New hold short instructions at Addison

[poadeleted20]

Nice thought, Troy, but your markings would violate the runway safety zone which is a setback off the runway edges, including the extension of those edges up the approach course some set distance.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is that offset for IFR ops or just general offset requirements for the towered environment there?

Neither. The book makes no such distinctions with regard to hold short lines and the runway safety zone. You may be thinking of the ILS Critical Area, which provides additional setbacks but is only effective when the weather is below 800-2.

I know it's not standard everywhere since I've flown out of places with acres of pavement with taxiways almost right up against the runway.

Only because nobody's caught up to the situation the way they did at Addison.

I wonder if the lateral offset was about another 20-25 feet if they would have run a hold line down the middle of the taxiway?

They'd have to close/relocate the twy. They might get a temporary waiver to operate until they could do that, but it would have to be dealt with.

 

[ATCGUY]

So now we all know what the root of the problem is, we all know where the problem is and now the question is what do we do to fix the problem. Is the phraseology in use now going to be effective, I have my doubts. Will the Wig-Wag lights be effective, questionable also. Holding aircraft on taxiway alpha, talk about delays already, can you imagine the length of delay for that.

So, We need to figure out what will work, we can try and work together on this or the FAA and the Airport will continue to discuss this issue. I would like for your input, YOU are the users and your input is at times invaluable.

All I can do as an ATC is make a call over the radio, the overall effectiveness is dependent on the PIC receiving that call. Also being familiar with the airport, especially if it is not one you routinely fly in and out of. I am responsible for your safety, you cross the hold line, somebody is going around, thats my job.

To find out about Runway Incursions for your FAA Region contact your local FSDO, or go to the FAA website, http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/ , or just follow the link. It hasn't really been updated in some areas though.

 

[Matthew]

I'm no airport markings expert, but I'll toss out some ideas:

Since the markings at that run-up area can't be moved, and there can't be more concrete added easily, how about phyical barricades at the run-up area? Just on that long arm that extends away from the rwy. Looks like there would still be room to maneuver, but it might prevent someone from turning around and crossing the line. Maybe not practical, though, to keep someone from getting trapped in the back.

What about signs at the other intersections warning about the hold-short lines?

Additional announcements on the ATIS?

(edit) Posting airport hotspot diagrams and warnings in FBOs and at the fuel pumps and on the airport diagrams in the A/FD?

 

[Tim Abbott]

I like what you've drawn up Troy, that would make much more sense. I'd like to know the why's and how's of putting the HS line through the runup area.

Tim

 

[poadeleted20]

I like what you've drawn up Troy, that would make much more sense. I'd like to know the why's and how's of putting the HS line through the runup area.

Because the setback is a linear distance from the runway edge and the extended edge beyond the thresholds.

 

[AuntPeggy]

I like what you've drawn up Troy, that would make much more sense. I'd like to know the why's and how's of putting the HS line through the runup area.

Tim

Because the setback is a linear distance from the runway edge and the extended edge beyond the thresholds.

Unlike the TSA, the FAA usually seems to think things through, but in this case, do the new hold-short lines add to safety in any way?

 

[Everskyward]

Because the setback is a linear distance from the runway edge and the extended edge beyond the thresholds.

Is this a requirement that is fairly recent or have they just started enforcing it? I know of some other airports which have had their hold lines moved in the past few years.

 

[poadeleted20]

Unlike the TSA, the FAA usually seems to think things through, but in this case, do the new hold-short lines add to safety in any way?

I guess you're asking if larger runway safety zones contribute to safety, and since folks do go off-runway every now and then (even near the approach threshold), I'd have to say yes. Does the value of that added safety balance the cost in other ways (like delays and confusion in the hold-short area)? Dunno, but the FAA seems to think it does.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is this a requirement that is fairly recent or have they just started enforcing it? I know of some other airports which have had their hold lines moved in the past few years.

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the re-wrote the runway safety zone rules a while back, and outside of Part 139 airports, which are regularly inspected for compliance because they have air carrier service, are only enforcing it as new master plans and other situations bring it to their attention. I'm pretty sure that's how it happened at Cambridge MD, although there they've now realigned the parallel taxiway to provide enough space to sit on the stubs between the parallel and the new hold-short lines.

 

[Tim Abbott]

The cost would outrageous, but what if the moved the runway over? A bit closer to the road...even 15 feet would make a difference...I like to think big picture

Tim

 

[poadeleted20]

"Don't raise the bridge -- lower the river!"

 

[Dave Siciliano]

The cost would outrageous, but what if the moved the runway over? A bit closer to the road...even 15 feet would make a difference...I like to think big picture

Tim

In light of current economic circumstances, I don't think I'd want to be in the room with the city manager or mayor when you raise that alternative Tim <g>. I see the mayor a couple times a week; if you want, I can put you in touch (ducking and running).

Best,

Dave

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Nice thought, Troy, but your markings would violate the runway safety zone which is a setback off the runway edges, including the extension of those edges up the approach course some set distance.

Thanks Ron, that's what I feared, and why I wondered aloud "if the new requirements require no aircraft movement within xx feet laterally of the extended centerline of the runway" as that's the only way those markings make sense (even though they DON'T make sense). One just doesn't expect to see hold short lines continue straight to the back end of the run-up area like that.

So here's a few more thoughts:

1) Somebody needs a new straight edge. That hold short line into the runup area isn't parallel to the other markings or the extended runway centerline; it diverges significantly into the runup area, restricting available space. Compare it to the red rectangle in this image:

2) Cut away a little pavement in the runup area, pour a little more off to the east, and you can restripe it parallel to the runway and the other entries like this:

3) And my "Voilà!! moment: Since we're so attuned to runway markings, if the FAA were to add a checkerboard pattern between the hold short lines and the active runway, no pilot would "blink" and miss crossing into that area. Paint's cheap, and visually effective. Again, this is "non-standard", but could be MADE standard:

The FAA's site says that FAA standards for runway markings have been updated to include "Changing the airfield markings (paint) standard for taxiway centerlines at 75 airports (based on enplanements) to require new markings that will alert pilots when they are approaching hold short lines." Any idea what those centerline standards are, and if they could be implemented at ADS?

 

[Tim Abbott]

TW's thought process is good here. It wouldn't cost too much and it uses common sense....

Are they out of common sense yet?

Tim

 

[kkoran]

The FAA's site says that FAA standards for runway markings have been updated to include "Changing the airfield markings (paint) standard for taxiway centerlines at 75 airports (based on enplanements) to require new markings that will alert pilots when they are approaching hold short lines." Any idea what those centerline standards are, and if they could be implemented at ADS?

The enhanced taxiway centerline marking adds dashed lines along both sides of the single centerline stripe from the runway position marker (hold line). Normally, they extend to 150 ft. from the runway position marker; however, I don't think they would work in Addison's case since the specs call for them to end 5 ft from a taxiway intersection (the centerline of the parallel).

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/ac/ac150-5340-1j-c2.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/airports/northwe...l_conference/2009/media/enhanced_markings.pdf

 

[ATCGUY]

I like Troys thinking here, especially the large black ank yellow checkerboard idea, it would draw some attention, although it is non-standard, but what is standard here. Troy I may actually pitch your idea, hope you don't mind. Now who's got a straight edge so I can paint a straight line.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I like Troys thinking here, especially the large black ank yellow checkerboard idea, it would draw some attention, although it is non-standard, but what is standard here. Troy I may actually pitch your idea, hope you don't mind. Now who's got a straight edge so I can paint a straight line.

Please feel free! I was trying to find the right "FAA Runway Safety" guy for the Ft. Worth FSDO that I could forward the checkerboard between the runway and hold-short areas idea to, but haven't found it yet. Maybe if they liked it, they could make it standard.

 

[kkoran]

I like Troys thinking here, especially the large black ank yellow checkerboard idea, it would draw some attention, although it is non-standard, but what is standard here. Troy I may actually pitch your idea, hope you don't mind. Now who's got a straight edge so I can paint a straight line.

Airfield marking is pretty standard. How would pilots know what the checkerboard means?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Airfield marking is pretty standard. How would pilots know what the checkerboard means?

It'll be in the next FAR AIM.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Please feel free! I was trying to find the right "FAA Runway Safety" guy for the Ft. Worth FSDO that I could forward the checkerboard between the runway and hold-short areas idea to, but haven't found it yet. Maybe if they liked it, they could make it standard.

Found it, forwarded the idea to them:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/

We'll see what happens!

 

[fgcason]

Hacking off the verbotten section of the runup area and planting grass there is an excellent plan if they insist on the runway buffer restriction.

Airfield marking is pretty standard. How would pilots know what the checkerboard means?

I wouldn't have a clue what it means. It is however far enough out of the normal markings category and in your face to the point that I would stop and sit there wondering what the heck is going on. I'm pretty sure if I asked the tower if I was supposed to play chess, checkers or hopscotch there wouldn't be a problem.

I prefer using normal standards. That's what keeps everything running well everywhere. However if there is a very out of the normal situation, doing something blatantly abnormal is a good plan to get someone to at least think before continuing.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

However if there is a very out of the normal situation, doing something blatantly abnormal is a good plan to get someone to at least think before continuing.

Put a sign there that says "Bridge out ahead". That'll make you stop and think.

 

[ATCGUY]

Troy, if they accept it we would first put out informational briefings to tenents and post advisories in all FBO's. Additionally the FAA would try and post advisories to provide advance information to pilots, via the web and I sure the airport would put something on their website also. It is worth a shot and may be effective, at this point.

 

[kkoran]

It'll be in the next FAR AIM.

Only if it became some sort of "standard". To be really effective, it would need to be used everywhere to denote the part of a taxiway between the runway and the hold line. That way, pilots would instinctively associate it with the hold line.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Only if it became some sort of "standard". To be really effective, it would need to be used everywhere to denote the part of a taxiway between the runway and the hold line. That way, pilots would instinctively associate it with the hold line.

Exactly, that's what I was proposing; I've sent it to the FAA guys, we'll see what they say.

 

[ATCGUY]

Troy I have forwarded on my end, I am waiting for a response, may be good may be bad. I have no idea at this time how long. After working for the FAA all these years I still have no clue as to how they figure things out and what will or will not be accepted. So I will be patient as always.

 

[EdFred]

How about, just remove the perpendicular taxiways? Not physically remove, but simply take down the signs, and documentation of them on the runway side. Then it's just "Taxi to runup area, hold short 15"

 

[kkoran]

My guess is that few, if any, of the incursions at KADS involve an aircraft actually entering the runway. The pilots miss the hold line, but stop before entering the runway (where's the hold line? Aw S**t!). If they don't see the current hold lines before they cross them, they probably wouldn't see the checkerboard until they had crossed the hold line.