08時30分 EDT


 

空港追跡/情報


-または-


 

ニュースとトピックスL.A. airports panel approves moving runway closer to homes

Back to Squawk list

L.A. airports panel approves moving runway closer to homes

送信時刻:
 
All of this to develop a taxiway between 24L and 24R? Doesn't most of the traffic in and out LAX arrive and depart from the south complex? or is it pretty much evenly distributed? (www.latimes.com) さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


FedExCargoPilot
FedExCargoPilot 3
Looking from the satellite, it would be less trouble if they expanded a taxiway behind 24L(one is partially completed) and took off traffic on 24R and landed traffic on 24L. This results in no aircraft crossing the takeoff path of a runway, and can proceed to the north.
wallypiper
Wally Piper 1
At ATL, they added a taxiway that goes around the end of 26L at a lower elevation than the runway. Landing aircraft taxi around that loop without waiting for departing aircraft which often pass directly over them. But it's accessed from the taxiway in between the two runways. I don't know if that is part of the plan at LAX or even possible there. It makes for a long arrival taxi when using 8L instead of 26R but when 8R is busy, it probably still saves lots of time for arrivals.
tbpera
Tom Pera 2
traffic is split pretty evenly between northern and southern complexes - moving 24R to the north and adding center taxiway will increase safety - many instances of 24R arriving traffic crossing 24L in front of departing traffic
SWEATINTHSWAMP
SWEATINTHSWAMP 2
Does this mean they will be landing closer to my favorite view spot, NandOut Burger while devouring a delicious burger and watching the planes come in close by?
COFF
WILLIAM SELIGMAN 2
TBIT traffic can easily go to either terminal - and flights to Asia/Hawaii don't need to turn after takeoff anyway. So, even with UA, AS, DL & AA having terminals on the South side (vs VX & WN on the North), the TBIT traffic (almost all heavy/super) is the big reason for this.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 2
On the other hand, this may definitely come in handy, as all 4 A380 flights land and depart on the north side. AFR and SIA's arrive nearly 1 after the other while KAL's is departing. QFA's heads out from the north side as well.

This even more so, with the north and south routes gone.
wallypiper
Wally Piper 1
Never been to Hawaii but Asia bound flights most definitely DO turn north when departing LAX. Have you flown LAX to China or Other Asian destinations?
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
I was hoping for a better written article. The most obvious information "How much closer?" was notoriously absent. What passes as journalism these days? An article full of opinions but lacking actual facts?
tbpera
Tom Pera 1
Yeah.... wonder why FAA insists on landing traffic crossing departing runway....always wondered about that
almaa
Alma arseneau 1
Why not in the backgroud
gbrother54
Greg Brothers 1
a lot of the reason has to do with simultaneous arrivals. I believe, by regulation, that runways have to be 4300 feet apart to allow simultaneous arrivals, where planes can be within a mile and a half from each other on arrival. the outside runways 25L and 24R meet this requirement while the inside runways do not. so typically you will see arrivals on the outside runways and departures on the inside runways. Unfortunately that means the arriving planes need to cross the inside departing runways to get to their gate.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 1
Just a FYI: 25R at LAX meets the requirement, as for simultaneous arrivals, runways would have to be at least 2500ft apart, assuming wake turbulence does not play a factor. This is how KSFO is able to get away with simultaneous arrivals to the 28s and 19s.

But you're right. Normally, this is why the outer runways are used for arrivals, while the inboards are used for departures.
davysims
David Sims 1
Because someone has to cross the runway eventually. If departing traffic had to cross, they would have to hold for arrivals, risk potential conflicts if an aircraft did not clear soon enough or became stuck, and there would be less room to stack waiting departures. Additionally, aircraft can pass behind departing aircraft to cross the runway, much like they do in ATL regularly. Traffic needing to cross can taxi back to the approach end and cross, while departures make intersection takeoffs from the next taxiway.
davysims
David Sims 0
Not sure of LAX, but I know LAS has to suspend operation on the 1/19 parallels to accomadate the A380 due to wingtip clearance between the two runways.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 2
Umm.. LAS has no A380 service, and while true that they would need to do this for the 1s/19s, it's a long task to have an A380 land on a sub-10,000ft runway (longest is 1R/19L at 9775, with 1L/19R at 8985ft). The A380 would definitely get 25L if it were to fly to there. However, even with T3, KLAS is no-where near equipped to handle the A380.
davysims
David Sims 1
You are correct, LAS does not have such service at this time. However the point I was making that if two parallels are located too close together, then they have to cease operations on one if a A380 or B748 are using the other. I recalled reading LAS was under such a restriction, and wondering if LAX would be similar.
acela99
Steven Stenstrom 1
LAS has a plan in place if the A380 had to land there for some reason (eg. Divert from LAX, emergency landing, etc). We have the same thing at PHX except its a little more extreme for us.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 1
You're correct. IIRC, that restriction goes all the way down to the DC10. LAX has similar with the north side but not the south because of them moving 7R/25L 125ft south of where it used to be. However a lot of that is nullified because of the MIT spacing the A380 gets because of wake turbulence.

I'd expect a similar move for the 24s and yes, I think In-N-Out would be spared because of how far north it is from the threshold. Now, the highway parallel to the 24s is another issue...