boeing performances

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8 Airport Compatibility Group (BACG)

October 2008

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 2

Table of Content

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 BACG Terms of Reference ........................................................................................... 3

1.2 Purpose of the document............................................................................................. 3

1.3 Primary conditions of application ............................................................................... 3

1.4 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 4

2. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW.............................................................................................. 5

3. AIRFIELD ITEMS REVIEW................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Runways ........................................................................................................................ 7

3.3 Taxiways ........................................................................................................................ 8

3.4 Runway Separations..................................................................................................... 9

3.5 Taxiway and Taxilane separations ............................................................................. 11

3.6 Other items ................................................................................................................... 13

4. BACG PARTICIPATING MEMBERS.................................................................................... 15

Annex 1 Recommendation Letter from BACG Aviation Authorities Attachment A Safety Analysis of Airfield Items

Safety analysis that led to the BACG conclusions Attachment B Physical Characteristics and Performance of 747-8

Airplane dimensional data; low speed flying characteristics; jet-blast contours; 747 historical runway veer-off data, etc.

Attachment C Reference Material – Studies, Analysis, Working Papers, and Reports Available documentation on aircraft operations

Attachment D AOPG vs. AACG Operational guidelines for 747-400 developed through Aerodrome Operations Planning Group (ICAO European Region) vs. AACG (A380)

Attachment E AOP Doc 7754 Extract Extract from EUR ANP Part III-AOP

Attachment F Runway-Taxiway Separations Taxiway separation data of world airports

Attachment G Runway-Taxiway Separations – U.S. FAA Standard FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 10, dated 29 September 2006

Attachment H U.S. FAA Modification of Standards (MOS) Process Process and procedures for deviating from published FAA standard

Attachment I 45M Wide Runway Operational Approval Current status on 747-8 approval process with FAA


1. Introduction

1.1 BACG Terms of Reference The BACG is an informal group consisting of Aviation Authorities, Airport, and Industry representatives. It is formed to agree and promote a common position among the group members, with respect to operation of the 747-8 at existing airports that currently do not meet ICAO Code Letter F specifications. Recognizing that the ideal for 747-8 operations would be to provide a level of aerodrome infrastructure at least equal to the generic ICAO specifications, the BACG should, in particular:

- Agree and promote that any deviation from these ICAO specifications should be supported by appropriate aeronautical studies and relevant risk analysis.

- Report its work and findings to ICAO through the appropriate channels so that the latter may use such data for the development of future provisions

- Seek to influence the application of the agreed specifications for the operation of the 747-8 aircraft within national regulatory frameworks

- Co-operate with other international organizations and working groups dealing with NLA operations

- Enable the work of the BACG to be disseminated globally

1.2 Purpose of the document The purpose of BACG common agreement document is to develop 747-8 operational guidance material that include,

- Items of aerodrome infrastructure that may be affected by the introduction of the Boeing 747-8 aircraft

- ICAO Recommended Practices relating to those items, and - For any areas of non-compliance, to show appropriate mitigation, if required, proposed by

the BACG to ensure the safe operation of the 747-8 aircraft at aerodromes currently unable to meet ICAO Code Letter F aerodrome Standards and Recommendations.

Operational guidelines developed for the 747-8 are recommendations proposed by an informal group. It is stressed that the authority to approve any deviation from ICAO Annex 14 specifications shall rest solely with the state having jurisdiction over the aerodrome. No provision contained herein shall be construed so as to have a binding effect on any such Authority with respect to the approval of any such deviation.

1.3 Primary conditions of application The operational guidelines discussed and agreed by the BACG and listed in this document only apply to the 747-8 aircraft as defined in Attachment B. The guidelines were developed in accordance with the principle and methodology outlined in ICAO Circular 305, Operation of New Larger Aeroplanes at Existing Aerodromes (June 2004).


These guidelines are intended to permit the 747-8 to operate at existing aerodromes without adversely affecting safety or significantly affecting the regularity of operations. However, it is strongly recommended to provide facilities meeting Annex 14 requirements, in full, on all relevant parts of the movement area whenever new construction or major redevelopment is undertaken. When planning such construction or redevelopment, it may be prudent to consider the requirements of aeroplanes larger than the 747-8 types or even future aeroplane types needing facilities in excess of Code F. The BACG guidelines have been developed to be generically applicable to airports to perform aeronautical studies for the introduction of 747-8 operations at existing airport facilities. However, it may be permissible to operate with lower separation margins than agreed in this document if an aeronautical study taking into account local conditions indicates that such lower margins would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of the 747-8. The recommendations in this document assume that the 747-8 will be the largest aircraft using the airport. The recommendations may not be applicable for other Code Letter F aircraft for which a separate Aeronautical Study will be needed. Application of the different level of aerodrome infrastructure recommendations for 747-8 operations compared to Code Letter F requirements is subject to: For runway width and runway separations items (See §3.2 & §3.4), the 747-8 aircraft being

approved for the use of Code Letter E runways (minimum width 45m) for each type of operation. For taxiway separations items (See §3.5), where reduced margins exist compared to Code

Letter F recommendations, proper guidance such as centre line lights or equivalent guidance (e.g. marshaller, etc.) to be provided for night, or low visibility operations.

The ICAO Baseline refers to Annex 14, Volume 1 up to and including amendment 9, dated 15th of June 2006.

1.4 Abbreviations [RP] A14 P3.8.3 = ICAO Recommended Practices Annex 14 Paragraph 3.8.3 [Std] = ICAO Standard ADM Pt2 = Aerodrome Design Manual part 2 SARP = Standards And Recommended Practices Rwy = Runway Twy = Taxiway NLA = New Large Aircraft FOD = Foreign Object Damage OPS = Operations ARFF = Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting OFZ = Obstacle Free Zone OLS = Obstacle Limitation Surface OCP = Obstacle Clearance Panel IIWG = International Infrastructure Working Group JAR 25 = Joint Aviation Requirements for Large Aeroplane JAR AWO = Joint Aviation Requirements All Weather Operations OCA/H = Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height RTO = Rejected Take-Off RESA = Runway End Safety Area WP = Working Paper


2. Methodology Overview The methodology used by BACG follows the basic scope of risk assessment process described in ICAO Circular 305, Operations of New Larger Aeroplanes at Existing Aerodromes (June 2004). This circular provides guidance on conducting aeronautical studies in the following steps:

- Baseline identification of relevant ICAO SARPS and rationale/justification - Hazard identification and analysis - Risk assessment and possible mitigation measures - Conclusion

This circular provides guidance that allows aerodromes that do not meet the relevant Annex 14, Volume I, Code Letter F criteria to accommodate a specific NLA, such as the 747-8. This circular was used as the primary reference source for safety analysis in accommodating the 747-8 as outlined in the Section 3, Airfield Items Review, and in developing the Safety Analysis of Airfield Items in Attachment A of this document.

3. Airfield Items Review

3.1 Introduction The items of aerodrome infrastructure that may be affected by the introduction of the Boeing 747-8 aircraft have been identified as shown in the tables below as follows:

- Runways (§ 3.2) Runway width Runway shoulder - Taxiways (§ 3.3)

Width of straight taxiway Width of curved taxiway Taxiway shoulder width - Runway separation (§ 3.4) Runway to parallel Taxiway Separation Obstacle Free Zone Runway Holding Positions - Taxiway and Taxilane Separations (§ 3.5) Parallel Taxiway Separation Taxiway/Apron Taxiway to Object Separation Aircraft Stand Taxilane to Object Separation Clearance at the Gate


- Other Items (§ 3.6) Visual aid implications Taxiways on bridges Runway End Safety Area (RESA) width Those infrastructure items are presented into tables (see below) and reviewed according to four points:

1. ICAO SARPs and ADM

Standards and Recommended Practices contained in Annex 14, Volume 1 (Fourth Edition, July 2004) up to and including Amendment 9, dated 15th of June 2006 and material from the Aerodrome Design Manuals (ADM Part 1, 2006; ADM Part 2, 2005) published by ICAO.

2. ICAO Justification Material Information and formula used to elaborate ICAO SARPs and ADM (applicable to Code Letter F aircraft as defined in Annex 14 Chapter 1).

3. BACG Agreement

Common position among BACG members on the application of ICAO requirements with respect to the 747-8 aircraft for infrastructure and operations at existing airports that currently do not meet the Code Letter F specifications.

4. Justification Material

Major information used for the safety analysis found in Attachment A to justify the proposed guidelines for the 747-8 operations.


3.2 Runways

Item Runway width Width of Runway shoulder

ICA

O S

AR

Ps

and

AD

M

The width of a rwy should be not less than 45m where the code letter is E, 60m where the code letter is F. [RP] A14 P3.1.10 Strength of rwys: A rwy should be capable of withstanding the traffic of aeroplanes the rwy is intended to serve. [RP] A14 P3.1.21

The rwy shoulders should extend symmetrically on each side of the rwy so that overall width of rwy and its shoulders is not less than 60m where the code letter is E and 75m where the code letter is F. [RP] A14 P3.2.3 Strength of rwy shoulders: - A rwy shoulder should be prepared or constructed so

as to be capable, in the event of an aeroplane running off the rwy, of supporting the aeroplane without inducing structural damage to the aeroplane and of supporting ground vehicles which may operate on the shoulder. [RP] A14 P3.2.5

- A rwy shoulder should be prepared or constructed so as to minimize any hazard to an aeroplane running off the rwy. ADM Pt1 P5.2.3

- In some cases, the bearing strength of the natural ground may be sufficient, without special preparation, to meet the requirements for shoulders. ADM Pt1 P5.2.4

- When designing shoulders, prevention of the ingestion of stones or other objects by turbine engines should be an important consideration. ADM Pt1 P5.2.5

- In case of special preparation, visual contrast between rwy and rwy shoulders may be needed. ADM Pt1 P5.2.6

ICA

O

Rat

ion

ale Planning to Accommodate Future Aircraft Development,

discusses increasing the rwy width to 60m for NLA due to 20m main gear wheel span and “other (undefined) factors” ADM Pt1 P6

- No specific justification material available on rwy shoulder width.

BA

CG

Ag

reem

ent A minimum central 45m of pavement of full load bearing

strength shall be provided. (equal to Code Letter E runway)

- Compliance with the minimum 60m ICAO Code Letter E runway + shoulders width

- Minimum of 2x7.5m wide shoulders on existing 45m wide rwys

Depending on local conditions, decision on the composition and thickness of rwy shoulders to be taken by each national authority and/or airport operator. If relevant to local conditions, snow removal and ice control as recommended by ICAO (Doc 9137-AN/898)

Just

ific

atio

n M

ater

ial

- Planned FAA operational approval on 45m wide runway. - Outer main gear wheel span of 12.7m is similar to the

747-400 (12.6m) and well within the Code Letter E limit of 14m.

- Numerous design changes from the 747-400 to improve lateral handling qualities during takeoff or rejected takeoff.

- Otherwise, design commonality with the 747-400. - Flight deck features that improve situation awareness. - ICAO Circ. 301 - NLA balked landing study shows

maximum lateral deviation (7.6m) is similar between landing at sea level vs. 6500 ft (1981m) altitude (higher approach speed) in autoland.

- Aborted takeoff max lateral deviation requirement for certification of 30 ft (9.1m) applies to all aircraft size.

- Same outer engine span as other 747 models. - 56 km/h exhaust wake velocity contour width of 58.5m

at takeoff thrust for 747-8 (with planned GE engines) and 56.1m for 747-400ER, both are within 60m Code Letter E shoulder width.


3.3 Taxiways

Item Width of straight taxiway Width of curved taxiway Taxiway shoulder width (straight and curved)

ICA

O S

AR

Ps

and

AD

M

Unless otherwise indicated, the requirements are applicable to all types of twys. A14 P3.9 Minimum clearance between outer main wheel and twy edge: 4.5m for both E and F [RP] A14 P 3.9.3 Width of a straight portion: - 23m for code letter E - 25m for code letter F [RP] A14 P 3.9.5

Curves to ensure that when cockpit over twy centerline, outer main wheel edge maintains 4.5m clearance from twy edge. [RP] A14 P3.9.6 ADM Pt2 p1.2.9 and ADM Pt2 p1.2.22 + table 1-3

Overall width of twy + shoulders on straight portion: - 44m where code letter is E - 60m where code letter is F [RP] A14 P3.10.1 The surface should be so prepared as to resist erosion and ingestion of the surface material by aeroplane engines. [RP] A14 P3.10.2 Intended to protect an a/c operating on the twy and to reduce the risk of damage to an a/c running off the twy. ADM Pt2 p1.6.1 ADM Pt2 p1.6.2+ table 1-1

ICA

O

Rat

ion

ale

- Twy width = 2 x clearance distance from wheel to pavement edge + max wheel track Code Letter E: 23m=2x4.5m+14m Code Letter F: 25m=2x4.5m+16m ADM Pt2 p1.2.7+ table 1-1

- Origin of the 4.5m clearance distance unknown

Origin of the 4.5m clearance distance unknown

- No specific justification material available on taxiway shoulder width

- 60m was agreed at ICAO ADSG/1 based on 56km/h breakaway velocity contour width for the NLA (747-600X) with outer engine span of 54m.

BA

CG

Ag

reem

ent

- Minimum taxiway width of 23 meters (equal to Code Letter E requirements)

- Wheel-to-edge minimum clearance of 4.5m for Code Letter E and F aircraft

Wheel-to-edge minimum clearance of 4.5m for Code Letter E and F aircraft

- On straight portions, Code Letter E compliant: 44m wide strip to be protected against shoulder erosion and engine ingestion (paved or natural surface)

Depending on local conditions, decision on the width for curved portions, composition and thickness for straight and curved portions by each national authority and/or airport operator.

Just

ific

atio

n M

ater

ial

- Outer wheel span of 12.7m results in outer tire edge to pavement edge (for 23m twy) compliant with the ICAO requirement of 4.5m clearance.

- Various taxiway deviation studies conducted to date show that 4.5m clearance is adequate for safe taxiing.

No specific justification needed (refer to Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning for 747-8)

- 747-8 outer engine span (41.7m) is same as other 747 models.

- 747-8 breakaway exhaust velocity contour width of 46.9m at 56 kph (35 mph) is same as the 747-400ER.*

- Height of outer engine center of thrust above ground is slightly higher than 747-400ER.

*Note: Breakaway thrust is momentary since the pilot will reduce power as soon as a/c starts to roll, well before reaching the contour size shown.


3.4 Runway Separations

Item RWY to parallel TWY separation

Obstacle Free Zone Runway holding positions

ICA

O S

AR

PS

an

d A

DM

190m for instrument rwy or 115m for non-instrument runway (may be reduced subject to aeronautical study). [RP] A 14 P3.9.8 + table 3-1 columns 5 & 9 ICAO Circular 305, section 4.70 (Hazard identification and analysis ICAO ADM part 2, section 1.2.31-32)

OFZ half width = - 60m for code letter E - 77.5m for code letter F - Inner transitional surface slope 1:3 [Std] A14 P4.1.11 & 4.1.12 + 4.1.17 to 24, Table 4-1 Note e) to Table 4-1 Where the code letter is F (Column (3) of Table 1-1), the width is increased to 155 m. For information on code letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics that provide steering commands to maintain an established track during the go-around manoeuvre, see Circular 301 "New Larger Aeroplanes, Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and Aeronautical Study"

Take-off rwy, non-instrument & non-precision approach minimum holding position distances - no change compared with Code Letter E (75m). Precision approaches all CATs: Minimum holding position distances increased to 107.5m for Code Letter F (90m for Code Letter E). [RP] A14 table 3-2 footnote ‘c’ A/C at precision approach holds not to interfere with the operation of Nav. Aids [Std] A14 P3.12.6

ICA

O

Rat

ion

ale

- Separation = ½ wing span + ½ strip width: Code Letter E: 182.5m = ½x65m+½x300m Code Letter F:190m = ½x80m+½x300m for instrument rwy.

- Origin of 300m rwy strip width unknown

ADM Pt2 p1.2.19+ table 1-5

Justifications in OCP meetings material and Circular 301, Part II, paragraph 1.3.1: 155m (Code Letter F) and 120m (Code Letter E)

107.5m based on Code Letter F OFZ definition and on an aircraft with 24m tail height, 62.2m distance nose-highest tail part, 10m nose height, 45° or more holding

BA

CG

Ag

reem

ent

Collision risk: For instrument runways: - ICAO Code Letter E separation of

182.5m. - Lower separation could be

envisaged on the basis of a safety assessment,

For non-instrument runways: - Minimum separation is 75m + half

wingspan ILS effects: Need for specific runway studies to evaluate ILS interference risks in all cases (no difference in 747-8 and 747-400 vertical tail size).

Code Letter E OFZ width of 120m based on ICAO OCP work.

Collision risk: - For take off and non-precision

approach runways, minimum value 75m to be applied.

- For precision approach runways, minimum value of 90m to be applied.

- Need of specific runway studies to evaluate ILS interference risks in all the cases (no difference in 747-8 and 747-400 vertical tail size).


Just

ific

atio

n M

ater

ial

Collision risk: - Declining trend of 747 runway

veeroff frequency over the years - Wingspan being 68.4m, Code Letter

E design separation is degraded by only 1.7m increase in half-wingspan (182.5m → 184.2m)

- Separation based on OFZ is (60+[3x19.6]) = 118.8m

- Separation based on taxiing 747-8 clear of precision rwy graded strip is (105+34.2) = 139.2m

Note: assumes 747-8 is largest aircraft using the airport ILS effects: - Recent studies and ICAO work

indicate that vertical tail size is critical, not span, and that the size of the sensitive and critical areas and the operational impact of infringement of CSAs should be reassessed. Hence, the need for specific runway studies.

- However, the vertical tail size of 747-8 is same as 747-400 which would imply an identical impact for 747-8 and 747-400.

ICAO Circular 301 states that when digital autopilot or flight director with track hold guidance is used for the approach, a Code Letter F airplane can be contained within the Code Letter E OFZ.

Collision risk: - 747-8 meets Code Letter E OFZ

applicability. - 90m for Code Letter E for precision

rwy is applicable based on same nose and tail height as 747-400 A14 table 3-2 footnote b note 1.

- Lower collision risk than 747-400, since the tail is further away from rwy centerline compared to aircraft in A14 table 3-2 footnote b note 1.

ILS effects: - Recent studies and ICAO work

indicates that vertical tail size is critical, not span, and that the size of the sensitive and critical areas and the operational impact of infringement of CSAs should be reassessed. Hence, the need for specific runway studies.



3.5 Taxiway and Taxilane separations

Item Parallel Taxiway Separation

Taxiway / Apron taxiway to Object Separation

Aircraft Stand Taxilane to Object Separation (including service road and height limited object)

Clearance at the gate

ICA

O S

AR

PS

an

d A

DM

Code Letter F twy centerline to twy centerline separation = 97.5m. Possibility to operate with lower separation distances based on an aeronautical study. [RP] A 14 P3.9.8 + table 3-1 column 10 No specific safety buffers for curved portion. A14 P3.9.8 Note 3

Code Letter F twy centerline to object separation = 57.5m. Possibility to operate with lower separation distances based on an aeronautical study. [RP] A14 P3.9.8 + table 3-1 column 11 The taxiway strip should provide an area clear of objects which may endanger a/c [RP] A14 P 3.11.3

Taxilane centerline to object separation = 50.5m. Possibility to operate with lower separation distances based on an aeronautical study. [RP] A14 P3.9.8 + table 3-1 column 12 The distance shown (above) may need to be increased if jet exhaust likely to be hazardous. [RP] A14 P3.9.8 note 4

Minimum distance between a/c and obstacle = 7.5m but special circumstances on nose-in stands may permit reduction a) between terminal

(including fixed pax bridge) and a/c nose and

b) over any portion of stand provided with azimuth guidance by a visual docking guidance system.

[RP] A14 P3.13.6

ICA

O

Rat

ion

ale

- Separation = wingspan + max lateral deviation + increment

Code Letter E: 80m = 65m+4.5m+10.5m Code Letter F:97.5m = 80m+4.5m+13m

ADM Pt2 p1.2.13 + p.1.2.15 + tables 1-1 and 1-4 + Figure 1-4

- Wingtip clearance increase from Code Letter E (15m) to Code Letter F (17.5m) is based on applying the percentage of wingspan increase to the Code Letter E increment Z (80/65 x 10.5 = 13)

- Separation twy to object = ½wingspan + max lateral deviation + increment

Code Letter E: 47.5m = ½x65m+4.5m+10.5m Code Letter F: 57.5m = ½x80m+4.5m+13m

ADM Pt2 p1.2.13 to p1.2.18 + tables 1-1 and 1-4 + Figure 1-4

- Wingtip clearance increase from Code Letter E (15m) to Code Letter F (17.5m) is based on applying the percentage of wingspan increase to the Code Letter E increment Z (80/65 x 10.5)

- Separation = ½ wingspan + max. dev. + increment

Code Letter E: 42.5m = ½x65m+2.5m+7.5m Code Letter F: 50.5m = ½x80m+2.5m+8m

ADM Pt2 p1.2.13 to p1.2.17 + table 1-1 and 1-4 + Figure 1-4

- Wingtip clearance increase from Code Letter E (10m) to Code Letter F (10.5m) is based on the increase in wingtip track-out when the aircraft turns into the gate using oversteer technique (typical).

Origin of the 7.5m clearance distance unknown


Item Parallel Taxiway Separation

Taxiway / Apron taxiway to Object Separation


Clearance at the gate B

AC

G A

gre

em

ent

- Minimum tip-tip clearance margin of 11m with aircraft assumed centered on straight taxiways and positioned cockpit over centreline in curved sections.

- For planning purposes Code Letter E parallel taxiway separation (80m) should be the minimum.

Lower figures could be accepted subject to aeronautical study See notes 1a, 2 & 3

- Minimum tip-object clearance margin of 9m with aircraft assumed centered on straight taxiways and positioned cockpit over centreline in curved sections.

- For planning purposes Code Letter E taxiway to object separation (47.5m) should be the minimum.

Lower figures could be accepted subject to aeronautical study See notes 1b, 2 & 3

- Minimum tip-object clearance margin of 7.5m with aircraft assumed centered on straight taxiways and positioned cockpit over centreline in curved sections.

- For planning purposes Code Letter E taxilane to object separation (42.5m) should be the minimum.

Distance may be reduced for height limited object. All objects to be properly marked or lighted. Depending on local conditions, decision on reduced margins for height limited objects by each authority and/or airport operator. See note 2 & 3

ICAO SARPs to be followed (7.5 m)

Possibility of reduced distance with appropriate measure such as visual docking guidance system, marshaller(s), etc. See note 2 & 3 Distance may be reduced for height limited object. All objects to be properly marked or lighted. Depending on local conditions, decision on reduced margins for height limited objects by each authority and/or airport operator.

Just

ific

atio

n M

ater

ials

- Air Navigation Plan – ICAO European Region recommended reduced separation distances for 747-400 operations with 11m wingtip clearance.

- Taxiway deviation statistics analysis

- AACG agreement of 11m for A380, if taxiway centre line lighting or equivalent guidance is available

- Air Navigation Plan – ICAO European Region recommended reduced separation distances for 747-400 operations with 9m wingtip clearance.


- AACG agreement of 9m for A380, if taxiway centre line lighting or equivalent guidance is available

- Air Navigation Plan – ICAO European Region recommended reduced separation distances for 747-400 operations with 7.5m wingtip clearance.


- AACG agreement of 7.5m for A380, if taxiway centre line lighting or equivalent guidance is available

Not applicable

Note 1a:

The ICAO Aerodromes Panel has recommended to the Air Navigation Commission that the increment for Code Letter F be reduced to 10.5 meters, hence, a reduction of the parallel taxiway separation to 95m.

Note 1b:

The ICAO Aerodrome Panel has recommended to the Air Navigation Commission that the increment for Code Letter F be reduced to 10.5 meters, hence, a reduction of the taxiway to object separation to 55m.

Note 2:

For taxiway separations, where reduced margins exist compared to Code Letter F recommendations, proper guidance such as centre line lights or equivalent guidance e.g. marshaller, etc.) is to be provided for night or low visibility operations. It may be permissible to operate with lower separation margins than agreed in this document if an aeronautical study taking into account local conditions indicates that such lower margins would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of the 747-8.

Note 3:

To ensure that the minimum tip-object margins above are respected on curved sections of taxiway, it is recommended to use appropriate tools (such as simulation or the analytical method in ICAO ADM)


3.6 Other items

Item Visual aids Taxiways on bridges RESA (Runway End Safety Area) width

ICA

O S

AR

PS

an

d A

DM

Elevated Edge lights - Elevated rwy lights shall be

frangible + clear of propellers & engine pods. [Std] A14 P5.3.1.7

- Surface (inset) lights shall withstand being run over by aircraft. [Std] A14 P5.3.1.8

- Rwy edge lights shall be placed along the edge of the area declared for the use as rwy or outside by less than 3m. [Std] A14 P5.3.9.4

Signals shall be frangible + clear of propellers & engine pods. [Std] A14 P.5.4.1.3 PAPI - Where a PAPI or APAPI is installed

on rwy without ILS or MLS they shall be sited to ensure guidance for the most demanding aircraft regularly using the rwy. Where a PAPI or APAPI is installed on rwy with ILS or MLS they should be sited to provide guidance for those aircraft regularly using the rwy. A14 Chap 5 Figure 5-18 P a) & b), A14 Chap 5 Table 5-2 note a.

- The location of PAPI units depends on eye-to-wheel height of the group of aircraft that use the system regularly & by using the most demanding aircraft of the group. A14 Chap 5 Table 5-2 note a.

- Wheel clearances may be reduced subject to aeronautical study but not less than values indicated in Table 5-2 column 3. A14 Chap 5 Table 5-2 note c

The width of the portion of a taxiway bridge capable of supporting aeroplanes, as measure perpendicularly to the taxiway centerline, shall not be less than the width of the graded area of the strip provided for that taxiway, unless a proven method of lateral restraint is provided which shall not be hazardous for aeroplanes for which the taxiway is intended. Code Letter E: 44m Code Letter F: 60m [Std] A14 P3.9.20 & ADM Pt 2 P1.4.4 Access should be provided for ARFF vehicles to intervene in both directions. [RP] A14 P3.9.21 If a/c engines overhang the bridge structure, protection of adjacent areas below the bridge from engine blast may be required. [RP] A14 P3.9.21 Note ADM Pt2 p1.4.4

The width of a RESA shall be at least twice that of the associated runway. 120m for associated Code Letter F rwy; 90m for Code Letter E rwy. [Std] A14 P3.5.4 The width of a RESA should, wherever practicable, be equal to that of the graded portion of the associated runway strip. 150m for Code number 3 and 4. [RP] A14 P3.5.5

ICA

O

Rat

ion

ale Work of ICAO Visual Aids Panel/

Working Group No specific justification available on taxiway on bridge

Protection beyond the rwy strip to minimize damage when aircraft undershoot or overshoot the rwy during landing or takeoff. ADM Pt1 P5.4.1


Item Visual aid implications Taxiways on bridges RESA (Runway End Safety Area) width

BA

CG

Ag

reem

ent

- For Rwy edge lighting position, ICAO SARPs to be followed (placed along the edge of the area declared for the use as Rwy or outside by less than 3 m).

- Inset Rwy edge lights; possibility of elevated runway edge lights according to preliminary engine outputs. Snow clearance to be considered in the choice.

- PAPI: No specific 747-8 requirement; ICAO compliant.

- Not less than 44m for width of the portion capable of supporting the 747-8 and for passenger evacuation.

- Possibility of reduced width margins if proven method of lateral restraint is provided.

- Not less than 44m for jet blast protection, slide and passenger movement support during evacuation in case full bearing strength width is reduced by proven means of lateral restraint.

- Alternative path for ARFF vehicles (whatever the bridge width).

Minimum 90m based on 45m Code Letter E associated runway width, or twice that of the actual associated runway width.

Just

ific

atio

n

Mat

eria

ls

- 747-400 engine position - Similar exhaust wake velocity

contours as 747-400 - Similar glide slope approach

attitude

- 747 outer main gear wheel span - 747 outer engine span - 747-8 Jet blast velocity contours at

taxiing similar to 747-400

- FAA/EASA planned approval to operate on 45m wide rwy.

- History of satisfactory 747 operations on 45m wide rwys.

- Frequency of 747 rwy veeroffs has declined significantly over its service history.


4. BACG Participating Members List of BACG Participants

Organization Name Position Airports, their Authorities, and Airlines Australia Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia

Frank Leonardi Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Group

France ADP Philippe Laborie Technical Director, CDG airport ADP Isabelle Wallard Deputy Director, Planning Divison

DGAC Jean-Louis Pirat Scientific & International Advisor, Civil Aviation Technical Center

DGAC Laurent Osty Airport Certification

DGAC Pierre Thery Unit Chief, Airport Certification, Civil Aviation Technical Center

Germany

BMVBS Susanne Hofmann Airport Policies, Federal Ministry of Transport

Fraport Holger Schwenke Head, Airside Development and ATC

Fraport Ibrahim Zantout Head, Apron Infrastructure HMWVL Egon Grösslein Head Section Aerodromes Italy Italian Civil Aviation Authority Alessandro Cardi Director of Airport Infrastructure Netherlands Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands

Sietse Jager Senior Advisor, Aerodromes and Airspace Division

Amsterdam Schiphol Rob ten Hove Senior Advisor, Airport Capacity Management

Poland

Warsaw Airport Jan Malawko Head of Airport Operations Supervision and SMS

United Kingdom British Airports Authority Andrew Badham Head of Central Airside Operations Airlines Cargolux Sten Rossby Captain, Chief Technical Pilot

Lufthansa Michael Dietz General Manager, ATS & International Organizations

Lufthansa Matthias Schmitt Manager, Airports & Infrastructure Industry Organization

ACI David Gamper (Chairman) Director, Safety and Technical Affairs

Boeing Kaz Konya (Secretary) Senior Principal Engineer, Airport Technology

Boeing Marc Schoen Manager, Airport Technology

Boeing Ed Gervais Technical Fellow, Airport Technology

Boeing Jerry Robinson Senior Engineer, Airport Technology

Boeing Karen Dix-Colony Senior Engineer, Airport Technology

IATA Ton Van der Veldt Assistant Director, Safety, Operations & Infrastructure


Annex 1

Recommendation Letters from BACG Aviation Authorities

Germany France Australia Italy Netherlands









Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 1

BACG Attachment A

Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 2

PART A: RUNWAYS ............................................................................................................... 4

RUNWAY WIDTH.............................................................................................................. 4 RUNWAY SHOULDER WIDTH............................................................................................ 8

PART B: TAXIWAYS............................................................................................................. 12

TAXIWAY WIDTH ........................................................................................................... 12 TAXIWAY SHOULDER WIDTH .......................................................................................... 15

PART C: RUNWAY SEPARATIONS..................................................................................... 18

PART D: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS .................................................................................... 23

PART E: OTHER ITEMS ...................................................................................................... 26

RUNWAY VISUAL AIDS .................................................................................................. 26 TAXIWAY ON BRIDGES .................................................................................................. 29 RUNWAY END SAFETY AREA ........................................................................................ 32


INTRODUCTION

1. M ETHODOLOGY The methodology that the BACG proposed for establishing operational requirements and infrastructure needs has been applied to other NLAs and might be applicable to other aircraft. In this case, it has been applied specifically to the 747-8 aircraft (refer to Terms of Reference). A simple philosophy, a safety analysis in four steps, has been used for each infrastructure item that may be affected by the introduction of the 747-8: runways, taxiways, runway separations, taxiway separations and other items (See chapter 3 "Airfield Items Review" of the BACG Common Agreement Document, and Part A to E of attachment A "Safety Analyses of Airfield Items"). The four steps (see chapter 2 “Methodology Overview” of the BACG Common Agreement Document) are as follows:

- Baseline identification of relevant ICAO SARPS and rationale/justification - Hazard identification and analysis - Risk assessment and possible mitigation measures - BACG Conclusion

2. R ISK ASSESSMENT Depending on the nature of the risks, three methods for risk assessment can be identified: Type A:

For certain hazards, risk assessment strongly depends on specific aircraft performance and handling qualities. The safety level is achieved by the suitability between aircraft performance and handling qualities on the one hand, and infrastructure characteristics on the other hand. Risk assessment should therefore be essentially based on the aircraft design and certification and on simulation results taking into account the actual characteristics of the aircraft.

Type B:

For other hazards, the aircraft behaviour is not really linked with specific aircraft performance and handling qualities, and can be calculated from existing aircraft measurements. Risk assessment, then, should be based on statistics (e.g. deviations) for existing aircraft or accident analyses, and development of generic quantitative risk models can be well adapted.

Type C:

In this case, a “risk assessment study” is not needed. In such a case, a simple geometric argument is sufficient to calculate infrastructure requirements without waiting for certification results or collecting deviation statistics for existing aircraft.

3. B ASIC PRINCIPLES The recommendations in this document assume that the 747-8 will be the largest aircraft using the airport. The recommendations may not be applicable for other Code Letter F aircraft for which a separate Aeronautical Study will be needed.


Application of the different level of aerodrome infrastructure recommendations for 747-8 operations compared to Code Letter F requirements is subject to: For runway width and runway separations items (Common Agreement Document, §3.2 &

§3.4), the 747-8 being approved for the use of Code Letter E runways (minimum width 45m), for all types of operation (autoland, flight director and manual modes), by the aircraft certification authorities.

For taxiway separations items (Common Agreement Document, §3.5), where reduced

margins exist compared to Code Letter F recommendations, proper guidance such as centre line lights or equivalent guidance (e.g. marshaller, etc.) to be provided for night, or low visibility operations.

It may be permissible to operate with lower separation margins than agreed in this document if an aeronautical study, taking into account local conditions, indicates that such lower margins would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of the 747-8. The ICAO Baseline refers to Annex 14, volume 1 up to and including amendment 9, dated 15th of June 2006.

4. A BBREVIATIONS: [RP] A14 P3.8.3 = ICAO Recommended Practices Annex 14 Paragraph 3.8.3 [Std] = ICAO Standard ADM Pt2 = Aerodrome Design Manual part 2 Rwy = Runway Twy = Taxiway NLA = New Large Aircraft FOD = Foreign Object Damage OPS = Operations ARFF = Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting OFZ = Obstacle Free Zone OLS = Obstacle Limitation Surface OCP = Obstacle Clearance Panel IIWG = International Infrastructure Working Group JAR 25 = Joint Aviation Requirements for Large Aeroplane JAR AWO = Joint Aviation Requirements All Weather Operations OCA/H = Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height RTO = Rejected Take-Off RESA = Runway End Safety Area WP = Working Paper


PART A: RUNWAYS

RUNWAY WIDTH

SYNOPSIS

ICA

O B

ASE

LIN

E

The width of a Rwy should be not less than: - 45m where the Code Letter is E, - 60m where the Code Letter is F.

[RP] A14 P3.1.10 Strength of Rwys: A Rwy should be capable of withstanding the traffic of aeroplanes the Rwy is intended to serve. [RP] A14 P3.1.21 Planning to accommodate future aircraft developments. ADM Pt1 P6 Hazard Identification

Risk 1 Lateral runway excursion at take-off

Risk 2 Lateral runway excursion at landing

Main causes and accident factors

- Human factors (crew, maintenance, balance, payload security)

- Powerplant (engine failure, ingestion)

- Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow)

- Aircraft (control surfaces, hydraulic system, tyres)

- Human factors (crew, maintenance)

- Aircraft (landing gear, control surfaces, hydraulic system, brakes, tyres)

- Powerplant (reverse) - Surface conditions (aquaplaning,

snow) - Weather conditions (cross wind,

visibility, inaccurate meteorological information)

Theoretical Severity

In-service

Major to Catastrophic depending on the aircraft speed.

HA

ZAR

D A

NA

LYSI

S

Detailed hazard analysis within certification process

Risk assessment category

A (aircraft performance) A (aircraft performance)

RIS

K A

SSES

SMEN

T

Main technical materials

- Planned 747-8 operational approval on 45m wide Rwy: critical failure conditions for veer-off at take off, VMCG criteria, envelope of environmental conditions covered by aircraft certification.

- Numerous design changes from the 747-400 to improve lateral handling qualities during takeoff or rejected takeoff.

- Otherwise, design commonality with the 747-400.

- Flight deck features that improve situation awareness.

(see Attachments B, H and I)

- Planned 747-8 operational approval on 45m wide Rwy: critical failure conditions for veer-off at landing, envelope of environmental conditions covered by aircraft certification, Autoland criteria.

- Numerous design changes from the 747-400 to improve lateral handling qualities during landing.

- Otherwise, design commonality with the 747-400.

- Flight deck features that improve situation awareness


BA

CG

C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

A minimum central 45m of pavement of full load bearing strength shall be provided.


ICAO BASELINE See also previous synopsis. Next to Annex 14 the other location in current ICAO material where a 60m wide runway is justified for code F aircraft is the ADM Part 1, Chapter 6 "planning to accommodate future aircraft developments". In this chapter, it is mentioned that the runway width for aircraft with large main gear wheel spans may be represented by the expression: Wr = Tm + 2C where Wr = Runway width Tm = Outer main gear wheel span

C = Clearance between the outer main gear wheel and the runway edge Using the present value of C for a 747 on a runway of 45m width (i.e. 16m) and the expected increased main gear wheel span of 20m for NLA, the formula comes out with a runway width of 52m. The ICAO manual concludes that "however, other factors, which are not included in this rationale, indicate that it might be advisable, for planning purposes, to consider a width of up to 60m."

HAZARD ANALYSIS

1. Hazard identification The principal hazard linked to runway width is lateral runway excursion at take-off or landing.

2. Causal analysis The main causes and accident factors are listed as follows: For take-off:

- Human factors (crew, maintenance, balance, payload security), - Aircraft (control surfaces, hydraulic system, tyres), - Powerplant (engine failure, ingestion), - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow).

For landing: - Human factors (crew, maintenance, balance, payload security), - Aircraft (landing gear, control surfaces, hydraulic system, brakes, tyres), - Powerplant (reverse), - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow), - Weather conditions (cross wind, visibility, inaccurate meteorological information).

An analysis of the 747 lateral runway excursion reports (see Attachment B) shows that accident mechanisms are not the same for take-off and for landing. Mechanical failures are, for instance, a frequent accident factor for take-off veer-off, while bad weather conditions are often reported for landing veer-off. A review of 747 lateral runway excursions indicates that a significant factor of the 747 accidents/incidents was the influence of pilot procedures related to engine reverse or thrust lever applications associated with earlier 747 models prior to the 747-400. These problems are now largely resolved through improved pilot procedure techniques and improvements in airplane design. The 747 Accident/Incident Analysis in Attachment B shows a dramatic decline in the rate of 747 veer-offs over the last 35 years of service history. Safety analyses (Functional Hazard Assessment, System Safety Assessment, Environmental Conditions Hazard Assessment,…) on landing and take-off operations will be made during the operational approval process. Lateral runway excursion is one of the risks explicitly taken into account by Boeing in the aircraft design process (see 747-8 Performance Features and Safety Improvements in


Attachment B). The historical 747 runway veer-off data will be studied and taken into account in the FAA 45m wide runway operational approval process. In addition, critical takeoff failure case (30ft. maximum lateral deviation under Vmcg condition) and autoland lateral dispersion tests are covered in the airplane certification process.

3. Consequences analysis

Lateral runway excursion hazard could be classified as major to catastrophic risk depending on the aircraft speed. Historical 747 accident/incident data from 1970 to 2005 indicate that there were no 747 fatal accidents due to runway veer-off alone. Of the total runway veer-offs, 15% resulted in serious injuries and/or substantial aircraft damage. Remaining 85% were of lesser severity of consequence.

RISK ASSESSMENT

The core study: the aircraft certification The lateral runway excursion risk is clearly linked to specific aircraft characteristics (wheel span) and performance/handling qualities (approach attitude, aircraft manoeuvrability and stability, efficiency of control surfaces,…). Therefore, this type of risk comes under “type A” risk assessment category, mainly based on aircraft performance and handling qualities as well as "type C" risk assessment based on maximum allowed lateral deviation (30ft) during critical engine failure test at Vmcg. Performance characteristics of the existing 747 models (747-100/-200/-300/-400) are well known. It is also evident from the historical 747 accident/incident statistics that design and pilot procedural improvements have contributed significantly to the declining frequency of the 747 runway veeroffs over the last 35 service years. The following comparison with the 747-400 shows continuing improvements that are expected from the 747-8. 747-8 Final approach speed

The 747-8 final approach speed is expected to be 153 knots for the passenger model and 159 knots for the freighter model. In comparison, the 747-400ER approach speed is 158 knots for both passenger and freighter models.

747-8 Flight handling quality

The design objective is to achieve the 747-8 manoeuvrability similar or better than that of the 747-400. This is being achieved by numerous design changes from the 747-400 to improve lateral handling qualities. For takeoff or rejected takeoff these changes include double hinged lower rudder and spudders to improve directional control; 60° ground spoilers to improve braking and rejected takeoff performance (45° on 747-400); drooped ailerons to improve takeoff and landing performance; and revised rudder mechanism to eliminate exposure to single failure rudder hardovers. To improve lateral handling qualities during landing changes includes increased outboard aileron deflection to -30° (25° on 747-400) to improve aileron effectiveness; fly-by-wire aileron and spoilers to allow tuning of roll control; double hinged lower rudder and spudders for improved directional control; and 60° ground spoilers to improve braking, landing field length (45° on -400). The spudder (spoiler - rudder) refers to deployment of spoilers during large rudder deflections that provides increased yaw authority on the ground.

747-8 Landing incidence/attitude and cockpit visibility

Landing incidence, aircraft attitude and cockpit visibility of the 747-8 are expected to be similar to those of the 747-400.


747-8 Autoland The 747-400 Autoland certification test results show that landings were made well within the prescribed touchdown box inside the 45m width. The 747-8 Autoland accuracy is expected to be as good as or even better than that of the 747-400.

747-8 Flight deck features to improve situation awareness

Flight deck new features that improve situation awareness include vertical situation display to improve vertical awareness and better path prediction relative to the ground; integrated approach navigation; Global navigation satellite Landing System (GLS) with less signal interference than ILS; Navigation Performance Scales (NPS) for more accurate flight path information; tire pressure monitoring system (standard on -8 but option on -400) and brake temperature monitoring system.

747-8 Critical engine failure test at Vmcg Maximum lateral deviation of 30 ft (9.1m) is allowed under the critical engine failure case certification test. With outer main gear wheel span of 12.7m, a runway width of 45m would allow 9.1m deviation plus an additional deviation margin of 7m before the outer main gear tire is at the edge of a 45m runway.

747-8 main gear design commonality with 747-400 Outer main gear wheel span of the 747-8 (12.7m) is well within the Code Letter E upper limit (13.99m) and almost equal to the 747-400 (12.6m). The clearance between outer main gear wheel and the runway edge for the 747-8 is equal to the 747-400 and larger than for the Code Letter E outer main gear wheel span upper limit.

Tm WR C

Outer Main Gear Wheel Span

Runway Width Clearance between the outer main gear wheel and the runway edge

747-400 12.6m 45m 16.20m 747-8 12.7m 45m 16.15m Code Letter E main gear wheel span upper limit

13.99m 45m 15.50m

The “core” risk assessment, which is a “type A” study (aircraft performance), will be made during the aircraft certification process (safety analysis, flight test, simulations, …). Operational capability to operate safely on a 45m wide runway is one of the core objectives of the geometric and performance design of the 747-8. This capability will be demonstrated during the flight test period. To ensure visibility by the Airport Authorities, the relevant Aviation Authorities, the International Organisations and the Airline world that the 747-8 will be able to land and take off on 45m wide runways without additional limitations, Boeing will: base the 747-8 nominal performance on 45 meter runway width; base the safety analyses on 45 meter runway width; mention the 45 meter runway width as nominal for 747-8 operations within the Flight

Manual, to which the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) refers; report this nominal 45 meter runway width within the Flight Crew Operations Manual

(FCOM).

CONCLUSIONS BACG members agreed: A minimum central 45m of pavement of full load bearing strength shall be provided.


RUNWAY SHOULDER WIDTH

SYNOPSIS

ICA

O B

ASE

LIN

E

The Rwy shoulders should extend symmetrically on each side of the Rwy so that overall width of Rwy and its shoulders is not less than 60m where the Code Letter is E and 75m where the Code Letter is F. [RP] A14 P3.2.3 Strength of Rwy shoulders: - A Rwy shoulder should be prepared or constructed so as to be capable, in the event of an aeroplane

running off the Rwy, of supporting the aeroplane without inducing structural damage to the aeroplane and of supporting ground vehicles which may operate on the shoulder. [RP] A14 P3.2.5

- A Rwy shoulder should be prepared or constructed so as to minimise any hazard to an aeroplane running off the Rwy ADM Pt1 P5.2.3

- In some cases, the bearing strength of the natural ground may be sufficient, without special preparation, to meet the requirements for shoulders. ADM Pt1 P5.2.4

- When designing shoulders, prevention of the ingestion of stones or other objects by turbine engines should be an important consideration. ADM Pt1 P5.2.5

- In case of special preparations, visual contrast between Rwy and Rwy shoulders may be needed ADM Pt1 P5.2.6

Hazard Identification

Risk 1 Shoulder erosion and engine ingestion (snow and ice ingestion included) at landing or take-off

Risk 2 Difficulties for ARFF services to intervene on a damaged aircraft on the runway

Risk 3 Aircraft damage after incursion on runway shoulder


- Powerplant (engine position, engine power)

- Shoulder width and cohesion

- Runway centreline deviation factors (see runway veer-off risk)

- Location and height of snow banks

- Aircraft wingspan, engine position

- Shoulder width and bearing capability

Theoretical

HA

ZAR

D A

NA

LYSI

S

Severity In-service

Potentially major Major to catastrophic


C (geometric argument) C (geometric argument)

RIS

K

ASS

ESSM

ENT


- 747-8 engine position - 747-8 jet blast velocity

at take-off thrust - Information about

lateral deviation from runway centreline

(see Attachment B)

- 747-8 wingspan and engine position

(see Attachment B)

No 747-8 specific issue

BA

CG

C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

- Compliance with the minimum 60m ICAO Code Letter E runway + shoulders width - Minimum of 2x7.5m wide runway shoulders on existing 45m wide Rwys

Depending on local conditions, decision on the composition and thickness of runway shoulders by each national authority and/or airport operator. If relevant to local conditions, snow removal and ice control as recommended by ICAO (Doc 9137-AN/898)


ICAO BASELINE See previous synopsis.

HAZARD ANALYSIS

1. Hazard identification

Runway shoulders have three main functions: To provide jet blast protection and to prevent engine ingestion To support occasionally ground vehicles traffic (ARFF vehicles in particular) To support occasional aircraft incursions without inducing structural damage to the

aeroplane Therefore, the hazards linked to runway shoulder characteristics (width, cohesion, bearing capability) are:

1. Shoulder erosion and engine ingestion: it seemed relevant to deal also with snow and ice ingestion risk at the same time, even if the latter is not really linked with runway shoulder characteristics.

2. Difficulties for ARFF services to access a damaged aircraft on the runway 3. Aircraft damage after incursion onto runway shoulder

Hazard 1 and 2 could be effectively related to NLA characteristics (engine position, engine thrust, and wingspan). Concerning hazard 3:

- The shoulder width should not be regarded as a specific NLA issue: 7.5m wide shoulders shall be provided to allow pilots to steer the aircraft back onto the runway in case of minor lateral excursion, whatever the aircraft Code Letter is.

- The shoulder composition and thickness may actually vary with aircraft types to ensure an occasional bearing capability for all of them. Therefore composition of 7.5m wide shoulders may be a NLA issue, but other aircraft than NLA may have stronger impact on runway shoulders, depending on aircraft weight per wheel and tire pressure. For example, the A340-600, a code E aircraft, has a higher single wheel load and higher tire pressure than the 747-8. BACG members decided to focus on geometric issues; so this pavement aspect is not developed here. Decisions on shoulder composition and thickness will be made by each national authority and/or airport operator.

For this reason, only jet blast protection, engine ingestion and ARFF vehicle traffic issues are considered here.

2. Causal analysis

Main causes and accident factors for FOD are: Powerplant characteristics (engine position and engine power) Shoulder width and cohesion Runway centreline deviation factors (see runway veer-off risk) In addition to this, in case of snowfalls, location and height of snow banks can induce an ice ingestion risk. With regard to ARFF vehicle traffic issue, the specific NLA issues are: Aircraft wingspan, engine position Shoulder width and bearing capability



Certification requirements define FOD risks on wheel tyres and engines as potentially major risks. Delay on ARFF operations could be classified as major to catastrophic.

RISK ASSESSMENT Shoulder erosion, engine ingestion and ARFF vehicles traffic hazards are geometric issues and come under “type C” risk assessment category (geometric argument). A geometric argument combined with 747-8 jet blast characteristics is therefore relevant to calculate infrastructure requirements.

Jet blast issue Information about outer engine position and jet blast velocity contour at take-off (see Attachment B) is needed to calculate the required width for jet blast protection. The lateral deviation from runway centreline must be taken into account. The margin between 747-8 outer engine axis, when the aircraft is on the runway centreline, and the edge of a 60m ICAO Code Letter E (runway + shoulder) is only 9.15m. This is the same as for other 747 models. The 56km/h exhaust wake velocity contour at take-off thrust is used as a reference for the evaluation of jet blast protection in the runway environment. The width is 58.5m for 747-8 (with planned GE engines) and 56.1m for 747-400ER. Both are within the 60m Code Letter E runway + shoulder width. This geometric argument combined with jet blast drawings (see Attachment B) allows to conclude that 60m total width (runway + shoulders) will avoid erosion for 747-8 operations with an acceptable level of safety Concerning engine ingestion risk, additional elements on ingestion power in the front of 747-8 outer engines at take-off thrust are, in theory, necessary to conclude. However, the engine inlet air velocity for the 747-8 is estimated to be similar to the 747-400 since the higher thrust of the 747-8 is offset by the larger inlet area. Nevertheless, considering the geometric comparison with current large aircraft operations on current runways: Equal margin between outer engine axis and edge of shoulder (comparison with 747-

400) and, Equal distance from the outer engine to the ground (comparison with 747-400), It is reasonable to conclude that a 60m total width (runway + shoulders) is adequate to avoid engine ingestion risk. Distance between aircraft

fuselage axis and (outer) engine axis

(Outer) engine nacelle minimum

height above ground 747-400ER 20.85m 1.32m 747-8 20.85m 1.32m

Although the margin between ground surface and engine cowl for the 747-8 is same as for the 747-400, the thrust centreline axis of the 747-8 outboard engine is 0.36m higher than for the 747-400.

ARFF vehicles intervention The comparison with current large aircraft on current runways (see attachment B) allows to conclude that an overall runway + shoulder width of 60m (ICAO Code Letter E runway) for occasional ARFF vehicles traffic permits firemen intervention on 747-8 at least as easy as for a 747 (same margin between outer engine axis and edge of runway shoulder).

Note: depending on fire location, wind direction and wreckage site, firemen may have to intervene outside paved areas, whatever aircraft size.

CONCLUSIONS BACG members agreed: 60m total width (runway + shoulders) in compliance with Annex 14 Code Letter E

(2x7.5m wide shoulders on 45m wide runways) pending operational approval. No additional shoulder width is required for jet-blast protection, engine ingestion

protection and the occasional ARFF vehicle access. It is up to each national authority and/or airport operator to decide the composition and the thickness of runway shoulders, depending on local conditions. If relevant to local conditions, accumulated snow should be removed beyond the span of the 747-8 outer engines.

16.1 m

9.2 m

45m wide 7.5m



PART B: TAXIWAYS

TAXIWAY WIDTH

SYNOPSIS

ICA

O B

ASE

LIN

E

Unless otherwise indicated, the requirements are applicable to all types of Twys. A14 P3.9 Minimum clearance between outer main wheel and Twy edge: 4.5m for both E and F. [RP] A14 P3.9.3 For curved Twys, ensure that when cockpit over centerline, outer main gear wheel maintains 4.5m clearance from Twy edge [RP] A14 P3.9.6 Width of a straight portion: 23m where Code Letter is E and 25m where Code Letter is F. [RP] A14 P3.9.5


Risk 1

Lateral taxiway excursion in straight section


- Mechanical failure affecting steering capability (hydraulic system) - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, loss of control on ice-covered surface,…) - Loss of visual taxiway guidance system (markings and lights covered by

snow,…) - Pilot precision and attention (directional control)

Theoretical

Potentially major

HA

ZAR

D A

NA

LYSI

S

Severity

In-service Minor


B (generic risk model) C (geometric argument)

RIS

K

ASS

ESSM

ENT


Taxiway deviation statistics analysis (existing and on-going studies) (see Attachment C)

747-8 geometric characteristics (wheel span within code E limits, nearly same as 747-400) (see Attachment B)

BA

CG

C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

Minimum taxiway width of 23 meters Wheel to edge minimum clearance of 4.5m on straight and curved taxiway sections


ICAO BASELINE See previous synopsis

HAZARD ANALYSIS


The hazard is a lateral taxiway excursion in straight and curved section.

2. Causal analysis The causes of such an event can be classified as: Mechanical failure (hydraulic system failure) Surface conditions (aquaplaning, loss of control on ice-covered surface) Loss of visual taxiway guidance system (markings and lights covered by snow) Pilot precision and attention (directional control, orientation error, …)

3. Consequences analyses Consequences are, in theory, potentially major. In practice, according to the 747 accidents and incidents involving lateral taxiway excursion events compiled from various sources by Boeing (see Attachment B), only minor injuries in some cases were reported.

