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

3.1 Introduction ...... 5

3.2 Runways ...... 7

3.3 Taxiways ...... 8

3.4 Runway Separations...... 9

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

3.6 Other items...... 13

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

Annex 1 Recommendation Letter from BACG Aviation Authorities

Attachment A Safety Analysis of Airfield Items Safety analysis that led to the BACG conclusions Attachment B Physical Characteristics and Performance of 747-8 Airplane dimensional data; low speed flying characteristics; jet-blast contours; 747 historical runway veer-off data, etc. Attachment C Reference Material – Studies, Analysis, Working Papers, and Reports Available documentation on aircraft operations Attachment D AOPG vs. AACG Operational guidelines for 747-400 developed through Aerodrome Operations Planning Group (ICAO European Region) vs. AACG (A380) Attachment E AOP Doc 7754 Extract Extract from EUR ANP Part III-AOP Attachment F Runway-Taxiway Separations Taxiway separation data of world airports Attachment G Runway-Taxiway Separations – U.S. FAA Standard FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 10, dated 29 September 2006 Attachment H U.S. FAA Modification of Standards (MOS) Process Process and procedures for deviating from published FAA standard Attachment I 45M Wide Runway Operational Approval Current status on 747-8 approval process with FAA

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:

- Agree and promote that any deviation from these ICAO specifications should be supported by appropriate aeronautical studies and relevant risk analysis. - Report its work and findings to ICAO through the appropriate channels so that the latter may use such data for the development of future provisions - Seek to influence the application of the agreed specifications for the operation of the 747-8 aircraft within national regulatory frameworks - Co-operate with other international organizations and working groups dealing with NLA operations - Enable the work of the BACG to be disseminated globally

1.2 Purpose of the document

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

- Items of aerodrome infrastructure that may be affected by the introduction of the Boeing 747-8 aircraft - ICAO Recommended Practices relating to those items, and - For any areas of non-compliance, to show appropriate mitigation, if required, proposed by the BACG to ensure the safe operation of the 747-8 aircraft at aerodromes currently unable to meet ICAO Code Letter F aerodrome Standards and Recommendations.

Operational guidelines developed for the 747-8 are recommendations proposed by an informal group. It is stressed that the authority to approve any deviation from ICAO Annex 14 specifications shall rest solely with the state having jurisdiction over the aerodrome.

No provision contained herein shall be construed so as to have a binding effect on any such Authority with respect to the approval of any such deviation.

1.3 Primary conditions of application

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

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 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 = ICAO Recommended Practices Annex 14 Paragraph 3.8.3 [Std] = ICAO Standard ADM Pt2 = Aerodrome Design Manual part 2 SARP = Standards And Recommended Practices Rwy = Runway Twy = Taxiway NLA = New Large Aircraft FOD = Foreign Object Damage OPS = Operations ARFF = Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting OFZ = Obstacle Free Zone OLS = Obstacle Limitation Surface OCP = Obstacle Clearance Panel IIWG = International Infrastructure Working Group JAR 25 = Joint Aviation Requirements for Large Aeroplane JAR AWO = Joint Aviation Requirements All Weather Operations OCA/H = Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height RTO = Rejected Take-Off RESA = Runway End Safety Area WP = Working Paper

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 Runways

Item Runway width Width of Runway shoulder The width of a rwy should be not less than 45m where the The rwy shoulders should extend symmetrically on each code letter is E, 60m where the code letter is F. side of the rwy so that overall width of rwy and its [RP] A14 P3.1.10 shoulders is not less than 60m where the code letter is E and 75m where the code letter is F. Strength of rwys: A rwy should be capable of withstanding [RP] A14 P3.2.3 the traffic of aeroplanes the rwy is intended to serve. [RP] A14 P3.1.21 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, ICAO SARPs and ADM 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 Planning to Accommodate Future Aircraft Development, - No specific justification material available on rwy discusses increasing the rwy width to 60m for NLA due to shoulder width. 20m main gear wheel span and “other (undefined) factors” ICAO ADM Pt1 P6 Rationale

A minimum central 45m of pavement of full load bearing - Compliance with the minimum 60m ICAO Code Letter strength shall be provided. E runway + shoulders width (equal to Code Letter E runway) - Minimum of 2x7.5m wide shoulders on existing 45m wide rwys

Depending on local conditions, decision on the composition and thickness of rwy shoulders to be taken by each national authority and/or airport operator.

If relevant to local conditions, snow removal and ice BACG Agreement control as recommended by ICAO (Doc 9137-AN/898) - Planned FAA operational approval on 45m wide runway. - Same outer engine span as other 747 models. - Outer main gear wheel span of 12.7m is similar to the - 56 km/h exhaust wake velocity contour width of 58.5m 747-400 (12.6m) and well within the Code Letter E limit at takeoff thrust for 747-8 (with planned GE engines) of 14m. and 56.1m for 747-400ER, both are within 60m Code - Numerous design changes from the 747-400 to improve Letter E shoulder width. 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

Justification Material 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 7 3.3 Taxiways

Taxiway shoulder width Item Width of straight taxiway Width of curved taxiway (straight and curved) Unless otherwise indicated, the Curves to ensure that when cockpit Overall width of twy + shoulders on requirements are applicable to all over twy centerline, outer main wheel straight portion:

types of twys. edge maintains 4.5m clearance from - 44m where code letter is E A14 P3.9 twy edge. - 60m where code letter is F [RP] A14 P3.9.6 [RP] A14 P3.10.1 Minimum clearance between outer main wheel and twy edge: 4.5m for ADM Pt2 p1.2.9 and ADM Pt2 The surface should be so prepared as both E and F p1.2.22 + table 1-3 to resist erosion and ingestion of the [RP] A14 P 3.9.3 surface material by aeroplane engines. Width of a straight portion: [RP] A14 P3.10.2 - 23m for code letter E - 25m for code letter F Intended to protect an a/c operating [RP] A14 P 3.9.5 on the twy and to reduce the risk of ICAO SARPs and ADM damage to an a/c running off the twy. ADM Pt2 p1.6.1 ADM Pt2 p1.6.2+ table 1-1 - Twy width = 2 x clearance distance Origin of the 4.5m clearance distance - No specific justification material from wheel to pavement edge + unknown available on taxiway shoulder width max wheel track - 60m was agreed at ICAO ADSG/1 Code Letter E: 23m=2x4.5m+14m based on 56km/h breakaway Code Letter F: 25m=2x4.5m+16m velocity contour width for the NLA ICAO ADM Pt2 p1.2.7+ table 1-1 (747-600X) with outer engine span Rationale - Origin of the 4.5m clearance of 54m. distance unknown

- Minimum taxiway width of 23 Wheel-to-edge minimum clearance of - On straight portions, Code Letter E meters (equal to Code Letter E 4.5m for Code Letter E and F aircraft compliant: 44m wide strip to be requirements) protected against shoulder erosion - Wheel-to-edge minimum clearance and engine ingestion (paved or of 4.5m for Code Letter E and F natural surface) aircraft Depending on local conditions, decision on the width for curved portions, composition and thickness for straight and curved portions by BACG Agreement each national authority and/or airport operator. - Outer wheel span of 12.7m results No specific justification needed (refer - 747-8 outer engine span (41.7m) is

in outer tire edge to pavement edge to Airplane Characteristics for Airport same as other 747 models. (for 23m twy) compliant with the Planning for 747-8) - 747-8 breakaway exhaust velocity ICAO requirement of 4.5m contour width of 46.9m at 56 kph clearance. (35 mph) is same as the 747- - Various taxiway deviation studies 400ER.* conducted to date show that 4.5m - Height of outer engine center of clearance is adequate for safe thrust above ground is slightly taxiing. higher than 747-400ER. *Note: Breakaway thrust is momentary since the pilot will reduce power as soon as a/c starts to roll, Justification Material well before reaching the contour size shown.

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 8 3.4 Runway Separations

RWY to parallel TWY Item Obstacle Free Zone Runway holding positions separation 190m for instrument rwy or 115m for OFZ half width = Take-off rwy, non-instrument & non- non-instrument runway (may be - 60m for code letter E precision approach minimum holding reduced subject to aeronautical - 77.5m for code letter F position distances - no change study). - Inner transitional surface slope 1:3 compared with Code Letter E (75m). [RP] A 14 P3.9.8 + table 3-1 [Std] A14 P4.1.11 & 4.1.12 + 4.1.17 Precision approaches all CATs: columns 5 & 9 to 24, Table 4-1 Minimum holding position distances Note e) to Table 4-1 increased to 107.5m for Code Letter F ICAO Circular 305, section 4.70 Where the code letter is F (Column (3) of (90m for Code Letter E). (Hazard identification and analysis Table 1-1), the width is increased to 155 [RP] A14 table 3-2 footnote ‘c’ ICAO ADM part 2, section 1.2.31- m. For information on code letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics 32) that provide steering commands to A/C at precision approach holds not maintain an established track during the to interfere with the operation of Nav. go-around manoeuvre, see Circular 301 Aids

ICAO SARPS and ADM "New Larger Aeroplanes, Infringement of [Std] A14 P3.12.6 the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and Aeronautical Study" - Separation = ½ wing span + ½ strip Justifications in OCP meetings 107.5m based on Code Letter F OFZ width: Code Letter E: 182.5m = material and Circular 301, Part II, definition and on an aircraft with 24m ½x65m+½x300m Code Letter paragraph 1.3.1: 155m tail height, 62.2m distance nose- F:190m = ½x80m+½x300m for (Code Letter F) and 120m (Code highest tail part, 10m nose height, 45° instrument rwy. Letter E) or more holding ICAO - Origin of 300m rwy strip width Rationale unknown ADM Pt2 p1.2.19+ table 1-5

Collision risk: Code Letter E OFZ width of 120m Collision risk: For instrument runways: based on ICAO OCP work. - For take off and non-precision - ICAO Code Letter E separation of approach runways, minimum value

182.5m. 75m to be applied. - Lower separation could be - For precision approach runways, envisaged on the basis of a safety minimum value of 90m to be assessment, applied. For non-instrument runways: - Need of specific runway studies to - Minimum separation is 75m + half evaluate ILS interference risks in all wingspan the cases (no difference in 747-8 ILS effects: and 747-400 vertical tail size). Need for specific runway studies to BACG Agreement evaluate ILS interference risks in all cases (no difference in 747-8 and 747-400 vertical tail size).

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 9 Collision risk: ICAO Circular 301 states that when Collision risk: - Declining trend of 747 runway digital autopilot or flight director with - 747-8 meets Code Letter E OFZ veeroff frequency over the years track hold guidance is used for the applicability. - Wingspan being 68.4m, Code Letter approach, a Code Letter F airplane - 90m for Code Letter E for precision E design separation is degraded by can be contained within the Code rwy is applicable based on same only 1.7m increase in half-wingspan Letter E OFZ. nose and tail height as 747-400 (182.5m → 184.2m) A14 table 3-2 footnote b note 1. - Separation based on OFZ is - Lower collision risk than 747-400, (60+[3x19.6]) = 118.8m since the tail is further away from

- Separation based on taxiing 747-8 rwy centerline compared to aircraft clear of precision rwy graded strip is in A14 table 3-2 footnote b note 1. (105+34.2) = 139.2m ILS effects: Note: assumes 747-8 is largest aircraft - Recent studies and ICAO work using the airport indicates that vertical tail size is critical, not span, and that the size ILS effects: of the sensitive and critical areas - Recent studies and ICAO work and the operational impact of indicate that vertical tail size is infringement of CSAs should be

Justification Material critical, not span, and that the size reassessed. Hence, the need for of the sensitive and critical areas specific runway studies. and the operational impact of - However, the vertical tail size of infringement of CSAs should be 747-8 is same as 747-400 which reassessed. Hence, the need for would imply an identical impact for specific runway studies. 747-8 and 747-400. - However, the vertical tail size of 747-8 is same as 747-400 which would imply an identical impact for 747-8 and 747-400.

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 10 3.5 Taxiway and Taxilane separations

Aircraft Stand Taxiway / Apron Parallel Taxiway Taxilane to Object Item taxiway to Object Clearance at the gate Separation Separation Separation (including service road and height limited object) Code Letter F twy Code Letter F twy Taxilane centerline to Minimum distance between centerline to twy centerline centerline to object object separation = 50.5m. a/c and obstacle = 7.5m but separation = 97.5m. separation = 57.5m. Possibility to operate with special circumstances on

Possibility to operate with Possibility to operate with lower separation distances nose-in stands may permit lower separation distances lower separation distances based on an aeronautical reduction based on an aeronautical based on an aeronautical study. a) between terminal study. study. [RP] A14 P3.9.8 + table 3- (including fixed pax [RP] A 14 P3.9.8 + table 3- [RP] A14 P3.9.8 + table 3- 1 column 12 bridge) and a/c nose and 1 column 10 1 column 11 b) over any portion of stand The distance shown provided with azimuth (above) may need to be guidance by a visual No specific safety buffers The taxiway strip should increased if jet exhaust docking guidance

ICAO SARPS and ADM for curved portion. provide an area clear of likely to be hazardous. [RP] system. A14 P3.9.8 Note 3 objects which may A14 P3.9.8 note 4 [RP] A14 P3.13.6 endanger a/c [RP] A14 P 3.11.3 - Separation = wingspan + - Separation twy to object = - Separation = ½ wingspan Origin of the 7.5m max lateral deviation + ½wingspan + max lateral + max. dev. + increment clearance distance increment deviation + increment Code Letter E: 42.5m = unknown Code Letter E: 80m = Code Letter E: 47.5m = ½x65m+2.5m+7.5m 65m+4.5m+10.5m ½x65m+4.5m+10.5m Code Letter F: 50.5m = Code Letter F:97.5m = Code Letter F: 57.5m = ½x80m+2.5m+8m 80m+4.5m+13m ½x80m+4.5m+13m ADM Pt2 p1.2.13 to ADM Pt2 p1.2.13 + ADM Pt2 p1.2.13 to p1.2.17 + table 1-1 and p.1.2.15 + tables 1-1 p1.2.18 + tables 1-1 and 1-4 + Figure 1-4 and 1-4 + Figure 1-4 1-4 + Figure 1-4 - Wingtip clearance

ICAO - Wingtip clearance - Wingtip clearance increase from Code Letter

Rationale increase from Code increase from Code Letter E (10m) to Code Letter F Letter E (15m) to Code E (15m) to Code Letter F (10.5m) is based on the Letter F (17.5m) is based (17.5m) is based on increase in wingtip track- on applying the applying the percentage out when the aircraft turns percentage of wingspan of wingspan increase to into the gate using increase to the Code the Code Letter E oversteer technique Letter E increment Z increment Z (80/65 x (typical). (80/65 x 10.5 = 13) 10.5)

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 11

Aircraft Stand Taxiway / Apron Parallel Taxiway Taxilane to Object Item taxiway to Object Clearance at the gate Separation Separation Separation (including service road and height limited object) - Minimum tip-tip clearance - Minimum tip-object - Minimum tip-object ICAO SARPs to be margin of 11m with clearance margin of 9m clearance margin of followed (7.5 m) aircraft assumed with aircraft assumed 7.5m with aircraft centered on straight centered on straight assumed centered on Possibility of reduced taxiways and positioned taxiways and positioned straight taxiways and distance with appropriate cockpit over centreline in cockpit over centreline in positioned cockpit over measure such as visual curved sections. curved sections. centreline in curved docking guidance system, - For planning purposes - For planning purposes sections. marshaller(s), etc.

Code Letter E parallel Code Letter E taxiway to - For planning purposes taxiway separation (80m) object separation (47.5m) Code Letter E taxilane to See note 2 & 3 should be the minimum. should be the minimum. object separation Lower figures could be Lower figures could be (42.5m) should be the accepted subject to accepted subject to minimum. Distance may be reduced aeronautical study aeronautical study Distance may be reduced for height limited object. All for height limited object. All objects to be properly See notes 1a, 2 & 3 See notes 1b, 2 & 3 objects to be properly marked or lighted. BACG Agreement marked or lighted. Depending on local Depending on local conditions, decision on conditions, decision on reduced margins for height reduced margins for height limited objects by each limited objects by each authority and/or airport authority and/or airport operator. operator.

