Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

05-09-2020 1:53pm

Bussywussy wrote: »

Should build a temporary engine test site and give a CF6 a good gallop,they won't be long moving and for free

https://www.dublinairport.com/docs/default-source/planning/planning-conditions.pdf?sfvrsn=ff46e534_0

Please see condition 11.

Chris_5339762 · 06-09-2020 1:39pm

Out of interest, why is 16 being narrowed?

goingnowhere · 06-09-2020 1:47pm

Are they moving the centre line westwards or just slicing off the sides?

06-09-2020 2:26pm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Out of interest, why is 16 being narrowed?

To comply with EASA requirements, basically. I believe one of the factors is the perspective a pilot has when on the approach. A final approach to a wide runway may produce the visual illusion of being lower than you actually are. If you believe this illusion, you may respond by pitching the aircraft’s nose up to gain altitude, which may result in a missed approach

06-09-2020 2:28pm

goingnowhere wrote: »

Are they moving the centre line westwards or just slicing off the sides?

Centreline stays where it is. A number of reasons, such as that it will provide shoulders both sides, no need to mess with the ILS Localiser.

goingnowhere · 06-09-2020 2:49pm

So no change to the holding positions for 28/34, pity they could moved up a bit which could help with the congestion down at end of T2/28/34

Chris_5339762 · 06-09-2020 3:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

To comply with EASA requirements, basically. I believe one of the factors is the perspective a pilot has when on the approach. A final approach to a wide runway may produce the visual illusion of being lower than you actually are. If you believe this illusion, you may respond by pitching the aircraft’s nose up to gain altitude, which may result in a missed approach

Ah ok. I presumed it was some planning restriction - disallow certain jets from using 16/34 as a condition of allowing the new runway.

06-09-2020 3:13pm

goingnowhere wrote: »

So no change to the holding positions for 28/34, pity they could moved up a bit which could help with the congestion down at end of T2/28/34

None planned as far as I know. The problem would be, where do you move them to? RWY 16/34 gets centreline lighting (for use as a taxiway, ie green lights) as part of the work going on at the moment.

06-09-2020 3:16pm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Ah ok. I presumed it was some planning restriction - disallow certain jets from using 16/34 as a condition of allowing the new runway.

Not to do with the width of 16/34, but there is Condition 4 (please see attached)

https://www.dublinairport.com/docs/default-source/planning/planning-conditions.pdf?sfvrsn=ff46e534_0

Brendan Bendar · 06-09-2020 7:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

To comply with EASA requirements, basically. I believe one of the factors is the perspective a pilot has when on the approach. A final approach to a wide runway may produce the visual illusion of being lower than you actually are. If you believe this illusion, you may respond by pitching the aircraft’s nose up to gain altitude, which may result in a missed approach

That makes sense, standardization of runway widths.

Growler!!! · 06-09-2020 9:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

To comply with EASA requirements, basically. I believe one of the factors is the perspective a pilot has when on the approach. A final approach to a wide runway may produce the visual illusion of being lower than you actually are. If you believe this illusion, you may respond by pitching the aircraft’s nose up to gain altitude, which may result in a missed approach

Deleted User wrote: »

RWY16/34 is out of service and is being rehabilitated, narrowed to 45m (was 61m, or 200 feet in old money) and integrated with the new runway. Scheduled back into use 8 October

reference NOTAM

Q) EISN/QMRLC/IV/NBO /A /000/999/5325N00616W
A) EIDW
20/08/21 09:46 C) 20/10/08 01:00
E) RWY 16/34 CLOSED REF AIP SUPPLEMENT 06/2020 NORTHERN RUNWAY INTERSECTION WITH RUNWAY 16/34

In regard to the NOTAM I can't find any mention of reducing the runway width. Where did you see this mentioned?

I've had a look at Sup 030/19, 005/20 and 006/20 in the AIP which deal with works in and around 16/34 but it doesn't look like there is an overall reduction.

06-09-2020 9:48pm

Growler!!! wrote: »

In regard to the NOTAM I can't find any mention of reducing the runway width. Where did you see this mentioned?

I've had a look at Sup 030/19, 005/20 and 006/20 in the AIP which deal with works in and around 16/34 but it doesn't look like there is an overall reduction.

You’re right, I can’t find any reference to it. Once it’s returned to service, the IAIP entries will be amended to reflect the new width. The target date is 8 October to fit in with the AIRAC cycle dates.

Growler!!! · 07-09-2020 7:38am

Deleted User wrote: »

You’re right, I can’t find any reference to it. Once it’s returned to service, the IAIP entries will be amended to reflect the new width. The target date is 8 October to fit in with the AIRAC cycle dates.

Thanks for the reply, but you still haven't answered the question. Where did you see or hear that the dimensions would be changed?

Looking at the work to be carried out as per the Sup's above they only affect the northern end of 16/34 where it intersects the new rwy. The new sewerage work to the east is between the Foxes and 16/34 also the rehabilitation of the crossing taxi-ways at the mid-point.

