Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 163

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 Airport Compatibility Group (BACG)

October 2008

Table of Content
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2. 3. BACG Terms of Reference ........................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the document............................................................................................. 3 Primary conditions of application ............................................................................... 3 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 4

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW.............................................................................................. 5 AIRFIELD ITEMS REVIEW................................................................................................... 5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 Runways ........................................................................................................................ 7 Taxiways ........................................................................................................................ 8 Runway Separations..................................................................................................... 9 Taxiway and Taxilane separations ............................................................................. 11 Other items ................................................................................................................... 13

4.

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

Annex 1 Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Attachment I

Recommendation Letter from BACG Aviation Authorities Safety Analysis of Airfield Items
Safety analysis that led to the BACG conclusions

Physical Characteristics and Performance of 747-8


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

Reference Material Studies, Analysis, Working Papers, and Reports


Available documentation on aircraft operations

AOPG vs. AACG


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

AOP Doc 7754 Extract


Extract from EUR ANP Part III-AOP

Runway-Taxiway Separations
Taxiway separation data of world airports

Runway-Taxiway Separations U.S. FAA Standard


FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 10, dated 29 September 2006

U.S. FAA Modification of Standards (MOS) Process


Process and procedures for deviating from published FAA standard

45M Wide Runway Operational Approval


Current status on 747-8 approval process with FAA

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

1.
1.1

Introduction
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).

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

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
= ICAO Recommended Practices Annex 14 Paragraph 3.8.3 = ICAO Standard = Aerodrome Design Manual part 2 = Standards And Recommended Practices = Runway = Taxiway = New Large Aircraft = Foreign Object Damage = Operations = Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting = Obstacle Free Zone = Obstacle Limitation Surface = Obstacle Clearance Panel = International Infrastructure Working Group = Joint Aviation Requirements for Large Aeroplane = Joint Aviation Requirements All Weather Operations = Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height = Rejected Take-Off = Runway End Safety Area = Working Paper
Boeing 747-8 4

[RP] A14 P3.8.3 [Std] ADM Pt2 SARP Rwy Twy NLA FOD OPS ARFF OFZ OLS OCP IIWG JAR 25 JAR AWO OCA/H RTO RESA WP

Common Agreement Document

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.
3.1

Airfield Items Review


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
Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 5

- 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.

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

3.2
Item Runway width

Runways
Width of Runway shoulder
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 - No specific justification material available on rwy shoulder width.

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

ICAO SARPs and ADM ICAO Rationale


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 A minimum central 45m of pavement of full load bearing strength shall be provided. (equal to Code Letter E runway)

BACG Agreement

- 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) - 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.

- 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. Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8

Justification Material

3.3
Item Width of straight taxiway
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

Taxiways
Taxiway shoulder width (straight and curved)
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 - 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.

Width of curved taxiway


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

ICAO SARPs and ADM

- 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 - 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

ICAO Rationale

Origin of the 4.5m clearance distance unknown

BACG Agreement

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. - 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 747400ER.* - 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.

Justification Material

- 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)

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

3.4
Item RWY to parallel TWY separation
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 1.2.3132)

Runway Separations
Obstacle Free Zone
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"

Runway holding positions


Take-off rwy, non-instrument & nonprecision 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 P3.12.6 107.5m based on Code Letter F OFZ definition and on an aircraft with 24m tail height, 62.2m distance nosehighest tail part, 10m nose height, 45 or more holding

ICAO SARPS and ADM

- Separation = wing span + strip width: Code Letter E: 182.5m = x65m+x300m Code Letter F:190m = x80m+x300m for instrument rwy. - Origin of 300m rwy strip width unknown ADM Pt2 p1.2.19+ table 1-5 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).

ICAO Rationale

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

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

BACG Agreement

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).

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

Justification Material

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

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. - 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.

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.

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

10

3.5
Parallel Taxiway Separation
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 31 column 10

Taxiway and Taxilane separations


Taxiway / Apron taxiway to Object Separation
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 31 column 11

Item

Aircraft Stand Taxilane to Object Separation


(including service road and height limited object)

Clearance at the gate


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

ICAO SARPS and ADM

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 31 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

No specific safety buffers for curved portion. A14 P3.9.8 Note 3

- 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)

The taxiway strip should provide an area clear of objects which may endanger a/c [RP] A14 P 3.11.3 - Separation twy to object = wingspan + max lateral deviation + increment Code Letter E: 47.5m = x65m+4.5m+10.5m Code Letter F: 57.5m = x80m+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 = wingspan + max. dev. + increment Code Letter E: 42.5m = x65m+2.5m+7.5m Code Letter F: 50.5m = x80m+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 trackout when the aircraft turns into the gate using oversteer technique (typical).

Origin of the 7.5m clearance distance unknown

ICAO Rationale

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

11

Item

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

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

Aircraft Stand Taxilane to Object Separation


(including service road and height limited object)

Clearance at the gate


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

- 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 - Air Navigation Plan ICAO European Region recommended reduced separation distances for 747-400 operations with 7.5m wingtip clearance. - Taxiway deviation statistics analysis - AACG agreement of 7.5m for A380, if taxiway centre line lighting or equivalent guidance is available

BACG Agreement

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.

- 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 Note 1a:

- Air Navigation Plan ICAO European Region recommended reduced separation distances for 747-400 operations with 9m wingtip clearance. - Taxiway deviation statistics analysis - AACG agreement of 9m for A380, if taxiway centre line lighting or equivalent guidance is available

Not applicable

Justification Materials

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) Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 12

3.6
Item Visual aids
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

Other items
RESA (Runway End Safety Area) width
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

Taxiways on bridges
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

ICAO SARPS and ADM

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 Work of ICAO Visual Aids Panel/ Working Group

ICAO Rationale

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

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

13

Item

Visual aid implications


- 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.

Taxiways on bridges
- 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). - 747 outer main gear wheel span - 747 outer engine span - 747-8 Jet blast velocity contours at taxiing similar to 747-400

RESA (Runway End Safety Area) width


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

BACG Agreement

Justification Materials

- 747-400 engine position - Similar exhaust wake velocity contours as 747-400 - Similar glide slope approach attitude

- 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.

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

14

4.

BACG Participating Members

List of BACG Participants


Organization Name Position

Airports, their Authorities, and Airlines Australia Civil Aviation Safety Authority Frank Leonardi Australia France ADP Philippe Laborie ADP Isabelle Wallard DGAC DGAC DGAC Germany BMVBS Fraport Fraport HMWVL Italy Italian Civil Aviation Authority Netherlands Civil Aviation Authority The Netherlands Amsterdam Schiphol Poland Warsaw Airport United Kingdom British Airports Authority Airlines Cargolux Lufthansa Lufthansa Industry Organization ACI Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing IATA Jan Malawko Andrew Badham Sten Rossby Michael Dietz Matthias Schmitt David Gamper (Chairman) Kaz Konya (Secretary) Marc Schoen Ed Gervais Jerry Robinson Karen Dix-Colony Ton Van der Veldt Susanne Hofmann Holger Schwenke Ibrahim Zantout Egon Grsslein Alessandro Cardi Sietse Jager Rob ten Hove Jean-Louis Pirat Laurent Osty Pierre Thery

Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Group Technical Director, CDG airport Deputy Director, Planning Divison Scientific & International Advisor, Civil Aviation Technical Center Airport Certification Unit Chief, Airport Certification, Civil Aviation Technical Center Airport Policies, Federal Ministry of Transport Head, Airside Development and ATC Head, Apron Infrastructure Head Section Aerodromes Director of Airport Infrastructure Senior Advisor, Aerodromes and Airspace Division Senior Advisor, Airport Capacity Management Head of Airport Operations Supervision and SMS Head of Central Airside Operations Captain, Chief Technical Pilot General Manager, ATS & International Organizations Manager, Airports & Infrastructure Director, Safety and Technical Affairs Senior Principal Engineer, Airport Technology Manager, Airport Technology Technical Fellow, Airport Technology Senior Engineer, Airport Technology Senior Engineer, Airport Technology Assistant Director, Safety, Operations & Infrastructure

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

15

Annex 1 Recommendation Letters from BACG Aviation Authorities


Germany France Australia Italy Netherlands

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

16

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

17

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

18

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

19

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

20

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

21

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

22

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

25

Common Agreement Document

Boeing 747-8

26

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

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

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.
ASIC PRINCIPLES

3. B

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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

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 [Std] ADM Pt2 Rwy Twy NLA FOD OPS ARFF OFZ OLS OCP IIWG JAR 25 JAR AWO OCA/H RTO RESA WP

= ICAO Recommended Practices Annex 14 Paragraph 3.8.3 = ICAO Standard = Aerodrome Design Manual part 2 = Runway = Taxiway = New Large Aircraft = Foreign Object Damage = Operations = Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting = Obstacle Free Zone = Obstacle Limitation Surface = Obstacle Clearance Panel = International Infrastructure Working Group = Joint Aviation Requirements for Large Aeroplane = Joint Aviation Requirements All Weather Operations = Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height = Rejected Take-Off = Runway End Safety Area = Working Paper

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

PART A: RUNWAYS
RUNWAY WIDTH SYNOPSIS
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 Human factors (crew, maintenance, balance, payload security) Powerplant (engine failure, ingestion) Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow) Aircraft (control surfaces, hydraulic system, tyres) Risk 2 Lateral runway excursion at landing 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)

HAZARD ANALYSIS

ICAO BASELINE

Main causes and accident factors

Severity

Theoretical In-service

Major to Catastrophic depending on the aircraft speed.

Detailed hazard analysis within certification process Risk assessment category A (aircraft performance) A (aircraft performance) 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 (see Attachments B, H and I)

- 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 Main technical materials 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)

BACG CONCLUSIONS

RISK ASSESSMENT

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

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

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 Tm C = Runway width = Outer main gear wheel span = 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 A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 5

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 747400 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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

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
Outer Main Gear Wheel Span

WR
Runway Width

C
Clearance between the outer main gear wheel and the runway edge

747-400 747-8 Code Letter E main gear wheel span upper limit

12.6m 12.7m 13.99m

45m 45m 45m

16.20m 16.15m 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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

RUNWAY SHOULDER WIDTH SYNOPSIS


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

ICAO BASELINE

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 Risk 1 Shoulder erosion and engine ingestion (snow and ice ingestion included) at landing or take-off Powerplant (engine position, engine power) Shoulder width and cohesion Runway centreline deviation factors (see runway veer-off risk) Location and height of snow banks Potentially major Risk 2 Difficulties for ARFF services to intervene on a damaged aircraft on the runway Aircraft wingspan, engine position Shoulder width and bearing capability Risk 3 Aircraft damage after incursion on runway shoulder

Hazard Identification

HAZARD ANALYSIS

Main causes and accident factors

Severity

Theoretical In-service

Major to catastrophic

No 747-8 specific issue

RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk assessment category -

C (geometric argument) 747-8 engine position 747-8 jet blast velocity at take-off thrust - Information about lateral deviation from runway centreline (see Attachment B) -

C (geometric argument) 747-8 wingspan and engine position (see Attachment B)

Main technical materials

BACG CONCLUSIONS

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 9137AN/898)

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

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

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

3. Consequences analysis 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 747400) 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 20.85m 20.85m (Outer) engine nacelle minimum height above ground 1.32m 1.32m

747-400ER 747-8

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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

10

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.

9.2 m 16.1 m

45m

wide

7.5m

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

11

PART B: TAXIWAYS
TAXIWAY WIDTH SYNOPSIS
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)

ICAO BASELINE HAZARD ANALYSIS

Hazard Identification

Main causes and accident factors

Theoretical Severity In-service Risk assessment category

Potentially major Minor B (generic risk model) C (geometric argument)

RISK ASSESSMENT

Main technical materials

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)

BACG CONCLUSIONS

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

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

12

ICAO BASELINE See previous synopsis HAZARD ANALYSIS 1. Hazard identification 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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

13

Outer Main Gear Wheel Span 747-400 747-8 Code Letter E main gear wheel span upper limit 12.6m 12.7m 13.99m

Taxiway Width 23m 23m 23m

Clearance between the outer main gear wheel and the taxiway edge 5.2m 5.15m 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 747400 (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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

14

TAXIWAY SHOULDER WIDTH SYNOPSIS


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 Powerplant (engine position, engine power) Taxiway shoulder width and cohesion Taxiway centreline deviation factors (see taxiway veer-off risk) Risk 2 Aircraft damage after incursion on taxiway shoulder

HAZARD ANALYSIS

ICAO BASELINE

Main causes and accident factors

Theoretical Severity In-service Risk assessment category

Minor except if undetected and followed by engine failure at take-off (potentially major) C (geometric argument) 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 breakaway and the transient (temporary) nature of the breakaway thrust application - Information about lateral deviation from taxiway centreline (see Attachment B & C) No 747-8 specific issue

RISK ASSESSMENT BACG CONCLUSIONS

Main technical materials

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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

15

ICAO BASELINE See previous synopsis HAZARD ANALYSIS 1. Hazard identification 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. Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 16

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 20.85m 20.85m Margin between outer engine axis and shoulder edge 1.15m 1.15m (Outer) engine nacelle height above ground 1.32m 1.32m

747-400ER 747-8

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.

