|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 1, 2013 13:50:54 GMT 12
Great shot Bruce, where were you standing to take that? Must be damn cold in Lyall Bay right now!
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jun 1, 2013 14:03:39 GMT 12
I didn't take it.
Someone posted it to a newsgroup messageboard and I asked them if they would mind if I reposted it here and they agreed.
I thought people here would like it.
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jun 14, 2013 7:33:11 GMT 12
Evans Bay favoured for runway extensionBy MICHAEL FORBES - The Dominion Post | 12:01AM - Friday, 14 June 2013WELLINGTON AIRPORT: The proposed runway extension into Evans Bay.IT IS likely that land will have to be reclaimed in order to build the Wellington Airport runway extension and part of Cobham Drive will disappear under a tunnel.
Exact details are still a few years away from being figured out, says John Howarth, the airport's general manager of infrastructure, facilities and planning.
But based on the "high-level" investigations already done, it seems likely that part of Evans Bay will be filled in with enough rocks and sediment to add 300 metres of runway on to the 2000 metres already there.
A concrete bridge is another option, or some variation of the two, Mr Howarth says.
Extending the runway north also appears to be a more solid option than venturing out into Cook Strait because of the risk involved with building any further south than the breakwater the airport extended its runway to in the 1970s.
"To go much further is more expensive because out there in Cook Strait you're designing for a 10-metre wave. In Evans Bay, you're only designing for one-and-a-half [metres]," Mr Howarth says.
That said, the two-year resource consent process will still investigate both options.
It will also look at what to do with Cobham Drive if the runway heads north.
Mr Howarth says having two tunnels under the runway — one for the airport and another for Miramar — looks like the most sensible option.www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington-report/8790477/Evans-Bay-favoured-for-runway-extension
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jul 11, 2013 14:24:06 GMT 12
Residents to fight runway planBy CALLY MARTIN - The Wellingtonian | 9:55AM - Thursday, 11 July 2013CONCERNED: Author Dame Fiona Kidman is on of the eastern suburbs residents worried about the proposed runway extension into Evans Bay. — TALIA CARLISLE/The Wellingtonian.EVANS BAY residents are gearing up to oppose the extension of Wellington Airport runway to take long-haul international flights.
About 50 Wellingtonians who turned out to a meeting in Hataitai this week have formed Guardians of Evans Bay and intend to prepare a case against extending the runway's northern approach 300 metres into the harbour.
Evans Bay was an iconic part of the harbour and the extension would be "a real intrusion and destroy its beauty", meeting organiser Richard Randerson said.
He questioned whether it was even necessary, saying the economic case was weak, and he was concerned about the potential environmental side-effects, including increased noise pollution.
Author Dame Fiona Kidman, who attended the meeting, said the runway would detract from what made the bay special.
"We love Wellington for its environment and we want to protect it," she said.
According to minutes from the meeting, other issues included permanent alteration of the harbour's coastline, detrimental effects on boaties and the disenfranchising of ratepayers if Wellington City Council acted as both project promoter and decision maker for the resource consent.
Economic concerns were based on doubts about the accuracy of the economic forecast and claims about increased international flights.
Other New Zealand airports which had expanded with varying degrees of success were cited.
The meeting passed a resolution creating a group to take "all steps necessary" to stop the proposed 10-metre-high runway extension and keep residents informed about the campaign.
A second move to oppose extending the runway at its southern end was voted down.
The Evans Bay extension plan was defended at the meeting by Mayor Celia Wade-Brown, who attended with Wellington City Council and airport officials.
Ms Wade-Brown said economic benefits could include the creation of an extra 300 jobs for the region.
In conjunction with the city's tourism drive in Asia, specifically China, the potential for the extension to attract long-haul flights from Asia could bring 10,000 extra students to Wellington, along with creating a wider global audience for tourist attractions and arts events, she said.
Expanding into Evans Bay was more practical than pushing the runway out to the south, Ms Wade-Brown told the meeting.
The extension — which will take the runway length to 2300 metres — is expected to take two years in the resource consent stage then a further five years for construction, at a cost of $300m.
The council voted 11-2 to split the $2m share of the resource consent process with Wellington airport.
Residents' concerns about the environmental impact on the area were strong, with one resident stating that once the coastline was changed, it was changed for good, so a detailed investigation on the possible environmental effects was needed.
The meeting decided that the next steps for Guardians of Evans Bay would be establishing the group; looking at the environmental effects, and preparing a case for the resource consent hearings.THE PLAN• Runway to be extended to 2300 metres.
• $300 million construction cost.YES:• Extra 300 jobs for the region.
• Long-haul flights can use proposed runway.
• Could bring 10,000 extra students to the region, especially from Asia.NO:• Extended runway would ruin beauty of the harbour.
• Detirmental effects on boaties.
