Arlington Municipal Airport Development Plan Arlington Airport Development Plan | Page 202
Extend Runway 16‐34 700 feet to the north to better accommodate the projected mix of aircraft
operations utilizing the Airport.
Realign Taxiway H as it intersects Runway 16‐34 in order to improve airfield geometry.
Relocate midfield Taxiway J from within the high energy area on Runway 16‐34.
Acquire land for approach protection north of the runway system.
Locate holding position lines on all taxiways associated with Runway 16‐34 to be 257 feet from the
runway centerline.
Extend perimeter access roads on airport property to assist airport personnel in better maintaining
a safe aircraft operational environment.
RUNWAY DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
The FAA has established design criteria to define the physical dimensions of the runways and taxiways,
as well as the imaginary surfaces surrounding them which protect the safe operation of aircraft at air‐
ports. These design standards also define the criteria for the placement of landside facilities.
As discussed previously, the design criteria for airside development primarily relates to an airport’s
critical design aircraft. The critical design aircraft is the most demanding aircraft or family of aircraft
which currently, or are projected to, conduct 500 or more operations (takeoffs or landings) per year at
an airport. Airport design factors include an aircraft’s wingspan, approach speed, tail height, and, in
some cases, the instrument approach visibility minimums for each runway. The FAA has established
the RDC to relate these design aircraft factors to airfield design standards. The highest RDC is also con‐
sidered the overall Airport Reference Code (ARC) for an airport.
Analysis in Chapters Three and Four concluded that the current RDC for Runway 16‐34 falls in C‐II. Ar‐
lington Municipal Airport should continue to plan for large business jets up to design category C‐III
through the long term planning period of this study. In addition, the Airport continues to experience
large air cargo aircraft operations, such as the DC‐9, which is also categorized as a C‐III aircraft. As a
result, planning considers an ultimate RDC of C‐III for Runway 16‐34.
Table 5A provides a summary of the planned RDC for Runway 16‐34. In addition to the physical and
operational components of an aircraft, the RDC also considers the instrument approach capabilities for
the runway expressed in runway visual range (RVR) values. For Runway 16‐34, the RVR value of 4,000
indicates an instrument approach with lower than ¾‐mile visibility minimums but not lower than ½‐
mile visibility minimums, which currently correspond to the precision instrument landing system (ILS)
and global positioning system (GPS) approaches to Runway 34. Note: The previously approved Airport
Chapter Five - 5