SÃO PAULO/GUARULHOS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSIDE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR A380-800 AND B747-8 AIRCRAFT OPERATION
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SÃO PAULO/GUARULHOS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSIDE
COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR A380-800 AND B747-8 AIRCRAFT
OPERATION
Evandro J. da Silva 1
55 11 3091 5488 evandro.jose@ymail.com
Nicolau D. F. Gualda 1
55 11 3091 5731 ngualda@usp.br
1
Escola Politécnica da USP (POLI/USP)
Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, Travessa 2, n° 83
Cidade Universitária - São Paulo – SP, Brazil
Received: September 20, 2012; Accepted: August 02, 2013
ABSTRACT
An airside compatibility analysis of the São Paulo/Guarulhos Airport regarding the
operation of A380-800 and B747-8 aircraft is presented. The analysis is based upon ICAO and
FAA design standards and their possible flexibilizations. Needs for airside infrastructure
intervention are pointed out, along with flexibilizations that could alleviate those needs. Some
design criteria such as jet blast, fillet dimensions and curve radii are addressed by means of a
comparative approach, considering the new aircraft and others currently under operation at the
aerodrome.
Key words: São Paulo / Guarulhos Airport, Airside, New Large Airplane, International
Civil Aviation Organization, Federal Aviation Administration.SÃO PAULO/GUARULHOS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSIDE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR A380-800 AND B747-8 AIRCRAFT
OPERATION
agency of the United Nations setting forth
1. INTRODUCTION standards related to civil aviation, which must
be adopted by the signatory countries in their
The onset of A380-800 and B747-8 aircraft international airports. So far, 191 countries are
families brings up the need for proper airport ICAO members, including Brazil. On the other
infrastructure, given their size and weight, hand, domestic airports obey country level
which overcome those of current commercial established design standards. In this case, a
aircraft. common pattern is the adoption of ICAO design
In this article, the implications of operating the standards with no major modifications. The
A380-800 and the B747-8 aircraft at the São alternative solution is the development of a
Paulo/Guarulhos Intl (SBGR) airside are customized model, taking into account the
analyzed. The design criteria considered are: jet peculiarities of the country rather than the wide
blast velocities; runway width; runway standardization prioritized by ICAO. This is the
shoulders width; taxiway width; taxiway case of the United States FAA (Federal Aviation
shoulders width; blast pad width and length; Administration), which has a considerably
curve radius in a taxi route; fillet dimensions; different model, as shown by Silva (2012).
parallel runway/taxiway separation; parallel In Brazil, ANAC (Agência Nacional de Aviação
taxiway/taxiway separation; and the inner Civil – National Civil Aviation Agency) is the
transitional OFZ (obstacle free zone). agency in charge of civil aviation, basically
These analyses are performed according to following the ICAO model for both domestic
design standards established by ICAO and international airports.
(International Civil Aviation Organization) and The following sections present a concise
by FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), description of the airside geometric design
taking into account the corresponding possible standards related documents from ICAO, FAA
flexibilizations. and ANAC.
The article structure is as follows: Section 2
presents a literature review, pinpointing the 2.1. ICAO
documents related to design standards under ICAO main document concerning aerodrome
consideration; Section 3 discusses ARC geometric design is the Annex 14 to the
(Aerodrome Reference Code); Section 4 Convention on International Civil Aviation -
presents the accomplished analysis; and lastly, ICAO Annex 14 (2004a). In this document, the
Section 5 presents the study conclusions. design standards related to physical components
of an aerodrome and to the protection of
2. LITERATURE REVIEW navigable airspace are set forth in chapters 3
and 4, respectively. ICAO Annex 14 (2004a) is
Design standards play an important role in
cross associated to several other ICAO
airside geometric design, not only for legal
documents which also tackle aerodrome
implications, but also for the conceptual gap in
geometric design, as presented in the following
the field. Textbooks such as Horonjeff &
paragraphs.
McKelvey (1994) and Kazda & Caves (2008)
ICAO Doc 9157 Part 1 (2006a) is a manual that
focus on presenting design standards rather than
complements ICAO Annex 14 (2004a), by
developing concepts, or investigating the
addressing runway design. This manual adds
underlying ideas.
important information such as: i) adjustments
Ultimately, the institutions behind design
for slope, temperature and elevation for the
standards are government related bodies,
cases in which these factors are not considered
although other organisms of the air
in the APMs (Airport Planning Manuals); ii)
transportation industry also contribute. Among
examples of turn pad geometries; iii) a set of
the government and government related
aircraft and the corresponding ARC (Airport
institutions, two different branches are worth
Reference Code); and iv) a study about the
naming: ICAO and FAA. ICAO (International
relationship between runway slope and aircraft
Civil Aviation Organization) is a specialized
performance.JOURNAL OF THE BRAZILIAN AIR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH SOCIETY • VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2013
Similarly, ICAO Doc 9157 Part 2 (2005a) is an the accommodation of NLAs (New Large
ICAO Annex 14 (2004a) complementary Airplanes) in existing aerodromes.
manual, concerning taxiways, holding and Regarding the accommodation of NLAs, two
bypassing areas. In this manual, important non ICAO documents deserve being mentioned:
methodologies are presented, especially for the the AACG (A380 Airport Compatibility Group)
design of fillets and rapid exit taxiways, besides and the BACG (Boeing 747-8 Airport
general considerations about design of taxi Compatibility Group)2. These documents
routes. summarize a common position of the industry
PANS-OPS (Procedures for Air Navigation concerning the design standard flexibilizations
Services: Aircraft Operations) comprises two to be accepted for the accommodation of the
documents: ICAO PANS-OPS Volume I two new aircraft at existing aerodromes. In
(2006b) and ICAO PANS-OPS Volume II addition to the possible flexibilizations, the
(2006c). In these documents, flight procedures documents provide the associated justifications.
are described in conjunction with the associated
flight path deviations and the subsequent 2.2. ANAC
airspace required to be free of obstacles for the The main Brazilian regulation aerodrome design
safety of operations. related is the ANAC RBAC 154 (2009a), which
ICAO Doc 9137 (1983), in turn, concerns is fundamentally a Portuguese translation of the
airspace protection at a planning level, by ICAO Annex 14 (2004a), although some
describing the function of airspace protection recommendations were turned into required
surfaces presented in chapter 4 of the ICAO standards.
