Talk:Runway

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Airports This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the airport project.

A scale / length-line of runway lengths would be interesting, including typical, min and max for landing small, private jets, large, space shuttle, etc. -GregU -[68.50.254.221 at 22:30, 24 July 2005]

Not as easy as you might think. In addition to the myriad aircraft types, there are other variables, such as aircraft weight (within the same type), temperature, altitude, wind, etc. In my edit in the article I touched on several examples of length required vs aircraft type—some I know from experience, some I can give an educated guess.

For example, VBG (Vandenberg AFB), EDW (Edwards AFB), and TTS (Shuttle Landing Site at Kennedy) all have 15,000 ft of pavement. I don't know the actual requirement of the shuttle, but from what I know of other large aircraft, plus the fact that the shuttle has limited aerodynamic braking (split rudder), limited drag (parachute is small and only deployed for a short time), well known limited wheel braking capability, no reverse engine thrust, landing weight in excess of 100,000 lbs, exceptionally high landing speed (well over 150 kts), it would be no surprise to me to learn that it needs a healthy percentage of that 15,000 ft.

Generally speaking, the shuttle is probably the only aircraft for which landing length is the more important consideration. Most aircraft can land on runways too short to take off from.

But, to summarize for you (but not worth trying to put in the article), small, single engine aircraft can, at sea level, probably comfortably work in and out of a 1,000 ft runway. Even some light twins could do that.

As you move up to medium (turbo prop) twins, such as King Airs, you'd probably want to double that for routine operations.

Small business jets would probably need 3,000 ft for regular operations.

Large business jets on up to jetliners weighing on the order of 250,000 lbs or less will pretty much need 6,000 ft or so.

Heavy jets (those weighing 300,000 lbs or more) almost certainly need at least 8,000 ft or more.

But it depends. I once saw a Korean Airlines 747 use every bit of Runway 32R (13,000 ft) at ORD one day, obviously with a full load of fuel on its way to Seoul. Similarly, I saw a Northwest Airlines 747 use every bit of Runway 32L (10,000 ft), and blew a couple of tires landing, inbound from Narita (Tokyo).

I've seen a 747 go in and out of FLL (Ft. Lauderdale—9,000 ft of runway), and MDW (Chicago Midway) handles everything but the heavies with 6,500 ft. That's quite a range.

But none of that is cast in stone. On a snowy day at MDW a 737 might not be able to get it stopped (witness last month). If KAL hadn't had 32R to use at ORD, they wouldn't have been able to go with a non-stop fuel load—they'd had to load partial fuel and stop at ANC (Anchorage), or if it had been 10° warmer, even 32R wouldn't have been long enough.

I hope that addresses some of your thoughts. 216.76.216.195 06:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good piece of information and thanks for this detailed explanation. But you should have left your identitiy in this page, instead of leaving an automatically generated IP address. Guess you work in an airport.

SPJ June 20, 2006

Many readers now understand metric measurements more easily than imperial ones (if they really understand the latter at all!) so it would be nice to have all measurements in feet converted to metres (can anyone, even an American, really visualise 15,000ft? How long is that in miles? in chains? whatever?) The same goes for weights, by the way!

I can easily visualize 15,000 feet — not saying that meters aren't better (since they obviously are), but when you've grown up with imperial measurements, you can visualize them pretty easily. —Cleared as filed. 16:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if measurements were listed in both imperial and metric units? It would make the article easy to read for everyone.

The standard measurement for the United States and the FAA is in feet. Put it in both or put it in feet, but this "if they really understand the latter at all!" is narrow and biased. I can visualize 11,800 feet just as easily as I can 36 feet (the length of 1R/19L at Fairbanks International Airport and the width of 18/36 at Galt Airport in Illinois respectively). Mercer5089 17:34 20 July 2006 (CDT)

Is this why there's a "worldwide view" tag at the top of the page? Acdx 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial units are still used as a standard in international aviation for many things. Altitude is called out in feet. Distance can be measured in either feet or nautical miles. Speed is in knots (usually, some small planes might still use MPH or KPH). The only people I know who didn't do this was Russia, but since the fall of the Iron Curtain I think even their international pilots had to learn Imperial.