There are no works planned for the southern end before October and nothing mentions the change in width. If that was to occur then all of the taxiway edge lights would have to be moved also. I can't see any reason for changing the width as any operators into DUB have approval for 60/45m and in some cases 30m dispensations. Other airports in Europe have similar mixes Amsterdam has a mix of 60m and 45m runways and Heathrow for instance has a 50m width.

sparrowcar · 07-09-2020 8:06am

Growler!!! wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, but you still haven't answered the question. Where did you see or hear that the dimensions would be changed?

Looking at the work to be carried out as per the Sup's above they only affect the northern end of 16/34 where it intersects the new rwy. The new sewerage work to the east is between the Foxes and 16/34 also the rehabilitation of the crossing taxi-ways at the mid-point.

There are no works planned for the southern end before October and nothing mentions the change in width. If that was to occur then all of the taxiway edge lights would have to be moved also. I can't see any reason for changing the width as any operators into DUB have approval for 60/45m and in some cases 30m dispensations. Other airports in Europe have similar mixes Amsterdam has a mix of 60m and 45m runways and Heathrow for instance has a 50m width.

Narrowing from 61m to 45m
Both sides being reduced with new edge lights.
Loads of publications internally but none approved for public release that I could find. Its been in the planning for years so not anything being snuck in so to speak. Must be something out there though with a Google search. See pic of Edge lines already moved inwards.

Growler!!! · 07-09-2020 8:41am

sparrowcar wrote: »

Narrowing from 61m to 45m
Both sides being reduced with new edge lights.
Loads of publications internally but none approved for public release that I could find. Its been in the planning for years so not anything being snuck in so to speak. Must be something out there though with a Google search. See pic of Edge lines already moved inwards.

Ah perfect, that makes sense that I couldn't find anything if it's not for public release. Are they actually getting rid of some concrete or just moving the lines and lights inwards? Im just curious as to the reason for the reduction in width as it doesn't really affect the approach or landing as its been wider than 10/28 for a long time.

sparrowcar · 07-09-2020 9:02am

Growler!!! wrote: »

Ah perfect, that makes sense that I couldn't find anything if it's not for public release. Are they actually getting rid of some concrete or just moving the lines and lights inwards? Im just curious as to the reason for the reduction in width as it doesn't really affect the approach or landing as its been wider than 10/28 for a long time.

I can't recall off the top of my head If concrete will be removed. The narrowing is to be EASA compliant by 202X. All airports under their remit need to be by a certain year including the ones you named earlier as still 60m etc. Not sure how the UK fall in under EASA after Brexit.

07-09-2020 9:22am

Thanks all, and that’s why I couldn’t find anything online. The outer portions will not be removed, and will act as runway shoulders. The runway edge lights are the inset variety and many are already in position at the 45m width.

07-09-2020 10:42am

sparrowcar wrote: »

Not sure how the UK fall in under EASA after Brexit.

They won’t, apparently. They are going to do their own thing

https://info.caa.co.uk/brexit/

Another fine mess in the making, by the looks of it.

Growler!!! · 07-09-2020 11:21am

Deleted User wrote: »

They won’t, apparently. They are going to do their own thing

https://info.caa.co.uk/brexit/

Another fine mess in the making, by the looks of it.

True! With everything happening in the world right now I updated my IAA licence with my current type. I could only do a CAA medical which is valid for less than a year until 31st December 2020. The AME locally is in the process of converting to IAA licence also! A fine mess indeed:eek::eek:

Brendan Bendar · 07-09-2020 4:41pm

Doubt if they will jackhammer the shoulders of 16/34.

Move the inset edge lights in as has already been said.

Too much hammering.!!

07-09-2020 5:17pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Doubt if they will jackhammer the shoulders of 16/34.

Move the inset edge lights in as has already been said.

Too much hammering.!!

Brand new lovely inset LED lamps. If you please! The old ones were elevated. So yesterday.

Bsal · 05-10-2020 3:45pm

Lot's of changes coming in the next airac cycle on the 8th

05-10-2020 4:12pm

Good to see the north runway schematic now reflects what’s actually being built, too

NH2013 · 05-10-2020 4:25pm

Interesting to see 16/34 has now finally been narrowed down from 61m to 45m, is it known if the centerline lights have finally been fitted as well?

sparrowcar · 05-10-2020 4:34pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good to see the north runway schematic now reflects what’s actually being built, too

Yep, was starting to p!so me off seeing the double high speed exits still shown.

05-10-2020 5:23pm

NH2013 wrote: »

Interesting to see 16/34 has now finally been narrowed down from 61m to 45m, is it known if the centerline lights have finally been fitted as well?

Taxiway centerline lighting (green) not runway centerline lighting (white)

05-10-2020 7:26pm

Flight checker up again looking at Runway 16/34 again, following some minor comments from Saturday

05-10-2020 7:35pm

8D58BF05-CB95-4320-AF93-3F355EDCC8A4.jpeg

Rojomur · 12-10-2020 10:54pm

UWell Runway 34 is back open at Dublin Airport. First commercial plane in years just flew over my house on the way to land.

sparrowcar · 12-10-2020 11:03pm

Rojomur wrote: »

Well Runway 34 is back open at Dublin Airport. First commercial plane in years just flew over my house on the way to land.

Years?
It was only closed for a few months

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Comments