Common Agreement Document
Boeing 747-8 Airport Compatibility Group
(BACG)
October 2008
Table of Content
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3
1.1
BACG Terms of Reference ........................................................................................... 3
1.2
Purpose of the document............................................................................................. 3
1.3
Primary conditions of application ............................................................................... 3
1.4
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 4
2.
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW.............................................................................................. 5
3.
AIRFIELD ITEMS REVIEW................................................................................................... 5
4.
3.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
3.2
Runways ........................................................................................................................ 7
3.3
Taxiways ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.4
Runway Separations..................................................................................................... 9
3.5
Taxiway and Taxilane separations ............................................................................. 11
3.6
Other items ................................................................................................................... 13
BACG PARTICIPATING MEMBERS.................................................................................... 15
Annex 1
Recommendation Letter from BACG Aviation Authorities
Attachment A
Safety Analysis of Airfield Items
Attachment B
Physical Characteristics and Performance of 747-8
Safety analysis that led to the BACG conclusions
Airplane dimensional data; low speed flying characteristics; jet-blast contours; 747
historical runway veer-off data, etc.
Attachment C
Reference Material – Studies, Analysis, Working Papers, and Reports
Attachment D
AOPG vs. AACG
Available documentation on aircraft operations
Operational guidelines for 747-400 developed through Aerodrome Operations
Planning Group (ICAO European Region) vs. AACG (A380)
Attachment E
AOP Doc 7754 Extract
Extract from EUR ANP Part III-AOP
Attachment F
Runway-Taxiway Separations
Attachment G
Runway-Taxiway Separations – U.S. FAA Standard
Attachment H
U.S. FAA Modification of Standards (MOS) Process
Attachment I
45M Wide Runway Operational Approval
Taxiway separation data of world airports
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 10, dated 29 September 2006
Process and procedures for deviating from published FAA standard
Current status on 747-8 approval process with FAA
Common Agreement Document
Boeing 747-8
2
1.
Introduction
1.1
BACG Terms of Reference
The BACG is an informal group consisting of Aviation Authorities, Airport, and Industry
representatives. It is formed to agree and promote a common position among the group members,
with respect to operation of the 747-8 at existing airports that currently do not meet ICAO Code
Letter F specifications.
Recognizing that the ideal for 747-8 operations would be to provide a level of aerodrome
infrastructure at least equal to the generic ICAO specifications, the BACG should, in particular:
-
1.2
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
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
3
These guidelines are intended to permit the 747-8 to operate at existing aerodromes without
adversely affecting safety or significantly affecting the regularity of operations. However, it is
strongly recommended to provide facilities meeting Annex 14 requirements, in full, on all relevant
parts of the movement area whenever new construction or major redevelopment is undertaken.
When planning such construction or redevelopment, it may be prudent to consider the requirements
of aeroplanes larger than the 747-8 types or even future aeroplane types needing facilities in
excess of Code F.
The BACG guidelines have been developed to be generically applicable to airports to perform
aeronautical studies for the introduction of 747-8 operations at existing airport facilities. However, it
may be permissible to operate with lower separation margins than agreed in this document if an
aeronautical study taking into account local conditions indicates that such lower margins would not
adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of the 747-8.
The recommendations in this document assume that the 747-8 will be the largest aircraft using the
airport. The recommendations may not be applicable for other Code Letter F aircraft for which a
separate Aeronautical Study will be needed.
Application of the different level of aerodrome infrastructure recommendations for 747-8 operations
compared to Code Letter F requirements is subject to:

For runway width and runway separations items (See §3.2 & §3.4), the 747-8 aircraft being
approved for the use of Code Letter E runways (minimum width 45m) for each type of operation.

For taxiway separations items (See §3.5), where reduced margins exist compared to Code
Letter F recommendations, proper guidance such as centre line lights or equivalent guidance
(e.g. marshaller, etc.) to be provided for night, or low visibility operations.
The ICAO Baseline refers to Annex 14, Volume 1 up to and including amendment 9, dated 15th of
June 2006.
1.4
Abbreviations
[RP] A14 P3.8.3
[Std]
ADM Pt2
SARP
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
= 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
Common Agreement Document
Boeing 747-8
4
2.
Methodology Overview
The methodology used by BACG follows the basic scope of risk assessment process described in
ICAO Circular 305, Operations of New Larger Aeroplanes at Existing Aerodromes (June 2004).
This circular provides guidance on conducting aeronautical studies in the following steps:
- Baseline identification of relevant ICAO SARPS and rationale/justification
- Hazard identification and analysis
- Risk assessment and possible mitigation measures
- Conclusion
This circular provides guidance that allows aerodromes that do not meet the relevant Annex 14,
Volume I, Code Letter F criteria to accommodate a specific NLA, such as the 747-8.
This circular was used as the primary reference source for safety analysis in accommodating the
747-8 as outlined in the Section 3, Airfield Items Review, and in developing the Safety Analysis of
Airfield Items in Attachment A of this document.
3.
Airfield Items Review
3.1
Introduction
The items of aerodrome infrastructure that may be affected by the introduction of the
Boeing 747-8 aircraft have been identified as shown in the tables below as follows:
- Runways (§ 3.2)
Runway width
Runway shoulder
- Taxiways (§ 3.3)
Width of straight taxiway
Width of curved taxiway
Taxiway shoulder width
- Runway separation (§ 3.4)
Runway to parallel Taxiway Separation
Obstacle Free Zone
Runway Holding Positions
- Taxiway and Taxilane Separations (§ 3.5)
Parallel Taxiway Separation
Taxiway/Apron Taxiway to Object Separation
Aircraft Stand Taxilane to Object Separation
Clearance at the Gate
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
6
3.2
Item
Runways
Runway width
Width of Runway shoulder
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
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
Justification Material
BACG Agreement
ICAO
Rationale
ICAO SARPs and ADM
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 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)
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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
7
3.3
Justification Material
BACG Agreement
ICAO
Rationale
ICAO SARPs and ADM
Item
Taxiways
Width of straight taxiway
Width of curved taxiway
Taxiway shoulder width
(straight and curved)
Unless otherwise indicated, the
requirements are applicable to all
types of twys.
A14 P3.9
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
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
ADM Pt2 p1.2.9 and ADM Pt2
p1.2.22 + table 1-3
The surface should be so prepared as
to resist erosion and ingestion of the
surface material by aeroplane
engines.
[RP] A14 P3.10.2
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
- Twy width = 2 x clearance distance
from wheel to pavement edge +
max wheel track
Code Letter E: 23m=2x4.5m+14m
Code Letter F: 25m=2x4.5m+16m
ADM Pt2 p1.2.7+ table 1-1
- Origin of the 4.5m clearance
distance unknown
Origin of the 4.5m clearance distance
unknown
- Minimum taxiway width of 23
meters (equal to Code Letter E
requirements)
- Wheel-to-edge minimum clearance
of 4.5m for Code Letter E and F
aircraft
Wheel-to-edge minimum clearance of
4.5m for Code Letter E and F aircraft
- 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.
Common Agreement Document
No specific justification needed (refer
to Airplane Characteristics for Airport
Planning for 747-8)
Boeing 747-8
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.
- 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.
8
3.4
RWY to parallel TWY
separation
Obstacle Free Zone
Runway holding positions
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
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
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’
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"
A/C at precision approach holds not
to interfere with the operation of Nav.
Aids
[Std] A14 P3.12.6
ICAO
Rationale
ICAO Circular 305, section 4.70
(Hazard identification and analysis
ICAO ADM part 2, section 1.2.3132)
- Separation = ½ wing span + ½ strip
width: Code Letter E: 182.5m =
½x65m+½x300m Code Letter
F:190m = ½x80m+½x300m for
instrument rwy.
- Origin of 300m rwy strip width
unknown
ADM Pt2 p1.2.19+ table 1-5
Justifications in OCP meetings
material and Circular 301, Part II,
paragraph 1.3.1: 155m
(Code Letter F) and 120m (Code
Letter E)
107.5m based on Code Letter F OFZ
definition and on an aircraft with 24m
tail height, 62.2m distance nosehighest tail part, 10m nose height, 45°
or more holding
Collision risk:
For instrument runways:
- ICAO Code Letter E separation of
182.5m.
- Lower separation could be
envisaged on the basis of a safety
assessment,
For non-instrument runways:
- Minimum separation is 75m + half
wingspan
ILS effects:
Need for specific runway studies to
evaluate ILS interference risks in all
cases (no difference in 747-8 and
747-400 vertical tail size).
Code Letter E OFZ width of 120m
based on ICAO OCP work.
BACG Agreement
ICAO SARPS and ADM
Item
Runway Separations
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
9
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
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.
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.
Note: assumes 747-8 is largest aircraft
using the airport
ILS effects:
- Recent studies and ICAO work
indicate that vertical tail size is
critical, not span, and that the size
of the sensitive and critical areas
and the operational impact of
infringement of CSAs should be
reassessed. Hence, the need for
specific runway studies.
- However, the vertical tail size of
747-8 is same as 747-400 which
would imply an identical impact for
747-8 and 747-400.
