DOT/FAA/TC-15/52

Federal Aviation Administration

William J. Hughes Technical Center

Aviation Research Division

Atlantic City International Airport

New Jersey 08405

Development and Evaluation of 

Safety Orange Airport 

Construction Signage

November 2015

Final Report

This document is available to the U.S. public

through the National Technical Information

Services (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161.

This document is also available from the

Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes

Technical Center at actlibrary.tc.faa.gov.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. 

The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or 

use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse 

products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear 

herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of 

this report. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the 

author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the funding 

agency. This document does not constitute FAA policy. Consult the 

FAA sponsoring organization listed on the Technical Documentation 

page as to its use.

This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J. 

Hughes Technical Center’s Full-Text Technical Reports page: 

actlibrary.tc.faa.gov in Adobe Acrobat portable document format 

(PDF).
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

DOT/FAA/TC-15/52

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF SAFETY ORANGE AIRPORT 

CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE

5. Report Date

November 2015

6. Performing Organization Code

ANG-E261

7. Author(s)

Robert Bassey; *Jennifer Klass, A.A.E; and *Garrison Canter

8. Performing Organization Report No.

 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

*SRA International, Inc.

1201 New Road, Suite 242

Linwood, NJ 08221

Federal Aviation Administration 

William J. Hughes Technical Center

Airport Technology Research and Development Branch

Airport and Aircraft Safety Section

Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405

11. Contract or Grant No.

DFTACT-10-D-00008

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Aviation Research

Washington, DC 20591

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

 AAS-100

15. Supplementary Notes

Mike DiPilato, of SRA International, provided technical support during this research effort.

16. Abstract

In April 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Organization created the Airport Construction Advisory Council (ACAC) 

to identify hazards due to airfield construction activities. The ACAC has recently proposed the use of safety orange for temporary airport 

construction signage to reduce adverse operational incidents. In response to this proposal, the Airport Technology Research and Development 

Branch researchers from the William J. Hughes Technical Center visited ongoing airport construction projects and collected information to 

identify shortfalls and determine compliance with related Advisory Circulars (AC). They were also tasked to develop and evaluate prototype

signs in an airport environment. Site visits were conducted to existing construction sites at several airports to collect information regarding the 

airport’s existing airfield construction projects. Pilots of varying backgrounds evaluated several design concepts utilizing the simulation 

technology of the Airway Facilities Tower Integration Laboratory at the William J. Hughes Technical Center. Outdoor evaluations were then 

conducted using sign prototypes to determine the optimal height and color used for the sign legend. To validate the final sign prototypes, 

evaluations were conducted at several airports where construction projects were occurring.

No shortfalls with respect to compliance with the related ACs were identified during the site visits. Several types of visual aids were used at the 

airports in accordance with AC 150/5370-2F. The airport operators indicated that besides using the current visual aids, found in AC 150/5370-

2F, the use of the temporary safety orange signs would be advantageous if they were available. During the field evaluations of the prototype 

signs, a combined total of 131 individuals participated in the survey, including 98 vehicle operators and 33 pilots. Overall, vehicle operators and 

pilots overwhelmingly agreed the messages, character heights, and colors of the signs were comprehensible, conspicuous, and adequate in 

alerting individuals about existing construction. 

Based on the results of this study, it is advised that AC 150/5370-2F be updated to include safety orange construction signage as a visual aid to 

alert pilots and vehicle operators of existing airport construction. Signs displaying CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP and CONSTRUCTION 

AHEAD are recommended to be placed at locations leading to ramps and other areas with construction activity. When a runway is temporarily 

shortened due to construction, it is recommended that TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) signs be placed at the runway entrances to 

display the current takeoff run available. Additional education is recommended to increase understanding of the TORA acronym to ensure pilots 

have adequate situational awareness.

a7. Key Words

Airfield construction, Retroreflectivity, Safety orange, Takeoff run 

available

18. Distribution Statement

This document is available to the U.S. public through the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

This document is also available from the Federal Aviation 

Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center at 

actlibrary.tc.faa.gov.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

 Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

 Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 131

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
Errata

Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-15/52 

Development and Evaluation of Safety Orange Airport Construction Signage 

October 2015 

Final Report 

Replaced pages: Technical documentation page 

Released November 24, 2015
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii 

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Objectives 2

1.3 Approach 2

2. STAKEHOLDER SURVEY 2

3. REFERENCE MATERIAL REVIEW 4

3.1 Advisory Circulars 4

3.2 Notices to Airmen 5

3.3 National Flight Data Center 5

4. AIRFIELD SITE VISITS 7

4.1 Orlando Sanford International Airport 7

4.2 Valkaria Airport 9

5. WILLIAM J. HUGHES TECHNICAL CENTER EVALUATIONS 10

5.1 Airway Facilities Tower Integration Laboratory 11

5.1.1 Overview 11

5.1.2 Test Descriptions 11

5.1.3 Results 14

5.2 Legend Height and Color Evaluation 23

5.2.1 Overview 24

5.2.2 Results 24

6. FINAL SIGN DESIGNS 26

6.1 Legend Text 26

6.1.1 Construction Ahead 27

6.1.2 Construction on Ramp 27

6.1.3 Takeoff Run Available 28

6.2 Sign Fabrication 30
iv

7. AIRPORT EVALUATIONS 32

7.1 Long Island MacArthur Airport 33

7.1.1 Installation 33

7.1.2 Results 36

7.2 Theodore Francis Green State Airport 38

7.2.1 Signage Installation 38

7.2.2 Evaluation Results 41

7.3 Chicago O’Hare International Airport 44

7.3.1 Signage Installation 44

7.3.2 Evaluation Results 46

7.4 Portland International Airport 48

7.4.1 Signage Installation 48

7.4.2 Evaluation Results 52

7.5 Orlando Sanford International Airport 57

7.5.1 Signage Installation 57

7.5.2 Evaluation Results 60

7.6 John F. Kennedy International Airport 63

7.6.1 Signage Installation 63

7.6.2 Evaluation Results 66

7.7 Summary—Airport Evaluations 70

8. CONCLUSIONS 75

9. RECOMMENDATIONS 76

10. REFERENCES 77

APPENDICES 

 A—Airport Operator Questions 

 B—Orlando Sanford International Airport Operator Site Visit Questions 

 C—Valkaria Airport Operator Site Visit Questions 

 D—Safety Orange Presentation Slide Comment Form
v 

 E—Character Color and Legend Height Evaluation

 F—Pilot Evaluation Airway Facilities Tower Integration Laboratory 

 G—Long Island MacArthur Airport Vehicle Operator Evaluation

 H—Theodore Francis Green State Airport Vehicle Operator Evaluation

 I—Chicago O’Hare International Airport Vehicle Operator Evaluation 

 J—Portland International Airport Vehicle Operator Evaluation 

 K—Orlando Sanford International Airport Vehicle Operator Evaluation 

 L—John F. Kennedy International Airport Vehicle Operator Evaluation 
vi 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Early Stage Sign—TURN HERE 3

2 Early Stage Sign—CAUTION NO LEFT TURN 3

3 Early Stage Sign—TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Acronym With Arrow 3

4 Early Stage Sign—TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Acronym 3

5 Portland International Airport Construction NOTAM 5

6 Chicago O’Hare Construction Notice Depicted on NFDC 6

7 Temporary Relocated Runway Threshold Markings and Turn-Around Centerline 8

8 Temporary Turn-Around Centerline Layout From Phasing Plan 8

9 Barricades on Taxiway and Sign Wrapped in Black Visqueen Screen 9

10 Placement of Lighted X and Yellow Fabric X 10

11 Placement of the Barricades on the Runway 10

12 Controls Used by Subject Pilots During Simulated Scenarios 12

13 CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Signs 12

14 CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Signs 12

15 TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Signs 13

16 Additional Signage 13

17 Run 2 Simulated CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign During Daytime Conditions 14

18 Run 2 Simulated TORA Sign With Black Character Legend During 

Daytime Conditions 15

19 Run 2 Simulated TORA Sign With White Character Legend During 

Daytime Conditions 15

20 Run 2 Simulated TORA Sign With Black and White Character Legends During 

Daytime Conditions 15

21 Run 3 Simulated CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign During Nighttime Conditions 17
vii 

22 Run 3 Simulated TORA With Runway Designation Sign During 

Nighttime Conditions 17

23 Run 4 Simulated CONSTRUCTION 600 FT AHEAD Sign During 

Daytime Conditions 18

24 Run 4 Simulated TORA 8750 FT With Arrow Sign During Daytime Conditions 18

25 Run 5 Simulated CONSTRUCTION 600 FT AHEAD Sign During 

Nighttime Conditions 20

26 Run 5 Simulated TORA With Arrow Sign With Black Character Legend During 

Nighttime Conditions 20

27 Run 5 Simulated TORA With Arrow Sign With White Character Legend During 

Nighttime Conditions 20

28 Run 5 Simulated TORA Sign With Black and White Character Legends During 

Nighttime Conditions 21

29 Run 6 Simulated CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign During Daytime Conditions 22

30 Run 7 Simulated CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign Collocated With Sign Array 

During Daytime Conditions 23

31 Run 7 Simulated CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign Collocated With Sign Array 

During Daytime Conditions 23

32 Daytime Tests at the William J. Hughes Technical Center—With Black and White 

8- and 9-in. Character Legends 24

33 Nighttime Tests at the William J. Hughes Technical Center—With Black and White 

8- and 9-in. Character Legends 26

34 CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign Legend 27

35 CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign Legend 28

36 The TORA Sign Legend Evaluated at PDX 29

37 The TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Sign Legend Evaluated at JFK 29

38 Base Stand and Frangible Coupling 30

39 Frangible Coupling Tether 31

40 Attachment of Legs to Sign Panel 31

41 Weighted Barrier Positions 32
viii

42 Tethers on Weighted Barriers 32

43 Overview of Safety Orange Construction Sign Locations at ISP 34

44 CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign From TWY S View at ISP 35

45 CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign as Observed on RWY 10 at ISP 36

46 Overview of Safety Orange Construction Sign Locations at PVD 39

47 CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign on TWY T at PVD 39

48 CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign on TWY A at PVD 40

49 Overview of Safety Orange Construction Sign Locations at ORD 45 

50 CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign on TWY C1 at ORD 46

51 CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign on TWY Z at ORD 46

52 Overview of Safety Orange Construction Sign Locations at PDX 49

53 CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign on TWY C at PDX 50

54 The RWY 28L TORA 8560 FT Sign at PDX 51

55 CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign at PDX 52

56 Overview of Safety Orange Construction Sign Locations at SFB 58

57 CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign on North Side of the Terminal Apron at SFB 59

58 CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign on the South Side of the Terminal Apron at SFB 59

59 Sign Locations at JFK 63

60 Sign Schedule at JFK 64

61 CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign at JFK 65

62 TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Sign on TWY YA at JFK 65

63 TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Sign at RWY 4L Entrance at JFK 66
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Vehicle Operator Results for ISP TWY S—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 37

2 Vehicle Operator Results for ISP RWY 10—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 38

3 Vehicle Operator Results for PVD TWY T—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 41

4 Vehicle Operator Results for PVD TWY A—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign 42

5 Pilot Results for PVD TWY T—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 43

6 Pilot Results for PVD TWY A—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign 44

7 Vehicle Operators Results for ORD TWY C1—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 47

8 Vehicle Operator Results for ORD TWY Z—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 48

9 Vehicle Operator Results for PDX TWY C—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 53

10 Vehicle Operator Results for PDX TWY E5—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign 54

11 Vehicle Operator Results for PDX TWY C6—RWY 28L TORA 8560 FT Sign 55

12 Pilot Results for PDX TWY C—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 56

13 Pilot Results for PDX TWY E5—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign 57

14 Vehicle Operator Results for the SFB South Side—CONSTRUCTION 

AHEAD Sign 60

15 Vehicle Operator Results for the SFB North Side—CONSTRUCTION ON 

RAMP Sign 61

16 Pilot Evaluation Results for the SFB North Side—CONSTRUCTION ON 

RAMP Sign 62

17 Pilot Results for JFK—TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Sign 67

18 Vehicle Operator Results for JFK—TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Sign 68

19 Pilot Results for JFK—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 69

20 Vehicle Operator Results for JFK—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 70

21 Combined Vehicle Operator Results—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 71
x 

22 Combined Vehicle Operator Results—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign 72

23 Combined Pilot Results—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 73

24 Combined Pilot Results—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign 74

25 Combined Results—TORA Signage 75
xi/xii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AC Advisory Circular 

ACAC Airport Construction Advisory Council 

AFTIL Airway Facilities Tower Integration Laboratory

ALPA Air Line Pilots Association

ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 

ASDA Accelerated Stop Distance Available

BMX Bicycle motocross

CSPP Construction Safety Phasing Plan 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

GA General aviation

ISP Long Island MacArthur Airport

JFK John F. Kennedy International Airport 

NAS National Airspace System

NFDC National Flight Data Center 

NOTAM Notices to Airmen

ORD Chicago O’Hare International Airport

PDX Portland International Airport 

PVD Theodore Francis Green State Airport

R&D Research and Development

RWY Runway 

SFB Orlando Sanford International Airport

TORA Takeoff Run Available

TWY Taxiway

X59 Valkaria Airport
xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In April 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Organization created the 

Airport Construction Advisory Council (ACAC) to identify hazards due to airfield construction 

activities. The ACAC has recently proposed the use of safety orange as the color of temporary 

airport construction signage to aid in reducing adverse operational incidents. In response to this 

proposal, the FAA Airport Engineering Division requested that the Airport Technology Research 

and Development (R&D) Branch at the William J. Hughes Technical Center visit ongoing airport 

construction projects and collect information to identify shortfalls and determine compliance 

with related Advisory Circulars (ACs). The Airport Technology R&D Branch was also tasked to 

develop and evaluate prototype signs in an airport environment. Site visits were conducted to 

existing construction sites at several airports to collect information regarding the airport’s 

existing airfield construction projects. At the William J. Hughes Technical Center, pilots of 

varying backgrounds evaluated several design concepts utilizing the simulation technology of the 

Airway Facilities Tower Integration Laboratory (AFTIL). Outdoor evaluations were then 

conducted using sign prototypes to determine the optimal height and color used for the sign 

legend. 

To validate the final sign prototypes, evaluations were conducted at the following airports: 

Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) in Chicago, Illinois; Portland International Airport 

(PDX) in Portland, Oregon; Theodore Francis Green State Airport (PVD) in Warwick, Rhode 

Island; Long Island MacArthur Airport (ISP) in Ronkonkoma, New York; Orlando Sanford 

International Airport (SFB) in Sanford, Florida; and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) 

in New York, New York. 

No shortfalls with respect to compliance with the related ACs were identified during the site 

visits. Several types of visual aids were used at the airports in accordance with AC 150/5370-2. 

