Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Parallel Runway Ops  
User currently offlineAdipasqu From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 238 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3652 times:

This has bothering me for a while. Whenever you have an airport that has a set of parallel runways whereby that set is not broken up by a building (e.g. terminal, tower, hanger, etc.), the one used for departures is usually the one closest to the terminal and the one for arrivals is usually the one farthest from the terminal during normal ops. I figure that it is to keep the landing aircraft and any associated issues as far from the terminal as possible. Is that correct? Because I was thinking, take LAX northside airfield during normal ops (on the left in the photo; Depart 24L/Arrival 24R), if they switch the two (Depart 24R/Arrival 24L) wouldn't that all but eliminate potential incursions between landing aircraft crossing an active runway? Similar situations exist for SEA, PHX, RNO, LAS, DFW, and ATL just to name a few off the top of my head.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui




707 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 741 742 752 753 762 763 764 D9S D10 319 320 321 M80 M82 M83 M87 M88 M90 SF3 ERJ CRJ
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDartland From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 646 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3633 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not the case at all airports. I think it is usually a result of other issues (e.g. winds, nearby buildings/land hazards, taxi patterns, etc.)

I know at PHL they generally use 27R for landings and 27L for takeoffs (the latter being the closer to the terminals).


User currently offlineGreg3322 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3597 times:

The only problem with doing that at LAX is that 24R is only 8,925' long where 24L is 10,285' That extra 1,360' could make a big difference to a heavy departing. I'd also like to keep the arriving aircraft as far apart as possible during siulataneous approaches.

Greg

Quoting Adipasqu (Thread starter):
Because I was thinking, take LAX northside airfield during normal ops (on the left in the photo; Depart 24L/Arrival 24R), if they switch the two (Depart 24R/Arrival 24L) wouldn't that all but eliminate potential incursions between landing aircraft crossing an active runway?


User currently offlineOlympus69 From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 1737 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3444 times:

I always assumed that it was considered better (safer?) to have the landing aircraft crossing the take-off runway instead of the departing aircraft crossing in front of planes potentially on close final. This would be critical if the taxiing plane stopped for some reason while crossing the other runway.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

Quoting Adipasqu (Thread starter):
if they switch the two (Depart 24R/Arrival 24L) wouldn't that all but eliminate potential incursions between landing aircraft crossing an active runway?

It would, but it would create the problems of departing aircraft having to cross an active runway.

Somebody's going to have to do the crossing. The reason it's better for landing aircraft to do it is because they're not in a line - three or four of them can do it at once if they're at different taxiways. Doing that with departing aircraft would create the logistical hassle of having to get them back into line on the other side.

Secondly, it's much more convenient from an ATC perspective. The tower controller controls the runway crossings - the ground controller would have to coordinate to cross departures from one side to the other (or the planes would have to call up themselves). However, on arrivals the planes just stay with the tower until they've crossed the runway and then go to ground - takes up much less time on the airwaves.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

In SEA it is also because 34R/16L is longer than 34L/16R. The runway closer to the terminal is longer, and therefore should be used for takeoffs. Airplanes need more runway to takeoff than land. Usually an 8000ft runway is perfectly acceptable for all landings, while an 11,000ft runway might be needed for some heavy takeoffs.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4287 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3367 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
It would, but it would create the problems of departing aircraft having to cross an active runway.

Mir hit the nail on the head. DFW was mentioned as an example. At peak times you can have upwards of 20 aircraft waiting to depart. Arrivals will still be coming in frequently as well. It is too much of a hassle for ATC and the airlines to taxi across an active runway to take off. The holding areas are located next to the nearest runways so the planes can quickly taxi into positions on the close in runway and turn and burn when ATC tells them.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4763 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

all makes sense, i always love it at ATL when at times 7 aircraft cross over the take-off active to get to the terminal, like a bunch of ants going home lol


Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

Quoting Adipasqu (Thread starter):
Depart 24L/Arrival 24R), if they switch the two (Depart 24R/Arrival 24L) wouldn't that all but eliminate potential incursions between landing aircraft crossing an active runway? Similar situations exist for SEA, PHX, RNO, LAS, DFW, and ATL just to name a few off the top of my head.

