Ed,

 

           I think you make a very good point: it would make sense to me to put wig-wags on the west side of the runway at Charlie, Echo, and Foxtrot even though those are “normal” holding
positions.  The incremental expense would likely not be too great, assuming that the cable for the RGL circuit would be sharing conduit with runway lighting circuit cables.

 

           I can guess what your improvements at Kilo would entail.  I just talked with Paul Erway (FAA Runway Safety Office) and he suggested it too: remove some of the pavement west
of the hold line.  That does two positive things: first, it shortens the holding position line and reduces the number of in-pavement fixtures that would be required for the RGL installation.
Second, without pavement on the other side of the hold line, nobody is going to taxi across the line at that location.  The down side is the expense of removing that triangle of pavement
(that was put in when the hold lines were only 200 feet from the runway centerline: it made sense at the time) and rearranging the taxiway edge lights.  You also lose a little maneuvering
space, which makes it potentially a little harder for airplanes to get to the runway after doing a run-up at the north end.  I think if we are going to the expense of installing RGLs,
we seriously out to consider reconfiguring the intersection in this manner.

 

           I have now heard it twice that if we can get plans and specs drawn up for the RGL installation – plans on the shelf, “shovel ready” – we would have a very good chance of getting
funding to do it IF there is a second round of “stimulus” funding.  That’s a really big “if” and of course there were no promises, but given the number of pilot deviations we have had
over the last three years I think it would be a really good idea to bump the RGLs to a higher priority.

 

           As mentioned in a previous e-mail, we need to look at our CIP plan beyond FY12 and prioritize our projects. Taxiway Alpha appears to be in worse condition than we thought,
and I see that Daniel already has that on his list for FY13 (unfortunately, if we have to do some full-depth repairs and reconstruction, it is likely to cost more than the $2.8 million
currently estimated).  With luck and some additional assistance from FAA, we might be able to do the RGL project in conjunction with the runway lighting upgrades in FY11, but we can’t
really count on that happening.  With respect to our runway incursion problem, I see that coming from two sources: first is the pilot deviation problem, which the RGL project would address.
Second is vehicles and pedestrians getting out where they don’t belong, and a project to improve our access controls (card-reader in and card-reader out at all vehicle gates, for starters)
would be a big help in addressing the V/PD problem. That clearly addresses a safety concern, which should give the project a high priority with FAA.

 

           I too have some additional ideas of what might be done with the area around Taxiway Kilo, but that’s a lot more money and so I’ll save those ideas for later.

 

Regards,

 

Joel

 

 

Joel Jenkinson

Director, Addison Airport

  main: (972) 392-4850

  fax: (972) 788-9334

________________________________

From: Ed Oshinski [mailto:EOSHINSK@dot.state.tx.us] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:24 PM
To: Jenkinson, Joel
Cc: Daniel Benson
Subject: Runway Guard Lights

 

Joel,

 

Daniel forwarded to me the ideas about the Runway Guard Lights and Wig Wag lights. I've reviewed the plan, and have some comments I want to share with you. 

 

I like the idea of the RGLs, and think it will be a great improvement. The priority hold lines are obviously Taxiways K, L, C, and A. If money were not a constraint, RGLs at Taxiways
H, G, F, E, and D would be ideal. Since money is always a constraint, Wig Wags at H, G, F, E, and D should be sufficient.

 

The idea that I want to offer is to consider installing Wig Wags at C West, E West, and F West. With conventional hold signs at C West, E West, and F West, RGLs at A and C, and Wig Wags
at D, E, and F, you would have 3 different hold line indicator systems. I think that standardizing that down to two systems, both with active yellow lights, would be better. For example,
aircraft moving back and forth between the east side and the west side on Taxiways F and E would see the same warning signal in both directions, and aircraft on Taxiway C would see similar
systems.

 

I have some other ideas on how to improve the holding apron and hold line at Taxiway K, but with a tight budget, I'll save those ideas for another day. 

 

Ed

 

===========================
Don't Mess with Texas
Some things you should keep to yourself... like trash. 
Learn more at 
www.dontmesswithtexas.org