International Organisation Organización Международная

Civil Aviation de l’aviation civile de Aviación Civil организация

Organization internationale Internacional гражданской
авиации

Tel.: +1 514-954-8219 ext. 6717

Ref.: AN 4/1.1.59-18/103 18 December 2018

Subject: Proposals for the amendment of Annex 14,

Volume I and consequential amendments to Annex 4,
PANS-Aerodromes (Doc 9981) and PANS-AIM
(Doc 10066)

Action required: Comments to reach Montréal by

18 March 2019

Sir/Madam,

1. I have the honour to inform you that the Air Navigation Commission, at the third meeting
of its 209th Session held on 4 October 2018, considered proposals developed by the third meeting of the
Aerodrome Design and Operations Panel (ADOP/3) to amend Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume I —
Aerodrome Design and Operations, Annex 4 — Aeronautical Charts, Procedures for Air Navigation
Services (PANS) — Aerodromes (Doc 9981) and the Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) —
Aeronautical Information Management (PANS-AIM, Doc 10066). The Commission authorized their
transmission to Member States and appropriate international organizations for comments.

2. Background information concerning some of the aforementioned proposals is presented

in Attachment A. The proposals for amendment to Annex 14, Volume I and the consequential
amendments to Annex 4, PANS-Aerodromes and PANS-AIM are contained in Attachments B, C, D, and
E, respectively. A rationale box providing more information has also been included for each proposal.

3. In examining the proposed amendment, you should not feel obliged to comment on
editorial aspects as such matters will be addressed by the Air Navigation Commission during its final
review of the draft amendment.

4. May I request that any comments you wish to make on the amendment proposals be
dispatched to reach me not later than 18 March 2019. To facilitate the processing of replies with
substantive comments, I invite you to submit an electronic version in Word format to icaohq@icao.int.
The Air Navigation Commission has asked me to specifically indicate that comments received after the
due date may not be considered by the Commission and the Council. In this connection, should you
anticipate a delay in the receipt of your reply, please let me know in advance of the due date.

999 Robert-Bourassa Boulevard Tel.: +1 514-954-8219 Email: icaohq@icao.int

Montréal, Quebec Fax: +1 514-954-6077 www.icao.int
Canada H3C 5H7
 -2-

5. For your information, the proposed amendment to Annex 14, Volume I, and Annex 4 are
envisaged for applicability on 5 November 2020, except for proposed amendments to Annex 14, Volume
I and PANS-AIM related to pavement rating which are envisaged for applicability on 28 November 2024.
Any comments you may have thereon would be appreciated.

6. The subsequent work of the Air Navigation Commission and the Council would be
greatly facilitated by specific statements on the acceptability or otherwise of the amendment proposals.

7. Please note that for the review of your comments by the Air Navigation Commission and
the Council, replies are normally classified as “agreement with or without comments”, “disagreement
with or without comments” or “no indication of position”. If in your reply the expressions “no objections”
or “no comments” are used, they will be taken to mean “agreement without comment” and “no indication
of position”, respectively. In order to facilitate proper classification of your response, a form has been
included in Attachment F which may be completed and returned together with your comments, if any, on
the proposals in Attachments B to E.

Accept, Sir/Madam, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Fang Liu
Secretary General

Enclosures:
A — Background information
B — Proposed amendment to Annex 14, Volume I
C — Proposed amendment to Annex 4
D — Proposed amendment to PANS-Aerodromes
E — Proposed amendment to PANS-AIM
F — Response form
 ATTACHMENT A to State letter AN 4/1.1.59-18/103

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
CONCERNING OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ) DIMENSIONS AND THE
SAINT-PETERSBURG FORMULAE

1. HISTORY

1.1 Following the conclusions reached at the third and fourth meetings of the Obstacle
Clearance Panel (OCP/3 and OCP/4) in 1976, the obstacle free zone (OFZ) was introduced to protect
balked landing occurring when performing a category II precision instrument approach. For this purpose,
it was assumed that the precision approach instrument guidance system and the operational procedures
employed would position the aircraft at the 30 m (100 ft) DH and displace it from the runway centre line
by a distance not exceeding 15 m (50 ft). This could be interpreted as meaning that the cockpit would be
within the red barrettes of the precision approach category II lighting system at a distance of
approximately 300 m (1000 ft) from the runway threshold, if the pilot could be certain, by means of the
visual cues available, that the approach could be continued. To this was added an allowance for the
largest aircraft likely to carry out the operation having a wingspan of 60 m (200 ft) and a buffer area for
wingtip and obstacle clearance of 15 m (50 ft) either side, making a total width of 120 m (400 ft) at
origin, e.g. 60 m (200 ft) either side of the centre line. To fulfil the purpose of the OFZ, three
specifications directly linked to the OFZ related to three different purposes were created 1. The purpose of
Standard 3.4.7 of Annex 14 is to prevent any obstacle on the strip within the OFZ. The purpose of
footnote c. of Table 3-2 and Recommendation 3.12.8 is to constrain the location of runway and road
holding positions. Standard 9.9.5 places a restriction on the installation of equipment in the OFZ, to
facilitate the fulfilment of the radio altimeter operating area, and to avoid obstacles within the OFZ and
objects hiding the approach light system line of sight 300 m upstream of the threshold. From this window
it was further assumed that the aeroplane will continue the approach down to and along the runway such
that its outer wheels would be flying over the runway edge 2. The OFZ width was governed by the
initial formula:

1) OFZ width = 30 m (allowed deviation for a category II approach after decision height)
+ 60 m wingspan + 30 m buffer

which was considered valid for 30m and 45m wide runways.

1.2 The OFZ dimension was not changed with the introduction of the Boeing 747-400
(wingspan 64.9 m), Lockheed Galaxy C5A (67.9 m) and Antonov 124 (73.3 m) because the assumed
deviations and buffer values were considered sufficient to accommodate the increased wingspan due to
the improved flying performances of these larger aeroplanes.

1.3 At OCP/11 in 1997, though no safety event had suggested the 120 m width was not
appropriate, it was considered suitable to determine the OFZ width for runways intended for code F
aeroplanes with the following formula, usually called “Saint-Petersburg formula”:

1
Reference numbers are according to the present Annex 14, Volume I, 7th edition, including amendment 13. This convention is
adopted to ease the reading of the history
2
This statement is taken from Circular 301 — New Larger Aeroplanes-Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational
Measures and Aeronautical Study and later led to the development of the Saint-Petersburg formula. However it is not valid as
shown in Section 2 of this attachment
 A-2

2) OFZ width = runway width – OMGWS (median value of the aeroplane code)
+ wingspan + 30m (buffer)

1.4 The principle behind the Saint-Petersburg formula was to protect an aeroplane making a
balked landing in category II with its outer main gear wheel above the runway edge. This led to a 155m
wide OFZ for code F aeroplanes on a 60m wide runway and to the consequential amendments to Standard
3.4.7, Table 3-2 and Recommendation 3.12.8, and Standard 9.9.5. Formula (2) was never applied to other
cases. The following tables show the values in meters obtained with the two formulas in the 1999 context.

1.5 Initial formula 1

Code OFZ Code Code Code Code Code Code

number width Letter A Letter B Letter C Letter D Letter E Letter F

1 90 75 84 96 - - -

2 90 75 84 96 - - -

3 120 75 84 96 112 - -

4 120 - - 96 112 125 140

1.6 Saint-Petersburg formula 2

Code OFZ Code Code Code Code Code Code

number width Letter A Letter B Letter C Letter D Letter E Letter F

1 90 72.75 78.75 88.5 - - -

2 90 72.75 78.75 88.5 - - -

3 120 72.75 78.75 88.5 115.5 - -

4 120 - - 103.5 115.5 128.5 155

1.7 These two tables show figures giving indications on the desired values but have not been
applied consistently when the wingspan have increased because of the continuously improving flying
performances of modern larger aeroplanes. This is one reason why OCP, after making its
recommendation to adopt a 155m wide OFZ for code F aeroplanes, initiated a study on balked landing
 A-3

simulations for new larger aeroplane (NLA) operations which resulted in the release of ICAO Circular
301 — New Larger Aeroplanes-Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and
Aeronautical Study. This ICAO circular states that a code letter F aeroplane can be contained within the
code letter E OFZ on a 45 m wide. Circular 301 was introduced in 2006 with amendment 8 to Annex 14,
Volume I, in footnote e. to Table 4-1 as follows:

“Where the code letter is F (Column (3) of Table 1-1), the width is increased to 155 m.
For information on code letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics that provide
steering commands to maintain an established track during the go-around manoeuvre, see
Circular 301 — New Larger Aeroplanes — Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone:
Operational Measures and Aeronautical Study.”

The consequential amendments to Standard 3.4.7, Table 3-2 and Recommendation 3.12.8 and Standard
9.9.5 were not made, probably because of their complexity (see Section 2 below).

1.8 The present wording of footnote e. in Table 4-1, as per Amendment 14 of Annex 14,
Volume I:

“Where the code letter is F (Table 1-1), the width is increased to 140 m except for those
aerodromes that accommodate a code letter F aeroplane equipped with digital avionics
that provide steering commands to maintain an established track during the go-
around manoeuvre.”

reflects that the standard value of 120 m is increased to 140 m for code F 45 m wide runways, based on
formula (2) with an 80 m wingspan. It states clearly that according to Circular 301 — New Larger
Aeroplanes — Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and Aeronautical Study
and Circular 345 — New Larger Aeroplanes — Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Collision Risk
Model and Aeronautical Study (currently in preparation), an OFZ width of 120 m is adopted for code
letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics that provide steering commands to maintain an
established track during the go-around manoeuvre when operating on a 45 m wide runway which
presently covers all code F aeroplanes except the Galaxy C5A and the Antonov 124. However the present
footnote e. is unclear when code letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics that provide steering
commands are operated with those aeroplanes on the same runway. The consequential amendments to
Standard 3.4.7, Table 3-2 and Recommendation 3.12.8, and Standard 9.9.5 were not made either,
probably because of their increased complexity (see Section 2 below).

2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING ANNEX 14 SPECIFICATIONS

2.1 Validity of the Saint-Petersburg formula for the determination of OFZ width

2.1.1 The prime assumption upon which the Saint-Petersburg formula is based is not valid:
“From this window (e.g. 15 m (50 ft) deviation plus 15 m buffer for wingtip to obstacle clearance either
side of the centre line) it was further assumed that the aeroplane will continue the approach down to and
along the runway such that its outer wheels would be flying over the runway edge”. Firstly, because of the
figures themselves (see table in paragraph 1.5, Initial formula (1) above) and secondly because the
distance criteria for the OFZ are based on acceptable deviations around the centre line by an aeroplane
performing a balked landing under specified conditions.

2.1.2 These acceptable deviations are determined through statistical analysis of flight technical
errors around the centre line and with the red barrettes as visual cues plus a buffer (in accordance with the
methodology specified in ICAO Circular 319 — A unified framework for collision risk modelling in
 A-4

support of the manual on airspace planning methodology with further applications). They are
independent of the runway width by construction and the scientific proofs upon which the OFZ
dimensions are ascertained are with collision risk modelling, through simulations as with Circular 301
and 345, through trajectory analysis as per the current Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Task Force (OLSTF)
work and finally through analysis of feedback of operations, notably accident analysis. Had this
assumption been valid and the Saint-Petersburg formula considered fully authoritative, the OFZ width for
a code C runway would have been 90 m instead of 120 m.

