TO 2.1 Basis of Design

Classification: Public
TO 2.1
BASIS OF DESIGN
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
HEP21-XX-RP-100-350091
Heathrow Expansion
Task Order 2.1 Basis of Design
DOCUMENT CONTROL
TITLE TO 2.1 Basis of Design
DOCUMENT NUMBER HEP21-XX-RP-100-350091
STATUS For Comment
CLASSIFICATION Internal
AUTHOR Claire Warburton
DATE 19/12/2019
VERSION 1.0
DOCUMENT APPROVAL
Approved by Role Signature Date
Richard Moore Task Order Lead 19/12/2019
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Version Date Author Changes
1.0 19/12/2019 CW First Issue
STAKEHOLDERS
Name Role
© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019
Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Task Order Scope 4

1.1 Introduction 4
1.2 Task Order Scope 4
2. Relevant Design Standards and Regulations 6
3. Design Information 7
3.1 Key Input Data 7
Survey Data 7
Client Requirements 7
Runway requirements 8
Taxiway requirements 10
3.2 Stakeholders 10
3.3 Task Order Interfaces 11
4. Methodology 12
4.2 2D Design Methodology 13
4.3 3D Design Methodology 13
4.4 Pavement Design Methodology 14
4.5 Other Infrastructure Methodology 14
Aircraft De-icing 15
RVPS 15
NAVAIDS 16
5. Departure from Standards 17
6. Risk, Opportunities and Assumptions 18
7. Programme 19
8. Outputs 20

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
1. INTRODUCTION AND TASK ORDER SCOPE
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 This report provides a summary to the basis of design for the Task Order 2.1
scope, which includes the design of runways, including threshold moves on the
existing, taxiways and some airfield support infrastructure.
1.1.2 The task order scope, relevant regulations and input design information are all
summarised within this report for each of the key design components. The report
also outlines the design methodology applied, including coordination with other
task orders and stakeholders, how risk and opportunities have been considered, a
high-level programme and key outputs from the task order design.
1.1.3 This report is a guide for how the Task Order work has previously been
undertaken. It is also a forward-looking report and provides guidance for what
needs to be considered as the airfield design progresses for DCO submission.
1.2 Task Order Scope

1.2.1 This report is relevant to the Task Order 2.1 scope which is summarised in the
following paragraphs.
1.2.2 The Task Order scope has developed since its inception on commencement of the
Integrated Design Team (IDT) in November 2016.
1.2.3 In its simplest form, the overall scope of the Task Order can be summarised as
follows:
• Runways - new north west runway and alterations and enhancements to

existing runways to enable 3-runway operation
• Taxiways and taxilanes – including alterations and enhancement to on-

airport taxiways
• Airfield surface water drainage collection system (slot drains / gullies)
• Aeronautical Ground Lighting (AGL) including approach lighting,

containment and sub-stations
• Airfield services - airfield HV, LV, fuel and communications (minimal in the
runways and taxiways scope)
• Airfield safeguarding, including production and management of Obstacle

Limitation Surface

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
• Co-ordination, locating and safeguarding for navigation aids and systems

(designed by NATS), including civils works
• Airside / landside boundary fence (including crash gates)
• Airside perimeter track
• Blast screens and, where relevant, noise and visual screening that is
located on the airfield
• Emergency Rendezvous Points (RVPs)

1.2.4 Note that the scope does not include airfield flow modelling and simulation – this is
carried out by NATS but with a close interface with the Task Order. All proposed
infrastructure has been developed in close co-operation with the NATS and Future
Heathrow team.

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
2. RELEVANT DESIGN STANDARDS AND

REGULATIONS
2.1.1 The key standards and regulations relevant to the Task Order 2.1 design are as
follows:
• European Aviation Safety Agency Certification Specifications and Guidance

Material for Aerodromes Design, CS-ADR-DSN Issue 4 December 2017
• ICAO Annex 14 Aerodromes Volume I Aerodrome Design and Operations
• ICAO Doc 9157 AN/901 Aerodrome Design Manual Part 1 Runways
• ICAO Doc 9157 AN/901 Aerodrome Design Manual Part 2 Taxiways,

Aprons and Holding Bays
• Heathrow Airfield Planning Asset Standard 10000-XX-DI-XXX-000226
• Heathrow Airside Engineer Design Performance Standard 00000-XX-PR-

XXX-000524

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
3. DESIGN INFORMATION
3.1 Key Input Data

3.1.1 The following sections detail the key input data that was used alongside all the
requirements set out by regulations and standards, including survey data, brief
documents and key client requirements. The below is not an exhaustive list of data
used, however it gives an overview of the baseline information that was available
as the design progressed.
Survey Data
3.1.2 Task Order 2.1 have not been responsible for undertaking any survey work,
however survey data from other task orders and stakeholders has been utilised
within the design.
3.1.3 The primary and most current topographical survey information being used was
supplied by Task Order 7.0 in October 2018. Task Order 8.0 created Civil 3D
compatible surfaces from the data. The resultant models are available on Project
Wise.
3.1.4 For areas not covered by the primary topographical survey, for example the
existing runways, LiDAR survey data has been used. This was provided by Wood
Group (formally Amec Foster Wheeler) in May 2017. This model information is
also available on Project Wise. Additional LiDAR data was completed by Task
Order 7.0 in May 2019, however no 3D surfaces have yet been created from this
data and so it has not been utilised by Task Order 2.1 to date.
3.1.5 Point cloud survey data covering the majority of the expanded airfield footprint has
been provided by Task Order 7.0 and is held on Sharepoint. This data has been
used to supplement work on obstacle assessment, however it has not been used
as an existing surface for tie-in with the design of new ground levels.
3.1.6 Ground Investigation (GI) survey and historical record data has been used by Task
Order 2.1 in the pavement and infrastructure design. The information used
originated from Task Order 7.0 with interpretation and summarising of it provided
by Task Order 7.3 earthworks team
Client Requirements
3.1.7 In addition to requirements outlined within current airfield standards and
regulations, as identified within Section 2, there were a number of client
requirements identified that needed to be accommodated within the airfield design.

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
These requirements formed the client brief, and consisted of a number of

documents including the following:
▪ Airport National Policy Statement
▪ Strategic Brief
▪ Heathrow 2.0
▪ Client Brief
▪ Strategic Requirements and Detailed Requirements
▪ Requirements and Assumptions Register
▪ HAL Employer’s Requirements and Standards.
3.1.8 The key requirements for the above documents are summarised and presented in
a number of reports including the Scheme Development Report and the
Component Options Report. This Basis of Design Report is not being used to list
every single relevant requirement, instead it summarises the key ones that
influenced key components of the design.
3.1.9 The key runway and taxiway requirements are outlined below.
Runway requirements
3.1.10 The following key requirements have influenced the work done on options
development to date. At this point in the design process, these requirements are
necessarily high level but as the process progresses, they will be made more
specific and relevant to a range of stakeholders.
3.1.11 Safety:
▪ The runway will be designed to recognised international standards set down
by EASA and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). All runway
horizontal and vertical geometry will be designed to European standards –
the accepted regulatory standard in the UK - EASA Certification
Specifications and Guidance Material for Aerodromes Design CS-ADR-DSN
Issue 4 December 2017.
▪ Good design practice should be applied to engineer-out any potential issues
or safety risks such as minimising the need to cross active runways or the
operational risk of a runway incursion or excursion.
3.1.12 Minimise impact to local communities:
▪ With the introduction of the north west runway, there will be an associated
change to the modes of operation. To balance the number of arriving aircraft
with the number of departing aircraft in a three-runway airport, one runway
must be dedicated to landing aircraft (L), one to departing aircraft (D) and the
third runway must be used for both landing and departing aircraft in mixed
mode (M). The centre runway cannot be used in M mode when the northern
and southern runways are operational due to the potential aircraft traffic

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
conflicts in the event of a missed approach on the centre runway. By rotating

these three operations around the three runways, four different operating
modes are established. Table 3-1 below shows this. When these four
operating modes are used in both easterly and westerly directions it creates
a suite of eight modes.
Table 3-1 Rotating runway use to produce operating modes
▪ The runway system needs to deliver these multiple operating modes in order
to provide potential for predictable periods of respite from noise for local
communities. The location and length of the runway, touchdown zones and
runway taxiways can all influence the noise and air quality impacts.
3.1.13 Hub Capacity:
▪ To grow Heathrow as a hub airport and enable increased long haul flying to
global economies, three equally capable, full length runways are needed to
accommodate the largest commercial aircraft type, known as Code F, with a
wingspan up to 80m wide. The new runway should have the necessary
length, for both take-off and landing, to allow the three-runway system to
deliver an average minimum rate of 129 movements per hour throughout a
range of challenging operational scenario days, such as tailwind, low
pressure, high temperature and wet runway conditions.
▪ Each runway needs to be operationally independent of the others to enable
the highest hourly throughputs to be delivered.
3.1.14 Resilience:
▪ The runway system needs to deliver the daily flying programme and recover
swiftly from periods of disruption, such as bad weather, poor out-station
performance, equipment breakdowns, unplanned infrastructure maintenance
or future asset renewal works.
3.1.15 Future Proof:
▪ The runway system needs to be flexible and adaptable to future industry
changes. There are potentially many sources of future change such as Single
European Sky ATM Research advancements in operating protocols and the
next generation of aircraft technology and performance.
3.1.16 Low cost of operation:

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
▪ An airfield that enables airlines to operate an optimised schedule for hub

operations and an efficient operation in minimising costs and time is
essential. Delay is the excess time it actually takes both departing and
arriving aircraft to operate compared to the anticipated unimpeded time. For
example, the time spent in airborne holds for arrivals or at the runway holding
point for departures. This is a very significant cost to the airlines today,
estimated at circa £300m per annum.
Taxiway requirements
3.1.17 A new taxiway network is needed to link the north west runway to the rest of the
airport. It will need to meet the following requirements:
▪ There should be no single points of failure on the taxiways network, i.e. there
should be no part of the taxiway system which, if it fails, will stop the entire
system from working;
▪ All taxiway options must work with the proposed eight runway modes on both
easterly and westerly operations in order to offer predictable and reliable
respite from noise;
▪ The taxiway system should not constrain the runway operation. Capacity and
resilience must be optimised whilst providing the best value environmental
and cost solution;
▪ All geometry must be fully compliant to current European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) requirements;
▪ The taxiway system should connect all aprons to all runway ends in all
modes of operation.
3.2 Stakeholders
3.2.1 It was not possible to identify each requirement for the design at the beginning of
the programme and some requirements were developed via engagement with key
stakeholders throughout the design stages. This included input in technical areas
such as navigation aids and airfield flow modelling. For some components it was
possible to develop multiple options that all meet the identified requirements, and it
was stakeholder input that helped identified which option would be more suitable
to fulfil the brief.
3.2.2 The key stakeholders are as follows:
▪ Future Heathrow – provided input with respected to airfield operations and
also provided connection to the airlines and CAA. The airspace team within
Future Heathrow also inputted into some of the design including threshold
moves.
▪ NATS Modelling Team – provided outputs from both TAAM airfield flow
modelling and ATC simulator. Also provided qualitative ATC feedback on the
airfield design options.

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
▪ NATS Navigational Aids Team – provided specific guidance for safeguarding

that was required for navigation aids within the masterplan, including the
glide path and localiser equipment.
▪ Airlines – engagement with airlines was mainly managed via the Future
Heathrow team. The airlines were able to provide feedback on aircraft
performance, which helped test the component design suitability with respect
to the aircraft schedule it needs to accommodate.
▪ CAA – engagement with the CAA was via the Future Heathrow team.
Engagement with the CAA ensured correct interpterion of the regulatory
standards, as well as challenging some current standards to drive a more
efficient final design.
3.3 Task Order Interfaces

3.3.1 As well as engagement with stakeholders, engagement with other task orders also
influenced the design requirements. For example, geometry requirements on the
M25 influenced the possible levels of the airfield above.
3.3.2 The main design interfaces are shown by the schematic below in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1 Key Task Order 2.1 Interfaces
3.3.3 The preferred Task Order 2.1 components, which met all the specified airfield
requirements, were typically tested against interfacing components from other task
orders to ensure that the selected options were compatible. This was undertaken
both at a task order to task order level and within a larger master planning
exercise. This methodology is described further in Section 4 below.

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1.1 The following sections describe the high-level methodology that was applied to the
Task Order 2.1 Scope. This has been spilt into four key elements:
▪ 2D Layout
▪ 3D Layout
▪ Pavement Design
▪ Other – including de-icing pads, RVPS and Navigational Aids.
4.1.2 These sections are not intended to provide a detailed step-by-step methodology,
instead give a general overview of the approach taken for each main design
aspect.
4.1.3 The design work was undertaken using the core design team as shown within
Figure 4-1 below.
Figure 4-1 Task Order 2.1 Team Structure

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
4.2 2D Design Methodology

4.2.1 The 2D airfield layout was initial developed based on key components that were
selected in line with the scheme development manual. These key components
were developed based on airfield standards and regulations.
4.2.2 The 2D airfield layout was then further refined based on a number of different
inputs including the following. These design inputs, including engagement with
stakeholders is discussed in more detail within Section 3:
• Interface with adjacent infrastructure within the masterplan – for example it was
appropriate to adjust the alignment of some taxiways to suit varying terminal and
apron layouts and the location of some Rapid Exit Taxiways, RETS, to suit airfield
openings over the M25 and Covered River Corridor, CRC.
• Input from the modelling team – for example TAAM and ATC simulator modelling
identified areas where taxiway links would be beneficial and how the junctions of
some airfield infrastructure such as RETS would best tie into the taxiway network.
• Input from Future Heathrow including engagement with CAA and airlines – for
example aircraft performance relative to different runway length options, applying
lessons learnt from current airfield complexities to help provide a simpler future
airfield and technical input into airfield features such as openings above road and
river infrastructure.
• Interface with the 3D design. The 3D design is discussed in more detail within
Section 4.3 below. As it was necessary to tie into the existing airfield, sometime the
3D levels dictated how much taxiway would be required between certain key bits of
infrastructure that were restricted by height, such as the CRC, the proposed aprons
which ideally should be flat and the existing airfield. This in turn had some influence
on the viable 2D airfield layout.
4.2.3 The refinement of the 2D design via the above inputs was an iterative process that
was frequently reviewed throughout the design.
4.3 3D Design Methodology

4.3.1 Similar to the 2D, the 3D design methodology was based on developing a high-
level solution and then further refining it as more inputs and clarity from interfacing
aspects became available.
4.3.2 Initially there were multiple 2D options for the airfield still under consideration, and
it would not have been efficient to do a detailed 3D design for all options.

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
4.3.3 The 3D design firstly focused on achieving a cut and fill balance as there is a
general programme aspiration to not import or export large quantities of materials
to or from the site.
4.3.4 Once an overall cut and fill balance was achieved other aspects that impacted the
plate level design were taken into consideration, including locations of existing
landfills and proposed treatment to areas of landfills. For example, as the
earthworks strategy was refined and it was better understood where landfill would
be retained or new landfills created, the proposed platform level was kept high
where possible to suit this.
4.3.5 Close interface and coordination with the earthworks task order has allowed a
refined and efficient plate level design to be developed.
4.3.6 Coordinate was also refined between other areas of infrastructure including the
M25, CRC, rivers corridors and airside and landside road tunnels.
4.4 Pavement Design Methodology

4.4.1 The pavement design complies with the HAL Airfield Pavement Asset Standards
and utilises the Heathrow Pavement Design Program (HPDP) –i.e. the software
specified by HAL for the design and evaluation of airfield pavements at the airport.
The document and program are collectively referred to as the HAL design guide
are a product of the collaboration between Ministry of Defence, Defence
Infrastructure Organisation and Heathrow Airport Ltd which was first published in
2017. They deploy elements of both the previous “BAA Design Guide for Heavy
Aircraft Pavement Loadings” and the Ministry of Defence, Defence Infrastructure
Organisation’s DMG27 “Airfield Pavement Design and Evaluation Guide”.
4.4.2 It was deemed important that the potential pavement design options were
explored, and the envelopes understood at an early stage to support the ongoing
design of the airfield plate level, and therefore the evolving earthworks options and
strategy, as well as informing the cost and construction schedule planning.
4.4.3 A separate pavement report has been produced by the Task Order, Document
number HEP21-XX-RP-100-350012, and this should be referred to for further
detail regarding the pavement design.
4.5 Other Infrastructure Methodology

4.5.1 The following sections provide a short summary of other design methodologies
that apply to other areas of the Task Order scope and that are not covered by the
2D, 3D or pavement design.

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
Aircraft De-icing
4.5.2 Aircraft de-icing is a safety critical process, and in line with EASA CS ADR
DSN.G.375 it is necessary to provide de-icing facilities at any aerodrome where
icing conditions are expected to occur.
4.5.3 However, the level of service required, including the quantity and location of de-
icing pads, is not prescribed by standards and is influenced by a number of
variable factors including temperature, level of moisture in the air, taxiway layout,
number of de-icing rigs and types etc.
4.5.4 For the reasons outlined above, the provision of de-icing facilities can not be
designed using design standards alone. Engagement with the winter operations
team at the airport will be necessary to understand how the de-icing operation is
anticipated to run. It will also be key to understand the estimated taxiing routes
and times of the aircraft schedule around the airport at peak hours, including
anticipated time on stand; this requires a certain level of fixity on the masterplan.
4.5.5 Therefore, prior to fixing the masterplan, a de-icing strategy was produced in line
with engagement from the winter operations team. Post masterplan chill it is
proposed that the de-icing strategy is further developed to validate the current
proposed location of remote de-icing pads.
4.5.6 It is anticipated that lessons learnt from a review of winter resilience operations at
the airport will be also be used to help inform the de-icing study.
RVPS
4.5.7 RVPs are the rendezvous points that emergency services will wait at when
responding to an incident call on the airfield. From the RVPs, if required, the
emergency service vehicles will then be escorted across the airfield by leader
vehicles.
4.5.8 There is very limited guidance and regulation on the provision of RVPs at airports,
and there is no prescriptive method that can be applied to the provision of new
RVPs.
4.5.9 Therefore, the provision of new RVPs and impact on existing RVPs will be
assessed and designed via engagement with airport operation representatives
including input from Air Traffic Control, ATC, representatives and the relevant
emergency services. The emergency service engagement will be managed via
appropriate stakeholder working groups including the Emergency Orders Group.
4.5.10 Similar to aircraft de-icing provision it is not viable to fix the required location and
size of new RVPs until there is a sufficient level of fixity on both landside and
airside aspects of the masterplan.

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
NAVAIDS
4.5.11 Space needs to be safeguarded for Navigational Aids, NAVAIDs, on the airfield.
4.5.12 The provision of this will be done via engagement with experts from NATS
including regular technical working group meetings.
4.5.13 Changes in the master plan, especially large structures and new taxiway
alignments, will be shared with the modelling team to ensure infrastructure
proposed with the master plan will be compatible with the proposed NAVAID
equipment.

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
5. DEPARTURE FROM STANDARDS
5.1.1 Generally, the task order design has been progressed without the need for any
departures from standards. However, as identified in Section 3.2 stakeholder
engagement has been ongoing throughout the design. Any items that have been
identified as a possible departure from standards or opportunity to challenge the
existing standards has been discussed with Future Heathrow and, where
necessary, with the CAA.
5.1.2 Challenging the standards in this way has provided a mechanism for identifying
possible inefficiencies in the design; this has included identifying areas where it is
expected standards will have changed by the time the new runway and taxiway
systems are operational.
5.1.3 The Statement of Common Ground (Document number – HEP21-XX-RP-100-
350088) provides a summary of the current status of stakeholder engagement
including possible departures from standards that are under discussion. There is
nothing included within the proposed design that is likely to be unacceptable to the
regulator, i.e. the CAA, in the future.
5.1.4 The key issues identified are as follows and have been listed for information only,
refer to the relevant design documentation including the Statement of Common
Ground and Component Options Report for further detail:
▪ Openings within the airfield – including sections over the M25, Covered River
Corridor and airside roads
▪ Grundons’ Energy from Waste facility and infringement within the obstacle
limitation surface
▪ Infringement of the 27C Take-off Climb Surface by aircraft utilising the centre
runway parallel taxiways
▪ Centre runway extension over 150 metres in length
▪ Infringement of proposed ground profile at edge of runway strip into
transitional surface on new North West Runway
▪ Existing buildings in Harmonsworth infringing north west runway transitional
surface.
▪ Runway stagger between proposed runway and existing runways
▪ Location of glide path antenna within runway strip
▪ Touch Down Zone, TDZ, markings on centre runway
▪ Operation of remote de-icing pads near to runway hold areas.

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
6. RISK, OPPORTUNITIES AND ASSUMPTIONS
6.1.1 Design risks have been documented in a task order risk and opportunities register
which is available on Sharepoint (Link).
6.1.2 Throughout the design process, risks and opportunities are regularly reviewed,
including reporting them as part of the MSR reporting documents.
6.1.3 Further to this this Task Order 2.1 has input into the requirements and
assumptions register held on Polarion in the cloud and managed by Heathrow.
6.1.4 Frequent review and update of the registers mentioned above has allowed the
design to be developed proactively responding to potential future issues and
developing a more efficient design solution.

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
7. PROGRAMME
7.1.1 The design programme for 2019 was primarily driven by key project dates
including the Airport Expansion Consultation, AEC, the M5 masterplan scheme fix
and the EA fix and subsequent assessment. This led to four main areas of design
work:
• January to April – Lead up to AEC

• May to July – AEC Consultation
• August to October – Post AEC and EA Preparation
• October to December – DCO Preparation
7.1.2 Figure 7-1 below shows a high-level overview of the anticipated programme from
2020 onwards.
Figure 7-1 High Level Anticipated Programme from 2020

without consent
Heathrow Expansion
8. OUTPUTS
8.1.1 All the key design outputs were ratified at the DER and DVM in line with the
Scheme Development Manual. Some design issues were presented at DVM via a
technical note and where necessary, decisions were elevated to other forums
including SIM.
8.1.2 The outputs of the Task Order 2.1 design were present via a number of
documents, including the following key documents which identify the process of
selecting the key design components:
• Component Option Report

• Scheme Development Report
• Technical Notes
• Multiple 2D and 3D model files – issued via Projectwise and integrated into the
Master Planning drawings.
8.1.3 All Task Order deliverables are tracked on a deliverables schedule available on
Sharepoint (link), including the documents listed above.

without consent

TO 2.1 Basis of Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TO 2.1 Basis of Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Classification: Public

DOCUMENT NUMBER HEP21-XX-RP-100-350091

STATUS For Comment

AUTHOR Claire Warburton

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

1. Introduction and Task Order Scope 4

2. Relevant Design Standards and Regulations 6

5. Departure from Standards 17

6. Risk, Opportunities and Assumptions 18

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

1. INTRODUCTION AND TASK ORDER SCOPE

1.2 Task Order Scope

• Runways - new north west runway and alterations and enhancements to

• Taxiways and taxilanes – including alterations and enhancement to on-

• Airfield surface water drainage collection system (slot drains / gullies)

• Aeronautical Ground Lighting (AGL) including approach lighting,

• Airfield safeguarding, including production and management of Obstacle

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

• Co-ordination, locating and safeguarding for navigation aids and systems

• Airside / landside boundary fence (including crash gates)

• Airside perimeter track

• Emergency Rendezvous Points (RVPs)

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

2. RELEVANT DESIGN STANDARDS AND

• European Aviation Safety Agency Certification Specifications and Guidance

• ICAO Annex 14 Aerodromes Volume I Aerodrome Design and Operations

• ICAO Doc 9157 AN/901 Aerodrome Design Manual Part 1 Runways

• ICAO Doc 9157 AN/901 Aerodrome Design Manual Part 2 Taxiways,

• Heathrow Airfield Planning Asset Standard 10000-XX-DI-XXX-000226

• Heathrow Airside Engineer Design Performance Standard 00000-XX-PR-

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

3.1 Key Input Data

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

These requirements formed the client brief, and consisted of a number of

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

conflicts in the event of a missed approach on the centre runway. By rotating

Table 3-1 Rotating runway use to produce operating modes

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

▪ An airfield that enables airlines to operate an optimised schedule for hub

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

▪ NATS Navigational Aids Team – provided specific guidance for safeguarding

3.3 Task Order Interfaces

Figure 3-1 Key Task Order 2.1 Interfaces

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

Figure 4-1 Task Order 2.1 Team Structure

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

4.2 2D Design Methodology

4.3 3D Design Methodology

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation

4.4 Pavement Design Methodology

4.5 Other Infrastructure Methodology

© Heathrow Airport Limited 2019

Commercially Sensitive and Confidential and not for onward circulation