DRAFT

WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

SOUTH RUNWAY EXTENSION AERONAUTICAL STUDY

ASTRAL LIMITED

25 OCTOBER 2015
South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

CONTENTS

1.Background................................................................................................................................. 3

2.Construction overview ................................................................................................................. 3

3.Baseline case ............................................................................................................................. 4

4.Proposed change ........................................................................................................................ 5

5.Risk assessment ......................................................................................................................... 5

5.1.General .......................................................................................................................................... 5
5.2.OLS Penetrations .......................................................................................................................... 5
5.3.Mitigation of OLS penetrations .................................................................................................... 6
5.4.Other risk factors ........................................................................................................................... 8
6.Runway 34 threshold displacement............................................................................................. 8

6.1.General .................................................................................................................................... 8

6.2.Conditions on use .................................................................................................................... 9

6.3.Resulting state ......................................................................................................................... 9

7.Consultation .............................................................................................................................. 10

8.Method of Works Plan ............................................................................................................... 11

9.Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 11

Attachment Method of Works Plan

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 2

South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

1. Background
Wellington International Airport Limited (WIAL) wishes to develop a construction methodology
for the proposed 355m south runway extension that enables aircraft operations to safely
continue while construction is occurring.

Astral has been asked to develop this methodology and in particular draft an Aeronautical
Study and Method of Works Plan which will establish that construction can be done concurrent
with safe aircraft operations.

The following reference documents were used to prepare this study.

URS Construction methodology report 42792153/01/01 dated 30 Jan 2015.

URS drawings S1.0, S2.0, S2.1, S3.0, S3.1, S3.2, S3.3, S4.0, S5.0, S6.0 and E1.0, all
rev 1 dated 19 May 2014

CAA Rule Part 139 Revisions 9 and 101

CAA Advisory Circular AC139-6 Revision 4 Aerodrome Design Requirements

CAA Advisory Circular AC139-15 Aeronautical Studies

Wellington Airport Type A Obstruction Chart 13th Ed dated Jul 2015

2. Construction overview
The complete project involves the construction and commissioning of a 355m extension to the
main runway and taxiway at the south end. This requires the construction of a dyke which
forms the sea wall protection at the perimeter of the runway extension, draining and backfilling
inside dyke, compaction, paving and fitting of services including lighting and ILS equipment.
This is illustrated in Figure 1.

The dyke wall construction involves:

Possible excavation of the sea bed and placement of stone columns under the dyke as
a foundation.

Placement of fill material around the dyke perimeter in stages, initially using bottom
dumping barges, then ejector trucks from landside until the finished height of the dyke

1 Revision 10 is the current version however Wellington Airport remains certificated under Revision 9. It is expected
construction will be done under revision 10.

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 3

South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

is reached.

Placing the sea wall protection (akmon or accropode) on the face(s) of the dyke using
a floating crane, or land crane on a barge.

Once the dyke wall is constructed the following will occur:

Draining inside the dyke and excavating the sea bed for boulder fill (if required)

Backfilling and compacting the drained area with base course material up to new
runway and taxiway level.

Construction of services, runway edging and surfacing.

Installation of new lighting, and painting and marking.

The construction is to be done during normal construction working hours (typically 7am to 5pm
6 days per week) with work outside airport hours of operation (typically midnight to 6am) only
where essential because it can't be done without an unacceptable impact on aircraft
operations.

The expected construction time is approximately 2 years.

3. Baseline case
The baseline case is aircraft operations from the existing runway. Currently the south runway
end is fully operational with no construction activity. Operational lengths are per the table
below:

Table 1: Baseline state

Runway 16 Runway 34
TORA-m 1945 1921
ASDA-m 1945 1921
TODA-m 2300 2300
LDA-m 1815 1815
RESA undershoot-m 90 90
RESA overshoot-m 90 90
Approach OLS upslope Not affected 2.0% clear
Take-off OLS upslope 1.6% clear Not affected
Transitional OLS upslope Not affected 1:7 clear

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 4

 South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

The baseline case conforms to CAA aerodrome design standards and as there is no
construction occurring in the baseline case aircraft operations are unrestricted.

