Airstud
Topic Author
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:37 pm

After the usual exhilarating finals into SAN last Thursday ("Please leave behind all carry-ons if an evacuation becomes necessary should we end up hitting one of the buildings we're supposed to be flying between"), I did some research and learned to my non-surprise that SAN is the busies single-runway airport in the nation.

Except now I'm looking up Fairbanks airport, and they've got three.

Yes, I'm sure Fairbanks has a lot of cargo traffic with the oil and lumber and all, but SAN does as well - you can see scads of cargo planes chillin on the tarmac there.

So, how does it happen that one of the absolute super duperest tourist destination cities in North America survives with a one-runway airport, but friggin Fairbanks, Alaska has to have THREE of them?
Pancakes are delicious.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15055
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:59 pm

Quoting Airstud (Thread starter):
So, how does it happen that one of the absolute super duperest tourist destination cities in North America survives with a one-runway airport, but friggin Fairbanks, Alaska has to have THREE of them?

San Diego is not nearly the international tourist destination JFK, MIA, MCO, LAX, SFO, LAS are, and due to the location of the airport, it makes it hard to add a lot of international flights. SAN has plenty of domestic service.

If you guys had planned in advance and built a new airport in the boonies before the boonies got filled up with NIMBY's you may have changed your fate.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:09 pm

Quoting Airstud (Thread starter):
So, how does it happen that one of the absolute super duperest tourist destination cities in North America survives with a one-runway airport, but friggin Fairbanks, Alaska has to have THREE of them?

San Diego is a nice city, but it isn't a top tier tourist destination ala NYC, MCO, or LAS is. I'd also have to ask how large those runways are at Fairbanks, if two of them are little 5000 ft GA strips, it doesn't mean much. Anyway, number of runways doesn't correlate to airport traffic. My little local airport, KALN has two runways as well, but SAN with its single runway is exponentially more busy. Heck, LHR is one of the busiest airports in the world and it only currently has two runways as well.
PHX based
 
Bramble
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:09 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:11 pm

Quoting Airstud (Thread starter):
After the usual exhilarating finals into SAN last Thursday ("Please leave behind all carry-ons if an evacuation becomes necessary should we end up hitting one of the buildings we're supposed to be flying between"), I did some research and learned to my non-surprise that SAN is the busies single-runway airport in the nation.

I flew LAX-SAN in July and didn't think the approach was too hairy. Was I missing something. I must admit in is located right in the middle of the city,with heights to one side and bay to the other. However I used to operate into London City (LCY) in a Bae146, the only jet that could make it in and out. That was alaways a lovely landing and take off climb-.
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:12 pm

Quoting Airstud (Thread starter):
SAN is the busies single-runway airport in the nation.

Reason, why space? Where is there space near the San Diego CBD where you can build an airport for more space, there isnt more space to build on the existing property. Besides, if you look at flightware, San Diego handles about 50ops/hr. It can technically hold up 68-72, if im not mistaken according to runway capacity. There arent too many delays at SAN, atleast the times ive been there.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10623
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:13 pm

Quoting 777STL (Reply 2):
Heck, LHR is one of the busiest airports in the world and it only currently has two runways as well.

...and London's second busiest; LGW only has one runway - it's the busiest single runway airport in the world I believe. It's not really the number of runways which counts, it's the capacity for operation which is important and how efficient the ATC is.


Dan Smile
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14216
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:15 pm

All of this begs the question: what is the busiest single runway airport in the world? I know the vast majority of operations at LGW are on a single runway, though it does have two.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:17 pm

Until about 1990, San Diego was CLOSED off to the rest of the country as a residence. Unless you were (a) military, or (b) 12th generation, getting a job here was next to impossible. It was strictly a Navy & Marine town.

Since the fall of Communism and the resulting "diversification of the economy", San Diego has struggled to find its identity. San Diego, like much of southern California, spends most of its time wishing that "people would just go away" and move elsewhere. And while that is true of most locations, San Diego seems to spend more time in that state of nostalgia for the "good ol' days" when the military ran the city and only a few privileged citizens had the right to live here.

