Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Options
1…102103105107108…287

Comments

  • Options
    #3122
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    no need for such an ignorant response. Either reply with a non aggressive rebuttal or clarification in the future
    Cloudio9 wrote: »
    You’re wrong but if you can’t be bothered informing yourself enjoy your blissful ignorance.


  • Options
    #3123
    Cloudio9
    Registered Users Posts: 1,351 ✭✭✭Cloudio9


    Tenger wrote: »
    no need for such an ignorant response. Either reply with a non aggressive rebuttal or clarification in the future

    True.

    Here’s the planning condition. Apart from (d) the DAA does not object to this.

    On completion of construction of the runway hereby permitted, the runways at the airport shall be operated in accordance with the mode of operation – Option 7b – as detailed in the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum, Section 16 as received by the planning authority on the 9th day of August, 2005 and shall provide that -
    (a) the parallel runways (10R-28L and 10L-28R) shall be used in preference to the cross runway, 16-34,
    (b) when winds are westerly, Runway 28L shall be preferred for arriving aircraft. Either Runway 28L or 28R shall be used for departing aircraft as determined by air traffic control,
    (c) when winds are easterly, either Runway 10L or 10R as determined by air traffic control shall be preferred for arriving aircraft. Runway 10R shall be preferred for departing aircraft, and
    (d) Runway 10L-28R shall not be used for take-off or landing between 2300 hours and 0700 hours,
    except in cases of safety, maintenance considerations, exceptional air traffic conditions, adverse weather, technical faults in air traffic control systems or declared emergencies at other airports.


  • Options
    #3124
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,641 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    Cloudio9 wrote: »
    True.

    Here’s the planning condition. Apart from (d) the DAA does not object to this.

    On completion of construction of the runway hereby permitted, the runways at the airport shall be operated in accordance with the mode of operation – Option 7b – as detailed in the Environmental Impact Statement Addendum, Section 16 as received by the planning authority on the 9th day of August, 2005 and shall provide that -
    (a) the parallel runways (10R-28L and 10L-28R) shall be used in preference to the cross runway, 16-34,
    (b) when winds are westerly, Runway 28L shall be preferred for arriving aircraft. Either Runway 28L or 28R shall be used for departing aircraft as determined by air traffic control,
    (c) when winds are easterly, either Runway 10L or 10R as determined by air traffic control shall be preferred for arriving aircraft. Runway 10R shall be preferred for departing aircraft, and
    (d) Runway 10L-28R shall not be used for take-off or landing between 2300 hours and 0700 hours,
    except in cases of safety, maintenance considerations, exceptional air traffic conditions, adverse weather, technical faults in air traffic control systems or declared emergencies at other airports.

    Thank you for posting an excerpt, if you could point out which part of my post is wrong, please feel free to do so.... or if your not arsed, please see point 7b(b) and 7b(c) which as quoted in your post state “as determined by air traffic control”

    Now that we have established the planning conditions, you can refer back to my post where I mention that aircraft will be able to request a preferential runway when possible. There is nothing in your post which suggests otherwise.

    If you believe ive missed something your more than welcome to respectfully refer to it.


  • Options
    #3125
    Cloudio9
    Registered Users Posts: 1,351 ✭✭✭Cloudio9


    You said the planning restricts the hours of use, not how it is used.

    It is clearly regulated by planning law how it is to be used for flights landing from the east or taking off to the east.

    The DAA site has maps displaying the expected volume of movements which reflect the planning law.


  • Options
    #3126
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,641 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    Read the planning restrictions again, and note the word “preferred” when referring to which runway is to be used. The planning is clear in pointing out that it is at ATC’s discretion. The only actual restriction is the hours of use. The wording of the planning is what’s key here.

    I said aircraft are free to request whatever runway they want like at any airport with parallel operations and if ATC are in a position to provide it, they may choose to if it’s available and traffic allows. The planning does not prevent that!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3127
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Seems to me (just reading this) now that the term ‘preferred’ may have been used as a fig leaf towards the environment concerns.
    The status of 28L-10R as ‘preferred’ (dependent on wind) being an attempt to say it won’t be too much change from the current status quo?

    I’m sure some lawyers had great sport writing this clause.


  • Options
    #3128
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,641 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    Tenger wrote: »
    Seems to me (just reading this) now that the term ‘preferred’ may have been used as a fig leaf towards the environment concerns.
    The status of 28L-10R as ‘preferred’ (dependent on wind) being an attempt to say it won’t be too much change from the current status quo?

    I’m sure some lawyers had great sport writing this clause.

    That’s pretty much what I was getting at yes. Im studying law myself and I can tell you 100% that the use of the term “preferred” was no accident. Other than the opening hours, ATC call the shots.


  • Options
    #3129
    HTCOne
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭HTCOne


    Captain_Crash wrote: »
    Tenger wrote: »
    Seems to me (just reading this) now that the term ‘preferred’ may have been used as a fig leaf towards the environment concerns.
    The status of 28L-10R as ‘preferred’ (dependent on wind) being an attempt to say it won’t be too much change from the current status quo?

    I’m sure some lawyers had great sport writing this clause.

    That’s pretty much what I was getting at yes. Im studying law myself and I can tell you 100% that the use of the term “preferred” was no accident. Other than the opening hours, ATC call the shots.

    You’re absolutely right. If the word was “shall”, or “must”, then the operation of each runway would be mandated, “preferred “ puts the ball in the hands of ATC. This saves time and work for everyone and also is more environmentally friendly. No point in making say an FR from EDI fly a few extra track miles to say 10R when you can just give him 10L and he’s at his stand on vacating the runway.


  • Options
    #3130
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭trellheim


    folks I am not entirely sure about this interpretation.

    Preferred puts the onus on the managers to ensure that it is complied with . You don't see 9L in LHR being used for T/O normally

    In order to ensure it is complied with you'll see something put in place. See, for example, http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Perth-Preferred-Runway-EA-summary-final-v4.pdf and the required community engagement.


  • Options
    #3131
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,109 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    If it's anything like how strict they are with denying CAT III ILS unless the conditions are truly ouside CAT I the you can be sure they'll be sticking to the preferred runway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3132
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    trellheim wrote: »
    You don't see 9L in LHR being used for T/O normally

    As an aside, Heathrow will be adding additional line up points for 09L shortly and going alternated ops on the 9’s in 2019/20.


  • Options
    #3133
    Phen2206
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭Phen2206


    I see the base of the new tower is really taking shape, only a few short weeks after that crane went up. Its already the same height if not taller than the existing tower right now.


  • Options
    #3134
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,641 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    Phen2206 wrote: »
    I see the base of the new tower is really taking shape, only a few short weeks after that crane went up. Its already the same height if not taller than the existing tower right now.

    I noticed that this morning when I was driving past and had to do a double take on it... its an impressive pace alright!


  • Options
    #3135
    Bussywussy
    Registered Users Posts: 915 ✭✭✭Bussywussy


    Phen2206 wrote: »
    I see the base of the new tower is really taking shape, only a few short weeks after that crane went up. Its already the same height if not taller than the existing tower right now.
    Unreal,it looks higher,it must be modular built


  • Options
    #3136
    goingnowhere
    Registered Users Posts: 4,133 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    Bussywussy wrote: »
    Unreal,it looks higher,it must be modular built

    Looks like slipform concrete

    They built the centre cores of the old central bank using slipform in less than 2 weeks so expect the tower to climb skyward very quickly


  • Options
    #3137
    View Profile
    Registered Users Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭View Profile


    goingnowhere wrote:
    Looks like slipform concrete


    Yep think it's slipform method alright so she'll be up in no time.


  • Options
    #3138
    Phen2206
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭Phen2206


    Anyone know of the plans for the old tower once the new one is operational? I assume the IAA will keep the existing building underneath where all the radar control rooms are. I hope they do demolish the tower though, I hate to see disused infrastructure going to rack and ruin and causing an eyesore...

    For anyone who hasn't seen the architect's website, worth a look...http://www.stwarchitects.com/project-information.php?p=08035


  • Options
    #3139
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Phen2206 wrote: »
    Anyone know of the plans for the old tower once the new one is operational? I assume the IAA will keep the existing building underneath where all the radar control rooms are. I hope they do demolish the tower though, I hate to see disused infrastructure going to rack and ruin and causing an eyesore...

