EIDW runway change

View Profile

It may be of interest (or annoyance) to some of us Dubs that the main runway at EIDW will be changing from 10/28 to 16/34. This will start on Monday September 21st from 22:00-05:00 up until Saturday. It's to carry out essential maintenance.

Might make for some interesting up close spotting!

Danbo!

Is it just between 10pm and 5am though? Have still never seen 34 in use :mad:

View Profile

Its approximately between 10pm and 5am. Would be nice to get it a bit earlier in the evening light.

Quite like when 16 is in use. You can get pretty close to the touchdown area.

cuterob

Stee wrote: »

Is it just between 10pm and 5am though? Have still never seen 34 in use :mad:

a friend of the family has been an aerlingus pilot for around 30 years and these days flys the dub to boston route.. he told me that he tried landing on 34 twice before and had to go around both times never actually landing on it.. so it will be pretty rare to ever see it

N7777G

cuterob wrote: »

a friend of the family has been an aerlingus pilot for around 30 years and these days flys the dub to boston route.. he told me that he tried landing on 34 twice before and had to go around both times never actually landing on it.. so it will be pretty rare to ever see it

Tut tut! what sort of nancy boy pilot is he!

cuterob

N7777G wrote: »

Tut tut! what sort of nancy boy pilot is he!

one who cares for the safety of the passengers!!;)

There's other problems with landing on Runway 34 (well, there were.)

Independent.ie: Warning after pilot mistakes hotel lights for airport runway

Danbo!

cuterob wrote: »

a friend of the family has been an aerlingus pilot for around 30 years and these days flys the dub to boston route.. he told me that he tried landing on 34 twice before and had to go around both times never actually landing on it.. so it will be pretty rare to ever see it

Ive seen 16 in use a fair few times alright, but never seen heavies on it. The times that I've seen it, the EI A330s were arriving and departing 28 regardless of crosswinds. (didnt seem overly strong tho)

EchoIndia

I live under the approach to 34 and while it is not used that often, it does get used when 10/28 has to be withdrawn for maintenance or is blocked. This happened one morning last week and you can see photos of heavies landing on 34 that day on Jetphotos. I have seen all types up to B747-400 using 34 and can recall an An-124 departing off 16, so this is not that marginal a runway at all. The main operational disadvantage is that 34 does not have an ILS so it is a non-precision approach; this was one of the factors in the MD-83 incident to which a link was provided by an earlier poster. Of course, as it is appreciably shorter than 10/28, some aircraft will be more range-limited when the main runway is not available.

Dacian

Stee wrote: »

Ive seen 16 in use a fair few times alright, but never seen heavies on it. The times that I've seen it, the EI A330s were arriving and departing 28 regardless of crosswinds. (didnt seem overly strong tho)

I'm assuming the shorter length of 16/34 is a factor with the EI A330s.
Can remember a few years ago seeing a strange string of take offs (all fine, just surprising to me) A330 lifted off of 16, then followed by another from 10, then a third from 16 again! The A330 going to LAX used RWY 10 for the extra length,while all other a/c at the time were using RWY16. Just happened that 3 took off at same time,using alternate runway. I was in our ramp office at the time, thought I was seeing things until the dispatchers explained it to me.
Looked quite cool,almost like a shamrock scramble!


This change shouldn't affect too many flights as its between 2200-0500.

In my experience landing on RWY 16 is tricky as the wind is not uniform,it is disrupted (?) as it flows over the city thus making the approach a bit bumpy. MAN had a similar problem when I flew in and out about 5 years ago. One particular approach was always turbulent as the wind flowed over the terminal buidling and got disrupted.

drdeadlift

Dacian wrote: »

I'm assuming the shorter length of 16/34 is a factor with the EI A330s.
Can remember a few years ago seeing a strange string of take offs (all fine, just surprising to me) A330 lifted off of 16, then followed by another from 10, then a third from 16 again! The A330 going to LAX used RWY 10 for the extra length,while all other a/c at the time were using RWY16. Just happened that 3 took off at same time,using alternate runway. I was in our ramp office at the time, thought I was seeing things until the dispatchers explained it to me.
Looked quite cool,almost like a shamrock scramble!


This change shouldn't affect too many flights as its between 2200-0500.

In my experience landing on RWY 16 is tricky as the wind is not uniform,it is disrupted (?) as it flows over the city thus making the approach a bit bumpy. MAN had a similar problem when I flew in and out about 5 years ago. One particular approach was always turbulent as the wind flowed over the terminal buidling and got disrupted.

I have seen plenty of 767s+a330 coming and going from 16,never thought Dublin city would have been the cause for turbulence,alot of the times i have seen 16 in use the weather is normally unsettled which leads to interesting spotting conditions.

View Profile

never thought Dublin city would have been the cause for turbulence

You can get mechanical turbulence from large buildings and hangars etc when on short finals.
It's probably not too bad at EIDW especially considering runway 29 is closed.

yaeger

Its not so much the city, tis the predominant south westerlies coming of the dublin mountains that give you the bumps on dublin approaches, Dublin would be one of places that suffers strong winds more frequently then others ! Dublin mtns at 4000", as soon as descending through that level your beaten like an egg. Also runway 28 has a terrible drop spot where sheer happens, just before and over the perimeter road.

Why they ever got rid of runway 23 we will never know.

EchoIndia

yaeger wrote: »

Why they ever got rid of runway 23 we will never know.

