NASOCEANA
Topic Author
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:40 pm

Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:03 pm

When planning and building an major airport would there be a preference for a location close to a large body of water?

It seems to me that a large number of majors are located next to large bodies. BOS, JFK, MIA, LAX, SFO, DXB, HKG, NRT, & SYD to name a few!

My rational would be:

- safety: ability to dump fuel in event of an emergency and potential crash
zones
- noise: approach patterns may be directed over the water.
B777 greatest Airliner ever built!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:34 pm

The body of thought when these airports were developed was that you needed Ship, Rail and Air together as a transportation network. Air has largely developed on its own primarily for urgent cargo of reasonable size and it's more vital for Rail and Sea to be connected. This explains why Anchorage is one of the largest air cargo hubs in the world. What is vital to air cargo is a global connection point. Rail and sea work hand in hand, but what is containerized, usually stays containerized to a regional sorting facility where it is sorted and shipped by truck, air or additional rail.
 
cptspeaking
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:49 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:07 pm

Absoultely it would be preferred, but the issue in many places is the lack of a large body of water. The bigger cities are bigger cities because they are located where they are: in accessible places for boats and commerce. Thats why you see a lot of major airport near lots of water, which just so happens to be a perk for us aviation people.

There are also larger airports not near huge bodies of water that still thrive with a ton of traffic. A couple that come to mind are MEM with all the FX traffic and DEN. With MEM in particular, there are lots of heavy jet operations during noise-sensitive hours (to those who don't enjoy being wakened by that wonderful sound... Smile ) , but lots of testing and planning of procedures is done to keep as much noise as possible away from densely populated areas.

Your CptSpeaking
...and don't call me Shirley!!
 
User avatar
yowza
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:25 pm

Quoting CptSpeaking (Reply 2):
Absoultely it would be preferred, but the issue in many places is the lack of a large body of water. The bigger cities are bigger cities because they are located where they are: in accessible places for boats and commerce. Thats why you see a lot of major airport near lots of water, which just so happens to be a perk for us aviation people.

Could not have said it better myself!

YOWza
 
christao17
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:27 pm

Is NRT located next to a large body of water? Always looks like the midst of farm land when I'm on approach.
Keeping the "civil" in civil aviation...
 
keego
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:34 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:48 pm

What about LHR, CDG, FRA, MAD, ORD & YYZ (I beleive) they are major airports that are not located by a large body of water, granted YYZ and ORD are within close proximity but not close enough say beside. It just the fact that a large or major airport will usually be located in a large or major city, most of which are by large body of water in the first place.
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:10 pm

The sea creates a good surface for taking off and landing as there are no obstacles in the way (Haha, Kai Tak..). One other good thing about it is that there is room for expanding by reclaimation, rather than purchasing more land which can be extremely costly depending on where the airport is.

One con about this is the fog. Disruptions everywhere, causing chaos in some major situations. But that's about it I guess.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
keego
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:34 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:35 pm

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 6):
One other good thing about it is that there is room for expanding by reclaimation

Yes very good point NZ107 but remember most of the worlds major airports that are located by the ocean, sea or a lake were built long before land reclamation was possible, it is still a very difficult task today! even with the technology we have avilabale to us.
I doubt construction workers and planners in the 50's would have forseen land reclamation as a definite possibility in the future. Im sure it did cross thier minds tho!!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:26 pm

Quoting Keego (Reply 7):
I doubt construction workers and planners in the 50's would have forseen land reclamation as a definite possibility in the future. Im sure it did cross thier minds tho!!

I think the Dutch may want a word with you.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
GrinddalSK340
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:30 am

RE: Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:38 pm

CPH is located Near a body of water..

both 22L and 04L have approach patterns over the Sea..

Actually CPH is on small Man Made island called Amager Big grin
Travellin' First Class, golden roasted peanuts and Chardonay Yum the way to fly
 
keego
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:34 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:14 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
think the Dutch may want a word with you.

