Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.

295-311
www.advanced-transport.com

Visual Air Navigation Siting

Xiaosong Xiao
Scott Litsheim

The principle of a Precision Approach Path Indicator

(PAPI) System is to provide the pilot with an on-slope signal
and guide the aircraft down to the runway safely. Threshold
Crossing Height (TCH) related to PAPI siting ensures that
aircraft have a certain landing gear clearance over the runway
threshold. Therefore, it is an important parameter in PAPI
siting. In this paper, the factors related to PAPI siting are
addressed and the determinations of the TCHs for PAPI and
ILS (Instrument Landing System) are discussed. Most
importantly, two approaches to calculate the eye-to-wheel
height are proposed and a procedure to quickly check a PAPI
siting also developed. The results show that the angle on
which a TCH is based affects the NAVAIDS siting, and that
any calculation of TCH should be based on the lowest angle in
order to maintain the acceptable minimum wheel-to-threshold
(WTH) height of 10 feet.

1. Introduction

The Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) System is a visual

guidance lighting system intended for use primarily during visual flight
rule (VFR) weather conditions. The purpose of a PAPI system is to
furnish pilots with visual approach slope information to provide guidance
for a safe descent down to the runway. Additionally, the PAPI must
allow minimum clearance over obstacles and a minimum threshold
crossing height (TCH). While minimum obstacle clearance and
minimum TCH are each related to PAPI siting, requiring a minimum
TCH specifically ensures that aircraft landing gear clearance is adequate
over the runway threshold, and minimum landing gear clearance over the
runway threshold must be maintained in order for aircraft to land safely
on the runway. Therefore, TCH is an important parameter in PAPI siting.
But definitions of TCH differ among various regulations, standards,
and practices. For PAPI siting, having different values for minimum

Xiaosong Xiao and Scott Litsheim, HTNB Corporation, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Received: February 2006 Accepted: June 2006
296 X. Xiao and S. Litsheim

TCH obtained by different methods will result in different proposed

locations for a PAPI installation. This would probably be acceptable for
some situations, where the solution would be to install a PAPI according
to the regulations that provides the most landing gear clearance over the
runway threshold. However, most potential PAPI sites are constrained by
other factors, such as connecting taxiways that preclude ideal installation
or, for short runways at general aviation (GA) airports where PAPI
location determines the amount of already limited landing distance
available. Thus, the problem of having different criteria for minimum
TCH, which result in different possible PAPI locations, is that it may not
be possible to satisfy all regulations given various siting constraints. For
example, the TCH is based on the aiming angle of unit #3 minus 2
minutes in ICAO and Australia’s PAPI siting [ICAO, 2004, Australia,
2004], ICAO’s approach to site PAPI is also used in Canada and China.
Similarly, FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-30A [FAA, 2005]
determines the TCH based on the lowest on-course angle which is the
aiming angle of unit #3, but FAA practice [Ted Smith, 2005] and FAA
Order 6850.2A, Figure 5-4 [FAA 1987], use nominal (or effective) glide
path, typically 3.00 degrees, to determine the TCH. Therefore, there are
unclear concepts in PAPI siting practice.
Accordingly, this paper not only addresses key issues related to PAPI
siting, we also propose two methods that result in more accurate and
precise estimates of actual landing gear crossing heights at the threshold,
which is critical for safe operations, and the primary purpose of all
regulations that claim to accomplish the same. The restrictions on
parameters which are used in PAPI siting, such as eye-to-wheel (ETW)
height and wheel-to-threshold (WTH) height, are also qualitatively and
quantitatively discussed. Additionally, the determinations of the TCHs
for PAPI and ILS are also discussed. The approaches to calculate the
eye-to-wheel height are proposed. The procedure to quickly check a
PAPI siting is developed. The objective of the research work is to clarify
the fundamental concepts in PAPI siting.