The airport operators indicated that besides using the current visual aids, found in AC 150/5370-

2F, the use of the temporary safety orange signs would be advantageous if it were available. 

During the field evaluations of the prototype signs a combined total of 131 individuals 

participated in the survey, including 98 vehicle operators and 33 pilots. Overall, vehicle 

operators and pilots overwhelmingly agreed the messages, character heights, and colors of the 

signs were comprehensible, conspicuous, and adequate in alerting individuals about existing 

construction. 

Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that AC 150/5370-2 be updated to include 

safety orange construction signage as a visual aid to alert pilots and vehicle operators of existing 

airport construction. Signs displaying CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP and CONSTRUCTION 

AHEAD are recommended to be placed at locations leading to ramps and other areas with 

construction activity. When a runway is temporarily shortened due to construction, it is 

recommended that signs indicating takeoff run available (TORA) be placed at the runway 

entrances to display the current takeoff run available. Pilots and vehicle operators found both the 

legend text TORA and the legend text TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE acceptable for use on 

TORA signage. However, due to the increased length of the sign panel necessary to 
xiv

accommodate the additional characters of TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE, it is recommended 

that acronym TORA be specified in the final sign design. Additionally, it is recommended that 

the size of the signs should be 30 in. high by 84 in. wide, and the near side of the sign should be 

placed approximately 36 feet perpendicular to the taxiway pavement edge. Finally, it is 

recommended that additional education be conducted to increase understanding of the TORA 

acronym to ensure pilots have adequate situational awareness.

 
1 

1. INTRODUCTION. 

This report describes the research and development effort to evaluate the concept of using 

temporary safety orange signs during construction to aid in reducing adverse airport incidents. 

Additionally, this report describes the research and design process, evaluation findings, and 

recommended specifications for this signage. 

1.1 BACKGROUND. 

Construction projects at airports create a number of safety challenges, particularly when these

construction activities occur in the movement areas of the airport (i.e., taxiways and runways). 

For instance, airport construction can often require the closure of one or more taxiways, having a 

significant effect in altering the taxi routes that aircraft normally follow to and from runways. 

Such closures may occur abruptly and unexpectedly, further reducing a pilot’s situational 

awareness. Additionally, an airport may close a runway or displace an existing runway threshold 

when construction activity occurs in the vicinity of a runway, leaving some pilots unaware of the 

reduced distance available on the runway. Over the past 15 years, airport construction activities 

have been a contributing factor in several serious incidents and accidents at airports, such as 

those occurring at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois (2009), Blue Grass 

Airport in Lexington, Kentucky (2006), Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport in Taiwan (2000), 

and Vienna International Airport in Vienna, Austria (1997) [1].

In April 2010, responding to the safety risk posed by airport construction, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Organization created the Airport Construction Advisory 

Council (ACAC) to identify hazards on airfields during construction activities. As stated in its 

2012 article entitled, “What’s on Your Runway?”: “The ACAC consists of FAA and aviation 

industry professionals with diverse backgrounds and experience.” [1] Initial efforts of the 

ACAC “targeted operations on runways shortened due to construction and situations where the 

combination of aircraft, construction vehicles, workers, broken pavement and sometimes other 

substantial activities can create significant risk.” [1]

In addition to identifying hazards of airfield construction activities, ACAC also proposed 

potential solutions for mitigating these hazards, such as air traffic control alerting pilots of 

airport construction via automated terminal information service broadcasts and revising takeoff 

clearances to remove the words full length and mentioning the shortened runway. Standardizing 

the management of air traffic operations during airport construction operations is another goal. 

To this end, ACAC proposed the use of safety orange as the color of temporary airport 

construction signage to aid in reducing in adverse operational incidents. In response to this

proposal, the FAA Airport Engineering Division (AAS-100) requested that the Airport 

Technology Research and Development (R&D) Branch initiate the research project and 

coordinate with ACAC and other FAA Offices including Air Traffic, Flight Standards District 

Office, Runway Safety Office, and Technical Operations to review and test the proposed 

measures recommended by the ACAC.
2 

1.2 OBJECTIVES. 

The specific research objectives of this project were to

1. collect data from current construction projects at airports to identify shortfalls at existing 

construction sites and to determine whether they comply with related construction 

Advisory Circulars (ACs). 

2. develop and evaluate safety orange airport construction signage and reflective/portable 

visual aids to reduce adverse operational incidents during construction. 

3. provide conclusions and recommendations derived from the signage evaluations. 

These objectives were designed to fully investigate the most appropriate signage needed for 

vehicle operators and aircraft operating at an airport with airfield construction.

1.3 APPROACH. 

This research effort used several different evaluation methods. In the preliminary phase of the 

project, a survey distributed to airport stakeholders was used to obtain initial feedback on 

potential sign concepts. Next, reference materials related to airport construction were reviewed, 

including ACs, Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS), and information from the National Flight Data 

Center (NFDC). Airport site visits were conducted in the early stage of research to determine if 

improvement for identifying construction areas was needed. To refine the sign designs, 

simulated outdoor evaluations with mock signs were conducted at the FAA William J. Hughes 

Technical Center, near Atlantic City, New Jersey. Finally, the most effective sign designs from 

the William J. Hughes Technical Center evaluations were fabricated and installed at six airports

for final evaluation. These airports included: Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) in 

Chicago, Illinois; Portland International Airport (PDX) in Portland, Oregon; Theodore Francis 

Green State Airport (PVD) in Warwick, Rhode Island; Long Island MacArthur Airport (ISP) in 

Ronkonkoma, New York; Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB) in Sanford, Florida; and 

John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in New York, New York. Online and paper 

opinion surveys were distributed to pilots and vehicle operators at each airport to determine to 

what degree they thought the signs were conspicuous, comprehensible, and provided adequate 

notice of existing construction. 

2. STAKEHOLDER SURVEY. 

In the early phase of this research effort, researchers surveyed several airport operators, vehicle 

operators, and pilots, for their opinion on perspective signs that should be evaluated. These 

groups were initially shown the proposed, ACAC-recommended signs and asked to provide 

feedback. Figures 1 through 4 (not to scale) show examples of these signs. In addition, these 

groups were asked, “besides using the current visual aids/markings, which of these additional 

signs would be useful during a construction project?” 
3 

Figure 1. Early Stage Sign—TURN HERE

Figure 2. Early Stage Sign—CAUTION NO LEFT TURN

 Figure 3. Early Stage Sign—TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Acronym With Arrow

Figure 4. Early Stage Sign—TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Acronym
4 

The airport operators, vehicle operators, and pilots concluded that the early-stage signs presented 

were confusing, with the exception of the TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA) signs. Some 

pilots noted that the TORA sign should have the runway designation added to help pilots discern 

what runway the TORA is referencing. 

Several individuals commented that airfield signs should not contain pictures, and character 

legends should be the same font as existing airfield signs. Other comments taken from the forms

distributed during the evaluation included: “too much going on within the signs, information 

overload,” “need clear interpretation,” and “signs resemble highway signs.” Several individuals 

commented to keep the message simple.

Other individuals suggested that ramp construction should be identified by a CONSTRUCTION 

ON RAMP sign. In addition, individuals suggested construction on ramps or taxiways should 

include signs that say CONSTRUCTION AHEAD or add a distance to the construction area with 

the message; for example, CONSTRUCTION 500 FEET AHEAD. One comment suggested the 

purpose of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign should be to provide ample distance so that a 

pilot or vehicle operator does not miss the last turn to exit off. These types of messages would 

be easy to process, clear, and concise, unlike the messages of the signs shown in figures 1 and 2. 

Next, researchers discussed the prospective signs with the airport operators from ORD, PDX, 

PVD, SFB, ISP, and JFK to be tested at each airport. The airport operators agreed that having 

some form of TORA, CONSTRUCTION AHEAD, and CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP signs, 

would provide additional information regarding construction occurring on the airfield to pilots 

and vehicle operators. The airport operators expressed that the messages were clear, easy to 

interpret, and would not be information overload on either the pilot or vehicle operator. Once the 

sign messages were narrowed down, pilots validated them at the Airway Facilities Tower 

Integration Laboratory (AFTIL) located at the William J. Hughes Technical Center through 

simulation. 

3. REFERENCE MATERIAL REVIEW. 

Part of this research effort involved a review of reference materials, which included ACs, 

NOTAMS, NFDC information, and other sources of information available to airport users for 

identifying the presence of an airfield construction project at a particular airport. This section 

provides a description and example of each of these sources as they pertain to this research. 

3.1 ADVISORY CIRCULARS. 

AC 150/5370-2F states: “aviation safety is a primary consideration at airports, especially during 

construction.” [2] The airport operator’s Construction Safety Phasing Plan (CSPP) and the 

contractor’s Safety Phasing Plan Compliance Document are the primary tools to ensure safety 

compliance when coordinating activities with airport operators. [2] 

Within Sections 218 “Runway and Taxiway Visual Aids” and 220, “Hazard, Marking, Lighting 

and Signage” of AC 150/5370-2F, the text refers to how construction areas on the airfield should 

be marked with specific visual aids. [2] 
5 

3.2 NOTICES TO AIRMEN. 

The Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) system provides essential information to personnel concerned 

with flight and airport operations. NOTAMs provide timely information on unanticipated or 

temporary changes to components of, or hazards in, the National Airspace System (NAS). 

Component changes may pertain to facilities, services, procedures, or hazards in the NAS. A 

NOTAM provides information that becomes available too late to publicize in the associated 

aeronautical charts and related publications. AC 150/5200-28D [3] provides guidance on how to 

use the NOTAM system.

AC 150/5370-2 states with regard to NOTAMs: 

“...the airport operator must coordinate the issuance, maintenance, and cancellation of 

NOTAMS about airport conditions resulting from construction activities with tenants and 

the local air traffic facility and must provide information on closed or hazardous 

conditions on airport movement areas to the FAA Flight Service Station (FSS) so it can 

issue a NOTAM...” [2] 

Figure 5 shows an example of a NOTAM issued by an airport operator regarding construction 

occurring on the south ramp at PDX. 

!PDX 05/011 (KPDX A0285/13) PDX APRON SOUTH RAMP WORK IN PROGRESS 

CONST TAXILANE E5 REALIGNED WEF 1305082144-1310182300 

!PDX 04/060 (KPDX A0262/13) PDX APRON SOUTH RAMP WORK IN PROGRESS 

CONST FLAGGING OPERATION WEF 1305011430-1310182300

Figure 5. Portland International Airport Construction NOTAM 

3.3 NATIONAL FLIGHT DATA CENTER. 

The NFDC website also provides airport construction notices to depict construction activities on 

airports, as shown in figure 6. The disclaimer located on the bottom of the construction notice 

shown in figure 6 states: 

“This diagram is intended to display NOTAMs and is checked and updated daily (Mon – 

Fri only; no holidays); temporary closures/openings of less than 24 hours are not 

depicted; runway length shown is maximum length (shortened distances are not 

depicted); diagrams containing new runway surfaces will be deleted after (FAA) revised 

airport diagrams are published. Always CHECK CURRENT NOTAMs” 
6 

Figure 6. Chicago O’Hare Construction Notice Depicted on NFDC 
7 

4. AIRFIELD SITE VISITS. 

Researchers conducted site visits to Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB) in Sanford, 

Florida, and Valkaria Airport (X59) in Grant-Valkaria, Florida, to collect information regarding 

the airports’ existing airfield construction projects. Site visits consisted of a meeting with the 

airport operator and receiving an airfield tour of the area that had the construction project in 

progress. During each site visit, the researchers asked the airport operator specific questions,

provided in appendix A, regarding background information on the airport’s construction projects 

and if the airport was complying with AC 150/5370-2, especially the CSPP. Note: The purpose 

of this visit was to determine the need for improvement in alerting pilots and vehicle operators to 

the presence of construction areas. 

Both site visits indicated that improvement was needed. It was determined that additional 

signage would add an additional level of safety to notify pilots and vehicle operators prior to 

approaching construction areas and of shortened runways due to construction. After visiting 

these airports, the researchers did not identify any shortfalls with respect to compliance with the 

related ACs.

4.1 ORLANDO SANFORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. 

On March 7, 2013, researchers visited SFB and were informed that SFB’s construction projects 

consisted of the following: 

Extension of Runway (RWY) 9L/27R from 9,601 feet to 11,000 feet 

Extension of Taxiway (TWY) B from RWY 18/36 to the end of RWY 27R 

Demolish TWY B5 and reconstruct TWY B8 

Construct TWY B10

The airport operator informed the researchers that the construction projects started on 

August 6, 2012. The airport operator provided copies of the general notes page and the CSPP for 

the RWY 9L-27R extension. The airport operator answered questions, provided in appendix B, 

regarding the airport’s construction projects. SFB’s management team escorted the researchers 

onto the airfield to view the RWY 9L-27R extension project in progress. 

SFB’s management team informed the researchers that RWY 27R had a temporary, relocated 

threshold of 7754 feet. Researchers were also informed that the temporary threshold was put in 

place to allow the aircraft to back taxi on the runway and turn around past the temporary 

threshold markings. The aircraft would follow the yellow line to align up with RWY 27R, as 

shown in figures 7 and 8. 
8 

Figure 7. Temporary Relocated Runway Threshold Markings and Turn-Around Centerline 

Figure 8. Temporary Turn-Around Centerline Layout From Phasing Plan

The researchers viewed the different visual aids that the airport was currently using in 

accordance with AC 150/5370-2. As shown in figure 9, these particular visual aids informed

pilots and vehicle operators that a particular area was closed. The airport operator informed the 

researchers that lighted X structures and markings, barricades with red solar-powered lights, and 

cones were used to identify construction areas, all of which are appropriate means to identify 

closed runways/taxiways/ramps, as per AC 150/5370-2. Researchers showed the airport operator 

preliminary safety orange construction signs that were provided by the ACAC and asked if they 

preferred any of the signs. The airport operator indicated that, in addition to using the current 

visual aids/markings required by AC 150/5370-2F, the airport preferred the TORA sign for the 

construction project if it was available. The airport operator expressed that the other preliminary 

signs shown were not easy to interpret and appeared to be more in line with highway signs 

instead of airfield signs. It was also suggested that the prototype signs should be clear, more 
9 

concise, and provide a simpler message, especially since a pilot or vehicle operator do not have a 

lot of time to process the information the sign is conveying. 

Figure 9. Barricades on Taxiway and Sign Wrapped in Black Visqueen Screen

4.2 VALKARIA AIRPORT. 

On March 8, 2013, the researchers who conducted a site visit at X59 were informed that the 

airport’s construction consisted of the following projects: 

Construction of a new taxiway parallel to RWY 14/32. This will be known as TWY A, 

which will be 25 feet wide. 

Trees were removed to create a pond, which will also serve as a storm water drain (off 

airfield). 

An old runway that was used during World War II, located in the infield adjacent to 

RWY 10/28, will be cleared of rocks and used for the bicycle motocross (BMX) track in 

park area (off airport).

