Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.

347-366
www.advanced-transport.com

Airport Obstacle Surfaces

Scott Litsheim
Xiaosong Xiao

The most commonly used criteria to determine

complicated airport obstacle surfaces are FAR Part 77
imaginary surfaces, TERPS, and the one engine inoperative
obstacle identification surface for air carriers. For each
obstacle surface there are tradeoffs encountered in our practice
between the obstruction penetration and extension of runway,
change of flight profile, and allowable aircraft maximum
payloads. For the purposes of both airport engineering and
airport planning, a better understanding of these different
obstacle surfaces and their application is important. In this
paper, the differences and relationships between these surfaces
are addressed. The conditions for the use of each criterion are
discussed. In addition, the FAA’s Obstruction Evaluation /
Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) process is reviewed.

1. Introduction

Airspace protection and obstacle clearance are vital to airport and

aircraft operation. Restrictions should be established on the heights of
buildings, antennas, trees, and other objects as necessary to protect the
airspace needed for operation of the airport and aircraft. The most
commonly used criteria to determine the complicated airport obstacle
surface are FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces [FAA(1993)], TERPS
[FAA(2002a)], and the one engine inoperative obstacle identification
surface for air carriers [FAA(2004a,b, 2005, 2006a)].
Terminal instrument procedures ensure the safety of aircraft during
approaches and departures. The obstacle clearance surfaces used to
develop these procedures are in Order 8260.3B [FAA(2002)], U.S.
Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) in FAA(2002),
and associated orders. If an obstacle is allowed to penetrate these
surfaces, it will affect approach and departure minimums, which the
FAA considers to be a hazard to air navigation. As such, TERPS is one
of the FAR Part 77 standards for determining obstructions to navigable

Scott Litsheim and Xiaosong Xiao, HTNB Corporation, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Received:January 2006 Accepted: November 2006
348 S. Litsheim and X. Xiao

airspace. Another FAR Part 77 standard for determining obstructions is

the more commonly known imaginary surfaces.
The other pertinent design criterion is the one engine inoperative
(OEI) obstacle identification surface (OIS) as described in FAA Order
8400.10 [FAA(2004a)], FAR PART 25 [FAA(2004b)], FAR Part 121 air
carrier [FAA(2005a)] and FAR Part 135 air taxi operations
[FAA2006]. The purpose of the OEI OIS sets the maximum departure
weights for air carriers, which have a great impact on airline revenues.
For runway threshold siting, there are certain approach and departure
obstacle clearance requirements that must be met. These requirements, or
so-called “threshold siting surfaces”, include three visual approach
surfaces unique to the Airport Design AC 150/5300-13 [FAA(2006b)]]
along with supplemental criteria from TERPS and the OEI OIS.
In this paper, the differences and relationships between these
surfaces are addressed. The conditions for the use of each criterion is
discussed. In addition, the FAA’s Obstruction Evaluation / Airport
Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) process is reviewed.

2. Far Part 77.25 Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces

This regulation defines the requirements for notice to the FAA

Administrator of certain proposed construction or alterations, establishes
standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace, and
provides for aeronautical studies of obstructions to air navigation to
determine their effect on the safe and efficient use of airspace. The FAR
Part 77 standards for obstructions, which incorporate TERPS, also
include imaginary surfaces surrounding all airports in the United States.
FAR Part 77.25 defines five imaginary surfaces: primary, approach,
transitional, horizontal and conical. These vary based on the type of
operating procedures established for the airport. The purpose of these
imaginary surfaces is to protect the airspace surrounding an airport from
any hazards to air navigation. However, keep in mind that the
obstruction criteria set forth in Part 77.25 are just a standard to determine
if it is necessary to further study the impact of a construction proposal. If
an existing or proposed structure exceeds any imaginary surface, an
aeronautical study shall be conducted to identify the effects of the object
on the use of navigable airspace.
A hazard to air navigation is defined as any obstruction, natural or
man-made, that penetrates a Part 77 surface and is shown by aeronautical
Airport Obstacle Surfaces 349

study to have a “substantial adverse effect” on air navigation, which

means not only having an adverse effect but also impacting regular and
continuing operations.
Although the FAA can determine which structures are obstructions
to air navigation, the FAA is not authorized to regulate tall structures.
Rather, the FAA acknowledges that state or local authorities have control
over the appropriate use of property beneath an airport’s airspace.