2. Effective Visual Glide Path

The standard PAPI system consists of a light bar with four light units
placed on the left side of the runway in the vicinity of the touchdown
point, as shown in Figure 1.
Visual Air Navigation… 297

Typically the aiming angles are set as follows:

θ1 = 30 30 ' , θ 2 = 3010 ' , θ 3 = 2 0 50 ' , θ 4 = 2 0 30 '

The nominal (or effective) angle is:

θ = 30

POINT E

RUNWAY CL

THRESHOLD
50'+10 or
50'-0 A
1

30'
2

30' 4-BOX PAPI

3

30'
4

1 (θ1)
NOMINAL (OR EFFECTIVE)
GLIDE PATH (θ)
2 (θ2)
30'

10'
3 (θ3)
20' 10' 30'
20' 4 (θ4)
20'

Figure 1. PAPI System Configuration

If an aircraft flys on-course to approach a runway, the pilot will see

two red lights and two white lights. If the pilot is lower, the unit #3
becomes red and the PAPI system is then showing 1 white and 3 red
units. When will the pilot consider that the white beam from unit #3 is no
longer white, but starts to become red? When will he consider that the
red is no longer red? And either in day time with very brilliant
background and high PAPI unit intensity or in a very dark night with a
unit running at a low intensity with the lamp emitting a light, there is no
longer pure white but yellowish? In fact, the transition between the
white and the red has to occur within a vertical angle of not more than 3
298 X. Xiao and S. Litsheim

ALL WHITE

TOO HIGH

3 WHITE
1 RED

SLIGHTLY HIGH

2 WHITE
2 RED

ON CORRECT SLOPE

1 WHITE
3 RED

SLIGHTLY LOW

ALL RED

TOO LOW

Figure 2. PAPI Visual Cues

minutes of arc in the center of the beam (sometimes wider on the edges
of the beam), normally taken 2 minutes of arc [Robert Vitry, 2005]. This
transition is what is called the pink sector (not fully white, not fully red).
But there is no real “pink sector” at the transition from the white to the
red [Aviation Supplies & Academics, 2004]. Below that angle, the pilot
has a red signal from unit #3, as shown in Figure 2. Therefore, the lower
limit of the signal is at the transition of the unit #3, that is, the aiming
angle of unit #3 minus 2 minutes of arc. Theoretically the pilot interprets
the signal as being the red one where the 2 minutes of arc is subtracted
from the theoretical beam axis of the unit #3 located in the middle of the
transition sector. This guarantees that the correct TCH is respected by all
pilots at all units’ brilliancy levels and with any background luminance.
If PAPI is set 1000 feet away from runway threshold, the 2 minutes of
arc just increase the TCH by approximately 0.58 feet at the threshold.
This increase is on the safe side. When siting PAPI, the FAA is not
considering this transition sector [FAA, 2005; FAA 1987]. ICAO [ICAO,
Visual Air Navigation… 299

2004] recommends doing it when PAPI system is not associated with an

ILS.

3. Threshold Crossing Height Concept

Threshold Crossing Height (TCH) is an important parameter in PAPI

siting. It ensures that aircraft has a wheel clearance over the runway
threshold. It is important to distinguish two different TCH’s when siting
PAPI: TCH for PAPI and TCH for ILS. FAA specifies that the TCH for
PAPI is the height above the runway threshold at which the pilot’s eye
should be. ICAO and Australia [ICAO 2004; Australia 2004] use the
concept of the Minimum Eye Height above Threshold (MEHT) which is
essentially identical to the TCH. The TCH for ILS is the height above the
runway threshold at which an aircraft’s glide slope antenna should be.

3.1 Acceptable TCHs

Siting PAPI or ILS equipment to achieve a particular TCH can be a

complex task. Operational experience with siting this system has shown
a need to establish a range of acceptable TCHs. The types of aircraft
likely to use a particular facility must be considered. Another
consideration in establishing the range of acceptable TCHs is the pilot’s
ability to detect (by external visual references) deviations from the
proper glide path and to make the necessary flight path adjustments for
adequate landing wheel clearance at the threshold. Proper TCHs in CAT
II and especially CAT III operations are more critical because of the
limited visual cues available and the use of automatic landing system.