Annex 14 (2004a). These protection surfaces
forbid both natural and manmade obstacles. 2.3. FAA
ICAO Doc 9137 (1983) also compares the
FAA main regulation concerning aerodrome
surfaces set forth in ICAO Annex 14 (2004a)
design is the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-
and those introduced in PANS-OPS.
13 (1989), which is complemented by other
Lastly, ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation
FAA regulations as discussed in the next
Services: Air Traffic Management - PANS-
paragraphs.
ATM (2007) concerns air traffic control and
The EUA e-CFR Title 14 (2010) comprises a set
management. This matter is somehow related to
of US regulations for aeronautics and space,
the placement of runways in an aerodrome, as
electronically available from the US GPO
the document tackles in flight aircraft separation
(Government Printing Office). Specifically, in
standards.
Part 1 of this regulation, abbreviations are
As previously mentioned, design standards
shown, while Part 77 concerns navigable
flexibilizations are possible solutions when a
airspace protection, similarly to chapter 4 of
design standard is not deemed possible or
ICAO Annex 14 (2004a). However, Part 77
convenient. In this context, it is worth noting
does not present OFZ design standards, which
two ICAO documents, as underneath explained.
are shown in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-
ICAO Circular 301 (2005b) presents a set of
13 (1989).
studies regarding the utilization of a
Runway length considerations are presented in
nonstandard OFZ by an aircraft categorized as
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B (2005),
code letter F1, such as A380-800 and the B747-
which establishes a division of airplanes
8. The document presents aeronautical studies,
according to their approach speed, MTOW
simulations, data analyses and conclusions
(Maximum Take-Off Weight) and according to
intended to assist States interested in allowing
the fact of the airplane being or not a regional
flexibilizations in OFZ design standards.
jet. For regional jets and airplanes weighing
In turn, ICAO Circular 305 (2004b) presents a
27.200kg or more, the regulation sets the use of
risk assessment methodology to be utilized for
the APM (Airport Planning Manual). For the
the flexibilization of design standards related to
1 2
Section 3 may be consulted for code letter Website: https://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/ Access
categorization. on August, 2011.SÃO PAULO/GUARULHOS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSIDE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR A380-800 AND B747-8 AIRCRAFT
OPERATION
other airplanes, a calculation methodology is turn, the second term is referred to as airplane
presented. design group and depends on the more
The flexibilizations of FAA standards aiming to demanding of two aircraft characteristics:
accommodate A380-800 and B747-8 in existing wingspan and tail height. This term is
airports are issued by the agency through EBs represented by Roman numbers from I to VI.
(Engineering Briefs). For nomenclature standardizing purposes, the
expressions dynamic group and geometric
3. ARC (AERODROME REFERENCE CODE) group are herein adopted for reference to the
first and the second terms of the ARC,
Several design criteria standards rely on ARC respectively.
(Aerodrome Reference Code) as a simplified In order to establish the relationship between
and direct relationship between a given aircraft ICAO and FAA ARC coding, Silva (2012)
and the required airport airside infrastructure. compares a set of 31 aircraft. ICAO and FAA
ARC is a two-term code, in which the first term geometric groups are shown to be quite close,
stands for dynamic characteristics of the aircraft whereas a consistent pattern was not found for
and the other one depends on geometry. ICAO dynamic groups. As a result, geometric group
and FAA ARC codifications are quite different, specified design criteria may be directly
as follows. compared, while a more detailed analysis is
According to ICAO Annex 14 (2004a, p. 1-8), required when dealing with dynamic group
the first term is referred to as code number and based design criteria.
depends on the airplane reference field length3. Concerning ARC, it is worth mentioning that
The codification is based on 4 classes both A380-800 and B747-8 fall into ICAO 4-F
represented by Arabic numbers from 1 to 4. The and FAA D-VI categories. However, as A380-
second term, in turn, is referred to as code letter, 800 presents larger height and wingspan than
and depends on the most demanding of two B747-8, the former may be expected to demand
aircraft features: wingspan4 and wheel span5. additional infrastructure, as well as a shallower
The codification is based on the Latin alphabet, level of flexibilization for design standards. The
from A to F. largest airplanes currently operating at SBGR,
According to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300- such as A340-600 and B747-400, fall into
13 (1989, p. 1), the first ARC term is referred to ICAO 4-E and FAA D-V categories.
as aircraft approach category and depends on
the aircraft approach speed6. The representation 4. ANALYSIS
is based on the Latin alphabet from A to E7. In
This section presents a compatibility analysis
3 according to the criteria listed in Section 1.
The minimum field length required for take-off at
maximum certificated take-off mass, sea level, standard
atmospheric conditions, still air and zero runway slope, as 4.1. JET BLAST
shown in the appropriate aeroplane flight manual Jet blast plays an important role on airside
prescribed by the certificating authority or equivalent data
design, given the risks arising from the high
from the aeroplane manufacturer. Field length means
balanced field length for aeroplanes, if applicable, or take- speeds and temperatures of jet engines.
off distance in other cases. (ICAO Annex 14 2004a, p. 1- Common mitigations for jet blast effects
2). include: separation between aircraft and other
4
Wingtip to wingtip distance, measured perpendicularly aircraft, vehicles and personnel/pax; operational
to aircraft longitudinal axis.
5 procedures, such as limiting thrust level in given
Distance between the outer edges of the outer wheels,
measured perpendicularly to aircraft longitudinal axis. areas of the aerodrome; exclusion of non-
6
A grouping of aircraft based on 1.3 times their stall essential objects; erecting of blast fences;
speed in their landing configuration at the certificated controlling the movement of people and
maximum flap setting and maximum landing weight at vehicles inside and outside the aerodrome.
standard atmospheric conditions. (FAA AC 150/5300-13
Silva (2012, p.131-133) presents a classification
1989, p. 1).
7
While ICAO establishes 4 categories, FAA codification of jet blast effects, assessment techniques, and
is based on 5. The fifth was created for Concorde. related design standards. A direct conclusion ofJOURNAL OF THE BRAZILIAN AIR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH SOCIETY • VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2013
the study is the contrast between regulations centerline is the datum. It may be observed that
warning about jet blast risks and the lack of B747-8 increments are very slight, whereas
assessment techniques and design criteria. A380-800 calls for attention in this respect.
However, both ICAO and FAA set speed limits On the other hand, a longitudinal datum is not
to jet blast over people and vehicles. Such limit that clear. For this reason, two references are
is 35mph (when converted from 56km/h, from proposed: the nose wheel, which is a taxi
the original document) according to ICAO Doc maneuver reference, and the aircraft rear. Figure
9157 Part 2 (2005a, p. APP 2-1) and 30mph 1 displays the related data.
according to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300- It may be observed that, for take-off thrust level,
13 (1989, p. 77). For the scope of the present B747-8 is the critical airplane, overcoming the
study, the limit of 35mph over people and second in the rank, B747-400, in roughly 155m.
vehicles is chosen, as Brazil adopts ICAO Hence, runway vicinity inside and even outside
regulations. the aerodrome may be affected by B747-8
Jet blast analyses herein presented comprise operation. From another standpoint, A380-800
longitudinal and lateral dispersion of velocity operation does not incur additional concerns for
contours at different speed levels on a runways serving B747-400. From Figure 1,
comparative basis. In this case, the comparison considering breakaway thrust, B747-400 is
involves the new aircraft (A380-800 and B747- found to be the critical airplane. And for idle
8) and two others (A340-600 and B747-400) thrust level, both A380-800 and B747-8 are
deemed as the most critical regarding jet blast, more demanding than B747-400, as shown in
currently under operation at SBGR. The Figure 1. As a result, the new aircraft require
supporting velocity contours data may be found larger separations for people and vehicles on the
on the aircraft APMs (Airport Planning apron.
Manuals).
Table 1 compares the lateral dispersion of
35mph velocity contours, in which the fuselage
700 800
627 694
700
600
maximum long. cont. disp. (m)
600 539
500 478 517 525
449 458
391 500 458
400
400
300
300 243 232
182 165
200 200 141
103 120 103 107
100 74 65 74 83
53 41 100
35 36 22
7
0 0
A340-600 A380-800 TRENT A380-800 B747-400 B747-8 e B747-8F A340-600 A380-800 TRENT A380-800 B747-400 B747-8 e B747-8F
900 GP7200 900 GP7200
Idle Thrust 35mph Breakaway Thrust 35mph Take-off Thrust 35mph Idle Thrust 35mph Breakaway Thrust 35mph Take-off Thrust 35mph
Figure 1: 35mph jet blast longitudinal contours dispersion: from aircraft rear (left) and from nose wheel (right)
SOURCE: Compiled from aircraft APMs.
Table 1: Increments in 35mph lateral jet blast contours
Thrust level Idle Thrust Breakaway Thrust Take-off Thrust
Aircraft A380-800|a B747-8 A380-800|a B747-8 A380-800|a B747-8
A340-600 5m -1m 12m 1m 20m 1m
B747-400 7m 1m 8m -4m 10m -9m
|a: based on the critical power plant.
SOURCE: Compiled from aircraft APMs.
Even though FAA and ICAO do not present disposition of several components in the airside
specific standards for jet blast speeds in excess such as signs, lights, instruments and
of 30/35mph, a proper analysis is required, since pavements, to name a few.
higher speeds directly affect the design andSÃO PAULO/GUARULHOS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSIDE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR A380-800 AND B747-8 AIRCRAFT
OPERATION
Once again, a comparative approach is adopted. Regarding lateral dispersion, A380-800 shows
However, as a consequence of the lack of positive increments over A340-600 and B747-
standardization of APMs, it was not possible to 400, whereas B747-8 is even less demanding in
compare all APM presented levels of velocity this respect at least for breakaway and take-off
contours. Nevertheless, some conclusions may thrust levels. These results may be due to the
be outlined from Table 2 data. position of A380-800 outer engines.
Table 2: Jet blast lateral and longitudinal increments: A380-800 and B747-8 X A340-600 and B747-400
Idle Thrust Breakaway Thrust Take-off Thrust
Speed
Criterion Aircraft
(mph) A380- A380- A380-
B747-8 B747-8 B747-8
800 800 800
68 - 5m - 10m - 15m
A340-600
100 - 5m -0m 10m 0m 15m
Lateral
50 - - -5m - -5m -
Dispersion
B747-400 100 - - - - 0m 10m
150 - - - - 0m -
68 - 5m - 5m - 110m
Longitudinal A340-600 100 - 5m 20m 0m 100m 90m
dispersion
50 - - - 100m -
(from aircraft
rear) B747-400 100 - - - - 20m 0m
150 - - - - -40m -
SOURCE: Compiled from aircraft APMs.
For longitudinal dispersion of jet blast FOD (Foreign Object Damage) and protect
contours in excess of 35mph, it is found that adjacent surfaces against erosion.
both A380-800 and B747-8 present augments SBGR runways 09L/27R and 09R/27L are 45m
up to 20m, considering idle and breakaway wide, thus complying with the ICAO 4-E ARC
thrust level. For take-off thrust level, it is found established standard. However, the 4-F ARC
that the two new aircraft show augments up to requires a runway width of 60m, as depicted in
110m over the A340-600. When compared to ICAO Annex 14 (2004a, p.3-2), which is a
B747-400, a pattern is not that clear, as the stimulus to consider the related flexibilizations.
results diverge depending on which contour is The AACG (A380 Airport Compatibility
being considered. Group) and the BACG (B747-8 Airport
As a conclusion, it was found that the two Compatibility Group) present 45m as a common
new aircraft are not necessarily more position of the industry for the full bearing
demanding than B747-400 and A340-600 as the capacity width of runways intended to serve
results vary across different criteria (i.e., A380-800 and B747-8.
longitudinal dispersion, lateral dispersion and AACG position relies on the A380-800
velocity range). Nonetheless, A380-800 is found certification, whereas BACG presents the
to be the critical airplane regarding lateral following justifications8: i) planned FAA
dispersion of jet blast velocity contours below operational approval on 45m wide runway; ii)
and above 35mph, for all addressed thrust outer main gear wheel span of 12.7m is similar
levels. to the 747-400 (12.6m) and well within the
ICAO geometric group E limit of 14m; iii)
4.2. RUNWAY WIDTH numerous design changes from the 747-400 to
The full bearing capacity width of runway must improve lateral handling qualities during takeoff
be such as to accommodate airplane wheels or rejected takeoff; iv) otherwise, design
during landing and take-off, considering the
deviations expected to occur. An additional 8
BACG dates back to November, 2010 when B747-8 had
function of the pavement is to prevent against not yet obtained certification approval. Hence, some
justifications may be outdated.JOURNAL OF THE BRAZILIAN AIR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH SOCIETY • VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2013
commonality with the 747-400; v) flight deck this standard, flexibilizations may be
features that improve situational awareness; vi) considered.
ICAO Circular 301 (2005b) shows maximum AACG advocates the use of the ICAO standard
lateral deviation (7.6m) is similar between (75m wide pavements for runway + shoulders),
landing at sea level vs. 6,500ft (1,981m) altitude claiming that A380-800 outer engine position
(higher approach speed) in autoland; and vii) and jet blast contours so demand. The document
aborted take-off max lateral deviation also states that, in the case of substandard 45m
requirement for certification of 30 ft (9.1m) wide runways, the shoulder should be split into
applies to all aircraft sizes9. inner shoulder and outer shoulder, each 7.5m
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (1989, pg. wide. As the inner shoulder is immediately
from 25 to 26-1) presents 60m as the standard adjacent to the runway, its thickness should be
width of a D-VI ARC runway, but such as to support aircraft wheels passage with a
flexibilizations may be applied according to higher incidence than the outer shoulder.
FAA EBs (Engineering Briefs): FAA EB 65A Shoulder thickness is left to be decided by the
(2007c) allows A380-800 operations in runways national civil aviation authority in charge.
as narrow as 45m, and FAA EB 74A (2011) BACG allows a reduction in the ICAO standard
states the same for B747-8. pavement width from 75m to 60m for B747-8.
As a conclusion, it is found that A380-800 and Again, shoulder thickness of 45m wide runways
B747-8 could operate on 45m wide runways via is left to be decided by the national civil
flexibilization of design standards, according to aviation authority in charge. The justifications
both ICAO and FAA rules. This is exactly the presented are: identical lateral position of B747-
current width of the two SBGR available 8 engines when compared to B747-400; B747-8
runways. 35mph jet blast contour is restricted to a width
of 60m, which is the same case of B747-400ER.
4.3. RUNWAY SHOULDERS WIDTH FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (1989,
Shoulders are paved or stabilized surfaces pgs. from 25 to 26-1) establishes that D-VI
adjacent to both sides of runways. They serve ARC aircraft be provided with 12m wide
the purpose of protecting aircraft engines shoulders. Hence the total pavement results in a
against FOD, protecting adjacent surfaces width of 84m.
against erosion, providing access for emergency As a flexibilization of this standard, FAA EB
and service vehicles as well as accommodating 65A (2007c) allows A380-800 operations on
eventual passage of aircraft wheels without paved areas (runway + shoulders) as narrow as
inducing damages to the aircraft. These 66m. However, this situation must be mitigated
functions, although crucial, permit shoulders to by means of runway inspection for the presence
be constructed in a more economic way than of debris after each A380 take-off. So as to
runways. attain a more expeditious operational
So far, SBGR two runways are 45m wide and environment, a minimum width of 76m should
surrounded by 7.5m wide shoulders, totalizing be provided.
60m of pavement width. FAA EB 74A (2011), in turn, allows B747-8
From the regulatory point of view, there is a operations on paved areas (runway + shoulders)
slight difference whereby ICAO and FAA set 66m wide with no specific need for debris
shoulder width standards. While ICAO specifies inspections.
the total width of the paved area, comprising the As a conclusion, it is found that A380-800
runway and the two shoulders, FAA directly requires a wider pavement (runway + shoulders)
specifies a shoulder width. than B747-8, as ICAO 4-F ARC standard must
ICAO Annex 14 (2004a, p.3-2 e 3-5) specifies a be met, which incurs physical interventions at
pavement total width of 75m for 4-F ARC SBGR. On the other hand, B747-8 may be
aircraft, such as A380-800 and B747-8. As accommodated on paved areas as narrow as
SBGR runways/shoulders do not comply with 60m, based on BACG, which is already met by
the current airport infrastructure.
