Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

is this username available

The other tender DAA have open is for the new Dublin Airport Masterplan which has been talked about for the last while.
Can be found here

EchoIndia

Locker10a wrote: »

This is predicted to be the future of all ATC towers, in 30 years all Irish airports will probably be controlled from one main centre

Can you offer a credible source for such a statement?

markpb

EchoIndia wrote: »

Can you offer a credible source for such a statement?

The word "probably" probably indicates it's an opinion, not a fact. If the process and technology works, it's definitely something that would appeal to ATC managers, especially if it helps to consolidate towers at smaller airports.

EchoIndia

markpb wrote: »

The word "probably" probably indicates it's an opinion, not a fact. If the process and technology works, it's definitely something that would appeal to ATC managers, especially if it helps to consolidate towers at smaller airports.

The OP stated "This is predicted to be the future of all ATC towers..." I'd be interested to know who's predicting that.

Pat Dunne

EchoIndia wrote: »

Can you offer a credible source for such a statement?

You ask for a source, the article states the IAA in the first paragraph. Are they not sufficently credible for you?

The Irish Aviation Authority will consider ditching plans to build a huge 87-metre tall control tower at Dublin Airport and instead use remote technology that would enable the function to be based at a regular building away from the runway.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/airport-tower-plan-may-be-ditched-in-favour-of-remote-traffic-control-34309290.html

Locker10a

EchoIndia wrote: »

The OP stated "This is predicted to be the future of all ATC towers..." I'd be interested to know who's predicting that.

Internal sources within the ATC industry who I happen to know personally, that's who's predicting it ! I don't have a source other than my word so you can take it or leave it but it's what I've heard ! It a plan, plans don't always happen just have to wait and see !

Gaoth Laidir

So, imagine life without R16 over the past few days. Almost nothing would have gone in or out of it on Tuesday and at other stages too. There are several such events annually so imo it is a bad idea to get rid of it. It will be on days like Tuesday, when thousands of pax are stranded all over Europe, that the error of our ways will be felt.

JCX BXC

May I ask, why was Dublin's main runway built facing 280 degrees?(And the alternately is facing 160, but that's a bit older). I understand that its not that simple to built a runway whatever direction, but the predominant wind is Southwesterly, and in the common storms winds are south/southwesterly. With a wind of 220 degrees, both runways have a 60 degrees crosswind (if that's the right terminology). Winds of 220 degrees are very common!

Gaoth Laidir

Carnacalla wrote: »

May I ask, why was Dublin's main runway built facing 280 degrees?(And the alternately is facing 160, but that's a bit older). I understand that its not that simple to built a runway whatever direction, but the predominant wind is Southwesterly, and in the common storms winds are south/southwesterly. With a wind of 220 degrees, both runways have a 60 degrees crosswind (if that's the right terminology). Winds of 220 degrees are very common!

Exactly. And now they want to do away with the only other lifeline.

Carnacalla

Carnacalla wrote: »

May I ask, why was Dublin's main runway built facing 280 degrees?(And the alternately is facing 160, but that's a bit older). I understand that its not that simple to built a runway whatever direction, but the predominant wind is Southwesterly, and in the common storms winds are south/southwesterly. With a wind of 220 degrees, both runways have a 60 degrees crosswind (if that's the right terminology). Winds of 220 degrees are very common!

Terrain, military airspace, because the wind isn't always from the south west, storms aren't always from the south west.

Have a look at this page http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp it's a bit of a myth that the prevailing wind is from the south west, this clearly shows in Dublin it's from 270-280 degrees at least 30% of the time.

Gaoth Laidir

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Terrain, military airspace, because the wind isn't always from the south west, storms aren't always from the south west.

Have a look at this page http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp it's a bit of a myth that the prevailing wind is from the south west, this clearly shows in Dublin it's from 270-280 degrees at least 30% of the time.

But for song disruptive winds they are generally from 200-230 °. These are the ones that cause a problem. To have a runway aligned in this general direction would cause no problems for the rest of the time that the lighter prevailing winds blow from more westerly or northwesterly directions.

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But for song disruptive winds they are generally from 200-230 °. These are the ones that cause a problem. To have a runway aligned in this general direction would cause no problems for the rest of the time that the lighter prevailing winds blow from more westerly or northwesterly directions.

So build a runway for weather that happens what 10-15 days of the year (5%) and at that how many hours does the wind blow in that "disruptive" direction.