3.2 Minimum and Maximum Acceptable TCHs

The minimum acceptable TCH at a particular runway is determined

by the most “TCH critical” aircraft likely to be used at that facility. The
maximum acceptable TCH also depends upon the types of aircraft likely
to be used at the facility. The instrument approach and landing system
must be sited so that all aircraft have a high probability of a safe
touchdown (deceleration to air taxi or hover for rotorcraft) in the
Touchdown Zone. The need to maintain certain landing wheel crossing
heights at the threshold establishes the minimum safe TCH for a
particular aircraft. The current minimum TCH requirements are based on
300 X. Xiao and S. Litsheim

the DC-10 which has, in landing configuration, the greatest vertical

displacement between the antenna location and the landing gear.

3.3 TCH for ILS

The glide slope receiver of the aircraft detects vertical movement of

the aircraft glide slope antenna in relation to the centerline of an
electronic glide slope radiated from a ground facility. As a result, the
location of the aircraft’s glide slope antenna on the aircraft directly
relates to terrain and obstacle clearance during the final stages of an
approach and landing. The physical dimensions and aerodynamic
characteristics of the aircraft (especially pitch attitude) are the important
factors in determining the proper location of a glide slope reception
antenna. In conventional aircraft, the glide slope antenna is located above
the height of the main landing gear. Since an aircraft is maneuvered so
that its glide slope antenna tracks the centerline of the electronic glide
path, the main landing gear will track below the glide path. Thus, the
relationship between the aircraft glide slope antenna location and the
electronic glide path is important. Similar problems are encountered
when using visual vertical guidance systems such as PAPI or VASI,
since the pilot’s eyes track the visual glide path and the landing gear
follows a lower path.

3.4 TCH for PAPI

The definitions of TCH for PAPI are different depending on the

different the aiming angles as discussed in Section 2. The FAA practice
[Ted Smith, 2005] uses the nominal glide path angle to determine the
TCH, as TCH-a in Figure 3. The FAA [FAA, 2005] uses the aiming
angle of unit #3 to determine the TCH, as THC-b in Figure 3.
Conversely, ICAO [ICAO, 2004] and Australia [Australia, 2004] use the
concept of the MEHT based on the aiming angle of unit #3 minus 2
minutes, as shown in Figure 3. The calculation of the MEHT consists of
two parts: eye-to-wheel height (EWH) and wheel-to-threshold height
(WTH).
Visual Air Navigation… 301

E)
AL IV
IN E C T H (θ )
1 M F T
NO R EF PA
(O ID E
G L
2
M
3
0 0°02'
4

T C H -a
M EHT T C H -b

PA PI

THRESHOLD

Figure 3. Different Definitions of TCH

4. Determination of TCH

In 1968, the Convention on International Civil Aviation

recommended that the TCH for ILS be established at 50 feet +/- 10 for
Category I facilities and 50 feet, + 10/-3 feet, for Category II facilities.
These values are based on an assumed vertical distance of 19 feet
between the path of the aircraft’s glide slope antenna and the path of the
lowest part of the wheels. It will provide a nominal wheel clearance of
about 30 feet at the runway threshold.
In 1970, the Aerospace Industries Association of American, Inc.,
conducted a study to evaluate minimum wheel clearances at the threshold
and to assess the effects of increasing the vertical distance to 29 feet
between the paths of the glide slope antenna and wheels on typical wide-
bodied aircraft. The study concluded that a nominal wheel clearance of
20 feet would prevail, with a clearance of at least 10 feet when a
reasonably probable combination of adverse tolerances is applied to a
glide slope having a TCH of 47 feet. This study led to the FAA’s
approval of glide slope antenna installations that exceeded the 19-foot
criteria.
On February 24, 1972, the FAA established standards for the
relocation of ILS Category I glide slope facilities and the installation of
new facilities. The maximum and minimum TCHs for those facilities
authorized for approach Category D [FAA FAR, 2004] aircraft are
specified as 60 feet and 47 feet, respectively. The minimum TCH is
302 X. Xiao and S. Litsheim

based on a nominal wheel clearance of 29 feet above the threshold. This

height is considered sufficient to account safely for deviations from the
glide slope because of system and flight technical errors.
The TCH is dependent on the aircraft wheel-to-threshold height
(WTH) and eye-to-wheel height (EWH) for PAPI or glide slope antenna-
to-wheel height (AWH), expressed as follows:

TCH = WTH + EWH for PAPI

TCH = WTH + AWH for ILS

The determinations of WTH, EWH and AWH are discussed below.

4.1 Wheel-To-Threshold Height

FAA FAR Part 25 [FAA FAR, 2004] requires that the landing
distance be determined “from a point 50 feet above the landing surface.”
Without additionally qualifying guidance or applicable caveat, this
traditionally has been interpreted to mean that WTH is 50 feet. It would
mean that the projected no-flare wheel impact point would be 954.02 feet
from the threshold for a 3-degree wheel path, and 1145.21 feet from the
threshold for a 2.5-degree wheel path, which is certainly not
incompatible with an allowable Touchdown Zone (defined as the first
3000 feet from the threshold in ILS Category II and III operations).
The first definite lower value of WTH first adopted is 35 feet. The
ICAO redefined WTH for jet transports to 30 feet. The controversy that
has intensified is about whether a value of WTH less than 30 feet can be
established as a criterion without raising to an unacceptable degree the
risk of undershooting.
There is no specified minimum threshold crossing height in earlier
FAA Orders. The orders therefore recommended that, in case where
“low threshold crossing height exists” the glide path angle should be
increased to 3 degrees or the transmitter site relocated, but,
acknowledging possible difficulties in implementing this
recommendation, but a low threshold crossing height is not adequate
justification for glide path relocation. It also provided another reason to
force the wheel path height criteria lower as the threshold crossing height
should be such that with the aircraft antenna on the extended glide path,
the wheel clearance over the threshold is not less than approximately 20
feet. The clearance of 20 feet is implanted even more firmly by ICAO
which decided that a WTH of 20 feet is acceptable.
Visual Air Navigation… 303

Then the problem posed by excessive AWH first began to assume

importance. The FAA, rather than holding the line on H in airplane
design, allows a minimum WTH of 10 feet to exist when “all operational
tolerances are considered” in that they call a “reasonable probable
combination.” Thus, the FAA formed the basis for its rationale to adopt a
WTH of 10 feet as the standard.

4.2 Eye-To-Wheel Height

An aircraft flys ILS with a PAPI as shown in Figures 4 and 5. In

order to ensure that the aircraft has the landing gear clearance over the
runway threshold when the aircraft lands, the minimum TCH must be
maintained. As discussed above, the TCH is related to the WTH and
EWH. The EWH is dependent on aircraft characteristics and aircraft
operations. Two methods to calculate the EWH are developed based on
the different aircraft dimensions. The definitions of the relevant terms
are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Method 1

According to the triangle relationship, the EWH in Figure 4 can be

expressed below:

EWH = A sin γ + B cos γ + [ A cos γ − B sin γ ] tan θ + R

Where
γ: Airplane pitch attitude or “body angle” (i.e., inclination
of the axle of aircraft to the horizontal)
θ: Flight path angle, or PAPI aiming angle.
α: Airplane angle of attack (inclination of the axle of
aircraft to the flight path), α = γ + θ .
A: Distance parallel to the axis of aircraft between the
pilot’s eye and the axle of the rearmost wheel.
B: Height difference between the pilot’s eye and rearmost
wheel axle (perpendicular to the axle of aircraft).
R: Radius of the rearmost wheel.
304 X. Xiao and S. Litsheim

ath
eP
Glid
PI th
PA Pa
lide
G
ILS
Pilot's Eye
h
Pat
A
eel
Wh
Asinγ

Bcosγ
B
EWH
θ γ
(Acosγ-Bsinγ)tanθ AWH
TCH for PAPI
(MEHT)
TCH for ILS

WTH

PAPI ILS
Runway Threshold

Figure 4. Method 1-Calculation of Eye-To-Wheel Height

Term R in the above equation should be R ⋅ sec γ , since the path is

tangent to the wheel; but this difference is negligible.