9
According to the ANAC RBAC 25.149 (2009b), which
is related to aircraft certification.SÃO PAULO/GUARULHOS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSIDE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR A380-800 AND B747-8 AIRCRAFT
OPERATION
4.4. BLAST PAD LENGTH AND WIDTH sections, a proper methodology is required to
Blast pads are rectangular surfaces situated predict wheel deviation. This issue is further
beyond runway extremities. Such surfaces are discussed in section 4.7.
intended to protect aircraft against FOD events At SBGR, straight sections of taxiways are 23m
and adjacent areas from erosion, which could wide, which is the ICAO standard for 4-E ARC
create potentially hazardous exposed edges. aircraft.
At SBGR, the stopways serve as blast pads, as As set in ICAO Annex 14 (2004a, p. 3-11), the
aircraft neither land nor take-off touching these standard taxiway width for 4-F ARC aircraft is
pavements. Stopways are found at both ends of 25m and the standard wheel-to-edge clearance
the two runways, being 60m long and as wide as is 4.5m.
runway and shoulders together (60m). As taxiway standard width is not met at SBGR,
Although blast pads are not mandatory the wheel-to-edge clearance should be analyzed.
according to ICAO standards, ICAO Doc 9157 A380-800 landing gear is 14.3m wide, therefore
Part 2 (2005a, pg. APP 2-5) recommends a requiring a minimum taxiway width of 23.3m
length of 120m for blast pads serving aircraft ( ). In turn, B747-8 landing gear
such as A380 and B747. Hence, the current has a width of 12.7m, hence requiring 21.7m
infrastructure does not meet this ( ) of taxiway width.
recommendation for B747-400 already ICAO flexibilizations and FAA standards and
operating in the airport. Regarding width, the flexibilizations are examined next.
combined runway and shoulders width should Based on landing gear width, observed
be applied. deviations, and visibility from cockpit, AACG
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (1989, allows A380 operations in 23m wide taxiways.
pgs. from 25 to 26-1) establishes a standard BACG also allows B747-8 operation in 23m
length of 120m for D-VI ARC blast pads, while wide taxiways, based on the fact that this width
the applicable width is the same as that totalized is enough to attain the 4.5 wheel-to-edge
by runway and shoulders. FAA EB 74A (2011) clearance.
authorizes B747-8 operation in 66m wide blast FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (1989, p.
pads. This is in agreement with the existing 38) establishes a wheel-to-edge clearance of 6m
flexibilization for B747-8 operation in a and a standard taxiway width of 30m for
runway/shoulder compound width of 66m. geometric group VI aircraft.
From the standards and flexibilizations just Nevertheless, FAA EB 80 (2010b) permits a
presented, it may be concluded that an reduction in wheel-to-edge-clearance up to
expansion in length is recommendable for the 4.5m, which is enough for B747-8 operation in
paved areas beyond runway extremities, even 23m wide taxiways, as previously demonstrated.
for B747-400 operations. Besides, the width of Additionally, FAA EB 73 (2007b) authorizes
these areas should keep pace with the adopted B747-8 operation in 23m wide taxiways. In a
runway/shoulder combined width. similar fashion, A380 operation in 23m wide
taxiways is allowed by FAA EB 63B (2007a).
4.5. TAXIWAY WIDTH Considering the straight section of taxiways,
The width of the full bearing capacity portion of A380 operation tends to be permitted at SBGR
a taxiway in straight routes must be such as to current taxiways, via flexibilization of design
accommodate landing gear width and taxi standards. On the other hand, B747-8 already
deviations expected to occur. Curved sections complies with the standard wheel-to-edge
require additional width, as wheels further clearance.
deviate. 4.6. TAXIWAY SHOULDERS
Although ICAO and FAA specify standards for
taxiway width, wheel-to-edge clearance is Taxiway shoulders basically serve the same
ultimately the design principle in both purpose as runway shoulders, whilst thrust
regulations. Hence, minimum taxiway width levels exerted differ.
will be the sum of landing gear width plus twice At SBGR, taxiways are 23m wide in straight
the wheel-to-edge clearance. For curved sections, and taxiway shoulders are such as toJOURNAL OF THE BRAZILIAN AIR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH SOCIETY • VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2013
complete a compound width of 44m, complying It can thus be concluded that B747-8 can be
with ICAO 4-E ARC standard. authorized to operate in the current combination
However, ICAO Annex 14 (2004a, p. 3-11 e 3- of taxiway and shoulders, through the
15) specifies a compound width of 60m for flexibilization of design standards. A380-800,
taxiways and its shoulders, considering the 4-F on the other hand, is expected to call for a 60m
ARC standard. wide pavement. This means expanding the
Examination of ICAO flexibilizations, as well current shoulders from 10.5m to 18.5m,
as FAA standards and flexibilizations are next assuming taxiway width is retained in 23m.
presented.
4.7. CURVES AND FILLETS
AACG does not propose flexibilization for the
standard under consideration, mentioning that When taxiing on an aerodrome, aircraft perform
A380-800 engines position and jet blast curves through stands, aprons, taxilanes,
contours demand compliance with the standard. taxiways, bypasses, holding bays and turn pads.
However, BACG authorizes B747-8 operation As an aircraft negotiates a curve, wheels,
on a taxiway/shoulders compound width of wingtips, stabilizers and other parts will deviate
44m, considering that B747-8 has: the same from the guideline followed by a reference
outer engine span as B747-400; a 35mph jet point, which is usually the center of the cockpit.
blast lateral contour close to B747-400ER; and Accordingly, predicting the relationship
slight higher thrust center of outer engines as between the reference point position and other
compared to B747-400. aircraft parts is essential for the design of
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (1989, p. several aerodrome components. Another
38) specifies 12m wide shoulders, causing the concern regards the maneuverability limitation
combined pavement width to be 54m for D-VI of airplanes in terms of the nose wheel
aircraft. Conversely, FAA EB 73 (2007b), based maximum steering angle. As set in appendix 10
on preliminary jet blast data, authorizes B747-8 of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (1989),
to operate in a combined width of 44m (23m for nose wheel steering angle should not exceed
taxiway and 10.5m for each shoulder). 50°. Silva (2012) may be consulted for further
discussion on ICAO and FAA methods and
standards related to curves and fillets.
Table 3: Wheel span, d and dnw data of selected aircraft
Longitudinal distance from
Aircraft Wheel span cockpit center to nose wheel Aircraft reference length | ( ) |a
( )
A340-600 12.6m 4.2m 37.4m
B777-300 12.9m 3.6m 34.2m
B747-400 12.6m 2.3m 26.4m
A380-800 14.3m 2.1m 31.9m
B747-8 12.7m 2.4m 30.5m
|a: Longitudinal distance from cockpit centre to the centroid of fixed wheels (no steering capability).
SOURCE: Aircraft APMs.
The present approach to the matter is will be, where d is measured from the cockpit
comparative, where the A340-600, the B777- centre (point N) to the landing gear geometric
300 and the B747-400 are the reference centre, just considering fixed wheels (no
aircraft. By comparing these airplanes to steering capability). Nose wheel steering angle
A380-800 and to B747-8, fillet dimensions and (βnw), in turn, is directly proportional to β and
the maximum nose wheel steering angle are to dnw1. Hence, βnw is directly proportional to d
analyzed. and dnw. As a consequence, if a given aircraft
The aircraft steering angle (β) is directly has both d and dnw larger than other, β and βnw
proportional to the aircraft reference length (d)
and inversely proportional to the curve radius 1
Distance between nose wheel and the cockpit centre
(r). It follows that the higher d is, the higher β (point N).SÃO PAULO/GUARULHOS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSIDE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR A380-800 AND B747-8 AIRCRAFT
OPERATION
will be higher. This means that the second checked: OFZ (obstacle free zone)2, runway
aircraft can follow the same path than the first holding position, runway and taxiway safety
one. areas, rapid exit taxiways and curve radius in
From the data in Table 3 it is easy to conclude the runway/taxiway route.
that, regarding nose wheel steering angle, Annex 14 (2004a, p.3-13) sets a standard
A340-600 and B777-300 are more demanding separation of 190m between a runway and the
than A380-800 and B747-8. parallel taxiway, if the runway is an instrument
On the other hand, further analyses are one and the aircraft expected to be
required to assure that design clearances are accommodated is 4-F ARC classified. This
not violated, as the track of specific parts of an separation standard is set to protect a runway
airplane depends upon both β and aircraft safety area required by ICAO: the runway
geometry. For instance, wingspan is higher in strip. This area is set to be 300m wide for
the two new aircraft, which requires a detailed instrument runways serving aircraft belonging
analysis of the combinations between a lower to the fourth dynamic group of ARC.
β and a higher wingspan. However, for the ( .
scope of the present study, only the wheel For the scope of the present study, solely the
track is assessed. distance between runway 09L/27R and
Again, from Table 3, B747-8 may be deemed taxiway B is analyzed. Such separation is
as less demanding, as both figures of wheel approximately of 184m, hence substandard.
span and d are lower as compared to B777- If the runway strip width is considered, B747-8
300. almost fits the current separation, as its
However, A380-800 situation is a bit less wingspan is 68.4m.
clear, given its larger wheel span. Hence, a ( ). On the other
detailed analysis was carried out, taking into hand, A380-800, with a wingspan of 80m,
account the methodology depicted in ICAO would infringe the standard by 6m. This is a
Doc 9157 Part 2 (2005a). reason to search for design standard
It was found that A380-800 wheels are flexibilizations.
confined inside the tracks drawn by A340-600 AACG claims that 190m is conservative, but
wheels. Hence, curves and fillets which are does not present a specific flexibilization for
enough for A340-600 are also enough for the A380-800. Conversely, BACG allows a
A380-800, as the same wheel-to-edge reduction of separation standard up to 182.5m
clearance applies. for B747-8, even though the document
It may be concluded that B747-8 is easier to recommends an in site ILS interference
accommodate than A340-600 and B777-300, assessment.
which already operate at SBGR. Thus, the new FAA Advisory Circular 150 5300-13 (1989,
Boeing airplane can, at least, taxi through the pg. from 14 to 15) establishes a standard
same routes negotiated by the mentioned separation of 168m plus OFZ adjustment in
airplanes. A380-800, in turn, is less demanding higher than sea level locations. Considering
than A340-600. FAA Advisory Circular 150 5300-13 (1989,
pg. 22) standards for OFZ, in CAT II/III
4.8. RUNWAY TO PARALLEL TAXIWAY
conditions, it was found that the current 184m
SEPARATION
separation would allow a clearance of 0.3m for
Runway to parallel taxiway separation the A380-800 and a clearance of 6.6m for the
standard is such as to protect aircraft landing, B747-83.
taking-off or taxiing. To protect airplanes
situated on the entrance taxiways between
runways and parallel taxiways, additional 2
separation may be necessary to protect Discussed on item 4.10.
3
Section 4.10 provides OFZ assessment information.
navigational aids from interference. Additionally, further data is required to assure that the
Additionally, other design items must be mentioned clearances are enough to account forJOURNAL OF THE BRAZILIAN AIR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH SOCIETY • VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2013
For B747-8, according to EB 81 (2010a), less restrictive scenarios, flexibilizations may
geometric group V separation of 150m is be considered.
allowed. Such flexibilization relies on the fact AACG allows a reduction in wingtip clearance
that B747-8 is inside the geometric group V down to 11m. The justifications are: Air
tail height range. Navigation Plan – ICAO European Region –
From the information presented, it is found Reduced Separation Distances for NLA
that the current separation between runway operations (the same 11m buffer as 747-400);
09L/27R and taxiway B may be authorized via Taxiway deviation statistics analysis (existing
flexibilization of design standards. Regarding and ongoing analyses); A380 Cockpit
ILS interference, in favor of B747-8 is its tail visibility. As a consequence, simultaneous
height that is the same as that of B747-400. operation of an A380-800 and an aircraft with
On the other hand, for A380-800, there are no a wingspan up to 78m could be allowed.
possible flexibilizations, with the exception of ( )).
OFZ standards, as presented in ICAO Circular BACG also allows reduction in wingtip
301 (2005b). clearance to 11m, based on: Air Navigation
4.9. PARALLEL TAXIWAY TO TAXIWAY Plan – ICAO European Region recommended
SEPARATION reduced separation distances for 747-400
operations with 11m wingtip clearance;
Taxiway separations are based on aircraft
Taxiway deviation statistics analysis; AACG
geometry and taxi expected deviations.
agreement of 11m for A380, if taxiway centre
Depending on what part of an aerodrome the
line lighting or equivalent guidance is
aircraft taxies, speed varies, as well as the
available. Considering these flexibilizations,
objects surrounding taxi route. Hence,
two B747-8s or even a B747-8 and a A380-800
associated risks and potential harms also differ.
may simultaneously operate on taxiways A and
It follows that taxi routes and required
B.
standards are also different. Silva (2012)
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 (1989,
discusses these differences and the
pg. 16) sets 99m as the standard separation and
terminology used by ICAO, ANAC and FAA.
a wingtip clearance of 19m. No related EBs
For the purpose of this study, the separation
were found.
between parallel taxiways A and B is analyzed.
It may be concluded that A380-800 and B747-
Such separation is approximately 90m.
8 may operate on taxiways A and B, given
According to ICAO Doc 9157 Part 2 (2005a,
proper restriction is applied on the parallel
pg. 1-11), 97.5m is the standard separation
taxiway. Flexibilization of design standards
between parallel taxiways serving geometric
may alleviate such operational restrictions.
group F aircraft, and a wingtip clearance of
17.5m would allow an equivalent level of 4.10. OFZ (OBSTACLE FREE ZONE)
safety. So as to protect the airspace surrounding an
As easily perceived, the current separation is aerodrome, ICAO and FAA establish a set of
substandard. However, the wingtip clearance imaginary surfaces which should not be
principle allows simultaneous operation of protruded by natural or manmade objects. Such
A380-800 and an aircraft with a wingspan not surfaces start close to the runway and may
larger than 65m. extend dozen of kilometers beyond airport
( )). For the limits. Different criteria may apply also
B747-8 case, an airplane with a wingspan up to depending on the fact of the object being fixed
76.6m could operate concomitantly in the or movable.
parallel taxiway with no need of standard Additionally, there are two ways for tackling
flexibilization these surfaces and related criteria: while some
( ). For specifications are intended for operational
level, others are oriented to long term
planning, allowing the establishment of an
differences in ground level between the runway and the
taxiway under examination. ideal environment in terms of safety, capacitySÃO PAULO/GUARULHOS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSIDE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR A380-800 AND B747-8 AIRCRAFT
OPERATION
and economics. For instance, an antenna,
depending on its position and height, may
cause aerodrome operating minima to be
increased, thus diminishing airport usage in
days of bad weather. ICAO Annex 14 (2004a),
in its chapter 4, presents related standards and
recommendations, whereas FAA standards
may be found in EUA e-CFR Title 14 (2010). Figure 2: Example of an inner transitional OFZ as
As operations are allowed under lower seen in a frontal view of the associated runway
visibility conditions, airspace should be further SOURCE: Prepared by the author from ICAO and FAA
OFZ descriptions.
protected in the very vicinity of the runway. In
this context, both ICAO and FAA specify a set
of surfaces together referred as OFZ (obstacle
Case i:
free zone). Beyond these imaginary surfaces, According to ICAO criteria, the inner
no objects, fixed or movable, may be allowed, transitional OFZ clearance is 75m for A380-
unless deemed as essential to operations and, 800 and 80m for B747-8. According to FAA
in this case, mounted on frangible structures. criteria, these clearances would fall to 30m and
Silva (2012) presents a set of equations 35m, respectively. Hence, the presence of an
intended to assess a specific OFZ surface, A380-800 or B747-8 on a runway would not
called inner transitional OFZ, which is a key protrude the inner transitional OFZ of the
criterion when designing aerodrome parallel runway.
components situated sidewards the runway, as
parallel taxiways, holding positions and so Case ii:
forth. According to ICAO criteria, the inner
Inner transitional OFZ has its origin at a given transitional OFZ clearance is of 11m for A380-
distance aside the runway, and extends 800 and 16m for B747-8. According to FAA
orthogonally to runway axis, possessing an criteria, these clearances would fall to 0.3m
upward inclination. Figure 2 illustrates that and 6.6m, respectively. Hence, if differences in
geometry 4. elevation between runway 09L/27R and
For the scope of the present study, two cases taxiway B are not unfavorable enough, the
are analyzed: i) an A380-800 or a B748-8 lies presence of the new aircraft on the centerline
on a runway during a precision approach in the of taxiway B would not affect parallel runway
parallel runway; and ii) an A380-800 or a inner transitional OFZ.
B748-8 lies on the taxiway B during a It may be concluded that the presence of the
precision approach in the runway 09L/27R. two new aircraft on runways 09L/27R,
It is worth mentioning that separation between 09R/27L or on taxiway B would not affect
runways is roughly 375m and separation inner transitional OFZ of the parallel runway,
between runway 09L/27R and taxiway B is unless the presented clearances are smaller
about 184m. than possible unfavorable differences of
elevation between runways and the taxiway B.
5. CONCLUSIONS
As a general pattern, B747-8 is found to be
more easily accommodated at SBGR than
A380-800, due to its smaller wingspan and its
4
similarity to B747-400. Specific conclusions
The depicted geometry is identical to the inner regarding different design criteria are
transitional OFZ surface specified by ICAO, whereas
FAA specified surface is a bit more complex in
presented next:
geometry, as upward slope varies along the way from
the runway centreline.JOURNAL OF THE BRAZILIAN AIR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH SOCIETY • VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1 • 2013
Current runway width of 45m may be flexibilization of design standards may be
acceptable for both new aircraft types via utilized.
design standard flexibilization;
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Runway shoulders, via flexibilization of
design standards, may be considered The authors would like to express their
suitable for B747-8, but A380-800 does gratitude to CNPq (Conselho Nacional de
require widening the total pavement width, Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico –
from the current 60m to 75m; National Council for Scientific and
Current blast pads length does not even Technological Development), CAPES
meet ICAO recommendations for B747- (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal
400 aircraft. Compliance with ICAO de Nível Superior – Coordination for the
recommendations for B747-400 and the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel)
two new aircraft would require an and LPT/EPUSP (Laboratório de
augment in length from 60m to 120m; Planejamento e Operação de Transportes da
Taxiway current width of 23m could be Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São
accepted for both new aircraft if Paulo – Transportation Planning and
flexibilization of design standards are Operation Laboratory of the Polytechnic
considered; School of the University of São Paulo).
Taxiway shoulders, via flexibilization of
design standards, may be considered 7. REFERENCES
suitable for B747-8, but A380-800 does ANAC. Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil. Regulamento
Brasileiro de Aviação Civil -RBAC 154 – Emenda 00.
require widening total pavement width, Brasília, 2009a.
from the current 44m to 60m; ______. Requisitos de Aeronavegabilidade: Aviões Categoria
Transporte – RBAC 25 - Emenda 128. Brasília, 2009b.
Regarding fillet dimensions and curves EUA. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 14-
radii, B747-8 is easier to be Aeronautics and Space. GPO Access. Available at: <
accommodated than A340-600 and B777- http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfretpl=/index.t
pl>. Access on February, 23, 2010.
300 that already operate at SBGR. Hence, FAA – Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Design:
the new Boeing airplane can, at least, taxi Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 – Incorporates changes 1 thru
through the same routes negotiated by the 15. Washington, 1989.
mentioned airplanes. A380-800, in turn, is ______. Minimum Requirements to Widen Existing 150-Foot
Wide Runways for Boeing 747-8 Operations: Engineering
also less demanding than A340-600. Brief No 74A. Washington, 2011.
Separation between runways and taxiway ______. Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design:
B is enough to avoid inner transitional Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B. Washington, 2005.
______. Taxiways for Airbus A380 Taxiing Operations:
OFZ violation if an A380-800 or a B747- Engineering Brief No 63B. Washington, 2007a.
8 occupies a runway or the taxiway; and ______. Use Of Guidance For Runway Centerline To Parallel
Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline Separation For Boeing 747-8:
Separation between taxiways A and B is Engineering Brief No 81. Washington, 2010a.
sufficient to permit, at least, a 65m ______. Use of Interim Taxiway Edge Safety Margin
wingspan airplane to taxi simultaneously Clearance for Airplane Design Group VI: Engineering Brief
to a A380-800. Flexibilizations may be No 80. Washington, 2010b.
______. Use of Non-Standard 75-Foot Wide Straight Taxiway
applied for less restrictive scenarios. Sections for Boeing 747-8 Taxiing Operations: Engineering
Brief No 73. Washington, 2007b.
From the addressed airside design criteria, it is ______. Use of 150-Foot-(45-M) Wide Runways for Airbus
shown that São Paulo/Guarulhos Airport needs A380 Operations: Engineering Brief No 65A. Washington,
several interventions to comply with ICAO 2007c.
HORONJEFF, R.; MCKELVEY, F. X. Planning and Design
standards for aircraft such as A380-800 and of Airports. 4th Edition. New York, 1994.
B747-8. For the same purpose, and only for ICAO. International Civil Aviation Organization. Aerodrome
specific criteria, such as taxiway/taxiway Design Manual: Part 1 – Runways - Doc 9157. 3rd Edition.
Montreal, 2006a.
separations, operational restrictions may be set, _____. Aerodrome Design Manual: Part 2 – Taxiways, Aprons
but in exchange of capacity or expeditiousness. and Holding Bays - Doc 9157. 4th Edition. Montreal, 2005a.
For a more reasonable, but still safe _____. Airport Services Manual: Part 6 – Control of Obstacles
- Doc 9137. 2nd Edition. Montreal, 1983.
accommodation of the new aircraft,SÃO PAULO/GUARULHOS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRSIDE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR A380-800 AND B747-8 AIRCRAFT OPERATION _____. Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Aerodromes, Volume I - Design and Operation.4th Edition. Montreal, 2004a. _____. New Larger Aeroplanes - Infringement of Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and Aeronautical Study - Circular 301. Montreal, 2005b. _____. Operation of New Larger Aeroplanes at Existing Aerodromes - Circular 305. Montreal, 2004b. _____. Procedures for Air Navigation Services: Aircraft Operations – Volume I: Flight Procedures – Doc 8168. 5th Edition. Montreal, 2006b. _____. Procedures for Air Navigation Services: Aircraft Operations – Volume II: Construction of Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures – Doc 8168. 5th Edition. Montreal, 2006c. _____. Procedures for Air Navigation Services: Air Traffic Management – Doc 4444. 15th Edition. Montreal, 2007. KAZDA, A.; CAVES, R. E. Airport Design and Operation. 2nd Edition. Bingley, 2008. SILVA, E. J. Análise dos padrões e recomendações da ICAO e da FAA para o projeto geométrico de aeródromos. 2012. Dissertation (Master’s Degree) - Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2012.
You can also read
