Did Aer Lingus use all runway - and/or grass?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did Aer Lingus use all runway - and/or grass?
BREAKING Aer Lingus #EI141 returning after being notified significant damages to runway lights after takeoff | AIRLIVE.net
A330 DUB-MIA this afternoon. Landed safely after turning back. Had rotated off the shorter runway 16.
A330 DUB-MIA this afternoon. Landed safely after turning back. Had rotated off the shorter runway 16.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Dublin
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gather the runway lights were damaged on line up on runway 16 rather than during (or towards the end) of the take-off roll. Quite a different situation if so.
AVHerald is reporting it as such.
AVHerald is reporting it as such.
Runway 16 at Dublin requires a 270 degree lineup from taxiway D3 in order to use the full length, no turnpad provided but the runway is 60m long. Take off from intersection D3 is 200m further down the runway which is only 2100m long and can be quite limiting for heavies, particularly when wet, that being said I have often observed Aer Lings and Ryanair shorthaul aircraft requiring the full length for performance reasons.
I always feel for (and respect) the heavy iron drivers when they get handed a tight squeeze - a Virgin Atlantic A333 got into the grass on lineup at UVF St. Lucia just a couple of weeks ago.
Firstly the crew have all my sympathy, there but for the grace of God!
Given there are "line up allowances" depending on geometry of taxiways, whether it's a runway where you have to backtrack and do a 180 at the end etc., (yes I realise this is not the case for RW 16 at DUB) how necessary is it to squeeze out every bit of tarmac on the line up against the risk of leaving the paved surface?
Given there are "line up allowances" depending on geometry of taxiways, whether it's a runway where you have to backtrack and do a 180 at the end etc., (yes I realise this is not the case for RW 16 at DUB) how necessary is it to squeeze out every bit of tarmac on the line up against the risk of leaving the paved surface?
Fireflybob +1
Instead of doing an obviously tricky pirouette (left or right) in a long aeroplane from D3, I'd be requiring a backtrack from G, then do a stock-standard 180° lineup...
Instead of doing an obviously tricky pirouette (left or right) in a long aeroplane from D3, I'd be requiring a backtrack from G, then do a stock-standard 180° lineup...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twy G seems (according to a browse of Google Earth) is restricted to a span of 36m. No help in a 60m A330. Pretty messed up configuration at DUB. Lots of tire marks in the turning zone.
Just looked out of interest and on mLido there's a wingspan restriction of 36 m wingspan for G.
Darn..Cossack beat me to it....had also NB'd the markings on Goggle thingy....
Darn..Cossack beat me to it....had also NB'd the markings on Goggle thingy....
A relatively minor incident involving low speed, some mud and a few damaged edge light, really not a lot to see here.
A much more important issue is the serious lack of infrastructure in DUB and why the DAA has not invested in it. There is also the question of how effective the IAA is at supervising airports.
DUB has some serious congestion points, limited ramp space and only single taxiway and holding points for it's runways. ATC improvise a second one when 28 is in use by using 34 as a second taxiway but this is not an option when 10,34 or 16 are in use and capacity drops significantly. At to that some extraordinarily over zealous fixes by the IAA after some minor wing tip knocks by a certain low cost airline and you have further reduced flow. 28 is now meant to be used up to a 10 knot tailwind to maintain capacity which is far from ideal.
16 has to be entered at an intersection 150m from the threshold of an already short runway. Fine for a lightly loaded aircraft but very limiting or impossible for heavies and even heavier short haul aircraft. The alternative is to do a RH 270 turn on what is actually the undershoot area of old runway 11 and which tends to get rain soaked. It may well have been this manoeuvre which was being attempted in this incident.
Previously ATC would have offered heavies 28/10 but no dual runway operations are permitted except for a very limited 28 and 34 morning departure program. The operating runway would have to be shut down to open 10 which would then have to be shut down to reopen 16 causing delays.
Add to this limitations such as no ATC conditional clearances (due to an airprox caused by a private helicopter ten or more years ago), a very overly cautious controllers and you have a very busy hub with poor facilities which is very prone to congestion and delays.
Into this mix a crew may well make a minor mistake as happened yesterday. The real issue is why the DAA manages it's airport so poorly and why the regulator comes up with face saving sticking plasters to keep it going.
A much more important issue is the serious lack of infrastructure in DUB and why the DAA has not invested in it. There is also the question of how effective the IAA is at supervising airports.
DUB has some serious congestion points, limited ramp space and only single taxiway and holding points for it's runways. ATC improvise a second one when 28 is in use by using 34 as a second taxiway but this is not an option when 10,34 or 16 are in use and capacity drops significantly. At to that some extraordinarily over zealous fixes by the IAA after some minor wing tip knocks by a certain low cost airline and you have further reduced flow. 28 is now meant to be used up to a 10 knot tailwind to maintain capacity which is far from ideal.
16 has to be entered at an intersection 150m from the threshold of an already short runway. Fine for a lightly loaded aircraft but very limiting or impossible for heavies and even heavier short haul aircraft. The alternative is to do a RH 270 turn on what is actually the undershoot area of old runway 11 and which tends to get rain soaked. It may well have been this manoeuvre which was being attempted in this incident.
Previously ATC would have offered heavies 28/10 but no dual runway operations are permitted except for a very limited 28 and 34 morning departure program. The operating runway would have to be shut down to open 10 which would then have to be shut down to reopen 16 causing delays.
Add to this limitations such as no ATC conditional clearances (due to an airprox caused by a private helicopter ten or more years ago), a very overly cautious controllers and you have a very busy hub with poor facilities which is very prone to congestion and delays.
Into this mix a crew may well make a minor mistake as happened yesterday. The real issue is why the DAA manages it's airport so poorly and why the regulator comes up with face saving sticking plasters to keep it going.
Last edited by Consol; 21st Oct 2017 at 18:14.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consol, you took the words out of my mouth. The whole airfield is patchwork, 34/28 interaction is a serious accident waiting to happen. Wasn't there plan to build a parallel in the vicinity of the old RW29?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Took off from 11 on a 146 , remember thinkin to myself _ na , surely not , was like elastic band airways , hold on brakes with the engines going flat out , then release , ooooo
Consul, you have summed up the situation perfectly. Regarding arrivals at Dublin, why isn't there proper speed control? It wouldn't solve the myriad of problems there but it would help. ATC seem reluctant to allocate arrivals a sensible (if any) speed on handover or where you are in the queue. Personally, I'd prefer a speed than dong the whole lot of that point merge arrival.
https://www.dublinairport.com/north-runway
Last edited by Liffy 1M; 22nd Oct 2017 at 20:18.