Method 2

Similar to Method 1, the EWH in Figure 5 can be expressed as

follows:

EWH = L[sin(γ + ψ ) + cos(γ + ψ )tanθ

Where

L: Distance between lowest point of rearmost wheel and the

pilot’s eye.
ψ: Angle measured from waterline reference to the line
connecting the pilot’s eye and the lowest point of the
rearmost wheel.
Visual Air Navigation… 305

All dimensions can be supplied by the manufacturers. The method 1 is a

convenient method. The results using the above methods agree with
Boeing visual landing aids data well [Boeing, 2002]. The above method
can also be used to calculate the ILS glide slope antenna-to-wheel height
(AWH).

ath
eP
Glid
PI ath
PA eP
G lid
Pilot's Eye
ILS h
Pat
L heel
W
Lsin(γ+ψ) ψ

γ+ψ
EWH
θ
Lcos(γ+ψ)tanθ AWH
TCH for PAPI
(MEHT)
TCH for ILS
Lcos(γ+ψ)

WTH

PAPI ILS
Runway Threshold

Figure 5. Method 2-Calculation of Eye-To-Wheel Height

4.3 ILS Glide Slope Antenna-To-Wheel Height (AWH)

This calculation of AWH is the same as that of eye-to-wheel height,

but there are a lot of contentions on AWH, including ILS tolerances and
the position of installation of the ILS glide slope antenna.
In the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) analysis, the ILS
tolerances are considered. These tolerances include the glide path error
due to lateral shift, glide path beam bend, glide path ground monitor
tolerance, receiver centering error, pilotage error, autopilot performance
tolerance, windshear (8 kts/100 feet) and turbulence, etc. The AIA
attempted to buttress their opinion by applying a hyperbolic formula for
beam rise at the threshold, in order to show that the actual electronic
glide path is raised above the straight-line extension, such that a beam of
3 degrees whose straight-line extension crosses the threshold at 47 feet is
306 X. Xiao and S. Litsheim

in fact situated 51.5 feet above the threshold. And AIA also maintained
that the larger airplane will have initiated its flare to land prior to
reaching the threshold, and therefore will be provided with an additional
margin of clearance. Yet, this may not always be the case in fact.
Although it may be true to some extent, it is neither a feature nor the
intent of the ICAO specification.
Instead, for the purpose of establishing criteria, it is insisted that the
glide path be considered to be at its lowest assigned height, regardless
hyperbolic beam rise. The intent, therefore, is clearly to provide adequate
wheel clearance actual beam crosses the threshold below 50 feet. The
key here is to determine what the proper AWH is. The earlier ICAO
derivation is that TCH for ILS of 50 feet minus nominal wheel height of
30 feet yields ILS H of 20 feet. By taking what is the more rational
approach, IFALPA (International Federation of Air Line Pilots
Associations) achieved a design criterion for the AWH close to ICAO
assumption. More important, the IFALPA analysis supports not only
retention of the conservative criterion, but upgrading of the ICAO
recommended practice. 19-foot AWH is the maximum and should not be
compromised.
Otherwise, for airplanes whose AWHs exceed 19 feet, “equivalent
safety” is apparently achieved when the nominal WTH is 20 feet at
maximum landing gross weight; or when the minimum WTH is 10 feet
under the condition of all tolerances being applied in “reasonable
probable combination” including “reasonable windshear” (8 kts/100 feet;
and when the airplane is flown manually). Airplanes are now regularly
built in which AWH vastly exceeds 19 feet. Moreover, the FAA
concedes that “special attention” must be paid to airplane with larger
values of AWH in order to assure “total system performance” which
including upgrading the performance of either the airborne or ground-
based system components (certainly ground system components perform
identically for all airplanes regardless their glide path antenna location).
Perhaps, if airborne component performances are upgraded, antennas
could be relocated closer to wheels.
The AIA suggested sitting glide path antenna in the nose. The reason
is to place the pilot’s eye near the electronic glide path so that the pilot
should feel comfortable with the airplane in the proper slot as determined
by visual cues when the pilot transitions from instruments to visual aids.
Table 1 lists the FAA [FAA Order, 1999] recommended values for TCHs
for PAPI and ILS, which shows that the TCHs and the WTHs are the
same for PAPI and ILS except the height group 4 aircraft. However, for
Visual Air Navigation… 307