RISK ASSESSMENT Of the four causes listed above (Hazard Analysis, section 2 "Causal analysis"), the first three have a low dependency on the type of aircraft (i.e. the aircraft is likely to go out of the taxiway, no matter how narrow its landing gear base is). The fourth one is a 747-8 issue, in that it is heavily related to the margin between the main gear outer wheels and the taxiway edge. It is a case of type B (generic risk model) as well as a type C (geometric argument). All functioning aircraft respond reliably to pilot directional inputs when taxiing at ordinary speeds: 747-8 behaviour can be deduced from similarity to the current 747 models in operation. The 747-8 steering system and landing gear design, including the body gear steering system, are same as the previous 747 models and intended to retain the same touch and feel characteristics. As various taxiway deviation studies on straight sections show that a larger aircraft does not deviate from centreline any more than a smaller aircraft (see Attachment C), the extrapolation of this available data on taxiway deviation for the 747-8 seems well applicable. The 4.5 meter wheel to edge clearance proves to be adequate for safe and expeditious taxiing and in some cases even conservative. (Based on the FAA/Boeing taxi deviation studies at New York JFK and Anchorage Airports, the probability of the 747-8 veering more than 5.15m to the edge of a 23m wide taxiway is 2.37x10-7). The geometric argument shows that for the 747-8 the wheel to edge clearance on a Code Letter E taxiway (23m wide) is equal to the one for the 747-400 and even larger than the minimum required by ICAO for Code Letter E.


Outer Main Gear Wheel Span

Taxiway Width

Clearance between the outer main gear

wheel and the taxiway edge

747-400 12.6m 23m 5.2m 747-8 12.7m 23m 5.15m Code Letter E main gear wheel span upper limit

13.99m 23m 4.5m

In addition to this, another geometric argument (type C) depending on pilot visibility from cockpit can be developed; the cockpit and pilot eye position of the 747-8 is equal to the 747-400 (see Attachment B). Special attention may be given to taxiway curves. However the 747-8 is not the most critical aircraft for fillet design. Code Letter E aircraft such as 777-300 and A340-600 are more demanding.

CONCLUSIONS BACG members agreed: Minimum taxiway width of 23 meters. Wheel to edge minimum clearance of 4.5m on straight and curved taxiway sections.


TAXIWAY SHOULDER WIDTH

SYNOPSIS

ICA

O B

ASE

LIN

E

Overall width of Twy + shoulders on straight portion: - 44m where Code Letter is E and - 60m where Code Letter is F [RP] A14 P3.10.1 The surface should be so prepared as to resist erosion and ingestion of surface material by aeroplane engines [RP] A14 P3.9.2 Intended to protect an a/c operating on the Twy and to reduce the risk of damage to an a/c running off the Twy. ADM Pt2 p1.6.1 and ADM Pt2 p1.6.2 + table 1-1

Hazard Identification Risk 1

Shoulder erosion and engine ingestion at taxiing

Risk 2 Aircraft damage after

incursion on taxiway shoulder


- Powerplant (engine position, engine power) - Taxiway shoulder width and cohesion - Taxiway centreline deviation factors (see

taxiway veer-off risk)

Theoretical

HA

ZAR

D A

NA

LYSI

S

Severity In-service

Minor except if undetected and followed by engine failure at take-off (potentially major)


C (geometric argument)

RIS

K A

SSES

SMEN

T


- 747-8 engine position - 747-8 jet blast velocity at idle (most of taxi

time is spend at idle thrust) - 747-8 jet blast velocity contour at break-

away and the transient (temporary) nature of the breakaway thrust application

- Information about lateral deviation from taxiway centreline

(see Attachment B & C)


BA

CG

C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

On straight portions, Code E compliant: 44 m wide strip to be protected against shoulder erosion and engine ingestion (paved or natural surface) Depending on local conditions, decision on the width for curved portions, composition and thickness for straight and curved portions by each national authority and/or airport operator.



HAZARD ANALYSIS


The main purposes of the provision of taxiway shoulders are twofold: to prevent jet engines that overhang the edge of a taxiway from ingesting stones or other

objects that might damage the engine and to prevent erosion of the area adjacent to the taxiway. In addition to this, the risk of damage to an aircraft running off the taxiway should be, in theory, taken into account for taxiway shoulder design. Concerning this hazard: the shoulder width should not be regarded as an issue for a specific airplane: taxiway

shoulders should be, in theory, designed to allow pilots to steer the aircraft back onto taxiway in case of minor lateral excursion, whatever the aircraft Code Letter is.

the shoulder composition and thickness may be a specific airplane issue, but other aircraft than the 747-8 may have stronger impact on taxiway shoulders. For example, the A340-600, a code E airplane, has a higher single wheel load and a higher tire pressure than the 747-8 and can cause a more severe shoulder pavement rutting

BACG members decided to focus on geometric issues. Decisions on taxiway shoulders composition and thickness will be made by each national authority and/or airport operator. Additionally, the current low frequency and low severity of taxiway veer-off case does not justify any further evaluation of this risk. These are the reasons why only shoulder erosion and engine ingestion are considered here.

2. Causal analysis The main causes and accident factors for FOD are: Powerplant characteristics (engine position, engine power) Taxiway shoulder width and cohesion Taxiway centreline deviation factors (see taxiway veer-off risk)

3. Consequences analysis The erosion and ingestion hazard when taxiing could be classified as a minor risk except if it is undetected by crew and followed by engine failure at take-off (potentially major).

RISK ASSESSMENT A geometric argument is relevant to establish infrastructure requirements relative to jet blast and engine ingestion issues (cf. risk assessment). Shoulder erosion and engine ingestion issues come under “type C” risk assessment category (geometric argument). Information about engine position and jet blast velocity contour at breakaway thrust allows deducing the need in terms of jet blast protection at taxiing. The margin between 747-8 outer engine axis, when the aircraft is on the taxiway centreline, and the edge of a 44m wide jet blast protection (taxiway + shoulders) is 1.15m; the same margin as for the 747-400.

The width of the 747-8 breakaway exhaust velocity contour width at 56km/h is 46.9m, the same as for the 747-400ER. It should be noted that breakaway thrust is momentary since the pilot will reduce power as soon as the aircraft starts rolling, well before the exhaust velocity contour has reached the stabilized steady-state size shown (see Attachment B).

Distance between aircraft fuselage axis and engine axis

Margin between outer engine axis and shoulder edge

(Outer) engine nacelle height above ground

747-400ER 20.85m 1.15m 1.32m 747-8 20.85m 1.15m 1.32m

Although the margin between ground surface and engine cowl for the 747-8 is same as for the 747-400, the axis of the 747-8 outboard engine is 0.36m higher than for the 747-400 As for the ingestion risk, the engine inlet air velocity for the 747-8 is estimated to be similar to the 747-400 since the higher thrust required for the 747-8 is offset by the larger inlet area. Above geometric argument combined with jet blast contours at breakaway thrust allows a conclusion that a 44m wide taxiway jet blast protection will avoid shoulder erosion and engine ingestion risks for 747-8 taxiing with a level of safety equal to the current 747.

CONCLUSIONS BACG members agree: On straight portions, Code E compliant: 44 m wide strip to be protected against shoulder

erosion and engine ingestion (paved or natural surface) Depending on local conditions, decision on the width for curved portions, composition and thickness for straight and curved sections is left to each national authority and/or airport operator.

23m wide

5.1 m

1.2 m

10.5 m



PART C: RUNWAY SEPARATIONS

SYNOPSIS

ICA

O B

ASE

LIN

E Runway to Parallel Taxiway Separation:

190m for instrument Rwy or 115m for non-instrument Rwy (may be reduced subject to aeronautical study). [RP] A14 P3.9.8 + table 3-1 columns 5&9

OFZ OFZ half width = 60m where Code Letter is E and 77.5m where Code Letter is F, then inner transitional surface slope 1:3. [Std] A14 P4.1.11 & 4.1.12 + 4.1.17 to 24, Table 4-1

Note e) to table 4-1: Where the Code Letter is F (Column (3) of Table 1-1), the width is increased to 155 m. For information on Code Letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics and track hold guidance that provide steering commands to maintain an established track during the go-around manoeuvre, see Circular 301 "New Larger Aeroplanes- Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and Aeronautical Study".

Runway Holding Positions

Take-off Rwy, non-instrument & non-precision approach minimum holding position distances - no change compared with code E (75m). Precision approaches all CATs: Minimum holding position distances increased to 107.5 m for code F (90m for Code E). [RP] A14 table 3-2 footnote 'c' A/C at precision approach holds - not to interfere with the operation of Nav. Aids. [Std] A14 P3.12.6


Risk 1 Collision between an

aircraft in flight and an object (fixed or mobile)

on the airport

Risk 2 Collision between an aircraft veering off the runway and an object

(fixed or mobile) on the airport

Risk 3 Perturbation of ILS

signal by a taxiing or stopped aircraft


- Human factors

(crew, ATS) - Weather conditions

(visibility) - Aircraft: mechanical

failure (engine, hydraulic system, flight instruments, control surfaces,…), wingspan

- Airport layout and facilities: location of holding points and parallel taxiway, radar system

- Obstacle density (taxiing aircraft included), marking, lighting and publication

- Runway veer-off causes and accident factors (see runway veer-off risk)

- Lateral veer-off distance

- Aircraft size - Airport layout: location

of holding points and parallel taxiway

- Obstacle density (taxiing aircraft included)

- Aircraft position / NAV-aids

- Aircraft characteristics (height, shape, component,..)

- Obstacle density

Theoretical Catastrophic

HA

ZAR

D A

NA

LYSI

S

Severity In-service

No known cases reported in-service

Potentially catastrophic Potentially major

RIS

K

ASS

ESSM

ENT


A (aircraft performance) &

B (generic risk model) &


B (generic risk model) Generic risk assessment not feasible


RIS

K A

SSES

SMEN

T


- ICAO Circular 301 states that when digital autopilot or flight director with track hold guidance is used for the approach, a code F airplane can be contained within the code E OFZ.

- The 747-8 has digital autopilot/flight director and track hold guidance.

- FAA regulations. (see Attachment C)

- Declining trend of 747 runway veer-off frequency over the years

- Code E design separation degraded by only 1.7m increase in half-wingspan (182.5m→184.2m)

- Separation based on OFZ requires only (60+[3x19.6]) = 118.8m

- Separation based on taxiing 747-8 clear of precision Rwy graded strip requires (105+34.2) = 139.2m

(see Attachment B)

- Recent studies and ICAO work indicates that vertical tail size is critical, not wing span, and that the size of the sensitive and critical areas and the operational impact of infringement of CSAs should be reassessed. Hence the need for specific runway studies.


(see Attachment C)

BA

CG

CO

NC

LUSI

ON

S

- Runway to parallel taxiway separation:

- ICAO Code Letter E separation of 182.5m for instrument runway. - Lower separation could be envisaged on the basis of a safety assessment. - Minimum separation is 75m + half wingspan.

- OFZ - Code Letter E OFZ width of 120m based on ICAO OCP work.

- Runway holding positions - For take off and non-precision approach runways, minimum value 75m to be applied. - For precision approach runways, minimum value of 90m to be applied. - Need of specific runway studies to evaluate ILS interference risks in all cases.



HAZARD ANALYSIS

1. Hazard identification The hazards linked to runway separation requirements are: Collision risk between an aircraft in flight and an object (fixed or mobile) on the airport Collision risk between an aircraft which runs off the runway and an object (fixed or

mobile) on the airport Perturbation of ILS signal by a taxiing or stopped aircraft

2. Causal analysis Main causes and accident factors could be defined as follows: Collision between an aircraft in flight and an object (fixed or mobile) on the airport

- Human factors (crew, ATS) - Weather conditions (visibility) - Aircraft: mechanical failure (engine, hydraulic system, flight instruments, control

surfaces,…), wingspan - Airport layout and facilities: location of holding points and parallel taxiway, radar

system - Obstacle density (taxiing aircraft included), markings, lighting and publication

Collision between an aircraft veering off the runway and an object (fixed or mobile) on the airport - Runway veer-off causes and accident factors (see runway veer-off risk) - Lateral veer-off distance - Aircraft size - Airport layout; location of holding points and parallel taxiway - Obstacle density (taxiing aircraft included)

Perturbation of ILS signal by a taxiing or stopped aircraft - Aircraft position / NAV-aids - Aircraft characteristics (height, shape, component,…) - Obstacle density

The huge variety and the complexity of accident factors for collision risk must be emphasized.

3. Consequences analysis The first two hazards are potentially catastrophic and the third one is potentially major.

RISK ASSESSMENT

Collision betw een an aircraft in flight and a n object (fi xed or mo bile) on th e airport

Based on aircraft performance (types A & B), risk assessment focus on the ability of the aircraft to follow the runway centreline when doing a balked landing


Balked landing simulations

The object of the balked landing simulation study is to determine whether the improvements in avionics and aircraft performance over the last 20 to 30 years have led to a quantifiable decrease in the expected aircraft deviations from the desired track when landing or executing a balked landing. This decrease, if it exists, might be used to justify reducing Code F requirements for certain type of airspace, particularly the OFZ, for these state of the art aircraft. The ICAO OCP was in charge of this study for NLA operations (see Attachment C) which resulted in the release of ICAO Circular 301 "New Larger Aeroplanes-Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and Aeronautical Study". This ICAO circular states that, when digital autopilot or flight director and flight track hold guidance are used for the approach, a Code Letter F aircraft can be contained within the Code Letter E OFZ. As the 747-8 is equipped with these avionics (digital autopilot/flight director and track hold guidance) the Code Letter E OFZ may be applied.

Collision betw een an aircraft vee ring off th e runw ay and an object (fixed or mobile) on the airport

Two different lateral runway excursions database analysis (see Attachment C) comes out with the following outputs: Veer-off distances1 do not increase in proportion to aircraft size. That means that this

collision risk comes under “type B” (generic risk model) risk assessment category (i.e. extrapolation of current accident database to future aircraft seems relevant).

Taxiing deviation effect is relatively of little consequence. Lateral runway excursion risk (frequency and veer-off distances) is not lower for non-

instrument approach and take-off than for instrument approach. That means that, in theory, to provide a uniform level of safety, requirements to mitigate collision risk in case of aircraft veer-off should be as strict for non-instrument and take-off runways as for instrument runways.

For that reason, the ICAO SARPs formula relative to runway-taxiway separation distances for non instrument runway (75m + half wingspan) and to runway holding positions for take-off and non-precision approach runway (75m) must be regarded as a strict minimum for operations. In some complex airport layouts (parallel runways, intermediate taxiways used to cross runways, especially if the crossing is at a point where aircraft taking-off are at high speed or are potentially airborne...), a specific study may be needed to evaluate runway holding positions when runways are used by 747-8 aircraft. Concerning instrument runways, according to accident database analyses and the experience of current operations in today’s airports (see Attachment C), ICAO SARPs relative to code F runway-taxiway distance seems conservative in terms of collision risk after an aircraft veer-off. Considering the regulations for and history of operations at U.S. airports with lesser RWY/TWY separation - 122m (400 ft) for Group V (Code E equivalent) for instrument Rwys it can be concluded that RWY-TWY separations significantly less than recommended in Annex 14 table 4-1 are considered safe with respect to collision between an aircraft veering off the runway and an object (fixed or mobile) on the airport. FAA has issued Airport Obstructions Standards Committee (AOSC) Decision Document #4, dated 21 March 2005, amending Group V and VI RWY-TWY separations to 400 ft (122m) and 500 ft (152m) respectively for CAT I and 500 ft (152m) and 550 ft (168m) respectively for CAT II / III.

1 The veer-off distance is defined here as the maximum lateral deviation distance reported during a veer-off between the aircraft centre of gravity and the runway centreline.


It may therefore be concluded that for the 747-8 RWY-TWY separations for CAT II/III operations equal to those of Code Letter E aircraft can safely be applied.

Perturbation of ILS signal by a taxiing or stopped aircraft A generic risk assessment on this topic seems not feasible. ILS signal distortion risk should be assessed in a case-by-case study base taking into account local conditions like airport layout and traffic density. These case-by-case studies could take advantage of several generic studies dealing with A380 effects on ILS safety area: A preliminary study from Park Air Systems (AACG, Appendix 4 Part M) calculates for

Nomarc ILS the difference between A380 and 747 Sensitive Areas. The output indicates that the Sensitive Area for a CAT III approach is approximately 30-40% wider for an A380 than for a 747. However, it must be noticed that the A380 was modelled with a metal vertical tail (like the 747 one) instead of the carbon fibre one.

According to ILS specialists, the carbon fibre that is used for A380 vertical tail could lead to a decrease in ILS signal perturbation versus metal.

A study by ADP to assess the impact of carbon fibre versus metal on ILS signal perturbations by making real tests at CDG with A310 fitted with two kinds of tail material (carbon fibre and metal).

A recent study (2006) by a workgroup of ILS experts in Europe indicates that vertical tail size is critical, not the wingspan even with the provision of winglets.

The vertical tail of the 747-8 and 747-400 is metal and the vertical tail size of the 747-8 is equal to that of the 747-400 and it is expected that no additional issues/problems with the perturbation of ILS signal will occur. However, as no airport is the same with respect to layout and traffic density, specific runway studies to evaluate ILS interference risks may be needed.

CONCLUSIONS BACG members agreed: Runway to parallel taxiway separation:

- ICAO Code Letter E separation of 182.5m for an instrument runway, - Lower separation could be envisaged on the basis of a safety assessment. - Minimum separation is 75m + half wingspan.

OFZ - Code Letter E OFZ width of 120m based on ICAO OCP work.

Runway holding positions - For take off and non-precision approach runways, ICAO value 75m to be considered

a strict minimum, and site-specific studies are recommended - For precision approach runways, minimum value of 90m to be applied.

Need of specific runway studies to evaluate ILS interference risks in all the cases.


PART D: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS

SYNOPSIS

ICA

O B

ASE

LIN

E

Parallel Taxiway Separation Code F taxiway centreline to taxiway centreline separation = 97.5m *. Possibility to operate with lower separation distances based on an aeronautical study. [RP} A14 P3.9.8 + table 3-1 col. 10. No specific safety buffers for curved portion. A14 P.3.9.8 Note 3

Taxiway / Apron Taxiway to object Separation

Code F taxiway centreline to object separation = 57.5m *. Possibility to operate with lower separation distances based on an aeronautical study. [RP] A14 P3.9.8 + table 3-1 col. 11


Taxilane centreline to object separation = 50.5m *. Possibility to operate with lower separation distances based on an aeronautical study. [RP] A14 P3.9.8 + table 3-1 col. 12 The distance shown (above) may need to be increased if jet exhaust likely to be hazardous [RP] A14 P3.9.8 note 4

Clearance at the gate

Minimum distance between a/c and obstacle = 7.5m but special circumstances on nose-in stands may permit reduction between terminal (including fixed pax bridge) and a/c nose and over any portion of stand provided with azimuth guidance by a visual guidance system [RP] A14 P3.13.6

The Taxiway strip should provide an area clear of objects which may endanger a/c. [RP] A14 3.11.3 Remark *: For Code Letter F a further reduction to 95m (Twy-Twy separation) and 55m (Twy-object separation) were recommended by ICAO Panel.


Risk 1 Collision between two aircraft or between an aircraft and an object (fixed or

mobile) Main causes and accident factors

Human factors (crew, marshaller, taxi routing error,…) Weather conditions

Theoretical HA

ZAR

D

AN

ALY

SIS

Severity In-service

Potentially major


B (generic risk model)

RIS

K

ASS

ESSM

ENT


- Taxiway deviation statistics analysis (existing and on going analyses) - Air Navigation Plan – ICAO European Region – Reduced Separation

Distances for NLA operations - 747-8 cockpit visibility

(see Attachment B, C & D)

BA

CG

CO

NC

LUSI

ON

S

- Parallel Taxiway separation Minimum tip-tip clearance margin of 11m with aircraft assumed centered on straight taxiways and positioned cockpit over centreline in curved sections. For planning purposes Code Letter E parallel taxiway separation (80m) should be the minimum.

- Taxiway / Apron Taxiway to Object Separation

Minimum tip-object clearance margin of 9m with aircraft assumed centered on straight taxiways and positioned cockpit over centreline in curved sections. For planning purposes Code Letter E taxiway to object separation (47.5m) should be the minimum.

- Aircraft Stand taxilane to Object separation (including service road and height limited object) Minimum tip-object clearance margin of 7.5m with aircraft assumed centered on straight taxiways and positioned cockpit over centreline in curved sections. For planning purposes Code Letter E taxilane to object separation (42.5m) should be the minimum. Distance may be reduced for height limited object. All objects to be properly marked or lighted.

Aeronautical study to be made in case of reduction below this value. - Clearance at the gate : ICAO SARPs to be followed. Possibility of reduced distance with appropriate measure such as visual docking guidance system, marshaller(s), etc. For taxiways, where reduced margins exist compared to Code F recommendations, proper guidance such as centre line lights or equivalent guidance e.g. marshaller, etc. is to be provided for night or low visibility operations.



HAZARD ANALYSIS

1. Hazard identification The separation distances during taxiing are intended to limit the risk of collision between two aircraft (taxiway/taxiway separation) and between an aircraft and an object (taxiway/object, taxilane/object separations, and clearance at the gate).

2. Causal analysis The accident/incident database (see Attachment B) includes only two accident reports relative to collision on taxiing. Therefore, the causes and accident factors identified for taxiway separation issue are mainly supported by experience and not by accident database analysis. The causes of such an event could be classified as: Mechanical failure (hydraulic system failure) Surface conditions (aquaplaning, loss of control on ice-covered surface) Loss of visual taxiway guidance system (markings and lights covered by snow) Pilot precision and attention (directional control, orientation error,…)


Consequences of collision on taxiing are potentially major.

RISK ASSESSMENT The collision hazard at taxiing does not depend on specific aircraft performance but on human factors. The expected 747-8 behaviour could therefore be inferred from existing aircraft behaviour. As existing measurements in straight section tend to show that the bigger the aircraft, the smaller the taxiway deviation (see Attachment C, D and E), the extrapolation of available data on taxiway deviation for the 747-8 seems quite conservative. This statement means that taxiway separation distances issue comes under “type B” risk assessment category (generic risk model). Accordingly, three kinds of argument could be developed: Use taxiway deviation statistics to assess the collision risk between two aircraft or

between an aircraft and an object. Several taxiway deviation studies (see Attachment C) are available (Amsterdam, London - LHR, New York - JFK, Anchorage, Paris - CDG, Frankfurt, San Francisco,…).

Take advantage of the experience of some major airports that applied lower separation distances specified in the ICAO Air Navigation Plan of European Region for 747-400 operations (see Attachment D & E). ICAO European ANP defines specific measures to apply these reduced wingtip margins on existing infrastructures for generic NLA operations based on 747-400 experience (e.g. centreline lighting or equivalent guidance (i.e. marshaller) for night, winter and low visibility operations, objects marking and lighting, good surface friction conditions, publication in AIP, …).


Take advantage of the recommendations of the AACG for A380 operations who propose reduced tip-tip and tip-object margins based on extensive analysis of the above mentioned studies and experiences.

As risk collision when taxiing is a “type B” hazard (generic risk model), the reduced separation distances used at some major airports for 747-400 with no adverse effect on the safety could be extrapolated for 747-8 operations, with the same specific measures as for the 747-400 aircraft.

CONCLUSIONS BACG members agreed: The 747-8 could operate at existing airport infrastructure with at least the same wingtip margins as recommended by the AACG for A380 operations. Where, due to using the AACG wingtip margins, the taxiway and taxilane separations will be less than those specified for Code Letter E, use of the latter for planning purposes is strongly recommended. Parallel Taxiway separation

- Minimum tip-tip clearance margin of 11m with aircraft assumed to be centered on straight taxiways, and positioned cockpit over centreline in curved sections.

- For planning purposes Code Letter E parallel taxiway separation (80m) should be the minimum.

Taxiway / Apron Taxiway to Object Separation

- Minimum tip-object clearance margin of 9m with aircraft assumed to be centered on straight taxiways, and positioned cockpit over centreline in curved sections.

- For planning purposes Code Letter E taxiway to object separation (47.5m) should be the minimum.

Aircraft Stand taxilane to Object separation (including service road and height limited

object) - Minimum tip-object clearance margin of 7.5m with aircraft assumed to be centered on

straight taxiways and positioned cockpit over centreline in curved sections. - For planning purposes Code Letter E taxilane to object separation (42.5m) should be

the minimum. - Distance may be reduced for height limited object. All objects to be properly marked

or lighted. A particular site specific situation may justify a clearance margin less than that recommended above. For such a situation, an aeronautical study should be made. Clearance at the gate :

- ICAO SARPs to be followed. Possibility of reduced distance with appropriate measure such as visual docking guidance system, marshaller(s), etc.

For taxiways, where reduced margins exist compared to Code F recommendations, proper guidance such as centre line lights or equivalent guidance (e.g. marshaller, etc.) is to be provided for night or low visibility operations. To ensure that the minimum tip-object clearance margins above are respected on curved sections of taxiway, it is recommended to use appropriate tools such as simulation or the analytical method prescribed in ICAO ADM.


PART E: OTHER ITEMS

RUNWAY VISUAL AIDS

SYNOPSIS

ICA

O B

ASE

LIN

E

Elevated edge Lights - Elevated Rwy lights shall be frangible + clear of propellers & engine pods. [Std] A14 P5.3.1.7 - Surface (inset) lights shall withstand being run over by aircraft. [Std] A14 P5.3.1.8 - Elevated Rwy lights shall be placed along the edge of the area declared for the use as Rwy or

outside by less than 3m. [Std] A14 P5.3.9.4

Signals shall be frangible and clear of propellers & engine pods. [Std] A14 P5.4.1.3

PAPI - Where a PAPI or APAPI is installed on Rwy without ILS or MLS they shall be sited to ensure

guidance for the most demanding aircraft regularly using the Rwy. Where a PAPI or APAPI is installed on Rwy with ILS or MLS the should be sited to provide guidance for those aircraft regularly using the Rwy. A14 Chap 5 Figure 5-15 P a) & b), & A14 Chap 5 Table 5-2 footnote a.

- The location of PAPI units depends on eye-to-wheel height of the group of aircraft that use the system regularly & by using the most demanding aircraft of the group. A14 Chap 5 Table 5-2 note a. Wheel clearances may be reduced subject to aeronautical study but not less than values indicated in Table 5-2 column 3. A14 Chap 5 Table 5-2 note c.


Risk 1

Elevated edge lights damaged by jet blast

Risk 2

PAPI guidance not adapted for an

aircraft in approach

Risk 3

Aircraft damage caused by elevated lights after a veer-

off


- Powerplant (engine position,

engine power) - Elevated edge lights strength - Aircraft (rotation angle at take-

off) - Runway centreline deviation

factors (see runway veer-off risk)

Theoretical

HA

ZAR

D A

NA

LYSI

S

Severity

In-service

Potentially major if undetected before take-off and followed by engine ingestion and tire bursting risks



RIS

K

ASS

ESSM

ENT


- 747-8 engine position - 747-8 jet blast contours (see Attachment B)



BA

CG

C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

- For Rwy edge lighting position, ICAO SARPs to be followed (placed along the edge of the area declared for the use as Rwy or outside by less than 3 m).