Your best option, if attainable in a close parallel situation is an outer runway (or two in the case of LAX). High speed exits to a center taxiway (600' of separation. A second taxiway - about 300' from the first taxiway. Then the inner runway (400' of separation). The result is the abilty to stack and pack aircraft on the inner taxiways at peak times and cross 6-10 birds on the inner departure runway at a time because they would be able to hold short and be clear of the high speed exit taxiway adjacent the landing runway.

Runway - High Speed Taxiway - Hold Taxiway - Runway - High Speed Taxiway - Hold Taxiway - Terminal

Option two is to have a longer outer runway for departures and a shorter inner runway. You then taxi under the approach path of the shorter runway, or cross multiple aircraft and have them hold on one or more taxiways between the runway. If your outer runway is 13,000' long (example) and your inner is 8,000, the approach lights would end before the taxiway and the holding aircraft would only have to remain clear of the approach light segment. They could then fill the inner taxiway/taxiways with departure aircraft.

Option three... The big gun. Four runways. Your inner runways are separated by 4,300'. The outer runways are separated by 9,300'. In this scenario, there's room for independent towers and fire stations between the close parallel runways (2,500' of separation) and accompanying dual parallel taxiways between the runways. This provides wake turbulence separation for any aircraft (VFR and IFR departures/VFR Arrivals), and IFR offset approaches. It would be an incredibly efficient arrangement in terms of airspace. Not a very efficient use of land.

Runway - 2500' - Runway - 1100' - Terminal - 1100' - Runway - 2500' - Runway


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3283 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 8):
Not a very efficient use of land.

Which is why DEN is where it is. Of course, in my experience they just use one side of the airport (two runways) for landings and the other side for takeoffs.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
In SEA it is also because 34R/16L is longer than 34L/16R. The runway closer to the terminal is longer, and therefore should be used for takeoffs.

From a planning perspective, the runway closer to the terminal should be used for takeoffs, and therefore is longer, not the other way around.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
From a planning perspective, the runway closer to the terminal should be used for takeoffs, and therefore is longer, not the other way around.

Unless the demand for widebody aircraft is very low. This would be the only instance though. If you have a scenario where 80-90% of your operations only require less than 7,200' of runway, the location of long vs. short doesn't matter. It's an issue of land mass at that point and the configuration that works best for the available land and mix of operations. If you have a dominant O&D airport vs a hub airport, it might make more sense to have the shorter runway near the terminal with the longer runway further away as you will have a peak departure issue in the morning and a peak arrival issue at night with a lot of filler flights throughout the day that don't need the long runway or the additional taxi distance.


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3261 times:

I read that it's simply an issue of taxi time, assuming all other factors are equal. You don't want heavy, fully fueled planes to waste a lot of fuel on a long trip to a distant runway. Landing planes are lighter, they don't burn as much fuel during taxi, and they won't crash if they happen run out gas.  

[Edited 2006-08-08 23:18:31]

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10):
If you have a scenario where 80-90% of your operations only require less than 7,200' of runway, the location of long vs. short doesn't matter. It's an issue of land mass at that point and the configuration that works best for the available land and mix of operations.

True, but I'd still use the outer for landings and inner for takeoffs, regardless of length (unless someone really needed the longer runway). And if the traffic was light enough I'd just put everything on the inner runway - no sense making planes taxi more than they have to if it doesn't slow down operations.

SNA is the only airport I can think of that has it the other way around, with the airliner runway on the GA side of the airport and the GA runway on the passenger terminal side. Of course, the two are very close together, but it still strikes me as odd. But I imagine that that decision was made before passenger traffic really took off, and it's too late to change it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLemmy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Semi-related question: Obviously, a significant difference in runway length will play a part in deciding which runway to use for which, since the longer runway will probably be used for takeoffs.

But how do runway widths factor in? I can see wanting a wider runway for landing, since it'll be a bigger target. But then again, a wide runway might be nice during takeoff since there'll be more concrete between your wheels and the grass in case of an engine failure.



I am a patient boy ...
User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3175 times:

Isn't one (additional) reason why LAX usually uses the inner runways for departures the fact to minimize noise ? That way the source of noise is farthest away from the people living nearby ...
-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 offlineLorM From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 409 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3161 times:

So what's the deal at PHL in the 27L 27R 26 config? Most common parallel ops runway ops utilize inner for departures and outer for arrivals. I would like someone to explain the runway usage at PHL in this config.