As for the NIMBY mentality, it is a sad fact of life that "LAX will eternally handle all of our traffic needs" - in other words, out of sight, out of mind. SAN, SNA, LGB, and BUR do not need to grow because we can eternally shift all our traffic needs to LAX forever.

And if you don't parrot that line around certain people, you are a Communist terrorist who wants to put dangerous airplanes directly over childrens' heads and ruin our property values.

Sad fact of life, but it's not unique to just San Diego.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
MSYPI7185
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:45 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:36 pm

Correct me if I am wrong, and I am sure someone will. Does'nt FAI share R/W with Elmendorf? AFB. It has been way too long since I was there last to remember exactly, some 25-30 yrs. That would explain the 3 R/W if I remember correctly, however Alaska has lots of room to expand SAN does not for various reasons.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26538
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:42 pm

Quoting Airstud (Thread starter):


So, how does it happen that one of the absolute super duperest tourist destination cities in North America survives with a one-runway airport, but friggin Fairbanks, Alaska has to have THREE of them?

One word. Space.

Quoting Bramble (Reply 3):

I flew LAX-SAN in July and didn't think the approach was too hairy

That is probably because you did it in a small turboprop or small RJ.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
I know the vast majority of operations at LGW are on a single runway, though it does have two.

The second runway at LGW is only used for emergencies or when the regular runway is closed. Operationally, LGW is a single runway airport.

Quoting MSYPI7185 (Reply 8):
Does'nt FAI share R/W with Elmendorf? AFB.

Elmendorf AFB is in Anchorage, not Fairbanks, and it is its own facility.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Airstud
Topic Author
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:56 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
Quoting Airstud (Thread starter):


So, how does it happen that one of the absolute super duperest tourist destination cities in North America survives with a one-runway airport, but friggin Fairbanks, Alaska has to have THREE of them?

One word. Space.

Ah, but vous misinterpreted what I was asking. I perfectly understand the space restraints at the current yes CURRENT site of Lindbergh Field; which is of course why Miramar is staring wide-eyed into the leering eyes of everyone in the county and saying, "Wh-wh-wh-who....me?!?!"

What I was asking instead was, if we at SAN can make do with this few runways (and I'm perfectly willing to let them use my driveway as another one, as long as they bring the Rubio's in the food court with), why would a boondock place like FAI need or even want THREE runways? One yes ONE runway is good enough for us studly, 376fpm-descending, skyscraper-dodgers, so why all the extra ones in Fairbanks; is what I was asking; not "Why can't SAN have more."

 Smile
Pancakes are delicious.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9682
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:09 pm

Quoting Airstud (Thread starter):
After the usual exhilarating finals into SAN last Thursday ("Please leave behind all carry-ons if an evacuation becomes necessary should we end up hitting one of the buildings we're supposed to be flying between"), I did some research and learned to my non-surprise that SAN is the busies single-runway airport in the nation.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
Quoting Bramble (Reply 3):

I flew LAX-SAN in July and didn't think the approach was too hairy

That is probably because you did it in a small turboprop or small RJ.

I'm with Bramble, I don't get the comments on the approach and landing being scary. I have flown into SAN on Saab's, RJ's, 737's, 757's, 767's, 777's, A320's (and it's various derivatives. Hmmm, strange, no A330's that I know of so far.), and have almost never had a bad approach and very few bad landings. The weather here is just too consistent to cause an issue. Even landing over Pt. Loma while a little strange due to not seeing all the familiar buildings and such is fine.

Really if you haven't done it take my word for it, the approach is quite good and most often so is the landing.

And to address Airstud's question (which by the way, I thank you for posing it this way as it might avert another tiring "SAN need to move" rant by people)

Quoting Airstud (Reply 10):
What I was asking instead was, if we at SAN can make do with this few runways (and I'm perfectly willing to let them use my driveway as another one, as long as they bring the Rubio's in the food court with), why would a boondock place like FAI need or even want THREE runways? One yes ONE runway is good enough for us studly, 376fpm-descending, skyscraper-dodgers, so why all the extra ones in Fairbanks; is what I was asking; not "Why can't SAN have more."

