When did the NE-SW runway at Dublin close?

L1011

Google is failing me on this one so I thought I'd ask on here, seems to be a lot more knowledge of Irish aviation than I could ever hope to have going around.

Its very clear on an aerial photo of EIDW that there's a former runway forming an X with 16/34; which has been turned in to an exit from 10/28 and parking for the most part.

When was this in use and when did it close? And did it last long intact after closure before being eaten? All I've managed to find from searching was that it was 05/23.

LXFlyer

MYOB wrote: »

Google is failing me on this one so I thought I'd ask on here, seems to be a lot more knowledge of Irish aviation than I could ever hope to have going around.

Its very clear on an aerial photo of EIDW that there's a former runway forming an X with 16/34; which has been turned in to an exit from 10/28 and parking for the most part.

When was this in use and when did it close? And did it last long intact after closure before being eaten? All I've managed to find from searching was that it was 05/23.

That was the old main runway at Dublin and it closed when 10/28 was opened.

McWotever

1988 I thinks. Iberia A320 was the first to land... why I know that I don't know!

05/23 was shut for a few reasons; because it was crumbling away, with a bit of help from EI's 741's and their JT9D engines, its orientation to the Dublin/Wicklow mountains, and also RWY10/28 was more inline with the prevailing winds.

L1011

Did it run concurrently with 10/28 at all or close at the same time as 10/28 opening? And did they dig up bits of it quickly or leave it there for a while?

I'm overly inquisitive, sorry.

Su Campu

Today's aerodrome chart still clearly shows the old 05/23 running from the Engine test site, through Central Apron, P1/P2, West Apron and Echo 4.

http://www.iaa.ie/safe_reg/iaip/Published%20Files/AIP%20Files/AD/Chart%20Files/EIDW/EI_AD_2_EIDW_24-1_en.pdf
http://www.iaa.ie/safe_reg/iaip/Published%20Files/AIP%20Files/AD/Chart%20Files/EIDW/EI_AD_2_EIDW_24-2_en.pdf

tippilot

Another example of an aviation decision taken by the non aviation minded.

When the wind at Dublin blows hard it tends to blow from the South West. Many times I've landed on 28 with a howling gale from 220/230 and could only longingly look at what remains of the old runway 23.

Any hope if it reopening ended when it was dissected by Pier D.

An extension of Rwy 29 and the retention of Runway 23 would have been the best aviation minded decision.

stopthepanic

McWotever wrote: »

1988 I thinks. Iberia A320 was the first to land... why I know that I don't know!


1989, it wasn't Iberia, it was an Airbus A320 prototype like this one.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tdcphotos/6079042613/

kc56

tippilot wrote: »

Another example of an aviation decision taken by the non aviation minded.

When the wind at Dublin blows hard it tends to blow from the South West. Many times I've landed on 28 with a howling gale from 220/230 and could only longingly look at what remains of the old runway 23.

Any hope if it reopening ended when it was dissected by Pier D.

An extension of Rwy 29 and the retention of Runway 23 would have been the best aviation minded decision.

Two words Swords and Finglas.

Approaches to 23/05 are over Swords or Finglas. By comparison 28/10 is largely over open countryside. Look at the protests in Portmarnoc about a new 28R. There was no scope for extending 23 to allow direct transatlantic flights.

Don't know why they didn't extend 29 but it would have been even more out of the prevailing wind direction than 28. Perhaps they might have had to close the airport to do so as 29 intersects 23/05 and 34/16 but the new 28 lies to the south of 23 so disruption would have been minimised.

Aviation cannot ignore the environment particularly a very large urban area and decisions must take into account this environment. As a result the optimum set-up for aviation may not be achievable.

EchoIndia

As far as I recall, runway 05/23 (previously 06/24) was not formally closed immediately when 10/28 was opened, but by 1990 it was out of use completely. While there are occasions when the wind direction favours such a runway, it is always going to be a compromise as to what the orientation of an airport's main runway should be. As others have said, environmental and engineering considerations come into it too.

I can think of many airports where there is effectively only one runway orientation (e.g. SNN, LGW, LHR, MAN, GLA, EMA, BRS, PMI) and this does not seem to affect operations other than on the rarest of occasions.

tippilot

Theres always a blanacing act unfortunately. In my opinion after 10/28 was built 05/23 should have been given higher priority for retention than 11/29 given it's similarity to 10/28 in orientation. (11/29 was only withdrawn in recent years).

There have only been a handful of airports I have ever had to sit out, or divert due winds above max x-wind component in my career. Dublin on more than one occasion. Interestingly, on each occasion Rwy 23 would have been ideal and allowed operations to continue.

Given that the trend in high winds at Dublin is south westerly, a Rwy23 still in existance would still be quite useful today.

