Category Archives: FARA

7TS0 runway marking discussion

  • Summary of discussions up to this point:
TL, DR:
I am proposing to use $2000 to $3000 of FARA funds to add displaced threshold  / usable width markings to the runway, change the color of 4 runway lights, and change the text on our AFD entry.
The Background:
We have had several ideas floating around about the marking the runway displaced thresholds, and concerns about the sides of the runway being uneven/unusable for high speed operation.
Issue number 1:  The runway thresholds must be marked as displaced to qualify for Public Airport classification.  If we remain private , we should still comply with markings as a good faith effort to promote safety. We have discussed schemes to mark the thresholds, but up to now we have not settled on one.
FAA letter reviewing grass runway marking (Grass Runway Markings_1984_ct84-11)…..  A little over the top. – Todd
…..
My preference is to remain private,and place the markings anyway- Todd
…..
Issue number 2.  The runway width is currently declared as 70 feet usable, although it is not marked.  An aircraft was damaged (nosed up?) when it departed the usable area at high speed a year or 2 ago.  Additionally, Advisory Circular ( RunwayMarkings_HardSurface_AC150_5340_1k_consolidated )   clearly states runway lights can be no farther than 10 feet outside the usable runway area.  We are more like 25 feet.  Again, we are not bound by the AC, but good practice would visually indicate the non-standard situation.
 The next aspect of this same issue is the access culvert that Haydens  have laid down to cross the bar ditch. This is technically outside of the “Runway” proper, but it will damage an aircraft if struck at high speed.  Again, I think the best route is to make clear what we are offering as “Runway”.
……
I have also suggested that Haydens fair in the entire ditch with gravel, say 20 feet north and 20 feet south of the culvert to allow even an errant aircraft to smoothly roll past the culvert at any ground track, at any speed. Ditto the lawn mowers.  Just mow right over it.  – Todd
…….
Mark’s suggestion was to move the lights inward to the actual runway width:

Since our discussion, I have become firmer in my thought that moving runway lights inward is the best option.  Never mind a ditch digger will do the hard work, vice hand digging 3” deep squares to place concrete markers; but I believe there is no better way to mark the landable surface than to set out lights.  Lights have a height to them that concrete will not and they will mark the runway day or night.  If one needs to worry about hitting lights, then one must worry about flying into ANY airport with a lighted runway.  Hitting a runway light is a non-event.  It’s a pain to replace, but a non-event as far as airplane damage.  However, not seeing a flush concrete marker and hitting a concrete abutment is an event.  I hate to keep coming back to liability, but as we go public, we will all be liable if an accident occurs due to what will be seen as our negligence in not properly marking obstructions.  Never mind the airport facility directory, even a bad lawyer will make our lives miserable trying to defend what we did, or did not do.  

This is just my two cents. Let’s get the conversation going! – Mark Hagen

….
My objection to moving the lights inboard will increase the likelihood of a airplane striking a light.
X09 documents non-standard lights like this:
Runway edge lights: non-standard
NSTD LIRL; 2800 FT OF RY LGTD AT NIGHT BTN DSPLCD THLDS.

– Todd

….
The airport “Heritage Creek”, identifier 58T,  just north of us has won the threshold marking contest. Airnav page (Here) (). Google map link (here) (Picture on approach attached).  (Video of the approach here) – Todd
Heritage Creek have  concrete squares forming L shape (2 feet by 7 Feet) painted white. This is identical to Haydens’ father’s airport (identifier X09). Google map link (here) Airnav page (Here).
Again we are not directly bound by regulations, because we can find no FAR, AIM, or DOT regulation  that shows how to “mark” a grass runway.
My proposal for this spring 2020 FARA meeting:
Install 4 concrete L shapes. 2 at each threshold. (3 feet legs by 9 feet long , just because bigger is better). They can be  positioned at the second runway light (Meeks/Rosell, and Hulme/Eppard).  This is well inside of the required displaced threshold. They can be in the runway area, only 60  (or 50 feet) feet apart, thereby visually indicating the usable width. This will allow us to make the adjacent runway light white on one side, and red on the other, for increased nighttime displaced threshold goodness. These blocks will be carefully leveled on cushion sand or the like.  The goal is to make them flush so that an aircraft can roll over them at any speed or direction without a problem.
Also, we have discussed reducing the stated runway width in the AFD to 50 feet. Also we can state that the runway lights are a “nonstandard” 25 feet outside of the usable runway.

Reflective paint optional

INSL-X TP222009A-01 Acrylic Latex Traffic Paint, 1 Gallon, Black 

Reflective Glass Beads (1 LB Bag) …Driveways, Airports, 
cost of concrete 28 squares 36x36x3. 1400.00
or
2 foot paver  8.48 ea X 10 per mark = $339.2 for a total of 40 pavers
Miniskid $215 day plus $50.00 36 inches
Excavator $285/day blade on front 5 feet
Bobcat $299 tire $315 track /day 5 feet wide
Paint, 4 gallons  $22.00 ea
beads 2 16 oz bags $19.00 ea

Thanks

 

 

Fairview Airport Runway Association Meeting Minutes

7TS0

 

Here is a zip with the originating documents for FARA.

 

They were part of the now deprecated www.7ts0.com

FARADocs FromFairviewAirportdotcom

 

I found this minutes on the old interwebs, not assured to be approved

040409_found Minutes

Here is a 2011, Source unknown

Here are the scans of the the minutes as filed in the Secretaries Box, “Meetings” folder.  Enjoy.

2013-09-28_fara

2014-09-26_fara

2014-09-27-fara

2015-5-11_FARA

2015-10-24-fara

2016-05-01-fara

2016-10-1_fara

2016 Fall minutes accepted

2017 06 08 FARA_Minutes