Pivot Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 I had a chance to land on 35R the day it opened. Put my initials on the new concrete (tire marks). But I was really expecting a much smoother surface. It seemed quite rough.I was cleared a rather unusual (for YYC) "visual" while still on downwind. Also noticed a new controller position when I was landing on 35L. It was called "ILS monitor" if I remember correctly.Anyone else have anything interesting to note about the new runway OPS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanishing point Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Taxied out on Golf for departure 35L and noticed a '37 landing on 35R. Will take a while to get used to seeing landing traffic to the east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zan Vetter Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 Wrote a big rant (twice), deleted it (twice) because I'm posting under my real name. Nice new runway, suffice it to say I hope YYC figures out how to exploit this new non-intersecting strip of concrete to the benefit of the airports largest user(s) who are responsible for the vast bulk of their operating revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavok Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Wrote a big rant (twice), deleted it (twice) because I'm posting under my real name. Nice new runway, suffice it to say I hope YYC figures out how to exploit this new non-intersecting strip of concrete to the benefit of the airports largest user(s) who are responsible for the vast bulk of their operating revenue. YYC is a place, not an entity. Are you referring to the airport operator or the air navigation service provider? One builds and maintains runways, the other decides how they're going to be used.As with any significant change to the layout and operation of an airfield, it takes time for everything to fall in to place and get the true benefits of the added capacity. YYC will find a new groove in time I recall a time in Toronto when 24L/06R opened. It took almost a year to get actual utilization near to the anticipated utilization numbers for the runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 True. YYZ's 24L/06R required some kind of procedural adjustment. And then AF decided to park an A340 in the ditch.By the way, did YYC at least make their new runway level from end to end? Toronto didn't have that technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavok Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 By the way, did YYC at least make their new runway level from end to end? Toronto didn't have that technology.It would be tough to justify the costs associated with making a runway level where the terrain is not. ICAO standards permit a 1.5% slope on a Code 4 runway.The thought of making the new 06R/24L level is unfathomable. It would require the complete regrade of the south half of the airfield. The increase costs would have been in the 10s of millions per runway.Is the benefit of a level runway worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 It would be tough to justify the costs associated with making a runway level where the terrain is not. ICAO standards permit a 1.5% slope on a Code 4 runway.The thought of making the new 06R/24L level is unfathomable. It would require the complete regrade of the south half of the airfield. The increase costs would have been in the 10s of millions per runway.Is the benefit of a level runway worth it?I'm not sure where I suggested YYZ re-do 06R/24L. However, it was built next to 06L/24R, which is the only almost perfectly level runway at YYZ. So why they couldn't continue the same grade is beyond me. Perhaps they had some former UK airport surveyors on the payroll? I watched YVR slowly build their 08L/26R and for months they piled tons of earth and let it settle as they do with anything above ground in Richmond. And it's really level too. As Mike Holmes says...."Do it right the first time" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavok Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I'm not sure where I suggested YYZ re-do 06R/24L. However, it was built next to 06L/24R, which is the only almost perfectly level runway at YYZ. So why they couldn't continue the same grade is beyond me. Perhaps they had some former UK airport surveyors on the payroll?I watched YVR slowly build their 08L/26R and for months they piled tons of earth and let it settle as they do with anything above ground in Richmond. And it's really level too.As Mike Holmes says...."Do it right the first time"Ah. I misunderstood. I'm not sure what the slope is for 06L/24R is but I agree that it's substantially more level than 06R.In the end, I'm sure the longitudinal slope is just as it was designed to be. No doubt cost was a factor and a design decision was made with respect to slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 In the end, I'm sure the longitudinal slope is just as it was designed to be. No doubt cost was a factor and a design decision was made with respect to slope.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manwest Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 True. YYZ's 24L/06R required some kind of procedural adjustment. And then AF decided to park an A340 in the ditch.By the way, did YYC at least make their new runway level from end to end? Toronto didn't have that technology.The ditch did seem to do a good job for the AF A340 No one killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manwest Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 New runway observations:Living on the edge of the Country Hills golf course, always enjoyed the aircraft flying in to land on runway 11, it had been so quiet have not seen an aircraft since Friday eve. My partner was never an aircraft fan and would always b**** about the noise from some aircraft, now says its so quiet and peaceful. No doubt property values will go up, but I do miss all the aircraft flying over, the noise never bothered me. Miss everyone. Fly safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W5 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I am sure the occasional howling west winds will give you your dose of aircraft noise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Interesting comments about 24L and R in YYZ06L 24R = 1.03%06R 24L = 1.04% Elevation differences end to end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 The south parallel appears to have a greater down slope when landing on 24L because it's got more green space to the south side and it's closer to the ravine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Interesting comments about 24L and R in YYZ06L 24R = 1.03%06R 24L = 1.04%The runway slope is not the issue here. Take a drive around the airport access road near the thresholds of 06R and 06L and then decide if one is more level, end to end, than the other. The threshold of 06R is