The construction projects started on January 6, 2013. An anticipated completion date for

TWY A was slated for June 2013. The airport operator showed the researchers the CSPP for 

TWY A and provided an electronic copy of it as well. The airport operator answered questions, 

as shown in appendix C, regarding the airport’s construction projects. Furthermore, the airport 

operator escorted the researchers onto the airfield to observe the TWY A project in progress. 

The airport operator informed the researchers that the airport provided three different visual aids 

on RWY 14/32 to inform the pilots of the runway closure during the TWY A project. The visual 

aids consisted of (1) a lighted X structure located directly over the runway numbers; (2) a yellow 

fabric X placed on the centerline with sandbags weighting each corner, located approximately a 

few hundred feet past the runway numbers; and (3) barricades with red solar lights placed further 

down the runway. As shown in figures 10 and 11, these particular visual aids informed the pilots 

and vehicle operators that a particular area was closed. Similar to SFB, X59 used lighted 

and fabric Xs, barricades with red lights and flags, all of which are in accordance with 
10 

AC-150-5370-2F. Researchers showed the airport operator preliminary safety orange 

construction signs that were provided by ACAC and asked if they preferred any of the signs. 

The airport operator indicated that, in addition to using the current visual aids/markings required 

by AC 150/5370-2F, the TORA sign would be beneficial for a construction project if available. 

The airport operator expressed that the other preliminary signs were not easy to interpret and 

would be more difficult for vehicle operators and pilots to cognitively process the meaning of the 

sign message. 

Figure 10. Placement of Lighted X and Yellow Fabric X 

Figure 11. Placement of the Barricades on the Runway

5. WILLIAM J. HUGHES TECHNICAL CENTER EVALUATIONS. 

Two evaluations were conducted at the William J. Hughes Technical Center. The first 

evaluation consisted of working with the AFTIL. At the AFTIL, pilots evaluated computergenerated runs in a simulator. The runs included various types and locations of construction 

signage. Pilots validated the message on several safety orange construction signs and whether 

they preferred the black or white character legend against the orange background. 
11 

In the second evaluation, which took place following the sign evaluations at the AFTIL, a team 

of FAA Airport Safety R&D researchers provided input as to whether black or white character 

legends were visible and pronounced against the safety orange retroreflective sheeting during 

daytime and nighttime conditions. 

5.1 AIRWAY FACILITIES TOWER INTEGRATION LABORATORY. 

The first evaluation for this project used the AFTIL to conduct simulated tests of several 

proposed sign concepts. 

5.1.1 Overview. 

Researchers worked with the AFTIL to evaluate several types of signs prior to field evaluations. 

For testing purposes, the AFTIL simulated the safety orange construction signs on PDX 

taxiways. PDX was used in the simulated runs because the airport was one of the planned field 

evaluation airports. All the simulated signs that evaluated at the AFTIL were size-3 sign panels: 

30 inches high by 42.5 inches long, with a legend height of 18 inches. 

In the first evaluation, pilots evaluated computer-generated runs in a simulator. The runs 

included various types and locations of construction signage. Pilots validated the message on 

several safety orange construction signs and indicated whether they preferred the black or white 

character legend against the orange background. 

5.1.2 Test Descriptions. 

In July 2013, 17 general aviation (GA), corporate, and airline pilots validated safety orange 

construction signs at the AFTIL. First, the pilots were briefed with background information on 

the project and simulated scenarios. Of the 17 pilots, 7 indicated they were not familiar with 

TORA. Prior to each simulation, the simulator was adjusted depending on the type of pilot. A 

Cessna 172 was simulated for GA pilots, a Raytheon Hawker was simulated for corporate pilots, 

and a Boeing 737 was simulated for airline pilots. The aircraft type used during this simulation 

was important because it determined how the pilot’s line of sight would be set. 

The simulation scenarios consisted of airport familiarization in which the pilots observed the 

current markings at PDX and became familiar with the flight controls, as shown in figure 12. 
12 

Figure 12. Controls Used by Subject Pilots During Simulated Scenarios

There were seven simulation runs, which presented the following safety orange construction 

signs a CONSTRUCTION AHEAD (figure 13), CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP (figure 14), or 

TORA (figure 15). The simulations were run in both daytime and nighttime conditions, with 

clear visibility (with visibility greater than 10 statute miles and no cloud cover). 

Figure 13. CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Signs

Figure 14. CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Signs
13 

Figure 15. TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Signs

Before the simulated runs, the researchers briefed the pilots on the early stage signs, shown in 

figures 1 through 4. The researchers collected the pilots’ feedback on the signs in an evaluation

form, as provided in appendix D.

The pilots concluded that the early stage signs were confusing. One pilot commented, “The 

early signs are difficult to interpret and could be misleading to pilots. Not recommended. Very 

difficult to understand.” Another pilot stated that the signs were “...no good, could be 

confusing. Do not look professional. As a pilot, they do not fit in the airfield environment.” 

Two additional signs were suggested by the FAA, as shown in figure 16 (not to scale). 

Figure 16. Additional Signage 

Several pilots commented that they were not aware of what accelerated stop distance available 

(ASDA) meant. 

Regarding the sign with three lines of text, one pilot commented, “The information should be 

simplified to reflect only the available runway distance remaining. This is for the benefit of the 

GA pilots who may be unfamiliar with some of the acronyms.” Another pilot indicated 

“...acronyms TORA and ASDA will be trained by airline pilots and picked up by most corporate 

pilots. General aviation pilots will be clueless to their meaning.”
14 

For the runway shortened sign, several pilots indicated that the message was clear, but left the 

question as to which runway was in use. 

5.1.3 Results. 

After each run, the pilots were asked to complete the applicable portion of the evaluation form, 

provided in appendix F. Each pilot answered the questions for each run based on the specific 

construction signs that were shown. Of the 17 pilots, 7 indicated they were not familiar with the 

meaning of the acronym TORA. After the completion of the six runs, the pilots preferred the 

following messages on the safety orange construction signs: TORA with the runway 

designation, CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP not collocated with 

another sign. Pilots did not indicate that any of these additional visual aids created an increase in 

workload. Of the 17 pilots, 15 preferred the white character legend compared to the black 

character legend. The pilots indicated the white was visible and more pronounced against the 

orange background in the simulation. 

 

5.1.3.1 Results of Run 1. 

Run 1 was airport and control familiarization, so there was no formal data collected. Once the 

pilots indicated that they were comfortable with the airport environment and controls, they 

proceeded to run 2. 

5.1.3.2 Results of Run 2. 

Run 2 simulated two safety orange construction signs: a CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign and a 

TORA sign with runway designation. Run 2 consisted of clear visibility in daylight conditions. 

The pilots were given taxi instructions to RWY 10R. The pilots proceeded to TWY B from the 

gate and approached the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign, which was located 600 feet prior to 

the construction activity on TWY B, as shown in figure 17. 

Figure 17. Run 2 Simulated CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign During Daytime Conditions 

The pilots continued on TWY B, turned left onto TWY B2, and held short of RWY 10R. Prior 

to holding short of RWY 10R, the pilots approached the TORA sign with the runway designation 

with a black character legend, as shown in figure 18. The TORA sign with the runway 

designation was angled and located 50 feet from the RWY 28L-10R mandatory holding position 

sign.
15 

Figure 18. Run 2 Simulated TORA Sign With Black Character Legend During 

Daytime Conditions

After the pilots viewed the TORA sign with the runway designation that contained the black 

character legend, they were asked to view the same sign with a white character legend, as shown 

in figure 19. The subject pilots had the opportunity to compare both black and white character 

legends, as shown in figure 20. 

Figure 19. Run 2 Simulated TORA Sign With White Character Legend During 

Daytime Conditions

Figure 20. Run 2 Simulated TORA Sign With Black and White Character Legends 

During Daytime Conditions
16 

The pilots were asked:

Run 2—Question 1: What does the message on the sign located on TWY B tell you? 

Was it easy to interpret? What do you think of the message on the sign? 

After a review of the answers provided, there were four comments that were prevalent

among the pilots: “easy to interpret/understand,” “clear message,” “did not see,” and 

“difficult to read.” A summary of those statements are provided in table 2. 

Run 2—Question2: Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? Does the location of the 

sign need improvement? If so how? 

After a review of the answers provided, two comments were prevalent among the pilots 

with regard to the location of the sign: “needs to be closer to construction” and “location 

is good.” With regard to noticing the sign prior to stopping, 12 pilots indicated “yes” and 

4 stated “no.” Two pilots proposed that the sign should be placed on both sides. 

Run 2—Question 3: What does the message on the sign located on TWY B2 tell you? 

Was it easy to interpret? What do you think of the message on the sign? 

Eleven pilots indicated the sign referred to takeoff run available at a specific distance. 

Ten pilots agreed that the message was easy to interpret. 

Run 2—Question 4: Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? Does the location of the 

sign need improvement? If so how? 

Nine pilots indicated “yes” and five stated “no” in regards to noticing the sign prior to 

stopping. Several pilots commented that the sign could have been moved closer. Some 

pilots noted that signage should be installed on both sides of the taxiway. 

Run 2—Question 5: After observing signs that either have black or white characters on 

TWY B2, which color character do you prefer? Why?

After reviewing the comments, 15 pilots preferred the white character legend compared 

to the black character legend within the simulated environment. Two comments were 

most prevalent among the pilots with regard to a preference for the white character 

legend: “stands out more” and “more visible.” A pilot who preferred the black character 

legend commented that the white character legend is “consistent with road construction 

sign and overtime will bleed with orange.” 

5.1.3.3 Results of Run 3. 

Run 3 took place during nighttime conditions, and the visibility was clear. Pilots were provided 

taxi instructions and told to hold short of RWY 10R at TWY B2. Once the pilots completed this 

run, an evaluation was completed before continuing onto run 4. During run 3, the pilots 

observed the same signs as in run 2, as shown in figures 21 and 22. 
17 

Figure 21. Run 3 Simulated CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign During Nighttime Conditions

Figure 22. Run 3 Simulated TORA With Runway Designation Sign During 

Nighttime Conditions

The pilots were asked: 

Run 3—Question 1: Did night conditions impact the noticeability of the sign? If Yes, 

how so? 

After reviewing the comments, 16 pilots indicated that nighttime conditions impacted the 

noticeability of the sign. A common statement made by several pilots was that the sign 

was more noticeable at night. 

5.1.3.4 Results of Run 4. 

Run 4 simulated the TORA sign with an arrow and the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign with 

the distance remaining prior to the construction. Run 4 occurred during daytime conditions with 

clear visibility. The pilots were given taxi instructions to RWY 10R. The pilots proceeded to 

TWY B from the gate and approached the CONSTRUCTION 600 FEET AHEAD sign, which 

was located 600 feet prior to the construction activity on TWY B, as shown in figure 23. 
18 

Figure 23. Run 4 Simulated CONSTRUCTION 600 FT AHEAD Sign During 

Daytime Conditions

The pilots continued on TWY B, turned left onto TWY B2, and held short of RWY 10R. Prior 

to holding short of RWY 10R, the pilots approached the TORA sign with the arrow, as shown in 

figure 24. The TORA sign with the arrow was at a canted angle and was located 50 feet from the 

RWY 28L-10R Mandatory Holding Position sign. 

Figure 24. Run 4 Simulated TORA 8750 FT With Arrow Sign During Daytime Conditions 

The pilots were asked: 

Run 4—Question 1: What does the message on the sign located on TWY B tell you? 

Was it easy to interpret? What do you think of the message on the sign? 

The majority of pilots understood the message to be some type of Construction Ahead

sign as they were taxiing on TWY B. Several pilots provided comments that it was hard 

to read and that the numbers were not relevant. 

Run 4—Question 2: Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? Does the location of the 

sign need improvement? If so, how? 

After reviewing the comments, 13 pilots indicated that that they noticed the sign prior to 

stopping. Two of the most prevalent comments made by several pilots were that the sign 

should be closer and on both sides of the taxiway. 
19 

Run 4—Question 3: Compared to the “Construction Ahead” sign in the previous run, 

which message do you prefer and why? 

Eleven pilots indicated that they preferred the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign 

compared to the sign that contained the distance. The most prevalent comments provided 

by several pilots were that the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign was simple and straight 

to the point and that adding a specific distance to the sign was not relevant. 

Run 4—Question 4: What does the message on the sign located on TWY B2 tell you? 

Was it easy to interpret? What do you think of the message on the sign? 

Fourteen pilots indicated that the message on the sign denoted some form of the 

following TORA, TORA 8750, or usable runway. Several pilots mentioned that some 

pilots may not understand what the acronym TORA means, especially GA pilots. 

Run 4—Question 5: Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? Does the location of the 

sign need improvement? If so how? 

Thirteen pilots indicated that they noticed the sign prior to stopping. Several mentioned 

that the TORA sign with the arrow should be placed on both sides of the taxiway. Two 

pilots commented that the sign should be located on the right side of the taxiway instead 

of the left. 

Run 4—Question 6: Compared to the TORA sign in the previous run, which message do 

you prefer and why? 

Seven pilots preferred the TORA sign with the runway designation. Several pilots 

commented that the arrow is redundant and that the reference to the runway was preferred 

on the sign. Five pilots preferred the TORA with the arrow. One pilot commented that 

they “...liked the direction made the message clearer.” Thirteen pilots indicated that they 

noticed the sign prior to stopping. Several pilots mentioned that the TORA sign with the 

arrow should be placed on both sides of the taxiway. Two pilots commented that the sign 

should be located on the right side of the taxiway instead of the left. 

5.1.3.5 Results of Run 5. 

In run 5, the visibility was clear and took place during nighttime conditions. Pilots were 

provided taxi instructions and told to hold short of RWY 10R at TWY B2. Once the pilots 

completed this run, an evaluation was completed before continuing onto run 6. During run 5, 

pilots observed the same signs as in run 4, as shown in figures 25 and 26. 
20 

Figure 25. Run 5 Simulated CONSTRUCTION 600 FT AHEAD Sign During Nighttime 

Conditions 

Figure 26. Run 5 Simulated TORA With Arrow Sign With Black Character Legend 

During Nighttime Conditions

After the pilots viewed the TORA sign with the arrow and the black character legend, they were 

asked to view the same sign with a white character legend, as shown in figure 27. The pilots had 

the opportunity to compare both black and white character legends, as shown in figure 28. 

Figure 27. Run 5 Simulated TORA With Arrow Sign With White Character Legend During 

Nighttime Conditions
21 

Figure 28. Run 5 Simulated TORA Sign With Black and White Character Legends During 

Nighttime Conditions

The pilots were asked: 

Run 5—Question 1: Did nighttime conditions impact the noticeability of the sign? If 

yes, how so? 

After reviewing the comments, 12 pilots indicated that nighttime conditions impacted the 

noticeability of the sign. A common statement made by several pilots was that the 

lighting of the sign made it more noticeable. 

Run 5—Question 2: Sign Comparison-After observing signs that either have black or 

white characters on TWY B2, which color character do you prefer? Why? 

Fifteen pilots preferred the white character legend compared to the black character legend 

within the simulated environment. Two comments were most prevalent among the pilots 

with regard to the pilots’ preference for the white character legend: “stands out more” 

and “easier to read.” One pilot who preferred the black character legend commented that 

that the black legend was: “Consistent with highway construction. White lettering looks 

like mandatory hold sign.” 

5.1.3.6 Results of Run 6. 

Run 6 simulated the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign. Run 6 occurred during daytime 

conditions with clear visibility. Pilots were given taxi instructions to Gate 23. Construction 

activity occurred between Gates C9-C20. The pilots proceeded to TWY E3 upon exiting TWY 

B2 and approached the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign, as shown in figure 29. The 

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign was at a canted angle and was located 50 feet from the 

taxiway array sign on TWY E3.
22 

Figure 29. Run 6 Simulated CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign During Daytime Conditions

The pilots were asked: 

Run 6—Question 1: What does the message on the sign located on TWY E3 tell you? 

Was it easy to interpret? What do you think of the message on the sign? 

Twelve subject pilots indicated the message on the sign located on TWY E3 advised 

them of construction on the ramp. Five pilots reported not seeing the sign. Seven pilots 

reported that the sign was easy to interpret. Eight pilots indicated the sign had a clear or 

good message. 

Run 6—Question 2: Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? Does the location of the 

sign need improvement? If so, how? 

Eleven pilots indicated that they noticed the sign prior to stopping. Five pilots indicated 

that they did not see the sign prior to stopping. As for the location of the sign, ten pilots 

agreed that the location did not need improvement. Three pilots stated that the location 

needed improvement. Other comments suggested that the signs should be moved “to 

have a more noticeable location” and “thermoplastic signs” be used. 

5.1.3.7 Results of Run 7. 

In run 7, the visibility was clear and took place during daytime conditions. Pilots were told to 

taxi to Gate 23 from TWY B2. Once the pilots completed this run, they completed an 

evaluation. During this run, the pilots observed the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign 

collocated with a sign array, as shown in figure 30. 
23 

Figure 30. Run 7 Simulated CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign Collocated With Sign Array 

During Daytime Conditions

The pilots were asked:

Run 7—Question 1: Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? How does this location 

compare to the previous location of the sign? 

All 17 pilots indicated that they noticed the sign (shown in figure 31) prior to stopping. 

Seven pilots indicated they preferred this location, and seven pilots indicated they did not 

like this sign collocated with the sign array. Several pilots who were in favor of the 

location indicated that they liked the sign closer to the other signs. Pilots who were not in 

favor of the sign collocated with a sign array commented that it was “too busy” and 

“blends in/harder to see.” 

Figure 31. Run 7 Simulated CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign Collocated With Sign Array 

During Daytime Conditions

5.2 LEGEND HEIGHT AND COLOR EVALUATION. 

During the second evaluation, which took place following the sign evaluations at the AFTIL, an 

FAA Airport Safety R&D team provided input as to whether black or white character legends

were visible and pronounced against the safety orange retroreflective sheeting during day and 

night conditions. 
24 

5.2.1 Overview. 

Upon completing the evaluations at the AFTIL, the researchers determined that further testing 

was needed regarding the character color. This was deemed necessary since the outside elements 

would show the true color of the character legend against the orange background. 

On August 12, 2013, ten researchers evaluated 8- and 9-in. white and black character legends on

an orange background. Evaluations occurred during daytime conditions, as shown in figure 32,

as well as night. The legend heights were the same as those simulated on the signs during the 

AFTIL evaluations. 

Figure 32. Daytime Tests at the William J. Hughes Technical Center—With Black and White 

8- and 9-in. Character Legends 

The test subjects started 700 feet from the sign while evaluating the character legend colors. The 

researchers viewed the sign in sections, with the top line of characters being one section, and the 

bottom line being another section. The top line had 8-in. white and black character legends, and 

the bottom line had 9-in. white and black character legends. After viewing each line, each 

researcher completed an evaluation, provided in appendix E. 

5.2.2 Results. 

After evaluating each character color (black and white), in two different heights on the sign, 

researchers provided their comments on an evaluation form, provided in appendix E. 

First, it was determined whether the safety orange-colored sign was visible at a distance of 

700 feet. Then, the researchers evaluated the top line, with a character legend height of 8 inches. 

The majority of the researchers commented that the sign became conspicuous at 450 feet, but it 

became readable between 300 and 400 feet for both the black and white characters.
25 

Next, the researchers evaluated the bottom line, which had a character legend height of 9 inches. 

The researchers indicated that the safety orange-colored sign was conspicuous at a distance of 

700 feet. The majority of the researchers commented that the sign became readable between 400 

and 500 feet for both the black and white characters. 

After the researchers evaluated the 8- and 9-inch white and black character legends, they were 

asked which color they preferred against the orange background. The researchers preferred the 

black character legends stating they were easier to see, and the contrast was better compared to 

the white character legends. 

Researchers also evaluated the orange sign during nighttime conditions. Upon viewing each line 

of characters, each researcher completed an evaluation, provided in appendix E. First, the 

researchers indicated that the safety orange-colored sign was visible at a distance of 700 feet. 

Then, the researchers evaluated the top line of the sign with the 8-inch character legend height. 

The majority of the researchers commented that the sign became conspicuous at 400 feet, but it 

became readable between 200 and 350 feet for both the black and white characters.

Next, the researchers evaluated the bottom line of the sign with the 9-inch character legend 

height. The researchers indicated that the safety orange-colored sign was conspicuous at a 

distance of 700 feet. The majority of the researchers commented that the sign became readable 

between 200 and 350 feet for both the black and white characters. 

After the researchers evaluated the 8- and 9-inch white and black character legends, as shown in 

figure 33, they were asked which color they preferred against the safety orange background. The 

researchers commented that the white characters blended in with the orange background, and that 

the white character legends washed out against the background. The researchers noted that the 

black character legends stood out against the orange background, and they were able to clearly 

read and understand the message. In addition, the researchers collaborated and concluded that 

black lettering on orange background, similar to roadway construction signs, are visible during 

daytime and nighttime conditions. It was determined that these results differed from the AFTIL 

results because the testing occurred outside (i.e., among environmental elements) that vehicle 

operators and pilots would more likely be exposed to while on the airfield. 
26 

Figure 33. Nighttime Tests at the William J. Hughes Technical Center—With Black and White 

8- and 9-in. Character Legends 

6. FINAL SIGN DESIGNS. 

This section describes the legend and fabrication methods of the signs developed for the airport 

phase of evaluations. Each sign consisted of aluminum panels covered in the front with safety 

orange retroreflective tape with legend characters and borders composed of black vinyl tape. 

The tape used for the construction signs was 3M Diamond Grade 4084 Fluorescent Orange, 

which was in accordance with ASTM Type XI specifications. 

6.1 LEGEND TEXT. 

Based on the AFTIL and outdoor evaluations conducted at the William J. Hughes Technical 

Center, the research team selected three signs for further evaluation during the airport phase of 

testing. 

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP

RWY XX TORA XXXX FT 

Because the initial results indicated that a significant proportion of pilots did not understand the 

TORA acronym, a fourth sign was tested that spelled out the words of this acronym. This sign 

read, TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE, and was tested in place of the TORA sign during the 

airport evaluation phase. 
27 

6.1.1 Construction Ahead. 

The first sign, shown in figure 34, was the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign. It featured 8-in.-

high legend text on a 30- by 84.15-in. panel. The borders for all tested signs were 0.875-in. 

black stripes with 0.375-in.outside margins 

Figure 34. CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign Legend

6.1.2 Construction on Ramp. 

As shown in figure 35, the legend text of the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign was similar to 

the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD SIGN, with 8 in. legend text height on the same sized metal 

panel (30 by 84.15 in.). The words ON and RAMP were separated by 4 in. 
28 

Figure 35. CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign Legend

6.1.3 Takeoff Run Available. 

The TORA signage evaluated at PDX featured larger, 9-in. text height due to having fewer 

legend characters. As shown in figure 36, the sign featured the runway designation on the top 

line of legend text (RWY XXX), and the bottom line featured the abbreviation TORA and the 

distance value (XXXX FT). The sign panel size is 30 by 84.15 in. 

Figure 37 depicts a variation of this TORA signage evaluated at JFK with the TORA acronym 

spelled out. Due to the additional characters, the size of the legend text was reduced to 8 in., and 

the overall length of the sign was increased from 84.15 to 120 in. to contain the entire legend 

message. The outside margins of the legend text rows were a fixed size, allowing the runway 

and distance values to be changed without altering the other text. 
29 

Figure 36. The TORA Sign Legend Evaluated at PDX

Figure 37. The TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Sign Legend Evaluated at JFK
30 

6.2 SIGN FABRICATION. 

The signs were fabricated in accordance with AC 150/5345-44 [4], paragraph 3.2.6.4, “Unlighted 

Sign Mounting Legs.” Support legs were mounted to the back of the sign to avoid obstruction to 

any portion of the sign front. The signs were fabricated using three base stands. Each base stand 

featured a threaded mount bolted to its center to receive a frangible coupling, as shown in figure 

38. The frangible couplings complied with AC 150/5345-44 [4] and were rated by the 

manufacturer to withstand wind speeds and jet blast of 100 miles per hour. It is assumed that 

sign manufacturers conduct independent frangibility tests to ensure they meet or exceed the 

existing frangibility requirements in AC 150/5345-44. A frangibility test of the signs was 

conducted with the FAA Boeing 727 aircraft to determine the sign’s ability to withstand jet blast 

and wind of this speed. The sign was undamaged by this test, but the researchers were unable to 

confirm the precise speed of the wind due to limits in the instrumentation used. It should be 

noted that throughout the airport evaluation phase of this project, no signs were damaged by 

wind or jet blast at any of the six airports at which these signs were installed. Design features of 

the signs, including tether cables and heavily-weighted, lower-profile bases, are designed to 

prevent damage in the rare event that the signs do become disengaged from their frangible 

couplings. 

Figure 38. Base Stand and Frangible Coupling 

As shown in figure 39, tether cables were affixed from the sign base stands to the detachable 

portion of the frangible couplings. 
31 

Figure 39. Frangible Coupling Tether 

The sign panels were secured to the support legs via u-bolts, with 1/2-in. nuts and washers, as 

shown in figure 40. 

Figure 40. Attachment of Legs to Sign Panel

Sign supports were secured by four, low-profile, weighted construction barriers. Each barrier

was weighted down by a minimum of 150 lb of water (600 lb total weight). These barriers were

filled either before or after assembling the signs, depending on the installation requirements at 

the airports. These barriers were distributed equally across the signs so each base leg was

adequately covered, as shown in figure 41. 
32 

Figure 41. Weighted Barrier Positions 

Each pair of barriers was tethered to the support bases via cables to ensure they would not 

become dislodged, as shown in figure 42. 

Figure 42. Tethers on Weighted Barriers

In accordance with AC 150/5345-44 [4], the rear of the sign was painted with a primer coat and a 

low-luster, flat, black finish coat. All sharp edges on the signs were removed via cutting and 

sanding, so the surfaces were free from runs, blotches, and scratches. 

7. AIRPORT EVALUATIONS. 

From the evaluations at the AFTIL and the William J. Hughes Technical Center, the researchers 

determined the most appropriate message and color character legend regarding the safety orange 

construction signs. The purpose of the airport evaluations was to validate the effectiveness of the 

safety orange signs as to whether the addition of the signs increased the pilots’ and vehicle 

operators’ awareness of construction on the airfield. In addition to the visual aids currently being 

used by the airport operators, researchers at ISP, PVD, ORD, PDX, SFB, and JFK installed one 

or more of the following safety orange construction signs: CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and/or 
33 

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP. Prior to sign installation, researchers provided each airport 

operator with a test plan, which entailed the evaluation approach. Prior to receiving the test plan, 

researchers worked with the airport operators to determine sign locations. 

Researchers contacted the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) to have the evaluation 

disseminated to their members. ALPA’s Airport Ground Environment (AGE) Group posted the 

evaluation within the October 2013 edition of “FASTRead,” [5] a monthly safety update 

newsletter that is sent to 53,000 members. The article included an introduction identifying the 

project objectives and the hyperlink to the pilot questionnaire. By having the hyperlink to the 

pilot questionnaire available in ALPA’s “FASTRead,” many people in the pilot community were

made aware of the questionnaire. In addition, airline station managers, chief pilots, and 

managers for the fixed-based operators from the airports and researchers distributed the 

questionnaires for the pilots to complete. The airport operator from each airport distributed the 

questionnaires to their airfield drivers. 

The purpose of the evaluation was for airport vehicle operators and pilots to determine the 

effectiveness of the safety orange construction signs to notify them of existing construction on an 

airfield. 

7.1 LONG ISLAND MacARTHUR AIRPORT. 

7.1.1 Installation. 

Two safety orange CONSTRUCTION AHEAD signs, measuring 30 in. high by 84 in. wide, 

were installed at TWY S before the cutoff of TWY E and RWY 10, approaching west of RWY 

33L, as shown in figure 43. 
34 

Figure 43. Overview of Safety Orange Construction Sign Locations at ISP

Researchers installed the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY S between the terminal 

direction sign (#77 on the marking and signage plan) and the 33L directional sign (#111 on the 

marking and signage plan). The sign was installed 49.5 feet from the TERM directional sign and 

35 feet from pavement edge, as shown in figure 44. 
35 

Figure 44. CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign From TWY S View at ISP

The second CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign was located 226 feet from the edge of the 

pavement from TWY B and 35 feet in from the edge of the pavement from RWY 10, as shown in 

figure 45. 
36 

Figure 45. CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign as Observed on RWY 10 at ISP

7.1.2 Results. 

The airport operator distributed the vehicle operator evaluation, provided in appendix G, to 

Airport Operations and Maintenance, Aircraft Rescue Fire and Fighting (ARFF) personnel, and

other tenants with airfield driving privileges. The airport operator distributed the pilot evaluation 

hard copy, as shown in appendix G, several FBOs and flight schools including: New York 

Jet/Mid Island Air Service, Hawthorne Global Air Services, Heritage Flight Academy, and ATP 

Flight School. Researchers also distributed the pilot evaluations to the ISP station managers at 

U.S. Airways, Penair, and Southwest Airlines for distribution to their pilots. No pilot 

evaluations were completed for this airport. The evaluation period was from September 13 

through October 11, 2013. 