How do you propose getting traffic to land on 04 or 05 from the East considering aircraft cross just south of Tallaght at 4000ft due terrain, where would you build the parallel. How do you propose interacting with Military and Weston traffic. What compensation would you be paying to the people of West Dublin for noise or to the people of Swords, how do you propose fitting in two 3500m long runways between the M50 and Swords. Who's paying for all the land to be bought and businesses to be bought out.

My point is, you don't build a runway for one factor.

EchoIndia

Back at about page 52 in this thread, this was all discussed about six months ago!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056950137&page=52

Gaoth Laidir

Deleted User wrote: »

So build a runway for weather that happens what 10-15 days of the year (5%) and at that how many hours does the wind blow in that "disruptive" direction.

How do you propose getting traffic to land on 04 or 05 from the East considering aircraft cross just south of Tallaght at 4000ft due terrain, where would you build the parallel. How do you propose interacting with Military and Weston traffic. What compensation would you be paying to the people of West Dublin for noise or to the people of Swords, how do you propose fitting in two 3500m long runways between the M50 and Swords. Who's paying for all the land to be bought and businesses to be bought out.

My point is, you don't build a runway for one factor.

I think you're missing my original point. If you were to build even R26 (not parallel but still no problem operationally) then it covers all eventualities, including the 15% you referred to. There would probably be no cancellations at all during the year as these are invariably caused by a 220 wind-direction. Winds from other directions are normally lighter and therefore not a problem, regardless of runway direction.

This would also limit the other points you made and that I have already considered. Limited effect on Weston and military for landing on a new R08. Have takeoffs from the current R10 so no conflicting landing traffic. The other points are not really relevant in this situation in that an early right turn off R08 would remove noise issues from Swords. Yes it would involve some issues along the Boot Road but that is a very undeveloped area with very few residents.

EchoIndia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think you're missing my original point. If you were to build even R26 (not parallel but still no problem operationally) then it covers all eventualities, including the 15% you referred to. There would probably be no cancellations at all during the year as these are invariably caused by a 220 wind-direction. Winds from other directions are normally lighter and therefore not a problem, regardless of runway direction.

This would also limit the other points you made and that I have already considered. Limited effect on Weston and military for landing on a new R08. Have takeoffs from the current R10 so no conflicting landing traffic. The other points are not really relevant in this situation in that an early right turn off R08 would remove noise issues from Swords. Yes it would involve some issues along the Boot Road but that is a very undeveloped area with very few residents.

Some of these points are reasonable but to believe that DUB would see two new parallel runways built, on a different orientation than already planned for over many decades, is wishful thinking.

Gaoth Laidir

EchoIndia wrote: »

Some of these points are reasonable but to believe that DUB would see two new parallel runways built, on a different orientation than already planned for over many decades, is wishful thinking.

No, I mean just one. Leave R10/28 and build the new one as say R08/26

EchoIndia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, I mean just one. Leave R10/28 and build the new one as say R08/26

That would introduce a whole new series of issues in terms of how the two runways could be used, as the flight-paths would converge at the western end.

Shannon Control

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, I mean just one. Leave R10/28 and build the new one as say R08/26

I see your point, but, from this though you get a plethora of ATC related issues. You can't do any parallel runway takeoffs or landings for obvious reasons.

Departures would need individual climb out instructions off 26 as MOA4 and R15/16 are not always active, but become active without warning. This means individual releases delaying departures.

You have an instant conflict and possible squeaky bum near-miss situation if there's a departure off 28 and a go-around of 26.

So, aswell as all of those issues and some others, to build a non-parallel runway just for those 5-10 days of the year where there are 2-5 hours of excessive winds just doesn't make much sense.

It makes No sense. In fact it would be hugely restictive due to the necessary interaction of 28+26.

You can't just dismiss noise, it's a very serious consideration for planning permission. You aren't allowed have turns below 3000ft for jets in Ireland because of noise abatement. An immediate turn takes it into conflict with 10 go around.

The approach for 08 would pass through Weston's zone and the R15-R16, it would be in conflict with the VOR B approach and the ILS/VOR approaches to runway 11 at Baldonnel.

By the way I said 5% of the time not 15%, of that its only a few hours that the wind would be 220 degrees. The wind the other day was 190/200 or 40 degrees off 16 when it was causing issues, what runway would you suggest for that wind ?

notharrypotter

Deleted User wrote: »

. You aren't allowed have turns below 3000ft for jets in Ireland because of noise abatement.