much lower than the mid point of the runway. There is a very slight "crown" to 06R/24L.Also, of you're sitting on the threshold of 33R (in an aircraft) you cannot see the other end of the runway. It dips way out of view. Again, highest point is about midway down the runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Don't forget you are talking a 2 mile long runway. I have no doubt that it crowns slightly in the middle. the planet is round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Don't forget you are talking a 2 mile long runway. I have no doubt that it crowns slightly in the middle. the planet is round. I know exactly what we're talking about. Unfortunately I'm having a hard time getting my point across to you so I'll give up.Noted the "round planet" info with thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Besides the fact that a perfectly flat surface to land on in a rain storm would be disastrous due to the lack of water run off. Level where rubber meets asphalt is not always a desired thing in fact more times then not is is undesirable. Ever look at the runway in Birmingham not even close to level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Besides the fact that a perfectly flat surface to land on in a rain storm would be disastrous due to the lack of water run off. Level where rubber meets asphalt is not always a desired thing in fact more times then not is is undesirable. Ever look at the runway in Birmingham not even close to level.Where do I start? I'm talking about the "length" of a runway being relatively level. From threshold to threshold. Not width. Runways can be grooved and are generally crowned down the center line, that is, higher than the runways edges. And then some runways such as in POP will flood in an instance because it is neither. You've been misinformed. A level surface where the glide path meets the asphalt is actually a really good thing especially when there's a CAT II/III approach attached to it. Only a few of YYZ's runways are CAT II/III partly because of that situation. BHX? Several times. Generally when I was landing or taking off. And trust me.....no one really likes landing there. The UK has a list of crazy runways like that one. I think I've got a pretty good destination list. Besides lots of two mile long CATII/III runways it also includes a handful of eskers in the NWT. Tundra tires smoothed out those uneven parts.So help me here Boestar. Mine was a simple question/comment about YYC's new runway and you've taken this into an odd discussion. What's the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 By the way, did YYC at least make their new runway level from end to end? Toronto didn't have that technology.BD,I took off a couple of days ago on 17L. It has a very visible dip that begins approx halfway down, and then comes back up in the last quarter.They did a nice job on the Runway Centerline Lighting, offsetting them about 3 feet right on the edge of the CL markings. No thump thumps when staying on the painted CL.Its a concrete runway and has the usual harshness associated with the type, feels a bit rough.Our original clearance called for 17R but we said no way, we wanted the new toy, justifying it might allow a further derate setting. It didn't. We still used TO with ATM47degrees, no TO1 or TO2.One little thing that may just go away with time is that as we taxied across the tunnel I noticed cars either slowed down or stopped off to the sides to look at the wing overhead (212'7"ft wing) There wasn't really room to do that judging from the brief moment I had to glance over. I think there I s a shoulder, but is couldn't tell but I'm sure it will become a favourite planes spotting site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 BD,I took off a couple of days ago on 17L. It has a very visible dip that begins approx halfway down, and then comes back up in the last quarter.They did a nice job on the Runway Centerline Lighting, offsetting them about 3 feet right on the edge of the CL markings. No thump thumps when staying on the painted CL.Its a concrete runway and has the usual harshness associated with the type, feels a bit rough.Our original clearance called for 17R but we said no way, we wanted the new toy, justifying it might allow a further derate setting. It didn't. We still used TO with ATM47degrees, no TO1 or TO2.One little thing that may just go away with time is that as we taxied across the tunnel I noticed cars either slowed down or stopped off to the sides to look at the wing overhead (212'7"ft wing) There wasn't really room to do that judging from the brief moment I had to glance over. Maybe there was a shoulder, but is couldn't tell but I'm sure it will become a favourite planes spotting site.Interesting. Thanks for the report. I doubt I will get to use it. If I do it's because something has gone really wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 If this link works it appears to show partial taxiway/exits on the east of the new runway. Are there plans to add another parallel runway? http://www.yyc.com/en-us/calgaryairportauthority/projectsprograms/runwaydevelopmentproject.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavok Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 You've been misinformed. A level surface where the glide path meets the asphalt is actually a really good thing especially when there's a CAT II/III approach attached to it. Only a few of YYZ's runways are CAT II/III partly because of that situation.Can you help me understand why/how the longitudinal slope has any bearing on the the CATII/III approach? I'm not aware of a link between the two.The only thing I can think of is the more restrictive requirements for the sloping segment of the lights themselves. Going from CAT I to CAT II/III approach lighting introduces more restricted slope limitations. For example, CAT II/III approach lights, only a single change in gradient profile is permitted rather than three for a CAT I.My guess is that the lack of inset lights and lack of available real-estate/unsuitable terrain characteristics are the limiting factors preventing more YYZ runways from being CAT III capable, and not the slope of the runway themselves. (Think 33R). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I could be wrong but I believe the touchdown zone of a runway must be relatively level to be considered for anything greater than CAT I use. I don't think the overall slope of the runway requires the same consideration. For example, I doubt 15L will ever be more than CAT I. The touchdown zone and runway surface rise up during the first 2000 feet.Look at 4.8https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp1490-chapter4-6184.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The exits to the east just clear about 100 feet then end in dirt. We thought perhaps it's so hangars could be over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.