Common Agreement Document
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.
Boeing 747-8
10
3.5
ICAO
Rationale
ICAO SARPS and ADM
Item
Taxiway and Taxilane separations
Parallel Taxiway
Separation
Taxiway / Apron
taxiway to Object
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
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
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 =
½wingspan + max lateral
deviation + increment
Code Letter E: 47.5m =
½x65m+4.5m+10.5m
Code Letter F: 57.5m =
½x80m+4.5m+13m
ADM Pt2 p1.2.13 to
p1.2.18 + tables 1-1 and
1-4 + Figure 1-4
- Wingtip clearance
increase from Code Letter
E (15m) to Code Letter F
(17.5m) is based on
applying the percentage
of wingspan increase to
the Code Letter E
increment Z (80/65 x
10.5)
Common Agreement Document
Aircraft Stand
Taxilane to Object
Separation
Clearance at the gate
(including service road and
height limited object)
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
- Separation = ½ wingspan
+ max. dev. + increment
Code Letter E: 42.5m =
½x65m+2.5m+7.5m
Code Letter F: 50.5m =
½x80m+2.5m+8m
ADM Pt2 p1.2.13 to
p1.2.17 + table 1-1 and
1-4 + Figure 1-4
- Wingtip clearance
increase from Code Letter
E (10m) to Code Letter F
(10.5m) is based on the
increase in wingtip trackout when the aircraft turns
into the gate using
oversteer technique
(typical).
Boeing 747-8
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
Origin of the 7.5m
clearance distance
unknown
11
Justification Materials
BACG Agreement
Item
Parallel Taxiway
Separation
Taxiway / Apron
taxiway to Object
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
- 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 1a, 2 & 3
See notes 1b, 2 & 3
- Air Navigation Plan –
ICAO European Region
recommended reduced
separation distances for
747-400 operations with
11m wingtip clearance.
- Taxiway deviation
statistics analysis
- AACG agreement of 11m
for A380, if taxiway
centre line lighting or
equivalent guidance is
available
- Air Navigation Plan –
ICAO European Region
recommended reduced
separation distances for
747-400 operations with
9m wingtip clearance.
- Taxiway deviation
statistics analysis
- AACG agreement of 9m
for A380, if taxiway centre
line lighting or equivalent
guidance is available
Aircraft Stand
Taxilane to Object
Separation
Clearance at the gate
(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.
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
ICAO SARPs to be
followed (7.5 m)
Possibility of reduced
distance with appropriate
measure such as visual
docking guidance system,
marshaller(s), etc.
See note 2 & 3
Distance may be reduced
for height limited object. All
objects to be properly
marked or lighted.
Depending on local
conditions, decision on
reduced margins for height
limited objects by each
authority and/or airport
operator.
Not applicable
Note 1a:
The ICAO Aerodromes Panel has recommended to the Air Navigation Commission that the
increment for Code Letter F be reduced to 10.5 meters, hence, a reduction of the parallel taxiway
separation to 95m.
Note 1b:
The ICAO Aerodrome Panel has recommended to the Air Navigation Commission that the
increment for Code Letter F be reduced to 10.5 meters, hence, a reduction of the taxiway to object
separation to 55m.
Note 2:
For taxiway separations, where reduced margins exist compared to Code Letter F
recommendations, proper guidance such as centre line lights or equivalent guidance e.g.
marshaller, etc.) is to be provided for night or low visibility operations.
It may be permissible to operate with lower separation margins than agreed in this document if an
aeronautical study taking into account local conditions indicates that such lower margins would not
adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of operations of the 747-8.
Note 3:
To ensure that the minimum tip-object margins above are respected on curved sections of taxiway,
it is recommended to use appropriate tools (such as simulation or the analytical method in ICAO
ADM)
Common Agreement Document
Boeing 747-8
12
3.6
ICAO
Rationale
ICAO SARPS and ADM
Item
Other items
Visual aids
Taxiways on bridges
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
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
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
Common Agreement Document
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
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
No specific justification available on
taxiway on bridge
Boeing 747-8
Protection beyond the rwy strip to
minimize damage when aircraft
undershoot or overshoot the rwy
during landing or takeoff.
ADM Pt1 P5.4.1
13
Justification
Materials
BACG Agreement
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.
- 747-400 engine position
- Similar exhaust wake velocity
contours as 747-400
- Similar glide slope approach
attitude
Common Agreement Document
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
Boeing 747-8
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.
- 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.
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
Jean-Louis Pirat
DGAC
Laurent Osty
DGAC
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
Germany
BMVBS
Susanne Hofmann
Fraport
Holger Schwenke
Fraport
HMWVL
Italy
Italian Civil Aviation Authority
Netherlands
Civil Aviation Authority
The Netherlands
Ibrahim Zantout
Egon Grösslein
Airport Policies, Federal Ministry of
Transport
Head, Airside Development and
ATC
Head, Apron Infrastructure
Head Section Aerodromes
Alessandro Cardi
Director of Airport Infrastructure
Amsterdam Schiphol
Rob ten Hove
Sietse Jager
Senior Advisor, Aerodromes and
Airspace Division
Senior Advisor, Airport Capacity
Management
Poland
Warsaw Airport
United Kingdom
British Airports Authority
Airlines
Cargolux
Jan Malawko
Head of Airport Operations
Supervision and SMS
Andrew Badham
Head of Central Airside Operations
Sten Rossby
Captain, Chief Technical Pilot
General Manager, ATS &
International Organizations
Manager, Airports & Infrastructure
Lufthansa
Michael Dietz
Lufthansa
Industry Organization
Matthias Schmitt
ACI
David Gamper (Chairman)
Boeing
Kaz Konya (Secretary)
Boeing
Marc Schoen
Boeing
Ed Gervais
Boeing
Jerry Robinson
Boeing
Karen Dix-Colony
IATA
Ton Van der Veldt
Common Agreement Document
Boeing 747-8
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
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
1
INTRODUCTION
1. M
ETHODOLOGY
The methodology that the BACG proposed for establishing operational requirements and
infrastructure needs has been applied to other NLAs and might be applicable to other
aircraft. In this case, it has been applied specifically to the 747-8 aircraft (refer to Terms of
Reference).
A simple philosophy, a safety analysis in four steps, has been used for each infrastructure
item that may be affected by the introduction of the 747-8: runways, taxiways, runway
separations, taxiway separations and other items (See chapter 3 "Airfield Items Review" of
the BACG Common Agreement Document, and Part A to E of attachment A "Safety
Analyses of Airfield Items").
The four steps (see chapter 2 “Methodology Overview” of the BACG Common Agreement
Document) are as follows:
- Baseline identification of relevant ICAO SARPS and rationale/justification
- Hazard identification and analysis
- Risk assessment and possible mitigation measures
- BACG Conclusion
2. R
ISK ASSESSMENT
Depending on the nature of the risks, three methods for risk assessment can be identified:

Type A:
For certain hazards, risk assessment strongly depends on specific aircraft
performance and handling qualities. The safety level is achieved by the suitability
between aircraft performance and handling qualities on the one hand, and
infrastructure characteristics on the other hand. Risk assessment should therefore be
essentially based on the aircraft design and certification and on simulation results
taking into account the actual characteristics of the aircraft.

Type B:
For other hazards, the aircraft behaviour is not really linked with specific aircraft
performance and handling qualities, and can be calculated from existing aircraft
measurements. Risk assessment, then, should be based on statistics (e.g.
deviations) for existing aircraft or accident analyses, and development of generic
quantitative risk models can be well adapted.

Type C:
In this case, a “risk assessment study” is not needed. In such a case, a simple
geometric argument is sufficient to calculate infrastructure requirements without
waiting for certification results or collecting deviation statistics for existing aircraft.
3. B
ASIC PRINCIPLES
The recommendations in this document assume that the 747-8 will be the largest aircraft
using the airport. The recommendations may not be applicable for other Code Letter F
aircraft for which a separate Aeronautical Study will be needed.
Attachment A
Safety Analyses of Airfield Items
Boeing 747-8
2
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
3
PART A: RUNWAYS
RUNWAY WIDTH
ICAO BASELINE
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
Risk 1
Lateral runway excursion at take-off
Hazard Identification
Risk 2
Lateral runway excursion at landing
-
HAZARD ANALYSIS
-
Main causes and
accident factors
-
Severity
Theoretical
Human factors (crew,
maintenance, balance, payload
security)
Powerplant (engine failure,
ingestion)
Surface conditions (aquaplaning,
snow)
Aircraft (control surfaces,
hydraulic system, tyres)
-
-
Human factors (crew,
maintenance)
Aircraft (landing gear, control
surfaces, hydraulic system,
brakes, tyres)
Powerplant (reverse)
Surface conditions (aquaplaning,
snow)
Weather conditions (cross wind,
visibility, inaccurate
meteorological information)
Major to Catastrophic depending on the aircraft speed.
In-service
Detailed hazard analysis within certification process
BACG
CONCLUSIONS
RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk assessment
category
A (aircraft performance)
- 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)
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)
-
A minimum central 45m of pavement of full load bearing strength shall be provided.
Attachment A
Safety Analyses of Airfield Items
Boeing 747-8
4
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
6

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
747-400
747-8
Code Letter E
main gear wheel span upper limit
WR
C
Outer Main Gear Wheel
Span
Runway Width
Clearance between the
outer main gear wheel
and the runway edge
12.6m
12.7m
45m
45m
16.20m
16.15m
13.99m
45m
15.50m
The “core” risk assessment, which is a “type A” study (aircraft performance), will be made
during the aircraft certification process (safety analysis, flight test, simulations, …).
Operational capability to operate safely on a 45m wide runway is one of the core objectives
of the geometric and performance design of the 747-8. This capability will be demonstrated
during the flight test period.
To ensure visibility by the Airport Authorities, the relevant Aviation Authorities, the
International Organisations and the Airline world that the 747-8 will be able to land and take
off on 45m wide runways without additional limitations, Boeing will:
 base the 747-8 nominal performance on 45 meter runway width;
 base the safety analyses on 45 meter runway width;
 mention the 45 meter runway width as nominal for 747-8 operations within the Flight
Manual, to which the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) refers;
 report this nominal 45 meter runway width within the Flight Crew Operations Manual
(FCOM).
CONCLUSIONS
BACG members agreed:
 A minimum central 45m of pavement of full load bearing strength shall be provided.
Attachment A
Safety Analyses of Airfield Items
Boeing 747-8
7
RUNWAY SHOULDER WIDTH
SYNOPSIS
ICAO BASELINE
The Rwy shoulders should extend symmetrically on each side of the Rwy so that overall width of Rwy
and its shoulders is not less than 60m where the Code Letter is E and 75m where the Code Letter is F.
[RP] A14 P3.2.3
Strength of Rwy shoulders:
A Rwy shoulder should be prepared or constructed so as to be capable, in the event of an aeroplane
running off the Rwy, of supporting the aeroplane without inducing structural damage to the
aeroplane and of supporting ground vehicles which may operate on the shoulder. [RP] A14 P3.2.5
A Rwy shoulder should be prepared or constructed so as to minimise any hazard to an aeroplane
running off the Rwy ADM Pt1 P5.2.3
In some cases, the bearing strength of the natural ground may be sufficient, without special
preparation, to meet the requirements for shoulders. ADM Pt1 P5.2.4
When designing shoulders, prevention of the ingestion of stones or other objects by turbine engines
should be an important consideration. ADM Pt1 P5.2.5
In case of special preparations, visual contrast between Rwy and Rwy shoulders may be needed
ADM Pt1 P5.2.6
HAZARD ANALYSIS
Hazard Identification
Main causes and
accident factors
Severity
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
Theoretical
Risk 2
Difficulties for ARFF
services to intervene on a
damaged aircraft on the
runway
Aircraft wingspan,
engine position
Shoulder width and
bearing capability
Potentially major
Major to catastrophic
C (geometric argument)
C (geometric argument)
BACG
CONCLUSIONS
RISK
ASSESSMENT
In-service
Risk assessment
category
-
Main technical
materials
-
747-8 engine position
747-8 jet blast velocity
at take-off thrust
- Information about
lateral deviation from
runway centreline
(see Attachment B)
Risk 3
Aircraft damage
after incursion on
runway shoulder
No 747-8 specific
issue
747-8 wingspan and
engine position
(see Attachment B)
-
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
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
9
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.
747-400ER
747-8
Distance between aircraft
fuselage axis and (outer) engine
axis
20.85m
20.85m
(Outer) engine
nacelle minimum
height above ground
1.32m
1.32m
Although the margin between ground surface and engine cowl for the 747-8 is same as for
the 747-400, the thrust centreline axis of the 747-8 outboard engine is 0.36m higher than for
the 747-400.
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
Attachment A
Safety Analyses of Airfield Items
wide
Boeing 747-8
7.5m
11
PART B: TAXIWAYS
TAXIWAY WIDTH
ICAO BASELINE
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
BACG
CONCLUSIONS
RISK
ASSESSMENT
HAZARD ANALYSIS
Hazard Identification
Main causes and
accident factors
-
Mechanical failure affecting steering capability (hydraulic system)
Surface conditions (aquaplaning, loss of control on ice-covered surface,…)
Loss of visual taxiway guidance system (markings and lights covered by
snow,…)
Pilot precision and attention (directional control)
Theoretical
Potentially major
In-service
Minor
Severity
Risk assessment
category
Main technical
materials
B (generic risk model)
Taxiway deviation statistics analysis
(existing and on-going studies)
(see Attachment C)
C (geometric argument)
747-8 geometric characteristics (wheel
span within code E limits, nearly same
as 747-400)
(see Attachment B)
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
747-400
747-8
Code Letter E
main gear wheel span upper limit
Outer Main Gear
Wheel Span
Taxiway Width
12.6m
12.7m
23m
23m
Clearance between
the outer main gear
wheel and the taxiway
edge
5.2m
5.15m
13.99m
23m
4.5m
In addition to this, another geometric argument (type C) depending on pilot visibility from
cockpit can be developed; the cockpit and pilot eye position of the 747-8 is equal to the 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
BACG
CONCLUSIONS
RISK ASSESSMENT
HAZARD ANALYSIS
ICAO BASELINE
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
Risk 1
Shoulder erosion and engine ingestion at
taxiing
Hazard Identification
Main causes and
accident factors
Theoretical
Severity
In-service
-
Risk 2
Aircraft damage after
incursion on taxiway shoulder
Powerplant (engine position, engine power)
Taxiway shoulder width and cohesion
Taxiway centreline deviation factors (see
taxiway veer-off risk)
Minor except if undetected and followed by
engine failure at take-off (potentially major)
Risk assessment
category
C (geometric argument)
No 747-8 specific issue
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)
-
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).
747-400ER
747-8
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
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
Attachment A
Safety Analyses of Airfield Items
Boeing 747-8
10.5 m
17
PART C: RUNWAY SEPARATIONS
SYNOPSIS
ICAO BASELINE
Runway to Parallel Taxiway Separation:
190m for instrument Rwy or 115m for non-instrument Rwy (may be reduced subject to aeronautical
study). [RP] A14 P3.9.8 + table 3-1 columns 5&9
OFZ
OFZ half width = 60m where Code Letter is E and 77.5m where Code Letter is F, then inner
transitional surface slope 1:3. [Std] A14 P4.1.11 & 4.1.12 + 4.1.17 to 24, Table 4-1
Note e) to table 4-1: Where the Code Letter is F (Column (3) of Table 1-1), the width is increased to 155 m.
For information on Code Letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics and track hold guidance that
provide steering commands to maintain an established track during the go-around manoeuvre, see Circular
301 "New Larger Aeroplanes- Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and
Aeronautical Study".
Runway Holding Positions
Take-off Rwy, non-instrument & non-precision approach minimum holding position distances - no
change compared with code E (75m).
Precision approaches all CATs: Minimum holding position distances increased to 107.5 m for code F
(90m for Code E). [RP] A14 table 3-2 footnote 'c'
A/C at precision approach holds - not to interfere with the operation of Nav. Aids. [Std] A14 P3.12.6
Risk 1
Collision between an
aircraft in flight and an
object (fixed or mobile)
on the airport
Hazard Identification
-
HAZARD ANALYSIS
-
Main causes and
accident factors
-
-
RISK
ASSESSMENT
Severity
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
Theoretical
Catastrophic
In-service
No known cases
reported in-service
Risk assessment
category
A (aircraft performance)
&
B (generic risk model)
&
C (geometric argument)
Attachment A
Safety Analyses of Airfield Items
Boeing 747-8
Risk 2
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)
Risk 3
Perturbation of ILS
signal by a taxiing or
stopped aircraft
- Aircraft position /
NAV-aids
- Aircraft
characteristics
(height, shape,
component,..)
- Obstacle density
Potentially catastrophic
Potentially major
B (generic risk model)
Generic risk
assessment not
feasible
18
RISK ASSESSMENT
BACG CONCLUSIONS
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
(182.5m→184.2m)
- Separation based on
OFZ requires only
(60+[3x19.6]) = 118.8m
- Separation based on
taxiing 747-8 clear of
precision Rwy graded
strip requires
(105+34.2) = 139.2m
(see Attachment B)
-
- Recent studies and
ICAO work
indicates that
vertical tail size is
critical, not wing
span, and that the
size of the
sensitive and
critical areas and
the operational
impact of
infringement of
CSAs should be
reassessed.
Hence the need for
specific runway
studies.
- 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)
-
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 today’s airports (see Attachment C), ICAO SARPs
relative to code F runway-taxiway distance seems conservative in terms of collision risk after
an aircraft veer-off.
Considering the regulations for and history of operations at U.S. airports with lesser
RWY/TWY separation - 122m (400 ft) for Group V (Code E equivalent) for instrument Rwys it
can be concluded that RWY-TWY separations significantly less than recommended in Annex
14 table 4-1 are considered safe with respect to collision between an aircraft veering off the
runway and an object (fixed or mobile) on the airport.