    For anyone who hasn't seen the architect's website, worth a look...http://www.stwarchitects.com/project-information.php?p=08035

    It won’t be demolished.


  • Options
    #3140
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    The old tower would make a great bar or restaurant if it could made accessible for public use.


  • Options
    #3141
    Blut2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,917 ✭✭✭Blut2


    IE 222 wrote: »
    The old tower would make a great bar or restaurant if it could made accessible for public use.

    That would be extremely cool. Security might be an issue though - not sure how easy it would be to give public access to it while still keeping them away from the buildings around there / the runway?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3142
    Stephen Strange
    Registered Users Posts: 982 ✭✭✭Stephen Strange


    Blut2 wrote: »
    That would be extremely cool. Security might be an issue though - not sure how easy it would be to give public access to it while still keeping them away from the buildings around there / the runway?

    With the control centre remaining underneath it, I would say not a chance of it happening. If that wasn't there, it would be pretty easy with a slight move of the perimeter fence.


  • Options
    #3143
    HTCOne
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭HTCOne


    I’d say it will be kept operational for contingency use. The old tower cab on T1 is fully kitted out for this reason, it’s used operationally twice a year IIRC to check everything is functioning and to keep tower controllers familiar with it.

    Edit: although now that I thInk about it, the lack of a view of 10L threshold from the current tower is the reason the new one is required. Maybe they’ll keep the old one on T1 for contingency and decommission the current one


  • Options
    #3144
    jimbis
    Registered Users Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭jimbis


    Or would they use it for remote atc for regional airports?
    Cameras covering the blank spot of 10L could be doable if something drastic ever shut down the new tower?


  • Options
    #3145
    Stephen Strange
    Registered Users Posts: 982 ✭✭✭Stephen Strange


    jimbis wrote: »
    Or would they use it for remote atc for regional airports?
    Cameras covering the blank spot of 10L could be doable if something drastic ever shut down the new tower?

    I wouldn't think they'd use a tower for that, more ground level control centre.


  • Options
    #3146
    HTCOne
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭HTCOne


    Stephen Strange wrote: »
    I wouldn't think they'd use a tower for that, more ground level control centre.

    There’s already a room in the Dublin ATC center kitted out to do remote ATC for ORK and SNN

    Remote towers are only suitable for quiet airports, it was never really considered for Dublin.


  • Options
    #3147
    Stephen Strange
    Registered Users Posts: 982 ✭✭✭Stephen Strange


    HTCOne wrote: »
    There’s already a room in the Dublin ATC center kitted out to do remote ATC for ORK and SNN

    Remote towers are only suitable for quiet airports, it was never really considered for Dublin.

    Oh, I'm aware of that. I was responding to the previous poster.


  • Options
    #3148
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,024 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    HTCOne wrote: »
    There’s already a room in the Dublin ATC center kitted out to do remote ATC for ORK and SNN

    Remote towers are only suitable for quiet airports, it was never really considered for Dublin.

    I watched a video on YouTube recently about a remote tower set up being installed in London City Airport - was actually really interesting.

    https://youtu.be/Ii_Gz1WbBGA


  • Options
    #3149
    faoiarvok
    Registered Users Posts: 644 ✭✭✭faoiarvok


    IE 222 wrote: »
    The old tower would make a great bar or restaurant if it could made accessible for public use.

    Would be extremely exclusive, you'd hardly fit four tables for two in it.


  • Options
    #3150
    faoiarvok
    Registered Users Posts: 644 ✭✭✭faoiarvok


    Stephen Strange wrote: »
    With the control centre remaining underneath it, I would say not a chance of it happening. If that wasn't there, it would be pretty easy with a slight move of the perimeter fence.

    The tower and centre are outside the fence, but I agree, can't see public access happening. Most likely retained as a contingency tower.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3151
    Stephen Strange
    Registered Users Posts: 982 ✭✭✭Stephen Strange


    faoiarvok wrote: »
    The tower and centre are outside the fence, but I agree, can't see public access happening. Most likely retained as a contingency tower.

    I wasn't 100% on whether or not they were just inside it, cheers for the clarification


Advertisement