曝光臺 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

the width of the lower surface is specified by ICAO to be 155 meters. The justification used is that not only
the wingspan is 20 meters larger (on initial code E 60 meters) but also the runway width is 15 meters larger
(60 meters code E).
The ICAO Circular 301 “New Larger Aeroplanes – Infringement of the Obstacle Free Zone: Operational
Measures and Aeronautical Study” has been released in December 2005. In Part I, Chapter 3, §3.2.2 and
3.2.3 “Implementation guidance at code letter E aerodromes”, it is found that both the total width of 120m
and the slope of 3:1 for the balked landing surface were found to be adequate for code letter F aeroplanes
fitted with a modern digital autopilot of flight director with track hold guidance.
3.5 Runway Holding Positions
Runway holding positions have two purposes, collision prevention and protection of the ILS signal.
a) For collision risks, the distance between runway holding point and runway centre line will be determined
by the biggest aircraft that can use the runway as well as the geometry of the aircraft at the holding
position.
b) The other purpose is to prevent unacceptable interference with the ILS signal. During ILS CAT II/III
operations, the runway holding positions needs to be positioned in such a way that the critical and the
sensitive areas are free of any aircraft movement on the ground
For code E the minimum distance for the runway holding position is 90 meters, for code F this distance is
107.5 meters. These distances are based on
“an assumed aircraft with a specific tail height (code E; 20 meters, code F; 24 meters), a distance from
nose to the highest part of the tail (code E; 52.7 meters, code F; 62.2 meters) and a nose height (both
code E and F; 10 meters) holding at an angle of 45º or more with respect to the runway centre line,
being clear of the obstacle free zone (OFZ)”.
As can be concluded from above the Runway Holding Position is not only a function of the size of the
Holding aircraft, but also of the dimensions of the Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 6.
As an interim solution, operational procedures can be implemented which prevent aircraft coming near the
runway in case of the occasional A380 landing. If the airport is equipped with ILS CAT II/III holding positions,
these could be used for this purpose. Similar restrictions are already published on airport charts.
Proposed alternative measures, operational procedures and operating restrictions for airports that
cannot comply with ICAO requirements or AACG recommendations related runway holding
positions.
 Holding aircraft further from the runway in case of an A380 landing may be required (i.e. the ILS CAT
II/III holding positions).
 Holding aircraft at the parallel taxiway, away from the runway entry taxiway.
 Establish the appropriate ATC procedure.
6 Studies are in progress to assess the adequacy of current holding points (90m) for normal A380 operations. The
ECAC NLA website is intended to reference those studies when available.
draft
10
3.6 ILS Category II / III operations
Operations during low visibility conditions require special attention to avoid unacceptable interference with
the ILS glide path and localizer facilities. For ILS Cat II / III operations this could result in additional runway
holding positions. On most airports with Cat II / III capability additional runway holding positions are located
150 meters from the runway centre line to prevent aircraft penetrating the ILS sensitive area during low
visibility operations.
Unacceptable interference to the ILS signal, due to the presence of an A380, could result in larger
dimensions of the ILS sensitive area.
Studies and simulations7 are being performed to find out if an A380 on a parallel taxiway and at holding
positions gives more interference to the ILS signal than the current large aircraft. The size of the tail fin is
under special consideration.
Preliminary results shows that the effect on the ILS signal is strongly related to local conditions and therefore
a standard and uniform solution couldn’t yet be provided. Also the acceptable level of disturbance is not the
same at all airports and in all states. Methods to evaluate the A380 impact on ILS have been developed in
France and Germany.
If an alternate airport expects to handle diverted A380 operations during low visibility conditions, special
attention should be given to this kind of operations. An operational plan must be set up to guarantee that the
ILS signal is not disturbed or alternatively that operations at the runway are temporarily restricted.
3.7 Taxiway minimum separation distances
To reduce wingtip collision risk to an acceptable level, minimum separation distances for taxiways and
　
中國航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料5(95)