1.2 m 5.1 m

23m wide

10.5 m

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

17

PART C: RUNWAY SEPARATIONS


SYNOPSIS
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

ICAO BASELINE

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 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 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

Hazard Identification

HAZARD ANALYSIS

Main causes and accident factors

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 Severity In-service

Catastrophic No known cases reported in-service Potentially catastrophic Potentially major

RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk assessment category

A (aircraft performance) & B (generic risk model) & C (geometric argument)

B (generic risk model)

Generic risk assessment not feasible

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

18

Main technical materials

- 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 (182.5m184.2m) - 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. - However, the vertical tail size of 747-8 is same as 747-400 which would imply an identical impact for 747-8 and 747400. (see Attachment C)

RISK ASSESSMENT

BACG CONCLUSIONS

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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

19

ICAO BASELINE See previous synopsis 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

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

20

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 mobile) on the airport or

Two different lateral runway excursions database analysis (see Attachment C) comes out with the following outputs: Veer-off distances 1 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 noninstrument 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 todays 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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

21

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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

22

PART D: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS


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

ICAO BASELINE

HAZARD ANALYSIS

Hazard Identification Main causes and accident factors Theoretical Severity In-service Risk assessment category

Risk 1 Collision between two aircraft or between an aircraft and an object (fixed or mobile) Human factors (crew, marshaller, taxi routing error,) Weather conditions Potentially major B (generic risk model) - 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)

RISK ASSESSMENT BACG CONCLUSIONS

Main technical materials

- 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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

23

ICAO BASELINE See previous synopsis 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,) 3. Consequences analysis 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, ). Boeing 747-8 24

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

25

PART E: OTHER ITEMS


RUNWAY VISUAL AIDS SYNOPSIS
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 veeroff

ICAO BASELINE HAZARD ANALYSIS

Hazard Identification

Main causes and accident factors -

Powerplant (engine position, engine power) Elevated edge lights strength Aircraft (rotation angle at takeoff) Runway centreline deviation factors (see runway veer-off risk)

Theoretical Severity In-service

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

No 747-8 specific issue

No 747-8 specific issue

RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk assessment category

C (geometric argument)

Main technical materials

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

BACG CONCLUSIONS

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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

26

ICAO BASELINE See previous synopsis 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 7478 engine is 66,500 lbs, compared to 63,300 lbs for the 747-400ER.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

27

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

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

28

TAXIWAY ON BRIDGES SYNOPSIS


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 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

ICAO BASELINE HAZARD ANALYSIS

Hazard identification

Main causes and accident factors

- See taxiway veer-off risk (taxiway width paragraph) - Width of the bridge

- Aircraft stop away from taxiway centreline - Width of the bridge - Evacuation slides configuration Hazardous

- Width of the bridge - 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) Major for other traffic (not for the aircraft)

Theoretical Severity In-service

Catastrophic

No cases reported No cases reported

Major to catastrophic

RISK ASSESSMENT

Risk assessment category Comparison with margins for a 747 on a code E bridge (see Attachmt. B) Main technical materials

C (predominant geometric issues)

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) -

BACG CONCLUSIONS

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).

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

29

ICAO BASELINE See previous synopsis 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 Clearance between the outer main gear wheel and the taxiway Bridge edge

Taxiway Bridge Width

747-400 747-8 Code Letter E main gear wheel span upper limit

12.6m 12.7m 13.99m

44m 44m 44m

15.70m 15.65m 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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

30

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 necessary 2 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.

14.4m

1.2 m

44m

wide TW Y bridg e

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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

31

RUNWAY END SAFETY AREA (RESA) SYNOPSIS


ICAO BASELINE
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 Risk 1 Runway overrun excursion at take-off - Human factors (crew, maintenance, balance, payload security) - Powerplant (engine failure, ingestion) - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow) - Aircraft (control surfaces, hydraulic system, tyres) Risk 2 Runway undershoot or runway overrun excursion at landing - 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)

Hazard identification

HAZARD ANALYSIS

Main causes and accident factors

Theoretical Severity In-service Risk assessment category Major to Catastrophic depending on the aircraft speed.

A (aircraft performance) - 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. (see Attachments B, H and I)

A (aircraft performance) - 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 (see Attachments B, H and I)

RISK ASSESSMENT BACG CONCLUSIONS

Main technical materials

- 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

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

32

ICAO BASELINE See previous synopsis 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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

33

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.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

Boeing 747-8

34

BACG Attachment B

Physical Characteristics and Performance of 747-8

B1

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 ..B31 B31 Accident/Incident Analysis . B36 Appendix....B47 Updated 747-8 Data in Appendix A ICAO Circular 305 ... B56

B
COPYRIGHT 2006 THE BOEING COMPANY

Airport Planning Manual Available


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:

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

B3

747-8 Airplane Configuration

B4

747-8 vs. 747-400 Comparison

747-8 (ft/m) Span Length Height 747-8 747-400 224.4/68.4 250.2/76.3 64.2/19.6

747-400 (ft/m) 213.0/64.9 231.8/70.7 64.0/19.5

747-8 5.7 ft (1.8 m) wider each side 747-8 0.2-ft (0.1 m) higher

747-8 18.4-ft (5.6 m) longer B5


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

747-8 Intercontinental General Characteristics


Characteristics Max design taxi weight Max design takeoff weight Max design landing weight Max design zero fuel weight Max structural payload Seating capacity Max cargo Maximum fuel capacity US gal L lb kg lb kg lb kg lb kg lb kg Three-class Units 747-400 878,000 398,254 875,000 396,893 652,000 295,742 555,000 251,744 156,200 70,851 416 23FC + 80 BC + 313 EC
(30) LD-1 or (5) 96-ft pallets + (14) LD-1

747-400ER 913,000 414,130 910,000 412,769 581,000/652,000 (2) 263,537/295,742 542,000/555,000 (2) 245,847/251,744 136,700/148,100 (2) 62,006/67,177 416 23FC + 80 BC + 313 EC

747-8 978,000 443,613 975,000 442,253 683,000 309,803 643,000 291,660 168,650 76,498 467 25 FC + 89 BC + 353 EC

(1) Body tank + (28) LD-1 or (38) LD-1 or (4) 96-in pallets + (14) LD-1 or (7) 96-in pallets + (18) LD-1 (2) body tanks + (24) LD-1

Notes: (1) Includes tail fuel, GE engines (2) Basic (1 aux tank) / Max (2 aux tanks) (3) GE engines

57,065 (1) 216,014

60,305 (2)/63,545(2) 228,279/240,544

63,095 (3) 238,841

BOEING PROPRIETARY PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT STUDY

COPYRIGHT 2006 THE BOEING COMPANY 11/02/2010

747-8 Freighter General Characteristics

Characteristics Max design taxi weight Max design takeoff weight Max design landing weight Max design zero fuel weight Max structural payload Max cargo Maximum fuel capacity

Notes: (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

Units lb kg lb kg lb kg lb kg lb kg cu ft cu m US gal L

747-400F 878,000 398,254 875,000 396,893 652,000 (1) 295,742 610,000 (2) 276,691 248,300 112,627 27,467 777.8 53,765 (3) 203,523

747-400ERF 913,000 414,130 910,000 412,769 653,000 (1) 296,196 611,000 (2) 277,145 248,600 (4) 112,763 27,467 777.8 53,765 (3) 203,523

747-8F 978,000 443,613 975,000 442,253 759,000 344,277 719,000 326,133 295,200 133,900 29,426 833.3 59,794 (3) 226,345

BOEING PROPRIETARY PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT STUDY

COPYRIGHT 2006 THE BOEING COMPANY 11/02/2010

747-8F vs. 747-400F Comparison

747-8F (ft/m) Span Length Height 747-8 747-400 224.4/68.4 250.2/76.3 64.2/19.6

747-400F (ft/m) 213.0/64.9 231.8/70.7 64.0/19.5

747-8 5.7 ft (1.8 m) wider each side 747-8 0.2-ft (0.1 m) higher

747-8 18.4-ft (5.6 m) longer B6


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

747-8 Airport Compatibility Large Airplane Comparison


Critical model shown in red
Wingspan Length Tail height (max) Wheelbase (to turning centroid) Cockpit-to-main gear Main gear span (to outer tire edges) Outer engine span Wingtip height (min) Max taxi weight 747-8 224.4ft (68.4 m) 250.2 ft (76.3 m) 64.2 ft (19.6 m) 92.3 ft (28.1 m) 100.0 ft (30.5 m) 41.7 ft (12.7 m) 136.7 ft (41.7 m) 19.7 ft (est) (6.0 m) 978,000 lb (443,610 kg) 747-400ER 213.0 ft (64.9 m) 231.8 ft (70.7 m) 64.0 ft (19.5 m) 79.1 ft (24.1 m) 86.6 ft (26.4 m) 41.3 ft (12.6 m) 136.7 ft (41.7 m) 16.7 ft (5.1 m) 913,000 lb (414,130 kg) 777-300ER 212.6 ft (64.8 m) 242.4 ft (73.9 m) 61.4 ft (18.7 m) 100.4 ft (30.6 m) 112.2 ft (34.2 m) 42.3 ft (12.9 m) 63.0 ft (19.2 m) 23.6 ft (7.2 m) 777,000 lb (352,440 kg) A340-600 208.0 ft (63.4 m) 247.4 ft (75.4 m) 58.7 ft (17.9 m) 108.9 ft (33.2 m) 122.7 ft (37.4 m) 41.3 ft (12.6 m) 126.3 ft (38.5 m) 19.4 ft (5.9 m) 840,400 lb (381,200 kg) A380-800 261.8 ft (79.8 m) 238.7 ft (72.7 m) 80.2 ft (24.4 m) 97.8 ft (29.8 m) 104.6 ft (31.9 m) 46.9 ft (14.3 m) 168.6 ft (51.4 m) 17.1 ft (5.2 m) 1,258,000 lb (571,000 kg) B9
797-AO-0057 12/8/06-CF

747-8 Intercontinental Door Locations

199 ft 4 in (60.7 m) 152 ft 0 in (46.3 m) 113 ft 9 in (34.7 m) 75 ft 0 in (22.9 m) 31 ft 2 in (9.5 m)

B10
797-CO-0268 10-19-06-whp

747-8 Freighter Door Locations

177.8 ft (54.2 m) 166.0 ft (50.6 m) 157.9 ft (48.4 m) 43.7 ft (13.3 m) 31.2 ft (9.5 m) 26.1 ft (8.0 m)

B11

Cockpit Visibility 747-8 Versus 747-400


Ground pitch angle for 747-8 is slightly more nose down o (0.2 ) than 747-400 Increased cutoff angle Decreased obscured segment

747-8 21 48' (747-400 22 0')

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

747-8 18 38' (747-400 18 26')

2.34 m 5.54 m 747-8 24.94 m (747-400 25.81 m)

B12
797-CO-0265 11-7-06-whp/CF

747-8 Landing Gear Footprint


10 ft 1 in (3.07 m) 92 ft 3 in (28.13 m)*

41 ft 9 in* 36 ft 1 in (12.73 m) (11.00 m)

12 ft 7 in (3.84 m)

36 in (0.91 m) 46.8 in* (1.19 m) typ. 56.5 in* (1.44 m) typ.

CHARACTERISTICS MAX DESIGN TAXI W EIGHT NOSE GEAR TIRE SIZE NOSE GEAR TIRE PRESSURE MAIN GEAR TIRE SIZE MAIN GEAR TIRE PRESSURE

UNITS POUNDS KILOGRAMS IN. PSI KG/CM2 IN. PSI KG/CM2

747-400 877,000 397,801 49x17, 32 PR * 200 * 14.06 * H49x19.0 - 22 32 PR 200 14.06

747-8 978,000 443,614 50x20R22/26PR 166 11.67 52x21R22/36PR 220 15.47

* 747-400/-400ER have 41 ft 5 in (12.62 m) outer wheel span 78 ft 11.5 in (24.07 m) wheelbase 58 in x 44 in (1.47 m x 1.12 m) truck size

B13
797-CO-0259 11-16-06-CF

747-8 Performance Features and Safety Enhancements

B14

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 747-8 Increased outboard aileron deflection to -30 (-25 on -400) Outboard aileron is more effective Use of spoilers 6 and 7 for lateral control Improves roll response rate and control FBW aileron and spoilers Allows tuning of roll control Increased spoiler effectiveness due to aft loading, flaps up and down Improves roll response Double-hinged lower rudder and spudders Improved directional control 60 ground spoilers improve braking, landing field length, and rejected takeoff performance (45 on -400) Drooped ailerons Improved takeoff and landing performance Revised rudder mechanism Eliminates exposure to single failure rudder hardovers 747-8 retains Code E aircraft maneuverability
B15
797-WD-0343 11-16-06-CF

Improved Situation Awareness in Flight Deck


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)

B16
797-WD-0336 11-22-6-JW/CF

Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)

B17

747-8 is Compatible with ICAO Code E OFZ


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)

Code E approach

Code F approach

Inner approach 120 m

Inner approach 155 m

B18
797-AO-0073 11/15/06/CF

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.
B19
797-WD-0344 11-2-06-CF

Autoland Requirement/Performance

B20

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)

B21
797-WD-0341 11-15-06-CF

747-8 Autoland Runway Touchdown Criteria


Expected Lateral Performance
Runway threshold Outboard landing gear limit 5 ft (1.5 m) Landing short touchdown limit Runway edge

70 ft (21.3 m)

150 ft (45.7m)

C L 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

200 ft (61.0m)

3000 ft (914 m) Landing long touchdown limit

B22
797-AO-0061 11-16-6-JW/CF

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)

B23
797-WD-0338 10-18-06-CF

NLA Touchdown Dispersion During Balked Landing at Sea Level


30

20

10

Distance from centerline, ft

-10

-20

-30 1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Distance from threshold, ft

Threshold elevation: 13 ft

B24
797-TE-0004 10-17-06-whp

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


30

20

10

Distance from centerline, ft

-10

-20

-30 1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Distance from threshold, ft

Threshold elevation: 6,500 ft

B25
797-TE-0005 10-17-06-whp

Engine Exhaust Velocities

B26

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 747-400ER but 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

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

B27
797-WD-0347 11-2-06-CF

747-8 Outboard Engine Height Above Ground


747-400 747-8

14 in / 36 cm

52 in / 132 cm to 67 in / 171 cm

52 in / 132 cm to 67 in / 171 cm

B28
797-PP-0038 12-8-6-JW/CF

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


m 30 ft 100
75 mph (120 km/h) 50 mph (80 km/h) 35 mph (56 km/h)

20 50 10

Distance from A/P center line

75 mph (120 km/h)

50 mph (80 km/h)

35 mph (56 km/h)