4. Proposed change
The proposed change is the presence of construction men and equipment immediately at the
end of the south RESA (runway 16 overshoot, runway 34 undershoot) which will penetrate the
existing 16 take-off, 34 approach and transitional OLS. Sections 5 and 6 discuss how this will
be mitigated by the use of a displaced threshold for runway 34 landing.

Dust and glare from construction activity, interference with ILS signals, and presence of heavy
equipment in vicinity of taxiing aircraft are also changes that will occur as a result of
construction.

5. Risk assessment
5.1. General
The risk assessment in this study is qualitative rather than quantitative, on the basis that:

a) The methodology for managing the aviation risk of construction on aerodromes is

well established via the MOWP process; and

b) The objective is to achieve an equivalent level of risk by protection of OLS

penetrations as exists in the present (non-construction) situation.

In the following sections risks are identified, discussed and mitigations developed.

5.2. OLS Penetrations

Figures 2A, 2b and 2c shows the height of the relevant AC139-6 obstacle limitation
surfaces (OLS) above mean sea level (AMSL) for the normal (non-construction) situation in
the vicinity of construction for the approach and transitional OLS, take-off OLS and PAPI
protection surface (PPS) for the existing threshold and OLS geometry.

The PPS is similar in shape to the approach OLS but has a 300m base width compared to
150m and an upslope of 3.3%. The increased width of the PPS is unlikely to present any
problems for construction given its upslope of 3.3% places the surface significantly above
the approach OLS.

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 5

South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

The height of typical construction equipment (bottom dumping barges and ejector trucks) is
4.5m. The floating cranes used to place protective armour on the dyke walls is much
higher, up to 23m AMSL.

The high point of the construction is the top of the dyke wall at 8.0m AMSL. Distances are
referenced as chainage, being meters southwards from the runway 34 threshold on
extended runway centreline.

The height of the 2.0% runway 34 approach OLS (origin height 7.1m AMSL at 60m
chainage) on centreline at the extremity of the dyke wall (approximately 540m chainage) is
approximately 16.7m, giving an equipment clearance of 8.7m to the OLS. However above
the sections of the dyke wall parallel to the runway, the OLS clearance progressively
reduces to 1.0m which is clearly inadequate for construction equipment clearance.

The runway 16 take-off OLS is more affected than the approach OLS. The take-off OLS
origin point is chainage (height 11.6m AMSL) and it is currently clear to 1.6% upslope. At
the point where the take-off OLS centreline passes over the outer end of the dyke wall
(chainage 550m) its height is 14.7m, some 6.7m above the top of the dyke wall. If a 2.0%
upslope is used the clearance increases to 7.5m. As with the approach OLS the lowest
clearance occurs on the sides of the dyke parallel to the runway and close to the OLS origin
point. At this location there is approximately 3.6m clearance to the take-off OLS.

In areas where OLS penetrations occur equipment has to remain outside while aircraft are
operating. This means construction must be performed either between aircraft movements
or outside hours of operation of the airport. The objective is to minimize the size of the
keep out area, consistent with safe aircraft operations, to maximise the amount of
construction which can occur during aircraft operations. This increases construction
efficiency and reduces the amount of higher risk night work.

5.3. Mitigation of OLS penetrations

OLS penetrations can be mitigated in several ways:

Increase the height of the OLS such that penetrations do not occur

Remove the source of the penetration

Enable the penetrating obstacle to be seen and avoided by the pilot

Increase the height of the aircraft flight profile so it safely clears the penetration

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 6

South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

A combination of the above

Increasing the height of the OLS can, for the approach OLS, be achieved by either or both of
displacing the landing threshold and with it the origin point of the OLS or steepening the OLS
gradient. This is possible for landing on runway 34 by displacing the threshold 100m north
and increasing its upslope from 2.0% to 2.5% which is permitted under AC139-6 for domestic
aerodromes.2 This mitigation, which requires alterations to runway lighting and marking and
instrument approach procedures, is discussed further in section 6.

Removing the source of the penetration would mean not permitting construction equipment
within the OLS area while aircraft operations are occurring. This is possible but would mean
work would be disrupted during aircraft operating hours to the point where little progress could
be made. Therefore this mitigation is only practical for aircraft operations that occur relatively
infrequently (such as international departures or arrivals), or when the aerodrome is closed to
aircraft movements i.e. in the curfew hours.