FAA has issued Airport Obstructions Standards Committee (AOSC) Decision Document #4,
dated 21 March 2005, amending Group V and VI RWY-TWY separations to 400 ft (122m)
and 500 ft (152m) respectively for CAT I and 500 ft (152m) and 550 ft (168m) respectively for
CAT II / III.
1
The veer-off distance is defined here as the maximum lateral deviation distance reported during a veer-off
between the aircraft centre of gravity and the runway centreline.
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
ICAO BASELINE
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
RISK
ASSESSMENT
HAZARD
ANALYSIS
Remark *: For Code Letter F a further reduction to 95m (Twy-Twy separation) and 55m (Twy-object separation) were
recommended by ICAO Panel.
Hazard Identification
Main causes and
accident factors
Theoretical
Severity
In-service
Risk assessment
category
Main technical
materials
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)
BACG CONCLUSIONS
- 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, …).
Attachment A
Safety Analyses of Airfield Items
Boeing 747-8
24

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
ICAO BASELINE
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.
HAZARD ANALYSIS
Hazard Identification
Main causes and
accident factors
Severity
In-service
RISK
ASSESSMENT
-
Theoretical
BACG
CONCLUSIONS
Risk 1
Elevated edge lights damaged by
jet blast
Main technical
materials
Risk 3
Aircraft damage
caused by elevated
lights after a veeroff
No 747-8 specific
issue
No 747-8 specific
issue
Powerplant (engine position,
engine power)
Elevated edge lights strength
Aircraft (rotation angle at takeoff)
Runway centreline deviation
factors (see runway veer-off
risk)
Potentially major if undetected
before take-off and followed by
engine ingestion and tire bursting
risks
Risk assessment
category
Risk 2
PAPI guidance not
adapted for an
aircraft in approach
C (geometric argument)
- 747-8 engine position
- 747-8 jet blast contours
(see Attachment B)
-
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
ICAO BASELINE
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
HAZARD ANALYSIS
Hazard identification
Main causes and
accident factors
Risk 1
Taxiway veer off
on the bridge and
aircraft fall from
the bridge
- See taxiway
veer-off risk
(taxiway width
paragraph)
- Width of the
bridge
Theoretical
Risk 2
Evacuation slides
falling past the
edge
Risk 3
Difficulties for fire
fighting
intervention
- Aircraft stop
away from
taxiway
centreline
- Width of the
bridge
- Evacuation
slides
configuration
Catastrophic
Hazardous
Severity
BACG
CONCLUSIONS
RISK ASSESSMENT
In-service
No cases reported No cases reported
Risk assessment
category
- 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 to
catastrophic
Major for other
traffic (not for the
aircraft)
C (predominant geometric issues)
Comparison
with margins
for a 747 on a
code E bridge
(see Attachmt. B)
-
Main technical
materials
Risk 4
Blast under the
bridge
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)
-
-
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:
747-400
747-8
Code Letter E
main gear wheel span upper limit
Outer Main Gear Wheel
Span
Taxiway Bridge Width
Clearance between the
outer main gear wheel
and the taxiway Bridge
edge
12.6m
12.7m
44m
44m
15.70m
15.65m
13.99m
44m
15.00m
For the 747-8 the margin between outer main gear wheel and taxiway bridge edge is
equal as for the 747-400 and slightly larger than for the main gear wheel span upper limit
of Code Letter E.
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
2
It is also necessary to ensure that a fire-fighting vehicle will be able to attack an engine fire on an aircraft
stopped on the bridge; in the case of the B 747-8 on a code E (44m) bridge, this is made possible by the outer
engine span (21.6m) being lower than the bridge width.
Attachment A
Safety Analyses of Airfield Items
Boeing 747-8
31
RUNWAY END SAFETY AREA (RESA)
HAZARD ANALYSIS
ICAO BASELINE
SYNOPSIS
The width of a RESA shall be at least twice that of the associated runway. 120m for an associated
runway Code Letter F rwy; 90m for an associated runway Code Letter E rwy. [Std] A14 P3.5.4
The width of a RESA should, wherever practicable, be equal to that of the graded portion of the
associated runway strip. 150m for Code Number 3 and 4. [RP] A14 P3.5.5
The RESA is intended to provide protection beyond the runway strip to minimize damage when aircraft
undershoot or overshoot/overrun the rwy during landing or take-off. ADM Pt1 P5.4.1
Hazard identification
Risk 1
Runway overrun excursion at take-off
Risk 2
Runway undershoot or runway
overrun excursion at landing
Main causes and
accident factors
- Human factors (crew,
maintenance, balance, payload
security)
- Powerplant (engine failure,
ingestion)
- Surface conditions (aquaplaning,
snow)
- Aircraft (control surfaces, hydraulic
system, tyres)
- Human factors (crew,
maintenance)
- Aircraft (landing gear, control
surfaces, hydraulic system,
brakes, tyres)
- Powerplant (reverse)
- Surface conditions (aquaplaning,
snow)
- Weather conditions (tail wind,
visibility, inaccurate meteorological
information)
Theoretical
Severity
Major to Catastrophic depending on the aircraft speed.
In-service
BACG
CONCLUSIONS
RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk assessment
category
Main technical
materials
A (aircraft performance)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
747-400 (ft/m)
Span
224.4/68.4
213.0/64.9
Length
250.2/76.3
231.8/70.7
Height
64.2/19.6
64.0/19.5
747-8
747-400
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
Units
lb
kg
lb
kg
lb
kg
lb
kg
lb
kg
Three-class
(30) LD-1 or (5) 96-ft pallets
+ (14) LD-1
Max cargo
Maximum fuel capacity
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
US gal
L
Notes:
(1) Includes tail fuel, GE engines
(2) Basic (1 aux tank) / Max (2 aux tanks)
(3) GE engines
57,065 (1)
216,014
BOEING PROPRIETARY – PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT STUDY
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
60,305 (2)/63,545(2)
228,279/240,544
63,095 (3)
238,841
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
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
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
BOEING PROPRIETARY – PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT STUDY
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
COPYRIGHT © 2006 THE BOEING COMPANY
11/02/2010
747-8F vs. 747-400F Comparison
747-8F (ft/m)
747-400F (ft/m)
Span
224.4/68.4
213.0/64.9
Length
250.2/76.3
231.8/70.7
Height
64.2/19.6
64.0/19.5
747-8
747-400
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
747-8
747-400ER
777-300ER
A340-600
A380-800
Wingspan
224.4ft
(68.4 m)
213.0 ft
(64.9 m)
212.6 ft
(64.8 m)
208.0 ft
(63.4 m)
261.8 ft
(79.8 m)
Length
250.2 ft
(76.3 m)
231.8 ft
(70.7 m)
242.4 ft
(73.9 m)
247.4 ft
(75.4 m)
238.7 ft
(72.7 m)
Tail height (max)
64.2 ft
(19.6 m)
64.0 ft
(19.5 m)
61.4 ft
(18.7 m)
58.7 ft
(17.9 m)
80.2 ft
(24.4 m)
Wheelbase (to turning
centroid)
92.3 ft
(28.1 m)
79.1 ft
(24.1 m)
100.4 ft
(30.6 m)
108.9 ft
(33.2 m)
97.8 ft
(29.8 m)
Cockpit-to-main gear
100.0 ft
(30.5 m)
86.6 ft
(26.4 m)
112.2 ft
(34.2 m)
122.7 ft
(37.4 m)
104.6 ft
(31.9 m)
Main gear span (to outer tire
edges)
41.7 ft
(12.7 m)
41.3 ft
(12.6 m)
42.3 ft
(12.9 m)
41.3 ft
(12.6 m)
46.9 ft
(14.3 m)
Outer engine span
136.7 ft
(41.7 m)
136.7 ft
(41.7 m)
63.0 ft
(19.2 m)
126.3 ft
(38.5 m)
168.6 ft
(51.4 m)
Wingtip height (min)
19.7 ft (est)
(6.0 m)
16.7 ft
(5.1 m)
23.6 ft
(7.2 m)
19.4 ft
(5.9 m)
17.1 ft
(5.2 m)
Max taxi weight
978,000 lb
(443,610 kg)
913,000 lb
(414,130 kg)
777,000 lb
(352,440 kg)
840,400 lb
(381,200 kg)
1,258,000 lb
(571,000 kg)
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 21º 48'
(747-400 22º 0')
747-8 8.72 m
(747-400 8.70 m)
747-8 18º 38'
(747-400 18º 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.
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
56.5 in*
(1.44 m)
typ.