0
747-8 747-400ER

10 -50 20 ~ 25 (~ 7.6 m)

30 Sea level, standard day Static A/P No wind All engines running 1.5% ground up-slope Steady state contours

-100 0 0 100 30 A/P Tail 200 60 300 90 400 120 500 150 600 ft 180 m

Distance downstream of engine nozzle exit B29


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

Takeoff Thrust Exhaust Velocity Contour widths are Within Code E Shoulder Width
m 90 ft 300 200
75 mph (120 km/h) 50 mph (80 km/h) 50mph (80 km/h) 35 mph (56 km/h)

60

30

100

Distance from A/P center line

30

100
747-8 747-400ER

60

200

90 Sea level, standard day Static A/P No wind All engines running Steady state contours

300 0 0 100 500 200 1000 300 400 1500 500 2000 600 2500 ft 700 m

Distance downstream of engine nozzle exit B30


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

Ground Maneuvering

B31

747-8 Footprint Fits Inside 777-300 Footprint


747-8 777-300
747-8 & 777 Turning Axis 777-300
42.3 ft (12.9 m)

41.7 ft (12.7 m)

747-8

92.3 ft (28.1m)

747-8

100.4 ft (30.6 m)

777-300

Cockpit-to-main gear distance 747-8: 100.0 ft (30.5 m) 777-300: 112.2 ft (34.2 m)

B32
797-NO-0047 11-3-6-CF

747-8 Fillet Requirement


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

Cockpit over taxiway centerline

747-8
8 ft

Tire edge to turn center


A340-600 777-300 MD-11 747-8 DC-10 747-400 88 ft 92 ft 100 ft 100 ft 103 ft 106 ft 26.8 m 28.0 m 30.5 m 30.5 m 31.4 m 32.3 m

B33
797-AO-0055 11/3/6-CF

U-Turn Width Requirement

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

Minimum width of pavement

747-400
ICAO Code Maximum steering angle, no differential braking E 154 ft (47 m)

747-8
F 170 ft (52 m)

777-300ER
E 185 ft (57 m)

A340-600
E 186 ft (57 m)

A380-800
F 216 ft (66 m)

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

B34
797-AO-0058 11/3/6-CF

Same Proven Steering System as Existing 747s


747-8 has the same body gear steering systems as todays 747s
Body gear angle (deg) Max 70 deg 13 0 13
70 65 70 0 70 Gear furthest from turn center Gear nearest turn center

65 70

Nose gear

Nose gear angle (deg) Nose gear 0 to 20 degrees 20 to 70 degrees Body gear 0 0 to 13 degrees

Wing gear Turn center

Body gear

Max 13 deg

B35
797-TE-0006 11-3-6-whp/CF

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

B36

747 Runway Veeroffs


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

8 7 6 5 Number 4 of events 3 2 1 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 Year 1990 1995 2000 2005
Incidents Accidents 747-400 Veer-offs Incidents: 5 Accidents: 2

B37
797-AO-0064 11-22-6-whp/CF

747 Takeoff/Landing Veeroffs

14 12 10 Number of events 8 6 4 2 0 70-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 Year 91-95 96-00 01-05
Takeoff (5yr) Landing (5 yr)

B38
797-AO-0066 11-16-06-whp/CF

747 Runway Veeroff Causes


Unknown 23%

Weather 32%

Load 4%
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)

Pavement 0% Personnel (Pilot, ATC) 19%

Mechanical 22%

B39
797-AO-0071 10/26/06/CF

747 Movements, Takeoffs and Landings


Steady increase in 747 movements
8.0 7.0

6.0 5.0

Movements In Millions

4.0 3.0 2.0

1.0 0.0 70-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-00 01-05

5 Year Periods

B40
DS-747-2007-080 8-3-07 ets

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


7.0E-06
Landings & takeoffs combined Steady decline over the years

6.0E-06

5.0E-06

4.0E-06
Frequency

3.0E-06

2.0E-06

1.0E-06

0.0E+00 70-75 76-80 81-85


Years B41
797-AO-0065 11-16-6-whp/CF

86-90

91-95

96-00

01-05

747 Takeoff and Landing Veer-off Frequency by 747 Movement


1.0E-05 9.0E-06 8.0E-06
Takeoff (5 yr) Landing (5 yr) Continuous reduction over the years Crew procedures and performance improvements have contributed to the reduction

7.0E-06 6.0E-06
Frequency

5.0E-06 4.0E-06 3.0E-06 2.0E-06 1.0E-06 0.0E+00 70-75 76-80 81-85 86-90
5 Year Periods B42
DS-747-2007-080 8-3-07 ets

91-95

96-00

01-05

747 Annual Taxiway Veeroff Incidents and Accidents


5 Only two accidents in 36 years 4 Incidents Accidents

Number of events
2

0 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003

Year

B43
797-AO-0069 10-26-06-whp

Taxiway Veeroff Causes


Weather 17%

Unknown 36%

Mechanical 7%

Load 0% Pavement 2% Personnel 38%

B44
797-AO-0072 11/6/06/CF

747 Taxiway Veeroff Frequency by 747 Movement

6.0E-06
Continuous reduction to a low current rate

5.0E-06

4.0E-06 Frequency

3.0E-06

2.0E-06

1.0E-06

0.0E+00 70-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 Year 91-95 96-00 01-05

B45
797-AO-0070 11-17-06-whp/CF

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 is required to determine the primary cause.

B46
797-WD-0345 11/28/06/CF

Appendix

B47

Visual Landing Aids Data


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

Eye Ref Point

Glideslope Beam

H3 H1 H2

H4

Lowest Point on Tire

Drawing for demonstration only and is not to scale

B54

747-8 Intercontinental Payload-Range Capability


90 80 70

200 180 160 140 Payload (1,000 lb)


747-8 Intercontinental/GEnx-2B67 975,000 lb MTOW 474,350 lb OEW 8,000 nmi design range

Payload (1,000 kg)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

120
467 passengers

100
city apa s el c lon Fu gal S. U. 095 63,

80 60 40 20 0 0

416 passengers

747-400/CF6-80C2B1F 875,000 lb MTOW 403,600 lb OEW 7,220 nmi design range


5 ,06 57

5 Range (1,000 nmi)

10

0 Typical mission rules Nominal fuel flow Standard day Passenger allowance: 210 lb/pass Fuel density: 6.7 lb/USG
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY

10

12

14

16

18

Range (1,000 km)

PRELIMINARY

11/02/2010

747-8 Intercontinental Take-off Field Length


12.0
3.5

11.0 Take-off field length (1,000 ft)


Take-off field length (1,000 m)

3.0

10.0
747-400/CF6-80C2B1F

9.0

2.5

8.0
747-8/GEnx-2B67

7.0

2.0

6.0

1.5

5.0 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 Take-off gross weight (1,000 lb)
250 300 350 Take-off gross weight (1,000 kg) 400 450

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


COPYRIGHT 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY

PRELIMINARY

11/02/2010

747-8 Intercontinental Landing Field Length


3.0

10.0

9.0
2.5 Landing field length (1,000 m)

Landing field length (1,000 ft)

8.0

7.0
747-400/CF6-80C2B1F 747-8/GEnx-2B67

2.0

6.0

1.5

5.0

4.0 400
1.0

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

Landing weight (1,000 lb)


200 250 Landing weight (1,000 kg) Sea level Standard day Flaps 30
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY

300

350

PRELIMINARY

11/02/2010

747-8 Freighter Payload Range Capability


350
Cargo density

747-8 Freighter/GEnx-2B67 975,000 lb MTOW 423,800 lb OEW 4,390 nmI design range
9 lb/cu ft

140

300

10 lb/cu ft

120

250 Payload (1,000 lb)


Payload (1,000 kg) 100

10 lb/cu ft 9 lb/cu ft 8 lb/cu ft 7 lb/cu ft 7 lb/cu ft 6 lb/cu ft

200

8 lb/cu ft

80

150

6 lb/cu ft

60

ty ci s pa ca llon el a F u S. g

U.

100
40

747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F 875,000 lb MTOW 360,900 lb OEW

94 ,7 59

20

50

4,450 nmI design range


65 ,7 53

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Range (1,000 nm)


0 2 4 6 8 10 Range (1,000 km) 12 14 16 18 20

Typical mission rules Nominal fuel flow Standard day Fuel density: 6.7 lb/USG
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY

PRELIMINARY

11/02/2010

747-8 Freighter Take-off Field Length


12.0
3.5

11.0 Take-off field length (1,000 ft)


Take-off field length (1,000 m)

3.0

10.0

9.0
747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F

2.5

8.0
747-8 Freighter

7.0

GEnx-2B67

2.0

6.0

1.5

5.0 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 Take-off gross weight (1,000 lb)
250 300 350 Take-off gross weight (1,000 kg) 400 450

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


COPYRIGHT 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY

PRELIMINARY

11/02/2010

747-8 Freighter Landing Field Length


10.0
3.0

9.0 Landing field length (1,000 ft)

2.5 Landing field length (1,000 m)

8.0

7.0
747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F

2.0

6.0

747-8 Freighter/GEnx-2B67

1.5

5.0

4.0 400
1.0

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

Landing weight (1,000 lb)


200 250 Landing weight (1,000 kg) Sea level Standard day Flaps 30
COPYRIGHT 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY

300

350

PRELIMINARY

11/02/2010

Visual Landing Aids Data


Vertical distances between critical points on aircraft at maximum pitch attitude (VREF) (ILS)
Aircraft Model 2.5 degree glide slope FD Pitch (deg) Flap Setting Eye path to ILS beam (ft) H2 21.0 ILS beam to wheel path (feet) H Eye path to wheel path (feet) H1 ILS antenna above wheels (feet) H3 19.4 Pilots Eye above wheels (feet) H4 40.3 FD Pitch (deg) Flap Setting Eye path to ILS beam (ft) H2 3.0 degree glide slope ILS beam to wheel path (feet) H Eye path to wheel path (feet) H1 ILS antenna above wheels (feet) H3 18.6 Pilots Eye above wheels (feet) H4 39.4

747-400 747-400ER 747-400ERF 747-8I

5.0 25.0

23.4

44.4

4.5

21.0

23.4

44.4

4.6 25.0 4.4 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

21.0

24.2

45.2

19.6

40.4

3.9

20.9

23.3

44.2

18.6

39.4

Vertical distances between critical points on aircraft at minimum pitch attitude (VREF+5) (ILS)
Aircraft Model 2.5 degree glide slope FD Pitch (deg) Flap Setting Eye path to ILS beam (ft) H2 20.9 ILS beam to wheel path (feet) H Eye path to wheel path (feet) H1 ILS antenna above wheels (feet) H3 15.3 Pilots Eye above wheels (feet) H4 36.1 FD Pitch (deg) Flap Setting Eye path to ILS beam (ft) H2 3.0 degree glide slope ILS beam to wheel path (feet) H Eye path to wheel path (feet) H1 ILS antenna above wheels (feet) H3 14.5 Pilots Eye above wheels (feet) H4 35.2

747-400 747-400ER 747-400ERF 747-8I

2.5 30.0

19.4

40.3

2.0

20.9

19.4

40.3

2.6 30.0 2.8 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

20.9

21.3

42.2

16.6

37.3

2.3

20.9

21.3

42.2

15.6

36.4

B55

Updated 747-8 Data in Appendix A, ICAO Circular 305 Operations of New Larger Aeroplanes at Existing Aerodromes
June 2004

B56

Airport Design Category Parameters


ICAO Aerodrome Code Letters
Code F Wing span Outer main gear wheel span 65m up to but not including 80m 14m up to but not including 16m A380 -800 79.8m B747-8* C5 An 124 73.3m Code E 52m up to but not including 65m 9m up to but not including 14m A340 -600 63.4m B747400ER 64.9m B777 -300ER 64.8m

68.4m

67.9m

14.3m

12.7m

11.4m

8.0m

12.6m

12.6m

12.9m

FAA Airplane Design Groups


Group VI Wing span Tail Height 214 ft up to but not including 262 ft 66 ft up to but not including 80 ft A380 -800 261.8 ft B747-8* C5 An 124 Group V 171 ft up to but not including 214 ft 60 ft up to but not including 66 ft A340 -600 208.0 ft B747400ER 212.9 ft B777 -300ER 212.6 ft

