Nearly parallel runways - different airports

[Frunobulax]

Do you happen to know any real-life cases of 2 controlled airports with nearly parallel runways laying quite close to each other? How can ATC provide radar separation, when one (southern) of the runways lays at ca. 8NM final of the other (northern), while distance between the centerlines never exceedes 2.8NM? That means that EVERY departure from the southern rwy is conflicting with EVERY approach for the nothern runway.
I've read ICAO doc 9643 but I believe it concerns rwy on a single airport, maybe I am wrong.

Are there any airports with similar layout in UK?

[John Doe II]

..."real-life cases"...Sounds a little funny. Is the one you're talking about fictitious? Or will you build one :}

Anyway, the two ATC units probably have some sort of standard coordination for releasing a departure from the southern runway. The same should apply when using opposite direction, just the northern runway for departure should be relased. There is a lot more to it: SIDs, missed approaches, parallel approaches etc.

[West Coast]

El Paso Texas (KELP) and Biggs army airfield. Perhaps two miles apart if that. Be damn sure which airport you are looking at before accepting a visual approach clearance as the runways involved are close to being the same heading.

[BN2A]

Warton and Blackpool.....

Not unknown for civvies to find military jets in front of them at a time when they don't expect it!!!

:eek:

[jack-oh]

Lossiemouth and Kinloss are only 8nm apart, with overlapping approaches and departures. As far as I am aware it is called ATC and hence a whole host of procedures to stop things going bump.

[Frunobulax]

Well, my case are 2 airports (civil and military one, the civil is a controlled one) which now have procedure control.

Radar control for both of them (the military airport is to be a controlled one by then) is about to be introduced in few months time. Until then, there are whole bunch of procedures to keep the traffic separated, unfortunately the proximity of runways doesn't provide any form of radar separation between approaching traffic at let's say 2000' on final and departures just abeam that aircraft in less then 3NM distance.

I was courious to get some similar cases to see what are any practical hints before we get the traffic going. Thanks for your help, startin to browse AIPs :)

[jack-oh]

Visual separation in leu of prescribed radar or procedural separation is always a good get out and allows IFR traffic to take up thier own separation once an ac has been identified to them. For example the app lane for one airfield crosses the departure lane of the other.

[Frunobulax]

Correct me if I'm wrong: that means ATC give traffic info to ac being still on rwy, then the ac departs with own separation, right?
How about IMC?

[Say Again, Over!]

There are some instances where the 3NM radar separation might not need to be applied. If a heading off the airport that lies close to the approach to the other airport can be proven (throught a flight check or other esoterical method) to be geographically clear, then it could be done.

Procedures would have to be established, I suppose, providing for the arrival to be fully established prior to a certain point on final or prior to releasing the succeeding aircraft. The type of approach in use (precision or not) would have to be considered as well.

SAO

[TATC]

There are some instances where the 3NM radar separation might not need to be applied. If a heading off the airport that lies close to the approach to the other airport can be proven (throught a flight check or other esoterical method) to be geographically clear, then it could be done.

Procedures would have to be established, I suppose, providing for the arrival to be fully established prior to a certain point on final or prior to releasing the succeeding aircraft. The type of approach in use (precision or not) would have to be considered as well.

SAO


if all departures from he northern runway went north immediately after departure, and the southern went sout, before any turns then they could possibly get CAA to give a deemed geographical separation on departure - subsequent routings then would be subject to coordination between units

[skippyscage]

not quite parallel runways but only a few miles apart:

I used to fly from Montgomery Field (San Diego) and Miramar NAS was only a couple of miles to the North.

When flying to the East there were always low level and transiting high speed jets - F14's in those days.

