Landing procedures in Tokyo (RJAA)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SP, Brazil
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing procedures in Tokyo (RJAA)
Hello everyone, sorry it should be a silly question but I don't understand the reason. My airline has some flights to Narita (RJAA) and I'm very curious about a procedure that must executed during landing operations to runway 34. It's written on approach charts:
"Gear down operation during ILS Rwy 34 approach.
In order to prevent ice blocks falling from aircraft onto the ground, all flights making an ILS Rwy 34 approach from the seashore are required to complete gear down and locked before reaching D14.0 NRE (i.e. prior to fly over the land) as far as the safety of the flight is not compromised."
Question: If ice blocks can cause damages during landing gear extension to runway 34 why don't we need any additional caution when approaching to rwy 16 or to another Japanese destination after several flying hours over the Pacific?
Who has a logical answer?
Thanks...
"Gear down operation during ILS Rwy 34 approach.
In order to prevent ice blocks falling from aircraft onto the ground, all flights making an ILS Rwy 34 approach from the seashore are required to complete gear down and locked before reaching D14.0 NRE (i.e. prior to fly over the land) as far as the safety of the flight is not compromised."
Question: If ice blocks can cause damages during landing gear extension to runway 34 why don't we need any additional caution when approaching to rwy 16 or to another Japanese destination after several flying hours over the Pacific?
Who has a logical answer?
Thanks...
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Up there
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something to do with a local village you can see it on the coast that hates A/C they've been known to have spotters that check the gear is down prior to overflying their village. I'm not sure if the other approaches have villages located at the same distance on the approach that would warrant a complaint.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: KUL
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
narita airport has always been a very politically sensitive airport. it was laid dormant for almost 10 years after it was constructed in the early 70s due to intense protest from surrounding villagers.
until a few years ago, you even had a small plot of land owned by a farmer who refuse to sell to the government smack in the apron area between terminal 1 & 2.
after more than 20 years of operations, the security into narita airport perimeter is still extremely tight (all vehicles are subject to searches).
with the opening of the new parallel runway (finally!!) the protest has intensify again.
with such dire history, it's no wonder peculiar procedures exist at narita.
SR
until a few years ago, you even had a small plot of land owned by a farmer who refuse to sell to the government smack in the apron area between terminal 1 & 2.
after more than 20 years of operations, the security into narita airport perimeter is still extremely tight (all vehicles are subject to searches).
with the opening of the new parallel runway (finally!!) the protest has intensify again.
with such dire history, it's no wonder peculiar procedures exist at narita.
SR
Guest
Posts: n/a
You are quite right start sequence 312, RJAA is totally illlogical in applying this rule on 34 but not on 16. What you didn't illustrate is that on the same approach to 34 with the gear down, you have to delay ldg flap until the OM for noise abatement!
I'm with CX & have been here 15 years; if my memory serves me, the gear down bit was introduced as a trial & is now enshrined in folklore.
Hey ho: I think it was Kipling that said that the graveyards are full of men who tried to change the ways of the East
I'm with CX & have been here 15 years; if my memory serves me, the gear down bit was introduced as a trial & is now enshrined in folklore.
Hey ho: I think it was Kipling that said that the graveyards are full of men who tried to change the ways of the East
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SP, Brazil
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you folks for your repplies.
Jeremy, you're right but I've ever seem several different procedures for noise reduction but never a procedure like that in Narita. At least that procedure is contradictory:
1st. That restriction is compulsory only if an airplane is approaching from the seashore, but not required when flying an outbound leg from NRE VOR or under an NDB approach based on YQ.
2nd. I've read several reports about some airplane parts falling from the sky, e.g. engines, wheels, nacelles, cargo, blue or A/C ice, or even some unfortunate passengers and flight attendants, but never ice blocks from wheel well.
I know there're several unusual airport issues around the world, including in my country as well, and talking about noise abatment procedures, I have a question:
Why in some countries thrust reverse must not be used - even partially -, except in emergency or due safety reason, however pilots have to notify the TWR or in writing form to local authorities - Wow !! -, on the other hand there is no restriction for a heavy wide-body airplane during take-off roll using maximum takeoff power?
Well, I think that 2, 3 or 4 engines are noisier during the take-off run than the landing roll. But...
Jeremy, you're right but I've ever seem several different procedures for noise reduction but never a procedure like that in Narita. At least that procedure is contradictory:
1st. That restriction is compulsory only if an airplane is approaching from the seashore, but not required when flying an outbound leg from NRE VOR or under an NDB approach based on YQ.
2nd. I've read several reports about some airplane parts falling from the sky, e.g. engines, wheels, nacelles, cargo, blue or A/C ice, or even some unfortunate passengers and flight attendants, but never ice blocks from wheel well.
I know there're several unusual airport issues around the world, including in my country as well, and talking about noise abatment procedures, I have a question:
Why in some countries thrust reverse must not be used - even partially -, except in emergency or due safety reason, however pilots have to notify the TWR or in writing form to local authorities - Wow !! -, on the other hand there is no restriction for a heavy wide-body airplane during take-off roll using maximum takeoff power?
Well, I think that 2, 3 or 4 engines are noisier during the take-off run than the landing roll. But...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago when Narita was new and the riots were at their height, some blue ice did drop onto houses under the R/W 34 ILS causing a fair bit of damage.
The oriental mind came up with this fix to placate the locals. I'd have thought that most thinking pilots with a single brain in their head would totally ignore the requirement given that noise abatement is the utter holy grail of Narita and Chiba Prefecture. Equally given the number of deaths and property destruction caused worldwide annually by this phenominon!
Of course, this IS a solution devised by those who run pens not flightdecks.
Heard the one about Aussie security severely hassling a B737 Capt for carrying aviation charts in his flightbag??
Who dreams up this s**t and teaches these morons?? 
G'day
The oriental mind came up with this fix to placate the locals. I'd have thought that most thinking pilots with a single brain in their head would totally ignore the requirement given that noise abatement is the utter holy grail of Narita and Chiba Prefecture. Equally given the number of deaths and property destruction caused worldwide annually by this phenominon!
Of course, this IS a solution devised by those who run pens not flightdecks.
Heard the one about Aussie security severely hassling a B737 Capt for carrying aviation charts in his flightbag??
Who dreams up this s**t and teaches these morons?? G'day
