Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tokyo Haneda's New RWY  
User currently offlinemattya9 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 128 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4352 times:

Looks like a nice new runway Tokyo's Haneda airport has built. But I'm curious why half of it has grass around the TWY's and RWY's and the other half is all concrete? Not a big deal but does anyone know why they built it this way? Here's the picture...

http://www.airliners.net/photo//2010356/L/


"You can do anything once."
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2754 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

Quoting mattya9 (Thread starter):
But I'm curious why half of it has grass around the TWY's and RWY's and the other half is all concrete?

I don't know if this is the right answer, but the green maybe makes the environmentalists happy, for whatever reason?

Okay,    ... that probably isn't the right answer.

Anyhow, just want to say that it is a nice looking runway in the green part. To bad the whole runway isn't surrounded with the green.  


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3158 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4257 times:

Looking at the picture, it appears the all concrete section is built on pier/stilts, negating the need or ability for grass to grow in that area; while the other section seems to be built on land fill - allowing for grass to grow.

Why this was done this way I have no idea.



FLYi
User currently offlinejsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2026 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3921 times:

The new runway is built partially over a river estuary (where the river feeds into Tokyo Bay). Fisherman and fishing interests were arguing that it would disrupt currents in the bay, driving away fish and disrupting their livelihood.

As a compromise, the portion of the runway over the mouth of the river was built on piers, which allows the water to flow *under* the runway rather than *around* it. As PITrules said, grass was only planted on the part of the runway made from landfill, which is located entirely in Tokyo Bay away from the river.


User currently offlinediscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3589 times:

In other words, it's the part that's NOT green that makes the environmentalists happy.  

What a project.


User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3541 times:

Also you cannot land in 05. The approach would have been over the city which means noise problems. So that's why they were able to build it on stilts as it does not need to take the impact from landing aircraft, which would require significant strengthening of the structure.


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 offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3484 times:

Quoting discoverCSG (Reply 4):
In other words, it's the part that's NOT green that makes the environmentalists happy.

GREEN = UNHAPPY environmentalists ... lol 
Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 5):



Also you cannot land in 05. The approach would have been over the city which means noise problems. So that's why they were able to build it on stilts as it does not need to take the impact from landing aircraft, which would require significant strengthening of the structure.

so this is a take-off only runway?!!  Wow! is this common - i think i'm hearing this for the first time?


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6745 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3445 times:

Quoting ASA (Reply 6):
so this is a take-off only runway?!! Wow! is this common - i think i'm hearing this for the first time?

Presumably what that means is that landings are only permitted in the 23 direction, not the 05 direction.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21507 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3436 times:

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 5):
Also you cannot land in 05. The approach would have been over the city which means noise problems. So that's why they were able to build it on stilts as it does not need to take the impact from landing aircraft, which would require significant strengthening of the structure.

I'm sure light aircraft could land on it no problem. Any aircraft where the landing impact force is equal or lower to the static load from a heavy.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinerbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3364 times:

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 5):
Also you cannot land in 05.

That would explain the lack of high speed taxiways on Rwy 5.


User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 5):
Also you cannot land in 05.

It makes sense to prohibit "heavy" aircraft from landing on runway 05, but based on the runway markings it does appear they are going to permit "light" aircraft landing on runway 05. No sense in painting distance markers or touch down markers on runway 05 if they are never going to be used.

Does anyone know the total length of the new runway 05/23?



What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinemk777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3107 times:

Quoting amccann (Reply 10):
Does anyone know the total length of the new runway 05/23?

its 2500m just like rwy 4/22, the 16s are around 3000m



come fly with me
User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3007 times:

Quoting mk777 (Reply 11):
its 2500m just like rwy 4/22, the 16s are around 3000m

Wow, I'm a little surprised the longest runways at Haneda are 3000m, seems a little short for a major international airport. I guess a 3500m runway isn't needed when the airport elevation is "sea level."

[Edited 2011-11-07 13:50:53]


What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6745 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2937 times:

Quoting amccann (Reply 12):
I'm a little surprised the longest runways at Haneda are 3000m, seems a little short for a major international airport.

HND isn't quite a major international airport; the vast majority of traffic is domestic. NRT was intended to be the primary international airport for the Kanto region.


User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2788 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 13):
HND isn't quite a major international airport

Regardless of the definition of a "major international airport" my point still stands, the airport serves destinations far away on relatively short runways.