3. Terps

TERPS are procedures for instrument approach and departure of

aircraft to and from civil and military airports. Instrument arrival and
departure procedures in the U.S. are designed in accordance with Order
8260.3B, U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).
This technical document provides guidance that is used in the
development of instrument approaches. Approach minimums are
published for different aircraft categories and consist of a minimum
altitude and required visibility. These minimums are determined, in part,
by applying the appropriate obstacle clearances outlined within the
criteria.
TERPS is used for airport obstruction analysis to protect airspace.
TERPS criteria are used to develop instrument procedures and conduct
obstacle evaluations for instrument operations. TERPS is used to
establish restrictions on the height of buildings, antennas, trees, and other
objects as necessary to protect the airspace needed for airborne aircraft
during preparation for and completion of the landing or departure phases
of flight. For aircraft ground operation, TERPS also requires the
appropriate runway/taxiway separation, which is based on aircraft design
group and ILS category, as specified in FAA Notice 8260.56
[FAA(2006c)]].
TERPS procedures are constructed from the electronic signals
transmitted by ground and space based air navigation electronic
equipment. The TERPS surfaces therefore protect the instrument
procedures that aircraft pilots use to fly between airports, and land and
depart on runways. There are four types of terminal instrument
procedures: (1) precision approach (including missed approach), (2) non-
precision approach (including missed approach), (3) circling (including
missed approach), and (4) departure.
350 S. Litsheim and X. Xiao

3.1 Precision Approach

An instrument approach procedure (IAP) may have four separate

segments. They are the initial, intermediate, final, and missed approach
segments. Only a portion of the final approach segment needs to be
considered as the final approach area for obstacle clearance purposes,
which begins at the final approach fix (FAF) and ends at the runway or
missed approach point (MAP), whichever is encountered last.
For a precision approach, this means that vertical guidance is
available from either a glide slope or GPS and that the final approach
course must be aligned within +/- 3° of runway centerline. To protect
the final approach segment, there is obstacle protection for the entire
final approach area consisting of 34:1 “W” and 4:1 “X” obstacle
clearance surfaces (OCSs) for the primary area and a 7:1 “Y” OCS for
the secondary area. These surfaces are shown in Figure 1.

7:1
4:1
Runway Threshold
34:1 (or 20:1)

200' 4:1
7:1

Cross Section at
7:1 50200' from RWT 7:1
Cross Section at
200' from RWT
4:1 4:1
7:1 7:1
4:1 4:1

2500 3876 2200 2200 3876 2500

300 300 400 400 300 300

Figure 1. TERPS-Precision Obstacle Clearance Areas

Airport Obstacle Surfaces 351

A missed approach procedure [FAA(1994), FAA(2004c)] can be

considered as a continuation of the approach procedure, and shall be
established for each IAP. The missed approach shall be initiated at the
decision altitude (DA) for precision approaches, or from the minimum
descent altitude (MDA) at the missed approach point (MAP) in non-
precision approaches. The missed approach OCS starts approximately at
the DA/MDA altitudes minus the final segment required obstacle
clearance (ROC). Therefore, the final segment ROC is assured at the
beginning of the OCS and increases as the missed approach route
progresses. The OCS is applied until at least the minimum initial or en
route value of ROC is attained, as appropriate. Additionally, there are
both straight-ahead and turning missed approach procedures, and each
type has their own obstacle clearance areas that shall not be penetrated.
There is a minimum visibility requirement for precision approaches.
The obstacle clearance requirement to determine the lowest achievable
visibility requires a wider area than the 34:1 “W” surface, although it too
is a 34:1 surface. A clear 34:1 surface allows for less than ¾ mile
visibility, but then an approach lighting system is also required. If the
34:1 is penetrated then the lowest achievable visibility minimum is ¾
mile even with approach lights. Moreover, if the 34:1 is penetrated then
a 20:1 surface is applied. If the 20:1 is penetrated then the lowest
achievable visibility minimum is 1 mile and the obstacle must be lighted
or night approaches will be denied.
Restrictions on the heights of objects for a precision approach also
depend on the following criteria:

Adjustment of Decision Altitude (DA)

Obstacle penetrations to the OCS result in actions to be taken as

specified in FAA Order 8260.3B [FAA(2002a)]. One of these actions is
the adjustment of the Decision Altitude (DA) and is employed to
guarantee the required obstacle clearance, as shown in Figure 2. Ideally
the minimum DA is 200 feet above runway threshold. The calculation of
the revised minimum Height Above Touchdown (HAT)/maximum ROC
is based on the following formula, and once adjusted, is not less than 250
feet.

GPA
Min Hat and Max ROC = 250 , where GPA is glidepath angle.
3
352 S. Litsheim and X. Xiao

Adjusted DA
Glidepath

Ideal DA: 200 feet

Glidepath=102/GPA
OCS

h Object
Runway

Figure 2. DA Adjustment

Glidepath Qualification Surface (GQS)

Glidepath Qualification Surface (GQS) is the other criterion to

restrict the height of object. The GQS extends from the DA point along
the runway centerline extended to the area around the runway threshold,
depending on the threshold crossing height (TCH). It limits the height of
obstructions between DA and RWT to assure a stabilized descent for safe
landing. When obstructions exceed the height of the GQS, an approach
procedure with positive vertical guidance (ILS, MLS, TLS, GLS,
VNAV, etc.) is not authorized.

Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ)

The Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ) [7] is defined as a volume

of airspace above an area beginning at the runway threshold, at the
threshold elevation, and centered on the extended runway centerline (200
feet long by 800 feet wide). Under prerequisites of a vertically guided
approach and an aircraft within two miles, the POFZ is only in effect if
the reported ceiling is below 250 feet and/or visibility less than ¾ statute
miles (or RVR below 4000 feet). Otherwise, the POFZ is not in effect.
Thus, planning for a POFZ is required for any runway end that has a
vertically guided approach procedure with published minimums of either
Airport Obstacle Surfaces 353

250 or -¾, or lower. When the POFZ is in effect, an infringement by an

aircraft fuselage is not allowed, but a wing is allowed. The POFZ is
applicable at all runway ends including displaced thresholds. The airport
sponsor is responsible for maintaining a clear POFZ and if the POFZ is
not clear, the minimum HAT/visibility is 250 feet and ¾ statute miles.

ILS Critical Areas

For ILS flight, the glide slope and localizer have their own critical
areas [FAA(2005b)]. These areas must be cleared.

Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) Obstacle Clearance Surface

In addition to instrument navigational aids, a visual navigational aid,

such as the PAPI system, plays an important role in the restriction to the
height of the obstacle [FAA(1981)]. The PAPI obstacle clearance surface
cannot be penetrated.
In conclusion, all available criteria, not just a single criterion, must
be taken into consideration to determine if a penetration to airspace is
acceptable, as even if a penetration is acceptable by one criterion, other
criteria may not allow this penetration. Thus, a comprehensive and
complicated airspace analysis study is always needed.

