Methodology Overview. The methodology used by BACG follows the basic scope of risk assessment process described in ICAO Circular 305, Operations of New Larger Aeroplanes at Existing Aerodromes (June 2004). This circular provides guidance on conducting aeronautical studies in the following steps: - Baseline identification of relevant ICAO SARPS and rationale/justification - Hazard identification and analysis - Risk assessment and possible mitigation measures - Conclusion This circular provides guidance that allows aerodromes that do not meet the relevant Annex 14, Volume I, Code Letter F criteria to accommodate a specific NLA, such as the 747-8. This circular was used as the primary reference source for safety analysis in accommodating the 747-8 as outlined in the Section 3, Airfield Items Review, and in developing the Safety Analysis of Airfield Items in Attachment A of this document.
Methodology Overview. The methodology used by BACG2 follows the basic scope of risk assessment process described in ICAO Doc 9981, PANS Aerodromes Second Edition, November 2016. This document provides guidance on conducting safety assessment studies for aerodromes in the following steps: - Definition of a safety concern and identification of the regulatory compliance; - Hazard identification and analysis; - Risk assessment and development of mitigation measures; - Development of an implementation plan for the mitigation measures and conclusion of the assessment This document outlines a methodology and procedure to assess the compatibility between aeroplane operations and aerodrome infrastructure, and operations when an aerodrome accommodates an aeroplane that exceeds the certificated characteristics of the aerodrome. This document was used as the primary reference source for safety analysis in accommodating the 777-8/9 as outlined in the Chapter 4, Aerodrome Compatibility, and in developing the Safety Analysis of Airfield Items in Attachment A of this document.
Methodology Overview. The methodology for preparation of the feasibility report can be described as coming from four broad categories: • Desk Studies • Field Studies • Analyses • Reports In general, the process begins with the desk studies where available information is assembled. Field studies are planned based on what is missing or out of date from the existing information base. Analysis proceeds after information is in place and the entire process is presented in the report. Many if not most of the subjects described below have elements of entire process, yet they are classified below in only one or two of the categories based on where the majority of the effort is focused. Hydrology for example has elements of desk and field studies in that it assembles existing records and collects any additional information required, however it is classified as analysis since the end product is the result of an analysis and processing the information to provide a flow record for the project sites. The majority of desk studies and field investigations were completed prior to completion of the formulation report.
Methodology Overview. The end line methodology was a quantitative comparative analysis, with a high level of participation from local partners in the design, implementation and analysis, in order to maximize learning and relevance of the program. It consisted of: • Individual questionnaire survey carried out in October 2011, with 337 youth respondents that are direct program beneficiaries in 16-targeted municipalities. Respondents were selected by SKYL implementing partners (KCIC, Mundësia, CRZ) randomly. Also surveyed were 150 youth who did not participate in SKYL to act as controls. Based on the sample size calculator, the margin of error is 5% and confidence level is 95%. • Comparative analysis of the results from this year's survey and those held at the beginning of the SKYL program, in November 2008; • Data analysis workshop with partners, conducted in November 2011, to evaluate quantitative end line survey results and to discuss implications for the program strategy. An external evaluation consultant conducted a qualitative evaluation of the program. A combined analysis of the two reports will be included in the final report. Individual Surveys The interview team conducted interviews with program beneficiaries and control groups in the municipalities covered by the SKYL Program. The interview team used a modified SKYL partners during end line interview questionnaire from midterm survey. Partner XXXx interviewed a predetermined number of respondents per municipality according to the sample size design, which was based on population distribution and reaching certain target percentages for ethnic and gender distribution within the sample (see Demographic Overview below for more detail). This approach ensured a relatively diverse cross-section of youth in terms of employment status, education, socio-economic status, etc. We surveyed 14% (337 out of 2483) of program beneficiaries. The control group interviewees were selected randomly and interviews were conducted in schools, internet cafes and other places that are mostly frequented by young people. The survey methodology was the same methodology used during baseline and midterm surveys to allow for comparisons. The questionnaire is included in the Endline Survey Scope of Work in Annex II. See the below map for a complete breakdown of numbers of respondents from each municipality. Map of Sample by Municipality Leposavic/Leposaviq: 57 youth respondents, Zvecan/Zveqan: 26 youth respondents, Mitrovicë/Mitrovica: 124 youth respond...
