jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74 
|
Post by jeffref on Mar 14, 2017 23:41:15 GMT 12
Large aircraft including DC8's, 747SPs and the original B767 always had to be careful where they landed and special touchdown marks were applied. Now we have the Singapore 777-200. A surprising note is the 777-200ER requires a slighter short landing distance than its little brother the 737-800.
There is little margin on a 1945 metre runway for any jet aircraft landing at 120-140 knots. One 737 flight I was on I remember the pilot zig zagging down the runway hard on the brakes after he floated a little too far.The accident to the Viscount happened that way although that was on 16 not 34.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Mar 23, 2017 11:57:50 GMT 12
from Fairfax NZ....Wellington Airport admits runway may need
to be extended for existing operationsBy HAMISH RUTHERFORD | 11:49AM - Thursday, 23 March 2017 Wellington Airport operates with the minimum runway safety area allowed.
— Photograph: Kevin Stent/Fairfax NZ.LAWYERS for Wellington Airport have warned its runway may now need to be extended irrespective of a project to attract long haul planes.
At a hearing in the Environment Court, Francis Cooke QC, representing Wellington Airport, asked the court to suspend its application for resource consent to build a longer runway.
Wellington Airport is seeking to extend the runway by more than 350 metres to the south into Cook Strait in a bit to enable long haul flights into the capital. The current length of the runway means wide-bodied jets cannot take off with a full load of fuel.
The process hit an unexpected hurdle last month when a challenge by the New Zealand Airline Pilot's Association (NZALPA) saw the Court of Appeal order the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to reconsider whether the extension would require a longer runway safety area.
Wellington Airport operates with a 90 metre runway safety area (RESA), the absolute minimum allowed under international aviation rules. An artist's impression of what an extended Wellington Airport runway would look like.
The airport has proposed to extend the runway south into Cook Strait by 354 metres.The Court of Appeal said the CAA took too much account of cost in indicating the runway could continue to operate with such a short RESA.
Cooke told the court that the decision had added uncertainty to the process. It could be that the application changed to an application to extend the runway just for a longer safety area only.
The airport has said it will seek leave to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Its application to suspend the resource consent application also noted that the CAA may review its decision on the airport safety areas.
Since the Court of Appeal decision Wellington Airport has repeatedly refused to answer any questions about whether the Court of Appeal ruling would have an impact on its existing operations, or whether it could force a shorter extension purely for a longer safety area.
The CAA, likewise, has refused to answer questions on the matter. Wellington Airport was seeking to extend its runway to enable long haul flights, but now
admits it may have to extend the runway purely for a longer safety area.NZALPA has openly said it made no apologies for making the challenge, but in an interview earlier this month president Tim Robinson said he did not believe the Court of Appeal ruling would have an impact on airports which were not seeking to extend the runway.
Queenstown Airport, which also has a relatively short RESA, has also refused to discuss the topic.
Environment Court Judge Brian Dwyer said he was concerned about the open-ended nature of the bid for adjournment, but granted the airport's bid to have the process suspended.
A hearing would be arranged when the airport was told whether it had been granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal ruling to the Supreme Court.• WELLINGTON AIRPORT__________________________________________________________________________ Read more on this topic:
• Wellington Airport taking runway safety decision to Supreme Court
• CAA must review safety areas at Wellington Airport, Court of Appeal rules
• Court fast-tracks pilots' appeal over safety of Wellington Airport's runway extensionwww.stuff.co.nz/business/90758195 |
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Mar 23, 2017 12:02:01 GMT 12
The late Captain Maurice McGreal would be happy if he were still around. He campaigned for years over the ends of Wellington Airport's runway. Until a couple of years before his death, he regularly wrote letters to the editor of The Dominion Post newspaper (as well as to The Dominion and the Evening Post before that) about the inadequacies of Wellington's runway. Mind you....they could always start afresh with a new airport in South Wairarapa and a high-speed rail service between Wellington and the new airport! That'd solve the problem, eh?   |
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Mar 23, 2017 14:26:26 GMT 12
Perhaps in the future a look at the northern end with a solution like Madeira Airport, Santa Cruz, Portugal. Great engineering............
