Yup, agree with the above 3 comments. I think we've reached a verdict on this lot.

In the U.S. weather below 800 and or 2, they will.

Not protecting the signals and allowing departures from the same runway is quite something different.

Traps for the unwary.

A 747 tail taxiing through the glideslope is different from an airplane taking off going through the localizer beam.

The glideslope disturbance is much closer to the antenna so will be a lot stronger.

Also you need to differentiate between the sensitive and critical areas. Or whatever the nomenclature is.
With the 747 in the glideslope the ILS is basically unusable.

With the aircraft taking off crossing the localizer beam the disturbance should be short and less severe.
(So the real important areas were still protected in Munich while that was not the case in HKG
Just wanted to point out the difference)

Anyway while we are on the topic i'll add another incident:
My guess would be that the 747 Air China Cargo that had a runway excursion / go-around at Chicago O'Hare was the same situation as Munich.
(Incident: China Airlines B744 at Chicago on Jun 21st 2018, veered off the runway and went around)

Due to the TWY - GS antenna configuration the same was an issue at SVO for 25L (it's been a while).

Their ATC solution was to declare NDB apch in progress in VMC+ conditions, when the close holding points were needed to keep high flow. .

Not saying better or worse, just in agreement with w. that it is a major issue.

Somewhat related: Approaching LGW behind an A380, the controller would offer an RNAV approach with the standard super-separstion, or an ILS which required (almost) additional 2 NM in trail.

Maybe someone here kept the ILS scales on during the RNAV APCH and observed what was the actual behaviour?

Yes - the geometry of a GS antenna is fixed everywhere - the antenna is, by definition, the place where the G/S beam intersects the ground. ~300m/1000 feet beyond the threshold "piano keys." Thus a taxiway that meets the threshold at 90° (extremely common) will also always be ~300m from the G/S antenna, and risk a holding/taxiing aircraft becoming an obstruction.

Workarounds can only be done by adjusting the taxiways to not lead directly to the threshold at 90°, or changing ops otherwise: displaced threshold; long looping taxiway that connects to the threshold at 0°, all departures from an intersection beyond the G/S antenna; back-taxiing from an intersection for >300m (probably not a good idea when another aircraft is inbound inside the marker - and might still produce interference). Switching to a 6° GS would put the beam angle "above" even tall aircraft that might block the signal - maybe.

All of which produce their own issues.

nike :I was attending a presentation 2 years ago by an executive of a large European low cost operator on the introduction of the 737-8 max who said that they were planning mandating auto lands on the type where it was feasible in order to reduce go arounds and tyre wear. Did this actually materialize ? never heard anything about it since.

Thanks to everyone here that posted. We just flew into HKG for the normal 07L landing. During the arrival, ATC changed our arrival and told us to land on 07R. They gave us the verbal GS warning, as described above. We saw an Emirates aircraft approaching the hold short line, which could disrupt the GS signal. We turned off the autopilot, and followed the PAPIs just in case the GS signal was disrupted, and landed uneventfully. The EK aircraft did not get near the hold short line before we landed, and we saw no GS distruption.

This is an issue that has plagued HKG for many years. Now that it's being investigated by the new investigation authority rather than the regulator, something may be done about it.

An easy solution is to hand fly and not blindly fly momentary fluctuations in the G/S signal. Otherwise you'd might have to hold every departing aircraft at the CAT II hold line whenever an aircraft is established on the G/S. What impact would that have on the arrival and departure capacity of the airport?

Even if you handfly the false GS result will be same. It will have to be planned to closely monitor the VS and DME checks. With VIS 9999 better would have been to fly localiser approch with steady FPA.

LOL... I know you are being sarcastic (well I hope you are) but the real problem remains all those pilots (not just Asians) that can't fly and land an aircraft in visual conditions without the help of on board electronics (autopilot, Fight Director, etc) or external aids (GPS, ILS etc).

There are way too many pilots today that have no common sense, no real stick and rudder abilities and are nothing but little programmed robots them selves that cannot think outside the box and once a simple problem is encountered and it falls outside "their" programmed training, all things fall apart.

BANG ON FC! Some of the comments here are a trifle worrisome:ugh: