Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ORD Ready To "Rename" Runway 9R/27L To 10R/28L  
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2492 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8116 times:

While the overall intent makes perfect sense to me, the one thing that doesn't is the implied change in runway heading. How can a runway be reassigned a different azimuth if it's heading doesn't change?

Fair use excerpt from the Chicago Tribune:

"The runway, known as 9 Right/27 Left, isn't going away. But it will have a new name -- runway 10/28 -- by the first flight on Thursday morning, according to the Chicago Department of Aviation."

Link to full article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...4,1,132340.story?coll=chi-news-hed


777fan


DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8093 times:

ORD will have 6 parallel runways. As there are only three discriminators (L/C/R), you need to take the "next" number when you have 4 or more parallel runways. See also: LAX, ATL, CDG, DEN, DFW, DTW ....

The three northern runways in ORD will be 9/27s and the three southern ones be 10/28s.

besides, the Topic is wrong .. it should be 10/28, not 10R/28L (it never will be named that way, only 10L/28R)

SailorOrion

[Edited 2007-07-04 14:45:23]

User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2492 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8066 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 1):
besides, the Topic is wrong .. it should be 10/28, not 10R/28L (it never will be named that way, only 10L/28R)

From the O'Hare Modernization Program website:

"The final step in the modernization process is to extend an existing runway (Future Runway 9R-27L), to build and open two new parallel runways (Future Runways 9C-27C and 10R-28L), and to close existing Runways 14L-32R and 14R-32L. Based on market conditions, this step may also include the construction of additional gate facilities in the west terminal area and the airport's existing terminal core. The western terminal facility will enable the development of new roadways at the west side of the airport."

What I'm really trying to ascertain (and haven't been able to figure out as of yet) is whether or not there will actually be some runways with a 10/28 heading and others with a 9/27 heading. At first glance, it appears to me that the renaming of a runway whose heading isn't changing is a rather risky move given the high number of runway incursions, misinterpretations, etc. that normally occur at ORD and other airports, particularly those that are frequented by foreign pilots whose language abilities may not be up to par (see I Got An Email From CNN About The AirChina Pilot.. (by Ebs757 Jun 22 2007 in Civil Aviation)).


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8009 times:

Quoting 777fan (Reply 2):
"The final step in the modernization process is to extend an existing runway (Future Runway 9R-27L), to build and open two new parallel runways (Future Runways 9C-27C and 10R-28L)

Yep, final step, about 2015. Currently they are building future runway 9L/27R. Current 9R/27L is renamed 10/28 for the time being. Current 9L/27R is being renamed to 9R/27L by the end of next month. When the new runway on the south airfield is built/opened (2009 or 2010) 10/28 becomes 10L/28R and the new one becomes 10R/28L. In the final phase 9C/27C is being added between the 9s (1604ft north of CURRENT 9L/27R or FUTURE 9R/27L); then 10R/28L will be renamed 10C/28C and a new 10R/27L is built 4300ft south of current 10/28.

Quoting 777fan (Reply 2):
At first glance, it appears to me that the renaming of a runway whose heading isn't changing is a rather risky move given the high number of runway incursions, misinterpretations, etc. that normally occur at ORD and other airports, particularly those that are frequented by foreign pilots whose language abilities may not be up to par

Yes, there have been issues with runway redesignations in the past, this is exactly the reason why they are doing it in stages and not kind of "move" the runway over the airport. This is really the best way to do it, imho, and it represents how the airfield evolves best.


sources:
http://www.flychicago.com/ohare/runways/
http://www.agl.faa.gov/OMP/Planning/...rojectDefinitionReport-Chpt1-4.pdf

SailorOrion


User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2492 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7999 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 3):
Current 9R/27L is renamed 10/28 for the time being

This was my original point - I contend that the temporary designation could result in more confusion, vice less as is the plan. Either way, I hope all works out for the best seeing as how I frequent ORD!


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineBravoGolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 538 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7771 times:

The reason is that magnetic north changes over the years. Chicagoland airports were notified recently that they will have to change the numbers of their runways to reflect this change in magnetic north. This is not an easy or inexpensive project as not only the runway markings have to be changed but also all the runway signs.