See note 2 & 3 - Air Navigation Plan – - Air Navigation Plan – - Air Navigation Plan – Not applicable

ICAO European Region ICAO European Region ICAO European Region recommended reduced recommended reduced recommended reduced separation distances for separation distances for separation distances for 747-400 operations with 747-400 operations with 747-400 operations with 11m wingtip clearance. 9m wingtip clearance. 7.5m wingtip clearance. - Taxiway deviation - Taxiway deviation - Taxiway deviation statistics analysis statistics analysis statistics analysis - AACG agreement of 11m - AACG agreement of 9m - AACG agreement of 7.5m for A380, if taxiway for A380, if taxiway centre for A380, if taxiway centre centre line lighting or line lighting or equivalent line lighting or equivalent Justification Materials equivalent guidance is guidance is available guidance is available available

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 Other items

RESA (Runway End Safety Item Visual aids Taxiways on bridges Area) width Elevated Edge lights The width of the portion of a taxiway The width of a RESA shall be at least - Elevated rwy lights shall be bridge capable of supporting twice that of the associated runway. frangible + clear of propellers & aeroplanes, as measure 120m for associated Code Letter F engine pods. perpendicularly to the taxiway rwy; 90m for Code Letter E rwy. [Std] A14 P5.3.1.7 centerline, shall not be less than the [Std] A14 P3.5.4 - Surface (inset) lights shall width of the graded area of the strip withstand being run over by aircraft. provided for that taxiway, unless a The width of a RESA should, [Std] A14 P5.3.1.8 proven method of lateral restraint is wherever practicable, be equal to that - Rwy edge lights shall be placed provided which shall not be of the graded portion of the along the edge of the area declared hazardous for aeroplanes for which associated runway strip. 150m for for the use as rwy or outside by the taxiway is intended. Code number 3 and 4. less than 3m. Code Letter E: 44m [RP] A14 P3.5.5 [Std] A14 P5.3.9.4 Code Letter F: 60m [Std] A14 P3.9.20 &

Signals shall be frangible + clear of ADM Pt 2 P1.4.4 propellers & engine pods. [Std] A14 P.5.4.1.3 Access should be provided for ARFF vehicles to intervene in both PAPI directions. - Where a PAPI or APAPI is installed [RP] A14 P3.9.21 on rwy without ILS or MLS they shall be sited to ensure guidance If a/c engines overhang the bridge for the most demanding aircraft structure, protection of adjacent areas regularly using the rwy. Where a below the bridge from engine blast PAPI or APAPI is installed on rwy may be required. with ILS or MLS they should be [RP] A14 P3.9.21 Note ICAO SARPS and ADM sited to provide guidance for those ADM Pt2 p1.4.4 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/ No specific justification available on Protection beyond the rwy strip to Working Group taxiway on bridge minimize damage when aircraft undershoot or overshoot the rwy during landing or takeoff. ICAO ADM Pt1 P5.4.1 Rationale

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 13

RESA (Runway End Safety Item Visual aid implications Taxiways on bridges Area) width - For Rwy edge lighting position, - Not less than 44m for width of the Minimum 90m based on 45m Code ICAO SARPs to be followed portion capable of supporting the Letter E associated runway width, or (placed along the edge of the area 747-8 and for passenger twice that of the actual associated

declared for the use as Rwy or evacuation. runway width. outside by less than 3 m). - Possibility of reduced width margins - Inset Rwy edge lights; possibility of if proven method of lateral restraint elevated runway edge lights is provided. according to preliminary engine - Not less than 44m for jet blast outputs. Snow clearance to be protection, slide and passenger considered in the choice. movement support during - PAPI: No specific 747-8 evacuation in case full bearing requirement; ICAO compliant. strength width is reduced by proven BACG Agreement means of lateral restraint. - Alternative path for ARFF vehicles (whatever the bridge width). - 747-400 engine position - 747 outer main gear wheel span - FAA/EASA planned approval to

- Similar exhaust wake velocity - 747 outer engine span operate on 45m wide rwy. contours as 747-400 - 747-8 Jet blast velocity contours at - History of satisfactory 747 - Similar glide slope approach taxiing similar to 747-400 operations on 45m wide rwys. attitude - Frequency of 747 rwy veeroffs has declined significantly over its Materials service history. Justification

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 14 4. BACG Participating Members

List of BACG Participants

Organization Name Position

Airports, their Authorities, and Airlines Australia Civil Aviation Safety Authority Airspace and Aerodrome Frank Leonardi Australia Regulation Group France ADP Philippe Laborie Technical Director, CDG airport ADP Isabelle Wallard Deputy Director, Planning Divison Scientific & International Advisor, DGAC Jean-Louis Pirat Civil Aviation Technical Center DGAC Laurent Osty Airport Certification Unit Chief, Airport Certification, DGAC Pierre Thery Civil Aviation Technical Center Germany Airport Policies, Federal Ministry of BMVBS Susanne Hofmann Transport Head, Airside Development and Fraport Holger Schwenke ATC Fraport Ibrahim Zantout Head, Apron Infrastructure HMWVL Egon Grösslein Head Section Aerodromes Italy Italian Civil Aviation Authority Alessandro Cardi Director of Airport Infrastructure Netherlands Civil Aviation Authority Senior Advisor, Aerodromes and Sietse Jager The Netherlands Airspace Division Senior Advisor, Airport Capacity Amsterdam Schiphol Rob ten Hove Management Poland Head of Airport Operations Warsaw Airport Jan Malawko Supervision and SMS United Kingdom British Airports Authority Andrew Badham Head of Central Airside Operations Airlines Cargolux Sten Rossby Captain, Chief Technical Pilot General Manager, ATS & Lufthansa Michael Dietz International Organizations Lufthansa Matthias Schmitt Manager, Airports & Infrastructure Industry Organization Director, Safety and Technical ACI David Gamper (Chairman) Affairs Senior Principal Engineer, Airport Boeing Kaz Konya (Secretary) Technology Boeing Marc Schoen Manager, Airport Technology Technical Fellow, Airport Boeing Ed Gervais Technology Senior Engineer, Airport Boeing Jerry Robinson Technology Senior Engineer, Airport Boeing Karen Dix-Colony Technology Assistant Director, Safety, IATA Ton Van der Veldt Operations & Infrastructure

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 15

Annex 1

Recommendation Letters from BACG Aviation Authorities

Germany

France

Australia

Italy

Netherlands

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 16

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 17

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 18

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 19

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 20

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 21

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 22

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 25

Common Agreement Document Boeing 747-8 26

BACG Attachment A

Safety Analyses of Airfield Items

INTRODUCTION...... 2

PART A: RUNWAYS ...... 4

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

PART B: TAXIWAYS...... 12

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 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 = ICAO Recommended Practices Annex 14 Paragraph 3.8.3 [Std] = ICAO Standard ADM Pt2 = Aerodrome Design Manual part 2 Rwy = Runway Twy = Taxiway NLA = New Large Aircraft FOD = Foreign Object Damage OPS = Operations ARFF = Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting OFZ = Obstacle Free Zone OLS = Obstacle Limitation Surface OCP = Obstacle Clearance Panel IIWG = International Infrastructure Working Group JAR 25 = Joint Aviation Requirements for Large Aeroplane JAR AWO = Joint Aviation Requirements All Weather Operations OCA/H = Obstacle Clearance Altitude/Height RTO = Rejected Take-Off RESA = Runway End Safety Area WP = Working Paper

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 3

PART A: RUNWAYS

RUNWAY WIDTH

SYNOPSIS

The width of a Rwy should be not less than: - 45m where the Code Letter is E, - 60m where the Code Letter is F. [RP] A14 P3.1.10

Strength of Rwys: A Rwy should be capable of withstanding the traffic of aeroplanes the Rwy is intended to serve. [RP] A14 P3.1.21

ICAO BASELINE Planning to accommodate future aircraft developments. ADM Pt1 P6

Risk 1 Risk 2 Hazard Identification Lateral runway excursion at take-off Lateral runway excursion at landing

- Human factors (crew, - Human factors (crew, maintenance) maintenance, balance, payload - Aircraft (landing gear, control security) surfaces, hydraulic system, - Powerplant (engine failure, brakes, tyres) Main causes and ingestion) - Powerplant (reverse) accident factors - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow) snow) - Aircraft (control surfaces, - Weather conditions (cross wind, hydraulic system, tyres) visibility, inaccurate meteorological information)

HAZARD ANALYSIS Theoretical Severity Major to Catastrophic depending on the aircraft speed. In-service

Detailed hazard analysis within certification process

Risk assessment A (aircraft performance) A (aircraft performance) category - Planned 747-8 operational - Planned 747-8 operational approval on 45m wide Rwy: critical approval on 45m wide Rwy: critical failure conditions for veer-off at failure conditions for veer-off at take off, V criteria, envelope of MCG landing, envelope of environmental environmental conditions covered conditions covered by aircraft by aircraft certification. certification, Autoland criteria. - Numerous design changes from - Numerous design changes from Main technical materials the 747-400 to improve lateral the 747-400 to improve lateral handling qualities during takeoff or handling qualities during landing. rejected takeoff. - Otherwise, design commonality - Otherwise, design commonality with the 747-400. RISK ASSESSMENT with the 747-400. - Flight deck features that improve - Flight deck features that improve situation awareness situation awareness. (see Attachments B, H and I) (see Attachments B, H and I)

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

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 = Runway width Tm = Outer main gear wheel span C = Clearance between the outer main gear wheel and the runway edge

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

HAZARD ANALYSIS

1. Hazard identification

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

2. Causal analysis

The main causes and accident factors are listed as follows:  For take-off: - Human factors (crew, maintenance, balance, payload security), - Aircraft (control surfaces, hydraulic system, tyres), - Powerplant (engine failure, ingestion), - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow).  For landing: - Human factors (crew, maintenance, balance, payload security), - Aircraft (landing gear, control surfaces, hydraulic system, brakes, tyres), - Powerplant (reverse), - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow), - Weather conditions (cross wind, visibility, inaccurate meteorological information).

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

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

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

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

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 WR C Clearance between the Outer Main Gear Wheel Runway Width outer main gear wheel Span and the runway edge 747-400 12.6m 45m 16.20m 747-8 12.7m 45m 16.15m Code Letter E 13.99m 45m 15.50m main gear wheel span upper limit

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

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 ICAO BASELINE - When designing shoulders, prevention of the ingestion of stones or other objects by turbine engines should be an important consideration. ADM Pt1 P5.2.5 - In case of special preparations, visual contrast between Rwy and Rwy shoulders may be needed ADM Pt1 P5.2.6

Risk 1 Risk 2 Risk 3 Shoulder erosion and Difficulties for ARFF Aircraft damage

engine ingestion (snow and services to intervene on a after incursion on Hazard Identification ice ingestion included) at damaged aircraft on the runway shoulder landing or take-off runway - Powerplant (engine - Aircraft wingspan, position, engine engine position power) - Shoulder width and - Shoulder width and bearing capability Main causes and cohesion accident factors - Runway centreline deviation factors (see runway veer-off risk) - Location and height of HAZARD ANALYSIS snow banks Theoretical No 747-8 specific Severity Potentially major Major to catastrophic issue In-service Risk assessment C (geometric argument) C (geometric argument) category - 747-8 engine position - 747-8 wingspan and - 747-8 jet blast velocity engine position at take-off thrust (see Attachment B)

RISK Main technical - Information about materials lateral deviation from

ASSESSMENT runway centreline (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.

BACG If relevant to local conditions, snow removal and ice control as recommended by ICAO (Doc 9137-

CONCLUSIONS AN/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 747- 400) and,  Equal distance from the outer engine to the ground (comparison with 747-400),

It is reasonable to conclude that a 60m total width (runway + shoulders) is adequate to avoid engine ingestion risk.

Distance between aircraft (Outer) engine fuselage axis and (outer) engine nacelle minimum axis height above ground 747-400ER 20.85m 1.32m 747-8 20.85m 1.32m

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

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 10 ARFF vehicles intervention

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

BACG members agreed:  60m total width (runway + shoulders) in compliance with Annex 14 Code Letter E (2x7.5m wide shoulders on 45m wide runways) pending operational approval.  No additional shoulder width is required for jet-blast protection, engine ingestion protection and the occasional ARFF vehicle access.

It is up to each national authority and/or airport operator to decide the composition and the thickness of runway shoulders, depending on local conditions.

If relevant to local conditions, accumulated snow should be removed beyond the span of the 747-8 outer engines.

9.2 m

16.1 m

45m wide 7.5m

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 11 PART B: TAXIWAYS

TAXIWAY WIDTH

SYNOPSIS

Unless otherwise indicated, the requirements are applicable to all types of Twys. A14 P3.9

Minimum clearance between outer main wheel and Twy edge: 4.5m for both E and F. [RP] A14 P3.9.3

For curved Twys, ensure that when cockpit over centerline, outer main gear wheel maintains 4.5m clearance from Twy edge [RP] A14 P3.9.6

Width of a straight portion: 23m where Code Letter is E and 25m where Code Letter is F. [RP] A14

ICAO BASELINE P3.9.5

Risk 1 Hazard Identification Lateral taxiway excursion in straight section

- Mechanical failure affecting steering capability (hydraulic system) - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, loss of control on ice-covered surface,…) Main causes and - Loss of visual taxiway guidance system (markings and lights covered by accident factors snow,…) - Pilot precision and attention (directional control)

Theoretical Potentially major

HAZARD ANALYSIS Severity

In-service Minor

Risk assessment B (generic risk model) C (geometric argument) category

747-8 geometric characteristics (wheel Taxiway deviation statistics analysis

RISK Main technical span within code E limits, nearly same (existing and on-going studies) materials as 747-400) (see Attachment C) (see Attachment B) ASSESSMENT

Minimum taxiway width of 23 meters

Wheel to edge minimum clearance of 4.5m on straight and curved taxiway sections BACG CONCLUSIONS

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

Clearance between Outer Main Gear the outer main gear Taxiway Width Wheel Span wheel and the taxiway edge 747-400 12.6m 23m 5.2m 747-8 12.7m 23m 5.15m Code Letter E 13.99m 23m 4.5m main gear wheel span upper limit

In addition to this, another geometric argument (type C) depending on pilot visibility from cockpit can be developed; the cockpit and pilot eye position of the 747-8 is equal to the 747- 400 (see Attachment B).

Special attention may be given to taxiway curves. However the 747-8 is not the most critical aircraft for fillet design. Code Letter E aircraft such as 777-300 and A340-600 are more demanding.

CONCLUSIONS

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

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 14 TAXIWAY SHOULDER WIDTH

SYNOPSIS

Overall width of Twy + shoulders on straight portion: - 44m where Code Letter is E and - 60m where Code Letter is F [RP] A14 P3.10.1

The surface should be so prepared as to resist erosion and ingestion of surface material by aeroplane engines [RP] A14 P3.9.2

Intended to protect an a/c operating on the Twy and to reduce the risk of damage to an a/c running off

ICAO BASELINE the Twy. ADM Pt2 p1.6.1 and ADM Pt2 p1.6.2 + table 1-1

Risk 1 Risk 2

Hazard Identification Shoulder erosion and engine ingestion at Aircraft damage after taxiing incursion on taxiway shoulder

- Powerplant (engine position, engine power) Main causes and - Taxiway shoulder width and cohesion accident factors - Taxiway centreline deviation factors (see taxiway veer-off risk)

Theoretical Minor except if undetected and followed by Severity HAZARD ANALYSIS engine failure at take-off (potentially major) In-service

Risk assessment C (geometric argument) category 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 break- Main technical away and the transient (temporary) nature materials of the breakaway thrust application - Information about lateral deviation from taxiway centreline

RISK ASSESSMENT (see Attachment B & C)

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 BACG straight and curved portions by each national authority and/or airport operator. CONCLUSIONS

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 15 ICAO BASELINE

See previous synopsis

HAZARD ANALYSIS

1. Hazard identification

The main purposes of the provision of taxiway shoulders are twofold:  to prevent jet engines that overhang the edge of a taxiway from ingesting stones or other objects that might damage the engine and  to prevent erosion of the area adjacent to the taxiway.

In addition to this, the risk of damage to an aircraft running off the taxiway should be, in theory, taken into account for taxiway shoulder design. Concerning this hazard:  the shoulder width should not be regarded as an issue for a specific airplane: taxiway shoulders should be, in theory, designed to allow pilots to steer the aircraft back onto taxiway in case of minor lateral excursion, whatever the aircraft Code Letter is.  the shoulder composition and thickness may be a specific airplane issue, but other aircraft than the 747-8 may have stronger impact on taxiway shoulders. For example, the A340-600, a code E airplane, has a higher single wheel load and a higher tire pressure than the 747-8 and can cause a more severe shoulder pavement rutting

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

These are the reasons why only shoulder erosion and engine ingestion are considered here.

2. Causal analysis

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

3. Consequences analysis

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

RISK ASSESSMENT

A geometric argument is relevant to establish infrastructure requirements relative to jet blast and engine ingestion issues (cf. risk assessment). Shoulder erosion and engine ingestion issues come under “type C” risk assessment category (geometric argument).

Information about engine position and jet blast velocity contour at breakaway thrust allows deducing the need in terms of jet blast protection at taxiing.

The margin between 747-8 outer engine axis, when the aircraft is on the taxiway centreline, and the edge of a 44m wide jet blast protection (taxiway + shoulders) is 1.15m; the same margin as for the 747-400.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 16

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

Distance between aircraft Margin between outer engine (Outer) engine nacelle fuselage axis and engine axis axis and shoulder edge height above ground 747-400ER 20.85m 1.15m 1.32m 747-8 20.85m 1.15m 1.32m

Although the margin between ground surface and engine cowl for the 747-8 is same as for the 747-400, the axis of the 747-8 outboard engine is 0.36m higher than for the 747-400 As for the ingestion risk, the engine inlet air velocity for the 747-8 is estimated to be similar to the 747-400 since the higher thrust required for the 747-8 is offset by the larger inlet area.

Above geometric argument combined with jet blast contours at breakaway thrust allows a conclusion that a 44m wide taxiway jet blast protection will avoid shoulder erosion and engine ingestion risks for 747-8 taxiing with a level of safety equal to the current 747.

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

1.2 m

5.1 m

23mwide 10.5 m

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 17 PART C: RUNWAY SEPARATIONS

SYNOPSIS

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

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".