There are some exceptions to this. For instance, weight can be in kilos or pounds, and viability (but not traveling distance) can be in statute miles or kilometers. Barometric pressure units also very from country to country. Same for fluid loadings. But aside from the runway weight loadings section, this article really doesn't address any of those things.

For the layman from a metric country, I can understand putting metric in parenthesis, but its ridiculous to call this a "worldview violation" if its the standard actually used. Kensuke Aida 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ICAO standard is to use units of feet for runway measurement. See Annex 5 of the ICAO International Aviation Standards publication. There is no validity in arguing that this article is not "worldview" compliant. There is only one "view" applicable to aviation, and that is the "ICAO view" which says that runways and altitude are measured in feet, travel distance is measured in nautical miles, visibility is measured in statute miles, airspeed and windspeed are measured in knots, force and weight are measured in pounds, and English is the official language of Air Traffic Control. ehidle 68.44.13.149 15:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found an error in the text, in the section that refers to the thickness of the pavement. It indicates "For heavy-duty commercial aircraft, the pavement thickness, no matter what the top surface, varies from 10 in (250 mm) to 4 ft (1 m), including subgrade.". While 10 inches is conventionally equated to 250 mm, 4 feet is definitely NOT 1 meter (3 feet, 3 inches is much closer to 1 meter). Can someone correct the thickness to whatever it is? (either 1 meter or 4 feet, which would be 3 ft 3 inches or 1200 mm, respectively). Also, subgrade is the material supporting the pavement. I understand this refers to the SUBBASE (which is the gravel layer underneath the bituminous/concrete pavement), not the subgrade (which is the actual soil/rock material supporting the pavement section). 50.240.160.214 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should probably have information on "sections" of the runway. For example, I added blast pad. - Noclip 15:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please clarify how the number of a runway is determined, when the landing is from opposite direction? The mail article says "Each runway can be used in either direction, and hence has two numbers. Runway One Zero becomes Runway Two Eight when used in the opposite direction". How is this done? 360-100 is 260 that is it would be runway 26. Penguin s 10:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your method of calculation (at least the one I think you're using) is not correct. It gets you two runways, one from east to west and the other west to east, but both either from south to north or north to south (try your method on runway 18 or 17 to see how it fails). You should add 18 (for 180 degrees) mod 36 to get the other direction of the runway.

Can you please clarify in simple terms how to calculate the runway numbers? My method is wrong, I know. Penguni_S 24 July 2006

I've tried to make the article a bit clearer. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runways are given a number corresponding to their magnetic heading. There are always two runways for a given strip, 180-degrees apart. The least significant digit is not used. For example, KLOM has runways 6 and 24, corresponding to magnetic headings of 60 and 240, respectively. ehidle 68.44.13.149 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be the heading in degrees true. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, runway headings are always magnetic. The runway number is determined by rounding the magnetic heading to the nearest 10 and dropping the least significant digit. A runway with magnetic heading 267 and true heading 262 would be marked as runway 27, not 26. Rvbuilder 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table 1.7, Differences from ICAO Standards in the NavCanada AIP Canada (ICAO) states "5.2.2.4 Runways within Canadian Northern Domestic Airspace are designated with reference to the true azimuth because magnetic compasses are unreliable in the area" (p. GEN 1–48). An example of using true headings is runway 17T/35T in Resolute Bay, Canada (see [1]). Crowston (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: 'Runways are generally numbered according to the approach direction'. I can imagine that readers could interpret this as that runway 09 would be the runway where the planes approach from the east, which would obviously be wrong. I suggest discribing is as the 'departure direction'.