3.2 Non-Precision Approach

Where no usable glidepath is available, there are many types of

navigation systems available that can provide horizontal course guidance
to an aircraft. Non-precision procedures, such as GPS, VOR, NDB, and
LOC-only, do not have vertical guidance, other than below the minimum
descent altitude (MDA) where a visual glidepath slope indicator system
(VGSI), such as a VASI or PAPI, may provide descent rate guidance. As
with precision approaches, only that portion of the final approach area
that is between the FAF and the runway need be considered for obstacle
clearance purposes. The minimum Required Obstacle Clearance (ROC)
in the final approach area is 250 feet. In addition, the MDA established
for the final approach area shall assure that no obstacles penetrate the 7:1
transitional surfaces, as shown in Figure 3.
354 S. Litsheim and X. Xiao

2500'

7:1

300' 6076'

700' Primary Area

LTP
700'
300' 6076'

7:1

2500'

50,000 feet

200'

Cross Section at Cross Section at

200' from RWT 50200' from RWT
7:1 7:1
MDA
7:1 250' ROC 7:1 250' ROC

300 700 700 300 2500 6076 6076 2500

Figure 3. Non-Precision Approach Obstacle Clearance

2 NM

REA
RY A
NDA
SECO

4 NM
PRIMARY AREA
MAP

FINAL MISSED APPROACH COURSE

15 NM FROM MAP

40:1
PRIMARY AREA
4 NM
WIDTH OF AREA
VARIES AT THE MAP SECO
NDA
R Y AR
EA

2 NM

Figure 4. Straight Missed Approach Area

Airport Obstacle Surfaces 355

A missed approach procedure shall be established for each IAP, the

pilot will follow the ILS and descend along the glide slope, until the
Decision Altitude (DA) or MAP in non-precision approaches is reached
(typically 200 feet above the runway). At this point, the pilot must have
the runway or its approach lights in sight to continue the approach. If
neither can be seen, the approach must be aborted and a Missed
Approach procedure will be initiated, where the aircraft will climb back
to a predetermined altitude. From there the pilot will either try the same
approach again or divert to another airport. Different categories of ILS
approach have different DA's.
The missed approach is classified into two categories:
Straight Missed Approach: When the missed approach course is within
15° of the final approach course, it is considered a straight missed
approach.
Turning Missed Approach: If a turn of more than 15° from the final
approach course is required, a turning or combination straight and
turning missed approach area must be constructed.
The missed approach is ideally a straight missed approach. The
construction of the missed approach surfaces depends on the approach
types, such as visual approach, non-precision (WAAS, Localizer, RNAV
and GPS) and precision approach (CAT I, CAT II/III) [FAA(2002a,
1995, 2002b, 1998, 1999, 2002c)] ]. But the missed approach procedure
must be simple, specify an altitude, and a clearance limit. The missed
approach altitude specified in the procedure shall be sufficient to permit
holding or en route flight. The area considered for obstacles has a width
equal to that of the final approach area at the MAP and expands
uniformly to the width of the initial approach.

3.4 Circling Approach

A circling approach is a maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the

aircraft with a runway for landing when a straight-in landing from an
instrument approach is not possible or desirable. There are two cases
where this occurs: an approach not aligned with the runway and an
approach aligned with the runway, but not to the runway you want to
land on. The circling radii and circling minimum are specified in FAA
Order 8260.3B. A minimum of 300 feet of obstacle clearance shall be
provided in the circling. The circling approach shall be initiated in the
final approach segment of any published approach procedure that
provides circling minimums.
356 S. Litsheim and X. Xiao

The circling approach, of course, is a non-precision approach. In a

circling approach, the pilot’s concern is his or her ability to keep the
airport in sight while maneuvering for a runway which differs from the
approach course.
Circling patterns are shown in Figure 5. Pattern “A” can be flown
when the final approach course intersects the runway early enough to
establish a base leg. If one sights the runway too late to fly pattern “A”,
then a pilot can circle as shown in “B”. One can also fly pattern “C” if it
is desirable to land opposite the direction of the final approach, and the
runway is sighted in time for turn to a downwind leg. If the runway is
sighted too late for a turn to downwind, flying pattern “D” is an option.
Regardless of the pattern flown, you must maneuver the aircraft so as to
remain within the designated circling area.

