300m runway extension for WLG
 

So the council have finally put $1m into the study for a 300m runway extension to the northern runway end into Evans bay. The airport authority also putting in $1m.

Wellington.scoop.co.nz » Airport to seek approval for 300 metre $300m northern extension to runway

According to some the passenger figures to support new flights to International destinations with such carriers as Emirates and China Southern could be on the cards. But Air NZ and Qantas don't seem very interested in increasing capacity from WLG or adding new international destinations.

Does seem to be a good thing but at a million dollars per metre of runway it does seem bloody pricey!

Does anyone remember the Qantas 747SP days into WLG?

What the airport company of course fail to mention in any of their media briefs is that whilst they might want to build 300m more, whether that gives them 300m of runway is another thing. Four letters, two words and a number. RESA, "if practicable" and 240.

Water wings is totally correct. All this would really do is make a currently unsafe airport safer for existing operations. In practical terms it won't provide much additional useable runway length.

Furthermore, even if additional runway was provided who exactly is going to use it? Long haul ops out of WLG are a pipe dream. CBR and WLG are similar sizes, but CBR is a couple of hours flying time close to most markets. If CBR can't justify longhaul ops I can't see how WLG could. ( Don't be fooled by the fact that CHC has some longhaul ops, it is the inbound gateway for longhaul tourists to the South Island - WLG would be an inbound gateway to what exactly? ... WLG and the Wairarapa vineyards? )

Another thing, given that some aircraft types are already performance restricted off 34 due to OEI climb performance and Newlands ridge, would it not be more practical to reclaim land to the south and extend in that direction?

'Gateway to what?' You clearly haven't experienced the jewel of the Pacific ... Tawa

or Wainuiomata

I would imagine it is much more difficult (that is, expensive) to build a runway extension into Cook Strait, than into calm and sheltered Evans Bay.

Ah Tawa. I don't think any other town can lay claim to having quite so many churches. I live in Linden just north of Tawa so can vouch for its boring-ness :)

Good points about its current state, currently 34 has got 130m "starter EXTN" at the north end, I know this is only for takeoff but is this something that could form part of a RESA? Is it really deemed unsafe as it is right now? What actual useful runway length would they get out of 300m extension?

On the subject, I've noted those ramp shaped objects at the end of 34, are these designed to launch an overrunning aircraft over SH1 /trolley bus wires to a graceful ditching in Evans Bay?

Are they not for protecting the LLZ aerials?

They should extend it into cook strait and put a ski jump at the end...give everyone departing to the south that sea harrier feeling...:E

Tell them they're dreaming.

I wish you Kiwis would use 4-letter identifiers... I was wondering why the **** Walgett would want a runway extension :rolleyes:

geez not this **** again i wish you aussies would learn the 3 letter ones.

walgett is wge.

Air NZ and QF aren't jumping up and down because as it stands they have the narrow bodies in this part of the world that service WLG day in day out. if it suddenly became available to larger aircraft then they would have to compete against more carriers than they currently do.

The reality is that if the WB machines don't arrive it will be Air NZ, QF and VA passengers that will have to pay for the extension that they don't need. Airport companies don't take a loss!

Waren9,
that's the IATA code (which I didn't know myself until I checked this morning). I've always known it as WLG which is the navaids.

i know.

the op used an iata code. horatio got his tits in a tangle. not sure why.

The navaids are all "WN" not WLG.

Given what lies at the end of that runway (a ten meter drop, trolley bus wires and a gas main), the extension will be useful even if it doesn't attract WB aircraft.

CHC is nothing more than a notional gateway to the South Island anyway, most travel via AKL then hop a jet south or increasingly for Australians, fly direct to ZQN.

And for some current and presumably most future types, Newlands ridge is no longer the performance impediment it used to be due to the availability of alternative single engine departure procedures.

I took a quick look down the forum before I posted and seen AKL and MEL so decided to use the IATA code. Life goes on.

i heard a 767 blew an old lady over on the footpath down below when it took off once.

'N ere Oi were thinkin' youse was referrin' to 'The Gong'.....

Silly Moi...:}

Erm - forgive my mere PPL ignorance, but in order to get anything like a stable 10 mile final approach for a WB jet into a northerly extended R34 - wouldn't you have to drop a nuke on Newlands to create a large gap that they could fly through?!
Although I suppose they could always do a tactical military descent to short finals - or even one of those bush pilot side-slip arrivals...:ok:

say ... RNP-AR

Tartare,
Neither the 747 SP or the B767 200/300 had a terrain problem going into NZWN --- don't know where that idea came from.

The SP into NZWN was an interesting political story. The RR B747-200s that both QF and NZ had were superior performers in and out of there. This was because of the different (simple) TE flaps on the SP, resulting in a higher Vref for approach than a -200.
However, NZ CAA of the day was desperate to not have to allow ANZ to operate there, so QF bought two of the world's longest range aeroplanes for its (then) shortest (almost) route.
The 767 operation was quite straight forward, and the low speed handling made short work of the turbulence -- the 767 in and out of NZWN was the best aircraft since the Electra to handle those conditions.
Tootle pip!!

Extending the runway @ WLG?
Got a name for it!
"The Didymo extension"

:D:ok::}

(those longer serving PB crew would understand this)

Tks Leadsled - am just a lad, so both operations of both of those types into WLG was a little before my time behind the yoke.

But you are correct regarding Newlands, tartare. I think the clearance is already tight on the G/S for 16 as it is.

That being said, take-off is generally more critical that landing, so the extension may be only for 16 departures & the landing distance will remain the same on that runway, with a displaced threshold.

The reverse would be true for 34 departures & arrivals, with the extra length being available for landings, but not much good for departures. Unless, of course, you have an alternate EFATO procedure available, such as an LNAV or visual turn back down the harbour, like burty referred to.

Just a thought from an out and out amateur.....when departing from 34 why can't aircraft fly up the Hutt Valley rather than over Newlands ridge if it causes so many problems? At least that way the distance is much longer to achieve the height necessary.
At Hayward's Rd a left turn would necessitate approx. another 120 metres to climb in excess of the Newlands ridge but gives another 14kms to achieve it.
The extra distance to overfly Paraparaumu for instance is about 3km.
To a layman this seems all too simple....why doesn't it happen?

It gets pretty skinny around Stokes Valley - and I imagine even further down towards Taita there wouldn't be a wide enough fan to either left or right clear of terrain in case of a missed approach... am I right?
Similar reason as to why there's no Cat 3 auto-land at Wellington on 34 or 16 despite it being a v. busy airport in terms of movements - big, fat, solid hills on either side!

Have a look at Jepp WITBY2B, 10-3K-A. Eng fail procedure A320, goes up the Hutt then Haywards. This has the same or at least a similar result.

300m is hardly any improvement when the RESA takes out around 150m at each end they should extend it 500m+. Do it right first time properly, so not need to do another extension again 10 years down the track when construction costs have again doubled.

NZAPA comment that they want more then the proposed 300m:

Wellington Airport Pilots Urge Extension Of Runway... | Stuff.co.nz

Just a bit of a joke. A little Trans-Tasman banter. Lighten up Comrade ;)

Slamer
On the subject of an engine-out, what would be the situation if a fully laden 737 for Oz were to experience an engine-out emergency?
Is NZWL runway long enough to accommodate the aircraft in that situation? I was thinking of the full reverse thrust needed to stop an aircraft at Wellington in a normal situation, the weight of the incoming craft and the massive assymetric thrust that would occur at full reverse thrust following an engine-out.
Would Wellington be OK?
The options.....
take a risk and try for Christchurch or would Ohakea be acceptable under the circumstances?
A case for lengthening the runway.....
I'd appreciate your thoughts.

ah, got ya. i'm a bit slow with written sarcasm. just call me sheldon cooper

:ok:

mr(s) toffee

jet perf is calculated to allow for eng failures both on the rwy and airborne. crews consider a/c ldg perf before departing, or they nominate a departure alternate eg nzoh. landing distance reqmnts are different in non normal situations.

assym rev thrust is not normally an issue unless rwy is contaminated with snow/ice etc. wellies is wide enough.

and unless you did actually mean west melton, wellington is nzwn

waren9

Many thanks for your input. Does what you are saying mean that the crew in the case I submitted would return to Wellington? (not West Melton ......ha ha good point)

a crews decision to return to land will be influenced by many things incl the nature of the failure/emergency, a/c ldg capability at that weight with remaining a/c systems, other options nearby, the weather, grd services avail, a/c perf in the missed appr etc etc etc

a heavy 737 with a straight engine failure i expect would be able to get back in to nzwn if ldg dist on a nice day was the only factor. others would know for sure.

A quick look over Boeing's performance data for the 777W or B788 indicates you'd need ~3000m on an ISA day to run a 5000nm mission with full payload. Payload reduces by ~30% off a 2300m runway. This is not a viable plan.

I certainly remember the QF 747SP service into and out of WLG - I was present the day of the inaugural, and even did a guest flight over that weekend. I even attended a lecture given by the Chief Pilot - a month or two later that he gave at the Australia New Zealand Association that used to meet monthly at the Aust High Commission in Hobson St.

The Service was eventually handed over to 767 service, as more frequent service was preferable to 3 days a week SYD WLG SYD which is used to be in winter.

An expansion into Evans Bay is gathering a lot of protest - Evans Bay is a great bay and would change for ever with a runway extension to the north. I personally would prefer an reclamation to the south but cannot comment on the tech issues that could cause.

Someone made a comment that Newlands needed a nuclear bombing, in my opinion - not much at Newlands that would be missed. I was sropping a rental car off a at WLG in Nov 2009 when my eyes saw something Gold sitting on the tarmac - yes it was a Gulf Air Airbus - the Kiwi Soccer team was playing Bahrain that weekend , I guess it was flying on a low load . Got pics to prove it.

Long Haul service to Asia would be a huge improvement - and could be marketed very successfully.

I could even be tempted to live in WLG again if that were to happen