I changed it now to use the word "heading". Does it look a bit clearer? Also to Rvbuilder, some runways in the arctic are in degrees true. It's mentioned in the article and can be seen here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to add a runway at Heathrow by extending the current runway (Heathrow Hub). I haven't been able to find anything about how such runways should be designated. I would guess that one is rounded down and the other rounded up, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know for sure or know of another example? Actually, they also propose moving where on the extended strip the two runways start and end, which sounds operationally complex. Crowston (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says: "A runway can normally be used in both directions, and is named for each direction separately: e.g., "runway 33" in one direction is "runway 15" when used in the other. The two numbers always differ by 18 (= 180°)." what is not true... there are "bended" runways like here http://www.airports.de/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,36/ (04 - 21) so I'd replace "always" with something less strict. Ruru (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a way to represent the use. A runway can be used in either direction but numbering describes the direction of travel. Landing in a exactly eastward direction 90 degrees (west toward east) the runway is 09 the same runway used in a westward direction (east traveling west) would be 27. Below is an example of how runways could be numbered. The left is a common numbering scenario for 3 runways with designation of Left, Center, and Right. The problem has existed if a 4th or 5th were added? Some choose to modify the numbers to the closest equivalent degree and keep the L, C & R. Some just don't use L, C & R because of the potential confusion on left and right when looking at the runways from the ATC perspective and potential for error when directions are relayed over radio.

                      08 >    <26            07>        <25

09L> <27R 09L> <27R 08> <26 *(arrows indicate the direction of takeoff or landing) 09C> <27C 09C> <27C 09> <27 09R> <27L 09R> <27L 10> <28

                      10 >    <28            11>        <29 

66.176.171.241 (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the runways at Gromov Flight Research Institute/Zhukovsky Air Base has a length of (at least) 5 kilometres and would easily get into that section. Some data can be found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/zhukovsky.htm.

• How about Area 51? One of its runways is over 20,000 ft. long. However I believe much of that is on the dry lake bed and much of the length is deactivated do to it not being needed, - Mohaas05

Here is a project for an endless runway, because it is round TGCP (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone knowledgable proofread and correct the following passage in the Notes subsection of the Runway markings section? The given feet (175) do not correspond to the given meters (270):

• If a runway has Precision markings on both ends, touchdown zones within 175 ft/270 m of the midpoint are omitted, to avoid pilot confusion over which end the marking belongs to.

If it is supposed to be 175 feet, then it should be 53 meters, not 270. --Mareklug ^talk 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: 900 ft/270 m, per: 2-3-3 e. Runway Markings, in http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap2/aim0203.htm --Mareklug ^talk 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm creating an article about an airport, and the sources say the angle is 02°. But another airports runway have number like 06/28, 36/18 etc and i dont understand how I can assign the angle for the airport I'm writing. can anyone tell me? Nielswik 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this interesting page: Runway of Williams Field 217.86.40.254 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs something else but I just can't think what. When it refers to Radio beacons is it saying that the minimum required is an Non-directional beacon? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the nondirectional beacon is probably the simplest and the oldest system used today and because of that it may be considered as "minimum".
Any system used must be recognized by FAA, an aircraft must be equipped to handle it and approach plates must be issued for approach.
There is quite a number of equipment used today for non-precision approach and i suggest that "etc." may be quite useful. Not that I'm lazy, but non-instrument or instrument approach deserve for separate articles.
Slawomir123 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Slawomir123[reply]

Thanks. That's what I thought. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is a bit vague on the details of runway lighting, considering how important this is. For instance, I think (I'll need to confirm it) that runway lights can be turned on by the pilot clicking his radio button, or by requesting it from ATC. Also, some airports don't have that center light line down the runway. And some more details about the lighting at the end of the runway that tells you if you're at the proper approach altitude. Does anyone have anymore details? Thanks. 66.129.5.5 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yest, the runway/taxiway lights may be turned on by a pilot at some airports and no, the ATC is unable to operate these lights.
Time permitting I'll try to add something on these lights, but the bottom line is contained in Aeronautical Information Manual (see references to the article.
Slawomir123 07:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Slawomir123[reply]

