Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airport Construction  
User currently offlineNASOCEANA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 291 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

When planning and building an major airport would there be a preference for a location close to a large body of water?

It seems to me that a large number of majors are located next to large bodies. BOS, JFK, MIA, LAX, SFO, DXB, HKG, NRT, & SYD to name a few!

My rational would be:

- safety: ability to dump fuel in event of an emergency and potential crash
zones
- noise: approach patterns may be directed over the water.


B777 greatest Airliner ever built!
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3479 times:

The body of thought when these airports were developed was that you needed Ship, Rail and Air together as a transportation network. Air has largely developed on its own primarily for urgent cargo of reasonable size and it's more vital for Rail and Sea to be connected. This explains why Anchorage is one of the largest air cargo hubs in the world. What is vital to air cargo is a global connection point. Rail and sea work hand in hand, but what is containerized, usually stays containerized to a regional sorting facility where it is sorted and shipped by truck, air or additional rail.

User currently offlineCptSpeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3459 times:

Absoultely it would be preferred, but the issue in many places is the lack of a large body of water. The bigger cities are bigger cities because they are located where they are: in accessible places for boats and commerce. Thats why you see a lot of major airport near lots of water, which just so happens to be a perk for us aviation people.

There are also larger airports not near huge bodies of water that still thrive with a ton of traffic. A couple that come to mind are MEM with all the FX traffic and DEN. With MEM in particular, there are lots of heavy jet operations during noise-sensitive hours (to those who don't enjoy being wakened by that wonderful sound... Smile ) , but lots of testing and planning of procedures is done to keep as much noise as possible away from densely populated areas.

Your CptSpeaking



...and don't call me Shirley!!
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4906 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3414 times:

Quoting CptSpeaking (Reply 2):
Absoultely it would be preferred, but the issue in many places is the lack of a large body of water. The bigger cities are bigger cities because they are located where they are: in accessible places for boats and commerce. Thats why you see a lot of major airport near lots of water, which just so happens to be a perk for us aviation people.

Could not have said it better myself!

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineChristao17 From Thailand, joined Apr 2005, 942 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3409 times:

Is NRT located next to a large body of water? Always looks like the midst of farm land when I'm on approach.


Keeping the "civil" in civil aviation...
User currently offlineKeego From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

What about LHR, CDG, FRA, MAD, ORD & YYZ (I beleive) they are major airports that are not located by a large body of water, granted YYZ and ORD are within close proximity but not close enough say beside. It just the fact that a large or major airport will usually be located in a large or major city, most of which are by large body of water in the first place.

User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6452 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

The sea creates a good surface for taking off and landing as there are no obstacles in the way (Haha, Kai Tak..). One other good thing about it is that there is room for expanding by reclaimation, rather than purchasing more land which can be extremely costly depending on where the airport is.

One con about this is the fog. Disruptions everywhere, causing chaos in some major situations. But that's about it I guess.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineKeego From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3311 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 6):
One other good thing about it is that there is room for expanding by reclaimation

Yes very good point NZ107 but remember most of the worlds major airports that are located by the ocean, sea or a lake were built long before land reclamation was possible, it is still a very difficult task today! even with the technology we have avilabale to us.
I doubt construction workers and planners in the 50's would have forseen land reclamation as a definite possibility in the future. Im sure it did cross thier minds tho!!


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26718 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

Quoting Keego (Reply 7):
I doubt construction workers and planners in the 50's would have forseen land reclamation as a definite possibility in the future. Im sure it did cross thier minds tho!!

I think the Dutch may want a word with you.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineGrinddalSK340 From Denmark, joined Apr 2006, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3264 times:

CPH is located Near a body of water..

both 22L and 04L have approach patterns over the Sea..

Actually CPH is on small Man Made island called Amager Big grin



Travellin' First Class, golden roasted peanuts and Chardonay Yum the way to fly
User currently offlineKeego From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3224 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
think the Dutch may want a word with you.

Yeah you're right the Dutch will want a word with me!!!  Smile They have made the most of land reclamation and done an excellent job at it too but that's not to say its easy, and the difference with an Airport is that there is 747's and T7's and soon to be A380's pounding the surface every couple of minutes, city streets (Amsterdam) don't have to put up with that. expect for Schipol but as far as I know that land is not reclaimed.


User currently offlineSkoker From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 440 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

BUF and ROC are close to Erie and Ontario, but not by choice: there's really nowhere else to put them.

