nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

TheFitz13

Dublin Airport has planning permission to build a new parallel runway to the north of the existing main runway. The Regulator has determined that this new runway can only be funded by airport users when annual passenger volumes through Dublin Airport reach 23.5 million. Annualised passenger numbers in 2012 will be in the region of 19 million and current forecasts indicate that the 23.5 million target for bringing a new runway into operation, will be reached in or about 2019. What do you all think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

faoiarvok

Shedite27 wrote: »

Is there much actually done by eye these days? I assume all monitoring in the air is done by radar/computers, is it more for monitoring ground movements?

The controller has to visually see that the runway is clear before giving landing/take off clearance. Low Visibility Procedures when controllers can’t do this require arriving planes to report clear of the runway before the next can land/take off. As the visibility gets worse, the aircraft have to be further from the runway before they are considered clear. In some of these procedures, departing aircraft have to wait further back from the runway for their take off clearance, requiring larger gaps between arriving traffic on final. Some conditions also require runway entrances to be monitored by rescue/ops vehicles to report to the tower if an aircraft or vehicle strays onto it.

prunudo

Can this be done via cctv or does the controller have to physically see the aircraft?

CoisFharraige

jvan wrote: »

Can this be done via cctv or does the controller have to physically see the aircraft?

I don’t think any regulations would / do allow that as it’s not a completely fail-safe option. They use CCTV to see the back of T2 but runways are very very sensitive areas, I’m sure they need to be able to see the entire runway in one ‘sweep’ before a landing/takeoff clearance, which cctv wouldn’t do in cloud obviously.

Shedite27

faoiarvok wrote: »

The controller has to visually see that the runway is clear before giving landing/take off clearance. Low Visibility Procedures when controllers can’t do this require arriving planes to report clear of the runway before the next can land/take off. As the visibility gets worse, the aircraft have to be further from the runway before they are considered clear. In some of these procedures, departing aircraft have to wait further back from the runway for their take off clearance, requiring larger gaps between arriving traffic on final. Some conditions also require runway entrances to be monitored by rescue/ops vehicles to report to the tower if an aircraft or vehicle strays onto it.

SO all those Air Crash Investigations I've watched where the ATC's are sitting in a dark room looking at computer screens, is that just for the planes in the sky? Is there a similar row of ATC's for the planes on the ground, sitting up in the tower looking out the window?

Locker10a

CoisFharraige wrote: »

jvan wrote: »

Can this be done via cctv or does the controller have to physically see the aircraft?

I don’t think any regulations would / do allow that as it’s not a completely fail-safe option. They use CCTV to see the back of T2 but runways are very very sensitive areas, I’m sure they need to be able to see the entire runway in one ‘sweep’ before a landing/takeoff clearance, which cctv wouldn’t do in cloud obviously.

Remote towers using cameras are becoming a thing

Pat Dunne

CoisFharraige wrote: »

I don’t think any regulations would / do allow that as it’s not a completely fail-safe option. They use CCTV to see the back of T2 but runways are very very sensitive areas, I’m sure they need to be able to see the entire runway in one ‘sweep’ before a landing/takeoff clearance, which cctv wouldn’t do in cloud obviously.

There are a number of Airports in Northern Sweden been remotely controlled by CCTV from a central location for the last few years.

Cookiemunster

Pat Dunne wrote: »

There are a number of Airports in Northern Sweden been remotely controlled by CCTV from a central location for the last few years.

Isn't there an IAA plan for remote towers at Shannon and Cork?

IngazZagni

There has already been a number of trials succusfully completed here in Ireland.

https://www.iaa.ie/news/2017/02/02/iaa-confirms-remote-towers-trial-a-success

CoisFharraige

Pat Dunne wrote: »

There are a number of Airports in Northern Sweden been remotely controlled by CCTV from a central location for the last few years.

Locker10a wrote: »

Remote towers using cameras are becoming a thing

Yes! Sorry, I should've been clearer; I meant like a CCTV camera at the holding point looking at the threshold wouldn't work, of course the remote towers are fine.

EchoIndia

Remote towers are for airfields with low traffic volume and I've never seen a suggestion that they'd be considered "remotely" feasible for somewhere like Dublin.

On the question of the height of the tower, you have to remember that the very need for this is the impending development of a second runway and the view of the two runways that will be necessary. Generally speaking, physically large airports have tall control towers. It's a novelty for Dublin but not for elsewhere.

EchoIndia

Pat Dunne

EchoIndia wrote: »

On the question of the height of the tower, you have to remember that the very need for this is the impending development of a second runway and the view of the two runways that will be necessary. Generally speaking, physically large airports have tall control towers. It's a novelty for Dublin but not for elsewhere.

That I can certainly appreciate. However, my observation is that it might just become a bit of a folly, as the Irish weather could render it potentially "blind" from time to time. With "Controllers been forced to decamp to the Old New Tower to conduct Operations visually.
Maybe some of the "weather heads" could dig up stats as how often the cloud level has dropped below the height of the New Tower in DUB.

Nitrogan

Pat Dunne wrote: »

With "Controllers been forced to decamp to the Old New Tower to conduct Operations visually.

If it were possible to do that why build a new control tower at all?

Ben D Bus

I've just googled, and the tower at AMS is 101m. Don't they have cloud there too? How do they fare in cloudy weather?

notharrypotter

Pat Dunne wrote: »

With "Controllers been forced to decamp to the Old New Tower to conduct Operations visually.

