Airside Map Hygiene Regulatory Evidence
Last updated: 2026-05-09
Airside map hygiene is not only a mapping quality topic. For autonomous ground vehicle systems (AGVS), a map release can affect the airport sponsor's controlled test envelope, vehicle routes, FOD handling, human monitor assumptions, and evidence that the system does not compromise airport safety.
Regulatory Context
| Source | Practical reading for map hygiene |
|---|---|
| FAA AGVS on Airports | AGVS applications include airside service vehicles and FOD detection/retrieval; testing should be coordinated with FAA contacts and airport sponsor stakeholders |
| FAA CertAlert 24-02 | AGVS testing/deployment/operation for airside use had not been authorized broadly; FAA supports testing in controlled environments |
| FAA Bulletin 25-02 | AGVS cannot be the sole means of Part 139 compliance until FAA standards are established; human monitor and controlled test planning matter |
| FAA FOD Program | FOD is a continuing safety concern and airport FOD management is an established safety program |
| FAA AC 150/5220-24 | FOD detection equipment guidance provides performance-specification thinking for detecting airport foreign objects |
Evidence Claims
| Claim | Map-hygiene evidence |
|---|---|
| The AGVS operates inside the approved test envelope. | map version, route/stand scope, geofence, closed-area status, ODD limits |
| The map does not erase safety-critical airport features. | static preservation report, semantic validation, reviewer decisions |
| Dynamic clutter is not promoted into permanent map truth. | dynamic rejection metrics, movable-static lifecycle policy, removed-layer archive |
| FOD evidence is not silently discarded. | FOD retention report, alert/ticket linkage, false-deletion test results |
| The airport sponsor can control risk. | publication gates, canary plan, rollback bundle, operator briefing |
| Human monitor assumptions remain valid. | route map, intervention zones, remote/local control capability, test plan trace |
| RF or infrastructure impacts are identified. | AGVS equipment manifest and FAA Form 7460-1 dependency if applicable |
Safety Case Structure
| Argument node | Evidence package |
|---|---|
| Context | airport, area, route, stand, vehicle, software, sensor rig, map bundle, ODD |
| Hazards | false-free-space, false deletion, stale map, FOD deletion, coordinate error, semantic break |
| Controls | map publication gates, quarantine, human review, perception priority, rollback, monitor alerts |
| Verification | static preservation, FOD retention, sparse LiDAR, localization replay, Lanelet2 validation |
| Validation | target-airport scenarios, controlled AGVS test plan, busy/quiet stand captures |
| Operations | active map reporting, canary telemetry, FOD workflow, incident log retention |
| Change management | map diff, release approver, rollback target, post-release monitoring window |
Regulatory Evidence Matrix
| Evidence | Minimum fields | Release gate |
|---|---|---|
| Test/demo plan trace | operating area, route, time, participants, human monitor, communications, fallback | safety release |
| Map package manifest | map ID, checksum, coordinate frame, active layers, compatible vehicle/software | deployment |
| Geofence and route proof | no-go areas, closed areas, route reachability, stand boundaries | semantic validation |
| FOD interface | alert route, inspection ticket, closure status, retained evidence link | FOD retention |
| Sponsor/operator briefing | changed zones, temporary overlays, restrictions, rollback instructions | deployment |
| Post-release monitoring | localization, interventions, map disagreement, FOD tickets, incidents | canary promotion |
| Incident retention | active/prior map IDs, raw logs, removed layers, reviewer records | operations |
Practical Acceptance Rules
- Do not present dynamic-object removal as a substitute for airport FOD management.
- Do not let an AGVS map release expand the approved test area without sponsor and FAA coordination where required.
- Treat map changes as safety-relevant configuration changes with versioned evidence.
- Keep raw, removed, and rejected map evidence for incident investigation.
- Make perception and current-world hazards authoritative over static map assumptions.
- Document residual risks for sparse sensing, temporary assets, FOD minimum size, and weather/lighting limits.
- If a release affects human monitor placement or takeover access, update the test/demo plan.
Source Caveats
FAA AGVS material is guidance and awareness material, not a technical map-cleaning standard. Public datasets and research benchmarks support evidence design, but target-airport validation remains required for any airside safety case.
Sources
- FAA AGVS on Airports: https://www.faa.gov/airports/new_entrants/agvs_on_airports
- FAA Part 139 CertAlert 24-02: https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/certalerts/part_139_certalert_24_02
- FAA CertAlert 24-02 PDF: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/arp-part-139-cert-alert-24-02-AV-AVGS.pdf
- FAA Emerging Entrants Bulletin 25-02: https://www.faa.gov/airports/new_entrants/bulletins/25_02
- FAA Foreign Object Debris Program: https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/fod
- FAA AC 150/5210-24A, Airport FOD Management: https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentNumber/150_5210-24
- FAA AC 150/5220-24, FOD Detection Equipment: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentNumber/150_5220-24
- Local context: ../verification-validation/map-publication-gates-dynamic-object-removal.md