ILS goes down at LAX
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Thread Starter
ILS goes down at LAX
From Reuters:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Airplanes were backed up at Los Angeles International airport, the world's fifth busiest, for at least an hour on Monday after an instrument landing system failed, an airport spokesman said.
Spokesman Tom Winfrey said equipment on one of the airport's two working runways failed and the Federal Aviation Administration was trying to restore it as soon as possible.
"We have two runways and the equipment serving one runway went out at 9:30 a.m. (12:30 p.m. EDT)," Winfrey said.
An FAA spokesman in Washington, Ian Gregor, said the failure in Los Angeles would likely cause a "ripple" throughout the system.
"What happened essentially is the ILS (Instrument Landing System) for the inner runway on the airport's south side went down this morning and temporarily knocked the airport's arrival rate down from 56 planes an hour to 32," Gregor said.
"Air traffic responded by turning the airport around so the planes were landing from the west and departing to the east and that has brought the arrival rate back up to pretty much what it was at before," he said.
The FAA Web site said there was a "ground stop" in effect for flights arriving at Los Angeles International, which means that flights en route to the airport were being delayed at their point of departure to avoid clogging up the airways.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Airplanes were backed up at Los Angeles International airport, the world's fifth busiest, for at least an hour on Monday after an instrument landing system failed, an airport spokesman said.
Spokesman Tom Winfrey said equipment on one of the airport's two working runways failed and the Federal Aviation Administration was trying to restore it as soon as possible.
"We have two runways and the equipment serving one runway went out at 9:30 a.m. (12:30 p.m. EDT)," Winfrey said.
An FAA spokesman in Washington, Ian Gregor, said the failure in Los Angeles would likely cause a "ripple" throughout the system.
"What happened essentially is the ILS (Instrument Landing System) for the inner runway on the airport's south side went down this morning and temporarily knocked the airport's arrival rate down from 56 planes an hour to 32," Gregor said.
"Air traffic responded by turning the airport around so the planes were landing from the west and departing to the east and that has brought the arrival rate back up to pretty much what it was at before," he said.
The FAA Web site said there was a "ground stop" in effect for flights arriving at Los Angeles International, which means that flights en route to the airport were being delayed at their point of departure to avoid clogging up the airways.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 69
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Operations appear to be back to near normal at LAX, as of 1340 Pacific Coast Time.
A/C standard approach from the East, back into effect.
Ollie, Ollie, in come free.
http://www4.passur.com/lax.html
11Fan
A/C standard approach from the East, back into effect.
Ollie, Ollie, in come free.
http://www4.passur.com/lax.html
11Fan
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: KMIA-KJFK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The parallels are so close to each-other that non-precision guidance is not the prefered method because of the airspace needed for separation. Approach and Tower can't pack'em in so quickly without precisie runway alignment.
I remember in the late '80's there were a lot of alignments onto the wrong runway final approach course, so it became a local requirement to use the localizer for the runway cleared to, as noted on the Jepp plate.
A lot of the Asian carrier air crews don't know how to do a visual without runway alignment information (I know because I worked for JAL). Whenever LAX approach control would hear an American voice coming from a JAL airplane on mid-field downwind, the controller would ask if the airport was in sight and clear the airplane for a visual approach. A LAX controller would never do that with a JAL Japanese crew because the Japanese crew would never accept a visual.
I remember in the late '80's there were a lot of alignments onto the wrong runway final approach course, so it became a local requirement to use the localizer for the runway cleared to, as noted on the Jepp plate.
A lot of the Asian carrier air crews don't know how to do a visual without runway alignment information (I know because I worked for JAL). Whenever LAX approach control would hear an American voice coming from a JAL airplane on mid-field downwind, the controller would ask if the airport was in sight and clear the airplane for a visual approach. A LAX controller would never do that with a JAL Japanese crew because the Japanese crew would never accept a visual.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Eff Oh
An ILS going off the air is now a news story?? Don't they have VOR, NDB or SRA (or any other) approaches @ LAX?? (Question not smart assed comment.)
http://tinyurl.com/hm787
"Another Malfunction Leaves LAX Flights Up in the Air
"A key landing system fails, forcing jets to circle and causing delays. The glitch comes three weeks after a power outage at a Palmdale radar facility.