The vehicle operators had the opportunity to evaluate the following safety orange construction 

signs at the airport:

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY S before the cutoff of TWY E 

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on RWY 10 approaching west of RWY 33L

The vehicle operators who evaluated both CONSTRUCTION AHEAD signs during nighttime 

conditions did not provide comments. Several comments provided by the vehicle operators who 

completed the evaluation during daytime conditions included the following.
37 

“The signage clearly depicts that vehicle operators and pilots are approaching a 

construction area and that they should use caution.” 

“Very understandable/visible from a good distance.” 

“Sign color drew attention immediately upon entering airfield.” 

Table 1 identifies the vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY 

S. Seventeen vehicle operators completed the evaluation.

Table 1. Vehicle Operator Results for ISP TWY S—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 17 0 0 0 29 71

Daytime 16 0 0 0 31 69

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 17 0 0 0 41 59

Daytime 16 0 0 0 44 56

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Statement 3: 

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 17 0 0 6 29 65

Daytime 16 0 0 6 31 63

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Table 2 identifies the vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on RWY 

10. Eighteen vehicle operators completed the evaluation.
38 

Table 2. Vehicle Operator Results for ISP RWY 10—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1: 

The sign was 

conspicuous.

All conditions 18 0 0 0 33 67

Daytime 17 0 0 0 35 65

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Statement 2: 

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 18 0 0 0 44 56

Daytime 17 0 0 0 50 50

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Statement 3: 

The sign adequately 

notified me of the 

existing construction.

All conditions 18 0 0 6 27 67

Daytime 17 0 0 6 29 65

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 0 100

7.2 THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN STATE AIRPORT. 

7.2.1 Signage Installation. 

One CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and one CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign, each measuring

30 in. high by 84 in. wide, were installed at PVD. The CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign was 

installed at TWY T adjacent to the intersection with TWY N, while the CONSTRUCTION ON 

RAMP sign was installed at TWY A near the GA parking entrance, as shown in figure 46. 
39 

Figure 46. Overview of Safety Orange Construction Sign Locations at PVD

Researchers installed the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY T, 36 feet from the 

pavement edge, as shown in figure 47. 

Figure 47. CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign on TWY T at PVD
40 

After the installation of the sign on TWY T was completed, researchers installed the safety 

orange CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on TWY A near the GA parking entrance. The sign 

was installed 125 feet from the non-movement line and 35 feet from the defined pavement edge. 

After the two safety orange construction signs were installed, the Eastern Region Airport 

Certification and Safety Inspector determined that tie-down anchors would be more appropriate 

to secure the signs than low-profile barriers. The airport operator removed the 

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign from TWY A, since there was no construction activity 

occurring due to scheduling issues with the contractor performing that work on the ramp. The 

airport operator indicated that once construction began, the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign 

would be relocated to its original location with tie-down anchors. 

Construction commenced on November 18, 2013 on the GA Parking Ramp. The airport operator 

reinstalled the safety orange CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on TWY A near the entrance to

GA Parking, 125 feet from the nonmovement line and 35 feet from the defined pavement edge, 

as shown in figure 48. 

Figure 48. CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign on TWY A at PVD
41 

7.2.2 Evaluation Results. 

The airport operator distributed the vehicle operator evaluations, provided in appendix H, to 

Airport Operations, Maintenance, ARFF, and other tenants who have airfield driving privileges. 

The airport operator distributed the pilot evaluation hard copy, provided in appendix H, to 

representatives at the airlines and FBOs. The evaluation period was originally from September 

12 through October 28, 2013. The airport operator allowed the researchers to extend the 

evaluation date to January 6, 2014 to collect more data because the CONSTRUCTION ON

RAMP sign was taken down during the evaluation period as construction was postponed. 

The vehicle operators had the opportunity to evaluate the following safety orange construction 

signs at the airport:

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY T adjacent to the intersection with TWY N

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on TWY A near the GA parking entrance

A vehicle operator who evaluated both the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and CONSTRUCTION 

ON RAMP signs during daytime conditions commented that they both “look good.” 

Table 3 identifies the vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on 

TWY T. Ten vehicle operators completed the evaluation.

Table 3. Vehicle Operator Results for PVD TWY T—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 10 0 0 0 40 60

Daytime 5 0 0 0 20 80

Nighttime 2 0 0 0 0 100

Time unknown 3 0 0 0 100 0

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 10 0 0 0 50 50

Daytime 5 0 0 0 40 60

Nighttime 2 0 0 0 0 100

Time unknown 3 0 0 0 100 0
42 

Table 3. Vehicle Operator Results for PVD TWY T—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

(Continued) 

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 10 0 0 0 40 60

Daytime 5 0 0 0 20 80

Nighttime 2 0 0 0 0 100

Time unknown 3 0 0 0 100 0

Table 4 identifies the vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on 

TWY A. Three vehicle operators completed the evaluation.

Table 4. Vehicle Operator Results for PVD TWY A—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 3 0 0 0 0 100

Daytime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Nighttime 2 0 0 0 0 100

Statement 2: 

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 3 0 0 0 0 100

Daytime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Nighttime 2 0 0 0 0 100

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 3 0 0 0 0 100

Daytime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Nighttime 2 0 0 0 0 100
43 

Pilots had the opportunity to evaluate the following safety orange construction signs at the 

airport:

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY T adjacent to the intersection with TWY N 

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on TWY A near the GA parking entrance area

A pilot who evaluated the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign during daytime conditions

commented that it was a “good idea.” Another pilot commented “can’t miss it.” The pilot who 

evaluated this sign during nighttime conditions indicated the “sign stands out clearly.” The pilot 

who evaluated the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign during daytime conditions made the 

comment “like the signage,” and stated that it was “very visible and attention getting.” 

Table 5 identifies the pilot results of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY T. Two

pilots completed the evaluation. 

Table 5. Pilot Results for PVD TWY T—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 2 0 0 0 50 50

Daytime 2 0 0 0 50 50

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 2 0 0 0 50 50

Daytime 2 0 0 0 50 50

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 2 0 0 0 50 50

Daytime 2 0 0 0 50 50

Table 6 identifies the pilot results of the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on TWY A. Ten

pilots completed the evaluation. 
44 

Table 6. Pilot Results for PVD TWY A—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 10 10 0 10 20 60

Daytime 8 13 0 0 25 62

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Time unknown 1 0 0 100 0 0

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 10 0 0 10 30 60

Daytime 8 0 0 0 25 75

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 100 0

Time unknown 1 0 0 100 0 0

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 10 0 0 10 40 50

Daytime 8 0 0 0 37 63

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 100 0

Time unknown 1 0 0 100 0 0

7.3 CHICAGO O’HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. 

7.3.1 Signage Installation. 

Two safety orange CONSTRUCTION AHEAD signs, each measuring 30 in. high by 84 in. wide, 

were installed at TWY C1, adjacent to intersection with TWY C and TWY Z, adjacent to the 

intersection with TWY C, as shown in figure 49. 
45 

Figure 49. Overview of Safety Orange Construction Sign Locations at ORD

The airport operator agreed to install the safety orange construction signs prior to the researchers

arriving so the evaluation period could be extended. The airport operator installed the near side 

of the safety orange CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign, which was installed on the east side of 

TWY C1 and was approximately 46 feet perpendicular to the taxiway edge marking of TWY C1, 

as shown in figure 50. 
46 

Figure 50. CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign on TWY C1 at ORD 

The airport operator installed the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY Z, adjacent to the 

intersection with TWY C. The near side of the safety orange construction sign located on the 

east side of TWY Z, was approximately 43 feet perpendicular to the edge marking of TWY Z, as 

shown in figure 51. Researchers traveled to ORD and verified the two safety orange 

construction signs were properly installed. 

Figure 51. CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign on TWY Z at ORD

7.3.2 Evaluation Results. 

The airport operator distributed the vehicle operator evaluation, provided in appendix I, to 

Airport Operations, Airfield Electricians, the airport drivers’ dispatch office, and other tenants 

who have airfield driving privileges. The airport operator distributed the pilot evaluation hard 
47 

copy, provided in appendix I, to chief pilots during a meeting. Researchers distributed the pilot 

evaluations, provided in appendix I, to the ORD chief pilots at Mesa Air, United Airlines, Delta 

Airlines, and American Airlines for distribution to their pilots. No pilot evaluations were 

completed for this airport. The evaluation period originally was from September 16 through 

October 11, 2013. The airport operator informed the researchers that the evaluation period was 

extended due to the punch list items for the construction project that would take a couple of 

weeks. The evaluation was extended to December 6, 2013 and the signs were removed

afterwards. 

The vehicle operators had the opportunity to evaluate the following safety orange construction 

signs at the airport:

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY C1, adjacent to intersection with TWY C 

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY Z, adjacent to the intersection with TWY C 

Table 7 identifies the vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY 

C1. Twelve vehicle operators completed the evaluation. 

Table 7. Vehicle Operators Results for ORD TWY C1—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 12 0 25 25 50 0

Daytime 7 0 14 14 72 0

Nighttime 5 0 40 40 20 0

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 12 8 17 0 75 0

Daytime 7 14 14 0 72 0

Nighttime 5 0 20 0 80 0

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 12 8 0 17 75 0

Daytime 7 14 0 14 72 0

Nighttime 5 0 0 20 80 0

Table 8 identifies the vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY 

Z. Eight vehicle operators completed the evaluation.
48 

Table 8. Vehicle Operator Results for ORD TWY Z—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 8 0 38 12 50 0

Daytime 5 0 20 20 60 0

Nighttime 2 0 100 0 0 0

Unknown time 1 0 0 0 100 0

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 8 12 25 0 63 0

Daytime 5 20 20 0 60 0

Nighttime 2 0 50 0 50 0

Unknown time 1 0 0 0 100 0

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 8 12 0 25 63 0

Daytime 5 20 0 20 60 0

Nighttime 2 0 0 50 50 0

Unknown time 1 0 0 0 100 0

7.4 PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. 

7.4.1 Signage Installation. 

Three safety orange construction signs, each measuring 30 in. high by 84 in. wide with the 

following messages were installed: CONSTRUCTION AHEAD, CONSTRUCTION ON 

RAMP, and RWY 28L TORA 8560 FT. The locations of the installations were TWY C between 

TWY C5 and TWY C6 (CONSTRUCTION AHEAD) and TWY E5 north side of taxiway 

(CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP) and TWY C6 prior to the runway holding position (RWY 28L 

TORA 8560 FT), as shown in figure 52. 
49 

Figure 52. Overview of Safety Orange Construction Sign Locations at PDX

Researchers installed the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign west on TWY C between TWY C5 

and TWY C6. This sign was located approximately 330 feet west of the TWY C location/C6 

direction sign. The near side of the safety orange construction sign was approximately 51 feet 

6 inches from the taxiway edge marking (pavement edge), as shown in figure 53. This is the 

same distance of the near side of the TWY C location/C6 directional sign from the taxiway edge 

marking (pavement edge).
50 

Figure 53. CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign on TWY C at PDX

Next, the researchers installed the RWY 28L TORA 8560 FT on TWY C6 prior to the runway 

holding position. The near side of the sign was approximately 49 feet perpendicular from the 

taxiway edge marking (pavement edge), as shown in figure 54. In addition, this sign was 

installed approximately 52 feet laterally from the runway 10R-28L mandatory hold sign. 
51 

Figure 54. The RWY 28L TORA 8560 FT Sign at PDX

The researchers installed the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on TWY E5 north side of the 

taxiway. The near side of the sign was 35 feet 6 inches perpendicular to the TWY E5 edge 

marking (pavement edge). In addition, the researchers canted the sign towards TWY E, so pilots 

could see the sign prior to turning on TWY E5 and to the ramp area, as shown in figure 55. 
52 

Figure 55. CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign at PDX

7.4.2 Evaluation Results. 

The airport operator distributed the vehicle operator evaluation, provided in appendix J, to 

Airport Operations, Maintenance, and other tenants who have airfield driving privileges. The 

airport operator distributed the pilot evaluation hard copy, also provided in appendix J, to chief 

pilots for distribution to their pilots. The evaluation period was from September 24 through 

October 25, 2013. 

The vehicle operators had the opportunity to evaluate the following safety orange construction 

signs at the airport:

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY C between TWY C5 and TWY C6 

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP on TWY E5 north side of taxiway 

Several vehicle operators who evaluated the two signs at the airport commented: 

“Very visible in darkness, great new tool.” 

“They do stand out as the color is not seen on the airfield.” 
53 

“Signs are visible when passing by. Flashing beacon on top of signs could be helpful.” 

“Since they’re obviously unlighted, it’s dependent on taxi lights or headlights to activate 

the reflective qualities. Would a small flashing beacon help to draw attention to sign?” 

Table 9 identifies the vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY 

C. A total of 12 vehicle operators completed the evaluation. 

Table 9. Vehicle Operator Results for PDX TWY C—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1: 

The sign was 

conspicuous.

All conditions 12 0 8 0 50 42

Daytime 6 0 0 0 50 50

Nighttime 4 0 25 0 25 50

Time unknown 2 0 0 0 100 0

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 12 0 8 17 42 33

Daytime 6 0 0 0 50 50

Nighttime 4 0 25 25 25 25

Time unknown 2 0 0 50 50 0

Statement 3: 

The sign adequately 

notified me of the 

existing construction.

All conditions 12 0 8 0 50 42

Daytime 6 0 0 0 33 67

Nighttime 4 0 25 0 50 25

Time unknown 2 0 0 0 100 0

7.4.2.1 Vehicle Operator Results for PDX TWY E5—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP. 

Table 10 identifies the vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on 

TWY E5. Twelve vehicle operators completed the evaluation.
54 

Table 10. Vehicle Operator Results for PDX TWY E5—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 12 8 0 0 50 42

Daytime 6 0 0 0 50 50

Nighttime 4 25 0 0 25 50

Time unknown 2 0 0 0 100 0

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 12 8 0 17 42 33

Daytime 6 0 0 0 50 50

Nighttime 4 25 0 25 25 25

Time unknown 2 0 0 50 50 0

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 12 8 0 0 50 42

Daytime 6 0 0 0 33 67

Nighttime 4 25 0 0 50 25

Time unknown 2 0 0 0 100 0

Table 11 identifies the vehicle operator results of the RWY 28L TORA 8560 FT sign on TWY 

C6. Eleven vehicle operators completed the evaluation.
55 

Table 11. Vehicle Operator Results for PDX TWY C6—RWY 28L TORA 8560 FT Sign

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous. 

All conditions 11 0 10 0 45 45

Daytime 5 0 0 0 40 60

Nighttime 4 0 25 0 50 25

Time unknown 2 0 0 0 50 50

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 11 0 10 18 45 27

Daytime 5 0 0 0 60 40

Nighttime 4 0 25 25 25 25

Time unknown 2 0 0 50 50 0

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 11 10 0 0 54 36

Daytime 5 0 0 0 40 60

Nighttime 4 25 0 0 50 25

Time unknown 2 0 0 0 100 0

7.4.2.2 Pilot Evaluations Results. 

The pilots had the opportunity to evaluate the following safety orange construction signs at the 

airport: 

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY C between TWY C5 and TWY C6 

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP on TWY E5 north side of taxiway 

A pilot who evaluated the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign commented, “...if the sign wasn’t 

obvious enough, the barricaded taxiway certainly was.” 
56 

Three pilots who evaluated either the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD or CONSTRUCTION ON 

RAMP signs suggested the following: 

“Need lights on sign at night.” 

