LGW ILS following A380
 

Can anyone shed light on when following a A380 at LGW, you need a greater separated range for an ILS? LHR doesn't have this problem.

Guessing it's something to do with protection etc but strange at a major airfield.

Here you go...

previous thread

The (delay) difference between accepting an RNAV and saying no is 7/8 Miles. So if you don’t feel up to it or don’t feel you’ve had enough warning to brief for RNAV, just stick with the ILS, it’ll cost you less than 3 minutes.

Don't know how you get that impression, wake turbulence separations are the same for both airfields whether ILS, MLS or RNAV.

Sorry DP i did a search with no success. Yes i declined an RNAV as it was offered at the last minute, long night flight, hadn't briefed it so we stuck with an ILS which added, as you say, about 2 minutes.

Chevvron, it's something to do with a 'super' interfering with the ILS, not a wake problem.

Dave, thanks for fixing the link!

Never feel bad about refusing an RNAV, I’d much rather extend you downwind an extra 3/4 Miles than make you rush an RNAV when you’re tired.

Of course it’s a little different when it’s busy but even then, if you don’t fancy the RNAV the guy behind will probably do it an you’ll get a spin.
2/3 minutes on to a flight isn’t the end of the world.

As a regular into Gatwick it's pretty standard for us to plan the RNAV as a backup every time.

It's the same final app track and descent angle, it's basically the ILS with no ground equipment, but to a higher minima 580ft DA (26L) or 700ft (iirc for 08R) rather than 400ft CAT I.

Company SOPs may vary, and aircraft equipment, but it's not much of an issue. Takes us about 30 seconds to brief the RNAV whilst doing the approach brief, but with only 3 A380 rotations a day, there are not many times you have to do it or wait.


If the weather is good enough, you could always ask for vectors to an x-mile visual instead of an RNAV... you still have the height/distance on the ILS chart to compare, although don't use the LOC/GS signals as they can be very affected.

Sydney Kingsford Smith recently changed the order of the approach expectation when ILS is expected. EXPECT GLS or ILS APCH etc, GLS doesn't need to be protected, ILS does and so aircraft accepting GLS frees things up and GP protection doesn't need to be applied.

GLS is fantastic and I tend to use it wherever it is available, I think the testing on GLS autolands for the 380's in SYD was so accurate that they had to stop it as one particular piece of tarmac was getting worn out with all the landings.

As mentioned in another thread, if you need the 380 off before the critical area in Gatwick you just need to ask early enough and if we can do it we will. 08 ops work much better than 26 because of the RET design.

Our company ops now puts RNAV approaches on the same level of priority as ILS/GLS so it's quite good to practice every now and then anyway.