R-11182013.pdf

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF FALL

PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN HANGAR 2122,

2280 & 3225

Tinker Air Force Base

November 18, 2013

72 ABW/CE

7535 5th St. B/400 Tinker AFB, OK 73145-9010

PREPARED FOR:

LJB Inc.

2500 Newmark Drive Miamisburg, OH 45342

(937) 259-5000

Scott A. Mirizzi, P.E., C.S.P., C.P.E.

SMirizzi@LJBinc.com

PREPARED BY:

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ● TINKER AIR FORCE BASE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

EXISTING CONDITIONS

GENERAL ABATEMENT OPTIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION 1

INTRODUCTION

REQUIRED ACCESS

Maintenance access is required to the fuselage, wing and tail of the following aircraft: B-1, B-52, C- 130, E-3, E-6, KC-135 and the Super Guppy. These aircraft are housed within buildings B2122, B2280 and B3225 at Tinker AFB. Paint removal and painting of aircraft are performed in these buildings. These operations require access the top surface of the fuselage and wings, which exposes workers to significant fall hazards. The process of paint removal and repainting require that any fall protection systems utilized be separate from the aircraft. The systems would, therefore, need to be either ceiling or floor mounted.

OSHA REGULATIONS

The Congressional Accountability Act applies 12 specific laws to the U.S. Congress and its associated agencies. Workplace safety is governed by the adoption of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. In the OSHA Code of Federal Regulations, the subject of fall protection is covered by four main standards:

> Part 1910.21, Subpart D (Walking -Working Surfaces)

> Part 1910.66, Subpart F (Powered Platforms)

> Appendix C to Part 1910.66, Personal Fall Arrest System (Section I-Mandatory)

> Part 1926.50, Subpart M (Fall Protection)

ANSI/ASSE Z359, “FALL PROTECTION CODE”

The ANSI/ASSE Z359, “Fall Protection Code,” is the most recent and relevant series of standards that cover fall protection for general industry. This family of voluntary national consensus standards developed by ANSI and the ASSE provide guidance for fall protection equipment manufacturers, workers at height and their employers.

ANSI/ASSE Z359.2 - 2007, “Minimum Requirements for a Comprehensive Managed Fall Protection Program” promotes the use of the Fall Protection Hierarchy when choosing methods to eliminate or control fall hazards. The methods of Fall Protection Hierarchy in order of preference are:

> Elimination or Substitution - Removal of the hazard or hazardous work practices.

> Passive Fall Protection - Isolation or separation of the hazard or hazardous work practice from employees or others.

> Fall Restraint – Attachment of the Authorized Person to an anchorage using a lanyard short enough to prevent the person's center of gravity from reaching the fall hazard.

> Fall Arrest - A system designed to stop an Authorized Person after a fall has begun.

> Warning and Administrative Controls - Work practices or procedures that reduce the risk of a person falling.

ANSI/ASSE Z359.6 – 2009, “Specifications and Design Requirements for Active Fall Protection Systems” is intended for engineers with expertise designing fall protection systems. It provides clarity to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration's (OSHA) mandate that fall protection systems be “designed, installed and used under the supervision of a qualified person.” It specifies requirements for the design and performance of complete active fall protection systems, including travel restraint and vertical and horizontal fall arrest systems.

INTRODUCTION 2

FALL PROTECTION HIERARCHY

To compare fall hazard abatement alternatives based on their relative residual risk, OSHA and ANSI refer to a concept called the fall protection hierarchy. The possible control methods are ranked in order of increasing residual risk. The purpose of the hierarchy is to provide an order of consideration when possible solutions are being identified for fall hazard abatement. By following the hierarchy of controls in selecting an abatement method, the most effective feasible solution may be implemented.

Some fall protection control methods are considered passive, while others are active. Elimination and engineering controls, which are passive systems, are the most effective since they do not require any specific participation of the worker to function. Passive systems include platforms with guardrail edge protection and either stair or ladder access.

Active systems, on the other hand, require some degree of participation by the worker, ranging from staying away from hazardous areas to conducting equipment inspections and completing attachments for each work activity. Active systems include personal fall arrests system, in which a worker wears a body supporting device attaches to an anchorage using an energy-absorbing lanyard.

It is anticipated that the majority of the fall protection solutions selected for the various maintenance tasks will utilize either guarded platforms or personal fall arrest systems.

EXISTING CONDITIONS 3

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Fall protection systems exist within the buildings included within this project’s scope. However, because the designs and installations were completed prior to implementation of the ANSI/ASSE Z359 “Fall Protection Code” standard Tinker AFB sees a need to update and replace these systems to ensure that they are certified to meet AFOSH, OSHA and ANSI Standards.

BUILDINGS

Building B2122 – Fall protection for access to the aircraft wings and fuselage is provide by a series of horizontal lifelines that are mounted to the underside of the roof structure. In the west bay, two systems are provided for access to the aircraft fuselage and four systems are provided for access to the aircraft wings. In the center bay, a single system is provided over the fuselage and two systems provided for the wings. There are no telescoping platforms in this building.

Building B2280 - Fall protection for access to the aircraft fuselage is provide by a single horizontal lifeline system. Two pairs of horizontal lifeline systems are provided for the aircraft wings.

Telescoping platforms are provided for access to the aircraft fuselage and tail. To prevent interference with the operation of the telescoping platforms the horizontal lifelines over the wings can only extent from the tips of the wings to the outboard engines. Between the outboard engines and the fuselage no fall protection is provided.

Building B3225 – Fall protection for access to the aircraft fuselage is provide by a single horizontal lifeline system. A pair of horizontal lifeline systems are provided for the aircraft wings. Telescoping platforms are provided for access to the aircraft fuselage and tail. To prevent interference with the operation of the telescoping platforms the horizontal lifelines over the wings can only extent from the tips of the wings to the inboard engines. Between the inboard engine and the fuselage no fall protection is provided.

EXISTING SYSTEM TYPES

Telescoping platforms – The telescoping platforms are permanently installed maintenance platforms, which can rotate in plan and are hung from telescoping masts. Each platform’s mast is mounted to the underside of a series of beam, which simulate the function of a bridge crane. This allows the operator to move the platform in three dimensions. The platforms are primarily used to access the fuselage and tail of each aircraft.

Horizontal lifeline systems – Horizontal lifeline systems are located over the aircraft wings and fuselages. The systems over the wings vary in length between 50 and 130 feet. Those over the fuselages vary between 140 and 345 feet. Each horizontal lifeline system was assessed in accordance with criteria specified in ANSI/ASSE Z359.6-2009. Cable loads and required clearances were calculated for each system based on two 310-pound works utilized Z359.14 Class B self-retracting lanyards. Cable loads were predicted to vary between 8,500 and 9,400 pound, depending upon the span of the system.

Clearances vary between 6’-8” and 11’-6” for the systems located over the aircraft wings and between 12’-0” and 20’-6” for those over the fuselages. Depending upon the configuration of the aircraft, the 11’-6” required clearance from the wing to the floor below will likely exceeds the available. In the event of a fall, a worker could potentially sustain an injury to the lower extremities. However, this is only likely to occur if both workers weigh 310 pounds and they fall simultaneously at the mid span of the system. To reduce the required clearances, either intermediate supports could be provided to the horizontal lifeline systems, or the systems could be replaced with rigid rails.

GENERAL ABATEMENT OPTIONS 4

GENERAL ABATEMENT OPTIONS

Passive controls Telescoping platforms – It is foreseen that these existing platforms will continue to provide access for the majority of the maintenance tasks associated with the aircraft fuselage and tails. These platforms are described in the existing conditions section of this report.

Portable maintenance stands – These maintenance stands typically include locking casters, which enable them to be maneuvered into position. Telescoping stands also incorporate a hydraulic pump which allows the operator to adjust the height of the stand for multi-level access. The platforms are typically protected with guardrail. Where open sides are provided the stands usually also include tie-off masts for use with personal fall arrest systems.

A series of differ maintenance stands are used throughout the three buildings. The stands are primarily used to access the aircraft wings. Some of the platforms are in need of maintenance. For example, the hydraulic pump on one of the adjustable height stands was observed to be defective.

It is foreseen that these maintenance stands will continue to provide access for the majority of the maintenance tasks associated with the aircraft fuselage and wings. The maintenance of these platforms should be addressed by the base. Specific repair recommendations are outside the scope of this report.

Active controls Horizontal lifeline systems – A horizontal lifeline system is comprised of an overhead cable to which a shuttle is mounted. Typically a self-retracting lanyard is hung from the shuttle. The user retrieves the snap hook of the self-retracting lanyard using a tag line. Horizontal lifelines are best suited when fall protection is required along a linear path. Horizontal lifeline can span up to 100 feet or more.

Although, overall system lengths greater than 30 feet are usually achieved by introducing intermediate supports to the cable. Horizontal lifelines deflect significantly under load and so have greater fall clearance requirements in comparison to other rigid systems. Depending upon the configuration, cable loads can exceed 5,000 pound in the event of a multiple-worker fall. This load needs to be adequately resisted by the supporting building structure.

Rigid rail systems – A rigid rail system is comprised of an overhead beam to which a trolley is mounted. Typically a self-retracting lanyard will be hung from the trolley. The user retrieves the snap hook of the self-retracting lanyard using a tag line. Rigid rails are best suited when fall protection is required along a linear path. Rigid rails can span up to 20 feet or more, depending upon the size of the beam. Rigid rails do not typically deflect under load and so have reduced fall clearance requirements in comparison to horizontal lifeline systems.

Portable freestanding rigid rail systems – A freestanding rigid rail combines a rigid rail and trolley system with a portable vertical support structure. Although often fabricated from light aluminum components, these portable systems can be time consuming to maneuver and setup. Once in place they can also obstruct the work area.

To ease the maneuvering and setup of a portable rigid rail system it could be track mounted. The freestanding system could be mounted to a chassis with an electrical powertrain. The rigid rail could be maneuvered into place using an automatically guided vehicle that follows a visible path of magnetic tape mounted to the floor of the hanger.

GENERAL ABATEMENT OPTIONS 5

BUILDING SPECIFIC ABATEMENT OPTIONS

Building B2122 A series of horizontal lifelines current provide fall protection for access to the aircraft fuselage, wings and tail. There is currently no documentation on the design and installation of these systems. It is also unknown whether these systems have been routinely inspected on an annual basis.

Based on discussions with maintenance personnel the existing horizontal lifelines are typically used when access cannot be achieved using portable maintenance stands. The locations of the systems are aligned with the centerlines of the fuselage and wings of the aircraft they are intended to serve. The systems span the full length of the fuselages and wings, which helps reduce the adverse effects of swing fall. Swing fall can occur when an overhead anchorage is not maintained.

The spans of these systems vary between approximately 80 and 170 feet. Given that these are relatively long spans, the cable loads and required clearances are significant. Although the strength of the building structure is not in question, the steelwork installed to support these systems and transfer their loads to the building structure should be assessed. Access to measure these structures was not permitted during the field work. Therefore, no structural analysis of these support structures has been performed.

The required clearances for the existing horizontal lifelines that serve the fuselages vary between 12’- 0” and 13’-6”, depending upon the system’s span. The required clearances for the horizontal lifelines that serve the wings vary between 8’-7” and 11’-6”. Although available clearances depend upon the height of the aircraft wing above the floor, it is likely that the required clearance of 11’-6” will exceed the available. An intermediate support to this systems’ cable could be introduced, or the system could be replaced with a rigid rail type system.

The majority of the cables are terminated by wrapping the end of the cable around the supporting structure and securing it back upon itself using wire rope clips. Unless the nuts are routinely torqued, the termination efficiency of wire rope clips tends to reduce over time. This efficiency can be reduced to as low as 40 percent of the minimum braking strength of the cable. Wire rope clips are, therefore, typically not used in permanently installed horizontal lifeline systems. It is recommended that the wire rope clip terminations be replaced with swage sockets.

It is recommended that these systems be replaced with either new horizontal life or rigid rail systems.

The layout of the new systems would likely match the existing layout. If horizontal lifeline systems are selected, the length of their spans would need to be limited so that required clearances do not exceed available. The building structure would also need to be assessed to ensure that it can safely support the cable loads.

Buildings B2280 Aircraft fuselages will primarily be accessed through the use of the telescoping platforms. A pair of horizontal lifeline systems is located along the centerline of the fuselage to provide fall protection while maintenance tasks are performed on top of the fuselage. Two pairs of horizontal lifeline systems are also provided for access to the aircraft wings. There is currently no documentation on the design and installation of these systems. It is also unknown whether these systems have been routinely inspected on an annual basis.

