18._USAFEI32-1007_(Oct'12)_Airfield_and_Heliport_Planning_and_Design.pdf

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER

US AIR FORCES IN EUROPE (USAFE)

UNITED STATES AIR FORCES IN EUROPE

INSTRUCTION 32-1007

2 OCTOBER 2012

Civil Engineering

AIRFIELD AND HELIPORT PLANNING

AND DESIGN

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available on the e-Publishing website at www.e-Publishing.af.mil for downloading.

RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication.

OPR: HQ USAFE/A7PPP

Supersedes: USAFEI32-1007, 23 June 2005

Certified by: HQ USAFE/A7P

(Col Richard Jarvis)

Pages: 181

This publication implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 32-10, Installations and Facilities.

This instruction provides standardized airfield, heliport and airspace criteria for the geometric layout, design, and construction of runways, helipads, taxiways, aprons, and related permanent facilities to meet sustained operations in the European theater. It applies to United States Air Forces in Europe

(USAFE). Host nation, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO), and Standardization Agreements (STANAGS) and is consolidated in this document. This publication does not apply to the Air National Guard (ANG) and the Air Force

Reserve Command (AFRC) and their units. Refer recommended changes and questions about this publication to the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) using the Air Force (AF) Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication; route AF Forms 847 from the field through the appropriate functional’s chain of command. Ensure that all records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 33-

363, Management of Records and disposed of in accordance with the Air Force Records Information

Management System (AFRIMS) Records Disposition Schedule (RDS) located at:

https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af61a/afrims/afrims/. See Attachment 1 for glossary of references and supporting information.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

This publication has been substantially revised and must be completely reviewed to reflect

United States Air Force (USAF) airfield criteria, found in Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-

260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design; ICAO Standards Annex 14, Aerodrome http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/ https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af61a/afrims/afrims

2 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

Design and Operations; STANAG 7174, Edition 1, Airfield Clearance Planes; German

Nachrichten für Luftfahrer (NfL) 191/99, 327/01, and 328/01; German Air Traffic Act Permits

(ATAP); and NATO criteria into a common document for USAFE.

1. Changes include a complete update to the following Chapters: Chapter 1, ―General

Requirements‖, Chapter 3, ―Runways (fixed-wing) and Imaginary Surfaces‖, Chapter 5, ―Taxiways‖,Chapter 6, ―Aprons and Pavements‖, Attachment 2, ―USAFE Airfield Waiver

Program‖, Attachment 3, ―Operational Risk Management (ORM) for Airfield Obstructions and

Waiver Requests‖, Attachment 4, ―Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Clear Zone and

USAFE Priority Areas (PAs)‖, Attachment 5, ―Civil Engineer’s Role in the Air Traffic System

Evaluation Program (ATSEP)‖, Attachment 6, ―Airfield Criteria and Waiver Processing

Procedures for German Main Operating Bases (MOBs)‖.

2. Deletions include the following former attachments. The criteria for these topics can be found in UFC 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design, and other sources referenced throughout this instruction. Deviations from Criteria for Air Force Airfield Support

Facilities, Navigational Aids (NAVAIDS) Design and Support, Guidelines for Establishing the

Building Restriction Line at USAFE Bases, Airfield Obstruction Reduction Program, Wind

Coverage Studies, Aircraft Characteristics for Airfield-Heliport Design and Evaluation, Jet Blast

Effects and Jet blast Deflectors, Explosives On or Near Airfields, Compass Calibration Pad

(CCP) Magnetic Survey, Tie Downs, Mooring, and Grounding Points, Construction Phasing Plan and Operational Safety On the Airfield During Construction, Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)

Siting Criteria, Aircraft and Trim Pad and Thrust Anchor for Up To 267 KiloNewtons (60,000 lbs) Thrust. 3. All other chapters remain unchanged or have been replaced with specific references to other appropriate guidance documents.

Chapter 1—GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 8

1.1. Purpose

1.2. Scope

1.3. References

1.4. Application of Criteria:

1.5. Integration of Security Measures into Design

1.6. Waivers to Criteria

1.7. Notice of Construction

1.8. Zoning

1.9. Construction Phasing Plan

1.10. Associated Design Manuals

1.11. Use of Terms

Table 1.1. Associated Design Manuals and Regulations

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 3

Chapter 2—AVIATION FACILITIES PLANNING 13

2.1. Applicability

Chapter 3—RUNWAYS (FIXED-WING) AND IMAGINARY SURFACES 14

3.1. Contents

3.2. Requirements

3.3. Runway Classification

Table 3.1. Runway Classification by Aircraft Type

3.4. Short Fields and Training Assault Landing Zones (LZ)

3.5. Runway Systems

3.6. Runway Orientation and Wind Data

Table 3.2. Runways

3.7. Additional Considerations for Runway Orientation

Figure 3.1. Runway and Primary Surface Boundaries

Figure 3.2. Runway and Primary Surface Transverse Sections

3.8. Runway Designation

3.9. Runway Dimensions

3.10. Shoulders

3.11. Runway Overruns

Table 3.3. Overruns

Figure 3.3. Runway and Overrun Longitudinal Profile

3.12. Runway Clear Zones

Table 3.4. Clear Zone

Figure 3.4. Clear Zone Transverse Section Detail

Figure 3.5. Class B Runway Primary Surface End and Clear Zone Details

Figure 3.6. Class B IFR Runway End and Clear Zone Details

3.13. Accident Potential Zones (APZs)

Table 3.5. Accident Potential Zone (APZ)

Figure 3.7. USAFE APZ

3.14. Airspace Imaginary Surfaces:

Table 3.6. Air Space Imaginary Surfaces

Figure 3.8. Class B IFR Runway Plan and Profile Airspace Imaginary Surfaces

Figure 3.9. Class B IFR Runway Airspace Imaginary Surfaces

Figure 3.10. USAFE IFR Obstacle Limitation Surfaces

4 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

Figure 3.11. Balked Landing Zone (LZ)

3.15. Obstructions to Air Navigation

Table 3.7. Imaginary surfaces Minimum Clearances over Highway, Railroad, Waterway and

Trees

Figure 3.12. Trees Near the Airfield

3.16. USAFE PAs

Figure 3.13. USAFE Airfield Clearance Surfaces (Example)

3.17. Aircraft Arresting Systems

Chapter 4—ROTARY WING RUNWAYS, HELIPADS, LANDING LANES AND

HOVERPOINTS 51

4.1. Criteria for Rotary Wing Runways, Helipads, Landing Lanes, and Hoverpoints in

United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) shall follow the criteria of Chapter

4 of the UFC 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design, with the following variations:

Chapter 5—TAXIWAYS 52

5.1. Contents

5.2. Taxiway Requirements

5.3. Taxiway Systems

Figure 5.1. Common Taxiway Designations

Figure 5.2. Spacing Requirements - Normal Taxiway Turnoffs

5.4. Fixed-Wing Taxiway Dimensions

Table 5.1. presents the criteria for fixed-wing taxiway design, including clearances, slopes and grading dimensions

Table 5.1. Fixed-Wing Taxiways

Figure 5.3. Taxiway and Primary Surface Transverse Sections

5.5. Rotary-Wing Taxiway Dimensions

5.6. Taxiways at Dual Use (Fixed- and Rotary-Wing) Airfields:

5.7. Taxiway Intersection Criteria

Table 5.2. Rotary-wing Taxiways

Table 5.3. Rotary-wing Taxiway Shoulders

Table 5.4. Runway/Taxiway Intersection Fillet Radii

Table 5.5. Taxiway/Taxiway Intersection and Taxiway Turns Fillet Radii

Figure 5.4. Runway/Taxiway Intersection Fillets

Figure 5.5. Taxiway/Taxiway Intersection Fillets

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 5

5.8. High-Speed Taxiway Criteria

5.9. Apron Access Taxiways

5.10. Shoulders

5.11. Towways

Table 5.6. Towways

Figure 5.6. Towway Criteria

5.12. Hangar Access

5.13. Taxitracks

Table 5.7. Taxitracks

5.14. Parallel Taxiway/Emergency Runway

Table 5.8. Parallel Taxiways Emergency Runways

Figure 5.7. Parallel Taxiway Emergency Runway Imaginary Surfaces

Figure 5.8. Parallel Taxiway Emergency Runway Clear Zone Details

Chapter 6—APRONS AND OTHER PAVEMENTS 75

6.1. Contents

6.2. Apron Requirements

6.3. Types of Aprons and Other Pavements

6.4. Aircraft Characteristics (U

6.5. Parking Apron for Fixed-Wing Aircraft

Figure 6.1. Apron Nomenclature and Criteria

Figure 6.2. Truck Refueling Safety Zone (RSZ) Example

Table 6.1. Fixed-Wing Aprons

Figure 6.3. Typical Parking Plan

Figure 6.4. Apron with Diagonal Parking

6.6. Taxiing Characteristics on Aprons for Fixed-Wing Aircraft

6.7. Parking Apron for Rotary-Wing Aircraft

Figure 6.5. Type 1 Parking for All Rotary Wing Aircraft Except CH-47

Figure 6.6. Type 1 Parking for CH-47

Figure 6.7. Type 2 Parking for Skid Rotary Wing Aircraft

Figure 6.8. Type 2 Parking for Wheeled Rotary Wing Aircraft

Figure 6.9. CV-22 Apron Clearance Requirements

6.8. Warm-Up Pads

Figure 6.10. Warm-Up Pad at End of Parallel Taxiway

6 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

Figure 6.11. Warm-Up Pad Next to Parallel Taxiway

Figure 6.12. Warm-Up Pad Located in Clear Zone

Figure 6.13. Warm-Up Pad Located in Approach or Departure Clearance Surface

Figure 6.14. Warm-Up Pad Localizer Critical Area

Figure 6.15. Air Force Warm-Up Pad Glide Slope Critical Area

Figure 6.16. Warm-Up Pad CAT II ILS Critical Area

Figure 6.17. Warm-Up Pad Taxiing and Wingtip Clearance Requirements

6.9. Power Check Pad

Figure 6.18. Geometry for Rectangular Power Check Pad

Figure 6.19. Geometry for Square Power Check Pad

Figure 6.20. Geometry for Circular Power Check Pad

6.10. Arm/Disarm Pads

Figure 6.21. Arm/Disarm Pad for F-15 Fighter

Figure 6.22. Arm/Disarm Pad for F-16 Fighter

Figure 6.23. Arm/Disarm Pad for F-4 Fighter

Figure 6.24. Arm/Disarm Pad for F-22 Fighter

6.11. Compass Calibration Pad (CCP)

Figure 6.25. Compass Calibration Pad (CCP)

6.12. Hazardous Cargo Pads

Figure 6.26. Typical Hazardous Cargo Pad

6.13. Alert Pad

Table 6.2. Minimum Separation Distance on Bomber Alert Aprons from the Centerline of a

Through Taxilane to a Parked Aircraft

Figure 6.27. Typical Alert Apron for Bombers and Tanker Aircraft

Figure 6.28. Typical Alert Pad for Fighter Aircraft

Figure 6.29. Alert Apron Taxi-In Taxi-Out Parking

Figure 6.30. Alert Apron Back-In Parking

6.14. Aircraft Wash Racks

6.15. Hangar Access Aprons

Table 6.3. Hangar Access Apron

6.16. Taxiing Characteristics on Aprons for Rotary-Wing Aircraft

6.17. Fixed-Wing and Rotary-Wing Grading Standards

6.18. Shoulders

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 7

6.19. Miscellaneous Apron Design Considerations

Chapter 7—SHORTFIELDS AND TRAINING ASSAULT LANDING ZONES (LZ) 124

7.1. Criteria for shortfields and training assault LZs in the United States Air Forces in

Europe (USAFE) shall follow the criteria of Chapter 7 of the UFC 3-260-01, Airport and Heliport Planning and Design, and Engineering Technical Letter

(ETL) 09-6, C-130 and C-17 Landing Zone (LZ) Dimensional, Marking, and

Lighting Criteria

Chapter 8—AIRCRAFT HANGAR PAVEMENTS 125

8.1. Criteria for aircraft hangar pavements in the United States Air Forces in Europe

(USAFE) shall follow the criteria of Chapter 8 of the UFC 3-260-01, Airport and

Heliport Planning and Design

Attachment 1—GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 126

Attachment 2—UNITED STATES AIR FORCES IN EUROPE (USAFE) AIRFIELD AND

AIRSPACE WAIVER PROGRAM 145

Attachment 3—RISK MANAGEMENT (RM) FOR AIRFIELD OBSTRUCTIONS AND

WAIVER REQUESTS 158

Attachment 4—LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR CLEAR ZONE AND

USAFE PRIORITY AREAS (PAS) 168

Attachment 5—CIVIL ENGINEER’S (CE) ROLE IN THE AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEM

EVALUATION PROGRAM (ATSEP) 173

Attachment 6—AIRFIELD CRITERIA AND WAIVER PROCESSING PROCEDURES

FOR GERMAN MAIN OPERATING BASES (MOBS) 177

8 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

Chapter 1

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1.1. Purpose. This instruction provides standardized airfield, heliport, and airspace criteria for the geometric layout, design, and construction of runways, helipads, taxiways, aprons, and related permanent facilities to meet sustained operations.

1.2. Scope. This instruction prescribes dimensional and geometric layout criteria for safe standards for airfields, landing zones (LZ), heliports and helipads, related permanent facilities, as well as the navigational airspace surrounding these facilities. Criteria in this instruction, which are a compilation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO), and Department of Defense (DoD) Unified Facility Code (UFC) 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design criteria, pertain to United States Air Forces in Europe

(USAFE) airfields within the European Command (EUCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR).

Criteria within this instruction should be applied to the maximum extent practicable. If a written agreement exists between a host nation and DoD that requires application of other standards, those standards shall apply. Procedures for pavement structural design and pavement marking and lighting are beyond the scope of this instruction.

1.2.1. USAFE Host Nation Agreement Policy. If a USAFE airfield follows a host nation agreement that stipulates standards other than standards in this instruction, the installation shall maintain official and written documentation of that agreement. Written agreements shall be furnished to USAFE/A7 upon request. Failure to produce written documented proof of criteria in violation of these standards shall result in non-compliance of that airfield for each standard within this instruction that is not met.

1.2.2. Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS or PANSOPS). In addition to a local

Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) review, modifications to existing facilities, temporary construction, airfield surface modifications, maintenance or construction requiring equipment on or near the airfield flying environment, and construction of new facilities must be closely coordinated with Air Operations Command and Control (HQ USAFE/A3Y) to determine the impact to existing and planned instrument approach and departure procedures.

The criteria in this instruction do not address instrument flight procedures. TERPS evaluations and processes are described in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 11-230, Instrument

Procedures; Air Force Manual (AFMAN) (I) 11-226, United States Standard for Terminal

Instrument Procedures (TERPS). TERPS criteria shall be considered when designing or modifying airfields and facilities on airfields that are used under Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR). For main operating bases (MOBs) in Germany, a PANSOPS review by host nation air forces Amt für Flugsicherung der Bundeswehr (AFSBw) is required for new construction of facilities that might impact the Air Traffic Act Permit (ATAP).

1.2.3. Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Modifications to existing facilities and construction of new facilities must consider navigable airspace and may require coordination with host nation civil, military or construction authorities. The criteria for determining obstructions to navigable airspace have been identified in this instruction. The designer must consult this instruction during the design process to identify obstructions to airspace.

Designers will coordinate with the airfield manager (AFM) and safety officer, and then host

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 9

nation civil, military or construction authorities, as required. If the criteria in this instruction are more stringent than host nation criteria, this instruction should be used to the maximum extent practical.

1.2.4. Navigational Aids (NAVAIDS) and Lighting. Navigational Aids (NAVAIDS) and airfield lighting are integral parts of an airfield and must be considered in the planning and design of airfields and heliports. NAVAID location, airfield lighting, and the grading requirements of a NAVAID must be considered when locating and designing runways, taxiways, aprons and other airfield facilities. Refer to UFC 3-260-01, Table B16-1 in

Appendix B Section 16, Navigation Aids Design and Support, for a list of design documents governing NAVAIDS and lighting and the agency where siting and design information can be obtained.

1.2.5. Vertical/Short Take-off and Landing (V-STOL) Aircraft (V-22 Osprey). At shore establishments, the V-22 will be considered a fixed-wing aircraft, and the runway planned according to critical field length. If operational requirements allow for reduced loads and a vertical takeoff pad is desired, contact the appropriate agency aviation office that can provide airfield safety waivers. V-22 apron requirements are provided in Chapter 6. Information on the V-22 aircraft may be obtained by contacting:

NAVFAC Atlantic Lc Eng COMNAVAIRSYSCOM

6506 Hampton Blvd OR 22145 Arnold Circle

Norfolk, VA 23508- 1278 Building 404, Suite 101

Patuxent River, MD 20670-1541

1.3. References. Attachment 1, Glossary of References and Supporting Information contains a list of documents referenced in this instruction.

1.4. Application of Criteria:

1.4.1. Existing Facilities. The criteria in this instruction are not intended to apply to existing facilities located or constructed under previous standards. This includes cases where runways may lack paved shoulders or other physical features because they were not previously required or authorized. Existing airfield facilities need not be modified or upgraded to conform to the criteria in this instruction if these facilities meet current mission requirements. If a change in mission necessitates reconstruction, an upgrade to current standards shall be accomplished where practical. Once a facility has reached the end of its useful life, it will not be renovated. The facility must be replaced with a facility that meets the requirements in this instruction. Upgraded facilities must be maintained at a level that will sustain compliance with current standards.

1.4.2. Modification of Existing Facilities. When existing airfield facilities are modified, construction must conform to the criteria established in this instruction unless waived in accordance with paragraph 1.6. Modified portions of facilities must be maintained at a level that will sustain compliance with current standards. Modification of an existing facility, which alters the exterior dimensions of a facility, must be coordinated with Logistics, Installations and Mission Support Directorate, Programs Division (HQ USAFE/A7P) to determine if an airfield waiver is required. For additional requirements, see Attachment 2, 10 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) Airfield and Airspace Waiver Program, paragraph A2.1.

1.4.3. New Construction. The criteria established within this instruction apply to all new facility construction unless the appropriate waivers are obtained, as outlined in Attachment

2. New facilities must be maintained at a level that will sustain compliance with current standards.

1.4.4. Metric Application. Geometric design criteria established in this instruction are expressed in the International System of Units (SI) units. These metric values are based upon aircraft specific requirements rather than direct conversion and rounding. This results in apparent inconsistencies between metric and inch-pound (English) dimensions. For example, 150-foot-wide runways are shown as 46 meters (m), 150-foot-wide aircraft wash racks are shown as 45 m. Runways need the extra meter in width for aircraft operational purposes;

wash racks do not. SI dimensions apply to new airfield facilities, and where practical, to modification of existing airfield facilities, unless waived in accordance with paragraph 1.6.

Inch-pound measurements are included in the tables and figures in this instruction only to permit reference to the previous standards. To avoid changes to existing airfield obstruction maps and compromises to flight safety, airfield and heliport imaginary surfaces and safe wingtip clearance dimensions are shown as a direct conversion from inch-pound to SI units.

1.5. Integration of Security Measures into Design. Protective features such as barriers, fences, lighting, access control, intrusion detection and assessment must be integrated into the airfield planning and design process to minimize problems with aircraft operations and safety requirements. The protective measures should be included in the design based on risk and threat analysis, and should comply with security-related requirements. Detailed discussion of security-related requirements, such as Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection, is beyond the scope of this instruction. Designers should refer to the applicable security regulations in Table 1.1. for planning and design guidance.

1.6. Waivers to Criteria. Waivers to the criteria contained in this instruction will be processed in accordance with Attachment 2. If a waiver affects instrument approach and departure procedures as defined in TERPS (AFMAN (I) 11-226) or PANSOPS, the DoD Service component processing the waiver must also coordinate its action with the applicable

TERPS/PANSOPS approving authority. PANSOPS applies to German MOBs only. Approval authority for PANSOPS review is AFSBw.

1.7. Notice of Construction. Notify your host nation, NATO or ICAO construction authority so an assessment of impact to civil aviation may be performed. For German MOBs, this authority is AFSBw.

1.8. Zoning. Existing facilities should be modified, and new facilities should be sited and constructed in a manner that is compatible with flight operations as defined in Department of

Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4165.57, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program.

1.9. Construction Phasing Plan. A construction phasing plan, as discussed in UFC 3-260-01, Appendix B, Section 14, Construction Phasing Plan and Operational Safety on Airfields During

Construction, shall be included in the contract documents. This is a mandatory requirement whether work will be accomplished by contract or in-house (see UFC 3-260-01, Section 14).

Also see the procedures for obtaining temporary waivers for construction in Attachment 2.

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 11

1.10. Associated Design Manuals. The planning and design of airfields and heliports is intricate and may require additional criteria, such as pavement design and pavement marking, not addressed in this instruction. Additional manuals, which the designer/planner may need to consult, are listed in Table 1.1.

1.11. Use of Terms. The following terms, when used in this instruction, indicate the specific requirements:

Will, Shall or Must – A mandatory and required action.

Should – A recommended, advisory or desirable action.

May or Can – A permissible action.

Table 1.1. Associated Design Manuals and Regulations.

Pavement Design, General

USAF UFC 3-260-02, Pavement Design for Airfields

FAA AC 150/5320-6E, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation

Rigid Pavement Design

USAF UFC 3-260-02, Pavement Design for Airfields

FAA AC 150/5320-6E, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation

Flexible Pavement Design

USAF UFC 3-260-02, Pavement Design for Airfields

FAA AC 150/5320-6E, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation

Subsurface Drainage

USAF UFC 3-230-06A, Subsurface Drainage

FAA AC 150/5320-5C, Surface Drainage Design

ICAO ICAO Annex 14, Vol 1, Aerodrome Design and Operations

Airfield Lighting

USAF UFC 3-535-01, Visual Air Navigation Facilities

USAF

ETL 09-12, Use of Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Fixtures in Airfield Lighting

Systems on Air Force Installations and Expeditionary Locations

FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design

NATO

BI-MNCD 85-5, NATO Approved Criteria and Standards for Airfields

STANAG 3316, Edition 10 , Airfield Lighting

ICAO ICAO Annex 14, Vol 1, Aerodrome Design and Operations

Explosives

USAF AFMAN 91-201, Explosive Safety Standards

Pavement & Obstruction Marking

12 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

USAF

AFI 32-1042, Standards for Marking Airfields

ETL 04-2, Standard Airfield Pavement Marking Schemes

FAA AC 150/5340-1J, Standards for Airport Markings

ICAO ICAO Annex 14, Vol 1, Aerodrome Design and Operations

NATO

STANAG 3158, Edition 8, Day Marking of Airfield, Runways, and Taxiways

STANAG 3346, Marking and Lighting of Airfield Obstructions, Edition 6

Subsurface Drainage

USAF UFC 3-230-06A, Subsurface Drainage

FAA AC 150/5320-5C, Surface Drainage Design

ICAO ICAO Annex 14, Vol 1, Aerodrome Design and Operations

Surface Drainage and Erosion Control Structures

USAF AC 150/5320-5C, Surface Drainage Design

Theater of Operations

USAF

USAF ETL 97-9, Criteria and Guidance for C-17 Contingency Operations on Semi-

Prepared Airfields

USAF ETL 09-6, C-130 and C-17 Landing Zone (LZ) Dimensional, Marking, and

Lighting Criteria

Area Lighting

FAA IESNA Lighting Handbook, Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

Security

USAF

AFI 31-101, The Air Force Installation Security Program

OPNAVINST 5513.14B, Physical Security and Loss Prevention

MIL HDBK 1013/1, Design Guidelines for Physical Security of Facilities

MIL HDBK 1013/10, Design Guidelines for Security Fencing, Gates, Barriers and

Guard Facilities

(U)AR 50-51, Nuclear Weapons Security (Confidential)

AR 190-11, Physical Security of Arms, Ammunition and Explosives

AR 190-51, Security of Unclassified Army Property (Sensitive and Nonsensitive)

DA PAM 190-51, Risk Analysis for Army Property

EUCOM OP ORD 01-01, Physical Security

Airbase Planning

USAF

Base Comprehensive Planning Handbook, Planning Airbases for Combat

Effectiveness, Headquarters Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment

(HQ AFCEE) December 1993

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 13

Chapter 2

AVIATION FACILITIES PLANNING

2.1. Applicability. Aviation facilities planning in United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) shall follow the criteria of Chapter 2 of the UFC 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and

Design, with the following variations:

2.1.1. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Programs. AICUZ programs are only required within base boundaries of USAFE installations. Lands outside of the installation boundary are exempt from AICUZ.

2.1.2. Accident Potential Zones (APZ). APZ do not apply in USAFE when they extend outside of the installation boundary.

2.1.3. Environmental Studies. Section 2-4.3 of the UFC 3-260-01 does not apply. At

USAFE installations, environmental studies are conducted in accordance with Air Force

Instruction (AFI) 32-7061, The Environmental Impact Analysis Process, and USAFE

Supplement 1 to AFI 32-7061.

14 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

Chapter 3

RUNWAYS (FIXED-WING) AND IMAGINARY SURFACES

3.1. Contents. This chapter presents design standards and considerations for fixed-wing runways and associated imaginary surfaces.

3.2. Requirements. The landing and take-off design considerations for an airfield include mission requirements, expected type and volume of air traffic, traffic patterns such as the arrangement of multidirectional approaches and takeoffs, ultimate runway length, runway orientation required by local wind conditions, local terrain, restrictions due to airspace obstacles or surrounding community, noise impact and aircraft accident potential.

3.3. Runway Classification. Runways are classified as either Class A or Class B, based on aircraft type as shown in Table 3.1. This table uses the same runway classification system established by the office of the Secretary of Defense as a means of defining accident potential zones (APZ) for the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program. These runway classes are not to be confused with aircraft approach categories and aircraft wingspan in other

Department of Defense (DoD), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), North Atlantic

Treaty Organization (NATO), or Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) documents, aircraft weight classifications or pavement traffic areas. The aircraft listed provide examples of aircraft that fall into these classifications and may not be all-inclusive.

3.3.1. Class A Runways. Class A runways are primarily intended for small light aircraft.

These runways do not have the potential or foreseeable requirement for development use by high-performance and large heavy aircraft. Ordinarily, these runways are less than 2,440 meter (m) (8,000 ft) long and have less than 10 percent of their operations that involve aircraft in the Class B category. However, this is not intended to limit the number of C-130 and C-17 operations conducted on any Class A airfield.

3.3.2. Class B Runways. Class B runways are primarily intended for high performance and large heavy aircraft, as shown in Table 3.1.

3.3.3. Rotary-Wing and Vertical/Short Take-off and Landing (V-STOL) Aircraft.

Runways for Rotary-wing and V-STOL (V-22) aircraft are not addressed in this chapter.

Design standards and considerations for rotary-wing aircraft runways and landing lanes are found in Chapter 4 of the UFC 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design.

Information on the design standards and considerations for the V-STOL aircraft may be obtained from:

NAVFAC Atlantic Cl Eng

6506 Hampton Blvd

Norfolk, VA 23508-1278

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 15

Table 3.1. Runway Classification by Aircraft Type.

Class A Runways Class B Runways

C-1 OV-1 A-4 E-3 RQ-1

C-2 OV-10 A-6 E-4 S-3

C-12 T-3 EA-6B E-6 SR-71

C-20 T-28 A-10 E-8 T-1

C-21 T-34 AV-8 R/F-4 T-2

C-22 T-41 B-1 F-5 T-6

C-23 T-44 B-2 F-14 T-37

C-26 U-21 B-52 F-15 T-38

C-32 UV-18 C-5 F-16 T-39

C-37 V-22 C-9 F/A-18 T-42

C-38 DASH-7 KC-10 F-22 T-43

E-1 DASH-8 C-17 FB-111 T-45

E-2 C-130 F-117 TR-1

C-135 JSF (F-35) U-2

C-137 P-3 VC-25

C-141

Notes:

1. Only symbols for basic-mission aircraft or basic mission aircraft plus type are used. Designations represent entire series. Runway classes in this table are not related to aircraft approach categories, aircraft weight, aircraft wingspan or to pavement design classes or types.

2. These are examples of aircraft, which fall into these classifications and may not be all-inclusive.

3. Rotary aircraft are not addressed in this table.

4. V-22 aircraft is a rotary aircraft, which operates as a rotary-wing aircraft on a Class A runway and operated as either fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft on taxiways associated with Class A runways.

5. For unmanned aircraft refer to Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 09-

1: Airfield Planning and Design Criteria for Unmanned Aircraft Systems

(UAS)

3.4. Short Fields and Training Assault Landing Zones (LZ). Short Fields and Training

Assault LZs are special use fields. Design criteria are found in AF Engineering Technical Letter

(ETL) 09-6, C-130 and C-17 Landing Zone (LZ) Dimensional, Marking, and Lighting Criteria, and Chapter 7 of the UFC 3-260-01.

3.5. Runway Systems. Runway systems are selected based on local wind patterns and mission needs.

3.5.1. Single Runway. A single runway is the least flexible and lowest-capacity system.

The capacity of a single runway system will vary from approximately 40 to 50 operations per

16 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

hour under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions, up to 75 operations per hour under

VFR conditions.

3.5.2. Parallel Runways. Parallel runways are the most commonly used system for increased capacity. In some cases, parallel runways may be staggered with the runway ends offset from each other and with terminal or service facilities located between the runways.

When parallel runways are separated by less than the distance shown in Item 15 of Table 3.2, the second runway will increase capacity at the airfield under VFR conditions, but due to the close distance, capacity at the airfield will not be increased under IFR conditions.

3.5.3. Crosswind Runways. Crosswind runways may be either the open-V or the intersecting type of runway. The crosswind system is adaptable to a wider variety of wind conditions than the parallel system. When winds are calm, both runways may be used simultaneously. An open-V system has a greater capacity than the intersecting system.

3.6. Runway Orientation and Wind Data. Runway orientation is the key to a safe, efficient and usable aviation facility. Orientation shall be based on an analysis of wind data, terrain, local development, operational procedures and other pertinent data. Procedures for analysis of wind data to determine runway orientation are further discussed in UFC 3-260-01, Appendix B, Section 4, Wind Coverage Studies.

Table 3.2. Runways.

Item

No.

Item

Description

Class A

Runway

Class B

Runway

Remarks Requirement

1 Length See

Remarks

See

Remarks

New or substantially modified runway length will be determined by the

Headquarters of the United States Air

Forces in Europe (HQ USAFE) for the most critical aircraft in support of the mission.

2 Width 30 m (100 ft)

46 m (150 ft) Airfields, not otherwise specified.

N/A 90 m (300 ft) B-52 aircraft. Air Force Instruction (AFI)

11-202 V3, General Flight Rules, allows B-

52 aircraft to routinely operate on 60 m

(200 ft) wide runways.

3 Total width of shoulders (paved and unpaved)

15 m (50 ft) 60 m (200 ft) 7.5m (Class A) or 30-m (100-ft) wide

(Class B) anti-foreign object damage

(FOD) shoulder is required for each side of the runway. At minimum, a 3-m (10-ft) wide shoulder must be load bearing.

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 17

4 Paved load bearing shoulder width

7.5 m (25 ft) 7.5 m (25 ft) For AF funded projects. NATO funded projects require a 3 m (10 ft) wide load bearing shoulder.

N/A 3 m (10 ft) Airfields designed for Trainer, Fighter and

B-52 aircraft. This assumes a 90 m (300 ft) wide runway; otherwise use 7.5 m (25 ft).

5 Longitudinal grades of runway and shoulders

Max 1.0% Grades may be both positive and negative but must not exceed the limit specified.

6 Longitudinal runway grade changes

No grade change is to occur less than 300 m

(1,000 ft) from the runway end

No grade change is to occur less than 900 m

(3,000 ft) from the runway end

Where economically feasible, the runway will have a constant centerline gradient from end to end. Where terrain dictates the need for centerline grade changes, the distance between two successive points of intersection (PI) will be not less than 300 m

(1,000 ft) and two successive distances between PIs will not be the same. Note:

slope change between two consecutive slopes should not exceed 1.5%.

7 Rate of longitudinal runway grade changes

Max 0.1% per

30 linear meters

(100 linear ft) of runway

Maximum rate of longitudinal grade change is produced by vertical curves having 180 m (600 ft) lengths for each percent of algebraic difference between the two grades.

8 Longitudinal sight distance

Min 1,500 m (5,000 ft) for runways 3,000 m (10,000

ft) and shorter

Any two points 2.4 m (8 ft) above the pavement must be mutually visible (visible by each other) for the distance indicated.

For runways shorter than 1,500 m (5,000 ft), height above runway will be reduced proportionally.

Min half the length of the runway for runways longer than 3,000 m (10,000 ft)

Any two points 3 m (10 ft) above the pavement must be mutually visible (visible by each other) for the distance indicated.

9 Transverse grade of runway

Min 1.0%

Max 1.5%

New runway pavements will be centerline crowned. Existing runway pavements with insufficient transverse gradients for rapid drainage should provide increasing gradients when overlaid or reconstructed.

18 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

Slope pavement downwards from centerline of runway.

1.5% slope is optimum transverse grade of runway.

Selected transverse grade is to remain constant for length and width of runway, except at or adjacent to runway intersections where pavement surfaces must be warped to match abutting pavements.

10 Transverse grade of paved shoulder

2% Min

2.5% Max

Paved portion of shoulder.

Shoulder should be flush with runway surface and slope downward from runway.

11 Transverse grade of unpaved shoulder

(a) 40-mm (1.5-in) drop-off at edge of paved shoulder, +/- 13 mm (0.5 in)

(b) 2% Min, 4% Max.

Unpaved Portion of Shoulder.

Slope downward from shoulder pavement.

For additional information, see Figure 3.2.

12 Runway lateral clearance zone

150 m (492 ft)

The runway lateral clearance zone’s lateral limits coincide with the limits of the primary surface (See Figure 3.1). The ends of the lateral clearance zone coincide with the runway ends. The ground surface within this area must be clear of fixed or mobile objects and graded to the requirements of Table 3.2., Items 13 and

14.

Measure the zone width perpendicularly from the centerline of the runway and begins at the runway centerline.

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 19

(1) Fixed obstacles include manmade or natural features such as buildings, trees, rocks, terrain irregularities and any other features constituting possible hazards to moving aircraft. Navigational aids

(NAVAIDS) and meteorological equipment will be sited within these clearances where essential for their proper functioning. This area needs to be clear of all obstacles except for the permissible deviations noted in UFC 3-260-01, Appendix B, Section 13, Deviation from Criteria for Air Force

Airfield Support Facilities, provided they are correctly sited.

(2) Mobile obstacles include parked aircraft, parked and moving vehicles, railroad cars and similar equipment.

Taxiing aircraft, emergency vehicles and authorized maintenance vehicles are exempt from this restriction.

(3) The centerline of a parallel taxiway, including parallel taxiways used as emergency runways, may be located at the lateral clearance distance (thus allowing a portion of the taxiway pavement to be within the primary surface). Ideally parallel taxiways (exclusive of shoulder width) will be located beyond the lateral clearance distances (primary surface). This distance also applies to Alternate Launch

Recovery Surface (ALRS) or Emergency

Landing Surface (ELS). See Chapter 5.

(4) For Class A runways above ground drainage structures, including head walls, are not permitted within 76.2 m (250 ft) of the runway edge. For Class B runways above ground drainage structures, including head walls are not permitted within 114.3 m (375 ft) of the runway centerline.

Drainage slopes of up to a 10 to 1 ratio are permitted for all runway classes, but swales with more gentle slopes are preferred.

20 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

(5) Distance from runway centerline to helipads is discussed in Table 3.2, Item 15.

Additional reference can be found in

Chapter 4 of UFC 3-260-01.

13 Longitudinal grades within runway lateral clearance zone

Max 1.5% Exclusive of pavement, shoulders and cover over drainage structures.

Slopes are to be as gradual as practicable.

Avoid abrupt changes or sudden reversals.

Rough grade and construct clearance zones to the extent necessary to minimize damage to aircraft in the event of an aircraft running off the runway.

14 Transverse grades within runway lateral clearance zone

(in direction of surface drainage)

Min 2%, Max 5% for first

3 m (10 ft)

Max 2.5% beyond 3 m (10 ft)

Exclusive of pavement, shoulders and cover over drainage structures.

Slopes are to be as gradual as practicable.

Avoid abrupt changes or sudden reversals.

Rough grade and construct clearance zones to the extent necessary to minimize damage to aircraft in the event of an aircraft running off the runway.

15 Distance between centerlines of parallel runways

210 m (689 ft) VFR without intervening parallel taxiway between the parallel runways. One of the parallel runways must be a VFR only runway.

915 m (3,000 ft) VFR with intervening parallel taxiway.

760 m (2,493 ft) IFR using simultaneous operation (Depart-

Depart) (Depart-Arrival).

1035 m (3,396 ft) IFR using simultaneous approaches.

For separation distance between fixed wing runways and rotary wing facilities, see

Table 4.1 of UFC 3-260-01.

16 Distance between centerlines of runway and parallel taxiway

/emergency runway

190 m (623 ft) NATO Alternate Launch Recovery Surface

(ALRS) clearances.

USAFE Parallel Taxiway/Emergency

Runway

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 21

17 Width of USAF

Mandatory Zone of Frangibility

300 m (1,000 ft) Centered on the runway centerline. 150 m

(500 ft) on each side of centerline. Items sited within this area must be frangible except those noted in UFC 3-260-01, Appendix B, Section 13.

18 Length of USAF

Mandatory Zone of Frangibility

Length is equal to the length of the Clear Zone

(see Table 3.4. Items 1A and 1B)

Extending outward from the runway threshold. All items sited within this area to the ends of the Clear Zone must be frangible.

NOTES:

1. Geometric design criteria in this instruction are based on aircraft-specific requirements and are not direct conversions from inch-pound (English) dimensions. Inch-pound units are included only to permit reference to the previous standard.

2. Airfield and heliport imaginary surfaces and safe wingtip clearance dimensions are direct conversions from inch-pound to SI units.

3. Metric units apply to new airfield construction and where practical, to modifications to existing airfields and heliports, as discussed in paragraph 1.4.4.

3.7. Additional Considerations for Runway Orientation. In addition to meteorological and wind conditions, the following factors must be considered:

3.7.1. Obstructions. A specific airfield site and the proposed runway orientation must be known before a detailed survey can be made of obstructions, which affect aircraft operations.

Runways should be so oriented that approaches necessary for the ultimate development of the airfield are free of all obstructions.

22 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

Figure 3.1. Runway and Primary Surface Boundaries.

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 23

Figure 3.2. Runway and Primary Surface Transverse .

3.7.2. Restricted Airspace. Airspace through which aircraft operations are restricted, and possibly prohibited, are shown on sectional and local aeronautical charts. Runways should be so oriented that their approach and departure patterns do not encroach on the restricted areas.

3.7.3. Built-Up Areas. Airfield sites and runway alignment will be selected and the operational procedures adopted which will least impact local inhabitants. Additional guidance for facilities is found in DoD Instruction 4165.57, Air Installation Compatible Use

Zone (AICUZ).

3.7.4. Neighboring Airports. Existing aircraft traffic patterns of airfields in the area may affect runway alignment.

3.7.5. Topography. Avoid sites which require excessive cuts and fills. Evaluate the effects of topographical features on: airspace zones, grading, drainage and possible future runway extensions.

24 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

3.7.6. Soil Conditions. Evaluate soil conditions at potential sites to minimize settlement problems, heaving from highly expansive soils, high groundwater problems and construction costs.

3.7.7. Noise Analysis. Noise analyses should be conducted to determine noise impacts to local communities and identify noise sensitive areas.

3.8. Runway Designation. Runways are identified by the whole number nearest one-tenth

(1/10) the magnetic azimuth of the runway centerline. The magnetic azimuth of the runway centerline is measured clockwise from magnetic north when viewed from the direction of approach. For example, where the magnetic azimuth is 183 degrees, the runway designation marking would be 18; and for a magnetic azimuth of 117 degrees, the runway designation marking would be 12. For a magnetic azimuth ending in the number 5, such as 185 degrees, the runway designation marking can be either 18 or 19. Supplemental letters, where required for differentiation of parallel runways, are placed between the designation numbers and the threshold or threshold marking. For parallel runways, the supplemental letter is based on the runway location, left-to-right, when viewed from the direction of approach: for two parallel runways - ―L‖, ―R‖; for three parallel runways – ―L,‖ ―C,‖ and ―R.‖

3.9. Runway Dimensions. The following paragraphs and tables present the design criteria for runway dimensions at all aviation facilities except Short Fields and Training Assault LZs.

3.9.1. Runway Dimension Criteria, Except Runway Length. Table 3.2 presents all dimensional criteria, except runway length, for the layout and design of runways used primarily to support fixed-wing aircraft operations.

3.9.2. Runway Length Criteria. HQ USAFE will determine the length of new or substantially modified Class A and Class B runways.

3.9.3. Layout. Typical sections and profiles for runways and the associated airspace surfaces are in Figures 3.1 through 3.11

3.10. Shoulders. Unprotected areas adjacent to runways and overruns are susceptible to erosion caused by jet blast. Shoulders reduce the probability of serious damage to an aircraft to a minimum in the event that the aircraft runs off the runway pavement. The shoulder width, shown in Item 3 of Table 3.2, includes both paved and unpaved shoulders. Paved shoulders are required adjacent to all runways. The minimum paved shoulder width, shown in Table 3.2, allows the runway edge lights to be placed within the paved portion of the shoulder and to reduce foreign object damage (FOD) to aircraft. The unpaved shoulder should be graded to prevent water from ponding on the adjacent paved area (shoulder and runway). The drop-off next to the paved area prevents turf (which may build up over the years) from ponding water. Manholes, hand holes, and drainage structures constructed within these areas should, at a minimum, be designed as provided in this section (NOTE: These requirements do not apply to projects already under design prior to the publication date of this manual). Beyond the shoulders, sub-grade structures are not designed to support aircraft wheel loads. The top surface of foundations, manhole covers, hand hole covers, and frames should be flush with the grade. Maintenance action is required if the drop-off at the top edge of the foundation exceeds 76 millimeters (mm)

(3 inches (in)).

3.10.1. Paved Shoulder Areas.

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 25

3.10.1.1. For structures with their shortest span equal to or less than 0.6 m (2 ft), design based on a wheel load of 34,000 kilograms (kg) (75,000 pounds (lb)) at a contact pressure of 1,724 kilopascals (kPa) (250 lb per square inch (psi)).

3.10.1.2. For structures with their shortest span greater than 0.6 m (2 ft), design based on the maximum number of wheels that can fit onto the span, considering the most critical assigned aircraft operating at its maximum gross weight. In no case, however, should the design be based on computed stress conditions less than those created by a wheel load of

34,000 kg (75,000 lb) at a contact pressure of 1,724 kPa (250 psi).

3.10.2. Unpaved Shoulder Areas.

3.10.2.1. For structures with their shortest span equal to or less than 0.6 m (2 ft), design based on a wheel load of 22,667 kg (50,000 lb) at a contact pressure of 1,724 kPa (250 psi).

3.10.2.2. For structures with their shortest span greater than 0.6 m (2 ft), design based on the maximum number of wheels that can fit onto the span, considering the most critical assigned aircraft operating at its maximum gross weight. In no case, however, should the design be based on computed stress conditions less than those created by a wheel load of

22,667 kg (50,000 lb) at a contact pressure of 1,724 kPa (250 psi).

3.11. Runway Overruns. Runway overruns keep the probability of serious damage to an aircraft to a minimum in the event that the aircraft runs off the runway end during a takeoff or landing, or lands short during a landing. Overruns are required for the landing and takeoff areas.

Table 3.3 shows the dimensional requirements for overruns. Additionally, manholes, hand holes, and drainage structures constructed within this area should, at a minimum, be designed as provided in this section. (NOTE: These requirements do not apply to projects already under design prior to the publication date of this instruction.) The top surface of foundations should be flush with the grade. Sub-grade structures are not designed to support aircraft wheel loads beyond the paved and unpaved areas of the overrun. Maintenance action is required if the drop-off at the top edge of the foundation exceeds 76 mm (3 in).

Table 3.3. Overruns.

Item

No.

Item

Description

Class A

Runway

Class B

Runway

Remarks Requirement

1 Length 60 m

(200 ft) 300 m

(1,000 ft)

Airfields where USAF controls/owns the entire clear zone (USAFE Overrun)

The USAFE overrun dimensions must be applied whenever land is available and the USAF controls/owns the entire clear zone.

26 USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012

Item

No.

Item

Description

Class A

Runway

Class B

Runway

Remarks Requirement

60 m (200 ft) 150 m (492 ft)

Airfields where USAF does not control/own the entire clear zone.

NATO runways equipped with overrun aircraft arresting systems must have an overrun of at least 290 m (950 ft) for minimal cable runout.

For installations with clear zones containing land not under USAF control, the NATO clear zone can be applied. Although, the USAFE overrun shall be applied whenever possible.

2 Total Width of

Overrun

(Paved and

Unpaved)

Sum of runway and shoulder widths

3 Paved Overrun

Width

Same as width of runway Center overrun pavement along the extended runway centerline

4 Unpaved Width of Overrun

Same width as runway shoulder

The outside edges of the overrun equal in width to the runway shoulder, is graded as overrun, but not paved.

5 Longitudinal

Centerline

Grade

Same as last

300 m (1,000

ft) of runway:

Max 1.25%

First 90 m

(300 ft) same as last 900 m

(3,000 ft) of runway.

Remainder:

Max 1.25%

To avoid abrupt changes in grade between the first 90 m (300 ft) and remainder of overrun of a Class B runway, the maximum change of grade is 0.1% per 30 linear meters (100 linear feet). See Figure 3.3.

6 Transverse

Grade

Min 1.0%

Max 1.5%

From centerline of overrun. Transition from the runway and runway shoulder grades to the overrun grades to be made within the first 45 m (150 ft) of overrun.

NOTE: Geometric design criteria in this instruction are based on aircraft-specific requirements and are not direct conversions from inch-pound (English) dimensions. Inch-pound units are included only to permit reference to the previous standard.

3.11.1. The Paved Portion of the Overrun.

USAFEI32-1007 2 OCTOBER 2012 27

3.11.1.1. For structures with their shortest span equal to or less than 0.6 m (2 ft), design based on a wheel load of 34,000 kg (75,000 lb) at a contact pressure of 1,724 kPa (250 psi).

3.11.1.2. For structures with their shortest span greater than 0.6 m (2 ft), design based on the maximum number of wheels that can fit onto the span, considering the most critical assigned aircraft operating at its maximum gross weight. In no case, however, should the design be based on computed stress conditions less than those created by a wheel load of

34,000 kg (75,000 lb) at a contact pressure of 1,724 kPa (250 psi).

3.