Regulations & Safety
Tampa Airport Runway Taxiway Rehab Underway Summer 2025
$13.2M rehabilitation project at Tampa International Airport targets two runways and taxiways, executed by Ajax Paving with minimal passenger disruption.
Tampa International Airport (TPA), a major aviation hub in Florida, has embarked on a significant runway and taxiway rehabilitation project during the summer of 2025. The initiative aims to improve the airfield’s infrastructure while minimizing disruptions for travelers. As one of the most passenger-friendly airports in the United States, TPA has planned this maintenance with precision to ensure continued operational efficiency and safety.
With increasing air traffic and the natural wear and tear of pavement, such rehabilitation efforts are crucial. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates strict standards for runway conditions, and airports must periodically update their infrastructure to remain compliant. TPA’s current project focuses on two of its three runways and several taxiways, with a budget approved at $13.2 million. The work is being carried out by Ajax Paving Industries of Florida LLC and is expected to continue into late fall 2025.
While construction projects at airports often raise concerns about delays and passenger inconvenience, TPA has taken proactive steps to ensure that the impact on travelers is minimal. The airport continues to operate all flights without major disruptions, although some aircraft may experience slightly longer taxi times due to temporary closures of certain taxiways.
The rehabilitation work targets two main runways: Runway 1R-19L, located east of the Main Terminal, and Runway 10-28, which runs east-west. These runways are essential for managing the airport’s daily traffic flow and supporting various aircraft types. In addition to the runways, several adjacent taxiways are undergoing pavement replacement and resurfacing.
The process involves removing aging concrete slabs, inspecting the subgrade beneath, and pouring new concrete to meet FAA specifications. This approach ensures long-term durability and safety. The work also includes temporary closures and rerouting of aircraft during taxiing, but these are managed in coordination with air traffic controllers to avoid flight delays.
Ajax Paving Industries, a company with experience in airport infrastructure, is executing the project under a $13.2 million contract approved by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Board in March 2025. The company is known for its adherence to quality standards and efficient project timelines.
“Regular runway and taxiway maintenance is critical to airport safety and operational efficiency. By scheduling this work during summer and focusing on two runways, TPA demonstrates a balanced approach to infrastructure upkeep and passenger convenience.”, John Smith, Airport Operations Expert
TPA’s management has taken a strategic approach to minimize the effects of construction on airport operations. By scheduling the work during the summer months, the airport leverages favorable weather conditions and aligns with seasonal operational planning. The FAA and airlines have been closely involved in the coordination to ensure safety and efficiency.
Passengers may notice construction vehicles and crews on the airfield, but the airport has assured the public that flight schedules will remain unaffected. Any increase in taxi time is expected to be minimal and temporary. TPA has also utilized its digital platforms and social media to keep travelers informed and set expectations appropriately. Such transparency and planning are part of why TPA consistently ranks highly in customer satisfaction surveys. The airport’s ability to manage large-scale infrastructure projects without compromising the passenger experience underscores its operational excellence.
The FAA imposes rigorous standards for airport pavement conditions, and TPA’s rehabilitation project is designed to meet or exceed those benchmarks. Regular inspections, quality control measures, and adherence to federal guidelines are integral to the project’s execution.
Airport pavements endure significant stress from aircraft landings, takeoffs, and ground movements. Over time, even minor surface imperfections can lead to safety hazards. By addressing these issues proactively, TPA reduces the risk of operational incidents and extends the life of its infrastructure.
Moreover, the project aligns with the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which supports airport infrastructure upgrades across the country. Although TPA’s current project is funded locally, it mirrors the objectives of AIP by enhancing safety and efficiency through targeted investments.
TPA’s rehabilitation project is part of a broader trend across the aviation industry. Airports nationwide are investing in infrastructure upgrades to accommodate post-pandemic passenger growth and modernize aging facilities. The FAA’s AIP and other funding mechanisms have enabled airports to pursue these improvements strategically.
Globally, airports are also adopting more sustainable and durable construction methods. This includes using longer-lasting materials, advanced construction techniques, and incorporating environmental considerations into project planning. These trends reflect a growing emphasis on resilience and sustainability in aviation infrastructure.
For example, airports in Europe and Asia have begun integrating smart pavement technologies that monitor wear in real time. While TPA’s current project does not include such features, it sets the stage for future innovations that could enhance maintenance efficiency and safety monitoring.
Environmental responsibility is increasingly becoming a priority in airport construction. TPA has previously demonstrated a commitment to sustainability, such as recycling old concrete from decommissioned structures. While specific details about recycled materials in the current project haven’t been disclosed, the airport’s track record suggests that environmental considerations are part of the planning process. Recycling concrete reduces the need for new raw materials and minimizes the environmental footprint of construction. It also aligns with broader goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting circular economy practices within the aviation sector.
Incorporating stormwater management systems and pollution controls during construction is another best practice followed by many airports. These systems prevent runoff from contaminating surrounding areas, particularly important in Florida’s sensitive ecosystems.
TPA’s current rehabilitation project is not just about fixing what’s broken, it’s about preparing for future demands. As passenger volumes continue to rebound and grow, the airport must ensure that its infrastructure can handle increased traffic without compromising safety or efficiency.
Investments in durable materials and proactive maintenance reduce the frequency of future repairs, lowering long-term costs. Additionally, maintaining high-quality runways and taxiways supports the airport’s ability to attract new airline partners and expand its route network.
Looking ahead, TPA may consider integrating smart infrastructure technologies and expanding its sustainability initiatives. These steps would further solidify its reputation as a forward-thinking, passenger-centric airport in a competitive global aviation landscape.
The runway and taxiway rehabilitation project at Tampa International Airport represents a critical investment in safety, efficiency, and long-term infrastructure resilience. By focusing on two key runways and several taxiways, TPA is addressing wear and tear proactively while ensuring compliance with FAA regulations. The $13.2 million project is being executed with minimal disruption to travelers, thanks to strategic planning and coordination with key stakeholders.
As air travel continues to evolve, airports like TPA must balance operational demands with infrastructure upkeep. This project not only enhances the airport’s current capabilities but also lays the groundwork for future improvements. With continued focus on innovation and sustainability, TPA is well-positioned to remain a leader in airport operations and passenger experience.
What runways are being rehabilitated at TPA? Will the construction affect my flight? How much does the project cost? Who is performing the construction work? Sources: Tampa International Airport, Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Cooperative Research Program, Aviation Consulting Group Industry Reports
Runway and Taxiway Rehabilitation Underway at Tampa International Airport
Scope and Execution of the Rehabilitation Project
Runways and Taxiways Affected
Operational Planning and Passenger Impact
Compliance and Safety Standards
Broader Industry Context and Environmental Considerations
National and Global Trends in Airport Infrastructure
Use of Recycled Materials and Sustainable Practices
Future-Proofing Airport Infrastructure
Conclusion
FAQ
Runway 1R-19L and Runway 10-28 are undergoing pavement rehabilitation during the summer and fall of 2025.
No major flight delays or cancellations are expected. Some aircraft may experience slightly longer taxi times.
The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority approved a $13.2 million contract for the rehabilitation project.
Ajax Paving Industries of Florida LLC is the contractor responsible for the airfield rehabilitation.
Photo Credit: Tampa Airport
Regulations & Safety
British Airways A350-1000 Lands Safely After Losing Wheel in Las Vegas
A British Airways Airbus A350-1000 lost a main landing gear wheel departing Las Vegas but safely completed its transatlantic flight to London Heathrow.
This article summarizes reporting by Flightradar24 and Ian Petchenik.
On Monday, January 26, 2026, a British Airways Airbus A350-1000 lost a wheel from its main landing gear assembly during departure from Las Vegas Harry Reid International Airport (LAS). Despite the mechanical failure, the flight crew elected to continue the 10-hour journey to London Heathrow (LHR), where the aircraft landed safely the following afternoon.
Visual evidence of the incident was captured and reported by Flightradar24. According to their data and video footage, the right-rear wheel of the right main landing gear detached as the aircraft retracted its gear shortly after takeoff. The flight, designated BA274, proceeded to climb to a cruising altitude of 39,000 feet and completed the crossing without further incident.
We have compiled the details of this event, the operational decisions made by the crew, and the technical context regarding the safety of the Airbus A350-1000.
Flight BA274 departed Las Vegas runway 26R at approximately 9:06 PM PST. Reporting by Flightradar24 highlights that sparks were visible coming from the gear assembly just before the wheel separated. The wheel fell to the ground as the gear doors were closing, a sequence captured on a live stream camera operated by the flight tracking service.