A B

C D
Figure 5. Circling Patterns

3.5 Departure

In the case of an instrument departure, an OCS is applied during the

climb until at least the minimum en route value of ROC is attained. The
minimum OCS is a 40:1 surface based on the minimum rate of climb of
200 feet/NM. Figure 6 shows the classic 24% rule that the 40:1 is
derived from, where ROC=0.24*CG. The minimum ROC supplied by
the 200 feet/NM CG is 48 feet/NM (0.24 x 200)=48). Since 48 of the 200
feet gained in 1 NM is ROC, the OCS height at that point must be 152
Airport Obstacle Surfaces 357

feet, or 76% of the CG. Thus, the slope of a surface that rises 152 feet
over 1 NM is 40. The purpose of ROC is to ensure that a certain
clearance between the aircraft and the obstacle is maintained.

0.24CG=ROC

Climb Gradient
(CG)
200'

OCS 40:1 0.76CG=OCS Height

1NM
OCS Slope =
OCS Height

1 NM
Fig
ure 6. 24% Rule in Instrument Departure

4. One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Surface

This surface is used to establish the takeoff climb limit weight. It is

not to be considered a clearance surface and information concerning
penetration to this surface is provided for information only and does not
take effect until January 1, 2008 [FAA(2006b)]
Aircraft climb regulations are specified in FAA Order 8400.10
[FAA(2004a)], Air Transportation Operations Inspector's Handbook, and
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 25 [FAA(2004b)], 121
[FAA(2005a)] and 135 [FAA(2006a)]. The takeoff weight of large,
turbine-powered airplanes must be limited to allow the aircraft to climb
at a specified gradient through each of the defined climb segments of the
takeoff flight path.
The obstacle clearance net takeoff flight path for FAR Part 25
airplanes is derived by subtracting an increment from the actual flight
path the airplane can fly (gross flight path). The net flight path begins at
the point the airplane reaches 35 feet above the runway and must pass
not less than 35 feet over each obstacle, as shown in Figure 7.
358 S. Litsheim and X. Xiao

Because the minimum climb gradient required for two-engine

aircraft is less than the minimum climb gradients for three-engine or
four-engine aircraft, the most critical situation for obstacle clearance is
that for two-engine aircraft. And for aircraft with two engines the
subtracted increment is 0.8%. So, the slope of the surface will be the
minimum two-engine required actual (gross) flight path of 2.4% minus
0.8%, which equals 1.6%, or a 62.5:1 slope. Then, for each specified
altitude and temperature, a maximum allowable takeoff weight is
calculated to achieve a net takeoff flight of at least 1.6% which assures
that all obstacles are cleared by the required 35 feet.
It specifies the obstacle-free minimum climb gradients required for
turbine-powered aircraft with one engine inoperative. Accordingly, the
1.6% (62.5:1) slope has been adopted by the FAA as the one-engine-
inoperative surface, starting at the runway threshold elevation. It is now
referenced in FAA Advisory Circulars and Orders.

Net flight path: 1.6 % or 62.5:1 slope

Actual or Gross flight path for aircraft with two engines.
2.4 % 2-engine,
2.7% 3-engine,
3% 4-engine

35'
35' One Engine Inoperative Surface:
1.6 % or 62.5:1 slope
35' for aircraft with two engines.

Runway

Net flight path = Gross flight path - x

X = 0.8% 2-engine, 0.9% 3-engine, 1% 4-engine

Figure 7. One Engine Inoperative Surface

However, for penetrations, and in order to maintain the 35 feet of

required clearance, a steeper than 1.6% net takeoff flight path is needed
which will further reduce weight.
Airport Obstacle Surfaces 359

5. Runway Threshold Sitting Surface

TSS is utilized to locate runway threshold in order to meet approach

and departure obstacle clearance requirements, and to determine if a
threshold displacement is necessary due to penetrations to the approach
or departure surface. The dimensions of TSS vary with the type of
aircraft operations, the approach visibility minimums, and the types of
navigational instrumentation, which are defined in AC 150/5300-13,
Appendix 2 [FAA(2006b)].
The majority of the TSSs in Table A2-1 of FAA AC 150/5300-13 are
surfaces from other sources. Only the first three surfaces originate from
this Advisory Circular. Most importantly, these first three surfaces are
the only ones that cannot be penetrated without requiring a relocation or
displacement of a threshold. Rather, the remaining TSSs in Table A2-1
are TERPS surfaces and the OEI surface, which can be penetrated
without requiring a relocated or displaced threshold, although with other
tradeoffs, such as restricting TERPS night operations or limiting air
carrier takeoff weights.

6. FAA's Obstruction Evaluation Process

The prime objective of the FAA in conducting obstruction evaluation

(OE) studies is to ensure the safety of air navigation and to efficiently
utilize navigable airspace by aircraft. There are many demands being
placed on the use of the navigable airspace. The FAA's philosophy in
evaluating objects is that a structure that exceeds one or more of the FAR
Part 77 obstruction standards is presumed to be a hazard to air navigation
unless the obstruction evaluation study determines otherwise.
Aeronautical studies are conducted to determine the impact of an
object on the safe and efficient use of airspace. In order for an object to
be considered to have an adverse effect, one or more of the following
conditions must be met [FAA(2006c)]:
• Exceeds the obstruction standards of Part 77 and/or have a
physical and/or electromagnetic effect on the operation of air
navigational facilities.
• Requires a change to an instrument procedure or minimum flight
altitude.
• Requires a change of VFR regular flight course or altitude.
• Restricts control tower line-of-sight.
360 S. Litsheim and X. Xiao

• Reduces airport capacity and efficiency.

• Affects future VFR and/or IFR operations.
• Affects useable runway length.
For a determination of hazard (DOH) to be issued, a substantial
adverse effect must exist. An object has a substantial adverse effect if it
causes electromagnetic interference to the operation of an air navigation
facility or the signal used by aircraft, or if there is a combination of:
• Adverse effect.
• Significant volume of aeronautical operations.
What volume of aeronautical operations is “significant”? When one
of the following occurs the volume is considered significant:
• One or more VFR or IFR arrival or departure per day.
• An average of once-a-week for an instrument approach
procedure or minimum altitude that serves as the primary
procedure under certain conditions.
If a substantial adverse effect is found to exist, a DOH is issued. In
the absence of such a finding, a determination of no hazard (DNH) will
be issued.

7. Discussions

(1) Differences among TERPS, FAR Part 77 Civil Airport

Imaginary Surfaces, and One Engine Inoperative Surface

Figure 8 shows the runway end area of a precision instrument

runway and the critical airspace surfaces from Part 77 and TERPS along
with the OEI surface. The most critical surfaces are; the 50:1 inner
approach surface from Part 77, the 34:1 “W” approach surface from
TERPS, the 62.5:1 OEI surface, and the 40:1 TERPS departure surface.
Figure 8 indicates that which surface is lowest depends on the type of
operation (approach or departure).
Another complication is that the different non-precision approach
surfaces that vary depending upon navigation facility type and location
are not indicated. Moreover, Part 77 also includes 7:1 transitional
surfaces and TERPS includes both 4:1 and 7:1 secondary surfaces, but
these are also not shown because they are much steeper and therefore not
as critical.
TERPS surfaces are constructed from the electronic signals
transmitted by ground and space based air navigation electronic
Airport Obstacle Surfaces 361

equipment. These are the instrument procedures that aircraft pilots use to
fly between airports and land on runways. TERPS surfaces are different
than FAR Part 77, sub-Part C, imaginary obstacle surfaces that surround
an airport. These instrument surfaces can extend 10 nautical miles from a
runway; whereas obstacle surfaces normally extend only 10,000 feet.
Since airspace protection and obstacle clearance are vital to airport
and aircraft operation, restrictions should be established on the heights of
buildings, antennas, trees, and other objects as necessary to protect the
airspace needed for operation of the airport and aircraft. These
restrictions should be primarily based upon the FAR Part 77 imaginary
surfaces. However, additions or adjustments that take into account
TERPS surfaces should be also made, as necessary, because TERPS
requirements are a Part 77 standard for determining obstructions. The
OEI surface is also critical, but because it is used to determine takeoff
weight, and takeoff weights are also subject to a multitude of other
factors such as temperature, altitude, aircraft type, etc., it is often not
practical to plan for this surface.

Part 77
OIS

:1
PS
TER , 34
R unw a y
O IS , 62 .5: 1
T reh hs old 5 0:1
P A rt 7 ,

B = 02 0'

TERPS 4800' 12000' 16000'

Runwa y
Thresho dl

600' 800' 1000'

200'

OI S: 62.5:1
Part 77: 50:1
TERPS: 34:1

50000'

50000'

Part 77: 50:1

Runway TERPS: 34:1

Runway , 34:1 Part 77, 50
:1
Threshold TERPS
Threshold
600' 800' 1000' OIS, 62.5:1

200'
OIS: 62.5:1
Profile View
200'

Plan View

Figure 8. Critical Airspace Surfaces at Runway End Area

362 S. Litsheim and X. Xiao

There are additional airspace surfaces delineated in accordance with

the TERPS for the full protection of the initial, intermediate, and missed
approach segments that need to be included where applicable. Provisions
prohibiting smoke, glare, bird attractions, and other hazards to flight
should also be included. Thus, it is evident that a single criterion cannot
be used to determine if a penetration is acceptable or to guarantee that no
object has an adverse effect on airspace safety or efficiency. As such, a
thorough aeronautical study shall be conducted that considers all criteria
related to approach and departure procedures.
Furthermore, penetrations to these surfaces may already exist and
therefore a new object may not require a further increase in the published
decision heights and visibility minimums for existing procedures. In
other words, there is a shadowing effect to consider, caused by existing
obstacles, whereby application of a surface may not be applicable.

(2) Differences between PANS-OPS (ICAO) and TERPS (FAA)

It has become apparent that some pilots and operators may not be
aware of some of the significant differences in obstacle clearance criteria
between approaches designed in accordance with TERPS as opposed to
PANS-OPS Doc 8168 [ICAO(2005)].
The majority of approaches outside the United States are designed in
accordance with ICAO PANS-OPS and/or their own criteria. The United
States produces their own set of standards, TERPS. The navigation
system used to design a particular approach is indicated by name on each
published procedure. Additionally, the associated minimums, which
varies by navigation system type, are indicated for each aircraft approach
category, as different obstacle clearance criteria is applied for different
aircraft approach speeds. For circling approaches, as approach category
(based on approach speed) increases, TERPS criteria require an
associated increase in radius of the area for which 300 feet of vertical
obstacle clearance is required. This is done to allow faster aircraft the
same amount of time to see and avoid an obstacle.
Table 1 highlights the different radii from runway threshold used by
PANS-OPS and TERPS to construct the circling obstacle clearance area.
Also, whereas TERPS uses a minimum obstacle clearance of 300 feet for
all categories, PANS-OPS uses 295 feet for Categories A and B and 394
feet for Categories C and D.
Airport Obstacle Surfaces 363

Table 1. Circling Approach Radii

TERPS PANS-OPS
Radii from Radii from Difference
Aircraft Category
Threshold Threshold (NM)
(NM) (NM)
CAT A 1.30 1.68 0.38
CAT B 1.50 2.66 1.16
CAT C 1.70 4.20 2.50
CAT D 2.30 5.28 2.98

(3) Differences between OEI areas in FAR Part 121 (FAA), PANS-
OPS Annex 6 (ICAO), and AC 150/5300-13 (FAA)

There are significant differences among criteria in terms of the area

within which obstacles are considered when determining maximum
allowable takeoff weight. For instance, current FAA criteria in FAR Part
121 specify that only obstacles within an area +/- 200 feet of flight path
on-airport, and +/- 300 feet off-airport, are to be considered for the
purpose of applying the 62.5:1 OIS. The current ICAO criterion, on the
other hand, considers all obstacles in an area that starts at 600 feet wide
but then widens with an 8:1 splay, or 7.1°. This wider area is intended to
account for obstacles that may be encountered as an aircraft may deviate
from its intended flight path as the result of the effect of wind and/or
navigation errors. The 150/5300-13 also starts at 600 feet wide, but then
widens even more than ICAO at a 3.7:1, or 15° splay. Differences
between OEI areas in FAR Part 121, PANS-OPS Annex 6, and AC
150/5300-13 are shown in Figure 9.

(4) Calculation of “Usable” Runway Length

An additional purpose for an aeronautical study includes

understanding the potential effect on the following declared distances
that determine “usable” runway length:
• Accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA)
• Landing distance available (LDA)
• Takeoff distance available (TODA)
• Takeoff run available (TORA)
364 S. Litsheim and X. Xiao

AC 150/5300-13

ICAO
Runway
Threshold

FAR Part 121

Figure 9. Different OEI Areas

8. Conclusions

Airspace obstruction analysis for a precision instrument runway will

involve the application of a number of criteria, which may result in
needed actions for surface penetrations. The most common actions
required for TERPS penetrations involve adjustments to the DAs and/or
visibility minimum. For OEI OIS penetrations, an engineering analysis
can be done with aircraft type-specific modeling software that simulates
net flight paths in order to calculate the required reduction in allowable
takeoff weights. And for Part 77 penetrations, at least for no hazard
determinations, marking and/lighting is typically required.
For both non-precision approaches and circling approaches, raising
MDAs is required if the object would result in the vertical distance
between any point on the object and an established MDA within that area
or segment to be less than the ROC of 250 feet and 300 feet,
respectively.
FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces are the principle means for
determining a potentially hazardous obstruction to airspace. TERPS are
normally utilized for construction of instrument approach and departure,
but which are then studied in detail for any potentially hazardous objects
penetrating a Part 77 imaginary surface. The OEI OIS limits aircraft
takeoff weights at different altitudes and temperatures.
A determination of hazard is a complicated task, and a
comprehensive airspace obstruction analysis is therefore needed. The
Airport Obstacle Surfaces 365

process involves the application of all criteria and full consideration of

the range of actions that may need to be taken, as well as the many
tradeoffs, such as increased TERPS minima or reduced TORA, when a
penetration occurs.

References

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting

Navigable Airspace, March 1993
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 8260.3B, United States
Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), May 2002a,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 8400.10, Air
Transportation Operations Inspector’s Handbook, December, 2004a,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FAR PART 25-Airworthiness
Standards: Transport Category Airplanes, FAA 2004b
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FAR PART 121- Operating
Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations, 2005a
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FAR PART 135-Operating
Requirements: Commuter and on Demand Operations and Rules
Governing Persons on Board Such Aircraft, 2006a
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), AC 150/5300-13, Change 10,
Airport Design, 2006b
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Notice 8260.56, Precision
Category II/III Obstacle Assessment and Requirements, 2006c
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 7110.65P, Air Traffic
Control, 2004c
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 6750.16D, Siting Criteria
for Instrument Landing Systems, 2005b
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 6850.2A, Visual
Guidance Lighting System, 1981
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 8260.38A, Civil
Utilization of Global Positioning System (GPS), 1995
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 8260.44A, Civil
Utilization of Area Navigation (RNAV) Departure Procedures,
2002b
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 8260.47, Barometric
Vertical Navigation (VNAV) Instrument Procedures Development,
1998
366 S. Litsheim and X. Xiao

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 8260.48 Area Navigation

(RNAV) Approach Construction Criteria, 1999
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 8260.50 LPV Approach
Procedure Construction Criteria, 2002c.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Order 7400.2F, Procedures for
Handling Airspace Matters, FAA 2006c
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), PANS-OPS, Doc
8168, Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Aircraft Operations,
2005