- Inset Rwy edge lights; possibility of elevated runway edge lights according to preliminary engine

outputs. Snow clearance to be considered in the choice. - PAPI: No specific 747-8 requirement; ICAO compliant.



HAZARD ANALYSIS

1. Hazard identification Three potential hazards linked to runway visual aids characteristics could be identified:

1. Elevated edge lights damaged by aircraft jet blast 2. PAPI guidance not adapted for an aircraft in approach 3. Aircraft damage caused by elevated lights after an aircraft veer-off

Hazards 1 and 2 could effectively be related to NLA characteristics (engine position, engine thrust, eye-to-wheel height, landing attitude,…). However, hazard 3 is not a specific NLA issue. The frangibility characteristic of elevated edge lights is a mitigating measure potentially useful for all kind of aircraft (and probably more for smallest aircraft: the bigger the gear wheel, the more the frangibility) in case of runway veer-off. PAPI guidance issues are linked to aircraft characteristics but, considering 747-8 eye-to wheel height in approach configuration (see Attachment B), Annex 14 requirements should be sufficient to determine PAPI guidance for 747-8. This is not a specific 747-8 item. In addition to these three hazards, it could be relevant to study the risk of centreline lights damage caused by aircraft rolling on surface lights: the 747-8 is not the most critical aircraft in term of weight/wheel. Hence, only jet blast effect on runway edge lights has been considered here for the 747-8.

2. Causal analysis Main causes and accident factors for elevated runway edge lights damage risk are: Powerplant characteristics (engine position, engine power) Elevated edge lights strength Aircraft rotation angle at take-off Runway centreline deviation factors (see runway veer-off risk)

3. Consequences analysis Edge lights damages can potentially have major consequences if undetected before take-off and followed by engine ingestion and tire bursting.

RISK ASSESSMENT

Runway edge lights damage Jet blast hazards are typical geometric issues and come under “type C” risk assessment category (geometric argument). Preliminary 747-8 jet blast contours are now available (see Attachment B) and could be compared to other existing aircraft jet blast contours. The first result of comparative studies indicates that runway edge lights are already subject to jet blast velocities similar to the expected 747-8 ones. The outboard engine positions are the same distance laterally from the lights as with the 747-400. The takeoff thrust of the 747-8 engine is 66,500 lbs, compared to 63,300 lbs for the 747-400ER.


Moreover, based on mechanical strength values of elevated runway edge lights requirements, preliminary simulation results of theoretical study would show that the elevated lights should withstand the 747-8 jet blast. A study based on experimental test may be carried out in order to determine mechanical and/or aerodynamic strength limits of some existing elevated runway lights. Other analyses linked to the characteristics of the lights are in progress: Photometry test in laboratory conditions show that the luminous output of runway edge

inset lights is compliant with the minimum intensity defined by Annex 14 (even though lower than the luminous output of elevated light).

The inset lights are only bi-directional and they cannot be used for providing circling guidance and be shown at all angles in azimuth (Annex 14 P5.3.9.8) If there is a need for circling guidance, two inset lights should be installed: the runway edge inset light and an inset light with omni directional luminous output.

The level of maintenance required with inset fittings is higher that the one with elevated lights: from replacement of a lamp on site to the replacement of the whole inset light by a spare and the maintenance in a workshop (stripping down of the fitting and cleaning of the lens and replacement of the lamp and seals,…)

CONCLUSIONS BACG members agreed: For runway edge lighting position, ICAO SARPs to be followed (placed along the edge of

the area declared for the use as runway or outside by less than 3m) Inset runway edge lights; possibility of elevated runway edge lights according to

preliminary engine outputs. Snow clearance to be considered in the choice. PAPI: No specific 747-8 requirement; ICAO compliant


TAXIWAY ON BRIDGES

SYNOPSIS

ICA

O B

ASE

LIN

E

The width of the portion of a taxiway bridge capable of supporting aeroplanes, as measured perpendicularly to the taxiway centreline, shall not be less than the width of the graded area of the strip provided for that taxiway, unless a proven method of lateral restraint is provided which shall not be hazardous for aeroplanes for which the taxiway is intended. [Std] A14 P3.9.20 & ADM Pt2 P1.4.4 Access should be provided for ARFF vehicles to intervene in both directions. [RP] A14 P3.9.21 If a/c engines overhang the bridge structure, protection of adjacent areas below the bridge from engine blast may be required. [RP] A14 P3.9.21 Note & ADM Pt2 P1.4.4

Hazard identification

Risk 1

Taxiway veer off on the bridge and aircraft fall from the bridge

Risk 2

Evacuation slides falling past the edge

Risk 3

Difficulties for fire fighting intervention

Risk 4

Blast under the bridge


- See taxiway veer-off risk (taxiway width paragraph)

- Width of the bridge

- Aircraft stop

away from taxiway centreline


- Evacuation slides configuration


- Wingspan and outer engine span

- Engine position, engine power

- Width of jet blast protection on the bridge

- Taxiway deviation factors (see. taxiway veer-off risk)

Theoretical Catastrophic Hazardous

HA

ZAR

D A

NA

LYSI

S

Severity In-service No cases reported No cases reported

Major to

catastrophic

Major for other traffic (not for the

aircraft)


C (predominant geometric issues)

RIS

K A

SSES

SMEN

T


- Comparison

with margins for a 747 on a code E bridge

(see Attachmt. B)

- Comparison

with margins for a 747 on a code E bridge

(see Attachmt. B)

- Firemen

practices - 747-8

wingspan and outer engine span

(see Attachmt. B)

- 747-8 outer

engine span - Taxiing jet

blast contours (see Attachmt. B)

BA

CG

C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

- Not less than 44m for width of the portion capable of supporting the 747-8 and for passenger

evacuation. - Possibility of reduced width margins if proven method of lateral restraint is provided. - Not less than 44m for jet blast protection, slide and passenger movement support during evacuation

in case full bearing strength width is reduced by proven means of lateral restraint. - Alternative path for ARFF vehicles (whatever the bridge width).



HAZARD ANALYSIS

1. Hazard identification The following hazards have been identified: A gear leg veering off the bearing surface In case of an emergency evacuation, deployment of an escape slide with its end outside

the bridge Impossibility for fire emergency vehicles to drive around the aircraft Jet blast on whatever is under the bridge

2. Causal analysis The causes of such an event can be classified as: Mechanical failure (hydraulic system failure) Surface conditions (aquaplaning, loss of control on ice-covered surface) Loss of visual taxiway guidance system (markings and lights covered by snow) Pilot precision and attention (directional control, orientation error, …) Taxiway bridge design issues (width of taxiway bridge, width of jet-blast protection) Aircraft design issues (Evacuation slides configuration, wingspan and engine positions)

3. Consequences analysis The hazards, under the FAR/JAR scale, would be classified as « major » to « catastrophic »

RISK ASSESSMENT For these hazard mechanisms, a « type C » analysis is adequate (geometric argument), i.e. one in which the geometric characteristics of the aircraft are predominant. Safety levels can be defined through a comparison with code E requirements and 747-8 characteristics (see Attachment B). The risk of a veer-off from the taxiway bridge is a function of the margin between the

main gear legs and the bridge edge:

Outer Main Gear Wheel

Span Taxiway Bridge Width

Clearance between the outer main gear wheel and the taxiway Bridge

edge 747-400 12.6m 44m 15.70m 747-8 12.7m 44m 15.65m Code Letter E main gear wheel span upper limit

13.99m 44m 15.00m

For the 747-8 the margin between outer main gear wheel and taxiway bridge edge is equal as for the 747-400 and slightly larger than for the main gear wheel span upper limit of Code Letter E.

The risk of a slide falling outside the bridge is a function of the margin between the position of the outermost slide (when the aircraft in on the centreline) and the bridge edge. For both the 747-400 and 747-8 (outermost slide at 14.4m from aircraft axis) this margin on a code E bridge is: 44/2 - 14.4 = 7.6m

For fire intervention, it is necessary2 to provide fire-fighting vehicles with routes allowing

access to both sides of the aircraft, so that they could fight a fire using the best angle (according to wind direction). Important factor is the distance between fuselage centreline and outer engine span (axis). For both the 747-400 and the 747-8 this distance is 20.85m.

It should be noted that the wing will in all cases exceed the width of a bridge and that for both 747-400 and 747-8 the margin between outer engine and taxiway bridge edge is marginal. According to firemen practices, the most important point (rather than an increased bridge width implying a passage under the wing) is to have another bridge nearby for access to the “other” side of an aircraft. This is available when bridges are paired (parallel taxiways) or when there is a service road in the vicinity. Ground surface on the bypass routes should also be stabilized where it is unpaved.

For blast protection under the bridge, the distance between fuselage centreline and outer engine axis is of importance. For the 747-8 this distance is equal as for the 747-400. Also the jet-blast velocity contours of both aircraft are similar. Therefore no additional blast protection is needed in comparison with Code Letter E requirements. The requirement for jet blast protection under a taxiway bridge is coherent with taxiway shoulder width; 44 meters.

Above mentioned arguments allows to conclude that for a 747-8 the use of a Code Letter E taxiway bridge is as safe as for a 747-400.

CONCLUSIONS BACG members agreed: Not less than 44m for width of the portion capable of supporting the 747-8 and for

passenger evacuation. Possibility of reduced width margins if proven method of lateral restraint is provided. Not less than 44m for jet blast protection, slide and passenger movement support during

evacuation in case full bearing strength width is reduced by proven means of lateral restraint.

An alternative path for ARFF vehicles (whatever the bridge width is) is strongly recommended.

1.2 m

44m wide TW Y bridg e

14.4m


2 It is also necessary to ensure that a fire-fighting vehicle will be able to attack an engine fire on an aircraft stopped on the bridge; in the case of the B 747-8 on a code E (44m) bridge, this is made possible by the outer engine span (21.6m) being lower than the bridge width.


RUNWAY END SAFETY AREA (RESA)

SYNOPSIS

ICA

O B

ASE

LIN

E

The width of a RESA shall be at least twice that of the associated runway. 120m for an associated runway Code Letter F rwy; 90m for an associated runway Code Letter E rwy. [Std] A14 P3.5.4 The width of a RESA should, wherever practicable, be equal to that of the graded portion of the associated runway strip. 150m for Code Number 3 and 4. [RP] A14 P3.5.5 The RESA is intended to provide protection beyond the runway strip to minimize damage when aircraft undershoot or overshoot/overrun the rwy during landing or take-off. ADM Pt1 P5.4.1

Hazard identification Risk 1

Runway overrun excursion at take-off

Risk 2 Runway undershoot or runway overrun excursion at landing


- Human factors (crew, maintenance, balance, payload security)

- Powerplant (engine failure, ingestion)

- Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow)

- Aircraft (control surfaces, hydraulic system, tyres)

- Human factors (crew, maintenance)

- Aircraft (landing gear, control surfaces, hydraulic system, brakes, tyres)

- Powerplant (reverse) - Surface conditions (aquaplaning,

snow) - Weather conditions (tail wind,

visibility, inaccurate meteorological information)

Theoretical

HA

ZAR

D A

NA

LYSI

S

Severity In-service

Major to Catastrophic depending on the aircraft speed.


A (aircraft performance) A (aircraft performance)

RIS

K A

SSES

SMEN

T


- Planned 747-8 operational approval on 45m wide Rwy: critical failure conditions at take off, VMCG criteria, envelope of environmental conditions covered by aircraft certification.

- Numerous design changes from the 747-400 to improve handling qualities during takeoff or rejected takeoff.

- Otherwise design commonalities with the 747-400.

- Flight deck features that improve situation awareness.


- Planned 747-8 operational approval on 45m wide Rwy: critical failure conditions at landing, envelope of environmental conditions covered by aircraft certification, Autoland criteria.

- Numerous design changes from the 747-400 to improve lateral handling qualities during landing.

- Otherwise design commonalities with the 747-400.

- Flight deck features that improve situation awareness


BA

CG

C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

- Minimum 90m based on 45m Code Letter E associated runway width, or twice that of the actual associated Rwy width.

However a RESA width equal to the width of the graded portion of the associated runway strip is strongly recommended



HAZARD ANALYSIS

1 Hazard identification The principal hazard linked to Runway End Safety Area is Runway-undershoot at landing and runway-overrun at take-off or landing.

2 Causal analysis There are many factors that may cause a runway undershoot or overrun. Most of them are not related to the size of the aircraft. The main causes and accident factors are listed as follows: For take-off:

- Human factors (crew, maintenance, balance, payload security) - Aircraft (control surfaces, hydraulic system, tyres) - Powerplant (engine failure, ingestion) - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow)

For landing: - Human factors (crew, maintenance, balance, payload security) - Aircraft (landing gear, control surfaces, hydraulic system, brakes, tyres) - Powerplant (reverse) - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow) - Weather conditions (tail wind, visibility, inaccurate meteorological information)

3 Consequences analysis

The runway undershoot and runway overrun hazard could be classified as major to catastrophic risk depending on the aircraft speed. Safety analyses (Functional Hazard Assessment, System Safety Assessment, Environmental Conditions Hazard Assessment,…) on landing and take-off operations will be made during the operational approval process. Runway undershoot and overrun are risks explicitly taken into account by Boeing in the aircraft design process (see 747-8 Performance Features and Safety Improvements in Attachment B).

RISK ASSESSMENT This type of risk comes under “type A” risk assessment category, mainly based on aircraft performance and handling qualities. Boeing is planning for operational approval to operate the 747-8 on 45m wide runways. The design and pilot procedural improvements are focused on safe operations on Code Letter E Rwys. Numerous design changes were made from the 747-400 to improve handling qualities during take-off and landing. There are also design commonalities with the 747-400, like main gear geometry and also Final approach speed. Those changes and commonalities are described in Part A: Runways, Risk Assessment section of this document.


It may be expected that, due to these handling improvements as well as commonalities, the behaviour of the 747-8 in case of runway undershoot or overrun, will not be worse (probably better) than that for the 747-400. The assumed approval of the B747-8 for operation on 45 m wide runways, may conclude that for the RESA a minimum width requirement of 90 m is adequate, based on adequacy of the width of the associated Code Letter E runway.

CONCLUSIONS BACG members agreed: The RESA width shall apply to actual "associated" runway width. A minimum RESA width of 90m, based on 45m Code Letter E associated runway width,

or twice that of the actual associated Rwy width, is adequate for 747-8 However a RESA width equal to the width of the graded portion of the associated runway strip is strongly recommended, independent on the size of (large) aircraft using that runway.

B1

BACG Attachment B

Physical Characteristics and Performance of 747-8

Table of Contents

747-8 Airplane Configuration ……………………………………………………… B4

747-8 Performance Features and Safety Enhancements ……………………… B14

Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) ………………………………………………………… B17

Autoland Requirement/Performance ……………………………………………... B19

Engine Exhaust Velocities …………………………………………………………. B26

Ground Maneuvering B31Ground Maneuvering ………………………………………………………………..B31

Accident/Incident Analysis …………………………………………………………. B36

Appendix……………………………………………………………………………....B47Appendix……………………………………………………………………………....B47

Updated 747-8 Data in Appendix A ICAO Circular 305 ………………………... B56

COPYRIGHT © 2006 THE BOEING COMPANY

B2

B3

Airport Planning Manual Available

www.boeing.com/airports/acaps/747_8.pdf

This Brochure contains a summary of the 747-8 Airport Compatibility. For more details affecting airport planning, please consult the Airplane Characteristics for Airport

Planning (ACAP) Document located at:

B4

747-8 Airplane Configuration

B5

747-8 vs. 747-400 Comparison

797-CO-0256 12/8/06-CF

747-8 (ft/m) 747-400 (ft/m)

Span 224.4/68.4 213.0/64.9

Length 250.2/76.3 231.8/70.7

Height 64.2/19.6 64.0/19.5

747-8747-400

747-85.7 ft (1.8 m)

wider each side747-8

0.2-ft (0.1 m) higher

747-818.4-ft (5.6 m) longer

BOEING PROPRIETARY – PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT STUDY COPYRIGHT © 2006 THE BOEING COMPANY

747-8 Intercontinental General Characteristics

11/02/2010

Characteristics Units 747-400 747-400ER 747-8

Max design taxi weight lb 878,000 913,000 978,000kg 398,254 414,130 443,613

Max design takeoff lb 875,000 910,000 975,000weight kg 396,893 412,769 442,253Max design landing lb 652,000 581,000/652,000 (2) 683,000weight kg 295,742 263,537/295,742 309,803Max design zero fuel lb 555,000 542,000/555,000 (2) 643,000weight kg 251,744 245,847/251,744 291,660

Max structural payloadlb 156,200 136,700/148,100 (2) 168,650kg 70,851 62,006/67,177 76,498

Seating capacity 416 416 46723FC + 80 BC + 313 EC 23FC + 80 BC + 313 EC 25 FC + 89 BC + 353 EC

Maximum fuel capacity US gal 57,065 (1) 60,305(2)/63,545 (2) 63,095 (3)

L 216,014 228,279/240,544 238,841Notes:(1) Includes tail fuel, GE engines(2) Basic (1 aux tank) / Max (2 aux tanks)(3) GE engines

Three-class

Max cargo(30) LD-1 or (5) 96-ft pallets

+ (14) LD-1

(1) Body tank + (28) LD-1 or (4) 96-in pallets + (14) LD-1 or

(2) body tanks + (24) LD-1

(38) LD-1 or (7) 96-in pallets + (18) LD-1

BOEING PROPRIETARY – PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT STUDY COPYRIGHT © 2006 THE BOEING COMPANY

747-8 Freighter General Characteristics

Characteristics Units 747-400F 747-400ERF 747-8FMax design taxi weight lb 878,000 913,000

kg 398,254 414,130Max design takeoff lb 875,000 910,000weight kg 396,893 412,769Max design landing lb 652,000 (1) 653,000 (1) 759,000weight kg 295,742 296,196 344,277Max design zero fuelweight

lb 610,000 (2) 611,000 (2) 719,000kg 276,691 277,145 326,133

Max structural payload lb 248,300 248,600 (4) 295,200kg 112,627 112,763 133,900cu ft 27,467 27,467 29,426cu m 777.8 777.8 833.3

Maximum fuel capacity US gal 53,765 (3) 53,765 (3) 59,794 (3)

L 203,523 203,523 226,345Notes:(1) Option for 666,000 lb (302,093 kg) (2) Option for 635,000 lb (288,031 kg) only with 811,000 lb (367,863 kg) MTOW(3) GE engines(4) Option for 272,600 lb (123,649 kg) only with 811,000 lb (367,863 kg) MTOW

Max cargo

978,000443,613975,000442,253

11/02/2010

B6

747-8F vs. 747-400F Comparison

797-CO-0256 12/8/06-CF

747-8F (ft/m) 747-400F (ft/m)

Span 224.4/68.4 213.0/64.9

Length 250.2/76.3 231.8/70.7

Height 64.2/19.6 64.0/19.5

747-8747-400

747-85.7 ft (1.8 m)

wider each side747-8

0.2-ft (0.1 m) higher

747-818.4-ft (5.6 m) longer

B9

747-8 Airport Compatibility Large Airplane Comparison

797-AO-0057 12/8/06-CF

Critical model shown in red 747-8 747-400ER 777-300ER A340-600 A380-800

Wingspan 224.4ft(68.4 m)

213.0 ft(64.9 m)

212.6 ft(64.8 m)

208.0 ft(63.4 m)

261.8 ft(79.8 m)

Length 250.2 ft(76.3 m)

231.8 ft(70.7 m)

242.4 ft(73.9 m)

247.4 ft(75.4 m)

238.7 ft(72.7 m)

Tail height (max) 64.2 ft(19.6 m)

64.0 ft(19.5 m)

61.4 ft(18.7 m)

58.7 ft(17.9 m)

80.2 ft(24.4 m)

Wheelbase (to turning centroid)

92.3 ft(28.1 m)

79.1 ft(24.1 m)

100.4 ft(30.6 m)

108.9 ft(33.2 m)

97.8 ft(29.8 m)

Cockpit-to-main gear 100.0 ft(30.5 m)

86.6 ft(26.4 m)

112.2 ft(34.2 m)

122.7 ft(37.4 m)

104.6 ft(31.9 m)

Main gear span (to outer tire edges)

41.7 ft(12.7 m)

41.3 ft(12.6 m)

42.3 ft(12.9 m)

41.3 ft(12.6 m)

46.9 ft(14.3 m)

Outer engine span 136.7 ft(41.7 m)

136.7 ft(41.7 m)

63.0 ft(19.2 m)

126.3 ft(38.5 m)

168.6 ft(51.4 m)

Wingtip height (min) 19.7 ft (est)(6.0 m)

16.7 ft (5.1 m)

23.6 ft (7.2 m)

19.4 ft (5.9 m)

17.1 ft(5.2 m)

Max taxi weight 978,000 lb(443,610 kg)

913,000 lb(414,130 kg)

777,000 lb(352,440 kg)

840,400 lb(381,200 kg)

1,258,000 lb(571,000 kg)

B10

747-8 Intercontinental Door Locations

797-CO-0268 10-19-06-whp

31 ft 2 in (9.5 m)

75 ft 0 in (22.9 m)

113 ft 9 in (34.7 m)

152 ft 0 in (46.3 m)

199 ft 4 in (60.7 m)

B11

747-8 Freighter Door Locations

31.2 ft(9.5 m)

43.7 ft (13.3 m)

157.9 ft(48.4 m)

166.0 ft(50.6 m)

177.8 ft(54.2 m)

26.1 ft (8.0 m)

B12

Cockpit Visibility 747-8 Versus 747-400

797-CO-0265 11-7-06-whp/CF

Ground pitch angle for 747-8is slightly more nose down(0.2o) than 747-400

• Increased cutoff angle• Decreased obscured segment

2.34 m

5.54 m

747-8 24.94 m(747-400 25.81 m)

747-8 8.72 m(747-400 8.70 m)

747-8 21º 48'(747-400 22º 0')

747-8 18º 38'(747-400 18º 26')

B13

747-8 Landing Gear Footprint

797-CO-0259 11-16-06-CF

92 ft 3 in (28.13 m)*

10 ft 1 in(3.07 m)

12 ft 7 in(3.84 m)

36 ft 1 in(11.00 m)

41 ft 9 in*(12.73 m)

46.8 in*(1.19 m)

typ.

56.5 in*(1.44 m)

typ.

36 in(0.91 m)

* 747-400/-400ER have 41 ft 5 in (12.62 m) outer wheel span78 ft 11.5 in (24.07 m) wheelbase58 in x 44 in (1.47 m x 1.12 m) truck size

CHARACTERISTICS UNITS 747-400 747-8MAX DESIGN POUNDS 877,000 978,000 TAXI WEIGHT KILOGRAMS 397,801 443,614NOSE GEAR TIRE SIZE IN. 49x17, 32 PR * 50x20R22/26PRNOSE GEAR TIRE PSI 200 * 166 PRESSURE KG/CM2 14.06 * 11.67MAIN GEAR TIRE SIZE IN. H49x19.0 - 22 32 PR 52x21R22/36PRMAIN GEAR TIRE PSI 200 220 PRESSURE KG/CM2 14.06 15.47

B14

747-8 Performance Features and Safety Enhancements

B15

Low Speed Flying Quality is Similar or Better than 747-400

Lateral handling qualities are anticipated to be the same as, or better than, those of the current 747 models

The following are design improvements and new features for the 747-8Increased outboard aileron deflection to -30° (-25° on -400)−

Outboard aileron is more effectiveUse of spoilers 6 and 7 for lateral control −

Improves roll response rate and controlFBW aileron and spoilers−

Allows tuning of roll controlIncreased spoiler effectiveness due to aft loading, flaps up and down−

Improves roll responseDouble-hinged lower rudder and spudders−

Improved directional control60° ground spoilers improve braking, landing field length, and rejected takeoff performance (45° on -400)Drooped ailerons−

Improved takeoff and landing performanceRevised rudder mechanism −

Eliminates exposure to single failure rudder hardovers

747-8 retains Code E aircraft maneuverability

797-WD-0343 11-16-06-CF

B16

Improved Situation Awareness in Flight Deck

797-WD-0336 11-22-6-JW/CF

Vertical situation display (VSD) (new) – improves vertical awareness; path prediction relative to the ground; airplane shown in a vertical profile

Integrated approach navigation (IAN) (new) – ILS-like deviation alerts, same procedure for all approaches

Global navigation satellite landing system (GLS) (new) – less noise (signal interference) than ILS

Navigation performance scales (NPS) (new) – more accurate flight path information for landing/takeoff, better situation awareness

Taxi-map (option)

Tire pressure monitoring system (basic on -8; option on -400) – reliability improved over the years

Brake temperature monitoring system (basic since -400)

B17

Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)

B18

747-8 is Compatible with ICAO Code E OFZ

797-AO-0073 11/15/06/CF

Code E approach Code F approach

120 mInner approach

155 mInner approach

OFZ (Obstacle Free Zone)

Obstacle free airspace centered along the runway for balked landing protection

Studies have found that airplanes equipped with digital avionics and track hold guidance remain on intended ground track more accurately

−

ICAO has declared that a Code F airplane so equipped (such as 747-8) is compatible with Code E OFZ

747-8 on a parallel taxiway is not affected by Code E OFZ (same tail height as 747-400)

B19

ICAO Document on Code F OFZ

ICAO Annex 14 Text on Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)

Chapter 4, Table 4-1, Note e:

Where the code letter is F (Column (3) of Table 1-1), the width is increased to 155m. See ICAO Circular 301-AN/174 for information on code letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics that provide steering commands to maintain an established track during the go-around manoeuvre.

ICAO Circular 301-AN/174 text on OFZ findings

Part I, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.2.2:

…the balked landing study results found that when a modern digital autopilot or flight director with track hold guidance is used for the approach, a code letter F aeroplane would be contained within the code letter E OFZ. Consequently, the code letter E balked landing surface could be used to assess obstacles around the runway.

Part I, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.2.3:

Both the total width of 120m and the slope of 3:1 for the balked landing surface were found to be adequate.