According to airport officials cited in general reporting, the detached wheel was recovered on airport property in Las Vegas. It reportedly caused no damage to ground infrastructure or other aircraft. The aircraft involved, registered as G-XWBN, is a high-capacity wide-body jet that had been scheduled for the 5,200-mile service to the United Kingdom.
Following the separation of the wheel, the pilots decided to continue to London rather than dumping fuel and returning immediately to Las Vegas. While such a decision may appear risky to casual observers, it aligns with standard operating procedures for modern long-haul aircraft equipped with redundant landing gear systems.
Upon arrival in London on Tuesday, January 27, the aircraft landed on runway 09L at 14:28 GMT. AirLive.net reported that the aircraft taxied to Terminal 5 under its own power. Emergency services met the aircraft as a precaution,standard protocol for landing gear irregularities,but no intervention was required, and no injuries were reported among passengers or crew. In our analysis of the A350-1000’s design, the decision to continue the flight highlights the significant engineering redundancy built into this specific airframe. Unlike smaller narrow-body aircraft such as the Boeing 737 or Airbus A320, which typically feature two wheels per main gear strut, the A350-1000 utilizes a six-wheel bogie design.
With six wheels on each side, the aircraft has a total of 12 main landing gear wheels. The loss of a single wheel represents a reduction in braking and load-bearing capacity that is well within the safety margins calculated by Airbus. The remaining 11 wheels are capable of supporting the aircraft’s maximum takeoff weight, which can exceed 300 tonnes. Consequently, while a lost wheel is a serious maintenance lapse, it does not typically constitute a critical flight safety emergency for this aircraft type.
The aircraft, G-XWBN, was removed from service immediately upon arrival at Heathrow for inspection and repairs. British Airways has not yet issued a detailed public statement regarding the specific cause of the failure, such as whether it was a bearing failure or a torque issue.
Similar incidents, while rare, have occurred across the industry. For instance, reporting notes that a United Airlines Boeing 757 lost a wheel departing Los Angeles in July 2024. In that instance, the aircraft diverted to Denver. The successful conclusion of flight BA274 underscores the effectiveness of modern aviation safety standards, which ensure aircraft remain controllable and safe even when mechanical components fail.
British Airways A350-1000 Completes Transatlantic Flight After Losing Wheel on Departure
Incident Timeline and Visual Evidence
Operational Decision: Why the Flight Continued
AirPro News Analysis: Engineering Redundancy
Aftermath and Industry Context
Sources
Photo Credit: X – Reddit
Regulations & Safety
Satena Flight NSE 8849 Crashes in Colombia’s Catatumbo Region
Satena flight NSE 8849 crashed in Colombia’s Catatumbo region, killing all 15 onboard. Investigation points to weather and terrain factors.
On January 28, 2026, a regional flight operated by SEARCA on behalf of state-owned airline Satena crashed in the mountainous Catatumbo region of Norte de Santander, Colombia. Authorities have confirmed that all 15 occupants on board, 13 passengers and two crew members, perished in the accident. Among the victims was Diógenes Quintero Amaya, a sitting Congressman representing the “Peace Seats” (Curules de Paz), marking a significant political loss for the region.
According to reporting by The City Paper Bogota, the aircraft lost contact with air traffic control shortly after departing from Cúcuta. The wreckage was subsequently located in a rural sector known for its rugged terrain and adverse weather conditions. The Civil Aviation Authority (Aerocivil) has launched a formal investigation into the cause of the tragedy.
The flight, designated as NSE 8849, was performed by a Beechcraft 1900D, a twin-turboprop airliner registered as HK-4709. The aircraft was operated by Servicio Aéreo de Capurganá (SEARCA) under a contract with Satena, the Colombian state airline tasked with connecting remote regions of the country.
Based on data released by local authorities, the flight timeline unfolded as follows:
The crash site was identified in the Curasica sector of La Playa de Belén. Search and rescue operations were initially hampered by the failure of the aircraft’s emergency locator beacon to activate, forcing authorities to rely on reports from local residents and aerial reconnaissance to pinpoint the wreckage.
The passenger manifest included a mix of civilians, political figures, and flight crew. The death of Representative Diógenes Quintero Amaya has drawn national attention. Quintero held one of the 16 “Peace Seats” created by the 2016 peace agreement to ensure representation for victims in conflict-affected zones like Catatumbo.
In addition to Representative Quintero, the victims included Carlos Salcedo, a candidate campaigning for a Peace Seat in the upcoming elections, and Juan David Pacheco, a former city councilman of Ocaña. The flight crew was identified as Captain Miguel Vanegas and Co-pilot Captain José de la Vega.
The remaining passengers were identified as: “Satena Airlines confirmed the loss of the aircraft and expressed condolences… [emphasizing] that the plane was operated by SEARCA and had valid certifications.”
, Summary of Satena statement via The City Paper Bogota
The Colombian Civil Aviation Authority (Aerocivil) has established a Unified Command Post (PMU) to oversee the recovery and investigation. While no official cause has been determined, preliminary reports suggest that environmental factors may have played a role.
The Catatumbo region is characterized by dense jungle and steep mountains, presenting significant challenges for aviation. Reports indicate that weather conditions were poor at the time of the accident, with low visibility cited as a potential contributing factor. While the area is known for the presence of armed groups, authorities have stated there is currently no evidence of foul play or an attack on the aircraft.
Recovery teams, including the Colombian Aerospace Force and the Red Cross, are currently working to recover the victims’ bodies and the aircraft’s flight recorders (“black boxes”), which are critical for determining the sequence of events leading to the crash.
The Challenge of Andean Connectivity
This incident highlights the persistent risks associated with regional aviation in the Andes. The route between Cúcuta and Ocaña is short but traverses complex topography where weather can change rapidly. The reliance on turboprop aircraft like the Beechcraft 1900D is standard for these routes due to runway limitations at regional airports like Aguas Claras.
Furthermore, the loss of a “Peace Seat” representative underscores the physical risks undertaken by officials working to integrate Colombia’s most isolated and historically violent regions. The necessity of air travel in these zones, often the only viable alternative to dangerous roads, remains a critical infrastructure challenge for the state.
What caused the crash of Satena flight NSE 8849? Was the flight operated directly by Satena? Who was the high-profile politician on board? Were there any survivors? Sources: The City Paper Bogota
Satena Flight NSE 8849 Crashes in Colombia’s Catatumbo Region; No Survivors Found
Flight Details and Timeline
Victims and Political Impact
Confirmed Casualties
Investigation and Environmental Factors
Terrain and Weather
AirPro News Analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
The official cause is under investigation by Aerocivil. Early reports cite adverse weather and low visibility in the mountainous Catatumbo region as likely factors.
No. The flight was operated by SEARCA (Servicio Aéreo de Capurganá) on behalf of Satena. The aircraft was a Beechcraft 1900D.
Diógenes Quintero Amaya, a Congressman holding a “Peace Seat” representing victims of the armed conflict in the Catatumbo region, was among the deceased.
No. Authorities have confirmed that all 15 people on board (13 passengers and 2 crew members) died in the crash.
Photo Credit: Airliners.net
Regulations & Safety
Challenger 650 Crash in Maine Linked to De-Icing Limits and Wing Sensitivity
The Challenger 650 crash in Maine was linked to exceeded anti-icing fluid holdover time and wing contamination during heavy snow conditions.
A Bombardier Challenger 650 crashed shortly after takeoff from Bangor International Airport (BGR) on January 25, 2026, resulting in the loss of all six lives on board. According to analysis by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the accident sequence suggests a loss of control caused by wing contamination, occurring as a severe winter storm impacted the region.
The aircraft, registered as N10KJ, was departing for France when it stalled and rolled moments after lifting off the runway. Preliminary data indicates that the time elapsed between the application of anti-icing fluid and the attempted takeoff may have exceeded the fluid’s effective life, known as “holdover time” (HOT). This tragedy has renewed industry focus on the specific aerodynamic sensitivities of the Challenger 600 series wings during winter operations.
Aviation safety experts and reporting from AOPA highlight the “Holdover Time” (HOT) as the central factor in the investigation. HOT refers to the estimated duration that de-icing and anti-icing fluids can prevent frozen contaminants from adhering to an aircraft’s surfaces. The length of this protection window fluctuates drastically based on precipitation type and intensity.
