Does anyone know the required clearance above the tarmac/apron that a passenger bridge or walkway like at DIA has to be so aircraft can pass under?

Anything below A318 tail height for DEN.

TWA772LR wrote:

Anything below A318 tail height for DEN.

I remember it was HP 757 in 1997....

The one at London Gatwick is 32 meters high, which is more than high enough for any aircraft to pass underneath. It's pretty cool.

Of course it can be built lower, however then certain types of aircraft would not be able to pass under it. The aircraft with the highest tail is the A380 which is 24.1 meters high so technically it would fit under a 24.2 meters bridge. Of course that leaves no room for error. A 747 tail is only 19.4 meters high so if you build a bridge at 20 meters a 747 can fit under it but an A380 can't.

HKG has a new bridge which allow 380 to pass

PHX new train to the rental car facility goes above a taxiway. IDK the height but I’ve seen pics of a 747-400 going underneath

LGA has a new bridge (eventually 2) that goes over the ramp. I believe it allows for aircraft height up to 50 feet.

Seattle-Tacoma Airbport (SEA) added an pedestrian bridge to the international satellite terminal recently which they stated is 85 feet (26 meters) above the taxi lane below.

Looking at the airport planning manual for the A380, with a forward biased center of gravity, the tail could be as high as 24.3 meters, so SEA's bridge provides enough clearance for A380's.

From a search, it appears Denver's pedestrian bridge is only 42 feet (12.8 meters).

42 feet clearance at Denver Intl Airport.

https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KDEN/remarks

DenverBrian wrote:

42 feet clearance at Denver Intl Airport.

https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KDEN/remarks

At 41 and change, has anyone seen a Boeing 737 NG go under? I presume it would likely be Delta since they’re the only ones besides Frontier at that side.

I wonder if a nose wheel flat or gear collapse would raise the tail above 42?

jbmitt wrote:

DenverBrian wrote:

42 feet clearance at Denver Intl Airport.

https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KDEN/remarks

At 41 and change, has anyone seen a Boeing 737 NG go under? I presume it would likely be Delta since they’re the only ones besides Frontier at that side.

I wonder if a nose wheel flat or gear collapse would raise the tail above 42?

Yes. It's the redeeming feature of a layover.

Oddly enough, there isn't really one standard in this area like there is with taxilane safety areas. I would say a 4-6 foot buffer is the minimum to give every safety margin possible although some (looking at you DEN) are far less.

I can’t remember where I saw this in print, but the height also needs to account for a collapse of the nose gear of an aircraft while taxiing underneath. Any aircraft whose tail exceeds the height of the bridge in the event of a collapse will not be allowed to taxi underneath. The odds of it happening are minute, but it does make sense

AFAIK the measure is "A318 with a broken nose wheel strut" and aircraft nose sitting on the ground. In that case the tail will be higher and still has to not hit the bridge.

DenverBrian wrote:

42 feet clearance at Denver Intl Airport.

https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KDEN/remarks

And if Modern Airliners is right, the 757 is 44.5 feet.

Delta28L wrote:

PHX new train to the rental car facility goes above a taxiway. IDK the height but I’ve seen pics of a 747-400 going underneath

The APM bridge is 75ft high, and has clearance for any aircraft up to Group V, which includes the 744. The bridge itself is actually much higher than that, because Taxiway R is itself a bridge over Sky Harbor Blvd., so it's approximately 100 feet above the road surface. When it was officially opened in 2013, it was the tallest structure over an active taxiway in the world — I have no idea if that's still the case.

NameOmitted wrote:

jbmitt wrote:

DenverBrian wrote:

42 feet clearance at Denver Intl Airport.

https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KDEN/remarks

At 41 and change, has anyone seen a Boeing 737 NG go under? I presume it would likely be Delta since they’re the only ones besides Frontier at that side.

I wonder if a nose wheel flat or gear collapse would raise the tail above 42?

Yes. It's the redeeming feature of a layover.

I stand corrected. I found my pictures, and there's no extended dorsal fin, so it was probably a -200. It seemed longer from the odd angle.

If I remember correctly 737NG can pass under the bridge except for the 737-600, just like the 318

BUFJACK10 wrote:

I can’t remember where I saw this in print, but the height also needs to account for a collapse of the nose gear of an aircraft while taxiing underneath. Any aircraft whose tail exceeds the height of the bridge in the event of a collapse will not be allowed to taxi underneath. The odds of it happening are minute, but it does make sense

I was going to enquire about that. Imagine some kind of accident where the nose gear drops (it could be a collision with a tug or some issue with one), just when the fin is right under a bridge it barely fits under, and the result could be catastrophic.

NameOmitted wrote:

jbmitt wrote:

DenverBrian wrote:

42 feet clearance at Denver Intl Airport.

https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KDEN/remarks

At 41 and change, has anyone seen a Boeing 737 NG go under? I presume it would likely be Delta since they’re the only ones besides Frontier at that side.

I wonder if a nose wheel flat or gear collapse would raise the tail above 42?

Yes. It's the redeeming feature of a layover.

And there is (or was) signage on the bridge that says 42 ft. clearance. Interestingly, since there are two taxiways under the bridge, the center is higher than that but not by much.

Aesma wrote:

BUFJACK10 wrote:

I can’t remember where I saw this in print, but the height also needs to account for a collapse of the nose gear of an aircraft while taxiing underneath. Any aircraft whose tail exceeds the height of the bridge in the event of a collapse will not be allowed to taxi underneath. The odds of it happening are minute, but it does make sense

I was going to enquire about that. Imagine some kind of accident where the nose gear drops (it could be a collision with a tug or some issue with one), just when the fin is right under a bridge it barely fits under, and the result could be catastrophic.

Would it actually be catastrophic, i.e., lead to a lot of deaths and destruction of the plane and bridge? I could see some unlucky people in the bridge dying but suspect it would not be a lot.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Aesma wrote:

BUFJACK10 wrote:

I can’t remember where I saw this in print, but the height also needs to account for a collapse of the nose gear of an aircraft while taxiing underneath. Any aircraft whose tail exceeds the height of the bridge in the event of a collapse will not be allowed to taxi underneath. The odds of it happening are minute, but it does make sense

I was going to enquire about that. Imagine some kind of accident where the nose gear drops (it could be a collision with a tug or some issue with one), just when the fin is right under a bridge it barely fits under, and the result could be catastrophic.

Would it actually be catastrophic, i.e., lead to a lot of deaths and destruction of the plane and bridge? I could see some unlucky people in the bridge dying but suspect it would not be a lot.

bridge is steel and concrete, airplane is aluminum. bridge will win. besides, it will be designed to withstand the possibility of vert stab collision with no structural damage, just some broken glass

alasizon wrote:

Oddly enough, there isn't really one standard in this area like there is with taxilane safety areas. I would say a 4-6 foot buffer is the minimum to give every safety margin possible although some (looking at you DEN) are far less.

At LGA the new bridges (terminal B) are 56ft. and the FAA has charted them 50ft clearance, you are correct 6ft. buffer..