797-WD-0344 11-2-06-CF

B20

Autoland Requirement/Performance

B21

747-8 Autoland Requirement

Autoland certification requirement:

FAA AC 120-28D/JAR-AWO sub-part 1, 2, and 3 “Criteria for approval of category III weather minima for takeoff, landing, and rollout”

Based on 747-400 simulation data for certification, 747-8 is expected to be well within the prescribed touchdown box for all test conditions

Simulation correlated to actual aircraft(747-400) performance

Aircraft configuration parameters matched

−

Same landing gear geometry

−

Same autopilot design

−

Same autoland control law design (Retuned for aerodynamic differences)

797-WD-0341 11-15-06-CF

B22

747-8 Autoland Runway Touchdown Criteria

797-AO-0061 11-16-6-JW/CF

Runway threshold

Outboard landing gear limitRunway edge

CL

5 ft (1.5 m)

150 ft

(45.7m)

Landing shorttouchdown limit

200 ft (61.0m)3000 ft

(914 m) Landing longtouchdown limit

Expected Lateral Performance

70 ft(21.3 m)

• Touchdown within this envelope for following conditions:• “Average” conditions (10E-6 touchdown probability of exceedance)

• Include wet/dry weather• “Extreme” conditions (10E-5 touchdown probability of exceedance)

• 25 knots crosswind and engine failure added to “average” conditions

B23

NLA Balked Landing Simulations with Autopilot

ICAO Circular 301– New larger aeroplanes –Infringement of the obstacle free zone: Operational measures and aeronautical study, Chapter 6

Autopilot simulation results from balked landing touchdown dispersions show maximum lateral deviation of about 25 ft (7.6 m)

Approach speed does not affect lateral deviation

- Greater longitudinal dispersion but same maximum lateral deviation at higher altitude (higher approach speed)

797-WD-0338 10-18-06-CF

B24

NLA Touchdown Dispersion During Balked Landing at Sea Level

797-TE-0004 10-17-06-whp

Distance from threshold, ft

Distance from

centerline, ft

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-301,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

Threshold elevation: 13 ft

B25

NLA Touchdown Dispersion During Balked Landing at 6,500 ft (1981 m)

797-TE-0005 10-17-06-whp

Distance from threshold, ft

Distance from

centerline, ft

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-301,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

Threshold elevation: 6,500 ft

B26

Engine Exhaust Velocities

B27

Exhaust Wake Velocity Contours

Runway and taxiway shoulder widths relate to engine jet blast*

ICAO Code E (FAA Group V) runway and taxiway shoulders are adequate for 747-8

Same outer engine span as 747-400

Same breakaway velocity contour width as 747-400ER(applies to TWY shoulders)

Slightly wider takeoff velocity contour than 747-400ERbut within Code E/Group V runway shoulders

747-8 outer engine height above ground at center of

thrust is slightly higher (14 inches, 0.36 cm) than 747-400

797-WD-0347 11-2-06-CF

* 35 mph (56 km/hr) velocity contour is used for shoulder design purpose

B28

747-8 Outboard Engine Height Above Ground

797-PP-0038 12-8-6-JW/CF

747-400

747-8

52 in / 132 cm to 67 in / 171 cm 52 in / 132 cm to 67 in / 171 cm

14 in / 36 cm

B29

Exhaust Velocity Contours at Breakaway Thrust is Same Width as 747-400ER

797-PP-0035 12-5-06-whp/CF

A/P Tail

-100

-50

0

30

50

35 mph (56 km/h)

35 mph (56 km/h)

50 mph (80 km/h)

50 mph (80 km/h)

75 mph (120 km/h)

75 mph (120 km/h)

~ 25’

• Sea level, standard day• Static A/P• No wind• All engines running• 1.5% ground up-slope•Steady state contours Distance downstream of engine nozzle exit

Distance from A/P center line

(~ 7.6 m)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 ft

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 m

20

10

0

10

30

100

20

ft m

747-8747-400ER

B30

• Sea level, standard day• Static A/P• No wind• All engines running•Steady state contours Distance downstream of engine nozzle exit

Takeoff Thrust Exhaust Velocity Contour widths are Within Code E Shoulder Width

797-PP-0037 12-5-6-whp/CF

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500300

200

0

300

50 mph (80 km/h)35 mph (56 km/h)

75 mph (120 km/h)50mph (80 km/h)

ft m

Distance from A/P center line

90

60

30

0

30

90

60

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 m700

ft

100

100

200

747-8747-400ER

B31

Ground Maneuvering

B32

747-8 Footprint Fits Inside 777-300 Footprint

797-NO-0047 11-3-6-CF

777-300

747-8

747-

8 &

777

Tu

rnin

g A

xis

747-841.7 ft

(12.7 m)

777-30042.3 ft

(12.9 m)

747-892.3 ft (28.1m)

777-300100.4 ft (30.6 m)

Cockpit-to-main gear distance747-8: 100.0 ft (30.5 m)

777-300: 112.2 ft (34.2 m)

B33

747-8 Fillet Requirement

797-AO-0055 11/3/6-CF

Cockpit overtaxiway centerline

747-8 taxiway turn fillet requirement is less demanding than the 777-300ER or A340-600

Tire edge to turn center

A340-600 88 ft 26.8 m

777-300 92 ft 28.0 m

MD-11 100 ft 30.5 m

747-8 100 ft 30.5 m

DC-10 103 ft 31.4 m

747-400 106 ft 32.3 m

8 ft747-8

B34

U-Turn Width Requirement

797-AO-0058 11/3/6-CF

747-400 747-8 777-300ER A340-600 A380-800

ICAO Code E F E E F

Maximum steering angle, no differential braking

154 ft(47 m)

170 ft(52 m)

185 ft(57 m)

186 ft(57 m)

216 ft(66 m)

U-turn width required can be reduced by using differential braking and/or asymmetrical thrust.

747-8 180o turn requirement is less demanding than the 777-300ER and A340-600

Minimum width of pavement

B35

Same Proven Steering System as Existing 747s

797-TE-0006 11-3-6-whp/CF

747-8 has the same body gear steering systems as today’s 747’s

Bodygear angle(deg)

13

0

13

Nose gear angle (deg)70 65 65 7070 0 70

Gear nearestturn center

Gear furthestfrom turn center

Nose gear Body gear

0 to 20 degrees 0

20 to 70 degrees 0 to 13 degrees

Max 70 deg

Nose gear

Wing gear

Body gear

Max 13 deg

Turncenter

B36

Accident/Incident Analysis 747 Runway and Taxiway Veeroffs 1970 to 2005

B37

747 Runway Veeroffs

797-AO-0064 11-22-6-whp/CF

Numberof events

Year

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Incident: Less severe than accident (62 events, 77%)

Accident: Fatalities, serious injury and/or substantial aircraft damage (18 events, 23%)

• No fatalities from 747 veer-offs

Incidents Accidents747-400 Veer-offsIncidents: 5 Accidents: 2

B38

Numberof events

Year

747 Takeoff/Landing Veeroffs

797-AO-0066 11-16-06-whp/CF

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

70-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-00 01-05

Takeoff (5yr) Landing (5 yr)

B39

Personnel(Pilot, ATC)

19%

747 Runway Veeroff Causes

797-AO-0071 10/26/06/CF

Weather 32%

Mechanical 22%

Pavement 0%

Load 4%

Unknown23%

• Weather, particularly in winter (64%), is primary cause.Runway width probably had no influence on the consequence from slippery surface

• High percentage of “mechanical” were actually attributed to pilot procedure. (22% is as reported before filtering)

B40

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

70-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-00 01-05

Movements

In Millions

747 Movements, Takeoffs and Landings

5 Year Periods

DS-747-2007-080 8-3-07 ets

Steady increase in 747 movements

B41

0.0E+00

1.0E-06

2.0E-06

3.0E-06

4.0E-06

5.0E-06

6.0E-06

7.0E-06

70-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-00 01-05

Frequency

747 Runway Veeroff Frequency by 747 Movement (Landing & Takeoff)

797-AO-0065 11-16-6-whp/CF

• Landings & takeoffs combined

• Steady decline over the years

Years

B42

0.0E+00

1.0E-06

2.0E-06

3.0E-06

4.0E-06

5.0E-06

6.0E-06

7.0E-06

8.0E-06

9.0E-06

1.0E-05

70-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-00 01-05

Frequency

747 Takeoff and Landing Veer-off Frequency by 747 Movement

• Continuous reduction over the years

• Crew procedures and performance improvements have contributed tothe reduction

5 Year Periods

Takeoff (5 yr) Landing (5 yr)

DS-747-2007-080 8-3-07 ets

B43

Numberof events

Year

Incidents Accidents

747 Annual Taxiway Veeroff Incidents and Accidents

797-AO-0069 10-26-06-whp

0

1

2

3

4

5

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003

• Only two accidents in 36 years

B44

Taxiway Veeroff Causes

797-AO-0072 11/6/06/CF

Weather 17%

Mechanical 7%

Personnel 38%Pavement

2%

Load 0%

Unknown36%

B45

Frequency

747 Taxiway Veeroff Frequency by 747 Movement

797-AO-0070 11-17-06-whp/CF

0.0E+00

1.0E-06

2.0E-06

3.0E-06

4.0E-06

5.0E-06

6.0E-06

70-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-00 01-05

• Continuous reduction to a low current rate

Year

B46

Summary of 747 Veeroffs

No fatality from 747 veeroff incidents/accidents

15% of runway and taxiway veeroffs are categorized as accident (Serious injury and/or substantial aircraft damage)

Runway veeroff rate shows steady decline over the 36 year period

Highest causal category of runway veeroff is weather, most of which occurred in winter months. Runway width probably had no influence in the outcome.

Cause of most of the accidents/incidents described as “mechanical”were actually pilot error

Dramatic decrease in takeoff veeroffs since the early 1990s.Reasons: Performance improvements, new design features, and improved crew procedures.

Steady decrease in landing veeroffs. Reasons: Same as above.

Highest causal category of taxiway veeroff is attributed to pilot error. Weather has contributed to many of these and careful judgment isrequired to determine the primary cause.

797-WD-0345 11/28/06/CF

B47

Appendix

B54

Visual Landing Aids Data

Reference Points and Distances for Approach Analysis(all distances are measured vertically)

Eye RefPoint

GlideslopeReceiver

Glideslope Beam

Lowest Point on Tire

H1 H2

H3H4

H

Drawing for demonstration only and is not to scale

COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY PRELIMINARY

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Range (1,000 nmi)

Pa

ylo

ad

(1

,00

0 lb

)

747-8 Intercontinental Payload-Range Capability

• Typical mission rules• Nominal fuel flow• Standard day• Passenger allowance: 210 lb/pass• Fuel density: 6.7 lb/USG

747-400/CF6-80C2B1F

875,000 lb MTOW

403,600 lb OEW

7,220 nmi design range

747-8 Intercontinental/GEnx-2B67

975,000 lb MTOW

474,350 lb OEW

8,000 nmi design range

416 passengers

467 passengers

Fuel cap

acity

U. S

. gallons

63,095

57,065

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Range (1,000 km)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pay

load

(1,

000

kg)

11/02/2010


5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000

Take-off gross weight (1,000 lb)

Ta

ke

-off

fie

ld le

ng

th (

1,0

00

ft)

747-8 Intercontinental Take-off Field Length

747-8/GEnx-2B67

747-400/CF6-80C2B1F

• Sea level• ISA+27F (15C)• Optimum take-off

250 300 350 400 450

Take-off gross weight (1,000 kg)

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Tak

e-o

ff f

ield

len

gth

(1,

000

m)

11/02/2010


4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Landing weight (1,000 lb)

La

nd

ing

fie

ld le

ng

th (

1,0

00

ft)

747-8 Intercontinental Landing Field Length

747-8/GEnx-2B67747-400/CF6-80C2B1F

• Sea level• Standard day• Flaps 30

200 250 300 350

Landing weight (1,000 kg)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Lan

din

g f

ield

len

gth

(1,

000

m)

11/02/2010


747-8 Freighter Payload Range Capability

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Range (1,000 nm)

Pa

ylo

ad

(1

,00

0 lb

)

747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F

875,000 lb MTOW

360,900 lb OEW

4,450 nmI design range

747-8 Freighter/GEnx-2B67

975,000 lb MTOW

423,800 lb OEW

4,390 nmI design range

Cargo density

10 lb/cu ft

9 lb/cu ft

8 lb/cu ft

7 lb/cu ft

6 lb/cu ft

10 lb/cu ft

9 lb/cu ft

8 lb/cu ft

7 lb/cu ft

6 lb/cu ft

Fuel capacity

U. S. gallons

59,794

53,765

• Typical mission rules• Nominal fuel flow• Standard day• Fuel density: 6.7 lb/USG

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 20

Range (1,000 km)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Pay

load

(1,

000

kg)

18

11/02/2010


747-8 Freighter Take-off Field Length

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000

Take-off gross weight (1,000 lb)

Ta

ke

-off

fie

ld le

ng

th (

1,0

00

ft)

747-8 Freighter

GEnx-2B67

747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F

• Sea level• ISA+27F (15C)• Optimum take-off

250 300 350 400 450

Take-off gross weight (1,000 kg)

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Tak

e-o

ff f

ield

len

gth

(1,

000

m)

11/02/2010


747-8 Freighter Landing Field Length

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800

Landing weight (1,000 lb)

La

nd

ing

fie

ld le

ng

th (

1,0

00

ft)

747-8 Freighter/GEnx-2B67

747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F

• Sea level• Standard day• Flaps 30

200 250 300 350

Landing weight (1,000 kg)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Lan

din

g f

ield

len

gth

(1,

000

m)

11/02/2010

B55

Visual Landing Aids DataVertical distances between critical points on aircraft at maximum pitch attitude (VREF) (ILS)

Vertical distances between critical points on aircraft at minimum pitch attitude (VREF+5) (ILS)

Aircraft Model

2.5 degree glide slope 3.0 degree glide slope

FD Pitch (deg) Flap

Setting

Eye path to

ILS beam (ft) H2

ILS beam to wheel

path (feet) H

Eye path to wheel

path (feet) H1

ILS antenna above wheels

(feet) H3

Pilots Eye

above wheels (feet)

H4

FD Pitch (deg) Flap

Setting

Eye path to ILS

beam (ft) H2

ILS beam to wheel

path (feet) H

Eye path to wheel

path (feet) H1


(feet) H3

Pilots Eye

above wheels

(feet) H4

747-400

747-400ER

747-400ERF

5.0

25.0

21.0 23.4 44.4 19.4 40.3 4.5 21.0 23.4 44.4 18.6 39.4

747-8I 4.6

25.0

21.0 24.6 45.5 19.9 40.8 4.1 21.0 24.6 45.6 19.0 39.8

747-8F 4.4

25.0

21.0 24.2 45.2 19.6 40.4 3.9 20.9 23.3 44.2 18.6 39.4

Aircraft Model

2.5 degree glide slope 3.0 degree glide slope

FD Pitch (deg) Flap

Setting

Eye path to

ILS beam (ft) H2

ILS beam to wheel

path (feet) H

Eye path to wheel

path (feet) H1


(feet) H3

Pilots Eye

above wheels (feet)

H4

FD Pitch (deg) Flap

Setting

Eye path to ILS

beam (ft) H2

ILS beam to wheel

path (feet) H

Eye path to wheel

path (feet) H1


(feet) H3

Pilots Eye

above wheels

(feet) H4

747-400

747-400ER

747-400ERF

2.5

30.0

20.9 19.4 40.3 15.3 36.1 2.0 20.9 19.4 40.3 14.5 35.2

747-8I 2.6

30.0

20.9 20.9 41.8 16.2 36.9 2.1 20.9 20.9 41.8 15.3 36.0

747-8F 2.8

30.0

20.9 21.3 42.2 16.6 37.3 2.3 20.9 21.3 42.2 15.6 36.4

B56

Updated 747-8 Data in Appendix A, ICAO Circular 305

Operations of New Larger Aeroplanes at Existing Aerodromes June 2004

B57

Airport Design Category Parameters

797-CO-0260 12-8-06-whp/CF

Code F A380-800 B747-8* C5 An

124 Code E A340-600

B747- 400ER

B777-300ER

Wing span

65m up to but not including

80m79.8m 68.4m 67.9m 73.3m


65m63.4m 64.9m 64.8m

Outer main gear

wheel span


16m14.3m 12.7m 11.4m 8.0m


14m12.6m 12.6m 12.9m

* Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change.

Group VI A380-800 B747-8* C5 An 124 Group V A340

-600B747- 400ER

B777-300ER

Wing span

214 ft up to but not including

262 ft261.8 ft 224.4 ft 222.8 ft 240.5 ft


214 ft208.0 ft 212.9 ft 212.6 ft

Tail Height


80 ft80.1 ft 64.2 ft


66 ft58.7 ft 64.0 ft 61.4 ft

ICAO Aerodrome Code Letters

FAA Airplane Design Groups

B58

Aeroplane Dimensions

797-CO-0261 12-8-06-whp/CF

Code F Code E

AeroplaneDimensions

A380-800(m / ft)

B747-8*(m / ft)

C5(m / ft)

An 124(m / ft)

A340-600(m / ft)

B747-400ER(m / ft)

B777-300ER(m / ft)

Fuselage length 70.4 74.2 70.3 69.9 73.5 68.6 73.1

Overall length 72.7 / 238.7 76.3 / 250.2 75.5 / 247.7 69.9 / 229.3 75.3 / 247.4 70.7 / 231.8 73.9 / 242.4

Fuselage width 7.1 / 23.3 6.5 / 21.3 7.1 / 23.3 7.3 / 23.9 5.6 / 18.4 6.5 / 21.3 6.2 / 20.3

Fuselage height at OEW 10.9 / 35.7 10.2 / 33.5 9.3 / 30.5 10.2 / 33.5 8.5 / 27.9 10.2 / 33.5 8.7 / 28.5

Main Deck sill height*** 5.4 / 17.7 5.4 / 17.7 2.7 / 8.9 2.8 / 9.2 5.7 / 18.7 5.4 / 17.7 5.5 / 18.0

Upper Deck sill height*** 8.1 / 26.6 7.9 / 25.9 7.1 / 23.3 7.5 / 24.6 - 7.9 / 25.9 -

Tail height at OEW 24.1 / 79.1 19.6 / 64.3 19.9 / 65.3 21.0 / 98.9 17.4 / 57.1 19.5 / 64.0 18.7 / 61.4

Wingspan 79.8 / 261.8 68.4 / 224.4 67.9 / 222.8 73.3 / 240.5 63.4 / 208.0 64.9 / 212.9 64.8 / 212.6

Wingspan (full fuel)# - - - - 63.6 / 208.7 64.9 / 212.9 -

Wingspan (jig)## 79.8 / 261.8 68.5 / 224.7 67.9 / 222.8 73.3 / 240.5 63.4 / 208.0 64.4 / 211.3 64.8 / 212.6

Wingtip vertical clearance at TOW ~5.3 / 17.4 ~6.0 / 19.7 3.2 / 10.5 3.7 / 12.1 6.0 / 19.7 5.1 / 16.7 7.2 / 23.6

Wingtip vertical clearance at OEW ~6.1 / 20.0 ~6.6 / 21.6 4.0 / 13.1 Unknown 6.2 / 20.3 5.7 / 18.7 7.5 / 24.6

Maximum wing tip height at TOW ~7.5 / 24.6 ~7.6 / 24.9 3.2 / 10.5 3.7 / 12.1 7.6 / 24.9 6.7 / 22.0 7.2 / 23.6

Maxmimu wing tip height at OEW ~8.3 / 27.2 ~8.2 / 26.9 4.0 / 13.1 Unknown 7.8 / 25.6 7.3 / 23.9 7.5 / 24.6

Cockpit view at OEW:- Cockpit height- Cockpit cut-off angle- Obscured segment

7.2 / 23.620°

max 19.8 / 65.0

8.72 / 28.618.6°

24.9 / 81.7

8.2 / 26.9UnknownUnknown

8.3 / 27.2UnknownUnknown

5.7 / 18.720°

15.7 / 51.5

8.70 / 28.518.4°

25.8 / 84.6

5.9 / 19.421°

14.6 / 47.9

Taxi camera Yes No No No Yes No Yes

Pilot-to-nose landing gear distance 2.1 / 6.9 2.3 / 7.5 5.0 / 16.4 2.4 / 7.9 4.3 / 14.1 2.3 / 7.5 3.6 / 11.8

Pilot-to-Main landing gear distance 31.8 / 104.3 29.9 / 98.1 27.2 / 89.2 25.3 / 83.0 37.4 / 122.7 26.4 / 86.6 34.2 / 112.2

~ Symbol indicates “approxmiate”* Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change.

*** Highest door at OEW# For aircraft with large winglets (significant wing and winglet deflection with full fuel)

## For aircraft without winglets, we typically give jig span. This is the span as measured in the manufacturing jig (straight wing without 1G droop).

B59

Landing Gear Geometry

797-CO-0262 11-15-06-whp/CF

Code F Code E

Landing gear geometry A380-800 B747-81 C5 An 124 A340-600 B747-400ER B777-300ER

Weights (t / 1,000 lb) (t / 1,000 lb) (t / 1,000 lb) (t / 1,000 lb) (t / 1,000 lb) (t / 1,000 lb) (t / 1,000 lb)

MRW 571 / 1,259 444 / 978 381 / 840 402 / 886 381 / 840 414 / 913 352 / 777

MTOW 569 / 1,254 442 / 975 380 / 838 398 / 877 380 / 838 413 / 910 351 / 775

MLW 392 / 862 309 / 682 288 / 365 330 / 727 265 / 584 296 / 652302 / 6662 251 / 554

Landing gear dimensions (m / ft) (m / ft) (m / ft) (m / ft) (m / ft) (m / ft) (m / ft)

Wheel track 12.5 / 41.0 11.0 / 36.1 7.9 / 25.9 6.3 / 20.7 10.7 / 35.1 11.0 / 36.1 11.0 / 36.1

Outer main gear wheel span 14.3 / 46.9 12.7 / 41.7 11.4 / 37.4 8.0 / 26.2 12.6 / 41.3 12.6 / 41.3 12.9 / 42.3

Wheel base3 29.8 / 97.8 28.1 / 92.3 22.2 / 72.8 22.9 / 75.1 33.2 / 108.9 24.1 / 79.1 30.6 / 100.4

Main gear steering system4 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

ACN – Flexible5

FA 59 63 25 42 66 57 64

FB 64 70 29 48 71 63 71

FC 76 87 37 61 83 78 89

FD 107 110 54 86 118 100 120

ACN - Rigid

RA 57 64 28 36 64 59 66

RB 68 75 34 49 73 69 85

RC 89 88 44 74 86 81 109

RD 111 101 56 101 99 92 131

1. Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change.2. Freighter version values provided where appropriate3. To turning centroid4. There are two types of main landing gear steering system – post steering with all wheels steered (747, C5 and An124), aft-axle steering

(aft two wheels out of 6-wheel gear, e.g., A380-800 and 777). 5. 4-wheel flexible ACN’s are based on Alpha Factors approved by ICAO in October 2007. Aircraft footprints and ACN curves are available in Section 7

of the respective “Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning” document in the manufacturer website (Appendix B)

B60

Minimum Pavement Width Required for U-turns and Engine Data

797-CO-0263 11-1-06-whp/CF

Minimum pavement width required for U-turns (in ascending order)

Code Aircraft U-turn width (m / ft) Wheelbase (m / ft) Track (to outside tire edge) (m / ft)

E 747-400 47.0 / 154 24.1 / 79 12.6 / 41.3

D MD11 49 / 161 24.7 / 81.2 12.6 / 41.3

F 747-8 51.8 / 170 28.1 / 92.3 12.7 / 41.7

E 777-300 56.5 / 185 30.6 / 100.4 12.9 / 42.3

E A340-600 56.7 / 186 33.2 / 109 12.6 / 41.3

F A380-800 65.7 / 216 29.7 / 97.5 14.3 / 47

Assumes symmetric thrust and no braking. Note that the U-turn width has little relation to the code letter.

Code F Code E

Engine data A380-800 B747-8* C5 An 124 A340- 600

B747- 400ER

B777- 300ER

Number of engines 4 4 4 4 4 4 2

Bypass ratio 8.7 8.1 8.0 ~5.7 7.5 5.3 ~7

Engine thrust (pounds) 70 k 77 k** 67 k 41 k 52 k 56 k 61 k 115 k

Engine span (CL to CL) 51.4m 41.7m 37.7m 37.9m 38.5m 41.7m 19.2m

Engine vertical clearance at MTOW(m / ft)

1.1 / 3.6 (inner)1.9 / 6.2 (outer)

0.6 / 2.01.3 / 4.3

2.5 / 8.21.7 / 5.6

3.5 / 11.53.1 / 10.2

0.5 / 1.61.6 / 5.2

0.7 / 2.31.4 / 4.6 0.9 / 3.0

Reverser system Only inboard thrust reversers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

~ Symbol indicates “approximate”* Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change.

** Freighter version values provided where appropriate*** Center of thrust is 0.3m higher than 747-400ERJet blast velocity contours are available in Section 6 of the respective “Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning” document in the manufacturer website (Appendix B).

Engine data

B61

Passenger and Fuel Capacities and Landing Incidences

797-CO-0264 11-28-06-whp/CF

Maximum passenger and fuel carrying capacities

Code F Code E

A380-800 B747-8* C5 An 124 A340-600 B747-400ER B777-300ER3-class reference layout 555 467 - - 380 416 365Maximum passenger carrying capacity ~800 660 - - ~475 660 550

Wing fuel tank capacity (litres / US gallons)# 287 000 / 75,800

165,000 / 43,600

186 000 / 49,100

350,000 / 92,500

131,000 / 34,600 138,924 / 36,700 78,206 /

20,700Tail empennage fuel tank capacity (litres / US gallons)#

23,000 / 6,000

12,490 / 3,300 0 0 8,300 / 2,200 12,490 / 3,300 0

Centre fuel tank capacity (litres / US gallons)# 0 64,973 / 17,200 0 0 56,000 /

14,800 64,973 / 17,200 103,077 / 27,200

Maximum fuel carrying capacity (litres / US gallons) 310,000 / 81,900

243,000 / 64,200

186,000 / 49,100

350,000 / 92,500

194,878 / 51,500

228,538 / 60,400*** 204,333 / 54,000**

181,283 / 47,900

~ Symbol indicates “approximate”* Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change.** Freighter version values provided where appropriate*** B747-400ER is standard with one body fuel tank; optional second body fuel tank will increase fuel volume by 12,151 litres.# Data shown are approximate

Emergency exits locations are available in Section 2.7.1 of the respective “Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning” document in the manufacturer website (Appendix B).

Code F Code E

A380-800 747- 8* C5 An 124 A340-600 B747- 400ER

B777- 300ER

Approach attitude at 3°

glide slope ~1.0° ~3.0° Unknown Unknown 3.5° 3.0° ~3.0°

Approach speed ~145kt 153kt,159kt** ~135kt ~124kt 154kt 158kt ~150kt

Start of visual segment (m / ft) 88 / 290 103 / 338ft

~ Symbol indicate “approximate”747-8, 777-300ER and A380-800 data are estimated values.

* Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change.** Freighter version value

Landing incidence/attitude and final approach speed at MLW and forward center of gravity

BACG Attachment C: Listing of Studies and References Relating to ICAO Annex 14 SARP’s

Runway Width of Width of

Straight and

Bridges ,

Taxiway Minimum

Nb Title Runways ShouldersLights / Signs

Runway Strip

End Safety Area

OFZ Holding Points

straight taxiway

curved taxiway

curved taxiway

shoulders

Tunnels and

Culverts

Separation Distances

Rwy-Twy Twy-Twy

Aprons

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1

Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume I — Aerodrome Design and Operations, 4th edition, July 2004, ICAO http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=document&DocGroupID=23


Circular 305 - Operation of New Larger Aeroplanes at Existing Aerodromes, June 2004, ICAO http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=search&txtDocumentTitle=&txtDocumentNumber=CIR305&txtAfterDate=&txtBeforeDate=&cmbMediaType

=0&cmbLanguage=0&txtKeywords=&radios=englishtitle&btnSubmit=Search X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

3 Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Parts 1 to 5,

ICAO http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=search&txtDocumentTitle=aerodrome+design+manual&txtDocumentNumber=&txtAfterDate=&txtBeforeDate=&cmbMediaType=0&cmbLanguage=0&txtKeywords=&radios=englishtitle&btnSubmit=Search

X 4

Circular 301 – New Larger Aeroplanes – Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and

Aeronautical Study, December 2005 http://icaodsu.openface.ca/documentItemView.ch2?ID=9684

X X X X X X X X X X X X 5

Notice to Aerodrome License Holders, February 2003, CAA UK (1) (2) http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/NOTAL_CAA.pdf

X X X 6

Statistical Extreme Value Analysis of Taxiway Center Line Deviations for 747 Aircraft at JFK and ANC

Airports, August 2003, Boeing (1) http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Design/taxi.asp

X X X X

7

Statistical Analysis of Aircraft Deviations from Taxiway Center Line, Taxiway Deviation Study at Amsterdam

Airport, Schiphol, 1995, Boeing Company Information and Support Services (1) (5)

Report available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Available at Boeing ([email protected]), ACI or Airbus (Contact: [email protected])

X X X

8 Aircraft Deviation Analysis at Frankfurt Airport,

February 2004, Frankfurt Airport (1) (3) (5) Preliminary results available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Additional deviation analysis in curved portion available Available at Fraport, ACI or Airbus (Contact: [email protected])

X 9

Runway Lateral Deviations during Landing, Study with Flight Recorder Systems On-board, CAA-France (1) (3) Preliminary results available

Available at CAA-France or Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) X X X X X X X X X X X X

10

Common Agreement Document (CAD) of the A380 Aerodrome Compatibility Group, December 2002, CAA-

France, CAA-UK, CAA-Netherlands, CAA-Germany, ACI, IATA, Airbus (1) (2) (5)

http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/AACG_Common_Agreement_Document_V2.1.pdf Appendices available at ACI (chairman), Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) or Boeing ([email protected])

X X X

11 Analysis of Runway Lateral Excursions from a common accident/incident database (source: ICAO, FAA, Airbus,

Boeing), June 2003, Airbus (1) (5) Report available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Available at ACI or Airbus (Contact: [email protected])

X 12

Test of Load Bearing Capacity of Shoulders, 2003, CAA-France and Airbus (1) English version available at Airbus (Contact: [email protected])

X 13

A380 Pavement Experimental Project, October 2001, LCPC, Airbus, CAA-France http://www.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/publications/documents/rapportPEP.pdf

14 Reduced Separation Distances for Code F Aircraft at X X X X

http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=document&DocGroupID=23

http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=search&txtDocumentTitle=&txtDocumentNumber=CIR305&txtAfterDate=&txtBeforeDate=&cmbMediaType=0&cmbLanguage=0&txtKeywords=&radios=englishtitle&btnSubmit=Search


http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=search&txtDocumentTitle=aerodrome+design+manual&txtDocumentNumber=&txtAfterDate=&txtBeforeDate=&cmbMediaType=0&cmbLanguage=0&txtKeywords=&radios=englishtitle&btnSubmit=Search

http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=search&txtDocumentTitle=aerodrome+design+manual&txtDocumentNumber=&txtAfterDate=&txtBeforeDate=&cmbMediaType=0&cmbLanguage=0&txtKeywords=&radios=englishtitle&btnSubmit=Search

http://icaodsu.openface.ca/documentItemView.ch2?ID=9684

http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/NOTAL_CAA.pdf

http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Design/taxi.asp

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/AACG_Common_Agreement_Document_V2.1.pdf




http://www.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/publications/documents/rapportPEP.pdf


Runway Width of Width of

Straight and

Bridges ,

Taxiway Minimum


Runway Strip

End Safety Area

OFZ Holding Points

straight taxiway

curved taxiway

curved taxiway

shoulders

Tunnels and

Culverts

Separation Distances

Rwy-Twy Twy-Twy

Aprons

Amsterdam Airport, Schipol, 2001, Amsterdam Airport, Schipol (1) (5)

Report available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Available at AMS, ACI or Airbus (Contact: [email protected])

X X X 15

ILS study at Paris Charles-de-Gaulle international airport (CDG), October 2004, ADP (1) (2) http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/ILS_Study_at_CDG-V5-2.pdf

X X X

16

Study of the accomodation of the Airbus A380 on runways 1 and 2 of Paris-Charles de Gaulle (runway widths and shoulders), April 2005, ADP and CAA-

France

http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/AdP_Study_on_runways.pdf http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/STAC_validation_case.pdf

X X X X X X 17

Air Navigation Plan - ICAO European Region - Reduced Separation Distances, 2001, ICAO Europe (5) Relevant extract available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10)

Available at ICAO Europe or Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) X X X X X

18 Final Report on the Risk Analysis in Support of

Aerodrome Design Rules, 2001, CAA-Norway (2) (5) http://www.luftfartstilsynet.no/multimedia/archive/00002/AEA_Final_Report_Vers_2524a.pdf X X X X

19 Taxiway Deviation Study at LHR, 1987,

BAA (4) (5) Referenced in the ADM – Part 2 – taxiways (see #2) X

20 Certification Document - A380 operations on 45m wide

runways, August 2007, Airbus Available at Airbus (Contact: [email protected])

X X 21

Airbus A380 Operations Evaluation Results, July 2007, FAA Available at FAA (refer to EB#63B and EB#65A) or Airbus (Contact: [email protected])

X X X 22

Engineering Brief No. 65A Use of 150-Foot-(45-M) Wide Runways for Airbus A380

Operations, December 2007, FAA http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/construction/engineering_briefs/media/EB_65a.pdf

X X 23

Engineering Brief No. 63B Taxiways for Airbus A380 Taxiing Operations,

December 2007, FAA http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/construction/engineering_briefs/media/EB_63b.pdf

X X X X X X X X X X X X 24

Airbus A380 operations at alternate airports, June 2006, CAA-France http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/doc/Alternates_June_2006.doc

X X 25

Taxiway Analysis for A380 operations on 22.5m wide taxiway, 2004, ADP Available at AdP

X X X X 26

Runway to Parallel Taxiway Study, June 2006, Sydney Airport Corporation Available at Sydney Airport Corporation

X 27

Holding Point Analysis for A380 operations, 2004-2007, ADP Available at AdP


AC 150-5300-13 Change 14 Airport Design, November 2008, FAA http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/C9F1039842EBCE9986256C690074F3C4?OpenDocument&Highlight=5300-13

X 29

Resistance of elevated runway edge lights to A380 jet blast, May 2005, CAA France http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/Jet_blast_tests_report_V1R0.pdf

X 30

Evaluation of Wind-Loading on Airport Signs, June 2000, FAA http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/safety/downloads/TN00-32.pdf


http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/ILS_Study_at_CDG-V5-2.pdf

http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/AdP_Study_on_runways.pdf

http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/STAC_validation_case.pdf


http://www.luftfartstilsynet.no/multimedia/archive/00002/AEA_Final_Report_Vers_2524a.pdf



http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/construction/engineering_briefs/media/EB_65a.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/construction/engineering_briefs/media/EB_63b.pdf

http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/doc/Alternates_June_2006.doc

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/C9F1039842EBCE9986256C690074F3C4?OpenDocument&Highlight=5300-13

http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/Jet_blast_tests_report_V1R0.pdf

http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/safety/downloads/TN00-32.pdf



Runway Strip

Runway End

Safety Area

OFZ Holding Points

Width of straight taxiway

Width of curved taxiway

Straight and

curved taxiway

shoulders

Bridges , Tunnels

and Culverts

Taxiway Minimum Separation Distances

Rwy-Twy Twy-Twy

Aprons

X 31

FAA Airport Obstructions Standards Committee (AOSC) Decision Document #04, Approved: March 21, 2005,

Runway / Parallel Taxiway Separations Standards http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/aosc/media/AOSC_DecisionDocument_04_Signed.pdf

X X 32

FAA Engineering Brief 73: Use of Non-Standard 75-Foot (23-M) Wide Straight Taxiway Sections for Boeing

747-8 Taxiing Operations, 2007, FAA http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_74.pdf

X X 33

FAA Engineering Brief 74: Minimum Requirements to Widen Existing 150-Foot Wide Runways for Boeing

747-8 Operations (6) http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_74.pdf

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

34 FAA Order 5300.1F: Modifications to Agency Airport Design, Construction and Equipment Standards, 2000,

FAA http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/orders/media/construction_5300_1f.pdf


Circular 305 - Operation of New Larger Aeroplanes at Existing Aerodromes, June 2004, ICAO http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=search&txtDocumentTitle=&txtDocumentNumber=CIR305&txtAfterDate=&txtBeforeDate=&cmbMediaType

=0&cmbLanguage=0&txtKeywords=&radios=englishtitle&btnSubmit=Search X

36 FAA Airport Obstructions Standards Committee (AOSC)

Decision Document #04, Approved: March 21, 2005, Runway / Parallel Taxiway Separations Standards

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/aosc/media/AOSC_DecisionDocument_04_Signed.pdf

X X 37

FAA Engineering Brief 78: Application of Linear Equations for New Large Airplane 747-8 Taxiway and

Taxilane Separation Criteria http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_78.pdf

X X 38

FAA Engineering Brief 80: Use of Interim Taxiway Edge Safety Margin Clearance for Airplane Design

Group VI http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_80.pdf

X X 39

FAA Engineering Brief 81: Use of Guidance for Runway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway / Taxilane

Centerline Separation for Boeing 747-8 http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_81.pdf

1 Referenced in the ICAO Circular on NLA Operations 2 Available on ECAC website 3 On-going 4 Outdated 5 Available in the Common Agreement Document (CAD) of the AACG. The CAD shows a practical example of the application of the methodology in the ICAO circular to a specific NLA, the Airbus A380. It develops alternative measures for the A380, which are supported by the CAAs of the sponsoring States. 6 The 747-8 will undergo testing during the airplane certification flight test period to demonstrate that it can safely operate on a 45m wide runway. EB74 will be revised when this capability is demonstrated.


http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_74.pdf


http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/orders/media/construction_5300_1f.pdf







BACG Attachment D

Taxiway Separations - AOPG (747-400) vs. AACG (A380-800) Agreement AOPG – Aerodrome Operations Planning Group of ICAO Europe/North Atlantic developed operational requirements for the 747-400 as part of European Air Navigation Plan. AACG – A380-800 operational requirements developed by the Airbus A380 Airport Compatibility Group.

ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1 Curved and straight TWY

Separation distances between

Formula

Code E / Code F

EUR ANP Part III-AOP Curved TWY 747-400

EUR ANP Part III-AOP Straight TWY 747-400

AACG Curved and straight TWY A380-800

TWY centerline and TWY centerline

Wing span + max. lateral dev. (x) + increment (z) = TOTAL

65 / 80 (9*) 4.5 / 4.5 (6*) 10.5 / 13

80 / 97.5

65 5 ** 6 76

65 5 ** 6 76

80 11 (x + z) 91 ****

TWY/apron TWY centerline and object

½ wing span + max. lateral dev. (x) + increment (z) = TOTAL

32.5 / 40 4.5 / 4.5 10.5 / 13 47.5 / 57.5

32.5 2.5 ** 10.5 45.5

32.5 2.5 ** 6.5 *** 41.5

40 9 (x + z) 49

Aircraft stand taxilane centerline and object

½ wing span + gear deviation (x) + increment (z) = TOTAL

32.5 / 40 2.5 / 2.5 7.5 / 8 42.5 / 50.5

32.5 2.5 7.5 42.5

32.5 2.5 5 *** ## 40 ##

40 7.5 (x + z) 47.5

Aircraft stand taxilane centerline and 3m-height-limited object or edge of service road

½ wing span + gear deviation (x) + increment (z) = TOTAL

32.5 / 40 2.5 / 2.5 7.5 / 8 42.5 / 50.5

32.5 2.5 6.5 # 41.5

32.5 2.5 2.5 *** 37.5

40 7.5 (x + z) 47.5 ###

* AOPG rationale for TWY-TWY separation was based on the previous ICAO assumption that aircraft on both taxiways veering toward each other by 4.5m. This value was reduced to 2.5m by AOPG. ** Reduced maximum lateral deviation of 2.5m provided that proper taxi guidance is available. *** Main gear track-in is up to 4m on curved taxiways. **** On curved parallel taxiways, 11m clearance is maintained but the separation may not be 91m. # Safety buffer is reduced due to height limited objects. ## Wingtip clearance of an aircraft turning from a taxilane into an aircraft stand should not be less than 7.5m as recommended in Annex 14. ### Depending on local conditions, decision on reduced margins for height limited objects by each authority and/or airport operator.

Doc 7754

* _

European Region

Air Navigation Plan

Volume I, Basic ANP

Not to be used for operational purposes

First edition - 2001

International Civil Aviation Organization

111-1

Part IlI

AERODROME OPERATIONAL PLANNING (AOP)

GENERAL

1. For regular and alternate aerodromes used for international operations, the general physical characteristics, marking, visual aids and services should be in accordance with the relevant ICAO provisions.

AIRPORTS

Physical characteristics

. . 2. The specific physical characteristics for each regular use international aerodrome should meet the requirements of the critical aircraft. [Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 31

3. The specific physical characteristics for each alternate use international aerodrome should be based on the requirements of the diverted critical aircraft. [Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 31

4. In those cases where the extension or development of an aerodrome in accordance with the provisions contained in 2 and 3 above would only be required to meet infrequent operations of the critical aircraft but would entail dis- proportionate expenditures, specific arrangements should be made between operators and the State concerned regarding the reasonable practical development of the aerodrome in question. The results of such arrangements, together with relevant reasons, should be reflected in Table AOP 1 of the FASID.

5. The specific physical requirements for each aerodrome used by international general aviation (IGA) only should be based on the requirements of those IGA aircraft likely to use the aerodrome in question most frequently. [Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 31 _ . .

'C

Aerodrome services

Rescue and fire fighting services

6. Rescue and fire fighting services at international aerodromes should be provided at the required level of protection, as expressed by means of required aerodrome category for rescue and fire fighting in accordance with Annex 14, Volume I and reflected in Table AOP 1 of the FASID. [Annex 14, Volume I, 9.21

7. Rescue and fire fighting services at international aerodromes should be capable of meeting the specified response time and be kept in a state of readiness throughout those times when the aerodrome is available for use. [Annex 14, Volume I, 9.21

Runway surfaces

8. In amplification of relevant provisions in Annex 14, Volume I, runway surfaces should be constructed andor treated so as to ensure continuous good friction characteristics when wet. Runway markings should consist of non-slip materials. [Annex 14, Volume I, 3.1.22 and 5.21

Runway visual range

9. In order to facilitate aircraft operations in low visibility, runway visual range (RVR) information should be available for runways intended for use when either the horizontal visibility or the RVR is less than 1 500 m. The provision of such information is essential for CAT I1 and CAT IIi operations.

10. A secondary power supply should be provided for RVR observing systems which use instrumental means. Local

DI

AOP 111-5

consistent with the surface movement guidance and control system (SMGCS) provided at the aerodrome concerned.

r 36. The provision of marking and lighting aids together

with signs should ensure the safe control and guidance of aircraft towards and at take-off intersections appropriate to the minimum visibility criteria retained. At the taxi holding position of the associated intersection take-off position, such signs should indicate the runway heading and the remaining take-off run available (TORA) in metres (paragraph 15 of Part IU - AOP of the EUR FASID also refers).

Air traffic services

Note.- The following operational requirement relates to the provisions of Air Trafic Services for all trafic on the manoeuvring area of an aerodrome and all aircraff flying in the vicini9 of an aerodrome.

37. Aerodrome control service should be provided at all regular and aiternate aerodromes. Aerodrome control service should also be provided at those aerodromes used by international general aviation aircraft, but only when the type and density of traffic warrant it.

Surface movement guidance and control systems (SMGCS)

38. Surface movement radar (SMR) should not be used for other than monitoring tasks unless identification procedures are implemented.

Note.-Material on the application of advanced SMGCS is presented in Attachment G to Part I l l - AOP of the EUR FASID.

New larger aeroplanes (NLA) operations

B747-400 Operations - General

Note.- Material on the impact of operations of NLA on aerodromes is presented in Attachment F to Part I l l - AOP of the EUR FASID.

39. Where the minimum separatiodclearance distances as specified in Annex 14, Volume I, Table 3-1 cannot be provided by the existing layout of an aerodrome, States may introduce lower separation standards provided that an aeronautical study indicates that such lower separation

Lt

distances do not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of aeroplanes. Experience in some States with operation of B747-400 has shown that it may be permissible, if specific measures have been implemented to reduce separation distances on taxiways, apron taxiways and aircraft stand taxilanes to the dimensions specified in Attachment H to Part 111 - AOP of the EüR FASID. (Cf. Aerodrome Design Manual (DOC 9157), Part 2, Table 1-4.)

40. The provision of unambiguous and conspicuous taxi guidance to pilots under all operational conditions prevailing at the aerodrome by appropriate means (e.g. visual aids, marshaller, etc.) is an essential prerequisite for operations conducted with lower separation distances. Equally important is the provision of good taxiway surface friction conditions at all times to ensure proper braking and nosewheel steering capability of aeroplanes.

4 1 . Regarding turns, reduced separationsklearance distances are based on the assumption that the cockpit should remain above the taxiway centre line markinflighting as accurately as possible and at taxi speeds commensurate with actual operating conditions prevailing, except that for aircraft stand taxilanes a different technique, as specified in the AIP, may apply.

Reduced separation distances on taxiwayslapion taxiways

42. Whenever minimum separation distances between the centre lines of parallel taxiways or between taxiway/apron taxiway centre line and object, as specified in Annex 14, are reduced in accordance with Attachment H to Part III - AOP of the EUR FASID, taxiway centre line lighting should be provided for night, winter or low visibility operations.

43. On parallel taxiways the separation distances between the centre lines should be not less than 76 m (Attachment H to Part III - AOP of the EUR FASID refers).

44. In straight portions of a taxiway or apron taxiway the separation distance between the centre line and an object such as a building or a parked aircraft should be not less than 41.5 m (Attachment H to Part III - AOP of the EUR FASID refers).

45. In taxiway or apron taxiway curves the separation distances between the centre line and an object should be not less than 45.5 m (Attachment H to Part 111 - AOP of the EUR FASID refers).

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

111-6 EUR BASIC ANP

Reduced separation distances on aircraft stand tarilanes

. 46. On aircraft stand taxilanes where reduced separation distances exist proper guidance such as centre line lights or equivalent guidance (e.g. marshaller, etc.) should be provided for night, winter or low visibility operations.

47. All objects not providing the minimum separatiodclearance distance as specified in Annex 14 should be properly marked or lighted (Annex 14, Chapter 5 refers).

48. Apron service roads should be properly marked with service road boundary lines and apron safety lines (Annex 14, Chapter 5 refers).

49. Along straight portions of an aircraft stand taxilane the separation distance between the centre line and an object such as a parked aircraft or a building should be not less than 40 m, whereas the wing tip clearance of an aircraft turning from a taxilane into an aircraft stand should not be less than 7.5 m as recommended in Annex 14, Chapter 3, 3.12.6.

Note.- The separation distance between the taxilane centre line and an object or edge of a service road may further be reduced to not less than 37.5 m provided that the object (e.g. blast fence) does not exceed a height of 3 m above the relative taxilane centre line.

50. In curves of aircraft stand taxilanes the separation distances should not be less than 42.5 m, as specified in Annex 14, Table 3-1, whereas the wingtip clearance of an aircraft taxiing on a curved taxilane or turning from one taxilane into another taxilane/taxiway should not be less than 7.5 m.

Note.- Where vertical clearance criteria are being considered, the separation distance between the taxilane centre line and the edge of the service roads or an object, which may not exceed a height of 3 m above the relative taxilane centre line, shouid be not less than 41.5 m.

Reduced clearance distances on aircraft stands

51. On aircraft stands where reduced clearance distances exist guidance by visual docking guidance system should be provided.

52. All objects for which reduced clearances apply should be properly marked or lighted (Annex 14, Chapter 6).

53. An aircraft stand equipped with a visual docking r) guidance system should provide the minimum clearance of 5 m between an aircraft using the stand and any adjacent building, aircraft on another stand and other objects.

Note.- The clearance distance between an aircraft on a stand provided with azimuth guidance by a visual docking guidance system and an object or edge of a service road may further be reduced subject to local circumstances provided that the object (e.g. blast fence) does not exceed a height of 3 m above the surface of the relative aircraft stand.

.

CAPACITY

Airport capacity

54. States shouldensure that adequate consultation and, where appropriate, cooperation between airport authorities and userdother involved parties is executed at all international aerodromes to satisfy the provisions of 59 to 69.

55. States should provide and coordinate communi- cation and exchange of information between the States’ international airports and international organizations involved with airport capacity issues.

. .

. / . I

56. Consultation procedures should be established between airport authorities and users commensurate with local conditions and appropriate to the specific purpose the consultation process is intended to serve (capacity assessmenildemand forecasting, etc.).

57. Regular consultation between airport authority and users should preferably be effected by local working groups composed of all parties involved, including ATS where applicable. Alternatively, a local group may be replaced by a national committee.

58. At airports where environmental concerns prevail with apotential impact on airport capacity adialogue-oriented activity with communities will be required in which users should actively participate.

Airport capacity assessment and requirement

59. The declaredcapacity/demand condition at airports should be periodically reviewed in terms of a qualitative

i.’ . . . ...;,.;j

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

111-1 0 EUR BASIC ANP

Aerodrome control service and surface movement guidance and control systems

(SMGCS)

Note.- Material on the application of advanced SMGCS is presented in Amchment G to Part I l l - AOP of the EUR FASID.

91. Where the traffic density is high and the layout of the airfield is complex, the implementation of surface movement radar (SMR) should be considered when the procedural aerodrome control service is a limiting factor for the overall air traffic services and the traffic volume. (Air Traffic Services Planning Manual (Doc 9426), Part 11, Section 5 and Manual of Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (SMGCS) (Doc 9476) also refer.)

92. Guidance material has been produced on SMR identification procedures. In order to harmonize the use of SMR in the region, it is recommended that these procedures be implemented to allow more effective use of SMR. Where SMR identification procedures are already in operation it is recommended that they be reviewed taking into account the guidance material now available.

Note.- Guidance material on SMR identijkation procedures is contained in ICAO Doc 9426, Air Traffic Services Planning Manual, Part 11, Section 5, Chapter 4.

93. Due to the difficulty in maintaining aircraft and vehicle identification on primary SMR displays only, significant increases in ATS capacity can be achieved when identification labelling is made available.

Note.- Identification labelling trials and development are taking place in certain States.

94. In order to fully exploit capacity gains, the advanced surface movement guidance and control systems (SMGCS) must operate from runway to parking position and vice versa. The use of advanced SMGCS will require the controlling authority to accept an increasingresponsibility for aircraft safety in low visibility conditions. The level of service provided must be maintained from the runway to the stand and should be provided by properly trained and/or licensed personnel.

95. Where an advanced SMGCS is used to provide guidance from one area of responsibility to another, coordination procedures should be implemented taking into

account all the aspects of the changing division in responsi- p: bility for collision avoidance during low visibility conditions.

Note.- Guidance material on responsibiliry aspects CM

be found in ICAO Doc 9476, Manual of Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (SMGCS), Chapter 3.

96. Where radar service is required for approach control and the traffic mixture is so composed, the possibility to provide aerodrome control service with assistance from radar information, for the final approach segment, based on the same source as the approach control, should be considered. With appropriate regulations the need for coordination and handover could be reduced and the mix of arrivals and departures more efficiently conducted.

ILSMLS transition

97. Initially ILS and MLS procedures will be identical, with aircraft being navigated by pilots or radar vectored to intercept the final approach procedure in accordance with current practices. When traffic density is not a constraint (e.g. during night hours) or at certain aerodromes, MLS/RNAV procedures should be introduced during the ILS/MLS transition period. These MLS/RNAV procedures should be identical to. existing approach procedures based on another navigation aid or result from an operational benefit and improvement in airspace management for aircraft equipped with suitable avionics.

New larger aeroplanes (NLA) operations

B747-400 Operations

Note.- Material on the impact of NLA on aerodromes is presented in Attachment F to Part III - AOP of the EUR FASID.

98. Where the minirnumseparatiodclearancedistances as specified in Annex 14, Volume 1, Table 3-1, do not permit B747-400 operations at existing airports the following options to overcome such problems should be considered by the appropriate authority in consultation with the operators:

- apply selective taxi routes where feasible; - remove objects where feasible; - reduce size of aircraft stands where feasible; - implement reduced separation distances.

DI

AOP 111-1 1

r Note.- Although these options may have a degrading effect on either the provision of suitable stands or on the ground movement capacity/efiiciency of the aerodrome, they should however be given particular attention so as to permit best and early B747-400 operations.

In order to achieve an efficient operation of aeroplanes on existing layouts of major aerodromes with high B747-400 traffic where the separatiodclearance distances as specified in Annex 14, Volume I, 3.8.7 and Table 3-1 are not being provided, lower separationklearance distances may be introduced conditional to the prior conduct of an aeronautical study substantiating that there are no consequential adverse effects on the safety or regularity of operations at the aerodrome and by taking specific measures.

99.

100. The safe and efficient operations with B747-400 at existing European aerodromes requires a careful analysis regarding the separationlclearance distances provided on taxiways or apron taxiways, aircraft stand taxilanes and aircraft stands. On taxiways and taxilanes the clearance between the wingtip and an object such as aparked aircraft or a building should be not less than 7.5 m. Therefore, adetailed evaluation will be required in all cases of reduced separationsklearances to determine the path followed by the wingtip on the inside and on the outside of the turn. Smaller or larger turn radii of taxiways, or taxilanes or taxi- lanehircraft stand centre line intersections may be required to meet the minimum clearance requirements. In the case of taxilanes and stands, the clearance distances provided in the vertical plane between wingtips and objects may additionally be accounted for.

101. Reduced separation distances between parallel taxiway centre lines and between taxiway/apron taxiway centre line and an object may be introduced based on the assumption that the lateral deviation of B747-400 will not exceed 2.5 m, if specific measures are introduced (e.g. taxiway centre line lights, etc.).

102. Where on aircraft stand taxilanes or stands, objects do not exceed a height of 3 m above the relative apron surface, the clearance distances may be further reduced accounting for the fact that the minimum wingtip height of a B747-400 is more than 5 m above the ground.

Reduced runway declared distances for take-ofl

103. At aerodromes regularly used by international commercial air transport, take-Offs from runway/taxiway intersections may be justified for the following reasons:

a) runway capacity improvement;

b) taxi routes distances reduction;

c) noise alleviation; and

d) air pollution reduction.

104. To this end, the appropriate authorities should, upon prior consultation with aircraft operators, agree on the selection of suitable intermediate intersection take-off positions along the runway(s). Accordingly, authorities should determine the reduced runway declared distances for take-off associated with each selected intersection take-off position and establish the specific ATC rules and operational procedureshimitations. Such provisions should be published in the State AIP.

Note.- Detailed operational requirements governing the implementation of reduced runway declared distances for rake-off are contained in 31 to 36. Additional guidance is contained in Part 111 - AOP of the EUR FASID.

DI

DI

DI

Ill-F1

TWYI

object

distance

Attachment F

Taxilanel

object

distance

IMPACT OF OPERATIONS OF NEW LARGER AEROPLANES (NLA) ON AERODROMES

(Paragraph 98, Part 111 - AOP of the EUR Basic ANP refers)

47.5 m (46.5 m)

ANNEX 14, VOLUME I

42.5 m (40.0 m)

1 . With the introduction of the B 747-400, the Council of ICAO adopted 65 m as the upper limit of wing span for code letter E in Table 3-1 of Annex 14, Volume I. This table includes the requirements for the physical characteristics of aerodromes such as increased separation distances between runway and parallel taxiway, parallel taxiways, taxiway to object and aircraft stand taxilane to object, as shown below:

1 E Code I letter distance distance

182.5 m 80 m E 1 (180.0m) 1 (76.5m)

I

(Distances in brackets refer to those approved by Amendment 38 to Annex 14.)

2. Lower separation distances at an existing aerodrome may be permitted ifan aeronautical study indicates that such lower separation distances, together with the conditional implementation of specific measures, would not effect the safety and the regularity of operations of aeroplanes.

Note.- Guidance on relevant factors which may be considered in an aeronautical study is given in the Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 2 (Doc 9157).

SURVEY ON B 747-400 OPERATIONS IN THE ICAO EUROPEAN REGION

3. A regional survey on B 747-400 operations at international aerodromes was conducted by the European Office of ICAO in October 1989.

RESULTS OF THE ICAO SURVEY

4. The ICAO survey:

- highlights the main problemskoncerns raised by NLA (B747-400) operations;

- indicates that lower separation distances, used at some major aerodromes, do not effect the safety of NLA operations.

5. The “ICAO Survey” showed the NLA-related problems concerning terminal, apron and manoeuvring area as well as the reduced separation distances, used at some aerodromes.

TERMINAL (Building)

6. Terminal limitations such as Check-in concourse, waiting lounge, customs, security, baggage claim area, gate occupancy, car parking, access roads, etc., are related to passenger capacity of aircraft. Hence the B 747-300 (wing span 60 m) problems occurring at airports are not B 747-400 (NLA)-related.

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

~~

llLF2 --I ------*--?.--“-+--

7. Aerodromes that reported terminal problems such as “limited operations”, “limited acceptance’’ or “not acceptable” have common terminal capacity restrictions. These restrictions mainly concern the passenger flow-through in the terminal building, that means passenger processing is limited to a certain number of passengers per hour or simultaneous handling of B 747s is not possible due to gate limitations.

8. At some airports only a limited number of appropriate parking stands is available due to required clearances.

9. At many airports neither the spacing between adjacent aircraft stands at a pier nor the width of the taxilane giving access to gate stands were found adequate for NLA. In many cases remote parking stands have to be accepted.

10. In order to provide safe and efficient operation at some major aerodromes with high B 747-400 traffic, lower separation distances than those specified in Annex 14 have been implemented by taking specific measures.

MANOEUVRING AREA

11. Many aerodromes are faced with problems of providing the minimum separation distances specified in Annex 14 for NLA operation along main taxiways. This applies in particular to some apron taxiways with limited space provided to adjacent aircraft stands or other objects. There are several options to overcome such problems:

a) apply selective taxi routes where feasible;

b) remove objects where feasible;

c) reduce the size of stands where feasible;

d) implement reduced separation distances.

12. All these measures may have a degrading effect on either the provision of suitable stands or the ground movement capacity/efficiency but should however be considered to permit safe B 747-400 operations.

BASIC CONSIDERATION FOR THE EUROPEAN RCM ON

NEW LARGER AEROPLANES (NLA)

13. The RCM is based on the provisions of ICAO Annex 14, Volume I, the guidance material in the Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 2 (Doc 9157), and the current B 747- 400 operations practices applied at a number of major European aerodromes.

14. A survey conducted by ICAO at European aerodromes concerning the accommodation of B 747-400 revealed that for the minimum separatiodclearance distances specified in Annex 14, Volume I to be satisfied, substantial modifications would have been required to some existing taxiway configurations and apron layouts.

15. In many cases physical changes were not feasible, however. Accordingly, the implementation of reduced separatiodclearance distances became inevitable to permit a regular and efficient traffic with B 747-400.

16. As regards safety, indication from operational experiences is that lower separatiodclearance distances are acceptable for B 747-400 operations provided that specific conditions are met. In this context, the concept of accounting for the existing separatiodclearance distances provided in the vertical plane relative to objects and service roads is considered a viable option.

17. Operations of code E aircraft other than B 747-400 should fully comply with Annex 14 criteria until experience is gained. Operations of NLA larger than code E should be considered by ICAO as soon as aircraft configurations are notified.

Ill-H1

Separation distances between

1

Attachment H

Formula

2

B747-400 OPERATIONS AT INTERNATIONAL AERODROMES IN THE EUROPEAN REGION - REDUCED SEPARATION

DISTANCES BETWEEN TAXIWAYS AND TAXIWAYS OR OBJECTS

(Distances expressed in metres)

(Paragraph 42, Part I11 - AOP of the EUR Basic ANP refers)

Note.- The reduced separation distances presented in columns 4 and 5 are based on the assumption that the cockpit of aircraji will remain above taxiway/taxilane centre line, lighting/marking.

Taxiway centre line and taxiway centre line

TaxiwaylApron taxiway centre line and object

wing span + 2x max. lateral dev. + increment = TOTAL

YZ wing span t max. lateral dev. + increment = TOTAL

Aircraft stand taxilane centre line and object

YZ wing span + max. lateral dev. t increment = TOTAL

Aircraft stand taxilane center line and 3 m-height- limited object or edge of service road

YZ wing span + max. gear deviation + increment = TOTAL

ICAO Annex 14 (Volume I)

Max. wing span 65 m (Code E)

Curved and straight W

3

65 9 6 # 80

32.5 4.5 10.5 # 47.5

32.5 2.5 7.5 # 42.5

32.5 2.5 7.5 # 42.5

EUR ANP Pari 111 - AOP

NIA 0747-400

Curved TWY

4

ti.

65 5 6 . # 76 0

32.5 2.5 10.5 # 45.5 0

**

32.5 2.5 7.5 # 42.5

32.5 2.5 6.5 ##

41.5 0

EUR ANP Part 111 - AOP

NLA 0747-400

Straight TWY

5

.. 65 5 6 # 76 0

32.5 2.5 6.5

41.5 0

tt

ttt

32.5 2.5 5 +**+ 40 ot

32.5 2.5 2.5 37.5 0

ttt

Remarks:

o Specific measures are required and should be published in the AIP. * Annex 14 maximum lateral deviation. ** Reduced maximum lateral deviation of 2.5 m provided that proper taxiguidance is available (Paragraph 101, Part 111 - AOP of the EUR Basic ANP refers). *'* Main gear track-in is up to 4 m on cuived taxiways. # Annex 14 safety buffers. ## Safety buffer is reduced due to height-limited objects. + Wingtip clearance of an aircraft turning from a taxilane into an aircraft stand should not be less than 7.5 m as recommended in Annex 14, Volume I, 3.12.6,

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS

IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY

RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-OBJ SEP COMMENTS

AKL NZAA AUCKLAND INTL AUCKLAND NEWZ 7 24 05R23L 3635 45 05L 45 200NAKL NZAA AUCKLAND INTL AUCKLAND NEWZ 7 24 05R23L 3635 45 05L 23 308N 108NAMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 06 24 3500 45 A 23 292NW 93NWAMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 06 24 3500 45 B 23 199NW 54AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 09 27 3452 45 A 23 292S 93SAMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 09 27 3452 45 B 23 199S 54AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 09 27 3452 45 E4 23 460SAMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18C36C 3300 45 A-C 23 297E 98EAMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18C36C 3300 45 B-D 23 199E 57AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18C36C 3300 45 Y-Z 23 290WAMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18L36R 3400 45 A 23 293W 93WAMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18L36R 3400 45 B 23 199W 54AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18R36L 3800 60 V 23 193E 57ANC PANC ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. UNST 44 19 07L25R 3231 46 K 23 187NANC PANC ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. UNST 44 19 07R25L 3322 46 K 23 376NANC PANC ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. UNST 44 19 14 32 3531 46 R 23 183EANC PANC ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. UNST 44 19 14 32 3531 46 Y 30 155WATH LGAV ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS INATHENS GREC 94 25 03L21R 3800 45 A 23 195SEATH LGAV ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS INATHENS GREC 94 25 03L21R 3800 45 B 23 295SE 100SEATH LGAV ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS INATHENS GREC 94 25 03R21L 4000 45 C 23 295NW 100NWATH LGAV ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS INATHENS GREC 94 25 03R21L 4000 45 D 23 195NWATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 08L26R 2743 45 A 23 122NATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 08L26R 2743 45 B 23 122SATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 08R26L 3048 45 B 23 122NATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 08R26L 3048 45 E 30 152SATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 08R26L 3048 45 F 30 245S 93SATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 09L27R 3624 45 L 30 213N 91NATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 09L27R 3624 45 M 23 122NATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 09L27R 3624 45 N 23 122SATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 09R27L 2743 45 N 30 198NATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 09R27L 2743 45 R 23 122SATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 10 28 2743 45 SG 23 122NAUH OMAA ABU DHABI INTL ABU DHABI UNAR 27 42 13 31 4100 45 W 23 550S 90SAUH OMAA ABU DHABI INTL ABU DHABI UNAR 27 42 13 31 4100 45 Y 23 460S 210SAUH OMAA ABU DHABI INTL ABU DHABI UNAR 27 42 13 31 4100 45 Z 23 250SBFI KBFI BOEING FIELD-KING COUNTYSEATTLE, WA. UNST 5 24 13R31L 3049 60 A 25 114EBFI KBFI BOEING FIELD-KING COUNTYSEATTLE, WA. UNST 5 24 13R31L 3049 60 B 23 98WBKK VTBS SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK THAILAND 2 01L19R 3700 60 E 30 200SEBKK VTBS SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK THAILAND 2 01L19R 3700 60 D 30 320SE 120SE

Dimensional data shown in tabular form in this attachment is drawn from ICAO, Jeppeson and OAG data sources and includes airports as identified from the Official Airline Guide (OAG) with scheduled 747 service during the month of November, 2007. The runway-taxiway separation data format follows the ICAO ACDB (Airport Characteristics DataBase). For example, AKL shows rwy-twy separation of 200m, but also shows rwy-twy separation to the second parallel taxiway 108m further away as 308m. This list is not inclusive of all airports and/or runways capable of 747 operations. Some of the data were found to be in error or outdated. These data were checked to the latest Jeppeson airport diagrams and Google Earth Pro (satellite image) measurement which has approximate 1m accuracy.

Page 1 10/21/2008



RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)


BKK VTBS SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK THAILAND 2 01R19L 4000 60 B 30 200NWBKK VTBS SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK THAILAND 2 01R19L 4000 60 C 30 320NW 120NWBNE YBBN BRISBANE INTL BRISBANE ASTL 4 29 01 19 3560 45 A 23 200NWBNE YBBN BRISBANE INTL BRISBANE ASTL 4 29 01 19 3560 45 B 23 320NW 120NWBOM VABB CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTL MUMBAI INDA 11 31 09 27 3445 45 D 23 183NBOM VABB CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTL MUMBAI INDA 11 31 14 32 2925 45 Z 23 190NE Not verifiedBOS KBOS GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. UNST 6 27 04R22L 3050 45 M 30 285NWBOS KBOS GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. UNST 6 27 15R33L 3073 45 A 30 195SW 73SWBOS KBOS GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. UNST 6 27 15R33L 3073 45 B 30 122SWBOS KBOS GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. UNST 6 27 15R33L 3073 45 C 30 150SWBRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 02 20 2987 50 D1-W 20 305EBRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 02 20 2987 50 INN-7 30 262W 79WBRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 02 20 2987 50 OUT-7 30 183WBRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 07L25R 3638 45 INN-2 30 260S 80SBRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 07L25R 3638 45 N2 30 250NBRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 07L25R 3638 45 OUT-1 30 180SBRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 07R25L 3211 45 OUT-11 30 180NBWI KBWI BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. UNST 45 30 10 28 2881 60 R-U 23 122NBWI KBWI BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. UNST 45 30 15R33L 2902 45 A 23 196NE 75NEBWI KBWI BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. UNST 45 30 15R33L 2902 45 D 23 167NEBWI KBWI BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. UNST 45 30 15R33L 2902 45 P 23 121NECAI HECA CAIRO INTL CAIRO EGYP 116 35 05L23R 3301 60 A 30 200SECAI HECA CAIRO INTL CAIRO EGYP 116 35 05R23L 3999 60 O-T 30 250NWCAI HECA CAIRO INTL CAIRO EGYP 116 35 16 34 3178 60 U 30 170NECAI HECA CAIRO INTL CAIRO EGYP 116 35 16 34 3178 60 X 30 200WCAN ZGGG BAIYUN GUANGZHOU CHIN 11 33 02L20R 3600 45 E 23 280SE 90SECAN ZGGG BAIYUN GUANGZHOU CHIN 11 33 02L20R 3600 45 F 23 190SECAN ZGGG BAIYUN GUANGZHOU CHIN 11 33 02R20L 3800 60 A 23 200NWCAN ZGGG BAIYUN GUANGZHOU CHIN 11 33 02R20L 3800 60 B 23 300NW 100NWCDG LFPG CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS FRAN 119 24 08L26R 4215 45 J 22.5 193SCDG LFPG CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS FRAN 119 24 08L26R 4215 45 T 22.5 210NCDG LFPG CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS FRAN 119 24 09R27L 4200 45 D 22.5 250SCDG LFPG CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS FRAN 119 24 09R27L 4200 45 L 22.5 192NCEB RPVM MACTAN-CEBU INTL LAPU-LAPU PHIL 10 35 04 22 3300 45 B 23 315NWCGK WIII SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA INDO 10 32 07L25R 3600 60 NP1 23 300S 100SCGK WIII SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA INDO 10 32 07L25R 3600 60 NP2 23 200SCGK WIII SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA INDO 10 32 07R25L 3660 60 SP1 23 300N 100NCGK WIII SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA INDO 10 32 07R25L 3660 60 SP2 23 200NCGN EDDK BONN KOLN GERF 92 23 14L32R 3815 60 A 25 318SW 81SWCGN EDDK BONN KOLN GERF 92 23 14L32R 3815 60 E 22.5 237SWCHC NZCH CHRISTCHURCH INTL CHRISTCHURCH NEWZ 37 22 02 20 3288 45 A 23 215SECLE KCLE CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL CLEVELAND, OH. UNST 241 29 06L24R 2743 45 G 23 122SECLE KCLE CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL CLEVELAND, OH. UNST 241 29 06R24L 2743 45 L 23 122SECLT KCLT CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTL CHARLOTTE, NC UNST 228 25 18R36L 3048 45 E 23 182ECLT KCLT CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTL CHARLOTTE, NC UNST 228 25 18R36L 3048 45 F 23 265E 83ECMB VCBI BANDARANAIKE INTL COLOMBO SRIL 9 33 04 22 3350 45 PRL 30 200SE

Page 2 10/21/2008



RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)


CNS YBCS CAIRNS CAIRNS ASTL 3 31 15 33 3196 45 B 23 183NECNS YBCS CAIRNS CAIRNS ASTL 3 31 15 33 3196 45 C 23 293NE 110NECNX VTCC CHIANG MAI INTL CHIANG MAI THAI 316 36 18 36 3100 45 F 23 240ECTS RJCC NEW CHITOSE SAPPORO JAPN 25 25 01L19R 3000 60 D 30 180WCTS RJCC NEW CHITOSE SAPPORO JAPN 25 25 01L19R 3000 60 J 30 330W 150NECTS RJCC NEW CHITOSE SAPPORO JAPN 25 25 01R19L 3000 60 No-ParallelsCTU ZUUU SHUANGLIU CHENGDU CHIN 494 30 02 20 3600 45 A 27 242NECVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 09 27 3658 45 J 23 203N 81NCVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 09 27 3658 45 K 23 122NCVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 09 27 3658 45 M 23 122SCVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 18C36C 3353 45 C 23 178W Not verifiedCVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 18C36C 3353 45 D 23 122ECVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 18C36C 3353 45 E 23 200E 78ECVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 18L36R 3048 45 S 23 268W 90WCVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 18L36R 3048 45 T 23 178WDEL VIDP INDIRA GANDHI INTL DELHI INDA 237 41 09 27 2813 45 E 23 250SDEL VIDP INDIRA GANDHI INTL DELHI INDA 237 41 10 28 3810 45 P 23 205SDEL VIDP INDIRA GANDHI INTL DELHI INDA 237 41 10 28 3810 45 R 23 505S 300SDEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 07 25 3658 45 B 23 183NDEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 08 26 3658 45 R 23 183SDEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 16L34R 3658 45 F 23 183EDEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 16L34R 3658 45 G 23 283E 100EDEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 16R34L 3658 45 D 23 183E Not verifiedDEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 17L35R 3658 45 P 23 183WDEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 17R35L 3658 45 L 23 283W 100WDEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 17R35L 3658 45 M 23 183WDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 13L31R 2743 60 Q 23 295SW 112SWDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 13L31R 2743 60 R 30 183SWDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 13R31L 2835 45 A 23 183NEDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 13R31L 2835 45 B 23 297NE 114NEDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 17C35C 3471 45 M 23 183WDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 17C35C 3471 45 P 23 295EDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 17R35L 4084 60 K 30 297W 114WDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 17R35L 4084 60 L 30 183WDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 17R35L 4084 60 M 23 183EDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 18L36R 3471 60 E 23 183WDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 18L36R 3471 60 F 30 183EDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 18L36R 3471 60 G 30 297E 114EDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 18R36L 3471 45 C 23 297WDFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 18R36L 3471 45 E 23 183EDHA OEDR KING ABDULAZIZ AIR BASE DHAHRAN SAUD 26 42 16L34R 3600 45 1 23 192WDHA OEDR KING ABDULAZIZ AIR BASE DHAHRAN SAUD 26 42 16L34R 3600 45 4 23 192EDHA OEDR KING ABDULAZIZ AIR BASE DHAHRAN SAUD 26 42 16R34L 3660 45 3 23 225EDLC ZYTL ZHOUSHUIZI DALIAN CHIN 33 27 10 28 3300 45 A-PRL 23 218SDMK VTBD BANGKOK INTL BANGKOK THAI 3 35 03L21R 3700 60 A 28 260NW 80NWDMK VTBD BANGKOK INTL BANGKOK THAI 3 35 03L21R 3700 60 B 28 180NW

Page 3 10/21/2008



RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)


DMK VTBD BANGKOK INTL BANGKOK THAI 3 35 03R21L 3500 45 T 23 145SEDPS WADD BALI INTL (NGURAH RAI) DENPASAR INDO 4 31 09 27 3000 45 N 23 183NDTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 03R21L 3048 45 PP 23 340NW 157NWDTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 03R21L 3048 45 S 20 183SEDTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 03R21L 3048 45 W 23 183NWDTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 04L22R 3048 45 A 23 183SEDTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 04R22L 3659 60 K 23 190SE 70SEDTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 04R22L 3659 60 Y 23 120SEDTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 04R22L 3659 60 Z 23 122NWDUS EDDL DUSSELDORF DUSSELDORF GERF 45 23 05R23L 3000 45 M 45 218SEDXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12L30R 4000 60 M 23 192SWDXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12L30R 4000 60 N 23 192NEDXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12L30R 4000 60 P 23 283NE 91NEDXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12R30L 4315 45 J4 23 268SW 78SWDXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12R30L 4315 45 K 23 190SWDXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12R30L 4315 45 M 23 192NEEWR KEWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST 5 29 04L22R 3353 46 D,B,R 23 122WEWR KEWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST 5 29 04L22R 3353 46 P 23 122EEWR KEWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST 5 29 04L22R 3353 46 PA,A,S 23 213W 91WEWR KEWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST 5 29 04R22L 3042 46 CC 23 143SEEWR KEWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST 5 29 04R22L 3042 46 P 23 167WEZE SAEZ ARPT INTL EZEIZA, MIN. PIST BUENOS AIRES ARGT 20 22 11 29 3300 60 F 23 250NEZE SAEZ ARPT INTL EZEIZA, MIN. PIST BUENOS AIRES ARGT 20 22 11 29 3300 60 H 23 300NEZE SAEZ ARPT INTL EZEIZA, MIN. PIST BUENOS AIRES ARGT 20 22 17 35 3105 45 J 23 222WFCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 07 25 3309 45 B 30 192SFCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 07 25 3309 45 H 30 295S 103SFCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 16C34C 3600 45 C 30 109WFCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 16L34R 3900 60 No-ParallelsFCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 16R34L 3900 60 A 30 260EFCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 16R34L 3900 60 Z 30 360E 100EFDF TFFF LE LAMENTIN,MARTINIQUE FORT-DE-FRANCE FRAT 5 30 09 27 3000 45 L 23 180NFDF TFFF LE LAMENTIN,MARTINIQUE FORT-DE-FRANCE FRAT 5 30 09 27 3000 45 T 23 213NFLL KFLL FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWFORT LAUDERDALE, FUNST 3 33 09L27R 2744 46 A 23 137NFLL KFLL FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWFORT LAUDERDALE, FUNST 3 33 09L27R 2744 46 B 23 137SFRA EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF 111 24 07L25R 4000 60 A 30 200NEFRA EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF 111 24 07L25R 4000 60 C 30 260SEFRA EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF 111 24 07R25L 4000 45 C 30 257NWFRA EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF 111 24 07R25L 4000 45 S 30 200SEFRA EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF 111 24 18 36 4000 45 W 30 161EFUK RJFF FUKUOKA FUKUOKA JAPN 10 32 16 34 2800 60 A 23 180EFUK RJFF FUKUOKA FUKUOKA JAPN 10 32 16 34 2800 60 B 23 183WGIG SBGL RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ 9 30 10 28 4000 45 M 23 375S 80SGIG SBGL RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ 9 30 10 28 4000 45 N 23 255SGIG SBGL RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ 9 30 15 33 3180 45 B 23 163NEGIG SBGL RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ 9 30 15 33 3180 45 K 23 375NE 212NEGMP RKSS GIMPO INTL SEOUL RKOR 18 23 14L32R 3600 45 P 30 185NE

Page 4 10/21/2008



RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)


GMP RKSS GIMPO INTL SEOUL RKOR 18 23 14R32L 3200 60 No-ParallelsGUM PGUM A.B. WON PAT GUAM INT'L AI GUAM I. MARI 91 29 06L24R 3053 45 K 25 122NGUM PGUM A.B. WON PAT GUAM INT'L AI GUAM I. MARI 91 29 06R24L 3052 45 M 23 190SHAM EDDH HAMBURG HAMBURG GERF 16 22 05 23 3250 46 L 23 183SEHAM EDDH HAMBURG HAMBURG GERF 16 22 15 33 3666 46 D 23 199NEHKD RJCH HAKODATE HAKODATE JAPN 34 24 12 30 3000 45 P 23 180NEHKG VHHH HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG 9 32 07L25R 3800 60 A 30 190SEHKG VHHH HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG 9 32 07L25R 3800 60 B 30 290SE 100SEHKG VHHH HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG 9 32 07R25L 3800 60 H 30 290NW 100NWHKG VHHH HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG 9 32 07R25L 3800 60 J 30 190NWHKG VHHH HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG 9 32 07R25L 3800 60 K 30 190SEHND RJTT TOKYO INTL TOKYO JAPN 8 31 16L34R 3000 60 I 30 300SW 100SWHND RJTT TOKYO INTL TOKYO JAPN 8 31 16L34R 3000 60 O 30 200SWHND RJTT TOKYO INTL TOKYO JAPN 8 31 16R34L 3000 60 I 30 300NE 100NEHND RJTT TOKYO INTL TOKYO JAPN 8 31 16R34L 3000 60 L 30 300SWHND RJTT TOKYO INTL TOKYO JAPN 8 31 16R34L 3000 60 O 30 200NEHNL PHNL HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. UNST 4 30 04R22L 2743 45 C 23 133SEHNL PHNL HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. UNST 4 30 08L26R 3749 45 A 25 184NHNL PHNL HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. UNST 4 30 08L26R 3658 45 B 23 152SHNL PHNL HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. UNST 4 30 08L26R 3749 45 Z 23 275N 91NHNL PHNL HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. UNST 4 30 08R26L 3658 60 RA 23 320NHRB ZYHB YANJIAGANG HARBIN CHIN 139 27 05 23 3200 45 A 23 190NWHRE FVHA HARARE INTERNATIONAL HARARE ZIMB 1494 29 05 23 4725 45 A-G 23 198NWIAD KIAD DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC UNST 95 31 01L19R 3505 45 Y 23 213EIAD KIAD DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC UNST 95 31 01L19R 3505 45 Z 23 313E 100EIAD KIAD DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC UNST 95 31 01R19L 3505 45 J 23 313W 100EIAD KIAD DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC UNST 95 31 01R19L 3505 45 K 23 213WIAD KIAD DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC UNST 95 31 12 30 3202 45 Q 23 213NIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 08L26R 2743 45 FA 23 183SIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 08R26L 2866 45 CC 23 197NIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 08R26L 2866 45 NA 23 183SIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 08R26L 2866 45 NB 23 293S 110SIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 09 27 3048 45 SA 23 123NIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 09 27 3048 45 SB 23 231N 108NIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 15L33R 3658 45 WA 23 183NEIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 15L33R 3658 45 WB 23 293NE 110NEIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 15L33R 3658 45 WP 23 122SWIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 15R33L 3048 45 WC 23 127SWIAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 15R33L 3048 45 WP 23 183NEIND KIND INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. UNST 243 31 05L23R 3414 46 A 30 197NWIND KIND INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. UNST 243 31 05L23R 3414 46 B 23 183SEIND KIND INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. UNST 243 31 05R23L 3048 45 C 23 183NWIND KIND INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. UNST 243 31 05R23L 3048 45 D 23 121SEITM RJOO OSAKA INTL OSAKA JAPN 12 25 14R32L 3000 60 B 23 200NEITO PHTO HILO INTL HILO, HI. UNST 11 28 08 26 2987 45 A 23 130SJED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16C34C 3300 60 F 30 300W 90W

Page 5 10/21/2008



RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)


JED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16C34C 3300 60 H 30 210WJED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16L34R 3690 45 K 23 230WJED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16L34R 3690 45 L 30 230EJED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16R34L 3800 60 B 30 210EJED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16R34L 3800 60 C 30 300E 90EJFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 04L22R 3460 45 A 23 213NW 91NWJFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 04L22R 3460 45 B 23 122NWJFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 04L22R 3460 45 Y 23 243SEJFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 13L31R 3048 45 A 23 213SW 91SWJFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 13L31R 3048 45 B 23 122SWJFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 13L31R 3048 45 C 23 122NEJFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 13R31L 4442 45 A 23 213NE 91NEJFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 13R31L 4442 45 B 23 122NEJNB FAJS JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIOJOHANNESBURG SOUF 1694 21 03L21R 4418 60 A1-A5 30.5 200NWJNB FAJS JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIOJOHANNESBURG SOUF 1694 21 03L21R 4418 60 C1-C2 30.5 200SEJNB FAJS JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIOJOHANNESBURG SOUF 1694 21 03R21L 3400 60 Y1-Y4 30.5 200NWKHH RCKH GAOXIONG GAOXIONG CHIN 9 31 09 27 3150 60 S 23 360SKHI OPKC JINNAH INTERNATIONAL KARACHI PAKI 30 36 07L25R 3200 45 No-ParallelsKHI OPKC JINNAH INTERNATIONAL KARACHI PAKI 30 36 07R25L 3400 45 C,E,G 23 213SKIX RJBB KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA JAPN 5 25 06L24R 3500 60 Y 30 200SEKIX RJBB KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA JAPN 5 25 06R24L 3500 60 L 30 300NW 100NWKIX RJBB KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA JAPN 5 25 06R24L 3500 60 P 30 200NWKIX RJBB KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA JAPN 5 25 06R24L 3500 60 R 30 400NW 100NWKMJ RJFT KUMAMOTO KUMAMOTO JAPN 193 32 07 25 3000 45 P 23 183SEKOJ RJFK KAGOSHIMA KAGOSHIMA JAPN 272 30 16 34 3000 45 P 23 185SWKUL WMKK KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR MALB 21 32 14L32R 4019 60 A 24 210SWKUL WMKK KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR MALB 21 32 14L32R 4019 60 B 24 310SW 100SWKUL WMKK KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR MALB 21 32 14R32L 4000 60 C 24 210NEKUL WMKK KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR MALB 21 32 14R32L 4000 60 D 24 315NE 105NELAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 01R19L 2980 45 D 30 183ELAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 01R19L 2980 45 E 23 165WLAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 07L25R 3852 45 A 30 152SLAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 07L25R 3852 45 B 30 127NLAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 07L25R 3852 45 C 30 207N 80NLAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 07R25L 3852 45 A 30 152NLAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 06R24L 3135 45 D 25 212S 90SLAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 06R24L 3135 45 E 25 122SLAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 07L25R 3686 45 AC 23 120SLAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 07L25R 3686 45 B 23 107NLAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 07L25R 3686 45 C 23 198N 91NLAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 07R25L 3382 60 A 23 135SLAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 07R25L 3382 60 AC 23 120NLEA YPLM LEARMONTH LEARMONTH ASTL 6 31 18 36 3047 45 A 23 280WLGW EGKK GATWICK LONDON UNKG 60 22 08R26L 3316 45 J 23 290NLGW EGKK GATWICK LONDON UNKG 60 22 08R26L 3316 45 Y 23 240SELHR EGLL HEATHROW LONDON UNKG 25 22 09L27R 3901 50 A 23 183S

Page 6 10/21/2008



RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)


LHR EGLL HEATHROW LONDON UNKG 25 22 09L27R 3901 50 B 15 260S 77SLHR EGLL HEATHROW LONDON UNKG 25 22 09R27L 3660 50 A 23 183NLHR EGLL HEATHROW LONDON UNKG 25 22 09R27L 3660 50 B 23 260N 77NLHR EGLL HEATHROW LONDON UNKG 25 22 09R27L 3660 50 S 23 180SLUX ELLX LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG LXBG 376 16 06 24 4000 60 A 23 188NWLUX ELLX LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG LXBG 376 16 06 24 4000 60 B4 23 170NWMAD LEMD BARAJAS MADRID SPAN 610 33 15L33R 3500 60 KA 25 191SWMAD LEMD BARAJAS MADRID SPAN 610 33 15R33L 4100 60 A 25 182SWMAD LEMD BARAJAS MADRID SPAN 610 33 15R33L 4100 60 M 25 262SW 80SWMAD LEMD BARAJAS MADRID SPAN 610 33 18L36R 3500 60 AY 25 191WMAD LEMD BARAJAS MADRID SPAN 610 33 18R36L 4350 60 ZW 45 191WMAN EGCC MANCHESTER MANCHESTER UNKG 78 21 05L23R 3048 45 A 23 183NWMAN EGCC MANCHESTER MANCHESTER UNKG 78 21 05L23R 3048 45 J 23 170NWMAN EGCC MANCHESTER MANCHESTER UNKG 78 21 05L23R 3048 45 V 23 195SEMAN EGCC MANCHESTER MANCHESTER UNKG 78 21 05R23L 3047 45 V 23 195NWMCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 17L35R 2743 46 N 23 122WMCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 17R35L 3048 46 G 23 213W 91WMCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 17R35L 3048 46 H 23 122WMCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 18L36R 3659 60 B 23 213EMCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 18L36R 3659 60 C 23 315E 102EMCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 18L36R 3659 60 Z 30 230WMCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 18R36L 3659 60 A 23 240WMCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 18R36L 3659 60 Z 30 228EMEL YMML MELBOURNE INTL MELBOURNE ASTL 132 27 16 34 3657 60 A 23 375EMEL YMML MELBOURNE INTL MELBOURNE ASTL 132 27 16 34 3657 60 S 23 560E 185EMEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18C36C 3389 46 C 23 136WMEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18C36C 3389 46 J 23 220W 84WMEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18C36C 3389 46 S 23 122EMEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18L36R 2743 46 S 23 160WMEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18L36R 2743 46 Y 23 170E Not verifiedMEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18R36L 2841 46 M 30 122EMEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18R36L 2841 46 N 30 210E 88EMIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 08R26L 3202 60 L 23 123NMIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 08R26L 3202 60 M 30 121SMIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 08R26L 3202 60 N 23 213S 91SMIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 09 27 3962 45 S 23 213N 90NMIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 09 27 3962 45 T 23 123NMIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 12 30 2851 45 P 23 178NE 71NEMIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 12 30 2851 45 Q 23 107NEMIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 12 30 2851 45 R 23 170SWMKE KMKE GENERAL MITCHELL FIELD MILWAUKEE, WI. UNST 220 27 01L19R 2954 60 E 23 122WMKE KMKE GENERAL MITCHELL FIELD MILWAUKEE, WI. UNST 220 27 01L19R 2954 60 R 23 141WMLA LMML LUQA MALTA MALT 91 31 14 32 3544 60 I 15 107NEMLA LMML LUQA MALTA MALT 91 31 14 32 3544 60 T 23 190NEMNL RPLL NINOY AQUINO INTL MANILA PHIL 23 35 06 24 3410 45 C 23 106NMNL RPLL NINOY AQUINO INTL MANILA PHIL 23 35 06 24 3410 45 L 23 186N 80N

Page 7 10/21/2008



RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)


MRU FIMP MAURITIUS INTL MAURITIUS MAUR 56 27 14 32 3040 45 APR 23 275SWMSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 04 22 3355 45 C 23 121SEMSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 04 22 3355 45 D 23 230SE 109SEMSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 04 22 3355 45 M 23 122NWMSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 12R30L 3048 60 A 23 122NEMSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 12R30L 3048 60 B 23 205NEMSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 12R30L 3048 60 W 23 122SWMUC EDDM MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN GERF 453 23 08L26R 4000 60 M 30 300SMUC EDDM MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN GERF 453 23 08L26R 4000 60 N 30 420S 120SMUC EDDM MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN GERF 453 23 08R26L 4000 60 S 30 420N 120NMUC EDDM MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN GERF 453 23 08R26L 4000 60 T 30 300NMXP LIMC MALPENSA MILANO ITAL 234 28 17L35R 3920 60 A 30 225WMXP LIMC MALPENSA MILANO ITAL 234 28 17L35R 3920 60 C 30 404W 179WMXP LIMC MALPENSA MILANO ITAL 234 28 17R35L 3920 60 C 30 404EMXP LIMC MALPENSA MILANO ITAL 234 28 17R35L 3920 60 K 30 280W 85WMXP LIMC MALPENSA MILANO ITAL 234 28 17R35L 3920 60 W 30 195WNAN NFFN NADI INTL NADI FIJI 18 28 02 20 3200 45 No-ParallelsNBO HKJK JOMO KENYATTA INTL NAIROBI KENY 1623 29 06 24 4117 45 A 20 200NWNBO HKJK JOMO KENYATTA INTL NAIROBI KENY 1623 29 06 24 4117 45 G 23 365SENGO RJGG CHUBU CENTRAIR INTL NAGOYA JAPN 4 24 18 36 3500 60 A 30 220ENGO RJGG CHUBU CENTRAIR INTL NAGOYA JAPN 4 24 18 36 3500 60 B 30 320E 100ENGO RJGG CHUBU CENTRAIR INTL NAGOYA JAPN 4 24 18 36 3500 60 C 30 407E 87ENGS RJFU NAGASAKI NAGASAKI JAPN 3 32 14 32 3000 60 P 23 190NENOU NWWW TONTOUTA NOUMEA NCAL 16 27 11 29 3250 45 APR 23 132NENRT RJAA NARITA TOKYO JAPN 41 30 16R34L 4000 60 A 30 200ENRT RJAA NARITA TOKYO JAPN 41 30 16R34L 4000 60 M-P 30 390E 190EOAK KOAK METROPOLITAN OAKLAND INOAKLAND, CA. UNST 2 24 11 29 3048 45 W 23 140NEOKA ROAH NAHA NAHA JAPN 3 31 18 36 3000 45 A 23 208EOKA ROAH NAHA NAHA JAPN 3 31 18 36 3000 45 B 23 233WOKO RJTY YOKOTA AB TOKYO JAPN 141 23 18 36 3353 60 APR 23 240WOKO RJTY YOKOTA AB TOKYO JAPN 141 23 18 36 3353 60 F 23 240EOMA KOMA EPPLEY OMAHA, NE UNST 300 23 14R32L 2896 46 A 23 121SWOMA KOMA EPPLEY OMAHA, NE UNST 300 23 14R32L 2896 46 G 23 198SW 77SWONT KONT ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. UNST 287 24 08L26R 3718 46 M 15 90SONT KONT ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. UNST 287 24 08L26R 3718 46 N 23 123NONT KONT ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. UNST 287 24 08L26R 3718 46 N1 23 232N 109NONT KONT ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. UNST 287 24 08R26L 3109 46 M 15 122NONT KONT ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. UNST 287 24 08R26L 3109 46 S 23 122SORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 10 28 3092 45 B 23 257N 105NORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 10 28 3092 45 L 23 183SORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 10 28 3092 45 M 23 152NORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14L32R 3050 45 P 23 152SWORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14L32R 3050 45 V 15 236NEORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14R32L 3963 60 B 23 242NE 105NEORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14R32L 3963 60 J 23 242NE 105NEORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14R32L 3963 60 K 23 183SW

Page 8 10/21/2008



RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)


ORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14R32L 3963 60 T 23 137NEORY LFPO ORLY PARIS FRAN 89 29 06 24 3650 45 W1 23 220SEORY LFPO ORLY PARIS FRAN 89 29 06 24 3650 45 W3 23 300SE 80SEORY LFPO ORLY PARIS FRAN 89 29 06 24 3650 45 W47 23 270SEORY LFPO ORLY PARIS FRAN 89 29 08 26 3320 45 W31 23 300NPAE KPAE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PAINE EVERETT, WA. UNST 185 22 16R34L 2746 45 A 23 160EPEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 01 19 3800 60 J 23 300W 100WPEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 01 19 3800 60 K 23 200WPEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 18L36R 3800 60 F 23 200WPEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 18L36R 3800 60 G 23 175E Not verifiedPEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 18L36R 3800 60 H 23 298EPEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 18L36R 3800 60 Z3 23 290WPEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 18R36L 3200 50 C 23 185EPEN WMKP PENANG PENANG MALB 3 32 04 22 3352 45 A 23 187NWPER YPPH PERTH INTL PERTH ASTL 21 32 03 21 3444 45 A 30 220WPER YPPH PERTH INTL PERTH ASTL 21 32 03 21 3444 45 C 23 320EPER YPPH PERTH INTL PERTH ASTL 21 32 03 21 3444 45 H 15 290WPHL KPHL PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. UNST 6 30 09L27R 2896 45 J 23 200N 78NPHL KPHL PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. UNST 6 30 09L27R 2896 45 K 23 122NPHL KPHL PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. UNST 6 30 09L27R 2896 45 P 23 122SPHL KPHL PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. UNST 6 30 09R27L 3200 60 P 23 213N 91NPHL KPHL PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. UNST 6 30 09R27L 3200 60 S 30 122NPHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 07L25R 3140 46 D 23 200N 78NPHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 07L25R 3140 46 E 23 122NPHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 07L25R 3140 46 F 23 122SPHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 08 26 3502 46 A 15 122NPHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 08 26 3502 46 B 23 122SPHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 08 26 3502 46 C 23 203S 81SPIK EGPK PRESTWICK PRESTWICK UNKG 20 18 13 31 2987 45 R 23 168SWPIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10C28C 2959 45 E 23 107NPIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10C28C 2959 45 F 23 183SPIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10L28R 3201 45 A 23 189NPIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10L28R 3201 45 B 23 120SPIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10L28R 3201 45 C 23 195S 75SPIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10R28L 3505 60 F 23 183NPOP MDPP GREGORIO LUPERON INTL PUERTO PLATA DOMR 5 27 08 26 3081 45 APR 23 265SQPG WSAP PAYA LEBAR SINGAPORE SING 20 32 02 20 3780 60 W 23 197WRIC KRIC RICHMOND INTL RICHMOND, VA UNST 51 25 16 34 2744 46 L 23 228SWRUH OERK KING KHALED INT'L RIYADH SAUD 625 43 15L33R 4205 60 F 23 420SW 120SWRUH OERK KING KHALED INT'L RIYADH SAUD 625 43 15L33R 4205 60 G 23 300SWRUH OERK KING KHALED INT'L RIYADH SAUD 625 43 15R33L 4205 60 A 23 300NERUN FMEE LA REUNION-GILLOT AIRPORSAINT-DENIS REUN 20 30 12 30 3200 45 APR 20 190SW Non-ParallelsSAN KSAN SAN DIEGO INTL-LINDBERGHSAN DIEGO, CA. UNST 5 25 09 27 2865 60 B 23 105SSAN KSAN SAN DIEGO INTL-LINDBERGHSAN DIEGO, CA. UNST 5 25 09 27 2865 60 C 23 110NSDF KSDF LOUISVILLE INTL-STANDIFORLOUISVILLE, KY UNST 153 25 17R35L 3624 45 B 23 137NESDF KSDF LOUISVILLE INTL-STANDIFORLOUISVILLE, KY UNST 153 25 17R35L 3624 45 C 218NE 81NE

Page 9 10/21/2008



RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)


SEA KSEA SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE, WA. UNST 131 25 16C34C 2873 45 T 30 180WSEA KSEA SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE, WA. UNST 131 25 16L34R 3627 45 A 30 213E 93ESEA KSEA SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE, WA. UNST 131 25 16L34R 3627 45 B 30 120ESEA KSEA SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE, WA. UNST 131 25 16L34R 3627 45 W 30 175E 55ESFB KSFB ORLANDO SANFORD INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 17 28 09L27R 2926 46 A 23 121NSFB KSFB ORLANDO SANFORD INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 17 28 09L27R 2926 46 B 23 121SSFO KSFO SAN FRANCISCO INTL SAN FRANCISCO, CA. UNST 3 22 10L28R 3618 60 C 23 152NESFO KSFO SAN FRANCISCO INTL SAN FRANCISCO, CA. UNST 3 22 10R28L 3231 60 A 23 195SW 73SWSFO KSFO SAN FRANCISCO INTL SAN FRANCISCO, CA. UNST 3 22 10R28L 3231 60 B 23 122SWSHA ZSSS HONGQIAO SHANGHAI CHIN 3 31 18 36 3400 58 A 23 240ESHA ZSSS HONGQIAO SHANGHAI CHIN 3 31 18 36 3400 58 MAIN 23 325E 85ESHE ZYTX TAOXIAN SHENYANG CHIN 60 29 06 24 3200 45 A 23 200SESIN WSSS CHANGI SINGAPORE SING 7 32 02C20C 4000 60 A7 30 300W 100WSIN WSSS CHANGI SINGAPORE SING 7 32 02C20C 4000 60 EP 30 200WSIN WSSS CHANGI SINGAPORE SING 7 32 02L20R 4000 60 WA 30 300E 100ESIN WSSS CHANGI SINGAPORE SING 7 32 02L20R 4000 60 WP 30 200ESJC KSJC MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SAN JOSE, CA UNST 19 23 12L30R 3353 46 Y 23 106NESJC KSJC MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SAN JOSE, CA UNST 19 23 12L30R 3353 46 Z 23 171NE 65NESJC KSJC MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SAN JOSE, CA UNST 19 23 12R30L 3353 46 No-ParallelsSLC KSLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY, UT UNST 1288 23 16L34R 3659 46 G 23 264W 81WSLC KSLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY, UT UNST 1288 23 16L34R 3659 46 H 23 183WSLC KSLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY, UT UNST 1288 23 16R34L 3658 46 A 23 183ESLC KSLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY, UT UNST 1288 23 16R34L 3658 46 B 23 264E 81ESLC KSLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY, UT UNST 1288 23 17 35 2925 46 K 23 173ESNN EINN SHANNON SHANNON IRLD 14 15 06 24 3199 45 D2 23 215SESTN EGSS STANSTED LONDON UNKG 106 21 05 23 3048 45 G 27 197NWSTN EGSS STANSTED LONDON UNKG 106 21 05 23 3048 45 H 23 245SESTN EGSS STANSTED LONDON UNKG 106 21 05 23 3048 45 J 23 395SE 150SESVO UUEE SHEREMETYEVO MOSKVA RUSS 192 20 07L25R 3550 60 MAIN1 23 325NSVO UUEE SHEREMETYEVO MOSKVA RUSS 192 20 07R25L 3703 60 MAIN2 23 235SSXF EDDB SCHONEFELD BERLIN GERF 48 24 07R25L 3000 45 A 23 248NSYD YSSY KINGSFORD SMITH INTL SYDNEY ASTL 6 26 16R34L 3962 45 A 23 180WSYD YSSY KINGSFORD SMITH INTL SYDNEY ASTL 6 26 16R34L 3962 45 B 23 200ESYD YSSY KINGSFORD SMITH INTL SYDNEY ASTL 6 26 16R34L 3962 45 C 23 280E 80ESZX ZGSZ HUANGTIAN SHENZHEN CHIN 4 33 15 33 3400 45 H 23 200SWTHR OIII MEHRABAD INTL TEHRAN IRAN 1208 37 11L29R 3989 45 33 23 100NTHR OIII MEHRABAD INTL TEHRAN IRAN 1208 37 11R29L 4030 60 15 23 100STPE RCTP TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI CITY CHIN 33 33 05 23 3660 60 NN 30 215SETPE RCTP TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI CITY CHIN 33 33 05 23 3660 60 NP 30 325SE 110SETPE RCTP TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI CITY CHIN 33 33 06 24 3350 60 SC 30 310NW 100NWTPE RCTP TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI CITY CHIN 33 33 06 24 3350 60 SP 30 210NWTXL EDDT TEGEL BERLIN GERF 37 23 08L26R 3023 45 NW,NE 23 309NTXL EDDT TEGEL BERLIN GERF 37 23 08L26R 3023 45 SW,SE 23 390SURC ZWWW DIWOPU URUMQI CHIN 649 32 07 25 3600 45 A 28 265SUTP VTBU UTAPAO RAYONG THAI 18 34 18 36 3505 60 E 25 240WWAW EPWA OKECIE WARSZAWA POLD 110 24 11 29 2800 50 C1 23 198SW

Page 10 10/21/2008



RWY LENGTH

(m)

RWY WIDTH

(m)PRIM TWY

TWY WIDTH

(m)RWY-TWY SEP (m)

TWY-TWY SEP (m)


WAW EPWA OKECIE WARSZAWA POLD 110 24 11 29 2800 50 E1-E2 23 185NEWAW EPWA OKECIE WARSZAWA POLD 110 24 15 33 3690 60 A1-A6 23 240NEWAW EPWA OKECIE WARSZAWA POLD 110 24 15 33 3690 60 B6 23 240SWXIY ZLXY XIANYANG XI'AN CHIN 479 32 05 23 3000 45 A 23 200SEXMN ZSAM GAOQI XIAMEN CHIN 18 32 05 23 3400 45 A 23 182SEYMX CYMX MONTREAL INTL (MIRABEL) MONTREAL, QU CAND 82 26 06 24 3658 60 B 23 500NWYVR CYVR VANCOUVER INTL VANCOUVER, BC CAND 4 22 08L26R 3030 60 M 23 235SYVR CYVR VANCOUVER INTL VANCOUVER, BC CAND 4 22 08R26L 3505 60 A 23 212SYVR CYVR VANCOUVER INTL VANCOUVER, BC CAND 4 22 08R26L 3505 60 D 23 230NYYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 05 23 3389 61 H 23 224SEYYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 05 23 3389 60 J 23 183NWYYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 06L24R 2896 61 C 23 183NEYYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 06L24R 2896 61 D 23 275NW 92NWYYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 15L33R 3368 60 A 23 263NE 81NEYYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 15L33R 3368 60 B 23 182NEYYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 15L33R 3368 60 E 23 182SWYYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 15R33L 2770 60 F 23 183NEYYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 15R33L 2770 60 M 23 183NEZRH LSZH ZURICH ZURICH SWTZ 432 17 14 32 3300 60 H 18 190SWZRH LSZH ZURICH ZURICH SWTZ 432 17 16 34 3700 55 APR 18 275NEZRH LSZH ZURICH ZURICH SWTZ 432 17 16 34 3700 55 E 18 190NE

Page 11 10/21/2008

BACG Attachment G

Runway-Taxiway Separation – U.S. FAA Standard

Runway-to-Taxiway Separation – U.S. FAA Standard * FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13, para 209 The separation standard in Table 2-2 is intended to satisfy the requirement that no part of an airplane on taxiway centerline is within the runway safety area or penetrate the OFZ.

- Table 2-2 runway separation standards apply to aircraft approach categories C (121-141 knots) and D (141-166 knots). - Runway safety area (RSA) is similar to ICAO graded portion of strip in intent. RSA for Group V (Code E equiv.) and Group

VI (Code F equiv.) is 500 ft (152.4m) wide. - U.S. OFZ configurations vary with span, threshold elevation, and ILS category

Group V Group VI Rationale / Remarks (ICAO E equivalent) (ICAO F equivalent) 400’ (120m) Applies to Cat I; Increases with airport elevation (400’ applies to airport at sea level) 500’ (150m) Applies to Cat II/III; Applies to airports at sea level 500’ (150m) Applies to Cat I; May increase at higher elevation to meet OFZ requirement 550’ (168m) Applies to Cat II/III * Revised through Airport Obstruction Standards Committee (AOSC) Decision Document #4, March 21, 2005, which can be found at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/aosc/media/AOSC_DecisionDocument_04_Signed.pdf



BACG Attachment H

U.S. FAA Modification of Standard (MOS) Process


U. S. FAA Modification of Standard (MOS) Process

MOS means any change to published FAA standard

- Applicable if MOS results in lower cost, greater efficiency, or accommodation under unusual local condition *

- Acceptable level of safety must be provided

- Airplane specific

- Airport site specific

FAA Order 5300.1F describes MOS (Available on FAA website)

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/media/con struction_5300_1f.pdf

* Condition where application of standard is impracticable to meet

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/media/construction_5300_1f.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/media/construction_5300_1f.pdf


Request for MOS

Airport requests MOS by submitting:

- Group VI standard / Requirement (Code F equivalent) being modified

- Proposed modification to standard

- Explain why Group VI standard cannot be met

- Discuss viable alternatives

- State why modification would provide acceptable level of safety


MOS Processing Procedure

FAA Airports Regional Office (ARO) or Airports District Office (ADO) receives MOS from airport

ARO or ADO initiates coordination of MOS with other Regional Lines of Business (Flight Standards, Air Traffic, Airway Facilities, etc.)

ARO or ADO forwards completed MOS to FAA Headquarters in DC (AAS-100)

AAS-100 reviews comments and makes determination

AAS-100 approves MOS

MOS and Letter to airport is sent by Regional Office


MOS Related FAA Activities

Engineering Briefs (EBs) for the 747-8 are interim design and operating guidelines. As of March 2010 the following EBs have been released.

EB73 – Use of Group V (equivalent to Code E) taxiway width (75’, 23m) approved for 747-8

EB74 – Group VI (equivalent to Code F) runway width currently specified pending approval to operate on 150’ (45m) wide runway *

EB78 – Application of linear equation for 747-8 taxiway and taxilane separation criteria. Allows reduced separation based on 747-8 span.

EB80 – Taxiway edge margin of 15 ft (4.5m) for Group VI airplanes

EB81 – Runway-taxiway separation. Group V separation is applicable for 747-8

*Boeing will demonstrate that the 747-8 can safely operate on 45 m (150 ft) runways during flight test, at which time it is expected that the FAA will release an update to EB74 that will allow operations on 45 m (150 ft) wide runways with existing Code E (Group V) shoulders.


MOS Related FAA Activities - continued

Boeing supports FAA with NLA related research such as continuing work on taxi deviation study at SFO

Taxi deviation study results from ANC and JFK observations affect the determinations made in the EB on TWY width

747-8 MOS meetings

ACI-NA/FAA/Boeing/U.S. airports to discuss 747-8 operational issues collectively. Meetings are organized by ACI-NA


BACG Attachment I

45M Wide Runway Operational Approval for 747-8


45M Wide Runway Operational Approval

747-8 capability is enhanced over the current 747-400

- 747-8 design incorporates fly-by-wire spoilers and ailerons

- Autopilot Flight Director System is enhanced by providing new approach and landing functions

- Handling qualities are anticipated to be same or better than those of current 747 models through design enhancements


45M Wide Runway Operational Approval - Test Plan

Flight test

- Collect/analyze runway lateral excursion data for takeoffs and landings

- Vmcg test – Applied to 45m runway width

- Autoland test – Applied to 45m runway width

Existing 747 data will be examined

- Historical 747 runway veeroff records

- Correlation of historical veeroffs with design and pilot procedure improvements

- Comparative analysis of 747-8 vs. existing 747 models performance characteristics

Documents

boeing performances