
at the same departure point, the Stop Bar may be left de-selected (‘lead on’ lights
illuminated) providing that a succeeding departing aircraft will be the next
movement on that runway. If there are any other intersection departures or
landing aircraft, the Stop Bar shall be re-selected.
When a vehicle enters a runway at a departure point, the Red Stop Bar shall be
re-selected immediately after the vehicle has crossed it.
2. At Runway Crossing Points

A runway crossing point Stop Bar is required to be manually de-selected for an
aircraft or vehicle to cross the runway at that position, when so cleared. The Stop
Bar is de-selected by operating the arrowed buttons at the crossing point in the
required direction of travel, i.e. first pushing the green button on the crossing
entry point (with the white arrow in direction of crossing) followed by pushing the
green button on the exit side of the crossing link (with the white arrow in the
same direction). As the Stop Bar extinguishes, green/yellow crossing lights are
provided.
The Red Stop Bar is not to be de-selected until air traffic control clearance has
been given for the aircraft or vehicle to enter the runway and , if it is a
conditional clearance ,the conditional aircraft has passed and it is safe to enter
the runway at that position (subject to the normal restictions governing the use of
conditional clearances).
The Red Stop Bar is re-selected by operating the same buttons again in any order.
Additionally, in order to clearly identify the holding point to successive aircraft or
vehicles, further functionality has been programmed into the AGL at crossing
points – when a Stop Bar is re-selected, the first 30m of green/yellow centerline
crossing lights (beyond the stop bar in the direction of crossing) is extinguished.
This enables the Stop Bar to be re-selected whilst an aircraft or vehicle is midway
across the runway, so that successive traffic may safely hold at the designated
holding point. At the same time, a timer is activated which, after 45 seconds,
extinguishes the remainder of the crossing centerline. (Whilst the timer is
running, the back indication on the lighting panel shows one flashing LED and one
steady LED.)
To enable multiple crossings at the same crossing point, there are three options:
• Once a crossing route is selected, the green/yellow centerline will remain
illuminated until the Stop Bar re-selected.

• If the Stop Bar has been re-selected, the full green/yellow centerline can be re-
established at any time by selecting the entry and exit arrowed buttons for the
crossing point This operation overides the timer. The Stop Bar can be re-selected
when required.
• In order to de-select the green/yellow centerline and illuminate the Stop Bar
without the timer operating and the first 30m of centerline being extinguished,
the buttons ‘Reset’, ‘Confirm’ and then the desired crossing arrowed buttons
should be selected.
When crossing more then one aircraft in trail, the crossing point Stop Bar must be
re-selected once the last aircraft in the crossing sequence has crossed the
runway.
Note: Controllers are reminded that careful timing is required in the operation of
the Stop Bars at crossing points of Runway 05L/23R as the installation of
Runway Incursion Sensors will trigger an alert if a Red Stop Bar is crossed
(see MATS pt 2 ADC 6-15).
If,exceptionally,an aircraft departs from a crossing point (e.g. UKP152 from F, D
or B) that has crossing lights without lead ons, then the lighting procedure for
‘crossing traffic’ is followed until such time as the departing aircraft is seen to turn
on to the runway centerline, at which point the Stop Bar is to be reselected and
the crossing lights extinguished.
3. At Runway Exits (Vehicles only)

Runway exits are protected by a one way Red Stop Bar (showing taxiway side).
To facilitate access for a vehicle onto a runway at an exit point, e.g. for runway
inspection, when air traffic control clearance is given to enter the runway the Stop
Bar is deselected by a single push of the green ‘lead-off’ light button at that exit.
This extinguishes the Stop Bar for 10 seconds (no lead on lights provided). The
Red Stop Bar will automatically re-illuminate by means of a timer function.
4. AGL Failure
Under no circumstances is it permissible for an aircraft or vehicle to cross a Red Stop
Bar in order to proceed onto a runway.
If a failure or lock-up of the AGL or Lighting Panel results in the loss of control of Stop
Bar switching at a runway entry point, then that entry point must not be used for
runway access until a temporary procedure to enable aircraft to enter the
runway is agreed between the ADM and the air traffic control WM. Due to the
numerous potential combinations of failures, it is not possible to be totally
prescriptive for all failure situations. Consideration will be given to factors such as:
the ability to handswitch AGL, the availability of alternative entry points,the mix of
pending traffic and the availability of Ops vehicles to monitor the holding points.
The ADM and air traffic control WM will conduct a ‘Level 3 Hazoperations’ to establish
any temporary procedure.
Landing aircraft may continue to use the runway provided that runway entry points
continue to be protected either by Stop Bars (failed to ‘on’) or by ‘Follow Me’ vehicles
in position at the holding points.