By Hector Becerra and David Pierson, Times Staff Writers
August 8, 2006
"LAX's already bumpy summer travel season experienced more turbulence Monday when a key landing system inexplicably failed, forcing jets to circle around Los Angeles and causing flight delays of more than 90 minutes.
"The computer snafu came three weeks after a massive radar failure at a Palmdale facility shut down flight operations around the region for several hours and as one of LAX's four main runways remains closed for repairs.
"The failure at 8:46 a.m. of the Instrument Landing System at LAX's southernmost runway left only two runways operating. By 9:02 a.m., planes were given the go-ahead to come across the Pacific Ocean and land from the west rather than the east, the more traditional landing pattern..."
METAR KLAX 071350Z 24005KT 10SM OVC024 21/16 A2998 RMK AO2 SLP149 T02060156
METAR KLAX 071450Z 25006KT 9SM FEW019 OVC025 21/14 A3000 RMK AO2 SLP155 T02060144 53015
METAR KLAX 071550Z 25007KT 10SM FEW020 OVC025 21/14 A3001 RMK AO2 SLP158 T02110144
METAR KLAX 071650Z 25005KT 10SM OVC025 22/14 A3002 RMK AO2 SLP162 T02170139
METAR KLAX 071750Z 25005KT 7SM OVC025 22/14 A3003 RMK AO2 SLP166 T02220139 10222 20200 52011
SPECI KLAX 071818Z 28005KT 7SM BKN030 23/14 A3003 RMK AO2
One wonders how many of the arrivals could have flown this alternative:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00237R25L.PDF
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking about LAX, it would appear from a notam in the company system, that 07R/25L ILS's and App Lts are out of service and the runway closed for the next few months (dates from the NOTAM not immediately to hand).
What is the reason for this? - resurfacing? prep for the 380? something else?
What do you regulars the impact will be on normal wx operations with just 3 runways? Much in the way of airborne holding delays?
What is the reason for this? - resurfacing? prep for the 380? something else?
What do you regulars the impact will be on normal wx operations with just 3 runways? Much in the way of airborne holding delays?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25L/07R is NOTAMED out of service (LAX 07028) since 7/29 for improvements. Maybe somebody resident at LAX knows when it will be back in service.
Understand the 25R LOC was reproted as failed by a pilot. Failure could not be duplicated. Suspect a ground vehicle entered the critical zone and caused the signal to be unservicable and alarms to occur. LOC was reset and returned to service a little after 1300 local. Rumor is it is the classic old mower in front of the antenna array trick, possibly from construction vehicles for the work on the parallel.
AP wire story circulated in states babbled about computer problem, etc etc, was mostly misleading and wrong, including from the FAA public affairs people. Must be a really slow news day when this makes wire services and front section of the newspaper, thoug to their credit it was not front page and ther were no lurid descriptions of children crying and women screaming.
Understand the 25R LOC was reproted as failed by a pilot. Failure could not be duplicated. Suspect a ground vehicle entered the critical zone and caused the signal to be unservicable and alarms to occur. LOC was reset and returned to service a little after 1300 local. Rumor is it is the classic old mower in front of the antenna array trick, possibly from construction vehicles for the work on the parallel.
AP wire story circulated in states babbled about computer problem, etc etc, was mostly misleading and wrong, including from the FAA public affairs people. Must be a really slow news day when this makes wire services and front section of the newspaper, thoug to their credit it was not front page and ther were no lurid descriptions of children crying and women screaming.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will screw a few of you into the overhead. Check to see if your belts are bloody tight before reading further:
http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
Foreign Aid: A-380 Airport Upgrades
It's Not Preparing For The Future.
It's Preparing For A One-Off Airplane.
Starting this week, one of the four runways LAX will be closed until March, 2007. And for a year after that, it'll be closed at night. If the project is on schedule.
The project is to demolish the runway, and build a new one 55 feet south. The cost? $333 million - again, without cost overruns, or the expenses related to finding and preserving that historical gee-nobody-knew-it-was-there 8th century used car lot built by the Vikings.
