Heathrow gets at least 3 A380’s DAILY and there are no reported problems with gridlock due to the beast, the yanks on the otherhand, only have 1 QF flight a day and they are whinging !!!! The Airbus rep is spot on !!!
Qantas superjumbo causes a super headache at airport
Scott Rochfort and Matt O’Sullivan
January 29, 2009QANTAS’S A380 superjumbo has caused such a kerfuffle in Los Angeles that air traffic controllers have warned its arrival is creating tarmac gridlock at one of the world’s busiest airports.
Even before Qantas’s first A380 was grounded at Los Angeles on Tuesday for several hours due to a technical hitch, concerns had been raised that the jet hampers operations there.
The Los Angeles Times reported the jet is so disruptive at the airport that service roads and taxiways are being shut when it arrives or departs. It reportedly requires an “official escort” of operational vehicles every time it taxis, and it disrupts the radio signals from the airport’s instrument landing system.
Controllers say it is only because of the slump in air traffic since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that the airport can manage the A380.
“If we go back to pre-recession operations levels, the situation would be untenable. There would be gridlock,” the airport representative for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, Mike Foote, told the Times.
Airbus disputed the complaints. “If there is a problem at Los Angeles, and I don’t know that there is, it seems that Los Angeles has a problem of their own making,” an Airbus spokesman, Ted Porter, said.
A Qantas spokesman said the airline had been working with the airport for several months.
By: Gonzo - 29th January 2009 at 22:01
It’s mainly due to the extremely large tail fin, even when compared to the 747.
At LHR, the CAT III holds are 137m from the runway centreline, and this provides sufficient protection for the localiser signals. This is the Localiser Sensitive Area.
An A380 has a more marked effect on the localiser. It is fine if it is facing towards the runway while holding at the CAT III, i.e. as if to cross the runway. However, if it is in the same physical position (just clear of the CAT III hold), but facing away from the runway (so the tail fin is nearer the runway), the fluctuations are outside CAT III tolerances. Hence, in some areas, the A380 has to be 192m from the runway centreline.
There is also a similar effect on the localiser if an A380 rolls to the end of a runway, depending on how close the localiser is to the end of the runway. In some ways this can be worse, depending on the length of the runway, because this might well take the fluctuations outside of CAT I tolerances.
By: Ren Frew - 29th January 2009 at 21:12
I can’t see why the A380 should be any different in this regard to a 747.
-Dazza
Me neither, especially as it isn’t radically bigger than a 747…
By: Dazza - 29th January 2009 at 21:09
…Many of them are only noticeable in poor visibility because of the A380’s effect on the Instrument Landing System signals.
Even a 737 can effect the ILS signal, which is why when an aircraft on approach in bad visibility asks, for example a CatIII approach, ATC will ask if they require ‘full protection’ which requires departing aircraft to stop a certain distance from (IIRC) the threshold so as not to interfere with the signal, I can’t see why the A380 should be any different in this regard to a 747.
-Dazza
By: Ren Frew - 29th January 2009 at 20:57
OK then, could some clever soul please tell me how the A380 affects ILS systems ?
By: J Boyle - 29th January 2009 at 20:42
Fixed that for you, free of charge. 🙂
At least Fox admits it’s leanings…something not many other outlets do.
So when I read or watch (not often) I can adjust for it.
Simple really.:D
By: Grey Area - 29th January 2009 at 19:38
Get a grip people or lean how to read a newspaper with a critical eye instead of the “BBC/SKY/Pravda/Fox News says it, therefore it’s true” system of media consumption.
Fixed that for you, free of charge. 🙂
By: J Boyle - 29th January 2009 at 16:14
I’m sure LAX is only upset because it’s clearly an unsafe plane operated by a third-world airline.:diablo:
If you bothered to really read the story (or at least the part given here) it’s the LA Times making the event into an story (gee, don’t UK and Ausssie papers do that?)….I don’t see airport officials complaining aboutthe jet.
The ATC union guys compalin, but that’s their job…they complain about everything (partially as a way to justify their fairly high pay, and partially because if anything does happen, their head is likely going to be on the block).
Airport officials report what special actions they have to do for the jet.
It seems factual, not complaining. The special handling a new aircraft type requires is news…so even the usually stupid LA Times has an excuse this time.
Get a grip people or lean how to read a newspaper with a critical eye instead of the “BBC/SKY/Pravda says it, therefore it’s true” system of media consumption.
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th January 2009 at 15:41
Consider the pax numbers though. I bet it doesn’t cause as much disruption as 5 737s or 10 Dash 8s trying to land or depart one after the other.
By: Gonzo - 29th January 2009 at 10:04
There are issues with the A380 at Heathrow, and it will get worse as more operate…especially by 2012. Many of them are only noticeable in poor visibility because of the A380’s effect on the Instrument Landing System signals. I would imagine Heathrow’s problems are actually worse than LAX’s, given our geography.
By: steve rowell - 29th January 2009 at 02:36
There’s bound to be teething problems with the introduction of such a massive airframe as the A380!!!
Sign In
January 29, 2009 at 1:48 am