I believe one reason Fairbanks may need more is the fact the in Alaska the airplane is almost like a car and used be many to just get around. So you probably have a much higher number of small plane ops than down here in SAN. (Just a guess (but it sounds good don't it?  Smile )

Tug

[Edited 2007-11-05 13:14:51]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:09 pm

Quoting Airstud (Reply 10):
why would a boondock place like FAI need or even want THREE runways?

because they can? Look at CLE, altho this isnt like FAI, had what four runways, yet traffic is about 12 Million a year, lower than SAN. If you havent heard of this, Dubai is planning on building an airport with six parallel runways, I dont see the need for it, because Dubai doesnt get CRJ traffic, but they're going to build it regardless.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:13 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
All of this begs the question: what is the busiest single runway airport in the world?

LGW

Quoting Airstud (Reply 10):
if we at SAN can make do with this few runways (and I'm perfectly willing to let them use my driveway as another one, as long as they bring the Rubio's in the food court with), why would a boondock place like FAI need or even want THREE runways?

FAI actually has four runways, but only two are paved, one 11,000ft long and one 6500ft long. The others are a ski strip for skiplanes and a water runway for floatplanes. So for comparisons to SAN it only has two. The shorter runway is closed to jets, so that's what the larger one is for. They have the space to separate the traffic that way (and they get more small GA operations than SAN does), so why wouldn't they?

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:38 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
They have the space to separate

another airport as such as FLL. It has one main runway 9L/27R which is 9,000 feet used by the Airlines. The 5,300 ft. Runway is used by General aviation, and small private aircraft. 13/31 is rarely used according to some FLL locals since the NIMBY's would go bezerk. If SAN can operate quite well with one runway right now, it has no problems. Last time I was at SAN, the longest queue for takeoff was about 4 nothing much.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14216
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:35 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
LGW

Well, LGW does have two runways. Are there any busier than SAN which really do only have one?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:42 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15):
Are there any busier than SAN which really do only have one?

No, but dont take anything from LGW. Having an additional runway that is not in use doesnt mean much, except for more efficient takeoff queues. But it should rather be by movements, instead of Pax, which of little consequence to ATC. Flightaware doesnt have any info on LGW, but SAN at peak handles about 60ops/hr.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
Boston92
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:49 pm

Excuse my ignorance, but am I the only one who can not relate the thread topic to the thread title?
 
Airstud
Topic Author
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:50 pm

My original topic was "No Runways To Sea World, Lots to the Tundra."

Not one of my better ones; but I was trying to play up SAN's awesome tourist attraction-ness especially vis-a-vis Fairbanks'...

Well, Fairbanks'...


Um - snowdrifts?
Pancakes are delicious.
 
socalfive
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2001 5:37 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:20 am

Last year I was testing a new video camera and stopped up on the approach end of 27 for this...

 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting Bramble (Reply 3):
Was I missing something.

You were in an RJ.

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 4):
It can technically hold up 68-72, if im not mistaken according to runway capacity.

58 VFR, 52 Marginal, 48 IFR.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 11):
I'm with Bramble, I don't get the comments on the approach and landing being scary. I have flown into SAN on Saab's, RJ's, 737's, 757's, 767's, 777's, A320's (and it's various derivatives. Hmmm, strange, no A330's that I know of so far.), and have almost never had a bad approach and very few bad landings. The weather here is just too consistent to cause an issue. Even landing over Pt. Loma while a little strange due to not seeing all the familiar buildings and such is fine.

Its the approach speed and pathetic minima for heavies more than anything due to the steep descent rate of 377'/nm vs a standard 318'/nm. Weather impacts 27 arrivals more often than it should. A precision approach to 27, no terrain and no curfew and Lindbergh would be much more that it is. Its the technical limitations that kill it.

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 14):
Last time I was at SAN, the longest queue for takeoff was about 4 nothing much.

The peak hour is from 11:30 to 12:30. There is now a bump developing between 7:00 and 8:00 am and 10:00 pm and 11:30 pm. Adding 10 gates will do wonders for the "nothing much" description.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 17):
Excuse my ignorance, but am I the only one who can not relate the thread topic to the thread title?

LOL.. I'm with ya.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:40 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
That is probably because you did it in a small turboprop or small RJ.

From either direction, approaches to SAN are straight-in and almost always uneventful (up to & including DC-10s, I haven't flown a larger plane into SAN). Using VNAV vertical path indicator, the LOC-27 approach is a true piece-of-cake. Absent that, 500' abeam Mr.A's works almost as well.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:56 am

Quoting MSYPI7185 (Reply 8):
Does'nt FAI share R/W with Elmendorf? AFB.

Fairbanks (FAI) doesn't share runways with any military operation. Wainwright Army Air Field is on the opposite side of town, and Eielson (not Elmendorf) AFB is twenty miles down the road. The big runway at FAI is used by the airlines like Alaska, cargo haulers that stop there for fuel (Lufthansa, Martinair, etc), and the larger DC-6's and C-46's of Northern Air Cargo and Everets Cargo that supply the remote areas of the state with fuel and food. The smaller runway is used mainly by the GA and commuter airlines on the east side of the airport such as Warbelows and Larry's Flying Service. The other two runways (as previously mentioned) are the skid strip, which turns into a snow runway in winter, and the water runway. Yes it is four runways, but for airline operations, it still is just one.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 11):
I believe one reason Fairbanks may need more is the fact the in Alaska the airplane is almost like a car and used be many to just get around. So you probably have a much higher number of small plane ops than down here in SAN. (Just a guess (but it sounds good don't it? )

You are right. I spent a year flying out of FAI, and the number of GA aircraft is astounding, especially considering Fairbanks is a town of about 40,000 people. On a nice summer day, FAI more closely resembles Van Nuys than interior Alaska. Even in the winter it can get busy and ski-equipped planes go to and from the villages.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 18):
Not one of my better ones; but I was trying to play up SAN's awesome tourist attraction-ness especially vis-a-vis Fairbanks'...

Well, Fairbanks'...


Um - snowdrifts?

Ever been to Fairbanks? No, it isn't San Diego, but there is still a LOT to do, especially if you like the outdoors. Fishing, hunting, tours of the old gold mining sites, northern lights tours, an outstanding Alaska history museum at the university, great restaurants, dog sled races and ice art exhibits in the winter and more. When I worked there we flew hundreds of tourists during the summer on special Native Alaska tours to Fort Yukon and Anaktuvik Pass - it's an experience you can't get anywhere else. No, it doesn't have sunny beaches or a Seaworld, but it would be pretty boring if every city was exactly the same. I started my year there because I was furloughed from Hawaiian Airlines and needed a job. I wasn't expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised. Give it a shot yourself someday and you'll be pleasantly surprised too. Big grin

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26538
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:21 am

Quoting Airstud (Reply 10):
which is of course why Miramar is staring wide-eyed into the leering eyes of everyone in the county and saying, "Wh-wh-wh-who....me?!?!"

Of course this is a whole different question. Of course the Miramar situation is stupid.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 10):
why would a boondock place like FAI need or even want THREE runways?

It is not that they need the 2 (not 3) runways. They just happen to be nice to have,

Quoting Tugger (Reply 11):

I believe one reason Fairbanks may need more is the fact the in Alaska the airplane is almost like a car and used be many to just get around. So you probably have a much higher number of small plane ops than down here in SAN

SAN has nearly twice as many daily operations as FAI.

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 14):
Last time I was at SAN, the longest queue for takeoff was about 4 nothing much.

SAN's issue isn't so much capacity as it is runway length.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15):


Well, LGW does have two runways. Are there any busier than SAN which really do only have one?

LGW effectively has only 1 runway.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 21):

From either direction, approaches to SAN are straight-in and almost always uneventful (up to & including DC-10s, I haven't flown a larger plane into SAN). Using VNAV vertical path indicator, the LOC-27 approach is a true piece-of-cake. Absent that, 500' abeam Mr.A's works almost as well.

Uneventful yes, but flying down in between tall buildings can be a sight for some people.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
nema
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:18 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:24 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
All of this begs the question: what is the busiest single runway airport in the world

On the case of London Gatwick which it has been said later in the thread that it has 2 runways, there could be slight discrepancies as to the legitimate claims from some airports. London Heathrow for example still claims i believe to be the busiest International airport in the world. Chicago is busier than Heathrow for example, but not with international traffic.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 17):
Excuse my ignorance, but am I the only one who can not relate the thread topic to the thread title?

It got me too, being from this side of the pond it totally threw me.
There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:33 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
SAN's issue isn't so much capacity as it is runway length.

And about 7,000-7,200-feet of available takeoff distance doesn't help.
 
AirEMS
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 6:34 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:50 pm

I still have to give it to Aspen CO for the most holy crap take off around!


-Carl
If Your Dying Were Flying
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:55 pm

Quoting NEMA (Reply 24):
It got me too, being from this side of the pond it totally threw me.

No worries, I'm from his side of the pond and I don't even understand it.
PHX based
 
2175301
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:05 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
One word. Space.

Second word: Weather.

San Diego is a fair weather airport (perhaps more accurately a blessed weather airport). If you are planning to build an airport in that part of the country you do not need to plan for different runways for continuous operation in different weather.

Fairbanks is not a fair weather airport - and I am sure that having a second runway is a key part of being able to routinely land planes without weather delays at times.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:10 pm

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 28):
If you are planning to build an airport in that part of the country you do not need to plan for different runways for continuous operation in different weather.

WInd Coverage, no worries. Marine Layer, a whole other story.
 
Rhodylee
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 10:45 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:32 pm

I think one reason for having more than one runway (apart from having lots of traffic) is so the airport can stay open while doing maintenance on one of the runways.
 
User avatar
Coronado990
Posts: 1450
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:09 pm

San Diego did have a parallel runway and much like present day Fairbanks and Anchorage, it was full of sea planes. The Coast Guard and the Navy used the harbor for their of sea planes and Convair and Ryan used the harbor for the construction sea planes. If my history serves me correct, Lindbergh Field was the first certified airport in the country to have both land and sea plane facilities. This is an important reason why Lindbergh is adjacent to the harbor and not on some dusty mesa out in the sticks like some think it should have been in the 1950's.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 17):
Excuse my ignorance, but am I the only one who can not relate the thread topic to the thread title?

Same here, thought it was going to be about the Southwest flight that connects SAN-SAT-MCO, all the SeaWorld locations, which is quite clever I always thought.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 29):
Marine Layer, a whole other story

A hooker from Oceanside?
We're up.
 
ourboeing
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:55 pm

I booked my tickets from BWI-SAN last night. I absolutely love that place.
Flying in on an US A320 and flying out on my favorite UA 757

OURBOEING
 
alaskaairmd83
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:26 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:32 pm

Wouldn't one of the main reasons for building more runways than needed at the present time be so that you can expand in the future without having to deal with too much NIMBY complaints.
 
Airstud
Topic Author
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:38 pm

ALRIGHT, IT WAS A DUMB THREAD TITLE!!

LET IT >>GO<< ALREADY, PEOPLE!!!
Pancakes are delicious.
 
works4boeing
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:05 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:42 pm

All I know is, the gas station at the end of runway 27 is one of the most entertaining places to fill up your car that I have ever seen.
 
Mudboy
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:51 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:00 pm

Will somebody please tell me what a NIMBY is ?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 9682
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:32 pm

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 36):
a NIMBY is

Not
In
My
Back
Yard
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
Productivity isn’t about getting more things done, rather it’s about getting the right things done, while doing less. - M. Oshin
 
Mudboy
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:51 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:11 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 37):
Not
In
My
Back
Yard

Thank you!
 
irelayer
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:38 pm

I've flown out of our dear airport many times now and the longest I have waited for takeoff was 5 minutes. There has never been a signifigant delay going out of SAN either, even at peak times. The reason they are "scrambling" for a new airport is because the projected growth numbers of San Diego are through the roof and they anticipate reaching capacity in the next 10-15 years. Also, not having a large, capable airport really hampers the local economy, especially with LA and its four airports two hours up the road. If SAN had a larger airport, it would draw more international tourism AND multinationals would be more likely to base stuff here (just to name two benefits). Who is going to bother going to SAN from anywhere outside the US when you have to go through LA anyway? And I'm not talking Aeromexico to MEX and Air Canada to YVR either, I think thats strictly business travel based on the capacity/frequency offered.

The problem, stated on this board more times than I can count, is that there is absolutely no room for expansion. Clear out Loma Portal? Forget it. Move MCRD San Diego? No way. Fill in part of the bay? Nuh uh. There is just no way to fit more stuff in that tiny little space. Combine that with the fact that San Diego County has very little flat land left within reasonable driving distance to most residents to build stuff on, and there is no viable site for a "second airport". The solution is not only unclear, it is completely unknown at this point.

-IR
 
N1120A
Posts: 26538
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:43 pm

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 28):
Fairbanks is not a fair weather airport - and I am sure that having a second runway is a key part of being able to routinely land planes without weather delays at times.

Well, not really since they are parallel.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 29):
Marine Layer, a whole other story.

Yeah, having only a Cat. I doesn't help there. Any reason for that?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:46 pm

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 28):
Fairbanks is not a fair weather airport - and I am sure that having a second runway is a key part of being able to routinely land planes without weather delays at times.

The second runway does not have any type of instrument approach, so when the weather is bad, FAI is a one-runway airport. When the weather is bad, it normally isn't a busy place anyway, since so much of the traffic is VFR general aviation aircraft. They're only out when the weather isn't nasty.

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:52 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 25):
And about 7,000-7,200-feet of available takeoff distance doesn't help.

Taking off from runway 27 you have essentially the entire 9401 feet available since you can use the displace thresholds for takeoff calculations. Departing rwy 9 you have the same distance, but have to include the rising terrain to the east which makes it much more difficult for heavy aircraft.

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:02 pm

Quoting Irelayer (Reply 39):
There has never been a signifigant delay going out of SAN either, even at peak times.

Yet.

Quoting Irelayer (Reply 39):
Who is going to bother going to SAN from anywhere outside the US when you have to go through LA anyway?

Those who ca no longer go through LA because LAX, SNA and LGB have a cap limit and ONT is a nightmare to get to.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 40):
Yeah, having only a Cat. I doesn't help there. Any reason for that?

For Runway 27:

Excessive glide angle for the design aircraft (3.10 is the max where 3.55 is in use, 3.18 for WAAS), no vertical guidance, no MALSR. WAAS will help, but 3/4 to 1 mile of vis is about as good as it's going to get. Can't use a Glideslope, terrain blocks the signal.

For Runway 9:

Terrain at the east end, yes east end, affects the missed approach surfaces and pushes up the DH. You can probably get to a DH of about 250-270, but that just blows for a major airport where 200 and 1/2 should be standard.

Weather occurance:

VFR - 64%
Marginal - 31%
IFR - 5%

Its that 5% that will kill you every time because the marine layer is there during the critical first bump and in the evenign with critical RONs.

Who ever had the bright idea to build that place the way they did (alignment wise) should be taken out and shot.

Quoting HAL (Reply 42):
Taking off from runway 27 you have essentially the entire 9401 feet available since you can use the displace thresholds for takeoff calculations.

1. SAN does not have safety areas, only a compromised EMAS for 27.
2. Terrain and Obstructions west of the airport increase the climb gradient leavign about 7,200-useable. The 9,401-feet is not available, nor has it ever been due to the lack of an RSA at the west end.

