Thanks for the comments, all.
aterpster,
Seems like the missed approach/departure/OEI issues would be worse, because you have to clear the same terrain, only starting from a lower elevation.
The present airport works quite well for those who can use the two RNP AR approach procedures.
What the new airport could perhaps do is enable lower ILS minimums, albeit with a climb gradient missed approach.
This is what I had in mind, and have had since construction began in 2006. Actually, a little more tending towards some concern for the EOSIDs. For the purpose of the post I will establish a couple of conditions;
V2 = 140 KIAS = 167 KTAS (at Quito on an 18ºC day)
15º bank turn radius at V2 = 1.7 nm (there abouts)
Please forgive me that I used Google Earth, I know it is not the done thing but it is a useful tool for a general preview like this. I have not the time to drive around the valley in a 4x4 recording all the high terrain points, even though granted it would be a nice day out! Okay? With those conditions, here is our EOSID 35 turn out of the current Quito airport, out towards Azcazubi NDB.
Take no notice of Google's slope gradient figures in the graphic, they are pretty meaningless. What I was after were the elevation points. Let's start. As can be seen, there are no points higher than the ARP elevation itself along the second segment path. Our gross gradient can happily remain at the regulatory 2.4% minimum without any problems. The highest point along the path occurs at 7.18 sm (37,910 ft), and is 69 ft lower than the threshold of RWY 17. That's a -0.09% gradient, including the 35 ft for the net climb requirement. Dandy. It has actually been done, not two years ago, without further incident, apart from the engine failure itself, of course.
Now I cannot actually show you all the pattern of our Company Return EOSID 35, but I will provide a vertical profile of it here...
A whopping 62 sm pattern that eventually strings into the Number 4 QIT-VOR-DME-ILS Approach to Quito RWY 35. The highest point is actually 10,180 ft (it is an antenna), and is located at the highest point in the profile posted above, 56.7 sm along the path. That's a 0.32% climb gradient requirement to be accomplished from lift off to that point.
Now let's take a look at the new airport initial gradients, on about 10 to 11 sm paths. First, straight ahead (towards the Mojandas mountain).
That is 992 ft over 11 sm. A 1.7% gradient, without considering the additional 35 ft net climb screen. The terrain still keeps rising after that. Now, try a right turn out.
That is 830 ft over 10.3 sm, a 1.53% gradient. Don't forget the climb degradation during the turn, also. This is beginning to look like a very second segment penalized airport, to me. And finally a left turn out.
3.89% gradient, being that a gain of 1,336 ft over 6.5 sm, along the path. It gets even higher if the turn is of a wider radius.
I hope I am not boring you all. What's my point? It is a question, but first this.
Sure, it will be an operable airport. But it is still a hot and high altitude airport, with some prominent topography in all quarters, and needs to be respected as such. I should not be bothered, really. I fly into Cuenca almost every day. That said, however, Mariscal Lamar airport (at Cuenca) has a pretty short runway, and the MTOW limitations for THAT characteristic practically guarantee that the required climb gradients are already catered for (to an extent).
And, if you will and remain interested, have a read of this publicity.
New Quito International Airport – Starts Operating February 20th 2013 | Ecuador Guide | Ecuador & Galapagos Islands
Now, finally, my point. Does anyone really in the know of these things really think they will get more weight into the air from this airport? If someone sees something that I don't, please point it out. I would be grateful, as I am going to have to do my job of work from here very soon, and the newspapers around here are still insisting that more freight and passengers may be taken out
per flight, due to improved characteristics. International carriers will operate based on their own analysis of the runway, and will not be a party to proving this hypothesis in practice. But those of us here.. (umm, you'd better take me away now).
I think that is all I really wanted to say, except,
Thanks for your patience if you got this far. I am not a prolific "poster", but I did want to share this one, and see some comments.
As always, enjoy your flights! Bye, now.