|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 12, 2021 20:56:19 GMT 12
This photo was posted to the RNZAF's Facebook page on the 7th of December. I noticed the colour scheme of the hangar has changed. It looks great, but I am wondering when and why this was done? Is it for decoration only? Or a safety feature? Have the other hangars been painted with chequers too?  |
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Dec 13, 2021 6:34:10 GMT 12
The front of 40 Sqn's hangar impinges or encroaches into the minimum distance from the existing runway under the current rules (ICAO). Not a consideration in the 1940's, however compliance with current regulations now requires the marking of obstacles etc. See below:
"The checkered marking of obstacles at airports is a world-wide conventional procedure adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), based on long-standing civil and military aviation procedures. Any obstacle located near a runway or flight path at an airport should be marked with these patterns and/or with warning lights during darkness.
The ICAO Manual of Aerodrome Standards: Aerodrome Design and Operations specifies: (6.2.3) An object shall be coloured to show a chequered pattern if it has essentially unbroken surfaces and its projection on any vertical plane equals or exceeds 4.5 m in both dimensions. The pattern shall consist of rectangles of not less than 1.5 m and not more than 3 m on a side, the corners being of the darker colour. The colours of the pattern shall contrast each with the other and with the background against which they will be seen. Orange and white or alternatively red and white shall be used, except where such colours merge with the background..."
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwined on Dec 13, 2021 6:47:56 GMT 12
If someone cant see a building that size even without the red and white checkers then something is seriously wrong. Lotta love the B/S rules. Has been there for decades and now all of a sudden its a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 13, 2021 7:11:30 GMT 12
Well, in their defence, a bomber did fly into it once, so.....
|
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Dec 13, 2021 7:15:07 GMT 12
If someone cant see a building that size even without the red and white checkers then something is seriously wrong. Lotta love the B/S rules. Has been there for decades and now all of a sudden its a problem. "The checkered marking of obstacles at airports is a world-wide conventional procedure adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), based on long-standing civil and military aviation procedures. Any obstacle located near a runway or flight path at an airport should be marked with these patterns and/or with warning lights during darkness. Perhaps another way to look at it is the Air Force and RNZAF Whenuapai might have been considered negligent and culpable in not ensuring that as an international airport they had not been ICAO compliant for a number of years, and taking a responsible approach, effected the required ICAO markings during the planned maintenance painting program. You may also notice that when they rebuilt the runways and extended the taxiways a few years ago, the new 'Taxiway A' extension has a 'kink' in it to ensure the new taxiway complied with the minimum separation distance required between the runway and taxiway. Not really BS, just practical application of the rules to ensure international compliance and everyone's safety on a 80 year old airfield - you're welcome...   |
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Dec 13, 2021 7:56:46 GMT 12
Well, in their defence, a bomber did fly into it once, so..... So have they painted the roof with red and white checks? |
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Dec 13, 2021 8:00:07 GMT 12
Well, in their defence, a bomber did fly into it once, so..... So have they painted the roof with red and white checks? Lol they would need a lot of paint for that, and anyway the roof falls 'outside' the minimum distance requirements for marking.  |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 26, 2022 15:57:31 GMT 12
so why arn't the doors painted as well then, they miust be bigger than 4.5 x 4.5
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jan 31, 2022 18:44:04 GMT 12
The hangar is at an angle to the runway, I assume only the corner is 'too close'.
|
|
|
|
Post by planewriting on Jan 31, 2022 19:34:04 GMT 12
so why aren't the doors painted as well then, they must be bigger than 4.5 x 4.5 The Hercules is also an obstacle so perhaps that should be painted too... It is just as vulnerable as it is located closer to the runway than the hangar and actually serves as a buffer for anything coming at the hangar at ground level. |
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Jan 31, 2022 19:47:39 GMT 12
so why aren't the doors painted as well then, they must be bigger than 4.5 x 4.5 The Hercules is also an obstacle so perhaps that should be painted too... It is just as vulnerable as it is located closer to the runway than the hangar and actually serves as a buffer for anything coming at the hangar at ground level. Something like this...     |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Feb 14, 2022 16:41:56 GMT 12
Old take on a current theme: /https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/BombsAway5.jpg) |
|