* 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
Inner approach
120 m
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
Runway edge
5 ft (1.5 m)
70 ft
(21.3 m)
150 ft
(45.7m)
Landing short
touchdown limit
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
0
-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
0
-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)
0
50 mph (80 km/h)
35 mph (56 km/h)
0
747-8
747-400ER
10
-50
~ 25’
(~ 7.6 m)
20
30
• Sea level, standard day
• Static A/P
• No wind
• All engines running
• 1.5% ground up-slope
•Steady state contours
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600 ft
0
30
A/P Tail
60
90
120
150
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
60
ft
300
200
75 mph (120 km/h)
50mph (80 km/h)
50 mph (80 km/h)
35 mph (56 km/h)
Distance from
A/P center line
30
100
0
0
30
100
747-8
747-400ER
60
90
• Sea level, standard day
• Static A/P
• No wind
• All engines running
•Steady state contours
200
300
0
0
500
100
1000
200
300
1500
400
2000
500
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
747-8 & 777 Turning Axis
777-300
777-300
42.3 ft
(12.9 m)
747-8
41.7 ft
(12.7 m)
747-8
92.3 ft (28.1m)
777-300
100.4 ft (30.6 m)
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
88 ft
26.8 m
777-300
92 ft
28.0 m
MD-11
100 ft
30.5 m
747-8
100 ft
30.5 m
DC-10
103 ft
31.4 m
747-400
106 ft
32.3 m
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
ICAO Code
Maximum steering angle,
no differential braking
Minimum width
of pavement
747-400
747-8
777-300ER
A340-600
A380-800
E
F
E
E
F
154 ft
(47 m)
170 ft
(52 m)
185 ft
(57 m)
186 ft
(57 m)
216 ft
(66 m)
U-turn width required can be reduced by using differential braking and/or asymmetrical thrust.
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 today’s 747’s
Gear nearest
turn center
Body
gear
angle
(deg)
Max 70 deg
13
0
Gear furthest
from turn center
13
70 65
70
0
70
65 70
Nose gear angle (deg)
Nose gear
Nose gear
Body gear
0 to 20 degrees
0
20 to 70 degrees
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
Incidents
7
Accidents
747-400 Veer-offs
Incidents: 5 Accidents: 2
6
5
Number 4
of events
3
2
1
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
B37
797-AO-0064 11-22-6-whp/CF
747 Takeoff/Landing Veeroffs
14
12
Takeoff (5yr)
Landing (5 yr)
10
Number
of events
8
6
4
2
0
70-75
76-80
81-85
86-90
91-95
96-00
01-05
Year
B38
797-AO-0066 11-16-06-whp/CF
747 Runway Veeroff Causes
Unknown
23%
Weather
32%
Load
4%
Pavement
0%
Personnel
(Pilot, ATC)
19%
Mechanical
22%
• 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)
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
4.0
In Millions
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
86-90
91-95
96-00
01-05
Years
B41
797-AO-0065 11-16-6-whp/CF
747 Takeoff and Landing Veer-off
Frequency by 747 Movement
• Continuous reduction over the years
1.0E-05
• Crew procedures and performance
improvements have contributed to
the reduction
9.0E-06
8.0E-06
Takeoff (5 yr)
Landing (5 yr)
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
91-95
96-00
01-05
5 Year Periods
B42
DS-747-2007-080 8-3-07 ets
747 Annual Taxiway Veeroff
Incidents and Accidents
5
• Only two accidents in 36 years
Incidents
4
Accidents
3
Number
of events
2
1
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
Unknown
36%
Weather
17%
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
91-95
96-00
01-05
Year
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
H4
H
H1 H2
Lowest Point on Tire
Drawing for demonstration only and is not to scale
B54
747-8 Intercontinental
Payload-Range Capability
200
90
180
80
747-8 Intercontinental/GEnx-2B67
975,000 lb MTOW
160
70
474,350 lb OEW
8,000 nmi design range
50
40
30
120
467 passengers
100
416 passengers
80
60
747-400/CF6-80C2B1F
875,000 lb MTOW
40
5
,06
57
20
Payload (1,000 lb)
60
city
apa
s
el c
lon
Fu
gal
S.
U.
095
63,
Payload (1,000 kg)
140
403,600 lb OEW
7,220 nmi design range
10
20
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Range (1,000 nmi)
0
•
•
•
•
•
2
4
Typical mission rules
Nominal fuel flow
Standard day
Passenger allowance: 210 lb/pass
Fuel density: 6.7 lb/USG
COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Range (1,000 km)
PRELIMINARY
11/02/2010
747-8 Intercontinental
Take-off Field Length
12.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Take-off field length (1,000 ft)
Take-off field length (1,000 m)
11.0
10.0
747-400/CF6-80C2B1F
9.0
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
400
450
Take-off gross weight (1,000 kg)
• Sea level
• ISA+27F (15C)
• Optimum take-off
COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY
PRELIMINARY
11/02/2010
747-8 Intercontinental
Landing Field Length
10.0
3.0
Landing field length (1,000 m)
2.5
2.0
Landing field length (1,000 ft)
9.0
1.5
8.0
7.0
747-400/CF6-80C2B1F
747-8/GEnx-2B67
6.0
5.0
4.0
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
1.0
Landing weight (1,000 lb)
200
250
300
350
Landing weight (1,000 kg)
• Sea level
• Standard day
• Flaps 30
COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY
PRELIMINARY
11/02/2010
747-8 Freighter
Payload Range Capability
350
747-8 Freighter/GEnx-2B67
Cargo density
140
975,000 lb MTOW
10 lb/cu ft
300
423,800 lb OEW
4,390 nmI design range
9 lb/cu ft
120
10 lb/cu ft
100
80
60
8 lb/cu ft
9 lb/cu ft
200
7 lb/cu ft
8 lb/cu ft
6 lb/cu ft
7 lb/cu ft
6 lb/cu ft
150
U.
ty
ci
s
pa
ca llon
el
a
F u S. g
Payload (1,000 lb)
Payload (1,000 kg)
250
747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F
100
40
94
,7
59
875,000 lb MTOW
360,900 lb OEW
50
0
0
4,450 nmI design range
65
,7
53
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Range (1,000 nm)
0
•
•
•
•
2
4
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Range (1,000 km)
Typical mission rules
Nominal fuel flow
Standard day
Fuel density: 6.7 lb/USG
COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY
6
PRELIMINARY
11/02/2010
747-8 Freighter
Take-off Field Length
12.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Take-off field length (1,000 ft)
Take-off field length (1,000 m)
11.0
10.0
9.0
747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F
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
400
450
Take-off gross weight (1,000 kg)
• 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
Landing field length (1,000 m)
2.5
2.0
Landing field length (1,000 ft)
9.0
1.5
8.0
7.0
747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F
6.0
747-8 Freighter/GEnx-2B67
5.0
4.0
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
1.0
Landing weight (1,000 lb)
200
250
300
350
Landing weight (1,000 kg)
• Sea level
• Standard day
• Flaps 30
COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY
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
3.0 degree glide slope
FD Pitch
(deg)
Flap
Setting
Eye
path to
ILS
beam
(ft) H2
ILS beam
to wheel
path
(feet) H