User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2492 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7616 times:

Quoting BravoGolf (Reply 5):
The reason is that magnetic north changes over the years

Very interesting - didn't know that was even possible. Has this happened at other airports in the past?


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7565 times:

Quoting 777fan (Thread starter):
"The runway, known as 9 Right/27 Left

Nit picking here - it's not 9, it's 09. This is for clarity on R/T.

Quoting 777fan (Reply 6):
Has this happened at other airports in the past?

All the time. Heathrow used to be 10/28. Manchester just changed to 05/23 from 06/24. The closer you are to the poles, the bigger the effect is from magnetic shift and the more "often" (note the quotes) runways will be redesignated.

Runway redesignations are however once in a few decades events for any particular airport.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2674 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7542 times:

Quoting BravoGolf (Reply 5):
not only the runway markings have to be changed but also all the runway signs.

As well as navigational charts, approach plates, FMS updates, etc.


User currently offlineJayDub From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7514 times:

Quoting BravoGolf (Reply 5):
The reason is that magnetic north changes over the years. Chicagoland airports were notified recently that they will have to change the numbers of their runways to reflect this change in magnetic north.

While this does happen every once in a while, I'm fairly certain this change has more to do with the future additions of more parallel runways as planned in the O'Hare Modernization Plan.


User currently offlineG4LASRamper From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7386 times:

Runway designations do change once in a great while. During my time as a pilot one runway I used frequently got a new number - BUR 7/25 became 8/26. The magnetic poles do move a little every year - runways with headings that are already close to rounding to the next number are the most likely change candidates.

As for using a leading zero for runway designations, that's an ICAO thing but it's not used in the US. Here a runway 9 is just that, runway 9 not 09. Just another difference between US domestic flight operations and overseas ops, like saying "point" instead of "decimal" for the dot in VHF frequencies.



"A pig that doesn't fly is just a pig." - Porco Rosso
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7353 times:

The runway designator change in ORD has NOTHING to do with shifts in runway heading. The heading is STILL 92.7°/272.7°

SailorOrion


User currently offlineFlightPlan06 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 weeks ago) and read 7158 times:

So does anybody know if the changes went smoothly?

User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7127 times:

Yes, they did. 9R/27L was shut down on July 4th at 2000 (local). Then 52.000 square feet of pavement markings were removed and 48500 sqft of pavement markings were installed. Also 102 signs all over the airport were replaced. 10/28 was opened July 5th at 0530 (local). The first aircraft to operate the "new" runway was a UA 737 (of course) that landed just before 0600 (local).

Also, the threshold of 10 has been displaced by 1200ft to facilitate the construction of the western 3000ft extension of 10/28.

The extension, 9L/27R and the new northern ATCT will be comissioned November 20, 2008.

Question: How does this threshold displacing affect the LAHSO operations on 10?

Source: OMP e-mail

SailorOrion


User currently offlineBravoGolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 538 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6982 times:

OK I just found out the real reason for the change. The change in magnetic heading is still a valid one HOWEVER this seems to me to be the real reason. You will now have a runway 27 and 28. This will prevent confusion in the past between 27L and 27R.

User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6798 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6858 times:

Quoting BravoGolf (Reply 14):
The change in magnetic heading is still a valid [reason]



Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 11):
The heading is STILL 92.7°/272.7°


User currently offlineChugach From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1041 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6846 times:

ANC and MRI did this a couple years ago. 6/24 became 7/25 at both airports. Not a huge deal, really.


GO ROCKETS
User currently onlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6346 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6828 times:

Wow...

Last I checked, Chicago was almost right on the isogonic line (the line on the Earth where magnetic heading=true heading). How about now? What is Chicago's magnetic variation  Smile

Of course, it also might be to free up more runway numbers to make room for more parallell runways  Wink



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinePr1268 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6805 times:

Quoting 777fan (Reply 6):
Has this happened at other airports in the past?