Quoting HAL (Reply 42):
Departing rwy 9 you have the same distance, but have to include the rising terrain to the east which makes it much more difficult for heavy aircraft.

The takeoff Distance for 9 is about 6,400-feet. 737-800's, A-319's and larger take weight penalties from it. Runway 9 has no RSA.

[Edited 2007-11-06 14:31:03]
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:27 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
Uneventful yes, but flying down in between tall buildings can be a sight for some people.

Yeah, I guess if you're looking out your "porthole" and don't see them coming.  Wink

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 43):
For Runway 27:

Excessive glide angle for the design aircraft (3.10 is the max where 3.55 is in use, 3.18 for WAAS), no vertical guidance, no MALSR. WAAS will help, but 3/4 to 1 mile of vis is about as good as it's going to get. Can't use a Glideslope, terrain blocks the signal.

For Runway 9:

Terrain at the east end, yes east end, affects the missed approach surfaces and pushes up the DH. You can probably get to a DH of about 250-270, but that just blows for a major airport where 200 and 1/2 should be standard.

For 27, RNP should get a little lower minimums and VNAV path provides excellent artificial glidepath, but the minimums aren't going to get much lower so you still need good weather/visibility. For 09 the "airlines" (that's what my Jepp page says) the ILS minimum is 350'(336'agl) and weather mins are 5000RVR or 1nm vis. MAP is .6nm from runway so you've just cleared Pt.Loma terrain (houses) at that point... but not by much. The real issue for "just blows" is the all too common ILS-09 approach/landing with Rwy-27 takeoffs. Unless you just happen to be real lucky, expect long delays as ATC will work 4+4 (4 landings followed by 4 departures, etc.).
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:53 pm

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 44):
For 27, RNP should get a little lower minimums and VNAV path provides excellent artificial glidepath, but the minimums aren't going to get much lower so you still need good weather/visibility.

If you displace the 27 threshold from 1810 to 2400, you can get a standard TCH of 55 and GP of 3.10 under WAAS/LAAS and install approach lights which will get you about another 1/2 mile and a DH of around 500-feet. That leaves you 7,000-feet landing which is going to be good for next gen aircraft (787-9 is 6,600-landing with a 3.10 GP). As a secondary airport, you could displace it 3,400-feet and get full CAT 1 for 27, Orange County style without a stopway. I don't think Southwest and GA woudl complain much.

For 9 you need to displace it by 300-400-feet to get to a 3.00 GP, a standard 55-foot TCH vs. existing 85 with a DH around the 250 to 270 mark due to the missed approach surface at the departure end of 9. The peak of Point Loma is dead on the centerline of the runway and 1 nm from the threshold at 382-feet, plus any trees that have grown upward and homes that have sprouted up over the.
 
star12
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:53 am

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:15 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
All of this begs the question: what is the busiest single runway airport in the world? I know the vast majority of operations at LGW are on a single runway, though it does have two.



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15):
Well, LGW does have two runways. Are there any busier than SAN which really do only have one?

LGW does NOT have two runways!! It has a single operational 10879 ft runway; 26L/08R. The parallel taxiway, which is designated 26R/08L is certified for use as an emergency runway and is used only for that reason, which is very, very rarely. Operationally, LGW IS the world's busiest Single Runway Airport.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: No Runways To SeaWorld.

Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:14 pm

Quoting Star12 (Reply 46):
Operationally, LGW IS the world's busiest Single Runway Airport.

Until they add their third runway post 2019. Does SAN have a maintenance runway? NOPE! That is why it is a single runway airport and Gatwick is not. The mode of operation is irrelivant, Gatwick has two runways and it doesn't matter if they are available at the same time for use or not. Its a term used to keep the neighbors happy. Under IFR, SEA is a single runway airport by definition due to it's close parallel runway separation. Does that mean you name it a single runway? No.

[Edited 2007-11-08 06:16:35]

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos