© AIRBUS all rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.
ICAO
Seminar/Workshop Brasilia
9-11 October 2017
Airbus Airport Operations Department
Contents
• ICAO Annex 14 changes
• ACN/PCN method renewal awareness
October 17
Airbus Presentation to ANAC
Page
2
Contents
• ICAO Annex 14 changes
• ACN/PCN method renewal awareness
October 17
Airbus Presentation to ANAC
Page
3
Logo
zone
Sidebar
line up
Text
line up
Since its creation in 1951, ICAO Annex 14 has been revised roughly every 20
years, last two Annex 14 revisions were in 1981 (introduction of ARC or
Aerodrome Reference Code) and in 1999 (Code F introduction)
Many of design recommendations were conservative, un-consistent across
airport categories, not accounting for evolution of aircraft performance:
Runway, taxiway, shoulders widths
Runway-taxiway, taxiway-taxiway, taxi lane-taxi lane, taxiway & taxi lane -object,
separations
All airport categories needed review with special focus on Code E&F
Last Annex 14 Amendment 13:
Effective November 2016
Revised Taxiway-Taxiway, Taxilane-Taxilane, Taxiway and Taxi lane to object,
separations, with new wing tip buffers.
Amendment 13 and before
ICAO Annex
14 revision
Milestones ----------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Recap of previous milestones
Logo
zone
Sidebar
line up
Text
line up
ARC Task Force, created in March 2015, made new recommendations to
Aerodromes Design and Operations Panel (ADOP) by end 2016, which have
been reviewed and approved by the Air Navigation Commission in March
2017
New ARC principle is that wing span drives the Code Letter and than the
landing gear span (OMGWS) drives some aerodrome items such as runway
and taxiway widths: Ex 45m wide runway and 23m wide taxiway for all
aeroplanes with an OMGWS between 9m and up to 15m (independant of wing
span)
Although different options (consideration of approach speed, aerodrome field
length,…) for the Code Number, have been debated, it is still based on
aeroplane Reference Field Length
Some Annex 14 Chapter 3 values have been revisited an updated, based on
data analysis (modern aeroplane flight behaviours, lateral deviations in
various conditions, veer-offs,…)
ARC TF proposals
ICAO Annex
14 revision
Milestones ----------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Logo
zone
Sidebar
line up
Text
line up
ANC State letter 44 issued in April 2017, for comments
ICAO Secretariat received by Sept 2017, comments from 84 States or
Organisations (overwhelmingly supportive)
ANC review of Secretariat answers to comments in Sept 17 and
recommendation to the Council
ICAO Council March 2018
Annex 14 revision (Amendment 14) published in July 18, effective in Nov 18
Next milestones
ICAO Annex
14 revision
Milestones ----------------------------------------- ---------- -------
Logo
zone
Sidebar
line up
Text
line up
Airport item Design Criteria
Code D existing
airports, pre-Amdt 13
New Code D Post ARC TF & Amdt. 13
Code C existing
airports, pre-Amdt 13
New Code C Post ARC TF & Amdt. 13
Runway width
Landing gear span
45m
(60m with
shoulders)
45m
(60m with
shoulders)
45m
(45m with
shoulders)
45m
(45m with
shoulders)
Taxiway width
Landing gear span
18m/23m
(38m with
shoulders)
23m
(34m with
shoulders)
15m/18m
(25m with
shoulders)
15m
(25m with
shoulders)
Rwy-Twy separation
Runway strip + ½ wingspan 176m 166m 168m 158m
Twy-Twy separation
½ span + ½ span + twy
clearance
66.5m 63m 44m 44m
Tle-Tle sep
½ span + ½ span + tle
clearance
- 59.5m - 40.5m
Twy-Object separation
½ span + twy clearance 40.5m 37m 26m 26m
Tle-Object separation
½ span + tle clearance 36m 33.5m 24.5m 22.5m
ICAO Annex
14
Revision
content ----------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- New definitions for Codes C & D
Annex 14 revisions:
1. Amendment 13 in November
2016
2. Amendment 14 expected in
2018 to include ARC TF
outcomes
Logo
zone
Sidebar
line up
Text
line up
* 2 engine = 60m
ICAO Annex
14 revision
content ----------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- New definitions for Codes E & F
Annex 14 revisions:
1. Amendment 13 in November
2016
2. Amendment 14 expected in
2018
Airport item Design criteria Code F existing airports
New Code F Amdt. 14
Amdt. 13
Code E existing
airports
New Code E: Amdt. 14
Amdt. 13
Runway width Landing gear span 60m
(75m with
shoulders)*
45m
(75m with
shoulders)*
45m
(60m with
shoulders)
45m
(60m with
shoulders)
Taxiway width Landing gear span 25m
(60m with
shoulders)
23m
(44m with
shoulders)
23m
(44m with
shoulders)
23m
(38m with
shoulders)
Rwy-Twy separation Runway strip + ½
wing span on Twy
190m 180m 182.5m 172.5m
Twy-Twy separation ½ span + ½ span
plus clearance
97.5m 91m 80m 76m
Twy-Object separation ½ span + clearance 57.5m 51m 47.5m 43.5m
Taxi lane to object
separation
½ span + clearance 50.5m 47.5m 42.5m 40m
October 17 Use Tab 'Insert - Header & Footer' for Presentation Title - Siglum - Reference
Page 9
USE
MARKETING
GRAPH
TEMPLATES
Logo
zone
Sidebar
line up
Text
line up
ARC = Aerodrome Reference Code
ICAO Annex
14 ----------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Defines Airport
design criteria's
Amendment 13 & Engaged
task force (ARC Task Force –
potential Amendment 14 in
2018) has an impact on all
these dimensions
Runway
width
Runway + shoulders
width
Taxiway to
Taxiway
separation
Taxilane to object
separation
Taxiway to
Object
separation
Taxiway width
Taxiway +
shoulder
width
Runway to
Taxiway
separation
October 17 © AIRBUS all rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.
ICAO Annex 14 New Table 3-1 – Example of Benefits
Logo
zone
Sidebar
line up
Text
line up
EASA closely follow ICAO developments, in particular by: participating to the Aerodrome Design and Operations Panel (ADOP) and its sub-groups
supporting ICAO documentation
Harmonising EASA rules with ICAO is a key driver for the Agency
In particular, EASA launched in 2015 an initiative at EU level with the
objective of finding swifter solutions for the accommodation of large
aircraft at existing aerodromes Similar to ICAO development referred as the ICAO ARC TF
Anticipated economic and environmental benefits are:
Generate economic savings for the operators of code D, E and F aerodromes due to
lower construction and maintenance costs,
Produce environmental benefits, and;
Provide greater opportunities for the airlines since large aircraft will be able to operate at
aerodromes with the existing infrastructure, while fully sustaining the existing high level
of safety.
EAS
EASA
regulation ----------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Status of CS-ADR-DSN in
regards with latest ICAO
Annex 14 development
CS.ADR Issue 4 development
Logo
zone
Sidebar
line up
Text
line up
EASA objective to reissue CS-ADR-DSN (refer to CS-ADR Issue 4)
taking into account:
Update aerodrome rules with ICAO Annex 14, ‘ Aerodromes’, Vol I, Amendment
13-A (refer to ICAO State Letter AN 4/1.2.26-16/19);
Incorporate proposed changes related to the Aerodrome Reference Code (ARC):
the runway width and shoulders, and strip and separation distances between
runways and taxiways (refer to ICAO State Letter AN 4/1.1.57-17/44).
Rulemaking proposals and recommendations received from various stakeholders
Related EASA Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA 2017-04) was
published on April 11th, 2017
With an expiration date for comments: May 31st, 2017
EASA synchronized this new rule consultation process with ICAO
cycles
NPA Comment Response Document (CRD) under preparation
CS-ADR issue 4 currently expected to be published by the end of 2017
EAS
EASA
regulation ----------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Status of CS-ADR-DSN in
regards with latest ICAO
Annex 14 development
CS-ADR Issue 4 development
Logo
zone
Sidebar
line up
Text
line up
EASA
regulation ----------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Status of CS-ADR-DSN in
regards with latest ICAO
Annex 14 development
CS.ADR Issue 4 development
Denpasar airport
Page
14
Airbus Presentation to ANAC
October 17
Denpasar airport – Code F accommodation
Airbus Presentation to ANAC
Page
15 October 17
Contents
• ICAO Annex 14 changes
• ACN/PCN method renewal awareness
October 17
Airbus Presentation to ANAC
Page
16
The ACN/PCN method
Ref. presentation : Airport_Project_Meeting_20160519 17
• The ACN-PCN system is the worldwide official airfield pavement rating method endorsed by ICAO since 1983
• It relies on the comparison of 2 elements:
ACN (Aircraft Classification Number)
– A number expressing the relative effect on an aircraft on a pavement
for a specified, standard subgrade strength
– Computed and published by aircraft manufacturers.
PCN (Pavement Classification Number)
– A number (and series of letters) expressing the relative strength of a pavement
– Computed and published in AIP by airport authorities.
• Easy-to-use and well-known system:
PCN ≥ ACN Aircraft can operate without restriction
PCN < ACN Restrictions apply (i.e. reduce weight and/or frequencies)
ACN
PCN
Why a renewed ACN/PCN method?
Ref. presentation : Airport_Project_Meeting_20160519 18
• Currently, there is an inconsistency between the ACN/PCN system and the recent pavement design methods
• For the above reasons, the current ACN/PCN system is deemed outdated as it fails to take into account accurately:
The effect of modern landing gear configurations
The improved mechanical characteristics of new-generation materials
• Hence, the urgent need to align the ACN/PCN system with the ML²EA pavement design methods
ACN/PCN system
(aircraft admissibility evaluation) Pavement design methods
Type of method Based on the « CBR design procedure » since
the system’s entry into service in 1983
Gradually moving to « rational » methods based
on multi-layer linear elastic analysis (ML²EA)
System’s rationale Empirical method that does not consider the
actual mechanical response of the pavement
Mechnanistic-empirical method that considers
the pavement mechanical response to aircraft
loads as well as the pavement performance
Consideration of
multi-wheels
landing gears
Equivalencies to single wheels
(ESWL, alpha factors)
All wheels considered explicitly for the
pavement response computation
Consideration of
pavement material
characteristics
Equivalencies to a standard material Pavement material characteristics considered
explicitly for the pavement response computation
Inconsistencies
Overview of renewed ACN/PCN method
Ref. presentation : Airport_Project_Meeting_20160519 19
• Principle of “rational” methods
Aircraft Pavement
Pavement response
computation model
(ML²EA)
Pavement damage
model
Pavement responses
Pavement damage
Adjust until allowable
pavement damage
WHAT DAMAGE MODEL FOR ACN/PCN COMPUTATION ?
• Comparisons have been performed between 2 widely used damage models
(FAA & French-DGAC) to identify the main differences and to define the most
accurate model in the context of ACN/PCN computation
• The ACN/PCN damage model is an hybrid of the 2 models
Elementary damage law Treatment of multi-axles landing gears
Retained approach
for ACN/PCN
« Bleasdale » damage law
(FAA)
« Multi-peak » integration procedure
(French-DGAC)
Rationale for
decision
Failure model substantiated by recent
tests, including on latest pavement
materials with various landing gear
configurations
Mechanistic approach consistent with the
computed and measured pavement
responses profiles
Benefits of the renewed ACN/PCN method
Ref. presentation : Airport_Project_Meeting_20160519 20
• The renewed ACN/PCN method overcome the identified limitations of the current system and allows a full consideration of the
latest evolutions in the field
• It removes the need of existing equivalency factors or alpha-factors, whose definition might be controversial
• The method will provide several benefits to airport owners:
Optimized usage of their pavements
Consistency between pavement design and aircraft admissibility parameters
Availability of generic PCN computation procedure
Improved predictability of pavement life
Ability to extend the ML²EA concepts to other purposes (e.g. defining landing fees based on the actual pavement damage)
Unified soil characterization method for both flexible and rigid pavements
• This will also benefit the airlines and ultimately the whole air transportation community by allowing optimized operating
weights and frequencies, as opposed to the current over-conservative CBR-based system
Thank you