I would never have guessed that a shed (Shorts 330) could have chewed up a block-paved runway turning area. It’s a small aircraft: 30 pax, 2 x 1198hp turboprops, MTOW 10.4 tonnes, and tyre pressure about 550 kPa (80 psi). I guess I’m always learning something.
The choice for concrete block pavers is assuredly engineer driven and they are not chosen by accountants. After all, there are 3 whole words and 19 letters in the phrase ‘concrete block pavers' and most accountants would need a whole financial year to count that high.
Cost-wise, concrete block pavers are probably not cheaper than asphalt, but are cheaper than concrete. Their attraction is that they give a surfacing with the toughness of concrete, but are much quicker to install than concrete and are easy to reconfigure and repair
I particularly like them where the aircraft loads are light but the tyre pressures are very high or there are helicopter skids. Aprons for fighter planes or biz jets. On helicopter aprons, skids don’t damage pavers as they spread outwards under the weight of the helicopter; but skids easily tear asphalt and chip seals (especially in hot climates). Concrete block pavers are popular with others on larger aircraft aprons because they are tough enough to take all the trollies and other ground furniture, they resist the tearing up by fuel trucks and fire engines (which can do more damage than an aircraft as they rip around under full throttle and at high weight), pavers don’t worry when things get dropped on them, and fuel and hydraulic spills don’t damage them. And if there is some damage (and I am thinking of the typical damage of about a square metre or so and not the much larger damage at Pakistan Sialkot International Airport) then they are quickly and easily replaced. Actually the damage to the apron at Sialkot International Airport will also be easy and cheap to fix but not the damage to the Boeing. Pavers are quick and lay and to pick up, which means that the apron can be re-configured easily as the terminal grows and reconfigures.
High power engine runs are usually done in restricted and specific areas. The jet blast (and noise) are prime considerations for the restrictions. Looking at the photos at the start of this thread, the Boeing was in front of the ATC tower, and on a regular parking bay. It was not a specific engine run-up area. The bay was the end one – in the centre of the Google Earth picture of the airport shown below.
The terminal and ATC tower are at the top of the picture (not a very good one I’m afraid), and the aircraft was parked aiming at them, towards the top of the picture. There is nothing behind the aircraft except the runway so an engine run would have been possible. There are no workshops, hangars, engine maintenance companies anywhere near the aircraft, so engine run-ups would not have been anticipated. And there is nothing to suggest to the casual observer that a high power run would ever be done on that parking bay.
Umm, I would have thought that the apron stand where the aircraft was parked was a good candidate for concrete block pavers. And the FAA and CAA rules would agree.
Still, I reckon there is scope for a suitable note where the State has an aerodrome manual such as MOS 139 (Australia). I just looked at the UK CAP 168, and they have it already and said very nicely too:
12.7 The use of block pavers on aerodrome movement areas
12.7.1 It is recommended that pavers should normally only be used to surface the following categories of aircraft pavements:
a) Aircraft stands.
b) Low speed taxiways not subject to significant jet blast or propeller wash.
c) Aircraft maintenance areas not subject to significant jet blast or propeller wash.
d) Helicopter pads.
12.7.2 Block pavers should normally not be used to surface the following categories of aircraft pavements:
a) Runways.
b) Areas where aircraft engines are run at high thrust values.
c) High speed taxiways.