ICAO BASELINE 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 Risk 2 Risk 3 Collision between an Collision between an Perturbation of ILS aircraft in flight and an aircraft veering off the signal by a taxiing or Hazard Identification object (fixed or mobile) runway and an object stopped aircraft on the airport (fixed or mobile) on the airport

- Human factors (crew, ATS) - Weather conditions (visibility) - Runway veer-off - Aircraft: mechanical causes and accident failure (engine, factors (see runway hydraulic system, veer-off risk) - Aircraft position / flight instruments, - Lateral veer-off NAV-aids control surfaces,…), distance - Aircraft Main causes and wingspan - Aircraft size characteristics accident factors - Airport layout and - Airport layout: location (height, shape, facilities: location of of holding points and component,..) holding points and parallel taxiway - Obstacle density parallel taxiway,

HAZARD ANALYSIS - Obstacle density radar system (taxiing aircraft - Obstacle density included) (taxiing aircraft included), marking, lighting and publication

Theoretical Catastrophic

Severity No known cases Potentially catastrophic Potentially major In-service reported in-service

A (aircraft performance) & Generic risk Risk assessment B (generic risk model) B (generic risk model) assessment not category

RISK & feasible C (geometric argument) ASSESSMENT

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 18 - Recent studies and ICAO work indicates that vertical tail size is - Declining trend of 747 critical, not wing - ICAO Circular 301 runway veer-off span, and that the states that when frequency over the size of the digital autopilot or years sensitive and flight director with - Code E design critical areas and track hold guidance separation degraded by the operational is used for the only 1.7m increase in impact of approach, a code F half-wingspan infringement of Main technical airplane can be (182.5m→184.2m) CSAs should be materials contained within the - Separation based on reassessed. code E OFZ. OFZ requires only Hence the need for - The 747-8 has digital (60+[3x19.6]) = 118.8m specific runway autopilot/flight - Separation based on studies. director and track taxiing 747-8 clear of - However, the RISK ASSESSMENT hold guidance. precision Rwy graded vertical tail size of - FAA regulations. strip requires 747-8 is same as (see Attachment C) (105+34.2) = 139.2m 747-400 which (see Attachment B) would imply an identical impact for 747-8 and 747- 400. (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.

BACG CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS BACG - 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 or mobile) on the airport

Two different lateral runway excursions database analysis (see Attachment C) comes out with the following outputs:  Veer-off distances1 do not increase in proportion to aircraft size. That means that this collision risk comes under “type B” (generic risk model) risk assessment category (i.e. extrapolation of current accident database to future aircraft seems relevant).  Taxiing deviation effect is relatively of little consequence.  Lateral runway excursion risk (frequency and veer-off distances) is not lower for non- instrument approach and take-off than for instrument approach. That means that, in theory, to provide a uniform level of safety, requirements to mitigate collision risk in case of aircraft veer-off should be as strict for non-instrument and take-off runways as for instrument runways.

For that reason, the ICAO SARPs formula relative to runway-taxiway separation distances for non instrument runway (75m + half wingspan) and to runway holding positions for take-off and non-precision approach runway (75m) must be regarded as a strict minimum for operations. In some complex airport layouts (parallel runways, intermediate taxiways used to cross runways, especially if the crossing is at a point where aircraft taking-off are at high speed or are potentially airborne...), a specific study may be needed to evaluate runway holding positions when runways are used by 747-8 aircraft.

Concerning instrument runways, according to accident database analyses and the experience of current operations in today’s airports (see Attachment C), ICAO SARPs relative to code F runway-taxiway distance seems conservative in terms of collision risk after an aircraft veer-off.

Considering the regulations for and history of operations at U.S. airports with lesser RWY/TWY separation - 122m (400 ft) for Group V (Code E equivalent) for instrument Rwys it can be concluded that RWY-TWY separations significantly less than recommended in Annex 14 table 4-1 are considered safe with respect to collision between an aircraft veering off the runway and an object (fixed or mobile) on the airport. FAA has issued Airport Obstructions Standards Committee (AOSC) Decision Document #4, dated 21 March 2005, amending Group V and VI RWY-TWY separations to 400 ft (122m) and 500 ft (152m) respectively for CAT I and 500 ft (152m) and 550 ft (168m) respectively for CAT II / III.

1 The veer-off distance is defined here as the maximum lateral deviation distance reported during a veer-off between the aircraft centre of gravity and the runway centreline. Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 21 It may therefore be concluded that for the 747-8 RWY-TWY separations for CAT II/III operations equal to those of Code Letter E aircraft can safely be applied.

Perturbation of ILS signal by a taxiing or stopped aircraft

A generic risk assessment on this topic seems not feasible. ILS signal distortion risk should be assessed in a case-by-case study base taking into account local conditions like airport layout and traffic density. These case-by-case studies could take advantage of several generic studies dealing with A380 effects on ILS safety area:  A preliminary study from Park Air Systems (AACG, Appendix 4 Part M) calculates for Nomarc ILS the difference between A380 and 747 Sensitive Areas. The output indicates that the Sensitive Area for a CAT III approach is approximately 30-40% wider for an A380 than for a 747. However, it must be noticed that the A380 was modelled with a metal vertical tail (like the 747 one) instead of the carbon fibre one.  According to ILS specialists, the carbon fibre that is used for A380 vertical tail could lead to a decrease in ILS signal perturbation versus metal.  A study by ADP to assess the impact of carbon fibre versus metal on ILS signal perturbations by making real tests at CDG with A310 fitted with two kinds of tail material (carbon fibre and metal).  A recent study (2006) by a workgroup of ILS experts in Europe indicates that vertical tail size is critical, not the wingspan even with the provision of winglets.

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

CONCLUSIONS

BACG members agreed:  Runway to parallel taxiway separation: - ICAO Code Letter E separation of 182.5m for an instrument runway, - Lower separation could be envisaged on the basis of a safety assessment. - Minimum separation is 75m + half wingspan.  OFZ - Code Letter E OFZ width of 120m based on ICAO OCP work.  Runway holding positions - For take off and non-precision approach runways, ICAO value 75m to be considered a strict minimum, and site-specific studies are recommended - For precision approach runways, minimum value of 90m to be applied. Need of specific runway studies to evaluate ILS interference risks in all the cases.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 22

PART D: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS

SYNOPSIS

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

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

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

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

The Taxiway strip should provide an area clear of objects which may endanger a/c. [RP] A14 3.11.3

Remark *: For Code Letter F a further reduction to 95m (Twy-Twy separation) and 55m (Twy-object separation) were recommended by ICAO Panel.

Risk 1

Collision between two aircraft or between an aircraft and an object (fixed or Hazard Identification mobile) Main causes and Human factors (crew, marshaller, taxi routing error,…) accident factors Weather conditions

HAZARD Theoretical ANALYSIS Severity Potentially major In-service Risk assessment B (generic risk model) category

- Taxiway deviation statistics analysis (existing and on going analyses) - Air Navigation Plan – ICAO European Region – Reduced Separation Main technical RISK Distances for NLA operations materials - 747-8 cockpit visibility (see Attachment B, C & D) ASSESSMENT - 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.

BACG CONCLUSIONS BACG - 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

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

ICAO BASELINE using the Rwy. A14 Chap 5 Figure 5-15 P a) & b), & A14 Chap 5 Table 5-2 footnote a. - The location of PAPI units depends on eye-to-wheel height of the group of aircraft that use the system regularly & by using the most demanding aircraft of the group. A14 Chap 5 Table 5-2 note a. Wheel clearances may be reduced subject to aeronautical study but not less than values indicated in Table 5-2 column 3. A14 Chap 5 Table 5-2 note c.

Risk 1 Risk 2 Risk 3 Elevated edge lights damaged by PAPI guidance not Aircraft damage

jet blast adapted for an caused by elevated Hazard Identification aircraft in approach lights after a veer- off

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

HAZARD ANALYSIS

Theoretical Potentially major if undetected No 747-8 specific No 747-8 specific before take-off and followed by Severity issue issue engine ingestion and tire bursting In-service risks

Risk assessment C (geometric argument) category

RISK - 747-8 engine position Main technical - 747-8 jet blast contours materials (see Attachment B) ASSESSMENT

- 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. BACG

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

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 747- 8 engine is 66,500 lbs, compared to 63,300 lbs for the 747-400ER.

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 27

Moreover, based on mechanical strength values of elevated runway edge lights requirements, preliminary simulation results of theoretical study would show that the elevated lights should withstand the 747-8 jet blast. A study based on experimental test may be carried out in order to determine mechanical and/or aerodynamic strength limits of some existing elevated runway lights. Other analyses linked to the characteristics of the lights are in progress:  Photometry test in laboratory conditions show that the luminous output of runway edge inset lights is compliant with the minimum intensity defined by Annex 14 (even though lower than the luminous output of elevated light).  The inset lights are only bi-directional and they cannot be used for providing circling guidance and be shown at all angles in azimuth (Annex 14 P5.3.9.8) If there is a need for circling guidance, two inset lights should be installed: the runway edge inset light and an inset light with omni directional luminous output.  The level of maintenance required with inset fittings is higher that the one with elevated lights: from replacement of a lamp on site to the replacement of the whole inset light by a spare and the maintenance in a workshop (stripping down of the fitting and cleaning of the lens and replacement of the lamp and seals,…)

CONCLUSIONS

BACG members agreed:  For runway edge lighting position, ICAO SARPs to be followed (placed along the edge of the area declared for the use as runway or outside by less than 3m)  Inset runway edge lights; possibility of elevated runway edge lights according to preliminary engine outputs. Snow clearance to be considered in the choice.  PAPI: No specific 747-8 requirement; ICAO compliant

Attachment A Safety Analyses of Airfield Items Boeing 747-8 28 TAXIWAY ON BRIDGES

SYNOPSIS

The width of the portion of a taxiway bridge capable of supporting aeroplanes, as measured perpendicularly to the taxiway centreline, shall not be less than the width of the graded area of the strip provided for that taxiway, unless a proven method of lateral restraint is provided which shall not be hazardous for aeroplanes for which the taxiway is intended. [Std] A14 P3.9.20 & ADM Pt2 P1.4.4

Access should be provided for ARFF vehicles to intervene in both directions. [RP] A14 P3.9.21

If a/c engines overhang the bridge structure, protection of adjacent areas below the bridge from engine

ICAO BASELINE blast may be required. [RP] A14 P3.9.21 Note & ADM Pt2 P1.4.4

Risk 1 Risk 2 Risk 3 Risk 4 Taxiway veer off Evacuation slides Difficulties for fire Blast under the Hazard identification on the bridge and falling past the fighting bridge aircraft fall from edge intervention the bridge

- Aircraft stop - Engine position, away from engine power - See taxiway taxiway - Width of the - Width of jet blast veer-off risk centreline bridge protection on the Main causes and (taxiway width - Width of the - Wingspan and bridge accident factors paragraph) bridge outer engine - Taxiway - Width of the - Evacuation span deviation factors bridge slides (see. taxiway HAZARD ANALYSIS configuration veer-off risk)

Theoretical Catastrophic Hazardous Major to Major for other Severity catastrophic traffic (not for the In-service No cases reported No cases reported aircraft)

Risk assessment C (predominant geometric issues) category

- Comparison - Comparison - Firemen - 747-8 outer with margins with margins practices engine span Main technical for a 747 on a for a 747 on a - 747-8 - Taxiing jet materials code E bridge code E bridge wingspan and blast contours (see Attachmt. B) (see Attachmt. B) outer engine (see Attachmt. B) span RISK ASSESSMENT (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 BACG in case full bearing strength width is reduced by proven means of lateral restraint.

CONCLUSIONS - 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:

Clearance between the Outer Main Gear Wheel outer main gear wheel Taxiway Bridge Width Span and the taxiway Bridge edge 747-400 12.6m 44m 15.70m 747-8 12.7m 44m 15.65m Code Letter E 13.99m 44m 15.00m main gear wheel span upper limit

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 necessary2 to provide fire-fighting vehicles with routes allowing access to both sides of the aircraft, so that they could fight a fire using the best angle (according to wind direction). Important factor is the distance between fuselage centreline and outer engine span (axis). For both the 747-400 and the 747-8 this distance is 20.85m.

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

BACG members agreed:  Not less than 44m for width of the portion capable of supporting the 747-8 and for passenger evacuation.  Possibility of reduced width margins if proven method of lateral restraint is provided.  Not less than 44m for jet blast protection, slide and passenger movement support during evacuation in case full bearing strength width is reduced by proven means of lateral restraint. An alternative path for ARFF vehicles (whatever the bridge width is) is strongly recommended.

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)

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

ICAO BASELINE ICAO BASELINE undershoot or overshoot/overrun the rwy during landing or take-off. ADM Pt1 P5.4.1

Risk 2 Risk 1 Hazard identification Runway undershoot or runway Runway overrun excursion at take-off overrun excursion at landing - Human factors (crew, - Human factors (crew, maintenance) maintenance, balance, payload - Aircraft (landing gear, control security) surfaces, hydraulic system, - Powerplant (engine failure, brakes, tyres) Main causes and ingestion) - Powerplant (reverse) accident factors - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, - Surface conditions (aquaplaning, snow) snow) - Aircraft (control surfaces, hydraulic - Weather conditions (tail wind, system, tyres) visibility, inaccurate meteorological HAZARD ANALYSIS ANALYSIS HAZARD information) Theoretical Severity Major to Catastrophic depending on the aircraft speed. In-service

Risk assessment A (aircraft performance) A (aircraft performance) category

- Planned 747-8 operational - Planned 747-8 operational approval on 45m wide Rwy: critical approval on 45m wide Rwy: critical failure conditions at take off, VMCG failure conditions at landing, criteria, envelope of environmental envelope of environmental conditions covered by aircraft conditions covered by aircraft certification. certification, Autoland criteria. - Numerous design changes from - Numerous design changes from Main technical the 747-400 to improve handling the 747-400 to improve lateral materials qualities during takeoff or rejected handling qualities during landing. takeoff. - Otherwise design commonalities RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ASSESSMENT - Otherwise design commonalities with the 747-400. with the 747-400. - Flight deck features that improve - Flight deck features that improve situation awareness situation awareness. (see Attachments B, H and I) (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.

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

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

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

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

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

B2

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 Units 747-400 747-400ER 747-8 Max design taxi weight lb 878,000 913,000 978,000 kg 398,254 414,130 443,613 Max design takeoff lb 875,000 910,000 975,000 weight kg 396,893 412,769 442,253 Max design landing lb 652,000 581,000/652,000 (2) 683,000 weight kg 295,742 263,537/295,742 309,803 Max design zero fuel lb 555,000 542,000/555,000 (2) 643,000 weight kg 251,744 245,847/251,744 291,660 lb 156,200 136,700/148,100 (2) 168,650 Max structural payload kg 70,851 62,006/67,177 76,498 416 416 467 Seating capacity Three-class 23FC + 80 BC + 313 EC 23FC + 80 BC + 313 EC 25 FC + 89 BC + 353 EC (1) Body tank + (28) LD-1 or (30) LD-1 or (5) 96-ft pallets (38) LD-1 or Max cargo (4) 96-in pallets + (14) LD-1 or + (14) LD-1 (7) 96-in pallets + (18) LD-1 (2) body tanks + (24) LD-1 (1) (2) (2) (3) Maximum fuel capacity US gal 57,065 60,305 /63,545 63,095 L 216,014 228,279/240,544 238,841 Notes: (1) Includes tail fuel, GE engines (2) Basic (1 aux tank) / Max (2 aux tanks) (3) GE engines

BOEING PROPRIETARY – PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT STUDY COPYRIGHT © 2006 THE BOEING COMPANY 11/02/2010 747-8 Freighter General Characteristics

Characteristics Units 747-400F 747-400ERF 747-8F Max design taxi weight lb 878,000 913,000 978,000 kg 398,254 414,130 443,613 Max design takeoff lb 875,000 910,000 975,000 weight kg 396,893 412,769 442,253 Max design landing lb 652,000 (1) 653,000 (1) 759,000 weight kg 295,742 296,196 344,277 Max design zero fuel lb 610,000 (2) 611,000 (2) 719,000 weight kg 276,691 277,145 326,133 (4) Max structural payload lb 248,300 248,600 295,200 kg 112,627 112,763 133,900 Max cargo cu ft 27,467 27,467 29,426 cu m 777.8 777.8 833.3 (3) (3) (3) Maximum fuel capacity US gal 53,765 53,765 59,794 L 203,523 203,523 226,345 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 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 213.0 ft 212.6 ft 208.0 ft 261.8 ft (68.4 m) (64.9 m) (64.8 m) (63.4 m) (79.8 m) Length 250.2 ft 231.8 ft 242.4 ft 247.4 ft 238.7 ft (76.3 m) (70.7 m) (73.9 m) (75.4 m) (72.7 m) Tail height (max) 64.2 ft 64.0 ft 61.4 ft 58.7 ft 80.2 ft (19.6 m) (19.5 m) (18.7 m) (17.9 m) (24.4 m) Wheelbase (to turning 92.3 ft 79.1 ft 100.4 ft 108.9 ft 97.8 ft centroid) (28.1 m) (24.1 m) (30.6 m) (33.2 m) (29.8 m) Cockpit-to-main gear 100.0 ft 86.6 ft 112.2 ft 122.7 ft 104.6 ft (30.5 m) (26.4 m) (34.2 m) (37.4 m) (31.9 m) Main gear span (to outer tire 41.7 ft 41.3 ft 42.3 ft 41.3 ft 46.9 ft edges) (12.7 m) (12.6 m) (12.9 m) (12.6 m) (14.3 m) Outer engine span 136.7 ft 136.7 ft 63.0 ft 126.3 ft 168.6 ft (41.7 m) (41.7 m) (19.2 m) (38.5 m) (51.4 m) Wingtip height (min) 19.7 ft (est) 16.7 ft 23.6 ft 19.4 ft 17.1 ft (6.0 m) (5.1 m) (7.2 m) (5.9 m) (5.2 m) Max taxi weight 978,000 lb 913,000 lb 777,000 lb 840,400 lb 1,258,000 lb (443,610 kg) (414,130 kg) (352,440 kg) (381,200 kg) (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 (0.2o) than 747-400 • Increased cutoff angle 747-8 21º 48' Decreased obscured segment (747-400 22º 0') •

747-8 18º 38' (747-400 18º 26') 747-8 8.72 m (747-400 8.70 m)