Yeah you're right the Dutch will want a word with me!!!  Smile They have made the most of land reclamation and done an excellent job at it too but that's not to say its easy, and the difference with an Airport is that there is 747's and T7's and soon to be A380's pounding the surface every couple of minutes, city streets (Amsterdam) don't have to put up with that. expect for Schipol but as far as I know that land is not reclaimed.
 
skoker
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:49 am

RE: Airport Construction

Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:09 am

BUF and ROC are close to Erie and Ontario, but not by choice: there's really nowhere else to put them.
 
EddieIAH
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:32 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:47 am

actually Schiphol is on reclaimed land I believe
Schiphol = 'ship hole' in Dutch I read somewhere
Regarding SYD, there have been proposals from time to time to build a new airport at Badgerys Creek? far inland, although the latest I've heard is that Kingsford-Smith will remain past the 2020's
Eddie
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2085
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:28 pm

Quoting Christao17 (Reply 4):
Is NRT located next to a large body of water? Always looks like the midst of farm land when I'm on approach.

One of the biggest blunders of airport positioning in history. No, it is not near the bay. And it being so far inland has caused land purchase problems and 2 of its 3 runways to be uncompleted since the early 1970s.
 
User avatar
yowza
Posts: 4275
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Airport Construction

Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:50 pm

Quoting Keego (Reply 10):
expect for Schipol but as far as I know that land is not reclaimed.

I was under the impression that Schipol was built on reclaimed land. I seem to recall somebody telling me that it was the site of a major naval battle too. I could be wrong, any of the cloggies know for sure?

YOWza
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:48 pm

Quoting Keego (Reply 10):
expect for Schipol but as far as I know that land is not reclaimed.

Last I checked, something like 40% of the land in the modern day Netherlands is reclaimed and Schiphol is part of that. In fact, I believe land was reclaimed again to build the Polderbaan.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2288
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: Airport Construction

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:33 am

Quoting Keego (Reply 10):
city streets (Amsterdam) don't have to put up with that. expect for Schipol but as far as I know that land is not reclaimed.

Actually it's the other way around - the city of Amsterdam is not built on reclaimed land (at least not the old parts) while the entire airport is built on the site of a former lake.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
Last I checked, something like 40% of the land in the modern day Netherlands is reclaimed and Schiphol is part of that. In fact, I believe land was reclaimed again to build the Polderbaan.

The area where Schiphol is located used to be a lake called Haarlemmer Meer (Haarlem Lake) which was reclaimed in the 1870s. It was not necessary to reclaim new land. In fact the area of that reclaimed lake is about 8 times the size of Schiphol... Look at the image, the coloured area is the reclaimed area.




And this is an old map of the lake:
http://www.theodeboer.com/php/images/274.jpg


And a map of the reclaimed area in 1867:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nldnh/gemeente-atlas/kuyper_nh_haarlemmermeer.gif

Quoting Keego (Reply 10):
They have made the most of land reclamation and done an excellent job at it too but that's not to say its easy, and the difference with an Airport is that there is 747's and T7's and soon to be A380's pounding the surface every couple of minutes,

Most of the soil under AMS is clay. Clay tends to subside over time under constant loads, but runway loads do not fall in that category. Nevertheless, the clay consolidation (draining) was accelerated in order to prevent subsidence in the future. See the following document (in Dutch only though):

http://www.ifco-methode.nl/art001ifcom_wegen.PDF

And an article in English about the innovative runway pavement design, mentioning loads from large aircraft:
http://www.mincad.com.au/APSDSPaperdeBondt/APSDSPaperdeBondt.htm
I scratch my head, therefore I am.
 
keego
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:34 pm

RE: Airport Construction

Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:55 am

Cheers guys I didnt know Schipol was on reclaimed land from a lake. lots of information bout this posted here thanks Smile
 
HT
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 6:20 am

RE: Airport Construction

Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:01 am

One positive aspect with approach & departure paths over water is, that there are no NIMBYs living there ... !
-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 avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2288
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: Airport Construction

Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:44 pm

Just to add a detail, on the 1867 map at the easternmost part of the reclaimed area you can read "Ft Het Schiphol" - the Schiphol fortress. So the old name Scheepshol ("Ship's hole") was carried over to the fortress, which exactly where the airport was first built in 1916.
I scratch my head, therefore I am.