224.4 ft

222.8 ft

240.5 ft

80.1 ft

64.2 ft

58.7 ft

64.0 ft

61.4 ft

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

B57
797-CO-0260 12-8-06-whp/CF

Aeroplane Dimensions
Code F Aeroplane Dimensions Fuselage length Overall length Fuselage width Fuselage height at OEW Main Deck sill height*** Upper Deck sill height*** Tail height at OEW Wingspan Wingspan (full fuel)# Wingspan (jig)## Wingtip vertical clearance at TOW Wingtip vertical clearance at OEW Maximum wing tip height at TOW Maxmimu wing tip height at OEW Cockpit view at OEW: - Cockpit height - Cockpit cut-off angle - Obscured segment Taxi camera Pilot-to-nose landing gear distance Pilot-to-Main landing gear distance ~ * *** # ## A380-800 (m / ft) 70.4 72.7 / 238.7 7.1 / 23.3 10.9 / 35.7 5.4 / 17.7 8.1 / 26.6 24.1 / 79.1 79.8 / 261.8 79.8 / 261.8 ~5.3 / 17.4 ~6.1 / 20.0 ~7.5 / 24.6 ~8.3 / 27.2 7.2 / 23.6 20 max 19.8 / 65.0 Yes 2.1 / 6.9 31.8 / 104.3 B747-8* (m / ft) 74.2 76.3 / 250.2 6.5 / 21.3 10.2 / 33.5 5.4 / 17.7 7.9 / 25.9 19.6 / 64.3 68.4 / 224.4 68.5 / 224.7 ~6.0 / 19.7 ~6.6 / 21.6 ~7.6 / 24.9 ~8.2 / 26.9 8.72 / 28.6 18.6 24.9 / 81.7 No 2.3 / 7.5 29.9 / 98.1 C5 (m / ft) 70.3 75.5 / 247.7 7.1 / 23.3 9.3 / 30.5 2.7 / 8.9 7.1 / 23.3 19.9 / 65.3 67.9 / 222.8 67.9 / 222.8 3.2 / 10.5 4.0 / 13.1 3.2 / 10.5 4.0 / 13.1 8.2 / 26.9 Unknown Unknown No 5.0 / 16.4 27.2 / 89.2 An 124 (m / ft) 69.9 69.9 / 229.3 7.3 / 23.9 10.2 / 33.5 2.8 / 9.2 7.5 / 24.6 21.0 / 98.9 73.3 / 240.5 73.3 / 240.5 3.7 / 12.1 Unknown 3.7 / 12.1 Unknown 8.3 / 27.2 Unknown Unknown No 2.4 / 7.9 25.3 / 83.0 A340-600 (m / ft) 73.5 75.3 / 247.4 5.6 / 18.4 8.5 / 27.9 5.7 / 18.7 17.4 / 57.1 63.4 / 208.0 63.6 / 208.7 63.4 / 208.0 6.0 / 19.7 6.2 / 20.3 7.6 / 24.9 7.8 / 25.6 5.7 / 18.7 20 15.7 / 51.5 Yes 4.3 / 14.1 37.4 / 122.7 Code E B747-400ER (m / ft) 68.6 70.7 / 231.8 6.5 / 21.3 10.2 / 33.5 5.4 / 17.7 7.9 / 25.9 19.5 / 64.0 64.9 / 212.9 64.9 / 212.9 64.4 / 211.3 5.1 / 16.7 5.7 / 18.7 6.7 / 22.0 7.3 / 23.9 8.70 / 28.5 18.4 25.8 / 84.6 No 2.3 / 7.5 26.4 / 86.6 B777-300ER (m / ft) 73.1 73.9 / 242.4 6.2 / 20.3 8.7 / 28.5 5.5 / 18.0 18.7 / 61.4 64.8 / 212.6 64.8 / 212.6 7.2 / 23.6 7.5 / 24.6 7.2 / 23.6 7.5 / 24.6 5.9 / 19.4 21 14.6 / 47.9 Yes 3.6 / 11.8 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) 797-CO-0261 For aircraft without winglets, we typically give jig span. This is the span as measured in the manufacturing jig (straight wing without 1G droop).

B58
12-8-06-whp/CF

Landing Gear Geometry


Code F Landing gear geometry Weights MRW MTOW MLW Landing gear dimensions Wheel track Outer main gear wheel span Wheel base3 Main gear steering ACN Flexible5 FA FB FC FD ACN - Rigid RA RB RC RD 57 68 89 111 64 75 88 101 28 34 44 56 36 49 74 101 64 73 86 99 59 69 81 92 66 85 109 131 59 64 76 107 63 70 87 110 25 29 37 54 42 48 61 86 66 71 83 118 57 63 78 100 64 71 89 120 system4 A380-800 (t / 1,000 lb) 571 / 1,259 569 / 1,254 392 / 862 (m / ft) 12.5 / 41.0 14.3 / 46.9 29.8 / 97.8 Yes B747-81 (t / 1,000 lb) 444 / 978 442 / 975 309 / 682 (m / ft) 11.0 / 36.1 12.7 / 41.7 28.1 / 92.3 Yes C5 (t / 1,000 lb) 381 / 840 380 / 838 288 / 365 (m / ft) 7.9 / 25.9 11.4 / 37.4 22.2 / 72.8 Yes An 124 (t / 1,000 lb) 402 / 886 398 / 877 330 / 727 (m / ft) 6.3 / 20.7 8.0 / 26.2 22.9 / 75.1 Yes A340-600 (t / 1,000 lb) 381 / 840 380 / 838 265 / 584 (m / ft) 10.7 / 35.1 12.6 / 41.3 33.2 / 108.9 No Code E B747-400ER B777-300ER (t / 1,000 lb) (t / 1,000 lb) 414 / 913 413 / 910 296 / 652 302 / 6662 (m / ft) 11.0 / 36.1 12.6 / 41.3 24.1 / 79.1 Yes 352 / 777 351 / 775 251 / 554 (m / ft) 11.0 / 36.1 12.9 / 42.3 30.6 / 100.4 Yes

1. Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change. 2. Freighter version values provided where appropriate 3. To turning centroid 4. 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 ACNs 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)

B59
797-CO-0262 11-15-06-whp/CF

Minimum Pavement Width Required for U-turns and Engine Data


Minimum pavement width required for U-turns (in ascending order)
Code E D F E E F Aircraft 747-400 MD11 747-8 777-300 A340-600 A380-800 U-turn width (m / ft) 47.0 / 154 49 / 161 51.8 / 170 56.5 / 185 56.7 / 186 65.7 / 216 Wheelbase (m / ft) 24.1 / 79 24.7 / 81.2 28.1 / 92.3 30.6 / 100.4 33.2 / 109 29.7 / 97.5 Track (to outside tire edge) (m / ft) 12.6 / 41.3 12.6 / 41.3 12.7 / 41.7 12.9 / 42.3 12.6 / 41.3 14.3 / 47

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

Engine data
Code F Engine data Number of engines Bypass ratio Engine thrust (pounds) Engine span (CL to CL) Engine vertical clearance at MTOW (m / ft) Reverser system 70 k A380-800 4 8.7 77 k** B747-8* 4 8.1 67 k 41.7m 0.6 / 2.0 1.3 / 4.3 Yes C5 4 8.0 41 k 37.7m 2.5 / 8.2 1.7 / 5.6 Yes An 124 4 ~5.7 52 k 37.9m 3.5 / 11.5 3.1 / 10.2 Yes A340600 4 7.5 56 k 38.5m 0.5 / 1.6 1.6 / 5.2 Yes Code E B747400ER 4 5.3 61 k 41.7m 0.7 / 2.3 1.4 / 4.6 Yes B777300ER 2 ~7 115 k 19.2m 0.9 / 3.0 Yes

51.4m 1.1 / 3.6 (inner) 1.9 / 6.2 (outer) Only inboard thrust reversers

~ 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 747-400ER Jet blast velocity contours are available in Section 6 of the respective Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning document in the manufacturer website (Appendix B).

B60
797-CO-0263 11-1-06-whp/CF

Passenger and Fuel Capacities and Landing Incidences


Maximum passenger and fuel carrying capacities
Code F A380-800 3-class reference layout Maximum passenger carrying capacity Wing fuel tank capacity (litres / US gallons)# Tail empennage fuel tank capacity (litres / US gallons)# Centre fuel tank capacity (litres / US gallons)# Maximum fuel carrying capacity (litres / US gallons) 555 ~800 287 000 / 75,800 23,000 / 6,000 0 310,000 / 81,900 B747-8* 467 660 165,000 / 43,600 12,490 / 3,300 64,973 / 17,200 243,000 / 64,200 C5 186 000 / 49,100 0 0 186,000 / 49,100 An 124 350,000 / 92,500 0 0 350,000 / 92,500 A340-600 380 ~475 131,000 / 34,600 8,300 / 2,200 56,000 / 14,800 194,878 / 51,500 Code E B747-400ER 416 660 138,924 / 36,700 12,490 / 3,300 64,973 / 17,200 228,538 / 60,400*** 204,333 / 54,000** B777-300ER 365 550 78,206 / 20,700 0 103,077 / 27,200 181,283 / 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).

Landing incidence/attitude and final approach speed at MLW and forward center of gravity
Code F A380-800 Approach attitude at 3 glide slope Approach speed Start of visual segment (m / ft)
~ 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

Code E C5 An 124 Unknown ~124kt A340-600 3.5 154kt 103 / 338ft B747400ER 3.0 158kt B777300ER ~3.0 ~150kt

747- 8* ~3.0 153kt, 159kt**

~1.0 ~145kt 88 / 290

Unknown ~135kt

B61
797-CO-0264 11-28-06-whp/CF

BACG Attachment C: Listing of Studies and References Relating to ICAO Annex 14 SARPs
Nb Title Runways Shoulders Lights / Signs Runway Strip Runway End Safety Area OFZ Holding Points Width of straight taxiway Width of curved taxiway Straight and curved taxiway shoulders X Bridges , Tunnels and Culverts Taxiway Minimum Separation Distances Rwy-Twy Twy-Twy Aprons

1 2

4 5 6

10

X X X X X X X X X X X X X http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=document&DocGroupID=23 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Circular 305 - Operation of New Larger Aeroplanes at http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=search&txtDocumentTitle=&txtDocumentNumber=CIR305&txtAfterDate=&txtBeforeDate=&cmbMediaType Existing Aerodromes, June 2004, ICAO =0&cmbLanguage=0&txtKeywords=&radios=englishtitle&btnSubmit=Search X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Parts 1 to 5, http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=search&txtDocumentTitle=aerodrome+design+manual&txtDocumentNumber=&txtAfterDate=&txtBeforeDat ICAO e=&cmbMediaType=0&cmbLanguage=0&txtKeywords=&radios=englishtitle&btnSubmit=Search X Circular 301 New Larger Aeroplanes Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and http://icaodsu.openface.ca/documentItemView.ch2?ID=9684 Aeronautical Study, December 2005 Notice to Aerodrome License Holders, February 2003, X X X X X X X X X X X X CAA UK (1) (2) http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/NOTAL_CAA.pdf X X X Statistical Extreme Value Analysis of Taxiway Center Line Deviations for 747 Aircraft at JFK and ANC http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Design/taxi.asp Airports, August 2003, Boeing (1) X X X X Statistical Analysis of Aircraft Deviations from Taxiway Center Line, Taxiway Deviation Study at Amsterdam Report available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Airport, Schiphol, 1995, Boeing Company Information Available at Boeing (AirportTechnology@boeing.com), ACI or Airbus (Contact: airport.compatibility@airbus.com) and Support Services (1) (5) X X X Aircraft Deviation Analysis at Frankfurt Airport, Preliminary results available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) February 2004, Frankfurt Airport (1) (3) (5) Additional deviation analysis in curved portion available Available at Fraport, ACI or Airbus (Contact: airport.compatibility@airbus.com) X Runway Lateral Deviations during Landing, Study with Preliminary results available (1) (3) Flight Recorder Systems On-board, CAA-France Available at CAA-France or Airbus (Contact: airport.compatibility@airbus.com) X X X X X X X X X X X X Common Agreement Document (CAD) of the A380 Aerodrome Compatibility Group, December 2002, CAAhttp://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/AACG_Common_Agreement_Document_V2.1.pdf France, CAA-UK, CAA-Netherlands, CAA-Germany, Appendices available at ACI (chairman), Airbus (Contact: airport.compatibility@airbus.com) or Boeing (AirportTechnology@boeing.com) ACI, IATA, Airbus (1) (2) (5) X X X 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: airport.compatibility@airbus.com)

Annex 14 Aerodromes, Volume I Aerodrome Design and Operations, 4th edition, July 2004, ICAO

11 12 13 14

Test of Load Bearing Capacity of Shoulders, 2003, CAAX France and Airbus (1) English version available at Airbus (Contact: airport.compatibility@airbus.com) A380 Pavement Experimental Project, October 2001, X LCPC, Airbus, CAA-France http://www.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/publications/documents/rapportPEP.pdf Reduced Separation Distances for Code F Aircraft at

BACG Attachment C: Listing of Studies and References Relating to ICAO Annex 14 SARPs
Nb Title Runways Shoulders Lights / Signs 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

15

Report available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Available at AMS, ACI or Airbus (Contact: airport.compatibility@airbus.com) X X 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 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 CAAFrance Air Navigation Plan - ICAO European Region - Reduced Separation Distances, 2001, ICAO Europe (5) Final Report on the Risk Analysis in Support of Aerodrome Design Rules, 2001, CAA-Norway (2) (5) Taxiway Deviation Study at LHR, 1987, BAA (4) (5) Certification Document - A380 operations on 45m wide runways, August 2007, Airbus Airbus A380 Operations Evaluation Results, July 2007, FAA Engineering Brief No. 65A Use of 150-Foot-(45-M) Wide Runways for Airbus A380 Operations, December 2007, FAA Engineering Brief No. 63B Taxiways for Airbus A380 Taxiing Operations, December 2007, FAA Airbus A380 operations at alternate airports, June 2006, CAA-France Taxiway Analysis for A380 operations on 22.5m wide taxiway, 2004, ADP Runway to Parallel Taxiway Study, June 2006, Sydney Airport Corporation Holding Point Analysis for A380 operations, 2004-2007, ADP AC 150-5300-13 Change 14 Airport Design, November 2008, FAA Resistance of elevated runway edge lights to A380 jet blast, May 2005, CAA France Evaluation of Wind-Loading on Airport Signs, June 2000, FAA X X X 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 Relevant extract available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Available at ICAO Europe or Airbus (Contact: airport.compatibility@airbus.com) X X X X http://www.luftfartstilsynet.no/multimedia/archive/00002/AEA_Final_Report_Vers_2524a.pdf X Referenced in the ADM Part 2 taxiways (see #2) X X X X

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

16

17 18 19 20 21 22

X X X X

Available at Airbus (Contact: airport.compatibility@airbus.com) X X Available at FAA (refer to EB#63B and EB#65A) or Airbus (Contact: airport.compatibility@airbus.com) X X X http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/construction/engineering_briefs/media/EB_65a.pdf X X

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/construction/engineering_briefs/media/EB_63b.pdf X X X X X http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/doc/Alternates_June_2006.doc Available at AdP X Available at Sydney Airport Corporation X X X X X X X X X X X X

X Available at AdP X X X X X X X X X X X X X http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/C9F1039842EBCE9986256C690074F3C4?OpenDocument&Highlight=5300-13 X http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/Jet_blast_tests_report_V1R0.pdf X http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/safety/downloads/TN00-32.pdf