2.34 m 5.54 m

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

B12

797-CO-0265 11-7-06-whp/CF 747-8 Landing Gear Footprint

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

41 ft 9 in* 36 ft 1 in (12.73 m) (11.00 m) 12 ft 7 in (3.84 m)

36 in (0.91 m) 46.8 in* (1.19 m) typ. 56.5 in* (1.44 m) CHARACTERISTICS UNITS 747-400 747-8 typ. MAX DESIGN POUNDS 877,000 978,000 TAXI WEIGHT KILOGRAMS 397,801 443,614 NOSE GEAR TIRE SIZE IN. 49x17, 32 PR * 50x20R22/26PR * 747-400/-400ER have NOSE GEAR TIRE PSI 200 * 166 41 ft 5 in (12.62 m) outer wheel span PRESSURE KG/CM2 14.06 * 11.67 78 ft 11.5 in (24.07 m) wheelbase 58 in x 44 in (1.47 m x 1.12 m) truck size MAIN GEAR TIRE SIZE IN. H49x19.0 - 22 32 PR 52x21R22/36PR MAIN GEAR TIRE PSI 200 220 PRESSURE KG/CM2 14.06 15.47

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)

Landing short 70 ft touchdown limit (21.3 m)

150 ft CL (45.7m) • 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 ft 100 30 75 mph (120 km/h) 50 mph (80 km/h)

35 mph (56 km/h) 20

50

10

Distance from 75 mph (120 km/h) 50 mph (80 km/h) 35 mph (56 km/h) A/P center line 0 0 747-8 747-400ER

10

-50 ~ 25’ 20 (~ 7.6 m)

30 -100 • Sea level, standard day 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 ft • Static A/P • No wind 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 m • All engines running A/P Tail • 1.5% ground up-slope Distance downstream of engine nozzle exit •Steady state contours B29

797-PP-0035 12-5-06-whp/CF Takeoff Thrust Exhaust Velocity Contour widths are Within Code E Shoulder Width m ft 300 90

60 200

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

Distance from 0 0 A/P center line

30 100 747-8 747-400ER

60 200

90 300 • Sea level, standard day 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 ft • Static A/P • No wind 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 m • All engines running •Steady state contours Distance downstream of engine nozzle exit B30

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

B31 747-8 Footprint Fits Inside 777-300 Footprint

747-8

777-300 777-300 42.3 ft (12.9 m) 747-8 41.7 ft (12.7 m) 747-8 & 777 Turning Axis

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 Cockpit over 777-300ER or A340-600 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 Minimum width the 777-300ER and of pavement A340-600

747-400 747-8 777-300ER A340-600 A380-800 ICAO Code E F E E F

Maximum steering angle, 154 ft 170 ft 185 ft 186 ft 216 ft no differential braking (47 m) (52 m) (57 m) (57 m) (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 Gear nearest steering systems as today’s 747’s turn center 13 Body gear angle 0 (deg) Gear furthest Max 70 deg 13 from turn center

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

Nose gear Body gear

0 to 20 degrees 0

20 to 70 degrees 0 to 13 degrees

Wing gear

Turn Body gear center

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 Accidents 7 747-400 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 8 of events 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% • Weather, particularly in winter (64%), is primary cause. Runway width probably had no Pavement influence on the consequence 0% from slippery surface • High percentage of “mechanical” were actually attributed to pilot Personnel procedure. (22% is as reported before filtering) (Pilot, ATC) Mechanical 19% 22%

B39

797-AO-0071 10/26/06/CF 747 Movements, Takeoffs and Landings 8.0 Steady increase in 747 movements

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

Movements In Millions 3.0

2.0

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

0.0

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 6.0E-06 • Steady decline over the years

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

1.0E-05 • Continuous reduction over the years • Crew procedures and performance 9.0E-06 improvements have contributed to the reduction 8.0E-06

7.0E-06 Takeoff (5 yr) Landing (5 yr)

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

4 Incidents 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

Weather 17% Unknown 36%

Mechanical 7%

Load 0% Personnel Pavement 38% 2%

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

H4 H3 H

H1 H2

Lowest Point on Tire

Drawing for demonstration only and is not to scale

B54 747-8 Intercontinental Payload-Range Capability

90 200

80 180 747-8 Intercontinental/GEnx-2B67 975,000 lb MTOW 70 160 474,350 lb OEW 8,000 nmi design range 140 60

120 50 467 passengers 100

40 F u 416 passengers U e . l 80 S c Payload(1,000 kg) . a

Payload (1,000 lb) Payload (1,000 g p 6 a 30 3 a c , l 0 l i 60 747-400/CF6-80C2B1F o t 9 n y 5 s 875,000 lb MTOW 5 7 20 , 0 40 403,600 lb OEW 6 5 7,220 nmi design range 10 20

0 0

012345678910 Range (1,000 nmi)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

• Typical mission rules Range (1,000 km) • Nominal fuel flow • Standard day • Passenger allowance: 210 lb/pass • Fuel density: 6.7 lb/USG

COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY PRELIMINARY 11/02/2010 747-8 Intercontinental Take-off Field Length

12.0 3.5

11.0

3.0 10.0

747-400/CF6-80C2B1F 9.0

2.5 8.0

747-8/GEnx-2B67

Take-off field length (1,000 m) 7.0 Take-off field length (1,000 ft) (1,000 length field Take-off 2.0 6.0

5.0 1.5 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 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

3.0 10.0

9.0

2.5 8.0

7.0 2.0 747-400/CF6-80C2B1F 747-8/GEnx-2B67

6.0 Landing field length (1,000 ft) (1,000 length field Landing Landing field length (1,000 m) (1,000 length Landing field 1.5 5.0

4.0

1.0 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 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 975,000 lb MTOW 140 10 lb/cu ft 423,800 lb OEW 300 4,390 nmI design range 9 lb/cu ft 120 10 lb/cu ft 250 8 lb/cu ft 9 lb/cu ft 100 7 lb/cu ft 200 8 lb/cu ft 80 7 lb/cu ft 6 lb/cu ft

150 6 lb/cu ft

Payload(1,000 kg) 60 F Payload (1,000 lb) (1,000 Payload u e U l . c 747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F S a 100 . p g a 40 59, a c 875,000 lb MTOW l it lo y 79 n 360,900 lb OEW 4 s 50 4,450 nmI design range 20 5 3 ,7 6 5 0 0

01234567891011 Range (1,000 nm)

0 2 4 6 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 PRELIMINARY 11/02/2010 747-8 Freighter Take-off Field Length

12.0 3.5

11.0

3.0 10.0

9.0 747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F

2.5 8.0

747-8 Freighter GEnx-2B67 Take-off field length (1,000 m) 7.0 Take-off fieldlength (1,000ft) 2.0 6.0

5.0 1.5 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 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

3.0 10.0

9.0

2.5 8.0

7.0 2.0 747-400F/CF6-80C2B1F

6.0 747-8 Freighter/GEnx-2B67 Landing field length (1,000 ft) (1,000 length field Landing Landing field length (1,000 m) (1,000 length Landing field 1.5 5.0

4.0

1.0 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 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 2.5 degree glide slope 3.0 degree glide slope Model FD Pitch Eye ILS beam Eye path ILS Pilots FD Pitch Eye path ILS beam Eye path ILS Pilots (deg) path to to wheel to wheel antenna Eye (deg) Flap to ILS to wheel to wheel antenna Eye Flap ILS path path above above Setting beam (ft) path path above above Setting beam (feet) H (feet) H1 wheels wheels H2 (feet) H (feet) H1 wheels wheels (ft) H2 (feet) H3 (feet) (feet) H3 (feet) H4 H4

747-400 5.0 21.0 23.4 44.4 19.4 40.3 4.5 21.0 23.4 44.4 18.6 39.4 747-400ER 25.0 747-400ERF

747-8I 4.6 21.0 24.6 45.5 19.9 40.8 4.1 21.0 24.6 45.6 19.0 39.8 25.0

747-8F 4.4 21.0 24.2 45.2 19.6 40.4 3.9 20.9 23.3 44.2 18.6 39.4 25.0

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

Aircraft 2.5 degree glide slope 3.0 degree glide slope Model FD Pitch Eye ILS beam Eye path ILS Pilots FD Pitch Eye path ILS beam Eye path ILS Pilots (deg) path to to wheel to wheel antenna Eye (deg) Flap to ILS to wheel to wheel antenna Eye Flap ILS path path above above Setting beam (ft) path path above above Setting beam (feet) H (feet) H1 wheels wheels H2 (feet) H (feet) H1 wheels wheels (ft) H2 (feet) H3 (feet) (feet) H3 (feet) H4 H4

747-400 2.5 20.9 19.4 40.3 15.3 36.1 2.0 20.9 19.4 40.3 14.5 35.2 747-400ER 30.0 747-400ERF

747-8I 2.6 20.9 20.9 41.8 16.2 36.9 2.1 20.9 20.9 41.8 15.3 36.0 30.0

747-8F 2.8 20.9 21.3 42.2 16.6 37.3 2.3 20.9 21.3 42.2 15.6 36.4 30.0

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

A380 An A340 B747- B777 Code F B747-8* C5 Code E -800 124 -600 400ER -300ER

65m up to but 52m up to but Wing not including 79.8m 68.4m 67.9m 73.3m not including 63.4m 64.9m 64.8m span 80m 65m Outer 14m up to but 9m up to but main gear not including 14.3m 12.7m 11.4m 8.0m not including 12.6m 12.6m 12.9m wheel 16m 14m span

FAA Airplane Design Groups

A380 A340 B747- B777 Group VI B747-8* C5 An 124 Group V -800 -600 400ER -300ER

214 ft up to but 171 ft up to but Wing not including 261.8 ft 224.4 ft 222.8 ft 240.5 ft not including 208.0 ft 212.9 ft 212.6 ft span 262 ft 214 ft

66 ft up to but 60 ft up to but Tail not including 80.1 ft 64.2 ft not including 58.7 ft 64.0 ft 61.4 ft Height 80 ft 66 ft

* Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change. B57

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

Code F Code E

Aeroplane A380-800 B747-8* C5 An 124 A340-600 B747-400ER B777-300ER Dimensions (m / ft) (m / ft) (m / ft) (m / ft) (m / ft) (m / ft) (m / ft)

Fuselage length 70.4 74.2 70.3 69.9 73.5 68.6 73.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wingtip vertical clearance at ~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 TOW

Wingtip vertical clearance at ~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 OEW

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

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

Cockpit view at OEW: 7.2 / 23.6 8.72 / 28.6 8.2 / 26.9 8.3 / 27.2 5.7 / 18.7 8.70 / 28.5 5.9 / 19.4 - Cockpit height 20° 18.6° Unknown Unknown 20° 18.4° 21° - Cockpit cut-off angle max 19.8 / 65.0 24.9 / 81.7 Unknown Unknown 15.7 / 51.5 25.8 / 84.6 14.6 / 47.9 - Obscured segment

Taxi camera Yes No No No Yes No Yes

Pilot-to-nose landing gear 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 distance

Pilot-to-Main landing gear 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 distance

~ Symbol indicates “approxmiate” * Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change. *** Highest door at OEW B58 # For aircraft with large winglets (significant wing and winglet deflection with full fuel) ## For aircraft without winglets, we typically give jig span. This is the span as measured in the manufacturing jig (straight wing without 1G droop).797-CO-0261 12-8-06-whp/CF Landing Gear Geometry

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

1. Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change. 2. Freighter version values provided where 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 A340- B747- B777- Engine data A380-800 B747-8* C5 An 124 600 400ER 300ER Number of engines 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 Bypass ratio 8.7 8.1 8.0 ~5.7 7.5 5.3 ~7

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

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

Engine vertical clearance at MTOW 1.1 / 3.6 (inner) 0.6 / 2.0 2.5 / 8.2 3.5 / 11.5 0.5 / 1.6 0.7 / 2.3 (m / ft) 1.9 / 6.2 (outer) 1.3 / 4.3 1.7 / 5.6 3.1 / 10.2 1.6 / 5.2 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 3-class reference layout 555 467 - - 380 416 365 Maximum passenger carrying capacity ~800 660 - - ~475 660 550 287 000 / 165,000 / 186 000 / 350,000 / 131,000 / 78,206 / Wing fuel tank capacity (litres / US gallons)# 138,924 / 36,700 75,800 43,600 49,100 92,500 34,600 20,700 Tail empennage fuel tank capacity (litres / US 23,000 / 12,490 / 0 0 8,300 / 2,200 12,490 / 3,300 0 gallons)# 6,000 3,300 64,973 / 56,000 / 103,077 / Centre fuel tank capacity (litres / US gallons)# 0 0 0 64,973 / 17,200 17,200 14,800 27,200 310,000 / 243,000 / 186,000 / 350,000 / 194,878 / 228,538 / 60,400*** 181,283 / Maximum fuel carrying capacity (litres / US gallons) 81,900 64,200 49,100 92,500 51,500 204,333 / 54,000** 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

B747- B777- A380-800 747- 8* C5 An 124 A340-600 400ER 300ER

Approach attitude at 3° glide slope ~1.0° ~3.0° Unknown Unknown 3.5° 3.0° ~3.0°

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

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

~ Symbol indicate “approximate” 747-8, 777-300ER and A380-800 data are estimated values. * Specifications of the B747-8 are subject to change. ** Freighter version value B61

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

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

Straight Runway Bridges , Taxiway Minimum Width of Width of and Lights / Runway End Holding Tunnels Separation Distances Nb Title Runways Shoulders OFZ straight curved curved Aprons Signs Strip Safety Points and taxiway taxiway taxiway Area Culverts Rwy-Twy Twy-Twy shoulders

Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume I — Aerodrome X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 Design and Operations, 4th edition, July 2004, ICAO 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 2 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, 3 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 Circular 301 – New Larger Aeroplanes – Infringement of X 4 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 5 CAA UK (1) (2) http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/NOTAL_CAA.pdf Statistical Extreme Value Analysis of Taxiway Center X X X 6 Line Deviations for 747 Aircraft at JFK and ANC http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Design/taxi.asp Airports, August 2003, Boeing (1) Statistical Analysis of Aircraft Deviations from Taxiway X X X X Center Line, Taxiway Deviation Study at Amsterdam 7 Report available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Airport, Schiphol, 1995, Boeing Company Information Available at Boeing ([email protected]), ACI or Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) 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) 8 February 2004, Frankfurt Airport (1) (3) (5) Additional deviation analysis in curved portion available Available at Fraport, ACI or Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) X Runway Lateral Deviations during Landing, Study with 9 (1) (3) Preliminary results available Flight Recorder Systems On-board, CAA-France Available at CAA-France or Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) Common Agreement Document (CAD) of the A380 X X X X X X X X X X X X Aerodrome Compatibility Group, December 2002, CAA- 10 http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/AACG_Common_Agreement_Document_V2.1.pdf France, CAA-UK, CAA-Netherlands, CAA-Germany, (1) (2) (5) Appendices available at ACI (chairman), Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) or Boeing ([email protected]) ACI, IATA, Airbus Analysis of Runway Lateral Excursions from a common X X X 11 accident/incident database (source: ICAO, FAA, Airbus, Report available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Boeing), June 2003, Airbus (1) (5) Available at ACI or Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) Test of Load Bearing Capacity of Shoulders, 2003, CAA- X 12 France and Airbus (1) English version available at Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) A380 Pavement Experimental Project, October 2001, X 13 LCPC, Airbus, CAA-France http://www.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/publications/documents/rapportPEP.pdf 14 Reduced Separation Distances for Code F Aircraft at X X X X BACG Attachment C: Listing of Studies and References Relating to ICAO Annex 14 SARP’s

Straight Runway Bridges , Taxiway Minimum Width of Width of and Lights / Runway End Holding Tunnels Separation Distances Nb Title Runways Shoulders OFZ straight curved curved Aprons Signs Strip Safety Points and taxiway taxiway taxiway Area Culverts Rwy-Twy Twy-Twy shoulders

Amsterdam Airport, Schipol, 2001, Amsterdam Airport, Report available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Schipol (1) (5) Available at AMS, ACI or Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) ILS study at Paris Charles-de-Gaulle international airport X X X 15 (CDG), October 2004, ADP (1) (2) http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/ILS_Study_at_CDG-V5-2.pdf Study of the accomodation of the Airbus A380 on X X X runways 1 and 2 of Paris-Charles de Gaulle (runway 16 http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/AdP_Study_on_runways.pdf widths and shoulders), April 2005, ADP and CAA- http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/STAC_validation_case.pdf France X X X X X X Air Navigation Plan - ICAO European Region - Reduced 17 (5) Relevant extract available in Appendix 4 of the AACG CAD (see #10) Separation Distances, 2001, ICAO Europe Available at ICAO Europe or Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) Final Report on the Risk Analysis in Support of X X X X X 18 Aerodrome Design Rules, 2001, CAA-Norway (2) (5) http://www.luftfartstilsynet.no/multimedia/archive/00002/AEA_Final_Report_Vers_2524a.pdf Taxiway Deviation Study at LHR, 1987, X X X X 19 BAA (4) (5) Referenced in the ADM – Part 2 – taxiways (see #2) Certification Document - A380 operations on 45m wide X 20 runways, August 2007, Airbus Available at Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) Airbus A380 Operations Evaluation Results, July 2007, X X 21 FAA Available at FAA (refer to EB#63B and EB#65A) or Airbus (Contact: [email protected]) Engineering Brief No. 65A X X X 22 Use of 150-Foot-(45-M) Wide Runways for Airbus A380 http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/construction/engineering_briefs/media/EB_65a.pdf Operations, December 2007, FAA Engineering Brief No. 63B X X 23 Taxiways for Airbus A380 Taxiing Operations, http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/construction/engineering_briefs/media/EB_63b.pdf December 2007, FAA Airbus A380 operations at alternate airports, June 2006, X X X X X X X X X X X X 24 CAA-France http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/doc/Alternates_June_2006.doc Taxiway Analysis for A380 operations on 22.5m wide X X 25 taxiway, 2004, ADP Available at AdP Runway to Parallel Taxiway Study, June 2006, Sydney X X X X 26 Airport Corporation Available at Sydney Airport Corporation Holding Point Analysis for A380 operations, 2004-2007, X 27 ADP Available at AdP AC 150-5300-13 Change 14 Airport Design, November X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 28 2008, FAA http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/C9F1039842EBCE9986256C690074F3C4?OpenDocument&Highlight=5300-13 Resistance of elevated runway edge lights to A380 jet X 29 blast, May 2005, CAA France http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/Jet_blast_tests_report_V1R0.pdf Evaluation of Wind-Loading on Airport Signs, June X 30 2000, FAA http://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/safety/downloads/TN00-32.pdf BACG Attachment C: Listing of Studies and References Relating to ICAO Annex 14 SARP’s