Enabling the penetration to be seen and avoided is not considered practical for penetrations
so close to the end of the runway. When this low on approach the aircraft should not be
manoeuvred other than as required to remain on the approach path. On take-off, due to the
nose high attitude of the aircraft, the pilot is not able to easily see a close-in obstacle to enable
it to be avoided. This mitigation is therefore not considered practical.

Increasing the height of the aircraft flight path is not possible on approach as the approach
glide path is fixed at 3.0 deg by both the ILS glide path and the PAPI settings. While a
steeper approach could be used with a new temporary PAPI, 3.0 deg is the international
standard and to use an appreciably steeper path requires specific crew training and increases
the risk of heavy landing due to the higher vertical descent speed.

Increasing the height of the flight path on take-off is possible by reducing the take-off weight of
the aircraft. Taking account of flight path obstacles is standard airline procedure in calculating
the aircraft weight limit under the existing ambient conditions for each take-off. This mitigation
is therefore practical for take-off, however as reducing aircraft take-off weight potentially
reduces payload this mitigation has limited use. An upslope of 2.0%, which conforms with that
specified in AC139-6, is considered the maximum desirable to avoid payload limitations.

A combination of these mitigations is viable, in particular the combination of raising the height

2 Taking the view that for a domestic flight the aerodrome can be regarded as a domestic aerodrome

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 7

South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

of the OLS and displacing the threshold (approach), raising the aircraft flight path (take-off)
and eliminating the penetration (approach and take-off) by controlling access of construction
equipment under the OLS.

5.4. Other risk factors

These include the usual construction risks of glare, dust, FOD and proximity of equipment to
moving aircraft. Glare is usually only a problem with lighting of works areas. This can be
avoided by largely confining works to daylight hours or, if at night, ensuring lighting is shielded
from aircraft flight and taxiing paths.

Dust is controlled by ensuring loose material is covered or liberally watered to keep it in place.
The frequency of strong winds at the aerodrome make this a hazard that requires particular
care. FOD also requires extra care in windy conditions by making sure all barriers, cones,
markers and construction materials are firmly held down. Regular FOD checks, particularly
before the start of aircraft operations in the mornings are essential. Keeping construction
equipment access routes well away from aircraft operational areas (physical separation) also
helps minimise FOD risk.

Finally an effective safety incident reporting system recording any safety incidents or observed
hazards to aircraft operations with regular meetings between stakeholders (including
operating airlines) is very effective in ensuring any issues are promptly and effectively
addressed. This should be part of the airport operator's normal safety management
processes.

All these mitigations are included in the draft Method of Works Plan.

6. Runway 34 threshold displacement

6.1. General
Displacing the runway 34 threshold will increase the approach OLS clearance over the works
area thereby reducing the extent of the keep out area for construction equipment. However
displacement reduces the runway 34 landing distance available which is already relatively
short for jet aircraft operations. After reviewing the landing performance of the 737-800 and
the A320 Astral recommends 100m as the maximum viable threshold displacement. It is also
the minimum to give any appreciable benefit. There is a 1 to 1 relationship between threshold
displacement and the proximity to the existing threshold for construction equipment i.e. a
100m displacement means equipment can work 100m closer to the existing threshold while

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 8

South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

aircraft are operating. This is shown in Figure 6 for the approach OLS and a considerable
advantage to construction.

It should also be noted that CAR139 Rev 10 at Appendix D.1(d) prohibits new objects above
the approach surface (OLS) within 3000m of the surface origin point unless an aeronautical
study establishes no adverse effects to aircraft safety or regularity of operations. A similar
prohibition applies to the take-off OLS under Appendix D.2(b). The required upslopes of the
surfaces are specified in AC139-6 Tables 4-1 and 4-2.

In conjunction with the displaced threshold Astral considers that the associated approach OLS
can be steepened to 2.5% (1 in 40), as is permitted AC139-6 Table 4-1 for domestic
aerodromes, for the operation of domestic flights. This would have to be accepted by the
CAA.

