Page 1 of 1

Why Is New XNA Runway Not Parallel?

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:40 pm
by sfjeff
According to the XNA website (nwara.com), runway 17/35 was built to be an alternate landing surface to be used if runway 16/34 needs to be closed, which is a good idea since otherwise the airport would have to be closed. Is there a logical reason why 17/35 was built almost parallel to 16/34 and not parallel as 16R/34L? On the airport diagram, they look parallel to me (http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KXNA/map).

RE: Why Is New XNA Runway Not Parallel?

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:46 pm
by erj
Actually they are parallel. Look at the airport diagram and take note of the actual headings. I guess they changed the name as to not have to rename the original 16/34 to 16L/34R.

RE: Why Is New XNA Runway Not Parallel?

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:49 pm
by desertjets
Quoting sfjeff (Thread starter):
they look parallel to me (http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KXNA/map).

They look parallel b/c they are. Take a closer look at the chart and you'll see the compass headings on both runways are identical. Now as to why they didn't designate them L and R I haven't a clue. They also seem stupidly close together and wouldn't seem to give a huge capacity increase either -- except under strictly VFR conditions.

RE: Why Is New XNA Runway Not Parallel?

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:55 pm
by ikramerica
LAX runways are parallel with 2 different designations. Granted at XNA it would have made more sense with 33 and 34...

Quoting desertjets (Reply 2):
They also seem stupidly close together and wouldn't seem to give a huge capacity increase either -- except under strictly VFR conditions.

And you can only cross to the new runway at the ends, and there is no real hold area, etc. Seems like a half-arsed upgrade.

RE: Why Is New XNA Runway Not Parallel?

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:56 pm
by BMIFlyer
Quoting desertjets (Reply 2):
They also seem stupidly close together and wouldn't seem to give a huge capacity increase either -- except under strictly VFR conditions.

The reason they are so close together is because....

Quoting sfjeff (Thread starter):
runway 17/35 was built to be an alternate landing surface to be used if runway 16/34 needs to be closed

RE: Why Is New XNA Runway Not Parallel?

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:59 pm
by xjet
Quoting desertjets (Reply 2):
They also seem stupidly close together and wouldn't seem to give a huge capacity increase either -- except under strictly VFR conditions.

It's not meant to be a capacity increase. It will only be used as a runway during the resurfacing of the main runway 16/34. It's going to be a taxiway in the future. The same procedure was used at RSW and CID when the runways needed to be rehabilitated.

RE: Why Is New XNA Runway Not Parallel?

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:02 pm
by RL757PVD
Im pretty sure that this isnt a traditional parallel runway. The original plan many years ago was an ultimate parallel on the other side of the terminal. The problem is that the current runway is getting old (almost 20 years) and need to be rehabbed. Single runway airports like RSW had the same problem but they built the new taxiway for the new terminal and used the taxiway as a runway while the runway was repaired and repaved. At XNA they didnt have that luxury, so if you look at some stuff from the state (Arkansas Comission of Aeronautics) you will see the "parallel runway" infact referred to as an "Alternate Landing Surface".

RE: Why Is New XNA Runway Not Parallel?

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:11 pm
by desertjets
Quoting xjet (Reply 5):
It's not meant to be a capacity increase. It will only be used as a runway during the resurfacing of the main runway 16/34. It's going to be a taxiway in the future. The same procedure was used at RSW and CID when the runways needed to be rehabilitated.

Ahhh... makes sense.

RE: Why Is New XNA Runway Not Parallel?

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:18 pm
by sfjeff
Thanks for all the replies. I had wondered why they didn't just go ahead and build a parallel runway with adequate separation, but I can see that that would be much more expense considering the taxiways that would have to be built for it. And, I can also see that they can use a new taxiway for the existing runway, so the new alternate landing surface will not be a waste of money.

RE: Why Is New XNA Runway Not Parallel?

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:23 pm
by rfields5421
They are currently doing something like this for TKI - Collin County Regional at McKinney near Dallas. Using a different number designator rather than R/L makes it easier to decommission the taxiway used as a runway.