Questions and Answers Sheet Solicitation 19PE5021Q0075 – Death-And-Dismemberment-Insurance August 2021
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Design Study Me T Rop"Ol Itan Air Transit System
NASA CR 73362 A DESIGN STUDY OF A MET R OP"OL ITAN AIR TRANSIT SYSTEM MAT ir 0 ± 0 49 PREPARED UNDER, NASA-ASEE SUMMER FACULTY FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM ,IN Cq ENGINEERING SYSTEMS DESIGN NASA CONTRACT NSR 05-020-151 p STANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD CALIFORNIA CL ceoroducedEAR'C-by thEGHOU AUGUST 1969 for Federal Scientific &Va Tec1nical 2 Information Springfied NASA CR 73362 A DESIGN STUDY OF A METROPOLITAN AIR TRANSIT SYSTEM MAT Prepared under NASA Contract NSR 05-020-151 under the NASA-ASEE Summer Faculty Fellowship Program in Engineering Systems Design, 16 June 29 August, 1969. Faculty Fellows Richard X. Andres ........... ......... ..Parks College Roger R. Bate ....... ...... .."... Air Force Academy Clarence A. Bell ....... ......"Kansas State University Paul D. Cribbins .. .... "North Carolina State University William J. Crochetiere .... .. ........ .Tufts University Charles P. Davis . ... California State Polytechnic College J. Gordon Davis . .... Georgia Institute of Technology Curtis W. Dodd ..... ....... .Southern Illinois University Floyd W. Harris .... ....... .... Kansas State University George G. Hespelt ........ ......... .University of Idaho Ronald P. Jetton ...... ............ .Bradley University Kenneth L. Johnson... .. Milwaukee School of Engineering Marshall H. Kaplan ..... .... Pennsylvania State University Roger A. Keech . .... California State Polytechnic College Richard D. Klafter... .. .. Drexel Institute of Technology Richard S. Marleau ....... ..... .University of Wisconsin Robert W. McLaren ..... ....... University'of Missouri James C. Wambold..... .. Pefinsylvania State University Robert E. Wilson..... ..... Oregon State University •Co-Directors Willi'am Bollay ...... .......... Stanford University John V. Foster ...... ........... .Ames Research Center Program Advisors Alfred E. Andreoli . California State Polytechnic College Dean F. Babcock .... ........ Stanford Research Institute SUDAAR NO. 387 September, 1969 i NOT FILMED. ppECEDING PAGE BLANK CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1--INTRODUCTION ... -
E. Runway Length Analysis
JOSLIN FIELD, MAGIC VALLEY REGIONAL AIRPORT DECEMBER 2012 E. Runway Length Analysis This appendix describes the runway length analysis conducted for the Airport. Runway 7-25, the Airport’s primary runway, has a length of 8,700 feet and the existing crosswind runway (Runway 12-30) has a length of 3,207 feet. A runway length analysis was conducted to determine if additional runway length is required to meet the needs of aircraft forecasted to operate at the Airport through the planning period. The analysis was conducted according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design. The runway length analysis set forth in AC 150/5325-4B relates to both arrivals and departures, although departures typically require more runway length. Runway length requirements were determined separately for Runway 7-25 and Runway 12-30. E.1 Primary Runway Length Requirements According to AC 150/5325-4B, the design objective for the primary runway is to provide a runway length for all aircraft without causing operational weight restrictions. The methodology used to determine required runway lengths is based on the MTOW of the aircraft types to be evaluated, which are grouped into the following categories: Small aircraft (MTOW of 12,500 pounds or less) – Aircraft in this category range in size from ultralight aircraft to small turboprop aircraft. Within this category, aircraft are broken out by approach speeds (less than 30 knots, at least 30 knots but less than 50 knots, and more than 50 knots). Aircraft with approach speeds of more than 50 knots are further broken out by passenger seat capacity (less than 10 passenger seats and 10 or more passenger seats). -
Explanatory Note to ED Decision
European Aviation Safety Agency Explanatory Note to Decision 2017/016/R Appendix I — Aircraft type ratings for Part-66 aircraft maintenance licence RELATED NPA/CRD 2016-20 — RMT.0541 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Decision addresses a regulatory coordination issue related to aircraft type ratings for Part-66 aircraft maintenance licences. According to the acceptable means of compliance (AMC) to Part-66, type ratings should be endorsed on a licence in accordance with Appendix I to AMC to Part-66 ‘Aircraft type ratings for Part-66 aircraft maintenance licence’. The specific objective of this rulemaking task is to ensure a common standard throughout the Member States. Executive Director Decisions are issued regularly to amend this list following the changes coming from industry, to add new aircraft types, or remove aircraft types that became obsolete. Action area: Regular updates Affected rules: AMC to Part-66 Affected stakeholders: Member States NAA, industry, individual license holders. Driver: Level playing field Rulemaking group: No Impact assessment: None Rulemaking Procedure: Standard 12.05.2009 22.12.2016 1.6.2017 TE.RPRO.00058-005 © European Aviation Safety Agency. All rights reserved. ISO 9001 certified. Proprietary document. Copies are not controlled. Confirm revision status through the EASA intranet/internet. Page 1 of 16 An agency of the European Union European Aviation Safety Agency Explanatory Note to Decision 2017/016/R Table of contents Table of contents 1. About this Decision .............................................................................................................................. 3 2. In summary — why and what ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Why we need to change the AMC. ........................................................................................................... 4 2.2. What we want to achieve ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.3. -
Scheduled Civil Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1992: Database Development and Analysis
NASA Contractor Report 4700 Scheduled Civil Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1992: Database Development and Analysis Steven L. Baughcum, Terrance G. Tritz, Stephen C. Henderson, and David C. Pickett Contract NAS1-19360 Prepared for Langley Research Center April 1996 NASA Contractor Report 4700 Scheduled Civil Aircraft Emission Inventories for 1992: Database Development and Analysis Steven L. Baughcum, Terrance G. Tritz, Stephen C. Henderson, and David C. Pickett Boeing Commercial Airplane Group • Seattle Washington National Aeronautics and Space Administration Prepared for Langley Research Center Langley Research Center • Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 under Contract NAS1-19360 April 1996 Printed copies available from the following: NASA Center for AeroSpace Information National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 800 Elkridge Landing Road 5285 Port Royal Road Linthicum Heights, MD 21090-2934 Springfield, VA 22161-2171 (301) 621-0390 (703) 487-4650 Executive Summary This report describes the development of a database of aircraft fuel burned and emissions from scheduled air traffic for each month of 1992. In addition, the earlier results (NASA CR-4592) for May 1990 scheduled air traffic have been updated using improved algorithms. These emissions inventories were developed under the NASA High Speed Research Systems Studies (HSRSS) contract NAS1-19360, Task Assignment 53. They will be available for use by atmospheric scientists conducting the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project (AEAP) modeling studies. A detailed database of fuel burned and emissions [NOx, carbon monoxide(CO), and hydrocarbons (HC)] for scheduled air traffic has been calculated for each month of 1992. In addition, the emissions for May 1990 have been recalculated using the same methodology. The data are on a 1° latitude x 1° longitude x 1 km altitude grid. -
Flight O O Ld Pil E ADS
The Journal of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association FlightJANUARY 2019 Best Photos Of 2018 MEMBERS CHOOSE THE WINNERS 5400 NM TREK IN A SEABEE ONTARIO PILOT EXPLORES THE NORTH ADS-B IN Canada P OSSIBLE REPLACEMENT FOR ELTS? WINTER FLYING COLD STARTS A HOT TopIC More than 60 Classified Ads (P.38) PM#42583014 freedom to EXPLORE Since 1960, Wipaire® has been bringing the freedom of water flying to pilots of aircraft large and small. Wipline® floats deliver the innovation, quality, and reliability you and your aircraft deserve. Where will Wipline floats take you? South St. Paul, MN (KSGS) +1 (651) 451-1205 Leesburg, FL (KLEE) +1 (352) 323-4809 wipaire.com contEnts DEPARTMENTS 4 PRESIDENT’s CORNER LooKING AHEAD To 2019 6 MAILBOX 26 POOR ELT PERfoRMANCE 8 NEWSLINE FEATURES ADS-B FOR CANADA 16 ON THE HORIZON 26 EXPLORING THE NORTH MARK YOUR CALENDARS AMPHIBIOUS AIRCRAFT ALLowS FoR ENDLESS LANDING SITES 20 REGIONS STORY BY LAUREN NAGEL LoCAL NEWS AND MEMBER There are many ways to see and enjoy our vast country. However, not many ACTIVITIES of us venture north of the Arctic Circle. Those of us who do, and do so for 34 AVIATION CAREERS recreational purposes, typically travel by car, either tenting or hauling an NEW PILOT FATIGUE RULES RV along. But that only allows views of the scenery that is visible from the roadside. An aircraft, on the other hand, allows a fortunate few to see as much as we want, and up close. 30 PHoto CONTEST WINNERS ON THE coVER: THIS Year’s Winners ANNOUNCED Capturing the Northern Lights challenges many photographers, and Rick Phillips This year’s photo contest has again showcased some of Canada’s most rose to the occasion, including a floatplane spectacular settings. -
(EU) 2018/336 of 8 March 2018 Amending Regulation
13.3.2018 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 70/1 II (Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/336 of 8 March 2018 amending Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 on the list of aircraft operators which performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator (Text with EEA relevance) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/ EC (1), and in particular Article 18a(3)(b) thereof, Whereas: (1) Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) amended Directive 2003/87/EC to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union. (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 (3) establishes a list of aircraft operators which performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC on or after 1 January 2006. (3) That list aims to reduce the administrative burden on aircraft operators by providing information on which Member State will be regulating a particular aircraft operator. (4) The inclusion of an aircraft operator in the Union’s emissions trading scheme is dependent upon the performance of an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC and is not dependent on the inclusion in the list of aircraft operators established by the Commission on the basis of Article 18a(3) of that Directive. -
Ford Trimotor
Ford Trimotor The Ford Trimotor (also called the “Tri-Motor”, and The Ford Trimotor using all-metal construction was not a nicknamed “The Tin Goose”) was an American three- revolutionary concept, but it was certainly more advanced engined transport aircraft. Production started in 1925 by than the standard construction techniques of the 1920s. the companies of Henry Ford and until June 7, 1933. A The aircraft resembled the Fokker F.VII Trimotor (ex- total of 199 Ford Trimotors were made.[1] It was designed cept for being all-metal which Henry Ford to claimed for the civil aviation market, but also saw service with made it “the safest airliner around”).[3] Its fuselage and military units. The Ford Trimotor was sold around the wings followed a design pioneered by Junkers[4] during world. World War I with the Junkers J.I and used postwar in a series of airliners starting with the Junkers F.13 low- wing monoplane of 1920 of which a number were ex- 1 Design and development ported to the US, the Junkers K 16 high-wing airliner of 1921, and the Junkers G 24 trimotor of 1924. All of these were constructed of aluminum alloy, which was corrugated for added stiffness, although the resulting drag reduced its overall performance.[5] So similar were the designs that Junkers sued and won when Ford attempted to export an aircraft to Europe.[6] In 1930, Ford counter- sued in Prague, and despite the possibility of anti-German sentiment, was decisively defeated a second time, with the court finding that Ford had infringed upon Junkers’ patents.[6] Although designed primarily for passenger use, the Tri- motor could be easily adapted for hauling cargo, since its seats in the fuselage could be removed. -