Yes, LII is not an airport, but airfield (though nowadays it is used as a cargo airport), but it has 5,403 m runway. Would we add it? --Yuriy Lapitskiy 17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that this article talks about "sod" as a surface, and that the Runway infoboxes refer to "sod" and "grass" as surfaces. Are the two terms interchangeable when it comes to runways? --Zippy 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. Grass could be just the natural growing field that a guy uses for his own private aircraft (And his own use). On the other hand sod could mean that it's a smaller private airfield that may have a lot of users who have had the sod laid down to provide a better surface. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "sod" surface is packed earth or soil, whereas 'turf' is a grass surface, ie., sod with grass growing on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.196 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the worldview and citation tags from the main article. The article cites the FAR/AIM and the AFD, which contain the relevant information for runway markings. Further, the worldview tag is N/A because there is no subjectivity in aviation. The ICAO regulates international aviation and all countries have agreed to its standards. Runway markings are the same everywhere in the world, so it is not necessary to gather "opinion" from multicultural sources. Any authoritative source, such as the AIM or AFD, is going to have identical information to its international equivalent. Ehidle 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. With the inclusion of meters in parentheses, and the fact that all figures are given in ICAO compliant units, the article is as worldview compliant as ICAO aviation itself. The FAR/AIM is definitely as authoritative a source as can be cited, so the citation tag is not necessary. If someone would like to add non-US sources, that would be welcome, but the citation tag is not needed. Rvbuilder 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The runway used as a sample to explain the different parts of a runway is labeled "09," but I believe all runways under 100 magnetic are painted with one number only. So a runway of 070 degrees is written and called runway "7." --Matt 15:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. If you look at Runway#Orientation and dimensions (2nd paragraph) it explains that while most US aiports do drop the leading "0", some such as Edwards Air Force Base do include it. Also airports in the rest of the world use the leading "0". Of course some runways, such as gravel or grass, may have no markings at all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More USA-centric stuff on Wikipedia.... surprise surprise. The markings for that runway are to FAA standards (save the runway number), the ones in Europe are a fair bit different and perhaps it is worthwhile inserting another diagram to illustrate a stereotypical European layout (I know there are minor variations from nation to nation). Then that zero that is so annoying our American cousins can be removed... (Talk) 14:44, 18 January 2008 (GMT)

This is NOT USA centric...from ICAO Annex 14 "5.2.2.4 A runway designation marking shall consist of a two-digit number and on parallel runways shall be supplemented with a letter. On a single runway, dual parallel runways and triple parallel runways the two-digit number shall be the whole number nearest the one-tenth of the magnetic North when viewed from the direction of approach. On four or more parallel runways, one set of adjacent runways shall be numbered to the nearest one-tenth magnetic azimuth and the other set of adjacent runways numbered to the next nearest one-tenth of the magnetic azimuth. When the above rule would give a single digit number, it shall be preceded by a zero." BrianSmith2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianSmith2010 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the graphics of the runway contains the element marking with an arrow pointing to it, and a caption "Fixed distance marks", but searching the body of the article fails to reveal any reference to this. I don't think there's a description using other words, is there? --Mareklug ^talk 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this very old cleanup tag because the article seems well organized, well edited and "cleaned-up". I put it here in case others do not agree.--Markisgreen (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed cleanup tag as it still shows up on backlog. Washburnmav (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

06-Dec-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. The topic-year boundaries were located by searching from bottom for the prior year#. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments and moved 1 entry (topic "Removal of Worldview and Citation tags") into date order for 2007.
Then I added "Talk-page subpages" beside the TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

