Didn't realise the vis was poor, normally I'd check! I note EY45 landed on 28R this morning.
Surely 28R for takeoff should be OK if it's an ILS low-visibility issue?
Surely 28L is preferred for landings, especially in low-visibility conditions (CAT III)
Neither 28L/R are in use. 10R is being used for departures and landings. 10L is not active as weather is poor and wind is favouring 10.
An hour ago, when I posted, the 28s were in use. Same old issue with 10L, then. Is the low-vis restriction on 10L applicable in CAT I conditions? I had thought that the far more demanding CAT III conditions were the problem
Cloud base is up to 1600ft now, 9999m+ visibility. Surely these conditions would allow the use of 10L?
People barely read the post before theirs, you hardly expect them to go back a page or two to find an answer for themselves do ya ?!
You mean 10L.
Still on a single runway this afternoon so i guess the weather is not acceptable to use 10L.
I do.
With the price of parking I used a taxi last time I arrived into Dublin earlier this summer, it was around 5pm so lack of taxis wasn't a problem.
What was a problem though was lack of suitable taxis. First two drivers up got out, looked at us and our baggage and said nope, can't take that. We waited for an MPV style vehicle to come along.
We had one medium roller case, two duffel bags and a small carry on bag each, a family of four. We had spent two weeks traveling around Europe via ferries, buses and taxis with no issue for space at all. In fact some of the taxi drivers over there insisted on putting all our stuff in the boot for our own comfort.
Then we hit the appalling lack of minimum standards as soon as we got home with poxy **** cars unsuitable for airport collections with airport permits.
16/34 will be in use from this evening.
Due to the forecasted wind/rain or is this a scheduled change to 16/34?
I don’t actually know. It it’s the latest from the DAA, no time was mentioned other than “this evening”
Be interesting to see what complaints come out of the woodwork over this new runway being used!
Hard to imagine any - it's been there since 1948!
I was being flippant. Its a while since its been used afaik so maybe the flightpath may a surprise to some.
Every time it was used for landings previously after a gap there'd be lots of surprised people on Twitter and occasionally even Liveline/letters to papers; so I'd expect some complaints.
Large amount of aircraft on hold at the moment, seems to be two holding points - one in the north above Navan and one in the south above the Wicklow mountains. Not having both runways operational has a significant impact, could get messy with big delays when they revert to 16/34 later this evening.
They shouldn't get control of that carpark...
While I can't say for certain for all of the day. There were certainly large portions of the day when 10L was closed when it could have been open. The restrictions are outrageously restrictive. At no point did low viz ops even get close to becoming a possibility. What are the restrictions exactly I wonder?
Reasons for that being?
Competition.
It was put up for sale, daa bid for it? Surely an intervention should have happened before that? And surely it shouldn’t take months and months to be reviewed when there’s a huge shortage of car park spaces.
On a separate note, no sign of 16/34 coming into use this eve.
It was in use alright, but only from about 0200 once that last rush of delayed flights departed. A lot of delayed arrivals came in on it but don’t know if it took any departures.
If anyone else gets their hands on that car park, it's very unlikely to continue as a car park I'd suggest. More profit in sticking an office block or hotel on it.
Given the proximity to both the 28L and 34 approach, there will be a massive number of restrictions on the development that will be permissible on that site, both in terms of usage and height, so office or hotel construction is not going to be as easy as might at first be thought.
The Carlton Hotel exists in this location already and much of the land is further away from the runway than that. It would definitely interest hotel developers.
Was there any party interested in buying this to open it as a carpark? If so why haven't we heard from them? Surely competition can only be an issue if someone else committed to operating it as a car park?
They will find it hard to get planning for anything other than parking from FCC unless they change the devolpment plan for the area.
Secondly, these spaces count towards long term numbers as set out in T2 planning premission so FCC might have to allow new car parking to make up for loss of spaces if daa applied.
The extended centreline of 16/34 runs right across the former Quickpark site. It would be crazy to build any permanent building that close to the centreline of an active runway and just outside the airport perimeter. If it were to be withdrawn from use, maybe the safety considerations would be different.
Meant be that lucrative building a hotel , as DAA don't seem bothered building a hotel in the airport grounds ...