Straight Runway Bridges , Taxiway Minimum Width of Width of and Lights / Runway End Holding Tunnels Separation Distances Nb Title Runways Shoulders OFZ straight curved curved Aprons Signs Strip Safety Points and taxiway taxiway taxiway Area Culverts Rwy-Twy Twy-Twy shoulders

FAA Airport Obstructions Standards Committee (AOSC) X 31 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 75- X X 32 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 FAA Engineering Brief 74: Minimum Requirements to X X 33 Widen Existing 150-Foot Wide Runways for Boeing http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_74.pdf 747-8 Operations (6) FAA Order 5300.1F: Modifications to Agency Airport x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 34 Design, Construction and Equipment Standards, 2000, http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/orders/media/construction_5300_1f.pdf FAA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Circular 305 - Operation of New Larger Aeroplanes at 35 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 FAA Airport Obstructions Standards Committee (AOSC) X 36 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 78: Application of Linear X X 37 Equations for New Large Airplane 747-8 Taxiway and http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_78.pdf Taxilane Separation Criteria FAA Engineering Brief 80: Use of Interim Taxiway X X 38 Edge Safety Margin Clearance for Airplane Design http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_80.pdf Group VI FAA Engineering Brief 81: Use of Guidance for X X 39 Runway Centerline to Parallel Taxiway / Taxilane http://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/EB_81.pdf Centerline Separation for Boeing 747-8

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

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 Formula ICAO Annex 14 EUR ANP EUR ANP AACG between Volume 1 Part III-AOP Part III-AOP

Curved and straight TWY Curved TWY Straight TWY Curved and straight TWY

747-400 747-400 A380-800 Code E / Code F TWY centerline and Wing span 65 / 80 65 65 80 TWY centerline + max. lateral dev. (x) (9*) 4.5 / 4.5 5 ** 5 ** 11 (x + z) + increment (z) (6*) 10.5 / 13 6 6 = TOTAL 80 / 97.5 76 76 91 **** TWY/apron TWY ½ wing span 32.5 / 40 32.5 32.5 40 centerline and object + max. lateral dev. (x) 4.5 / 4.5 2.5 ** 2.5 ** 9 (x + z) + increment (z) 10.5 / 13 10.5 6.5 *** = TOTAL 47.5 / 57.5 45.5 41.5 49 Aircraft stand taxilane ½ wing span 32.5 / 40 32.5 32.5 40 centerline and object + gear deviation (x) 2.5 / 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 (x + z) + increment (z) 7.5 / 8 7.5 5 *** ## = TOTAL 42.5 / 50.5 42.5 40 ## 47.5 Aircraft stand taxilane ½ wing span 32.5 / 40 32.5 32.5 40 centerline and 3m- + gear deviation (x) 2.5 / 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 (x + z) height-limited object or + increment (z) 7.5 / 8 6.5 # 2.5 *** edge of service road = TOTAL 42.5 / 50.5 41.5 37.5 47.5 ###

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

Doc 7754

*_

European Region Air Navigation Plan

Volume I, Basic ANP

Not to be used for operational purposes

First edition - 2001

International Civil Aviation Organization 111-1

Part IlI AERODROME OPERATIONAL PLANNING (AOP)

GENERAL Aerodrome services

1. For regular and alternate aerodromes used for Rescue and fire fighting services international operations, the general physical characteristics, marking, visual aids and services should be in accordance 6. Rescue and fire fighting services at international with the relevant ICAO provisions. 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 AIRPORTS FASID. [Annex 14, Volume I, 9.21

Physical characteristics 7. Rescue and fire fighting services at international aerodromes should be capable of meeting the specified .. 2. The specificphysical characteristics for each regular response time and be kept in a state of readiness throughout use international aerodrome should meet the requirements of those times when the aerodrome is available for use. the critical aircraft. [Annex 14, Volume I, 9.21 [Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 31

3. The specific physical characteristics for each Runway surfaces alternate use international aerodrome should be based on the requirements of the diverted critical aircraft. 8. In amplification of relevant provisions in Annex 14, [Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 31 Volume I, runway surfaces should be constructed andor treated so as to ensure continuous good friction character- 4. In those cases where the extension or development istics when wet. Runway markings should consist of non-slip of an aerodrome in accordance with the provisions contained materials. in 2 and 3 above would only be required to meet infrequent [Annex 14, Volume I, 3.1.22 and 5.21 operations of the critical aircraft but would entail dis- proportionate expenditures, specific arrangements should be made between operators and the State concerned regarding Runway visual range the reasonable practical development of the aerodrome in question. The results of such arrangements, together with 9. In order to facilitate aircraft operations in low relevant reasons, should be reflected in Table AOP 1 of the visibility, runway visual range (RVR) information should be FASID. available for runways intended for use when either the horizontal visibility or the RVR is less than 1 500 m. The 5. The specific physical requirements for each provision of such information is essential for CAT I1 and aerodrome used by international general aviation (IGA) only CAT IIi operations. should be based on the requirements of those IGA aircraft likely to use the aerodrome in question most frequently. 10. A secondary power supply should be provided for _.. [Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 31 RVR observing systems which use instrumental means. Local 'C AOP 111-5

consistent with the surface movement guidance and control distances do not adversely affect the safety or significantly r system (SMGCS) provided at the aerodrome concerned. affect the regularity of operations of aeroplanes. Experience in some States with operation of B747-400 has shown that it 36. The provision of marking and lighting aids together may be permissible, if specific measures have been with signs should ensure the safe control and guidance of implemented to reduce separation distances on taxiways, aircraft towards and at take-off intersections appropriate to apron taxiways and aircraft stand taxilanes to the dimensions the minimum visibility criteria retained. At the taxi holding specified in Attachment H to Part 111 - AOP of the EüR position of the associated intersection take-off position, such FASID. (Cf. Aerodrome Design Manual (DOC9157), Part 2, signs should indicate the runway heading and the remaining Table 1-4.) take-off run available (TORA) in metres (paragraph 15 of Part IU - AOP of the EUR FASID also refers). 40. The provision of unambiguous and conspicuous taxi guidance to pilots under all operational conditions prevailing at the aerodrome by appropriatemeans (e.g. visual Air traffic services aids, marshaller, etc.) is an essential prerequisite for operations conducted with lower separation distances. Note.- Thefollowing operational requirement relates to Equally important is the provision of good taxiway surface the provisions of Air Trafic Services for all trafic on the friction conditions at all times to ensure proper braking and manoeuvring area of an aerodrome and all aircraff flying in nosewheel steering capability of aeroplanes. the vicini9 of an aerodrome. 4 1. Regarding turns, reduced separationsklearance 37. Aerodrome control service should be provided at all distances are based on the assumption that the cockpit should regular and aiternate aerodromes. Aerodrome control service remain above the taxiway centre line markinflighting as should also be provided at those aerodromes used by accurately as possible and at taxi speeds commensurate with international general aviation aircraft, but only when the type actual operating conditions prevailing, except that for aircraft and density of traffic warrant it. stand taxilanes a different technique, as specified in the AIP, may apply.

Surface movement guidance and control systems (SMGCS) Reduced separation distances on taxiwayslapion taxiways 38. Surface movement radar (SMR) should not be used for other than monitoring tasks unless identification 42. Whenever minimum separation distances between procedures are implemented. the centre lines of parallel taxiways or between taxiway/apron taxiway centre line and object, as specified in Annex 14, are Note.-Material on the application of advanced SMGCS reduced in accordance with Attachment H to Part III -AOP is presented in Attachment G to Part Ill -AOP of the EUR of the EUR FASID, taxiway centre line lighting should be FASID. provided for night, winter or low visibility operations.

43. On parallel taxiways the separation distances New larger aeroplanes (NLA) operations between the centre lines should be not less than 76 m (Attachment H to Part III -AOP of the EUR FASID refers). B747-400 Operations - General 44. In straight portions of a taxiway or apron taxiway Note.- Material on the impact of operations of NLA on the separation distance between the centre line and an object aerodromes is presented in Attachment F to Part Ill -AOP such as a building or a parked aircraft should be not less than of the EUR FASID. 41.5 m (Attachment H to Part III -AOP of the EUR FASID refers). 39. Where the minimum separatiodclearance distances as specified in Annex 14, Volume I, Table 3-1 cannot be 45. In taxiway or apron taxiway curves the separation provided by the existing layout of an aerodrome, States may distances between the centre line and an object should be not introduce lower separation standards provided that an less than 45.5 m (Attachment H to Part 111 - AOP of the aeronautical study indicates that such lower separation EUR FASID refers). Lt 111-6 EUR BASIC ANP

Reduced separation distances on 53. An aircraft stand equipped with a visual docking aircraft stand tarilanes guidance system should provide the minimum clearance of r) 5 m between an aircraft using the stand and any adjacent . 46. On aircraft stand taxilanes where reduced building, aircraft on another stand and other objects. separation distances exist proper guidance such as centre line lights or equivalent guidance (e.g. marshaller, etc.) should be Note.- The clearance distance between an aircraft on a . provided for night, winter or low visibility operations. stand provided with azimuth guidance by a visual docking guidance system and an object or edge of a service road may 47. All objects not providing the minimum further be reduced subject to local circumstances provided separatiodclearance distance as specified in Annex 14 should that the object (e.g. blast fence) does not exceed a height of be properly marked or lighted (Annex 14, Chapter 5 refers). 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 Airport capacity the separation distance between the centre line and an object such as a parked aircraft or a building should be not less than 54. States shouldensurethat adequate consultation and, 40 m, whereas the wing tip clearance of an aircraft turning where appropriate, cooperation between airport authorities from a taxilane into an aircraft stand should not be less than and userdother involved parties is executed at all inter- 7.5 m as recommended in Annex 14, Chapter 3, 3.12.6. national aerodromes to satisfy the provisions of 59 to 69.

Note.- The separation distance between the taxilane 55. States should provide and coordinate communi- centre line and an object or edge of a service road may cation and exchange of information between the States’ further be reduced to not less than 37.5 m provided that the internationalairports and international organizations involved .. object (e.g. blastfence) does not exceed a height of 3 m above with airport capacity issues. . /. the relative taxilane centre line. I 56. Consultation procedures should be established 50. In curves of aircraft stand taxilanes the separation between airport authorities and users commensurate with distances should not be less than 42.5 m, as specified in local conditions and appropriate to the specific purpose the Annex 14, Table 3-1, whereas the wingtip clearance of an consultation process is intended to serve (capacity aircraft taxiing on a curved taxilane or turning from one assessmenildemand forecasting, etc.). taxilane into another taxilane/taxiway should not be less than 7.5 m. 57. Regular consultation between airport authority and users should preferably be effected by local working groups Note.- Where vertical clearance criteria are being composed of all parties involved, including ATS where considered, the separation distance between the taxilane applicable. Alternatively, a local group may be replaced by a centre line and the edge of the service roads or an object, national committee. which may not exceed a height of 3 m above the relative taxilane centre line, shouid be not less than 41.5 m. 58. At airports where environmental concerns prevail with apotential impact on airport capacity adialogue-oriented activity with communities will be required in which users Reduced clearance distances on aircraft stands should actively participate.

51. On aircraft stands where reduced clearance distances exist guidance by visual docking guidance system should be provided. Airport capacity assessment and requirement 52. All objects for which reduced clearances apply should be properly marked or lighted (Annex 14, Chapter 6). 59. The declaredcapacity/demandcondition at airports should be periodically reviewed in terms of a qualitative . . i.’ . ...;,.;j 111-1 0 EUR BASIC ANP

Aerodrome control service and surface account all the aspects of the changing division in responsi- movement guidance and control systems bility for collision avoidanceduring low visibility conditions. p: (SMGCS) Note.- Guidance material on responsibiliry aspects CM Note.- Material on the application of advanced SMGCS be found in ICAO Doc 9476, Manual of Surface Movement is presented in Amchment G to Part Ill -AOP of the EUR Guidance and Control Systems (SMGCS), Chapter 3. FASID. 96. Where radar service is required for approach 91. Where the traffic density is high and the layout of control and the traffic mixture is so composed, the possibility the airfield is complex, the implementation of surface to provide aerodrome control service with assistance from movement radar (SMR) should be considered when the radar information, for the final approach segment, based on procedural aerodrome control service is a limiting factor for the same source as the approach control, should be the overall air traffic services and the traffic volume. (Air considered. With appropriateregulations the need for coordi- Traffic Services Planning Manual (Doc 9426), Part 11, nation and handover could be reduced and the mix of arrivals Section 5 and Manual of Surface Movement Guidance and and departures more efficiently conducted. Control Systems (SMGCS)(Doc 9476) also refer.)

92. Guidance material has been produced on SMR ILSMLS transition identification procedures. In order to harmonize the use of SMR in the region, it is recommended that these procedures 97. Initially ILS and MLS procedures will be identical, be implemented to allow more effective use of SMR. Where with aircraft being navigated by pilots or radar vectored to SMR identification procedures are already in operation it is intercept the final approach procedure in accordance with recommended that they be reviewed taking into account the current practices. When traffic density is not a constraint (e.g. guidance material now available. during night hours) or at certain aerodromes, MLS/RNAV procedures should be introduced during the ILS/MLS Note.- Guidance material on SMR identijkation transition period. These MLS/RNAV procedures should be procedures is contained in ICAO Doc 9426, Air Traffic identical to.existing approach procedures based on another Services Planning Manual, Part 11, Section 5, Chapter 4. navigation aid or result from an operational benefit and improvement in airspace management for aircraft equipped 93. Due to the difficulty in maintaining aircraft and with suitable avionics. vehicle identification on primary SMR displays only, significant increases in ATS capacity can be achieved when identification labelling is made available. New larger aeroplanes (NLA) operations Note.- Identification labelling trials and development are taking place in certain States. B747-400 Operations

Note.- Material on the impact of NLA on aerodromes is 94. In order to fully exploit capacity gains, the presented in Attachment F to Part III - AOP of the EUR advanced surface movement guidance and control systems FASID. (SMGCS)must operate from runway to parking position and vice versa. The use of advanced SMGCS will require the 98. Where the minirnumseparatiodclearancedistances controllingauthority to accept an increasingresponsibilityfor as specified in Annex 14, Volume 1, Table 3-1, do not permit aircraft safety in low visibility conditions. The level of B747-400 operations at existing airports the following service provided must be maintained from the runway to the options to overcome such problems should be considered by stand and should be provided by properly trained and/or the appropriate authority in consultation with the operators: licensed personnel. - apply selective taxi routes where feasible; 95. Where an advanced SMGCS is used to provide - remove objects where feasible; guidance from one area of responsibility to another, - reduce size of aircraft stands where feasible; coordination procedures should be implemented taking into - implement reduced separation distances. AOP 111-1 1 r Note.- Although these options may have a degrading 102. Where on aircraft stand taxilanes or stands, effect on either the provision of suitable stands or on the objects do not exceed a height of 3 m above the relative apron ground movement capacity/efiiciency of the aerodrome, they surface, the clearance distances may be further reduced should however be given particular attention so as to permit accounting for the fact that the minimum wingtip height of a best and early B747-400operations. B747-400 is more than 5 m above the ground. 99. In order to achieve an efficient operation of aeroplanes on existing layouts of major aerodromes with high B747-400 traffic where the separatiodclearance distances as Reduced runway declared distances specified in Annex 14,Volume I, 3.8.7and Table 3-1 are not for take-ofl being provided, lower separationklearance distances may be introduced conditional to the prior conduct of an aeronautical 103. At aerodromes regularly used by international study substantiating that there are no consequential adverse commercial air transport, take-Offs from runway/taxiway effects on the safety or regularity of operations at the intersections may be justified for the following reasons: aerodrome and by taking specific measures. 100. The safe and efficient operations with B747-400 a) runway capacity improvement; at existing European aerodromes requires a careful analysis regarding the separationlclearance distances provided on b) taxi routes distances reduction; taxiways or apron taxiways, aircraft stand taxilanes and aircraft stands. On taxiways and taxilanes the clearance c) noise alleviation; and between the wingtip and an object such as aparked aircraft or a building should be not less than 7.5 m. Therefore, adetailed d) air pollution reduction. evaluation will be required in all cases of reduced separationsklearances to determine the path followed by the 104. To this end, the appropriate authorities should, wingtip on the inside and on the outside of the turn. Smaller upon prior consultation with aircraft operators, agree on the or larger turn radii of taxiways, or taxilanes or taxi- selection of suitable intermediate intersection take-off lanehircraft stand centre line intersections may be required to positions along the runway(s). Accordingly, authorities meet the minimum clearance requirements. In the case of should determine the reduced runway declared distances for taxilanes and stands, the clearance distances provided in the take-off associated with each selected intersection take-off vertical plane between wingtips and objects may additionally position and establish the specific ATC rules and operational be accounted for. procedureshimitations. Such provisions should be published 101. Reduced separation distances between parallel in the State AIP. taxiway centre lines and between taxiway/apron taxiway centre line and an object may be introduced based on the Note.- Detailed operational requirements governing the assumption that the lateral deviation of B747-400 will not implementation of reduced runway declared distances for exceed 2.5 m, if specific measures are introduced (e.g. rake-off are contained in 31 to 36. Additional guidance is taxiway centre line lights, etc.). 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)

ANNEX 14, VOLUME I SURVEY ON B 747-400 OPERATIONS IN THE ICAO EUROPEAN REGION 1. With the introduction of the B 747-400, the Council of ICAO adopted 65 m as the upper limit of wing span for 3. A regional survey on B 747-400 operations at code letter E in Table 3-1 of Annex 14, Volume I. This table international aerodromes was conducted by the European includes the requirements for the physical characteristics of Office of ICAO in October 1989. 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: RESULTS OF THE ICAO SURVEY

4. The ICAO survey:

TWYI Taxilanel - highlights the main problemskoncerns raised by NLA Code object object (B747-400) operations; letter distance distance distance distance I - indicates that lower separation distances, used at some 1 182.5E m I 80 m 47.5 m 42.5 m major aerodromes, do not effect the safety of NLA E (180.0m) (76.5m) (46.5 m) (40.0 m) 1 1 operations.