Eye path
to wheel
path
(feet) H1
ILS
antenna
above
wheels
(feet) H3
Pilots
Eye
above
wheels
(feet)
H4
FD Pitch
(deg) Flap
Setting
Eye path
to ILS
beam (ft)
H2
ILS beam
to wheel
path
(feet) H
Eye path
to wheel
path
(feet) H1
ILS
antenna
above
wheels
(feet) H3
Pilots
Eye
above
wheels
(feet) H4
747-400
747-400ER
747-400ERF
5.0
25.0
21.0
23.4
44.4
19.4
40.3
4.5
21.0
23.4
44.4
18.6
39.4
747-8I
4.6
25.0
21.0
24.6
45.5
19.9
40.8
4.1
21.0
24.6
45.6
19.0
39.8
747-8F
4.4
25.0
21.0
24.2
45.2
19.6
40.4
3.9
20.9
23.3
44.2
18.6
39.4
Vertical distances between critical points on aircraft at minimum pitch attitude (VREF+5) (ILS)
Aircraft
Model
2.5 degree glide slope
3.0 degree glide slope
FD Pitch
(deg)
Flap
Setting
Eye
path to
ILS
beam
(ft) H2
ILS beam
to wheel
path
(feet) H
Eye path
to wheel
path
(feet) H1
ILS
antenna
above
wheels
(feet) H3
Pilots
Eye
above
wheels
(feet)
H4
FD Pitch
(deg) Flap
Setting
Eye path
to ILS
beam (ft)
H2
ILS beam
to wheel
path
(feet) H
Eye path
to wheel
path
(feet) H1
ILS
antenna
above
wheels
(feet) H3
Pilots
Eye
above
wheels
(feet) H4
747-400
747-400ER
747-400ERF
2.5
30.0
20.9
19.4
40.3
15.3
36.1
2.0
20.9
19.4
40.3
14.5
35.2
747-8I
2.6
30.0
20.9
20.9
41.8
16.2
36.9
2.1
20.9
20.9
41.8
15.3
36.0
747-8F
2.8
30.0
20.9
21.3
42.2
16.6
37.3
2.3
20.9
21.3
42.2
15.6
36.4
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
A380
-800
B747-8*
C5
An
124
Code E
A340
-600
B747400ER
B777
-300ER
Wing
span
65m up to but
not including
80m
79.8m
68.4m
67.9m
73.3m
52m up to but
not including
65m
63.4m
64.9m
64.8m
Outer
main gear
wheel
span
14m up to but
not including
16m
14.3m
12.7m
11.4m
8.0m
9m up to but
not including
14m
12.6m
12.6m
12.9m
FAA Airplane Design Groups
Group VI
A380
-800
B747-8*
C5
An 124
Group V
A340
-600
B747400ER
B777
-300ER
Wing
span
214 ft up to but
not including
262 ft
261.8 ft
224.4 ft
222.8 ft
240.5 ft
171 ft up to but
not including
214 ft
208.0 ft
212.9 ft
212.6 ft
Tail
Height
66 ft up to but
not including
80 ft
80.1 ft
64.2 ft
60 ft up to but
not including
66 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
Code E
A380-800
(m / ft)
B747-8*
(m / ft)
C5
(m / ft)
An 124
(m / ft)
A340-600
(m / ft)
B747-400ER
(m / ft)
B777-300ER
(m / ft)
70.4
74.2
70.3
69.9
73.5
68.6
73.1
Overall length
72.7 / 238.7
76.3 / 250.2
75.5 / 247.7
69.9 / 229.3
75.3 / 247.4
70.7 / 231.8
73.9 / 242.4
Fuselage width
7.1 / 23.3
6.5 / 21.3
7.1 / 23.3
7.3 / 23.9
5.6 / 18.4
6.5 / 21.3
6.2 / 20.3
Fuselage height at OEW
10.9 / 35.7
10.2 / 33.5
9.3 / 30.5
10.2 / 33.5
8.5 / 27.9
10.2 / 33.5
8.7 / 28.5
Main Deck sill height***
5.4 / 17.7
5.4 / 17.7
2.7 / 8.9
2.8 / 9.2
5.7 / 18.7
5.4 / 17.7
5.5 / 18.0
Upper Deck sill height***
8.1 / 26.6
7.9 / 25.9
7.1 / 23.3
7.5 / 24.6
-
7.9 / 25.9
-
Tail height at OEW
24.1 / 79.1
19.6 / 64.3
19.9 / 65.3
21.0 / 98.9
17.4 / 57.1
19.5 / 64.0
18.7 / 61.4
Wingspan
79.8 / 261.8
68.4 / 224.4
67.9 / 222.8
73.3 / 240.5
63.4 / 208.0
64.9 / 212.9
64.8 / 212.6
-
-
-
-
63.6 / 208.7
64.9 / 212.9
-
Wingspan (jig)##
79.8 / 261.8
68.5 / 224.7
67.9 / 222.8
73.3 / 240.5
63.4 / 208.0
64.4 / 211.3
64.8 / 212.6
Wingtip vertical clearance at
TOW
~5.3 / 17.4
~6.0 / 19.7
3.2 / 10.5
3.7 / 12.1
6.0 / 19.7
5.1 / 16.7
7.2 / 23.6
Wingtip vertical clearance at
OEW
~6.1 / 20.0
~6.6 / 21.6
4.0 / 13.1
Unknown
6.2 / 20.3
5.7 / 18.7
7.5 / 24.6
Maximum wing tip height at TOW
~7.5 / 24.6
~7.6 / 24.9
3.2 / 10.5
3.7 / 12.1
7.6 / 24.9
6.7 / 22.0
7.2 / 23.6
Maxmimu wing tip height at OEW
~8.3 / 27.2
~8.2 / 26.9
4.0 / 13.1
Unknown
7.8 / 25.6
7.3 / 23.9
7.5 / 24.6
7.2 / 23.6
20°
max 19.8 / 65.0
8.72 / 28.6
18.6°
24.9 / 81.7
8.2 / 26.9
Unknown
Unknown
8.3 / 27.2
Unknown
Unknown
5.7 / 18.7
20°
15.7 / 51.5
8.70 / 28.5
18.4°
25.8 / 84.6
5.9 / 19.4
21°
14.6 / 47.9
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Pilot-to-nose landing gear
distance
2.1 / 6.9
2.3 / 7.5
5.0 / 16.4
2.4 / 7.9
4.3 / 14.1
2.3 / 7.5
3.6 / 11.8
Pilot-to-Main landing gear
distance
31.8 / 104.3
29.9 / 98.1
27.2 / 89.2
25.3 / 83.0
37.4 / 122.7
26.4 / 86.6
34.2 / 112.2
Fuselage length
Wingspan (full fuel)#
Cockpit view at OEW:
- Cockpit height
- Cockpit cut-off angle
- Obscured segment
Taxi camera
~
*
***
#
##
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
Code E
A380-800
B747-81
C5
An 124
A340-600
B747-400ER B777-300ER
Weights
(t / 1,000 lb)
(t / 1,000 lb)
(t / 1,000 lb)
(t / 1,000 lb)
(t / 1,000 lb)
(t / 1,000 lb) (t / 1,000 lb)
MRW
571 / 1,259
444 / 978
381 / 840
402 / 886
381 / 840
414 / 913
352 / 777
MTOW
569 / 1,254
442 / 975
380 / 838
398 / 877
380 / 838
351 / 775
392 / 862
309 / 682
288 / 365
330 / 727
265 / 584
251 / 554
(m / ft)
(m / ft)
(m / ft)
(m / ft)
(m / ft)
413 / 910
296 / 652
302 / 6662
(m / ft)
Wheel track
12.5 / 41.0
11.0 / 36.1
7.9 / 25.9
6.3 / 20.7
10.7 / 35.1
11.0 / 36.1
11.0 / 36.1
Outer main gear wheel span
14.3 / 46.9
12.7 / 41.7
11.4 / 37.4
8.0 / 26.2
12.6 / 41.3
12.6 / 41.3
12.9 / 42.3
Wheel base3
29.8 / 97.8
28.1 / 92.3
22.2 / 72.8
22.9 / 75.1
33.2 / 108.9
24.1 / 79.1
30.6 / 100.4
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
FA
59
63
25
42
66
57
64
FB
64
70
29
48
71
63
71
FC
76
87
37
61
83
78
89
FD
107
110
54
86
118
100
120
RA
57
64
28
36
64
59
66
RB
68
75
34
49
73
69
85
RC
89
88
44
74
86
81
109
RD
111
101
56
101
99
92
131
MLW
Landing gear dimensions
Main gear steering
system4
(m / ft)
ACN – Flexible5
ACN - Rigid
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 ACN’s are based on Alpha Factors approved by ICAO in October 2007. Aircraft footprints and ACN curves are available in Section 7
of the respective “Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning” document in the manufacturer website (Appendix B)
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
Aircraft
U-turn width (m / ft)
Wheelbase (m / ft)
Track (to outside tire edge) (m / ft)
E
747-400
47.0 / 154
24.1 / 79
12.6 / 41.3
D
MD11
49 / 161
24.7 / 81.2
12.6 / 41.3
F
747-8
51.8 / 170
28.1 / 92.3
12.7 / 41.7
E
777-300
56.5 / 185
30.6 / 100.4
12.9 / 42.3
E
A340-600
56.7 / 186
33.2 / 109
12.6 / 41.3
F
A380-800
65.7 / 216
29.7 / 97.5
14.3 / 47
Assumes symmetric thrust and no braking. Note that the U-turn width has little relation to the code letter.
Engine data
Code F
Code E
Engine data
A380-800
B747-8*
C5
An 124
A340600
B747400ER
B777300ER
Number of engines
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
Bypass ratio
8.7
8.1
8.0
~5.7
7.5
5.3
~7
67 k
41 k
52 k
56 k
61 k
115 k
Engine thrust (pounds)
70 k
77 k**
Engine span (CL to CL)
51.4m
41.7m
37.7m
37.9m
38.5m
41.7m
19.2m
Engine vertical clearance at MTOW
(m / ft)
1.1 / 3.6 (inner)
1.9 / 6.2 (outer)
0.6 / 2.0
1.3 / 4.3
2.5 / 8.2
1.7 / 5.6
3.5 / 11.5
3.1 / 10.2
0.5 / 1.6
1.6 / 5.2
0.7 / 2.3
1.4 / 4.6
0.9 / 3.0
Reverser system
Only inboard thrust reversers
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
~ Symbol indicates “approximate”
* Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change.
