search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Local Projects & Discussions > KiwiScrapers > Local Forums > Wellington



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 17th, 2017, 07:13 AM   #741
Gazman1955
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 46
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffRef View Post
Three flights cancelled in 3 months? All those Nimbys will be able to sleep so much better now!!!! Now how many flights have Air Auckland and Jetstar cancelled?
Well said, this common practice with airlines.
Gazman1955 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 18th, 2017, 12:37 AM   #742
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/92642214
Supreme Court Appeal a goer
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2017, 12:41 AM   #743
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/9269...nway-challenge

As is the WIAL forward planning
Wait and see as to whether WIAL tag EMAS on the end of the proposed extension (2x100 M) or extend the RESA by 300 which would bring the runway into line with the 2010 masterplan. The problem with EMAS is that it cannot be used for a starter extension unlike a standard RESA.
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2017, 01:15 PM   #744
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/9273...nway-challenge

ATR's only to Christchurch? - No chance. I hope this is correct
So possibilities are:
355 M + 90 RESA (and strip of course)
355 M + 2x100 EMAS plus boundary strips (access for rescue/maintenance vehicles for ILS etc
355 M + 1X100 extension between thresholds with reduced starters plus boundary strips as above
355 M + 2X150 M standard RESA extensions
I still prefer the last for the extra 150 M for takeoff and because it matches the ultimate master plan but any extension will be fine
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2017, 09:53 AM   #745
Gazman1955
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 46
Likes (Received): 2

Its take off time for the Hotel at the airport.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/9...ington-airport
Gazman1955 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2017, 06:04 AM   #746
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

Just thought about how we can make the airport safer for NZALPA
You realise that they are after either a 240 M RESA or 100 M Emas which are common overseas at airports like JFK and Heathrow. If Wellington is to be just as safe as these airports it should also have the appropriate snow moving equipment and the same number of rescue trucks. I mean maximum safety is the new standard according to the Appeal Court!
You may say it does not snow much but it did once and that could be a major safety issue. Of course in NY snow and ice is a major issue which is why EMAS was developed in the first place (and used so frequently) but you never know with climate change what is going to happen. So wellington Airport get out there and order that new essential equipment for the gutsy pilots who dare to fly into this dangerous airport!
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2017, 11:15 AM   #747
HavanaClub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,554
Likes (Received): 609

OK, I guess I'm finally willing to admit this wasn't an April Fool's joke....



Source: Studio Pacific
__________________

KIWIKAAS liked this post
HavanaClub no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2017, 01:14 AM   #748
TonyNZ
Registered User
 
TonyNZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 1,124
Likes (Received): 90

Love it already!
TonyNZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2017, 10:57 AM   #749
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/9391...et-one-of-them

A350's next?
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2017, 12:04 PM   #750
jarden
Registered User
 
jarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cairns and Christchurch
Posts: 5,886
Likes (Received): 752

Eventually all the SQ 777-200s and A330-300s will be replaced with the A350, which SQ will end with 68 in total. But it will take time to replace their entire combined fleets.
__________________
Jarden
jarden no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2017, 10:46 AM   #751
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarden View Post
Eventually all the SQ 777-200s and A330-300s will be replaced with the A350, which SQ will end with 68 in total. But it will take time to replace their entire combined fleets.
Singapore spent a bit doing up the 777's so not likely to happen soon. It will probably depend on the runway saga coming to a satisfactory conclusion otherwise the Canberra link may be dropped when the 777 is retired . The A350 requires a longer runway than the Boeing. In the worst case scenario of course all jets will be "retired" as far as Wellington is concerned.
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 04:43 AM   #752
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

I just heard (started) a rumour that after the Air Canada incident in San Francisco where the not so clever pilot nearly landed on the taxiway NZALPAS now want Resa on taxiways as well (just to be safe you understand)!
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2017, 01:39 AM   #753
Claydog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 13
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffRef View Post
Singapore spent a bit doing up the 777's so not likely to happen soon. It will probably depend on the runway saga coming to a satisfactory conclusion otherwise the Canberra link may be dropped when the 777 is retired . The A350 requires a longer runway than the Boeing. In the worst case scenario of course all jets will be "retired" as far as Wellington is concerned.
I wouldn't be surprised if SIA upgrade the serivpce in Chch with the A350. Especially with Cathay bringing their new toy in over the summer.
No doubt Auckland would likely see it first though
Claydog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2017, 11:12 AM   #754
jarden
Registered User
 
jarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cairns and Christchurch
Posts: 5,886
Likes (Received): 752

I don't think SQ will send the A350 to AKL as would be too small as they currently serve it with A380 and 77W aircraft depending on the season.
__________________
Jarden
jarden no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2017, 09:24 AM   #755
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

Round 3 WIAL V NZALPA V NZCAA in the Supreme Court tomorrow and Friday
"Since the Court of Appeal decision the Ministry of Transport has announced a review of the Civil Aviation Act, and three sources have hinted that Bridges has offered private assurances that legislation could be amended to resolve the issue if necessary."
Why did he not just fix the legislation and stop this waste of time and money??????
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2017, 01:17 PM   #756
tommo39
Wellingpalmyan
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Feilding
Posts: 710
Likes (Received): 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffRef View Post
Round 3 WIAL V NZALPA V NZCAA in the Supreme Court tomorrow and Friday
"Since the Court of Appeal decision the Ministry of Transport has announced a review of the Civil Aviation Act, and three sources have hinted that Bridges has offered private assurances that legislation could be amended to resolve the issue if necessary."
Why did he not just fix the legislation and stop this waste of time and money??????


Probably in the hope that dropping the hint might influence the court although given parliament won't sit again until after the election it's a pretty empty threat.
tommo39 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2017, 10:45 PM   #757
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo39 View Post
Probably in the hope that dropping the hint might influence the court although given parliament won't sit again until after the election it's a pretty empty threat.
It is possible but extremely unlikely that you will see a decision this year.
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2017, 03:10 AM   #758
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

Update from 29/8/17

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the...-runway-battle

The report is of course incorrect in saying only five airports are affected. These were just examples and not a full list.
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 13th, 2017, 01:14 AM   #759
JeffRef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarden View Post

Good to put your questions over to WLG Airport for the answer or they may redirect it to someone else who can help with that development period. Be interesting to find out.
Original post
Now another question

Why is it 1360 metres from the low point of the runway more or less
opposite the terminal to the northern bank but only 800 metres or so to the southern
end bearing in mind there have been two extensions to the south? The runway slope
in both directions is the same at 0.29 but the height at the northern end is 13 metres
while that at the south is 8 metres. The southern end is far more vulnerable to heavy
seas and spray.

Was it the intention of the designers to build an up to date airport ready for both
current and future aircraft still on the drawing board, because it seems as if some
"accountant" just chopped a third of the runway off when they built the original 5350 foot runway which was obsolete 5 years after it was completed when the first TEAL DC8s arrived.(The first DC8s were ordered by TEAL and had that company's tail markings).

If it had been built in 1959 it appears there could have been a runway about 2300 to 2400 metres long with 150-200 metre overruns at each end. With resurfacing part or all of the overruns you could easily have had a 2440 metre or even longer runway which would have made the current debate redundant.

The cost then would have been much less than in the 1972 or 2011 extensions as the Ministry of Works who were responsible for Civil Aviation works at the time were in the process of a massive effort upgrading existing aiports and building new ones and had the skills and equipment on hand to do this.

Yes this is all conjecture but possibly someone has the reason for the "odd" runway?


I did email WIAL with no response
After looking at old maps, charts and photos I now think that it was intended to reclaim and build most of the extra distance for Approach Lighting and the result would have been similar to an early plan for Mangere with a 6000 foot runway, 2 x 600 foot overruns and 2 x 1000 foot strips for lighting total 9200 feet or 2804 metres. At Mangere they eventually built an 8500 foot runway which has subsequently been extended to 3635 M

There probably would have been "bridges" over Cobham Drive and Moa Point Road.

The distance from the low point of the runway is closer to 1333 Metres or 4375 feet.Doubling this distance gives 8750 feet and taking off 2000 feet gives a total of 6750 feet which looks like the 1959 length boundary to boundary including overruns of 2057 metres.

The Cobham Drive "bridge" would have been about 225 feet (70 M) and with a similar increase to the south would have taken the distance boundary to boundary of 9200 feet or 2804 M overall.

The advent of aids like Precision Approach Radar and ILS which was in development could have been thought as a reason to make an expensive reclamation redundant. The Cobham "bridge" was no longer needed as the threshold could not be moved further north because of the need to clear Newlands Hill on approach to 16 and in the event of engine failure after takeoff on 34 . This was proven in 1971 when they moved the threshold 80 M north creating problems with noise and some low approaches below safe minimums. This has since been rectified.

Why they did not build the extra to the south at the time is a good question but they had to in 1971 anyway. Wellington City Council wanted a longer runway extension to 2440 M but again a "tight" government blocked it.
JeffRef no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu