OPNLguy From United States, joined Jun 1999, 12630 posts, RR: 75 Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2260 times:
They used to have a 2nd runway, 13-31, which was parallel to taxiway "D" on the NE side of the airport. Don't know why they decommisioned it, but it was pretty much a GA runway--I never saw air carriers on it.
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3174 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2209 times:
Yeah, 13/31 was a short runway, only about 4500 or 4700 feet long, and AFAIK, they only took off or landed over the water, which sort restricted things...
LH450 From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2194 times:
San Diego isn't that busy that they can't manage the traffic with one runway. Between the approaches are lying 3 or 4 minutes, during the days peak perhaps 2 minutes.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3186 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2175 times:
San Diego (Lindbergh) isn't "busy" because it can't handle any more traffic. San Diego is the 6th largest metropolitan area in the U.S. but has one of the smallest airports for such a large metro. The airport is pretty much at capacity. I lived there for 10 years and had the fortune of working in a downtown highrise less than a mile from the end of runway 9/27 so I could watch all the comings and goings.
One interesting facet about the airport was that in inclement weather, IFR traffic had to fly in on runway 9 despite prevailing winds as they didn't want IFR flying in so close to downtown high-rises (the airport literally sits next to downtown). On really bad weather days I would watch the airport land 5 or 6 aircraft on runway 9 and then launch 5 or 6 departures on runway 27. This usually occured on bad weather days when the wind was stronger than usual and the departures had to take off on 27 because of the prevailing wind. I onced watched them repeat this cycle from about 9:00 AM until around 3:00 AM when the weather improved.
Part of the problem with the airport is it's relatively short runway (~9600 feet) and the fact that it has only one active runway. Thus, the airport is limited in not only how much traffic but what type of traffic. Although back in the 80's United had 747 service out of there, the aircraft were obviously not at capacity. When I lived there up until 2000 there was considerable effort going on to find a suitable replacement for the airport. Some of the options included North Island Naval Airstation (DOA - Navy would never give up that piece of property and even if they did I'm sure the real estate moguls would dive in to take it up) and Miramar Naval Airstation. The Miramar option got some steam going until DOD moved the Marine Air Wing in there and renamed it MCAS.
Speaking of North Island NAS, on several occasions I watched traffic at Lindbergh come to a stop as a C5 was fly an approach into NAS on one of its runways and the C5s would have to fly their approach directly over Lindbergh before turning final to North Island. Again, not very conducive to smooth operations for an airport serving a large metro area.
The final option was to transform Brown Field located south on the Border. It was right about then that I moved. Not sure what the latest decision has been and I even heard Brown would act as a cargo hub with passenger traffic going to Lindbergh.
"I am looking for the owner of that horse - he's tall, he's blonde, he smokes a cigar, and he's a pig."
Flyingbronco05 From United States, joined May 2002, 3635 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2151 times:
Airport Operational Statistics
Aircraft based on the field: 6
Multi engine airplanes: 2
Jet airplanes: 4
It must not be a very busy airport.
Um yes it is!
Aircraft operations: avg 566/day
69% air carriers
23% commuters
7% transient general aviation
<1% military
OPNLguy From United States, joined Jun 1999, 12630 posts, RR: 75 Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2140 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 4): One interesting facet about the airport was that in inclement weather, IFR traffic had to fly in on runway 9 despite prevailing winds as they didn't want IFR flying in so close to downtown high-rises (the airport literally sits next to downtown)
There is also terrain immediately east of the airport, as evidenced by the displaced threshold landing on runway 27, the lack of an ILS on 27, and some non-standard (read: high) minimums on the existing ILS to runway 9. Where the standard CAT-I ILS will take you down to 200-1/2 RVR1800 or RVR2400, the one at SAN only goes down to 400-1 RVR5000. There's obviously no terrain/obstacles on final to 9, but the missed approach (east/south of the airport) is another matter.
A great VMC airport, but rather a pain when the fog rolls in. It's not all that uncommon to have the requisite RVR for runway 9, but then have aircraft miss because of the ceilings...
[Edited 2005-04-09 17:02:31]
Carelessness and overconfidence are usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks.
Redflyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3186 posts, RR: 20 Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1980 times:
Quoting FLYYUL (Reply 7): Perhaps its the 6th largest city.. but not the 6th largest metro.
Well, excuuuuuuuuuse me! I'll go put myself in the corner for a time out for making such a gaff.
Try splitting those hairs with any of the >4 million residents in and around San Diego who are inconvenienced by the airport and are forced to commute up to Los Angeles, not to mention the loss in additional revenues and higher costs for goods having to come through L.A.
I don't think it changes the argument any. It's the 6th largest CITY and suffers from a wholly inadequate commercial aviation infrastructure support system.
"I am looking for the owner of that horse - he's tall, he's blonde, he smokes a cigar, and he's a pig."
Neilalp From United States, joined Apr 2000, 1034 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1947 times:
I looked up some stats. In 2003 Sand Diego was the 7th largest city in America. However, their metro area didn't rank within the top 15. I'd agree they probably suffer from a good airport system, but a 2 hour drive to LA you can get to anywhere in the world. So it might not be as convenient as residents may like it, but we all make sacrifices on where we live.
ZOTAN From United States, joined Jan 2005, 514 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1931 times:
The city has been trying to get a new airport for 40 years. It comes up every few years, but nothing ever happens. I dont really see the need for a new one. We have LAX just 2 1/2 hours to the north.
AirWillie6475 From United States, joined Jan 2005, 2436 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1835 times:
"Part of the problem with the airport is it's relatively short runway (~9600 feet)"
That is not a short runway but the problem is that it has a long displaced threshold.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3186 posts, RR: 20 Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1768 times:
Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 11): The city has been trying to get a new airport for 40 years. It comes up every few years, but nothing ever happens. I dont really see the need for a new one. We have LAX just 2 1/2 hours to the north.
True, but for people like me who fly between 150k - 200k each year on business, 2 1/2 hours (which is under good conditions) is a long way to drive to gain access to the world. Even if I didn't travel as much as I do, it's a very big waste of time to sit 2 1/2 hours (I once sat for 4 hours because of traffic) in a car waiting to get to the airport in L.A. I may sound spoiled, but the fact is, for a large city on the Pacific rim with a lot of trade and business with other international cities, the airport is very lacking.
Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 14): That is not a short runway but the problem is that it has a long displaced threshold.
That is a "RELATIVELY" short runway for an international airport in a major city. You can fly a lot of different types of a/c out of there but you're not going to get heavy iron out of 9600 feet with trans-pacific range, which is where a lot of passenger final destinations are out of San Diego on international flights (not counting Mexico). And it's even more limited if departures are out of Runway 9.
"I am looking for the owner of that horse - he's tall, he's blonde, he smokes a cigar, and he's a pig."
Lehpron From United States, joined Jul 2001, 7027 posts, RR: 18 Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1755 times:
Blmae the self-righteous folks of La Jolla and UCSD a few miles east of Miramar, most of whom blasted the ads on TV back in the mid-90's that noise would ruin the area. Either they didn't know or didn't look up that military aircraft DO NOT FOLLOW FAA noise regulations.
The reality was that the issue was never about noise, they just made it one and the voting public bought this lemon, because they thought the daily Hornet pass overs were loud. It was about the FACT that the real estate value of the region would drop dramatically if an international airport was positioned there. A lot of rich people live near the base, more so now, which sucks. I do not think moving SAN will hurt downtown hotels so much, they still got the bay, Plaza Bonita, Balboa Park, etc. Have the Coaster connect -- done.
Someone has to educate these people, like with ads and lots of money, Miramar SAN must exist! San Diego is supposed to be a navy town of sorts, why are those that vote against it seem so airplane ignorant??
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Wilax From United States, joined Jun 2002, 439 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1708 times:
It is a mystery to me how Miramar has to even be debated. It is a huge complex made up of mostly barren land and weeds. The entire air station could stay fully operational and an airport almost the size of Osaka Kansai could be built on the south side of it with two runways paralell to the Miramar runway. There is tons of room there that is not even being used. Miramar is now centrally located due to sprawl and is smack in the middle of a huge business area and down the street from La Jolla which is likened to the Wilshire District in LA.
If current trends indicate correctly, takeoffs would be to the west over La Jolla and approaches over mostly hills and dirt. I could almost envision curfew-free flight. There are 3 major freeways that could give great access to the new airport if the terminal would be located on the south side right off the 52 freeway.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3186 posts, RR: 20 Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1695 times:
Quoting Wilax (Reply 18): I really don't understand the opposition.
It's like Lehpron said, a lot of self-righteous people living in and around the Golden Triangle, which is next to Miramar, are worried about their property values. It's some of the most expensive real estate in the county of San Diego and they are worried their values may be suppressed if Miramar is turned into a commercial airport. While their fears may be well-founded, what is amazing is the blind eye these folks turned to Miramar when they bought their over-priced real estate to begin with.
I currently live within a few miles of a small airport. I purposefully bought my home here because I have a ticket (SEL) and fly recreationally sometimes and because I'm building a kit plane and will eventually need access. However, as the area around me has been developed, I am shocked at how many of my neighbors complain about the occasional airplane noise. I cannot believe they didn't consider the airport when they bought in this area.
People will do stupid things and then not accept responsibility. In worst cases, they will blame others.
But with regards to San Diego, I'm sure the county also is worried about diminished property values in the Golden Triangle since it will reduce the revenues coming out of that area's tax base.
"I am looking for the owner of that horse - he's tall, he's blonde, he smokes a cigar, and he's a pig."
Lehpron From United States, joined Jul 2001, 7027 posts, RR: 18 Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1688 times:
Quoting Wilax (Reply 18): I really don't understand the opposition.
In some way I can understand it. For those of La Jolla, they would be loosing land value, big time. Second, perhaps the noise issue has some credence with respect to the UTC/UCSD area. I was at UTC once changing buses, and a two F/A-18 Hornets passed over, they were like less than a 1000 feet up, and it was so freakin noisy you couldn't hear the auto traffic; UTC is a westfield shopping center, know what I'm saying? A bunch of couples, young and old, were obviously annoyed; one guy even said "glad that's not an airport". The ignorance of some people. Seriously, if anyone is going to revote for Miramar to become and international airport, they have to invest in fliers and ads on TV to teach the people that airliners are far from fighter jets! For one an Airliner even as big as A380 would be at least a mile up by time it flies over UTC.
Speaking of which, does anyone know if Miramar MCAS as it is now can take an A380? One of their runways are almost 200x13000 feet!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Feb 2005, 5 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 54 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4352 posts, 
From France, joined Dec 2003, 22904 posts, 
One of their runways are almost 200x13000 feet!