Airport fences are situated in areas where good mechanical performance is required, radar
transparency is imperative and safety is critical. The main reasons for the uptake in use of FRPs for airport fencing is their inherent radar transparency (which infers they do not interfere with aircraft Instrument landing Systems) and frangibility. That means they are stiff and strong during operation but fragile when hit by an aircraft in the case of an emergency. This feature significantly improves aircraft passenger safety and protection of the surrounding area.

Couple these two major benefits with sound mechanical integrity, ease of installation, maintenance free service life and in-depth colouring and it can easily be seen why composites are now chosen for airport fencing applications.

There are also apparent through life cost benefits. The fences do not corrode, even in severe weather conditions and do not require finishing or painting. The pre-assembled panels are light to carry and have simple and efficient fixing systems meaning no plant machinery is required for installation.

In the future recycled plastics may also be incorporate into the core material, which would further increase effectiveness whilst benefiting the environment. Approach masts and other aerospace ground constructions are now under development in composite materials because of these significant advantages.

It is anticipated that FRP fence systems will penetrate the UK and US markets on the back of Aviation authority regulations. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the UK has recently made law for all utility structures around airports to be frangible, and it is anticipated that fencing will be included in this. The European Passive Safety standard for roadside structures will also support the introduction of FRP airport fences.

The FRP fencing market will also develop on a domestic scale. Although ILS transparency is not
required for domestic applications, it is anticipated that end users will opt for the low maintenance and lightweight of these alternatives compared to wood or concrete.