Runway 16/34 Dublin Airport

Realist.

I thought runway 10/28 was the primary runway but it sounds like runway 16/34 is this week...so annoying having low flying jets wake up the kids....

Is it not possible for jets to come in higher over Artane/ Beaumont e.g. c1000ft to reduce noise levels....so frustrating...can't sleep...

Come in higher pilots!!

DavidJC

I've never noticed it so bad in Killiney area.. every night this week between 11 and 12:30 I've been kept awake by jet after jet going right over head. For me they are still at 3000ft so I have sympathy with you Realist.

MoeJay

Essential Maintenance on Main Runway

Realist.

MoeJay wrote: »

Essential Maintenance on Main Runway

Thank God for that! How many more nights of runway 16/34?

Mech1

The pilots love the new approach, some talk of making it permanent, also saves fuel and gives less wear and tear on the older runway.

In my opinion its much better this way.

Its not there fault you bought a house under a well known flightpath.

listen in to the link in my sig, and checkout flight radar 24, you will know then when to cover the kids ears:D

Technoprisoner

the bloody things have had me awake at 5 in the morning on monday i think it was....had me wrecked in work:(

Realist.

Mech1 wrote: »

The pilots love the new approach, some talk of making it permanent, also saves fuel and gives less wear and tear on the older runway.

In my opinion its much better this way.

Its not there fault you bought a house under a well known flightpath.

listen in to the link in my sig, and checkout flight radar 24, you will know then when to cover the kids ears:D

Full of wisdom you!

I must remember to listen out for jets on approach or scan the radar app. to ensure I manage to place my 'go go gadget' arms & hands over my children's ears!

In defence to the people, along the flight path, I don't recall 16/34 securing primary runway status in conjunction with authority approval.

Wear & tear, that's short sighted, asphalt runways require more maintenance than concrete, thus with increased traffic will increase maintenance costs..

Re fuel consumption depends on origin, on balance marginal fuel difference

That said, I respect your opinion, but glad you will not be having the final say on primary runway.

Peregrine

Realist. wrote: »

Thank God for that! How many more nights of runway 16/34?

Article says Monday to Saturday for five weeks starting 10 days ago. So it'll go on into the first week of October.

urajoke

Realist. wrote: »

Full of wisdom you!

I must remember to listen out for jets on approach or scan the radar app. to ensure I manage to place my 'go go gadget' arms & hands over my children's ears!

In defence to the people, along the flight path, I don't recall 16/34 securing primary runway status in conjunction with authority approval.

Wear & tear, that's short sighted, asphalt runways require more maintenance than concrete, thus with increased traffic will increase maintenance costs..

Re fuel consumption depends on origin, on balance marginal fuel difference

That said, I respect your opinion, but glad you will not be having the final say on primary runway.

Personally I wouldn't buy a home beside a railway line or beside a motorway or any other thing that would make noise and then think I can complain about the noise coming from it.

It's not like the airport snuck in there one night and set itself up. It's been there for decades and that runway had been in use for nearly all that time.

You are very very very lucky it's used very rarely.

The DAA in fairness do warn people well in advance when they need to schedule it's use like this.

BTW I get more noise from aircraft more often than you do. Everyday taking off landing overflying low and high.

Strumms

http://www.dublinairport.com/gns/about-us/community-affairs/aircraft-noise.aspx

Have a read of that. The published procedures of the airport should be adhered to all all times by all operators. If you feel this isn't the case I'd say make a complaint otherwise deal with it. The airport is a major transportation hub for the city and country and maintenence will always be needed on the runways be it surface, lighting, nearby navigational aids that could lead to temporary closure. Not to mention the weather which will also be a deciding factor. This is the reality.

I live very close to the airport however not beneath a current flight path except for the props that take an early left turn off 28 shortly after being airborne. Back in the day and before double glazing and before noise restrictions we'd regularly have older generation aircraft literally rattle the house down off the old runway and still managed a good nights sleep through it all.

sparrowcar

Strumms wrote: »

http://www.dublinairport.com/gns/about-us/community-affairs/aircraft-noise.aspx

Have a read of that. The published procedures of the airport should be adhered to all all times by all operators. If you feel this isn't the case I'd say make a complaint otherwise deal with it. The airport is a major transportation hub for the city and country and maintenence will always be needed on the runways be it surface, lighting, nearby navigational aids that could lead to temporary closure. Not to mention the weather which will also be a deciding factor. This is the reality.

I live very close to the airport however not beneath a current flight path except for the props that take an early left turn off 28 shortly after being airborne. Back in the day and before double glazing and before noise restrictions we'd regularly have older generation aircraft literally rattle the house down off the old runway and still managed a good nights sleep through it all.

+1

Born and bread a Swords man and bought my first and only house in Swords in the nearest estate to the airport and its never been an issue.

I remember EI747's clipping our rooftops on approach to the old runway 23.

bikeman1

Sound sleeping out in Portmarnock this week. I live beside the railway line and if they are working on track we just have to put up with it. Live on approach to the number one of the access the country, expect to be hassled the odd time during the year.

Peregrine

Strumms wrote: »

I live very close to the airport however not beneath a current flight path except for the props that take an early left turn off 28 shortly after being airborne.

Neighbour? :pac:

Turboprops heading South take an early left turn off 28 and they go above my house at around 1400ft. And I hear every aircraft taking off from 28 day and night, loud enough to identify them.

I'm used to it, we knew the airport was there when we bought the house.

EB_2013

Would there be many departing flights after 11pm? I thought it would be mainly cargo ones at those hours.

urajoke

Departing, mainly cargo maybe a repositioning charter flight or a late scheduled flight. But usually not many.

stop

Are there any aircraft that can't use 16/34 due to shorter length?

peter1892

I'm moving house soon and if all goes well I'll be living under the approach path to rwy 28 (or departure path for rwy 10). Its an added bonus

Jhcx

There are actually a lot of flights at night surprisingly. Every time I wake up I hear one and when I walk out the front door there's one landing . I don't know the frequency but I'd say imo 1 a half hour could be less but I haven't got the time to be counting.

Suasdaguna1

stop wrote: »

Are there any aircraft that can't use 16/34 due to shorter length?

If its lashing rain landing distances exponentially increase making it unusable for "heavies"

EB_2013

I notice a good few flights initially after 11pm when they change the runways but after that its quiet enough. I'm pretty much on the flightpath near Artane so I would be used to them when 16/34 is in use.

I'd understand if you lived right beside the airport in around the Santry area it might be noisier but I wouldn't have thought there'd be enough flights throughout the night to keep you awake.

merisi

I live in the Artane area and we do get plenty of aircraft climbing out from 16. The thing that has amazed me most though is how much of the ambient noise in the area comes from the airport: when it was shut down in the wake of the Eyjafjallajokull eruption, the drop in local noise levels was remarkable.

sparrowcar

merisi wrote: »

I live in the Artane area and we do get plenty of aircraft climbing out from 16. The thing that has amazed me most though is how much of the ambient noise in the area comes from the airport: when it was shut down in the wake of the Eyjafjallajokull eruption, the drop in local noise levels was remarkable.

Hmm I'm not so sure. I would think you were just more aware of the lack of flights rather actual ambient noise changes.

I might be wrong though...

merisi

sparrowcar wrote: »

Hmm I'm not so sure. I would think you were just more aware of the lack of flights rather actual ambient noise changes.

I might be wrong though...

It really was quite profound: not during the day when there was obviously more noise due to traffic, trains, etc, but very early in the morning when aircraft were starting up and so forth. I thought I was imagining it but once the airport reopened and the noise returned it confirmed my opinion.

joegriffinjnr

I'm in Santry, about 3-4 mins from the airport. To be honest if I didnt hear the planes Ide loose sleep! We can even hear them when they are taxy,ing. Never been a problem.

merisi

stop wrote: »

Are there any aircraft that can't use 16/34 due to shorter length?

An Emirates (?) 777 tried landing in high crosswinds on 16 a few months ago. It diverted to Manchester after two go-arounds.

urajoke

merisi wrote: »

An Emirates (?) 777 tried landing in high crosswinds on 16 a few months ago. It diverted to Manchester after two go-arounds.

Nothing to do with length, that was as you stated due high winds.

DavidJC

Looks like planes are landing from the other end of the runway this week.. circling out over the Irish sea to reduce height before approaching from the north west of Dublin over mainly fields and sparsely populated land.

Wonder did they receive many complaints.
A relief to not have the noise at night.

flazio

I think it's mainly weather conditions that are taken into account when picking a runway rather then local ground concerns.

homerjay2005

i live under the "new" flight path and i love it, normally we only get it 4 or 5 times a year or in bad weather so the latest change is welcome.

Reoil

I'd LOVE to live under the approach flight path at Dublin Airport!

peter1892

Reoil wrote: »

I'd LOVE to live under the approach flight path at Dublin Airport!

I grew up about a mile north of the extended centreline for 10/28 - hot summer days were a lot of fun, especially with heavy departures off 10 turning over our house on their way to North America

Although not everyone where I'm from liked aircraft noise as much as I do!

basill

All aircraft as a general rule prefer to land into wind. The main reason is that it minimises the required landing distance which then gives a better buffer margin should the unexpected occur eg: float.

Ireland has a general West to South West flow of weather, hence why more often than not you see the westerly runway R28 in use. The overriding choice of which runway we land on is down to safety not what the neighbours might prefer.

That being said it can sometimes operationally suit the airport operator, ATC or pilots to use an alternative runway. During slack weather lots of track miles can be saved with no appreciable compromise to safety. Take for example our early morning arrivals off the atlantic. They will generally come off the ocean and cross the west coast anywhere from say Kerry up to Belfast depending on the daily track system. Flying direct from there to a 7-8nm final fix for the easterly runway will save approximately 5-10 minutes of flying time and hence fuel. The taxi time will also be reduced as the runway exit for R10 pretty much have you delivered to T2 or the old pier B.

The closure of the main runway is always a pain for everyone involved but I understand it was for essential maintenance so hands were no doubt tied.

Finally changing a runway is no mean feat. ATC would ideally like to accomplish this at a slow point in the day/night but that is not always possible. Invariably it will mean holding for inbound aircraft or taxi delays as ATC and pilots alike update flight management systems and rebrief approaches.

FWVT

Realist. wrote: »

Full of wisdom you!

In defence to the people, along the flight path, I don't recall 16/34 securing primary runway status in conjunction with authority approval.

That said, I respect your opinion, but glad you will not be having the final say on primary runway.

What a load of hot air from someone who seems to like the sound of his own voice, yet doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. "Securing primary-runway status"? Explain exactly where you got that notion from? So when the wind changes they must get the authority's signature and stamp before switching?

Laughable.

L1011

Reoil wrote: »

I'd LOVE to live under the approach flight path at Dublin Airport!

It does get a bit boring, what with the constant going on FR24 to see if you've guessed right (I can tell the difference between a 320 and a 737 and almost the difference between IAE/CFM 320s at this stage); and this is at a few miles out on the (well, an rather than the only) approach for 10!

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

stop wrote: »

Are there any aircraft that can't use 16/34 due to shorter length?

I was at the airport yesterday, an aer lingus a330 200 took off on 16/34, then a few minutes later, an aer lingus a330 300 used 10/28. Any reason why the 300 took off on that runway?

urajoke

Savannah Noisy Switch wrote: »

I was at the airport yesterday, an aer lingus a330 200 took off on 16/34, then a few minutes later, an aer lingus a330 300 used 10/28. Any reason why the 300 took off on that runway?

The 300 has different performance and operational restrictions/limitations as it's a longer and therefore heavier aircraft than the 200. Plus it's the captains decision which runway he wants to use.

lambayire

Afternoon all. First time posting here. Go gentle on me!

Long time lurker who has really enjoyed this part of the forum.

I'm absolutely fascinated with the all the code used.

I took the kids out to 16/34 yesterday evening and we were able to get right under the planes as they were coming in to land. Nothing beats the roar of the engines as they pass by.

There was one thing that caught my attention. As planes were going on to 16/34 to take off, some would swing left straight on to the runway but others would perform some sort of circle. What's that about?

IngazZagni

lambayire wrote: »

Afternoon all. First time posting here. Go gentle on me!

Long time lurker who has really enjoyed this part of the forum.

I'm absolutely fascinated with the all the code used.

I took the kids out to 16/34 yesterday evening and we were able to get right under the planes as they were coming in to land. Nothing beats the roar of the engines as they pass by.

There was one thing that caught my attention. As planes were going on to 16/34 to take off, some would swing left straight on to the runway but others would perform some sort of circle. What's that about?

If you look at a top down view of that part of the runway you will see there there is a small bit of runway to the right of were the aircraft enter RW16. Some aircraft decide they might as well use the extra 100 metres and so will do that turn that you see while others feel they don't need that small bit of extra runway.

ChicaneAuto

I'm only a student pilot but I imagine its to maximise the available runway length, turning RIGHT onto 16 and continuing all the way round leaves the plane closer to the start than just turning LEFT and lining up.maybe a plane length or so doesn't make much difference but better to have it than want it.

lambayire

Yeah, I guessed it was to maximise the length on the runway.

I took a look at Google Maps and there seems to be very little benefit to be gained.
I'd have thought it was maybe 30 metres max in difference.
Also there was no pattern to the types of plane and the option they took.

Anyways, thanks for answering.

IngazZagni

lambayire wrote: »

Yeah, I guessed it was to maximise the length on the runway.

I took a look at Google Maps and there seems to be very little benefit to be gained.
I'd have thought it was maybe 30 metres max in difference.
Also there was no pattern to the types of plane and the option they took.

Anyways, thanks for answering.

It could also be a case of time. Sometimes an aircraft may have to wait a minute for takeoff clearance so why not do that manoeuvre while another aircraft may be asked to take off quickly as another aircraft is on final approach and so they won't bother with that manoeuvre.

ChicaneAuto

lambayire wrote: »

Yeah, I guessed it was to maximise the length on the runway.

I took a look at Google Maps and there seems to be very little benefit to be gained.
I'd have thought it was maybe 30 metres max in difference.
Also there was no pattern to the types of plane and the option they took.

Anyways, thanks for answering.

No worries, one of the more knowledgeable regulars will be along shortly, might also be something to do with the angle that the taxiway makes with the runway. I wonder what the definitive answer is myself, you might have more luck in the ask an airline pilot sticky thread.

ChicaneAuto

Maybe the pilots aren't Ambiturners? Like zoolander

Got it! :P

FWVT

The most useless thing in aviation is runway behind you!