Lecture 13 Part 2

Geometric Design of Airside

Perancangan Geometrik Kawasan Udara

Sri Atmaja P. Rosyidi

Associate Professor, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
 Sri Atmaja P. Rosyidi . UMY 7/8/2017

Outline
Airport Classification

Geometric Design of Runway

 Sri Atmaja P. Rosyidi . UMY 7/8/2017

1. Airport classification
For the purpose of stipulating geometric design standards for
various types of airports and the functions which they serve,
alphabetic and numeric codes and other descriptions have
been adopted to classify the airports.
ICAO Classificationnumeric code is based on the filed length of
runway and the letter code is based on the wing span and the
outer main gear wheel span of the critical aircraft.
FAA Classification Is based on aircraft approach category and
aircraft design group
Sri Atmaja P. Rosyidi . UMY 7/8/2017

ICAO Aerodrome Reference Codes

Sri Atmaja P. Rosyidi . UMY 7/8/2017

FAAs Aircraft Design Group

FAAs airplane design groups of I, II, III, IV, and V
approximately correspond to ICAOs aerodrome
codes A, B, C, D and E.
Sri Atmaja P. Rosyidi . UMY 7/8/2017

FAAs Aircraft Approach Category

 Sri Atmaja P. Rosyidi . UMY 7/8/2017

Example:
Classify the airport for the following data:
Critical aircraft: B767-200
Wing span: 48 m
Wheel span: 10.44 m
Field length of runway: 1830 m

Solution:
Numeric code = 4 (as FL>1800 m)
Letter code = D (as wing span is between 36 & 52 m and outer main
gear wheel span is between 9 & 14 m)
Aerodrome reference code: 4-D
 Sri Atmaja P. Rosyidi . UMY 7/8/2017

2. Geometric Design of Runway

Runway length (Discussed in Part-1)

Parallel runway system spacing

Geometric standards of
Runway
Shoulder
Blast pad
Runway safety area
Runway object free area
Runway obstacle free zone
Runway protection zone

Sight distance and longitudinal profile

Runway surface gradient standards

 Sri Atmaja P. Rosyidi . UMY 7/8/2017

2.2. Parallel Runway System Spacing

Source:
INNOVATIVE PROCEDURES FOR INCREASING OF THE AIRPORT
RUNWAY CAPACITY, Dr Milan Janic, Delft University of Technology.

 The System of Parallel Runways
Configuration of parallel runways:
Closely spaced (700 2499 ft);
Intermediate spaced (2500 4299 ft);
Far spaced ( 4300 ft);

Statistics: U.S. busiest airports:

28 pairs of closely spaced parallel runways
10 pairs of intermediate spaced parallel runways
28 pairs of far spaced parallel runways

Statistics: European busiest airports:

Frankfurt 1 pair of closely spaced (parallel)
runways;
London Heathrow 1 pair of far spaced parallel runways;
Paris Charles de Gaulle 2 pairs of far spaced parallel runways;
Amsterdam Schiphol 3 pairs of far spaced parallel runways.

10
2 The system of parallel runways (2)
Degree of dependency U.S. IFR/IMC

Separation
between runway Arr-Arr Dep-Dep Arr-Dep Dep-Arr
centrelines (ft)
Arrival
Like single Like single Departure clears
700 2499 clears
runway runway the runways
the runways
Dependent:
2500 3399 Lateral -diagonal
separation Independent Independent Independent

Dependent: -
Lateral/diagonal
separation
3400 4299 without PRM; Independent Independent Independent
Independent with
PRM
Independent
4300 Independent Independent Independent

11
2 The system of parallel runways (3)
Cases in the U.S.

1000ft
t

1200ft
1000ft

ATL Atlanta Hartsfield International BOS Boston Logan International

12
2 The system of parallel runways (4)
Cases in the U.S.

700ft
1200ft

1200ft

700ft

DFW Dallas-Fort Worth International LAX Los Angeles International

13
2 The system of parallel runways (5)
Cases in the U.S.

750ft

750ft

SFO San Francisco

International

14
3 Approach procedures to
dependent parallel runways (1)
The problem

The traffic dependency on the runways is

caused by the in-trail wake-vortex generated
and moving behind the aircraft and between
the final approach paths of both runways by
crosswind;
Mitigating impacts of the wake-vortex implies
reducing of the current ATC IFR separation
rules between aircraft, thus the degree of the
runway and traffic dependency, and
consequently increasing of the system
capacity.

15
3 Approach procedures to
dependent parallel runways (2)
Current procedures: Weather minima:

VFR (Paired) Approach C - 3500 ft; V - 6 nm

The Simultaneous Offset Independent

Approach (SOIA/PRM) C - 1600 ft; V - 4 nm
The baseline IFR Approach C- 0 ft; V - 0.1
nm

Innovative procedures:
The FAA/NASA TACEC (2020) C: 0 ft ; V - 0.1 nm

High Approach Landing System/

Dual Landing Threshold (HALS/DLT)
16
3 Approach procedures to
dependent parallel runways (3a)
Current procedures

VFR (paired) approach

17
3 Approach procedures to
dependent parallel runways (3b)
Current procedures

The Simultaneous Offset (SOIA/PRM)

Independent Approach (and partially TACEC)

W Maximum crosswind

27R i j

D
27L k

Blunder zone
ik SZik = (d/W)vk
l
Safe Zone SZik

18
3 Approach procedures to
dependent parallel runways (3c)
Current procedures

The Baseline IFR

Approach
k
i

Sik0

Maximum crosswind
27R i j

27L

Blunder zone k
Minimum intrail separation

19
3 Approach procedures to
dependent parallel runways (4a)
Innovative procedures

HALS/DLT or Staggered Approach

Hik0

i
1700ft

Sik0

20
 3 Approach procedures to
dependent parallel runways (4b)
Innovative procedures

HALS/DLT or
Staggered Approach

Runway lighting system

Source (OPTIMAL, EUROCONTROL, 2005)

21
3 Approach procedures to
dependent parallel runways (5a)
Innovative procedures

Steeper Approach (SAP)

Increasing of the vertical

separation Hik0 in time if: k
vi > vk sink/sin i
k > I
Hik0

i
< 4300 ft

i Sik0

22
3 Approach procedures to
dependent parallel runways (5b)
Innovative procedures

Baseline ILS vs Steeper Approach (SAP)

ILS Glide Slope 3 ILS Glide Slope 5.5

(Source: Airliner World, 2006)
23
3 Approach procedures to
dependent parallel runways (4a)
Innovative procedures

Currently certificated aircraft fleet for SAP

De Havilland DHC-6, - 8
(STOL - Short Take- Off and Landing);
Cessna Citation, Embraer ERJ 135, 170;
Airbus A319.
Certificaation should provide:
The aircraft capability to use a range of GS angles
(30- 50 or 60);
Certainly increase in the approach speed to
compensate higher descent speed and consequent
increase in the wake vortex.

24