BACG Attachment C: Listing of Studies and References Relating to ICAO Annex 14 SARPs
Nb Title Runways Shoulders Lights / Signs 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 X Twy-Twy Aprons

31

32

33

34

FAA Airport Obstructions Standards Committee (AOSC) Decision Document #04, Approved: March 21, 2005, http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/aosc/media/AOSC_DecisionDocument_04_Signed.pdf Runway / Parallel Taxiway Separations Standards FAA Engineering Brief 73: Use of Non-Standard 75X X Foot (23-M) Wide Straight Taxiway Sections for Boeing http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_74.pdf 747-8 Taxiing Operations, 2007, FAA X X FAA Engineering Brief 74: Minimum Requirements to Widen Existing 150-Foot Wide Runways for Boeing http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_74.pdf (6) 747-8 Operations x x x x x x x x x x x FAA Order 5300.1F: Modifications to Agency Airport Design, Construction and Equipment Standards, 2000, http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/orders/media/construction_5300_1f.pdf FAA Circular 305 - Operation of New Larger Aeroplanes at Existing Aerodromes, June 2004, ICAO

35

36

37

38

39

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X http://icaodsu.openface.ca/search_results.ch2?Category=search&txtDocumentTitle=&txtDocumentNumber=CIR305&txtAfterDate=&txtBeforeDate=&cmbMediaType =0&cmbLanguage=0&txtKeywords=&radios=englishtitle&btnSubmit=Search X FAA Airport Obstructions Standards Committee (AOSC) Decision Document #04, Approved: March 21, 2005, http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/aosc/media/AOSC_DecisionDocument_04_Signed.pdf Runway / Parallel Taxiway Separations Standards X X FAA Engineering Brief 78: Application of Linear Equations for New Large Airplane 747-8 Taxiway and http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_78.pdf Taxilane Separation Criteria X X FAA Engineering Brief 80: Use of Interim Taxiway Edge Safety Margin Clearance for Airplane Design http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_80.pdf Group VI X X FAA Engineering Brief 81: Use of Guidance for Runway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway / Taxilane http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_81.pdf Centerline Separation for Boeing 747-8

Referenced in the ICAO Circular on NLA Operations Available on ECAC website 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.
2 3

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.
Separation distances between Formula ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1 Curved and straight TWY EUR ANP Part III-AOP Curved TWY 747-400 TWY centerline and TWY centerline Wing span + max. lateral dev. (x) + increment (z) = TOTAL wing span + max. lateral dev. (x) + increment (z) = TOTAL wing span + gear deviation (x) + increment (z) = TOTAL wing span + gear deviation (x) + increment (z) = TOTAL Code E / Code F 65 / 80 (9*) 4.5 / 4.5 (6*) 10.5 / 13 80 / 97.5 32.5 / 40 4.5 / 4.5 10.5 / 13 47.5 / 57.5 32.5 / 40 2.5 / 2.5 7.5 / 8 42.5 / 50.5 32.5 / 40 2.5 / 2.5 7.5 / 8 42.5 / 50.5 65 5 ** 6 76 32.5 2.5 ** 10.5 45.5 32.5 2.5 7.5 42.5 32.5 2.5 6.5 # 41.5 EUR ANP Part III-AOP Straight TWY 747-400 65 5 ** 6 76 32.5 2.5 ** 6.5 *** 41.5 32.5 2.5 5 *** ## 40 ## 32.5 2.5 2.5 *** 37.5 AACG

Curved and straight TWY A380-800 80 11 (x + z) 91 **** 40 9 (x + z) 49 40 7.5 (x + z) 47.5 40 7.5 (x + z) 47.5 ###

TWY/apron TWY centerline and object

Aircraft stand taxilane centerline and object

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

* 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

1 11 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.

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

AIRPORTS
Physical characteristics
. .

2. The specificphysical 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 disproportionate 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.

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

' C

_..

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

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

AOP

1 15 1-

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

36. The provision of marking and lightingaids 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).

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 1 specified in Attachment H to Part 1 1- AOP of the ER FASID. (Cf. Aerodrome Design Manual (DOC 9157), Part 2, Table 1-4.)

Air traffic services


Note.- Thefollowing 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.

40. The provision of unambiguous and conspicuous taxi guidance to pilots under all operational conditions prevailing at the aerodrome by appropriatemeans (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).

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

B747-400Operations - 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

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 (AttachmentH 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 1 less than 45.5 m (Attachment H to Part 1 1 - AOP of the EUR FASID refers).

Lt

1 16 1-

EUR BASIC ANP


53. An aircraft stand equipped with a visual docking 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.

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.

r)
.

47. All objects not providing the minimum separatiodclearance distance as specifiedin 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 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. blastfence) does not exceed a height of 3 m above the surface of the relative aircraft stand.

CAPACITY Airport capacity


54. States shouldensurethat adequate consultationand, 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 communication and exchange of information between the States internationalairportsand internationalorganizationsinvolved with airport capacity issues. 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.

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. blastfence) 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.

. .

/ .
I

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).

Airport capacity assessment and requirement


59. The declaredcapacity/demandcondition at airports should be periodically reviewed in terms of a qualitative

i. .

..,; .;.j

111-1 0

EUR BASIC ANP Aerodrome control service and surface movement guidance and control systems (SMGCS)

account all the aspects of the changing division in responsibility for collision avoidanceduring 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.

p:

Note.- Material on the application of advanced SMGCS i presented in Amchment G to Part I l l -AOP of the EUR s 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.

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 appropriateregulations the need for coordination and handover could be reduced and the mix of arrivals and departures more efficiently conducted.

ILSMLS transition

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.

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

B747-400Operations
Note.- Material on the impact of NLA on aerodromes i s presented in Attachment F to Part III - AOP of the EUR FASID.

94. In order to fully exploit capacity gains, the advanced surface movement guidance and control systems (SMGCS) operate from runway to parking position and must vice versa. The use of advanced SMGCS will require the controllingauthority to acceptan increasingresponsibilityfor 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

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; - implement reduced separation distances.

- reduce size of aircraft stands where feasible;

AOP

1 111 1102. 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.

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 B747-400operations.

99. In order to achieve an efficient operation of aeroplanes on existinglayouts of major aerodromes with high B747-400 traffic where the separatiodclearance distances as specified in Annex 14, Volume I, 3.8.7 Table 3-1are not and 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.
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 taxilanehircraft 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.

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.

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 B747-400will not exceed 2.5 m, if specific measures are introduced (e.g. taxiway centre line lights, etc.).

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.

Ill-F1

Attachment F IMPACT OF OPERATIONS OF NEW LARGER AEROPLANES (NLA) ON AERODROMES


(Paragraph 98, P r 111- AOP of the EUR Basic ANP refers) at

ANNEX 14, VOLUME I


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:

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:

Code letter

11 E I1
distance

TWYI
distance object distance
I

Taxilanel object distance

- highlights the main problemskoncerns raised by NLA


(B747-400) operations;
- indicates that lower separation distances, used at some

182.5 m (180.0m)

80 m (76.5m)

47.5 m (46.5 m)

42.5 m (40.0 m)

major aerodromes, do not effect the safety of NLA operations.

(Distances in brackets refer to those approved by Amendment 38 to Annex 14.)

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.

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).

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.

llLF2
- I -

-* - --.+ -? -

~~

7. Aerodromes that reported terminal problems such as limited operations, limited acceptance or not acceptable have common terminal capacity restrictions. Theserestrictions 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.

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)
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.

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 747400 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.

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.

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

Attachment H 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.
ICAO Annex 14 (Volume I)
Max. wing span 65 m (Code E)

EUR ANP
Pari 111

-AOP

EUR ANP Part 111 -AOP NLA 0747-400

NIA 0747-400 Curved TWY

Separation distances between 1 Taxiway centre line and taxiway centre line wing span increment = TOTAL TaxiwaylApron taxiway centre line and object

Formula

Curved and straight W

Straight TWY 5
ti.

3 65 9 6 80 32.5
4.5 10.5 47.5
#

+ 2x max. lateral dev. +


YZ wing span t max. lateral dev. + increment = TOTAL

65 5 6. 76

#
0

65 5 6 76

..
#
0
tt ttt

32.5 2.5 10.5


45.5

**

#
0

32.5 2.5 6.5


41.5

Aircraft stand taxilane centre line and object

YZ wing span

+ max. lateral dev.


t increment

= TOTAL
Aircraft stand taxilane center line and 3 m-heightlimited object or edge of service road YZ wing span + max. gear deviation + increment = TOTAL

32.5 2.5 7.5 42.5 32.5 2.5 7.5 42.5

32.5 2.5 7.5 42.5 32.5 2.5 6.5


41.5

32.5 2.5 5 40 32.5 2.5 2.5 37.5

+**+ ot

##
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 2.5m 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


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. RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH (m) (m) 3635 45 3635 45 3500 45 3500 45 3452 45 3452 45 3452 45 3300 45 3300 45 3300 45 3400 45 3400 45 3800 60 3231 46 3322 46 3531 46 3531 46 3800 45 3800 45 4000 45 4000 45 2743 45 2743 45 3048 45 3048 45 3048 45 3624 45 3624 45 3624 45 2743 45 2743 45 2743 45 4100 45 4100 45 4100 45 3049 60 3049 60 3700 60 3700 60 TWY WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) 45 200N 23 308N 23 292NW 23 199NW 23 292S 23 199S 23 460S 23 297E 23 199E 23 290W 23 293W 23 199W 23 193E 23 187N 23 376N 23 183E 30 155W 23 195SE 23 295SE 23 295NW 23 195NW 23 122N 23 122S 23 122N 30 152S 30 245S 30 213N 23 122N 23 122S 30 198N 23 122S 23 122N 23 550S 23 460S 23 250S 25 114E 23 98W 30 200SE 30 320SE

IATA AKL AKL AMS AMS AMS AMS AMS AMS AMS AMS AMS AMS AMS ANC ANC ANC ANC ATH ATH ATH ATH ATL ATL ATL ATL ATL ATL ATL ATL ATL ATL ATL AUH AUH AUH BFI BFI BKK BKK

ICAO NZAA NZAA EHAM EHAM EHAM EHAM EHAM EHAM EHAM EHAM EHAM EHAM EHAM PANC PANC PANC PANC LGAV LGAV LGAV LGAV KATL KATL KATL KATL KATL KATL KATL KATL KATL KATL KATL OMAA OMAA OMAA KBFI KBFI VTBS VTBS

AIRPORT CITY AUCKLAND INTL AUCKLAND AUCKLAND INTL AUCKLAND SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS IN ATHENS ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS IN ATHENS ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS IN ATHENS ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS IN ATHENS WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. ABU DHABI INTL ABU DHABI ABU DHABI INTL ABU DHABI ABU DHABI INTL ABU DHABI BOEING FIELD-KING COUNTYSEATTLE, WA. BOEING FIELD-KING COUNTYSEATTLE, WA. SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK

COUNTRY NEWZ NEWZ NETH NETH NETH NETH NETH NETH NETH NETH NETH NETH NETH UNST UNST UNST UNST GREC GREC GREC GREC UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNAR UNAR UNAR UNST UNST THAILAND THAILAND

ELEV 7 7 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 44 44 44 44 94 94 94 94 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 27 27 27 5 5 2 2

TEMP 24 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 19 25 25 25 25 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 42 42 42 24 24

RWY 05R23L 05R23L 06 24 06 24 09 27 09 27 09 27 18C36C 18C36C 18C36C 18L36R 18L36R 18R36L 07L25R 07R25L 14 32 14 32 03L21R 03L21R 03R21L 03R21L 08L26R 08L26R 08R26L 08R26L 08R26L 09L27R 09L27R 09L27R 09R27L 09R27L 10 28 13 31 13 31 13 31 13R31L 13R31L 01L19R 01L19R

PRIM TWY 05L 05L A B A B E4 A-C B-D Y-Z A B V K K R Y A B C D A B B E F L M N N R SG W Y Z A B E D

TWY-TWY SEP (m) 108N 93NW

TWY-OBJ SEP

COMMENTS

54 93S 54 98E 57 93W 54 57

100SE 100NW

93S 91N

90S 210S

120SE

Page 1

10/21/2008

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS


TWY RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) (m) TWY (m) 4000 60 B 30 200NW 4000 60 C 30 320NW 3560 45 A 23 200NW 3560 45 B 23 320NW 3445 45 D 23 183N 2925 45 Z 23 190NE 3050 45 M 30 285NW 3073 45 A 30 195SW 3073 45 B 30 122SW 3073 45 C 30 150SW 2987 50 D1-W 20 305E 2987 50 INN-7 30 262W 2987 50 OUT-7 30 183W 3638 45 INN-2 30 260S 3638 45 N2 30 250N 3638 45 OUT-1 30 180S 3211 45 OUT-11 30 180N 2881 60 R-U 23 122N 2902 45 A 23 196NE 2902 45 D 23 167NE 2902 45 P 23 121NE 3301 60 A 30 200SE 3999 60 O-T 30 250NW 3178 60 U 30 170NE 3178 60 X 30 200W 3600 45 E 23 280SE 3600 45 F 23 190SE 3800 60 A 23 200NW 3800 60 B 23 300NW 4215 45 J 22.5 193S 4215 45 T 22.5 210N 4200 45 D 22.5 250S 4200 45 L 22.5 192N 3300 45 B 23 315NW 3600 60 NP1 23 300S 3600 60 NP2 23 200S 3660 60 SP1 23 300N 3660 60 SP2 23 200N 3815 60 A 25 318SW 3815 60 E 22.5 237SW 3288 45 A 23 215SE 2743 45 G 23 122SE 2743 45 L 23 122SE 3048 45 E 23 182E 3048 45 F 23 265E 3350 45 PRL 30 200SE TWY-TWY SEP (m) 120NW 120NW Not verified 73SW TWY-OBJ SEP

