Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Do These Remarks Mean For LGA  
User currently offlineCoolGuy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 414 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2367 times:

RY 13 VASI AND ILS NOT COINCIDENTAL (I know what VASI and ILS are but what does this mean?)
RY 13 300 FT CLEARWAY
B747-400 AIRCRAFT RESTRICTED TO 10 KNOT TAXI SPEED ON ALL TAXIWAYS (I know what that means, but what's the reasoning?)


From http://skyvector.com/airport/LGA/La-Guardia-Airport

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

Quoting CoolGuy (Thread starter):
RY 13 VASI AND ILS NOT COINCIDENTAL

The glide paths are not the same. The touchdown point is not the same for ILS and VASI.

Quoting CoolGuy (Thread starter):
B747-400 AIRCRAFT RESTRICTED TO 10 KNOT TAXI SPEED ON ALL TAXIWAYS

Ramp congestion and taxiway width.

Quoting CoolGuy (Thread starter):
RY 13 300 FT CLEARWAY

At the departure end of Rwy 13 there is a 327'X170 EMAS clearway. See http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLGA


User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2525 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

Quoting CoolGuy (Thread starter):
RY 13 VASI AND ILS NOT COINCIDENTAL

Meaning if you are say, flying the ILS and are dead on glideslope, you may not appear to be on glideslope according to the VASI. FAA Navaid engineers have told me that when VASI's were installed many years ago the ground they were installed on wasn't prepared as well as it should have and it's very common to have a VASI setup slowly sink into the ground, causing the angles to slightly shift.

Quoting CoolGuy (Thread starter):
RY 13 300 FT CLEARWAY

http://www.aviation-terms.com/index2...71-90&sCurrentLetter=C&nTermID=383

See that definition of clearway

Quoting CoolGuy (Thread starter):


B747-400 AIRCRAFT RESTRICTED TO 10 KNOT TAXI SPEED ON ALL TAXIWAYS

That's actually a typo... should be 767-400


User currently offlineCoolGuy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 414 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

Is it even possible for a B747-400 to take off from the 7000ft runways at LGA (I know that's fine for landing)?

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2336 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
Ramp congestion and taxiway width.

I don't understand how limiting taxi speed alleviates ramp congestion. Further, what's the logic behind limiting the taxi speed of only large aircraft?

Maybe I'm just getting sleepy, but I don't understand...


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2331 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 4):
Further, what's the logic behind limiting the taxi speed of only large aircraft?

Having seen a 767-400 taxi around La Guardia, I don't think you would want to taxi any faster than that. Not only are the wing tip clearences tight, bit the main gear to taxiway edge margin is tight as well. I don't know how it will alleiviate congestion though.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2328 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



I wonder if limiting the speed of large/heavy aircraft is in any way related to reducing the pavement loading. If, for example, an aircraft is right at the maximum weight/pavement loading limit, braking and/or turning at higher speeds could transfer quite a bit of weight onto one landing gear...perhaps causing damage to the taxiway or ramp.

Just thinking out loud....


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2312 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 6):
I wonder if limiting the speed of large/heavy aircraft is in any way related to reducing the pavement loading. If, for example, an aircraft is right at the maximum weight/pavement loading limit, braking and/or turning at higher speeds could transfer quite a bit of weight onto one landing gear...perhaps causing damage to the taxiway or ramp.

No....

The issue on the taxi speed is purely due to ramp congestion, narrow taxiways. They (PANY) just want to make sure people are extra vigilant.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2310 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 6):
I wonder if limiting the speed of large/heavy aircraft is in any way related to reducing the pavement loading. If, for example, an aircraft is right at the maximum weight/pavement loading limit, braking and/or turning at higher speeds could transfer quite a bit of weight onto one landing gear...perhaps causing damage to the taxiway or ramp.

To create more space to park delayed aircraft, LGA reduced their taxiway separations to a hybrid centered on the 767. They use "taxilane" separation standards vs. "taxiway" separation standards for taxiways not associated with runway access. As such, what would normally be 187' of separation (centerline to centerline between taxiways) is instead 172' feet . This leaves enough wingtip clearance, but not as much as one would desire. The result is slower taxi speeds for larger aircraft to reduce incident potential.