The reason to tear up a perfectly good runway? Why, it's for the A-380. You know, the wave of the future airliner that's registered, say, somewhere less than 200 orders. The one that no US passenger carrier has ordered, nor has indicated much interest in. The one that best case, will eventually log maybe 350 entries in the Airbus orderbook. (We notice that the term we coined for the A-380, WhaleJet, is now being commonly used to describe the 550-seat airliner.)
Somehow, there's a public policy issue here. LAX is tearing out and rebuilding one fourthof its runway capacity, just so Singapore Airlines, or Air France (or, FedEx or UPS) can eventually drop in a couple of flights a day.
Rep. John Mica announced a few weeks ago he would propose legislation to bar such expensive upgrades that would benefit foreign airlines and a foreign aircraft manufacturer at the US taxpayer's expense...
“Until a US airline chooses to acquire and operate the passenger version of the A380, foreign airlines that operate A380 passenger service to and from the United States should pay for any needed infrastructure improvements at the airports they serve.”
Congressman Mica is on to something. Upgrading A-380s is NOT improving airports for the future. It's simply spending lots of money for what'll eventually be a pint-sized fleet of really big airplanes. In passenger service, they'll be mostly operated - if not entirely operated - by foreign airlines.
Marion Blakey is constantly whining about the FAA not having enough money.
Blowing millions demolishing good runways for a one-off airliner so foreign airlines can compete with ours, is one of the reasons.
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
Foreign Aid: A-380 Airport Upgrades
It's Not Preparing For The Future.
It's Preparing For A One-Off Airplane.
Starting this week, one of the four runways LAX will be closed until March, 2007. And for a year after that, it'll be closed at night. If the project is on schedule.
The project is to demolish the runway, and build a new one 55 feet south. The cost? $333 million - again, without cost overruns, or the expenses related to finding and preserving that historical gee-nobody-knew-it-was-there 8th century used car lot built by the Vikings.
The reason to tear up a perfectly good runway? Why, it's for the A-380. You know, the wave of the future airliner that's registered, say, somewhere less than 200 orders. The one that no US passenger carrier has ordered, nor has indicated much interest in. The one that best case, will eventually log maybe 350 entries in the Airbus orderbook. (We notice that the term we coined for the A-380, WhaleJet, is now being commonly used to describe the 550-seat airliner.)
Somehow, there's a public policy issue here. LAX is tearing out and rebuilding one fourthof its runway capacity, just so Singapore Airlines, or Air France (or, FedEx or UPS) can eventually drop in a couple of flights a day.
Rep. John Mica announced a few weeks ago he would propose legislation to bar such expensive upgrades that would benefit foreign airlines and a foreign aircraft manufacturer at the US taxpayer's expense...
“Until a US airline chooses to acquire and operate the passenger version of the A380, foreign airlines that operate A380 passenger service to and from the United States should pay for any needed infrastructure improvements at the airports they serve.”
Congressman Mica is on to something. Upgrading A-380s is NOT improving airports for the future. It's simply spending lots of money for what'll eventually be a pint-sized fleet of really big airplanes. In passenger service, they'll be mostly operated - if not entirely operated - by foreign airlines.
Marion Blakey is constantly whining about the FAA not having enough money.
Blowing millions demolishing good runways for a one-off airliner so foreign airlines can compete with ours, is one of the reasons.
The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Thread Starter
By Christina Almeida
ASSOCIATED PRESS
8:00 p.m. August 8, 2006
LOS ANGELES – Before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and a substantial decrease in air traffic, there was a steady drumbeat of concern about the nation's increasingly congested skies.
Nearly five years later, aviation experts are beginning to express that concern again, particularly in the wake of two incidents that occurred in less than a month and tied up traffic at Los Angeles International Airport.
The latest problem happened Monday when a piece of navigational equipment shut down, creating a bottleneck of planes and delays nationwide. Federal aviation and airport officials on Tuesday still had no cause for the interference and there were contradictory accounts of what was being done to prevent it from happening again.
That incident occurred a little more than two weeks after a major power failure at a control center backed up flights at LAX, the world's fifth-busiest passenger airport and a facility with one of the worst runway safety records.