(Distances in brackets refer to those approved by 5. The “ICAO Survey” showed the NLA-related Amendment 38 to Annex 14.) problems concerning terminal, apron and manoeuvring area as well as the reduced separation distances, used at some aerodromes.

2. Lower separation distances at an existing aerodrome may be permitted ifan aeronautical study indicates that such TERMINAL (Building) lower separation distances, together with the conditional implementation of specific measures, would not effect the 6. Terminal limitations such as Check-in concourse, safety and the regularity of operations of aeroplanes. waiting lounge, customs, security, baggage claim area, gate occupancy, car parking, access roads, etc., are related to Note.- Guidance on relevant factors which may be passenger capacity of aircraft. Hence the B 747-300 (wing considered in an aeronautical study is given in the span 60 m) problems occurring at airports are not B 747-400 Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 2 (Doc 9157). (NLA)-related. llLF2

~~ --I ------*--?.--“-+--

7. Aerodromes that reported terminal problems such 12. All these measures may have a degrading effect on as “limited operations”, “limited acceptance’’ or “not either the provision of suitable stands or the ground acceptable” have common terminal capacity restrictions. movement capacity/efficiency but should however be These restrictions mainly concern the passenger flow-through considered to permit safe B 747-400 operations. 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. BASIC CONSIDERATION FOR THE EUROPEAN RCM ON NEW LARGER AEROPLANES (NLA)

8. At some airports only a limited number of 13. The RCM is based on the provisions of ICAO appropriate parking stands is available due to required Annex 14, Volume I, the guidance material in the Aerodrome clearances. Design Manual, Part 2 (Doc 9157), and the current B 747- 400 operations practices applied at a number of major 9. At many airports neither the spacing between European aerodromes. adjacent aircraft stands at a pier nor the width of the taxilane giving access to gate stands were found adequate for NLA. In 14. A survey conducted by ICAO at European many cases remote parking stands have to be accepted. aerodromes concerning the accommodation of B 747-400 revealed that for the minimum separatiodclearance distances 10. In order to provide safe and efficient operation at specified in Annex 14, Volume I to be satisfied, substantial some major aerodromes with high B 747-400 traffic, lower modifications would have been required to some existing separation distances than those specified in Annex 14 have taxiway configurations and apron layouts. been implemented by taking specific measures. 15. In many cases physical changes were not feasible, however. Accordingly, the implementation of reduced MANOEUVRING AREA separatiodclearance distances became inevitable to permit a regular and efficient traffic with B 747-400. 11. Many aerodromes are faced with problems of providing the minimum separation distances specified in 16. As regards safety, indication from operational Annex 14 for NLA operation along main taxiways. This experiences is that lower separatiodclearance distances are applies in particular to some apron taxiways with limited acceptable for B 747-400 operations provided that specific space provided to adjacent aircraft stands or other objects. conditions are met. In this context, the concept of accounting There are several options to overcome such problems: for the existing separatiodclearance distances provided in the vertical plane relative to objects and service roads is a) apply selective taxi routes where feasible; considered a viable option. b) remove objects where feasible; 17. Operations of code E aircraft other than B 747-400 should fully comply with Annex 14 criteria until experience c) reduce the size of stands where feasible; is gained. Operations of NLA larger than code E should be considered by ICAO as soon as aircraft configurations are d) implement reduced separation distances. 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 EUR ANP EUR ANP (Volume I) Pari 111 - AOP Part 111 -AOP

Max. wing span 65 m NIA NLA (Code E) 0747-400 0747-400 Separation distances between Formula Curved and straight W Curved TWY Straight TWY 1 2 3 4 5 Taxiway centre line and wing span 65 65 65 taxiway centre line + 2x max. lateral dev. + 9 5 ti. 5 .. increment 6 # 6. # 6 # = TOTAL 80 76 0 76 0 TaxiwaylApron taxiway YZ wing span 32.5 32.5 32.5 ** tt centre line and object t max. lateral dev. 4.5 2.5 2.5 + increment 10.5 # 10.5 # 6.5 ttt = TOTAL 47.5 45.5 0 41.5 0 Aircraft stand taxilane YZ wing span 32.5 32.5 32.5 centre line and object + max. lateral dev. 2.5 2.5 2.5 t increment 7.5 # 7.5 # 5 +**+ = TOTAL 42.5 42.5 40 ot Aircraft stand taxilane YZ wing span 32.5 32.5 32.5 center line and 3 m-height- + max. gear deviation 2.5 2.5 2.5 limited object or edge of + increment 7.5 # 6.5 ## 2.5 ttt service road = TOTAL 42.5 41.5 0 37.5 0

Remarks: o Specific measures are required and should be published in the AIP. * Annex 14 maximum lateral deviation. ** Reduced maximum lateral deviation of 2.5 m provided that proper taxiguidance is available (Paragraph 101, Part 111 - AOP of the EUR Basic ANP refers). *'* Main gear track-in is up to 4 m on cuived taxiways. # Annex 14 safety buffers. ## Safety buffer is reduced due to height-limited objects. + Wingtip clearance of an aircraft turning from a taxilane into an aircraft stand should not be less than 7.5 m as recommended in Annex 14, Volume I, 3.12.6,

BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS

Dimensional data shown in tabular form in this attachment is drawn from ICAO, Jeppeson and OAG data sources and includes airports as identified from the Official Airline Guide (OAG) with scheduled 747 service during the month of November, 2007. The runway-taxiway separation data format follows the ICAO ACDB (Airport Characteristics DataBase). For example, AKL shows rwy-twy separation of 200m, but also shows rwy-twy separation to the second parallel taxiway 108m further away as 308m. This list is not inclusive of all airports and/or runways capable of 747 operations. Some of the data were found to be in error or outdated. These data were checked to the latest Jeppeson airport diagrams and Google Earth Pro (satellite image) measurement which has approximate 1m accuracy.

RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS AKL NZAA AUCKLAND INTL AUCKLAND NEWZ 7 24 05R23L 3635 45 05L 45 200N AKL NZAA AUCKLAND INTL AUCKLAND NEWZ 7 24 05R23L 3635 45 05L 23 308N 108N AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 06 24 3500 45 A 23 292NW 93NW AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 06 24 3500 45 B 23 199NW 54 AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 09 27 3452 45 A 23 292S 93S AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 09 27 3452 45 B 23 199S 54 AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 09 27 3452 45 E4 23 460S AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18C36C 3300 45 A-C 23 297E 98E AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18C36C 3300 45 B-D 23 199E 57 AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18C36C 3300 45 Y-Z 23 290W AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18L36R 3400 45 A 23 293W 93W AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18L36R 3400 45 B 23 199W 54 AMS EHAM SCHIPHOL AMSTERDAM NETH -4 20 18R36L 3800 60 V 23 193E 57 ANC PANC ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. UNST 44 19 07L25R 3231 46 K 23 187N ANC PANC ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. UNST 44 19 07R25L 3322 46 K 23 376N ANC PANC ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. UNST 44 19 14 32 3531 46 R 23 183E ANC PANC ANCHORAGE INTL ANCHORAGE, AK. UNST 44 19 14 32 3531 46 Y 30 155W ATH LGAV ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS INATHENS GREC 94 25 03L21R 3800 45 A 23 195SE ATH LGAV ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS INATHENS GREC 94 25 03L21R 3800 45 B 23 295SE 100SE ATH LGAV ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS INATHENS GREC 94 25 03R21L 4000 45 C 23 295NW 100NW ATH LGAV ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS INATHENS GREC 94 25 03R21L 4000 45 D 23 195NW ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 08L26R 2743 45 A 23 122N ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 08L26R 2743 45 B 23 122S ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 08R26L 3048 45 B 23 122N ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 08R26L 3048 45 E 30 152S ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 08R26L 3048 45 F 30 245S 93S ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 09L27R 3624 45 L 30 213N 91N ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 09L27R 3624 45 M 23 122N ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 09L27R 3624 45 N 23 122S ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 09R27L 2743 45 N 30 198N ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 09R27L 2743 45 R 23 122S ATL KATL WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD-ATL ATLANTA, GA. UNST 313 30 10 28 2743 45 SG 23 122N AUH OMAA ABU DHABI INTL ABU DHABI UNAR 27 42 13 31 4100 45 W 23 550S 90S AUH OMAA ABU DHABI INTL ABU DHABI UNAR 27 42 13 31 4100 45 Y 23 460S 210S AUH OMAA ABU DHABI INTL ABU DHABI UNAR 27 42 13 31 4100 45 Z 23 250S BFI KBFI BOEING FIELD-KING COUNTYSEATTLE, WA. UNST 5 24 13R31L 3049 60 A 25 114E BFI KBFI BOEING FIELD-KING COUNTYSEATTLE, WA. UNST 5 24 13R31L 3049 60 B 23 98W BKK VTBS SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK THAILAND 2 01L19R 3700 60 E 30 200SE BKK VTBS SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK THAILAND 2 01L19R 3700 60 D 30 320SE 120SE

Page 1 10/21/2008 BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS BKK VTBS SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK THAILAND 2 01R19L 4000 60 B 30 200NW BKK VTBS SUVARNABHUMI INTL BANGKOK THAILAND 2 01R19L 4000 60 C 30 320NW 120NW BNE YBBN BRISBANE INTL BRISBANE ASTL 4 29 01 19 3560 45 A 23 200NW BNE YBBN BRISBANE INTL BRISBANE ASTL 4 29 01 19 3560 45 B 23 320NW 120NW BOM VABB CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTL MUMBAI INDA 11 31 09 27 3445 45 D 23 183N BOM VABB CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTL MUMBAI INDA 11 31 14 32 2925 45 Z 23 190NE Not verified BOS KBOS GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. UNST 6 27 04R22L 3050 45 M 30 285NW BOS KBOS GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. UNST 6 27 15R33L 3073 45 A 30 195SW 73SW BOS KBOS GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. UNST 6 27 15R33L 3073 45 B 30 122SW BOS KBOS GEN. EDWARD L. LOGAN INT BOSTON, MA. UNST 6 27 15R33L 3073 45 C 30 150SW BRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 02 20 2987 50 D1-W 20 305E BRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 02 20 2987 50 INN-7 30 262W 79W BRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 02 20 2987 50 OUT-7 30 183W BRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 07L25R 3638 45 INN-2 30 260S 80S BRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 07L25R 3638 45 N2 30 250N BRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 07L25R 3638 45 OUT-1 30 180S BRU EBBR BRUXELLES NATIONAL BRUXELLES BELG 56 22 07R25L 3211 45 OUT-11 30 180N BWI KBWI BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. UNST 45 30 10 28 2881 60 R-U 23 122N BWI KBWI BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. UNST 45 30 15R33L 2902 45 A 23 196NE 75NE BWI KBWI BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. UNST 45 30 15R33L 2902 45 D 23 167NE BWI KBWI BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INBALTIMORE, MD. UNST 45 30 15R33L 2902 45 P 23 121NE CAI HECA CAIRO INTL CAIRO EGYP 116 35 05L23R 3301 60 A 30 200SE CAI HECA CAIRO INTL CAIRO EGYP 116 35 05R23L 3999 60 O-T 30 250NW CAI HECA CAIRO INTL CAIRO EGYP 116 35 16 34 3178 60 U 30 170NE CAI HECA CAIRO INTL CAIRO EGYP 116 35 16 34 3178 60 X 30 200W CAN ZGGG BAIYUN GUANGZHOU CHIN 11 33 02L20R 3600 45 E 23 280SE 90SE CAN ZGGG BAIYUN GUANGZHOU CHIN 11 33 02L20R 3600 45 F 23 190SE CAN ZGGG BAIYUN GUANGZHOU CHIN 11 33 02R20L 3800 60 A 23 200NW CAN ZGGG BAIYUN GUANGZHOU CHIN 11 33 02R20L 3800 60 B 23 300NW 100NW CDG LFPG CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS FRAN 119 24 08L26R 4215 45 J 22.5 193S CDG LFPG CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS FRAN 119 24 08L26R 4215 45 T 22.5 210N CDG LFPG CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS FRAN 119 24 09R27L 4200 45 D 22.5 250S CDG LFPG CHARLES DE GAULLE PARIS FRAN 119 24 09R27L 4200 45 L 22.5 192N CEB RPVM MACTAN-CEBU INTL LAPU-LAPU PHIL 10 35 04 22 3300 45 B 23 315NW CGK WIII SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA INDO 10 32 07L25R 3600 60 NP1 23 300S 100S CGK WIII SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA INDO 10 32 07L25R 3600 60 NP2 23 200S CGK WIII SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA INDO 10 32 07R25L 3660 60 SP1 23 300N 100N CGK WIII SOEKARNO-HATTA INTL JAKARTA INDO 10 32 07R25L 3660 60 SP2 23 200N CGN EDDK BONN KOLN GERF 92 23 14L32R 3815 60 A 25 318SW 81SW CGN EDDK BONN KOLN GERF 92 23 14L32R 3815 60 E 22.5 237SW CHC NZCH CHRISTCHURCH INTL CHRISTCHURCH NEWZ 37 22 02 20 3288 45 A 23 215SE CLE KCLE CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL CLEVELAND, OH. UNST 241 29 06L24R 2743 45 G 23 122SE CLE KCLE CLEVELAND-HOPKINS INTL CLEVELAND, OH. UNST 241 29 06R24L 2743 45 L 23 122SE CLT KCLT CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTL CHARLOTTE, NC UNST 228 25 18R36L 3048 45 E 23 182E CLT KCLT CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTL CHARLOTTE, NC UNST 228 25 18R36L 3048 45 F 23 265E 83E CMB VCBI BANDARANAIKE INTL COLOMBO SRIL 9 33 04 22 3350 45 PRL 30 200SE

Page 2 10/21/2008 BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS CNS YBCS CAIRNS CAIRNS ASTL 3 31 15 33 3196 45 B 23 183NE CNS YBCS CAIRNS CAIRNS ASTL 3 31 15 33 3196 45 C 23 293NE 110NE CNX VTCC CHIANG MAI INTL CHIANG MAI THAI 316 36 18 36 3100 45 F 23 240E CTS RJCC NEW CHITOSE SAPPORO JAPN 25 25 01L19R 3000 60 D 30 180W CTS RJCC NEW CHITOSE SAPPORO JAPN 25 25 01L19R 3000 60 J 30 330W 150NE CTS RJCC NEW CHITOSE SAPPORO JAPN 25 25 01R19L 3000 60 No-Parallels CTU ZUUU SHUANGLIU CHENGDU CHIN 494 30 02 20 3600 45 A 27 242NE CVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 09 27 3658 45 J 23 203N 81N CVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 09 27 3658 45 K 23 122N CVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 09 27 3658 45 M 23 122S CVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 18C36C 3353 45 C 23 178W Not verified CVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 18C36C 3353 45 D 23 122E CVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 18C36C 3353 45 E 23 200E 78E CVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 18L36R 3048 45 S 23 268W 90W CVG KCVG CINCINNATI-NORTHERN KEN CINCINNATI, OH UNST 273 23 18L36R 3048 45 T 23 178W DEL VIDP INDIRA GANDHI INTL DELHI INDA 237 41 09 27 2813 45 E 23 250S DEL VIDP INDIRA GANDHI INTL DELHI INDA 237 41 10 28 3810 45 P 23 205S DEL VIDP INDIRA GANDHI INTL DELHI INDA 237 41 10 28 3810 45 R 23 505S 300S DEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 07 25 3658 45 B 23 183N DEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 08 26 3658 45 R 23 183S DEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 16L34R 3658 45 F 23 183E DEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 16L34R 3658 45 G 23 283E 100E DEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 16R34L 3658 45 D 23 183E Not verified DEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 17L35R 3658 45 P 23 183W DEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 17R35L 3658 45 L 23 283W 100W DEN KDEN DENVER INTL. DENVER, CO UNST 1655 22 17R35L 3658 45 M 23 183W DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 13L31R 2743 60 Q 23 295SW 112SW DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 13L31R 2743 60 R 30 183SW DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 13R31L 2835 45 A 23 183NE DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 13R31L 2835 45 B 23 297NE 114NE DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 17C35C 3471 45 M 23 183W DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 17C35C 3471 45 P 23 295E DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 17R35L 4084 60 K 30 297W 114W DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 17R35L 4084 60 L 30 183W DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 17R35L 4084 60 M 23 183E DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 18L36R 3471 60 E 23 183W DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 18L36R 3471 60 F 30 183E DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 18L36R 3471 60 G 30 297E 114E DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 18R36L 3471 45 C 23 297W DFW KDFW DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTL DALLAS-FORT WORTHUNST 184 35 18R36L 3471 45 E 23 183E DHA OEDR KING ABDULAZIZ AIR BASE DHAHRAN SAUD 26 42 16L34R 3600 45 1 23 192W DHA OEDR KING ABDULAZIZ AIR BASE DHAHRAN SAUD 26 42 16L34R 3600 45 4 23 192E DHA OEDR KING ABDULAZIZ AIR BASE DHAHRAN SAUD 26 42 16R34L 3660 45 3 23 225E DLC ZYTL ZHOUSHUIZI DALIAN CHIN 33 27 10 28 3300 45 A-PRL 23 218S DMK VTBD BANGKOK INTL BANGKOK THAI 3 35 03L21R 3700 60 A 28 260NW 80NW DMK VTBD BANGKOK INTL BANGKOK THAI 3 35 03L21R 3700 60 B 28 180NW