Jul O 1 2004 Libraries
Evaluation of Regional Jet Operating Patterns in the Continental United States by Aleksandra L. Mozdzanowska Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASSACHUSETTS INSTIfUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering JUL O 1 2004 at the LIBRARIES MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TCHNOLOGY AERO May 2004 @ Aleksandra Mozdzanowska. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. A uthor.............. ....... Ale andawMozdzanowska Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics A I ,,May 7, 2004 Certified by.............................................. R. John Hansman Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thesis Supervisor Accepted by.......................................... Edward M. Greitzer H.N. Slater Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Chair, Department Committee on Graduate Students 1 * t eWe I 4 w 4 'It ~tI* ~I 'U Evaluation of Regional Jet Operating Patterns in the Continental United States by Aleksandra Mozdzanowska Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics on May 7th 2004, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering Abstract Airlines are increasingly using regional jets to better match aircraft size to high value, but limited demand markets. The increase in regional jet usage represents a significant change from traditional air traffic patterns. To investigate the possible impacts of this change on the air traffic management and control systems, this study analyzed the emerging flight patterns and performance of regional jets compared to traditional jets and turboprops. This study used ASDI data, which consists of actual flight track data, to analyze flights between January 1998 and January 2003. -
Compiled by Lincoln Ross Model Name/Article Title/Etc. Author
compiled by Lincoln Ross currently, issues 82 (Jan 1983) thru 293 (Jan 2017), 296 (Jul, 2017) thru 300 (Mar/April 2018), also 1 (Nov. 1967), 2, 3, 36, 71 (Jan. 1980) and 82 (Jan 1982) I've tried to get all the major articles, all the three views, and all the plans. However, this is a work in progress and I find that sometimes I miss things, or I may be inconsistent about what makes the cut and what doesn’t. If you found it somewhere else, you may find a more up to date version of this document in the Exotic and Special Interest/ Free Flight section in RCGroups.com. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1877075 Send corrections to lincolnr "at" rcn "dot" com. Also, if you contributed something, and I've got you listed as "anonymous", please let me know and I'll add your name. Loans or scans of the missing issues would be very much appreciated, although not strictly necessary. Before issue 71, I only have pdf files. Many thanks to Jim Zolbe for a number of scans and index entries. His contributions are shaded pale blue. In some cases, there are duplications that I've kept due to more information or what I thinkissue is a better entry date, issu usually e first of model name/article author/designe span no. two title/etc. r in. type comment 1 Lt. Phineas Nov 67 Club News Pinkham na note "c/o Dave Stott", introduces the newsletter 1 The first peanut scale contest, also 13 inch Nov 67 Peanut Scale GHQ na note rule announcement. -
Raytheon, UTC Merger to Create a ‘Giant’ by David Donald
PUBLICATIONS Vol.50 | No.7 $9.00 JULY 2019 | ainonline.com Paris Air Show 2019 The 737 Max program received a huge vote of confidence at the Paris Air Show last month. International Airlines Group (IAG) inked a letter of intent covering 200 Max 8s and Max 10s worth more than $24 billion at list prices. CFM also signed a significant engine deal—valued at $20 billion— during the show (see page 6). For more Paris Air Show news, also see pages 8 and 10. Aircraft Quest buy expands Daher line. page 8 Airports SMO operator bulldozing excess runway. page 14 INTOSH c Avionics DAVID M DAVID Universal developing a new FMS style. page 46 Raytheon, UTC merger to create a ‘giant’ by David Donald Citing “less than 1 percent overlap” between competing against [UTC].” combined company value is $166 billion the two companies, Raytheon International Upon completion of the Raytheon/UTC and, based on 2019 sales, the new company CEO John Harris spoke at the Paris Air Show, merger, the company will become the world’s will generate $74 billion in annual revenue. dismissing concern expressed by President second-largest defense/aerospace company The company’s first CEO will be Greg Hayes, Donald Trump over the merger of his com- after Boeing, and the second largest U.S. UTC chairman and CEO, with Raytheon’s pany and United Technologies Corp. (UTC). defense contractor behind Lockheed Mar- CEO, Thomas Kennedy, becoming executive Announced on June 9, the all-stock “merger tin. Revenue will be divided roughly equally chairman. Hayes is due to become chairman of equals” will create an industrial defense/ between defense and commercial sectors. -
NPS Reference Manual 60 Aviation Management
Reference Manual 60 Aviation Management 2019 Reference Manual 60 Aviation Management Branch of Aviation Management Boise, Idaho National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REFERENCE MANUAL 60 AVIATION MANAGEMENT Page | 2 ACRONYMS 9 DEFINITIONS 11 CHAPTER 1 – AVIATION MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW 12 1.1 Background and Purpose 12 1.2 NPS Management Policies 12 1.3 NPS Aviation Strategic Plan 13 1.4 Environmental Concerns 14 1.5 Organizational Responsibilities 14 1.6 Evaluation and Monitoring 20 1.7 Management of Aviation Mishaps 21 CHAPTER 2 – AVIATION DIRECTIVES 22 2.1 General 22 2.2 Office of Management and Budget Circulars 22 2.3 Federal Aviation Regulations 22 2.4 Departmental Manual 22 2.5 DOI Operational Procedures Memoranda 22 2.6 DOI Handbooks/Interagency Guides/NPS Operational Plans 22 2.7 DOI, Interagency and NPS Alerts & Bulletins 23 2.8 Enhancements, Policy Waivers and Exceptions 23 CHAPTER 3 – RECORDS AND REPORTS 25 3.1 Aircraft Use Reports 25 3.2 Use of Non-Federal Public Aircraft 25 3.3 Aviation Training Records 25 3.4 DO-11D: Records and Electronic Information Management 26 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REFERENCE MANUAL 60 AVIATION MANAGEMENT Page | 3 CHAPTER 4 – FLEET AIRCRAFT ACQUISITION, MARKING, 27 DISPOSITION AND FUNDING 27 4.1 Acquisition 27 4.2 Marking 27 4.3 Disposition 27 4.4 Funding 27 CHAPTER 5 – MANNED AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT 29 5.1 General 29 5.2 Additions/Alterations 29 5.3 Wire Strike Protection Systems 29 5.4 Emergency Locator Transmitter 29 5.5 Satellite Based Tracking Systems 30 -
AIR AMERICA - COOPERATION with OTHER AIRLINES by Dr
AIR AMERICA - COOPERATION WITH OTHER AIRLINES by Dr. Joe F. Leeker First published on 23 August 2010, last updated on 24 August 2015 1) Within the family: The Pacific Corporation and its parts In a file called “Air America - cooperation with other airlines”, one might first think of Civil Air Transport Co Ltd or Air Asia Co Ltd. These were not really other airlines, however, but part of the family that had been created in 1955, when the old CAT Inc. had received a new corporate structure. On 28 February 55, CAT Inc transferred the Chinese airline services to Civil Air Transport Company Limited (CATCL), which had been formed on 20 January 55, and on 1 March 55, CAT Inc officially transferred the ownership of all but 3 of the Chinese registered aircraft to Asiatic Aeronautical Company Limited, selling them to Asiatic Aeronautical (AACL) for one US Dollar per aircraft.1 The 3 aircraft not transferred to AACL were to be owned by and registered to CATCL – one of the conditions under which the Government of the Republic of China had approved the two-company structure.2 So, from March 1955 onwards, we have 2 official owners of the fleet: Most aircraft were officially owned by Asiatic Aeronautical Co Ltd, which changed its name to Air Asia Co Ltd on 1 April 59, but three aircraft – mostly 3 C-46s – were always owned by Civil Air Transport Co Ltd. US registered aircraft of the family like C-54 N2168 were officially owned by the holding company – the Airdale Corporation, which changed its name to The Pacific Corporation on 7 October 57 – or by CAT Inc., which changed its name to Air America on 3 31 March 59, as the organizational chart of the Pacific Corporation given below shows.