• Increased noise pollution.www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/the-wellingtonian/8904509/Residents-to-fight-runway-plan
|
|
|
Post by alexjc on Jul 15, 2013 19:12:31 GMT 12
Oh Waaa waaa waaa...Typical uppity Hataitai As usual its a greyhead 'Damed' female leading the objection charge...She'll probibly be dead by the time the extension it started anyway!!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 15, 2013 19:21:19 GMT 12
There are also aviation experts against the extension too
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jul 15, 2013 21:16:01 GMT 12
There are also aviation experts against the extension too Auckland International Airport Limited and Christchurch International Airport Limited?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 15, 2013 21:28:05 GMT 12
Peter Clark on the news the other night too.
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jul 17, 2013 21:07:42 GMT 12
Longer runway poses flight path problemElectricity pylons along the Newlands ridge could be a problem for planes taking off from an extended airport runway.By JIM CHIPP - The Wellingtonian | 3:58PM - Wednesday, 17 July 2013RICHARD LAMB: The former airline pilot and airport inspector says those planning the runway extension should pull a tape measure before spending a fortune on it. — JIM CHIPP/The Wellingtonian.GET OUT a tape measure before spending a fortune extending Wellington airport's runway: that's the advice of a former airline pilot and airport inspector.
Wellington City Council has budgeted $1 million to fund a resource consent application to extend the runway by 300 metres at an estimated cost of $300 million, with the preferred extension running northwards into Evans Bay.
The extension would be carried out by Wellington International Airport Limited, which is partly-owned by the council.
The New Zealand Airline Pilots Association has called for an extension of at least 240 metres to allow the recommended international overshoot allowance.
Retired pilot Richard Lamb, of Woburn, said the constraint on what kinds of aircraft could fly out of Wellington to the north was a row of electricity transmission pylons along Newlands ridge, rather than runway length.
"The obstacle clearance gradient for take-off on large aircraft was a mandatory one in 50 or a discretionary one in 62.5," he said.
That meant existing runways and obstacles had to meet one metre of climb for every 50 metres of ground covered, but new runways or new obstacles needed to meet the slightly higher one-in-62.5 standard, he said.
The standard allowed for a multi-engine aircraft to safely clear the terrain, even if it had an engine failure at take-off.
"As far as the northern end of Wellington is concerned, the 1-in-62.5 just clears a power pylon in Newlands," he said.
If the runway ended 300 metres further north, it would almost certainly not meet that standard, he said.
Mr Lamb trained in the air force before a career flying commercially for Qantas and Safe Air. When he retired from flying, he worked for the Civil Aviation Authority as an aerodrome inspector until his retirement 10 years ago.
Mr Lamb said aircraft performance and navigation ability had significantly improved.
It would be theoretically possible for an aircraft taking off northwards and having an engine failure to avoid the Newlands pylon by turning east and flying up the Hutt Valley.
However, taking a malfunctioning aircraft over population was not good practice, and if the dead engine were on the port side, the aircraft would automatically turn that way, away from the Hutt Valley, he said.
"As a pilot, when you have an engine failure you have a lot to do, so the less you have to think about the better," he said.
Wellington International Airport Limited spokesman Greg Thomas said the airport company was aware of the take-off gradient constraint.
The company was at the start of an investigation into extending the runway, considering all options — northward and southward.
The investigation was expected to take about nine months.
Work so far indicated that Newlands Ridge would have less impact on airport operations than in the past, he said.
"Our aeronautical studies undertaken show that Newlands ridge is not a significant issue and aircraft use new technology called Required Navigation Performance, which enables curved flight paths that avoid Newlands ridge."
Any runway extension, to the north or the south, would be fully compliant with the Civil Aviation Authority's requirements, he said.
Civil Aviation Authority spokesman Matthew Shore said the proposed runway extension would have to satisfy the director of civil aviation that it met the design criteria as per International Civil Aviation Organisation standards and recommended practices and New Zealand civil aviation rules.
Wellington City Council spokesman Clayton Anderson said concerns such as the Newlands Ridge clearance would be part of the resource consent application process, and whatever was done would have to be Civil Aviation Authority compliant.www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/the-wellingtonian/8930230/Longer-runway-poses-flight-path-problem
|
|
777219
Warrant Officer
Posts: 36
|
Post by 777219 on Jul 17, 2013 21:53:12 GMT 12
How come it will cost $300m for a 300 metre extension, that's $1m a metre by the way, when we heard on the TV tonight that the 11km Milford tunnel was only going to cost $180m!? Sounds like someone is trying to rip someone else off and it ain't the tunnellers.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jul 17, 2013 22:59:02 GMT 12
How come it will cost $300m for a 300 metre extension Lawyers - Town Planners - Ecological Impact Consultants - Environmental Impact Consultants - Water Quality Consultants - Air Quality Consultants - Victim Support - did I mention Lawyers? - Greenies - Koha - Traffic Planners - Airways Consultants - Stress Relief Consultants - more Lawyers - Airline Consultants - Storm Water Consultants - Rain Water Consultants - Foul Water Consultants - Clean Water Consultants - Overseas Experts - even more Lawyers - Public Hearings - Private Hearings - Media Hearings - MPs Hearings - Council Hearings - Residents Meetings - Non-residents Meetings - Rehearings - Lawyers Hearings - Overseas Fact-finding Trips - Directors fees - Golden Handshakes - Golden Parachutes - Salaries for those laid off on full pay pending investigation - Compensation Payments - Termination Payments - Large Payments for Getting It Right - Even Larger Payments for Getting It Wrong - . . . . Need I go on?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 17, 2013 23:02:29 GMT 12
It might be 300 metres horizontally but how many metres vertically down into the sea and in width?
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jul 17, 2013 23:36:22 GMT 12
It might be 300 metres horizontally but how many metres vertically down into the sea and in width? And that is probably the crux of the matter. Wellington Harbour is fairly deep and that probably also includes Evans Bay. Plus, it can cut up really rough in Evans Bay in dirty weather, so the runway extension would need to be well-engineered and that would no doubt cost heaps. Then, there will be the inevitable legal battles with the citizens of Miramar Heights and Haitaitai on either side of Evans Bay. The thing about Wellingtonians is that they are passionate about their harbour and the waterfront, as Wellington City Council has found out to its cost every time it has come up with various schemes for developing the waterfront, including allowing commercial buildings to be built. The council has been involved in some epic legal battles with the waterfront guardians and they have lost most of those battles. Wellingtonians have similar attitudes towards the town belt too.
|
|
|
Post by delticman on Jul 18, 2013 10:00:10 GMT 12
I hope I'm not repeating any of above.
When the first extension was carried out for full load 737's ( remember when they first arrived they had five abrest seating) and DC8's, the runway was extended seaward because there was a big hill to the north at Newlands which was within the glidepath.
Moving on a few years or so when Qantas started with the 747SP there was an incident at Newlands that resulted in a report similar on an Accident Report. I think (and I say think)the 747SP crossed Newlands Beacon at less than 200 feet.
|
|
|
Post by alexjc on Jul 18, 2013 10:33:29 GMT 12
They could go out into Lyall Bay, but it's just too rough and not worth the EPIC buttressing needed to fend off the southerly waves. Also, as mentioned, where's the spoil needed for the extenson coming from?
|
|
|
Post by shamus on Jul 18, 2013 11:59:47 GMT 12
delticman. Their was also the Air-NZ DC8 incident over Newlands too. Can't remember exactly when this was but apparently the beacon was giving false readings but pilot was still demoted to first officer. Seemed unfair to me.
|
|
|
Post by dakman on Jul 18, 2013 12:19:05 GMT 12
I believe our city fathers or is that mothers plan on using drillings etc from the MT Vic tunnel widening scheme as extension fill . Has this cost been slipped in to the extension estimate.?
|
|
|
Post by raymond on Jul 18, 2013 16:59:28 GMT 12
How come it will cost $300m for a 300 metre extension Lawyers - Town Planners - Ecological Impact Consultants - Environmental Impact Consultants - Water Quality Consultants - Air Quality Consultants - Victim Support - did I mention Lawyers? - Greenies - Koha - Traffic Planners - Airways Consultants - Stress Relief Consultants - more Lawyers - Airline Consultants - Storm Water Consultants - Rain Water Consultants - Foul Water Consultants - Clean Water Consultants - Overseas Experts - even more Lawyers - Public Hearings - Private Hearings - Media Hearings - MPs Hearings - Council Hearings - Residents Meetings - Non-residents Meetings - Rehearings - Lawyers Hearings - Overseas Fact-finding Trips - Directors fees - Golden Handshakes - Golden Parachutes - Salaries for those laid off on full pay pending investigation - Compensation Payments - Termination Payments - Large Payments for Getting It Right - Even Larger Payments for Getting It Wrong - . . . . Need I go on? and thats before they turn the first sod
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jul 18, 2013 17:01:39 GMT 12
There is one member of this group who has plenty of experience piloting aeroplanes into Wellington, initially Solents into Evans Bay, then Electras and DC-8s into and out of the airport. He hasn't accessed the group for a while, so I might try and persuade his son to give him a nudge, as his views about this topic would be really interesting.
|
|
|
Post by No longer identifiable on Jul 18, 2013 18:37:36 GMT 12
It might be 300 metres horizontally but how many metres vertically down into the sea and in width? Dave, when I was diving on the drill rig in Evans Bay (in the 1970's - see my earlier post on page 1) it was about 40 to 50 ft deep from memory. Evans bay is not as deep as most of Wellington harbour.
|
|