DOCSLIB.ORG

Acceptance Criteria of Airfield Concrete Pavement Using Seismic and Maturity Concepts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Acceptance Criteria of Airfield Concrete Pavement Using Seismic and Maturity Concepts An IPRF Research Report Innovative Pavement Research Foundation Airport Concrete Pavement Technology Program Report IPRF-01-G-002-02-2 Acceptance Criteria of Airfield Concrete Pavement Using Seismic and Maturity Concepts Programs Management Office 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, IL 60077 May, 2006 An IPRF Research Report Innovative Pavement Research Foundation Airport Concrete Pavement Technology Program Report IPRF-01-G-002-02-2 Acceptance Criteria of Airfield Concrete Pavement Using Seismic and Maturity Concepts Principal Investigator Soheil Nazarian, PhD, PE Contributing Authors Deren Yuan, PhD Kurt Smith, PE Farhad Ansari, PhD Carlos Gonzalez, PE Programs Management Office 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, IL 60077 May, 2006 This report has been prepared by the Innovative Pavement Research Foundation under the Airport Concrete Pavement Technology Program. Funding is provided by the Federal Aviation Administration under Cooperative Agreement Number 01-G-002. Dr. Satish Agrawal is the Manager of the FAA Airport Technology R&D Branch and the Technical Manager of the Cooperative Agreement. Mr. Jim Lafrenz, P.E. is the Program Director for the IPRF. The Innovative Pavement Research Foundation and the Federal Aviation Administration thanks the Technical Panel that willingly gave of their expertise and time for the development of this report. They were responsible for the oversight and the technical direction. The names of those individuals on the Technical Panel follow. Mr. Jeff Rapol Federal Aviation Administration Dr. Kevin MacDonald, P.E. Cemstone Products Mr. Robert Taylor American Concrete Pavement Association Dr. Wayne Seiler, P.E. All About Pavements, Inc. Ms. Susan Winslow, P.E. Delta Airport Consultants, Inc. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented within. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Federal Aviation Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work represents a collaborative effort among the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC), Applied Pavement Technology (APTech), and the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC). At UTEP, Dr. Nasir Gharaibeh developed the PWL requirements for the new technologies. At UIC, Adam Tennant coordinated and conducted all the laboratory tests. At APTech, Mr. Steve Seeds and Mr. David Peshkin provided valuable input into various aspects of the work. Mr. Jim Bruinsma led the field testing activities at Aurora airport. At ERDC, Dr. Reed Freeman and Mr. Don Alexander helped develop a laboratory testing plan. Mr. Billy D. Neelly, and Mr. Airangel Berrios designed the concrete mixes and conducted extensive laboratory strength and seismic testing. The members of the research team would also like to express their sincere appreciation to Mr. Robert Reiser of the Aurora Municipal Airport, Mr. Randy Johnson of Sjostrom & Sons and Mr. Craig Louden of Crawford, Murphy & Tilly , for their support and cooperation in pavement testing. Also, thanks are extended to Mr. Richard Boudreau of Boudreau Engineering, Inc and personnel of the City of Atlanta, Department of Aviation for their unrelenting cooperation and assistance in both laboratory and field testing. We are grateful to the staff of FAA Technical Center for their help and close collaboration. We appreciate the help from Dr. Gordon Hayhoe, Mr. Murphy Flynn and Mr. Wayne Marsey. We would also like to thank Dr. Navneet Garg and Dr. Edward Gou of Galaxy Scientific for their enthusiasm and collaboration. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary................................................................................................................... VIII 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Objectives. ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Organization......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Assessing Parameters Important to Acceptance of PCC. .......................................................... 3 2.1 Important Structural Design Parameters.............................................................................. 3 2.1.1 Pavement Thickness...................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Concrete Strength.......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Parameters Impacting Concrete Strength............................................................................. 4 2.3 Methods of Measuring Important Parameters...................................................................... 5 2.4 Limitations of Current Methods........................................................................................... 6 2.5 Recommended Technologies for Further Evaluation. ......................................................... 7 3. Maturity and Seismic Concepts. ................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Maturity Method. ................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Seismic Methods for Strength Estimate............................................................................... 9 3.2.1 Laboratory Seismic Tests.............................................................................................. 9 3.2.2 Field Seismic Tests. .................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Seismic Method for Thickness Measurement.................................................................... 11 3.4 Resource Requirements. .................................................................................................... 12 4. Implementation of Maturity and Seismic Concepts................................................................. 14 4.1 Protocol for Estimating Strength. ...................................................................................... 14 4.2 Protocol for Estimating Thickness..................................................................................... 16 4.3 Illustrative Example........................................................................................................... 16 4.4 PWL-Based Pay Schedule for seismic/maturity Criteria................................................... 19 5. Evaluation of Proposed Methodologies................................................................................... 22 5.1 Strength.............................................................................................................................. 22 5.1.1 Laboratory Study. ....................................................................................................... 22 5.1.2 Small Slab Study......................................................................................................... 22 5.1.3 Results and Evaluation................................................................................................ 26 5.2 Thickness. .......................................................................................................................... 34 6. Case Studies for Airport Projects............................................................................................. 38 6.1 Aurora Municipal Airport.................................................................................................. 38 6.1.1 Strength-Modulus/Maturity Calibrations.................................................................... 40 III 6.1.2 Correlation of Results from Lab and Field Tests........................................................ 42 6.1.3 Pavement Thickness Measurement............................................................................. 43 6.2 Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport............................................................... 43 6.2.1 Description of Experiment........................................................................................... 43 6.2.2 Results and Analysis................................................................................................... 45 7. Summary and Conclusions. ..................................................................................................... 51 7.1 Summary............................................................................................................................ 51 7.2 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 53 8. References................................................................................................................................ 54 IV LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 - Sensitivity of Pavement Performance to Key Design Parameters .............................. 3 Figure 3.1 - Maturity Measurement Tools...................................................................................... 8 Figure 3.2 - Setup of Free-Free Resonant Column (FFRC) Test.................................................... 9 Figure 3.3 - Typical Response from FFRC Test on a Conrete Cylinder .......................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • +/- 167.45 Acres for SALE Route 47 & Wheeler Sugar Grove, Illinois
    +/- 167.45 Acres FOR SALE Route 47 & Wheeler Sugar Grove, Illinois Ideal Business Park Location! • Approx. 2 Miles to new I-88 interchange scheduled for 2019 • Approx. 1 Mile to Rt 56/30 Bypass • Only 1 stoplight from Interstate access • Sewer and water adjacent • Planned Business Park/Corridor Commercial Dan Flanagan, ALC Managing Broker Phone: 630-388-8522 Fax: 630-443-1239 email: [email protected] http://www.flanaganland.com Flanagan Realty, LLC represents the seller in this transaction and will not be acting as a dual agent or representative of the buyer unless specifically stated in writing. The information contained herein is from sources considered reliable, but is not guaranteed and is subject to change without notice. Buyers are advised to independently verify all information and perform their own due diligence. This offering may be withdrawn or subject to a change in price or terms without advance notice. Seller reserves the right to reject any and all offers. +/- 167.45 Acres FOR SALE Route 47 & Wheeler Sugar Grove, Illinois 17 Reasons to Consider This Sugar Grove Property for Industrial Development: 1. Less than 1 mile to Rt 56/U.S. 30 bypass to I-88 eastbound. 2. Less than 1 mile to westbound Rt 56/U.S. 30 with no tolls. 3. Only one stoplight away from interstate access. 4. <2.25 miles to full I-88 interchange at Rt 47 planned for 2019. 5. < 1/4 mile from proposed 500,000 sq ft manufacturing facility. 6. Within 30 miles of I-39, I-80, I-55, I-90, I-294 and O’Hare.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Report Aviation
    This space for binding Printed on : 11/22/2013 7:45:37 AM NTSB ID: CEN11FA383 Most Critical Injury: National Transportation Safety Board Minor PRELIMINARY REPORT Occurrence Date: 06/13/2011 Investigated By: NTSB AVIATION Occurrence Type: Accident Location/Time Nearest City/Place State Zip Code Local Time Time Zone Oswego IL 60543 0947 CDT Aircraft Information Registration Number Aircraft Manufacturer Model/Series Number N390TH BOEING B-17G Type of Aircraft: Airplane Amateur Built Aircraft? No Injury Summary: Fatal Serious Minor 1 None 6 Revenue Sightseeing Flight: No Air Medical Transport Flight: No Narrative Brief narrative statement of facts, conditions and circumstances pertinent to the accident/incident: *** Note: NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report. *** On June 13, 2011, about 0947 central daylight time, a Boeing B-17G "Flying Fortress" airplane, N390TH, experienced an in-flight fire and performed an emergency landing near Oswego, Illinois. One passenger sustained a minor injury. The 3 crew members and 3 other passengers were not injured. The airplane was substantially damaged as a result of a fire that ensued after it was on the ground. The aircraft was registered to and operated by The Liberty Foundation under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a repositioning flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which was not operated on a flight plan. The flight originated from the Aurora Municipal Airport (ARR), Aurora, Illinois at 0938.
    [Show full text]
  • Aurora Municipal Airport
    TH NOR 88 AURORA 56 47 30 47 112.41 Acres Galena Boulevard Municipal Drive 30 Wheeler Road Colliers International 112.41 Acres (Divisible) Sugar Grove, Illinois Property Description OFFERING PRICE: $2.50 SF 1.) 112.41 acres divisible 2.) Subject property is part of a larger TIF approved by the Village of Sugar Grove 3.) Pro-business community 4.) Frontage and access on Rt. 30, Galena Blvd. and Municipal Drive 5.) Two fully signalized intersections to the property; 1.) Rt. 30 and Municipal Drive and 2.) Rt. 47 and Galena Blvd. 6.) Sewer and water to the property 7.) Annexed and currently zoned A-1. Industrial and commercial/retail potential 8.) Immediate access to the expressway system from Rt. 30 / Rt. 56 / Rt. 47 • I-88 (East) .............................................. 5 miles • I-88 (West) .......................................... 3.7 miles • SR 59 .....................................................14 miles • I-355 .....................................................22 miles • I-80 ....................................................... 27 miles • I-294 ......................................................31 miles • O’Hare International Airport ................40 miles 9.) Adjacent to the Aurora Municipal Airport 10.) Illinois Rt 56 Bridge Clearance Galena Blvd EB 16’-01” WB 14’-02” Prairie Path (Virgil Gilman) EB 22’-10” WB 22’-02” Hankes Rd EB 14’-02” WB 14’-04” Colliers International 112.41 Acres (Divisible) | Sugar Grove, Illinois 2 PLEASANT PRAIRIE WISCONSIN ILLINOIS HARVARD GURNEE WAUKEGAN NORTH MCHENRY 01 5 10 miles NORTH CHICAGO GRAYSLAKE CRYSTAL LAKE LIBERTYVILLE 12 WAUCONDA 45 LAKE FOREST 83 60 . VERNON HILLS Y CO LAKE ZURICH 94 CARY 83 McHENR 22 MARENGO LAKE IN THE HILLS 45 LINCOLNSHIRE HIGHLAND PARK DEERFIELD HUNTLEY BARRINGTON LAKE CO. BUFFALO GROVE COOK CO.
    [Show full text]
  • Aurora Municipal Airport Advisory Board Meeting – April 16, 2018
    Aurora Municipal Airport Advisory Board Meeting – April 16, 2018 I. Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Armbruster. II. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Armbruster, Mr. Koster, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Baker, Mr. Lieser, Mr. Dorf, Mr. Rudigier, Mr. Fank MEMBERS EXCUSED: Mr. Davis MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bonifas REPS PRESENT: Mr. Langerveld OTHERS PRESENT: Kyle Peabody, Luke Grotto, Mike Warner, Amy Maveus III. A motion was made by Mr. Lieser, seconded by Mr. Wolf, to accept the minutes of the February 12, 2018 meeting of the Airport Advisory Board. The motion carried unanimously. IV. Committee Reports A. Finance – No report B. Planning and Ops – No report V. Old Business A. Sugar Grove Update – Mr. Wolf reported Anytime Fitness has started construction. B. Draft Airport Rate Study – No report C. Drone Business Opportunities – No report. To be removed from agenda. D. Airfield Signage Project – Mr. Peabody reported D-Construction plans to begin the project on May 7, 2018. The project is scheduled to take 48 days. There will be phased airfield closures during construction. CMT, D-Construction, control tower personnel and airport administration will meet to discuss planned closures. A notice detailing phasing of closures will be emailed to airport tenants. E. Airport Entrance Sign – No report F. Sugar Grove Park District (Ball Field Sale) – Mr. Armbruster reported the closing on the property is scheduled to take place soon. Mr. Koster questioned the sale of the Harner property. Mr. Armbruster and Mr. Peabody reminded the board of the additional parcels that were included in the land release to be sold.
    [Show full text]
  • Transition Report
    Yesterday’s plan. Today’s action. LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR AURORA’S FUTURE. MAYOR RICHARD C. IRVIN TRANSITION REPORT Cover Photo RICKY CERVANTES 2 MAYOR RICHARD C. IRVIN TRANSITION REPORT TABLE OF Contents 01 Mayor’s Introduction 02 Transition Team Leadership Introduction 03 Transition Team Subcommittee Members 04 Transition Plan Summary and Highlights 08 Government Administration Subcommittee 14 Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee 17 Public Safety Subcommittee 20 Arts, Recreation and Culture Subcommittee 23 Housing and Community Development Subcommittee 27 Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee 29 Economic Development Subcommittee 34 Transportation, Infrastructure, Environment and Sustainability Subcommittee 41 Attachment - Tallahassee Penny Tax Program 3 MAYOR RICHARD C. IRVIN TRANSITION REPORT LETTER FROM the Mayor Dear Friends, The Irvin Transition Team exemplifies what can clearly be accomplished when citizens are given the opportunity to engage with local government and lend their expertise, experience, desires and ideas to our city’s growth. Over 200 city of Aurora stakeholders participated in the creation of this transition report with the idea that their recommendations would influence and be an integral component of future governmental decisions. These recommendations were so much in alignment with my vision for the city of Aurora and my goals to achieve that vision that this transition report has evolved into the City of Aurora’s Action Plan. For example, during my campaign and early in my administration, I spoke regularly of the need to improve the educational and career outcomes of Aurora’s youth. I believe our young people should be offered many academic and skills development opportunities that will ultimately lead to successful careers.
    [Show full text]
  • 1016 Airpark Drive Sugar Grove, Il 60554
    INDUSTRIAL SPACE FOR LEASE 1016 AIRPARK DRIVE SUGAR GROVE, IL 60554 Neil Johnson Managing Director/Broker 630.938.4950 [email protected] SVN | LANDMARK COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE | 25 N THIRD STREET, SUITE 200, GENEVA, IL 60134 LEASE BROCHURE 1016 Airpark Dr, Sugar Grove IL OFFERING SUMMARY PROPERTY OVERVIEW Available SF: 5,000 SF Flex industrial space in quality, multi-tenant brick building with well-kept landscaping. 16’ ceiling in warehouses. 14x14 overhead door, warehouse walk-in door, 200 AMP, 3 phase electric power. Lease Rate: $6.00 SF/yr (NNN) Warehouse area has ceiling hung gas furnace. Front office space has separate HVAC. Shared outdoor 54' at-grade dock located at north end of building. Lot Size: 2.01 Acres Private paved parking with 43 total spaces. $2.07/sf est. avg. operating expenses, including taxes, landscaping & snow removal. Year Built: 1991 LOCATION OVERVIEW Industrial business park located at US Hwy 30 & Dugan Rd, just west of the Building Size: 20,000 SF Aurora Municipal Airport at the western edge of the Chicago metropolitan area This property is 48 miles due west of downtown Chicago. Distance to Rt. 47 (3 mi), Orchard Rd (6.5 mi) Rt. 23 (14 mi), downtown Aurora (9 mi). Easy access to Zoning: M1 I-88 east/west tollway and Rt. 47. 30 minute drive to DeKalb, Naperville or St. Charles. Market: Chicago - Far West Submarket: Kane County INDUSTRIAL SPACE FOR LEASE | 1016 AIRPARK DRIVE, SUGAR GROVE, IL 60554 SVN | Landmark Commercial Real Estate | Page 2 The information presented here is deemed to be accurate, but it has not been independently verified.
    [Show full text]
  • FAA Runway Safety Report FY 2000
    FAA Runway Safety Report Runway Incursion Trends and Initiatives at Towered Airports in the United States, FY 2000 – FY 2003 August 2004 Preface THE 2004 RUNWAY SAFETY REPORT1 presents an assessment of runway safety in the United States for fiscal years FY 2000 through FY 2003. The report also highlights runway safety initiatives intended to reduce the severity, number, and rate of runway incursions. Both current progress and historical data regarding the reduction of runway incursions can be found on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) web site (http://www.faa.gov). Effective February 8, 2004, the FAA implemented an organizational change that created an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) in addition to its Regulatory functions. Safety Services, within the ATO, has assumed the responsibilities of the former Office of Runway Safety. Therefore, this FAA Runway Safety Report, which covers a period prior to the implemen- tation of the ATO, is the last in a series of reports that exclusively presents information on runway safety. Safety performance will be an integral part of future ATO products. 1 A glossary of terms and a list of acronyms used in this report are provided in Appendix A. Federal Aviation Administration 1 Executive Summary REDUCING THE RISKS OF RUNWAY INCURSIONS AND RUNWAY COLLISIONS is a top priority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Runway safety management is a dynamic process that involves measuring runway incursions as well as understanding the factors that contribute to runway collision risks and taking actions to reduce these risks. Runway incursion severity ratings (Categories A through D) indicate the potential for a collision or the margin of safety associated with an event.
    [Show full text]
  • Visioning Report MASTER PLAN UPDATE PHASE I
    Visioning Report MASTER PLAN UPDATE PHASE I May 2015 Visioning Report Master Plan Update Phase I Chicago Executive Airport May 2015 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... ..........i Foreword ................................................................................................................................1 Need for a new Master Plan .........................................................................................2 Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................2 The Context History ............................................................................................................................4 Local communities ................................................................................................4 Chicago Executive Airport ......................................................................................4 How CEA has evolved over time .......................................................................................4 Chicago Executive Airport’s role today ..............................................................................5 National ...............................................................................................................5 Local ....................................................................................................................5 Master Plan process ..........................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Property Summary
    Property Summary “Lender Owned” Residential Land Apartment/Condominium Pads for 525 units Asset Resolutions Team The Plaza on New York/Lehigh Station Aurora, Illinois Overview The Plaza on New York/Lehigh Station is not the kind of place you’d expect to find in the western suburbs of Chicago. A sophisticated mix of rowhomes, apartment/condominium buildings and retail/commercial areas, all come together in a neighborhood that functions much like those found in large, metropolitan cities. An elegant boulevard runs the length of this unique area, incorporating parks, water features, a fountain, and walking areas. Brick-edged streets graced with park benches and planters add to the upscale ambience. Walk to shops? You can here. Take the train to downtown Chicago? It’s just up the street via the Station Boulevard Trolley. Tour the rest of the web site. Explore the offering and discover the features that make The Plaza on New York/Lehigh Station the place to build. Structured and built to resemble an intimate section of a large urbane neighborhood, The Plaza on New York/Lehigh Station offers the type of lifestyle an increasing number of home owners are looking for -- a largely self-sufficient neighborhood that also dovetails in with the larger surrounding cities of Aurora and Naperville – and everything they have to offer. Development commenced in 2007 on the multi-story, pedestrian/transit oriented design of the rowhome/apartment condominium / commercial plan, which is an updated take on a city urbane style. Exceptional Features and Amenities Superior access and marketing window Plan features rooftop gardens and lifestyle amenities Trolley service from Westfield Shopping Town to Metra Station Immediate access to quality employment, transportation, shopping, educational and recreational opportunities This document/email has been prepared by Colliers International for advertising and general information Offered in bulk or individual parcels.
    [Show full text]
  • Hinckley, IL Dekalb County Location Hinckley Is Located in Southeast Dekalb County
    Hinckley, IL DeKalb County Location Hinckley is located in southeast DeKalb County. Business Climate No Data Available Contact Paul Borek DeKalb County Economic Development Corporation 421 N. California Street Sycamore, IL 60178 Phone: 815-895-2711 E-mail: [email protected] Demographic Information Population 2013 Population: 2,070 Labor Market Population: 58,924 Data Source: US Census Households 2000 Total Number of Households: 730 Average Household Size: 2.73 Median Household Income: $58,043.00 Data Source: US Census, 2000 Educational Attainment: Population - Age 25 Plus 2000 Associate Degree: 7 % Bachelor's Degree: 15 % Graduate or Professional Degree: 6 % LocationOne® Copyright 2001-2016 GreatPlains Energy Inc. This information has been secured from sources we believe to be reliable, but we make no representation or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the information. Metro Area Distances City Driving Distance (miles) Flight Time Days by Truck Days by Rail Atlanta 730 2 2 Chicago 68 1 1 Cleveland 419 2 1 Dallas 870 3 2 Denver 950 3 2 Detroit 357 1 1 Kansas City 430 2 2 Los Angeles 2030 5 4 Memphis 544 2 2 Minneapolis 370 1 1 Labor Force Characteristics No Data Available Leading Employers Product or Service Employees Carl's Oil Company Fuel Distributor 40 Circle Chemical Non-Destructive Test 12 Fifth/Third Bank Banking 10 Hinckley Concrete Concrete 9 Hinckley Fresh Market Grocery 8 Hinckley School District Education 40 Resource Bank Banking 6 Local Government Type of Government: Trustee/Trustees/Village Comprehensive City Plan: Yes Year Plan Completed: 2003 Strategic City Plan: No Year Plan Completed: 0 City Zoning Ordinance in Effect: No County Zoning Ordinance in Effect: Yes Percent of Streets Paved: 0.0 Local Government Services There is no Local Government Services data available.
    [Show full text]
  • National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Final Report
    National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Final Report Location: Oswego, Illinois Accident Number: CEN11FA383 Date & Time: June 13, 2011, 09:47 Local Registration: N390TH Aircraft: Boeing B-17G Aircraft Damage: Substantial Defining Event: Fire/smoke (non-impact) Injuries: 1 Minor, 6 None Flight Conducted Part 91: General aviation - Positioning Under: Analysis The weekend before the accident, a fuel leak was identified. The fuel leak was subsequently repaired, and a final inspection the morning of the accident flight reportedly did not reveal any evidence of a continued fuel leak. Shortly after takeoff, the flight crew noticed a faint odor in the cockpit and a small amount of smoke near the radio room. The flight crew immediately initiated a turn with the intention of returning to the departure airport. About that time, they received a radio call from the pilot of the accompanying airplane advising that there was a fire visible on the left wing. The accident pilot subsequently executed an emergency landing to a corn field. Emergency crews were hampered by the muddy field conditions, and the fire ultimately consumed significant portions airframe. In-flight photographs showed the presence of fire on the aft lower portion of the left wing between the inboard and outboard engines. Located in the same area of the fire were fuel tanks feeding the left-side engines. After landing, heavy fire conditions were present on the left side of the airplane, and the fire spread to the fuselage. A postaccident examination noted that the C-channel installed as part of the No. 1 main fuel tank repair earlier in the week was partially separated.
    [Show full text]
  • Runway Safety Report
    FAA Runway Safety Report Safety Runway FAA Runway Safety Report June 2008 June 2008 June Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 OK-08-3966 www.faa.gov Message from the Administrator A successful flight — whether trans-oceanic in a commercial airliner or a short trip in a private airplane — begins and ends with safe ground operations. While within the purview and oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration, runway safety is at the same time the ongoing responsibility of pilots, air traffic controllers, and airport ground vehicle operators. Through training and education, heightened awareness, enhanced airport signage and markings, and dedicated technology, FAA is providing each of these constituencies with the tools required to significantly improve runway safety. The ultimate goal is to reduce the severity, number, and rate of runway incursions; this report details a number of accomplishments and encouraging trends toward that end. A glance at the Executive Summary provides an overview of runway incursion data as well as numerous initiatives either completed, underway or about to begin. Serious runway incursions, which involve a significant reduction in adequate separation between two aircraft and where the risk of a collision is considerable, are trending favorably. In fiscal year 2007, these types of incur- sions were down 23 percent from the previous year and at their lowest total during the past four years. Since 2001, serious runway incursions are down 55 percent. In August 2007, we met with more than 40 aviation leaders from airlines, airports, air traffic controller and pilot unions, and aerospace manufacturers under a “Call to Action” for Runway Safety.
    [Show full text]