User currently offlineEddieIAH From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 39 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

actually Schiphol is on reclaimed land I believe
Schiphol = 'ship hole' in Dutch I read somewhere
Regarding SYD, there have been proposals from time to time to build a new airport at Badgerys Creek? far inland, although the latest I've heard is that Kingsford-Smith will remain past the 2020's
Eddie


User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

Quoting Christao17 (Reply 4):
Is NRT located next to a large body of water? Always looks like the midst of farm land when I'm on approach.

One of the biggest blunders of airport positioning in history. No, it is not near the bay. And it being so far inland has caused land purchase problems and 2 of its 3 runways to be uncompleted since the early 1970s.


User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4906 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2793 times:

Quoting Keego (Reply 10):
expect for Schipol but as far as I know that land is not reclaimed.

I was under the impression that Schipol was built on reclaimed land. I seem to recall somebody telling me that it was the site of a major naval battle too. I could be wrong, any of the cloggies know for sure?

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26718 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

Quoting Keego (Reply 10):
expect for Schipol but as far as I know that land is not reclaimed.

Last I checked, something like 40% of the land in the modern day Netherlands is reclaimed and Schiphol is part of that. In fact, I believe land was reclaimed again to build the Polderbaan.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2907 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2687 times:

Quoting Keego (Reply 10):
city streets (Amsterdam) don't have to put up with that. expect for Schipol but as far as I know that land is not reclaimed.

Actually it's the other way around - the city of Amsterdam is not built on reclaimed land (at least not the old parts) while the entire airport is built on the site of a former lake.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
Last I checked, something like 40% of the land in the modern day Netherlands is reclaimed and Schiphol is part of that. In fact, I believe land was reclaimed again to build the Polderbaan.

The area where Schiphol is located used to be a lake called Haarlemmer Meer (Haarlem Lake) which was reclaimed in the 1870s. It was not necessary to reclaim new land. In fact the area of that reclaimed lake is about 8 times the size of Schiphol... Look at the image, the coloured area is the reclaimed area.




And this is an old map of the lake:
http://www.theodeboer.com/php/images/274.jpg


And a map of the reclaimed area in 1867:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nldnh/gemeente-atlas/kuyper_nh_haarlemmermeer.gif

Quoting Keego (Reply 10):
They have made the most of land reclamation and done an excellent job at it too but that's not to say its easy, and the difference with an Airport is that there is 747's and T7's and soon to be A380's pounding the surface every couple of minutes,

Most of the soil under AMS is clay. Clay tends to subside over time under constant loads, but runway loads do not fall in that category. Nevertheless, the clay consolidation (draining) was accelerated in order to prevent subsidence in the future. See the following document (in Dutch only though):

http://www.ifco-methode.nl/art001ifcom_wegen.PDF

And an article in English about the innovative runway pavement design, mentioning loads from large aircraft:
http://www.mincad.com.au/APSDSPaperdeBondt/APSDSPaperdeBondt.htm



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineKeego From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Cheers guys I didnt know Schipol was on reclaimed land from a lake. lots of information bout this posted here thanks Smile

User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

One positive aspect with approach & departure paths over water is, that there are no NIMBYs living there ... !
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2907 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Just to add a detail, on the 1867 map at the easternmost part of the reclaimed area you can read "Ft Het Schiphol" - the Schiphol fortress. So the old name Scheepshol ("Ship's hole") was carried over to the fortress, which exactly where the airport was first built in 1916.


I scratch my head, therefore I am.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airport Construction posted Wed Apr 26 2006 07:03:16 by NASOCEANA
Barbados Airport Construction posted Fri Feb 3 2006 04:15:47 by BGIplanefreak
Info On Green Bay Airport Construction? posted Fri Feb 4 2005 23:13:36 by Keindy
Airport Construction At GSO posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:55:46 by Gsoflyer
More PDX Airport Construction posted Thu Apr 15 2004 19:49:45 by Leneld
EIS Airport Construction posted Mon Feb 16 2004 14:39:04 by Cory6188
Airport Construction posted Mon Jan 5 2004 17:29:06 by COIAH99
Miami International Airport Construction posted Thu May 1 2003 17:18:06 by William
Houston Hobby Airport Construction posted Mon Jul 1 2002 01:02:31 by Drerx7
Airport Construction Saga In California posted Sun Mar 24 2002 22:28:42 by AerLingus