That outage was caused when a backup generator failed at the Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic control facility in Palmdale. Federal investigators were looking into whether that outage put any flights in danger of colliding as the bottleneck spread across the western United States and parts of Canada.
“We've had some pretty close calls,” said Bill Waldock, an aviation safety professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona. “The system is getting very, very congested. The outages seem to be happening more frequently than they used to.”
FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said airport officials had agreed to move an access road set up as part of a $333 million runway relocation and taxiway project designed to prepare LAX for the next generation of Airbus 380 jumbo jets and reduce the risk of runway accidents. The road sits about 150 feet from the runway that experienced the problems Monday, according to airport workers.
Although Gregor said the agency had not determined the interference was construction-related, the move was designed to keep heavy trucks away from the navigational equipment. Meanwhile, the agency was also taking steps to prevent further delays.
“We're going to keep a certified technician at LAX 24-7 until the roadway is moved and the trucks are safely away from the area,” Gregor said.
But airport spokesman Tom Winfrey said LAX officials were against moving the road after two days of FAA tests ruled out construction activity as the cause of the outage.
“We see no need to move the road so we are not going to do it,” he said.
When told of Winfrey's remarks, Gregor said: “We understand the airport is doing everything possible to keep all heavy equipment away from (the navigation equipment).”
Whatever the cause of the Monday's outage, there is no question the nation's skies have gotten crowded again, as air travel has returned to the level it was at before Sept. 11.
In 2000, there were 698.9 million passenger boardings of commercial planes in the United States, according to the FAA. By 2004, there were 698.7 million.
LAX alone averages 1,800 daily flights and will serve an estimated 18.7 million passengers this summer – 200,000 more than last year.
“Nine-eleven kind of put the problem on the back burner,” said Waldock, the aviation safety professor. “We're coming right back to the congestion we had before.”
Waldock said runway incursions remain the top safety concern, adding that in some cases “you have a separation of 60 seconds between airplanes.”
Runway incursions occur when a plane or vehicle on the ground gets too close to a plane that is landing or taking off. LAX has seen between six and 10 incursions annually since 1999, although FAA officials caution those numbers can be misleading because they rarely pose an imminent collision risk.
Monday's incident, which caused at least 46 arriving flights to be delayed, prompted a second letter to the FAA by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., calling for an investigation.
“This is the second serious aviation problem we have had in Southern California. You need to pay attention to ensure that all of the systems ... are in good working order,” Boxer wrote to Federal Aviation Administrator Marion Blakey.
The confusion over what caused Monday's interference left some air traffic controllers feeling unsettled.
“We have to trust the system,” said Diane Aceves, an air traffic controller and local president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. “We're hoping they can figure out what was wrong. We don't like the fact that we're not sure why it went down but it's back up now.”
ASSOCIATED PRESS
8:00 p.m. August 8, 2006
LOS ANGELES – Before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and a substantial decrease in air traffic, there was a steady drumbeat of concern about the nation's increasingly congested skies.
Nearly five years later, aviation experts are beginning to express that concern again, particularly in the wake of two incidents that occurred in less than a month and tied up traffic at Los Angeles International Airport.
The latest problem happened Monday when a piece of navigational equipment shut down, creating a bottleneck of planes and delays nationwide. Federal aviation and airport officials on Tuesday still had no cause for the interference and there were contradictory accounts of what was being done to prevent it from happening again.
That incident occurred a little more than two weeks after a major power failure at a control center backed up flights at LAX, the world's fifth-busiest passenger airport and a facility with one of the worst runway safety records.
That outage was caused when a backup generator failed at the Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic control facility in Palmdale. Federal investigators were looking into whether that outage put any flights in danger of colliding as the bottleneck spread across the western United States and parts of Canada.
“We've had some pretty close calls,” said Bill Waldock, an aviation safety professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona. “The system is getting very, very congested. The outages seem to be happening more frequently than they used to.”
FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said airport officials had agreed to move an access road set up as part of a $333 million runway relocation and taxiway project designed to prepare LAX for the next generation of Airbus 380 jumbo jets and reduce the risk of runway accidents. The road sits about 150 feet from the runway that experienced the problems Monday, according to airport workers.
Although Gregor said the agency had not determined the interference was construction-related, the move was designed to keep heavy trucks away from the navigational equipment. Meanwhile, the agency was also taking steps to prevent further delays.
“We're going to keep a certified technician at LAX 24-7 until the roadway is moved and the trucks are safely away from the area,” Gregor said.
But airport spokesman Tom Winfrey said LAX officials were against moving the road after two days of FAA tests ruled out construction activity as the cause of the outage.
“We see no need to move the road so we are not going to do it,” he said.
When told of Winfrey's remarks, Gregor said: “We understand the airport is doing everything possible to keep all heavy equipment away from (the navigation equipment).”
Whatever the cause of the Monday's outage, there is no question the nation's skies have gotten crowded again, as air travel has returned to the level it was at before Sept. 11.
In 2000, there were 698.9 million passenger boardings of commercial planes in the United States, according to the FAA. By 2004, there were 698.7 million.
LAX alone averages 1,800 daily flights and will serve an estimated 18.7 million passengers this summer – 200,000 more than last year.
“Nine-eleven kind of put the problem on the back burner,” said Waldock, the aviation safety professor. “We're coming right back to the congestion we had before.”
Waldock said runway incursions remain the top safety concern, adding that in some cases “you have a separation of 60 seconds between airplanes.”
Runway incursions occur when a plane or vehicle on the ground gets too close to a plane that is landing or taking off. LAX has seen between six and 10 incursions annually since 1999, although FAA officials caution those numbers can be misleading because they rarely pose an imminent collision risk.
Monday's incident, which caused at least 46 arriving flights to be delayed, prompted a second letter to the FAA by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., calling for an investigation.
“This is the second serious aviation problem we have had in Southern California. You need to pay attention to ensure that all of the systems ... are in good working order,” Boxer wrote to Federal Aviation Administrator Marion Blakey.
The confusion over what caused Monday's interference left some air traffic controllers feeling unsettled.
“We have to trust the system,” said Diane Aceves, an air traffic controller and local president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. “We're hoping they can figure out what was wrong. We don't like the fact that we're not sure why it went down but it's back up now.”
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The list of reasons for relocating LAX 25L a small number of inches to one side, at phenomenal cost, is a long one...perhaps longer than the offset from old location to new.
The A380 connection is tangential, at best. An airport improvement plan has been in the local political mill for nearly 20 years, with much heat and not vast amounts of visible light forthcoming. Soaring real estate values in the beach communities north and south of the airport have made noise levels a sore point, causing consideration of several plans to seriously redesign the airport. The 25L work is the only result, so far... and only a token from the airport-redesign point of view. Probably not much of a winner regarding noise, either.
Safety, strength, and the ever-present earthquake considerations of Southern Calif. geology, plus a great many years of changes since standards were current for the old rwy, plus some newly appreciated 'security' issues are collectively the main drivers. As for the offset... probably that is a convenient byproduct of reconstruction methods, as well as a token to improving separation between the L and R tracks.
One wag has observed that the only way to get a political decision on a contested issue in Los Angeles County is to include provision for pouring a whole lot of concrete somewhere.
The A380 connection is tangential, at best. An airport improvement plan has been in the local political mill for nearly 20 years, with much heat and not vast amounts of visible light forthcoming. Soaring real estate values in the beach communities north and south of the airport have made noise levels a sore point, causing consideration of several plans to seriously redesign the airport. The 25L work is the only result, so far... and only a token from the airport-redesign point of view. Probably not much of a winner regarding noise, either.
Safety, strength, and the ever-present earthquake considerations of Southern Calif. geology, plus a great many years of changes since standards were current for the old rwy, plus some newly appreciated 'security' issues are collectively the main drivers. As for the offset... probably that is a convenient byproduct of reconstruction methods, as well as a token to improving separation between the L and R tracks.
One wag has observed that the only way to get a political decision on a contested issue in Los Angeles County is to include provision for pouring a whole lot of concrete somewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrBernoulli
Everybody has forgotten how to fly visual approaches!
http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00237PARADISE.PDF
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Slaving away in front of multiple LCDs, somewhere in the USA
Age: 69
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrBernoulli
Everybody has forgotten how to fly visual approaches!
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/00237HARBOR_VIS25LR.PDF
