Airfield Apron and Ramp Surface Markings (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 23-34
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 23... ...
23 C H A P T E R 3 As part of the study process, an online industry-wide survey was developed and administered to gather data from airports of varying sizes and in different locations regarding the airfield apron markings used at their airport(s)
|
From page 24... ...
24 Airfield Apron and Ramp Surface Markings – George Bush Intercontinental Airport (Houston, TX)
|
From page 25... ...
Synthesized Survey Results 25 Figure 2 shows the distribution of survey responses by airport hub size/classification. The first question in the survey asked respondents to identify their role as it relates to airport apron/ramp survey markings.
|
From page 26... ...
26 Airfield Apron and Ramp Surface Markings 3.1 Survey Module #1 -- Terminal Gate Area Markings The first survey module focused on terminal gate area markings, which include aircraft leadin lines, stop lines, GSE markings, and other markings located in the vicinity in which aircraft park adjacent to commercial service terminal facilities. The initial question in the module asked respondents to identify which common terminal gate area apron markings are present at their airport.
|
From page 27... ...
Synthesized Survey Results 27 personnel. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 5 being "strongly agree," the average rating was 4.2 for pilots and 3.73 for ramp personnel.
|
From page 28... ...
28 Airfield Apron and Ramp Surface Markings Respondents also identified a number of challenges related to terminal gate apron markings. The challenges identified most frequently were: • Maintenance/upkeep of markings, and • Lack of standardization.
|
From page 29... ...
Synthesized Survey Results 29 The share of respondents that reported the use of other common terminal gate area markings identified in the survey was below 51%. Question 17 asked respondents to identify whether they believe that their taxilane/apron markings provide consistent and clear visual indicators to pilots.
|
From page 30... ...
30 Airfield Apron and Ramp Surface Markings The share of respondents that reported the use of other common hardstand markings identified in the survey was below 66%. Question 26 asked respondents to identify whether they believe that their hardstand markings provide consistent and clear visual indicators to pilots and ramp personnel.
|
From page 31... ...
Synthesized Survey Results 31 and 5 being "strongly agree," the average rating was 3.72 for pilots and 3.76 for ramp personnel. This indicates that airports generally believe that their hardstand markings are sufficient in providing consistent and clear guidance to ramp personnel and pilots.
|
From page 32... ...
32 Airfield Apron and Ramp Surface Markings The share of respondents that reported the use of other common airside roadway markings identified in the survey was below 64%. Question 39 in the survey asked respondents to identify whether they believed that their airside roadway markings provided consistent and clear visual indicators to ramp personnel.
|
From page 33... ...
Synthesized Survey Results 33 • Marking Consistency Is a Concern for Airports. Multiple airports identified concerns related to a lack of consistency for markings in certain apron/ramp areas.
|
From page 34... ...
34 Airfield Apron and Ramp Surface Markings 3.8 Comparing Current Marking Practices to the FAA Advisory Circulars In general, the airports that completed the survey reported that they use the marking guidelines in FAA ACs. However, multiple airports have established unique apron/ramp marking practices that are not discussed in FAA ACs.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.