Originally Posted by
Capn Bloggs
I don't expect the Yanks to have ICAO markings but the runway above, 05L, has got incorrect markings as well. There should be markings at 150m, 300m then the aiming point markings at 400m. Where is that airport?
That was my point. That 05L is called "FAA runway" because it follows the FAA standard of putting the APMs at the second location (300 mtrs) instead of 400 (or even 450 as some others do).
Comes from a country which learned their aviation from the nice coherent FAA regulatory set but then recent years saw a drive of super-aligning with ICAO. Consequently, some runways (all 3000+) are marked with APMs at 300 mtrs, some at 400 mtrs and some even at 450 mtrs. Kid you not, during today's reading I found an airport that has all three choices and the last remaining runway's threshold is yet different as it is displaced by 600 m
.
They do keep the PAPI aligned with the markers though. The duality of these being either 300 or 400/450 is nothing new for an 'ICAO' pilot who faces the same two options depending on runway length (2400+ / <
.)
When I looked at LAX to see an 'FAA runway' in actual FAA land, markings were as expected. The heart-break moment was seeing the PAPI not aligned with the 305 m/ 1000 ft APM but rather way beyond at 440.
The explanation for this is a) the FAA never said they need to align b) it is provided for large airplanes. I still understand the big jets of Airbus are uniqe to have the GP antenna at cockpit station. Hence my comment the A380 looks specifically designed to exactly match the standard PAPI<>GP offset (as per your drawing).