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…164165167169170…290

Comments

  • Options
    #4982
    JCX BXC
    Registered Users Posts: 18,140 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    Good luck in low vis with no ILS.


  • Options
    #4983
    HTCOne
    Registered Users Posts: 873 ✭✭✭HTCOne


    They could certainly build a few hundred extra meters on to the 10 end, and add in that soft breakable concrete stuff that’s popular in the US to prevent an overrun passing through the perimeter fence. That stuff stopped Mike Pence’s plane from ending up in the water a few years ago at LGA IIRC.


  • Options
    #4984
    smurfjed
    Registered Users Posts: 10,079 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    Good luck in low vis with no ILS.
    why would the ILS be an issue if they extended the runway?


  • Options
    #4985
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,672 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    From a purely geographic point of view, with a displaced threshold on 10 it wouldn’t be much of an issue to extend the current 10/28. Cost, planning, engineering and of course politics would make it a bit harder


  • Options
    #4986
    HTCOne
    Registered Users Posts: 873 ✭✭✭HTCOne


    Captain_Crash wrote: »
    From a purely geographic point of view, with a displaced threshold on 10 it wouldn’t be much of an issue to extend the current 10/28. Cost, planning, engineering and of course politics would make it a bit harder

    They wouldn’t even need to light or mark it, as long as it was of sufficient strength to support a heavy aircraft rejecting takeoff or landing long, it could be used in TORA/TODA and landing figures and allow heavier aircraft operate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4987
    EI321
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭EI321


    Would it not be a bit pointless extending the current runway at this point, I thought the current 10/28 will only be used for landings once the longer north runway opens.


  • Options
    #4988
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users Posts: 1,588 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    The current runway should primarily be used for landings in the 28 direction and for takeoff in the 10 direction. This is due to noise. However they should be able to switch this around however they like as demand dictates.


  • Options
    #4989
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    smurfjed wrote: »
    why would the ILS be an issue if they extended the runway?


    The approach lights would be an issue for an extension at the western end, the road would have to be put into a tunnel or lowered to allow them to have the correct structure, and depending on the proximity of the end of the runway to the road, there might be issues with obstacle clearance if it wasn't moved or lowered. Depending on the technology, there might also be issues with the safety zone around the localiser antenna, it was a long time ago I did the theory, but vehicles are not allowed within a certain distance of the antenna if it's active.



    I suspect that the VOR at the western end might have to be moved as well, which would be a nuisance.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Options
    #4990
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,886 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Taxis plying for hire in Airport ranks will be required to have credit card machines in a few weeks - I think the 1st may . At the moment its about 1 in 4

    I hope if anyones readin this they force them contactless and a reader in the back seat like London Black cabs but I doubt it , most taximen seem to just have phone and the little black box.


  • Options
    #4991
    Nijmegen
    Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    trellheim wrote: »
    Taxis plying for hire in Airport ranks will be required to have credit card machines in a few weeks - I think the 1st may . At the moment its about 1 in 4

    I hope if anyones readin this they force them contactless and a reader in the back seat like London Black cabs but I doubt it , most taximen seem to just have phone and the little black box.

    The phone and box is OK, I've never had an issue with it here or abroad... Unless the taxi driver wants there to be a problem. I've been in cabs here and abroad that had the card stickers on the window and had to argue with the driver to let me pay by card. The machine is permanently broken etc, so they can get the cash immediately and do with it what they will.

    A big challenge is that a taxi journey is an ephemeral thing. You just want to get in and get out and when you do have a bad experience it's a hella hassle, particularly for a tourist (who is more likely to get ripped off or otherwise hassled than a local, I suspect), to make a complaint. One wonders if the NTA couldn't have an app people could download on their journey, or even just a unique code that must be displayed in the back (and not just upfront on the drivers license) they can snap a photo of and really try and encourage and make frictionless as possible sending feedback on drivers who do stuff like go the long way or constantly have a "broken" card machine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4992
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,886 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Arent they required to provide you a receipt with said information already or the journey is free ?

    You raise an interesting point - is the requirement for DAA permit cabs to have a working machine at point of payment, or the ride is free ? A declined card could be machine or punter


  • Options
    #4993
    Nijmegen
    Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    trellheim wrote: »
    Arent they required to provide you a receipt with said information already or the journey is free ?

    You raise an interesting point - is the requirement for DAA permit cabs to have a working machine at point of payment, or the ride is free ? A declined card could be machine or punter

    How many times have you been in a cab where the receipt machine doesn't work... And good luck in the real world trying it on with a cab driver who has already been giving you hassle, asking for a free ride.

    We know from stories and cases about the meter scamming devices and drivers caught going the scenic route that the worst it ends in is a sob story and a fine that doesn't even equal the amount they scammed off their customers.

    I'd be interested to see the actual vs paper acceptance of cards at the airport over time, if anyone will bother to measure it.


  • Options
    #4994
    Astral Nav
    Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Astral Nav


    IngazZagni wrote: »
    The current runway should primarily be used for landings in the 28 direction and for takeoff in the 10 direction. This is due to noise. However they should be able to switch this around however they like as demand dictates.

    Utter nonsense. You take off and land into wind whenever possible . Using it in this way would drastically drop the utilisation rate, be impossible with more than 10 knots wind and you would then need about five runways. It's an aviation section, it helps to know something about aviation.


  • Options
    #4995
    Astral Nav
    Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Astral Nav


    HTCOne wrote: »
    They could certainly build a few hundred extra meters on to the 10 end, and add in that soft breakable concrete stuff that’s popular in the US to prevent an overrun passing through the perimeter fence. That stuff stopped Mike Pence’s plane from ending up in the water a few years ago at LGA IIRC.

    The issue is an obstacle not the field length. You would need to fix the first but the second would be good too.


  • Options
    #4996
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,594 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Astral Nav wrote: »
    Utter nonsense. You take off and land into wind whenever possible . Using it in this way would drastically drop the utilisation rate, be impossible with more than 10 knots wind and you would then need about five runways. It's an aviation section, it helps to know something about aviation.

    I think that they grasped that, but maybe didn’t express it as clearly as they could?

    I am pretty sure that they meant that when the wind is from the east the majority of landings should be in on 10L (the new runway) and take offs on 10R (the current runway).

    When it’s from the west/south west it landings should be predominately on 28L (current) and the take offs on 28R (new).

    That’s how I read their post.

    This is outlined in the planning permission for the new runway.


  • Options
    #4997
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users Posts: 1,588 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    I think that they grasped that, but maybe didn’t express it as clearly as they could?

    I am pretty sure that they meant that when the wind is from the east the majority of landings should be in on 10L (the new runway) and take offs on 10R (the current runway).

    When it’s from the west/south west it landings should be predominately on 28L (current) and the take offs on 28R (new).

    That’s how I read their post.

    This is outlined in the planning permission for the new runway.

    This is exactly how I should have phrased my post. Thank you! There is a good illustration from the DAA that shows this however it’s difficult to find for me.


  • Options
    #4998
    EchoIndia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    I expect that any flight that would face payload/range restrictions if operating off the current runway would opt for the longer one, once it is available - and I can't imagine the planning permission prohibiting use of the new runway where operational factors require it.


  • Options
    #4999
    prunudo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,187 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Given that this has been in the pipeline for decades, there used to be a runway here albeit slightly different orientation and planes are quieter than they used to be, I have no sympathy for people complaining about noise that the new runway will bring and if they're living in new estates I have even less sympathy.
    If there are planning restrictions then it is a terrible indictment of our ability to plan anything for the future, whether that be a runway, a trainline or any other major infrastructure project.


  • Options
    #5000
    Nijmegen
    Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    prunudo wrote: »
    Given that this has been in the pipeline for decades, there used to be a runway here albeit slightly different orientation and planes are quieter than they used to be, I have no sympathy for people complaining about noise that the new runway will bring and if they're living in new estates I have even less sympathy.
    If there are planning restrictions then it is a terrible indictment of our ability to plan anything for the future, whether that be a runway, a trainline or any other major infrastructure project.

    Planning is notoriously bad here. I read a piece recently that basically says ours is a free for all objection based system whereas other countries like Germany etc have a rules based system. Tick the box of what's allowed under the rules, it's going ahead, irrespective of what spurious objections someone raises to try and drag the arse out of planning and win concessions along the way.

    It has cost us delays and cancelled projects a plenty.


  • Options
    #5001
    Neilw
    Registered Users Posts: 3,779 ✭✭✭Neilw


    I see the temporary perimeter fence around the runway and taxi way is being replaced with more secure fencing. They have also fitted solid blockers right at viewing height, no peering through the fence possible.
    Also looks like they are building a high mound inside the perimeter fence.

    Can't see there being many places for spotters to get a good view.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5002
    EI321
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭EI321


    Neilw wrote: »
    I see the temporary perimeter fence around the runway and taxi way is being replaced with more secure fencing. They have also fitted solid blockers right at viewing height, no peering through the fence possible.
    Also looks like they are building a high mound inside the perimeter fence.

    Can't see there being many places for spotters to get a good view.

    I think its to stop people parking on the grass verge, there should still be good views from the new spotting parking areas.


  • Options
    #5003
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I take it this relates to the site at the eastern tip of the new runway?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dublin-airport-owner-daa-lands-high-court-date-on-traveller-family-v7vltq33m

    Can't believe they are still there particularly with all the works going on around.


  • Options
    #5004
    Eircom_Sucks
    Registered Users Posts: 3,193 ✭✭✭Eircom_Sucks


    Neilw wrote: »
    I see the temporary perimeter fence around the runway and taxi way is being replaced with more secure fencing. They have also fitted solid blockers right at viewing height, no peering through the fence possible.
    Also looks like they are building a high mound inside the perimeter fence.

    Can't see there being many places for spotters to get a good view.


    Big fook off attinuation tank underground


  • Options
    #5005
    sparrowcar
    Registered Users Posts: 2,824 ✭✭✭sparrowcar


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    I take it this relates to the site at the eastern tip of the new runway?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dublin-airport-owner-daa-lands-high-court-date-on-traveller-family-v7vltq33m

    Can't believe they are still there particularly with all the works going on around.

    Appears they stopped travelling....


  • Options
    #5006
    sparrowcar
    Registered Users Posts: 2,824 ✭✭✭sparrowcar


    EI321 wrote: »
    I think its to stop people parking on the grass verge, there should still be good views from the new spotting parking areas.

    It's a dangerous enough road if people were to be distracted by planes. 2 separate viewing car parks is plenty. Also the new road down to the ATC tower will be a quiet road and i would imagine pulling in there would be safer.


  • Options
    #5007
    EI321
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭EI321


    sparrowcar wrote: »
    It's a dangerous enough road if people were to be distracted by planes. 2 separate viewing car parks is plenty. Also the new road down to the ATC tower will be a quiet road and i would imagine pulling in there would be safer.

    The existing viewing area is seriously dangerous, its surprising that its allowed in 2020 in its current setup. Cars doing 100kph down that road with the distraction of aircraft landing alongside and with cars pulling out and poor visibility. Add to that the fact that some people bring children there and some people seem to think its ok to walk along the grass verge at the roadside.

    The area at the threshold of runway 16 is even worse when cars try to park there in bad weather.


  • Options
    #5008
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,750 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Keep in mind that the "viewing area" is literally just a layby. It has become a viewing area due to the growth in spotter numbers.
    It's not an official location. So ppl stating that "something should be done" are just barking into the wind.


  • Options
    #5009
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users Posts: 1,588 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    I also think it's a discrace the amount of rubbish people leave behind them there. If the bin is full then bring it home with you!


  • Options
    #5010
    EI321
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭EI321


    There's nothing stopping the council putting up a few signs or road markings to slow traffic at a dangerous section of road, regardless of what name they want to give it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5011
    Neilw
    Registered Users Posts: 3,779 ✭✭✭Neilw


    EI321 wrote: »
    There's nothing stopping the council putting up a few signs or road markings to slow traffic at a dangerous section of road, regardless of what name they want to give it.

    It’s already a 60kph limit there, plus that road is part of the 903 new speed camera locations.
    Whether there is ever any enforcement is another story.


Advertisement