[Edited 2007-02-22 07:24:58]

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Thanks, guys.  Smile


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2161 times:

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 2):
Quoting CoolGuy (Thread starter):


B747-400 AIRCRAFT RESTRICTED TO 10 KNOT TAXI SPEED ON ALL TAXIWAYS

That's actually a typo... should be 767-400

i've personally seen the DL 764s taxi faster than that, and have stood under the singtip as it passed overhead while the airplane taxiied by on A.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 6):
I wonder if limiting the speed of large/heavy aircraft is in any way related to reducing the pavement loading. If, for example, an aircraft is right at the maximum weight/pavement loading limit, braking and/or turning at higher speeds could transfer quite a bit of weight onto one landing gear...perhaps causing damage to the taxiway or ramp.

Just thinking out loud....

it is. the reason they are restricted is more for the piers that support the ends of runways 4 and 13. taxiing faster than that would out stress on the piers and could lead to the junction between the pier and the taxiway bed breaking. what interesting is the types of airplanes that are restricted from even landing. the 707 and DC-8 are not allowed to land at LGA due to "landing gear loading.'' what's strange is that a 737-800 and 707 aren't that far apart in weights while the 737 has 4 less wheels to distribute the weight.



"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2161 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Cancidas (Reply 10):
the 707 and DC-8 are not allowed to land at LGA due to "landing gear loading.''

I thought the 727 had the highest landing gear loading of any airliner.....


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
I thought the 727 had the highest landing gear loading of any airliner.....

i thought so too, but my info came straight from PORT. they weren't able to explain that one, the guy isn't that old.



"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineMrFord From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 142 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
I thought the 727 had the highest landing gear loading of any airliner.....

Even more than the L1011 ? Which was authorized to land there, if I'm correct...



"For radar identification throw your jumpseat rider out the window."
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2039 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting MrFord (Reply 13):
Even more than the L1011 ?

I can't remember where I read it, but I remember seeing more than one source claim the 727 had the "honor"...


2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 14):
I can't remember where I read it, but I remember seeing more than one source claim the 727 had the "honor"...

At Air Florida, we had some 727-200s with -17R engines, with max takeoff weights of just over 200,000 lbs, but at LGA, the "pier limit" knocked that down to 176,000 lbs... A pretty big hit....


User currently offline3DPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

Isn't the "pier issue" more to do with weight per area rather than weight per gear? I'm sure wheel or gear loading are also important, but I thought the issue with the 767 was the amount of weight over a certain distance - hence the reason for changing the gear spacing vice adding more wheels.

Though I don't have the numbers to look at, that might explain the reasoning behind the 737 vs 707 difference above. More wheels lessens the psi loading, but if the bogies where further apart, that might allow them to spread across more piers.

Just my  twocents 



"Simplicate and add lightness." - Ed Heinemann
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic What Do These Remarks Mean For LGA
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Are These Cartridges Good For? posted Sat Aug 3 2002 19:04:22 by Domi.ga
What Do All These Abbreviations Mean? posted Mon Aug 8 2005 04:56:24 by Alfa75
What Are These Intakes For On The 777? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 04:13:28 by Gh123
Model Numbers - What Do They Mean? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 02:16:34 by Psyops
What Do The Icao Noise Regulations Mean? posted Wed Mar 26 2003 00:29:16 by Trintocan
What Are These JT3D Cowling Openings For? posted Sun Dec 29 2002 06:51:49 by Happy-flier
What Do U Mean By Compass Locator? posted Mon Apr 30 2001 14:33:16 by Atr_737
Crew Duty Limits (aka What Does § 135.267 Mean) posted Mon Jan 15 2007 20:31:47 by Dw747400
CASM, RASM, Etops - What Does It All Mean?! posted Sat May 6 2006 17:39:33 by N484ER
What Are The Approach Speeds For 737, 777 & 747? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 03:32:59 by AMSMAN

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format