some height group 4 aircraft, the distance from glide path antenna to
pilot’s eye is only approximately 20 feet. Another situation is to relocate
the glide path antenna to the wheels to provide WTH needed in all case,
not just ILS Category II or III, but ILS Category I. This will make pilots
get used to the new (higher) visual cues.

Table 1. Threshold Crossing Height

Approximate
Approximate Threshold Threshold
Glide Slope
Height Eye-To-Wheel Crossing Crossing
Antenna-To-
Group Height Height Height
Wheel Height
(PAPI) (PAPI) (ILS)
(ILS)
1 10 Feet or less Less than 10 Feet 40 Feet 40 Feet
2 15 Feet 15 Feet 45 Feet 45 Feet
3 20 Feet 20 Feet 50 Feet 50 Feet
4 Over 25 Feet 25 Feet 75 Feet 55 Feet

4.4 TCHs at Different Aiming Angles

The TCHs at different aiming angles are listed in Table 2. The table
shows that if the PAPI is located in 1000 feet away from threshold, the
difference of the TCHs between 3 degrees (nominal angle) and unit #3
aiming angle (FAA suggested lowest on-course signal) is 2.92 feet, and
the difference of the TCHs between unit 3 aiming angle and unit 3
aiming angle minus 2 minutes is 3.5 feet. Does the 2.92-foot or 3.5-foot
height really matter when the TCH is published? As we know, the
specified TCH is to provide a certain landing wheel clearance over the
runway threshold for the specified aircraft group, the answer is involved
in what the acceptable minimum wheel clearance over the runway
threshold is. From the FAA Order [FAA, 1987], it is obvious that the
nominal WTH is 30 feet except that for the height group 4 aircraft and
the lower limit is 10 feet. As discussed above, the minimum WTH can
not be less than 10 feet. So if an aircraft flys the lower on-course (still
two red lights and two white lights) and the WTH is set to the minimum
of 10 feet, the WTH is short of 2.92 feet or 3.5 feet to the acceptable
minimum of 10 feet. This situation is not allowed. Therefore, the angle
on which the TCH is based affects the NAVAIDS siting. The solution is
either to increase the minimum TCH in FAA Order by 3.5 feet to ensure
308 X. Xiao and S. Litsheim

the minimum 10 feet of WTH or calculate the TCH based on the lowest
angle.

Table 2. Threshold Crossing Height at Different Aiming Angle

A B C D B-C B-D C-D
Unit 3
Distance Aiming
aiming
from Nominal angle
angle Difference Difference Difference
threshold angle from
minus 2 (Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
to PAPI (Degree) unit 3
minutes
(Feet) (Degree)
(Degree)
3 2.8333 2.8
1000 52.41 49.49 48.91 2.92 3.50 0.58
900 47.17 44.54 44.02 2.63 3.15 0.52
800 41.93 39.59 39.13 2.33 2.80 0.47
700 36.69 34.64 34.24 2.04 2.45 0.41
600 31.44 29.69 29.34 1.75 2.10 0.35
500 26.20 24.75 24.45 1.46 1.75 0.29

5. PAPI Siting Quick Check

For the purpose of PAPI siting, maintaining acceptable threshold

crossing height and determining the runway reference point are essential.
A runway is equipped with a 4-box PAPI as shown in Figure 6. The
elevations at threshold (Et), aperture of PAPI (Ea) and point E (Ee),
distance from threshold to PAPI (d), PAPI aiming angle ( θ ) and runway
slope (s) are given in Figure 6. The TCH and runway reference point
(RRP) are two important parameters when we report the PAPI. The
procedure to determine TCH and RRP is described below.

Determination of TCH

T ' = tan θ * A

The difference in elevations at the runway threshold and aperture of

PAPI is:

e ' = E a − Et

The TCH is expressed as:

Visual Air Navigation… 309

TCH = T ' + e '

Determination of RRP

Equation of Runway: Y = sX
Equation of PAPI light beam: Y = − tan θ * X + TCH

From the above two equations, the distance from the runway
threshold to RRP, X in above equation or d in Figure 6 can be obtained.

The deference in elevations at RRP and the runway threshold is:

e = TCH − d * tan θ

The elevation at RRP is expressed as:

E d = Et + e

or
g le
An
ng h
A im i h Pat
a l oa c
m in ppr
No l A
ua
Y V is

A p ertu re o f P A P I
RRP (E lev atio n: E a)
T'
R u n w ay (E lev atio n : E d ) θ
TCH
P o in t E
(E lev atio n: E e) e'= E a-E t
e= E d -E t
R eferen ce
X T h resh o ld P lan
Ideal R R P A (E lev atio n : E t)

d
D1

P o in t E R u nw ay
R u n w ay C enterlin e T h resh old

4 -B o x P A P I

Figure 6. PAPI Quick Check

310 X. Xiao and S. Litsheim

A spreadsheet is developed based on the above method, it is a

convenient and precise tool for PAPI quick check in the design work.

6. Conclusions

PAPI siting currently does not account for all the parameters
necessary to deliver the visual guidance necessary to achieve safe
clearances for either obstacles or minimum landing gear crossing height
at the threshold. As such, this paper first identified and discussed the
shortcomings of the current methods. The following are the insights and
conclusions that resulted from this effort.
The acceptable minimum wheel-to-threshold height is the key
parameter for both PAPI and ILS sitings. A 10-foot minimum wheel-to-
threshold height should be maintained. The nominal wheel-to-threshold
height is 30 feet for most aircraft. The eye-to-wheel height for PAPI is
different from ILS glide slope antenna-to-wheel height because of the
location of ILS glide slope antenna and possible tolerances. The eye-to-
wheel height can be calculated from the proposed methods if the required
dimensions are provided by manufacturers. Determination of TCH is
base on aircraft height group which depends on the eye-to-wheel height
of aircraft. The angle on which the TCH is based affects the NAVAIDS
siting. In order to maintain the acceptable minimum wheel-to-threshold
height of 10 feet, the minimum TCH in FAA Order should be increased
by 3.5 feet, or the calculation of TCH should be based on the lowest
angle.

References

Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc. 2004. The Pilot's Manual:

Instrument Flying, 5th edition.
Boeing Company. 2002. Visual Landing Aids Data, Airport Technology,
Seattle, WA.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority. 2004. Manual of Standards Part-139
Aerodrome, Australia.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 1987. Order 6850.2A, Visual
Guidance Lighting Systems.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 1999. Order 8260.3B, United
States Standard and for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).
Visual Air Navigation… 311

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2004. FAR Part 25,

Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2005. Advisory Circular
150/5340-30A, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual
Aids.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 1968. International
Standards and Recommended Practices, Annex 10-Aeronautical
Telecommunications, Volume 1, Radio Navigation Aids, Second
Edition.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2004. DOC 9157,
Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 4-Visual Aids, 4th edition.
Robert Vitry, Project Manager at SIEMENS, Dec. 15, 2005. Personal
Communication.
Ted Smith. Civil Engineer at Federal Aviation Administration, December
5, 2005. Personal Communication.