Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

duskyjoe · 09-04-2016 11:27am

Bussywussy wrote: »

Dunno if parallel will be in ops by 2020 but the runway will.
The lack of aircraft Widebody stands is very evident.

Yeah they made a grade A cock up of the wide body space. I hate to say it but they need a mini term 3 over near the old control tower to cater for heavies. Think this must be the long term plan as term 2 a disaster to get parking in the summer. Hardest is coming in from LA/SFO and then to wait a half an hour for a stand ...... Pure torture

Bussywussy · 09-04-2016 11:50am

duskyjoe wrote: »

Yeah they made a grade A cock up of the wide body space. I hate to say it but they need a mini term 3 over near the old control tower to cater for heavies. Think this must be the long term plan as term 2 a disaster to get parking in the summer. Hardest is coming in from LA/SFO and then to wait a half an hour for a stand ...... Pure torture

And delayed flights because an EI Widebody had to move to a remote stand and back for an American 757 which is a waste of a stand.that takes time and it's going to come to a serious head from next month on.
Yes an international pre clearance terminal over yonder would be great.

Blut2 · 09-04-2016 10:10pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Well with two parallel runways they would only need to use 16/34 when crosswinds require it.

Are there any stats on how many days a year (or flights a year) that make use of 16/34 due to crosswinds? How (un)common is it?

Chris_5339762 · 10-04-2016 8:58am

Its tricky to call, because I'm sure that now they use 16/34 when it becomes the easier runway to use, say at 20kts North or South gusts. With the new rules and Runway #3, they might only use it at 30kts gusts, when they really, really need to.

LXFlyer · 10-04-2016 9:32am

Blut2 wrote: »

Are there any stats on how many days a year (or flights a year) that make use of 16/34 due to crosswinds? How (un)common is it?

It's not that common - just look at the prevailing winds in this country.

16/34 sees far more use in the early mornings when dual operation is in place, and in the late evenings due to maintenance on 10/28, than as a result of crosswinds.

JCX BXC · 10-04-2016 9:36am

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Its tricky to call, because I'm sure that now they use 16/34 when it becomes the easier runway to use, say at 20kts North or South gusts. With the new rules and Runway #3, they might only use it at 30kts gusts, when they really, really need to.

In regards use because of wind, it only ever switches to 16 when required. Usually this is when aircraft request it due to the crosswind limiting them on RWY28. I doubt this will change.

A strong southerly wind owing to the use of 16 is common, happens several times a year. A strong northerly owing to the use of 34 is very uncommon, only occurring every few years.

Shannon Control · 10-04-2016 10:48am

Carnacalla wrote: »

In regards use because of wind, it only ever switches to 16 when required. Usually this is when aircraft request it due to the crosswind limiting them on RWY28. I doubt this will change.

A strong southerly wind owing to the use of 16 is common, happens several times a year. A strong northerly owing to the use of 34 is very uncommon, only occurring every few years.

16 is to be used when the crosswind component is greater than 20 knots. Below 20 knots, runway 10/28 is to be used. It's common for 16 to be in use really. Happens once a week, much more than several times a year. 34 is definitely in use more than once in a few years! About once a month, you're right though in saying that it is very uncommon. ATC only ever change runway if they have to. It is such a pain for the entire operation, and causes knock on delays for the majority of the day afterwards, especially in the summer, when you have those extra movements that aren't usually there.
At present, runway 28 capacity is 40 movements per hour continuously, or 44 in one hour. 16 per hour is in the region of 36 on a continuous flow. It mightn't seem like a lot, but those 7/8 movements make a huge difference over a busy period.

Back on topic; they really do need more heavy stands. I can't count how many times I've come off the 104 from JFK to be greeted with a 30/40 minute delay for stand.