IATA BKK BKK BNE BNE BOM BOM BOS BOS BOS BOS BRU BRU BRU BRU BRU BRU BRU BWI BWI BWI BWI CAI CAI CAI CAI CAN CAN CAN CAN CDG CDG CDG CDG CEB CGK CGK CGK CGK CGN CGN CHC CLE CLE CLT CLT CMB

ICAO VTBS VTBS YBBN YBBN VABB VABB KBOS KBOS KBOS KBOS EBBR EBBR EBBR EBBR EBBR EBBR EBBR KBWI KBWI KBWI KBWI HECA HECA HECA HECA ZGGG ZGGG ZGGG ZGGG LFPG LFPG LFPG LFPG RPVM WIII WIII WIII WIII EDDK EDDK NZCH KCLE KCLE KCLT KCLT VCBI

AIRPORT CITY SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK BRISBANE INTL BRISBANE BRISBANE INTL BRISBANE CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTL MUMBAI CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTL MUMBAI GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. CAIRO INTL CAIRO CAIRO INTL CAIRO CAIRO INTL CAIRO CAIRO INTL CAIRO BAIYUN GUANGZHOU BAIYUN GUANGZHOU BAIYUN GUANGZHOU BAIYUN GUANGZHOU CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS MACTAN-CEBU INTL LAPU-LAPU SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA BONN KOLN BONN KOLN CHRISTCHURCH INTL CHRISTCHURCH CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL CLEVELAND, OH. CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL CLEVELAND, OH. CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTL CHARLOTTE, NC CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTL CHARLOTTE, NC BANDARANAIKE INTL COLOMBO

COUNTRY THAILAND THAILAND ASTL ASTL INDA INDA UNST UNST UNST UNST BELG BELG BELG BELG BELG BELG BELG UNST UNST UNST UNST EGYP EGYP EGYP EGYP CHIN CHIN CHIN CHIN FRAN FRAN FRAN FRAN PHIL INDO INDO INDO INDO GERF GERF NEWZ UNST UNST UNST UNST SRIL

ELEV 2 2 4 4 11 11 6 6 6 6 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 45 45 45 45 116 116 116 116 11 11 11 11 119 119 119 119 10 10 10 10 10 92 92 37 241 241 228 228 9

TEMP

29 29 31 31 27 27 27 27 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 30 30 30 30 35 35 35 35 33 33 33 33 24 24 24 24 35 32 32 32 32 23 23 22 29 29 25 25 33

RWY 01R19L 01R19L 01 19 01 19 09 27 14 32 04R22L 15R33L 15R33L 15R33L 02 20 02 20 02 20 07L25R 07L25R 07L25R 07R25L 10 28 15R33L 15R33L 15R33L 05L23R 05R23L 16 34 16 34 02L20R 02L20R 02R20L 02R20L 08L26R 08L26R 09R27L 09R27L 04 22 07L25R 07L25R 07R25L 07R25L 14L32R 14L32R 02 20 06L24R 06R24L 18R36L 18R36L 04 22

COMMENTS

79W 80S

75NE

90SE

100NW

100S 100N 81SW

83E

Page 2

10/21/2008

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS


RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH (m) (m) 3196 45 3196 45 3100 45 3000 60 3000 60 3000 60 3600 45 3658 45 3658 45 3658 45 3353 45 3353 45 3353 45 3048 45 3048 45 2813 45 3810 45 3810 45 3658 45 3658 45 3658 45 3658 45 3658 45 3658 45 3658 45 3658 45 2743 60 2743 60 2835 45 2835 45 3471 45 3471 45 4084 60 4084 60 4084 60 3471 60 3471 60 3471 60 3471 45 3471 45 3600 45 3600 45 3660 45 3300 45 3700 60 3700 60 PRIM TWY B C F D J A J K M C D E S T E P R B R F G D P L M Q R A B M P K L M E F G C E 1 4 3 A-PRL A B TWY WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) 23 183NE 23 293NE 23 240E 30 180W 30 330W 27 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 30 23 23 23 23 30 30 23 23 30 30 23 23 23 23 23 23 28 28 242NE 203N 122N 122S 178W 122E 200E 268W 178W 250S 205S 505S 183N 183S 183E 283E 183E 183W 283W 183W 295SW 183SW 183NE 297NE 183W 295E 297W 183W 183E 183W 183E 297E 297W 183E 192W 192E 225E 218S 260NW 180NW TWY-TWY SEP (m) 110NE TWY-OBJ SEP

IATA CNS CNS CNX CTS CTS CTS CTU CVG CVG CVG CVG CVG CVG CVG CVG DEL DEL DEL DEN DEN DEN DEN DEN DEN DEN DEN DFW DFW DFW DFW DFW DFW DFW DFW DFW DFW DFW DFW DFW DFW DHA DHA DHA DLC DMK DMK

ICAO YBCS YBCS VTCC RJCC RJCC RJCC ZUUU KCVG KCVG KCVG KCVG KCVG KCVG KCVG KCVG VIDP VIDP VIDP KDEN KDEN KDEN KDEN KDEN KDEN KDEN KDEN KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW KDFW OEDR OEDR OEDR ZYTL VTBD VTBD

COUNTRY CAIRNS CAIRNS ASTL CAIRNS CAIRNS ASTL CHIANG MAI INTL CHIANG MAI THAI NEW CHITOSE SAPPORO JAPN NEW CHITOSE SAPPORO JAPN NEW CHITOSE SAPPORO JAPN SHUANGLIU CHENGDU CHIN CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST INDIRA GANDHI INTL DELHI INDA INDIRA GANDHI INTL DELHI INDA INDIRA GANDHI INTL DELHI INDA DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST KING ABDULAZIZ AIR BASE DHAHRAN SAUD KING ABDULAZIZ AIR BASE DHAHRAN SAUD KING ABDULAZIZ AIR BASE DHAHRAN SAUD ZHOUSHUIZI DALIAN CHIN BANGKOK INTL BANGKOK THAI BANGKOK INTL BANGKOK THAI

AIRPORT

CITY

ELEV 3 3 316 25 25 25 494 273 273 273 273 273 273 273 273 237 237 237 1655 1655 1655 1655 1655 1655 1655 1655 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 184 26 26 26 33 3 3

TEMP 31 31 36 25 25 25 30 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 41 41 41 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 42 42 42 27 35 35

RWY 15 33 15 33 18 36 01L19R 01L19R 01R19L 02 20 09 27 09 27 09 27 18C36C 18C36C 18C36C 18L36R 18L36R 09 27 10 28 10 28 07 25 08 26 16L34R 16L34R 16R34L 17L35R 17R35L 17R35L 13L31R 13L31R 13R31L 13R31L 17C35C 17C35C 17R35L 17R35L 17R35L 18L36R 18L36R 18L36R 18R36L 18R36L 16L34R 16L34R 16R34L 10 28 03L21R 03L21R

COMMENTS

150NE No-Parallels 81N

Not verified 78E 90W

300S

100E Not verified 100W 112SW

114NE

114W

114E

80NW

Page 3

10/21/2008

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS


RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH (m) (m) 3500 45 3000 45 3048 45 3048 45 3048 45 3048 45 3659 60 3659 60 3659 60 3000 45 4000 60 4000 60 4000 60 4315 45 4315 45 4315 45 3353 46 3353 46 3353 46 3042 46 3042 46 3300 60 3300 60 3105 45 3309 45 3309 45 3600 45 3900 60 3900 60 3900 60 3000 45 3000 45 2744 46 2744 46 4000 60 4000 60 4000 45 4000 45 4000 45 2800 60 2800 60 4000 45 4000 45 3180 45 3180 45 3600 45 PRIM TWY T N PP S W A K Y Z M M N P J4 K M D,B,R P PA,A,S CC P F H J B H C A Z L T A B A C C S W A B M N B K P TWY WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) 23 145SE 23 183N 23 340NW 20 183SE 23 183NW 23 183SE 23 190SE 23 120SE 23 122NW 45 218SE 23 192SW 23 192NE 23 283NE 23 268SW 23 190SW 23 192NE 23 122W 23 122E 23 213W 23 143SE 23 167W 23 250N 23 300N 23 222W 30 192S 30 295S 30 109W 30 30 23 23 23 23 30 30 30 30 30 23 23 23 23 23 23 30 260E 360E 180N 213N 137N 137S 200NE 260SE 257NW 200SE 161E 180E 183W 375S 255S 163NE 375NE 185NE TWY-TWY SEP (m) TWY-OBJ SEP

IATA DMK DPS DTW DTW DTW DTW DTW DTW DTW DUS DXB DXB DXB DXB DXB DXB EWR EWR EWR EWR EWR EZE EZE EZE FCO FCO FCO FCO FCO FCO FDF FDF FLL FLL FRA FRA FRA FRA FRA FUK FUK GIG GIG GIG GIG GMP

ICAO VTBD WADD KDTW KDTW KDTW KDTW KDTW KDTW KDTW EDDL OMDB OMDB OMDB OMDB OMDB OMDB KEWR KEWR KEWR KEWR KEWR SAEZ SAEZ SAEZ LIRF LIRF LIRF LIRF LIRF LIRF TFFF TFFF KFLL KFLL EDDF EDDF EDDF EDDF EDDF RJFF RJFF SBGL SBGL SBGL SBGL RKSS

AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY BANGKOK INTL BANGKOK THAI BALI INTL (NGURAH RAI) DENPASAR INDO DETROIT METROPOLITAN WA DETROIT, MI. UNST DETROIT METROPOLITAN WA DETROIT, MI. UNST DETROIT METROPOLITAN WA DETROIT, MI. UNST DETROIT METROPOLITAN WA DETROIT, MI. UNST DETROIT METROPOLITAN WA DETROIT, MI. UNST DETROIT METROPOLITAN WA DETROIT, MI. UNST DETROIT METROPOLITAN WA DETROIT, MI. UNST DUSSELDORF DUSSELDORF GERF DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST ARPT INTL EZEIZA, MIN. PIST BUENOS AIRES ARGT ARPT INTL EZEIZA, MIN. PIST BUENOS AIRES ARGT ARPT INTL EZEIZA, MIN. PIST BUENOS AIRES ARGT FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL LE LAMENTIN,MARTINIQUE FORT-DE-FRANCE FRAT LE LAMENTIN,MARTINIQUE FORT-DE-FRANCE FRAT FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWFORT LAUDERDALE, FUNST FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWFORT LAUDERDALE, FUNST FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF FUKUOKA FUKUOKA JAPN FUKUOKA FUKUOKA JAPN RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ GIMPO INTL SEOUL RKOR

ELEV 3 4 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 45 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 20 20 20 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 111 111 111 111 111 10 10 9 9 9 9 18

TEMP 35 31 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 23 41 41 41 41 41 41 29 29 29 29 29 22 22 22 28 28 28 28 28 28 30 30 33 33 24 24 24 24 24 32 32 30 30 30 30 23

RWY 03R21L 09 27 03R21L 03R21L 03R21L 04L22R 04R22L 04R22L 04R22L 05R23L 12L30R 12L30R 12L30R 12R30L 12R30L 12R30L 04L22R 04L22R 04L22R 04R22L 04R22L 11 29 11 29 17 35 07 25 07 25 16C34C 16L34R 16R34L 16R34L 09 27 09 27 09L27R 09L27R 07L25R 07L25R 07R25L 07R25L 18 36 16 34 16 34 10 28 10 28 15 33 15 33 14L32R

COMMENTS

157NW

70SE

91NE 78SW

91W

103S No-Parallels 100E

80S

212NE

Page 4

10/21/2008

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS


RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH (m) (m) 3200 60 3053 45 3052 45 3250 46 3666 46 3000 45 3800 60 3800 60 3800 60 3800 60 3800 60 3000 60 3000 60 3000 60 3000 60 3000 60 2743 45 3749 45 3658 45 3749 45 3658 60 3200 45 4725 45 3505 45 3505 45 3505 45 3505 45 3202 45 2743 45 2866 45 2866 45 2866 45 3048 45 3048 45 3658 45 3658 45 3658 45 3048 45 3048 45 3414 46 3414 46 3048 45 3048 45 3000 60 2987 45 3300 60 PRIM TWY K M L D P A B H J K I O I L O C A B Z RA A A-G Y Z J K Q FA CC NA NB SA SB WA WB WP WC WP A B C D B A F TWY WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) 25 23 23 23 23 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 23 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 30 23 23 23 23 23 30 122N 190S 183SE 199NE 180NE 190SE 290SE 290NW 190NW 190SE 300SW 200SW 300NE 300SW 200NE 133SE 184N 152S 275N 320N 190NW 198NW 213E 313E 313W 213W 213N 183S 197N 183S 293S 123N 231N 183NE 293NE 122SW 127SW 183NE 197NW 183SE 183NW 121SE 200NE 130S 300W TWY-TWY SEP (m) TWY-OBJ SEP

IATA GMP GUM GUM HAM HAM HKD HKG HKG HKG HKG HKG HND HND HND HND HND HNL HNL HNL HNL HNL HRB HRE IAD IAD IAD IAD IAD IAH IAH IAH IAH IAH IAH IAH IAH IAH IAH IAH IND IND IND IND ITM ITO JED

ICAO RKSS PGUM PGUM EDDH EDDH RJCH VHHH VHHH VHHH VHHH VHHH RJTT RJTT RJTT RJTT RJTT PHNL PHNL PHNL PHNL PHNL ZYHB FVHA KIAD KIAD KIAD KIAD KIAD KIAH KIAH KIAH KIAH KIAH KIAH KIAH KIAH KIAH KIAH KIAH KIND KIND KIND KIND RJOO PHTO OEJN

AIRPORT CITY GIMPO INTL SEOUL A.B. WON PAT GUAM INT'L AI GUAM I. A.B. WON PAT GUAM INT'L AI GUAM I. HAMBURG HAMBURG HAMBURG HAMBURG HAKODATE HAKODATE HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG TOKYO INTL TOKYO TOKYO INTL TOKYO TOKYO INTL TOKYO TOKYO INTL TOKYO TOKYO INTL TOKYO HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. YANJIAGANG HARBIN HARARE INTERNATIONAL HARARE DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTIN HOUSTON, TX. INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. OSAKA INTL OSAKA HILO INTL HILO, HI. KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH

COUNTRY RKOR MARI MARI GERF GERF JAPN HONG HONG HONG HONG HONG JAPN JAPN JAPN JAPN JAPN UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST CHIN ZIMB UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST JAPN UNST SAUD

ELEV 18 91 91 16 16 34 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 4 4 4 139 1494 95 95 95 95 95 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 243 243 243 243 12 11 15

TEMP 23 29 29 22 22 24 32 32 32 32 32 31 31 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 27 29 31 31 31 31 31 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 31 31 31 31 25 28 39

RWY 14R32L 06L24R 06R24L 05 23 15 33 12 30 07L25R 07L25R 07R25L 07R25L 07R25L 16L34R 16L34R 16R34L 16R34L 16R34L 04R22L 08L26R 08L26R 08L26R 08R26L 05 23 05 23 01L19R 01L19R 01R19L 01R19L 12 30 08L26R 08R26L 08R26L 08R26L 09 27 09 27 15L33R 15L33R 15L33R 15R33L 15R33L 05L23R 05L23R 05R23L 05R23L 14R32L 08 26 16C34C

COMMENTS No-Parallels

100SE 100NW

100SW 100NE

91N

100E 100E

110S 108N 110NE

90W

Page 5

10/21/2008

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS


RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH (m) (m) 3300 60 3690 45 3690 45 3800 60 3800 60 3460 45 3460 45 3460 45 3048 45 3048 45 3048 45 4442 45 4442 45 4418 60 4418 60 3400 60 3150 60 3200 45 3400 45 3500 60 3500 60 3500 60 3500 60 3000 45 3000 45 4019 60 4019 60 4000 60 4000 60 2980 45 2980 45 3852 45 3852 45 3852 45 3852 45 3135 45 3135 45 3686 45 3686 45 3686 45 3382 60 3382 60 3047 45 3316 45 3316 45 3901 50 PRIM TWY H K L B C A B Y A B C A B A1-A5 C1-C2 Y1-Y4 S C,E,G Y L P R P P A B C D D E A B C A D E AC B C A AC A J Y A TWY WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) 30 210W 23 230W 30 230E 30 210E 30 300E 23 213NW 23 122NW 23 243SE 23 213SW 23 122SW 23 122NE 23 213NE 23 122NE 30.5 200NW 30.5 200SE 30.5 200NW 23 360S 23 30 30 30 30 23 23 24 24 24 24 30 23 30 30 30 30 25 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 213S 200SE 300NW 200NW 400NW 183SE 185SW 210SW 310SW 210NE 315NE 183E 165W 152S 127N 207N 152N 212S 122S 120S 107N 198N 135S 120N 280W 290N 240SE 183S TWY-TWY SEP (m) TWY-OBJ SEP

IATA JED JED JED JED JED JFK JFK JFK JFK JFK JFK JFK JFK JNB JNB JNB KHH KHI KHI KIX KIX KIX KIX KMJ KOJ KUL KUL KUL KUL LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAS LAX LAX LAX LAX LAX LAX LAX LEA LGW LGW LHR

ICAO OEJN OEJN OEJN OEJN OEJN KJFK KJFK KJFK KJFK KJFK KJFK KJFK KJFK FAJS FAJS FAJS RCKH OPKC OPKC RJBB RJBB RJBB RJBB RJFT RJFK WMKK WMKK WMKK WMKK KLAS KLAS KLAS KLAS KLAS KLAS KLAX KLAX KLAX KLAX KLAX KLAX KLAX YPLM EGKK EGKK EGLL

AIRPORT CITY KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIO JOHANNESBURG JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIO JOHANNESBURG JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIO JOHANNESBURG GAOXIONG GAOXIONG JINNAH INTERNATIONAL KARACHI JINNAH INTERNATIONAL KARACHI KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA KUMAMOTO KUMAMOTO KAGOSHIMA KAGOSHIMA KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. LEARMONTH LEARMONTH GATWICK LONDON GATWICK LONDON HEATHROW LONDON

COUNTRY SAUD SAUD SAUD SAUD SAUD UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST SOUF SOUF SOUF CHIN PAKI PAKI JAPN JAPN JAPN JAPN JAPN JAPN MALB MALB MALB MALB UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST ASTL UNKG UNKG UNKG

ELEV 15 15 15 15 15 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1694 1694 1694 9 30 30 5 5 5 5 193 272 21 21 21 21 663 663 663 663 663 663 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 6 60 60 25

TEMP 39 39 39 39 39 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 21 21 21 31 36 36 25 25 25 25 32 30 32 32 32 32 41 41 41 41 41 41 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 31 22 22 22

RWY 16C34C 16L34R 16L34R 16R34L 16R34L 04L22R 04L22R 04L22R 13L31R 13L31R 13L31R 13R31L 13R31L 03L21R 03L21R 03R21L 09 27 07L25R 07R25L 06L24R 06R24L 06R24L 06R24L 07 25 16 34 14L32R 14L32R 14R32L 14R32L 01R19L 01R19L 07L25R 07L25R 07L25R 07R25L 06R24L 06R24L 07L25R 07L25R 07L25R 07R25L 07R25L 18 36 08R26L 08R26L 09L27R

COMMENTS

90E 91NW

91SW

91NE

No-Parallels

100NW 100NW

100SW 105NE

80N 90S

91N

Page 6

10/21/2008

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS


RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH (m) (m) 3901 50 3660 50 3660 50 3660 50 4000 60 4000 60 3500 60 4100 60 4100 60 3500 60 4350 60 3048 45 3048 45 3048 45 3047 45 2743 46 3048 46 3048 46 3659 60 3659 60 3659 60 3659 60 3659 60 3657 60 3657 60 3389 46 3389 46 3389 46 2743 46 2743 46 2841 46 2841 46 3202 60 3202 60 3202 60 3962 45 3962 45 2851 45 2851 45 2851 45 2954 60 2954 60 3544 60 3544 60 3410 45 3410 45 PRIM TWY B A B S A B4 KA A M AY ZW A J V V N G H B C Z A Z A S C J S S Y M N L M N S T P Q R E R I T C L TWY WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) 15 260S 23 183N 23 260N 23 180S 23 188NW 23 170NW 25 191SW 25 182SW 25 262SW 25 191W 45 191W 23 183NW 23 170NW 23 195SE 23 195NW 23 122W 23 213W 23 122W 23 213E 23 315E 30 230W 23 240W 30 228E 23 375E 23 560E 23 136W 23 220W 23 122E 23 160W 23 170E 30 122E 30 210E 23 123N 30 121S 23 213S 23 213N 23 123N 23 178NE 23 107NE 23 170SW 23 122W 23 141W 15 107NE 23 190NE 23 106N 23 186N TWY-TWY SEP (m) 77S 77N TWY-OBJ SEP

IATA LHR LHR LHR LHR LUX LUX MAD MAD MAD MAD MAD MAN MAN MAN MAN MCO MCO MCO MCO MCO MCO MCO MCO MEL MEL MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM MEM MIA MIA MIA MIA MIA MIA MIA MIA MKE MKE MLA MLA MNL MNL

ICAO EGLL EGLL EGLL EGLL ELLX ELLX LEMD LEMD LEMD LEMD LEMD EGCC EGCC EGCC EGCC KMCO KMCO KMCO KMCO KMCO KMCO KMCO KMCO YMML YMML KMEM KMEM KMEM KMEM KMEM KMEM KMEM KMIA KMIA KMIA KMIA KMIA KMIA KMIA KMIA KMKE KMKE LMML LMML RPLL RPLL

AIRPORT HEATHROW HEATHROW HEATHROW HEATHROW LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG BARAJAS BARAJAS BARAJAS BARAJAS BARAJAS MANCHESTER MANCHESTER MANCHESTER MANCHESTER ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO INTL MELBOURNE INTL MELBOURNE INTL MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS INTL MIAMI INTL MIAMI INTL MIAMI INTL MIAMI INTL MIAMI INTL MIAMI INTL MIAMI INTL MIAMI INTL GENERAL MITCHELL FIELD GENERAL MITCHELL FIELD LUQA LUQA NINOY AQUINO INTL NINOY AQUINO INTL

CITY LONDON LONDON LONDON LONDON LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG MADRID MADRID MADRID MADRID MADRID MANCHESTER MANCHESTER MANCHESTER MANCHESTER ORLANDO, FL ORLANDO, FL ORLANDO, FL ORLANDO, FL ORLANDO, FL ORLANDO, FL ORLANDO, FL ORLANDO, FL MELBOURNE MELBOURNE MEMPHIS, TN MEMPHIS, TN MEMPHIS, TN MEMPHIS, TN MEMPHIS, TN MEMPHIS, TN MEMPHIS, TN MIAMI, FL. MIAMI, FL. MIAMI, FL. MIAMI, FL. MIAMI, FL. MIAMI, FL. MIAMI, FL. MIAMI, FL. MILWAUKEE, WI. MILWAUKEE, WI. MALTA MALTA MANILA MANILA

COUNTRY UNKG UNKG UNKG UNKG LXBG LXBG SPAN SPAN SPAN SPAN SPAN UNKG UNKG UNKG UNKG UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST ASTL ASTL UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST MALT MALT PHIL PHIL

ELEV 25 25 25 25 376 376 610 610 610 610 610 78 78 78 78 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 132 132 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 220 220 91 91 23 23

TEMP 22 22 22 22 16 16 33 33 33 33 33 21 21 21 21 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 27 27 31 31 35 35

RWY 09L27R 09R27L 09R27L 09R27L 06 24 06 24 15L33R 15R33L 15R33L 18L36R 18R36L 05L23R 05L23R 05L23R 05R23L 17L35R 17R35L 17R35L 18L36R 18L36R 18L36R 18R36L 18R36L 16 34 16 34 18C36C 18C36C 18C36C 18L36R 18L36R 18R36L 18R36L 08R26L 08R26L 08R26L 09 27 09 27 12 30 12 30 12 30 01L19R 01L19R 14 32 14 32 06 24 06 24

COMMENTS

80SW

91W

102E

185E 84W

Not verified 88E

91S 90N 71NE

80N

Page 7

10/21/2008

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS


RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH (m) (m) 3040 45 3355 45 3355 45 3355 45 3048 60 3048 60 3048 60 4000 60 4000 60 4000 60 4000 60 3920 60 3920 60 3920 60 3920 60 3920 60 3200 45 4117 45 4117 45 3500 60 3500 60 3500 60 3000 60 3250 45 4000 60 4000 60 3048 45 3000 45 3000 45 3353 60 3353 60 2896 46 2896 46 3718 46 3718 46 3718 46 3109 46 3109 46 3092 45 3092 45 3092 45 3050 45 3050 45 3963 60 3963 60 3963 60 PRIM TWY APR C D M A B W M N S T A C C K W A G A B C P APR A M-P W A B APR F A G M N N1 M S B L M P V B J K TWY WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) 23 275SW 23 121SE 23 230SE 23 122NW 23 122NE 23 205NE 23 122SW 30 300S 30 420S 30 420N 30 300N 30 225W 30 404W 30 404E 30 280W 30 195W 20 23 30 30 30 23 23 30 30 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 15 23 23 15 23 23 23 23 23 15 23 23 23 200NW 365SE 220E 320E 407E 190NE 132NE 200E 390E 140NE 208E 233W 240W 240E 121SW 198SW 90S 123N 232N 122N 122S 257N 183S 152N 152SW 236NE 242NE 242NE 183SW TWY-TWY SEP (m) TWY-OBJ SEP

IATA MRU MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP MSP MUC MUC MUC MUC MXP MXP MXP MXP MXP NAN NBO NBO NGO NGO NGO NGS NOU NRT NRT OAK OKA OKA OKO OKO OMA OMA ONT ONT ONT ONT ONT ORD ORD ORD ORD ORD ORD ORD ORD

ICAO FIMP KMSP KMSP KMSP KMSP KMSP KMSP EDDM EDDM EDDM EDDM LIMC LIMC LIMC LIMC LIMC NFFN HKJK HKJK RJGG RJGG RJGG RJFU NWWW RJAA RJAA KOAK ROAH ROAH RJTY RJTY KOMA KOMA KONT KONT KONT KONT KONT KORD KORD KORD KORD KORD KORD KORD KORD

AIRPORT CITY MAURITIUS INTL MAURITIUS MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN MALPENSA MILANO MALPENSA MILANO MALPENSA MILANO MALPENSA MILANO MALPENSA MILANO NADI INTL NADI JOMO KENYATTA INTL NAIROBI JOMO KENYATTA INTL NAIROBI CHUBU CENTRAIR INTL NAGOYA CHUBU CENTRAIR INTL NAGOYA CHUBU CENTRAIR INTL NAGOYA NAGASAKI NAGASAKI TONTOUTA NOUMEA NARITA TOKYO NARITA TOKYO METROPOLITAN OAKLAND INOAKLAND, CA. NAHA NAHA NAHA NAHA YOKOTA AB TOKYO YOKOTA AB TOKYO EPPLEY OMAHA, NE EPPLEY OMAHA, NE ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL.