2.1.3 From a logical standpoint the Saint-Petersburg formula gives a distance criterion for the
protection of an aeroplane at a Cat II/III holding position from an aeroplane which outer main gear
overflies the edge of the runway. This is not the purpose of the OFZ and in the case of large (code E and
F) aeroplanes leads to a stronger requirement (for code F aeroplanes, by several orders of magnitude). In
addition, the adoption of a 30 m = 2*15 m buffer in the Saint-Petersburg formula appears overly
conservative compared to the existing buffer of 24 m for a code C aeroplane on a 30 m wide runway or
the buffer values of 25.1 m for the 747-400, 22.1 m for the Galaxy C5A and 16.7 m for the Antonov 124
on a 45 m wide runway, all the more, as no safety event suggested these buffers were inadequate.
Furthermore the balked landing studies performed with Circular 301 showed “that the maximum distance
from the runway centre line which would be found on an (NLA) aircraft wingtip was contained within +-
50 m (164 ft) of either side of the centre line”. This was confirmed with Circular 345. Initial findings of
the OLSTF indicate that all large aeroplanes would be contained in the existing 120 m OFZ whatever
runway width (45 or 60 m).

2.1.4 In conclusion the Saint-Petersburg formula was used in 1997 to determine a conservative
155 m OFZ width on 60 m wide runways. With Amendment 14 to Annex 14 this width is automatically
reduced according to the same formula to 140 m on a 45 m wide runway that is required for a code F
aeroplane. However this width is not required for modern code F aeroplanes and the Saint-Petersburg
formula, including the assumed relationship between runway width and OFZ width, is highly
questionable. The following section analyses the existing Standards and Recommended
Practices (SARPs).

2.2 Analysis of Annex 14, Volume I SARPS

2.2.1 Table 4-1, footnote e.

2.2.2 The wording of footnote e. of Table 4-1 now explicitly allows a width of 120 m for OFZ
of Code 3 or 4 runways using CAT II or III precision approach, at aerodromes that accommodate code
letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics that provide steering commands.

2.2.3 However, this wording is unclear for aerodromes hosting a mixed traffic of code letter F
aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics that provide steering commands and code F aeroplanes that are
not equipped. To the extent that these aerodromes continue to receive non-equipped code F aeroplanes,
the reduction of the inner approach surface and balked landing surface widths to 120 m is not justified.
Non-equipped code F aeroplanes are the Lockheed Galaxy C5A and the Antonov 124.

2.2.4 Both the C5A and the Antonov 124 are operated on 45 m wide runways 3 with a 120 m
wide OFZ without any related safety event since 1982 (see Section 3 Safety analysis below). New code F
aeroplanes will very likely be able to meet the 120m wide OFZ requirement. Hence specifying globally a
wider OFZ for code F aeroplanes seems excessive as records in operations since 1982, Circ 301 and

3
Antonov 124 are operated on about 1000 aerodromes around the world since 1982, most of them with 45 m wide runways and a
120 m OFZ.
 A-5

Circ 345, US, Canadian and Australian regulations, and accidents analysis demonstrate that 120m
is enough.

2.2.5 Nevertheless some States have already implemented 155 m wide OFZ on 60 m wide
runways and may not be comfortable with the reduction to 120 m. Some States have already asked for
clarity about the implementation of a 140 m wide OFZ on a 60 m wide runway. These are reasons why
the possibility to adopt wider OFZ at specific aerodromes should be left open and guidance provided.
This guidance is already provided with Circular 301, Circular 345 and provisions in Doc 9981,
PANS-Aerodromes.

2.2.6 The proposed wording: “The width may be increased taking into account the actual
wingspan of the aeroplanes intending to use the runway, if they are equipped with digital avionics that
provide steering commands to maintain an established track during the go-around manoeuvre or other
considerations specific to the aerodrome. Note.— See Circulars 301, 345 and Chapter 4 of
PANS-Aerodromes, Part I (Doc 9981) for further information.” removes a design constraint which proved
to be unnecessary and indicates where to find guidance on how to determine the appropriate OFZ width
for a given runway.

2.3 Standard 3.4.7 reads:

“3.4.7 No fixed object, other than visual aids required for air navigation or those
required for aircraft safety purposes and which must be sited on the runway strip, and
satisfying the relevant frangibility requirement in Chapter 5, shall be permitted on a
runway strip:

a) within 77.5 m of the runway centre line of a precision approach runway category I, II
or III where the code number is 4 and the code letter is F; or

b) within 60 m of the runway centre line of a precision approach runway category I, II

or III where the code number is 3 or 4; or

c) within 45 m of the runway centre line of a precision approach runway category I

where the code number is 1 or 2.

No mobile object shall be permitted on this part of the runway strip during the use of the
runway for landing or take-off.”

2.3.1 The purpose of Standard 3.4.7 is to prevent any obstacle on the strip within the OFZ. The
present wording was not updated in 2006 to account for the introduction of Circular 301, nor in 2018 with
Amendment 14 to Annex 14 to account for the various cases of code F aeroplanes, equipped or not
equipped and on various runways notably the ones exceeding the Annex 14 recommended width.

2.3.2 The proposed wording removes the figures which presently are dependent upon runway
width, wingspan and aeroplane equipment, clarifies the safety objective of the Standard and ensures its
application whatever OFZ width.

2.4 Table 3-2, footnote c. and Recommendation 3.12.8 read :

“c. Where the code letter is F, this distance should be 107.5 m.

Note.— 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
 A-6

tail of 62.2 m and a nose height of 10 m holding at an angle of 45° or more with respect
to the runway centre line, being clear of the obstacle free zone.

3.12.8 Recommendation.— If a holding bay, runway-holding position or road-holding

position for a precision approach runway code number 4 is at a greater elevation
compared to the threshold, the distance of 90 m or 107.5 m, as appropriate, specified in
Table 3-2 should be further increased 5 m for every metre the bay or position is higher
than the threshold.”

2.4.1 The purpose of footnote c. of Table 3-2 and Recommendation 3.12.8 is to constrain the
location of runway and road holding positions. The present wordings were not updated in 2006 to account
for the introduction of Circular 301, nor in 2018 with Amendment 14 to Annex 14 to account for the
various cases of code F aeroplanes, equipped or not equipped and on various runways, notably the ones
exceeding the Annex 14 recommended width.

2.4.2 However the determination of the appropriate location for runway and road holding
position is a complex issue accounting for the protection of the OFZ, the protection of navaids, existing
runway-taxiway separations and, according to recommendation 3.12.7 aerodrome altitude.

2.4.3 It has to be noted that this variation of location according to altitude can only result from
a variation of OFZ width which is not documented in other parts of Annex 14, notably Table 4-1. Work
performed for the publication of ICAO Circular 301 (Part I, para 2.5.6) as well as initial findings of the
OLSTF do not support a variation of OFZ width with altitude. However this is not a definitive conclusion
and it is premature to envisage the removal of Recommendation 3.12.7.

2.4.4 In conclusion the proposed amendment consists in the removal of footnote c. in Table 3-
2, in accordance with the change in Table 4-1, the deletion of figures in Recommendation 3.12.8 and the
inclusion of a Note indicating that guidance on location of runway and road holding positions is provided
in the Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), , Part I — Runways. This guidance will detail how to
accommodate equipped and not equipped code F aeroplanes on 45 and 60 m wide runways taking into
account all parameters. Though this consolidated guidance material does not exist yet, there is
considerable material available, notably with Circular 301, Annex 10 — Aeronautical
Telecommunications, and the ILS Critical Areas and Holding Points (ICAHP) ACI group which
terminated its work in 2008.

2.5 Standard 9.9.5 reads:

“9.9.5 Any equipment or installation required for air navigation or for aircraft safety
purposes which must be located on or near a strip of a precision approach runway
category I, II or III and which:

a) is situated on that portion of the strip within 77.5 m of the runway centre line where the code
number is 4 and the code letter is F; or

b) is situated within 240 m from the end of the strip and within:

1) 60 m of the extended runway centre line where the code number is 3 or 4; or

2) 45 m of the extended runway centre line where the code number is 1 or 2; or

c) penetrates the inner approach surface, the inner transitional surface or the balked
landing surface;
 A-7

shall be frangible and mounted as low as possible.”

2.5.1 Standard 9.9.5 (as well as Standard 9.9.4) places a restriction on the installation of
equipment in the OFZ to avoid obstacles within the OFZ, to facilitate the fulfilment of the Radio altimeter
operating area, and to avoid objects hiding the approach light system line of sight 300 m upstream of the
threshold. The present wording was not updated in 2006, to account for the introduction of Circular 301,
nor in 2018 with Amendment 14 to Annex 14 to account for the various cases of code F aeroplanes,
equipped or not equipped and on various runways, notably the ones exceeding the Annex 14
recommended width.

2.5.2 The proposed amendment consists in the removal of figures in Standard 9.9.5 which
duplicate the requirement in the present 9.9.5 c).

2.6 The proposed amendments are fully in line with the present FAA AC 150/5300-13,
Transport Canada TP 312 5th edition and Australian MOS 139 (2016) regulations which specify an OFZ
width of 60 or 61 m (200 ft) and consequential specifications based on the same width.

3. SAFETY ANALYSIS

3.1 ICAO Circulars 301 and 345 demonstrate that a 120 m width OFZ is sufficient for code
letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics that provide steering commands to maintain an
established track during the go-around manoeuvre when operating on a 45 m wide runway. This concerns
the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 747-800, and in the near future, the Boeing 777-X. Records in operations
for these aeroplanes since their entry into service do not show any safety event related to OFZ width.

3.2 Since their entry into service there have been no safety events related to OFZ width for
the Galaxy C5A and the Antonov 124. The Antonov 124 is operated at around 1000 aerodromes round
the world and was certified CAT II commercial aircraft in 1992. It operated on 45 m wide runways with a
120 m wide OFZ until 1999 when the code F OFZ width was introduced and after 1999 continued
operating on 45 m wide runways.

3.3 The only accident which may have implied an inappropriate OFZ width occurred with an
Antonov 124 in Torino, Italy in 2001. The report shows that the causes of the accident cannot be related
to a lack of obstacle protection during a precision approach. This was confirmed orally by a member of
the accident investigation team.

————————
 ATTACHMENT B to State letter AN 4/1.1.59-18/103

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ANNEX 14, VOLUME I

NOTES ON THE PRESENTATION OF THE AMENDMENT

The text of the amendment is arranged to show deleted text with a line through it and new text highlighted
with grey shading, as shown below:

Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it. text to be deleted

New text to be inserted is highlighted with grey shading. new text to be inserted

Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it followed new text to replace existing text
by the replacement text which is highlighted with grey
shading.
 B-2

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES

AERODROMES

ANNEX 14

TO THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION

VOLUME I
(AERODROME DESIGN AND OPERATIONS)

INITIAL PROPOSAL 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
...

ATTACHMENT A. . Guidance material supplementary to Annex 14, Volume I ATT A-1

...
20. The ACNR-PCNR method of reporting pavement strength ATT A-30

...

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

(used in Annex 14, Volume I)

Abbreviations

….

ACNR Aircraft classification number rating

DME Distance measuring equipment
E Modulus of elasticity
FOD Foreign object debris
PCNR Pavement classification number rating

….
 B-3

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL

1.1 Definitions
….

Aircraft classification number rating (ACNR). A number expressing the relative effect of an aircraft on a
pavement for a specified standard subgrade category.

….

Instrument runway. One of the following types of runways intended for the operation of aircraft using
instrument approach procedures:

a) Non-precision approach runway. A runway served by visual aids and non-visual aid(s) intended
for landing operations following supporting an instrument approach operation type A and a
visibility not less than 1 000 m procedure with minima not lower than 75 m (250 ft) minimum
descent height (MDH).

b) Precision approach runway, category I. A runway served by visual aids and non-visual aid(s)
intended for landing operations following supporting an instrument approach operation type B
procedure with a decision height (DH) not lower than 60 m (200 ft) and either a visibility not less
than 800 m or a runway visual range not less than 550 m.

c) Precision approach runway, category II. A runway served by visual aids and non-visual aid(s)
intended for landing operations following supporting an instrument approach operation type B
procedure with a decision height (DH) lower than 60 m (200 ft) but not lower than 30 m (100 ft)
and a runway visual range not less than 300 m.

d) Precision approach runway, category III. A runway served by visual aids and non-visual aid(s)
intended for landing operations following supporting an instrument approach operation type B
procedure to and along the surface of the runway and:

A — intended for operations with a decision height (DH) lower than 30 m

(100 ft), or no decision height and a runway visual range not less
than 175 m.

B — intended for operations with a decision height (DH) lower than 15 m

(50 ft), or no decision height and a runway visual range less than 175
m but not less than 50 m.

C — intended for operations with no decision height (DH) and no runway

visual range limitations.

Note 1.— Visual aids need not necessarily be matched to the scale of non-visual aids provided.
The criterion for the selection of visual aids is the conditions in which operations are intended to be
conducted.

Note 2.-Refer to Annex 6 - Operation of Aircraft for instrument approach operation types.

Note 2.— For details of instrument approach operations and procedures related to the
establishment of aerodrome operating minima, refer to the Manual of All-Weather Operations
(Doc 9365), Chapter 2.
 B-4

Origin: Rationale:
ADOP/3 Amendment 11B to Annex 14 Volume I introduced revised definitions of
instrument and non-instrument runways. These revised definitions were
consequential to Amendment 37B of Annex 6 which introduced the new instrument
approach operations classification. These revised runway definitions are not fully
consistent with Annex 6, notably Standard 4.2.8.3 which classifies instrument
approach operations and therefore creates inconsistency and difficulties for
application by States.

The existing 1000 m minimum visibility constraint in the definition of “non-

precision runway” is not consistent with rules pertaining to air operations, which
allow instrument approaches with RVR down to 600 m on such runways, provided
that they are adequately equipped. This would lead to additional unjustified
constraints. Such runways would have either to upgrade their infrastructure, or to
impair their accessibility by increasing RVR/visibility minima. In line with the
performance-based aerodrome operating minima (PBAOM) concept, all references
to visibility in the definitions are proposed to be deleted.

Removal of Category III A/B/C definitions, that are outdated and no longer utilized
for aircraft certification or operational authorization, will aid in international
harmonization efforts, future landing minima reductions, and airspace system
capacity improvements due to the implementation of performance-based
operations. Future Category III operations may derive from new low visibility
approach and landing technologies like enhanced vision system (EVS). The type of
operations, landing minima and aircraft certification criteria for these future
systems will not follow the Category III A/B/C definitions.

….

Non-instrument runway. A runway intended for the operation of aircraft using visual approach
procedures or supporting an instrument approach procedure to a point beyond which the approach
may continue in visual meteorological conditions with minima not lower than 150 m (500 ft) above
aerodrome elevation.

Note.— Visual meteorological conditions (VMC) are described in Chapter 3 of Annex 2 — Rules of
the Air Guidance for the establishment of instrument approach operations is given in the Manual of
All-Weather Operations (Doc 9365).

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 Amendment 11B to Annex 14 Volume I introduced revised definitions of

instrument and non-instrument runways. These revised definitions were
consequential to Amendment 37B of Annex 6 which introduced the new
instrument approach operations classification. In particular, the intention of the
revised definition for non-instrument runways was to clarify the possibility to use
instrument approach procedures into non-instrument runways. These revised
runway definitions are not fully consistent with Annex 6, notably Standard 4.2.8.3
which classified instrument approach operations, and create therefore
 B-5

inconsistency and difficulties for application by Member States.

Adding the VMC-criterion introduced the rules of the air instead of safety-related
criteria. Safety with respect to appropriate use of runway is assured by provisions
of Annex 6, PANS OPS, AWO manual and other related documents.

Regarding the proposed minima of 150 m (500 ft) for instrument approaches
established on non-instrument runways, this figure corresponds to the value
currently in use by several States who have already begun authorizing this type of
procedure. The value is considered the minimum height needed to allow sufficient
time for orientation and visual alignment with the runway, given the less stringent
obstacle clearance requirements needed for these types of runways.

In order to enable the safe use of non-instrument runways today and in future, a
rewording is necessary. Further guidance concerning the implementation of
instrument approach procedures on non-instrument runways will be developed by
a joint task force between ADOP, FLTOPS and IFPP, and will be made available
in Doc 9365 before the envisaged applicability of the definition above.

...

Pavement classification numberrating (PCNR). A number expressing the bearing strength of a pavement
for unrestricted operations.
...
 B-6

INITIAL PROPOSAL 2

1.5 Airport design and master plan

Introductory Note.— A master plan for the long-term development of an aerodrome displays the
ultimate development in a phased manner and reports the data and logic upon which the plan is based.
Master plans are prepared to support modernization of existing aerodromes and creation of new
aerodromes, regardless of size, complexity, and role. It is important to note that a master plan does not
constitute a confirmed implementation programme. It provides information on the types of improvements
to be undertaken in a phased manner. Guidance on all aspects of the planning of aerodromes is
contained in the Airport Planning Manual (Doc 9184), Part 1.

1.5.1 Recommendation.— A master plan containing detailed plans for the development of
aerodrome infrastructure should be established for aerodromes deemed relevant by States.

Note 1. — A master plan represents the development plan of a specific aerodrome . It is developed by
the aerodrome operator based on economic feasibility, traffic forecasts, current and future requirements
provided by, among others, aircraft operators (see 1.5.3).

Note 2. — A master plan may be required when the lack of capacity at an airport, due to conditions
such as, but not limited to expected traffic growth, changing weather and climatic conditions or major
works to address safety or environmental concerns, would put the connectivity of a geographical area at
risk or cause severe disruption to the air transport network.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3; Many airports currently lack a master plan or vision of the future. Consequently,
their short to medium term capacity enhancement projects may be sub-optimal;
APAC-AOP/WG/3; restricting their ability to fulfil capacity needs. The more flexible approach
proposed by APANPIRG/26 encouraging airport operators to develop a master
APANPIRG/26; plan is preferred. Accordingly, new provisions requiring an airport master plan
should be established, initially, as a Recommendation and be reviewed at a later
MID RSG WG/4 time for possible upgrading to a mandatory Standard. The proposed Note 2
provides guidance concerning the applicability of this provision to aerodromes
deemed relevant by States (see Annex 14, Vol. I, Chapter 2). Further guidance
will be made available in Doc 9184, APM Part 1.

1.5.2 Recommendation.— The master plan should:

a) contain a schedule of priorities including a phased implementation plan; and

b) be reviewed periodically to take into account current and future aerodrome traffic .
 B-7

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 The aviation industry continues to evolve and increase in complexity with a range
of business models associated with airport ownership and operation. There is a
frequent need to review and potentially revise project priorities within the overall
strategic development/master plan of an airport to balance capacity enhancements
and ensure that the right facilities are provided at the right time within the context
of overall affordability, operational efficiency and safety.

No two airports are alike and each should evolve in line with business forces and
agreed strategies. The pace of growth and change will influence the necessity and
frequency to update and review the overall strategic direction and development
priorities at individual airports.

1.5.3 Recommendation .— Aerodrome stakeholders, particularly aircraft operators, should be

consulted in order to facilitate the master planning process using a consultative and collaborative
approach.

Note 1. — Provision of advanced planning data to facilitate the planning process include future
aircraft types, characteristics and numbers of aircraft expected to be used, the anticipated growth of
aircraft movements, number of passengers and amount of cargo projected to be handled.

Note 2. — See Annex 9, Chapter 6 on the need for aircraft operators to inform aerodrome operators
concerning the former’s service, schedule and fleet plans to enable rational planning of facilities and
services in relation to the traffic anticipated.

Note 3. — See ICAO's Policies on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services Doc 9082),
Section 1, regarding consultation with users concerning provision of advance planning data and
protection of commercially sensitive data.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3; The importance of a collaborative approach by airport owners/operators and the

benefits of engagement with airlines and other stakeholders while developing the
APAC AOP/SG/1 master plan was strongly emphasized in a working paper at APAC AOP/SG/1.
Since decisions made by the airports will undoubtedly have an impact on airlines
and passengers, there is a real danger that ineffective and inadequate collaborative
consultation will result in sub-optimal functionality and possible capacity and/or
safety issues. It is important that collaboration is mutual and that stakeholders
actively participate and share as much information as possible. Non-disclosure
agreements can often help to overcome issues arising from the potential sharing of
sensitive data.

The proposed inclusion of Note 3 is to draw attention to the purpose of

consultation which is to ensure that the proposed developments meet current and
future capacity requirements, and that users are aware of the financial
implications.
 B-8

1.5.14 Architectural and infrastructure-related requirements for the optimum implementation of

international civil aviation security measures shall be integrated into the design and construction of new
facilities and alterations to existing facilities at an aerodrome.

Note.— Guidance on all aspects of the planning of aerodromes including security considerations is
contained in the Airport Planning Manual (Doc 9184), Part 1.

1.5.25 Recommendation.— The design of aerodromes should take into account, where
appropriate, land-use and environmental control measures.

Note.— Guidance on land-use planning and environmental control measures is contained in the
Airport Planning Manual (Doc 9184), Part 2.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 It is proposed to relocate the existing note to paragraph 1.5.1 to the introductory
Note of Section 1.5 to refer to comprehensive guidance in Doc 9184, Part 1. The
updated manual will include revised and up-to-date provisions concerning, inter
alia, contemporary security measures to be considered during the master
planning process.

It is proposed to delete the word “as appropriate” in existing Recommendation 1.5.2

as it is considered superfluous since a Recommendation, by implication, is to be
applied when appropriate.
 B-9

INITIAL PROPOSAL 3

Table 1-1. Aerodrome reference code

(see 1.6.2 to 1.6.4)

Code element 1
Code number Aeroplane reference field length
1 Less than 800 m
2 800 m up to but not including 1 200 m
3 1 200 m up to but not including 1 800 m
4 1 800 m and over
Code element 2
Code letter Wingspan
A Up to but not including 15 m
B 15 m up to but not including 24 m
C 24 m up to but not including 36 m
D 36 m up to but not including 52 m
E 52 m up to but not including 65 m
F 65 m up to but not including 80 m

Note 1.— Guidance on planning for aeroplanes with wingspans greater than 80 m is given in the
Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Parts 1 and 2.

Note 2.— Procedures on conducting aerodrome compatibility study to accommodate aeroplanes

with folding wing tips spanning two code letters are given in the Procedures for Air Navigation Services
Aerodromes (PANS-Aerodromes, Doc 9981). Further guidance can be found in the manufacturer’s
aircraft characteristics for airport planning manual.

Origin: Rationale:
A commercial airplane entering into service in early 2020 will be equipped with a
ADOP/3
folding wing tip (FWT) system in order to secure the aerodynamic performance
benefit of the larger span in flight, yet have the benefit of aerodrome compatibility
of the lower ARC on the taxiway and apron systems.
Current ICAO documents, such as Annex 14, Volume I and related guidance
material do not address an aeroplane that changes ARC as its configuration
changes, as is the case for FWTs.
 B-10

INITIAL PROPOSAL 4

CHAPTER 2. AERODROME DATA

2.6 Strength of pavements

2.6.1 The bearing strength of a pavement shall be determined.

2.6.2 The bearing strength of a pavement intended for aircraft of apron (ramp) mass greater than
5 700 kg shall be made available using the aircraft classification number rating – pavement classification
number rating (ACN-PCN) (ACR-PCR) method by reporting all of the following information:

Origin: Rationale

ADOP/3 To avoid any confusion with the current system during the transition period,
the new system is designated as the aircraft classification rating – pavement
classification rating (ACR-PCR). All ACN and PCN designations are
replaced by ACR and PCR, repectively.

a) the pavement classification number rating (PCN PCR) and numerical value;

b) pavement type for ACN-PCN ACR-PCR determination;

Note.- If necessary, the PCNs may be published to an accuracy of one-tenth of a whole number.
Guidance on reporting and publishing of PCRs is contained in the Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc
9157, Part3).

2.6.3 The pavement classification number (PCN) rating (PCR) reported shall indicate that an
aircraft with an aircraft classification number (ACN) rating (ACR) equal to or less than the reported PCR
can operate on the pavement subject to any limitation on the tire pressure, or aircraft all-up mass for
specified aircraft type(s)

Note.- Different PCNs PCRs may be reported if the strength of the pavement is subject to significant
seasonal variation

2.6.4 The ACN ACR of an aircraft shall be determined in accordance with the standard
procedures associated with the ACN-PCN ACR-PCR method.

Note.- The standard procedures for determining the ACN ACR of an aircraft are given in the
Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Part 3. For convenience, several aircraft types currently in use
have been evaluated on rigid and flexible pavements founded on the four subgrade categories in 2.6.6 b)
below and the results tabulated in that manual dedicated software is available on the ICAO website, for
 B-11

computing any aircraft ACRs at any mass on rigid and flexible pavements for the four standard
subgrade strength categories detailed in 2.6.6 b) below.

2.6.5 For the purpose of determining the ACN- ACR, the behaviour of a pavement shall be
classified as equivalent to a rigid or flexible construction

2.6.6 Information on pavement type for ACN-PCN ACR-PCR determination, subgrade strength
category, maximum, allowable tire pressure category and evaluation method shall be reported using the
following codes:

a) Pavement type for ACN-PCN ACR-PCR determination:

Code
Rigid pavement R
Flexible pavement F
Note.— If the actual construction is composite or non-standard, include a note to
that effect (see example 2 below).

b) Subgrade strength category:

Code
High strength: characterized by K=150 MN/m3and representing all K values above A
120 MN/m3 for rigid pavement, and by CBR= 15 and representing all CBR values
above 13 for flexible pavements. characterized by E=200 MPa, and representing all
E values equal to or above 150 MPa for rigid and flexible pavements.
Medium strength: characterized by K=80 MN/m3 and representing a range of K of B
60 to 120 MN/m3 for rigid pavements, and by CBR=10 and representing a range in
CBR of 8 to 13 for flexible pavements. characterized by E= 120 MPa and
representing a range in E values equal to or above 100 MPa and strictly less than 150
MPa, for rigid and flexible pavements.
Low strength: characterized by K=40 MN/m3 and representing a range of K of 25 to C
60 MN/m3 for rigid pavements, and by CBR=6 and representing a range in CBR of 4
to 8 for flexible pavements. characterized by E=80 MPa and representing a range in
E values equal to or above 60 MPa and strictly less than 100 MPa, for rigid and
flexible pavements.
Ultra-low strength: characterized by K= 20 MN/m3 and representing all K values D
below 25 MN/m3 for rigid pavements, and by CBR= 3 and representing all CBR
values below 4 for flexible pavements. characterized by E=50 MPa and representing
all E values strictly less than 60 MPa, for rigid and flexible pavements.

Origin Rationale

ADOP/3 By adopting the layered elastic analysis (LEA) within the ICAO pavement
rating system, the subgrade strength categories have to be designated with the
modulus of elasticity (E modulus). The CBR for flexible pavement and the k-
value (modulus of subgrade reaction) for rigid pavement are no longer
applicable. However the four subgrade strength categories will still be
designated with the same letters. The reporting format will not change, except
for the PCR designation instead of PCN.
 B-12

a) Maximum allowable tire pressure category:

Code
Unlimited: no pressure limit W
High: pressure limited to 1.75 MPa X
Medium: pressure limited to 1.25 MPa Y
Low: pressure limited to 0.50 MPa Z
Note.— See Note 5 to 10.2.1 where the pavement is used by aircraft with tire
pressures in the upper categories.

b) Evaluation method:
Code
Technical evaluation: representing a specific study of the pavement characteristics T
and application of pavement behaviour technology and the types of aircraft which
the pavement is intended to serve.
Using aircraft experience: representing a knowledge of the specific type and mass of U
aircraft satisfactorily being supported under regular use.

Origin: Rationale

ADOP/3 The new system will be no longer be based on a “critical aircraft” basis but will
consider all aircraft which are intended to serve on a given pavement with their
real offset from pavement centre line. By doing so, the reported PCR will
address, in a very accurate manner, the amount of damage that each aircraft
produces within a mix, as a function of their operating weight, full landing gear
geometry, individual tire load and pressure.

Note. – The following examples illustrate how pavement strength data are reported under ACN-
PCN ACR-PCR method.

Example 1. – if the bearing strength of a rigid pavement, resting on a medium strength subgrade, has
been assessed by technical evaluation to be PCN PCR 80 and there is no tire pressure limitation, then the
reported information would be:
PCN PCR 80 / R / B / W / T
Example 2. – if the bearing strength of a composite pavement, behaving like a flexible
pavement and resting on a high strength subgrade, has been assessed by using aircraft experience to be
PCR 50 and the maximum tire pressure allowable is 1.25 MPa, then the reported information would be:
PCN PCR 50 / F / A / Y / U
Note. – Composite construction.
 B-13

Example 3. – If the bearing strength of a flexible pavement, resting on a medium strength

subgrade, has been assessed by technical evaluation to be PCN PCR 40 and the maximum allowable tire
pressure is 0.80 MPa, then the reported information would be
PCN PCR 40 / F / B / 0.80 MPa / T
Example 4. – If a pavement is subject to a B747-400 all-up mass limitation of 390 000 kg,
then the reported information would include the following note.
Note. – The reported PCN is subject to a B747-400 an all-up mass limitation of 390 000 Kg.

2.6.7 Recommendation. – Criteria should be established to regulate the use of a pavement by

an aircraft with an ACN ACR higher than the PCN PCR reported for that pavement in accordance with
2.6.2 and 2.6.3.
Note. – Attachment A, Section 20, details a simple method for regulating overload operations while
the Aerodrome Design Manual, (Doc 9157), Part 3, includes the descriptions of more detailed
procedures for evaluation of pavements and their suitability for restricted overload operations

2.6.8 The bearing strength of a pavement intended for aircraft of apron (ramp) mass equal to
or less than 5 700 Kg shall be made available by reporting the following information:
a) maximum allowable aircraft mass; and
b) maximum allowable tire pressure.

Example: 6 500 Kg/0.60 MPa

INITIAL PROPOSAL 5

CHAPTER 3. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

….
3.4 Runway strips
….

3.4.7 No fixed object, other than visual aids required for air navigation or those required for
aircraft safety purposes and which must be sited on the runway strip, and satisfying the relevant
frangibility requirement in Chapter 5, shall be permitted on any part of a runway strip of a precision
approach runway delineated by the lower edges of the inner transitional surfaces.

a) within 77.5 m of the runway centre line of a precision approach runway category I, II or III where
the code number is 4 and the code letter is F; or

b) within 60 m of the runway centre line of a precision approach runway category I, II or III where
the code number is 3 or 4; or
 B-14

c) within 45 m of the runway centre line of a precision approach runway category I where the code
number is 1 or 2.

No mobile object shall be permitted on this part of the runway strip during the use of the runway for
landing or take-off.

Note.— See Chapter 4, section 4.1 for characteristics of inner transitional surface.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 Standard 3.4.7 applies only to precision approach runways. In Annex 14, Volume
I, Chapter 4, the existing Note to the inner transitional surface states : “Note.— It is
intended that the inner transitional surface be the controlling obstacle limitation
surface for navigation aids, aircraft and other vehicles that must be near the
runway and which is not to be penetrated except for frangible objects….”. The
present wording does not state this clearly and uses figures which are subject to
changes when the OFZ width is changed. In particular it has not been modified
following the adoption in Amendment 14 of the reduction of the code F OFZ width
from 155m to 140m in Table 4-1. In addition the present wording does not take into
account the fact that for code letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics that
provide steering commands to maintain an established track during the go-around
manoeuvre, an OFZ width of 120 m, as per Table 4-1, is sufficient when operating
on a 45 m wide runway.

The proposed wording clarifies the safety objective of the Standard and ensures its
application is consistent with the various OFZ widths.

….

3.6 Clearways
….

Width of clearways

3.6.3 Recommendation.— A clearway should extend laterally on each side of the extended centre
line of the runway, to a distance of at least:

a) 75 m for instrument runways; and

b) half of the width of the runway strip for non-instrument runways.

….
 B-15

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 Annex 14, Vol. I currently specifies the width of a clearway regardless of the type
and code number of the associated runway. Due to terrain or other restrictions, it
may not always be possible to provide the full recommended 75 m half-width of a
clearway on non-instrument runways where the code number is 1 or 2. For these
types of runways, the existing recommended width of the clearway will therefore
greatly exceed that of the associated runway strip (30 m and 40 m half-width,
respectively) and provide a disproportionate lateral protection compared to the
width of the associated runway strip as well as to the length of the inner edge of
the obstacle limitation surface (OLS) according to Table 4-2, Annex 14 Vol I.

To avoid a disparity between the runway strip width, the width of the inner edge
of the corresponding OLS and the width of a potential clearway, the effective
clearway width should correspond to the width of the associated runway strip
where the runway is non-instrument. With such an amendment, the geometrical
discrepancy between the width of the runway strip, the inner edge of the OLS and
the clearway itself could be effectively mitigated without compromising safety.

The proposed amendment is expected to result in a positive impact on safety since,

as per current provisions, aircraft above the clearway area, along its outer
boundaries, would not have the area available as established by the take-off
surface specifications, to transition to a recognized climb profile as depicted in the
figures. Furthermore, it aimed at providing a coherent approach for safety areas
where obstacles are restricted. Due to the fact that the inner edge of the OLS was
as wide as the width of the associated runway strip, there was no safety benefit in
providing a wider clearway.

Several States (e.g. Australia, Canada, Italy and United Kingdom) have already
taken account of these circumstances in different ways and have implemented
national regulations which are different from ICAO.

Current situation for NINST runways codes 1 and 2

 B-16

Proposed situation for NINST runways codes 1 and 2)

….

3.9 Taxiways

Note 1.— Unless otherwise indicated, the requirements in this section are applicable to all types of
taxiways.

Note 2.— See section 5.4.3 for a standardized scheme for the nomenclature of taxiways which
may be used to improve situational awareness and as a part of an effective runway incursion prevention
measure.

Note 23.— See Attachment A, Section 22, for specific taxiway design guidance which may assist in
the prevention of runway incursions when developing a new taxiway or improving existing ones with
known runway incursion safety risks.

General

3.9.1 Recommendation.— Taxiways should be provided to permit the safe and expeditious
surface movement of aircraft.

Note.— Guidance on layout and standardized nomenclature of taxiways is given in the Aerodrome
Design Manual (Doc 9157), Part 2.

….
3.12 Holding bays, runway-holding positions,
intermediate holding positions and road-holding positions
….

3.12.6 The distance between a holding bay, runway-holding position established at a

taxiway/runway intersection or road-holding position and the centre line of a runway shall be in
accordance with Table 3-2 and, in the case of a precision approach runway, such that a holding aircraft or
vehicle will not interfere with the operation of radio navigation aids or penetrate the inner transitional
surface.

Note.— Guidance for the positioning of runway-holding positions is given Aerodrome Design
Manual (Doc 9157), Part 2 .
 B-17

….

Table 3-2. Minimum distance from the runway centre line

to a holding bay, runway-holding position or road-holding position

Code number
Type of runway 1 2 3 4

Non-instrument 30 m 40 m 75 m 75 m

Non-precision approach 40 m 40 m 75 m 75 m

Precision approach category I 60 mb 60 mb 90 ma,b 90 ma,b,c

Precision approach categories II and III — — 90 ma,b 90 ma,b,c

Take-off runway 30 m 40 m 75 m 75 m

a. If a holding bay, runway-holding position or road-holding position is at a lower elevation compared to the threshold, the distance may be decreased
5 m for every metre the bay or holding position is lower than the threshold, contingent upon not infringing the inner transitional surface.

b. This distance may need to be increased to avoid interference with radio navigation aids, particularly the glide path and localizer facilities.
Information on critical and sensitive areas of ILS and MLS is contained in Annex 10, Volume I, Attachments C and G, respectively (see also
3.12.6).

Note 1.— 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 10 m holding at an angle of 45° or more with respect to the runway centre line, being clear of the
obstacle free zone and not accountable for the calculation of OCA/H.

Note 2.— The distance of 60 m for code number 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° or more with respect to the runway centre line, being clear of the obstacle
free zone.

c. Where the code letter is F, this distance should be 107.5 m.

Note 3.— The A distance of 107.5 100 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 and a nose height of 10 m holding at an angle of 45° or more with respect to the
runway centre line, being clear of the a 140 m wide obstacle free zone.
 B-18

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 Standard 3.12.6 applies to any runway including precision approach runways. In
Annex 14, Volume I, Chapter 4, the existing Note to inner transition surface states:
“Note.— It is intended that the inner transitional surface be the controlling
obstacle limitation surface for navigation aids, aircraft and other vehicles that must
be near the runway and which is not to be penetrated except for frangible
objects….”. The present wording in 3.12.6 does not state this clearly. Table 3-2 has
not been modified following the adoption in Amendment 14 of the reduction of the
code F OFZ width from 155m to 140m in Table 4-1. In addition the present
wording does not take into account the fact that for code letter F aeroplanes
equipped with digital avionics that provide steering commands to maintain an
established track during the go-around manoeuvre, an OFZ width of 120 m, as per
Table 4-1, is sufficient when operating on a 45 m wide runway. The proposed
wording clarifies the safety objective of the Standard and ensures its application
whatever the OFZ width.

It is proposed to delete footnote c. in Table 3-2 because code F distances may vary
from 90m to more than107.5m depending on the equipment and operation of the
code F aeroplanes intending to use the runway, the runway width and other
conditions. Recommendation 3.12.8 (see below) is thus proposed to be modified
accordingly.

With respect to the proposed change in the existing Note to footnote c. in Table 3-2,
the current value of 107.5m is based on an OFZ half-width of 155 m ÷2 = 77.5 m
plus a buffer of 30 m which satisfied the obstacle clearance requirements. With the
change in Amendment 14 from 155 m to 140 m, applying the same geometric
principle, provides an OFZ half-width of 70 m plus 30 m buffer, giving a value of
100 m.

The three Notes in Table 3-2 are significant examples of the possible calculation to
be made.

(See background information in Attachment A.)

….

3.12.8 Recommendation.— If a holding bay, runway-holding position or road-holding position

for a precision approach runway code number 4 is at a greater elevation compared to the threshold, the
distance of 90 m or 107.5 m, as appropriate, specified in Table 3-2 should be further increased 5 m for
every metre the bay or position is higher than the threshold.
 B-19

INITIAL PROPOSAL 6

CHAPTER 4. OBSTACLE RESTRICTION AND REMOVAL

Table 4-1. Dimensions and slopes of obstacle limitation surfaces — Approach runways

APPROACH RUNWAYS

RUNWAY CLASSIFICATION
Precision approach category
Non-instrument Non-precision approach I II or III
Code number Code number Code number Code number
Surface and dimensionsa 1 2 3 4 1,2 3 4 1,2 3,4 3,4
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

CONICAL
Slope 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Height 35 m 55 m 75 m 100 m 60 m 75 m 100 m 60 m 100 m 100 m
INNER HORIZONTAL
Height 45 m 45 m 45 m 45 m 45 m 45 m 45 m 45 m 45 m 45 m
Radius 2 000 m 2 500 m 4 000 m 4 000 m 3 500 m 4 000 m 4 000 m 3 500 m 4 000 m 4 000 m
INNER APPROACH
Width — — — — — — — 90 m 120 me 120 me
Distance from threshold — — — — — — — 60 m 60 m 60 m
Length — — — — — — — 900 m 900 m 900 m
Slope 2.5% 2% 2%

APPROACH
Length of inner edge 60 m 80 m 150 m 150 m 140 m 280 m 280 m 140 m 280 m 280 m
Distance from threshold 30 m 60 m 60 m 60 m 60 m 60 m 60 m 60 m 60 m 60 m
Divergence (each side) 10% 10% 10% 10% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
First section
Length 1 600 m 2 500 m 3 000 m 3 000 m 2 500 m 3 000 m 3 000 m 3 000 m 3 000 m 3 000 m
Slope 5% 4% 3.33% 2.5% 3.33% 2% 2% 2.5% 2% 2%

Second section
Length — — — — — 3 600 mb 3 600 mb 12 000 m 3 600 mb 3 600 mb
Slope — — — — — 2.5% 2.5% 3% 2.5% 2.5%

Horizontal section
Length — — — — — 8 400 mb 8 400 mb — 8 400 mb 8 400 mb
Total length — — — — — 15 000 m 15 000 m 15 000 m 15 000 m 15 000 m

TRANSITIONAL
Slope 20% 20% 14.3% 14.3% 20% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3%

INNER TRANSITIONAL
Slope — — — — — — — 40% 33.3% 33.3%

BALKED LANDING
SURFACE
Length of inner edge — — — — — — — 90 m 120 me 120 me
Distance from threshold — — — — — — — c 1 800 md 1 800 md
Divergence (each side) — — — — — — — 10% 10% 10%
Slope — — — — — — — 4% 3.33% 3.33%
 B-20

a. All dimensions are measured horizontally unless specified otherwise. e. Where the code letter is F (Table 1-1), tThe width is may be increased
b. Variable length (see 4.2.9 or 4.2.17). taking into account the actual wingspan of the aeroplanes intending to
c. Distance to the end of strip. use the runway, if they are to 140 m except for those aerodromes that
d. Or end of runway whichever is less. accommodate a code letter F aeroplane equipped with digital avionics
that provide steering commands to maintain an established track during
the go-around manoeuvre or other considerations specific to the
aerodrome.
Note.— See Circulars 301, 345 and Chapter 4 of the PANS-
Aerodromes, Part I (Doc 9981) for further information.

….

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 Following the conclusions reached at OCP/3 and OCP/4 in 1976, the obstacle free
zone was introduced to protect balked landing occurring when performing a
category II precision instrument approach. For this purpose, it was assumed that the
precision approach instrument guidance system and the operational procedures
employed would position the aircraft at the 30 m (100 ft) DH and displace it from
the runway centre line by a distance not exceeding 15 m (50 ft). This could be
interpreted as meaning that the cockpit would be within the red barrettes of the
precision approach category II lighting system at a distance of approximately 300 m
(1000 ft) from the runway threshold, if the pilot can be certain, by means of the
visual cues available, that the approach could be continued. To this was added an
allowance for the largest aircraft likely to carry out the operation having a wingspan
of 60 m (200 ft) and a buffer area for wingtip and obstacle clearance of 15 m (50 ft)
either side, making a total width of 120 m (400 ft) at origin, e.g. 60 m (200 ft) either
side of the centre line. From this window it was further assumed that the aircraft
will continue the approach down to and along the runway such that its outer wheels
would be flying over the runway edge. The OFZ width was governed by the initial
formula:

(1) OFZ width = 30 m (allowed deviation for a category II approach after

decision height) + 60 m wingspan + 30 m buffer.

The OFZ dimension was not changed with the introduction of the Boeing 747-400
(wingspan 64.9 m), Lockheed Galaxy C5A (67.9 m) and Antonov 124 (73.3 m)
because the assumed deviations and buffer values were considered sufficient to
accommodate the increased wingspan due to the improved flying performances of
these larger aeroplanes.

At OCP/11 in 1997, though no safety event had suggested the 120 m width was not
appropriate, it was considered suitable to determine the OFZ width for runways
intended for code F aeroplanes with the following formula :

(2) OFZ Width = Runway width – OMGWS + Wingspan + 30m (buffer).

which led to a 155m wide OFZ for code F aeroplanes on a 60m wide runway.
Formula (2) was never applied to other cases.

The present wording of Note e. in Table 4-1, as per amendment 14 of Annex 14,
Volume I, reflects that the standard value of 120 m is increased to 140 m for code F
45 m wide runways, based on formula (2) with an 80 m wingspan.
It states clearly that according to Circular 301 and 345, an OFZ width of 120 m is
adopted for code letter F aeroplanes, equipped with digital avionics that provide
 B-21

steering commands, to maintain an established track during the go-around

manoeuvre when operating on a 45 m wide runway. Presently this covers all code F
aeroplanes except the Galaxy C5A and the Antonov 124. However the present Note
e. is unclear when code letter F aeroplanes, equipped with digital avionics that
provide steering commands, are operated with those aeroplanes on the
same runway.

Both the C5A and the Antonov 124 are operated on 45 m wide runways with a
120m wide OFZ without any related safety event since 1982. New code F
aeroplanes will very likely be able to meet the 120m wide OFZ requirement. Hence
specifying globally a wider OFZ for code F aeroplanes seems excessive as records
in operations since 1982, Circ 301 and Circ 345, US, Canadian and Australian
regulations, and accidents analysis demonstrate that 120m is enough.

The proposed wording removes a design constraint which proved not to be

necessary and indicates where to find guidance on how to determine the appropriate
OFZ width for a given runway.

(See background information in Attachment A.)

 B-22

INITIAL PROPOSAL 7

CHAPTER 5. VISUAL AIDS FOR NAVIGATION

….

5.3 Lights
….
5.3.20 Stop bars

Application

Note 1.— A stop bar is intended to be controlled either manually or automatically by air traffic
services.

Note 2.— Runway incursions may take place in all visibility or weather conditions. The provision
of stop bars at runway-holding positions and their use at night and in visibility conditions greater than
550 m runway visual range can form part of effective runway incursion prevention measures.

5.3.20.1 A stop bar shall be provided at every runway-holding position serving a runway when it
is intended that the runway will be used in runway visual range conditions less than a value of 3550 m,
except where:

a) appropriate aids and procedures are available to assist in preventing inadvertent incursions of
traffic onto the runway; or

b) operational procedures exist to limit, in runway visual range conditions less than a value of
550 m, the number of:

1) aircraft on the manoeuvring area to one at a time; and

2) vehicles on the manoeuvring area to the essential minimum.

5.3.20.2 A stop bar shall be provided at every runway-holding position serving a runway when it is
intended that the runway will be used in runway visual range conditions of values between 350 m and 550
m, except where:

a) appropriate aids and procedures are available to assist in preventing inadvertent incursions of
traffic onto the runway; or

b) operational procedures exist to limit, in runway visual range conditions less than a value of
550 m, the number of:

1) aircraft on the manoeuvring area to one at a time; and

2) vehicles on the manoeuvring area to the essential minimum.

….
 B-23

(Editorial note: Renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly)

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 Provisions on stop bars were first introduced in Annex 14, vide Amendment 24
stemming from the fifth meeting of the Visual Aids Panel (VAP/5).

A recommendation was adopted via Amendment 38 for a stop bar to be

provided at a taxi-holding position used in conjunction with a PA runway
category II. This recommendation was in addition to a (then) existing Standard
for PA runway category III. Vide Amendment 39, the term “PA runway
category III” in the Standard was replaced with “a runway intended for use in
RVR conditions less than a value of the order of 400 m”. In similar fashion, the
recommendation for “PA runway category II” was replaced with “a runway
intended for use in RVR conditions of values between the order of 400 m and
800 m”.

Amendment 1 to Annex 14, Volume I, through the works of VAP/12,

subsequently modified both the Standard and recommendation to their current
form in paragraphs 5.3.20.1 and 5.3.20.2, respectively. VAP/12 agreed to a
further suggestion that as a great majority of runway incursions took place in
RVRs between 400 and 800 m, consideration should be given to upgrading the
related recommendation to a Standard. VAP/12 agreed with the view, however,
bearing in mind the high cost of installing and operating stop bars, it was
agreed that the recommendation be made applicable as a Standard as of
1 January 1999 (eventually adopted as 1 January 2001 by the Council vide
Amendment 1) and until such time, it remained as a Recommended Practice.

(Note that the RVR values of 400 m and 800 m had been changed to 350 m and
550 m, respectively, arising from Recommendation 2/4 of OP SP/5 in 1989.)

With the upgrading of the Recommendation to a Standard, as of

1 January 2001 (editorially reflected in Amendment 4 to Annex 14, Volume I),
the text currently in 5.3.20.1 and 5.3.20.2 are exactly the same save for the
RVR values. This created confusion. The proposed modification, which can be
considered to be editorial, is intended to clarify the application of stop bars by
using one standard instead of two to achieve the same result. The national
regulations of several States (e.g Japan, France, Australia Canada) are already
in line with the proposal and use one single provision for stop bars as
proposed here.

….
 B-24

5.3.23 Runway guard lights

Note.— Runway incursions may take place in all visibility or weather conditions. The use of runway
guard lights at runway holding positions can form part of effective runway incursion prevention
measures. The purpose of rRunway guard lights is to warn pilots, and drivers of vehicles, when they are
operating on taxiways, that they are about to enter a runway. There are two standard configurations of
runway guard lights as illustrated in Figure 5-29.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 For consistency the proposed changes to the Note above puts it in line with the
text used for stop bars. It also brings attention to the importance of the use of
RGL as an effective runway incursion prevention program.

Application

5.3.23.1 Runway guard lights, Configuration A shall be provided at each taxiway/runway

intersection, except at exit only taxiways, associated with a runway intended for use in:

a) runway visual range conditions less than a value of 550 m where a stop bar is not installed; and

b) runway visual range conditions of values between 550 m and 1 200 m where the traffic density is
heavy.

Note 1. — Runway guard lights, Configuration B may supplement Configuration A when deemed
necessary.

Note 2. — Guidance on the design, operation and the location of runway guard lights
Configuration B is given in the Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Part 4.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 The existing text in para 5.3.23.1 is deemed to also include runway intersection
with exit only taxiways, the latter which is prohibited by ATC to enter into the
runway (similar intent to 5.3.29.1), hence the proposal to insert the term
“except at exit only taxiways”.

Currently, paragraph 5.3.23.1 describes the application for Configuration A but

not for Configuration B. Where taxiways were substantially wider than those
specified in Annex 14, Volume I, viz wide-throat taxiways, the lights located
on the sides in Configuration A were likely to be missed by pilots, unless
supplemented by a row of lights (inset) located across the taxiway
(Configuration B). The proposed Note stays in line with the VAP/12 decision
to keep Configuration A as the minimum mandatory provision.

5.3.23.2 Recommendation.— As part of runway incursion prevention measures, runway guard

lights, Configuration A or B, should be provided at each taxiway/runway intersection where runway
incursion hot spots have been identified, and used under all weather conditions during day and night.
 B-25

5.3.23.3 Recommendation.— Configuration B runway guard lights should not be collocated with a
stop bar.

5.3.23.4 Where more than one runway holding positions exist at a runway/taxiway intersection, only
the set of runway guard lights associated with the operational runway-holding position shall be
illuminated.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 The above proposal addresses the ongoing issue of runway incursions caused
by having runway guard lights illuminated beyond the operational holding
position and maintains consistency with similar provision for stop bars.

Location

5.3.23.45 Runway guard lights, Configuration A, shall be located at each side of the taxiway on the
holding side of the runway-holding position marking at a distance from the runway centre line not less
than that specified for a take-off runway in Table 3-2.

5.3.23.56 Runway guard lights, Configuration B, shall be located across the taxiway on the holding
side of the runway-holding position marking at a distance from the runway centre line not less than that
specified for a take-off runway in Table 3-2.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 The above two proposals standardize the location of runway guard lights by
associating them with the operational runway-holding positions.

(Editorial note: renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly)

5.3.23.910 The light beam shall be unidirectional and shall show yellow in the direction of approach
to aligned so as to be visible to the pilot of an aeroplane taxiing to the runway-holding position.

Note.— For guidance on orientation and aiming of runway guard lights, see the Aerodrome Design
Manual (Doc 9157) Part 4.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 For consistency, the Standard is modified to align with the provisions for
stop bar.
 B-26

(Editorial note: renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly)

….

5.3.29 No-entry bar

Note 1.— A no-entry bar is intended to be controlled manually by air traffic services.

Note 2.— Runway incursions may take place in all visibility or weather conditions. The use
provision of no-entry bars at taxiway/runway intersections and their use at night and in all visibility
conditions can form part of effective runway incursion prevention measures.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 During discussions at VAWG/16, Note 1 was seen to be confusing since from the
VAWG’s perspective a no-entry bar should not be controlled by ATC under
normal operations, as their aim is to forbid the entry on an exit-only taxiway. It
was agreed that no-entry bars should not be switchable in operational situations.
The only situation where switching might be useful was for maintenance purposes.

Concerning Note 2, the first and second sentence are seen to be contradictory.
Although the first sentence specifies that runway incursions can occur in all
weather or visibility conditions, the second sentence is about the use of no entry
bars at night. This is quite confusing as it is commonly understood that the use of
no-entry bar is only by night operations, although it could be used also by day
in LVP.

….

Location

5.3.29.2 Recommendation.— A no-entry bar should be located across the taxiway at the end
of an exit only taxiway, where it is desired to prevent traffic from entering the taxiway in the wrong
direction.

5.3.29.3 Recommendation.— A no-entry bar should be co-located with a no-entry sign and/or a
no-entry marking.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 A no-entry bar should be used, if deemed necessary, to enhance no-entry marking
or signs conspicuity.

(Editorial note: renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly)

 B-27

….

Characteristics

5.3.29.8 The lighting circuit shall be designed so that:

a) no-entry bars are switchable selectively or in groups.;

b) when a no-entry bar is illuminated, any taxiway centre line lights installed beyond the no-entry
bar, when viewed towards the runway, shall be extinguished for a distance of at least 90 m; and

c) when a no-entry bar is illuminated, any stop bar installed between the no-entry bar and the
runway shall be extinguished.

5.3.29.8 Taxiway centre line lights installed beyond the no-entry bar, looking in the direction of
the runway, shall not be visible.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 No-entry bars are used on exit only taxiways, as a consequence there is no reason
to have centre line lights nor stop-bars beyond the no-entry bar, hence looking in
the direction of the runway, the taxiway centre line should be invisible. It is also
agreed that no-entry bars should not be switchable in operational situations. The
only situation where switching might be useful is for maintenance purposes.
 B-28

INITIAL PROPOSAL 8

5.4 Signs

5.4.1 General

….

Table 5-5. Location distances for taxiing guidance signs including runway exit signs

Sign height (mm) Perpendicular

Perpendicular
distance from
distance from
defined runway
Code Face Installed defined taxiway
Legend pavement edge
number (min.) (max.) pavement edge to
to
near side of sign
near side of sign
1 or 2 200 400 300 700 5-11 m 3-10 m
1 or 2 300 600 450 900 5-11 m 3-10 m
3 or 4 300 600 450 900 11-21 m 8-15 m
3 or 4 400 800 600 1100 11-21 m 8-15 m

Origin: Rationale

ADOP/3 Current provisions in Annex 14, Volume I stipulate a minimum face height of
twice the legend height (H). The proposed changes to Table 5-5 reduce the
minimum face height to 1.5 times the legend height (H). All other
characteristics, e.g. legend height, color, sign width, spacing between characters,
maximum installation height etc. remain untouched by this proposal.

Signs with smaller face height are common in ICAO Member States, which
consequently had to file a difference according to Article 38 of the Chicago
Convention. The proposed amendment, if accepted, allows the affected States to
delete the difference, leading to a higher degree of compliance.

Signs with a reduced face height serve the same purpose of informing and
instructing pilots while maneuvering on the aerodrome. A safety study indicates
that the smaller signs provide for an equivalent level of safety compared to
current requirements. There are two kinds of information provided to the pilot
by the means of signs. First, the inscription provides information concerning,
among others, the location and direction of aircraft. As the inscription is
unchanged, the proposed changes have no effect on this. Second, the colour
coding informs the pilot about the meaning of the sign (information only or
mandatory instruction). Even though the surface of the colour is decreased, the
colour coding information itself is still clearly visible, and therefore not
negatively affected.
 B-29

Furthermore, it is to be emphasized that the proposed changes constitute a new

minimum size only, meaning that all existing signs are still complying with
ICAO provisions, therefore no airport or State has to physically change any of
its signs or national regulations.

….
5.4.3 Information Signs
….

Characteristics

….

5.4.3.35 A taxiway shall be identified by a designator that is used only once on an aerodrome
comprising a single letter, two duplicate letters or a combination of a letter or letters followed by a
number.

Origin: Rationale

ADOP/3 Providing the same taxiway designator for more than one taxiway on an
aerodrome may lead to less clarity in taxi clearances given by ATC and a loss of
situational awareness for pilots and vehicle operators, resulting in
radiotelephony confusion and additional workload. Hence a provision that each
taxiway designator shall be used only once on an aerodrome is introduced into
the existing Standard.

5.4.3.36 Recommendation.— When designating taxiways, the use of the letters I, O or X and the
use of words such as inner and outer should shall be avoided wherever possible to avoid confusion with
the numerals 1, 0 and closed marking.

Origin: Rationale
ADOP/3 Reports from the pilot community indicate that there continues to be confusion
concerning a taxiway designated X with a closed marking.
It is proposed to raise the current Recommendation to a Standard.
 B-30

5.4.3.37 The use of numbers alone on the manoeuvring area shall be reserved for the designation of
runways.

5.4.3.38 Recommendation.— Apron stand designators should not conflict with taxiway
designators.

Origin: Rationale
ADOP/3 In order to avoid confusion with other designators, it is proposed that apron
stands should have a designator that is different from taxiway designators at the
aerodrome. This is of particular importance when stands are assigned a letter
and number combination.
Terminals may be named by a number or a letter (e.g. Terminal 5, Terminal B),
with the attached stands usually numbered based on the terminal in which they
are located. This creates the possibility of having, for example, both a stand B2
and a taxiway B2 at the same aerodrome, creating the potential for confusion.
When there is more than one terminal, it is recommended that the designators
for the stands consist of three numbers, the first number corresponding to the
terminal and the following numbers to the stand. Where a letter is used to
designate the terminal, the letter can be transformed into a number – e.g. A to 1,
B to 2.
Thus the principle that stand designators should not conflict with taxiway
designators is recommended to be added. Guidance on apron stand designator
numbering will be added to the appropriate manuals.
 B-31

INITIAL PROPOSAL 9

CHAPTER 6. VISUAL AIDS FOR DENOTING OBSTACLES

6.1 Objects to be marked and/or lighted

Note 1.— The marking and/or lighting of obstacles is intended to reduce hazards to aircraft by indicating
the presence of the obstacles. It does not necessarily reduce operating limitations which may be imposed
by an obstacle.

Note 2.— An autonomous aircraft detection system may be installed on or near an obstacle (or group of
obstacles such as wind farms), designed to operate the lighting only when the system detects an aircraft
approaching the obstacle, in order to reduce light exposure to local residents. Guidance on the design
and installation of an autonomous aircraft detection system is available in the Aerodrome Design Manual
(Doc 9157), Part 4. The availability of such guidance is not intended to imply that such a system has to be
provided.

Origin: Rationale

ADOP/3 States and aerodrome operators are increasingly faced with concerns
relating to the adverse impact of light pollution on health, environment
as well as ambience and quality of life. An aircraft detection system is a
means to reduce residential complaints regarding pollution emanating
from obstacle lightings. It is used by a number of States (e.g. Canada,
U.S., Norway, and Germany) and inclusion of a Note in Annex 14
Vol I, Chapter 6 would recognize the use of the system as a means to
reduce potential light pollution and provide an option for States to
operate the obstacle lighting only when required. The new Note 2
points to Doc 9157, Part 4 for guidance on design, evaluation
and acceptance.
 B-32

INITIAL PROPOSAL 10

CHAPTER 9. AERODROME OPERATIONAL SERVICES,

EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATIONS
….
9.9 Siting of equipment and installations on operational areas

….

9.9.5 Any equipment or installation required for air navigation or for aircraft safety purposes which
must be located on or near a strip of a precision approach runway category I, II or III and which:

a) is situated on that portion of the strip within 77.5 m of the runway centre line where the
code number is 4 and the code letter is F; or

b) is situated within 240 m from the end of the strip and within:

1) 60 m of the extended runway centre line where the code number is 3 or 4; or

2) 45 m of the extended runway centre line where the code number is 1 or 2; or

cb) penetrates the inner approach surface, the inner transitional surface or the balked landing
surface;

shall be frangible and mounted as low as possible.

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 The proposed amendment to Standard 3.4.7, Standard 3.12.6, Recommendation

3.12.8, Footnote c) of Table 3-2 and Standard 9.9.5 have the objectives of removing
the inconsistency by removing the figures which created confusion and replacing
them with a clear reference to the OFZ dimensions. These specifications are
directly related to the OFZ and corresponds to three different purposes:

a) Standard 3.4.7: to prevent any obstacle to be on the strip within the OFZ;

b) Footnote c) of Table 3-2 and Recommendation 3.12.8 : to set the limits for the
location of runway and road holding positions; and

c) Standard 9.9.5 : places a restriction to the installation of equipment in the OFZ

to avoid obstacles within the OFZ and objects hiding the approach light system line
of sight 300m upstream of the threshold.

They are directly linked through geometric arguments to the OFZ width. They were
modified with Amendment 3 to Annex 14, Volume I applicable in November 1999
to accommodate the code F OFZ width of 155 m on 60 m wide runways but should
have been changed with Amendment 8 applicable in November 2006 which
allowed the application of a 120m wide OFZ on a 45m wide runway for code letter
F aeroplanes equipped with digital avionics that provide steering commands to
 B-33

maintain an established track during the go-around manoeuvre according to the

publication of ICAO Circular 301.

The present wording has not been modified following the adoption of the reduction
of the code F OFZ width from 155m to 140m. In addition the present wording does
not take into account the fact that for code letter F aeroplanes equipped with digital
avionics that provide steering commands to maintain an established track during the
go-around manoeuvre, an OFZ width of 120 m, as per Table 4-1, is sufficient when
operating on a 45 m wide runway.

The proposed wording clarifies the safety objective of the Standard and ensures its
application is consistent with the various OFZ widths.

(See background information in Attachment A.)

 B-34

INITIAL PROPOSAL 11

APPENDIX 4. REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING DESIGN OF

TAXIING GUIDANCE SIGNS

….

9. The forms of characters, i.e. letters, numbers, arrows and symbols, shall conform to those
shown in Figure A4-2. The width of characters and the space between individual characters shall be
determined as indicated in Table A4-1.

10. The face height of signs shall be as follows:

Legend height Face height (min)

200 mm 400 300 mm

300 mm 600 450 mm
400 mm 800 600 mm

11. The face width of signs shall be determined using Figure A4-4 except that, where a mandatory
instruction sign is provided on one side of a taxiway only, the face width shall not be less than:

...

H/4 (min) H/4 (min)

H/4 (min) H/4 (min)

A. Sign with two runway designators B. Sign with one runway designator

Figure A4-4. Sign dimensions

Explanatory Note to Figure A4-4: “H” stands for the inscription height

Origin: Rationale:

ADOP/3 The changes in Appendix 4 stem from proposed changes to Chapter 5,

Table 5-5. The explanatory Note is deemed necessary in order to define
“H” as the inscription height for clarification reasons as it has not been
stated before in ICAO documents.
 B-35

INITIAL PROPOSAL 12

ATTACHMENT A. GUIDANCE MATERIAL

SUPPLEMENTARY TO ANNEX 14, VOLUME I

20. The ACN-PCN ACR-PCR method of reporting pavement strength

20.1 Overload operations

20.1.1 Overloading of pavements can result either from loads too large, or from a substantially
increased application rate, or both. Loads larger than the defined (design or evaluation) load shorten the
design life, whilst smaller loads extend it. With the exception of massive overloading, pavements in their
structural behaviour are not subject to a particular limiting load above which they suddenly or
catastrophically fail. Behaviour is such that a pavement can sustain a definable load for an expected
number of repetitions during its design life. As a result, occasional minor overloading is acceptable,
when expedient, with only limited loss of pavement life expectancy and relatively small acceleration of
pavement deterioration. For those operations in which magnitude of overload and/or the frequency of use
do not justify a detailed analysis, the following criteria are suggested:
a) for flexible and rigid pavements, occasional movements by aircraft with ACN ACR not
exceeding 10 per cent above the reported PCN PCR should may not adversely affect the pavement;
b) for rigid or composite pavement, in which pavement layer provides a primary element of the
structure, occasional movements by aircraft with ACN not exceeding 5 per cent above the reported PCN
should not adversely affect the pavement;
c) if the pavement structure is unknown, the 5 per cent limitation should apply; and
db) the annual number of overload movements shouldmay not exceed approximately 5 per cent
of the total annual aircraft movements, excluding light aircraft.

Origin: Rationale

ADOP/3 Since the new proposed system is based on the layered elastic analysis (LEA)
for both rigid and flexible pavement, it is reasonable to adopt the same overload
allowance for these two pavement types. However, overload operation
conditions are not changed, and the number of overload operation will still be
subject to the amount of overload operation with regard to the total annual
departures that the pavement experiences. The different allowance of the
current ACN-PCN system (5% allowance for rigid pavement, 10% for flexible
pavement) was justified by the use of two different methods (CBR design
procedure for flexible pavement and PCA method for rigid pavement), and the
uncertainties of both systems to evaluate the amount of additional damage that
an overload operation produced.
The LEA is able to precisely analyse the contribution of each aircraft
 B-36

composing a mix to the maximum damage produced by the total traffic,

through the “cumulative damage factor (CDF)” concept. This obviously eases
the pavement overload criteria taking full advantage of how the overload
aircraft behaves when it is mixed in an existing traffic mix.

20.1.2 Such overload movements should not normally be permitted on pavement exhibiting
signs of distress or failure. Furthermore, overloading should be avoided during any periods of thaw
following frost penetration, or when the strength of the pavement or its subgrade could be weakened by
water. Where overload operations are conducted, the appropriate authority should review the relevant
pavement condition regularly, and should also review the criteria for overload operations periodically
since excessive repetition of overloads can cause severe shortening of pavement life or require major
rehabilitation of pavement

20.2 ACNsACRs for several aircraft types

For convenience several aircraft types currently in use have been evaluated on rigid and flexible
pavements founded on the four subgrade categories in Chapter 2, 2.6.6 b), and the results tabulated in the
Aerodrome Design Manual (Doc 9157), Part 3 a dedicated software is available on the ICAO website,
for computing any aircraft ACRs at any mass on rigid and flexible pavements for the four standard
subgrade strength categories detailed in Chapter 2, 2.6.6 b).

LIMITED INDEX OF SIGNIFICANT SUBJECTS

INCLUDED IN ANNEX 14, VOLUME I
….

PAVEMENT STRENGTH
ACNRs for aircraft A-20.2
aprons 3.13.3

….

————————
 ATTACHMENT C TO State letter AN 4/1.1.59-18/103

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ANNEX 4

NOTES ON THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

The text of the amendment is arranged to show deleted text with a line through it and new text highlighted
with grey shading, as shown below:

Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it. text to be deleted

New text to be inserted is highlighted with grey shading. new text to be inserted

Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it followed by new text to replace existing text
the replacement text which is highlighted with grey shading.
 C-2

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES

AERONAUTICAL CHARTS

ANNEX 4

TO THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION

...

INITIAL PROPOSAL 1

CHAPTER 14.

AERODROME GROUND MOVEMENT CHART - ICAO

….

14.6 Aerodrome data

14.6.1 This chart shall show in a similar manner all the information on the Aerodrome/Heliport
Chart — ICAO relevant to the area depicted, including:
….
a) apron elevation to the nearest metre or foot;
….
m) any part of the depicted movement area permanently unsuitable for aircraft, clearly identified as
such.

14.6.2 Recommendation.—For aerodromes accommodating aeroplanes with folding wing tips,

the location to extend the wing tips should be shown on the chart.
….

Origin: Rationale:
ADOP/3 A commercial aeroplane entering into service in early 2020 will be equipped with
a folding wing tip (FWT) system in order to secure the aerodynamic performance
benefit of the larger span in flight, yet have the benefit of aerodrome compatibility
of the lower ARC on the taxiway and apron systems.
Current ICAO documents, such as Annex 4 and related guidance material do not
address an aeroplane that changes ARC as its configuration changes, as is the case
for FWTs.
 C-3

It is important to provide a harmonized system, by including in the AIP the

location to extent the folding wing tips (FWT), thus providing guidance to
aerodromes operators, airlines and flight crews.
 ATTACHMENT D TO State letter AN 4/1.1.59-18/103

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PANS-AERODROMES (DOC 9981)

NOTES ON THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

The text of the amendment is arranged to show deleted text with a line through it and new text highlighted
with grey shading, as shown below:

Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it. text to be deleted

New text to be inserted is highlighted with grey shading. new text to be inserted

Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it followed by new text to replace existing text
the replacement text which is highlighted with grey shading.
 D-2

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO

PROCEDURES FOR AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES

AERODROMES
(PANS-AERODROMES, DOC 9981)

INITIAL PROPOSAL 1

PART I — AERODROME CERTIFICATION, SAFETY ASSESSMENTS

AND AERODROME COMPATIBILITY
….
CHAPTER 4
AERODROME COMPATIBILITY
….

Appendix to Chapter 4
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AERODROMES
….
2.5 RUNWAY STRIPS

2.5.1 Runway strip dimensions

….

2.5.1.5 Lateral deviation from the runway centre line during a balked landing with the use of the
digital autopilot as well as manual flight with a flight director for guidance have shown that the risk
associated with the deviation of specific aeroplanes is contained within the OFZ.

Note.— Provisions on OFZ are given in Annex 14, Volume I, and in Circ 301, New Larger
Aeroplanes — Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and Aeronautical Study
and Circ 345, New Larger Aeroplanes — Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Collision Risk Model
and Aeronautical Study.
 D-3

2.5.2 Obstacles on runway strips

Introduction

2.5.2.1 An object located on a runway strip which may endanger aeroplanes is regarded as an
obstacle, according to the definition of “obstacle” and should be removed, as far as practicable. Obstacles
may be either naturally occurring or deliberately provided for the purpose of air navigation.

Challenges

2.5.2.2 An obstacle on the runway strip may represent either:

a) a collision risk for an aeroplane in flight or for an aeroplane on the ground that has veered off
the runway; and

b) a source of interference to navigation aids.

Note 1.— Mobile objects that are beyond the OFZ (inner transitional surface) but still within the
runway strip, such as vehicles and holding aeroplanes at runway-holding positions, or wing tips of
aeroplanes taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the runway, should be considered.

Note 2.— Provisions on OFZ are given in Annex 14, Volume I, and in Circ 301, New Larger
Aeroplanes — Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational Measures and Aeronautical Study
and Circ 345 — New Larger Aeroplanes — Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Collision Risk
Model and Aeronautical Study.

….
 D-4

INITIAL PROPOSAL 2

Attachment A to Chapter 4

AEROPLANE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

….

6. WINGSPAN

The wingspan may have an impact on:

….
h) equipment for disabled aeroplane removal; and
i) de-icing.
In the case of an aeroplane equipped with folding wing tips, its reference code letter may change as a
result of the folding/extending of the wing tips. Consideration should be given to the wingspan
configuration and resultant operations of the aeroplane at an aerodrome.
Note .— Further information concerning aeroplanes with folding wing tips, physical characteristics and
the concept of normal and non-normal operations can be found in the manufacturer’s aircraft
characteristics for airport planning manual.

Origin: Rationale:
ADOP/3 A commercial airplane entering into service in early 2020 will be equipped
with a folding wing tip (FWT) system in order to secure the aerodynamic
performance benefit of the larger span in flight, yet have the benefit of
aerodrome compatibility of the lower ARC on the taxiway and
apron systems.
Current ICAO documents, such as PANS-Aerodrome and related guidance
material do not address an aeroplane that changes ARC as its configuration
changes, as is the case for FWTs.

….
 D-5

INITIAL PROPOSAL 3

Attachment D to Chapter 4

SELECTED AEROPLANE CHARACTERISTICS

Data are provided for convenience, are subject to change and should be used only as a guide. Accurate data should
be obtained from the aircraft manufacturer’s documentation. Many aeroplane types have optional weights and
different engine models and engine thrusts; therefore pavement aspects and reference field lengths will vary, in
some cases enough to change the aeroplane category. Reference field length should not be used for the design of
aerodrome runway length, as the required length will vary depending on various factors such as aerodrome
elevation, reference temperature and runway slope.

Nose
gear to
Outer main
main gear Cockpit Maximum
Take- Reference gear distance to main Overall Maximum Approach evacuation
off field wheel (wheel gear Fuselage (maximum) tail speed slide
weight length Wingspan span base) distance length length height (1.3×Vs) length
Aircraft model (kg) Code (m)* (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (kt) (m)*****
777-300ER 351 534 4E 3 060 64.8 12.9 31.2 32.3 73.1 73.9 18.8 149 12.6

777-9# 351 534 4E/ **** 64.8/ 12.8 32.3 36.0 75.2 76.7 19.7 **** 12.6
4F 71.8
B787-8 219 539 4E 2 660 60.1 11.6 22.8 25.5 55.9 56.7 16.9 140*** 11.1

MD-81 64 410 4C 2 290 32.9 6.2 22.1 21.5 41.6 45.0 9.2 134 5.3

MD-82 67 812 4C 2 280 32.9 6.2 22.1 21.5 41.6 45.0 9.2 134 5.3
MD-83 72 575 4C 2 470 32.9 6.2 22.1 21.5 41.6 45.0 9.2 144 5.3

MD-87 67 812 4C 2 260 32.9 6.2 19.2 21.5 36.3 39.8 9.5 134 5.3

MD-88 72 575 4C 2 470 32.9 6.2 22.1 21.5 41.6 45.0 9.2 144 5.3

MD-90 70 760 3C 1 800 32.9 6.2 23.5 22.9 43.0 46.5 9.5 138 5.3

MD-11 285 990 4D 3 130 51.97 12.6 24.6 31.0 58.6 61.6 17.9 153 9.8

DC8-62 158 757 4D 3 100 45.2 7.6 18.5 20.5 46.6 48.0 13.2 138 6.7
DC9-15 41 504 4C 1 990 27.3 6.0 13.3 12.7 28.1 31.8 8.4 132 5.3

DC9-20 45 813 3C 1 560 28.4 6.0 13.3 12.7 28.1 31.8 8.4 126 5.3

DC9-50 55 338 4C 2 451 28.5 5.9 18.6 18.0 37.0 40.7 8.8 135 5.3

BOMBARDIER 54 930 3C 1 509 35.1 8.0 12.9 13.7 34.9 34.9 11.5 127
CS100****

CS100 ER**** 58 151 3C 1 509 35.1 8.0 12.9 13.7 34.9 34.9 11.5 127

CS300**** 59 783 4C 1 902 35.1 8.0 14.5 15.3 38.1 38.1 11.5 133

CS300 XT**** 59 783 3C 1 661 35.1 8.0 14.5 15.3 38.1 38.1 11.5 133

CS300 ER**** 63 321 4C 1 890 35.1 8.0 14.5 15.3 38.1 38.1 11.5 133
 D-6

CRJ200ER 23 133 3B 1 680 21.2 4.0 11.4 10.8 24.4 26.8 6.3 140

CRJ200R 24 040 4B 1 835 21.2 4.0 11.4 10.8 24.4 26.8 6.3 140
CRJ700 32 999 3B 1 606 23.3 5.0 15.0 14.4 29.7 32.3 7.6 135

CRJ700ER 34 019 3B 1 724 23.3 5.0 15.0 14.4 29.7 32.3 7.6 135

CRJ700R**** 34 927 4B 1 851 23.3 5.0 15.0 14.4 29.7 32.3 7.6 136

CRJ900 36 514 3B 1 778 23.3 5.0 17.3 16.8 33.5 36.2 7.4 136

CRJ900ER 37 421 4C 1 862 24.9 5.0 17.3 16.8 33.5 36.2 7.4 136

CRJ900R 38 329 4C 1 954 24.9 5.0 17.3 16.8 33.5 36.2 7.4 137
CRJ1000**** 40 823 4C 1 996 26.2 5.1 18.8 18.3 36.2 39.1 7.5 138

CRJ1000ER**** 41 640 4C 2 079 26.2 5.1 18.8 18.3 36.2 39.1 7.5 138

DHC-8-100 15 650 2C 890 25.9 7.9 8.0 6.1 20.8 22.3 7.5 101

DHC-8-200 16 465 2C 1 020 25.9 8.5 8.0 6.1 20.8 22.3 7.5 102

DHC-8-300 18 643 2C 1 063 27.4 8.5 10.0 8.2 24.2 25.7 7.5 107

DHC-8-400 27 987 3C 1 288 28.4 8.8 14.0 12.2 31.0 32.8 8.3 125
EMBRAER ERJ 35 990 3C 1 439 26.0 6.2 10.6 11.5 29.9 29.9 9.7 124
170-100 STD

ERJ 170-100 LR, 37 200 3C 1 532 26.0 6.2 10.6 11.5 29.9 29.9 9.7 124
SU and SE
ERJ 170-100 + SB 38 600 3C 1 644 26.0 6.2 10.6 11.5 29.9 29.9 9.7 125
170-00-0016

ERJ 170-200 STD 37 500 3C 1 562 26.0 6.2 11.4 12.3 31.7 31.7 9.7 126
ER 170-200 LR and 38 790 3C 1 667 26.0 6.2 11.4 12.3 31.7 31.7 9.7 126
SU

ERJ 170-200 + SB 40 370 4C 2 244 26.0 6.2 11.4 12.3 31.7 31.7 9.7 126
170-00-0016

ERJ 190-100 STD 47 790 3C 1 476 28.7 7.1 13.8 14.8 36.3 36.3 10.6 124

ERJ 190-100 LR 50 300 3C 1 616 28.7 7.1 13.8 14.8 36.3 36.3 10.6 124

ERJ 190-100 IGW 51 800 3C 1 704 28.7 7.1 13.8 14.8 36.3 36.3 10.6 125

ERJ 190-200 STD 48 790 3C 1 597 28.7 7.1 14.6 15.6 38.7 38.7 10.5 126

ERJ 190-200 LR 50 790 3C 1 721 28.7 7.1 14.6 15.6 38.7 38.7 10.5 126

ERJ 190-200 IGW 52 290 4C 1 818 28.7 7.1 14.6 15.6 38.7 38.7 10.5 128
* Reference field length reflects the model/engine combination that provides the shortest field length and the standard conditions (maximum
weight, sea level, std day, A/C off, runway dry with no slope).

** Span includes optional wiinglets.

*** Preliminary data.

**** Preliminary data — aircraft not yet certified.

***** Longest deployed slide lengths, including upper deck slides, referenced from aircraft centre line as measured horizontally. Data are based
primarily on aircraft rescue fire-fighting charts.

# Aircraft with folding wing tips (FWT)

————————
 ATTACHMENT E TO State letter AN 4/1.1.59-18/103

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PANS-AIM (DOC 10066)

NOTES ON THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

The text of the amendment is arranged to show deleted text with a line through it and new text highlighted
with grey shading, as shown below:

1. Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it. text to be deleted

2. New text to be inserted is highlighted with grey shading. new text to be inserted

3. Text to be deleted is shown with a line through it followed new text to replace existing text
by the replacement text which is highlighted with grey
shading.
 E-2

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO

PROCEDURES FOR AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES

AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

(PANS-AIM, DOC 10066)

INITIAL PROPOSAL 1

CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS
….

Orthometric height. Height of a point related to the geoid, generally presented as an MSL elevation.

Pavement classification rating (PCR). A number expressing the bearing strength of a pavement.

Performance-based communication (PBC). Communication based on performance specifications

applied to the provision of air traffic services.

...
APPENDIX 1. AERONAUTICAL DATA CATALOGUE

...

Table A 1-1 Aerodrome/Heliport data – Apron-Taxiway

Subject Property Sub- Type Description Note Accuracy Integrity Orig Pub. Chart
Property Type Res. Res.
...
Taxiway Location for Position Point For aerodromes
wing tips accommodating
extension aeroplanes with
folding wing tips, the
location where to
extend the wing tips
...

Origin: Rationale:
ADOP/3 Consequential amendment arising from Initial Proposal 3 in Attachment B.
 E-3

APPENDIX 2. CONTENTS OF THE

AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION PUBLICATION (AIP)

...
**** AD 2.12 Runway physical characteristics

Detailed description of runway physical characteristics, for each runway, including:

...

3) dimensions of runways to the nearest metre or foot;

4) strength of pavement (PCNPCR and associated data) and surface of each runway and associated
stopways;

5) geographical coordinates in degrees, minutes, seconds and hundredths of seconds for each threshold
and runway end and, where appropriate, geoid undulation of:

...
Origin: Rationale:
ADOP/3 Consequential amendment, arising from the proposal to replace PCN with PCR, as
detailed in Initial proposal 4.

————————
 ATTACHMENT F to State letter AN 4/1.1.59-18/103

RESPONSE FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED TO ICAO TOGETHER

WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

To: The Secretary General

International Civil Aviation Organization
999 Robert-Bourassa Boulevard
Montréal, Quebec
Canada, H3C 5H7

(State)

Please make a checkmark () against one option for each amendment. If you choose options “agreement
with comments” or “disagreement with comments”, please provide your comments on separate sheets.

Agreement Agreement Disagreement Disagreement No position

without with without with
comments comments* comments comments
Amendment to Annex 14 — Aerodromes,
Volume I — Aerodrome Design and Operations
(Attachment B refers)
Amendment to Annex 4 — Aeronautical Charts
(Attachment C refers)
Amendment to Doc 9981, Procedures for Air
Navigation Services (PANS) - Aerodromes
(Attachment D refers)
Amendment to Doc 10066, Procedures for Air
Navigation Services (PANS) – Aeronautical
Information Management
(Attachment E refers)

*“Agreement with comments” indicates that your State or organization agrees with the intent and overall
thrust of the amendment proposal; the comments themselves may include, as necessary, your reservations
concerning certain parts of the proposal and/or offer an alternative proposal in this regard.

Signature: Date:

— END —