Page 3 10/21/2008 BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS DMK VTBD BANGKOK INTL BANGKOK THAI 3 35 03R21L 3500 45 T 23 145SE DPS WADD BALI INTL (NGURAH RAI) DENPASAR INDO 4 31 09 27 3000 45 N 23 183N DTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 03R21L 3048 45 PP 23 340NW 157NW DTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 03R21L 3048 45 S 20 183SE DTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 03R21L 3048 45 W 23 183NW DTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 04L22R 3048 45 A 23 183SE DTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 04R22L 3659 60 K 23 190SE 70SE DTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 04R22L 3659 60 Y 23 120SE DTW KDTW DETROIT METROPOLITAN WADETROIT, MI. UNST 195 29 04R22L 3659 60 Z 23 122NW DUS EDDL DUSSELDORF DUSSELDORF GERF 45 23 05R23L 3000 45 M 45 218SE DXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12L30R 4000 60 M 23 192SW DXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12L30R 4000 60 N 23 192NE DXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12L30R 4000 60 P 23 283NE 91NE DXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12R30L 4315 45 J4 23 268SW 78SW DXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12R30L 4315 45 K 23 190SW DXB OMDB DUBAI INTL DUBAI UNAR 10 41 12R30L 4315 45 M 23 192NE EWR KEWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST 5 29 04L22R 3353 46 D,B,R 23 122W EWR KEWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST 5 29 04L22R 3353 46 P 23 122E EWR KEWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST 5 29 04L22R 3353 46 PA,A,S 23 213W 91W EWR KEWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST 5 29 04R22L 3042 46 CC 23 143SE EWR KEWR NEWARK INTL NEWARK, NJ UNST 5 29 04R22L 3042 46 P 23 167W EZE SAEZ ARPT INTL EZEIZA, MIN. PIST BUENOS AIRES ARGT 20 22 11 29 3300 60 F 23 250N EZE SAEZ ARPT INTL EZEIZA, MIN. PIST BUENOS AIRES ARGT 20 22 11 29 3300 60 H 23 300N EZE SAEZ ARPT INTL EZEIZA, MIN. PIST BUENOS AIRES ARGT 20 22 17 35 3105 45 J 23 222W FCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 07 25 3309 45 B 30 192S FCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 07 25 3309 45 H 30 295S 103S FCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 16C34C 3600 45 C 30 109W FCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 16L34R 3900 60 No-Parallels FCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 16R34L 3900 60 A 30 260E FCO LIRF FIUMICINO/LEONARDO DA VI ROMA ITAL 5 28 16R34L 3900 60 Z 30 360E 100E FDF TFFF LE LAMENTIN,MARTINIQUE FORT-DE-FRANCE FRAT 5 30 09 27 3000 45 L 23 180N FDF TFFF LE LAMENTIN,MARTINIQUE FORT-DE-FRANCE FRAT 5 30 09 27 3000 45 T 23 213N FLL KFLL FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWFORT LAUDERDALE, FUNST 3 33 09L27R 2744 46 A 23 137N FLL KFLL FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWFORT LAUDERDALE, FUNST 3 33 09L27R 2744 46 B 23 137S FRA EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF 111 24 07L25R 4000 60 A 30 200NE FRA EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF 111 24 07L25R 4000 60 C 30 260SE FRA EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF 111 24 07R25L 4000 45 C 30 257NW FRA EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF 111 24 07R25L 4000 45 S 30 200SE FRA EDDF FRANKFURT MAIN FRANKFURT MAIN GERF 111 24 18 36 4000 45 W 30 161E FUK RJFF FUKUOKA FUKUOKA JAPN 10 32 16 34 2800 60 A 23 180E FUK RJFF FUKUOKA FUKUOKA JAPN 10 32 16 34 2800 60 B 23 183W GIG SBGL RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ 9 30 10 28 4000 45 M 23 375S 80S GIG SBGL RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ 9 30 10 28 4000 45 N 23 255S GIG SBGL RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ 9 30 15 33 3180 45 B 23 163NE GIG SBGL RIO DE JANEIRO INTL-GALEARIO DE JANEIRO BRAZ 9 30 15 33 3180 45 K 23 375NE 212NE GMP RKSS GIMPO INTL SEOUL RKOR 18 23 14L32R 3600 45 P 30 185NE

Page 4 10/21/2008 BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS GMP RKSS GIMPO INTL SEOUL RKOR 18 23 14R32L 3200 60 No-Parallels GUM PGUM A.B. WON PAT GUAM INT'L AI GUAM I. MARI 91 29 06L24R 3053 45 K 25 122N GUM PGUM A.B. WON PAT GUAM INT'L AI GUAM I. MARI 91 29 06R24L 3052 45 M 23 190S HAM EDDH HAMBURG HAMBURG GERF 16 22 05 23 3250 46 L 23 183SE HAM EDDH HAMBURG HAMBURG GERF 16 22 15 33 3666 46 D 23 199NE HKD RJCH HAKODATE HAKODATE JAPN 34 24 12 30 3000 45 P 23 180NE HKG VHHH HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG 9 32 07L25R 3800 60 A 30 190SE HKG VHHH HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG 9 32 07L25R 3800 60 B 30 290SE 100SE HKG VHHH HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG 9 32 07R25L 3800 60 H 30 290NW 100NW HKG VHHH HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG 9 32 07R25L 3800 60 J 30 190NW HKG VHHH HONG KONG INTL HONG KONG HONG 9 32 07R25L 3800 60 K 30 190SE HND RJTT TOKYO INTL TOKYO JAPN 8 31 16L34R 3000 60 I 30 300SW 100SW HND RJTT TOKYO INTL TOKYO JAPN 8 31 16L34R 3000 60 O 30 200SW HND RJTT TOKYO INTL TOKYO JAPN 8 31 16R34L 3000 60 I 30 300NE 100NE HND RJTT TOKYO INTL TOKYO JAPN 8 31 16R34L 3000 60 L 30 300SW HND RJTT TOKYO INTL TOKYO JAPN 8 31 16R34L 3000 60 O 30 200NE HNL PHNL HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. UNST 4 30 04R22L 2743 45 C 23 133SE HNL PHNL HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. UNST 4 30 08L26R 3749 45 A 25 184N HNL PHNL HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. UNST 4 30 08L26R 3658 45 B 23 152S HNL PHNL HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. UNST 4 30 08L26R 3749 45 Z 23 275N 91N HNL PHNL HONOLULU INTL HONOLULU, HI. UNST 4 30 08R26L 3658 60 RA 23 320N HRB ZYHB YANJIAGANG HARBIN CHIN 139 27 05 23 3200 45 A 23 190NW HRE FVHA HARARE INTERNATIONAL HARARE ZIMB 1494 29 05 23 4725 45 A-G 23 198NW IAD KIAD DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC UNST 95 31 01L19R 3505 45 Y 23 213E IAD KIAD DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC UNST 95 31 01L19R 3505 45 Z 23 313E 100E IAD KIAD DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC UNST 95 31 01R19L 3505 45 J 23 313W 100E IAD KIAD DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC UNST 95 31 01R19L 3505 45 K 23 213W IAD KIAD DULLES INTL WASHINGTON, DC UNST 95 31 12 30 3202 45 Q 23 213N IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 08L26R 2743 45 FA 23 183S IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 08R26L 2866 45 CC 23 197N IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 08R26L 2866 45 NA 23 183S IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 08R26L 2866 45 NB 23 293S 110S IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 09 27 3048 45 SA 23 123N IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 09 27 3048 45 SB 23 231N 108N IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 15L33R 3658 45 WA 23 183NE IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 15L33R 3658 45 WB 23 293NE 110NE IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 15L33R 3658 45 WP 23 122SW IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 15R33L 3048 45 WC 23 127SW IAH KIAH GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINHOUSTON, TX. UNST 30 35 15R33L 3048 45 WP 23 183NE IND KIND INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. UNST 243 31 05L23R 3414 46 A 30 197NW IND KIND INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. UNST 243 31 05L23R 3414 46 B 23 183SE IND KIND INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. UNST 243 31 05R23L 3048 45 C 23 183NW IND KIND INDIANAPOLIS INTL INDIANAPOLIS, IN. UNST 243 31 05R23L 3048 45 D 23 121SE ITM RJOO OSAKA INTL OSAKA JAPN 12 25 14R32L 3000 60 B 23 200NE ITO PHTO HILO INTL HILO, HI. UNST 11 28 08 26 2987 45 A 23 130S JED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16C34C 3300 60 F 30 300W 90W

Page 5 10/21/2008 BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS JED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16C34C 3300 60 H 30 210W JED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16L34R 3690 45 K 23 230W JED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16L34R 3690 45 L 30 230E JED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16R34L 3800 60 B 30 210E JED OEJN KING ABDULAZIZ INTL JEDDAH SAUD 15 39 16R34L 3800 60 C 30 300E 90E JFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 04L22R 3460 45 A 23 213NW 91NW JFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 04L22R 3460 45 B 23 122NW JFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 04L22R 3460 45 Y 23 243SE JFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 13L31R 3048 45 A 23 213SW 91SW JFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 13L31R 3048 45 B 23 122SW JFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 13L31R 3048 45 C 23 122NE JFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 13R31L 4442 45 A 23 213NE 91NE JFK KJFK JOHN F. KENNEDY INTL NEW YORK, NY UNST 4 29 13R31L 4442 45 B 23 122NE JNB FAJS JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIOJOHANNESBURG SOUF 1694 21 03L21R 4418 60 A1-A5 30.5 200NW JNB FAJS JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIOJOHANNESBURG SOUF 1694 21 03L21R 4418 60 C1-C2 30.5 200SE JNB FAJS JOHANNESBURG INTERNATIOJOHANNESBURG SOUF 1694 21 03R21L 3400 60 Y1-Y4 30.5 200NW KHH RCKH GAOXIONG GAOXIONG CHIN 9 31 09 27 3150 60 S 23 360S KHI OPKC JINNAH INTERNATIONAL KARACHI PAKI 30 36 07L25R 3200 45 No-Parallels KHI OPKC JINNAH INTERNATIONAL KARACHI PAKI 30 36 07R25L 3400 45 C,E,G 23 213S KIX RJBB KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA JAPN 5 25 06L24R 3500 60 Y 30 200SE KIX RJBB KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA JAPN 5 25 06R24L 3500 60 L 30 300NW 100NW KIX RJBB KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA JAPN 5 25 06R24L 3500 60 P 30 200NW KIX RJBB KANSAI INTERNATIONAL OSAKA JAPN 5 25 06R24L 3500 60 R 30 400NW 100NW KMJ RJFT KUMAMOTO KUMAMOTO JAPN 193 32 07 25 3000 45 P 23 183SE KOJ RJFK KAGOSHIMA KAGOSHIMA JAPN 272 30 16 34 3000 45 P 23 185SW KUL WMKK KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR MALB 21 32 14L32R 4019 60 A 24 210SW KUL WMKK KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR MALB 21 32 14L32R 4019 60 B 24 310SW 100SW KUL WMKK KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR MALB 21 32 14R32L 4000 60 C 24 210NE KUL WMKK KUALA LUMPUR INT'L - SEPA KUALA LUMPUR MALB 21 32 14R32L 4000 60 D 24 315NE 105NE LAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 01R19L 2980 45 D 30 183E LAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 01R19L 2980 45 E 23 165W LAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 07L25R 3852 45 A 30 152S LAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 07L25R 3852 45 B 30 127N LAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 07L25R 3852 45 C 30 207N 80N LAS KLAS MCCARRAN INTL LAS VEGAS, NV. UNST 663 41 07R25L 3852 45 A 30 152N LAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 06R24L 3135 45 D 25 212S 90S LAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 06R24L 3135 45 E 25 122S LAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 07L25R 3686 45 AC 23 120S LAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 07L25R 3686 45 B 23 107N LAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 07L25R 3686 45 C 23 198N 91N LAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 07R25L 3382 60 A 23 135S LAX KLAX LOS ANGELES INTL LOS ANGELES, CA. UNST 38 24 07R25L 3382 60 AC 23 120N LEA YPLM LEARMONTH LEARMONTH ASTL 6 31 18 36 3047 45 A 23 280W LGW EGKK GATWICK LONDON UNKG 60 22 08R26L 3316 45 J 23 290N LGW EGKK GATWICK LONDON UNKG 60 22 08R26L 3316 45 Y 23 240SE LHR EGLL HEATHROW LONDON UNKG 25 22 09L27R 3901 50 A 23 183S

Page 6 10/21/2008 BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS LHR EGLL HEATHROW LONDON UNKG 25 22 09L27R 3901 50 B 15 260S 77S LHR EGLL HEATHROW LONDON UNKG 25 22 09R27L 3660 50 A 23 183N LHR EGLL HEATHROW LONDON UNKG 25 22 09R27L 3660 50 B 23 260N 77N LHR EGLL HEATHROW LONDON UNKG 25 22 09R27L 3660 50 S 23 180S LUX ELLX LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG LXBG 376 16 06 24 4000 60 A 23 188NW LUX ELLX LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG LXBG 376 16 06 24 4000 60 B4 23 170NW MAD LEMD BARAJAS MADRID SPAN 610 33 15L33R 3500 60 KA 25 191SW MAD LEMD BARAJAS MADRID SPAN 610 33 15R33L 4100 60 A 25 182SW MAD LEMD BARAJAS MADRID SPAN 610 33 15R33L 4100 60 M 25 262SW 80SW MAD LEMD BARAJAS MADRID SPAN 610 33 18L36R 3500 60 AY 25 191W MAD LEMD BARAJAS MADRID SPAN 610 33 18R36L 4350 60 ZW 45 191W MAN EGCC MANCHESTER MANCHESTER UNKG 78 21 05L23R 3048 45 A 23 183NW MAN EGCC MANCHESTER MANCHESTER UNKG 78 21 05L23R 3048 45 J 23 170NW MAN EGCC MANCHESTER MANCHESTER UNKG 78 21 05L23R 3048 45 V 23 195SE MAN EGCC MANCHESTER MANCHESTER UNKG 78 21 05R23L 3047 45 V 23 195NW MCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 17L35R 2743 46 N 23 122W MCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 17R35L 3048 46 G 23 213W 91W MCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 17R35L 3048 46 H 23 122W MCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 18L36R 3659 60 B 23 213E MCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 18L36R 3659 60 C 23 315E 102E MCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 18L36R 3659 60 Z 30 230W MCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 18R36L 3659 60 A 23 240W MCO KMCO ORLANDO INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 29 29 18R36L 3659 60 Z 30 228E MEL YMML MELBOURNE INTL MELBOURNE ASTL 132 27 16 34 3657 60 A 23 375E MEL YMML MELBOURNE INTL MELBOURNE ASTL 132 27 16 34 3657 60 S 23 560E 185E MEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18C36C 3389 46 C 23 136W MEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18C36C 3389 46 J 23 220W 84W MEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18C36C 3389 46 S 23 122E MEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18L36R 2743 46 S 23 160W MEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18L36R 2743 46 Y 23 170E Not verified MEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18R36L 2841 46 M 30 122E MEM KMEM MEMPHIS INTL MEMPHIS, TN UNST 104 27 18R36L 2841 46 N 30 210E 88E MIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 08R26L 3202 60 L 23 123N MIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 08R26L 3202 60 M 30 121S MIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 08R26L 3202 60 N 23 213S 91S MIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 09 27 3962 45 S 23 213N 90N MIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 09 27 3962 45 T 23 123N MIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 12 30 2851 45 P 23 178NE 71NE MIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 12 30 2851 45 Q 23 107NE MIA KMIA MIAMI INTL MIAMI, FL. UNST 3 33 12 30 2851 45 R 23 170SW MKE KMKE GENERAL MITCHELL FIELD MILWAUKEE, WI. UNST 220 27 01L19R 2954 60 E 23 122W MKE KMKE GENERAL MITCHELL FIELD MILWAUKEE, WI. UNST 220 27 01L19R 2954 60 R 23 141W MLA LMML LUQA MALTA MALT 91 31 14 32 3544 60 I 15 107NE MLA LMML LUQA MALTA MALT 91 31 14 32 3544 60 T 23 190NE MNL RPLL NINOY AQUINO INTL MANILA PHIL 23 35 06 24 3410 45 C 23 106N MNL RPLL NINOY AQUINO INTL MANILA PHIL 23 35 06 24 3410 45 L 23 186N 80N

