Back to Webletter

    In our first day of our Airfield Marking Symposiums, I take the time to address some common misconceptions prevalent in our industry - marking myths, if you will. These myths are in large part responsible for why airport markings are not as good as they should and could be. Today, I'm busting the myth, "Airfield markings provide the same level of safety for pilots as highway markings do for drivers":

    I have this curse: I notice the pavement markings everywhere I go. On the highways, on the jogging path, when crossing the street... poor markings are my kryptonite. It's this curse (and apparently it's hereditary) that has landed me where I am today as a consultant for airport markings; so it's not all bad!

    You see, I used to be a highway striping contractor and painted the occasional airport. The airport world was vastly different, both in terms of traffic and the relatively controlled environment. Perhaps the most alarming difference was the quality of the markings themselves. Airfield markings, generally speaking, were (and still are) far less visible during darkness than highway markings. That fact struck me as being totally contrary to my expectations; and then my inquisitive side started wondering how it could be improved. Sightline was born.

    For highways, the Federal Highway Association and the many State Departments of Transportation are focused on safety for the millions of drivers traveling highways and byways every day. Performance criteria are defined in detail and are routinely monitored as part of normal operations. With baselines for minimum standards and life expectancies on the roads, these agencies can objectively determine whether pavement marking systems are appropriate and when they require maintenance.

    For airports, the Federal Aviation Administration and the many Part 139 Certificated airports are also focused on safety for their users. However, unlike the highways, models for performance criteria, minimum standards, and life expectancy of pavement markings are not currently defined.

    Per 14 CFR Part 139.311 (d), "each certificate holder… must properly maintain each marking, sign, or lighting system… ensuring that each item provides an accurate reference to the user”. Airport operations personnel are typically responsible for determining if the markings are performing appropriately and conveying accurate information to users. However, without objective performance criteria defined, it's practically impossible to maintain an appropriate standard airport-wide, let alone industry-wide.

    As a result, airports tend to rely too heavily on annual FAA inspections to judge whether the facility is compliant, pavement markings included. So if the FAA doesn't cite the airport for deficient markings, the airport assumes they're fine. FAA inspectors would be the first to tell you that is not an appropriate assumption.

    Based on Marking Condition Indexes of thousands of airfield markings during our audits, we can conclude that a significant percentage of airside markings are inadequate for safe navigation during all conditions. Our pilots and users on the ground deserve better. Once airports recognize markings as more than "just paint”, perhaps this myth can be busted. Until then, airside markings have a long way to go to compete with landside, and I will live on with my curse.

Back to Webletter