曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

operational issues) or because of an in-flight emergency. It is in the interest of in-flight safety to have a
reasonable number of alternate airports and runways available in addition to the scheduled ones.
Aircraft operations regulations make a distinction between destination alternate aerodromes, other alternate
aerodromes required to be adequate (e.g. in JAR-OPS 1) and in-flight diversion aerodromes.
For those alternate airports, large scale changes to their existing airside infrastructure would be financially
excessive and never be economical. On the other hand, especially in the case of a filed alternate, a
minimum should be done to properly handle the aircraft and its passengers.
The occurrences of flight diversions are relatively low and many alternate airports will see only a few
diversions a year or, in the case of emergency alternates, may never see one. It may therefore be
reasonable and admissible to maintain the level of operational safety by use of alternative measures,
operational procedures and operating restrictions. The two cases of alternates (flight diversion or emergency
alternate) require different consideration. Those nominated regularly for use as an alternate must meet a
defined standard, which many states require being similar to that of the scheduled destination. Those used
very infrequently, such as for an unexpected in flight diversion could alternatively achieve an acceptable
level of safety by establishing significant operational restrictions to cater for the lack of airport infrastructure,
instead of fully complying with the ICAO Annex 14 Airport requirements to cater for code F aircraft (as
defined by ICAO in Annex 14 for an aircraft of the A380 geometric size) or even AACG1 A380 specifications.
1 The A380 Airport Compatibility Group is an informal group, consisting of a number of European Aviation Authorities,
Airport and Industry representatives. It was formed to agree and promote a common position among the group
members on the application of ICAO requirements, with respect to the A380 aircraft, for infrastructure and operations at
existing major European airports that currently do not meet the requirements.
draft
2
This is not substantially different than what is regularly done at airports that receive the occasional visit of an
airplane bigger than their design aircraft: An 124, or even B 747 in many “old” airports.
This document aims to provide guidance for operators and States on the use of “alternate measures,
operational procedures or operating restrictions2”, in combination with the minimum level of infrastructure
requirements at possible alternate and even lower frequency use airports. States and airport operators are
encouraged to review the guidance in this document, but as with the AACG Common Agreement Document
(destination airports), it must be clearly understood that the final safety based decisions at a particular
airport remains the responsibility of the provider State and the airport operator.
The proposed procedures are based on the current state of knowledge, as used for the December 2002
AACG recommendations. Several Aeronautical studies are on going at this time and they could result in
lower requirements than those proposed by the AACG (most noticeably for points which the AACG had left
open in December 2002, such as OFZs, holding point position and runway to taxiway separation). Use of
possible outcomes from the uncompleted studies would be premature.
However it is possible that the outcome of some of these studies, expected within the next year, could
render several proposed operational procedures unnecessary.
2. Infrastructure requirements
The minimum infrastructure regulatory requirements to allow an aeroplane to land at a particular aerodrome
is to provide a runway of sufficient length and width. By evidence a means to clear the runway is also
necessary: either a suitable taxiway, or to allow for a half-turn on the runway or a turn pad.
The airside infrastructure requirements for aircraft with a wingspan up to 80 meters (Code F) are given by
ICAO in Annex 14, Volume 1. These requirements are a sound basis for new airport design or future airport
expansion but in most cases impractical for determining changes to existing infrastructure.
While ICAO member states are encouraged to fully implement the new code F requirements for the
development of their airports, it has also become clear that many states will have difficulties in complying
with these specifications for the upgrade of their currently existing facilities. For this reason ICAO developed
a circular for New Larger Aeroplane Operations at Existing Aerodromes. This circular identifies all issues
which are of relevance to the operations of NLAs and proposes possible mitigation measures for
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料5(89)