CIRCULAR

THE EFFECT OF
VARIABLE RUNWAY SLOPES
ON TAKE-OFF RUNWAY LENGTHS
FOR TRANSPORT AEROPLANES

F r e p a r e d by the S e c r e t a r i a t and published

by authority of the S e c r e t a r y G e n e r a l

I N T E R N A T I O N A L
C I V I L A V I A T I O N
O R G A N 1 Z A T I O N
MONTREAL
CANADA

Published in separate English, French und Spanish editions by the International

Civil Aviation Organization. A l l correspondence, except orders and subscriptions,
should be addressed to the Secretary General of ICAO, International Aviation
Building, 1080 University Street, Montreal 3 (Quebec), Canada.
Orders for this publication should b e sent to one of the following addresses, together with
the appropriate remittance (by bank draft or post office money order) in U.S. dollars or
the currency of the country in which the ortlrr is p l ~ c t dor in a freely convertible currency:
Australia: Robertson and Mullens, 107
Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, C. 1.
chnada: Department of Public Printing
and Stationery, Ottawa (Ontario).

Peru: Representante d e la OACI, Oficina

Sudambrica, Apartado 4127, Lima.
senegal: Representant de ~QACI, B~~~~~
Afric~ur.Boite uostale 2358. Dakar.

France: Reprksentant de l'OACI, Bureau

Europe, 3bls, villa BmiLe-Bergerat, Neuillysur-Seine (Seine).
India: Oxford Book and Stationery Co.,
Scindia House, New Delhi or 17 Park Street,
Calcutta.
J
~ japan
~
civil
~
~
~
:
~ promotion
i
Foundation, N ~ 38
. Shiba Kotohira-Cho,
M~nato-Ku,Tokyo.

~ United
~ Arabi Republic:
~
ICAO
~
Representative, Middle East and Eastem African
Office, 16 Ilassan Sabri, Zamalek, Cairo.

Mexico: Editorial Hennes S.A., Ignacio

Mariscal 41, Mhxico 4, D.F.

ITnited Kingdom: Her Majesty's Stationery

Office, P.O. Box 569, London, S.E. I.

Sweden: C. E. Fritzes Kungl. Hovbokhandel, Fredsgatan 2. Box 16356, Stockholm 16.

Thailand : ICAO Repreqentative, Far East
and pacific office, p.0. ~o~ 019, Bangkok,

International Civil Aviation Organization (At:en!ion: Distrih~rtion Officer), International

Aviation Building, 1080 University Street, Montreal 3 ( Q~~t-brc
), C~nada.

Do you receive
the ICAO BULLETIN?
The ICAO Bulletin contains a concise account of the activities
of the Organization as well as articles of interest to the aeronautical world.
The Bulletin will also keep you up to date on the latest lCAO
publications, their contents, amendments, supplements, corrig m d a , and prices.

Available in three separate editions: English, French and Spanish.

Annual subscription: U.S. $2.00.

FOREWORD
F o r some time Annex 14-Aerodromes specified that the length of a
runway should be c o r r e c t e d to account for the effect of local f a c t o r s such a s elevation, t e m p e r a t u r e and slope, on the take-off distances r e q u i r e d by aeroplanes.
Methods for correcting for elevation and t e m p e r a t u r e had been previously a g r e e d
and included in the Annex. No methods had been a g r e e d for c o r r e c t i n g f o r slope.
This fact was noted by the Seventh Session of the A e r o d r o m e s , A i r Routes and
Ground Aids (AGA) Division a t i t s meeting in 1962. It was considered t h a t a study
of the problem could r e s u l t in the development of one standard method f o r c o r rection and the following recommendation was made:
RECOMMENDATION 2/6

- RUNWAY SLOPE E F F E C T AIRCRAFT

OPERATIONS

That

1)

a complete study of the effect of slopes on

runway take-off distances based on assumptions
acceptable to a l l Contracting States be made in
o r d e r to achieve a uniform c r i t e r i o n f o r runway
length correction f a c t o r s and

2)

theresultsofthatstudybeconsideredfor
incorporation in Annex 14, a s a specification
o r guidance m a t e r i a l .

To undertake the study a l a r g e amount of detailed information on a e r o plane c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was required. The u s e of a computer was a l s o considered
n e c e s s a r y because of the number of v a r i a b l e s involved and the numerous possible
combinations of runway slopes. It was decided to engage the s e r v i c e s of the
University of California, Berkeley, California, to undertake the study. Work
began in June 1966 and was completed in August 1968. The following r e p o r t was
p r e p a r e d by G . Ahlborn and R. Horonjeff of the university.
The Fifth A i r Navigation Conference, meeting in November/December
1967,had available a preliminary r e p o r t p r e p a r e d by the university. T h i s p r e liminary r e p o r t enabled the conference to make a recommendation f o r amendment
of Annex 14 to include a correction factor for runway slope. The conference
recognized that i t s recommendation might need modification in the light of the
final r e p o r t of the m i v e r sity. The conference a l s o recommended, Re comrnenda tion 3/3, that the final r e p o r t be distributed to States. This c i r c u l a r i s p r e p a r e d
in accordance with the action s e t forth in Recommendation 3/3. The contents of
this c i r c u l a r r e f l e c t the views of i t s authors and not n e c e s s a r i l y the views o r
policies of ICAO.

CONTENTS

Introduction

..........................................

................
F a c t o r s Considered in This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aerodrome. Elevations Selected for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aerodrome Temperatures Selected for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wind Selected for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Runway Surface Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slopes Selected for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aircraft Selected for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review of Other Studies Related to Runway Slopes

.....................................
Procedure for Determining Effect of Runway Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Airplane Operation

..........
Defining a Single Equivalent Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corrections for Uniform Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Runway Slope Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Effect of Aircraft Operating Rules on Sloping Runways

.....................................
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Results

T H E E F F E C T OF V A R I A B L E RUNWAY S L O P E S ON T A K E - O F F

1. Introduction
1. 1
An airplane taking off requires more runway if the slope of the runway i s uphill than if
it is level and requires less runway if the slope i s downhill.
1.2
To determine the lengths of runways for aerodrome planning and design, a basic length
i s selected in accordance with Annex 14, Part III, Par. 1.2 (Ref. 1). This basic length is one
that %odd be required a t a level of site at sea level in standard atmospheric conditions and in
To obtain an
still a i r to meet the needs of the aircraft for which the runway i s provided.. .
actual length, the basic length is corrected to take into account the different local factors that
influence the performance of aircraft. There a r e recommendations to correct for aerodrome
elevation and temperature (Ref. 1, Part 111, Par. 1. 3). There is no recommended correctionfor
runway slope.

1.3
The runway slope correction factor was discussed at the Fifth Air Navigation Conference
of ICAO held in Montreal in November-December 1967. It was agreed that it was premature to
adopt a correction factor until the study by the University of California was completed; therefore
the Conference agreed to retain for the present time the method described in Ref. 1, Part III,
Par. 1. 6. 1 (referred to in this report a s Runway Slope Index No. 2). However, "There was
sufficient indication from this and other studies to show that, a correction factor of 10 percent
increase in runway length for each 1 percent of the runway slope, a s defined in Annex 14, P a r t 111,
Par. 1. 6. 1 wodd be satisfactory. " This correction factor applies to all take-off aircraft using
aerodromes whose code letters a r e A, B, or C.

1.4
Also, there a r e a number of recommendations in Annex 14 that have the effect of limiting
the longitudinal runway profile. These recommendations a r e summarized in Section 8 of this
report.
1.5
Although there i s no internationally accepted method of determining appropriate allowances for runway slope, the practice of several states i s summarized a s folluws:

British Practice. For average aircraft under average operating conditions,

the runway length required is increased by 4 to 5 percent for each 0 . 5 percent increase in gradient (Ref. 2).
French Practice. The additional length of the runway should be calculated
at the rate of 3 . 5 percent of the uncorrected length if the average slope p
reaches 1 percent. Zf the average slope p exceeds 1 percent, the additional
length i s given in percentage by formula: 5p - 1. 5 (Ref. 2).
United States Practice. The runway length should be increased to correct for
runway gradient at the rate of 20 percent for piston and turboprop airplanes
and 10 percent for turbojet airplanes for each 1 percent of effective runway
gradient. The effective runway gradient is determined by dividing the maximum difference in runway centerline elevation by the total length of the runway
(Ref. 3).
1. 6
The purpose of the study described in this report i s for aerodrome planning only and
includes the following tasks: (1) determine the effect of nonuniform slopes on runway length for
a representative group of piston and jet transport airplanes, (2) examine the methods now used
to correct for slope, and (3) develop a correction method that best reflects the effects of nonuniform slopes.
1. 7
For airport planning the problem resolves itself into two principal parts. The first pai t
i s how can a variable runway slope best be described by a single slope or index in terms of air-

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1- ~ ~ / 7 5

craft performance and the operating rules i t must satisfy. The second part requires the determination of the magnitude of the correction for slope. It i s well to point out that any planning
tool to determine the effect of slope on runway length, if i t i s to be effective, must be relatively
simple, and the data for determining the effect must be readily available to airport planners.
1. 8

This study was sponsored by ICAO.

2. Review of Other Studies Related to Runway Slopes

2. 1
A few studies have been published concerning the effect of uniform (Ref. 4) and nonuniform (Refs. 5, 6 , 7) profiles. These studies have received relatively little attention o r practical application; nevertheless, they have been cplite useful for defining the problem and a r e brief ly summarized herein.
2.2
The work described in Reference 4 was confined t o unifqrm slopes and to jet airplanes.
The airplanes included were the Caravelle VIR, Boeing 720-022, DC-8-21, DC-8-53, and the
Boeing 707-300B. P r e s s u r e altitude was varied from s e a level to 6,000 ft and temperatures
from 3 0 ' ~ (-1. 1c) to 1 0 0 ' ~(37. 8'~). The results of this work a r e shown in Table 1 and Fig. 8.
The principal conclusions of this study were: (1) that the increase o r decrease in runway length
due to uniform slope is nearly linear, (2) that change of altitude on effect of slope is small inthe
range of sea level t o 2,000 f t (600 m) , and (3) that under the most adverse conditions the maximum increase in runway length for a 1percent uniform uphill slope was about 10 percent.
2.3
The work described in Reference 5 was sponsored by the Systems Research and Development Service, U. S. Federal Aviation Administration, and is concerned with the effects of nonuniform slopes on runway lengths. An "effective runway gradient" (Ge) is defined a s the largest
value in either direction a s determined by the following relationships;
For take-off:

For accelerate-stop:

where GI, 0 2 , &, and Gq a r e the average slopes (difference in end elevations divided by the
length) cf the f i r s t , second, third, and fourth quarter of the runway length.
2.4
These relationships were derived from basic idealized equations of energy. The take-off
operation was divided into three segments: (1) from s t a r t of take-off to engine failure, (2) from
engine failure to lift-off, and (3) from lift-off to reach a specified height above the runway. The
ratio of the distances required in the f i r s t two segments (level vs. slope) was considered equal
to the inverse ratio of the average accelerations (as/ap) in these segments. In the third segment the ratio of distances was considered equal to the1$-atioof climb-out angles".
Although there was variation in the data, it was generally found that the f i r s t segment of
2. 5
the take-off occurred in the f i r s t two quarters of the runway, the second segment in the third
quarter, and the third segment in the last quarter. Typical runway accelerations and climb-out
angles for the three segments were obtained from the manufacturers for the Boeing 707-131,
F-27, Constellation, and Electra. With these average accelerations and climb-out angles,
ratios of the distances with slope to the level distances for the three segments were computed.
As an example, for a 1 percent uphill slope there was a 4.6 percent increase in the f i r s t segment (compared to level profile), an 8.7 percent increase in the second segment, and a 15 percent increase in the third segment. If the f i r s t segment is weighted a s unity, the effect of slope
in the second segment i s about twice that of the f i r s t and in the third over three times (four was
assumed for reasons explained in the report). This i s how the slopes along the runway were

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1-AN/75

For the accelerate-stop c a s e , it was assumed that the average acceleration to engine failure sPeed was equal to average deceleration to come to a stop.

v, i ~ h t e dfor take-off.

Another approach to establish a mear ingful single "effective longitudinal slope" which
2.6
would represent the effect of a variable -- Inway slope was presented by the Netherlands at the
fourth session of the Airworthiness Division of the International Civil Aviation Organization in
1951 (Ref. 6). This i s quite an interesting theoretical approach to the problem but i s somewhat
limited in application. The objective of the analysis was to substitute for a variable runway
slope an equivalent uniform slope s o that the clearance height, reached by the a i r p l a ~ , over
:
the
end of the runway, is the same in both cases.
To solve the problem within reasonable limits, it was necessary to limit the analysis to
2. 7
one four-engine propeller aircraft (Constellation) and three runway profiles (uniform, humped,
and both humped and cup-shaped), and to make certain assumptions concerning the relation of
V1 t o V2.
2. 8
The results of the analysis indicate that when an actual runway profile can be substituted
by one of the types studied, a simple linear function exists between the equivalent uniform slope
and the slope a t the beginning of the runway. The slope must be divided into two components
(9, a) a s shown in the sketch below.

I-

For this humped profile the equivalent uniform slope 9 ' = qj - 0. 16

1' The equivalent slope
for the other type of runway contains the same t e r m s ; only the coefficient for (yl i s different.
Referring to the sketch, it is assumed that the runway slope is a parabolic function of the distance covered. Further, the top of the hump i s assumed to coincide with the point where V1 is
reached by the airplane.
2.9
The analysis was applied to four runways, primarily to demonstrate the procedure. This
analysis substantiates studies made by other investigators that cupped runway profiles required
more runway length than humped profiles.
2 . 10 h a discussion (Ref. 7) of Ahlborn and Horonjeff's paper (Ref. 4), Milton Meisner of the
U. S. Federal Aviation Administration uses energy equations in much the same manner a s in
Reference 5 to determine the effect of nonuniform slopes. These equations a r e applied for a
hypothetical aircraft on uniform and variable slope profiles. Considerable attention i s devoted
to the effects of convex and concave profiles. M. Meisner found that under conditions of no
i-ebalancing (constant value of V1), the concave and convex profiles with end points a t the same
elevation both require an increase in runway length a s compared to a level runway. In the case
of the convex profile, the accelerate-stop distance governs while with the concave profile, the
take-off distance governs. If rebalancing were to be performed (varying the V 1 value) the
author felt that the convex profile may result in a runway length shorter than the level runway.
The author suggests examination of a single "effective gradientTrdetermined by dividing the
greatest difference in height between the actual runway profile and the line joining the ends of
the runway and adding this value to the average runway slope (line joining ends of the runway).
3.

Factors Considered in This Study

There a r e a number of factors that enter into the determination of take-off runway
3. 1
length. The factors considered were:
1. Aerodrome elevation (pressure altitude, Par. 4)
2. Aerodrome a i r temperature (Par. 5)

.4

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1 - A ~ / 7 5
3. Wind (Par. 6)
4. Runway surface conditions (Par. 7)
5. Longitudinal runway profile (Par. 8)
6. Type of a i h r a f t (Par. 9)
7. Aircraft operation (Par. 10)

These seven factors can result in a large number of combinations. So a s to keep the
3.2
study within reasonable limits of time and still have meaningful results, each of these factors
was considered separately and limited a s explained in the following paragraphs.
4.

Aerodrome Elevations Selected for Study

Flight operation airplane manuals relate runway length to pressure altitude rather than to
4. 1
geographic elevation. In this report it has been assumed that the two a r e equivalent. For this
reason, "aerodrome elevation, " a t e r m familiar to aerodrome planners, i s used rather than
' p r e s s u r e altitude. "
The effect of slope on runway length was evaluated a t sea level and 300 m (1,000 ft). A
4.2
recent study by ICAO revealed that 80 percent of the world's international aerodromes a r e a t an
elevation not greater than 300 m (1,000 ft), and 88.2 percent a r e at an elevation not greater than
600 m (2,000 ft). Only 5. 3 percent a r e a t elevations greater than 1,200 m (4,000 ft) and 2. 7 percent greater than 1,500 m (5,000 ft).
Previous studies concerned with the effect of uniform slopes on runway length (Ref. 4) in4.3
dicated that the influence of slope from s e a level to 600 ~p(2,000ft) was nearly the same. Since
88.2 percent of the world's international aerodromes a r e a t elevations no greater than 600 m
(2,000 ft), the analysis was confiwd to two elevations, s e a level and 300 m (1,000 ft).
5. Aerodrome Temperatures Selected for Study

The temperatures used in the study were standard temperatures a t the selected elevations
5. 1
of s e a level and 300 m (15OC, 13OC) and a hot day corresponding to 3 2 ' ~ at both elevations.
An ICAO study of aerodrome reference temperatures a t 607 international aerodromes in5.2
dicates that the reference temperatures do not exceed 30C a t 60 percent of the aerodromes; and
a t 91 percent, i t does not exceed 32Oc. * (See Fig. 1).
6. Wind Selected for Study
For the study, calm conditions were assumed to prevail on the surface of the runway.
6. 1
Although this may appear to be conservative, a majority of aerodromes experience calm conditions o r very light surface winds a great deal of the time.
7. Runway Surface Conditions
Runway surface irregularities and low runway coefficient of friction a r e not accounted
7. 1
for in this study (Ref. 1 , P a r t 111, Par. 1.8). Dry runway surface conditions a r e assumed to
prevail.

*The aerodrome reference temperature is defined in ICAO Annex 14 a s T + (T -T1)/3,

where T = monthly mean of the mean daily temperatures (24 hours) for t i e hot8est month of the
y e a r , an& T2 =monthly mean of the maximum daily temperature for the hottestmonthofthe year.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1 - A ~ / 7 5

8. Slopes Selected for Studg

There a r e an infinite number of runway profiles which can be analyzed to determine ef8. 1
fect of slope. In order to select a reasonable number, it was decided to fpcus attention on those
profiles which would influence runway length the most. In developing the profiles, certain constraints specified in Annex 14, Part 111, Par. 1.6, were adhered to. These constraints a r e a s
follows:*
1. The slope computed by dividing the difference between the maximum

and minimum elevation along the runway centerline by the runway

length should not exceed 1 percent.
2. Along no portion of a runway should the longitudinal - slope exceed:
1.25 percent where the runway code letter is A, B, or C; 1. 5 per-

cent where the runway code letter is D, E, F, or G.

3. A slope change between two consecutive slopes should not exceed
1. 5 percent.

4. For runways of code letter A, B, or C for the first and last quarter
of the length of the runway, the slope should not exceed 0. 8 percent.
5. Where slope changes cannot be avoided, they should be such that there
will be an unobstructed line of sight from any point 3 m (10 ft) above
the runway to all other points 3 m (10 ft) above the runway within a distance of at least half the length of the runway.

6. The transition from one slope to another should be accomplished by

change a s specified in paragraph 1.6.4.
8.2
Vertical curves were not used in the study profiles since their effect on runway length is
negligible.

With these constraints, several study profiles were developed a s shown in Figure 2. The
8.3
profiles have been grouped into four general types designated a s "A," "B," "C," and "D. " Type
"Awprofiles consist of uphill slopes; Type "B" downhill slopes ; Type "C " convex profiles (uphill'-downhill); and Type '?)"concave profiles (downhill-uphill), The majority of the profiles
shown in Figure 2 a r e Type "ATt(uphill) with the slopes on the first and last quarter limited to
0 . 8 percent. The limitation of 0. 8 percent slope for the first and last quarter of the runway applies to runway code letters A, B, and C. These a r e the runways which accommodate the major
share of airline traffic. Since the aircraft studied am, all of the airIine type,, it was felt that a s
a start emphasis should be placed on runways with code letters A, B, and C, and then progress
to D, E, F , and G later.

A recent study by ICAO of slopes of 151 main runways at all classes of international
8.4
aerodromes (exclusive of the USA) indicates that only 15 percent exceed an effective gradient**
of 0 . 5 percent, and only 4 percent exceed an effective gradient of 1 . 0 percent (see Figure 3).
Slopes on the first and l a s t quarter of runways a r e shown on Figures 4 and 5. Only 10 percent
exceed the ICAO recommended maximum of 0 . 8 percent for runways with codeletters A , B, and
C. The maximum longitudinal slopes a r e shown on Figure 6.
The effective gradient** at several aerodromes in the USA a r e shuwn on Figure 7. These
8.5
aerodromes range from large (Kennedy and OfHare) to small (Boise, Idaho). Only 9 percent
exceed an effective gradient of 0. 5 percent and only 4 percent exceed an effective gradient of
1. 0 percent. While the samples a r e limited, i t is evident that the majority of runways a r e relatively flat and a r e l e s s than 0 . 5 percent effective gradient.

Reference to runway code letters in this report is a s they a r e listed in Annex 14, Fourth Edition, 1964 (Ref. 1) and not to the new code letters adopted at the Fifth Air Navigation
Conference.
**Effective gradient i s a USA term for describing the overall runway slope and has the same
definition as the slope described in Ref. 1, Part 111, Par. 1. 6. 1.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1- A ~ / 7 5

6
9. Aircraft Selected for Study

The aircraft initially chosen for analysis were selected by ICAO a s being representative
of transport types being flown in international aviation. These aircraft a r e as follows:

9. 1

DC-6B

Caravelle

DC-9, 10 Series

F 27

DC-8, 50 Series

DH Trident

Vanguard
Because of the detailed performance information required for each aircraft and the time required
to develop simulation models, it was not possible to analyze all of these aircraft; therefore, the
analysis was limited to those aircraft for which data were readily available, namely the DC-6B,
These aircraft a r e examples of (1) piston-engine propeller,
DC-9, DC-8, and Vanguard.
(2) turboprop, (3) turbojet, and (4) turbofan.
10. Airplane Operation
10.1 One of the three following airplane take-off operations will govern the required runway
length for a transport airplane (see Figure 8).
1. All-engine operation, where the distance is determined by 1. 15 times

the all-engine distance to reach a specified height above the runway.

2. Engine failure, balanced distances, where the distance required to
continue the take-off with one-engine inoperative and the distance required to stop the aircraft after engine failure can be made the same
by selecting a decision speed (V1) for balancing the distances.
3. Engine failure, unbalanced distances, where the continued take-off
distance and the rejected take-off distance cannot be made the same
due to limitations on selecting the decision speed (Vl).
The types of operation used for any one individual airplane depend on the rules under which the
airplane is &rtified.
10.2 Only one of the three take-off operations will predominate for any one aircraft, though
it i s possible for more than one type of operation to determine the runway length a s conditions
a r e varied.
For these three types of operations neither clearways nor stopways a r e considered in
10.3
this report. One reason is that there is an infinite number of possibilities for unbalancing (i.e.,
one can unbalance with a clearway but no stopway or with both). The second reason is that the
analysis for unbalanced field length can be applied to balanced field lengths.
11. Procedure for Determining Effect of Runway Slope
11.1 Approved flight manuals show that the amount a runway has to be lengthened or shortened due to slope depends primarily on the length of level runway required; the longer the required
level runway, the greater is the effect of slope. In order to evaluate the maximum effect of
slope, each aircraft in this study was operated at conditions that resulted in the longest required
runway lengths. The level runway lengths were compared with the lengths required for the various uniform and nonuniform slopes, and the increase or decrease in length was expressed as a
percentage of the level runway length.

To obtain the longest runway lengths, each aircraft was operated at or near its allowable
11.2
take-off weight. The maximum allowable take-off weight i s primarily governed by one of two
conditions : (1) a weight which does not exceed the structural strength of the airplane or (2) a
weight which satisfies the minimum climb-out angles. Under no circumstances can an airplane
take off at a weight in excess of the structural limitations. However, as altitude and/or temperature increase, an aircraft may have to take off at a weight less than that allowed by its
structural limitations in order to satisfy the minimum climb-out angles.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1- ~ ~ / 7 5

11.3 The runway slopes selected for study are analyzed by direction of take-off, a s shown in
Figure 2. It will be noted that several of the type "B" profiles a r e the same a s an "A" profile
with the direction of take-off in a downhill direction. Similarly several of the type "C" and "DM
profiles a r e the same, except for the direction of use.
11.4 Digital computer analytical models were developed to determine the take-off distance requirements for each airplane. Data for all-engine performance, one-engine inoperative performance, take-off climb performance, transition or inertia performance from all-engine to full
braking, deceleration performancs, and other pertinent data have been supplied through the
cooperation of the airplane manufacturer. These a r e detailed data developed for the certification
of the airplane and are not included in the flight manuals. Data for various aircraft a r e developed
in different forms, depending on the methods acceptable for certification and operational requirements of the airplane; therefore, each airplane requires a separate computer model. The data
supplied for this study a r e considered proprietary , and therefore detailed individual airplane
performance data a r e omitted in this report.
11.5 Referring to Figure 8, the models determine for level, uniform, and nonuniform slopes
the distances requiredfor each segment of the take-off operation. For the all-engine operation,
the required take-off distance is equal to 1. 15 times (A1 + B1 + C1). For the engine failure
balanced take-off distance, the take-off distance is A + B + C which is equal to A + D + E. For
the engine failure unbalanced take-off distance, the longer of A + B + C or A + D + E determines
the take-off distance, depending on how the decision speed (V1) is determined. The process is
one of trial and e r r o r the objective of which is to make the runway length equal to the take-off
distance. As an example, for the engine failure case with an assumed critical engine failure
speed V1 there is a specific take-off distance and a corresponding accelerate-stop distance.
These two distances may not be the same for the first assumed V1 so the computer searches
for the V1 that will make the two distances equal. At the same time the runway profiles a r e
divided into four equal segments each having a uniform slope (see Figure 2) so each time the
runway length is increased or decreased for each trial run the lengths of the four segments and
their slopes always remain equal but their lengths vary in proportion to the total runway length.
12. The Effect of Aircraft Operating Rules on Sloping Runways
12. 1 In very general terms, the effect of slopes along the runway can be explained a s follows.
The slope at any point along the runway has the effect of directly decreasing or increasing the
airplane acceleration at that point. A positive slope (uphill) decreases and a negative slope
(downhill)increases the acceleration. For both propeller and jet airplanes with all engines operating on a level runway, acceleration decreases a s the speed increases, more so for the propeller-driven :airplane than for the jet. The reduction in acceleration with increased speed is
primarily due to the inherent characteristics of the power plants. For the airplane operation
with engine failure, there is an additional reduction in acceleration after engine failure occurs.
For these reasons, runway slope has a greater influence on distance traveled at the high speed
portion of the take-off than at the low speed end.

12.2 Referring to the selected study profiles (Figure 2), it will be noted that most of the profiles have the larger slopes at the high speed end of the take-off so a s to produce large changes
in rcxv c~ylength.
12. 3
The type of take-off operation that governs the selection of runway length has some effect on how a correction for variable runway slopes can be developed. For the engine failure
operation the computed take-off distance is equal to the runway length; therefore, all slopes
alongthe full length of the runway have an influence on determining the take-off distance. For
the all-engine operation, the length of runway is 1,15 times the computed take-off distance;
therefore, only those slopes in the first 87 percent (1. 0 divided by 1. 15) of the runway length
have an influence on determining the take-off distance. In order to evaluate the effect of the
type of take-off operation on runway slope correction, it was decided to obtain the corrections
for the DC-8 and the DC-9 for both the all-cxqine and the engine failure cases. The evaluation
was limited to the DC-8 and DC-9 because t h e all--engine case rule is not applicable to the
DC-6R; and for the Vanguard, the additional \:.urh required was determined to be unnecessary.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1 - A N / 7 5

13. Defining a Single Equivalent Slope

13. 1 HOW to best describe a variable slope runway by a single equivalent slope is a difficult
problem. In order to initially approach this problem, a number of single slope indices for defining nonuniform profiles have been chosen for comparison. Four indices were compared, defined a s follows:
1. Average slope, defined a s the difference in elevation between the end points

of the runway divided by the length of the runway (referred to a s Runway

Slope Index No. 1).
2. United States of America definition of "effective gradientT1which is the distance between the lowest and highest point on the runway divided by the length
of the runway (referred to a s Runway Slope Index No. 2).
3. Ref. 5 "effective gradient" for take-off, which divides the runway into four
equal segments; determines the average slope in each segment; and the
slopes a s follows:

G1 + G2 + 2G3 + 4G4

Ge -

(referred to as Runway Slope Index No. 3).

4. Modification of Ref. 5 definition by We authors of this report a s follcws :

Ge

- G1

1
1 4 ~ +~2 ) 3 ~ +~3$G4)
)
8

(referred to a s Runway Slope IndexNo. 4).

It will be noted that Indices No. 3 and No. 4 reflect the greater influence of the runway slope a t
the high speed portion of the take-off run. In referring to the figures that follow, the effect of
the use of the different indices is to move the plotted points horizontally. Dispersion is used in
this report to indicate the vertical spread of the plotted points.
14. Corrections for Uniform Slope
14.1 Although not a part of this study, it was decided to show the effect of uniform slopedrunways on runway length for several reasons. The performance of several aircraft can bereadily
compared taking into account the effects of type of take-off operation (all-engine vs. engine failure), and an order of .magnitude of the correction can be obtained. Figure 9 , taken from Ref. 4,
includes the Caravelle VIR, Boeing 720-022, DC-8-21, DC-8-53, and Boeing 707-300B, all
turbine-powered aircraft. The data were developed from information obtained from the flight
manual for each aircraft. No attempt was made to make any distinction between the engine failure case and the all-engine case since this was not an objective in the study.
14.2 In Figure 10, the effect of uniform slope on runway length for aircraft included in the
current study is shown. The data were developed independent of the Ref. 4 study. Here the influence of type of take-off operation (all-engine vs. engine failurej is shown for the DC-8 and
DC-9.
14.3 The shapes of the curves for turbine-powered aircraft on both figures a r e very similar
and nearly linear. On the other hand, the DC-6B is not linear over a wide range of uniform
slope. Both figures show that the percent change in runway length is greater for positive slopes
than for negative slopes, though the difference is smaller for jet transports as compared to the
DC-6B.
14.4 Figure 10 also demonstrates that insofar a s the effect of slope on runT8aylength i s concerned, the engine failure case is more critical than the all-engine case.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1 -AN/75

15. Comparison of Runway Slope Indices

15. 1 The four runway indices described in paragraph 13.1 a r e compared for the four aircraft
included in this study, in tabular form in Tables 2 through 7 and in graphic form in Figures 11
through 16.
15.2 For the DC-8 and DC-9, the indices a r e shown for both the engine failure case and the;
all-engine case. For the conditions and weights considered in this report, the runway length is
governed by the all-engine case for the DC-8 and the engine failure case for the DC-9, DC-GB,
and the Vanguard.
I _

4.1
15.3 A complete analysis for the two elevations and two temperatures listed in parw&
was performed only for the DC-6B and the DC-9 (engine failure case). It was found that @ ,, ,
differences were s o small that to repeat the computations for the DC-8 and the Vanguard w&
not warranted.
c
b

15.4 To compare the indices for the various aircraft types, a linear regression line ;was ,
fitted to the data points. The runway slope index for a particular runway profile was c o g s ~ & ~ M
the independent variable, and the runway correction calculated from aircraft p e r f o r m k c 8
-,,
was considered the dependent variable. Table 8 shows the values of the estimated standard
e r r o r of the regression on all data points.
6
I

15.5 The relationship between the runway correction and slope index is assumed f o r
purposes to be linear in all cases. Figure 10 shows that the runway correction related t o the
slope of a runway with a uniform slope is close to linear in all cases. The data plots in this
study seem to be well represented by a linear relationship. For the purpose of meaeuring,xelative dispersion this assumption of linearity is reasonable.
r

15.6 The definition of Runway Slope Index 2 does n d allow for negative values. ~e~&ive,runway corrections appear with positive values of the index. The graph of Slope Index 2 on Figures
11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16 shows that a single line could not be drawn to represent the relationship
of the slope index to the runway correction. To compare the dispersion of Slope Index 2 with
the other indices, a linear regression line was fitted to the data points having a positive runway
correction and another regression line through the points with a negative runway correction. , A
regression line was fitted to the same positive and negative points for the other indices. A
comparison of the estimated standard e r r o r s is summarized in Table 8.
15.7 The estimated standard e r r o r of the regression lines a s they a r e estimated can be used
a s a measure of the dispersion of the data points. This measure of dispersion assumes that
the runway correction associated with a runway index value is sampled from a normal distribution. This assumption is reasonable for the purpose of comparing the dispersion of the &ta
points for various runway slope indices.
15.8 Table 8 shows the comparison of estimated standard e r r o r s on a regression line through
all data points (both positive and negative corrections). This appears in the third column. The
values associated with Runway Slope Index 2 a r e not given, for the reason outlined in paragraph
15.5. The fourth column shows the values of the estimated standard e r r o r of a regression line
fitted to the data points that have positive runway corrections. The fifth column shows the
estimated standard e r r o r of regression through the data points with a negative runway correction.
15.9 A graphic representation of the measure of dispersion was determined from the calculated 95 percent confidence interval for the true regression line. This implies the same assumptions of normality a s stated in paragraph 15. 7 for calculation of the estimated standard
e r r o r . The wider the band or interval, the more the dispersion. The bands a r e shown. on
Figures 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16.
15.10 The data points from the runway profile types C and D fall consistently outside the 95
percent confident interval. This woul(l indicate that these profiles do not have n similar effect
on the runway length as do the profilcs of types A and B. Therefore the regression line andthe

10

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1-AN/75

sample variance should be treated a s an indicator of the relative dispersion of the data points
for each indices and not a s a true relationship between the indices and the runway correction.
16. Analysis of Results
1 6 . 1 The Vanguard, the only turboprop aircraft studied, demonstrated the same relationship
between the indices and the runway corrections a s did the jet aircraft.
1 6 . 2 During the programming of the aircraft characteristics to facilitate calculation of runway
corrections, it was observed that piston engine aircraft were more sensitive to sloping runways
than jet aircraft. This is due a s much to the difference in certification rules a s to the acceleration characteristics. The data indicate that the magnitude of the correction for slope is greater
for piston engine aircraft than for jet aircraft.
16.3

For piston engine aircraft, Slope Index 4 has the least dispersion.

1 6 . 4 For all- jet aircraft, other than the DC-9 engine failure case, Slope Index 1 has the least
dispersion. The dispersion of Slope Index 1 for the DC-9 engine failure case is not significantly
larger than that of Slope Index 4.

The fact that the Vanguard performs like a turbojet aircraft on sloping runways means
16.5
that the DC-6B is the only aircraft which represents the family of piston engine aircraft. This
should be considered in interpreting the results of the analysis for pistun engine aircraft.
Slope Index 2 does not show an advantage o h r the other indices for any of the aircraft in
16.6
the s tudy. The dispersion is consistently larger than the minimum values of other indices
shown in Table 8. In the case of piston-engine aircraft, Slope Index 2 does not describe the data
a s well as Indices 3 or 4. In the case of jet engine aircraft, Slope Index 2 does not describe the
data as well a s Index 1.
16.7

For both piston engine and jet aircraft, Index 4 describes the data better than Index 3.

The dispersion using Slope Index 4 was less for the engine failure case than for the all16.8
engine case. This is also substantiated by the results shown in Figure 10.
None of the indices adequately describes the performance of C and D profiles. In some
16.9
cases, positive runway corrections a r e associated with the negative values of the slope indices.
16.10 ProfiIes of types C and D a r e consistently outside the 95 percent confidence interval.
The amount by which these profiles differ from the regression interval appears to be larger
when Slope Index 4 is used than what is evident when Slope Index 1 is used. This may be due to
the configurations selected and the method of calculating the slope index.
16.11 The profiles of types C and D that were selected for this study represents a condition
which is extreme compared to what is experienced at existing airports. The maximum correction corresponding to these profile types is less than 2 percent for jet aircraft. Piston engine
aircraft a r e more sensitive, and the correction is in the order of 5 percent. Profiles C and D
for piston engine aircraft a r e best represented by Slope Index 4.
16.12 The data points on Figure 11 (DC-6B) for Slope Index 1 show that the dispersion is not
only due to the profiles of types C and D but also to the scatter of the points in type A profiles.
This gives more support to the observation that piston engine aircraft a r e more sensitive to
changes in slope.
16.13 It should be noted that Slope Index 2 is the only index with the characteristics that an
index value of zero requires a level runway. Paragraph 1 6 . 6 , however, indicates this index
has greater dispersion than other indices.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1- ~ ~ / 7 5
17.

11,

Conclusions

17. 1 Based on the data available, Indices 1 and 4 describe the influence of variable runway
profiles better than Indices 2 and 3.

17.2 For jet aircraft, Slope Index 1 is adequate for describing the effect of a variable d o p e on runway length. For piston engine aircraft, Slope Index 4 is superior to the other indices
tested.
, --.
The magnitude of the correction is larger for piston engine aircraft than for jet aircraft.
--17.4 To determine the magnitude of the recommended corrections related to the slope i s & ~
a line was drawn so that a majority of the data points were below this line. In view of the
that the actual corrections will be small, it was felt that this conservative approach would not
impose economic penalties. The boundary lines for the recommended indices are s h w n in
Figure 17.
17.3

fa,

17.5

The magnitude of the positive corrections is greater than that of the negative corrections.

17.6 The effect of an elevation difference of 1000 ft (300 m) on runway correction wm'fcund
to be negligible for all aircraft included in this study.
17.7 The study suggests that refinements of the methods used for calculating runway slope index are not warranted for the purpose of planning runway lengths.
18. Recommendations
?

'

1. If the runway length is governed by jet aircraft, it i s recommended that Slope

Index 1be used, with the following correction applied to the required level runway
length:

Percent runway correction = 1.0

+ 6.0 (Slope Index

1)

where the slope index can be either a positive or a negative value.

only to runways that a r e not level.

This would apply

2. If the runway length is governed by piston engine aircraft, it i s recommended that

Slope Index 4 be used, with the following corrections applied to the required level
runway length:
For positive index values:
Percent runway correction = 12.0 (Slope Index 4)
For negative index values:
Percent runway correction = 8.0 (Slope Index 4)
3. If it is desired to use a single index for all aircraft types, it is recommended that

Slope Index 4 be used and the following corrections applied:

For positive index values:
Percent runway correction (jet aircraft) = 7. 0 (Slope Index 4)
Percent runway correction (piston aircraft) = 12. 0 (Slope Index 4)
For negative index values:
Percent runway correction (jet aircraft) = 4 . 0 (Slope Index 4)
Percent runway correction (piston aircraft) = 8 . 0 (Slope Index 4)

.-

12

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1 - A ~ / 7 5

TABLE 1 - MAXIMUM EFFECT OF RUNWAY GRADIENT ON

RUNWAY LENGTHS OF J E T TRANSPORTS

Aircraft

Caravelle

VIR

Pressure
altitude,
in feet

a
OF

Maximum
Percentage of change in length of
%ow~unwa~'
runwa9 when percentage
length
ble T. 0.
gradient is :
weight,in
(level)
pounds
-1.5 -1. 0 -0.5 +O. 5 +l. 0 +l. 5

0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
4,000
6,000

-~

a. Temperature at which longest runway length occurs.

b. This is the maximum allowable take-off weight for the pressure altitude and temperature
shown.
c. Longest runway length obtainable for the airport elevation shown for the temperature range
of 30' t o 100F.
d. Decrease in length for negative gradients and increase in length for positive gradients.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1- ~ N / 7 5

TABLE 2

13

- EFFECT OF RUNWAY SLOPES ON RUNWAY LENGTHS

DC-6B (ENGINE FAILURE CASE)

Percent Change in Runway Length

Profile

Sea
Level

Sea
Level

15'~

32'~

Number 100,000 100,000

lb

* Profile A-13
** Profile A-13

lb.

Runway Slope Index

1,OOOft 1,OOOft
(300 m) (300 m)
13'~
99,000
lb

32OC
99,000
lb

at 98,000 lbs.
at 97,000 lbs.

Percent change in runway length is the percent increase o r decrease required

for the particular profile a s compared to the level runway length.

ICAO Circular 9 1 - ~ ~ / 7 5

14

TABLE 3

- EFFECT O F RUNWAY SLOPES ON RUNWAY LENGTHS

DC-9 (ENGINE FAILURE CASE)

Percent Change in Runway Length

Profile

Number

Sea
Level

Sea
Level

15Oc
84,500

32'~
84,500
lb

lb

Iiunway Slope Index

1,000ft 1,000ft
(300 m) (300 m)
13'~
84,500
lb

32'~
82,000
lb

Number Number Number Number

1
2
3
4
:

Percent change in runway length is the percent increase or decrease required for
the particular profile as compared to the level runway length.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1- ~ ~ / 7 5

15

TABLE 4 - EFFECT C F RUNWAY SLOPES ON RUNWAY LENGTHS

DC-9 (ALL-ENGINE CASE)
Percent Change in Runway Length

Number

Sea
Level

Sea
Level

15Oc
84,500

32Oc

1,000ft
(300 m)
13Oc

Runway Slope Index

1,000ft
(300 m) Number
1
32Oc

Number
2

Number Number
3
4

Ib

i
1

Level

0. 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

A- 1
A-2
A-3

4. 92
5. 79
3. 53

1. 00
1. 00

0. 80

1. 00
1. 00
0. 80

1.00
0. 94
0.74

1.00
0.98
0.74

A-4
A-5
A-6

4. 57
3. 71
3. 63

0. 80
0.75
0.60

0. 80
0. 75
0. 60

0. 85
0.75
0. 55

0.88
0.75
0.60

A-7
A-8
A-9

3.40
2. 45
2.64

0.60
0. 50
0.40

0. 60
0. 50
0.40

0.75
0. 50
0.24

0.75
0.50
0.31

A-10
A-11
A- 12
A- 13

1. 78
1. 12
0. 89
4. 51

0.40
0.20
0.20
1. 00

0.40
0.20
0.20
1. 00

0.60
0.10
0. 30
1.25

0. P7
0.13
0.28
1.23.

B- 1
B-2
B- 3

-4.58
-5.24
-3.41

-1.00
-1.00
-0.70

1.00
1.00
0.70

-1.00
-0.94
-0.78

-1'00
-0.98:
-0.79

B-4
B- 5
B- 6

-2.66
-0.75
-4.52

-0.50
-0.30
-1.00

0.50
0. 30
1.00

-0.70
-0.50
-1.25

-0.68
-0.45
-1.231

C- 1
C-2
C-3

0.27
-0.45
1. 00

0. 00
-0.15
0. 15

0.38
0.45
0.45

-0.38
-0.53
-0.23

-0.31
-0.46
-0.16

D- 1
D-2
D-3

-0.30
-1.01
0. 39

0.00
-0. 15
0. 15

0. 38
0.45
0. 45

0.38
0.23
0. 53

0.31'
0.16
0.46

Percent change in runway length is the percent increase or decrease required f o r

the particular profile a s compared to the level runway length.

ICAO Circular 9 1-AN/75

16

TABLE 5

- EFFECT OF RUNWAY SLOPES ON RUNWAY LENGTHS

DC-8 (ALL-ENGINE CASE)

Percent Change in Runway Length

Sea

Sea

Level

Level

Profile 15OC
Number 306,000
lb

32OC

R u w v a ~81-

Index

1,000 ft 1,000 ft
(300 m) (300 m)
13OC

32'~

Number Number Number Number

1

1.00
0.94
0.74

1.00
0.98
0.74

0.85
0.75
0.55

0.88
0.75
0.60

0.75
0.50
0.24

0.75
0.50
0.31

0.60
0.10
0.30
1.25

0.57
0.13
0.28
1.23

-1.00
-0.94
-0.78

-1.00
-0.98
-0.79

-0.70
-0.50
-1.25

-0.68
-0.45
-1.23

-0.38
-0.53
-0.23

-0.31
-0.46
-0.16

0.38
0.23
0.53

0.31
0.16
0.46

Percent change in runway length ie the percent increase or decrease required for
the particular profile as compared to the level runway length.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1- ~ ~ / 7 5

TABLE 6

i7

- EFFECT OF RUNWAY SLOPES ON RUNWAY LENGTHS

DC-8 (ENGINE FAILURE CASE)
Runway Slope Index

Percent Change in Runway Length

profile
Number

Sea
Level

I&
306,000
lbu

Sea
Level
32'~

1,000ft
(300 m)
13'~

1,000ft
(300 m) 'Number
1
32'~

Number Number
3
4

Number
2

0.00

0.00

1.00
1. 00
0. 80

1.00
0. 94
0.74

1.00
0.98
0.74

0. 80
0.75
0.60

0. 80
0.75
0. 60

0. 85
0.75
0. 55

0. 88
0.75
0.60

4. 82
3. 53
2.76

0.60
0. 50
0.40

0. 60
0. 50
0.40

0.75
0. 50
0.24

0.75
0. 50
0.31

3.20
1.28
1.56
a.07

0.40
0.20
0.20
1. 00

0.40
0.20
0.20
1.00

0.60
0. 10
0.30
1.25

0. 57
0. 13
0.28
1.23

B-1
B-2
B-3

-6.02
-6.22
-4.53

-1.00
-1.00
-0.70

1.00
1.00
0.70

-1.00
-0.94
-0.78

-1.00
-0.98
-0.79

B-4
B-5
B-6

-3.39
-1.86
-6.35

-0.50
-0.30
-1.00

0. 50
0.30
1. 00

-0. 70
-0.50
-1.25

-0.68
-0.45
-1.23

C-1
C-2
C -3

-0.34
-1.28
0.60

0. 00
-0. 15
0. 15

0.38
0.45
0.45

-0.31
-0.38
-0.46
-0.53
-0.23 - -0.16

D- 1
D-2
D-3

0. 63
-0.43
1. 71

0. 00
-0.15
0. 15

0. 38
0.45
0.45

Level

0.00

0. 00

0.00

A- 1
A-2
A-3

7.34
7. 50
5. 50

1. 00
1. 00
0. 80

A-4
A-5
A-6

6.21
5.40
4.47

A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13

0.38
0.23
0. 53

0.31
0.16
0.46

Percent change in runway length is the percent increase o r decrease required for
the particular profile as compzred to the level runway length.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1 - A ~ / 7 5

18

TABLE 7

- EFFECT OF RUNWAY SLOPES ON RUNWAY LENGTHS

VANGUARD (ENGINE FAILURE CASE)

Percent Change in Runway Length

"Ofile

Number

Sea
Level
15'~

Sea
Level

1,000 ft
(300 rn)

32'~

13'~

Runway Slope Index

1,000 f t
(300 m) Number
1
32'~

Number
2

Number
3

Number
4

306,000
Ib
Level

0.00

0. 00

0.00

0. 00

0. 00

A- 1
A-2
A-3

5.98
6. 16
4.50

1. 00
1. 00
0. 80

1. 00
1.00
0. 80

1. 00
0.94
0.74

1. 00
0.98
0.74

A-4
A-5
A-6

5. 06
4.44
3.70

0. 80
0. 75
0. 60

0. 80
0.75
0. 60

0. 85
0.75
0. 55

0. 88
0.75
0.60

A-7
A-8
A-9

3.93
2.92
2.34

0.60
0. 50
0.40

0.60
0. 50
0.40

0.75
0. 50
0.24

0.75
0. 50
0. 31

A- 10
A-11
A-12
A- 13

2.60
1.06
1.29
6.37

0.40
0.20
0.20
1. 00

0.40
0.20
0.20
1. 00

0.60
0. 10
0. 30
1.25

0. 57
0. 13
0.28
1.23

B- 1
B-2
B- 3

-5.29
-5.45
-3.97

-1.00
-1.00
-0.70

1.00
1.00
0.70

-1.00
-0.94
-0.78

-1.00
-0.98
-0.79

B-4
B-5
B-6

-3.08
-1.68
-5.65

-0.50
-0.30
-1.00

0.50
0.30
1.00

-0.70
-0.50
-1.25

-0.68
-0.45
-1.23

C- 1
C-2
C-3

-0.41
-1.24
0.42

0.00
-0.15
0.15

0.38
0.45
0.45

-0.38
-0.53
-0.23

-0.31
-0.46
-0.16

D-1

0. 51
-0.34
1. 36

0. 00
-0.15
0. 15

0. 38
0.45
0.45

0.38
0.23
0.53

D-2
D-3

0. 31
0. 16
0.46

Percent change in runway length is the percent increase o r decrease required for
the particular profile as compared t o the level runway length.

1?

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1 - ~ ~ / 7 5

TABLE 8 - COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED STANDARD DEVIATION FROM LINEAR

REGRESSION ON RUNWAY SLOPE INDEX VS. RUNWAY CORRECTION

Aircraft*

TYPe

slope
Index
Number

Estimated Standard E r r o r
All Data Points
Data Points With
Positive and Negative
Positive Runway
Runway Corrections
Corrections Only

DC-6B
'
Engine Out
Case

1
2
3
4

2.08

DC-8
Engine Out
Case

1
2
3
4

0.41

DC-9
Engine Out

1
2
3
4

0. 72
0. 71

1. 11
0. 87
0.60

0.75
0. 53

Vanguard
Engine Out
Case

1
2
3
4

DC-8
All Engine

1
2
3
4

0.50

1
2
3
4

0.40

DC-9
All - Engine

*All Conditions

- Sea Level
15OC
No Wind

0. 3 1

0.9 1
0.70

1. 58
1. 38

1.23
1. 06

Data Points With

Negative Runway
Corrections Only

1. 85
1. 58
0.49
0.48

0: 84

0. 35
1. 11
1. 05
0. 74

0, 14
i. 2 1
0.75
0.55

0.45
0. 83
0.69
0.43

0.33
1, 07
0. 67
0. 51

0.28
0.77
0.90
0. 69

0. 31
0. 86
1. 03
0. 80

0.46
0. 83
1.31
1. 18

0. 55
0. 72
1. 53
1. 39

0.42
0. 80
1. 03
0.91

1.42
0: 16
0.19

0. 40
0. 65
1. 24
1. 10

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1 -AN/75

20

10

/4

/8 22

26 30

34

38 42

46 50

Aerodrome Reference- temperature

Fig. 1 - Distribution of aerodrome reference temperatures.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 91 - ~ ~ / 7 5

c.

21

d.

Fig. 2 - Selected study profiles.

.,

22

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1-AN/75

Fig. 3 - Effective runway gradient code l e t t e r s A to G.

Fig. 4 - Slopes on the f i r s t and l a s t

quarter of runways - code l e t t e r s
A , B, and C .

0
0

.2

.4

.6 .8

LO

12 1 . 1.6 L 8

2.0

Slope

Fig. 5 - Slopes on the f i r s t and l a s t

quarter of runways - code l e t t e r s
D, E. F , and G.

23

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1- A ~ / 7 5

0
0

.2 .4

.6

.8

LO

L4

L6

L 8 2.0

Slope
Fig. 6 - Maximum longitudinal slopes on runways
(a1ong any portion).

Fig. 7 - Effective runway gradients at selected

aerodromes in the United States.

24

.-

ICAO Circular 9 1-AN/75

once ro

ne'gnr aDove
runway or
brake to o stop

/
Distance

)L

A,, A = A / / - engine acce/eration distance

B = One engine - out acce/eration distance.
L;, C = C / h b distance from /iff-off to a specified

height above runway.

D = Transition distance from a// - engine operation
-.
to fuN braking.
E = Deceleration distance
'5 = C/imb ve/ocity of specified height above run way
lf=
~ n g i n ef a h r e or recognition ve/ocity .
Fig. 8

- Take-off

and acceleration-stop distance segments.

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1 - ~ ~ / 7 5

25

Sea /eve/ to 2000 f t e/evotion

6 0 0 0 f t e/#otion 7

-Negatlve

gradient

;/

Pcs/t/ve
gradient

-/

-f

+/

Percent Uniform Runway Gradient

Fig. 9 -Range of maximu17: effect of ~ n ~ f c rr1Lmtay

m
gradients on required runway
length (Reference -1).

'f

26

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1 - A ~ / 7 5

Fig. 10 - Effect of uniform runway slopes on runway length.

ICAO Circular 9 1- ~ ~ / 7 5

27

16
I AIS

DC- 6.9

DC- 68
Conditions:
-580 Level
15%
No W ~ n d

.
I
AI

*A+
.A7

"%As

Index No.2 is oslopedelsrm~ned

by dividingthe maximum
dilhreme in eleval~onby NM
length ofrunwoy. Always a

.AIO

*A@

4
.
.
.OI

*a

*,I,

.DI

.A11

I
.CI

.CI

B#

.CI

OD*

*.a
#I-

4181

<'Be

16

1.30

Runway Slopr ln&x No f

16

130 LOO .75 .50 .25 0 .25 .50 .75

Runwoy Slope Index No3

"+

1.00 .75 .50 .25 0 .25 .50 .75

Runway Slope Index No.2

/.a7 L30

1.00 L30
Runwoy S/ope Index No 4

Fig. 11 - Comparison of runway slope indices for determining runway length, DC-6B.

ICAO Circular 9 1 - A ~ / 7 5

28

,"

I"

l.30

l.00 .75

. 5 0 . 2 5 0 .25 .50 7.5

Runwoy S l o p Index No.!

1.00 1.30

1.20

l.00 .75 . 5 0 . 2 5 0 . 2 5 .50 .75

Runway Slope lndex No.2

LOO

/30

/6
/.30

/.OO .75

.50 .25
0 .25 .50
Runwoy Slope Index No.3

Runway Slope /ndex No. 4

Fig. 12 - Comparison of runway slope indices for determining runway length, DC-9
(engine failure case).

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1- A ~ / 7 5

Runwoy Slope Index No I

Runway S/ope Index No 2

Runwoy Slope lndex No 3

29

.,(30

LOO .75 .50 .25 0

.25 .50 .75 LO0 L30

Runway Slope lndex No 4

Fig. 13 - Comparison of runway slope indices for determining runway length, DC-9
(all-engine case).

ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1-AN/75

30

DC- 8
cond,tioAs:
seo eve/
ls'c
I
No Windl

-~

I
i

I
I
I

/ndexi No i
' :'so s l o L detirmined
by dividing the maximum
differencein elevation by the
-/ength ofrunwoy, rllwoys o
po ;live value.

)It

%*

.
I

0..

II.?'

i'

I"'

,.
1
'bA0

%
3
c:

.A,,

C, I

..I2

.D3

-El

.DI

.5

.DI
0.4

B
U
.
.
II

-.

-+
1

L30

LO0 .75

. 5 0 . 2 5 0 . 2 5 . 5 0 .75 LOO
Runwoy Slope hdex No.1

1.30

.50 . 2 5

0 . 2 5 . 5 0 .75
Runwoy Slope Index No 2

Condil~ons:

No Wind

,"

130

1.00 75 .50 .25 0

25 .50 75
Runwoy Slope Index No 3

LOO

1.30
Runwoy Slope Index No.4

Fig. 14 - Comparison of runway slope indices for determining runway length, DC-8
(all-engine case).

--

;PO
- C i r c u l a r 91-AN/75

31

-.

Runwoy Slops /ndex No. 2

1
I6

/30 I@ .75

.50 .25 0 -25 .50

Runwoy Slope Index No 3

.75

LOO 1 3 0

Runwoy Slope Index IW 4

Fig. 15 - Comparison of runway slope indices for determining runway length, DC-8
(engine failure case).