“Need lighted signs or lights near signs at night.” 

“Lighted sign at night would be helpful.” 

7.4.2.2.1 Pilot Results for PDX TWY C—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign. 

Table 12 identifies the pilot results of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on TWY C. Six

vehicle operators completed the evaluation. 

Table 12. Pilot Results for PDX TWY C—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 6 17 0 0 33 50

Daytime 3 33 0 0 0 67

Nighttime 3 0 0 0 67 33

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 6 17 0 0 33 50

Daytime 3 33 0 0 0 67

Nighttime 3 0 0 0 67 33

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 6 17 0 0 33 50

Daytime 3 33 0 0 0 67

Nighttime 3 0 0 0 67 33

7.4.2.2.2 Pilot Results for PDX TWY E5—Construction on Ramp. 

Table 13 identifies the pilot results of the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on TWY E5. Five 

pilots completed the evaluation. 
57 

Table 13. Pilot Results for PDX TWY E5—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 5 0 0 20 0 80

Daytime 2 0 0 0 0 100

Nighttime 3 0 0 33 0 67

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 5 0 0 20 0 80

Daytime 2 0 0 0 0 100

Nighttime 3 0 0 33 0 67

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 5 0 0 20 0 80

Daytime 2 0 0 0 0 100

Nighttime 3 0 0 33 0 67

7.5 ORLANDO SANFORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. 

7.5.1 Signage Installation. 

Two safety orange construction signs, CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and CONSTRUCTION ON 

RAMP, each measuring 30 inches high by 84 inches wide were installed. The signs were 

installed on the north side on the terminal apron approximately 433 feet from terminal

(CONSTRUCTION AHEAD), and south side on the terminal apron approximately 696 feet west 

of the Customs and Border Patrol Apron (CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP), as shown in figure 56. 

The distance between the two signs was 657 feet. 
58 

Figure 56. Overview of Safety Orange Construction Sign Locations at SFB

The airport operator agreed to install the safety orange construction signs. The airport operator 

installed the safety orange CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign, on the terminal apron north side of 

the construction project, as shown in figure 57. 
59 

Figure 57. CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign on North Side of the Terminal Apron at SFB

The airport operator installed the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP on the south side of the 

construction area on the terminal apron, as shown in figure 58. 

Figure 58. CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign on the South Side of the Terminal Apron at SFB
60 

7.5.2 Evaluation Results. 

The airport operator distributed the vehicle operator evaluation, provided in appendix K, to 

Airport Operations, Maintenance, ARFF, and ground handlers. The airport operator distributed 

the pilot evaluation hard copy, also provided in appendix K, to representatives at the airlines and 

FBOs. The airport operator also informed this group about the electronic evaluation. The 

evaluation period was from December 3, 2013 through January 6, 2014. 

The vehicle operators had the opportunity to evaluate the following safety orange construction 

signs at the airport: 

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on the terminal apron south side 

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on the terminal apron north side 

A vehicle operator who evaluated both safety orange construction signs stated, “I drive on the 

terminal apron daily and have no issues observing the safety signs from a distance for both north 

and south sides.” Another vehicle operator who evaluated the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP

sign commented that the sign was “helpful in delineating the actual construction area.” Three 

vehicle operators commented that the safety orange construction signs should have some type of 

lighting during night time conditions. 

Table 14 identifies the vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on 

terminal apron south side. Sixteen vehicle operators completed the evaluation.

Table 14. Vehicle Operator Results for the SFB South Side—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was 

conspicuous.

All conditions 16 0 0 0 69 31

Daytime 14 0 0 0 79 21

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Time unknown 1 0 0 0 0 100

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 16 0 0 6 69 25

Daytime 14 0 0 7 79 14

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Time unknown 1 0 0 0 0 100
61 

Table 14. Vehicle Operator Results for the SFB South Side—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign 

(Continued) 

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 3: 

The sign adequately 

notified me of the 

existing construction.

All conditions 16 0 0 0 62 38

Daytime 14 0 0 0 71 29

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 0 100

Time unknown 1 0 0 0 0 100

Table 15 identifies the vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on 

terminal apron north side. Eighteen vehicle operators completed the evaluation.

Table 15. Vehicle Operator Results for the SFB North Side—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP

Sign

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 18 0 0 0 67 33

Daytime 15 0 0 0 80 20

Nighttime 2 0 0 0 0 100

Time unknown 1 0 0 0 0 100

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 18 0 0 6 72 22

Daytime 15 0 0 7 80 13

Nighttime 2 0 0 0 50 50

Time unknown 1 0 0 0 0 100
62 

Table 15. Vehicle Operator Results for the SFB North Side—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP

Sign (Continued) 

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 18 0 0 0 61 39

Daytime 15 0 0 0 73 27

Nighttime 2 0 0 0 0 100

Time unknown 1 0 0 0 0 100

The pilots had the opportunity to evaluate the following safety orange construction signs at the 

airport: 

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign on the terminal apron south side 

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on the terminal apron north side 

No evaluations were completed for the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign located on the terminal 

apron south side.

Table 16 identifies the pilot results of the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign on terminal apron 

north side. Three pilots completed the evaluation. 

Table 16. Pilot Evaluation Results for the SFB North Side—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP

Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 3 0 0 0 67 33

Daytime 3 0 0 0 67 33

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 3 0 0 0 67 33

Daytime 3 0 0 0 67 33
63 

Table 16. Pilot Evaluation Results for the SFB North Side—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP 

Sign (Continued) 

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 3 0 0 0 67 33

Daytime 3 0 0 0 67 33

7.6 JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. 

7.6.1 Signage Installation. 

Two types of safety orange construction signs were installed at JFK. The first was the 30 in. 

high by 84 in. wide CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign. The other was the 30 in. high by 120 in. 

wide TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE sign. The locations of the installations varied due to 

multiple stages of construction take place. Examples of the positions the signs were positioned

during the study are shown below in figure 59. These were generally in the vicinity of RWY 

22R-4L. The complete list of the scheduled sign locations is shown in figure 60. 

Figure 59. Sign Locations at JFK
64 

Figure 60. Sign Schedule at JFK

Figure 61 depicts an example of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign tested and figures 62 and 

63 depict examples of the TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE sign. The TAKEOFF RUN 

AVAILABLE sign allows the TORA distance to be covered up with a metal insert showing a 

new value when needed. This took place at JFK during later phases of runway construction. 
65 

Figure 61. CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign at JFK

Figure 62. TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Sign on TWY YA at JFK
66 

Figure 63. TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Sign at RWY 4L Entrance at JFK

7.6.2 Evaluation Results. 

The researchers distributed the survey, provided in appendix L, to vehicle operators and pilots at 

JFK. The survey questions were the same as those used at the other airports. Sixteen individuals 

(10 pilots and 6 vehicle operators) reported observing the TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE sign, 

and 22 individuals (17 pilots and 5 vehicle operators) reported observing the CONSTRUCTION 

AHEAD sign. 

As indicated in tables 17 through 20, pilots and vehicle operators were overwhelmingly

favorable towards the signs. Most of the pilots reported the signs as conspicuous, 

comprehensible, and providing adequate notification of existing construction. Some vehicle 

operators mentioned that although the signs were adequate for their own use, they would not be 

large enough to be visible for pilots, as detailed in the following comments:

“I am in a ground vehicle when viewing these signs. I don’t think they are very 

conspicuous for pilots of most of the aircraft using JFK.” 

“From a vehicle standpoint, the signs are visible. But I believe it would help if they were 

mounted a bit higher off the ground, similar to normal taxiway/runway signs.” 

However, comments collected from pilots who responded to the survey did not express this 

concern:

“The pilot saw the signs and knew closer attention would be necessary. Immediately 

obvious construction was underway.” 
67 

“Feel these signs add to situational awareness.” 

“It’s nice having the info placed out on the airfield. The orange signage helps a ton.” 

Table 17. Pilot Results for JFK—TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 10 0 10 0 70 20

Daytime 2 0 50 0 50 0

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 100 0

Time unknown 7 0 0 0 71 29

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 10 0 0 10 80 10

Daytime 2 0 0 0 100 0

Nighttime 1 0 0 100 0 0

Time unknown 7 0 0 0 86 14

Statement 3: 

The sign adequately 

notified me of the distance 

available for takeoff.

All conditions 10 0 10 10 50 30

Daytime 2 0 0 50 0 50

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 100 0

Time unknown 7 0 14 0 57 29
68 

Table 18. Vehicle Operator Results for JFK—TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 6 0 0 0 67 33

Daytime 2 0 0 0 50 50

Nighttime 0 0 0 0 0 0

Time unknown 4 0 0 0 75 25

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 6 0 0 17 50 33

Daytime 2 0 0 0 50 50

Nighttime 0 0 0 0 0 0

Time unknown 4 0 0 25 50 25

Statement 3: 

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 6 0 0 0 67 33

Daytime 2 0 0 0 50 50

Nighttime 0 0 0 0 0 0

Time unknown 4 0 0 0 75 25
69 

Table 19. Pilot Results for JFK—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 17 0 6 6 65 24

Daytime 4 0 0 0 100 0

Nighttime 1 0 0 0 100 0

Time unknown 12 0 8 8 50 33

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 17 0 0 18 65 18

Daytime 4 0 0 50 50 0

Nighttime 1 0 0 100 0 0

Time unknown 12 0 0 0 75 25

Statement 3: 

The sign adequately notified 

me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 17 0 0 6 65 29

Daytime 4 0 0 0 100 0

Nighttime 1 0 0 100 0 0

Time unknown 12 0 0 0 58 42

 
70 

Table 20. Vehicle Operator Results for JFK—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 5 0 0 20 60 20

Daytime 1 0 0 100 0 0

Nighttime 0 0 0 0 0 0

Time unknown 4 0 0 0 75 25

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 5 0 0 20 60 20

Daytime 1 0 0 100 0 0

Nighttime 0 0 0 0 0 0

Time unknown 4 0 0 0 75 25

Statement 3: 

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 5 0 0 40 40 20

Daytime 1 0 0 100 0 0

Nighttime 0 0 0 0 0 0

Time unknown 4 0 0 0 75 25

7.7 SUMMARY—AIRPORT EVALUATIONS. 

This section contains the combined results for the safety orange CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP signs installed at all six airports and TAKEOFF RUN 

AVAILABLE signs installed at JFK. 

 

Table 21 identifies the combined vehicle operator results of the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign

at all six airports. Ninety-eight vehicle operators completed the evaluation. 
71 

Table 21. Combined Vehicle Operator Results—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 98 0 8 5 46 42

Daytime 71 0 3 4 48 44

Nighttime 16 13 18 13 13 43

Time unknown 11 0 0 9 46 45

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 98 2 5 4 54 35

Daytime 71 3 3 2 55 36

Nighttime 16 0 18 6 38 38

Time unknown 11 0 0 9 73 18

Statement 3:

The sign adequately notified 

me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 98 2 1 9 47 42

Daytime 71 3 0 7 43 46

Nighttime 16 0 7 13 43 37

Time unknown 11 0 0 0 82 18

Table 22 identifies the combined results from the PVD, PDX, and SFB vehicle operators who

evaluated the CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign. Thirty-three vehicle operators completed the

evaluation for this sign. 
72 

Table 22. Combined Vehicle Operator Results—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 33 3 0 0 55 42

Daytime 22 0 0 0 68 32

Nighttime 8 13 0 0 12 75

Time unknown 3 0 0 0 67 33

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 33 3 0 9 55 33

Daytime 22 0 0 5 68 27

Nighttime 8 13 0 12 25 50

Time unknown 3 0 0 33 33 34

Statement 3: 

The sign adequately notified 

me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 33 3 0 0 52 45

Daytime 22 0 0 0 59 41

Nighttime 8 13 0 0 25 62

Time unknown 3 0 0 0 67 33

Table 23 identifies the combined results from the PVD and PDX pilots who evaluated the 

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign. Sixteen pilots completed the evaluation.
73 

Table 23. Combined Pilot Results—CONSTRUCTION AHEAD Sign

Number of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 33 6 3 6 45 39

Daytime 15 13 0 0 40 47

Nighttime 5 0 0 0 60 40

Time unknown 13 0 8 15 46 31

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 33 3 0 12 49 36

Daytime 15 7 0 13 27 54

Nighttime 5 0 0 20 60 20

Time unknown 13 0 0 8 69 23

Statement 3:

The sign adequately notified 

me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 33 3 0 6 52 39

Daytime 15 7 0 0 46 47

Nighttime 5 0 0 20 60 20

Time unknown 13 0 0 8 54 38

Table 24 identifies the combined results from the PVD, PDX, and SFB pilots who evaluated the 

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign. Eighteen pilots completed the evaluation. 
74 

Table 24. Combined Pilot Results—CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP Sign

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 18 6 0 11 22 61

Daytime 13 8 0 0 30 62

Nighttime 4 0 0 25 0 75

Time unknown 1 0 0 100 0 0

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 18 0 0 11 28 61

Daytime 13 0 0 0 31 69

Nighttime 4 0 0 25 0 75

Time unknown 1 0 0 100 0 0

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 18 0 0 11 33 56

Daytime 13 0 0 0 38 62

Nighttime 4 0 0 25 25 50

Time unknown 1 0 0 100 0 0

Table 25 depicts opinions towards both versions of the TORA signage, including the RWY XX 

TORA XXXX FT sign evaluated at PDX and the RWY XX TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE 

XXXX FT signs evaluated at JFK. Twenty-seven individuals evaluated TORA signs at these 

airports. 
75 

Table 25. Combined Results—TORA Signage

Number 

of 

Responses

Strongly 

Disagree

(%)

Disagree

(%)

Undecided

(%)

Agree

(%)

Strongly 

Agree

(%)

Statement 1:

The sign was conspicuous.

All conditions 27 0 8 0 59 33

Daytime 9 0 11 0 44 44

Nighttime 5 0 20 0 60 20

Time unknown 13 0 0 0 69 31

Statement 2:

The sign was 

comprehensible at an 

adequate distance.

All conditions 27 0 4 15 59 22

Daytime 9 0 0 0 67 33

Nighttime 5 0 20 40 20 20

Time unknown 13 0 0 15 69 15

Statement 3:

The sign adequately 

notified me of the existing 

construction.