Not going to happen.

[Deleted User]

During LVPs I imagine one runway will be landing one departing. So less requirement for larger gaps to intermingle departures and associated checks.

Pat Dunne

Nitrogan wrote: »

If it were possible to do that why build a new control tower at all?

If memory serves me correctly.
I believe DUB has constructed 4 different "Towers" since it commencement in 1941.

faoiarvok

Pat Dunne wrote: »

With "Controllers been forced to decamp to the Old New Tower to conduct Operations visually.

Controllers won’t be moving back and forth according to the weather, they’ll just operate LVPs from the new tower. As mentioned above, the second runway should mitigate the impact of these procedures.

basill

When the ole London fog comes into LHR the controllers see jack squat - same as the pilots. LVPs are in force. They use ground movement radar and when you have decelerated down to a safe taxi speed you generally get a helpful radio call from tower advising that the exit is x metres coming up on your left/right and to follow the greens to stand xxx. Greens refers to the ground lighting system that is coded individually for each aircraft taking you to your stand. Also used in night time operations.

CoisFharraige

basill wrote: »

When the ole London fog comes into LHR the controllers see jack squat - same as the pilots. LVPs are in force. They use ground movement radar and when you have decelerated down to a safe taxi speed you generally get a helpful radio call from tower advising that the exit is x metres coming up on your left/right and to follow the greens to stand xxx. Greens refers to the ground lighting system that is coded individually for each aircraft taking you to your stand. Also used in night time operations.

Follow the greens, ground 121.7:cool:

Shn99

Apologies if it’s unrelated to the new RWY but the 28 mound will be closing tomorrow to facilitate water pipe repairable which will effectively see the mound being re-done.(properly)

Pat Dunne

Shn99 wrote: »

Apologies if it’s unrelated to the new RWY but the 28 mound will be closing tomorrow to facilitate water pipe repairable which will effectively see the mound being re-done.(properly)

Why would you asume that FCC or DAA would doing anything for Spotters?

billie1b

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Why would you asume that FCC or DAA would doing anything for Spotters?

Supposedly they’re putting in proper parking and there’s gonna be a charge to park there, dunno if they’re planning anything with the actual mound though as it needs to br taken down to access the pipes

EchoIndia

The current situation is dangerous and an accident waiting to happen, with people climbing up and down a slippery embankment beside a busy road. The mound was, I imagine, never intended for the purpose that the public have put it to. The local authority is better to provide safer arrangements before, rather than after, something serious happens.

Negative_G

EchoIndia wrote: »

The current situation is dangerous and an accident waiting to happen, with people climbing up and down a slippery embankment beside a busy road. The mound was, I imagine, never intended for the purpose that the public have put it to. The local authority is better to provide safer arrangements before, rather than after, something serious happens.

The local authority is under no explicit obligation to provide any sort of infrastructure or renovation to facilitate a very small group of people.

When some ambulance chaser does 'slip' and files a claim thatll be the end of that.

There are literally hundreds of more important projects for FCC to focus their attention on.

I understand that it's important for you, and others, but I struggle to think of something less worthy of funding given the current climate.

rushfan

EchoIndia wrote:

The current situation is dangerous and an accident waiting to happen, with people climbing up and down a slippery embankment beside a busy road. The mound was, I imagine, never intended for the purpose that the public have put it to. The local authority is better to provide safer arrangements before, rather than after, something serious happens.

Also, issues relating to drivers manoeuvring in & out of the parking spots too.

View Profile

Perhaps provision should be made by FCC to provide an official viewing area like other cities do.

Perth for example has a concrete platform with a metallic roof structure, information signs about aircraft types, bench seating and it's wheelchair accessible and has its own free car park.

Negative_G

View Profile wrote: »

Perhaps provision should be made by FCC to provide an official viewing area like other cities do.

Perth for example has a concrete platform with a metallic roof structure, information signs about aircraft types, bench seating and it's wheelchair accessible and has its own free car park.

If it can be justified under the development plan then anything is possible.

Unfortunately, investing funds, and lets be honest, you are probably talking tens of thousands once all is said and done, for similar to what is in Perth doesnt make financial sense, to cater for an activity that attracts a relatively tiny amount of people.

Having a paid car park, for a reasonable cost, where the funds raised went towards the cost of upkeep, would be more prudent.

Nijmegen

A spotting area for aviation enthusiasts is no less relevant a thing for a council to spend money on as skate parks or dog parks, really, or funding a variety of niche cultural events. Aviation spotting is a pretty global hobby with many adherents, and I'm sure there are many people who don't actively engage in it themselves might have fond memories of being brought there by a parent (and seeing kids there with parents today as an interesting free activity.)

Putting a charge on it for maintenance makes sense, though you could argue that it should be paid for out of LPT just like the dog park or skate park or similar you never use that someone else gets use from.

no.8

I disagree...and I don't even live anywhere near Dublin airport.
There's always the spin... 'given the current environment'. Reality is there has probably been no other time in our states history where the country has been as wealthy. There will always be poverty etc. But that does not mean we shouldn't advocate improvements.

I've spent a lot of time in and around a large airport in central Europe where the facilities provided for safe and enjoyable spotting facilities has spawned numerous successful businesses. Not to mention inspire the next generation of aerospace / operations fanatics and talent.

But let's not invest or progress, no, because someone might slip.