It was not long enough for any sort of sustained long-range operations and it did not seem to be ideally orientated having regard to the prevailing W/NW winds. Its closure allowed the building of additional terminal facilities to the west and, probably most importantly for the local residents, meant that arriving and departing aircraft did not as a rule overfly the northern suburbs. While it's true that modern aircraft are appreciably quieter than the BAC 1-11s, Tridents, 707s and DC-8s which were common in days gone by, the volume of movements has grown exponentially and I think that, all things considered, the provision of 10/28 was the right thing to do. They just left it a bit shorter than it should have been....

pclancy

When did they last use 29 and was it just the fokkers etc?

highlydebased

I remember seeing Cityjet land on 29 once, long ago! Aer Arann etc used it too

sdanseo

pclancy wrote: »

When did they last use 29 and was it just the fokkers etc?

Probably 2-3 years ago now. Pity too, had a certain liking for it, kinda made Dublin more homely.

Dacian

pclancy wrote: »

When did they last use 29 and was it just the fokkers etc?

I may well be wrong but I have a feeling I saw an Aer Arann ATR using it about a year ago,maybe a bit more. I remember heading south from Swords and thinking "thats a bit close for landing" untill I realised it wasn't heading onto RWY 28.

Grease Monkey

It was closed about two years ago to be used as extra parking stands when the airport was at its busiest and until the extra parking space by the tower was opened,its just used as a taxiway these days for pier D

Amsterdam

I wouldn't drive a car down 29/11 never mind taxi an aircraft down it. It's in bits! Haven't taxied down there in quite a while. On the runway change, you'll most often see them around 2230-2330 when the paddy air lads are moaning about a 2kt tail wind on approach. Apparently there are no tail wind figures for the scarebus

yaeger

Apparently there are no tail wind figures for the scarebus


Shows how little you really know, the paddy air lads and other scarebus operators can take a 10kt tailwind (if they wish) reported by the tower.
And scarebus including those the paddy air lads fly can take a stronger x-wind component then a 737 that those other paddy wackery lads fly
so less of the speculation and bull**** dribble :cool:

Amsterdam

Sarcasm? Ever heard of it? No?

In Lehman's then....

On many nights in the fine airport that is Dublinski international, our friends from the other side, the green ones, have a habit of complaining of extremely light tailwinds on approach when the surface has no tailwind component at all. Which inevitably leads to the "byyyeee nooowww" lads switching it over to 10, which causes delays and makes me miss last orders on lates.

The lads in green on the 320 can take a whopping extra 3 kts of crosswind on a dry runway than the 738. Go team green! However my original post made no reference to anything about x-wind limitations.

We seem to have another case of "oh it's an aviation related topic, because I have a vast knowledge in this subject like no other, I think i'll cause an argument"... You should wander over to PPRuNe, there's also plenty of experts over there.

yaeger

No amsterdam, you made a statement ! simple as and now your just been an arrogant tit, Get over yourself and grow up a tad.
Funny that aviation related topic on the aviation & aircraft board.

Good luck to ya :rolleyes:

pclancy

The topic is about runways at EIDW...lets stick to that and have no more airline slagging please.

Amsterdam

yaeger wrote: »

No amsterdam, you made a statement ! simple as and now your just been an arrogant tit, Get over yourself and grow up a tad.
Funny that aviation related topic on the aviation & aircraft board.

Good luck to ya :rolleyes:

I can't quite make any sense of above post but it's quite amazing that you've already resorted to childish insults. That didn't take long. If you don't have anything constructive to say I would suggest that you take your "dribble" somewhere else.

Pclancy, you are correct this is a thread about runways at our beloved port and that is what my orignal post was related to. I apologise if the discussion has drifted elsewhere. However I find it hard to sit back while childish insults are being thrown my way from so called experts.

yaeger

Listen laddy, no ones claiming to be experts here, however when you make an off the cuff coment as you did, dont expect readers to catch your tone since this medium doesnt lend to it....
I still reckon your arrogant though and now possibley a hypocrit, and you aint a moderator so quit trying to bully people to other sites that dont agree with you.....

Either way lets return to corners and topic on hand... is that beyond you !

pclancy

Yawn. Is it beyond you? Back....on....topic....any more squabbling and nobody will be let out for their little break.

yaeger

Right so boss, sorry boss... back to the runway boss.

pclancy

Good lad.

View Profile

Just an update.


REF: A1123/09
From: 2009-Sep-21 Mon 22:00 To: 2009-Sep-25 Fri 04:00
Schedule: DAILY 2200-0400
ICAO: EIDW DUBLIN INTERNATIONAL
RWY 10 / 28 CLOSED

Sizzler

I remember a few years ago 28 was in use and a US Tristar on a charter flight steadfastily refused to talk off and insisted on using 10 ! They toed and froed with ATC for 5 minutes, he was given a 15 minute extension to his oceanic and they moved a bit of traffic around and they let him take off on 10, why he insisted on this still confuses me to this day! It was a reasonably calm day BTW.

Ideas

Danbo!

Maybe he knew when he got stateside he'd be told to make straight in, and wanted to at least turn the controls once during the flight?

View Profile

I imagine there may have been a slight tailwind which he wasn't willing to take off with, especially if he was heavy.

Although if this was the case then most of the long haul aircraft would probably do the same.

EchoIndia

This is not uncommon as apparently with nil wind, given the runway slope and maybe also obstacle clearance issues, 10 is a better proposition for a heavily laden departure.

View Profile

Makes sense. Rwy 10 threshold elevation is 242ft, Rwy 28 threshold elevation is 202ft.