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

thrust
10
III.4. Runway separations
Item
RWY to parallel TWY
separation
Obstacle Free Zone
Runway holding positions
ICAO
SARPS and
ADM
190m for instrument rwy or
115m for non-instrument runway
(may be reduced subject to
aeronautical study).
[RP] A 14 P3.8.7 + table 3-1 columns
5 & 9
OFZ half width =
- 60m where code letter is E
- 77.5m where code letter is F
Then inner transitional surface
slope 1:3
[Std] A14 P4.1.11 & 4.1.12 +
4.1.17 to 24, Table 4-1
Take-off rwy, non-instrument &
non-precision approach minimum
holding position distances - no
change compared with code E
(75m).
Precision approaches all CATs:
Minimum holding position
distances increased to 107.5m
for Code F (90m for Code E).
[RP] A14 table 3-2 footnote ‘c’
A/C at precision approach holds
– not to interfere with the
operation of Nav. Aids
[Std] A14 P3.11.6
ICAO
Justification
Material
- Separation = ½ wing span + ½ strip
width:
Code E:182.5m = ½x65m+½x300m
Code F:190m = ½x80m+½x300m
for instrument rwy
ADM Pt2 p1.2.19+ table 1-5
- Origin of the 300m rwy strip width
unknown to AACG
- No justification material in
ICAO official publications
- Justifications in OCP
meetings materials:
155m (Code F) = 120m (Code
E) + 20m (wingspan increase
from initial Code E 60m to
Code F 80m) + 15m (rwy
width increase from code E
45m to code F 60m)
- 107.5m based on Code F OFZ
definition and on an aircraft with
24m tail height, 62.2m distance
nose-highest tail part, 10m
nose height, 45° or more
holding
AACG
Agreement
Collision risk:
- For non-instrument runways, ICAO
SARPs to be followed (115m for
code F).
- For instrument runways, no generic
operational agreement. *
190m regarded as conservative
ILS effects:
- Need for specific runway studies to
evaluate ILS interference risks in all
cases.
Pending on-going studies
(OCP), possibility of reduced
Code F OFZ width (155m) for
A380 operations on 45m wide
runways. *
Collision risk:
- For take off, non-instrument &
non-precision approach
runways, minimum ICAO
SARPs to be followed (75m). In
some complex airport layouts
(parallel runways, intermediate
taxiways used to cross
runways,...), rwy holding
positions may be specifically
studied when rwys are used by
A380.
- Possibility of reduced Code F
minimum holding point
distances for collision risk
reasons (OFZ). *
ILS effects:
- Need for specific runway
studies to evaluate ILS
interference risks in all cases
AACG
Justification
Material
Collision risk:
- Common Accident/Incident
database (ICAO, NTSB, Airbus,
Boeing, Airlines, Press)
- NCAA/AEA report for code F rwy
strip width: “90m+aircraft half span”
(only relevant to collision risk, not to
ILS interference)
ILS effects:
- ADP study
- Park Air Systems study (based on
an A380 vertical tail in metal)
- ICAO OCP - OFZ study,
preliminary 747 results in
autoland mode
- ADP investigation on OFZ for
A380 operations on 45m wide
rwy
- St Petersburg formula for
A380 ops on 45m wide rwys
- NCAA/AEA report
Collision risk:
- Investigation by ADP on OFZ
for A380 ops on 45m wide rwy
ILS effects:
- ADP study
- Park Air Systems study (based
on an A380 vertical tail in
metal)
* See §I.3.b)
11
III.5. Taxiway and Taxilane separations
Item
Parallel Taxiway
Separation
Taxiway / Apron taxiway to
Object Separation
Aircraft Stand Taxilane
to Object Separation
(including service road)
ICAO
SARPS and
ADM
Code F twy centreline to twy
centreline separation = 97.5m.
Possibility to operate with lower
separation distances based on
an aeronautical study.
[RP] A 14 P3.8.7 + table 3-1
column 10
No specific safety buffers for
curved portion.
A14 Note 3.8
Code F twy centreline to object
separation = 57.5m.
Possibility to operate with lower
separation distances based on an
aeronautical study.
[RP] A14 P3.8.7 + table 3-1 column 11
The taxiway strip should provide an area
clear of objects which may endanger
a/c
[RP] A14 3.10.3
　
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23(67)