** Freighter version values provided where appropriate
*** Center of thrust is 0.3m higher than 747-400ER
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
Code E
A380-800
B747-8*
C5
An 124
A340-600
B747-400ER
B777-300ER
555
467
-
-
380
416
365
186 000 /
49,100
350,000 /
92,500
~475
131,000 /
34,600
550
78,206 /
20,700
0
0
8,300 / 2,200
Centre fuel tank capacity (litres / US gallons)#
0
660
165,000 /
43,600
12,490 /
3,300
64,973 /
17,200
243,000 /
64,200
660
Tail empennage fuel tank capacity (litres / US
gallons)#
~800
287 000 /
75,800
23,000 /
6,000
0
0
186,000 /
49,100
350,000 /
92,500
3-class reference layout
Maximum passenger carrying capacity
Wing fuel tank capacity (litres / US gallons)#
Maximum fuel carrying capacity (litres / US gallons)
310,000 /
81,900
56,000 /
14,800
194,878 /
51,500
138,924 / 36,700
12,490 / 3,300
0
64,973 / 17,200
228,538 / 60,400***
204,333 / 54,000**
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
Code E
A380-800
747- 8*
C5
An 124
A340-600
B747400ER
B777300ER
~1.0°
~3.0°
Unknown
Unknown
3.5°
3.0°
~3.0°
Approach speed
~145kt
153kt,
159kt**
~135kt
~124kt
154kt
158kt
~150kt
Start of visual segment (m / ft)
88 / 290
Approach attitude at 3° glide slope
~ 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
103 / 338ft
B61
797-CO-0264 11-28-06-whp/CF
BACG Attachment C: Listing of Studies and References Relating to ICAO Annex 14 SARP’s
Nb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Title
Runways
Shoulders
Lights /
Signs
Runway
Strip
Runway
End
Safety
Area
OFZ
Holding
Points
Width of
straight
taxiway
Width of
curved
taxiway
Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume I — Aerodrome
Design and Operations, 4th edition, July 2004, ICAO
Straight
and
curved
taxiway
shoulders
X
Bridges ,
Tunnels
and
Culverts
Taxiway Minimum
Separation Distances
Rwy-Twy
Aprons
Twy-Twy
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)
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
X
X
X
X
BACG Attachment C: Listing of Studies and References Relating to ICAO Annex 14 SARP’s
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
Aprons
Twy-Twy
Amsterdam Airport, Schipol, 2001, Amsterdam Airport,
Schipol (1) (5)
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
16
Study of the accomodation of the Airbus A380 on
runways 1 and 2 of Paris-Charles de Gaulle (runway
widths and shoulders), April 2005, ADP and CAAFrance
17
Air Navigation Plan - ICAO European Region - Reduced
Separation Distances, 2001, ICAO Europe (5)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
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
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
X
X
X
X
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
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Available at AdP
X
Available at Sydney Airport Corporation
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
X
BACG Attachment C: Listing of Studies and References Relating to ICAO Annex 14 SARP’s
Nb
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
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
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
Taxiway Minimum
Separation Distances
Rwy-Twy
Aprons
Twy-Twy
X
x
x
x
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
Circular 305 - Operation of New Larger Aeroplanes at
Existing Aerodromes, June 2004, ICAO
1
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
TWY centerline and
TWY centerline
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
Formula
Wing span
+ max. lateral dev. (x)
+ increment (z)
= TOTAL
½ wing span
+ max. lateral dev. (x)
+ increment (z)
= TOTAL
½ wing span
+ gear deviation (x)
+ increment (z)
= TOTAL
½ wing span
+ gear deviation (x)
+ increment (z)
= TOTAL
ICAO Annex 14
Volume 1
EUR ANP
Part III-AOP
EUR ANP
Part III-AOP
AACG
Curved and straight TWY
Curved TWY
Straight TWY
Curved and straight TWY
747-400
747-400
A380-800
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
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
80
11 (x + z)
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
91 ****
40
9 (x + z)
49
40
7.5 (x + z)
47.5
40
7.5 (x + z)
47.5 ###
* AOPG rationale for TWY-TWY separation was based on the previous ICAO assumption that aircraft on both taxiways veering toward each other by
4.5m. This value was reduced to 2.5m by AOPG.
** Reduced maximum lateral deviation of 2.5m provided that proper taxi guidance is available.
*** Main gear track-in is up to 4m on curved taxiways.
**** On curved parallel taxiways, 11m clearance is maintained but the separation may not be 91m.
# Safety buffer is reduced due to height limited objects.
## Wingtip clearance of an aircraft turning from a taxilane into an aircraft stand should not be less than 7.5m as recommended in Annex 14.
### Depending on local conditions, decision on reduced margins for height limited objects by each authority and/or airport operator.
Doc 7754
* _
European Region
Air Navigation Plan
Volume I, Basic ANP
Not to be used for operational purposes
-
First edition 2001
International Civil Aviation Organization
111-1
Part IlI
AERODROME OPERATIONAL PLANNING (AOP)
Aerodrome services
GENERAL
1. For regular and alternate aerodromes used for
international operations, the general physical characteristics,
marking, visual aids and services should be in accordance
with the relevant ICAO provisions.
AIRPORTS
Physical characteristics
.
.
2. The 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.
_..
'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
Rescue and fire fighting services
6. Rescue and fire fighting services at international
aerodromes should be provided at the required level of
protection, as expressed by means of required aerodrome
category for rescue and fire fighting in accordance with
Annex 14, Volume I and reflected in Table AOP 1 of the
FASID.
[Annex 14, Volume I, 9.21
7. Rescue and fire fighting services at international
aerodromes should be capable of meeting the specified
response time and be kept in a state of readiness throughout
those times when the aerodrome is available for use.
[Annex 14, Volume I, 9.21
Runway surfaces
8. In amplification of relevant provisions in Annex 14,
Volume I, runway surfaces should be constructed andor
treated so as to ensure continuous good friction characteristics when wet. Runway markings should consist of non-slip
materials.
[Annex 14, Volume I, 3.1.22 and 5.21
Runway visual range
9. In order to facilitate aircraft operations in low
visibility, runway visual range (RVR) information should be
available for runways intended for use when either the
horizontal visibility or the RVR is less than 1 500 m. The
provision of such information is essential for CAT I1 and
CAT IIi operations.
10. A secondary power supply should be provided for
RVR observing systems which use instrumental means. Local
AOP
r
111-5
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).
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.
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
distances do not adversely affect the safety or significantly
affect the regularity of operations of aeroplanes. Experience
in some States with operation of B747-400 has shown that it
may be permissible, if specific measures have been
implemented to reduce separation distances on taxiways,
apron taxiways and aircraft stand taxilanes to the dimensions
specified in Attachment H to Part 111- AOP of the EüR
FASID. (Cf. Aerodrome Design Manual (DOC9157), Part 2,
Table 1-4.)
40. The provision of unambiguous and conspicuous
taxi guidance to pilots under all operational conditions
prevailing at the aerodrome by 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).
44. In straight portions of a taxiway or apron taxiway
Note.- Material on the impact of operations of NLA on
aerodromes is presented in Attachment F to Part I l l -AOP
of the EUR FASID.
39. Where the minimum separatiodclearance distances
as specified in Annex 14, Volume I, Table 3-1 cannot be
provided by the existing layout of an aerodrome, States may
introduce lower separation standards provided that an
aeronautical study indicates that such lower separation
Lt
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
less than 45.5 m (Attachment H to Part 111 - AOP of the
EUR FASID refers).
EUR BASIC ANP
111-6
Reduced separation distances on
aircraft stand tarilanes
. 46.
On aircraft stand taxilanes where reduced
separation distances exist proper guidance such as centre line
lights or equivalent guidance (e.g. marshaller, etc.) should be
provided for night, winter or low visibility operations.
47. All objects not providing the minimum
separatiodclearance distance as specifiedin Annex 14 should
be properly marked or lighted (Annex 14, Chapter 5 refers).
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.
48. Apron service roads should be properly marked
with service road boundary lines and apron safety lines
(Annex 14, Chapter 5 refers).
CAPACITY
49. Along straight portions of an aircraft stand taxilane
the separation distance between the centre line and an object
such as a parked aircraft or a building should be not less than
40 m, whereas the wing tip clearance of an aircraft turning
from a taxilane into an aircraft stand should not be less than
7.5 m as recommended in Annex 14, Chapter 3, 3.12.6.
Note.- The separation distance between the taxilane
centre line and an object or edge of a service road may
further be reduced to not less than 37.5 m provided that the
object (e.g. 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.
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).
r)
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.
.
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.
.
.
.
/ .
I
56. Consultation procedures should be established
between airport authorities and users commensurate with
local conditions and appropriate to the specific purpose the
consultation process is intended to serve (capacity
assessmenildemand forecasting, etc.).
57. Regular consultation between airport authority and
users should preferably be effected by local working groups
composed of all parties involved, including ATS where
applicable. Alternatively, a local group may be replaced by a
national committee.
58. At airports where environmental concerns prevail
with apotential impact on airport capacity adialogue-oriented
activity with communities will be required in which users
should actively participate.
Airport capacity assessment
and requirement
59. The declaredcapacity/demandcondition at airports
should be periodically reviewed in terms of a qualitative
.
.
i.’ .
...;,.;j
EUR BASIC ANP
111-1 0
Aerodrome control service and surface
movement guidance and control systems
(SMGCS)
Note.- Material on the application of advanced SMGCS
is presented in Amchment G to Part I l l -AOP of the EUR
FASID.
91. Where the traffic density is high and the layout of
the airfield is complex, the implementation of surface
movement radar (SMR) should be considered when the
procedural aerodrome control service is a limiting factor for
the overall air traffic services and the traffic volume. (Air
Traffic Services Planning Manual (Doc 9426), Part 11,
Section 5 and Manual of Surface Movement Guidance and
Control Systems (SMGCS)
(Doc 9476) also refer.)
