Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

billie1b

Shannon757 wrote: »

They can?

They absolutely can, there's enough power on the reverse thrusters to move them, you still see the ATR's do it the odd time. Ryanair used to do it in Blackpool years and years ago too with the 200's. Blow the ear drums out of your head though.

Here's a PIA putting it on display

L1011

Severe FOD risk on anything but tail mounted jets though. There's videos of Northwest DC9s doing it but they stopped due to fuel use

Shannon757

billie1b wrote: »

They absolutely can, there's enough power on the reverse thrusters to move them, you still see the ATR's do it the odd time. Ryanair used to do it in Blackpool years and years ago too with the 200's. Blow the ear drums out of your head though

Oh yes, i've heard about that. But is that not bad for the engines?

chinwag

Billie, Do you have a link to that clip, the one you posted above isn't working.

Avada

chinwag wrote: »

Billie, Do you have a link to that clip, the one you posted above isn't working.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=macvyCmdA3I

Strumms

L1011 wrote: »

Severe FOD risk on anything but tail mounted jets though. There's videos of Northwest DC9s doing it but they stopped due to fuel use

Yep big safety issue. You could get away with it at some far flung outstation where there is not the high density of people, equipment and other aircraft around. I enquired once at DUB when our towbar was discovered to be unserviceable at the last minute. Despite being parked pretty remotely and the flight crew being more than happy to carry out the manoeuvre having suggested it, OPS 1 gave us a firm 'not on you nelly' and we had to blag one off Aer Arran. Would have been cool to see though.

billie1b

chinwag wrote: »

Billie, Do you have a link to that clip, the one you posted above isn't working.

Sorry dont know why I cant post the link properly, I see Avada sorted it though

AndyBoBandy

Use of reverse thrust was a contributing factor in the Air Florida flight 90 crash (737-200) in 1982.

They were de-iced, but then they were delayed with pushback, and when they finally got clearance to push, the tug couldn't get any traction due to the wintery conditions, so the pilot applied reverse thrust to give the plane a bit of a shunt, and ended up blowing more snow/ice onto the wings (adding to the snow already building up since last de-ice), thus spoiling the airflow and killing lift shortly after rotation.
(The de-ice mixture was also a factor in the crash),

Reverse thrust didn't cause the crash alone, but helped make a bad situation worse.

medoc

Carnacalla wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/night-flights-over-south-dublin-during-runway-overhaul-1.2714068

15 months of RWY16/34 use between 11pm and 5am. Will this be weather dependant?

Again, to the intelligent residents, the airport and it's runways have been there alot longer than most of you have lived there or even been alive, if you move under a flightpath, you have no right to complain imo.

Are these repairs short term to get us to the 2nd parallel runway opening and then a major rebuild or more longer term?

medoc

medoc wrote: »

Are these repairs short term to get us to the 2nd parallel runway opening and then a major rebuild or more longer term?

Long term fix.

AndyBoBandy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Long term fix.

Didn't someone mention earlier in the thread that once the new runway was built and operational, the original 10/28 would be out of action for up to 2 years to allow a full refurb! Resulting in non parallel ops for up to 2 years after the new runway was complete.

I guess this puts that theory to bed?

AndyBoBandy

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Didn't someone mention earlier in the thread that once the new runway was built and operational, the original 10/28 would be out of action for up to 2 years to allow a full refurb! Resulting in non parallel ops for up to 2 years after the new runway was complete.

I guess this puts that theory to bed?

That was the original plan yes, but what they will be doing now is not just an overlay it's going down several inches full length of the runway and rebuilding it that way and hence why it's going to take 18 months plus. It's not a full rebuild as obviously that would take far to long and have too great an impact, but this is the best option available to them.

AndyBoBandy

What sort of shelf life will that then put on the refurbished runway?

(pretty impressive that they'll be going a few inches down every night on various sections, and resetting it for ops the following morning)

Cookiemunster

https://youtu.be/LW8hYQzxyEA

Here's the relay being done in Frankfurt. I assume it'll be the same in Dublin minus the bomb detection.

medoc

Cookiemunster wrote: »

https://youtu.be/LW8hYQzxyEA

Here's the relay being done in Frankfurt. I assume it'll be the same in Dublin minus the bomb detection.

That's amazing what they can do and still have it ready for opening next morning. At 15M per night that's 176 nights or 35 5 day weeks at Dublin though it might be less than 15M if they need the runway open by 5am.

medoc

medoc wrote: »

That's amazing what they can do and still have it ready for opening next morning. At 15M per night that's 176 nights or 35 5 day weeks at Dublin though it might be less than 15M if they need the runway open by 5am.

I think they are planning on 5hr days plus weather delays etc. They are going to redo the electrics and install an LED approach and runway lighting system, You may have seen the LED light on the 28 approach lights under test. You can see it from the old airport road.

Stealthirl

I have heard a few pilots complain that the LEDs are very bright and from another source that some small airports were looking into Pilot-controlled lighting (PCL). Akin to how some remote fields work where the pilot can switch on the lights via radio

KwackerJack

Stealthirl wrote: »

I have heard a few pilots complain that the LEDs are very bright and from another source that some small airports were looking into Pilot-controlled lighting (PCL). Akin to how some remote fields work where the pilot can switch on the lights via radio

Weston would be great with PCL's!

Not sure if they can facilitate due to the obstacles either end of the runway

JCX BXC

Stealthirl wrote: »

I have heard a few pilots complain that the LEDs are very bright and from another source that some small airports were looking into Pilot-controlled lighting (PCL). Akin to how some remote fields work where the pilot can switch on the lights via radio

One would assume the LED's would allow varying intensities of light?