The longest horizontal lifeline system over the fuselage is approximately 345 feet in length. A cable load of 9,400 pounds and a required clearance of 20’-6” were calculated for this system. Although the strength of the building structure is not in question, the steel beams to which the ends of the cable are

GENERAL ABATEMENT OPTIONS 6

attached should be assessed. Access to measure these structures was not permitted during the field work. Therefore, no structural analysis of these support structures has been performed.

The horizontal lifeline systems over the wings are approximately 75 feet in length. A cable load of 8,500 pounds and a required clearance of 8’-3” were calculated for these systems. Depending upon the configuration of the aircraft, the available clearance will be close to that required. In the event of a fall, a worker could potentially sustain a minor injury to the lower extremities.

Similar to building B2122, the majority of the cables are terminated by wrapping the end of the cable around the supporting structure and securing it back upon itself using wire rope clips. It is again recommended that the wire rope clip terminations be replaced with swage sockets.

The existing telescoping platforms are hung from the roof structure and occupy the building bays located directly over the fuselage of the aircraft. No other ceiling mounted systems can be located in these bays, because they would interfere with the operation of the telescoping platforms. This limits the location of either ceiling mounted rigid rails or horizontal lifeline to the bays either side of those occupied by the telescoping platforms. Unfortunately this limitation allows these ceiling systems to only effectively serve the ends of the wings, between the outboard engine and the wing tip.

To address this, rather than directly mounting a horizontal lifeline system to the roof structure, it could be supported from a fabricated structure. The structure would incorporate a motorized boom that could be extended out and retracted in as needed. When extended out, the horizontal lifeline on the underside of the boom would provide effective fall along the entire length of the wing.

Prior to the use of the telescoping platforms, the boom would need to be retracted in. Electrical controls could be included that prevent the operation of either the telescoping platforms or the motorized boom while the other is in use.

It is recommended that these systems be replaced with either new horizontal life or rigid rail systems.

Although the layout of the new systems would likely match the existing, additional systems could be added to serve aircraft with different wing configurations. If horizontal lifeline systems are selected, the building structure would also need to be assessed to ensure that it can safely support the cable loads. If either a horizontal life or a rigid rail system is selected, fall protection must also be provided between the outboard engine and the fuselage. This could either be achieved using a structure incorporating a motorized boom (discussed above) or through the use of portable freestanding rigid rail systems (discussed in the general abatement options section of this report).

Building B3225 Similar to building B2280, aircraft fuselages will primarily be accessed through the use of the telescoping platforms. A single of horizontal lifeline system is located along the centerline of the fuselage to provide fall protection while maintenance tasks are performed on top of the fuselage. Two of horizontal lifeline systems are also provided for access to the aircraft wings.

The horizontal lifeline system over the fuselage is approximately 150 feet in length. A cable load of 9,200 pounds and a required clearance of 12’-6” were calculated for this system. As previously discussed, the support structure to which the ends of the cable are attached should be assessed. Access to measure these supports was not permitted, therefore, no structural analysis of these support has been performed.

The horizontal lifeline systems over the wings are approximately 50 feet in length. A cable load of 8,200 pounds and a required clearance of 6’-3” were calculated for these systems. Although it

GENERAL ABATEMENT OPTIONS 7

depends upon the configuration of the aircraft, it is unlikely that the required clearance exceeds the available clearance.

Similar to the previous two buildings, the cables are terminated by wrapping the end of the cable around the supporting structure and securing it back upon itself using wire rope clips. It is again recommended that the wire rope clip terminations be replaced with swage sockets.

This building also contains telescoping platforms that occupy the bays located directly over the fuselage of the aircraft. As before, this limits the location of either ceiling mounted rigid rails or horizontal lifeline to the bays either side of those occupied by the telescoping platforms. Similar to building B2280, ceiling mounted structures, incorporating motorized booms, could be provided to access the section of wing between the inboard engine and the fuselage.

It is recommended that these systems be replaced with either new horizontal life or rigid rail systems.

Although the layout of the new systems would likely match the existing, additional systems could be added to serve aircraft with different wing configurations. If horizontal lifeline systems are selected, the building structure would also need to be assessed to ensure that it can safely support the cable loads. If either a horizontal life or a rigid rail system is selected, fall protection must also be provided between the outboard engine and the fuselage. This could either be achieved using a structure incorporating a motorized boom (discussed in the building B2280 abatement options section of this report) or through the use of portable freestanding rigid rail systems (discussed in the general abatement options section of this report).