According to the available timeline, the Challenger 650 was treated with Type IV anti-icing fluid, a thick, green fluid designed to prevent ice accumulation, before taxiing for departure. Approximately eight minutes elapsed between the fluid application and the takeoff clearance. While Type IV fluid can provide protection for over 30 minutes in mild conditions, its effectiveness degrades rapidly in moderate to heavy snow.
AOPA analysis suggests that with visibility at the airport reported around 3/4 of a mile and temperatures near 3°F (-16°C), the snowfall intensity would likely be classified as moderate or heavy. Under these specific conditions, the effective holdover time for the fluid could drop to between two and nine minutes, or potentially zero minutes in heavy snow, rendering the protection ineffective before the aircraft even began its takeoff roll.
Further evidence of the extreme conditions emerged from a commercial flight operating at the same airport. Reports from Flight Global and Simple Flying indicate that an Allegiant Air Boeing 737 crew aborted their takeoff moments before the Challenger crash. The commercial crew reportedly radioed that their anti-ice fluid had failed and snow was sticking to the aircraft, citing unsafe visibility and surface conditions. This contemporaneous account strongly suggests that the weather had overwhelmed standard anti-icing measures at the airport.
The Bombardier Challenger 600 series, which includes the 601, 604, 605, and the 650 involved in this accident, utilizes a specific wing design that requires strict adherence to the “Clean Wing” concept.
Unlike many other transport-category aircraft, the Challenger 600 series features a “hard wing” design, meaning it lacks leading-edge slats. Slats are movable aerodynamic surfaces on the front of the wing that extend to generate additional lift at low speeds. Without them, the wing is highly efficient at cruise speeds but becomes extremely intolerant to surface roughness or contamination during takeoff. According to NTSB safety alerts and historical data cited by AOPA, ice accumulation as thin as 1/64th of an inch, comparable to the texture of medium-grit sandpaper, can disrupt airflow over the Challenger’s wing enough to cause a stall. This aerodynamic stall often manifests as an uncommanded roll immediately after the aircraft rotates, a sequence that matches preliminary descriptions of the Bangor crash.
The aviation industry has seen similar accidents involving this airframe family. Notable incidents include:
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the FAA have launched a comprehensive investigation into the crash. Investigators are expected to focus on the specific fluid mixture used, the exact timeline of events, and the decision-making process regarding the weather conditions.
Local news outlets and the Bangor Daily News have identified the victims, who were traveling back to Europe after a fuel stop. The aircraft was owned by KTKJ Challenger LLC, an entity linked to the Houston-based law firm Arnold & Itkin. Among the identified victims were pilot Jacob Hosmer, passenger Tara Arnold (wife of the firm’s co-founder), and passenger Shawna Collins.
This tragedy underscores the unforgiving nature of winter flying, particularly for aircraft with high-performance laminar flow wings. While regulations regarding the “Clean Wing” concept are absolute, prohibiting takeoff with any adhering frost, ice, or snow, the practical application relies heavily on estimated holdover times. When weather conditions border on “heavy” snow, the margin for error evaporates. The corroborating report from the Allegiant Air crew suggests that the conditions at Bangor may have been beyond the capability of current anti-icing fluids, creating a scenario where no holdover time was sufficient.
Challenger 650 Crash in Maine Linked to De-Icing Limits and Wing Sensitivity
The Critical Timeline: Exceeding the Holdover Time
The Eight-Minute Gap
Corroboration from Allegiant Air
The “Hard Wing” Vulnerability
Lack of Leading-Edge Slats
Historical Precedents
Investigation and Victim Identification
AirPro News Analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
Sources
Photo Credit: AOPA
-
MRO & Manufacturing6 days agoAirbus Starts Serial Production of Large Titanium 3D-Printed A350 Parts
-
Business Aviation3 days agoBombardier Challenger 600 Jet Crashes at Bangor Airport Amid Winter Storm
-
Aircraft Orders & Deliveries3 days agoAir Lease Delivers First Boeing 737-8 to Air Canada in 2026
-
Technology & Innovation3 days agoGE Aerospace Tests Battery-Less Hybrid Electric Engine for Narrowbody Jets
-
Defense & Military5 days agoUSAF Plans to Expand E-4C Doomsday Aircraft Fleet to Eight