92. Guidance material has been produced on SMR
identification procedures. In order to harmonize the use of
SMR in the region, it is recommended that these procedures
be implemented to allow more effective use of SMR. Where
SMR identification procedures are already in operation it is
recommended that they be reviewed taking into account the
guidance material now available.
Note.- Guidance material on SMR identijkation
procedures is contained in ICAO Doc 9426, Air Traffic
Services Planning Manual, Part 11, Section 5, Chapter 4.
93. Due to the difficulty in maintaining aircraft and
vehicle identification on primary SMR displays only,
significant increases in ATS capacity can be achieved when
identification labelling is made available.
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.
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
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
Note.- Identification labelling trials and development
are taking place in certain States.
94. In order to fully exploit capacity gains, the
advanced surface movement guidance and control systems
(SMGCS)must operate from runway to parking position and
vice versa. The use of advanced SMGCS will require the
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
B747-400Operations
Note.- Material on the impact of NLA on aerodromes is
presented in Attachment F to Part III - AOP of the EUR
FASID.
98. Where the minirnumseparatiodclearancedistances
as specified in Annex 14, Volume 1, Table 3-1, do not permit
B747-400 operations at existing airports the following
options to overcome such problems should be considered by
the appropriate authority in consultation with the operators:
- apply selective taxi routes where feasible;
- remove objects where feasible;
- reduce size of aircraft stands where feasible;
- implement reduced separation distances.
p:
111-11
AOP
r
Note.- Although these options may have a degrading
effect on either the provision of suitable stands or on the
ground movement capacity/efiiciency of the aerodrome, they
should however be given particular attention so as to permit
best and early B747-400operations.
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, 3.8.7and Table 3-1are not
being provided, lower separationklearance distances may be
introduced conditional to the prior conduct of an aeronautical
study substantiating that there are no consequential adverse
effects on the safety or regularity of operations at the
aerodrome and by taking specific measures.
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.
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.).
102. Where on aircraft stand taxilanes or stands,
objects do not exceed a height of 3 m above the relative apron
surface, the clearance distances may be further reduced
accounting for the fact that the minimum wingtip height of a
B747-400 is more than 5 m above the ground.
Reduced runway declared distances
for take-ofl
103. At aerodromes regularly used by international
commercial air transport, take-Offs from runway/taxiway
intersections may be justified for the following reasons:
a) runway capacity improvement;
b) taxi routes distances reduction;
c) noise alleviation; and
d) air pollution reduction.
104. To this end, the appropriate authorities should,
upon prior consultation with aircraft operators, agree on the
selection of suitable intermediate intersection take-off
positions along the runway(s). Accordingly, authorities
should determine the reduced runway declared distances for
take-off associated with each selected intersection take-off
position and establish the specific ATC rules and operational
procedureshimitations. Such provisions should be published
in the State AIP.
Note.- Detailed operational requirements governing the
implementation of reduced runway declared distances for
rake-off are contained in 31 to 36. Additional guidance is
contained in Part 111 -AOP of the EUR FASID.
Ill-F1
Attachment F
IMPACT OF OPERATIONS OF
NEW LARGER AEROPLANES (NLA) ON AERODROMES
(Paragraph 98, Part 111- AOP of the EUR Basic ANP refers)
SURVEY ON B 747-400 OPERATIONS
IN THE ICAO EUROPEAN REGION
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:
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.
Code
letter
E
11 E I1
TWYI
distance
distance
object
distance
182.5 m
(180.0m)
80 m
(76.5m)
47.5 m
(46.5 m)
Taxilanel
object
distance
The ICAO survey:
- highlights the main problemskoncerns raised by NLA
(B747-400) operations;
I
42.5 m
(40.0 m)
(Distances in brackets refer to those approved by
Amendment 38 to Annex 14.)
2. Lower separation distances at an existing aerodrome
may be permitted ifan aeronautical study indicates that such
lower separation distances, together with the conditional
implementation of specific measures, would not effect the
safety and the regularity of operations of aeroplanes.
Note.- Guidance on relevant factors which may be
considered in an aeronautical study is given in the
Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 2 (Doc 9157).
- indicates that lower separation distances, used at some
major aerodromes, do not effect the safety of NLA
operations.
5. The “ICAO Survey” showed the NLA-related
problems concerning terminal, apron and manoeuvring area
as well as the reduced separation distances, used at some
aerodromes.
TERMINAL (Building)
6. Terminal limitations such as Check-in concourse,
waiting lounge, customs, security, baggage claim area, gate
occupancy, car parking, access roads, etc., are related to
passenger capacity of aircraft. Hence the B 747-300 (wing
span 60 m) problems occurring at airports are not B 747-400
(NLA)-related.
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.
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.
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.
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)
EUR ANP
Part 111 -AOP
EUR ANP
Pari 111
-AOP
Max. wing span 65 m
(Code E)
NIA
0747-400
NLA
0747-400
Separation distances
between
Formula
Curved and straight W
Curved TWY
Straight TWY
1
2
3
4
5
Taxiway centre line and
taxiway centre line
wing span
+ 2x max. lateral dev. +
increment
= TOTAL
TaxiwaylApron taxiway
centre line and object
Aircraft stand taxilane
centre line and object
YZ wing span
t max. lateral dev.
+ increment
= TOTAL
YZ wing span
#
32.5
4.5
10.5
47.5
= TOTAL
32.5
2.5
7.5
42.5
YZ wing span
+ max. gear deviation
+ increment
= TOTAL
32.5
2.5
7.5
42.5
+ max. lateral dev.
t increment
Aircraft stand taxilane
center line and 3 m-heightlimited object or edge of
service road
65
9
6
80
#
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
ti.
#
0
65
5
6
76
#
32.5
2.5
6.5
0
41.5
**
#
##
0
32.5
2.5
5
40
32.5
2.5
2.5
37.5
..
#
0
tt
ttt
0
+**+
ot
ttt
0
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.
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
Page 1
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
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
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
TWY-TWY
SEP (m)
TWY-OBJ
SEP
COMMENTS
108N
93NW
54
93S
54
98E
57
93W
54
57
100SE
100NW
93S
91N
90S
210S
120SE
10/21/2008
BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS
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
Page 2
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)
TWY-OBJ
SEP
COMMENTS
120NW
120NW
Not verified
73SW
79W
80S
75NE
90SE
100NW
100S
100N
81SW
83E
10/21/2008
BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS
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
AIRPORT
CITY
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
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
Page 3
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
TWY
WIDTH RWY-TWY
(m)
SEP (m)
23
183NE
23
293NE
23
240E
30
180W
30
330W
TWY-TWY
SEP (m)
TWY-OBJ
SEP
COMMENTS
110NE
150NE
No-Parallels
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
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
81N
Not verified
78E
90W
300S
100E
Not verified
100W
112SW
114NE
114W
114E
80NW
10/21/2008
BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS
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 WADETROIT, MI.
UNST
DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI.
UNST
DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI.
UNST
DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI.
UNST
DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI.
UNST
DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI.
UNST
DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, 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
Page 4
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
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
TWY-TWY
SEP (m)
TWY-OBJ
SEP
COMMENTS
157NW
70SE
91NE
78SW
91W
103S
No-Parallels
A
Z
L
T
A
B
A
C
C
S
W
A
B
M
N
B
K
P
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
100E
80S
212NE
10/21/2008
BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS
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 INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX.
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX.
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX.
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX.
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX.
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX.
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX.
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX.
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX.
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX.
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, 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
Page 5
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
COMMENTS
No-Parallels
100SE
100NW
100SW
100NE
91N
100E
100E
110S
108N
110NE
90W
10/21/2008
BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS
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 INTERNATIOJOHANNESBURG
JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIOJOHANNESBURG
JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIOJOHANNESBURG
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
Page 6
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
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
TWY-TWY
SEP (m)
TWY-OBJ
SEP
COMMENTS
90E
91NW
91SW
91NE
No-Parallels
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
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
100NW
100NW
100SW
105NE
80N
90S
91N
10/21/2008
BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS
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
Page 7
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
TWY-OBJ
SEP
COMMENTS
77N
80SW
91W
102E
185E
84W
Not verified
88E
91S
90N
71NE
80N
10/21/2008
BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS
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
Page 8
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
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
TWY-TWY
SEP (m)
TWY-OBJ
SEP
COMMENTS
109SE
120S
120N
179W
85W
No-Parallels
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
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
100E
87E
190E
77SW
109N
105N
105NE
105NE
10/21/2008
BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS
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
Page 9
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
COMMENTS
80SE
100W
Not verified
78N
91N
78N
81S
75S
120SW
Non-Parallels
81NE
10/21/2008
BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS
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
Page 10
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)
TWY-OBJ
SEP
COMMENTS
93E
55E
73SW
85E
100W
100E
65NE
No-Parallels
81W
81E
150SE
80E
110SE
100NW
10/21/2008
BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS
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
AIRPORT
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
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
Page 11
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
COMMENTS
92NW
81NE
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