Appendix D - Human Factors Questionnaire Sample
For the purposes of accurate data collection, please try to answer as objectively as possible. In
order to do so it may be necessary for you to look beyond any initial feelings of discomfort related
to the process of change rather than the revised procedures. However, any concerns that remain
are clearly of value and should be noted within the questionnaire.
INSTRUCTIONS
• Please answer every question on BOTH sides of the paper
• Please write clearly
• If it helps, please draw a diagram to support your answer
• Be as brief or as detailed as you like
• If you need to know anything please ask
• If you have a point to make but none of the questions are relevant, please write on
the last page
• If necessary, please continue your answer(s) on a blank sheet of paper
Please write your name and/or watch here:
Participant names and/or watch are requested to allow the Human Factors Specialist to follow up
any point that might need further explanation. All answers will remain confidential and anonymous
after analysis by the Human Factors Specialist. However, participant names are not obligatory and
can be left blank if preferred.
Please return to

Lighting Panel
Please indicate whether you consider the size of the buttons on the lighting panel
acceptable for use with 24 hour stop bars
Yes No
Acceptable for current and future use with no
further modifications
Acceptable for a limited period of time (i.e. as an

interim measure until the move to the new Tower)
Unacceptable
If you do not consider the size of the buttons on the lighting panel are acceptable for
use with 24 hour stop bars, please explain why and note any suggestions you have for
improvement
Please indicate whether you consider the back indications from the lighting panel
acceptable for use with 24 hour stop bars
Yes No

Unacceptable
If your do not consider the back indications from the lighting panel are acceptable for
use with 24 hour stop bars, please explain why and note any suggestions you have for
improvement

Please indicate whether you consider the tactile user feedback (i.e. click of the button
on the lighting panel to indicate that it has been fully depressed) acceptable for use
with 24 hour stop bars
Yes No

Unacceptable
If your do not consider that the tactile user feedback is acceptable, please explain why
and note any suggestions you have for improvement
Please indicate whether you consider the 2-button press functionality of the lighting
panel at crossing points acceptable for use with 24 hour stop bars
Yes No

Unacceptable
If your do not consider that the 2-button press functionality is acceptable, please
explain why and note any suggestions you have for improvement

Please indicate what impact the 2-button press (i.e. at the crossing point on either side
of the runway) functionality had on the number of incorrect selections when using 24
hour stop bars
Significantly Decreased No effect Increased Significantly

Decreased Increased
Single runway operations
Crossing aircraft in westerly dual

operations
Crossing aircraft in easterly dual

operations
Lining up aircraft in dual operations
If the number of incorrect selections increased, please explain why, whether this
increase would be acceptable and what the consequence of it would be
Please clarify which of the above modes of operation you are referring to in your response
Please indicate what impact the use of 24 hour stop bars had on the physical
movement (i.e. reaching, leaning, stretching) required to access the lighting panel

Decreased Increased
Air 1
Air 2
GMC
If the amount of physical movement required increased, please explain why, whether
this increase would be acceptable and what the consequence of it would be
Please clarify whether your response refers to the Air 1, Air 2 or GMC position
Overall, do you consider the current lighting panel acceptable for the use of 24 hour
stop bars

Yes No

Unacceptable
If your do not consider the current lighting panel acceptable, please explain why

WORKLOAD
Please indicate what impact the use of 24 hour stop bars had on your R/T workload

Decreased Increased

operations

operations
If your R/T workload increased, please explain why, whether this increase was acceptable
and what the consequence of it would be
Please clarify which of the above modes of operation you are referring to in your response
Please indicate what impact the use of 24 hour stop bars had on your overall workload

Decreased Increased

operations

operations
If your overall workload increased, please explain why, whether this increase was acceptable
and what the consequence of it would be
Please clarify which of the above modes of operation you are referring to in your
response

PLANNING
Please indicate what impact the use of 24 hour stop bars had on your ability to plan ahead

Decreased Increased

operations

operations
If your ability to plan ahead decreased, please explain why, whether this decrease would be
acceptable and what the consequence of it would be
response
Please indicate what impact the 24 hour stop bars had on your ability to prioritise air traffic
control tasks

Decreased Increased

operations

operations

If your ability to plan ahead decreased, please explain why, whether this decrease would be
response
Please indicate what impact the 24 hour stop bars had on your ability to execute your plan

Decreased Increased

operations

operations
If your ability to execute your plan decreased, please explain why, whether this decrease
would be acceptable and what the consequence of it would be
response

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
Please indicate what impact the use of 24 hour stop bars had on your ability to maintain
situational awareness (i.e. the picture)
Positive Impact No effect Negative Impact
Daylight
Darkness
Low visibility
If there were any benefits, please explain what they were. If there were any disadvantages,
please explain what they were and how you think this could be improved.
Please clarify whether your response refers to daylight, darkness or low visibility
conditions
Please indicate what impact the use of 24 hour stop bars had on your ability to scan for
information
Positive Impact No effect Negative Impact
Runway
Lighting panel
Strip Display
If there was a negative impact, please explain why and whether this had an effect on your
overall situation awareness
Please clarify whether your response refers to your scan of the runway, lighting
panel or strip display

MEMORY
Please indicate what impact the necessity to remember to reselect the stop bar had on your
ability to plan ahead

Decreased Increased
Air 1
Air 2
GMC
If there was a negative impact, please explain why, and whether this was acceptable
Please clarify which position you are referring to in your response
Please indicate what impact the necessity to remember to reselect the stop bar had on your
ability to execute your tasks

Decreased Increased
Air 1
Air 2
GMC
If there was a negative impact, please explain why, and whether this was acceptable
Please clarify which position you are referring to in your response
Please indicate what impact the use of 24 hour stop bars had on the number of times you
forgot to reselect the stop bar having turned it off


Decreased Increased
Air 1
Air 2
GMC
If number of times you forgot increased, please explain why, whether this increase was
response
SAFETY
Please indicate what impact the use of 24 hour stop bars had on safety at Manchester
Airport

Decreased Increased
If you think safety was decreased, please explain why, whether this decrease was

GENERAL
Are there any other aspects not covered by the questionnaire on which you wish to
comment?

Use of Stop Bars

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of Stop Bars

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of Stop Bars

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAN ORGANISATION

FOR THE SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION

Runway Safety - Use of Stop Bars

Edition Number : 1.0

EUROPEAN AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

Runway Safety - Use of Stop Bars 24H

EATMP Infocentre Reference:

Contact Person(s) Tel Unit

STATUS, AUDIENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY

Host System Software Size

Page ii Released Edition Number: 1.0

Tel: +32 (0)2 729 51 51

Open on 08:00 - 15:00 UTC from Monday to Thursday, incl.

AUTHORITY NAME AND SIGNATURE DATE

Head of Unit 17/09/2007

Page iii Released Edition Number: 1.0

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD

EDITION EDITION INFOCENTRE PAGES

1.0 2008 Documentation Creation ALL

Page iv Released Edition: 1.0

DOCUMENT APPROVAL ..........................................................................................iii

DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD..............................................................................iv

1.3.2 UK CAA differences to ICAO.............................................................................................4

1.4 Purpose .....................................................................................................................................5

2.1.2 Holding Point location and markings .................................................................................8

2.1.3 Lighting ..............................................................................................................................8

2.1.4 Microwave sensors............................................................................................................8

2.1.5 RIMCAS Logic ...................................................................................................................9

2.2 Actions to prepare the trial ........................................................................................................9

2.2.1 Aerodrome Operator .........................................................................................................9

2.2.2 Air Traffic Control.............................................................................................................10

2.2.3 Aircraft operator...............................................................................................................11

2.2.4 Pre trial awareness..........................................................................................................11

Edition: 1.0 Released Page v

3.4 Impact on throughput ..............................................................................................................13

3.9.1 Controller Feedback ........................................................................................................15

3.9.2 Pilot Feedback.................................................................................................................17

3.9.3 Airfield Operations Feedback ..........................................................................................19

3.9.4 Airfield Fire Service Feedback ........................................................................................21

3.9.5 Safety ..............................................................................................................................22

4. Trial Outcome and Conclusions ......................................................................23

Page vi Released Edition: 1.0

3. Throughput was maintained at the same levels as prior to the trial;

6. Stop bars improve situational awareness;

“Never cross (instruct others to cross) a red stop bar”

• A clear strategy for the planning and implementation of maintenance or other

• Independence of the stop bars from other air ground lighting;

Page 1 Released Edition Number: 1.0

“Red Lights Mean Stop”

Photograph by Blue Sky Services

Page 2 Released Edition: 1.0

1.1 Preventing Runway Incursions

The EAPPRI contains 56 recommendations that are targeted at specific stakeholder

The role of the Aerodrome Operator is addressed by recommendation 4.2.1 Verify

Edition: 1.0 Released Page 3

The study considers the following aspects:

“Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an

1.3.2 UK CAA differences to ICAO

The trial airport is governed by UK regulation and requires stop bars to be