DCA changed 18/36 to 01/19 several years ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't ANC have 06L/24R and 06R/24L in the past? (They're 07L/25R and 07R/25L now.) It would seem that the effects of magnetic deviation drift would be more apparent in far northern (or southern) latitudes.



The only time an aircraft has too much fuel is when it is on fire.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24917 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6790 times:

More on the North Magnetic Pole's movement (2005 article):
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html


User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7403 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6753 times:

Quoting G4LASRamper (Reply 10):
The magnetic poles do move a little every year

In 1910 the magnetic north pole was located about 71 degrees north in northern Canada. Today it is close to 81 degrees north. However since

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 17):
Chicago was almost right on the isogonic line (the line on the Earth where magnetic heading=true heading).

the movement of the magnetic pole is unlikely to require a change in designation of the runways at ORD. The quickest changes occur the further the airport is away from the isogenic line and the closer it is to the actual location of the magnetic north pole.

The change in designation is usually made when the magnetic north has shifted so that it is fractionally more than five degrees away from the runway designation. So, for example LHR will have changed the designation of its two runways from the old 10/28 to the current 09/27 when the magnetic north pole was at around 275 degrees or midway between the old desigmnation of 280 degrees and the current designation of 270 degrees.


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6652 times:

Why do we keep discussing magnetic changes? It has nothing to do with ORDs renaming  Smile

SailorOrion


User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2492 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6599 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 13):
The first aircraft to operate the "new" runway was a UA 737 (of course) that landed just before 0600 (local).

Cool beans - thanks for the update. Strange that a UA737 was arriving at 0600; a redeye, perhaps? If so, that would suck.


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineBravoGolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 538 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6566 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 21):
Why do we keep discussing magnetic changes? It has nothing to do with ORDs renaming Smile

1 The magnetic north subject itself is very interesting, apart from the original ORD question

2 We are having an intelligent informative discussion that is education people

3 It hasn't degraded into a A vs B rant


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6468 times:

Quoting BravoGolf (Reply 23):
1 The magnetic north subject itself is very interesting, apart from the original ORD question

2 We are having an intelligent informative discussion that is education people

3 It hasn't degraded into a A vs B rant

1) Good point
2) Good point
3) Good point

Was just trying to point out that this specific renaming has configuration reasons, not magnetic shift reasons

SailorOrion


25 FlyingClrs727 : We're overdue for a magnetic pole reversal which last happened about 700,000 years ago. Just imagine how confusing that would be for runway designati
26 Post contains images SailorOrion : Yep, but one might think it would be easier to redefine the poles then instead of redefining everything else SailorOrion
27 Phelpsie87 : Wait, new tower? Awesome, got a link to more info?
28 Post contains links SailorOrion : Yes. http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...COC_ATTACH/612610040005_122606.pdf Also previous discussions here. SailorOrion
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...
Board Of Alitalia "Ready To Resign" - Italian Pm posted Thu Feb 19 2004 19:05:30 by Singapore_Air
AirAsia X To "sign Within Days" posted Wed Feb 7 2007 11:10:52 by Flying-Tiger
Chances For Airbus To "Win" Boeing In 2007 posted Tue Jan 23 2007 16:43:33 by LHStarAlliance
How To "Southwest Airlines" posted Wed Dec 27 2006 07:30:19 by Sking11
Boeing Adds Lufthansa Video To "New Airplane" Site posted Thu Dec 7 2006 07:08:45 by Thebry
Jetblue Sells 5 A320's To Germany's "Blue Wings" posted Sat Oct 7 2006 08:29:45 by Crogalski
UAL Chief, "expects Airline Deals To Come" posted Fri Sep 22 2006 15:23:49 by STT757
Airlines To Replace "No Smoking" With "No Mobile" posted Tue Aug 8 2006 10:45:46 by NWDC10
UK Satellite Viewers: BBC4 NOW - "Flying To Kabul" posted Tue Jun 20 2006 23:06:28 by Kaitak
L.A. Police To Use "Nearly Invisible" Drones posted Wed Jun 7 2006 19:21:15 by AerospaceFan