RJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3140 times:
During the last major snowstorm in NYC (when a Turkish 343 blocked 31L/13R), aircraft were taking off on 31R and flying the normal climb paths.
My guess for why there wouldn't be takeoffs on 31R is because when 31R would be used for takeoffs 31L is also in use. Aircraft taking off on 31L and 31R must make an immediate left after takeoff and you can't have two aircraft flying the same climb at the same time.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6468 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3118 times:
Departures from 31L always make the immediate left turn, don't they? And departures from 31R would do the same? So you couldn't have streams of simultaneous departures off the two runways-- so no advantage in using them both.
RJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3118 times:
Quoting Superhub (Reply 2): My guess is shorter runway. Those heavies might not be able to take off from it. So why use it?
However, there have been flights that have taken off from 31R and 13L. I have been on two myself.
Nope, I'd say anything at JFK except perhaps CX 346 and Thai 345 could take off from 31R/13L...I've seen Iberia 346s, AerLingus 330s, and many more heavies takeoff on 13L. During the aforementioned snowstorm, a SQ 744 took off on 31R.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3118 times:
It's rare but it does happen on occasions. Usually when 31L is closed for things like snow removal. I do believe noise is part of the reason.
JZ From United States of America, joined May 1999, 252 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3098 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4): Nope, I'd say anything at JFK except perhaps CX 346 and Thai 345 could take off from 31R/13L...I've seen Iberia 346s, Singapore 744s, AerLingus 330s, and many more heavies takeoff there
You mean these were take offs from 31R or 13L?
My question was specifically on why not taking off from 31R. Of all my spotting around JFK over many years, I never saw, or heard from ATIS, of a take off from 31R myself.
RJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3077 times:
Quoting JZ (Reply 6): You mean these were take offs from 31R or 13L?
13L..But if it can takeoff in one direction, it can physically take off in the other.
Quoting JZ (Reply 6): My question was specifically on why not taking off from 31R. Of all my spotting around JFK over many years, I never saw, or heard from ATIS, of a take off from 31R myself.
See Replies 1 and 3. It's impossible to takeoff on 31L and 31R at the same time...
Superhub From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 476 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3077 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 4): Nope, I'd say anything at JFK except perhaps CX 346 and Thai 345 could take off from 31R/13L...I've seen Iberia 346s, Singapore 744s, AerLingus 330s, and many more heavies takeoff on 13L.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3050 times:
31R can handle heavies. As shown above, an AA777 but I've seen 747's do it without problems. It's not that it's impossible to do 31L and 31R takeoffs at the same time with proper spacing, I've actually seen a 31R departure followed by a 31L departure (when they reopened 31L after a short closure). It's just that its more complicated and doesn't benefit the departure flow so why even bother. It would also affect arriving aircraft on 31R and just make things a mess.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6468 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3043 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 7): It's impossible to takeoff on 31L and 31R at the same time...
Not convenient, you mean, as long as LGA's airspace is in front of them both. They could manage it if there were some need to do so.
RJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3027 times:
Quoting Timz (Reply 10): Not convenient, you mean, as long as LGA's airspace is in front of them both. They could manage it if there were some need to do so.
Sure, it can physically be done if the two other airports West of JFK and the busiest airspace in the country disappeared.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6468 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3017 times:
They could manage if they had to. LGA runway 22 arrivals up the Hudson at 4000 ft, same as usual, JFK 31L departures same as usual, and 31R departures restricted to 3000 ft initially with enough of a left turn to keep them away from EWR's airspace.
RJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2990 times:
Quoting Timz (Reply 12): They could manage if they had to. LGA runway 22 arrivals up the Hudson at 4000 ft, same as usual, JFK 31L departures same as usual, and 31R departures restricted to 3000 ft initially with enough of a left turn to keep them away from EWR's airspace.
On a regular basis, it makes absolutely no sense.
But just to play devil's advocate, what if they were landing on 4? Or 31 where the approaches brings them over Brooklyn and Queens?
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2971 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 13): On a regular basis, it makes absolutely no sense.
That's the point. It makes no sense it would never be done but it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE is what Timz is trying to say
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2940 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 15): Of course it's not physically impossible.
According to you it is
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 7): It's impossible to takeoff on 31L and 31R at the same time...
I think Timz was just trying to say (as we all know) that it's not impossible just not likely ever to happen.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6468 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2940 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 13): what if [LGA] were landing on 4? Or 31 where the approaches brings them over Brooklyn and Queens?
Yup, LGA arrivals on 4 might be a problem-- there may not be room for a right turn off JFK 31R.
But LGA arrivals on 31 would just do the right downwind, same as they do now when they can't use the Expressway.
(On second thought-- if LGA is landing on 4 the JFK 31R departures could turn right to pass over LGA itself.)
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2877 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 18): It is impossible using current climb paths. If one wanted to redesign NYC airspace flow patterns then it would be physically feasible.
Lol, if you want to continue the word games...It's impossible under current designs to have takeoffs on 31L and 31R at the same time. The only way to do it currently would be to only have takeoffs on 31R following 31L climb paths.
Quoting Timz (Reply 17): On second thought-- if LGA is landing on 4 the JFK 31R departures could turn right to pass over LGA itself.)
And what about aircraft taking off at LGA on 13 that turn right and fly over Brooklyn?
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2851 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 20): Lol, if you want to continue the word games...It's impossible under current designs to have takeoffs on 31L and 31R at the same time. The only way to do it currently would be to only have takeoffs on 31R following 31L climb paths.
So, it's POSSIBLE I'm just f'in with ya (as I hope you already know). The few times I've seen 31R departures they all did the 31L left bank and path. A few of the smaller RJ's were allowed to make right turns after departure that day.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6468 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2851 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 20): Quoting Timz (Reply 17):
On second thought-- if LGA is landing on 4 the JFK 31R departures could turn right to pass over LGA itself.)
And what about aircraft taking off at LGA on 13 that turn right and fly over Brooklyn?
Yes, it would preclude the Maspeth departure from LGA runway 13-- but likely LGA would be departing from 31, right? (And they could always depart straight-out from 13 if they had to).
RJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2780 times:
Quoting Timz (Reply 22): Yes, it would preclude the Maspeth departure from LGA runway 13-- but likely LGA would be departing from 31, right? (And they could always depart straight-out from 13 if they had to).
I've never departed straight-out from 13--Does this happen often? Btw, I just took a look at the charts and wasn't aware there was a Coney climb from LGA. This passes right over my house (and would interfere with the Canarsie Approach to JFK). I don't think I've ever seen planes depart this way from LGA...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 252 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 476 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