That was fun :eek:

http://maps.google.com/?ll=32.843972,-117.137604&spn=0.084946,0.104885&t=k

(Montgomery at the bottom, Mirimar at the top)

[jack-oh]

In IMC things do slow down, sequencing of arrivals for instrument approaches is obviously much more complex than an airfield on its own. Building in the required separartion in the event of a MAP is a pain but not unachievable. As you quite rightly said traffic info is sometimes passed to ac that are lined up so that they can become visual and thus take up their own separation. Having combined radar positions that deal with both airfields is a big plus and dividing the tasks up to prevent overloading is also required.

[Magp1e]

Northolt (historical home of the Polish B ofB fighters) is 4.2nms N of Heathrow. On Easterlies there is a 30 deg dogleg turn at 3.5nms finals which provides 3.1nms separation at the closest point. When RW 23 was in use, a number of ac on visual finals for NHT RW 25 went for RW 23. Being aware of the problem, close montoring "caught" them before they strayed too far. Similarily, NHT would have to turn off RW lights between inbounds so as not to confuse LHR traffic turning for 23.
Question: Does RSVA apply?

[jovica]

Beograd - LYBE and Batajnica - LYBT. On both rwy 12-30 and only 7NM apart. Number of incidents, some were just unbelievable.

[120.4]

Good evening Frunobulax

I am currently on the development team looking into expansion of Heathrow and Stansted airports and ICAO 9643 is our section "Bible". We are investigating parallel mixed-mode & a third runway at Heathrow and a staggered parallel at Stansted. Our Concepts of Operation for both the Heathrow projects are now mature and we are in discussions with our regulator about relevant issues.

I believe that in effect it doesn't matter whether the two runways are on the same airport or not; what matters is the procedures that separate their operations. I don't believe that 9643 applies in your case. If I have understood your layout correctly then I suggest the following may be appropriate:

All departures from the southern runway must turn south by 30 degrees immediately after take off and the turn must be confirmed by radar or r/t before traffic is transfered from the southern tower frequency. It also seems appropriate that a PRIORITY telephone line between the southern tower and the northern final director is installed as this would be mitigation of any latent risk of navigational error from the arrival or departure.

If you would like to to know more about our experiences in this or if I can help further, please send me a message to that effect.

Point 4 :)

[Frunobulax]

Thanks everyone for examples and hints. 120.4, I'll call you via PM soon, I need to talk with my guys working on our project before.

[av8boy]

Where I've worked with a configuration like this it's always been a "call for release" arrangement with the smaller facilities. For instance, here's a look at KLAX and its neighbors. I've done the narrative on the image from memory, so no promises as to currency or accuracy. I'm sure Westy or someone else can provide better info. In short, LAX tower launches departures off LAX on their own, while Santa Monica (SMO-runway 21) and Hawthorne (HHR-runway 25) must call the departure controller for release on each IFR departure.

http://www.atcmuseum.org/museum/images/lax_sectional.jpg

When I worked at LA tracon the bane of my existence was a King Air which would launch off HHR every morning around 0630 and need to be worked around exactly the same 737s and MD80s off LAX every single day. This chap would depart VFR before the HHR tower opened and call me for his IFR clearance when he was off the ground, climbing on a 250 heading, wanting to go north. Each day I knew this potential conflict would happen, I knew WHEN it would happen, and I knew exactly HOW it would happen, and still it required more work than anything else I faced all day long! Grrrr.

Dave

[PPRuNe Radar]

Dave

No chance you could use 'Remain clear of Controlled Airspace, I will call you' ? :)

[av8boy]

Trust me. Crossed my mind! However, keeping in mind that the job I signed-up for was to provide service to folks just like this, I sort of felt obliged. And anyway, he always seemed so pleasant... :)

Dave

[PPRuNe Radar]

:ok:

Still have traumas from doing DFW in the sim with Scott. Busy is no problem, but when all the US psuedo pilots ask you to 'say again' because you use ICAO standard phraseology, it is really scary :) And screws up your thinking time for the 'corner post' method of operation. :p

[Scott Voigt]

Ah HA!!! I know who you are now PPRune Radar <G>.... When you coming back for a visit???

Scott