Do you have a source for this?

Gaoth Laidir

Shannon Control wrote: »

I see your point, but, from this though you get a plethora of ATC related issues. You can't do any parallel runway takeoffs or landings for obvious reasons.

Departures would need individual climb out instructions off 26 as MOA4 and R15/16 are not always active, but become active without warning. This means individual releases delaying departures.

You have an instant conflict and possible squeaky bum near-miss situation if there's a departure off 28 and a go-around of 26.

So, aswell as all of those issues and some others, to build a non-parallel runway just for those 5-10 days of the year where there are 2-5 hours of excessive winds just doesn't make much sense.

An early right turn off R26, as at JFK, would solve any issues with MOAs and the Romeos. Departing traffic would not have to encroach on the R28 extended centreline at all.

This is how it would look in relation to the planned 28R. Not a huge imposition imo. Go-around conflicts would be an extremely rare occurence and could be procedured again with an early right turn. In the case where R08 would be used, this could be for takeoffs and R10 could be used for landings. No conflicts there.



Remember, we are talking about something that has not been built and can therefore be done right. There are no existing problems that cannot be overcome with a bit of planning. This would futureproof operations and ensure that disruption to a growing number of passengers would be virtually non-existent. Why do something that only solves one problem (capacity) when you can do something else that solves two problems (capacity and elimination of disruption)? Or is it that we just want to do it the Irish way, like we did with the two separate Luas Lines? Or buying out the M50 toll contract? Think 15 years ahead when we have dozens of extra flights per day. That's a lot of cancelled flights.

notharrypotter

An early right turn off R26,

Curious as to how far upwind you define an "early right turn"?

Gaoth Laidir

Deleted User wrote: »

It makes No sense. In fact it would be hugely restictive due to the necessary interaction of 28+26.

You can't just dismiss noise, it's a very serious consideration for planning permission. You aren't allowed have turns below 3000ft for jets in Ireland because of noise abatement. An immediate turn takes it into conflict with 10 go around.

The approach for 08 would pass through Weston's zone and the R15-R16, it would be in conflict with the VOR B approach and the ILS/VOR approaches to runway 11 at Baldonnel.

By the way I said 5% of the time not 15%, of that its only a few hours that the wind would be 220 degrees. The wind the other day was 190/200 or 40 degrees off 16 when it was causing issues, what runway would you suggest for that wind ?

Sorry, I misread your 5%.

See my previous post for the conflict solutions.

With a wind of 190-200 the gusts will be from a more westerly direction than that (gusts come from the right of the mean wind direction). I know that is not legislated for but it is always better to be landing with a left crosswind for this reason. That would mean R26 would be doable where R28 was not the other day.

Gaoth Laidir

notharrypotter wrote: »

Curious as to how far upwind you define an "early right turn"?

I dunno, 1000 feet? What is JFK? 500 feet?

notharrypotter

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I dunno, 1000 feet? What is JFK? 500 feet?

How far is that in terms of a maximum physical distance from the departure end of the runway?

Gaoth Laidir

notharrypotter wrote: »

How far is that in terms of a maximum physical distance from the departure end of the runway?

It depends on aircraft and wind, but for many aircraft it would at or before the end of the runway. I have just watched EI1LM (A320) taking off from R10 now and it was at 1025 ft right on passing the end of the runway.

notharrypotter

notharrypotter wrote: »

Do you have a source for this?

Irish AIP listed under noise abatement procedures

EIDW AIP AD 2.21 noise abatement procedure 3.2.1

Gaoth Laidir

Deleted User wrote: »

Irish AIP listed under noise abatement procedures

EIDW AIP AD 2.21 noise abatement procedure 3.2.1

But what areas are you saying would be affected by noise that would not be affected by 28R/10L? An early turn off 26/08 would cause no extra problems.

notharrypotter

Deleted User wrote: »

Irish AIP listed under noise abatement procedures

EIDW AIP AD 2.21 noise abatement procedure 3.2.1

Ah Dublin.

notharrypotter

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It depends on aircraft and wind, but for many aircraft it would at or before the end of the runway. I have just watched EI1LM (A320) taking off from R10 now and it was at 1025 ft right on passing the end of the runway.

I think you would need to specify a set distance not allow each operator to give its own version depending on the prevailing conditions on a given day.