cramped layout
Cossak, allow me as an Dinosauer in ATC and some 20+ years as consultant on my shoulders that, by no means, I do envy you trying to keep the flag flying for ATC. This is indeed a strange story.
However, looking at the map and reading about distances between the two runways and the rwy width, it is very clear that the basic fault was made locating that outer parallel runway too close to the inner one many years ago!!.
It might have worked if the freeway would have been sunk in a tunnel and the gained space used for a more distant installation. Now, the two rwy safety strips - applying ICAO rules - are just separated by 5 meters.
So, no independent ILS approaches or departures!! Very limited possibilities for a stepped separation on final, if ever used with parallel landings.
Excuse me if I am "stirring cold soup", but why not land on the inner and take off on the outer RWY ?? the crossing traffic you will have in both cases.
Finally, how in heaven someone can come with the idea of a central taxiway in that environment blows my mind. Any aircraft on that - projected - central taxiway would have penetrated with its wings the protected space of the RWY safety strips and in addition form a temporary obstacle inside the transitional obstacle clearance sufaces of both runways, especially fuselage and the vertical fin . Consequence ? >> higher DH and DA !!
May be that your assumption of a type relevance is correct, but based on experience I tend more to the picture of an otherwise busy, probably time stressed crew. What I see on the maps and aerial photo confirms that very obvious the standards of marking and signaling are there!!
Jo
Last edited by Annex14; 4th Sep 2017 at 16:42.
Reason: missing sentence