曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
objectives would remain unchanged from those already given in Table G-15. For lateral guidance, the integrity and continuity
ATT G-39 23/11/06
Annex 10 — Aeronautical Communications Volume I
of service objectives given in Table G-15 for azimuth would apply to the azimuth and DME combined, resulting in objectives
for both that are more stringent than those needed for basic MLS operations. However, a low visibility computed centre line
operation to a 30 m (100 ft) DH may be achieved by the use of ground equipment meeting the level 4 objectives contained in
Table G-15.
13.6.4 Accuracy
13.6.4.1 MLS/RNAV will support computed paths to Category I decision heights for the primary runway given siting
limitations as identified in Figure G-30. In addition, under certain conditions MLS/RNAV may provide sufficient accuracy to
support Category II and III approaches. In order to accomplish this, the airborne implementation is as stated in 13.6.1.2.
13.6.4.2 The error budgets for Category II and III procedures are the following. For Category III, the lateral accuracy
requirements are the same as the MLS approach azimuth accuracies specified at the approach reference datum. These
requirements are ± 6 m (20 ft) for PFE and ± 3.2 m (10.5 ft) for CMN (Chapter 3, 3.11.4.9.4). For Category II the lateral
requirements are obtained by splaying the allowed Category III values from the approach reference datum out to the
Category II decision height of 30 m (100 ft). The equations used to compute these values (in metres) are:
( ) AZ ARD
AZ ARD
6
D R
PFE
D
−
−
+
= ×
( ) AZ ARD
AZ ARD
3.2
D R
CMN
D
−
−
+
= ×
CatII CatIII
tan
DH DH
R
−
=
θ
Where:
DAZ−ARD = distance between approach azimuth antenna and approach reference datum (threshold)
R = distance between DHCat II and DHCat III
θ = elevation angle
As an example, for a 3 000 m runway and a 3-degree elevation with an approach azimuth setback of 300 m, a Category III
decision height of 15 m (50 ft) and a Category II decision height of 30 m (100 ft), the following values are obtained:
DAZ-ARD = 3 300 m
R = 286 m
PFEDH Cat II = 6.5 m (21.3 ft)
CMNDH Cat II = 3.5 m (11.5 ft)
13.6.4.3 The computed centre line capability down to Category II decision height will not necessarily support autoland
operations as the guidance may not be provided down to the runway and in the runway region. Also, the more stringent error
tolerances for Category II/III will result in more constraints in antenna siting than for Category I. Primarily this will constrain
the lateral offset of the approach azimuth from runway centre line.
13.7 Computed centre line approaches to parallel secondary runways
13.7.1 A secondary runway as defined here is a runway that has a different geometric relationship than the one
contained in the auxiliary data A words. Computed centre line approaches to a parallel secondary runway are approaches
23/11/06 ATT G-40
Attachment G Annex 10 — Aeronautical Communications
along a computed path on the extended runway centre line which is not aligned with an MLS azimuth radial and/or elevation
angle but is parallel to the primary runway centre line.
13.7.2 The material in this section provides guidance on permissible runway geometries for computed centre line
approaches to a parallel secondary runway to decision heights of 60 m (200 ft). The material in this section is based on the
theoretical application of MLS and DME/P (Standard 1) SARPs. The error budget used is the conservative error budget
identified in 13.2, and relaxations of this error budget are described in 13.7.6.1.
13.7.3 Runway geometry considerations
13.7.3.1 Figure G-32 presents the runway and equipment geometry. The secondary runway location is established
laterally with the use of runway spacing in metres. Negative values represent secondary runway locations left of the primary
runway. The longitudinal position of the secondary runway threshold is referred to as threshold stagger relative to the
primary runway. Negative values represent threshold stagger forward of the primary runway threshold.
13.7.4 Large runway spacing considerations
13.7.4.1 Additional considerations are necessary for computed centre line approaches to widely spaced parallel
runways. These considerations include:
a) adequate signal coverage to DH for some parallel runway geometries may require the use of an elevation antenna
with more than ±40 degrees of horizontal coverage;
b) the critical areas around the MLS antennas may have to be increased for these operations; and
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
附件10--航空电信an10_v1_6ed下(144)