COUNTRY MAUR UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST GERF GERF GERF GERF ITAL ITAL ITAL ITAL ITAL FIJI KENY KENY JAPN JAPN JAPN JAPN NCAL JAPN JAPN UNST JAPN JAPN JAPN JAPN UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST

ELEV 56 256 256 256 256 256 256 453 453 453 453 234 234 234 234 234 18 1623 1623 4 4 4 3 16 41 41 2 3 3 141 141 300 300 287 287 287 287 287 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203

TEMP 27 29 29 29 29 29 29 23 23 23 23 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 24 24 24 32 27 30 30 24 31 31 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

RWY 14 32 04 22 04 22 04 22 12R30L 12R30L 12R30L 08L26R 08L26R 08R26L 08R26L 17L35R 17L35R 17R35L 17R35L 17R35L 02 20 06 24 06 24 18 36 18 36 18 36 14 32 11 29 16R34L 16R34L 11 29 18 36 18 36 18 36 18 36 14R32L 14R32L 08L26R 08L26R 08L26R 08R26L 08R26L 10 28 10 28 10 28 14L32R 14L32R 14R32L 14R32L 14R32L

COMMENTS

109SE

120S 120N

179W 85W No-Parallels

100E 87E

190E

77SW

109N

105N

105NE 105NE

Page 8

10/21/2008

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS


RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH (m) (m) 3963 60 3650 45 3650 45 3650 45 3320 45 2746 45 3800 60 3800 60 3800 60 3800 60 3800 60 3800 60 3200 50 3352 45 3444 45 3444 45 3444 45 2896 45 2896 45 2896 45 3200 60 3200 60 3140 46 3140 46 3140 46 3502 46 3502 46 3502 46 2987 45 2959 45 2959 45 3201 45 3201 45 3201 45 3505 60 3081 45 3780 60 2744 46 4205 60 4205 60 4205 60 3200 45 2865 60 2865 60 3624 45 3624 45 PRIM TWY T W1 W3 W47 W31 A J K F G H Z3 C A A C H J K P P S D E F A B C R E F A B C F APR W L F G A APR B C B C TWY WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) 23 137NE 23 220SE 23 300SE 23 270SE 23 300N 23 160E 23 300W 23 200W 23 200W 23 175E 23 298E 23 290W 23 185E 23 187NW 30 220W 23 320E 15 290W 23 200N 23 122N 23 122S 23 213N 30 122N 23 200N 23 122N 23 122S 15 122N 23 122S 23 203S 23 168SW 23 107N 23 183S 23 189N 23 120S 23 195S 23 183N 23 265S 23 197W 23 228SW 23 420SW 23 300SW 23 300NE 20 190SW 23 105S 23 110N 23 137NE 218NE TWY-TWY SEP (m) TWY-OBJ SEP

IATA ORD ORY ORY ORY ORY PAE PEK PEK PEK PEK PEK PEK PEK PEN PER PER PER PHL PHL PHL PHL PHL PHX PHX PHX PHX PHX PHX PIK PIT PIT PIT PIT PIT PIT POP QPG RIC RUH RUH RUH RUN SAN SAN SDF SDF

ICAO KORD LFPO LFPO LFPO LFPO KPAE ZBAA ZBAA ZBAA ZBAA ZBAA ZBAA ZBAA WMKP YPPH YPPH YPPH KPHL KPHL KPHL KPHL KPHL KPHX KPHX KPHX KPHX KPHX KPHX EGPK KPIT KPIT KPIT KPIT KPIT KPIT MDPP WSAP KRIC OERK OERK OERK FMEE KSAN KSAN KSDF KSDF

AIRPORT CITY CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. ORLY PARIS ORLY PARIS ORLY PARIS ORLY PARIS SNOHOMISH COUNTY PAINE EVERETT, WA. CAPITAL BEIJING CAPITAL BEIJING CAPITAL BEIJING CAPITAL BEIJING CAPITAL BEIJING CAPITAL BEIJING CAPITAL BEIJING PENANG PENANG PERTH INTL PERTH PERTH INTL PERTH PERTH INTL PERTH PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. PRESTWICK PRESTWICK PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. GREGORIO LUPERON INTL PUERTO PLATA PAYA LEBAR SINGAPORE RICHMOND INTL RICHMOND, VA KING KHALED INT'L RIYADH KING KHALED INT'L RIYADH KING KHALED INT'L RIYADH LA REUNION-GILLOT AIRPOR SAINT-DENIS SAN DIEGO INTL-LINDBERGHSAN DIEGO, CA. SAN DIEGO INTL-LINDBERGHSAN DIEGO, CA. LOUISVILLE INTL-STANDIFORLOUISVILLE, KY LOUISVILLE INTL-STANDIFORLOUISVILLE, KY

COUNTRY UNST FRAN FRAN FRAN FRAN UNST CHIN CHIN CHIN CHIN CHIN CHIN CHIN MALB ASTL ASTL ASTL UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNKG UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST DOMR SING UNST SAUD SAUD SAUD REUN UNST UNST UNST UNST

ELEV 203 89 89 89 89 185 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 3 21 21 21 6 6 6 6 6 345 345 345 345 345 345 20 367 367 367 367 367 367 5 20 51 625 625 625 20 5 5 153 153

TEMP 30 29 29 29 29 22 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 30 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 18 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 32 25 43 43 43 30 25 25 25 25

RWY 14R32L 06 24 06 24 06 24 08 26 16R34L 01 19 01 19 18L36R 18L36R 18L36R 18L36R 18R36L 04 22 03 21 03 21 03 21 09L27R 09L27R 09L27R 09R27L 09R27L 07L25R 07L25R 07L25R 08 26 08 26 08 26 13 31 10C28C 10C28C 10L28R 10L28R 10L28R 10R28L 08 26 02 20 16 34 15L33R 15L33R 15R33L 12 30 09 27 09 27 17R35L 17R35L

COMMENTS

80SE

100W

Not verified

78N

91N 78N

81S

75S

120SW

Non-Parallels

81NE

Page 9

10/21/2008

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS


TWY RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) (m) TWY (m) 2873 45 T 30 180W 3627 45 A 30 213E 3627 45 B 30 120E 3627 45 W 30 175E 2926 46 A 23 121N 2926 46 B 23 121S 3618 60 C 23 152NE 3231 60 A 23 195SW 3231 60 B 23 122SW 3400 58 A 23 240E 3400 58 MAIN 23 325E 3200 45 A 23 200SE 4000 60 A7 30 300W 4000 60 EP 30 200W 4000 60 WA 30 300E 4000 60 WP 30 200E 3353 46 Y 23 106NE 3353 46 Z 23 171NE 3353 46 3659 46 G 23 264W 3659 46 H 23 183W 3658 46 A 23 183E 3658 46 B 23 264E 2925 46 K 23 173E 3199 45 D2 23 215SE 3048 45 G 27 197NW 3048 45 H 23 245SE 3048 45 J 23 395SE 3550 60 MAIN1 23 325N 3703 60 MAIN2 23 235S 3000 45 A 23 248N 3962 45 A 23 180W 3962 45 B 23 200E 3962 45 C 23 280E 3400 45 H 23 200SW 3989 45 33 23 100N 4030 60 15 23 100S 3660 60 NN 30 215SE 3660 60 NP 30 325SE 3350 60 SC 30 310NW 3350 60 SP 30 210NW 3023 45 NW,NE 23 309N 3023 45 SW,SE 23 390S 3600 45 A 28 265S 3505 60 E 25 240W 2800 50 C1 23 198SW TWY-TWY SEP (m) 93E 55E TWY-OBJ SEP

IATA SEA SEA SEA SEA SFB SFB SFO SFO SFO SHA SHA SHE SIN SIN SIN SIN SJC SJC SJC SLC SLC SLC SLC SLC SNN STN STN STN SVO SVO SXF SYD SYD SYD SZX THR THR TPE TPE TPE TPE TXL TXL URC UTP WAW

ICAO KSEA KSEA KSEA KSEA KSFB KSFB KSFO KSFO KSFO ZSSS ZSSS ZYTX WSSS WSSS WSSS WSSS KSJC KSJC KSJC KSLC KSLC KSLC KSLC KSLC EINN EGSS EGSS EGSS UUEE UUEE EDDB YSSY YSSY YSSY ZGSZ OIII OIII RCTP RCTP RCTP RCTP EDDT EDDT ZWWW VTBU EPWA

AIRPORT SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL ORLANDO SANFORD INTL ORLANDO SANFORD INTL SAN FRANCISCO INTL SAN FRANCISCO INTL SAN FRANCISCO INTL HONGQIAO HONGQIAO TAOXIAN CHANGI CHANGI CHANGI CHANGI MINETA SAN JOSE INTL MINETA SAN JOSE INTL MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY INTL SHANNON STANSTED STANSTED STANSTED SHEREMETYEVO SHEREMETYEVO SCHONEFELD KINGSFORD SMITH INTL KINGSFORD SMITH INTL KINGSFORD SMITH INTL HUANGTIAN MEHRABAD INTL MEHRABAD INTL TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI INTL TEGEL TEGEL DIWOPU UTAPAO OKECIE

CITY SEATTLE, WA. SEATTLE, WA. SEATTLE, WA. SEATTLE, WA. ORLANDO, FL ORLANDO, FL SAN FRANCISCO, CA. SAN FRANCISCO, CA. SAN FRANCISCO, CA. SHANGHAI SHANGHAI SHENYANG SINGAPORE SINGAPORE SINGAPORE SINGAPORE SAN JOSE, CA SAN JOSE, CA SAN JOSE, CA SALT LAKE CITY, UT SALT LAKE CITY, UT SALT LAKE CITY, UT SALT LAKE CITY, UT SALT LAKE CITY, UT SHANNON LONDON LONDON LONDON MOSKVA MOSKVA BERLIN SYDNEY SYDNEY SYDNEY SHENZHEN TEHRAN TEHRAN TAIBEI CITY TAIBEI CITY TAIBEI CITY TAIBEI CITY BERLIN BERLIN URUMQI RAYONG WARSZAWA

COUNTRY UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST CHIN CHIN CHIN SING SING SING SING UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST UNST IRLD UNKG UNKG UNKG RUSS RUSS GERF ASTL ASTL ASTL CHIN IRAN IRAN CHIN CHIN CHIN CHIN GERF GERF CHIN THAI POLD

ELEV 131 131 131 131 17 17 3 3 3 3 3 60 7 7 7 7 19 19 19 1288 1288 1288 1288 1288 14 106 106 106 192 192 48 6 6 6 4 1208 1208 33 33 33 33 37 37 649 18 110

TEMP 25 25 25 25 28 28 22 22 22 31 31 29 32 32 32 32 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 15 21 21 21 20 20 24 26 26 26 33 37 37 33 33 33 33 23 23 32 34 24

RWY 16C34C 16L34R 16L34R 16L34R 09L27R 09L27R 10L28R 10R28L 10R28L 18 36 18 36 06 24 02C20C 02C20C 02L20R 02L20R 12L30R 12L30R 12R30L 16L34R 16L34R 16R34L 16R34L 17 35 06 24 05 23 05 23 05 23 07L25R 07R25L 07R25L 16R34L 16R34L 16R34L 15 33 11L29R 11R29L 05 23 05 23 06 24 06 24 08L26R 08L26R 07 25 18 36 11 29

COMMENTS

73SW

85E 100W 100E

65NE No-Parallels 81W

81E

150SE

80E

110SE 100NW

Page 10

10/21/2008

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS


RWY RWY LENGTH WIDTH (m) (m) 2800 50 3690 60 3690 60 3000 45 3400 45 3658 60 3030 60 3505 60 3505 60 3389 61 3389 60 2896 61 2896 61 3368 60 3368 60 3368 60 2770 60 2770 60 3300 60 3700 55 3700 55 PRIM TWY E1-E2 A1-A6 B6 A A B M A D H J C D A B E F M H APR E TWY WIDTH RWY-TWY (m) SEP (m) 23 185NE 23 240NE 23 240SW 23 200SE 23 182SE 23 500NW 23 235S 23 212S 23 230N 23 224SE 23 183NW 23 183NE 23 275NW 23 263NE 23 182NE 23 182SW 23 183NE 23 183NE 18 190SW 18 275NE 18 190NE TWY-TWY SEP (m) TWY-OBJ SEP

IATA WAW WAW WAW XIY XMN YMX YVR YVR YVR YYZ YYZ YYZ YYZ YYZ YYZ YYZ YYZ YYZ ZRH ZRH ZRH

ICAO EPWA EPWA EPWA ZLXY ZSAM CYMX CYVR CYVR CYVR CYYZ CYYZ CYYZ CYYZ CYYZ CYYZ CYYZ CYYZ CYYZ LSZH LSZH LSZH

CITY OKECIE WARSZAWA OKECIE WARSZAWA OKECIE WARSZAWA XIANYANG XI'AN GAOQI XIAMEN MONTREAL INTL (MIRABEL) MONTREAL, QU VANCOUVER INTL VANCOUVER, BC VANCOUVER INTL VANCOUVER, BC VANCOUVER INTL VANCOUVER, BC LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT ZURICH ZURICH ZURICH ZURICH ZURICH ZURICH

AIRPORT

COUNTRY POLD POLD POLD CHIN CHIN CAND CAND CAND CAND CAND CAND CAND CAND CAND CAND CAND CAND CAND SWTZ SWTZ SWTZ

ELEV 110 110 110 479 18 82 4 4 4 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 432 432 432

TEMP 24 24 24 32 32 26 22 22 22 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 17 17 17

RWY 11 29 15 33 15 33 05 23 05 23 06 24 08L26R 08R26L 08R26L 05 23 05 23 06L24R 06L24R 15L33R 15L33R 15L33R 15R33L 15R33L 14 32 16 34 16 34

COMMENTS

92NW 81NE

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) 500 (150m) 500 (150m) 550 (168m) Applies to Cat I; Increases with airport elevation (400 applies to airport at sea level) Applies to Cat II/III; Applies to airports at sea level Applies to Cat I; May increase at higher elevation to meet OFZ requirement 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

COPYRIGHT 2005 THE BOEING COMPANY

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

COPYRIGHT 2005 THE BOEING COMPANY

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

COPYRIGHT 2005 THE BOEING COMPANY

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

COPYRIGHT 2005 THE BOEING COMPANY

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.
COPYRIGHT 2005 THE BOEING COMPANY

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

COPYRIGHT 2005 THE BOEING COMPANY

BACG Attachment I

45M Wide Runway Operational Approval for 747-8

COPYRIGHT 2005 THE BOEING COMPANY

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

COPYRIGHT 2005 THE BOEING COMPANY

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
COPYRIGHT 2005 THE BOEING COMPANY