Building Your Aircraft-Gate Compatibility Matrix: A Reference System for Serious Simmers

Every experienced simmer has encountered the moment: you taxi a wide-body to what appears to be a perfectly reasonable gate, only to discover that the jetway does not reach, the wingtip clearance is insufficient, or the stand simply was not designed for an aircraft of that category. The assignment looked plausible. The execution was a failure.

Real airlines do not operate this way. They maintain meticulous records of exactly which aircraft can dock at exactly which stands, under what conditions, and with what equipment. That institutional knowledge lives in gate management systems, airport operating agreements, and ground handling manuals. For the serious simmer, replicating that knowledge base is not merely an aesthetic choice—it is the difference between a simulation that feels authentic and one that only looks the part.

This guide will walk you through the process of building a personal aircraft-gate compatibility matrix: what it contains, where the data comes from, how to structure it for practical use, and how to integrate it into your flight planning workflow.

What a Compatibility Matrix Actually Is

At its core, a compatibility matrix is a reference table that maps specific aircraft types to specific parking stands at a given airport. Each cell in that table answers a binary question—can this aircraft dock at this stand?—and, where relevant, identifies the conditions or constraints that govern that answer.

In the real world, these matrices are maintained by airport operators and ground handlers and are updated whenever physical infrastructure changes—new jetways, apron resurfacing, updated ground support equipment. For simulation purposes, you do not need to replicate that level of institutional formality. What you need is a working reference that is accurate enough to inform your gate selection decisions and prevent the kind of obvious compatibility errors that break immersion.

A well-structured personal matrix will typically include:

• Aircraft type (by ICAO designator)
• Stand identifier (gate number and terminal)
• Compatibility status (compatible, conditional, incompatible)
• Limiting factor (wingspan, length, jetway reach, pavement rating, equipment type)
• Airline or alliance restriction (where applicable)
• Source reference (so you can verify or update the entry later)

Starting with Stand Geometry

The most fundamental compatibility variable is geometry. A parking stand has physical dimensions—a designated nose-in depth, lateral clearance margins, and a pavement area that constrains the maximum wingspan and overall length of the aircraft it can accommodate.

For US airports, the FAA publishes Airport Design Standards that define stand geometry by Aircraft Design Group (ADG), which ranges from Group I (small regional aircraft) through Group VI (the largest wide-bodies). A stand designed for ADG III aircraft—which includes most narrow-body jets like the Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 family—will not safely accommodate an ADG V wide-body like the Boeing 777 or Airbus A350.

To build the geometric layer of your matrix, start with the following sources:

• FAA Airport Diagrams: Available through the FAA's digital-Visual Flight Rules (d-VFR) charts portal, these diagrams identify gate locations and, in some cases, stand category designations.
• Airport operator publications: Many major US airports publish their own gate layout documentation as part of their airline use agreements or airport master plan documents. These are often accessible through the airport's official website under planning or development sections.
• Add-on documentation: High-quality airport simulation add-ons frequently include stand data files that encode aircraft category restrictions. Reviewing these files directly is one of the most efficient ways to build accurate geometry data for the airports you fly most often.

Layering in Equipment Compatibility

Geometry is necessary but not sufficient. A stand that is physically large enough for your aircraft may still be incompatible if the ground support equipment does not match.

The most common equipment-driven incompatibility involves passenger boarding bridges. Jetways are not universal—they vary in reach, vertical range, and door sill height accommodation. A jetway calibrated for narrow-body door positions will not align correctly with the higher door sills of a wide-body aircraft, and some older jetways lack the extension range to reach aircraft with longer fuselages parked at the maximum nose-in position.

For your matrix, note the following equipment variables:

• Jetway type and reach: Note whether the stand has a single or dual jetway, and whether it is documented as compatible with specific door configurations (Type A, Type B, etc.).
• Ground power unit (GPU) compatibility: Some stands have fixed 400Hz ground power installations rated for specific aircraft categories. Others rely on mobile units, which introduces a logistical dependency that affects turnaround planning.
• Fueling system type: Hydrant fueling systems are common at major US hub airports but are not universal. Stands that rely on fuel trucks may have capacity or positioning constraints that affect larger aircraft.

Airline and Alliance Restrictions

Beyond physical and equipment constraints, many gates at US airports are subject to preferential use agreements or exclusive lease arrangements. A gate leased exclusively to American Airlines will not be available to Delta, regardless of whether the aircraft and stand are geometrically compatible.

For simulation purposes, this layer of the matrix is primarily relevant when you are modeling scheduled airline operations rather than general aviation or charter scenarios. To research current gate assignments:

• Airport terminal maps: Most major US airports publish interactive terminal maps that identify gates by airline. These are updated periodically and reflect current lease arrangements.
• Aviation data platforms: Services such as FlightAware and FlightRadar24 allow you to observe historical arrival and departure gate assignments for specific routes, which gives you a practical indication of which aircraft types operate at which stands.
• Airline-specific resources: Some airlines publish their own hub operations guides or ground handling manuals through their cargo or charter partnership portals, which may include stand assignment protocols.

Structuring Your Matrix for Practical Use

The most common mistake in building reference tools is over-engineering the structure. A matrix that takes ten minutes to consult is not a planning tool—it is an obstacle.

For practical use, organize your matrix by airport first, then by terminal, then by gate. Within each gate entry, use a simple three-tier classification: Compatible (no restrictions), Conditional (compatible with noted constraints), and Incompatible (do not assign). Reserve detailed notes for the Conditional entries, where the constraint information is operationally relevant.

A spreadsheet application is entirely adequate for this purpose. Use frozen header rows so that aircraft types remain visible as you scroll through gate entries. Color-coding the three compatibility tiers significantly reduces lookup time during active flight planning.

Integrating the Matrix into Your Flight Planning Workflow

The matrix has no value if it sits unused. Build a habit of consulting it at the flight planning stage—before you select a departure or arrival gate—rather than discovering incompatibilities after you have already committed to a stand.

For departure planning, cross-reference your aircraft type against your assigned or preferred gate before filing. For arrival planning, verify that your anticipated arrival gate is compatible with your aircraft before you begin your approach sequence. This small investment in pre-flight research is exactly the kind of operational discipline that separates procedural simulation from genuine gate mastery.

At VDG SimDock, we believe that the most rewarding simulation experiences are built on the same informational foundations that real-world operators rely on. Your compatibility matrix is not a shortcut—it is the framework that makes authentic gate operations possible.