Doc 9157

AN/901

Aerodrome Design Manual

Part 2

Taxiways, Aprons
And Holding Bays

International Civil Aviation Organisation

 Chapter 1
TAXIWAYS
1.1 TAXIWAY SYSTEMS

Functional requirements

1.1.1 Maximum capacity and efficiency of an aerodrome are realized only by obtaining
the proper balance between the need for runways, passenger and cargo terminals, and
aircraft storage and servicing areas. These separate and distinct aerodrome functional
elements are linked by the taxiway system. The components of the taxiway system
therefore serve to link the aerodrome functions and are necessary to develop optimum
aerodrome utilization.

1.1.2 The taxiway system should be designed to minimize the restriction of aircraft
movement to and from the runways and apron areas. A properly designed system should
be capable of maintaining a smooth, continuous flow of aircraft ground traffic at the
maximum practical speed with a minimum of acceleration or deceleration. This
requirement ensures that the taxiway system will operate at the highest levels of both
safety and efficiency.

1.1.3 For any given aerodrome, the taxiway system should be able to accommodate
(without significant delay) the demands of aircraft arrivals and departures on the runway
system. At low levels of runway utilization the taxiway system can accomplish this with
a minimum number of components. However, as the runway acceptance rate increases,
the taxiway system capacity must be sufficiently expanded to avoid becoming a factor
which limits aerodrome capacity. In the extreme case of runway capacity saturation,
when aircraft are arriving and departing at the minimum separation distances, the taxiway
system should allow aircraft to exit the runway as soon as practical after landing and to
enter the runway just before take-off. This enables aircraft movements on the runway to
be maintained at the minimum separation distance.

Planning principles

1.1.4 Runways and taxiways are the least flexible of the aerodrome elements and must
therefore be considered first when planning aerodrome development. Forecasts of future
activity should identify changes in the rate of aircraft movements, the nature of the
traffic, type of aircraft and any other factors affecting the layout and dimensioning of the
runway and taxiway systems. Care should be taken not to place so much attention on the
present needs of the system that later phases of development that have equal or greater
importance are neglected. For example, if an aerodrome is forecast to serve a higher
category of aircraft type in the future, the current taxiway system should be designed to
accommodate the greatest separation distances that ultimately will be required (see Table
1-1).

1.1.5 In planning the general layout of the taxiway system, the following principles
should be considered:

a) taxiway routes should connect the various aerodrome elements by the shortest
distances, thus minimizing both taxiing time and cost;

b) taxiway routes should be as simple as possible in order to avoid pilot confusion and the
need for complicated instructions;

c) straight runs of pavement should be used wherever possible. Where changes in

direction are necessary, curves of adequate radii, as well as fillets or extra taxiway width,
should be provided to permit taxiing at the maximum practical speed (see Section 1.4 and
Appendix 1);

d) taxiway crossings of runways and other taxiways should be avoided whenever possible
in the interests of safety and to reduce the potential for significant taxiing delays;

e) taxiway routings should have as many one way segments as possible to minimize
aircraft conflicts and delay. Taxiway segment flows should be analysed for each
configuration under which· runway(s) will be used;

f) the taxiway system should be planned to maximize the useful life of each component
so that future phases of development incorporate sections from the current system; and

g) ultimately, a taxiway system will perform only as well as its least adequate component.
Therefore, potential bottlenecks should be identified and eliminated in the planning
phase.

1.1.6 Other important considerations when planning a taxiway system include the
following:

a) taxiway routes should avoid areas. where the public could have easy access to the
aircraft. Security of taxiing aircraft from sabotage or armed aggression should be of
primary importance in areas where this is of particular concern;

b) taxiway layouts should be planned to avoid interference with navigation aids by

taxiing aircraft or ground vehicles using the taxiway;

c) all sections of the taxiway system should be visible from the aerodrome control tower.
Remote cameras can be used to monitor sections of taxiways shadowed by terminal
buildings or other aerodrome structures if such obstructions cannot be practically
avoided;
 d) the effects of jet blast on areas adjacent to the taxiways should be mitigated by
stabilizing loose soils and erecting blast fences where necessary to protect people or
structures (see Appendix 2); and

Table 1-1. Design criteria for a taxiway

Code letter
Physical characteristics A B C D E F
Minimum width of:
taxiway pavement 7.5 m 10.5 m 18 ma 23 mc 23 m 25m
15 mb 18 md
taxiway pavement and shoulder - - 25 m 38 m 44m 60 m
taxiway strip 32.5 m 43 m 52 m 81 m 95 m 115 m
"
-
graded portion of taxiway strip 22 m 25 m 25 m 38 m 44 m 60 m
Minimum clearance distance of
1.5 m 2.25 m 4.5 ma 4.5 m 4.5 m 4.5 m
outer main wheel to taxiway edge
3 mb
Minimum separation distance
between taxiway centre line and:
centre line of instrument
runway code
number 1 82.5 m 87 m - - - -
number 2 82.5 m 87 m - - - -
number 3 - - 168 m 176 m - -
number 4 - - - 176 m 182.5 m 190 m
centre line of non-instrument
runway code
number 1 37.5 m 42 m - - - -
number 2 47.5 m 52 m - - - -
number 3 - - 93 m 101 m - -
number 4 - - - 101 m 107.5 m 115 m
taxiway centre line 23.75 m 33.5 m 44 m 66.5 m 80 m 97.5 m
object
Taxiwaye 16.25 m 21.5 m 26 m 40.5 m 47.5 m 57.5 m
aircraft stand taxilane 12 m 16.5 m 24.5 m 36 m 42.5 m 50.5 m
Maximum longitudinal slope of
taxiway:
pavement 3% 3% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
1% per 25
change in slope 1% per 25 m 1% per 30 m 1% per 30 m 1% per 30 m 1% per 30 m
m
Maximum transverse slope of:
taxiway pavement 2% 2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
graded portion of taxiway strip
3% 3% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
upwards
 graded portion of taxiway strip 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
downwards
ungraded portion of strip
5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
upwards or downwards
Minimum radius of longitudinal
2500 m 2500 m 3000 m 3000 m 3000 m 3000 m
vertical curve
Minimum taxiway sight distance 150 m from 200 m from 300 m from 300 m from 300 m from 300 m from
1.5 m above 2 m above 3 m above 3 m above 3 m above 3 m above
Taxiway intended to be used by aeroplanes with a wheel base equal to or greater than 18 m.
a.
Taxiway intended to be used by aeroplanes with a wheel base less than 18 m.
b.
Taxiway intended to be used by aeroplanes with an outer main gear wheel span equal to or greater than 9 m.
c.
Taxiway intended to be used by aeroplanes with an outer main gear wheel span less than 9 m.
d.
.
Taxiway other than an aircraft stand taxilane.
e.

e) the location of taxiways may also be influenced by ILS installations .due. to

interferences to ILS signals by a taxiing or stopped aircraft.- Information on critical and
sensitive areas surrounding ILS installations is contained in Annex 10, Volume I,
Attachment C.

1.1.7 There should be a sufficient number of entrance and exit taxiways ser\ring a
specific runway to accommodate the current demand peaks for take-offs and landings.
Additional entrances and exits should be designed and developed ahead of expected
growth' in runway utilization. The following principles apply to the planning of these
taxiway system components:

a) the function of exit taxiways is to minimize the runway occupancy time of landing
aircraft. In theory, exit taxiways can be located to best serve each type of aircraft
expected to use the runway. In practice, the optimum number and spacing are determined
by grouping the aircraft into a limited number of classes based upon landing speed and
deceleration after touchdown;

b) the exit taxiway should allow an aircraft to move off the runway without restriction to
a point clear of the runway, thus allowing another operation to take place on the runway
as soon as possible;

c) an exit taxiway can be either at a right angle to the runway or at an acute angle. The
former type requires an aircraft to decelerate to a very low speed before turning off the
runway, whereas the latter type allows aircraft to exit the runway at higher speeds, thus
reducing the time required on the runway and increasing the runway capacity (details
about the location and geometry of the acute angle type [called rapid exit taxiway] are
presented in Section 1.3 and Appendix 5); and
d) a single runway entrance at each end of the runway is generally sufficient to
-accommodate the demand for take-offs. However if the traffic volume warrants, the use
of bypasses, holding bays or multiple runway entrances can be considered (see Chapter
2).

1.1.8 Taxiways located on aprons are divided into two types as follows (see Figure 1-1):

a) apron taxiway is a taxiway located on an apron and intended either to provide a

through taxi route across the apron or to gain access to an aircraft stand taxi lane; and

b) aircraft stand taxi lane is a portion of an apron designated as a taxiway and intended to
provide access to aircraft stands only.

1.1.9 The requirements for apron taxiways regarding strip width, separation distances,
etc., are the same as for any other type of taxiway. The requirements for aircraft stand
taxi lanes are also the same except for the following modifications:

a) the transverse slope of the taxi lane is governed by the apron slope requirement;

b) the aircraft stand taxi lane does not need to be included in a taxiway strip; and·

c) the requirements for the separation distances from the centre line of the taxi lane to an
object are less stringent than those for other types of taxiways.

Figure 1-1. Taxiways on aprons

1.1.10 Aircraft stand lead-in lines, which branch off to the parking positions, are not
considered to be a part of the aircraft stand taxi lane and, therefore, are not subject to the
requirements for taxiways.
Stage in taxiway system development

1.1.11 To minimize current construction costs, an aerodrome's taxiway system should be

only as complex as needed to support the near-term capacity needs of the runway. With
careful planning, additional taxiway components can be added to the system in stages to
keep pace with the growth in aerodrome demand. Different stages in taxiway system
development are described in the following paragraphs (see also Figures 1-2 and 1-3);

a) a minimum aerodrome taxiway system supporting a low level of runway utilization,

can consist of only turnaround pads or taxiway turnarounds at both ends of the runway
and a stub taxiway from the runway to the apron;

b) traffic growth which results in a low to moderate level of runway utilization may be
accommodated by building a partial parallel taxiway to connect one or both turnarounds
(parallel taxiways provide safety benefits as well as greater efficiency);

c) as runway utilization increases, a full parallel taxiway can be provided by completing

the missing sections of the partial parallel taxiway;

d) exit taxiways, in addition to the ones at each runway end, can be constructed as
runway utilization increases toward saturation;

e) holding bays and bypass taxiways can be added to further enhance runway capacity.
These facilities seldom restrict the attainment of full aerodrome capacity within the
existing aerodrome property because land is usually available to permit their
construction; and

f) a dual-parallel taxiway, located outboard of the first parallel taxiway, should be

considered when movement in both directions along the taxiway is desirable. With this
second taxiway, a one-way flow network can be established for each direction of runway
use. The need for the dual-parallel system increases in proportion to the amount of
development alongside the taxiway.

For additional information, see the Airport Planning Manual (Doc 9184), Part 1 - Master
Planning.

Evaluating taxiway layout alternatives

1.1.12 An evaluation of alternative taxiway systems must take into account the operating
efficiency of each system in combination with the runway and apron layouts it is
designed to serve. The greater the complexity of the runway, taxiway and apron layouts,
the greater the possibility for reducing operating costs through a comparison of
alternative taxiway systems. Several computerized aircraft traffic flow simulation models
have been developed for this purpose by consultants, aircraft operators and airport
authorities.

Figure 1-2. Stages in taxiway system development

Diagram a) illustrates a design to minimize the taxiway system. It does not consider the
optimum location for the apron which will also need to be taken into account.
 Figure 1-3. Turnarounds

1.1.13 For example, the United States Federal Aviation Administration has the Airfield
Delay Model which simulates all significant aircraft movements performed on an
aerodrome and its runway approach paths during an extended period of time. Such
models are able to consider a variety of input variables such as:
- aircraft mix;
- traffic volume;
- traffic peaking;
- aerodrome layouts (taxiways and runway);
- terminal destinations of aircraft;
- runway configurations;
- rapid exit taxiways; and
- use of particular runways by categories of aircraft.

From these inputs, these models produce outputs for evaluation and comparison which
include:
- Taxiing fuel costs;
- Taxiing distance;
- Taxiing travel time;
- Taxiing delays; and
- Runway arrival and departure delays.

Aircraft taxi distance

1.1.14 The main reason to minimize aircraft taxi distances is to reduce taxi time and thus
save fuel and enhance aircraft utilization and safety. Of particular importance are the taxi
distances for the heavily loaded aircraft taxiing for take-off. Even small airports should
have layouts which recognize this need.

1.1.15 At larger airports the issue of aircraft safety has greater significance. Detailed
investigations have shown that when a fully laden aircraft is taxied over a distance
varying from 3 to 7 km (depending upon the aircraft type, its tire size and type, and the
ambient temperature), the tire carcass temperature during take-off can exceed a critical
value of 120°C (250°F). Exceeding this critical temperature affects the nylon cord
strength and rubber adhesion of the tire and significantly increases the risk of tire failure.
The 120°C limit used in the industry applies to taxiing for take-off as well as the take-off
run. At 120°C the nylon tensile strength is reduced by 30 per cent. Higher temperatures
cause permanent deterioration of rubber adhesive properties. Tire failures during take-off
are serious because they can result in an aborted take-off with braking being ineffective
on those wheels having blown tires.

1.1.16 Taxi distances should therefore be kept to the minimum practicable. In the case of
large wide-bodied aircraft, a distance of 5 km is considered to be the acceptable upper
limit, and where unfavourable factors exist, such as those which require frequent use of
brakes, this limit may have to be reduced.

1.1.17 Every airport master plan, irrespective of the size of the airport development,
should recognize the need to minimize taxi distances, especially for departing aircraft, for
both economy and safety. The suitable location of rapid exit taxiways can do much to
reduce taxi distances for landing aircraft. Further, take-offs from taxiway intersections
and the use of rapid exit taxiways not only reduce taxi distances and runway occupancy
time but also increase runway capacity.

1.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS DESIGN CRITERIA

General

1.2.1 Design criteria for taxiways are less stringent than those for runways since aircraft
speeds on taxiways are much slower than those on runways. Table 1-1 shows the main
physical characteristics design criteria recommended for a taxiway in accordance with the
specifications in Annex 14, Volume I. It should be emphasized that with respect to the
clearance distance between the outer main wheel of the aircraft and the edge of the
taxiway, it is assumed that the cockpit of the aircraft remains over the taxiway centre line
markings.

Aerodrome reference code

1.2.2 The reference code is intended to provide a simple method for interrelating the
numerous specifications concerning the characteristics of aerodromes to ensure that the
aerodrome facilities are suitable for the aeroplanes that are intended to operate at the
aerodrome. The code is composed of two elements which are related to the aeroplane
performance characteristics and dimensions. Element 1 is a number based on the
aeroplane reference field length, and Element 2 is a letter based on the aeroplane wing
span and outer main gear wheel span.

1.2.3 A particular specification is related to the more appropriate of the two elements of
the code or to an appropriate combination of the two code elements. The code letter or
number within an element selected for design purposes is related to the critical aeroplane
characteristics for which the facility is provided. When applying the relevant
specifications in Annex 14, Volume I the aeroplanes which the aerodrome is intended to
serve are identified first followed by the two elements of the code.

1.2.4 An aerodrome reference code - a code number and a letter - selected for aerodrome
planning purposes shall be determined in accordance with the characteristics of the
aeroplane for which an aerodrome facility is intended. Further, the aerodrome reference
code numbers and letters shall have the meanings assigned to them in Table 1-2. l
classification of representative aeroplanes by coode number and code letter is included in
Appendix 3.

1.2.5 The code number for Element 1 shall be determined from table 1-2, selecting the
code number corresponding to the highest value of the aeroplane reference field lengths
of the aeroplanes for which the runway is intended. The aeroplane reference field length
is defined as 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 shown in the appropriate aeroplane flight manual prescribed by the certificating
authority or equivalent data from the aeroplane manufacturer. Accordingly, if 1 650-m
corresponds to the highest value of the aeroplane reference field lengths, the code number
selected would be "3".

1.2.6 The code letter for Element 2 shall be determined from Table 1-2, selecting the
code letter which corresponds to the greatest wing span, or the greatest outer main gear
wheel span, whichever gives the more demanding code letter, of the aeroplanes for which
the facility is intended. For instance, if code letter C corresponds to the aeroplane with
the greatest wing span and code letter D corresponds to the aeroplane with the greatest
outer main ˜gear wheel span, the code letter selected would be "D".

Taxiway width

1.2.7 Minimum taxiway widths are shown in Table 1-1. The values selected for the
minimum taxiway widths are based on adding clearance distance from wheel to pavement
edge to the maximum outer main gear wheel span for the selected code letter.

Taxiway curves

1.2.8 Changes in direction of taxiways should be as few and small as possible. The design
of the curve should be such that when the cockpit of the aeroplane remains over the
taxiway centre line markings, the clearance distance between the outer main wheels of
 the aeroplane and the edge of the taxiway should not be less than those specified in Table
1-1.

1.2.9 If curves are unavoidable, the radii should be compatible with the manoeuvring
capability and normal taxiing speeds of the aircraft for which the taxiway is intended.
Table 1,;.3 shows values of allowable aircraft speeds for given radii of curvature based on
a lateral load factor of 0.133 g (see 1.2.22). Where sharp curves are planned and their
radii will not suffice to prevent wheels of taxiing aircraft from leaving the pavement, it
may be necessary to widen the taxiway so as to achieve the wheel clearance specified in
Table 1-1. It is to be noted that compound curves may reduce or eliminate the need for
extra taxiway width.

Table 1-2. Aerodrome reference code

Code element 1 Code element 2

Code Aeroplane reference Code Outer main gear
Wing span
number field length letter wheel spana

Up to but not Up to but not

1 Less than 800 m A
including 15 m including 4.5 m

800 m up to but not 15 m up to but not 4.5 m up to but

2 B
including 1200 m including 24 m not including 6 m

1200 m up to but not 24 m up to but not 6 m up to but not

3 C
including 1800 m including 36 m including 9 m

36 m up to but not 9 m up to but not

D
including 52 m including 14 m

52 m up to but not 9 m up to but not

4 1800 m and over E
including 65 m including 14 m

65 m up to but not 14 m up to but not

F
including 80 m including 16 m

a. Distance between the outside edges of the main gear.

wheels.

Junctions and intersections

1.2.10 To ensure that the minimum wheel clearance distances specified in Table 1-1 are
maintained, fillets should be provided at junctions and intersections of taxiways with
runways, aprons and other taxiways. Information on the design of fillets is given in 1.5.
 TABLE 1-3 Aircraft speeds versus radius of curve

Speed (Km/h) Radius of curve(m)

16 15
32 60
48 135
64 240
80 375
96 540

Taxiway minimum separation distances

General

1.2.11 The separation distance between the centre line of a taxiway and the centre line- of
a runway, another taxiway or an object should not be less than the appropriate dimension
specified in Table 1-1. It may, however, be permissible to operate with lower separation
distances at an existing aerodrome if an aeronautical study indicates that such lower
separation distances would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the
regularity of operations of aeroplanes. Guidance on factors which may be considered in
the aeronautical study is given in 1.2.28 through 1.2.66.

1.2.12 The distances are based on the maximum wing span of a group and on the
deviation of one aircraft from the taxiway centre line a distance equal to the wheel edge
clearance for that group. It should be noted that, even in instances where a particular
aircraft design (as a result of an unusual combination of large wing span and narrow gear
span) might result in. the wing tip extending farther from the centre line distance, the
resulting clearance distance would still be considerably more than that - required for
aircraft to pass.

Separation distances between taxiways, and between taxiways and objects

1.2.13 Formulae and separation distances are shown in Table 1-4 and illustrated in Figure
1-4. The separation distances related to taxiways and apron taxiways are based on the
aircraft wing span (Y) and the maximum lateral deviation (X) - (the wheel-to-edge
clearance specified in Table 1-1).

1.2.14 Lesser distances on aircraft stand taxi lanes are considered appropriate because
taxiing speeds are normally lower when taxiing on these taxiways, and the increased
attention of pilots results in less deviation from the centre line. Accordingly, instead of
assuming an aircraft is off the centre line as far as the maximum lateral deviation (X)
would allow, a lesser distance is assumed which is referred to as "gear deviation".

1.2.15 It may be noted that two factors have been used in the development of the
formulae: the maximum lateral deviation/gear deviation and the wing tip clearance
increment. These factors have different functions. The deviation factor represents a
distance that aircraft might travel in normal operation. On the other hand, the increment
(Z in Figure 1-4) is a safety buffer intended to avoid accidents when aircraft go beyond
the taxiway, to facilitate taxiing by providing extra space, and to account for other factors
influencing taxiing speeds.

1.2.16 A graduated increment scale rather than a constant increment for all code letters
has been selected because:

a) pilot judgement of clearance distance is more difficult in aircraft with larger wing
spans, particularly when the aircraft has swept wings; and

b) the momentum of larger aircraft may be higher and could result in such aircraft
running farther off the edge of a taxiway;
Table 1-4. Minimum separation distances between taxiways and between taxiways and objects
(dimensions in metres)
Code letter
Separation distances A B C D E F
Between apron taxiway/taxiway centre line and
taxiway centre line:
wing span (Y) 15.00 24.00 36 52.0 65.0 80.0
+ maximum lateral deviation (X) 1.50 2.25 3 4.5 4.5 4.5
+ increment (Z) 7.25 7.25 5 10.0 10.5 13.0
Total separation distance (V) 23.75 33.50 44 66.5 80.0 97.5
Between taxiway centre line and object:
1/2 wing span (Y) 7.50 12.00 18 26.0 32.5 40.0
+ maximum lateral deviation (X) 1.50 2.25 3 4.5 4.5 4.5
+ increment (Z) 7.25 7.25 5 10.0 10.5 13.0
Total separation distance (V) 16.25 21.50 26 40.5 47.5 57.5
Between apron taxiway centre line and object:
½ wing span (Y) 7.50 12.00 18 26.0 32.5 40.0
+ maximum lateral deviation (X) 1.50 2.25 3 4.5 4.5 4.5
+ increment (Z) 7.25 7.25 5 10.0 10.5 13.0
Total separation distance (V) 16.25 21.50 26 40.5 47.5 57.5
Between aircraft stand taxi lane centre line and
object:
½ wing span (Y) 7.5 2.00 18.0 26.0 32.5 40.0
+ gear deviation 1.5 1.50 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0
'
"
+ increment (Z) 3.0 3.00 4.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
~
1
Total separation distance (V) 12.0 16.50 24.5 36.0 42.5 50.5

1.2.17 The increments for the determination of the separation distances between an apron
taxiway and an object are the same as· those proposed between a taxiway and an object,
the reason being that although apron taxiways are associated with aprons, it is thought
that their location should not imply a reduction in taxiing speed. Aircraft will normally be
moving at slow speeds on an aircraft stand taxi lane and can therefore be expected to
remain close to the centre line. Deviations of 1.5, 1.5,2, 2.5 and 2.5 m have been selected
for code letters A to E. A deviation of 2.5 m has also been adopted for code letter F. The
use of a graduated scale for lateral deviation in a stand (taxi lane is considered
appropriate since the ability of a pilot to follow the centre line is decreased in larger
aircraft because of the cockpit height.

1.2.18 Larger increments have been selected for the separation distances between
taxiway/object and apron taxiway/object than for other separation distances. These larger
increments are considered necessary because normally objects along such taxiways are
fixed objects, thus making the probability of a collision with one of them greater than that
of one aircraft running off the taxiway just as another aircraft is passing that point on the
parallel taxiway. Also, the fixed object may be a fence or wall which runs parallel to the
taxiway for some distance. Even in the case of a road running parallel to a taxiway,
vehicles may unknowingly reduce the clearance distance by parking off the road.

Separation distances between taxiways and runways

1.2.19 The separation distances are based on the concept of the wing of an aircraft
centred on a paral1el1axiiway remaining clear of the associated runway strip. The
formulae and separation distances are shown in Table 1-5. The separation distance
between the centre lines of a runway and a parallel taxiway is based on the accepted
principle that the wing tip of an aeroplane taxiing on the parallel taxiway should not
penetrate the associated runway strip. However this minimum separation distance may
not provide adequate length for the link taxiway connecting the parallel taxiway and the
runway to permit safe taxiing of another aircraft behind an aircraft holding short of the
runway at the holding position. To permit such operations, the parallel taxiway should be
so located as to comply with the requirements of Annex 14, Volume I, Tables 3-1 and 3-
2, considering the dimensions of the most demanding aeroplane in a given aerodrome
code. For example, at a code E aerodrome, this separation would be equal to the sum of
the distance of the runway holding position from the taxiway centre line, the overall
length of the most demanding aeroplane, the taxiway-to-object distance specified in
column E of Table 1-1.

Parallel taxiway geometry

1.2.20 The separation distances between parallel taxiways shown in Table 1-1 have been
selected on the basis of desired wing tip Clearances. There are other factors which should
also be taken into account when evaluating the capability of making a normal 1800 turn
from one taxiway to another parallel taxiway. These include:
 Table 1-4. Separation distance to an object

Table 1-5. Minimum separation distances between taxiway/apron taxiway centre line
and runway centre line (dimensions in metres)

Code number 1 2 3 4

Code letter A B A B A B C D C D E F

½ wing ,span (y) 7.5 12 7.5 12 7.5 12 18 26 18 26 32.5 40

+ 1/2 strip width
(non-instrument approach 30 30 40 40 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
runway)
Total 37.5 42 47.5 52 82.5 87 93 101 93 101 107.5 115
or
1/2 wing span (y) 7.5 12 7.5 12 7.5 12 18 26 18 ' 26 32.5 40
+ 1/2 strip width
75 75 75 75 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
(instrument approach runway)
Total 82.5 87 82.5 87 157.5 162 168 176 168 176 182.5 190
a) maintaining a reasonable taxi speed to achieve high taxiway system utilization;

b) maintaining specified clearance distances between the outer main wheel and the
taxiway edge when . the cockpit remains over the taxiway centre marking; and

c) manoeuvring at a steering angle that is within the capability of the aircraft and which
will not subject the tires to unacceptable wear.

1.2.21 To evaluate the taxi speed when making the 180° turn, it is assumed that the radii
of curvature are equal to one-half of the separation distance indicated in Table 1-1, and as
shown below:

Code letter Radius (m)

A 11.875
B 16.75
C 22.0
D 33.25
E 40.0
F 48.75

1.2.22 The velocity in the turn is a function of the radius of the curve (R) and the lateral
load factor (f). Thus, if it is assumed that the lateral load factor is limited to 0.133 g:

V == (127.133 x (f) x R)1/2 = (127.133 x 0.133 R)1/2 = 4.1120(R1/2),

Where R is in meters
The resulting allowable velocities are shown in Table 1-6.

1.2.23 Examination of Table 1-6 shows that a velocity of 26 km/h is achieved for code
letter E. In the case of code letter F, the velocity would be 28.71 km/h. To achieve the
same speed on taxiways associated with the other code letters, a separation distance of 80
m would be required. The separation distances for code letters A and B, however, may be
unreasonably large when compared with those required by the desired wing tip clearance.
In this connection, experience shows that small aircraft require a slower speed than larger
aircraft because of their sensitivity to nose gear swiveling.

1.2.24 To evaluate the factors mentioned in 1.2.20 b) and c), a computer programme was
developed by an aircraft manufacturer to show the motion of an aircraft during a 1800
turn. A representative aircraft from each code letter was used (see Table 1-7). These
aircraft were chosen for illustrative purposes because they have the greatest distance
between the main gear and the cockpit of the aircraft within each code. The radius of the
curve for each case is based on one-half of the minimum separation distance. The outer
main gear wheel span is assumed to be the maximum allowed for the code letter, while
the table shows the actual aircraft dimension for the distance between the main gear and
the cockpit.
 Table 1-6. Allowable velocities in a 180° turn

Velocity
Radius
Code letter V= 4.1120 (R1/2)
(m)
(km/h)
A 11.875 14.17
B 16.75 16.83
C 22.0 19.29
D 33.25 23.71
E 40.0 26.01
F 48.75 28.71

Table 1-7. Assumed data for calculation of 1800 turn

Outer main gear Main gear to Radius of
Code Aircraft
wheel span cockpit curvature
letter model
(m) (m) (m)
A Lear 55 4.5 5.7 11.875
B F28-2000 6.0 11.9 16.75
C M080 90 20.3 22.0
D MD11 14.0 31.0 33.25
E A340-600 12.0 37.1
E B747 14.0 28.0 40.0
E B777-300 12.9
F A380 16.0 48.75

Table 1-8. Aircraft steering angles

Aircraft model Maximum steering Approx maximum steering
angle Angle during 180° turn
Lear 55 55° 40°
F 28-2000 76° 45°
MD 80 82° 65°
MD 11 70° 60°
B 747 70° 50°

1.2.25 The ability to make a smooth turn depends, in part, on the allowable steering
angle. Table 1-8 provides data for the representative aircraft. (The data shown in the last
column are based on the data of Table 1-7 and assume 30 nose tire slip for Lear 55, F28-
2000 and MD80, and 5° nose tire slip for MD ll and B747.) The study revealed that the
maximum angle required during the turn is within the limits given in Table 1-8 for all
aircraft.
1.2.26 The solution for a 1800 turn, which was arrived at by use of a computer
programme, can also be determined by graphical means. The procedure requires a step-
by-step movement of the cockpit along the centre line of the curve. The main gear is
assumed to travel along a line that is formed by the original position of the mid-point
between the main gear and the new position of the cockpit. This is illustrated in Figure 1-
5.

1.2.27 It is significant to note that the computer programme results were based on
increments of movement of 0.5°. This is much too tedious for a graphical solution, and a
comparison was made of the computer programme solution with a graphical solution in
which the increments were 10°. It was concluded that an error of approximately 2.4 m is
introduced by the coarser increments of the graphical method. Increments of 5° will
reduce the error to approximately 1.5 m.

Aeronautical study relating to minimum separation distances

Introduction

1.2.28 The aim of the specifications in Annex 14, Volume I is to give aerodrome planners
a tool to design efficient aerodromes for safe aircraft operations. It is not intended,
however, that the Annex be used to regulate aircraft operations. It may be permissible to
operate at existing aerodromes with lower taxiway separation distances than those
specified in the Annex if an aeronautical study indicates that such lower separation
distances would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of
operations of aircraft. The purpose of this material is to assist States in undertaking an
aeronautical study by defining the criteria considered pertinent for the assessment of
whether lesser dimensions than those specified in Annex 14, Volume I, Table 3-1
(reproduced in Table I-I) are adequate for the operation of new larger aeroplanes in the
specific operational environment at an existing aerodrome. This may also result in
operational restrictions or limitations. Notwithstanding the above, every effort must be
made to conform with Annex 14, Volume I specifications at the earliest opportunity.

Objectives and scope

1.2.29 The prime objective of an aeronautical study is to assess the adequacy of the
protection provided by the existing layout for the operation of the critical aircraft with
respect to:

a) Collision with another aircraft, vehicle or object;

b) Run off from paved surfaces; and

c) Engine damage from ingestion.

1.2.30 The areas of concern which this assessment will address relate to specific
functional requirements in terms of:
a) distance between centre line of runway and centre line of taxiway;

b) distance between centre line of taxiway and centre line of parallel taxiway;

d) distance between centre line of aircraft stand taxi lane and object;

e) runway and taxiway dimensions, surface and shoulders; and

f) protection of engines against damage from foreign objects.

It should be noted that every operational factor listed above need not be considered in all
instances. Therefore, the appropriate authority should determine which factors are
relevant to a risk analysis for a specific site. Additionally, the appropriate authority
should define the parameters for each of the operational factors selected and assign a
hierarchy of values to each of them, based upon subjective operational and engineering
judgements.

Figure 1-5. Graphical solution of a 180° turn

Basic considerations

1.2.31 Operational experience with large aircraft at aerodromes not designed to the
specifications dictated by that aircraft type has shown that a safe and regular operation is
feasible, though subject to specific measures being implemented (e.g. the use of selected
taxi routings, designated aircraft stand taxi lanes, etc.). This may be due to the fact that a
variety of adverse factors do not necessarily affect the operational environment at a
certain aerodrome. Furthermore, analyses of accidents and incidents do not indicate that
they are caused by inadequate margins that do not meet the specifications in Annex 14,
Volume I. It may thus be assumed that the above considerations similarly apply to the
operation of new larger aeroplanes, subject to the conditions resulting from the
aeronautical study.
Assessment aspects

1.2.32 An aeronautical study will consist essentially of a risk analysis based on pertinent
criteria to assess:

a) Probability of collision;

b) Probability of run-off; and

c) Risk of engine ingestion.

The majority of criteria being qualitative in nature, the assessment of risk levels cannot
be expressed in absolute or quantitative terms. For the outcome of the study to be
meaningful, it should be complemented by operational and engineering judgments. This
suggests that the appropriate authority should consult with the aircraft operator when
carrying out the assessment.

1.2.33 Referring to collision risk assessment, which addresses the separation/clearance

distances provided, the relative risk level on the movement area (expressed in terms of
probability of a collision to occur) is generally considered to increase in the following
order of priority:

runway → taxiway→ apron taxiway → aircraft stand taxi lane

The increase in risk is attributed to:

a) decreasing accounting for aircraft deviations from the centre line/guideline and
associated incremental margins;

b) increasing density of vehicles and objects; and

c) increasing complexity of layouts giving rise to pilot distraction, confusion,

misinterpretation, etc.

1.2.34 A crucial criterion for assessing the adequacy of existing separation/clearance

distances for safe and regular operation of new larger aeroplanes is the accuracy with
which aircraft taxi relative to the centre line/guideline on runways and taxiways:

a) On straight portions; and

b) On taxiway curves.

1.2.35 The following factors can impact on the accuracy or safety achieved in day-to-day
operational environments and require, therefore, a detailed examination as applicable:
a) quality of aircraft nose wheel guidelines (marking and lighting);

b) quality of signs;

c) visibility conditions;

d) day or night;

e) surface state (dry, wet, contaminated by snow/ice);

f) taxi speed;

g) pilots' attention;

h) pilots' technique of negotiating turns;

i) wind effects (cross-wind); and

j) aircraft handling characteristics.

1.2.36 The provision of taxiing guidance, i.e. marking, lighting and signs which are
adequately conspicuous in all operational conditions, together with good surface friction
conditions, is considered paramount for achieving a high degree of taxiing accuracy. This
is substantiated by the fact that the pilot of a large aeroplane, being unable to see the wing
tips, will have to rely primarily on taxiing guidance, the accurate tracking of which will
guarantee proper wing tip clearance.

1.2.37 Good surface friction characteristics are required because nose wheel steering
effectiveness can become significantly degraded with large aeroplanes whenever the
surface is other than dry, thereby challenging the execution of controlled turns. This is
particularly true in the presence of a strong cross-wind.

1.2.38 The rationale used for determining separation distances for code letters E and F
assumes a lateral deviation value of 4.5 ill from the centre line for taxiways/apron
taxiways on either straight or curved portions. For aircraft stand taxi lanes the respective
value is 2.5 m and is referred to as gear deviation.

1.2.39 Taxiway deviation studies, using a representative mix of aircraft types 'including
large aeroplanes, were conducted at London Heathrow and Amsterdam/Schipol airports.
(See Appendix 4.) Results suggest that in favourable operating conditions (i.e. positive
guidance provided by centre line lighting and marking and 'good surface friction
characteristics), the mean deviation of main gears of aircraft from the centre line on
straight taxiway portions is less than 4.5 m. It should be noted here, however, that the
value of maximum deviation of main gears of most aircraft reached the 8 to 10 m range
depending on aircraft type. With these provisions, a reduction of the deviation value
accounted for in an aeronautical study may be acceptable relative to straight portion of
taxiways, whereas the specified value should be retained if the above conditions are not
met.

1.2.40 For taxiway curves, however, the situation is somewhat different. A fixed
deviation of 4.5 ill seen as adequate for determining separation/clearance distances does
not account for the natural main gear track-in which results from the cockpit following
the centre line. For new larger aeroplanes, the track-in allowance may be inadequate for
the smaller turn radii of taxiways. Therefore, a detailed evaluation will be required to
determine the path followed by the wing tip on the inside of the turn. The paths of the
(inner) wing tips of B747-400 and MDl1 aircraft are given in Tables 1-9 and 1-10,
respectively, and illustrated in Figure 1-6. The maximum wing tip track-in, for the newer
aircraft, such as the B777-300, MD11, B747-400, B747-200 and A330-300/A340-300 are
shown in Figures 1-7 through 1-1-1, respectively. For a study involving other new larger
aeroplanes, it may be necessary to consult the aircraft manufacturers.

1.2.41 Design specifications are based on the assumption that, in taxiway curves, the
cockpit is following the centre line of the taxiway. In day-to-day operations, however,
pilots frequently use the straight-through or over steering technique. This alternative
practice may be taken into account when contemplating operations with reduced
separation/clearance distances. This may apply, for example, in the case of curved
parallel taxiways with the aircraft on the outer taxiway using the cockpit over the centre
line technique while the aircraft on the inner taxiway applies the over steering technique
(e.g. main gear centre over centre line). Other measures of importance are taxiway turn
fillet size and wing tip clearance in the terminal areas.

1.2.42 Apart from assessing the adequacy of separation/clearance distances given the
relatively small deviations anticipated in normal operation, the aeronautical study may
further require an assessment of the probability of collision due to large inadvertent
excursions including runoffs from the paved surface.

1.2.43 In advertent excursions are guarded against by using an appropriate .safety buffer
(increment Z) which, however, does not make a differentiation with regard to the degree
of risk involved. Accordingly, it may be assumed that the specified margins will provide
adequate protection against a large variety of unfavourable operational factors.

1.2.44 When contemplating lesser margins, the study will have to determine the relative
probability of collision for the particular operational environment at the aerodrome
concerned. This entails an assessment of the total risk, composed of:

a) the risk of run-offs; and

b) exposure to collision risks;

and for which separate criteria will apply:

 for a)
- surface friction conditions
- taxi speed
- straight or curved taxiway
- taxi-in or taxi-out;

for b):
- type of object (fixed/mobile)
- extent or density of objects
- affected part of the movement area

Table 1-9.
B747-400 inner wing tip plots (metres)
30 m radius 50 m radius 70 m radius
Cockpit Wing tip Cockpit Wing lip Cockpit Wing tip
X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y
-30.0 0.0 2.5 -45.2 -50.0 0.0 -17.5 -45.2 -70.0 0.0 -37.5 -45.2
-29.5 5.2 2.2 -40.5 -49.2 8.7 -17.9 -37.3 -68.9 12.2 -38.0 -34.1
-28.2 10.3 1.5 -36.8 -47.0 17.1 -18.8 -30.9 -65.8 23.9 -39.0 -24.8
-26.0 15.0 0.5 -34.0 -43.3 25.0 -19.9 -25.5 -60.6 35.0 -39.7 -16.6
-23.0 19.3 -0.7 -31.7 -38.3 32.1 -21.0 -20.8 -53.6 45.0 -40.1 -9.0
-19.3 23.0 -2.2 -30.0 -32.1 38.3 -22.0 -16.4 -45.0 53.6 -39.7 -1.8
-15.0 26.0 -3.9 -28.6 -25.0 43.3 -22.8 -12.3 -35.0 60.6 -38.6 5.1
-10.3 28.2 -5.8 -27.3 -17.1 47.0 -23.3 -8.3 -23.9 65.8 -36.6 11.6
-5.2 29.5 -7.8 -26.1 -8.7 49.2 -23.4 -4.4 -12.2 68.9 -33.7 17.6
0.0 30.0 -10.1 -24.8 0.0 50.0 -23.2 -0.6 0.0 70.0 -29.9 23.1
5.2 30.0 -11.7 -23.0 8.7 50.0 -21.4 3.2 6.1 70.0 -27.3 25.5
10.5 30.0 -12.1 -20.9 17.5 50.0 -17.4 6.6 12.2 70.0 -23.9 27.6
15.7 30.0 -11.5 -18.6 26.2 50.0 -11.8 9.3 18.3 70.0 -19.9 29.5
20.9 30.0 -9.9 -16.4 34.9 50.0 -5.3 11.5 24.4 70.0 -15.3 31.0
26.2 30.0 -7.5 -14.3 43.6 50.0 2.0 13.1 30.5 70.0 -10.4 32.3
31.4 30.0 -4.6 -12.5 54.2 50.0 9.7 14.3 36.7 70.0 -5.2 33.3
36.7 30.0 -1.2 -10.9 61.1 50.0 17.7 15.2 42.8 70.0 0.2 34.1
41.9 30.0 2.6 -9.5 69.8 50.0 25.9 15.8 48.9 70.0 5.7 34.8
47.1 30.0 6.7 -8.3 78.5 50.0 34.2 16.3 55.0 70.0 11.4 35.4
52.4 30.0 11.0 -7.3 61.1 70.0 17.2 35.8
57.6 30.0 15.5 -6.5 67.2 70.0 23.0 36.1
62.8 30.0 20.2 -5.8 73.3 70.0 28.9 36.4
68.1 30.0 24.9 -5.2 79.4 70.0 34.8 36.6
73.3 30.0 29.8 -4.7
78.5 30.0 34.7 -4.3
-90 degree turns
-Zero reference point (X = O. Y = 0) is at turn centre
1.2.45 Expressed in practical terms, the run-off risk is considered to increase with poor
surface friction characteristics (snow/ice) where taxi speeds are relatively high, especially
in taxiway curves. The exposure to collision risks increases with the aircraft moving from
 the runway to the apron due to the increase in object density (fixed and mobile) and the
smaller margins provided. In a favourable operational environment, however, it may be
determined that the probability of collision is extremely remote or improbable and
therefore lesser separation/clearance distances are acceptable. This may apply for an
isolated object located along a straight taxiway, low taxi speeds and good surface friction
characteristics being prevalent.

Table 1-10. MD 11 inner wing tip plots (metres)

30 m radius 50 m radius
70 m radius
Cockpit Wing tip Cockpit Wing tip Cockpit Wing tip
X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y X Y
-30.0 0.0 -4.0 -43.0 -50.0 0.0 -24.0 -43.0 -70.0 0.0 -44.0 -43.0
-29.5 5.2 -4.1 -38.1 -49.2 8.7 -24.2 -34.9 -68.9 12.2 -44.2 -31.6
-28.2 10.3 -4.5 -34.0 -47.0 17.1 -24.6 -27.9 -65.8 23.9 -44.5 -21.6
-26.0 15.0 -4.9 -30.6 -43.3 25.0 -24.9 -21.7 -60.6 35.0 -44.4 -12.6
-23.0 19.3 -5.4 -27.8 -38.3 32.1 -25.0 -16.3 -53.6 45.0 -43.6 -4.2
-19.3 23.0 --6.0 -25.5 -32.1 38.3 -24.8 -11.4 -45.0 53.6 -42.1 3.5
-15.0 26.0 --6.6 -23.6 -25.0 43.3 -24.4 6.9 -35.0 60.6 -39.8 10.6
-10.3 28.2 -7.3 -22.0 -17.1 47.0 -23.6 2.8 -23.9 65.8 -36.6 17.1
-5.2 29.5 -8.1 -20.6 -8.7 49.2 -22.6 0.9 -12.2 68.9 -32.5 23.0
0.0 30.0 -9.1 -19.4 0.0 50.0 -21.2 4.4 0.0 70.0 -27.7. 28.1
5.2 30.0 -9.7 -18.0 8.7 .50.0 -18.6 7.8 6.1 70.0 -24.8 30.4
10.5 30.0 -9.4 -16.2 17.5 50.0 -14.2 11.0 12.2 70.0 -21.1 32.4
15.7 30.0 -8.3 -14.2 26.2 50.0 -8.7 13.8 18.3 70.0 -17.0 34.2
20.9 30.0 --6.5 -12.1 34.9 50.0 -2.2 16.1 24.4 70.0 -12.4 35.8
26.2 30.0 -4.0 -10.2 43.6 50.0 5.0 17.9 30.5 70.0 -7.5 37.2
31.4 30.0 -1.1 -8.3 54.2 50.0 12.6 19.3 36.7 70.0 -2.4 38.3
36.7 30.0 2.3 -6.7 61.1 50.0 20.5 20.4 42.8 70.0 3.0 39.3
41.9 30.0 6.0 -5.2 69.8 50.0 28.6 21.3 48.9 70.0 8.5 40.1
47.1 30.0 10.0 -3.9 78.5 50.0 36.9 21.9 55.0 70.0 14.1 40.8
52.4 30.0 14.2 -2.7 87.3 50.0 45.2 22.4 61.1 70.0 19.8 41.4
57.6 30.0 18.7 -1.8 96.0 50.0 53.7 22.8 67.2 70.0 25.6 41.8
62.8 30.0 23.2 -0.9 73.3 70.0 31.4 42.2
68.1 30.0 27.9 -0.2 79.4 70.0 37.3 42.5
73.3 30.0 32.7 0.5 85.5 70.0 43.3 42.8
78.5 30.0 37.5 1.0 91.6 70.0 49.3 43.0
83.8 30.0 42.4 1.5 97.7 70.0 55.3 43.2
89.0 30.0 47.4 1.8
94.2 30.0 52.4 2.2
-90 degree turns
-Zero reference point (X = 0, Y = 0) is at turn centre
Considerations related to specific functional requirements

Runway/taxiway separation distances

1.2.46 The main principle governing runway/taxiway separation distances is that the
wing tip of a taxiing aeroplane should not penetrate the strip of the associated runway.
Other major aspects requiring consideration concern the protection of an aircraft that has
inadvertently run off a runway against collision with another aircraft taxiing on a parallel
taxiway and the protection of the ILS critical and sensitive areas against interference
from radio nav aids. The risk of a collision occurring is essentially governed by:

a) the probability of a run-off, and

b) the exposure to collision risks,

and would have to be assessed in a study for the particular operational environment
existing at the aerodrome concerned.

1.2.47 There is statistical evidence that run-offs occur for a variety of causal factors and
with different degrees of lateral deviation from the runway centre line. The risk of
runway run-offs is significantly due to:

a) environmental factors:
- strong runway surface characteristics
- strong cross-wind/gusts/wind shear;

b) aircraft operation factors:

- human
- technical failures/malfunctions (steering/tire/ brake/reverse thrust failures).

1.2.48 While factors related to aircraft operation are in general unpredictable, the
environmental factors are subject to control or monitoring by the appropriate authority so
that overall risks can be minimized. Furthermore, the exposure to collision risks is largely
affected by the magnitude of lateral deviation from the runway centre line and the traffic
density.

1.2.49 Guidance. on grading of strips for precision approach runways, taking into
account lateral deviations, is provided in Annex 14, Volume I, Attachment A, 8.3 and
Figure A-3. Relating the lateral dimensions to the existing separation distance may assist
in assessing the relative exposure to collision risks. For lesser separation distances than
those specified in Annex 14, Volume I, however, it would appear advisable to make
efforts to minimize run-off risks through effective control and reporting of runway
surface friction characteristics and reliable reporting of wind conditions. Accordingly,
aircraft operators can contribute to minimizing run-off risks by applying operational
restrictions commensurate with reported conditions.
 Figure 1-6. Inner wing tip travel path (Cockpit over taxiway centre line)

Taxiway/taxiway separation distances

1.2.50 The separation distances specified for parallel taxiways are intended to provide a
safe wing tip clearance by accounting for the anticipated deviation of a manoeuvring
aircraft from the taxiway centre line, in terms of:

a) taxiing accuracy achieved in day-to-day operation; and

b) inadvertent excursions/run-offs.

A study on whether lesser distances provide adequate safety margins in the operational
environment of an existing aerodrome layout will require an assessment of the risk of
collision which, owing to different levels involved, should be related to:

a) straight parallel taxiways; and

b) taxiway curves
In either case, the risk of collision between two aircraft on parallel taxiways is
determined primarily by the probability of an inadvertent major excursion by an aircraft
from the taxiway centre line.

1.2.51 In contrast, taxiing accuracy per se is not considered to affect the collision risk to a
critical extent in the case of straight parallel taxiways.

1.2.52 On taxiway curves, however, taxiing accuracy becomes a critical element in terms
of collision risks for the various reasons outlined in 1.2:32 through 1.2.45. Accordingly,
the trajectories of the wing tips of two large aircraft must be established.

1.2.53 When contemplating lesser separation distances, careful consideration must be

given to the various factors affecting taxiing accuracy (1.2.32 through 1.2.45), in
particular taxiway curves. In this regard, the maintenance of good surface friction
characteristics under all environmental circumstances is considered a dominant
prerequisite for minimizing:

a) lateral deviations through proper nose-wheel steering and wheel-braking

effectiveness; and

b) risk of run-off

Accordingly, the overall risk would be reduced essentially to the possibility of

inadvertent major excursions resulting from unpredictable technical failures affecting the
steering capability of an aircraft (e.g. nose-wheel steering). The assessment of the overall
risk would thus consist of:

a) the probability of occurrence of a technical failure leading to a major excursion; and

b) the exposure to collision risks subject to traffic density.

In the case of a) above, however, there is no indication that the probability rate of
mechanical failures would be significant.

Taxiway/object separation distances

1.2.54 The risk considerations and the prerequisites related to reduced separation
distances as outlined in 1.2.50 through 1.2.53 will similarly apply when assessing the
adequacy of actual separation distances between the taxiway centre line and objects at an
existing aerodrome. As far as the exposure to risks of collision is concerned, particular
attention appears warranted with respect to:

a) the nature of objects (fixed or mobile);

b) their size (isolated or extended); and

c) their location relative to straight portions of taxiways or taxiway curves.

1.2.55 It is reiterated that obstacles situated close to taxiway curves and adjacent areas
will require particular examination. This includes not only consideration of wing tip
clearances but also the possibility of impingement of jet wake on the object as a result of
aircraft changing direction at an intersection.

Apron taxiway/object separation distances

1.2.56 In general, the apron is considered an area of high activity involving a changing
pattern of obstacles of fixed/mobile and permanent or temporary nature in a variable
operating environment. Accordingly, aircraft operating along an apron taxiway may be
exposed to incomparably higher risks of collision as compared to aircraft taxiing on a
standard taxiway, margins accounted for by the formula in terms of deviation and
increment being the same. This is actually evidenced by the comparatively high rate of
reported incidents occurring on aprons, which is a matter of continuing concern. There is,
however, no indication of the incidents being related to basic inadequacies of the
specified minimum separation distances.

1.2.57 Nevertheless, it may be reasonably assumed that at an aerodrome where lesser

separation is provided, there is increased potential for incidents to occur unless a set of
specific requirements relating to all critical elements involved in apron activities is
fulfilled.

l.2.58 Risks of collision relate predominantly to mobile objects which may infringe upon
clearance distances relative to taxiing aircraft. Accordingly, a basic requirement would be
to segregate the operating area of an aircraft from the respective area intended to be used
by mobile objects (e.g. servicing vehicles and equipment facilities). Specifically this
would include:

a) for the aircraft:

- taxi guidelines (marking and lighting);

b) for mobile objects:

- apron safety lines (see Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 5)
- service road boundary lines
- procedures and regulations to ensure discipline.

l.2.59 Concerning taxi guidance on aprons, it is of paramount importance, in order to

minimize the risk of major excursions, that the pilot be provided with a conspicuous and
unambiguous guideline which is visible continuously in all prevailing operating
conditions. This guideline is crucial for pilots of large aircraft who, being unable to
routinely observe the wing tip and having difficulty judging small clearances, must
follow the designated guidelines as closely as practicable. While doing so, pilots will
have to rely on safe taxiing at normal taxi speed.
1.2.60 To ensure accurate manoeuvring and prevent large deviations, when nose-wheel
steering or braking effectiveness is marginal, the provision of good surface friction
characteristics is important, especially when high cross-winds are encountered.

Aircraft stand taxi lane/object separation distances

1.2.61 The preceding apron-oriented risk aspects and functional requirements are equally
valid for separation distances between aircraft stand taxi lane centre lines and objects.

l.2.62 From an operational point of view, the separation distance as specified by the
formula in terms of a reduced gear deviation allowance and safety buffer is rated as rather
marginal relative to an operating environment where the exposure to collision risks is
normally greatest and the accuracy of aircraft manoeuvring is most demanding. Reducing
the specified values, therefore, should be considered as a last resort only, conditional to a
study scrutinizing all risk aspects discussed in this section as applicable to the most
unfavourable operating conditions representative of the aerodrome concerned. In
conducting the study, consultation with the aircraft operator is essential to ascertain
whether the operational aircraft parameters assumed in the study are realistic.

Taxiway dimensions, surface and shoulders

1.2.63 An aeronautical study should further examine the level of protection provided by
existing physical layouts against run-offs from taxiway pavements. This relates primarily
to the width of taxiways and associated wheel-to-edge clearances.

Width of taxiways. The specified wheel-to-edge clearance of 4.5 m for code letters E
and F is considered a minimum. Accordingly, the width of taxiways should provide this
clearance, in particular on curves and at intersections. As a minimum, the width of
taxiways should be equal to the sum of the wheel-to-pavement edge clearance on both
sides plus the maximum outer main gear span for the code letter.

Protection of engines against foreign object damage

1.2.64 The degree of damage caused to engines from ingesting foreign objects is
substantial and, therefore, a matter of continuing concern. As new larger aeroplanes are
equipped with more powerful engines, the problem is likely to be aggravated. Protection
of the taxiway shoulders extending laterally at least to the outer engine is therefore
needed. Similarly" it should be ascertained whether the type of surface of the shoulder is
adequate to resist erosion from engine blast.

1.2.65 At airports subjected to snow and ice conditions, the problem caused by foreign
object damage is particularly critical on the entire movement area. The extent to which
snow/ice clearance is carried out will determine the risk level not only for foreign object
damage but likewise for run-offs.
 Notification

1.2.66 When recommended clearance distances are not provided at certain locations of
the movement area at a particular airport, this should be appropriately identified in the
Aerodrome Chart - ICAO (Annex 4, Chapter 13 refers) for operational evaluation by
aircraft operators and pilots.

The effect of new larger aeroplanes on existing airports

1.2.67 To meet the needs of an ever changing aviation industry, succeeding generations
of larger aeroplanes have been introduced. Experience gained through the introduction of
these aeroplanes has taught airport planners that adequate planning in the initial design of
an airport is vital. However, in spite of the best efforts of airport planners, a facility
developed for the current generation of aeroplanes may not be adequate for succeeding
generations. In order to minimize any impact on capacity, airports would need to be
expanded and developed to accommodate such new larger aeroplanes.

1.2.68 With a view to complying with applicable specifications, airport planners and
engineers have to explore all avenues while undertaking the rehabilitation of existing
facilities; Often, after due consideration of all options, the physical limitations of the
existing facilities may leave the airport operator with no choice but to implement
operational restrictions.

Taxiway minimum separation distances

1.2.69 As stated in 1.2.46, the main principle governing runway/taxiway separation

distances is that the wing tip of a taxiing aeroplane should not penetrate the strip of the
associated runway. This principle is especially relevant when it is planned to operate new
aircraft with greatly increased wingspans at existing airports which were not designed to
accommodate such aircraft. Care must be taken to ensure that the increased wingspan of a
new larger aircraft does not increase the risk of collision with another aircraft taxiing on a
parallel taxiway if the larger aircraft inadvertently runs off a runway, and that ILS critical
and sensitive areas are protected. Where the wingspan of an aeroplane on a taxiway
penetrates the associated runway' strip or the safety zone of a parallel runway, appropriate
operational restrictions, such as the taxiway not being used by an aeroplane of such large
wingspan, will have to be considered. In most cases, to maintain aerodrome capacity,
simultaneous operations of smaller aeroplanes that would not infringe upon the safety
zones of the more demanding aeroplanes may be considered, after due study. For
instance, at existing aerodromes with runway and taxiway separation distances
complying with code letter E specifications, it may be permissible to operate a code letter
E or smaller aeroplane on the existing parallel taxiway while a code letter F aeroplane is
using the runway.

1.2.70 However, the minimum separation distance between a code letter E runway and
parallel taxiway may not provide adequate length for a link taxiway, connecting the
parallel taxiway and the runway, to permit safe taxiing of a code letter F aircraft behind
an aircraft holding short of the runway at the holding position. To permit such operations,
the parallel taxiway should be so located as to comply with the requirements of Annex
14, Volume I, Tables 3-1 and 3-2, considering the dimensions of the most demanding
aeroplane in a given aerodrome code. For example, at a code E aerodrome, this
separation would be equal to the sum of the distance of the runway holding position from
the runway centre line, plus the overall length of the most demanding aeroplane, and the
taxiway object distance specified in column E of Table 1-1.

1.2.71 At issue is the need to provide adequate clearances on an existing airport in order
to operate a new larger aircraft with the minimum risk possible. If the clearance distances
given Annex 14, Volume I cannot be met, then an aeronautical study should be conducted
to ensure operational safety and to ascertain what, if any, operational restrictions must be
implemented to maintain safety (see Figure 1-12).

1.2.72 In order to minimize such restrictions, when a new facility is planned for addition
to the existing airport infrastructure, it would be prudent to apply the basic clearance
distance concept adopted in the development of the specifications found in Annex 14,
Volume I. An example of the application of this concept would be:

An airport with an aerodrome reference code E is planning to develop a new link

taxiway for code F operations, adjacent to an existing code E taxiway. What
should be the separation between them?

If both taxiways are to be used for simultaneous code F aeroplane operations

(provided all other relevant requirements are satisfactorily met) then the minimum
separation distance should be that specified for code F in Annex 14, Volume I,
Table 3-1, column 10.

If the existing taxiway is to be used by code E aircraft only, then the new code F
taxiway may be located as follows:

Minimum separation distance: (1/2 WSE + 1/2 WSF) + C + ZF where WS is the

wing span, C is the applicable wheel-to-pavement edge clearance (4.5 m in this
case) and ZF is the safety margin (13 m) for Code F - the most demanding code.

In this case, airport capacity may be slightly reduced should there be a need for two code
F aeroplanes to use these taxiways simultaneously since the existing taxiway is not in
accordance with code F specifications. Where such a philosophy is implemented with
respect to other facilities, a similar approach may be adopted, provided the values of the
wheel-to-taxiway edge clearance and wing tip clearance used are those for the higher
code letter.
Figure 1-12. Taxiway to taxiway separation distances
 Apron size and capacity, stand clearances and taxiing on aprons

1.2.73 The existing aprons on most of today's airports were not designed with Code F
aeroplanes in mind. The 80 m ,wingspan and the potential for greater fuselage length of
Code F aeroplanes will have a direct bearing on how many of these aeroplanes can be
accommodated on existing aprons and where they can be accommodated. For Code F
aeroplanes, existing stands should provide clearances of 7.5 m as specified in Annex 14,
Volume 1. Existing stands that are unable to provide such clearances will need to be
modified. Again, operational restrictions may have to be developed to ensure safe
operations.

1.2.74 Adequate clearances behind parked or holding aeroplanes should also be provided.
This- issue is impacted not only by the wingspan of the taxiing aeroplanes but also the
fuselage length of the parked aeroplanes. While the 80 m wingspan limit of Code F is a
defining criterion, the fuselage length of these aeroplanes will also have a direct bearing
on their effect on other taxiing aeroplanes. Therefore, while aeroplanes with a wingspan
of almost 80 m may be faced with operational restrictions due to their wing spans, it may
be also necessary to implement operational restrictions in those cases where the increased
fuselage length of code F aircraft may cause reduced clearances with other taxiing
aircraft.

1.3 RAPID EXIT TAXIWAYS (RETS)

General

1.3.1 A rapid exit taxiway is a taxiway connected to a runway at an acute angle and
designed to allow landing aeroplanes to turn off at higher speeds than those achieved on
other exit taxiways, thereby minimizing runway occupancy time.

1.3.2 A decision to design and construct a rapid exit taxiway is based upon analyses of
existing and contemplated traffic. The main purpose of these taxiways is to minimize
aircraft runway occupancy and thus increase aerodrome capacity. When the design peak
hour traffic density is approximately less than 25 operations (landings and take-offs), the
right angle exit taxiway may suffice. The construction of this right angle exit taxiway is
less expensive, and when properly located along the runway, achieves an efficient flow of
traffic.

1.3.3 The establishment of a single worldwide standard for the design of rapid exit
taxiways has many obvious advantages. Pilots become familiar with the configuration
and can expect the same results when landing at any aerodrome with these facilities.
Accordingly, design parameters have been established in Annex 14, Volume I for a
grouping of exit taxiways associated with a runway whose code number is 1 or 2 and
another grouping for code number 3 or 4. Since the introduction of rapid exit taxiways,
additional field tests and studies have been conducted to determine taxiway utilization,
exit taxiway location and design, and runway occupancy time. Evaluation of such
material has led to the development of exit taxiway location and design criteria based on
specified aircraft populations moving at relatively high speeds.

1.3.4 There is some difference of opinion with respect to the speed at which pilots
negotiate rapid exit taxiways. While it has been inferred from some studies that these
taxiways are normally used at a speed not higher than 46 km/h (25 kt) and even in some
cases at lower speeds when poor braking action or strong cross-winds are encountered,
measurements at other aerodromes have shown that they are being used at speeds of over
92 km/h (49 kt) under dry conditions. For safety reasons 93 km/h (50 kt) has been taken
as the reference for determining curve radii and adjacent straight portions for rapid exit
taxiways where the code number is 3 or 4. For computing the optimum exit locations
along the runway, however, the planner will choose a lower speed. In any case, the
optimum utilization of rapid exits requires pilot cooperation.
Instruction on the design of, and benefits to be obtained from use of, these taxiways may
increase their use.

Location and number of exit taxiways

Planning criteria

1.3.5 The following basic planning criteria should be considered when planning rapid exit
taxiways to ensure that, wherever possible, standard design methods and configurations
are used:

a) For runways exclusively intended for landings, a rapid exit taxiway should be provided
only if dictated by the need for reduced runway occupancy times consistent with
minimum inter-arrival spacings;

b) For runways where alternating landings and departures are conducted, time separation
between the landing aircraft and the following departing aircraft is the main factor
limiting runway capacity;

c) As different types of aircraft require different locations for rapid exit taxiways, the
expected aircraft fleet mix will be an essential criterion;

d) The threshold speed; braking ability and operational turn-off speed (Vex) of the
aircraft will determine the location of the exits.

1.3.6 The location of exit taxiways in relation to aircraft operational characteristics is

determined by the de acceleration rate of the aircraft after crossing the threshold. To
determine the distance from the threshold, the following basic conditions should be taken
into account:

a) threshold speed; and

b) initial exit speed or turn-off speed at the point of tangency of the central (exit) curve
(point A, Figures 1-13 and 1-14).

Design, location and number of rapid exit taxiways

1.3.7 Determining the optimum location and required number of rapid exit taxiways to
suit a particular group of aeroplanes is recognized as a comparatively complex task
owing to the many criteria involved. Although most of the operational parameters are
specific to the type of aircraft with respect to the landing manoeuvre and subsequent
braked deceleration', there are some criteria which are reasonably independent of the type
of aircraft.

1.3.8 Accordingly, a methodology, known as the Three Segment Method, was developed
which permits the determination of the typical segmental distance requirements from the
landing threshold to the turn-off point based on the operating practices of individual
aircraft and the effect of the specific parameters involved. The methodology is based on
analytical considerations supplemented by empirical assumptions, as described below.

1.3.9 For the purpose of exit taxiway design, the aircraft are assumed to cross the
threshold at an average of 1.3 times the stall speed in the landing configuration at
maximum certificated landing mass with an average gross landing mass of about 85 per
cent of the maximum. Further, aircraft can be grouped on the basis of their threshold
speed at sea level as follows:

Group A- less than 169 km/h (91 kt)

Group B - between 169 km/h (91 kt) and 222 km/h (120 kt)

Group C - between 224 km/h (121 kt) and 259 km/h (140 kt)

Group D - between 261 km/h (141 kt) and 306 km/h (165 kt), although the
maximum threshold crossing speed of aircraft currently in production is 282 km/h
(152 kt).

1.3.10 An analysis of some aircraft indicates that they may be placed in the groups as-
follows:

Group A

DC3
DHC6
DHC7

Group B

Avro RJ 100
DC6
DC 7
Fokker F 27
Fokker F 28
HS 146
HS 748
IL 76

Group C

A 300, A 310, A 320, A 330

B 707-320
B 727
B 747-SP
B 757
B 767
DC 8 (all versions except 61 and 63)
DC 9
MD 80
MD 90
DC 10-10
L 1011-200

Group D

A 340
B 747
B 777
DC 8 (61 and 63)
DC 10-30/40
MD-11
IL 62
IL 86
IL 96
L 1011-500
TU 154

1.3.11 The number of exit taxiways will depend on the types of aircraft and number of
each type that operate during the peak period. For example, at a very rgp aerodrome,
most aircraft will likely be in groups C or D. If so, only two exits may be required. On the
other hand, an aerodrome having a balanced mixture of all four groups of aircraft may
require four exits.

1.3.12 Using the Three Segment Method, the total distance required from the landing
threshold to the point of turn-off from the runway centre line can be determined
according to the method illustrated in Figure 1-15.
The total distance S is the sum of three distinct segments which are computed separately.

Figure 1-13. Design for rapid exit taxiways (code number 1 or 2)

Figure 1-14. Design for rapid exit taxiways (code number 3 or 4)

Segment 1: Distance required from landing threshold to main gear touchdown (S1).

Segment 2: Distance required for transit on from main gear touchdown to establish
stabilized braking configuration (S2).

Segment 3: Distance required for deceleration in a normal braking mode to a nominal

turnoff speed (S3).

Speed profile:

Vth Threshold speed based on 1.3 times the stall speed of assumed landing
mass equal to 85 per cent of maximum landing mass. Speed is corrected
for elevation and airport reference temperature.

Vtd Assumed as Vth - 5 kts (conservative). Speed decay considered

representative for most types of aircraft.

Vba Assumed brake application speed.

Vth - 15 kts (wheel brakes and/or reverse thrust application).

Vex Nominal turn-off speed:

Code number 3 or 4: 30 kts
Code number 1 or 2: 15 kts

for standard rapid exit taxiways according to Figures 1-13 and 1-14.

For other types of exit taxiways see Table 1-11 and Figure 1-16 for turn-off speed.

Distances (in m):

S1 Empirically derived firm distance to mean touch-down point, corrected for

downhill slope and tailwind component where applicable.

Aircraft category C and D: S1 = 450 m

Correction for slope: + 50 m / - 0.25%

Correction for tailwind: + 50 m / + 5 kts

Aircraft category A and B: S1 = 250 m

Correction for slope: + 30 m / - 0.25%

Correction for tailwind: + 30 m / + 5 kts

S2 The transition distance is calculated for an assumed transition time
(empirical) ∆t = 10 seconds at an average groundspeed of:

S2 = 10 x Vav [Vav in m/s], or

S2 = 5 x (Vth-10) [Vth in kts]

S3 The braking distance is determined based on an assumed deceleration rate

'a' according to the following equation:

S3 = V2ba - V2ex/2a [V in m/s, a in m/s2], or

S3 = (Vth – 15)2 - V2 ex/8a [V in kts, a in m/s2]

A deceleration rate of a = 1.5 m/s 2 is considered a realistic operational

value for braking on wet runway surfaces.

1.3.13 The final selection of the most practical rapid exit taxiway location(s) must be
considered in the overall planning requirements, taking into account other factors such as:

- location of the terminal/apron area

- location of other runways and their exits
- optimization of traffic flow within the taxiway system with respect to traffic
control procedures
- avoidance of unnecessary taxi detours, etc.

Furthermore, there may be a need to provide additional exit taxiways - especially at long
runways - after the main rapid exit(s) depending upon local conditions and requirements.
These additional taxiways mayor may not be rapid exit taxiways. Intervals of
approximately 450 m are recommended up to within 600 m of the end of the runway.

1.3.14 Some aerodromes have heavy activity of aircraft in code number 1 or 2. When
possible, it may be desirable to accommodate these aircraft on an exclusive runway with
a rapid exit taxiway. At those aerodromes where these aircraft use the same runway as
commercial air transport operations, it may be advisable to include a rapid exit taxiway to
expedite ground movement of the small aircraft. In either case, it is recommended that
this exit taxiway be located at 450 m to 600 m from the threshold.

1.3.15 As a result of Recommendation 3/5 framed by the Aerodromes, Air Routes and
Ground Aids Divisional Meeting (1981), ICAO in 1982 compiled data on actual rapid
exit taxiway usage. The data, which were collected from 72 airports and represented
operations on 229 runway headings, provided information on the type of exit taxiway,
distances from threshold to exits,' exit angle and taxiway usage for each runway heading.
During the analysis it was assumed that the sample size of the surveyed data was equal
for each runway heading. On other assumption was that whenever an aircraft exited
through an exit taxiway located at an angle larger than 45°, the aircraft could have exited
through a rapid exit taxiway, had there been a rapid exit taxiway on that location (except
the runway end). The accumulated rapid exit usage versus distance from thresholds is
tabulated in Table 1-12. This means that had there been a rapid exit taxiway located at a
distance of 2200 m from thresholds, 95 per cent of aircraft in group A could have exited
through that exit taxiway. Similarly, rapid exit taxiways located at 2 300 m, 2 670 ill and
2 950 m from thresholds could have been utilized by 95 per cent of aircraft in groups B,
C and D, respectively. The table shows the distances as corrected by using the correction
factors suggested in the study carried out by the Secretariat and presented to the AGA/8l
Meeting, namely, 3 per cent were 300 m of altitude and I per cent per 5.6°C above 15°C.
Current data on actual rapid exit taxiway usage at airports are yet to be compiled.

Table 1-11. Aircraft speed versus the radius of a rapid exit taxiway

Radii R [m]: Vdes [kts]: Vop[kts}:

40 14 13
60 17 16
120 24 22
160 28 24
240 34 27
375 43 30
550 52 33
Based on the design exit speed Vdes complying with a lateral
acceleration of 0.133 g, the operational turn-off speed Vop is
determined empirically to serve as the criterion for the optimal
location of the exit.

Figure 1-16. Aircraft speed versus the radius of a rapid exit taxiway
Table 1-12. Accumulated rapid exit usage by distance from threshold (metres)
Aircraft category 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 95% 100%
A 1170 1320 1440 1600 1950 2200 2900
B 1370 1480 1590 1770 2070 2300 3000
C 1740 1850 1970 2150 2340 2670 3100
D 2040 2190 2290 2480 2750 2950 4000

Geometric design

1.3.16 Figures 1-13 and 1-14 present some typical designs for rapid exit taxiways in
accordance with the specifications given in Annex 14, Volume 1. For runways of code
number 3 or 4, the taxiway centre line marking begins at least 60 ill from the point of
tangency of the central (exit) curve and is offset 0.9 m to facilitate pilot recognition of the
beginning of the curve. For runways of code number 1 or 2, the taxiway centre line
marking begins at least 30 m from the point of tangency of the central (exit) curve.

1.3.17 A rapid exit taxiway should be designed with a radius of turn-off curve of at least:

550 m where the code number is 3 or 4, and

275 m where the code number is 1 or 2;

to enable exit speeds under wet conditions of:

93 km/h (50 kt) where the code number is 3 or 4, and

65 km/h (35 kt) where the code number is 1 or 2.

13.18 The radius of the fillet on the inside of the curve at a rapid exit taxiway should be
sufficient to provide a widened taxiway throat in order to facilitate recognition of the
entrance and turn-off onto the taxiway.

1.3.19 A rapid exit taxiway should include a straight distance after the turn-off curve
sufficient for an exiting aircraft to come to a full stop clear of any intersecting taxiway
and should not be less than the following when the intersection angle is 30°:

Code number Code number

l or 2 3 or 4
35m 75 m

The above distances are based on deceleration rates of 0.76 m/sec2 along the turn-off
curve and 1.52 m/sec2 along the straight section.

1.3.20 The intersection angle of a rapid exit taxiway with the runway should not be
greater than 45° nor less than 25° and preferably should be 30°.

1.4 TAXIWAYS ON BRIDGES

 General

1.4.1 The layout of an aerodrome, its dimensions and/or the extension of its
runway/taxiway system may require taxiways to bridge over surface transport modes
(roads, railways, canals) or open water (rivers, sea bays). Taxiway bridges should be
designed so as not to impose any difficulties for taxiing aircraft and to permit easy access
to emergency vehicles responding to an emergency involving an aircraft on the bridge.
Strength, dimensions, grades and clearances should allow unconstrained aircraft
operations day and night as well as under varying seasonal conditions, i.e. heavy rain,
periods of snow and ice coverage, low visibility or gusty winds. The requirements of
taxiway maintenance, cleaning and snow removal, as well as emergency evacuation of
the aircraft occupants, should be taken into account when bridges are being designed.

Siting

1.4.2 For operational and economic reasons the number of bridging structures required
and problems related therewith can be minimized by applying the following guidelines:

a) if possible, the surface modes should be routed so that the least number of runways or
taxiways will be affected;

b) the surface modes should be concentrated so that preferably all can be bridged with a
single structure;

c) a bridge should be located on a straight portion of a taxiway with a straight portion

provided on both ends of the bridge to facilitate the alignment of the aeroplanes
approaching the bridge;

d) rapid exit taxiways should not be located on a bridge; and

e) bridge locations that could have an adverse effect upon the instrument landing system,
the approach lighting or runway/taxiway lighting systems should " be avoided.

Dimensions

1.4.3 The design of the bridge structure is determined by its purpose and the
specifications relevant to the transport mode that it will serve. Aeronautical requirements
should be "met with respect to width and gradings, etc., of the taxiway.

1.4.4 The bridge width measured perpendicularly to the taxiway centre line shall not be
less than the width of the graded portion 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. Therefore, minimum width requirements will normally
be:

22 m where the code letter is A

25 m where the code letter is B or C
38 m where the code letter is D
44m where the code letter is E
60m where the code letter is F

with the taxiway in the centre of the strip. In the exceptional cases when a curved taxiway
has to be located on the bridge, extra width should be provided to compensate for the
unsymmetrical movement of the aircraft by track-in of the main gear.

1.4.5 If the type of aircraft using the aerodrome is not clearly defined or if the aerodrome
is limited by other physical characteristics, the width of the bridge to be designed should
be related to a higher code letter from the very beginning. This will prevent the
aerodrome operator from taking very costly corrective action once a larger aircraft starts
to operate on that aerodrome and has to use the taxiway bridge.

1.4.6 The taxiway width on the bridge should be at least as wide as off the bridge. Unlike
the construction of other parts of the taxiway system, the strip on the bridge will normally
have a paved surface and serve as a fully bearing shoulder. Additionally, the paved strip
on the bridge facilitates maintenance and, where necessary, snow clearing work.
Furthermore, the paved surface strip provides access to the bridge for rescue and fire
fighting vehicles as well as other emergency vehicles.

1.4.7 The efficiency of ground movement operations will be enhanced if aircraft are able
to approach and depart from bridges on straight portions of the taxiway. These will
enable aircraft to align themselves with the main under-carrriage astride the taxiway
centre line before crossing the taxiway bridge. The length of the straight section should
be at least twice the wheel base-(distance from the nose gear to the geometric centre of
the main gear) of the most demanding aircraft and not less than

15 m for code letter A

20 m for code letter B
50 m for code letter C, D or E
70 m for code letter F.

It should be noted that possible future aircraft may have a wheel base of 35 m or more
indicating a requirement for a straight distance of at least 70 m.

Gradients

1.4.8 For drainage purposes, taxiway bridges are generally designed with normal taxiway
transverse slopes. If, for other" reasons, a slope less than 1.5 per cent has been selected,
consideration should be given to the provision of sufficient drainage capability on the
taxiway edge.

1.4.9 Ideally, the bridge should be level with the adjacent aerodrome terrain. If, for other
technical reasons, the top of the bridge must be higher than the surrounding aerodrome
terrain, the adjoining taxiway sections should be designed with slopes which do not
exceed the longitudinal gradients specified in Table 1-1.

Bearing strength

1.4.10 A taxiway bridge should be designed to support the static and dynamic loads
imposed by the most demanding aircraft expected to use the aerodrome. Future trends of
aircraft mass development should be taken into account in specifying the "most
demanding aircraft". Information on future trends is regularly issued by the
manufacturers' associations. Incorporation of future requirements may help to avoid
costly redesign of bridges due to progress in technology and/or increasing transport
demand.

1.4.11 The strength of the bridge should normally be sufficient over the entire width of
the graded area of taxiway strip to withstand the traffic of the aeroplanes the taxiway is
intended to serve. Minimum width requirements are specified in 1.4.4. Parts of the same
bridge that have been added to serve vehicular traffic only may have lesser strength than
those intended for aircraft traffic.

Lateral restraint

1.4.12 When the full load-bearing width provided is less than that of the graded area of
the taxiway strip, a proven method of lateral restraint should be provided that shall not be
hazardous to aeroplanes for which the taxiway is intended. The lateral restraint system
should be provided. at the edges of the full load-bearing portion of the strip to prevent the
aircraft from falling off the bridge or entering areas of reduced bearing strength. Lateral
restraint devices should generally be considered as additional safety measures rather than
a means of reducing the full load-bearing width of the taxiway bridge.

1.4.13 Information collected from States indicates that lateral restraint devices are
normally provided on a taxiway bridge, irrespective of the width of the full load-bearing
area. The lateral restraint device generally consists of a concrete curb which may serve as
a barrier. Two examples of concrete curb S commonly used are shown in Figure 1-17.
The recommended minimum distance for the location of the lateral restraint device varies
among States, but a range between 9 and 27 m from the taxiway centre line was reported.
However, factors mentioned in 1.4.6 should be kept in view when considering the
location of lateral restraints. The curb is generally from 20 to 60 cm high, the lowest type
of curb being used when the width of the graded area is significantly greater than the
width of the taxiway strip. Taxiway bridges have been in service for varying periods of
time, some of them for over twenty years, and no occurrences of aircraft running off.
taxiway bridges have been reported.

1.4.14 It may be desirable to provide a second lateral restraint device. This device may
consist of a concrete curb or a safety guard rail which is not designed to prevent aircraft
running off the taxiway but rather as a safety measure for maintenance personnel and
vehicles using the bridge.
 Blast protection

1.4.15 Where the taxiway passes over another transport mode, some kind of protection
against aircraft engine blast may need to be provided. This can be accomplished by light
cover construction of perforated material (bars or grid-type elements) capable of braking
the initial jet blast to uncritical velocities of the order of 56 km/h. Contrary to closed
covers, an open construction docs not cause any drainage and loading capacity problems.

1.4.16 The overall width of the bridge and protected area should be equal to or exceed the
blast pattern of the aircraft using the taxiway. This may be determined by reference to the
manufacturers' literature on the aircraft concerned.

1.5 FILLETS

General

1.5.1 Annex 14, Volume I, recommends minimum clearance distances between the outer
main wheels of the aircraft which the taxiway is intended to serve and the edge of the
taxiway when the cockpit of the aircraft remains over the taxiway centre line markings.
These clearance distances are shown in Table 1-1. To meet these requirements when an
aircraft is negotiating a turn, it may be necessary to provide additional pavement on
taxiway curves and at taxiway junctions and intersections. It is to be noted that in the case
of it taxiway curve the extra taxiway area provided to meet the recommended clearance
distance requirement is part of the taxiway and therefore the term "extra taxiway width"
is used rather than "fillet". In the case of a junction or intersection of a taxiway with a
runway, apron or another taxiway, however, the term "fillet" is considered to be the
appropriate term. In both cases (the extra taxiway width as well as the fillet), the strength
of the extra paved surface to be provided should be the same as that of the taxiway. Tne
following material presents concise information on fillet design.

Methods for manoeuvring aircraft on taxiway intersections

15.2 Specifications in Annex 14, Volume I concerning taxiway design as well as relevant
visual aids specifications are based upon the concept that the cockpit of the aircraft
remains over the taxiway centre line. Another method for manoeuvring aircraft on
taxiway intersections is based upon offsetting the guideline. Three different ways to
ensure compliance with the required clearance distances in Table 1-1 are:

a) by using the taxiway centre line as the aircraft guidelines and providing a fillet;
b) by offsetting the guidelines outwards;
c) by a combination of offset guideline and fillet.
 Figure 1-17. Examples of concrete curbs

15.3 Methods b) and c) would appear to be the more economical solutions but the
advantages are not as great as they seem. To obtain the maximum advantage there would
have to be a separate guideline for each aircraft type and for use in both directions. Such
a multiplicity of lines is impractical particularly when the taxiway is intended to be used
at night or during poor visibility conditions, and it would thus be necessary to provide a
compromise offset guideline that could be used by all aircraft.

1.6 TAXIWAY SHOULDERS AND STRIPS

General
1.6.1 A shoulder is an area adjacent to the edge of a full strength paved surface so
prepared as to provide a transition between the full strength pavement and the adjacent
surface. The main purpose of the provision of a taxiway shoulder is: to prevent jet
engines that overhang the edge of a taxiway from ingesting stones or other objects that
might damage the engine; to prevent erosion of the area adjacent to the taxiway; and to
provide a surface for the occasional passage of aircraft wheels. A shoulder should be
capable of withstanding the wheel loading of the heaviest airport emergency vehicle, A
taxiway strip is an area, including a taxiway, intended to protect an aircraft operating on
the taxiway and to reduce the risk of damage to an aircraft accidentally running off the
taxiway.

1.6.2 The widths to be provided for taxiway shoulders and strips are given in Table 1-1. It
may be noted that shoulders 10,5 m wide for code letter E and 17.5 m wide for code letter
F on both sides of the taxiway are considered to be suitable. These taxiway shoulder
width requirements are based on the most critical aircraft operating in these categories, at
this time. On existing airports, it is desirable to protect a wider area should operations by
new larger aircraft, such as the Airbus A380 be planned, as the possibility of potential
foreign object damage and the effect of exhaust blast on the taxiway shoulder during
break away will be higher than those resulting from Boeing 747-400 operations. With
respect to a taxiway where the code letter is E, a shoulder 10.5 m wide on both sides is
considered to be suitable, assuming that the distance between the outboard engines of the
critical aircraft normally using that taxiway will not exceed the outboard engine span of
the B747-400.

1.6.3 The surface of the shoulder that abuts the taxiway should be flush with the surface
of the taxiway while the surface of the strip should be flush with the edge of the taxiway
or shoulder, if provided. For code letter C, D, E or F, the graded portion of the taxiway
strip should not rise more than2.5 per cent or slope down at a gradient exceeding 5 per
cent. The respective slopes for code letter A or B are 3 per cent and 5 per cent. The
upward slope is measured with reference to the transverse slope of the adjacent taxiway
surface and the downward slope is measured with reference to the horizontal. There
should, furthermore, be no holes or ditches tolerated within the graded portion of the
taxiway strip. The taxiway strip should provide an area clear of objects which may
endanger taxiing aeroplanes. Consideration will have to be given to the location and
design of drains on a taxiway strip to prevent damage to an aircraft accidentally running
off a taxiway. Suitably designed drain covers may be required.

1.6.4 No obstacles should be allowed on either side of a taxiway within the distance
shown in Table 1-1. However, signs and any other objects which, because of their
functions, must be maintained within the taxiway strip in order to meet air navigation
requirements may remain but they should be frangible and sited in such a manner as to
reduce to a minimum the hazard to an aircraft striking them. Such objects should be sited
so that they cannot be struck by propellers, engine pods and wings of aircraft using the
taxiway. As a guide they should be so sited that there is nothing higher than 0.30 m above
taxiway edge level within the taxiway strip.
 Treatment

1.6.5 Taxiway shoulders and graded portions of strips provide an obstacle-free area
intended to minimize the probability of damage to an aircraft using these areas
accidentally or in an emergency. These areas should thus be prepared or constructed so as
to reduce the risk of damage to an aircraft running off the taxiway and be capable of
supporting access by rescue and fire fighting vehicles and other ground vehicles, as
appropriate, over its entire area. When a taxiway is intended to be used by turbine-engine
aircraft, the jet engines may overhang the edge of the taxiway while the aircraft is taxiing
and may then ingest stones or foreign objects from the shoulders. Further, blast from the
engines may impinge on the surface adjacent to the taxiway and may dislodge material
with consequent hazard to personnel, aircraft and facilities. Certain precautions must
therefore be taken to reduce these possibilities. The type of surface of the taxiway
shoulder will depend on local conditions and contemplated methods and cost of
maintenance. While a natural surface (e.g. turf) may suffice in certain cases, in others, an
artificial surface may be required. In any event, the type of surface selected should be
such as to avoid the blowing of debris as well as dust while also meeting the minimum
load bearing capability mentioned above.

1.6.6 Under most taxiing conditions, blast velocities are not critical except at
intersections where thrusts approach those on breakaway. With the present criteria of up
to 25 m wide taxiways, the outboard engines of the larger jets extend beyond the edge of
the pavement. For this reason, treatment of taxiway shoulders is recommended to prevent
their erosion and to prevent the ingestion of foreign material into jet engines or the
blowing of such material into the engines of following aircraft. The material below
presents concise information on methods of protection of marginal areas subject to blast
erosion and of those areas which must be kept free from debris to prevent ingestion by
overhanging turbine engines. Additional information can be found in Appendix 2, 18 to
21.

1.6.7 Studies of engine blast and blast effects have included profile development and
velocity contour as related to engine type, aircraft mass and configuration; variation in
thrust; and effect of cross-wind. It has been found that the effects of heat associated with
the jet wake are negligible. Heat dissipates more rapidly with distance than blast force.
Furthermore, personnel, equipment and structures normally do not occupy the upper
limits of those areas where heat is generated during jet operations. Studies indicate that
objects in the path of a jet blast are acted upon by several forces including the dynamic
pressure associated with the impact of gases as they strike the surface, drag forces set up
when viscous gases move past an object, and uplift forces caused by either differential
pressures or turbulence.

1.6.8 Cohesive soils, when loosened, are susceptible to erosion by jet blast. For these
soils, protection that is adequate against the natural erosive forces of wind and rain will
normally be satisfactory. The protection must be a kind that adheres to the clay surfacing
so that the jet blast does not strip it off. Oiling or chemical treatment of a cohesive soil
surface are possible solutions. The cohesion required to protect a surface from blast
erosion is small; normally, a plasticity index (PI) of two or greater will suffice. However,
if the area is periodically used by ground vehicles with their equipment, a PI of six or
more will be necessary. There should be good surface drainage for these areas if
equipment moves over them since this type of surface will be softened by ponding.
Special consideration must be given to highly plastic cohesive soils subject to more than
about a 5 per cent shrinkage. For these soils, good drainage is very important since they
become extremely soft when wet. When dry, these soils crack and become subject to
greater lift forces. Fine, cohesionless soils, which are the most susceptible to erosion by
blast, are considered to be those which do not have the cohesive properties defined above.

Shoulder and blast pad design thickness

1.6.9 The thickness of taxiway shoulders and blast pads should be able to accommodate
an occasional passage of the critical aircraft considered in pavement design and the
critical axle load of emergency or maintenance vehicles which may pass over the area. In
addition, the following factors should be taken into account:

a) the minimum design thickness required for shoulder and blast pads to accommodate
the critical aircraft can be taken as one half of the total thickness required for the adjacent
paved area;

b) the critical axle load of the heaviest emergency or maintenance vehicle likely to
traverse the area should be considered in the determination of the pavement thickness. If
this thickness is greater than that based on a) above, then this design thickness should be
used for shoulder and blast pads;

c) for wide body aircraft such as the A330, A340, B767, B777, MD 11, L1011 or smaller,
the recommended minimum surface thickness, if bituminous concrete on an aggregate
base is used, is 5 cm on shoulders and 7.5 cm on blast pads. For aircraft such as the B747
or larger, an increase of 2.5 cm in this thickness is recommended;

d) the use of a stabilized base for shoulders and blast pads is also recommended. A 5 cm
bituminous Gils concrete surface is the recommended minimum on a stabilized base;

e) the use of Portland cement concrete and a granular sub-base for shoulder and blast
pads (or cement stabilized sand) is advantageous. A minimum thickness of 15 cm of
cement concrete is recommended; and

f) the same compaction and construction criteria for sub-grade and pavement courses in
shoulder and blast areas should be used as for full strength pavement areas. It is
recommended that a drop-off of approximately 2.5 cm be used at the edge of the full
strength pavement, shoulders and blast pads to provide a definite line of demarcation.

1.7 FUTURE AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENTS

 General

1.7.1 Annex 14, Volume I sets forth the minimum aerodrome specifications for aircraft
that have the characteristics of those which are currently operating or for similar aircraft
that are planned for introduction in the immediate future. The current specifications are
therefore intended to accommodate aeroplanes with wing spans of up to 80 m, e.g. Airbus
A380-800. Accordingly, any additional safeguards that might be considered appropriate
to provide for more demanding aircraft are not taken into account in the Annex. Such
matters are left to appropriate authorities to evaluate and take into account as necessary
for each particular aerodrome.

1.7.2 The following information may assist these authorities and airport planners to be
aware of the way in which the introduction of larger aircraft may alter some of the
specifications. In this respect, it is worth noting that it is probable that some increase in
current maximum aircraft size may be acceptable without major modifications to
existing aerodromes. However, the upper limit of aircraft size which is examined below
is, in all probability, beyond this consideration unless aerodrome procedures are altered,
with resulting reduction in aerodrome capacity.

Future aircraft trends

1.7.3 The trends for future aircraft designs may be obtained from various sources,
including the aircraft manufacturers and the International Coordinating Council of
Aerospace Industries Associations. For the purpose of planning future airport
development, the following aircraft dimensions may be used:

wing span up to 84 m
outer main gear wheel span up to 20 m
overall length 80 m or more
tail height up to 24 m
maximum gross mass 583 000 kg or more

Aerodrome data

1.7.4 Using the rationale developed for implementation of certain specifications related to
the aerodrome reference code, it is possible that aircraft with the dimensions shown in the
previous paragraph could have the effects on the taxiway system described below.

Taxiway width

1.7.5 It is expected that taxiing characteristics of future large aircraft will be similar to
those of the largest current aircraft when considering the straight portion of the taxiway.
The taxiway width, WT for these aircraft is represented by the relationship:
 WT = TM + 2C

where

TM = maximum outer main gear wheel span

C = clearance between the outer main gear wheel and the taxiway edge
(maximum allowable lateral deviation).
This geometry is shown in Figure 1-18.

1.7.6 Assuming the expected growth of outer main gear wheel span to 20 ill and a wheel-
to-edge clearance of 4.5m, the taxiway width for planning purposes comes to 29m.

Figure 1-18. Taxiway width geometry

Runway-parallel taxiway separation distance

1.7.7 The separation distance between a runway and a parallel taxiway is currently based
on the premise that any part of the aircraft on the taxiway centre line must not protrude
into the associated runway strip area. This distance, S, is represented by the relationship:

S = (SW+ WS)/2

where:

SW = strip width

WS = wing span
This geometry is shown in Figure 1-19.

1.7.8 The separation distance for planning purposes for the largest aircraft predicted by
future trends data is 192 m. This value is based on the assumption that this aircraft,
having a wing span of 84 m, can safely· operate in the current 300 m runway strip width
required for a non-precision or precision approach runway.

Separation between parallel runways

1.7.9 The rationale for determining the separation distance between parallel taxiways, one
of which may be an apron taxiway, is based on providing a suitable wing tip clearance
when an aircraft has deviated from the taxiway centre line. Primary factors influencing
this issue are: wing span (WS), main gear wheel clearance (C) and wing tip clearance (Z).
This results in an expression for the separation distance, S, of:

S = WS + C + Z

where:

WS = wing span

C = clearance between the outer main gear wheel and the taxiway edge
(maximum allowable lateral deviation)

Z = wing tip clearance (increment) that accounts for aircraft steering

performance, pavement surface conditions, and an assured safety buffer to
account for unforeseen problems, and to minimize potential adverse impacts
on airport capacity.
This geometry is shown in Figure 1-20.

1.7.10 The separation distances between parallel taxiways and between parallel taxiways
and apron taxiways are considered to be the same since it is assumed that the speed that
the aircraft will taxi in both systems is the same. The separation distance, for planning
purposes, for a future aircraft span of 84 m, a lateral deviation, C, of 4.5 m and a current
code F wing tip clearance (increment) of 13 m, is 101.5 m.

Separation distance between taxiway and object

1.7.11 Taxiing speeds on a taxiway and on an apron taxiway are assumed to be the same.
Therefore, the separation distances to an object are assumed to be the same in both cases.
A rationale has been developed which bases the taxiway-to-object separation distance on
a clearance between the wing tip of the aircraft and the object when the aircraft has
deviated from the taxiway centre line. This taxiway-to-object separation distance, S, is:

S = WS/2 + C + Z

where:

WS = wing span
C = clearance between the outer main gear wheel and the taxiway edge
(maximum allowable lateral deviation)

Z = wing tip clearance to an object (increment);(see explanation above in 1.7.9)

Figure 1-21 illustrates this geometry.

Figure 1-19. Parallel runway-taxiway separation geometry

Figure 1-20. Parallel taxiway separation geometry

 Figure 1-21. Taxiway/apron taxiway-to-object geometry

Figure 1-22. Aircraft stand taxilane-to-object geometry

1.7.12 Application of the above relationship results in a taxiway centre line or apron
taxiway centre line-to-object distance of 57 m when using a 4.5 m deviation and a current
code F wing tip clearance (increment) of 13 m. The assumed wing span is 86.5 m.

1.7.13 The lower taxiing speed of an aircraft in a stand taxi lane permits a smaller lateral
deviation to be cosidered than with other taxiways. The geometry of Figure 1-22
illustrates the relationship of aircraft clearance to an object in a stand taxi lane. Thus the
separation distance, S, is found using the following formula:

S= WS/2 + d +Z

Where:
 WS = wing span

d = lateral deviation

Z = tip clearance to an object (increment); (see explanation in 1.7.9 above).

1.7.14 Application of the above rationale results in an object separation distance, for
planning purposes, for future large aircraft in a stand taxi lane of 54 m. This value is
based on a wing span of 84 m, a gear deviation of 3.5 m and a wing tip clearance
(increment) of 8.5 m.

Other considerations

1.7.15 In addition to the guidance in the preceding paragraphs, preliminary criteria to

accommodate future aircraft development are described below:

Runway width: 60 m

Runway sight distance: Same as current requirement for code letter F

Runway transverse slope: Same as current requirement for code letter F

Runway shoulders: Overall width of runway and shoulder - 75 m. A widened area

may need to be prepared to prevent erosion of the adjacent area and foreign object
damage

Slope and strength of runway shoulders: Same as current requirement for code
letter F

Minimum separation distances between taxiway centre line and runway centre
line:

1/2 wing span (Y) 42 m

+
1/2 strip width
(non-instrument approach runway) 75 m

Total 117 m

or

1/2 wing span (Y) 42 m

+
1/2 strip width
(instrument approach runway) 150 m
Total 192 m
Taxiway pavement and shoulder (overall width): Adequate space should be prepared
to prevent erosion of the adjacent area and foreign object damage. The width of that
portion of a taxiway bridge capable of supporting aeroplanes shall not be less than the
width of the graded area of the strip provided for that taxiway.

Graded portion of taxiway strip (overall width): Adequate space should be prepared to
prevent erosion of the adjacent area and foreign object damage. The width of that portion
of a taxiway bridge capable of supporting aeroplanes shall not be less than the width of
the graded area of the strip provided for that taxiway.
 Chapter 2

HOLDING BAYS AND OTHER BYPASSES

2.1 NEED FOR HOLDING BAYS AND OTHER BY PASSES .

2.1.1 Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Air Traffic Management (Doc 4444),
Chapter 7, 7.8.1 - Departure Sequence, states that "departures shall normally be cleared in
the order in which they are ready for take-off, except that deviations may be made from
this order of priority to facilitate the maximum number of departures with the least
average delay". At low levels of aerodrome activity (less than approximately 50 000
annual operations), there is normally little need to make deviations in the departure
sequence. However, for higher activity levels, aerodromes with single taxiways and no
holding bays or other bypasses provide aerodrome control units with no opportunity to
change the sequence of departures once the aircraft have left the apron. In particular, at
aerodromes with large apron areas, it is often difficult to arrange for aircraft to leave the
apron in such a way that they will arrive at the end of the runway in the sequence
required by air traffic services units.

2.12 The provision of an adequate number of holding bay spaces or other bypasses, based
upon an analysis of the current and near-term hourly aircraft departure demand, will
allow a large degree of flexibility in generating the departure sequence. This provides air
traffic services units with greater flexibility in adjusting the take-off sequence to
overcome undue delays, thus increasing the capacity of an aerodrome. In addition,
holding bays or other bypasses allow:

a) departure of certain aircraft to be delayed owing to unforeseen circumstances without

delaying the following aircraft (for instance, a last minute addition to the payload or a
replacement of defective equipment);

b) aircraft to carry out pre-flight altimeter checks and alignment and programming of
airborne inertial navigation systems when this is not possible on the apron;

c) engine runups for piston aircraft; and

d) establishment of a VOR aerodrome check-point.

2.2 TYPES OF BYPASSES

2.2.1 In general, taxiway features that allow an aircraft to bypass a preceding aircraft can
be divided into three types:
 a) Holding bays. A defined area where aircraft can be held or bypassed. Figure 2-
1 shows some examples of holding bay configurations and Figure 2-2 gives a
detailed example of a holding bay, located at the taxi-holding position.

b) Dual taxiways. A second taxiway or a taxiway bypass to the normal parallel

taxiway. Figure 2-3 shows some examples.

c) Dual runway entrances. A duplication of the taxiway entrance to the runway.

Some examples are shown in Figure 2-4.

2.2.2 If a holding bay is used, aircraft can, on the basis of their priority, take off in the
order as cleared by ATC. The availability of a holding bay allows aircraft to leave and
independently re-enter the departure stream. A detailed example of the pavement area for
a holding bay located at the taxi-holding position is shown in Figure 2-2. This design is
for a non-precision or a precision approach runway where the code number is 3 or 4 and
incorporates an aircraft wing-tip-to-wing-tip clearance of 15 m when both aircraft are
centred on the centre line. Holding bay design for other runway types or locations along
the taxiway will have proportional dimensional requirements.

2.2.3 Dual taxiways or taxiway bypasses can only achieve relative departure priority by
separating the departure stream into two parts. Taxi bypasses can be constructed at a
relatively low cost, but provide only a small amount of flexibility to alter the departure
sequence. A full length dual taxiway is the most expensive alternative and can only be
justified at very high activity aerodromes where there is a clear need for two-directional
movement parallel to the runway. This need arises when passenger terminal aprons or
other facilities are located in such a manner that they generate aircraft movements
opposite to the departure flow.

2.2.4 The dual runway entrance reduces the take-off run available for aircraft using the
entrance not located at the extremity of the runway. This is not a serious disadvantage if
this entrance can be used by aircraft for which the remaining take-off run is adequate. A
dual runway entrance also makes it possible to bypass an aircraft delayed on another
entrance taxiway or even at the extremity of the runway. The use of dual entrances in
combination with dual taxiways will give a degree of flexibility comparable to that
obtained with a well-designed holding bay. Oblique entrances permit entry at some
speed, but they make it more difficult for the crew to see aircraft approaching to land and,
because of the larger paved area required, they are more expensive to provide. Though
operational and traffic control groups have advocated designs for runway entry which
would permit acceleration while turning onto the runway, further studies, simulations and
experience will be necessary prior to establishing a recommended design of this type.

2.2.5 For a given aerodrome, the best choice between these methods depends upon the
geometry of the existing runway/taxiway system and the volume of aircraft traffic.
Experience shows that local technical and economic considerations will often be decisive
when choosing between the three types (or combinations of types). These three types can
also be used in various combinations to optimize surface movements of aircraft to the
threshold.
Figure 2-1. Examples of holding bay configurations
Figure 2-2. Detailed example of holding bay
Figure 2-3. Examples of dual taxiways
 2.3 COMMON DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS

2.3.1 Regardless of the type of bypass used, minimum centre line to centre line
separations between taxiways and runways must be maintained as required for the type of
runway served (see Table 1-1).

2.3.2 The cost of constructing any bypass is directly related to the area of new pavement
required. In addition, indirect costs may result from disruptions to air traffic during the
construction period.

2.3.3 The design selected should always provide at least one entrance to the beginning of
the runway usable for take-off so that aircraft requiring the entire take-off nm may easily
align themselves for take-off without significant loss of runway length.

2.3.4 Propeller wash and jet blast from holding aircraft should be directed away from
other aircraft and away from the runway. The preparation and the maintenance of the
shoulders should be as described for taxiway shoulders (see 1.6.5 to 1.6.9).

2.4 SIZE AND LOCATION OF HOLDING BAYS

2.4.1 The space required for a holding bay depends on the number of aircraft positions to
be provided, the size of the aircraft to be accommodated and the frequency of their
utilization. The dimensions must allow for sufficient space between aircraft to enable
them to manoeuvre independently. The information given in Chapter 3 on size of aircraft
stands also applies to holding bays. In general, the wing tip clearance (increment)
between a parked aircraft and one moving along the taxiway or apron taxiway should not
be less than that given by the following tabulation:

Code letter Wing tip clearance (increment) (m)

A 7.25
B 7.25
C 5
D 10
E 10.5
F 13.0

2.4.2 When used to allow flexible departure sequencing, the most advantageous location
for a holding bay is adjacent to the taxiway serving the runway end. Other locations along
the taxiway are satisfactory for aircraft performing pre-flight checks or engine run ups or
as a holding point for aircraft awaiting departure clearance. Criteria for the location of
holding bays with respect to the runway are given below.

2.4.3 The distance between a holding bay and the centre line of a runway should be in
accordance with Table 2-1 and, in the case of a precision approach runway, should be
such that a holding aircraft will not interfere with the operation of radio aids. Therefore,
the aircraft should be clear of the ILS sensitive and critical areas, and it should not
penetrate the obstacle free zone.

Figure 2-4. Examples of dual runway entrances

2.4.4 At elevations greater than 700 m, the distance of 90 m specified in Table 2-1 for a
precision approach runway code number 4 should be increased as follows:

a) up to an elevation of 2000 m - 1 m for every 100 m in excess of 700 m;

b) elevation in excess of 2000 m and up to 4000 m - 13 m plus 1.5 m for every 100 m in
excess of 2000 m; and

c) elevation in excess of 4000 m and up to 5000 m - 43 m plus 2 m for every 100 m in

excess of 4000 m.

2.4.5 If a holding bay for a precision approach runway code number 4 is at a higher
elevation compared to the threshold, the distance of 90 m specified in Table 2-1 should
be further increased 5 m for every metre the bay is higher than the threshold.

2.4.6 The distance of 107.5 m for code number 4 where the code letter is F is based. on
an aircraft with a tail height of 24 m, a distance from the nose to the highest part of the
tail of 62.2 m, a nose height of 10 m, holding at an angle of 45 degrees or more with
respect to the runway centre line and being clear of the obstacle free zone.

2.4.7 The distance of 90 m for code number 3 or 4 is based on an aircraft with a tail
height of 20 m, a distance from the nose to the highest part of the tail of 52.7 m and a
nose height of 10m, holding at an angle of 45 degrees or more with respect to the runway
centre line, being clear of the obstacle free zone and not accountable for the calculation of
obstacle clearance altitude/height.

2.4.8 The distance of 60 m for code number 1 or 2 is based on an aircraft with a tail
height of 8 m, a distance from the nose to the highest part of the tail of 24.6 m and a nose
height of 5.2 m, holding at an angle of 45 degrees or more with respect to the runway
centre line, being clear of the obstacle free zone.

Table 2-1. Minimum distance from the runway centre line to a holding bay
________________________________________________________________________
Type of runway operation Code number
1 2 3 4
________________________________________________________________________

Non-instrument and take-off 30 m 40 m 75 m 75 m

Non-precision approach 40 m 40 m 75 m 75 m
Precision approach 60 mb 60mb 90ma,b 90ma,b
Category I
Precision approach - - 90ma,b 90ma,b
Category II or III
a. If a holding bay is at a lower elevation compared to the threshold, the distance may be
decreased 5 m for every metre the bay is lower than the threshold, contingent upon not
infringing on the inner transitional surface.

b. This distance may need to be increased to avoid interference with radio aids; for a
precision approach runway category III the increase may be of the order of 50 m.

c. where the code letter if F, this distance should be 107.5 m.

________________________________________________________________________

2.5 HOLDING BAY MARKING AND LIGHTING

To facilitate accurate manoeuvring of aircraft on the holding bays, it is desirable to

provide suitable marking and lighting. These will also prevent parked aircraft from
interfering with the passage of other aircraft moving along the adjacent taxiway. A solid
line to be followed by the pilot of the aircraft appears to be a suitable method. Taxiway
edge lighting should be provided on a holding bay intended for night use. Location and
characteristics of the lights should be in accordance with the specifications for taxiway
lighting set out in Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 5.