Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was thinking there wouldn't be enough space with the lake on the other side, but it looks like there's about 1300 feet of space between 5L/23R and the lakes, which would be enough for a taxiway and runway. That distance would also put the new runway and 5R/23L more than 4000 feet apart, which I think is the minimum for simultaneous ILS operations (though I may be wrong there?)
Yup, 14-32 is still open, I believe primarily for GA and military traffic.
4300 ft. I'd be surprised if they implemented that here. There are other options like PRM or staggering aircraft and offsetting the courses. You can still do visual approaches paired up together (ever been to SFO?) which is what happens 95% of the time....
Interesting! Thanks for the info! (not a pilot, just interested in this stuff - I was thinking it would be useful for inclement weather operations, but incorrectly assumed that staggering aircraft on parallel runways counted as simultaneous use)
Runways don't need to be level with the field elevation measured at the reference point. Max slope should be +/- 2% on the runway itself.
True, but we aren't talking a little bit here. More like 50 feet or more at the low point in elevation change compared to the current long runway it is proposed to adjoin. At least that's what it looks like driving by. I haven't looked at topo maps or anything.
True, but we aren't talking a little bit here. More like 50 feet or more at the low point in elevation change compared to the current long runway it is proposed to adjoin. At least that's what it looks like driving by. I haven't looked at topo maps or anything.
Touchdown zone elevation for 36L and 36C in CLT are >50' different. 744' vs 693'.
But regardless, it isn't going to be cheap, no matter what.
Nope. I don't really see a need for it either unless someone opens up a hub here. As long as the weather is decent they turn you 5-7 miles out, hardly the definition of 'congested'. When 23L was closed it was normal to be on a 15 mile final, which still is about half of CLT's normal amount.
I'm not understanding why RDU thinks they need a third runway. I have only had to hold once before taking off (and we were #1 in line, so it wasn't that bad).
With 3 major players (AA, Delta, United) the east coast already has sufficient hubs, in my opinion (CLT, ATL, and EWR). Even FedEX and UPS have hubs elsewhere. And let's face it, none of those options are changing any time soon.
A third runway seems like a colossal waste of time. It's nice to dream and think big, but it's even nicer to keep perspective. Raleigh has a nice airport, and it is sized right for this area (and the future).
The ongoing Vision2040 master planning process has already determined that airfield capacity should be fine through 2040. One problem, however, is the main runway needs replacing within 5 years. The question is how do they accomplish that with a minimum of disruption? One answer could be to build the third runway and then decommission the current one, but I'm not sure which way they're leaning.
I agree that current operations don't require a third parallel runway. I doubt any airline will open a hub at RDU again, but planners are assuming that local traffic will continue to increase in proportion to the Triangle's population. In the meantime, when 5L/23R or 5R/23L is closed for whatever reason, operations become messy. The third runway will provide flexibility.
I agree that current operations don't require a third parallel runway. I doubt any airline will open a hub at RDU again, but planners are assuming that local traffic will continue to increase in proportion to the Triangle's population. In the meantime, when 5L/23R or 5R/23L is closed for whatever reason, operations become messy. The third runway will provide flexibility.
You could say that about almost all regional airports with limited runways and probably most hub airports too. No reason to spend hundreds of millions on a 'what if' scenario.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
