A380 operations at LGW
Thread Starter
A380 operations at LGW
Why are ATC insisting that aircaft following a A380 on approach fly a Rnav approach? It would also help with flightdeck workload if this requirement was communicated at an early stage to allow the crew to reprogramme the kit and rebrief.
I don't know, but at a guess maybe it interferes with the localiser as it vacates. Vaguely remember there being something similar at LHR, but thought that was only in LVP's?
Depends at what point you discover you're following an A380; you may have heard him use the suffix 'super' on the initial approach so maybe you should start programming and briefing then 'just in case'.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The localiser (and glide path) critical area must be protected in all weather conditions. It's the associated sensitive areas that are protected only in LVP.
The localiser critical area for the A380 is significantly larger than that for other other aircraft.
It appears that this may be proactive mitigation in the event that an A380 rolls long into the localiser critical area.
The localiser critical area for the A380 is significantly larger than that for other other aircraft.
It appears that this may be proactive mitigation in the event that an A380 rolls long into the localiser critical area.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 35
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If non rnav a/c following a380 then a 15 mile gap is required to safeguard the ils. Otherwise to mitigate, the tower asks for an 8 mile gap behind the a380 with either 2 or 3 rnav arrivals behind depending on current gaps. This allows the runway to be utilised better. Gaps and rnav requests are usually made when the a380 first appears on the towers radar roughly 20 mins before landing so aircraft being asked to fly rnav arrivals usually have notice a reasonable amount of time before the start of approach. If you dont want to fly it you can always ask for an ils approach but that may incur a slight delay if other a/c will fly rnav.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange that the A380 doesn't seem to affect the ILS in Dubai as the following aircraft seem happy on the ILS.
It is about time we were all flying GLS by now and worrying about ground based transmitter interference for AWOPs only.
J
It is about time we were all flying GLS by now and worrying about ground based transmitter interference for AWOPs only.
J
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
js,
No, it's not strange at all. Just compare how close to the end of the runway the perimteter fence (and therefore localiser antenna) of each airport is.
London Gatwick site first used as aerodrome: 1920s
Dubai first used as aerodrome: 1960s
I imagine that one would have had to have great foresight to predict ILS as we know it back in 1920, let alone super large aircraft.
Yes, GBAS is the future but, what, 4% of airliners are equipped today?
No, it's not strange at all. Just compare how close to the end of the runway the perimteter fence (and therefore localiser antenna) of each airport is.
London Gatwick site first used as aerodrome: 1920s
Dubai first used as aerodrome: 1960s
I imagine that one would have had to have great foresight to predict ILS as we know it back in 1920, let alone super large aircraft.
Yes, GBAS is the future but, what, 4% of airliners are equipped today?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DESDI or BUBIN
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if it inconveniences you but with a 79m span, Gatwick is actually pretty tight to operate in and out of in the fuglybus.
Just listen out for the "Emirates 9 Thooooper" call on the radio and perhaps put the RNAV in Sec 1/2/3 and change the minima.
Alternatively just give us a visual onto the other runway..........
Just listen out for the "Emirates 9 Thooooper" call on the radio and perhaps put the RNAV in Sec 1/2/3 and change the minima.
Alternatively just give us a visual onto the other runway..........
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just experienced this inbound KK this evening to allow an A380 departure....
Initial ATIS 08R - RNAV App 08R. Fully briefed, Automation modes discussed, FMC programmed and Ops procedures followed. Approacing TIMBA new ATIS via ACARS and now ILS 08R. Re-programmed, abridged brief. Abeam KK downwind App advise now RNAV 08R again. Again, FMC re-programmed, minimas changed, checklist re-run to confirm new settings.....
There HAS to be a better way to manage an airfield, ATC service provided to aircraft arrivals. App becoming swamped but not split INT/FIN....
There has to be a better way to manage operations and associated high workload caused to both ATC and flightdeck alike than this!
30W
Initial ATIS 08R - RNAV App 08R. Fully briefed, Automation modes discussed, FMC programmed and Ops procedures followed. Approacing TIMBA new ATIS via ACARS and now ILS 08R. Re-programmed, abridged brief. Abeam KK downwind App advise now RNAV 08R again. Again, FMC re-programmed, minimas changed, checklist re-run to confirm new settings.....
There HAS to be a better way to manage an airfield, ATC service provided to aircraft arrivals. App becoming swamped but not split INT/FIN....
There has to be a better way to manage operations and associated high workload caused to both ATC and flightdeck alike than this!
30W
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DESDI or BUBIN
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just don't change the ATIS and advise the aircraft behind us that the ILS isn't protected? Or like I said give us an approach onto the opposite end.
Seems like a lot of fuss for one movement a day, just wait until all 3 flights go on the fuglybus......
This movement happens at pretty much the same time every day so maybe a bit of airmanship and preparation for that too from your side?
Also for ATC, thanks to Brake to Vacate (BTV), this system means that it is very very unlikely that we will over-run our planned exit from the runway and if we do then you will have more than a protected area to worry about!
On 08R the exit is just about perfect for our usual landing weight and speed, on 26L unfortunately the normal high speed will give us brake temps of around 600 deg, which is why we prefer to roll slightly longer and save the temps and not delay the next departure. If you need us off earlier though you just have to ask us before establishing on final approach. At Heathrow we are regularly asked by the first approach sector, pre-Lambourne hold whether we are using BTV and which exit we are planning for, this has been entered at Top of Descent so have no problem communicating it early.
Seems like a lot of fuss for one movement a day, just wait until all 3 flights go on the fuglybus......
This movement happens at pretty much the same time every day so maybe a bit of airmanship and preparation for that too from your side?
Also for ATC, thanks to Brake to Vacate (BTV), this system means that it is very very unlikely that we will over-run our planned exit from the runway and if we do then you will have more than a protected area to worry about!
On 08R the exit is just about perfect for our usual landing weight and speed, on 26L unfortunately the normal high speed will give us brake temps of around 600 deg, which is why we prefer to roll slightly longer and save the temps and not delay the next departure. If you need us off earlier though you just have to ask us before establishing on final approach. At Heathrow we are regularly asked by the first approach sector, pre-Lambourne hold whether we are using BTV and which exit we are planning for, this has been entered at Top of Descent so have no problem communicating it early.
Last edited by Eau de Boeing; 5th Nov 2014 at 07:46. Reason: Replying to earlier post
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E de B,
Thanks for your insight into the A380 operation - yes I'm learning all the time!
Maybe - bit of a sweeping assumption on my airmanship however, which I'm sure isn't meant in a negative sense Your assumption is that I'm a KK based pilot - I'm not. Despite having been based at several times over the last 25yrs at KK, I'm currently not. Neither are the pilots of a good number of flights operating into/out of the airport (not unlike any other).....
Are we saying therefore that as a matter of Airmanship I should pre-research the A380 schedules of EK, or indeed any other A380 operator at any other airfield? I'm sure you're not..... Do you know the exact schedules of A380 operations of SIA/Quantas etc etc at LL for example? I'm sure you don't, you're not expected to, and therefore it's not really a point of airmanship.
As you point out the A380 is now a normal operation, and quite rightly so. It's also going to be growing normal operation. My point is that we therefore need sufficiently robust procedures/notification in what is only going to be a growing problem....
So where are the procedures that change the 'normal' operation and planning for all other flight crews operating around an A380 operation published that allow Airmanship and foresight of planning to be applied? They're not in the AIP, not published by NOTAM, not published in the MATS Pt1....
They'll be in the MATS Pt2, unit procedures. This is a NATS internal document, classified, and for good reason. This particular element of how operations to all other aircraft/flights are affected however should be available elsewhere - perhaps the point I was perhaps poorly trying to make....
It wasn't just myself last night - KK INT became overloaded, several things happened that DID require my Airmanship to be applied. They were issues that meant 'loss of control' from the KK INT perspective - from intercept heading for the Rnav, under POSITIVE ATC speed control, in a gapping sequence, no further communication/instruction was possible due to the KK's overloaded position. I had to make airmanship calls on my own speed control, and self transfer to the TWR at 5nm because ATC were overloaded, unable to issue me instructions, and twice attempted communications from ourselves were stood on/transmitted over.
This is not normal operation, and my hence we ALL need to have more robust procedures and education as to the impact of A380 ops so that effective, safe, normal operatons can be applied.
I had a very pleasant discussion with the TC Watch Sup afterwards by phone, who later called me back having looked at the issue and admitted it was by far 'not their finest hour'. So we all learned - again we all need a better planned, better communicated procedure and planning of your A380 ops so flight safety can be maintained...
30W
Thanks for your insight into the A380 operation - yes I'm learning all the time!
This movement happens at pretty much the same time every day so maybe a bit of airmanship and preparation for that too from your side?
Your assumption is that I'm a KK based pilot - I'm not. Despite having been based at several times over the last 25yrs at KK, I'm currently not. Neither are the pilots of a good number of flights operating into/out of the airport (not unlike any other).....Are we saying therefore that as a matter of Airmanship I should pre-research the A380 schedules of EK, or indeed any other A380 operator at any other airfield? I'm sure you're not..... Do you know the exact schedules of A380 operations of SIA/Quantas etc etc at LL for example? I'm sure you don't, you're not expected to, and therefore it's not really a point of airmanship.