6.2. Conditions on use

As the displaced threshold will not have an ILS glide path installed, or have lighting and
marking (other than wing bars marker boards and PAPI) it will not be available under all
conditions. Specifically the following conditions would need to apply:

Daytime hours only

Weather conditions better than 1100ft-5km (Cat C/D VOR DME runway 34, circling minima)

An instrument approach with glide path guidance to be available

A full (4 box) PAPI to be provided

6.3. Resulting state

Table 2 shows the resulting state (configuration) of the runway with the displaced threshold
and works occurring up to but outside of the keep out area.

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 9

South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

Table 2: Resulting state with displaced threshold

Runway 16 Runway 34
Existing Proposed with existing Proposed with
displaced displaced
threshold threshold
TORA-m 1945 1921
ASDA-m 1945 1921
TODA-m 2300 2300
LDA-m 1815 1815 1715
RESA undershoot-m 90 90
RESA overshoot-m 90 90
Approach OLS upslope Not affected 2.0% clear 2.5% clear3
Take-off OLS upslope 1.6% clear 2.0% clear Not affected
Transitional OLS upslope Not affected 1:7 clear
PAPI yes yes
Night operations yes no4 yes no
ILS yes yes LLZ only
RNP-AR yes yes
RNAV(GNSS) yes yes
5
Minima Per AIP or 1100ft-5km Per AIP or 1100ft-5km
airline airline
approval approval

7. Consultation
The scheduled jet operating airlines (Qantas Group, Virgin and Air New Zealand) have been
consulted regarding the feasibility of displacing the runway 34 threshold 100m to the north. No
airline objections to the displacement were received on the understanding that the following
conditions will apply and facilities will be provided for the displaced threshold:

Conditions

3 2.0% may be provided for international arrivals

4 No night ops if existing OLS is infringed
5 Minima for displaced threshold operations

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 10

South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

a) Day use only (to avoid the need for lighting configuration changes)

b) 1100ft/5km visibility restriction (to avoid operating restrictions on operators that do not
have RNAV(GNSS) with barometric vertical guidance capability).

Facilities

c) A PAPI

d) A non-precision approach with vertical guidance (RNP or RNAV (GNSS) with

barometric height guidance

e) Temporary touchdown markings or zone limit markers

f) A different runway designator, such as runway 35, is used for the displaced threshold.

Qantas advised that its 737-800 operations may be restricted in landing weight on runway 34
under wet runway conditions with the reduced landing distance from the displaced threshold.
At the time of preparing this report Qantas had not quantified this possible restriction but, in
Astral's view, it could be avoided on the day by reversion to full runway length on pilot
request for inbound international flights. This would be consistent with the international
requirement for a 2.0% approach OLS.

Existing or planned displaced threshold operations at both Christchurch and Auckland Airports
which have the similar provisions were noted by the airlines.

Airways Corporation were also consulted and advised that they had no objections to the
proposal and, given adequate lead time, can support the airlines' requirements. Airways noted
the need to provide a clear PAPI protection surface (PPS).

On the basis of the consultation it is concluded the 100m displaced threshold can be
implemented and operated safely, thereby minimising the keep out area for construction
equipment.

8. Method of Works Plan

A Method of Works Plan (MOWP) for the proposed works, including the displaced threshold
has been drafted and this in included at Appendix 1 to this study for reference purposes. The
MOWP is suitable as a basis for discussion with the works contractor.

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 11

South runway extension aeronautical study DRAFT

9. Conclusions
The runway extension works are feasible from an aircraft operational safety perspective using
methods and procedures that are established and proven in works at other aerodromes. In
particular the use of a 100m displaced runway 34 threshold with a 2.5% upslope approach
OLS will minimise the size of the keep out area for construction equipment thereby reducing
the amount of work that needs to be done outside aircraft operating hours.

Airlines have been consulted and have no concerns over displaced threshold operations
under the conditions specified in section 7 which are reflected in the draft MOWP.

The next steps would be to familiarise the preferred contractor with the MOWP to ensure its
requirements are included in construction tendering and the contractor's Method Statement.

Airlines should also be appraised of the MOWP and given the opportunity to to provide
feedback and suggestions on refinement.

25 Oct 2015 Astral Limited 12