JCX BXC · 10-04-2016 10:51am

Shannon Control wrote: »

16 is to be used when the crosswind component is greater than 20 knots. Below 20 knots, runway 10/28 is to be used. It's common for 16 to be in use really. Happens once a week, much more than several times a year. 34 is definitely in use more than once in a few years! About once a month, you're right though in saying that it is very uncommon. ATC only ever change runway if they have to. It is such a pain for the entire operation, and causes knock on delays for the majority of the day afterwards in the summer.
At present, runway 28 capacity is 40 movements per hour continuously, or 44 in one hour. 16 per hour is in the region of 36 on a continuous flow. It mightn't seem like a lot, but those 7/8 movements make a huge difference over a busy period.

Crosswind component is a key word there. I was also referring to the use of 16 due to weather, not because of 28/10 being unavailable.

Also, how is this off topic?

Shannon Control · 10-04-2016 10:58am

Carnacalla wrote: »

Crosswind component is a key word there. I was also referring to the use of 16 due to weather, not because of 28/10 being unavailable.

Also, how is this off topic?

As am I. I would consider wind to be part of the weather, would you not? I've only once seen aircraft denying departure off 10 due to CBs coming westbound from the coast at a low altitude. If the surface wind is greater than 20 knots, and within 210-140 degrees then 16 is to be used, as per the AIP.

Me talking about crosswinds isn't on the topic of 28R or the airport's infrastructure, in my opinion.

JCX BXC · 10-04-2016 11:00am

Shannon Control wrote: »

As am I. I would consider wind to be part of the weather, would you not? I've only once seen aircraft denying departure off 10 due to CBs coming westbound from the coast at a low altitude. If the surface wind is greater than 20 knots, and within 210-140 degrees then 16 is to be used, as per the AIP.

You said its common for 16 to be in use really, which is true in general terms, but due to weather it may happen only 10-15 times a year, although I could be completely incorrect here.

LXFlyer · 10-04-2016 11:34am

Shannon Control wrote: »

Me talking about crosswinds isn't on the topic of 28R or the airport's infrastructure, in my opinion.

It is on topic in the context of the need to retain 16/34 as part of Dublin Airport infrastructure - it's the basic raison d'etre for retaining the runway once the second main runway is built.

It explains why the runway will continue to be needed.

is this username available · 10-04-2016 12:00pm

Carnacalla wrote: »

You said its common for 16 to be in use really, which is true in general terms, but due to weather it may happen only 10-15 times a year, although I could be completely incorrect here.

It's used for about 10% of traffic so slightly higher than that. With this years winter storms it felt like it was in much more use in December to February than normal, but I don't have any actual figures for that. Maintaining 16 is more important than new runway imo.

AndyBoBandy · 10-04-2016 12:06pm

Out of interest, how does the lack of a crosswind runway affect Heathrow? As with their 9/27 runways being so similar to Dublin, what do they do in the event of a northerly/southerly wind?

What if they have wind from 180' or 360'? And does it affect ops?

JCX BXC · 10-04-2016 12:10pm

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Out of interest, how does the lack of a crosswind runway affect Heathrow? As with their 9/27 runways being so similar to Dublin, what do they do in the event of a northerly/southerly wind?

What if they have wind from 180' or 360'? And does it affect ops?

They divert:P

Heathrow ops are regularly adversely affected from strong crosswinds, but not as much as Dublin would be, as London is less affected by severe wind events thanks to it's inland location. There has been criticism of Heathrow for not maintaining a crosswind runway, I think it was 23/05 but I may be incorrect in that.

MoeJay · 10-04-2016 12:27pm

16 tends to be in use somewhere between 5-10% across the whole year, but in winter it's not unusual for it to be used up to 25% of the time in a given month depending on the weather.

The question is whether it's acceptable if 25% of flights get cancelled or delayed or diverted because it was decided to remove an existing piece of infrastructure?

It would be exceptionally short sighted to do so in my opinion.

As far as I can tell, the existing plan still does not provide for a dedicated taxiway to access 16, so we still have the possibility of accessing 16 via the new 28R and the awkward line up. If I was completely cynical I'd believe the daa really want rid of 16......

Stovepipe · 10-04-2016 3:16pm

I'm inclined to agree with you. I'd bet they'd get rid of 16-34 as an active runway in a heartbeat. I've actually heard ATC moaning about having to switch to it, as if it really mattered to them, at all. It matters to the pilot!....they (DAA) were quite happy to shut down 11-29 as a runway....this new runway, well, it will in turn piss off some people and please others. I heard a well known aviation individual gloating this morning on a well known radio show, because he owns a lot of the land in that direction. It raises interesting questions for land ownership in Swords and the residents closest to the airport (Howya, Boss)

Jamie2k9 · 10-04-2016 3:24pm

It's no secret 16/34 was not part of the plans but it's staying.

JCX BXC · 10-04-2016 6:05pm

Stovepipe wrote: »

I've actually heard ATC moaning about having to switch to it, as if it really mattered to them, at all.

I haven't heard that at all, and if I did I'd understand, as the reduced arrival rate often causes diversions, such as a week or two ago! If the switch is not completely necessary, but they make the switch, I'd imagine they would get alot of scrutiny, as diversions are not cheap.

KoolKid · 10-04-2016 9:27pm

Stovepipe wrote: »

I heard a well known aviation individual gloating this morning on a well known radio show, because he owns a lot of the land in that direction. It raises interesting questions for land ownership in Swords and the residents closest to the airport (Howya, Boss)

Has land to be purchased. I get the impression they own it all already.

Captain Chaos · 10-04-2016 9:30pm

KoolKid wrote: »

Has land to be purchased. I get the impression they own it all already.

No, they have all the land already for the past 40 years. The airport perimeter fence around the site will stay exactly as it is now.

KoolKid · 10-04-2016 9:39pm

Looking at the road around the 10 end there is not a lot of viewing opportunities as it stands

P_1 · 10-04-2016 10:02pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

No, they have all the land already for the past 40 years. The airport perimeter fence around the site will stay exactly as it is now.

What about the road going past the Boot Inn?

Pat Dunne · 10-04-2016 10:04pm

KoolKid wrote: »

Looking at the road around the 10 end there is not a lot of viewing opportunities as it stands

Don't expect to see many of those hedgerows standing, after its all finished.

JCX BXC · 10-04-2016 10:39pm

Looks like a great summers day in that photo.

How I miss them :P

billie1b · 10-04-2016 11:04pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

No, they have all the land already for the past 40 years. The airport perimeter fence around the site will stay exactly as it is now.

The perimeter fence will be moved at the north end of the airfield, parts of the Naul road will be disappearing, the field where the old lighting for RWY 29/11 will become part of the airfield, it will stretch up the L3132 as far as Dunbro lane, there will be a new road put in along Dunbro lane as far through Pickardstown as far as the R108 to give access to the small cottages and Boot Inn.

Irish Steve · 11-04-2016 12:28am

The road past the Boot inn will no longer be accessible from the Naul road roundabout area, but access to the Boot Inn area will be retained by a new road running parallel to the new runway, with the most important aspect of that new road being that it will also be providing access to the area of the tower, fire station and hangars.

I seem to recall a long time ago that there was a plan for new terminal facilities to the North of 28R, providing new hangars for General aviation and facilities for Cargo, but that's gone very quiet at the moment.

In the long term, I think we can be reasonably sure that everything between the 2 runways will become "sterile" from an access point of view, and become part of airside, so the road that parallels the north side of 10 will eventually be no more, and I can't see the Boot Inn surviving too much longer. Most of the cottages in that area are already empty, and I can't see the other facilities in that area being allowed to remain in the long term, due to the pressures on parking space that will mean extending aprons and the like into the "centre strip" between the 2 runways.

jimbis · 11-04-2016 12:32am

Time to pressure those with the authority to build some sort of proper viewing area. Ireland has a huge interest in aviation so they'd be mad not too. It'll also be a lot safer than having cars pile up all over edges of the perimeter on busy days.