RECOMMENDATIONS 8

RECOMMENDATIONS

FALL HAZARD ABATEMENT EVALUATION MATRIX

The fall hazard abatement evaluation matrices contain qualitative ratings of the anticipated performance of an abatement solution per the evaluation criteria, relative to the other possible solutions for a given roof area or hazard condition. An abatement option’s strengths are shown in the color green, average performance is indicated by yellow, and weaknesses are denoted by red.

Clarifying notes are included in each matrix. While a favorable evaluation of a potential fall protection solution by a single criterion cannot typically justify its selection, often an unfavorable evaluation of that option by another criterion may prohibit its use to abate a given fall hazard.

PRE USE AND ANNUAL INSPECTIONS

Active fall protection systems need to being inspected by a competent person at least annually or more frequently if specified by the manufacturer of the system. Horizontal lifelines and rigid rail system in industrial environments typically do not need inspecting more than annually. Consideration needs to be given to how these systems will be access for their annual inspections.

Active fall protection systems must also be inspected prior to use by the authorized person who will be attaching to them. The horizontal lifeline or rigid rail systems will likely be mounted to the roof structure, which will make peruse inspection very time consuming and logistically infeasible. The design of the systems and their use procedures would, therefore need to consider how the systems could be visually inspected from the ground before they are used.

RECERTIFICATION OF SELF-RETRACTING DEVICES

Self-retracting lanyards that comply with ANSI/ASSE Z359.14-2012 must be factory authorized inspected at least every five years. Or at more regular intervals if the environmental conditions warrant. Per “Appendix A: Inspection Requirements”, the self-retracting lanyards used within the buildings B2122, B2280 and B3225 could be considered to be subject to moderate to heavy use and should, therefore, be factory authorized inspected at least every two years. This would require the self-retracting lanyards to be removed and sent to a factory authorized service center at least every two years. This of course could be done at the same time that the annual inspection of either the horizontal lifeline or rigid rail system is performed.

Tinker AFB: Fall Hazard Abatement Evaluation Matrices Notes: 1. Qualitative ratings are based on anticipated performance of an abatement solution by a given criterion relative to other possible solutions for a given area / hazard condition.

2. An abatement option's strengths are shown in green, average performance is indicated by yellow, and weaknesses are denoted by red.

3. Appropriate notes are included in the matrix.

4. While a favorable evaluation of a potential fall protection solution by a single criterion cannot typically justify its selection, an unfavorable evaluation of that option by another criterion may prohibit its use to abate a given fall hazard.

Wing Fuselage Rigid rails HLLs HLL with cantilever Telescoping platform Rigid rail HLL Telescoping platforms Rigid rails HLL Portable platform Portable rigid rail Chassis/track mounted rigid rail

Portable platform

Portable platform

Aerial work platform

Provision of required access

Overhead anchorage not maintained towards fuselage

Overhead anchorage not maintained towards fuselage

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Average

Safety (clearances) Good Average Good Good Good Good Good Good Good N/A Good Good N/A N/A N/A

Safety (swing fall)

Overhead anchorage not maintained towards fuselage

Overhead anchorage not maintained towards fuselage

Good Good Good Good Good Good Good N/A Good Good N/A N/A N/A

Cost (initial) Average Good High - motorized custom fabrication N/A - Already installed Average Average N/A - Already installed Average Average High High Very high High High High

Cost (recurring) Good Good Good Average Good Good Average Good Good Low Low Average Low Low Average

Ease of setup/removal Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Time consuming Time consuming Good Good Very time consuming Average

Worker mobility Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Average

Obstruction

Good Good Good - however potential interference with existing telescoping platforms

Average Good Good Average Good Good Will obstruct path of vehicles in the vicinity

Will obstruct path of vehicles in the vicinity

Will obstruct path of vehicles in the vicinity, but can also be moved quickly

Will obstruct path of vehicles in the vicinity

Will obstruct path of vehicles in the vicinity

Will obstruct path of vehicles in the vicinity

Inspection (pre-use) Almost impossible Average Almost impossible Good Very time consuming Very time consuming Good Very time consuming Very time consuming N/A Good Good N/A N/A Average

Inspection (annual) Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average N/A Good Good N/A N/A Average

