US runway width query
Thread Starter
US runway width query
Here's a quick question for the US jet guys: Does anybody have GOM or OPs Specs limits that would exclude a 75 foot runway width? I'm asking since our airport is due for re-paving next year, and the FAA, etc., are insisting that we downgrade from our current 100' to 75', and I'm looking for arguments against the downgrade. (Not talking huge stuff, this is a VFR airport with only 5,000 foot length, mostly small to medium stuff, King Airs and Citations, but once in awhile we get a GV or Challenger).
Thanks.
Thanks.
Can you PM me an email, please? I have loads of info on the subject that I can send. There are no certification standards for runway width, BUT, FAR 25 does have standards for Vmcg and performance planning, meaning a prudent operator would not regularly use runways as narrow as 75' without applying some mitigations. Crosswind and contamination limits usually. I'd ask what is the FAA's justification? See FAR 150 Civil Airport design. Especially any Advisory Circulars pertaining to runways which is as close as you will get to an answer.
GF
GF
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA's runway design standards AC is 150/5300-13A, and in -13A the tables for runway width (and a whole lot else) that were "simple" in the scancelled -13 got replaced by an "interactive table" which means you need to fill in a whole bunch of stuff before it'll give you an answer; not very convenient for a "what if?" or "why?" kind of question. The cancelled AC is still available though, and looking at the runway design tables there, there is no hint of a "maximum" runway width, all it gives are minimums.
Unless you have some kind of problem with the shoulders, or with one of the protected or safety zones, and what they are doing is saying "based on the available lateral safety area, you couldn't fit a 100ft runway in there today" (For example the "runway safety area width" for a 75ft "basic" runway is 150ft, whereas it's 300ft for a 100ft runway. That's not as "shoulder" width, it's the total side to side width. If you've got some kind of obstacle or other problem that, say, means you've only got perhaps 250ft total width, they will say a 100ft runway won't "fit" because the safety area isn't there.
I think it might be that, as there are a whole bunch of runways that don't meet the current safety area rules, and they are probably trying to eliminate the problem by not allowing grandfathering.
Unless you have some kind of problem with the shoulders, or with one of the protected or safety zones, and what they are doing is saying "based on the available lateral safety area, you couldn't fit a 100ft runway in there today" (For example the "runway safety area width" for a 75ft "basic" runway is 150ft, whereas it's 300ft for a 100ft runway. That's not as "shoulder" width, it's the total side to side width. If you've got some kind of obstacle or other problem that, say, means you've only got perhaps 250ft total width, they will say a 100ft runway won't "fit" because the safety area isn't there.
I think it might be that, as there are a whole bunch of runways that don't meet the current safety area rules, and they are probably trying to eliminate the problem by not allowing grandfathering.
Thread Starter
Thanks to all for your responses. Just to clarify, this is not a certification limit, it really comes down to funding, FAA will only help for the "new" specification 75' for our class of airport, they don't care if it goes to 100', but won't help pay. Of course, state and local are broke, so that's the bottom line. Very frustrating, there's plenty of funding for new extensive "terra-forming," all in the name of increased safety, yet we'll end up with tremendously reduced safety and utility.