Regarding why an all new runway was built instead of an extension of 11/29 I would imagine you are correct re continuity of operatons during construction. Another point I'd add is that in a South Westerly, the turbulence generated by the hangars and airport buildings on the 29 approach would possibly have been prohibitive.

stopthepanic

tippilot wrote: »

Regarding why an all new runway was built instead of an extension of 11/29 I would imagine you are correct re continuity of operatons during construction. Another point I'd add is that in a South Westerly, the turbulence generated by the hangars and airport buildings on the 29 approach would possibly have been prohibitive.

tippilot, you are kind of correct regards the location of Hangar 6 and runway 29, the problem is that if an aircraft is on the apron in front of hangar 6 then it infringes the operational 'cone' of 29 and therefore restricts landings or 11 for take-offs. This is the reason for 28R being planned as opposed to 29 being extended (along with the fact that 29 is in dire condition and would require a complete relay)

xflyer

I can tell you that when flying into 29. The turbulence from the hangars when the wind was from the southwest caused some 'sporty' moments on short finals. Certainly in light aircraft. Landing long was good practice on those days.

My first solo was off 23, actually I think it was 24 back then. I was number three after an Aer Lingus 737 and a 747. There were plenty of lighthearted comments from crews on board those two which did nothing to dissipate the tension. In the circuit the Tower asked me to expedite the landing as there was a 737 on the way. No pressure then! It wouldn't happen these days.

Irish Steve

xflyer wrote: »

I can tell you that when flying into 29. The turbulence from the hangars when the wind was from the southwest caused some 'sporty' moments on short finals. Certainly in light aircraft. Landing long was good practice on those days.

My first solo was off 23, actually I think it was 24 back then. I was number three after an Aer Lingus 737 and a 747. There were plenty of lighthearted comments from crews on board those two which did nothing to dissipate the tension. In the circuit the Tower asked me to expedite the landing as there was a 737 on the way. No pressure then! It wouldn't happen these days.

23 could be "interesting" in a light aircraft, with the valley at the end, and if there were any large aircraft like 747's on the hold, that just added to the disturbance. it was worse when the wind was a bit more southerly, so coming over the buildings as well.

Used to enjoy coming in from the UK, maintain 180 in the descent to the final turn, as close in as they would let me, and then get the speed back for the landing. If the wind was OK, I'd offer to take 29 to make it easier for the jet arrivals, and that often worked fine, with the occasional orbit on shortish final for separation.

Wasn't just the jets that caused problems, came back on the jump seat on a late LHR 737 one night, and we got landing clearance as we came over the Swords- Finglas road as the tail of the preceding Shorts 360 cleared the runway. We were positioning visually behind the Shorts, and the skipper hadn't realised it was a Shorts until he'd committed himself to the separation, which rapidly became a lot less than it had been as the Shorts backed off for final. There was some quiet "muttering" as we got steadily closer to the runway without seeing the Shorts turning off at the intersection.

They were fun days, life was a lot easier, and much more procedural in the days before there was transponder coverage at Dublin. Security wasn't a hassle, parking was easier, ATC were easy to work with once they knew you, and things like getting fuel and the like were not as much of a hassle as they are now. Things like a rapid departure from 29 with an early turn on track over 16, crossing 23 at the intersection, and climbing away towards the chimneys as the next 737 started its roll from 23 were regular and easy things to deal with, but they'd not happen now.

Things got "interesting" when the building of 28 started, as that took out the approach lights on 05, which wasn't an issue as such, but we got well caught one morning in winter when the weather went snowy, everyone got thrown into holds for about 25 minutes (mine was a non published one at FL60, about 30 DME out over the Irish Sea on the way up from Strumble) and once the heavy shower cleared, the only available runway became an ILS on to 16, as the wind was 050/20. 05 was out for approaches as the only way to use it was a radar approach to a visual landing with no approach lights, and the cloudbase made that a no go. The approach that day on to 16 was challenging, I ended up looking out of the right hand window for the runway as I came out of the murk on the localiser, and just to make it even more pressure, there was an L1011 Tristar and 2 or 3 737's all holding for 16, which was going to make the surface wind very much disturbed just at the wrong moment. Worked out OK in the end, I cheated a bit and offset the flare to the left edge some, so that I had some wriggle room while kicking off the drift, and it came together nicely.

In many respects, it would have been better to build 28R first, and keep 05/23, but the relevant people seemed to know better, or thought they did, and the result was a shorter than needed runway that works OK for avoiding most heavily populated areas, but is not ideal when the winds are strong. The political opt out on the length to placate the Shannon lobby has also been a problem, 28 isn't long enough for full load 747's, and despite not being there that long, it seems that the foundations of 28 are starting to fail, which is going to be a problem in the future, as there is no viable alternative for long haul, 16/34 just is not long enough for many heavies for departure.

Who knows, if 28R had been built, T2 might not have even been built where it has, as much more land would have been available inside the "airside" sterile area for other development. All water under the bridge, Dublin now is what it is, and the DAA have to make it work, one way or another.