As you point out the A380 is now a normal operation, and quite rightly so. It's also going to be growing normal operation. My point is that we therefore need sufficiently robust procedures/notification in what is only going to be a growing problem....
So where are the procedures that change the 'normal' operation and planning for all other flight crews operating around an A380 operation published that allow Airmanship and foresight of planning to be applied? They're not in the AIP, not published by NOTAM, not published in the MATS Pt1....
They'll be in the MATS Pt2, unit procedures. This is a NATS internal document, classified, and for good reason. This particular element of how operations to all other aircraft/flights are affected however should be available elsewhere - perhaps the point I was perhaps poorly trying to make....
It wasn't just myself last night - KK INT became overloaded, several things happened that DID require my Airmanship to be applied. They were issues that meant 'loss of control' from the KK INT perspective - from intercept heading for the Rnav, under POSITIVE ATC speed control, in a gapping sequence, no further communication/instruction was possible due to the KK's overloaded position. I had to make airmanship calls on my own speed control, and self transfer to the TWR at 5nm because ATC were overloaded, unable to issue me instructions, and twice attempted communications from ourselves were stood on/transmitted over.
This is not normal operation, and my hence we ALL need to have more robust procedures and education as to the impact of A380 ops so that effective, safe, normal operatons can be applied.
I had a very pleasant discussion with the TC Watch Sup afterwards by phone, who later called me back having looked at the issue and admitted it was by far 'not their finest hour'. So we all learned - again we all need a better planned, better communicated procedure and planning of your A380 ops so flight safety can be maintained...
30W
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30W, I'm glad you followed it up and increased the knowledge on both sides.
So often posters here point out issues that they encounter and yet do nothing about trying to resolve them or following the matter up.
So thank you.
Out of interest, and please don't take this as criticism, did you at any point think about refusing a change to the new approach type (on either of the occasions)?
So often posters here point out issues that they encounter and yet do nothing about trying to resolve them or following the matter up.
So thank you.
Out of interest, and please don't take this as criticism, did you at any point think about refusing a change to the new approach type (on either of the occasions)?
I think we're looking at this the wrong way.
If the A380 is departing you'll be placed 15 miles behind the preceding.
If however you can swap to an RNAV without too much hassle then you'll knock 7 miles off your approach/delay BUT you do NOT have to accept the RNAV if there is any concern it's going to overload the flight deck.
If it makes you uncomfortable enough to have a "moan" on here then please decline the RNAV - it's not an instruction it's an invitation!
30W, I'm pretty sure the ATIS would not give "expect RNAV approach" to accommodate the A380 departure. I suspect the ILS was off for another reason.
Ps. There's nothing quite like a 15 mile gap for reducing workload.
If the A380 is departing you'll be placed 15 miles behind the preceding.
If however you can swap to an RNAV without too much hassle then you'll knock 7 miles off your approach/delay BUT you do NOT have to accept the RNAV if there is any concern it's going to overload the flight deck.
If it makes you uncomfortable enough to have a "moan" on here then please decline the RNAV - it's not an instruction it's an invitation!
30W, I'm pretty sure the ATIS would not give "expect RNAV approach" to accommodate the A380 departure. I suspect the ILS was off for another reason.
Ps. There's nothing quite like a 15 mile gap for reducing workload.
Just had another thought.....how long does it take for A380 to get from "fully ready" (I hated typing that!) to being at the holding point ready for departure?
5? 10 minutes? That's not a lot of notice to get the inbounds set up for an RNAV and/or increased spacing inserted into the sequence. Gatwick tower seem to do an amazing job at anticipating where the gap needs to be but how much notice can realistically be given to the inbound?
5? 10 minutes? That's not a lot of notice to get the inbounds set up for an RNAV and/or increased spacing inserted into the sequence. Gatwick tower seem to do an amazing job at anticipating where the gap needs to be but how much notice can realistically be given to the inbound?
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be far too simplistic so perhaps it has been considered and perhaps dismissed for reasons I can't think of.
Why can't there be a NOTAM stating what the implications are to others when a A380 is operating into or out of LGW with a rough time frame for the arrival and departure for the current schedule? Therefore you could be arriving into LGW for the first time and prepared for a possible RNAV approach, if your arrival time happens to roughly coincide with the A380.
Why can't there be a NOTAM stating what the implications are to others when a A380 is operating into or out of LGW with a rough time frame for the arrival and departure for the current schedule? Therefore you could be arriving into LGW for the first time and prepared for a possible RNAV approach, if your arrival time happens to roughly coincide with the A380.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Gonzo,
Yes it was an option, but workload was containable, just made an awful lot higher than normal with multiple changes, and is something that shouldn't be required for 'normal' operations.
DP, done some 'digging' and the ATIS RNAV notification was for the planned A380 departure not for any other ILS problem. This was then programmed, planned, briefed etc. This requires a more planning, checking and briefing than an ILS as the aircraft is descending towards tera firma directly from the FMC, not an ground radio beam(s), and therefore several extra checks and items are required compared to an ILS approach.
The EK departed the stand 43mns late, hence I presume ATC deciding to re-instate ILS approaches, then changed back to RNAV at a late point when it was finally ready to depart.
Emma, exactly what NOTAMS are for
E de B, Please keep your ops on time to minimise the chaos for everyone else (Joke!)
Rgds
30W
Yes it was an option, but workload was containable, just made an awful lot higher than normal with multiple changes, and is something that shouldn't be required for 'normal' operations.
DP, done some 'digging' and the ATIS RNAV notification was for the planned A380 departure not for any other ILS problem. This was then programmed, planned, briefed etc. This requires a more planning, checking and briefing than an ILS as the aircraft is descending towards tera firma directly from the FMC, not an ground radio beam(s), and therefore several extra checks and items are required compared to an ILS approach.
The EK departed the stand 43mns late, hence I presume ATC deciding to re-instate ILS approaches, then changed back to RNAV at a late point when it was finally ready to depart.
Emma, exactly what NOTAMS are for
E de B, Please keep your ops on time to minimise the chaos for everyone else (Joke!)
Rgds
30W
DP, done some 'digging' and the ATIS RNAV notification was for the planned A380 departure not for any other ILS problem......
...........The EK departed the stand 43mns late.
...........The EK departed the stand 43mns late.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DESDI or BUBIN
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Director, apologies if the overwhelming sense of irony of my post didn't come through...
30W most of what I would have said to you has already been covered here, you are not obliged to know the schedules of our aircraft in much the same way you are not obliged to accept an RNAV approach behind us and can take the 15 mile separation for a standard ILS. As was said here I very much doubt the ATIS was changed for the 380 arrival, it is normally communicated to aircraft behind us by ATC and asked if they are happy for an RNAV approach.
In fairness though, this seems to be a Gatwick issue as operating into Manchester for several years has never raised this as a problem and 90% of the time when we go in they are only using one runway.
My airmanship point is that my current company SOP's encourage us to prepare for a change of approach at the last minute and brief it, whether it is an ILS downgrade or reversion to AOTILS (an RNAV in this case).
If you are in a bus you have a sec 1/2/3 f-pln that could be used for this event thereby reducing workload and stress at low level as you are heading towards terra-crawley.
You obviously haven't been to DXB much, 43 mins is considered on time although as you will appreciate all it takes is one pax not showing up and their bag in the wrong place to induce a fairly significant delay.
Del Prado
Again this is a matter of communication between ATC and us. The biggest issue with the 380 is getting 550 bums on seats and ready. If we tell the crew we need to be ready quickly 9 times out of 10 we can go from "fully" ready to being at the holding point in less than 10 mins. Our only minimum requirement is 3 mins for engine stabililsation. We can also expedite departures in small gaps or take an intersection and often communicate this to ATC to mitigate the wake turb requirements between 2 arrivals.
Hope this helps and when I come in later this month, I will make sure we are on time
30W most of what I would have said to you has already been covered here, you are not obliged to know the schedules of our aircraft in much the same way you are not obliged to accept an RNAV approach behind us and can take the 15 mile separation for a standard ILS. As was said here I very much doubt the ATIS was changed for the 380 arrival, it is normally communicated to aircraft behind us by ATC and asked if they are happy for an RNAV approach.
In fairness though, this seems to be a Gatwick issue as operating into Manchester for several years has never raised this as a problem and 90% of the time when we go in they are only using one runway.
My airmanship point is that my current company SOP's encourage us to prepare for a change of approach at the last minute and brief it, whether it is an ILS downgrade or reversion to AOTILS (an RNAV in this case).
If you are in a bus you have a sec 1/2/3 f-pln that could be used for this event thereby reducing workload and stress at low level as you are heading towards terra-crawley.
You obviously haven't been to DXB much, 43 mins is considered on time although as you will appreciate all it takes is one pax not showing up and their bag in the wrong place to induce a fairly significant delay.
Del Prado
Again this is a matter of communication between ATC and us. The biggest issue with the 380 is getting 550 bums on seats and ready. If we tell the crew we need to be ready quickly 9 times out of 10 we can go from "fully" ready to being at the holding point in less than 10 mins. Our only minimum requirement is 3 mins for engine stabililsation. We can also expedite departures in small gaps or take an intersection and often communicate this to ATC to mitigate the wake turb requirements between 2 arrivals.
Hope this helps and when I come in later this month, I will make sure we are on time