Runway 10 eidw

Dreamtime

Does anybody know why eidw are using runway 10 the last 2 days are they doing work on 28 or is it just the way winds are ??

donkey balls

RWY 10 is the same RWY as 28 known as RWY 10/28 the other morning about 0430 they used RWY 34 as work was taken place on RWY 10/28.:D

Dreamtime

Thats true they are the same do! normally they land from the 28 side but they are landing on runway 10 side the last 2 days i havent seen them change to that side only for a couple of hours while wind has changed direction.

donkey balls

The wind direction would also play a part regarding the RWY in use also using RWY 28 saves time on taxiing time and fuel,I used to notify my ops dept in the UK&France that we would have departure delays due to RWY 10 in use.

Zyox

Dreamtime wrote: »

Does anybody know why eidw are using runway 10 the last 2 days are they doing work on 28 or is it just the way winds are ??

Wind.

DW_ATCO

Wind has been from the east/north east. We do use rwy10 more than people think. At the moment, Monday-Friday 10/28 closes at 23:30 for runway overlay

iPlop

DW_ATCO wrote: »

Wind has been from the east/north east. We do use rwy10 more than people think. At the moment, Monday-Friday 10/28 closes at 23:30 for runway overlay

Are the DAA still going ahead with the development of the new other runway?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Zyox

They really need to sort out the taxiways before they go spending money on another runway. One example being something like a parallel taxiway one way system to the C pier to ease the mess up there at peak times.

Trevor451

would the new runway they want to build be able to handle a fully loaded b747 or a380?

iPlop

Trevor451 wrote: »

would the new runway they want to build be able to handle a fully loaded b747 or a380?

Runway 10/28 can handle that already

Zyox

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Runway 10/28 can handle that already

An A380? You sure? Can the taxiways/stands? I didn't think it could

iPlop

Zyox wrote: »

An A380? You sure? Can the taxiways/stands? I didn't think it could

Yep

The A380-800 is approximately 30% larger in overall size than the 747-400, and can land or take off on any runway that can accommodate a 747. Runway lighting and signage may need changes to provide clearance to the wings and avoid blast damage from the engines and taxiway shoulders

link

View Profile

...the DAA plans to resubmit its planning application for a longer runway (3,660 metres compared to 3,110 metres....

Thats a nice long runway!

tippilot

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Runway 10/28 can handle that already

Actually the length of 10/28 is the inhibitor to long range Far Eastern flights. It cant handle a fully loaded 747/A340/A380. It can handle all of the above, just not with the full tank of gas required to go ultra long range.

However there is plenty of scope for an increase in length that would certainly be much cheaper than laying a whole new runway.

Zyox

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Yep
link

Well I have heard before that the runway was grand but that it then couldn't taxi anywhere. Which is kind of a null point in saying the runway can handle it really, because the only realistic A380 landing you're now looking at is an emergency after they've dumped fuel... in which case just go to Shannon/Manchester.

CabanasBoy

tippilot wrote: »

Actually the length of 10/28 is the inhibitor to long range Far Eastern flights. It cant handle a fully loaded 747/A340/A380. It can handle all of the above, just not with the full tank of gas required to go ultra long range.

However there is plenty of scope for an increase in length that would certainly be much cheaper than laying a whole new runway.

Would they lengthen it from the eastern or western end? would they have to realign the old Swords Rd or St Margarets Rd?

davebuck

They can lengthen from both ends plenty of room allowed and also contained in the Fingal master plan for all its worth now!!!