Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

prunudo

Thats embarrassing, as I've said in other infrastructure posts we reap what we sow in this country.

Idbatterim

What would the fines be for simply breaching it ?

L1011

The legislation will simply not be commenced even if passed.

J6P

L1011 wrote: »

The legislation will simply not be commenced even if passed.

Until this legislation is commenced, the DAA have nobody to appeal the an bord pleanala decision on night time restrictions to...

They can't have it both ways.

L1011

Sectional commencement exists and is done all the time - don't know what way the wording is as to whether that's possible. There's an outright ban on collecting or using loyalty points on alcohol on the books for a decade or so now, uncommenced, in the middle of an otherwise fully commenced act.

Kermit.de.frog

J6P wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/tds-vote-in-favour-of-noise-restrictions-at-dublin-airport-913538.html

"The Government lost a Dáil vote on a Bill tonight which will now mean the permitted levels of noise from aircraft at the airport will be limited to stipulated levels.

The amendment states that the competent authority shall direct the airport to ensure that average noise exposure is kept below 45 decibels.

This will reduce to below 40 decibels at night."


Given the fact that average noise levels around the airport are currently around 65dB, I think this is going to cause a huge headache for the Government and DAA once this bill eventually gets through the Dail.

Implementing nonsense like that would pose a catastrophic threat to the country's economy never mind Dublin Airport and it's environs.

This is where clientelist politics gets us. It's not what is in the interest of the country but what is in the interest of Margaret in her random cottage.

no.8

Everybody moving within the noise-affected area, or within say a 1 to 2 km region around the airport / final approach / TO routes should have to sign a clause on a traced document from the DAA, Govt., Or both which they are too sign a clause stating they accept 'x' level of background noise due to aircraft operations.
This is the countries main gateway by air. We can't allow nimbyism to stiffle it's potential and create less than optimal solutions for all airport operations, including transport to and from.

Extending something to existing dwellers might be more of a challenge (unless something like this is already in place?)

Nijmegen

no.8 wrote: »

Everybody moving within the noise-affected area, or within say a 1 to 2 km region around the airport / final approach / TO routes should have to sign a clause on a traced document from the DAA, Govt., Or both which they are too sign a clause stating they accept 'x' level of background noise due to aircraft operations.
This is the countries main gateway by air. We can't allow nimbyism to stiffle it's potential and create less than optimal solutions for all airport operations, including transport to and from.

Extending something to existing dwellers might be more of a challenge (unless something like this is already in place?)

Amen. I live under the flight path, in a new development. There's residents moaning about the 2nd runway and sharing stuff about the noise abatement measures etc. Like, I stood in the back garden of the house the day I was viewing it and went "Wow!" as I watched an A330 go over at 3,200 feet. I suspect these guys stood there and said "Hmm, what can we do about that I wonder?"

Shedite27

Nijmegen wrote: »

Amen. I live under the flight path, in a new development. There's residents moaning about the 2nd runway and sharing stuff about the noise abatement measures etc. Like, I stood in the back garden of the house the day I was viewing it and went "Wow!" as I watched an A330 go over at 3,200 feet. I suspect these guys stood there and said "Hmm, what can we do about that I wonder?"

Surely in a new development there should have been no surprises

J6P

J6P wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/tds-vote-in-favour-of-noise-restrictions-at-dublin-airport-913538.html

"The Government lost a Dáil vote on a Bill tonight which will now mean the permitted levels of noise from aircraft at the airport will be limited to stipulated levels.

The amendment states that the competent authority shall direct the airport to ensure that average noise exposure is kept below 45 decibels.

This will reduce to below 40 decibels at night."


Given the fact that average noise levels around the airport are currently around 65dB, I think this is going to cause a huge headache for the Government and DAA once this bill eventually gets through the Dail.

It’s an average I believe. Noise is calculated in a strange way over an hour and then given an average between peak noise and normal. The 45 down to 40 is the average they wish to achieve per hour. It’s still ludicrous as the average spoken conversation is mid 60dB. The average noise limit they are trying to achieve is that of a babbling brook which is roughly 40dB.

donkey balls

Shedite27 wrote: »

Surely in a new development there should have been no surprises

I live in an estate that was built well after RWY10/28 was in operation and more estates have since being built in the area , I fail to see how people including myself can complain about the noise of the airport.

blackwhite

donkey balls wrote: »

I live in an estate that was built well after RWY10/28 was in operation and more estates have since being built in the area , I fail to see how people including myself can complain about the noise of the airport.

Because too many people are nimbys - pure and simple

J6P

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/controversial-legislation-to-deal-with-noise-levels-at-dublin-airport-passes-in-d%C3%A1il-1.3841502

Passed the Dail last night and now goes to the Seanad.

Fairly embarrassing defeat for the government on some of the amendments while Fine Gael T.D's went off to watch the match instead of voting on the bill.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/taoiseach-tells-off-fine-gael-tds-who-attended-ireland-v-georgia-instead-of-dail-vote-913801.html

A number of TDs were absent because they were attending the Ireland v Georgia soccer match at Lansdowne Road.

Some of them said they had been told they were cleared to leave as no votes were expected.

Mr Varadkar was "livid" after the Government was defeated on the Dublin Airport Noise Bill, even as Fianna Fáil abstained.

"We should not have lost that vote," Mr Varadkar told TDs.

The Taoiseach warned that if such Dáil defeats continue, they could force an unnecessary general election.

blackwhite

Mr Varadkar's ire was sparked as the government has lost a number of votes in the Dáil, losing this one by 34 votes to 29.

63 TDs present to vote. FFS

b318isp

In the countryside in Meath here, the average daily noise level (LAeq) away from a road is 52db(A). Near the road it's 56dB(A).

That's with NO aircraft.

I can't see that these limits are even possible to achieve with no airport at all, unless they are defined to be at a specified location indoors.

IngazZagni

Once the second runway is operational shouldnt this limit the need to operate any night flights at all? Capacity will greatly increase throughout the day. I understand the big issue is the 7am start time for use of the new runway which will severely hamper operations. Even a 6:30am start would make a big difference.

Ironically it's the environmentalists who are opposed to a new runway that are actually causing more pollution. Aircraft being forced to do holding patterns near the airport waiting for a slot to land and aircraft taxiing out for extended periods of time. Both of these scenarios will be avoided in most cases with a new runway.

J6P

IngazZagni wrote: »

Once the second runway is operational shouldnt this limit the need to operate any night flights at all? Capacity will greatly increase throughout the day. I understand the big issue is the 7am start time for use of the new runway which will severely hamper operations. Even a 6:30am start would make a big difference.

Yes, it should.

The problem is the D.A.A want unrestricted night flights which will allow them to use the Airport throughout the night for transatlantic refuelling stops etc..

PCros

J6P wrote: »

The problem is the D.A.A want unrestricted night flights which will allow them to use the Airport throughout the night for transatlantic refuelling stops etc..

In fairness that shouldn't be allowed.

So when the two runways are open will 28L still be for landing and 28R be for take offs? Or will it swap around depending where aircraft are on the field?

Jamie2k9

J6P wrote: »

Yes, it should.

The problem is the D.A.A want unrestricted night flights which will allow them to use the Airport throughout the night for transatlantic refuelling stops etc..

Why is that a problem, night flights will not increase very much than current ones.

rivegauche

PCros wrote: »

In fairness that shouldn't be allowed.

Why not? Planes are getting quieter and that could be hundreds if not a few thousand of people productively employed on overnight shifts that otherwise wouldn't be employed. increase the landing charges or complete prohibition for the noisy older planes to discourage them from visiting. That is how Frankfurt is doing it.
Those flights in and out of Dublin will contribute to pay for the further development of the airport and give jobs to people who live in the locality.

As for the proposed noise levels... a skanger with a fart can on the back of his car after heavy petting with the Mot at the viewing spot on the Old Airport Road could easily exceed those noise levels

Nijmegen

PCros wrote: »

In fairness that shouldn't be allowed.

So when the two runways are open will 28L still be for landing and 28R be for take offs? Or will it swap around depending where aircraft are on the field?

I believe in the noise plan there's actually a specified manner they'll use the two runways for takeoffs and landings, swapping them in a defined fashion. See this here.

As for night arrivals, for sure they will drive economic activity; but I also think that there has to be a balance for residents. Unrestricted night operations would drive a major change for people living beneath the flight path beyond that advertised by the mere presence since 1940 of an airport or the new runway.

View Profile

J6P wrote:

The problem is the D.A.A want unrestricted night flights which will allow them to use the Airport throughout the night for transatlantic refuelling stops etc..

Can't imagine many aircraft need to stop for fuel to make the hop across the Atlantic.
And if they did then Shannon would be a cheaper alternative.

PCros

rivegauche wrote: »

Why not? Planes are getting quieter and that could be hundreds if not a few thousand of people productively employed on overnight shifts that otherwise wouldn't be employed.

I agree with your point about aircraft getting quieter. But as the above poster mentioned it probably wont materialise, but if it does I just think there needs to be a balance for residents in the locality - which is fair enough tbh.

PCros

Nijmegen wrote: »

I believe in the noise plan there's actually a specified manner they'll use the two runways for takeoffs and landings, swapping them in a defined fashion.

Thanks for the link!

Judging by the graph it looks like 28R will have less incoming traffic and 10L less departing traffic than the opposites.

J6P

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Why is that a problem, night flights will not increase very much than current ones.

It becomes problem if the D.A.A gets the An bord pleanala decision overturned and these night flights are are coming in directly over houses (within 1km of the airport boundary)located beneath the new runway flight path.

85dB roaring in at all hours of the night quickly becomes a serious health issue.

Jamie2k9

J6P wrote: »

It becomes problem if the D.A.A gets the An bord pleanala decision overturned and these night flights are are coming in directly over houses (within 1km of the airport boundary)located beneath the new runway flight path.

85dB roaring in at all hours of the night quickly becomes a serious health issue.

Again not going to happen, current runway will be used from 00.00-06.00.

J6P

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Again not going to happen, current runway will be used from 00.00-06.00.

Yes.

Because that was a requirement of the planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanala for the 2nd runway.

The DAA want to challenge and overturn this stipulation.

LXFlyer

J6P wrote: »

Yes.

Because that was a requirement of the planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanala for the 2nd runway.

The DAA want to challenge and overturn this stipulation.

They do not want to use the new runway between 00:00 and 06:00.

They want to use the two runways post 06:00 and change the restriction on late night and early morning flight numbers - that won’t require the second runway between midnight and 06:00.

J6P

LXFlyer wrote: »

They do not want to use the new runway between 00:00 and 06:00.

They want to use the two runways post 06:00 and change the restriction on late night and early morning flight numbers - that won’t require the second runway between midnight and 06:00.

Can you link to where the DAA have stated that?

My understanding was that they would be appealling for all restrictions to be lifted.

https://www.dublinairport.com/north-runway/latest-news-downloads/faqs

Tenger

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Why is that a problem, night flights will not increase very much than current ones.

I believe runway ops are closed between 0100-0500 at the moment.
Early arrivals can land at 0430ish. Obviously they aren’t as loud so are they discounted?