All conditions 27 4 4 4 55 33

Daytime 9 0 0 11 33 56

Nighttime 5 20 0 0 60 20

Time unknown 13 0 8 0 69 23

8. CONCLUSIONS. 

Site visits were conducted to existing construction sites at several airports to collect information 

regarding the airport’s existing airfield construction projects. No shortfalls with respect to 

compliance with the related Advisory Circulars (ACs) were identified. Several types of visual 

aids were used at the airports in accordance with AC 150/5370-2 to alert pilots and airport 

personnel of approaching closures or construction. These included lighted Xs, barricades with 

red solar-powered lights, and flags and cones. The airport operators indicated that in addition to

using the current visual aids, found in AC 150/5370-2F, the use of the temporary safety orange

signs would be advantageous if available. 

Overall, vehicle operators and pilots overwhelmingly agreed the messages, character heights, and 

colors of the signs (CONSTRUCTION AHEAD, CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP, and 

TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE (TORA)) were comprehensible, conspicuous, and adequate in 

alerting individuals about existing construction. 
76 

Of the combined total of 131 respondents (98 vehicle operators and 33 pilots), 114 

respondents (87%), strongly agreed or agreed that the CONSTRUCTION AHEAD sign

was conspicuous; 116 (88%) agreed or strongly agreed that the sign was comprehensible 

at an adequate distance. Of the combined respondents, 117 (89%) agreed or strongly 

agreed that the sign provided adequate notification of the existing construction. 

Of the combined total of 51 respondents, 47 (92%) agreed or strongly agreed that the 

CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP sign was conspicuous 45 (88%) agreed or strongly agreed 

that the sign was comprehensible at an adequate distance. Of the total respondents, 48

(94%) strongly agreed or agreed that the sign provided adequate notification of the 

existing construction. 

A total of 27 pilots and vehicle operators evaluated TORA signs providing takeoff run 

available information. Overall, 25 respondents (92%) agreed or strongly agreed that

these signs were conspicuous; 22 respondents (81%) agreed or strongly agreed the signs 

were comprehensible at an adequate distance; and 24 respondents (89%) agreed or 

strongly agreed the signs adequately notified them of existing construction. 

9. RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Based on the results of this study, it is advised that AC 150/5370-2 be updated to include 

temporary safety orange construction signage as a visual aid to alert pilots and vehicle operators 

of existing airport construction. It is also recommended that signs displaying CONSTRUCTION 

ON RAMP and CONSTRUCTION AHEAD be placed at locations leading to ramps and other 

areas with construction activity. When a runway is temporarily shortened due to construction, it 

is recommended that TORA signs be placed at the runway entrances to display the current 

takeoff run available. Pilots and vehicle operators found both the legend text TORA and the 

legend text TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE acceptable for use on TORA signage. However, due 

to the increased length of the sign panel necessary to accommodate the additional characters of 

TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE, it is recommended that the acronym TORA be specified in the 

final sign design. The CONSTRUCTION AHEAD, CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP, and TORA 

signs should measure 30 inches high by 84 inches wide and the near side of the sign placed 

approximately 36 feet perpendicular to the taxiway pavement edge. Finally, it is recommended 

that additional education be conducted to increase understanding of the TORA acronym to 

ensure pilots have adequate situational awareness. 
77/78 

10. REFERENCES. 

1. Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Organization “What’s on your runway?

Airport Construction Advisory Council—Mitigating Hazards Associated with Airport 

Construction,” http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/runway_construction/media 

/ACAC_Guidance_2012.pdf (date last visited 08/11/2015). 

2. Federal Aviation Administration, “Operational Safety on Airports During Construction,” 

Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5370-2F, September 29, 2011. 

3. Federal Aviation Administration, “Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) For Airport 

Operators,” AC 150/5200-28D, January 28, 2008. 

4. Federal Aviation Administration, “Specification for Taxiway and Runway Signs,” 

AC 150/5345-44, January 5,1994.

5. Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) FASTRead, “FAA Evaluating New Construction 

Information Signs,” October 1, 2013, http://www3.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fastread/2013 

/FastRead_20131001.htm (date last visited 09/15/2015). 
A-1 

APPENDIX A—AIRPORT OPERATOR QUESTIONS

A.1 INTRODUCTION. 

Researchers conducted site visits to Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB) in Sanford, 

Florida, and Valkaria Airport (X59) in Grand-Valkaria, Florida, to collect information regarding 

the airports’ existing airfield construction projects. Site visits consisted of a meeting with the 

airport operator and an airfield tour of the area that had the construction project in progress. 

During each site visit, the researchers asked the airport operator specific questions regarding

background information on the airport’s construction projects and if the airport was complying 

with relevant Advisory Circulars with regard to marking construction activities on the airport. 

Note: The purpose of this visit was to determine the need for improvement in alerting pilots and 

vehicle operators to the presence of construction areas. This appendix shows the researchers’

questions for the airport operators. 

A.2 ATTENDEES. 

1. What areas on the airport were affected by the construction project?

2. Was the construction activity planned through project phasing, if so what did the phases 

consist of? 

3. Are safety meetings held (weekly, bi-weekly)? 

4. Are the construction contractor’s responsibilities defined? 

5. Are there copies of the Construction Safety and Phasing Plan (CSPP) and Safety Plan 

Compliance Document? Where are they located?

6. How does the airport restrict movement of the construction vehicles and personnel (e.g.,

barricading, erecting temporary fencing, or providing escorts)? 

7. Does the Safety Plan Compliance Document include any supplemental information that 

could not be included in the CSPP prior to the contract award? If there was no 

supplemental information necessary for any specific subject, is the statement “No 

supplemental information” written after the corresponding subject title? 

8. As for runway and taxiway visual aids, what equipment and methods were used for 

covering the signage and airfield lights? Equipment and methods for temporary closure 

markings (paint, fabric, other)? 

9. As for protection of runway and taxiway safety areas including object-free areas, 

obstacle-free zones and approach/departure surfaces, what equipment or methods were 

used for maintaining the Taxiway Safety Area Standards? What methods were used to 

identify, demarcate, and protect airport surface including: equipment and methods for 

separation of construction operations from aircraft operations, including details of 

barricades?
A-2 

10. Were construction safety drawings provided? If so, do they specifically indicate 

operational safety procedures and methods in affected areas for each construction phase? 

11. Vehicle and Pedestrian Operations—how does the airport keep people and vehicles from 

restricted areas of the airport (i.e., what mechanisms prevent construction vehicles and 

workers from traveling to and from the worksite from unauthorized entry into the 

movement areas)? 

12. What type of markings and signs are used for the access routes? 

13. Is there a location of stockpiled construction materials? If so, where? Height 

restrictions?

14. Runway (RWY) and Taxiway (TWY) visual aids—were there any temporary RWY and 

TWY marking, lighting, signs and visual navigational aids required for construction? 

Were any existing marking, lighting, signs and visual aids that are temporarily, altered, 

obliterated, or shut down? 

A.3 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. 

What visual aids/markings does the airport prefer to use? 

During the construction project, has there been any excavation?

If excavation has occurred, when the contractor leaves for the day it is the excavation site 

filled? 

When did this construction project begin? 

During this construction project, besides using the current visual aids/markings are there 

additional visual aids that could have been used? 
B-1 

APPENDIX B—ORLANDO SANFORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OPERATOR SITE 

VISIT QUESTIONS

B.1 INTRODUCTION. 

Researchers performed a site visit to Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB) Site on March 

7, 2013. Below are the researchers’ questions and the SFB airport operator’s responses. 

B.2 SITE VISIT QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES. 

1. What areas on the airport were affected by the construction project? 

Extended RWY 27R, TWY B and TWY C. Added a cul-de-sac in both directions on the 

highway at the RWY 27R end. 

RWY 9L – New ILS, glideslope moved 75 feet north of runway 

RWY 27R – upgraded ILS, Glideslope moved to the southside of the runway 

2. Was the construction activity planned through project phasing, if so what did the phases 

consist of? 

Yes. Refer to Phases on maps. 

3. Are safety meeting held (weekly, bi-weekly)? 

Held every week or when necessary. If a meeting that deals with signage or markings 

Tower personnel, contractor and engineer attends meeting. 

4. Are the construction contractor’s responsibilities defined?

Yes in the safety security plan. 

5. Are there copies of the Construction Safety and Phasing Plan and Safety Plan 

Compliance Document? Where are they located? 

Yes. The Vice President of Operations and Maintenance, ASC has a copy. 

6. How does the airport restrict movement of the construction vehicles and personnel (e.g., 

barricading, erecting temporary fencing or providing escorts)? 

The airport authority does not allow anyone on the movement area unless they are 

escorted by the airport authority. The following have access to the movement area: 

Airport Operations, Airport Maintenance, ARRF, NWS (long term people) and FAA 

Tech Ops assigned to the airport. 

7. Does the Safety Plan Compliance Document include any supplemental information that 

could not be included in the CSPP prior to the contract award? If there was no 
B-2 

supplemental information is necessary for any specific subject, is the statement “No 

supplemental information” written after the corresponding subject title? 

The Safety Plan Compliance Document does not include any supplemental information 

that could not be included in the CSPP prior to the contract award. The statement “No 

supplemental information” is not written in the corresponding subject title. 

8. As for runway and taxiway visual aids, what equipment and methods were used for 

covering the signage and airfield lights? Equipment and methods for temporary closure 

markings (paint, fabric, other)? 

Black Visqueen Plastic is duck taped around signs. During this construction project there 

were no lights that needed to be covered. In a previous construction project PVC pipe 

was placed over the lights.

As for temporary markings – chevrons were used on RWY 27R. For the first couple of 

days, snow fencing was used, but because of the winds and jet blast from the aircraft 

moved the chevrons. The contractor would have to move the snow fence back into 

position whenever it was not in the appropriate place. After a couple of days of this 

happening, the contractor suggested painting the chevrons on the RWY and to apply half 

application of paint. 

9. As for protection of runway and taxiway safety areas including object free areas, 

obstacle free zones and approach/departure surfaces, what equipment or methods were 

used for maintaining the Taxiway Safety Area Standards? What methods were used to 

identify, demarcate, and protect airport surface including: equipment and methods for 

separation of construction operations from aircraft operations, including details of 

barricades? 

If the contractor needs to work in the safety area, the airport authority closes that area 

until they complete the job.

10. Construction safety drawings? If so, do they specifically indicate operational safety 

procedures and methods in affected areas for each construction phase? 

The airport authority has construction safety drawings. 

11. Vehicle and Pedestrian Operations—how does the airport keep people and vehicles from 

areas off the airport where they don’t belong (i.e., what mechanisms prevent construction 

vehicles and workers from traveling to and from the worksite from unauthorized entry 

into the movement areas)? 

Ops or maintenance escorts the vehicles.

12. What type of markings and signs are used for the access routes? 
B-3/B-4 

Construction folding horse with red flashing light outlines the access routes for the 

contractor. Contractor picks out signage to use for haul route. Airport authority approves 

it. No specific amount of distance between each signage. Contractor will have a meeting 

prior to using haul route and will go over what they plan to mark out route and location of 

route. For first drive through route all contractors follow the main driver to get accustom 

to where to go and what the marking and signs that they need to follow. 

13. Is there a location of stockpiled construction materials? If so where? Height 

restrictions?

Heights are based on location. Location not in the Part 77 surfaces.

14. Runway (RWY) and Taxiway (TWY) visual aids—were there any temporary RWY and 

TWY marking, lighting, signs and visual navigational aids required for construction? 

Were any existing marking, lighting, signs and visual aids that are temporarily, altered, 

obliterated, or shut down? 

There were no temporary signs used during this construction project. 

There are temporary runway threshold lights. New PAPIs installed on 27R 

For the Flight Check that will take place on April 1st plywood will be painted white to 

represent temporary threshold. 

B.3 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. 

What visual aids/markings does the airport prefer to use? 

Barricades work best especially with solar powered lights. Those lights work best. 

Contractor and Ops checks to make sure lights work at night. Barricades are filled with 

water. 

Other visual aids/ markings airport uses are lighted X’s and construction cones. 

When did this construction project begin? 

August 6, 2012. 

During this construction project, besides using the current visual aids/markings would 

there be any additional visual aids that could’ve been used? 

TORA sign.
C-1 

APPENDIX C—VALKARIA AIRPORT OPERATOR SITE VISIT QUESTIONS

C.1 INTRODUCTION. 

Researchers performed a site visit to Valkaria Airport (X59) on March 8, 2013. Below are the 

researchers’ questions and the X59 airport operator’s responses. 

C.2 SITE VISIT QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES. 

1. What areas on the airport were affected by the construction project? 

Entire airfield. 

Constructing a new TWY parallel to RWY 14/32, this will be known as TWY Alpha. 

TWY Alpha will be 25 feet in width. 

Pond project this will also serve as a storm water drainage (off airfield) – Removed trees 

to create a pond. This project is tied in the Apron project

Old Runway that was used during WWII located in the infield adjacent to RWY 10/28 

removing the rock and using it for the BMX track in park area (off airport). 

2. Was the construction activity planned through project phasing, if so what did the phases 

consist of? 

Yes, see phasing plans from copies of CSPP 

3. Are safety meeting held (weekly, bi-weekly)? 

Every Thursday. There are three projects occurring at the same time. The timeframe of 

the meetings range from 1-2 hours depending what is being covered on the agenda. 

4. Are the construction contractor’s responsibilities defined? 

Yes

5. Are there copies of the Construction Safety and Phasing Plan and Safety Plan 

Compliance Document? Where are they located? 

Yes. A copy is located on the table in the Airport Administration office and the Resident 

Project Representative has a copy.

6. How does the airport restrict movement of the construction vehicles and personnel (e.g., 

barricading, erecting temporary fencing or providing escorts)? 

The Superintendent is escorted on the airfield. While on the airfield, Airport Ops informs 

the Superintendent about the safety aspects of the airport. Furthermore, airport layout is 

discussed such as Runway and Taxiway intersections and boundaries of construction 

areas. The Superintendent is escorted on the airfield for about a week or two in order for 
C-2 

him/her to become familiar with the layout. The Superintendent in turn instructs his/her 

employees when driving on the airfield where they are supposed to be and where the 

danger areas are. 

7. Does the Safety Plan Compliance Document include any supplemental information that 

could not be included in the CSPP prior to the contract award? If there was no 

supplemental information is necessary for any specific subject, is the statement “No 

supplemental information” written after the corresponding subject title? 

The Safety Plan Compliance Document does not include any supplemental information 

that could not be included in the CSPP prior to the contract award. 

8. As for Runway and taxiway visual aids, what equipment and methods were used for 

covering the signage and airfield lights? Equipment and methods for temporary closure 

markings (paint, fabric, other)? 

Black tarp was used, but at this time all, the signs are removed from the construction site. 

9. As for protection of runway and taxiway safety areas including object free areas, 

obstacle free zones and approach/departure surfaces, what equipment or methods were 

used for maintaining the Taxiway Safety Area Standards? What methods were used to 

identify, demarcate, and protect airport surface including: equipment and methods for 

separation of construction operations from aircraft operations, including details of 

barricades? 

