Who needs notams? Just read 'Flight International'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who needs notams? Just read 'Flight International'.
Reading what was then the latest edition of 'Flight International', (27 Jan - 2 Feb) I noticed an article on page 14 titled 'Uncontrolled building boom places Dhaka approaches in danger'.
The article goes on to say that that the CAAB has identified 66 (!) high rise buildings around Zia International that break height guidelines set down by ICAO. In addition, there are 'hundreds more unauthorised structures near the runway'.
In one case, a building that had approval to be 180m high was actually 520m high.
No one who operates regularly into Dhaka would be particularly surprised to read this. Just another day in paradise... but I was surprised when I had to fly into Dhaka last week to find no mention of these high rise buildings infringing the runway approach paths in the Notams.
340 metres is damn near 1100 feet. That's a little more than a minor infringement of the approach path.
The article goes on to say that that the CAAB has identified 66 (!) high rise buildings around Zia International that break height guidelines set down by ICAO. In addition, there are 'hundreds more unauthorised structures near the runway'.
In one case, a building that had approval to be 180m high was actually 520m high.
No one who operates regularly into Dhaka would be particularly surprised to read this. Just another day in paradise... but I was surprised when I had to fly into Dhaka last week to find no mention of these high rise buildings infringing the runway approach paths in the Notams.
340 metres is damn near 1100 feet. That's a little more than a minor infringement of the approach path.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlapsOne, the moderator has moved the thread to the 'African Aviation' page. Pity actually, I'd have liked to see this subject stay on R & N so it could be discussed by the wident audience possible.
Many international airlines, including BA, operate daily into DAC, and the point 410 has raised is a very important one. How would you like to do a donk and find the takeoff splay occuppied by a high rise building that's infringing it by a 1000' vertically? CNN would just love that.
Dear moderator, please consider moving this back to R & N.
Many international airlines, including BA, operate daily into DAC, and the point 410 has raised is a very important one. How would you like to do a donk and find the takeoff splay occuppied by a high rise building that's infringing it by a 1000' vertically? CNN would just love that.
Dear moderator, please consider moving this back to R & N.
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the post was moved from R&N by a moderator on that forum, I am reluctant to bounce it back. Obviously it was relating to Dhaka as opposed to Dakar. Sounds like just the sort of mistake I would make !
I am moving this to Aircrew notices which may be more relevant and hopefully it will achieve a wide audience.
I am moving this to Aircrew notices which may be more relevant and hopefully it will achieve a wide audience.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I go along with it being on this forum. Some crew would surely like to see it and I expect it will get a wider audience. I will watch and see,
Bit of a mix-up though. Still, it proves that sharp eyes who watch over PPRuNe do it as well as ever.
Someone care to expand on the article in Flight?
PPP
Bit of a mix-up though. Still, it proves that sharp eyes who watch over PPRuNe do it as well as ever.
Someone care to expand on the article in Flight?
PPP
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight International 27 Jan - 2 Feb
"Uncontrolled building boom places Dhaka approaches in danger."
By Roland Buerk
The Bangladesh civil aviation authority CAAB has warned that the safety of aircraft making approaches to and departures from the international airport at Dhaka is being jeopardised by an uncontrolled building boom in the city. The CAAB has identified 66 high-rise buidings around Zia International airport that break height guidelines set down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation because developers are exceeding their planning permission.
In addition, there are hundreds more smaller unauthorised structures near the runway. The airport is used by major international airlines including British Airways, Emirates, Thai Airways International and the national carrier Biman Bangladesh.
Dhaka's Capital City Development Authority, known as RAJUK, is responsible for approving plans for new buildings and ensuring they are followed, but it has been unable to keep the developers in check, and many simply add on extra floors above the approved level, says the CAAB. In one case, a building that should have been 180m (590ft) tall actually rises to 520m. "It's basically the builders flouting the rules," says Shaikh Abul Basher, CAAB's deputy director in charge of aerodromes.
The CAAB is demanding RAJUK take action against the builders. But so far just two cases have been filed, and they are likely to take years to drag through the courts. With dozens of new buildings going up in the Gulshan and Banani areas to the south of the airport, the CAAB is calling for RAJUK to step up its enforcement procedures. "The planners need to be more vigilant," says Basher. "It' easier to stop a building in the first place than dismantle it."
Slapping the head of the development company, the construction company and the financiers in jail as soon as any planning restrictions are breached would probably bring it all to a halt soon enough.
"Uncontrolled building boom places Dhaka approaches in danger."
By Roland Buerk
The Bangladesh civil aviation authority CAAB has warned that the safety of aircraft making approaches to and departures from the international airport at Dhaka is being jeopardised by an uncontrolled building boom in the city. The CAAB has identified 66 high-rise buidings around Zia International airport that break height guidelines set down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation because developers are exceeding their planning permission.
In addition, there are hundreds more smaller unauthorised structures near the runway. The airport is used by major international airlines including British Airways, Emirates, Thai Airways International and the national carrier Biman Bangladesh.
Dhaka's Capital City Development Authority, known as RAJUK, is responsible for approving plans for new buildings and ensuring they are followed, but it has been unable to keep the developers in check, and many simply add on extra floors above the approved level, says the CAAB. In one case, a building that should have been 180m (590ft) tall actually rises to 520m. "It's basically the builders flouting the rules," says Shaikh Abul Basher, CAAB's deputy director in charge of aerodromes.
The CAAB is demanding RAJUK take action against the builders. But so far just two cases have been filed, and they are likely to take years to drag through the courts. With dozens of new buildings going up in the Gulshan and Banani areas to the south of the airport, the CAAB is calling for RAJUK to step up its enforcement procedures. "The planners need to be more vigilant," says Basher. "It' easier to stop a building in the first place than dismantle it."
Slapping the head of the development company, the construction company and the financiers in jail as soon as any planning restrictions are breached would probably bring it all to a halt soon enough.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone currently operating into DAC say if their airline has a notam out about this? Last time I went there, there was nothing about it at all in the notams.
I also think that somone might have got his facts a bit skewed in the original F.I. report, as I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed an 1100' tall building in the circling area if one had been there. Maybe 330 feet rather than 330 metres? Have to agree though that it would ruin your day to find an unreported building of any height infringing finals or a missed approach splay.
I also think that somone might have got his facts a bit skewed in the original F.I. report, as I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed an 1100' tall building in the circling area if one had been there. Maybe 330 feet rather than 330 metres? Have to agree though that it would ruin your day to find an unreported building of any height infringing finals or a missed approach splay.
