Page 237 - Aeronautical Engineer Data Book

Airport design and compatibility 193
positions under their own power. When the
number of passengers walking across the apron
reaches unmanageable levels the optimum design
changes to the linear type (Figure 11.21(b)) in
which aircraft are parked at gates immediately
adjacent to the terminal itself, and passengers
board by air bridge. The limitation of the linear
concept is usually the long building dimensions
required; this can mean long walking distances for
transferring passengers and other complications
related to building operation. In most designs,
building lengths reach a maximum of approxi­
mately 700 m. Examples are Kansas City Inter­
national, USA, Munich, Germany (Figure 11.22),
and Paris Charles de Gaulle, France.
Pier and satellite designs
The pier concept (Figure 11.21(c)) has a design
philosophy in which a single terminal building
serves multiple aircraft gates (Frankfurt and
Schipol used this concept prior to their recent
expansion programmes). The natural extension
of this is the satellite concept (Figure 11.21(d)),
in which passengers are carried out to the satel­
lites by automated people-mover or automatic
train. This design is difficult to adapt to the
changing size of aircraft and can be wasteful of
apron space.

Transporter designs
The transporter concept (Figure 11.21(e)) is one
method of reducing the need for assistance for
aircraft manoeuvring on the apron and elimi­
nating the need for passengers to climb up and
down stairways to enter or exit the aircraft.
Passengers are transported directly to the
aircraft by specialized transporter vehicles which
can be raised and lowered (Dulles International,
USA and Jeddah’s King Abdul Aziz Interna­
tional Airport, Saudi Arabia, are examples).

Remote pier designs
In this design (Figure 11.21(f)) passengers are
brought out to a remote pier by an automatic