Page 7 10/21/2008 BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS MRU FIMP MAURITIUS INTL MAURITIUS MAUR 56 27 14 32 3040 45 APR 23 275SW MSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 04 22 3355 45 C 23 121SE MSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 04 22 3355 45 D 23 230SE 109SE MSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 04 22 3355 45 M 23 122NW MSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 12R30L 3048 60 A 23 122NE MSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 12R30L 3048 60 B 23 205NE MSP KMSP MINNEAPOLIS ST.PAUL INTL MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UNST 256 29 12R30L 3048 60 W 23 122SW MUC EDDM MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN GERF 453 23 08L26R 4000 60 M 30 300S MUC EDDM MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN GERF 453 23 08L26R 4000 60 N 30 420S 120S MUC EDDM MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN GERF 453 23 08R26L 4000 60 S 30 420N 120N MUC EDDM MUNCHEN F.J. STRAUSS MUNCHEN GERF 453 23 08R26L 4000 60 T 30 300N MXP LIMC MALPENSA MILANO ITAL 234 28 17L35R 3920 60 A 30 225W MXP LIMC MALPENSA MILANO ITAL 234 28 17L35R 3920 60 C 30 404W 179W MXP LIMC MALPENSA MILANO ITAL 234 28 17R35L 3920 60 C 30 404E MXP LIMC MALPENSA MILANO ITAL 234 28 17R35L 3920 60 K 30 280W 85W MXP LIMC MALPENSA MILANO ITAL 234 28 17R35L 3920 60 W 30 195W NAN NFFN NADI INTL NADI FIJI 18 28 02 20 3200 45 No-Parallels NBO HKJK JOMO KENYATTA INTL NAIROBI KENY 1623 29 06 24 4117 45 A 20 200NW NBO HKJK JOMO KENYATTA INTL NAIROBI KENY 1623 29 06 24 4117 45 G 23 365SE NGO RJGG CHUBU CENTRAIR INTL NAGOYA JAPN 4 24 18 36 3500 60 A 30 220E NGO RJGG CHUBU CENTRAIR INTL NAGOYA JAPN 4 24 18 36 3500 60 B 30 320E 100E NGO RJGG CHUBU CENTRAIR INTL NAGOYA JAPN 4 24 18 36 3500 60 C 30 407E 87E NGS RJFU NAGASAKI NAGASAKI JAPN 3 32 14 32 3000 60 P 23 190NE NOU NWWW TONTOUTA NOUMEA NCAL 16 27 11 29 3250 45 APR 23 132NE NRT RJAA NARITA TOKYO JAPN 41 30 16R34L 4000 60 A 30 200E NRT RJAA NARITA TOKYO JAPN 41 30 16R34L 4000 60 M-P 30 390E 190E OAK KOAK METROPOLITAN OAKLAND INOAKLAND, CA. UNST 2 24 11 29 3048 45 W 23 140NE OKA ROAH NAHA NAHA JAPN 3 31 18 36 3000 45 A 23 208E OKA ROAH NAHA NAHA JAPN 3 31 18 36 3000 45 B 23 233W OKO RJTY YOKOTA AB TOKYO JAPN 141 23 18 36 3353 60 APR 23 240W OKO RJTY YOKOTA AB TOKYO JAPN 141 23 18 36 3353 60 F 23 240E OMA KOMA EPPLEY OMAHA, NE UNST 300 23 14R32L 2896 46 A 23 121SW OMA KOMA EPPLEY OMAHA, NE UNST 300 23 14R32L 2896 46 G 23 198SW 77SW ONT KONT ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. UNST 287 24 08L26R 3718 46 M 15 90S ONT KONT ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. UNST 287 24 08L26R 3718 46 N 23 123N ONT KONT ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. UNST 287 24 08L26R 3718 46 N1 23 232N 109N ONT KONT ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. UNST 287 24 08R26L 3109 46 M 15 122N ONT KONT ONTARIO INTL ONTARIO, CA. UNST 287 24 08R26L 3109 46 S 23 122S ORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 10 28 3092 45 B 23 257N 105N ORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 10 28 3092 45 L 23 183S ORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 10 28 3092 45 M 23 152N ORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14L32R 3050 45 P 23 152SW ORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14L32R 3050 45 V 15 236NE ORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14R32L 3963 60 B 23 242NE 105NE ORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14R32L 3963 60 J 23 242NE 105NE ORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14R32L 3963 60 K 23 183SW

Page 8 10/21/2008 BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS ORD KORD CHICAGO-O'HARE INTL CHICAGO, IL. UNST 203 30 14R32L 3963 60 T 23 137NE ORY LFPO ORLY PARIS FRAN 89 29 06 24 3650 45 W1 23 220SE ORY LFPO ORLY PARIS FRAN 89 29 06 24 3650 45 W3 23 300SE 80SE ORY LFPO ORLY PARIS FRAN 89 29 06 24 3650 45 W47 23 270SE ORY LFPO ORLY PARIS FRAN 89 29 08 26 3320 45 W31 23 300N PAE KPAE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PAINE EVERETT, WA. UNST 185 22 16R34L 2746 45 A 23 160E PEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 01 19 3800 60 J 23 300W 100W PEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 01 19 3800 60 K 23 200W PEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 18L36R 3800 60 F 23 200W PEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 18L36R 3800 60 G 23 175E Not verified PEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 18L36R 3800 60 H 23 298E PEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 18L36R 3800 60 Z3 23 290W PEK ZBAA CAPITAL BEIJING CHIN 36 31 18R36L 3200 50 C 23 185E PEN WMKP PENANG PENANG MALB 3 32 04 22 3352 45 A 23 187NW PER YPPH PERTH INTL PERTH ASTL 21 32 03 21 3444 45 A 30 220W PER YPPH PERTH INTL PERTH ASTL 21 32 03 21 3444 45 C 23 320E PER YPPH PERTH INTL PERTH ASTL 21 32 03 21 3444 45 H 15 290W PHL KPHL PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. UNST 6 30 09L27R 2896 45 J 23 200N 78N PHL KPHL PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. UNST 6 30 09L27R 2896 45 K 23 122N PHL KPHL PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. UNST 6 30 09L27R 2896 45 P 23 122S PHL KPHL PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. UNST 6 30 09R27L 3200 60 P 23 213N 91N PHL KPHL PHILADELPHIA INTL PHILADELPHIA, PA. UNST 6 30 09R27L 3200 60 S 30 122N PHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 07L25R 3140 46 D 23 200N 78N PHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 07L25R 3140 46 E 23 122N PHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 07L25R 3140 46 F 23 122S PHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 08 26 3502 46 A 15 122N PHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 08 26 3502 46 B 23 122S PHX KPHX PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTL PHOENIX, AZ. UNST 345 40 08 26 3502 46 C 23 203S 81S PIK EGPK PRESTWICK PRESTWICK UNKG 20 18 13 31 2987 45 R 23 168SW PIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10C28C 2959 45 E 23 107N PIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10C28C 2959 45 F 23 183S PIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10L28R 3201 45 A 23 189N PIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10L28R 3201 45 B 23 120S PIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10L28R 3201 45 C 23 195S 75S PIT KPIT PITTSBURGH INTL PITTSBURGH, PA. UNST 367 28 10R28L 3505 60 F 23 183N POP MDPP GREGORIO LUPERON INTL PUERTO PLATA DOMR 5 27 08 26 3081 45 APR 23 265S QPG WSAP PAYA LEBAR SINGAPORE SING 20 32 02 20 3780 60 W 23 197W RIC KRIC RICHMOND INTL RICHMOND, VA UNST 51 25 16 34 2744 46 L 23 228SW RUH OERK KING KHALED INT'L RIYADH SAUD 625 43 15L33R 4205 60 F 23 420SW 120SW RUH OERK KING KHALED INT'L RIYADH SAUD 625 43 15L33R 4205 60 G 23 300SW RUH OERK KING KHALED INT'L RIYADH SAUD 625 43 15R33L 4205 60 A 23 300NE RUN FMEE LA REUNION-GILLOT AIRPORSAINT-DENIS REUN 20 30 12 30 3200 45 APR 20 190SW Non-Parallels SAN KSAN SAN DIEGO INTL-LINDBERGHSAN DIEGO, CA. UNST 5 25 09 27 2865 60 B 23 105S SAN KSAN SAN DIEGO INTL-LINDBERGHSAN DIEGO, CA. UNST 5 25 09 27 2865 60 C 23 110N SDF KSDF LOUISVILLE INTL-STANDIFORLOUISVILLE, KY UNST 153 25 17R35L 3624 45 B 23 137NE SDF KSDF LOUISVILLE INTL-STANDIFORLOUISVILLE, KY UNST 153 25 17R35L 3624 45 C 218NE 81NE

Page 9 10/21/2008 BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS SEA KSEA SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE, WA. UNST 131 25 16C34C 2873 45 T 30 180W SEA KSEA SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE, WA. UNST 131 25 16L34R 3627 45 A 30 213E 93E SEA KSEA SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE, WA. UNST 131 25 16L34R 3627 45 B 30 120E SEA KSEA SEATTLE-TACOMA INTL SEATTLE, WA. UNST 131 25 16L34R 3627 45 W 30 175E 55E SFB KSFB ORLANDO SANFORD INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 17 28 09L27R 2926 46 A 23 121N SFB KSFB ORLANDO SANFORD INTL ORLANDO, FL UNST 17 28 09L27R 2926 46 B 23 121S SFO KSFO SAN FRANCISCO INTL SAN FRANCISCO, CA. UNST 3 22 10L28R 3618 60 C 23 152NE SFO KSFO SAN FRANCISCO INTL SAN FRANCISCO, CA. UNST 3 22 10R28L 3231 60 A 23 195SW 73SW SFO KSFO SAN FRANCISCO INTL SAN FRANCISCO, CA. UNST 3 22 10R28L 3231 60 B 23 122SW SHA ZSSS HONGQIAO SHANGHAI CHIN 3 31 18 36 3400 58 A 23 240E SHA ZSSS HONGQIAO SHANGHAI CHIN 3 31 18 36 3400 58 MAIN 23 325E 85E SHE ZYTX TAOXIAN SHENYANG CHIN 60 29 06 24 3200 45 A 23 200SE SIN WSSS CHANGI SINGAPORE SING 7 32 02C20C 4000 60 A7 30 300W 100W SIN WSSS CHANGI SINGAPORE SING 7 32 02C20C 4000 60 EP 30 200W SIN WSSS CHANGI SINGAPORE SING 7 32 02L20R 4000 60 WA 30 300E 100E SIN WSSS CHANGI SINGAPORE SING 7 32 02L20R 4000 60 WP 30 200E SJC KSJC MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SAN JOSE, CA UNST 19 23 12L30R 3353 46 Y 23 106NE SJC KSJC MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SAN JOSE, CA UNST 19 23 12L30R 3353 46 Z 23 171NE 65NE SJC KSJC MINETA SAN JOSE INTL SAN JOSE, CA UNST 19 23 12R30L 3353 46 No-Parallels SLC KSLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY, UT UNST 1288 23 16L34R 3659 46 G 23 264W 81W SLC KSLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY, UT UNST 1288 23 16L34R 3659 46 H 23 183W SLC KSLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY, UT UNST 1288 23 16R34L 3658 46 A 23 183E SLC KSLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY, UT UNST 1288 23 16R34L 3658 46 B 23 264E 81E SLC KSLC SALT LAKE CITY INTL SALT LAKE CITY, UT UNST 1288 23 17 35 2925 46 K 23 173E SNN EINN SHANNON SHANNON IRLD 14 15 06 24 3199 45 D2 23 215SE STN EGSS STANSTED LONDON UNKG 106 21 05 23 3048 45 G 27 197NW STN EGSS STANSTED LONDON UNKG 106 21 05 23 3048 45 H 23 245SE STN EGSS STANSTED LONDON UNKG 106 21 05 23 3048 45 J 23 395SE 150SE SVO UUEE SHEREMETYEVO MOSKVA RUSS 192 20 07L25R 3550 60 MAIN1 23 325N SVO UUEE SHEREMETYEVO MOSKVA RUSS 192 20 07R25L 3703 60 MAIN2 23 235S SXF EDDB SCHONEFELD BERLIN GERF 48 24 07R25L 3000 45 A 23 248N SYD YSSY KINGSFORD SMITH INTL SYDNEY ASTL 6 26 16R34L 3962 45 A 23 180W SYD YSSY KINGSFORD SMITH INTL SYDNEY ASTL 6 26 16R34L 3962 45 B 23 200E SYD YSSY KINGSFORD SMITH INTL SYDNEY ASTL 6 26 16R34L 3962 45 C 23 280E 80E SZX ZGSZ HUANGTIAN SHENZHEN CHIN 4 33 15 33 3400 45 H 23 200SW THR OIII MEHRABAD INTL TEHRAN IRAN 1208 37 11L29R 3989 45 33 23 100N THR OIII MEHRABAD INTL TEHRAN IRAN 1208 37 11R29L 4030 60 15 23 100S TPE RCTP TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI CITY CHIN 33 33 05 23 3660 60 NN 30 215SE TPE RCTP TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI CITY CHIN 33 33 05 23 3660 60 NP 30 325SE 110SE TPE RCTP TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI CITY CHIN 33 33 06 24 3350 60 SC 30 310NW 100NW TPE RCTP TAIBEI INTL TAIBEI CITY CHIN 33 33 06 24 3350 60 SP 30 210NW TXL EDDT TEGEL BERLIN GERF 37 23 08L26R 3023 45 NW,NE 23 309N TXL EDDT TEGEL BERLIN GERF 37 23 08L26R 3023 45 SW,SE 23 390S URC ZWWW DIWOPU URUMQI CHIN 649 32 07 25 3600 45 A 28 265S UTP VTBU UTAPAO RAYONG THAI 18 34 18 36 3505 60 E 25 240W WAW EPWA OKECIE WARSZAWA POLD 110 24 11 29 2800 50 C1 23 198SW

Page 10 10/21/2008 BACG Attachment F: TAXIWAY SEPARATIONS - 747 AIRPORTS RWY RWY TWY LENGTH WIDTH PRIM WIDTH RWY-TWY TWY-TWY TWY-OBJ IATA ICAO AIRPORT CITY COUNTRY ELEV TEMP RWY (m) (m) TWY (m) SEP (m) SEP (m) SEP COMMENTS WAW EPWA OKECIE WARSZAWA POLD 110 24 11 29 2800 50 E1-E2 23 185NE WAW EPWA OKECIE WARSZAWA POLD 110 24 15 33 3690 60 A1-A6 23 240NE WAW EPWA OKECIE WARSZAWA POLD 110 24 15 33 3690 60 B6 23 240SW XIY ZLXY XIANYANG XI'AN CHIN 479 32 05 23 3000 45 A 23 200SE XMN ZSAM GAOQI XIAMEN CHIN 18 32 05 23 3400 45 A 23 182SE YMX CYMX MONTREAL INTL (MIRABEL) MONTREAL, QU CAND 82 26 06 24 3658 60 B 23 500NW YVR CYVR VANCOUVER INTL VANCOUVER, BC CAND 4 22 08L26R 3030 60 M 23 235S YVR CYVR VANCOUVER INTL VANCOUVER, BC CAND 4 22 08R26L 3505 60 A 23 212S YVR CYVR VANCOUVER INTL VANCOUVER, BC CAND 4 22 08R26L 3505 60 D 23 230N YYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 05 23 3389 61 H 23 224SE YYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 05 23 3389 60 J 23 183NW YYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 06L24R 2896 61 C 23 183NE YYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 06L24R 2896 61 D 23 275NW 92NW YYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 15L33R 3368 60 A 23 263NE 81NE YYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 15L33R 3368 60 B 23 182NE YYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 15L33R 3368 60 E 23 182SW YYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 15R33L 2770 60 F 23 183NE YYZ CYYZ LESTER B. PEARSON INTL TORONTO, ONT CAND 173 27 15R33L 2770 60 M 23 183NE ZRH LSZH ZURICH ZURICH SWTZ 432 17 14 32 3300 60 H 18 190SW ZRH LSZH ZURICH ZURICH SWTZ 432 17 16 34 3700 55 APR 18 275NE ZRH LSZH ZURICH ZURICH SWTZ 432 17 16 34 3700 55 E 18 190NE

Page 11 10/21/2008

BACG Attachment G

Runway-Taxiway Separation – U.S. FAA Standard Runway-to-Taxiway Separation – U.S. FAA Standard *

FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13, para 209

The separation standard in Table 2-2 is intended to satisfy the requirement that no part of an airplane on taxiway centerline is within the runway safety area or penetrate the OFZ. - Table 2-2 runway separation standards apply to aircraft approach categories C (121-141 knots) and D (141-166 knots). - Runway safety area (RSA) is similar to ICAO graded portion of strip in intent. RSA for Group V (Code E equiv.) and Group VI (Code F equiv.) is 500 ft (152.4m) wide. - U.S. OFZ configurations vary with span, threshold elevation, and ILS category

Group V Group VI Rationale / Remarks (ICAO E equivalent) (ICAO F equivalent)

400’ (120m) Applies to Cat I; Increases with airport elevation (400’ applies to airport at sea level) 500’ (150m) Applies to Cat II/III; Applies to airports at sea level 500’ (150m) Applies to Cat I; May increase at higher elevation to meet OFZ requirement 550’ (168m) Applies to Cat II/III

* Revised through Airport Obstruction Standards Committee (AOSC) Decision Document #4, March 21, 2005, which can be found at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/aosc/media/AOSC_DecisionDocument_04_Signed.pdf

BACG Attachment H

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

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