Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question On (LIS) Airspace Intersection/spacing  
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2890 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

Hi, I am conducting a research for a presentation of an alternative to the construction of a new Lisbon International Airport at Ota, and would like to know where to find information about approach paths and runway guidelines or design constraints, like minimum distances, max turns before approach, free areas, minimum altitudes, etc.

This question is related to the particular situation of Portela and Alverca, which has an almost-aligned runway (less than 10deg difference) with portela a few kilometers north, and the extended runway lines are only a few km apart.

See for example http://www.ivao.org/db/ss/Airport.asp?Id=LPPT



Or in case of Ota and Rio Frio: http://www.naer.pt/anexos/rio_frio/E-rf.htm

The purpose of this research is to determine whether it is possible to have both airports fully operating at the same time. Lisbon ATCs thought that would indeed be possible (with changes to NAVAIDs), it's just a matter of changing the approach paths, outer markers, and the like. And given the fact that spacing is much tighter near airports with several runways (AMS, FRA, JFK) the technical constraints are probably limited.

So, any pointers to approach and runway design guidelines, how to disign SID and STAR paths, official requirements (JAA, ICAO), etc, would be greatly apreciated.

Also, does anybody know how this works in similar situations? For example LTN may interfere with LHR and STN, JFK with EWR etc.

Thanks a lot in advance!


I scratch my head, therefore I am.
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

You need to figure out what your local regulations say. Give your Civil Aviation Authorities a call, or even better yet send them a letter inquiring about this.

Google for PANS-OPS and TERPS, and you will find a lot.

It is a terribly complicated business you are getting into.

Best of luck!
/Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6813 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

It seems the S end of Alverca's runway is 11.27 km NE of the N end of Lisbon's runway. I guess the question is, can aircraft land northward at Alverca while others are departing northward from Lisboa?

Turns out that if you're approaching Alverca, on the runway centerline, when you're 11.09 km south of the south end of the runway the north end of Lisboa's runway will be at your 9:00 position, 1.99 km away. (All distances measured on the ground.)

I'll do the corresponding calculation for EWR and TEB; as I recall TEB is a bit closer to EWR, and it's definitely closer to the approach path to EWR. Somebody said aircraft departing TEB have an initial clearance to 1500 ft?


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3982 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

You seem to be neglecting the main problem: two airports in a city the size of Lisbon is just a waste. The Netherlands has one practically for the entire country.

But the question on wether a new airport should be built or not is another thing...



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2890 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Thanks for the inputs so far!

Quoting FredT (Reply 1):
It is a terribly complicated business you are getting into.

 Smile I see that!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 3):
You seem to be neglecting the main problem: two airports in a city the size of Lisbon is just a waste. The Netherlands has one practically for the entire country.

Well, that is the political part of the question. First of all, I'd like to know whether it is technically feasible. If it isn't, the political discussion is not even necessary. However, I get the impression it would be possible, with the information I have so far.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3982 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

For the technical side, I am not an expert but I believe it could probably be done, although it will never be an optimal solution. The problem is Alverca is a very densely populated area: there are a lot of houses and factories around, and OGMA occupies quite a bit of space.

If you want a new airport closer to Lisbon then Montijo is the best bet, provided the Air Force Base could be relocated. It has enough space for a single airport, allowing for the transfer from Portela and future growth. A new bridge or tunnel would have to be built.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6813 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

Forgot to mention: if you extend the Lisboa and Alverca runway centerlines southward, they cross 7.94 km from the south end of Lisboa's runway and 22.67 km from Alverca's runway. Is that enough of a difference for northward approaches-- it'll be interesting to see.

FWIW, if you extend SFO runway 1R northward and OAK runway 29 westward, the lines cross 15.25 km from the north end of SFO's runway and 5.21 km from the west end of OAK's runway. The published departures include the necessary crossing restrictions, as do the published ILS approaches to SFO 19L and OAK 11.

As for EWR and TEB-- if you extend the centerline of EWR runway 4R northward, at 17.25 km from the north end of the runway you pass the south end of TEB's runway 1/19, 851 meters to the east; at 19.22 km you pass the north end, 27 meters to the east.


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6837 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2077 times:

under VMC, the combination of the 2 airports would not be a problem. Alverca would be a tight visual right hand for 04 and Lisbon departures can make the immediate left turn to LIS... However, the margin is extremely thin.

On instruments... Landing on Alverca04 at 5NM and 1500ft, would bring you to within 1NM of the Lisbon departures. It would be very hard to ensure a minimum of 3NM separation... let alone targetting 5NM.

Alverca22 & Lisbon21 gives less problems if the Alverca22 SIDs call for an immediate left turn.

Ideally, Lisbon 17/35 should be the one used for landings with about 2200m...

If Alverca is to be used intensively, Perhaps:

Lisbon 35Dep/03Arr, Alverca Dep/Arr04
Lisbon 21Dep/17Dep, Alverca Dep/Arr22

Problems for the long hauler departing 03... or those requiring landing 21.

Now the question arises... where would the long haul departures be? Lisbon or Alverca? Alverca should be extendable to 3800m... Unless the space to the south west of the airport has been developed...

Montijo's current 2450m runway 08 can be extended.. if you want 3800m, well some residents have to be displaced.. Extending 01 to the north will involve reclamation and can bring the length up to 3600m-ish... but I dunno how deep the water is. The bridge from the current airport to the Montijo area can be used... but, unless you make the 01/19, you're gonna make the other airports in a bit of a conflict... So, if U're gonna use Montijo, scrap the other airports.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3982 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

The long-haulers would have to use Portela. Something should be said: the predominant winds in the Lisbon area are from the North so 03 at Portela should be the runway to use in those situations.

The idea about Montijo is to scrap the other airport, Portela (Alverca is currently a maintenance base with very light movement so that should be no problem). The water in that area isn't very deep so landfills could probably be made to extend the runway. The problem is it is near a sensitive area in terms of environment (the Tejo estuary) so that maight cause some complications.
There is, in fact, a bridge near Montijo, the problem is it is only for cars and cannot be adapted for use by trains. A new airport would require a heavy mass-transit system (subway or train) and for that you would need to build a new tunnel or bridge.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6837 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2052 times:

Based on Pyrex's explanation and my amateur analysis *gotta be honest here  Smile *, I would say that Alverca and Portela would be a safety risk... Unless one would make the conflicting approaches on a steeper slope angle, but anything above 3.5degs would open another can of worms...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3982 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2052 times:

I believe maybe both can be used but it will never be two runways, more like one-and-a-half.
The main problem with Lisbon's current airport is not runway capacity but taxiway and terminal capacity anyway. Current passenger facilities are weak and there isn't much room to grow.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6837 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Scrap runway 35/17 then and make a huge terminal there  Smile J/K  Smile
Or swap the maintenance area with the remote ramps between the runway... and extend the terminal along the 35/17 direction  Smile Shortages of Maintenance space can then be built on the north western end of the airport...

*ducks and hides after releasing this ridiculous idea*

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2890 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2039 times:

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 11):
*ducks and hides after releasing this ridiculous idea*

Not ridiculous at all - there are many ways in which Portela could last and have plenty of capacity, and your suggestions all make sense. There are many bad things about the design of Portela but the one that stands out most in my opinion is the taxiway that has to be used when taking off at rwy 21 - the taxiway actually crosses the rwy first!! why not build it on the right side, that would be much better. The buildings that are there could be at the place where taxiway is now, or else demolished (if not necessary). Jetways for wide-bodies would be a major improvement, as well as a new terminal building (most importantly).

So technically a lot can be done. The appealing extra of Alverca would be that the charges could be much lower, thus attracting more LCCs, cargo and charter operations.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 10):
I believe maybe both can be used but it will never be two runways, more like one-and-a-half.

That remains a problem... Seeing the contributions here so far, upgrading Portela (thoroughly) might actually be easier from a technical point of view than using Portela and Alverca simultaneously.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6837 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

I just measured the centerline clearance between 21 and the western side txy... 200m... Though >100m is what you need, at 200m, making an eastern side txy would require a few buildings to be demolished... not too many though. Even fewer at 150m, and none at 100m, but I doubt the glideslipe signal can be "protected"

They might aswell fully optimize Portela in my opinion.

Swap the remotes with the MX, it's a huge area gain for the terminal area!

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2890 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

That taxiway could easily be built, I'd say. Swapping mx for remotes, although expensive, would solve most problems. And finally there are some military areas still at Portela - don't ask me why! They could easily go to one of the military bases.


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

Reply To This Topic Question On (LIS) Airspace Intersection/spacing
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Quick Airspace Question On Parachute Jumping Areas posted Sun Mar 10 2002 06:08:30 by Skyguy11
Question On Air Feed To An Afterburning Turbojet posted Thu Oct 19 2006 17:55:41 by TripleDelta
Question On MIA Departures posted Thu Aug 17 2006 21:10:21 by LVTMB
A Question On Transition From Star To Approach posted Thu Aug 17 2006 06:35:47 by Zarniwoop
Question On Turboprop Reverse Thrust posted Wed Aug 2 2006 21:43:00 by Bio15
Question On 747-400 Slat Retraction posted Wed Jun 28 2006 19:53:37 by UPSMD11
Aerodynamics Question On Flow Similarity posted Mon Jun 19 2006 09:39:40 by Bio15
Question On 767 Refurbishment posted Wed Jun 14 2006 10:35:30 by HA_DC9
Question On The ILS System posted Fri May 19 2006 03:16:48 by LTU932
Please Help: A Question On The Directional Gyro posted Tue Apr 4 2006 04:09:07 by FLY2HMO

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format