.ICAO C i r c u l a r 9 1- A ~ / 7 5

32

Runway S/ope Index No I

Runway Slope Index No 2

Runwoy Slope lndex No 3

Fig. 16 - Comparison of runway slope indices for determining runway length,

Vanguard ( c n ~. ~ f ilure case).

ICAO Circular 9 1 -AN/75

Fig. 17 - Recommended runway corrections related to the Slope Index.

33.

34

ICAO C i r c u l a r 91 -AN/75

REFERENCES

1.

International Standards and Recommended P r a c t i c e s , ICAO Annex 14

A e r o d r o m e s , F o u r t h Edition, 1964.

2.

ICAO Aerodrome Manual, P a r t 2, Second Edition, Montreal, 1965.

3.

U. S. F e d e r a l Aviation Agency, Advisory C i r c u l a r AC 1 5 0 / 5 3 2 5 - 2 ~ , A i r p o r t

Surface A r e a s Gradients, 12 May 1966.

4.

Ahlborn, G. , and Horonjeff, R. : "Effect of Gradient on J e t T r a n s p o r t

Runway Lengths, I ' J o u r n a l of the Aero-Space T r a n s p o r t Division, American
Society of Civil E n g i n e e r s , Vol. 89, No. AT 1, A p r i l 1963.

5. Midwest R e s e a r c h Institute: "Analysis of C r i t e r i a f o r P a v e m e n t Slopes.

"

P r e p a r e d f o r U. S, F e d e r a l Aviation Agency, Kansas City, M i s s o u r i ,

May 1965.
6.

ICAO, Airworthiness Division, F o u r t h Session, AIR - ~ ~ / 4 012/3/5

,
1,
Agenda I t e m 1. 4. Effect of runway slopes and definition of 'effective
longitudinal slopet. "Determination of an equivalent uniform runway slope
f o r runways having a continuously changing slopett ( p r e s e n t e d by the
Netherlands).

7.

M e i s n e r , M. , ttDiscussion of Reference 2 , " Journal of the Aero-Space

T r a n s p o r t Division, A m e r i c a n Society of Civil E n g i n e e r s , Vol. 89,
No. AT 2, October 1963.

- END -

ICAO TECIiNICAL PIJBLICATIONS

The following strntmary gives thc status, and also
descrih~sin g e w n l terms the conttPnts of the various
series of technical publications issued by the Interrwtional Cirjil Aviation Organization. It does not include
specialized puhlicntions thut do not fall specifically
within one of the series, such us the IrAo Aeronautical
Chart Cat,llogue Or the Met~nrological T a h l ~ for
~
International Air Navigation.
INI'EHNA'I'IONAL S1'ANiIAHIlS ANU Hi<G'OMb1ENUED FHAC7'1CES arc adoptc*rl 11y t l ~ cCout~cil
in accort1,ince witlt Articles 54, 37 ;lrrtl 90 of tilt. Convention on International Civil Aviation and arc. tlc.signated, for c~~nvenirrtce,a\ Antlexe5 to thr Cor~vr.trtiorr.
The itt~ifonti application by Contracting States of the
specifications comprised in the Intcrnational Standard\
is recognized ah necessary fot the safety or rcgr~larity
of international air navigation while the 11niforn1 application of the specifications in the Recomniend~~l
Practices is regarded as desirable in the interest of saftqy,
regularity or efficiency of international air r~.~vigation.
Knowledge of any differences between the national regul'ltions or practices of R State and those cstablislrtd by
an International Standard is asential to the safety or
regularity of international air navigation. In the cvcnt
of non-compliance wit11 an tntern:~tional Standard, a
State has, in fad, an obligation, under Article 38 of
the Convention, to notify the Council of any differences.
Kt~owledgeof differences from Reconlmended Practices
may also be important for the safety of air navigation
and, although the Convention does not impose any obligation with regard thereto, the Council has invited Contracting States to notify such differences it1 addition to
those relating tu International Standards.
PROCEDURES 'OR AIR NAVIGATION SERVICES
(PANS)are approved hy the Council for world-wide
application, They comprise, for the most part, operating
procedures regarded as not yet having attained a atfficient degree of maturity for adoption as International
Standards and Recommended Practices, as well as
material of a more permanent character which is considered tw detailed for incorporation in an Annex, or
is susceptible to frequent amendment, for which the
processes of the Convention would be too cumbersome.
As in the case of Recwmmended Practices, the Cor~ncil

has invited Contracting States to notify any differences

between their national practices and the PASS when the
knowledge of such differences is important for the safety
of air navigation.
REGIONAL SUPPLEMENTAHY PROCEDUMS
( s v r ~ s )have a status similar to that of PANS in that they
are approvecl by the Coltncil, but only for application in
the respective regions. They are prepared in consolidated
fonn, since certain of the procedures apply to overlapping
regions or are conlnlon to two or more regions.

The fvlloiuing pul)licutiont are l)rc,parud 1.y ctcrtlrwity

of the S e c t d a y Ge~wralin uccordnnrt* with tltc jrrit~ipler
n i ~ dpolicies approvucf by the collncil.
ICAO FIELD MANUALS derive their stat~tsfrom the
International Standards, Rmmnlendnl Practices and
PANS froin which they are cnmpiled. They are preparul
primarily for the tlse of personnel engaged in operations
in the field, as a service to those Contracting States
who do not find it practicable, for various rc-itsons, to
prepare them for their own use.
TECHNICAL MANUALS provide guidance and information in amplification of the International Standards,
Recommended Practices and ~ m s the
,
implenlentation
of which they are designed to facilitate.
AIR NAVIGATION PLANS detail requirements for
facilities and services for international air navigation in
the respective ICAO Air Navigation Regions. They are
prepared on the authority of the Secretary General on
the basis of recommendations of regional air navigatiori
~tieetingsand of the Council action thereon. The plans
are amended periodically t o retlect changes in requirements and in the status of implementation of the
recohmended facilities and services.
ICAO CIRCULARS make available specialized infornation of interest to Contracting States. This includes
studies on technical subjects as well as texts of Pmviuional Acceptable Means of C~mpliance.

EXTRACT FROM T H E CATALOGUE

ICAO SALABLE PUBLICATIONS
AERODROME MANUAL
(Doc 7920

AN/^ 65)

Part 1. - General. Third Edition, 1966. Trilingual.

Part 2.

- Aerodrome Physical Characteristics.

Second Edition, 1965

Part 3.

U. S. $2. 25

. . . . . . . . . . . .

- Obstruction Restriction,

Removal
and Marking. Third Edition, 1968

Part 4. - Visual Ground Aids. Third Edition,

....
1966 .

U. S. $3, 00
U. S. $0. 75

U. S. $1. 00

Part 5. - Equipment, Procedures and Services.

.............
Edition, 1966 . . . . . . .

T h i r d Edition, 1966

Part 6. - Heliports. T h i r d

Part 7. - Water Aerodromes. Second Edition, 1964

U. S. $3.25
U. S. $1. 50

U. S. $0. 50

...

U. S. $2.00

ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION

Annex 14

- Aerodromes.

Fourth Edition, 1964

T h i s Annex to the Convention on International Civil

Aviation contains Standards and Recommended P r a c t i c e s
that p r e s c r i b e the physical a n d a s s o c i a t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
to be p o s s e s s e d by, and equipment to be provided a t a e r o d r o m e s used for international operations.
An appropriate relationship between a number of
d i f f e r e n t physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s prescribed, providing
a s e r i e s of design c r i t e r i a for efficiently proportioned
aerodromes.
It a l s o contains specifications concerning the c l e a r i n g
and m a r k i n g of obstructions on and in the vicinity of a e r o d r o m e s and concerning the visual ,ground a i d s and other
facilities n e c e s s a r y for safe and efficient operations.

N.B.-Cash

@ ICAO 1968

remittance should accompany each order.

Calnlogue sent free on request

- 11/68, E/P1/2000

P R I C E : U . S . $0. 7 5
(or equivalent in other currencies)