Tail

CEILING SUPPORTED FLOOR SUPPORTED

Ev al ua tio n cr ite ria

Wing Fuselage Tail

LJB Inc. Appendix A January 20, 2009

DESCRIPTION

DRAWING TITLE

S101

S P

R

S P

R

S P R

B

A

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

BUILDING 2122

DATE

JOB NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER

CHECKED

DRAWN

DESIGNED

RELEASED FORREV DATE

c

LJB Inc. and party for whom this drawing was made.

for the limited purposes set forth in the contract between made without the express written consent of LJB Inc. except confidential. No publication or distribution of this drawing may be is proprietary to and property of LJB Inc. and shall be kept

1985-2013 LJB Inc. This drawing contains information that

LJBinc.com

(937) 259-5100 fax

(937) 259-5000 tel

Miamisburg, OH 45342

2500 Newmark Drive

LJB Inc.

OVER FUSELAGE

RIGID RAIL SYSTEM

SINGLE HLL OR

OVER WINGS

RIGID RAIL SYSTEMS

PAIRS OF HLL OR

OVER FUSELAGE

RIGID RAIL SYSTEM

SINGLE HLL OR

OVER WINGS

RIGID RAIL SYSTEMS

PAIRS OF HLL OR

WWW.LJBINC.COM

S102

S P

R

S P

R

S P

R

S P

R

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2513A 13B

A

C

N

R

B

C

L

O

Q

SCALE: ˆ" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 2280

DATE

JOB NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER

CHECKED

LJB Inc. and party for whom this drawing was made.

for the limited purposes set forth in the contract between made without the express written consent of LJB Inc. except confidential. No publication or distribution of this drawing may be is proprietary to and property of LJB Inc. and shall be kept

1985-2013 LJB Inc. This drawing contains information that

LJBinc.com

(937) 259-5100 fax

(937) 259-5000 tel

Miamisburg, OH 45342

2500 Newmark Drive

LJB Inc.

WING SYSTEM

FUSELAGE. TYP EACH

OF WING ADJACENT TO

OUT & OVER SECTION

THAT CAN CANTILEVER

BOOM MOUNTED HLL

OR RIGID RAIL SYSTEM

ROOF MOUNTED HLL

OR RIGID RAIL SYSTEM

ROOF MOUNTED HLL

SYSTEMS IN THIS AREA)

(NO PERMANENT ACTIVE

TELESCOPING PLATFORMS

OR RIGID RAIL SYSTEM

ROOF MOUNTED HLL

OR RIGID RAIL SYSTEM

ROOF MOUNTED HLL

WING SYSTEM

FUSELAGE. TYP EACH

OF WING ADJACENT TO

OUT & OVER SECTION

THAT CAN CANTILEVER

BOOM MOUNTED HLL

SYSTEMS IN THIS AREA)

(NO PERMANENT ACTIVE

TELESCOPING PLATFORMS

HLL OR RIGID RAIL SYSTEMS

PAIRS OF ROOF MOUNTED

HLL OR RIGID RAIL SYSTEMS

PAIRS OF ROOF MOUNTED

WWW.LJBINC.COM

S103

SPR

SPR

SPR

B C D E F G H J

SCALE: ˆ" = 1'-0"

BUILDING 3225

DATE

JOB NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER

CHECKED

LJB Inc. and party for whom this drawing was made.

for the limited purposes set forth in the contract between made without the express written consent of LJB Inc. except confidential. No publication or distribution of this drawing may be is proprietary to and property of LJB Inc. and shall be kept

1985-2013 LJB Inc. This drawing contains information that

LJBinc.com

(937) 259-5100 fax

(937) 259-5000 tel

Miamisburg, OH 45342

2500 Newmark Drive

LJB Inc.

OR RIGID RAIL SYSTEM

ROOF MOUNTED HLL

OR RIGID RAIL SYSTEM

ROOF MOUNTED HLL

OR RIGID RAIL SYSTEM

ROOF MOUNTED HLL

WING SYSTEM

FUSELAGE. TYP EACH

OF WING ADJACENT TO

OUT & OVER SECTION

THAT CAN CANTILEVER

BOOM MOUNTED HLL

& LOCATION WITHIN HANGAR

GEOMETRY OF AIRCRAFT

PROTECTION TO SUIT

CONFIGURATION OF FALL

SYSTEMS IN THIS AREA)

(NO PERMANANT ACTIVE

TELESCOPING PLATFORMS

WWW.LJBINC.COM