06-Dec-2008: I have added some text to help clarify the calculation of runway numbers. The calculation idiom "(degrees divided by 10 rounded)" was added for readers with action-oriented memory, who find the calculation easier to understand than the phrase "whole number nearest one-tenth". The formulas "36 ~= 360/10,  9 ~= 94/10" were added for readers who prefer mathematical notation along with phrasing. In the past, I have reworded numerous articles that had been tagged "too technical" for general readers. Typically, showing some short examples, with alternate wording, will cover a wider range of readers. Keep it short, and few get bored. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely driving me crazy. Can anyone explain why the runways at LAS (Las Vegas McCarran) are 1/19 and 7/25 instead of what appears to be 3/21 and 9/27? This is the only airport I've ever come across with this extreme variance! Would this make for a good subsection?

See the article section about numbering based on magnetic, not geographic headings. 1/19 is ~25 deg geo, 12 deg mag. round(12 / 10) = 1.

7/25 is ~90 deg geo, 77 deg mag. Perhaps when the runway was built, the mag declination was more than 15 degrees, causing the mag heading to be < 75 degrees, and they (understandably) have not wanted to change the designation. AlanM1 (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RWY numbers always use the mag north, and they are frequently changing the RWY numbers, especially in the north, where a slight magvar deviation will cause a change. The RWY at DeadHorse is a good example, many of the FAA records havent even made the change. The RWY designation will almost always have the '0' to avoid confusion such as 7L. I have worked on airports all over the world, ICAO and FAA, and have not ever run across a '7', it will always be 07, as in a command cadence zero seven, always 2 part command. from ICAO Annex 14 "5.2.2.4 A runway designation marking shall consist of a two-digit number and on parallel runways shall be supplemented with a letter. On a single runway, dual parallel runways and triple parallel runways the two-digit number shall be the whole number nearest the one-tenth of the magnetic North when viewed from the direction of approach. On four or more parallel runways, one set of adjacent runways shall be numbered to the nearest one-tenth magnetic azimuth and the other set of adjacent runways numbered to the next nearest one-tenth of the magnetic azimuth. When the above rule would give a single digit number, it shall be preceded by a zero." BrianSmith2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianSmith2010 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The runway lighting system adopted by ICAO is the calvert system, the lighting section needs a reference to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.76.52 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A significant amount of this article seems to be very USA-centric. Other parts of the article are written with an appearance that USA standards are somehow 'the norm' with other countries being 'variants'.--jrleighton (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jrleighton has the way of it. There are many standards for aviation. The article should probably be renamed. The former name could still point to this article until other relevant documents are drafted. ~ Shawn (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Runway excursion is the most frequent type of landing accident, slightly ahead of runway incursion." A lot of the terminology within the runway safety section is either inaccurate or misleading. Take the above quotation, for example. Incursions by themselves are not accidents. In fact, most runway incursions do not lead to accidents. They are typically just the result of pilot deviations or other equally rare operational errors. I suggest that the maintainers of this page research the terminology and locate new facts to give the safety section a better presentation. ~ Shawn (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(or just the active in aviation vernacular)"

The expression the active may be part of the aviation vernacular for Air Traffic Controllers and Airport Administrators, but this cannot be generalized as "Aviation" vernacular.

Years ago (decades, actually) the FAA went to great lengths to ban this expression from being used in radio communications phraseology because it is confusing, non-specific and it is behind many safety related incidents and accidents through the years. Thus, in radio communications, pilots and controllers MUST always refer to the runways in specific terms (Runway 15, Runway 09L, etc) so as to make it clear to which runway they are referring to.

I agree. I have deleted the offending text. As well as being unencyclopedic language, the claim that this is aviation vernacular is not supported by any in-line citation, and is highly unlikely to be supportable by any authoritative source. Dolphin (t) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Runway excursion is the most frequent type of landing accident, slightly ahead of runway incursion. For runway accidents recorded between 1995 and 2007, 96% were of the 'excursion' type."

If runway excursions accounted for 96% of accidents, how is it only "slightly" ahead of runway incursion? 96% vs a maximum of 4% seems to be more than "slightly" ahead... 67.170.113.39 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"AMASS prevented the serious near-collision in the 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion."

After reading the article about that runway incursion, it seems that the system noticed the incursion, but it was not the reason it didn't result in a collision. The collision didn't occur because the departing aircraft lifted off just in time (while the landing aircraft stopped right at the intersection. As a side note, this mean that the system almost made the collision happen, since the arriving airplane stopped ON the intersection. Had there have been no HOLD order from the tower, the aircraft would've been past the intersection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.76.28 (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the GreenGru Airportscraper designed by Gerasimos Paulidis (see [http://www.next-architect.com/?p=67 ) can be mentioned ? 91.182.116.161 (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an idea only.--BIL (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how much longer should a runway be than the take-off/landing roll in order for an aircraft to be allowed to land on or take off from it? For example, if an airplane's take-off distance is 2000 m, how long should the runway be? Is there any regulation about it? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Runway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118165015/http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap2/aim0203.html to http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap2/aim0203.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617185432/http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp14371/AGA/7-1.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp14371/AGA/7-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Runway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120723004923/http://legacy.icao.int/fsix/_Library/Manual%20Aerodrome%20Stds.pdf to http://legacy.icao.int/fsix/_Library%5CManual%20Aerodrome%20Stds.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130322045731/http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-aga-7-0-3097.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-aga-7-0-3097.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130322045731/http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-aga-7-0-3097.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-aga-7-0-3097.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability fail. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge, and speedy close. This is a deletion attempt disguised, very thinly, as a merge. Despite the brevity of the article on Tabletop runway, it already has enough references that a direct attempt at deletion would be unlikely to succeed. —Syrenka V (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but for a different reason - the content of Tabletop runway is poorly sourced (in quality, not number) - its three sources are all regional news articles pertaining to a single incident in 2010. Keeping that content in a separate article may improve the odds that someone decides to expand/improve it with better sources, or delete it entirely for lack of notability. Merely my humble opinion. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge- It's a type of runway that by itself fails on notability. Easy answer is to add it to the main concept article... Veryproicelandic (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Palm Springs International Airport photo Don Ramey Logan.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 21, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-04-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

A runway is a strip of aerodrome prepared for the landing and takeoff of aircraft. It may use an artificial surface (asphalt, concrete, or a mixture) or a natural one (grass, dirt, gravel, ice, or salt). The runway shown here is one of two at Palm Springs International Airport, outside of Palm Springs, California.Photograph: D Ramey Logan

Archive – More featured pictures...

Mention circular runway idea and https://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-circular-runway-concept-wouldnt-work-2017-3 Jidanni (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not significantly notable, this looks like a solution in search of a problem, and a deeply flawed "solution" at that, a cockamamie idea sparked by watching too many clickbait YouTube videos of "scary" crosswind landings. Thanks, but no. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Will it fly high, like a bird up in the sky?" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I found an error in the text, in the section that refers to the thickness of the pavement. It indicates "For heavy-duty commercial aircraft, the pavement thickness, no matter what the top surface, varies from 10 in (250 mm) to 4 ft (1 m), including subgrade.". While 10 inches is conventionally equated to 250 mm, 4 feet is definitely NOT 1 meter (3 feet, 3 inches is much closer to 1 meter). Can someone correct the thickness to whatever it is? (either 1 meter or 4 feet, which would be 3 ft 3 inches or 1200 mm, respectively). Also, subgrade is the material supporting the pavement. I understand this refers to the SUBBASE (which is the gravel layer underneath the bituminous/concrete pavement), not the subgrade (which is the actual soil/rock material supporting the pavement section). 50.240.160.214 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was due to the way the rounding was set on the conversion. I've fixed it and some others. Moved your request to its own section at the bottom of the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]