Stealthirl

Yup sorry i should have explained my self better.
A pilot could change the brightness via PCL, i was just wondering if its something they had thought about at Dub.

As for Weston i think there's something in the planing that said they cant have any night op's [open to correction though]

KwackerJack

Stealthirl wrote: »

Yup sorry i should have explained my self better.
A pilot could change the brightness via PCL, i was just wondering if its something they had thought about at Dub.

As for Weston i think there's something in the planing that said they cant have any night op's [open to correction though]

Presumably due to the built up location. Pity as for night training ops the use shannon. Nice trip but still be nicer to have the facility closer to home

medoc

A theoretical question. If you were starting today in DUB at scratch. What direction would you build the parallel runways? Is 10/28 the best option or the best possible in relation to other factors? Just curious

JCX BXC

medoc wrote: »

A theoretical question. If you were starting today in DUB at scratch. What direction would you build the parallel runways? Is 10/28 the best option or the best possible in relation to other factors? Just curious

I'd imagine something similar to Shannon's Runway, 24/06. Strong southwesterly winds almost routinely cause problems at DUB during the winter, gusts of above 30kts from 200-230 degrees on a wet runway cause alot of delays and go arounds.

Although Dublin historically gets the wind from 260-280 degrees most frequently, the severe winds are almost always from the south/south west.

This isn't an experts opinion.

Brian CivilEng

If wind was the only consideration, then 06/24 would be optimal for reducing crosswinds. But there are other things to consider, flight paths avoiding built up areas, lands available for purchase etc. Modern aircraft can land in a 25kt crosswind which wasn't the case when the airport was laid out hence the original layout of three runways at 60 degrees to each other. Although before winglets were the norm safe landings were possible at even higher crosswinds.

I've heard UK airspace was another consideration with runway direction, does anyone else know anything about that?

billie1b

05/23 was and still would be the best option for the main RWY at DUB, 10/28 was only built in that direction to avoid the Dublin/Wicklow mountains and avoid coming in/going out over heavily populated areas.
The most common wind direction in DUB is in and around the 230 mark and Aer Rianta at the time (same as DAA now) had people running it with no clue what they were doing but as always they knew better.
The airport should have kept 05/23 as the main runway and built an additional runway where 11/29 was/is based now (not in that particular direction though) and not have it intersecting like they used to. Thats just my opinion though

LXFlyer

billie1b wrote: »

05/23 was and still would be the best option for the main RWY at DUB, 10/28 was only built in that direction to avoid the Dublin/Wicklow mountains and avoid coming in/going out over heavily populated areas.
The most common wind direction in DUB is in and around the 230 mark and Aer Rianta at the time (same as DAA now) had people running it with no clue what they were doing but as always they knew better.
The airport should have kept 05/23 as the main runway and built an additional runway where 11/29 was/is based now (not in that particular direction though) and not have it intersecting like they used to. Thats just my opinion though

Surely the fact that both approaches to 05/23 involved flying over largely populated areas played the major part in the switch to 10/28?

Hardly "running it with no clue" I would suggest?

There is a trade off here - what might be ideal from an aviation perspective may not be acceptable either environmentally or politically.

JCX BXC

billie1b wrote: »

The most common wind direction in DUB is in and around the 230 mark

I thought it was too, its actually not. The predominant wind is westerly, around 260-280 degrees.

http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp

billie1b

billie1b wrote: »

05/23 was and still would be the best option for the main RWY at DUB, 10/28 was only built in that direction to avoid the Dublin/Wicklow mountains and avoid coming in/going out over heavily populated areas.
The most common wind direction in DUB is in and around the 230 mark and Aer Rianta at the time (same as DAA now) had people running it with no clue what they were doing but as always they knew better.
The airport should have kept 05/23 as the main runway and built an additional runway where 11/29 was/is based now (not in that particular direction though) and not have it intersecting like they used to. Thats just my opinion though

Hi Billie, the prevailing wind in Dublin is from the west http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp it is a common misconception that the winds in Dublin are from the south west. The winds in Ireland are regionally independent mainly due to topographical reasons. 28/10 was built with DUBLIN's prevailing winds in mind not Ireland's prevailing winds.

As for the argument over whether the main runways SHOULD have been built for the winds that we get less than 1% of the time, well that's a pointless argument as what is done is done and can't be unchanged. We could argue back and forth all day about it and get no where except for high blood pressure.

JCX BXC

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hi Billie, the prevailing wind in Dublin is from the west http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp it is a common misconception that the winds in Dublin are from the south west. The winds in Ireland are regionally independent mainly due to topographical reasons. 28/10 was built with DUBLIN's prevailing winds in mind not Ireland's prevailing winds.

As for the argument over whether the main runways SHOULD have been built for the winds that we get less than 1% of the time, well that's a pointless argument as what is done is done and can't be unchanged. We could argue back and forth all day about it and get no where except for high blood pressure.

Well not really, although the predominant winds are from the West, the winds which become severe are almost always from the South/Southwest.

Ok so you build a parallel runway system orientated 05/23 for the strongest winds that happen 1-2% of the year, what do you do when the winds blow hard from 310-320 as they do ? Use 34 and try squeeze 100% of the traffic through a runway only capable of handling 40% of the traffic load.

You've built a parallel runway system that either has to have all arrivals or all departures cross an active runway to get to the parallel runway or the terminal. Standard airport design usually has the terminal between the runway as per 28L and R but in the design of 23L/R the terminal is east of both runways and there is regular delays trying to cross an active runway and efficiency falls as a result. All so that you could have a runway system pointing into the strongest winds that happen a few times a year.