I'm not familiar with the reason for the runway usage at PHL. Would this work at PHL? Arrivals on 26 and 27L. Departures at 27R and 17 or 35. Arrivals cross the 27R departure end at taxiway Z (or designate another twy on the west end of the de-ice apron). Extend K twy out to Z bypassing the cargo ramp.

Is there some sort of clearance issue issue with a 27L missed approach procedure interfering with a 27R departure that is the reason for PHL's config?

PHL Airport Diagram

[Edited 2006-08-09 11:25:22]


Brick Windows
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 8):
Option two is to have a longer outer runway for departures and a shorter inner runway. You then taxi under the approach path of the shorter runway, or cross multiple aircraft and have them hold on one or more taxiways between the runway. If your outer runway is 13,000' long (example) and your inner is 8,000, the approach lights would end before the taxiway and the holding aircraft would only have to remain clear of the approach light segment. They could then fill the inner taxiway/taxiways with departure aircraft.

Great post Sir....however I have one issue with this option....you don't taxi airplanes near the approach path of an arrival. There are flight standards terps issues with tail heights, thus why here at IAH on the 15L/R complex there are hold lines for "15R Approach" and vice versa on 15L depending on the side of the runway you are sitting. This is a huge issue and creates much wasted space at airports, a reason DFW is building end around taxiways like IAH attempted to build for 15L/R and 8L/R, 26L/R when the construction was ongoing for that stuff.

Quoting LorM (Reply 15):
So what's the deal at PHL in the 27L 27R 26 config? Most common parallel ops runway ops utilize inner for departures and outer for arrivals. I would like someone to explain the runway usage at PHL in this config.

PHL is a different situation from what little I have seen while flying in there a half dozen times in the last few month....they can stack up departures easier on the southside of the airport on the taxiway S, SA, S1, M, and P than attempt to do it near the terminals making a mess of the already messy ramps. Also, as mentioned in an earlier post, the runway lenght of 27L is greater than 27R. Another side item could be the possible obstructions that would impact an approach to 27R from the shipyard nearby and they don't impact 27L as much....just some thoughts.

There are many issues to this post and many above have hit on some of them....Boeing7E7 has excellent knowledge of this from what I read. As one who has worked parallel runway ops from ground control and local it is easy to screw it up for sure......any way to reduce runway crossings must be discovered. I would much rather have arrivals on the outboard runway and turn them back toward the approach end on a mid taxiway to cross the departures as they roll by.....that way you can cross 1 or maybe 2 between departures if all works correctly. LAHSO ops don't work that well since all airlines don't participate, you can't have a GA or business aircraft be the holding short on landing if an airliners is involved in the operation, they have to be the holding short aircraft....just so many opportunities to mess it up. I could go on for ever but won't

Safe to say there are numerous reasons for how airports operate from noise issues to obstructions to most efficent opertional benefits to weather to land size, but most important for airport operations is for BE ALERT when crossing runways, taxiways, ensure you are using the correct runway etc., keep the safest mode of transportation even safer!

Excellent topic. Smile



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 16):
Great post Sir....however I have one issue with this option....you don't taxi airplanes near the approach path of an arrival. There are flight standards terps issues with tail heights, thus why here at IAH on the 15L/R complex there are hold lines for "15R Approach" and vice versa on 15L depending on the side of the runway you are sitting. This is a huge issue and creates much wasted space at airports, a reason DFW is building end around taxiways like IAH attempted to build for 15L/R and 8L/R, 26L/R when the construction was ongoing for that stuff.

At a distance of 2,200' from the threshold with a standard threshold crossing height (TCH) of 55' at a commercial airport, the maxium object height of the 50:1 approach light protection surface (and RPZ surface for approaches) is 44'. The approach light protection begins 200' from the threshold at a slope of 50:1. As a result, an object can be on a taxiway away from the threshold that crosses the approach path to the runway in question with a tail height of 44', provided the object does not block the view of the approach lights - thus they would either hold on the taxiway short of the approach lights which on the taxiway would be in pavement lights at teh exact 2,400' mark. For reference, the 757 is 44' 6" so anything shorter (737/A320 is no factor). There is nothing wrong with such an arrangement and it is the premise for the DFW perimeter taxiway program.

What I described in the post was a smaller runway that is centered on the longer runway and is 4,800' shorter than the longer runway - this permits an identical operation in either direction. This allows taxiways to the longer runway that go around the shorter runway but not hold on the lights themselves. This is what the second inner taxiway is for - quick crossings and holds.

You create an even better arrangement (one 12,000' and one 7,200' runway) if the shorter runway has a displaced threshold of 1,000' and a landing distance of 6,200' - enough for any aircraft up to a 767/787 and even some 777 weights, but the longer runway would be used for the larger aircraft anyway. In doing so, the cross taxiway is 3,400' from the short runway threshold and the maxiumum tail height changes dramatically. At this point, the approach lights are no longer on the taxiway or a factor in the height calculation, but 1,000' from the crossing taxiway where the slope has shifted to a 34:1 ratio from the threshold. At this point, the TERPS height standard would be calculated at a 34:1 ratio 3200' from the slope reference point (the taxiway is 3400' from the threshold but the calculation starts 200' from the threshold) and the tail height limit would be 94' - enough for an A380. The last 1,000' of approach lights would be in pavement and the RAILs would be elevated at a slope of 50:1 from the runway surface so that visibility would not be an issue (the first approach light would be 28' in height). With such an arrangement, aircraft would land over aircraft.

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):
True, but I'd still use the outer for landings and inner for takeoffs, regardless of length (unless someone really needed the longer runway). And if the traffic was light enough I'd just put everything on the inner runway - no sense making planes taxi more than they have to if it doesn't slow down operations.

That's the whole point of the 7200' runway near the terminals. The longer runway will only see major use in morning departures and offset arrivals in the evening. During the day when airport demand is significantly lower with 737/A320 aircraft, the longer runway isn't used at all or only used for International Departures that require the length. San Diego is another location where this would be possible if they needed a small footprint layout, but I wouldn't go with less than 1,267' of runway separation to permit dual inboard taxiways and offset instrument approaches. Preferably 2,500' for wake turbulence. This can't be done at Lindbergh. The terrain kills it - you need flat surfaces, but it could easily be done at Miramar making it a more "environmentally friendly" compact facility that can support about 100 gates.

[Edited 2006-08-09 17:48:27]

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 17):
At a distance of 2,200' from the threshold with a standard threshold crossing height (TCH) of 55' at a commercial airport, the maxium object height of the 50:1 approach light protection surface (and RPZ surface for approaches) is 44'. The approach light protection begins 200' from the threshold at a slope of 50:1. As a result, an object can be on a taxiway away from the threshold that crosses the approach path to the runway in question with a tail height of 44', provided the object does not block the view of the approach lights - thus they would either hold on the taxiway short of the approach lights which on the taxiway would be in pavement lights at teh exact 2,400' mark. For reference, the 757 is 44' 6" so anything shorter (737/A320 is no factor). There is nothing wrong with such an arrangement and it is the premise for the DFW perimeter taxiway program.

Exactly, but if you are not outside the 2,200' distance from the threshold using the standard TCH then you are into the approach path with no option but to have an runway approach hold, is that correct?



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 18):
Exactly, but if you are not outside the 2,200' distance from the threshold using the standard TCH then you are into the approach path with no option but to have an runway approach hold, is that correct?

You could probably have a Cessna/King Air/Small Commuter cross within about 1000' of the threshold provided the approach alignment lights weren't needed, it's all based on the surface in use at the time. (i.e. RAILS turned off in VFR conditions running just a MALS vs. a MALSR or no approach lights in use at all). If the object doesn't penetrate the 50:1 or alter the landing visibility, then there's no problem. The surface is only active when the lights are in use. If approach lights are not in use, it's a 34:1 surface vs. 50:1 so you have a little more flexibility. The TCH is no factor in the calculation.

To prevent any kind of issue impacting operational flow, the 12,000 and 7,200 with the displaced threshold is optimum, or any variation where the short runway is 4800' shorter than the long runway and centered. You could even make it a more compact facility by displacing the threshold of the 12,000' runway and use in pavement ALSF-2 approach lights. This would reduce your noise footprint substantially without having an operational impact. You then use a double photo sensor to cut the RAILS when a plane is departing the runway with in pavement RAILs. It cuts them as it passes the runway edge onto the active runway and reactivates them as it passes the displaced threshold. There shouldn't be any incoming aircraft in range that require the lights until that aircraft has departed at which point the RAILs would come back up.

The departure surface is 40:1 so if the taxiway is 2400' from the opposite end of the runway, the tail can be 55' tall so taxiing could in affect continue during departures as well for certain aircraft. If not, they hold short of an imaginary surface on the taxiway. If properly layed out (dual parallel taxiways for each runway), you can have 4-6 aircraft cross at one time following a departure with minimal impact on the operation because the close taxiways would handle arrivals and the far taxiways would support holding aircraft that have landed on the inner far parallel and departing aircraft on the outer far parallel.

Example:

Runway - Exit Taxiway - Hold Taxiway - Runway - Exit Taxiway - Departure Taxiway - Ramp - Terminal

Such an arrangement would make sense in a scenario where you had land for standard 4,300' of separation, but terrain precluded that separation to one of the runway ends and a compact airfield makes more sense. In using this layout you maximize the efficiency with what you can based on your limitations.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3055 times:

The FAA needs u!  Smile

The IAH approach hold lines are for all aircraft not just those with tails 44' and higher so I am very confused but whats new with that  Smile



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3047 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 20):
The FAA needs u!

The FAA doesn't really deal with planners directly. They set the standard and then people such as myself get hired by airports to come up with proposed modifications to the standard to make a scenario come together and they (the FAA) either approves or disapproves them. They're too flipping stupid to come up with this stuff on their own.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 20):
The IAH approach hold lines are for all aircraft not just those with tails 44' and higher so I am very confused but whats new with that

It's part of an active runway I believe. If so that changes things. If not, then refer to last sentence above.

[Edited 2006-08-10 00:43:38]

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3023 times:

I just thought of a good example of an airport with an outer runway longer than the inner - BOS. 4R/22L is longer than 4L/22R. Planes normally takeoff on the inner and land on the outer (the inner is not equipped with an ILS - while that doesn't mean that it's not possible to land on it, it's a good indicator that it's not common). And if someone needs the longer runway for takeoffs, they have to cross the takeoff runway at some point (or taxi around behind it, in the case of 4R).

-Mir

[Edited 2006-08-10 05:10:36]


7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 21):
It's part of an active runway I believe. If so that changes things. If not, then refer to last sentence above.

Nope not part of the active runway....but last sentence above is so true regardless!



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2829 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 23):
Nope not part of the active runway....

Are you refering to NA and NB off of 15L? If so they look to be pretty close for any commerical aircraft, within about 500' or it could be the approach lights aren't elevated enough. EA and EB off of 26L shouldn't be an issue though. Could be some local agreement. This would explain the hold.

Notice they have land and hold short of taxiways there as well...


25 FlyMatt2Bermud : The ideal is to not have departing aircraft cross an active runway. ALPA had a big role in helping convince the FAA to recognize and accept the conce
26 Iahflyr : I am speaking of NA/NB.....approach lights not the issue as they are north of the 15R theshold, centerlines 1,000' apart with that mid taxiway.
27 Boeing7E7 : In that instance, the taxiway is considered a portion of the runway (like a displaced threshold) as the aircraft are holding short of the approach th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Parallel Runway Ops
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...
Parallel Runway Ops. posted Tue Feb 6 2001 02:00:16 by AC320
Parallel Runway Landing posted Sun Mar 19 2006 13:36:55 by AirA380
Parallel Runway Operations posted Wed Jul 30 2003 12:35:50 by SailorOrion
Anyone Landed At Wrong Airport Or Runway? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 12:33:28 by Redcordes
SXM Runway Length Question... posted Fri Nov 3 2006 19:51:57 by T7ILS13LatJFK
How Does ATC Choose Which Runway To Land On? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 23:24:10 by Fll2993
Runway Marking Help?!?! posted Sat Sep 30 2006 22:58:47 by Jamesbuk
BOS Runway 14/32 Approach posted Fri Sep 22 2006 16:19:00 by Vikkyvik
B737 QC Ops - Is This Right. posted Sun Aug 20 2006 09:44:23 by HAWK21M
Building A New Runway: How Far From Buildings? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 22:08:36 by GodBless

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format