Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

EchoIndia

I suspect that for every day that 23 would be suitable, there would be another when 28 would be preferable!

lucernarian

EchoIndia wrote: »

So in that 05/23 scenario aircraft would be landing (with northerly ops) over Ballymun and the M50 at about 500 (?) feet and departing over Swords. One of the main advantages of 10/28 is that the extended centreline in both directions is free of any substantial habitation. Considering the amount of moaning that goes on here when runway 34 is occasionally used, I think you would struggle to find acceptance of a main runway configuration which guaranteed that most movements would overfly residential areas at quite low altitude. If you look at the map here for Dublin and accompanying commentary you can see that on an annual basis the prevailing wind is slightly more westerly than southerly. http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp

The issue is more to do with disruptive wind events and storms/squalls. Apparently 05/23 is more suitable in that regard.

FWVT

EchoIndia wrote: »

So in that 05/23 scenario aircraft would be landing (with northerly ops) over Ballymun and the M50 at about 500 (?) feet and departing over Swords. One of the main advantages of 10/28 is that the extended centreline in both directions is free of any substantial habitation. Considering the amount of moaning that goes on here when runway 34 is occasionally used, I think you would struggle to find acceptance of a main runway configuration which guaranteed that most movements would overfly residential areas at quite low altitude. If you look at the map here for Dublin and accompanying commentary you can see that on an annual basis the prevailing wind is slightly more westerly than southerly. http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp

Well Finglas actually, not Ballymun. And an early right turn after take off would take traffic out over the Estuary, away from Swords and also Malahide. In any case with the longer runway they would already be at a higher altitude than they were off the old 05. I don't know what the procedure was after take off back then.

And regarding prevailing wind, yes I have already said that the prevailing direction is more westerly, however when it comes the the strongest winds most likely to cause disruption we are looking at roughly 220 being the real pain in the ass. This is the direction that causes all the closures. No problem landing with a light prevailing right crosswind most of the time.

Razor44

Question for some of the older a&a members, what where the approach and departure sids for the old 05/23 runway? Any pilots have old charts? I'd love to see them. (Sorry for the thread drift)

EchoIndia

There were no STARS or SIDs in those days other than a procedure which was sometimes used in later years for 23 departures - it was known as a DP1 (Delta Papa 1) and involved a slight right turn at 500 ft (?) and then a turn on course when out of about 3,000. Specific departure instructions when given were either to fly an assigned or the runway heading when airborne. Otherwise a turn on course at crew's discretion seems to have been the norm. That's unless someone can provide more detailed info. Runway 23 had an ILS but 05 was radar vectors till visual or an SRA.

Mebuntu

28 was too much of a "swing" from 23.

16/34 was already in place to cater for strong S-ish or very rare N-ish. Given the prevailing winds, 26 would almost certainly have been a much more suitable choice than 28 and also with less effect on residential than 23. I suspect the attitude was, "ah, sure lookit, if the worst comes to the worst there's always 24 at Shannon".

Irish Steve's comments on all of the problems created at DUB over the years serve to prove that the DAA have mostly been reasonably good at (Duty-free) shopping facilities but poor enough on airport infrastructure both landside and airside.

FWVT

Of all the capital/major cities in Europe, DUB is one of the worst when it comes to runway alignment. It was one of the best with 05/23, but now, with >90° difference between its 2 runways in strongest winds it lies open to disruption.

-Kelflavik has it right with two 10000+ ft perpendicular runways, meaning never more than a 45° crosswind.
-Belfast Aldergrove 05/23, 9100 ft, 17/37, 6400 ft
-Glasgow International 05/23, 8700 ft
-Edinburgh 06/24, 8400 ft
-Manchester 05/23, 10000 ft
-Heathrow, 09/27 not ideal, but Gatwick 08/26 L/R, 8600/10400 ft, Stansted 05/23, 10000 ft serve the area well too.
-Paris 08/26, 09/27, 13800 ft
-Frankfurt 07/25L/R, 13000 ft, 18/36, 13000ft
etc.

JCX BXC

Not turning this into a bashing thread or anything, but whoever thought of putting a North/South runway at cork was a complete gobsh"te. It has to be the worst example of a crosswind runway I have.

DUB isn't too bad. It seems that the wind that DUB is most effected by is a south west wind, which is ironically the predominant wind for Ireland.

Chris_5339762

Whoever thought about putting Cork where it is, prone to fog without even a CAT3 ILS and when there was plenty of land near Midleton or Little Island complete with a railway to Cork, was a complete gobsh"te!

I'd love to know the actual story about why it is where it is.

EchoIndia

FWVT wrote: »

Of all the capital/major cities in Europe, DUB is one of the worst when it comes to runway alignment. It was one of the best with 05/23, but now, with >90° difference between its 2 runways in strongest winds it lies open to disruption.

-Kelflavik has it right with two 10000+ ft perpendicular runways, meaning never more than a 45° crosswind.
-Belfast Aldergrove 05/23, 9100 ft, 17/37, 6400 ft
-Glasgow International 05/23, 8700 ft
-Edinburgh 06/24, 8400 ft
-Manchester 05/23, 10000 ft
-Heathrow, 09/27 not ideal, but Gatwick 08/26 L/R, 8600/10400 ft, Stansted 05/23, 10000 ft serve the area well too.
-Paris 08/26, 09/27, 13800 ft
-Frankfurt 07/25L/R, 13000 ft, 18/36, 13000ft
etc.

Most of those have only one runway alignment and, in the case of FRA, 18 is used for departures only, regardless of whether ops are easterly or westerly. I don't think you can compare KEF with mainland Europe, given the extremes of Icelandic weather and that it was a major military base during the Cold War, with a USAF air defence fighter squadron and US Navy patrol aircraft in residence for several decades. Aldergrove is actually 07/25 and 17/35 (Runway 37 sounds like something from a Hollywood movie) and has low traffic levels. LHR was 10/28 before 1987 when magnetic variation necessitated redesignation to 09/27. Glasgow, Stansted (now 02/22) and MAN similarly have had the direction redesignated over the years, as did did DUB (originally 06/24). LHR's crosswind runway 23 was closed in 2002 to facilitate further infrastructural development.

It's interesting to speculate, but one has to assume that in the original planning for 10/28 at DUB the pros and cons were all considered - albeit people can only operate on the basis of the knowledge and evidence available to them at the time. I can recall plenty of 707s making crabbing approaches to 23 in strong winds at DUB so there were days when it was not very suitable. I think that keeping traffic away from overflying the city was a major consideration in deciding on 28 and, as someone who can recall the noisy earlier-generation jets blasting their way right across the centre of town, I think that was a good call. Hindsight, as always, allows us the luxury of saying "I wouldn't have done it that way...."

FWVT

EchoIndia wrote: »

Most of those have only one runway alignment and, in the case of FRA, 18 is used for departures only, regardless of whether ops are easterly or westerly. I don't think you can compare KEF with mainland Europe, given the extremes of Icelandic weather and that it was a major military base during the Cold War, with a USAF air defence fighter squadron and US Navy patrol aircraft in residence for several decades. Aldergrove is actually 07/25 and 17/35 (Runway 37 sounds like something from a Hollywood movie) and has low traffic levels. LHR was 10/28 before 1987 when magnetic variation necessitated redesignation to 09/27. Glasgow, Stansted (now 02/22) and MAN similarly have had the direction redesignated over the years, as did did DUB (originally 06/24). LHR's crosswind runway 23 was closed in 2002 to facilitate further infrastructural development.

It's interesting to speculate, but one has to assume that in the original planning for 10/28 at DUB the pros and cons were all considered - albeit people can only operate on the basis of the knowledge and evidence available to them at the time. I can recall plenty of 707s making crabbing approaches to 23 in strong winds at DUB so there were days when it was not very suitable. I think that keeping traffic away from overflying the city was a major consideration in deciding on 28 and, as someone who can recall the noisy earlier-generation jets blasting their way right across the centre of town, I think that was a good call. Hindsight, as always, allows us the luxury of saying "I wouldn't have done it that way...."

Hands up on the 37 typo.

I'm wondering why 28 was considered the best alignment for DUB. Any analysis of wind data in conjunction with all the other factors would suggest that a best compromise would be more like 26, just south of true west. That would still keep traffic off built-up areas and would still allow a 2nd parallel runway. That's not just hindsight, it seems like common sense.

jamo2oo9

FWVT wrote: »

Hands up on the 37 typo.

I'm wondering why 28 was considered the best alignment for DUB. Any analysis of wind data in conjunction with all the other factors would suggest that a best compromise would be more like 26, just south of true west. That would still keep traffic off built-up areas and would still allow a 2nd parallel runway. That's not just hindsight, it seems like common sense.

I would imagine that they were restricted on building 05/23 runway longer due to the development at the south of the airport and if that was the main runway in use, the traffic would be transitioning over the city which would be unpopular for the residents..?

FWVT

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

I would imagine that they were restricted on building 05/23 runway longer due to the development at the south of the airport and if that was the main runway in use, the traffic would be transitioning over the city which would be unpopular for the residents..?