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Mar 23, 2017 15:09:08 GMT 12
I very much doubt Wellington Airport would get away with another extension into Evans Bay. It will be the south coast or nothing. The idea has been floated in the past and the massive opposition to it quickly caused Wellington Airport Ltd to back off. It was done back in the 1970s to allow DC-8s to operate into and out of Wellington Airport; and many Wellingtonians vowed “never again would they allow the airport to be further extended into Evans Bay.” There are many people in Wellington who would be quick to form a “Save Evans Bay Society/Association” and get lawyered up. You only have to look at the history of Wellington City Council versus Waterfront Watch to see what would happen. There are a few too many Wellingtonians with extremely deep pockets and strong views on topics such as this and they have shown they are prepared to fight huge legal battles to push their case when it comes to anything to do with the waterfront, including Evans Bay. |
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Mar 24, 2017 10:11:32 GMT 12
The so-called extension of 1971 was a joke. All they did was reseal the old gravel overrun areas at both ends.The only "real" extension was the extra wave protection necessary at the southern end because the runway end was brought too close to the beach making it vulnerable to Wellington's "calm conditions". You could bridge Cobham Drive for 80 or so metres without actually reclaiming any land or 100 metres with a small reclamation which formed part of the masterplan put out about 2010. Any additional length should be to the South anyway because Newlands Ridge obstructs the northern approach preventing any landing distance increase. The Airport were talking about "curved" approaches using GPS instead of ILS but I'm not sure what the airline thinking is about this.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Mar 24, 2017 10:35:04 GMT 12
The late Captain Maurice McGreal would be happy if he were still around. He campaigned for years over the ends of Wellington Airport's runway. Until a couple of years before his death, he regularly wrote letters to the editor of The Dominion Post newspaper (as well as to The Dominion and the Evening Post before that) about the inadequacies of Wellington's runway. Mind you....they could always start afresh with a new airport in South Wairarapa and a high-speed rail service between Wellington and the new airport! That'd solve the problem, eh? It would solve the problem but the new airport would cost about 2 billion before you added the high speed rail......Think of the savings you could make!!!!! Or you could build it at Paraparaumu..Should not be too expensive to bowl some of the Tararuas. Who needs them anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Mar 24, 2017 10:41:17 GMT 12
Paraparaumu missed the boat many decades ago when they allowed intensive development around an airport which had originally been built way out in the country away from residential areas. And with the continual growth in the population in Kapiti, that development will continue, effectively taking up more and more land all the way to Otaki and beyond.
|
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Mar 24, 2017 14:16:58 GMT 12
from Fairfax NZ....Wellington Airport admits runway may need
to be extended for existing operationsBy HAMISH RUTHERFORD | 11:49AM - Thursday, 23 March 2017Wellington Airport operates with the minimum runway safety area allowed.
— Photograph: Kevin Stent/Fairfax NZ.LAWYERS for Wellington Airport have warned its runway may now need to be extended irrespective of a project to attract long haul planes.
At a hearing in the Environment Court, Francis Cooke QC, representing Wellington Airport, asked the court to suspend its application for resource consent to build a longer runway.
Wellington Airport is seeking to extend the runway by more than 350 metres to the south into Cook Strait in a bit to enable long haul flights into the capital. The current length of the runway means wide-bodied jets cannot take off with a full load of fuel.
The process hit an unexpected hurdle last month when a challenge by the New Zealand Airline Pilot's Association (NZALPA) saw the Court of Appeal order the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to reconsider whether the extension would require a longer runway safety area.
Wellington Airport operates with a 90 metre runway safety area (RESA), the absolute minimum allowed under international aviation rules.An artist's impression of what an extended Wellington Airport runway would look like.
The airport has proposed to extend the runway south into Cook Strait by 354 metres.The Court of Appeal said the CAA took too much account of cost in indicating the runway could continue to operate with such a short RESA.
Cooke told the court that the decision had added uncertainty to the process. It could be that the application changed to an application to extend the runway just for a longer safety area only.
The airport has said it will seek leave to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Its application to suspend the resource consent application also noted that the CAA may review its decision on the airport safety areas.
Since the Court of Appeal decision Wellington Airport has repeatedly refused to answer any questions about whether the Court of Appeal ruling would have an impact on its existing operations, or whether it could force a shorter extension purely for a longer safety area.
The CAA, likewise, has refused to answer questions on the matter.Wellington Airport was seeking to extend its runway to enable long haul flights, but now
admits it may have to extend the runway purely for a longer safety area.NZALPA has openly said it made no apologies for making the challenge, but in an interview earlier this month president Tim Robinson said he did not believe the Court of Appeal ruling would have an impact on airports which were not seeking to extend the runway.
Queenstown Airport, which also has a relatively short RESA, has also refused to discuss the topic.
Environment Court Judge Brian Dwyer said he was concerned about the open-ended nature of the bid for adjournment, but granted the airport's bid to have the process suspended.
A hearing would be arranged when the airport was told whether it had been granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal ruling to the Supreme Court.• WELLINGTON AIRPORT__________________________________________________________________________ www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/new-zealand-air-line-pilots-association-industrial-union-of-workers-incorporated-v-director-of-civil-aviation/@@images/fileDecisionI think WIAL must be concerned about the judges statement that NZ International Airports should have the highest safety standards irrespective of cost. In that case the airport would have to reduce its takeoff distance by 150 metres and the landing distance by 300 metres which would probably disqualify Airbus and Boeing jets operating off a wet runway due to the added distance required. Have I got this right? Read more on this topic:
• Wellington Airport taking runway safety decision to Supreme Court
• CAA must review safety areas at Wellington Airport, Court of Appeal rules
• Court fast-tracks pilots' appeal over safety of Wellington Airport's runway extensionwww.stuff.co.nz/business/90758195 |
|
jeffref
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 74
|
Post by jeffref on Mar 25, 2017 11:29:04 GMT 12
If Wellington Airport is correct when it believes an extension is necessary because it may have to apply a 240 RESA even on the current runway where does that place other Airports?
The rule states
3.4.2
A runway end safety area shall extend from the end of the runway strip to a distance of at least 90 m.
3.4.3
A runway end safety area shall, as far as practicable extend from the end of a runway strip to a distance of at least:
240 m where the code number is 3 or 4
120 m where the code number is 1 or 2
Code 1 less than 800 m
Code 2 800-1200 m
Code 3 1200-1800 m
Code 4 1800 m plus
If a higher standard is applied to Wellington then logically it must also apply to other airports within NZ?
Hopefully WIAL have got it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 6, 2017 22:33:48 GMT 12
Airports face new landing restrictions after court decision, aviation regulator warnsHAMISH RUTHERFORD Last updated 17:27, April 6 2017  Wellington Airport has warned that a recent court ruling could force it to extend its runway by 300m, simply to maintain its existing air services. Airports across New Zealand may have to extend runways or face new restrictions on the type of planes which can operate there, the aviation regulator is warning. In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said a recent court ruling could "significantly affect the viability of current operations at a number of airports". Chiefly, these were airports with international operations, or regular domestic services with planes carrying more than 30 passengers.  Queenstown Airport's runway operates with the same runway safety area as Wellington, the absolute minimum under international aviation rules. "[T]he [Court of Appeal] decision potentially impacts the operations of airlines landing and taking-off from those airports," the CAA said in a application to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. READ MORE: Wellington Airport claims runway may need to be extended for existing operationsAt the end of February, the Court of Appeal ordered the Director of Civil Aviation to review his decision to indicate that in the event that Wellington Airport's runway was extended to allow direct, long haul services, its current runway safety area (RESA) arrangements would be acceptable. Wellington operates with a 90m RESA, the absolute minimum allowed under international aviation rules. Most airports in New Zealand have RESAs of less than the recommended 240m. The Court of Appeal decision said the CAA's director, Graeme Harris, placed too much emphasis on cost when determining what was "practicable" in terms of safety areas. Although the decision related specifically to Wellington's $300 million plan to extend the runway, there is concern in the aviation sector that the decision would force the CAA to take a different approach when considering airport operating certificates, which must be renewed every five years. The decision prompted Wellington Airport to warn that it may now have to extend its runway by 300m simply to maintain its existing jet services. Wellington Airport chief executive Steve Sanderson also warned the decision could have impacts on "other airports around the country". The release of the Supreme Court documents - the timing of which was opposed by the CAA - shows the aviation regulator appears to take a similar position as Wellington Airport on the wider implications of the decision. "The Court of Appeal's approach involves a departure from the approach that has been applied by the Director [of Civil Aviation] to the relevant rules, and will likely involve a change in practice of both the Director and the relevant airports," the CAA submission said. While neither CAA nor Wellington Airport has said which airports it believes could be affected by the change, concerns have been raised about Queenstown Airport, a critical part of the region's tourism industry. Like Wellington, Queenstown operates with a 90m RESA, and even this safety zone required the airport to extend its runway into the delta of the Shotover River a decade ago. Queenstown Airport has declined to comment while the court proceedings continue. The challenge to Wellington Airport's safety arrangements was brought to by the New Zealand Airline Pilot's Association (NZALPA) - a union which covers most of New Zealand's commercial pilots. NZALPA president Tim Robinson said he did not believe the Court of Appeal decision would impact existing runway operations, unless an airport applied to extend the runway by more than 15m. "I cannot see how the Court of Appeal decision and any decision of the Supreme Court in relation to RESA can then be retrospectively be applied to airports that have current certifications for their RESA." If NZALPA was wrong on this point, Robinson maintained the challenge it had brought would not be a mistake. "We still firmly believe from a safety perspective that 240 metres RESA is such a safety priority that all airports should be certified to 240 metres." - Stuff www.stuff.co.nz/business/91300872/airports-face-new-landing-restrictions-after-court-decision-aviation-regulator-warns
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Apr 22, 2017 18:30:22 GMT 12
from Fairfax NZ....CIA plane lands at Wellington Airport
ahead of Five Eyes meetingBy CHLOE WINTER | 3:09PM - Saturday, 22 April 2017 An aircraft believed to belong to the CIA landed in Wellington on Saturday morning.
— Photograph: Maarten Holl/Fairfax NZ.SECRET AGENTS from one of the most powerful spy agencies in the world may have just touched down in the capital.
What looks to be just another private jet parked at Wellington Airport may in fact be carrying a plane-load of spies who are said to be in the country for a secret meeting in Queenstown.
The tail number — five small, black digits on the back of the plane — reveals the private jet belongs to none other than the United States' Central Intelligence Agency, also known as the CIA.
The plane, with the registration number 10030, was spotted at Wellington Airport on Saturday morning, NewsHub reports.
The aircraft's arrival ties in with an event in Queenstown, where a top-secret meeting of the Five Eyes nations is being held.
Five Eyes is the name of the global spying alliance of the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Officials from the world's largest spy network are meeting in Arrowtown, near Queenstown, where a massive security operation is underway.
Government officials are refusing to confirm details or provide names, but police confirmed no former head of state would be visiting, after the rumour mill tipped the visitor could be Barack Obama, with Microsoft founder Bill Gates' name also put into the mix.__________________________________________________________________________ Related story:
• Leaders from the Five Eyes intelligence network to meet in Queenstownwww.stuff.co.nz/business/91820615
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Apr 25, 2017 4:09:00 GMT 12
 (click on the picture to read the news story) |
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 16, 2017 13:23:45 GMT 12
|
|