Orange cones are placed in those areas. If the orange cones need to be moved, Airport 

personnel will discuss with the Superintendent in that area the reason for them being 

moved and he/she will inform the rest of the construction workers. The airport believes 

that education is key for a successful construction project. 

 

10. Were construction safety drawings provided? If so, do they specifically indicate 

operational safety procedures and methods in affected areas for each construction 

phase? 

Yes, the airport has these drawings.

11. Vehicle and Pedestrian Operations – How does the airport keep people and vehicles from 

areas of the airport where they do not belong (i.e., what mechanisms prevent 

construction vehicles and workers from traveling to and from the worksite from 

unauthorized entry into the movement areas)? 

The construction workers stay in their vehicles all day. During lunch, the construction 

workers stay by their vehicles and do not leave the airfield. At the end of the day, the 

construction vehicles are escorted off the airfield and left in the staging area overnight. 
C-3 

When a construction vehicle needs to enter the airfield, the construction vehicle waits at 

the gate on the ramp and waits until the flagger to signal him/her to enter onto the ramp 

and go to the construction area. When the construction vehicle is ready to leave the 

airfield, the construction vehicle stops in a specific area on the ramp and waits for the 

flagger to signal him/her to proceed off the ramp out the gate. 

12. What type of markings and signs are used for the access routes? 

Orange cones mark out the haul route. Haul route or any other areas that the construction 

vehicles transition onto, the airport requires a dirt ramp for the construction vehicles to go 

onto when entering the paved surfaces. The dirt is spread onto a portion of the pavement. 

This helps distribute the load of the vehicle to help prevent divots on the paved surfaces 

that are closed. 

13. Is there a location of stockpiled construction materials? If so where? Height 

restrictions?

Behind the hangars which will be used for another project. The stockpile does not 

impede any of the surfaces or the building restriction line (BRL). The stockpile is one 

foot under the transitional surface. 

There are stockpiles in-between the fence line and RWY 14/32. The stockpiles are 

removed no later than Friday of each week. The height they can go up to in that area is 

very low NTE 5Ft AGL. 

14. Runway (RWY) and Taxiway (TWY) visual aids—were there any temporary RWY and 

TWY marking, lighting, signs and visual navigational aids required for construction? 

Were any existing marking, lighting, signs and visual aids that are temporarily, altered, 

obliterated, or shut down? 

There were no temporary rwy and twy marking, lighting, signs and visual NAVAIDS 

required for construction. There were no existing marking, lighting, signs and visual aids 

that were temporarily, altered, obliterated, or shut down. 

C.3 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. 

When did the construction of TWY A start? 

January 6, 2013 completion date June 2013 

What types of visual aids are used during the construction projects? 

RWY 14/32 is closed – There is a lighted ‘X’ placed on the numbers of the RWY, a 

couple of hundred feet past the numbers a yellow fabric ‘X’ is placed out on the 

centerline with sandbags for weight on each corner. Barricades with red solar colored 

lights are placed down further on the RWY. 
C-4 

Lights on Lighted ‘X’ are off during the day; the lights are turned on during the hours of 

5pm – 8am. 

When a new NOTAM is disseminated, as a courtesy, Airport Ops calls Florida Institute 

of Technology (FIT), FlightSafety, Chief Pilots and Safety Officers and inform these 

groups about the NOTAM. In addition to this, the NOTAM is faxed to all the groups to 

keep them updated on the construction changes at the airport. 

Comment made by airport operator about NOTAMS: digital format that commercial 

airlines review if there is a new NOTAM (less than 48 hrs old) it should be eye catching 

to them. Possibly a different color. 

Sweeper is used to clean debris on ramp during the day. All construction equipment have 

an orange and white checkered flag. 

As for a potential safety orange visual aid airport operator liked the TORA sign. 
D-1/D-2 

APPENDIX D—SAFETY ORANGE PRESENTATION SLIDE COMMENT FORM

Before the simulated runs, the researchers briefed the pilots on the early stage signs via a slide 

presentation. The researchers collected the pilots’ feedback on the signs in the following 

evaluation form, figure D-1. 

Early Stages - Signs

APPENDIX A—

Safety Orange Construction Signs during Airport Construction

Presentation Slide Comments

Name: Date: 

Additional Signs Tested in Field not Shown in AFTIL

Figure D-1. Safety Orange Presentation Slide Comment Form
E-1/E-2 

APPENDIX E—CHARACTER COLOR AND LEGEND HEIGHT EVALUATION

Researchers evaluated the character color and legend height on proposed safety orange 

construction warning signs. They provided their feedback on the following form, figure E-1. 

After evaluating the character colors that consists of two different heights on sign complete all of 

the following questions 

1. At what distance did the sign become conspicuous? (top line)

2. At what distance did the sign become conspicuous? (bottom line)

3. Against the orange background, which color character do you prefer? Why?

4. Other comments?

Safety Orange Construction Signs during Airport Construction

Color Character and Height Evaluation 

Name: Date: 

Figure E-1. Character Color and Legend Height Evaluation Comment Form
F-1 

APPENDIX F—PILOT EVALUATION AIRWAY FACILITIES TOWER INTEGRATON 

LABORATORY

Researchers worked with the Airway Facilities Tower Integration Laboratory to simulate several 

signs prior to field evaluations. Pilots evaluated computer-generated runs in a simulator. The 

runs included various types and locations of construction signage. Pilots validated the message 

on several safety orange construction signs and whether they preferred the black or white color 

character legend against the orange background and provided their feedback on the following 

form, figure 1. 

After completing each run complete all of the following questions regarding specific signs in 

each run.

Run 1

Airport and control familiarization. No questions for this run. 

Run 2 - Day

What does the message on the sign located on TWY B tell you? Was it easy to interpret? What 

do you think of the message on the sign? 

Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? Does the location of the sign need improvement? If so 

how? 

What does the message on the sign located on TWY B2 tell you? Was it easy to interpret? What 

do you think of the message on the sign? 

Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? Does the location of the sign need improvement? If so 

how? 

Run 2a – Sign Comparison 

After observing signs that either have black or white characters on TWY B2, which color 

character do you prefer? Why?

Safety Orange Construction Signs during Airport Construction

Name: Date: 

Pilot Category: GA CORP COMM
F-2 

Run 3 – Night

Did night time conditions impact the noticeability of the sign? If Yes, how so?

Run 5 - Night

Did night time conditions impact the noticeability of the sign? If Yes, how so?

Run 5a - Sign Comparison 

After observing signs that either have black or white characters on TWY B2, which color 

character do you prefer? Why?

Run 6 - Day

What does the message on the sign located on TWY E3 tell you? Was it easy to interpret? What 

do you think of the message on the sign? 

Run 4 - Day

What does the message on the sign located on TWY B tell you? Was it easy to interpret? What 

do you think of the message on the sign? 

Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? Does the location of the sign need improvement? If so 

how? 

Compared to the Construction Ahead sign in the previous run, which message do you prefer and 

why?

What does the message on the sign located on TWY B2 tell you? Was it easy to interpret? What 

do you think of the message on the sign? 

Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? Does the location of the sign need improvement? If so 

how? 

Compared to the TORA sign in the previous run, which message do you prefer and why?
F-3/F-4 

Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? Does the location of the sign need improvement? If so 

how? 

Run 7 - Day

Did you notice the sign prior to stopping? How does this location compare to the previous 

location of the sign? 

Figure F-1. Airway Facilities Tower Integration Laboratory Pilot Evaluation Form 
G-1 

APPENDIX G—LONG ISLAND MacARTHUR AIRPORT VEHICLE OPERATOR 

EVALUATION

G.1 INTRODUCTION. 

Airport evaluations were performed to validate the effectiveness of the safety orange signs as to 

whether the addition of the signs increased the pilots and vehicle operators’ awareness of 

construction while operating on the airfield. In addition to the visual aids currently being used 

by the airport operators, researchers installed one or more of the following safety orange 

construction signs: CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and/or CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP at Long 

Island MacArthur Airport (ISP). Figures G-1 through G-4 show the forms that were 

disseminated among vehicle operators and pilots at ISP to evaluate the signage under testing.

Figure G-1. Vehicle Operator Evaluation Form for ISP
G-2 

Figure G-2. Pilot Evaluation Form for ISP—Hard Copy 
G-3 

Figure G-3. Pilot Evaluation for ISP—Electronic Form
G-4 

Figure G-4. Pilot Evaluation for ISP—Electronic Form, Page 2
H-1 

APPENDIX H—THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN STATE AIRPORT VEHICLE OPERATOR 

EVALUATION

Airport evaluations were performed to validate the effectiveness of the safety orange signs as to 

whether the addition of the signs increased the pilots and vehicle operators’ awareness of 

construction while operating on the airfield. In addition to the visual aids currently being used 

by the airport operators, researchers installed one or more of the following safety orange 

construction signs: CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and/or CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP at 

Theodore Francis Green State Airport (PVD). Figures H-1 through H-4 show the forms that 

were disseminated among vehicle operators and pilots at PVD to evaluate the signage under 

testing.

Figure H-1. Vehicle Operator Evaluation Form for PVD
H-2 

Figure H-2. Pilot Evaluation Form for PVD—Hard Copy 
H-3 

Figure H-3. Pilot Evaluation for PVD—Electronic Form
H-4 

Figure H-4. Pilot Evaluation for PVD—Electronic Form, Page 2 
I-1 

APPENDIX I—CHICAGO O’HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VEHICLE OPERATOR 

EVALUATION

Airport evaluations were performed to validate the effectiveness of the safety orange signs as to 

whether the addition of the signs increased the pilots and vehicle operators’ awareness of 

construction while operating on the airfield. In addition to the visual aids currently being used 

by the airport operators, researchers installed one or more of the following safety orange 

construction signs: CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and/or CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP at 

Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD). Figures I-1 through I-4 show the forms that were 

disseminated among vehicle operators and pilots at ORD to evaluate the signage under testing. 

Figure I-1. Vehicle Operator Evaluation Form for ORD
I-2 

Figure I-2. Pilot Evaluation Form for ORD—Hard Copy 
I-3 

Figure I-3. Pilot Evaluation for ORD—Electronic Form 
I-4 

Figure I-4. Pilot Evaluation for ORD—Electronic Form, Page 2 
J-1 

APPENDIX J—PORTLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VEHICLE OPERATOR 

EVALUATION

Airport evaluations were performed to validate the effectiveness of the safety orange signs as to 

whether the addition of the signs increased the pilots and vehicle operators’ awareness of 

construction while operating on the airfield. In addition to the visual aids currently being used 

by the airport operators, researchers installed one or more of the following safety orange 

construction signs: CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and/or CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP at 

Portland International Airport (PDX). Figures J-1 through J-4 show the forms that were 

disseminated among vehicle operators and pilots at PDX to evaluate the signage under testing. 

Name:__________________________ Date:________________________________

Time (Local):____________________ Visibility:____________________________

Please read each question as it relates to the effectiveness of the safety orange construction signs to increase the awareness of 

pilots and vehicle operators to existing construction on the airfield as a supplement to the visual aids that are being used.

1. Which location did you observe a safety orange construction sign at PDX?

________ Taxiway (TWY) C between TWY C5 and TWY C6

________ TWY E5 north side of taxiway

2. The sign was conspicuous.

 Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree 

3. The sign was comprehensible at an adequate distance.

 Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree

4. The sign adequately notified me of the existing construction.

 Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree

 5. Comments:

Return the completed survey to: Tom Horton, C.M., ACE, Airside Operations Planner; e-mail 

Thomas.Horton@portofportland.com

If you mail the hard copy send it to the following address:

Tom Horton, C.M., ACE

Portland International Airport

PO Box 3529 

Portland, OR 97208

Figure J-1. Vehicle Operator Evaluation Form for PDX
J-2 

PDX SAFETY ORANGE CONSTRUCTION SIGNS PILOT EVALUATION

Name:__________________________ Date:________________________________

Time (Local):____________________ Visibility:____________________________

Type of aircraft:_______________________________________________

Please read each question as it relates to the effectiveness of the safety orange construction signs to increase the 

awareness of pilots and vehicle operators to existing construction on the airfield as a supplement to the visual aids 

that are being used.

1. Which location did you observe a safety orange construction sign at PDX? 

________ Taxiway (TWY) C between TWY C5 and TWY C6

________ TWY E5 north side of taxiway

2. The sign was conspicuous.

 Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree 

3. The sign was comprehensible at an adequate distance.

 Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree 

4. The sign adequately notified me of the existing construction.

 Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree 

 5. Comments:

Return the completed survey to: Tom Horton, C.M., ACE, Airside Operations Planner; e-mail 

Thomas.Horton@portofportland.com

If you mail the hard copy send it to the following address:

Tom Horton, C.M., ACE

Portland International Airport

PO Box 3529 

Portland, OR 97208

Figure J-2. Pilot Evaluation Form for PDX—Hard Copy 
J-3 

Figure J-3. Pilot Evaluation for PDX—Electronic Form 
J-4 

Figure J-4. Pilot Evaluation for PDX—Electronic Form, Page 2 
K-1 

APPENDIX K—ORLANDO SANFORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT VEHICLE 

OPERATOR EVALUATION

Airport evaluations were performed to validate the effectiveness of the safety orange signs as to 

whether the addition of the signs increased the pilots and vehicle operators’ awareness of 

construction while operating on the airfield. In addition to the visual aids currently being used 

by the airport operators, researchers installed one or more of the following safety orange 

construction signs: CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and/or CONSTRUCTION ON RAMP at 

Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB). Figures K-1 through K-4 show the forms that 

were disseminated among vehicle operators and pilots at SFB to evaluate the signage under 

testing.

Figure K-1. Vehicle Operator Evaluation Form for SFB 
K-2 

Figure K-2. Pilot Evaluation Form for SFB—Hard Copy 
K-3 

Figure K-3. Pilot Evaluation for SFB—Electronic Form 
K-4 

Figure K-4. Pilot Evaluation for SFB—Electronic Form, Page 2 
L-1 

APPENDIX L—JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EVALUATION

Researchers installed one or more of the following safety orange construction signs: 

CONSTRUCTION AHEAD and/or TAKEOFF RUN AVAILABLE at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport (JFK). The following form (figures L-1 through L-5) was disseminated via 

hard copy among vehicle operators and pilots at JFK to evaluate the signage under testing. 

Figure L-1. Pilot and Vehicle Operator Evaluation Form for JFK, Page 1 
L-2 

Figure L-2. Pilot and Vehicle Operator Evaluation Form for JFK, Page 2 
L-3 

Figure L-3. Pilot and Vehicle Operator Evaluation Form for JFK, Page 3 
L-4 

Figure L-4. Pilot and Vehicle Operator Evaluation Form for JFK, Page 4
L-5/L-6 

Figure L-5. Pilot and Vehicle Operator Evaluation Form for JFK, Page 5