Thanks. Got your fax as well. P. Timothy Siemens, PE Garver, LLC From: Jenkinson, Joel [mailto:Joel.Jenkinson@wgint.com] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 5:34 PM To: Siemens, Paul, T; McIllwain, Frank O. Cc: Mark Acevedo; ncline@addisontx.gov; cbarnett@addisontx.gov; darci.neuzil@addisonairport.net; Dave; Joe Subject: Some Comments on the Draft PER Tim, As I mentioned Wednesday, Taxiway Bravo is concrete, as are Taxiways Charlie and Foxtrot west of the runway where the concrete extends very close to the runway edge. Taxiway Echo is asphalt immediately west of the runway all the way to the hold line and approximately 60-70 feet west of the hold line. When we do the overlay, I think the best thing is just to match the asphalt to the concrete ON ALL THREE taxiways. In the case of Charlie and Foxtrot, this is going to be about 10 feet west of the runway edge stripe, so there will be a lot less area to overlay. In the case of Echo, there appears to be about 270 feet of asphalt west of the runway edge stripe, and it makes sense to me to do all of this at one time. With respect to quantities, the original thought (assuming all three taxiways were asphalt) was to go out to 200 feet from runway centerline (150 feet from the runway edge), so the actual quantities to do the asphalt overlay as described above will actually be less. It makes no sense to me to stop on Echo and leave only about 110-120 feet ( x 50 feet wide) of asphalt untouched. I believe the concrete on Taxiway Bravo (and also the concrete portions of Charlie, Echo, and Foxtrot) is all 8 inches thick, but Tim I think you have the plans for that project (that you borrowed from us, and we would like them back some day please!) so you can check what those plans called for, whether it is 8 inches or maybe only 7 inches. Second, I mentioned using a truncated diamond shape for the concrete bases around the light cans to facilitate mowing (which improves safety: we have to mow while the runway is active, so the less time we spend mowing around lights next to the runway the better off [safer] we are going to be). We should definitely include that with the lighting upgrade. We should also consider putting additional concrete around sign bases and drop inlets that are in the infields / safety areas. Around the sign bases, this will ease the difficulty of mowing and greatly reduce the chance of inadvertently damaging a sign while mowing. For the drop inlets, it will prevent grass from growing over the edge of the structure and into the grating and help to keep grass clippings and other debris out of the storm drains. (I just faxed you a sketch of what I would like to see around our drop inlets; the sign bases would receive a similar treatment.) These small concrete ‘aprons’ should be thick enough to survive having a tractor or other mowing equipment run over them, maybe 6 inches thick? I completely agree with the idea of putting in the cans and conduit for a runway threshold bar, even if FAA is not ready to provide us with runway threshold bar lights. On the east side of the runway, I think Taxiway Charlie should be straightened out / reconfigured to match the configuration of Taxiway Juliet (as we discussed Wednesday; Taxiway Delta would be left essentially unchanged, as it is used almost exclusively by light aircraft). On Taxiway Kilo, I recommend removing that triangle of pavement that gives us such a long hold line and seeing if we can’t clean up that north end a bit. It would require moving some taxiway edge lights. Could we possibly add a little pavement on the east edge of Alpha in that area, if not in this project at least when we rehabilitate Alpha? Current runway load capacities are S – 80,000#, D – 100,000#, and DT – 160,000#. Given that we have two 737-200s based here (MGTOW = 115,500#, or 129,500# for the IGW [increased gross weight] version) and in consideration of our runway length (assuming we get the EMAS and are not forced into shortening the runway by using declared distances) could we not increase the load-carrying capacity of the runway a little, particularly the 100,000# dual wheel limit? It would sure be nice if we could bump that up to 110,000 or better yet 120,000 pounds. The G650 has a MTOW of 99,600 pounds, the Bombardier Global Express is similar – MTOW of 98,000# – should there not be some allowance for slightly larger business jets in the future? Our current fleet already bumps up against that 100,000-pound limit. I really think we need to plan to accommodate heavier aircraft in the future. It is now 5:30 on a Friday, and I have had enough for the day. I will continue to review over the weekend and may have additional comments by Monday, but that is all for now! Happy Weekend! Joel Joel Jenkinson Director, Addison Airport main: (972) 392-4850 fax: (972) 788-9334 oh, and … GEAUX SAINTS!!!