It seems nobody is reading previous posts. This was all said earlier, but the development to the south of the airport is only a few years old. Silloge golf course was always there but nothing else, so 23 could have extended to where my it is on my map.

jamo2oo9

FWVT wrote: »

It seems nobody is reading previous posts. This was all said earlier, but the development to the south of the airport is only a few years old. Silloge golf course was always there but nothing else, so 23 could have extended to where my it is on my map.

Even if there was no development south of the airport, you would also have to factor in the noise restrictions since the aircraft would be overflying the city from 5am till 11pm everyday. Sticking with the 28/10 was probably a better option in terms of public appeasement.

salmocab

could someone quickly explain the how the numbers work for runway alignment

Peregrine

salmocab wrote: »

could someone quickly explain the how the numbers work for runway alignment

Angle. 10/28 has a 100/280 degrees alignment from the positive vertical (from north, if you will).

Obviously, there's always a 180 degrees difference between the opposite ends.

salmocab

Nim wrote: »

Angle. 10/28 has a 100/280 degrees alignment from the positive vertical (from north, if you will).

Obviously, there's always a 180 degrees difference between the opposite ends.

Cheers makes sense.

EchoIndia

These old Dáil reports give some insight into how long ago the planning of parallel runways at DUB began. It also seems that the original intent was for the northerly of the two runways to be built first.

1976: http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1976052700021?opendocument
1977: http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1977012600041?opendocument
1978: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1978/02/07/00009.asp

I also found a 1986 debate wherein the cost of constructing runway 10/28 was put at £31m. The true heading of runway 28 at DUB is 275 degrees, by the way.

EchoIndia

salmocab wrote: »

could someone quickly explain the how the numbers work for runway alignment

This may help; http://www.tetonsports.com/adventureblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/measure.jpg

davebuck

Anyone in the know will the DAA apply for a new planning application for the runway or is the existing planning permission good enough? as the time must be getting near to start thinking about building it....

Jamie2k9

davebuck wrote: »

Anyone in the know will the DAA apply for a new planning application for the runway or is the existing planning permission good enough? as the time must be getting near to start thinking about building it....

I believe a new application will happen, they want two conditions overturned and I suspect they have a better case now also.

colycivic

Anyone have any idea if the IAG takeover will put pressure on the DAA to commence the new runway sooner rather than later, well that is assuming the DAA haven't all ready begun this project with the works that are being carried out at the moment on the north end of the airport, facing forest little and adjacent to the Naul Road. "Aircraft parking and apron" or would it seem more like new taxiway.

Idbatterim

Passenger Numbers Up 15% In First Six Months At Dublin Airport

http://www.dublinairport.com/gns/at-the-airport/latest-news/15-07-15/Passenger_Numbers_Up_15_In_First_Six_Months_At_Dublin_Airport.aspx

Almost 2.5 Million Passengers In June

http://www.dublinairport.com/gns/at-the-airport/latest-news/15-07-15/Almost_2_5_Million_Passengers_In_June.aspx

colycivic

@Idbatterim , Yes indeed, another good point, the fact that this will push them closer to the threshold of 25million passengers per 12 month period which was the advisory point for needing a 2nd runway.

DAA have several project teams already working on this, just because we haven't hit 25million doesn't mean the DAA won't/can't do all the pre construction project planning in advance and have everything ready to go.

colycivic

Deleted User wrote: »

DAA have several project teams already working on this, just because we haven't hit 25million doesn't mean the DAA won't/can't do all the pre construction project planning in advance and have everything ready to go.

Totally understood, that's what one of my queries was, that is the construction work they say is a 64,000 sq meter aircraft parking area actually the beginning of the new runway construction process? There doesn't seem to be a planning reference file for these currant works on the fingal coco website. Planning for the new runway doesn't expire till around 2017 I believe.

Jamie2k9

colycivic wrote: »

Totally understood, that's what one of my queries was, that is the construction work they say is a 64,000 sq meter aircraft parking area actually the beginning of the new runway construction process? There doesn't seem to be a planning reference file for these currant works on the fingal coco website. Planning for the new runway doesn't expire till around 2017 I believe.

5G won't impact on runway, planned years ago. I believe a new application will be made for runway.

Jamie2k9

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

5G won't impact on runway, planned years ago. I believe a new application will be made for runway.

Indeed, longer slightly further north and with amended envoirnmental imapct stuff so they can overcome some of the many restrictions on its use etc.

colycivic

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

5G won't impact on runway, planned years ago. I believe a new application will be made for runway.

Do you believe they will apply for a 3.6km runway rather than a 3.1km one??

colycivic

Longer for sure, yes! But further north would surely cost more than it's proposed currant location, not to mentioning they would need to purchase more lands to go further north than its currant location?