For example, it serves London, Paris, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Vancouver utilizing 2 500 and 3 000 meter runways.
http://www.haneda-airport.jp/inter/en/flight/city_list.html



What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineje89_w From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 2360 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2733 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

This new runway has already been opened from at least February this year. Might I add that the taxi time from the International Terminal to runway 05 took ages, but we got a nice comprehensive tour of HND at the same time!

[Edited 2011-11-07 16:41:31]

User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2953 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

The new runway is an uni-directional runway. Landings on 23 and take-offs on 5.

Quoting amccann (Reply 14):
For example, it serves London, Paris, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Vancouver utilizing 2 500 and 3 000 meter runways.

Minor correction.
Vancouver service never started. Both Detroit & New York service are suspended at the moment.
Add Frankfurt next February.

Quoting je89_w (Reply 15):
This new runway has already been opened from at least February this year. Might I add that the taxi time from the International Terminal to runway 05 took ages, but we got a nice comprehensive tour of HND at the same time!

It actually opened October last year.
And it still takes ages to reach Runway 5 from the Int'l terminal.  


User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1882 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 8):
I'm sure light aircraft could land on it no problem. Any aircraft where the landing impact force is equal or lower to the static load from a heavy.

https://aisjapan.mlit.go.jp/html/AIP/html/20111117/eAIP/20111117/JP-AD-2-RJTT-en-JP.html?#RJTT-AD-2.13
It's not used for landing at all, full stop.
There are no approach lights, PAPI or ILS. There is no LDA defined.

Quoting amccann (Reply 10):
It makes sense to prohibit "heavy" aircraft from landing on runway 05, but based on the runway markings it does appear they are going to permit "light" aircraft landing on runway 05.

Don't know why there are these markings.

Quoting amccann (Reply 12):
Wow, I'm a little surprised the longest runways at Haneda are 3000m, seems a little short for a major international airport.

Not if it is a landing only runway.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 13):
HND isn't quite a major international airport

Haneda is officially Tokyo International Airport. Narita is officially Narita International 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 offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25132 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

Quoting ASA (Reply 6):
so this is a take-off only runway?!! Wow! is this common - i think i'm hearing this for the first time?

Runway 18 at FRA is only used for takeoffs. The reciprocal 36 number isn't even painted on the runway at the other end.


User currently offlinegrimey From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 451 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

Quoting amccann (Reply 10):
No sense in painting distance markers or touch down markers on runway 05 if they are never going to be used.

My guess would be that the distance markers are to warn pilots of a landing aircraft of the runway length remaining since they could end up in the water if they don't stop. The second guess in case 05 has to be used in an emergency sometime.

Quoting ASA (Reply 6):
so this is a take-off only runway?!!   is this common - i think i'm hearing this for the first time?

BOS runway 14/32 has a similar story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Airport#Runway_14.2F32

Grimey


User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1391 times:

Quoting grimey (Reply 19):
BOS runway 14/32 has a similar story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Airport#Runway_14.2F32

Grimey

Thanks - that's true. I knew about this one (as a BOS resident) - and I remember all the legal wranglings about making this runway - but I thought the uni-directional was more to do with court orders and lack of clearance - not about the physical strength of the runway. I found the HND restriction due to lack of enough strength to absorb the landing impacts quite fascinating ... from an engineering point of view. I took an airport engineering class in grad school - and the course didn't even cover this possibility, to be honest 


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...
AirAsia X To Tokyo Haneda posted Tue Sep 14 2010 21:33:37 by KFlyer
Runway Extension At Tokyo Haneda posted Wed Apr 8 2009 20:54:44 by Carpethead
International Flights From Tokyo Haneda posted Sun Dec 14 2008 06:09:15 by Mozart
UK Access To Tokyo Haneda posted Thu Nov 13 2008 11:24:57 by Humberside
Air France To Tokyo HANEDA, Scheduled! posted Fri Oct 24 2008 19:08:44 by ConcordeBoy
Hong Kong To Tokyo (Haneda) posted Thu Jan 24 2008 01:28:17 by Kaitak
Use Of New RWY At SIN Parallel To 02R? posted Tue Dec 26 2006 06:21:56 by BOACVC10
GUA's New RWY Design, Uh Oh... posted Wed Nov 1 2006 10:42:35 by Tomascubero
New Rwy's At MAD - When Opening? posted Wed Apr 13 2005 22:57:36 by Glidepath73
Tokyo Haneda (HND) Airport, Terminal 1 Or 2? posted Sat Mar 5 2005 23:28:24 by Petera380