Calgary International Airport II

[holhm22]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

It is and it isn't. The overall political authority is the same as the rest of mainland China, but its political system is quite autonomous. Hence the term "One Country, Two Systems" that the Chinese government uses to describe the relationship between HK and the rest of China.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I'm saying. In fact, I'm in Hong Kong right now.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

You bought a home within 6 miles of an airport, a busy one at that, you're gonna hear noise!!! [sorry, inside voice making its way out] The fact councillors don't just reach down, find some 'nads, and tell complainants to pi$$ off is beyond me.

In fairness, some people may have lived their for 30 years in relative quite. Now with the new runway, they are suddenly in a flightpath. I'm not sure how happy I would be if that were my situation.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

In fairness, some people may have lived their for 30 years in relative quite. Now with the new runway, they are suddenly in a flightpath. I'm not sure how happy I would be if that were my situation.

Yes, and the land for a parallel runway has been reserved for about that long. Besides, these aren't BAC-111's, DC-9's, B707's and F-28's flying overhead, you wanna hear 'noise'? These planes are making less than half the noise of earlier models (with the occasional B732 from Canadian North ripping up the morning sky off 17L. It's not like there are suddenly planes nearby, either. They've been buzzing around close by for decades. However, truthfully, a big problem is that the wind direction has consistently been from the south and east since the parallel opened, which is kind of odd. Once the prevailing winds return to normal, (north and west), I think we'll hear less bitching from the gallery. I mean, who cares about Airdrie, right?

[Bigtime]

Well Airdrie gets a little lucky when the 35's are active, that 15 degree right turn off of 35R seems to put them a little east of Airdrie.

What are the odds the turn off of the parallel gets tweaked a little? That is the most likely culprit for noise complaints when 17L is active.

Turn them more and it shifts the noise from Rundle over to Pineridge and Temple. Like a 110 heading off 17L... it'd get them out over Stoney faster which I guess would be the goal.

Like I keep saying... for the communities that have noise now, there are a couple that no longer have any. Maybe they need to come out and voice their support for the new runway.

[Bigtime]

We need to just straight up change 17L departures to a John Wayne style setup.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Yes, and the land for a parallel runway has been reserved for about that long. Besides, these aren't BAC-111's, DC-9's, B707's and F-28's flying overhead, you wanna hear 'noise'? These planes are making less than half the noise of earlier models (with the occasional B732 from Canadian North ripping up the morning sky off 17L. It's not like there are suddenly planes nearby, either. They've been buzzing around close by for decades. However, truthfully, a big problem is that the wind direction has consistently been from the south and east since the parallel opened, which is kind of odd. Once the prevailing winds return to normal, (north and west), I think we'll hear less bitching from the gallery. I mean, who cares about Airdrie, right?

Even if people were aware of the new runway 30 years ago, how many would know enough to go research what the flight paths were going to be. Look, I'm not saying they need to shut down the runway, just that I could understand how it could be frustrating going from a quite neighborhood to having planes roaring overhead at 6am.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Acey

Like I keep saying... for the communities that have noise now, there are a couple that no longer have any. Maybe they need to come out and voice their support for the new runway.

Exactly. Those under the paths of 11/29 have paid their dues. Except we have to abuse them under the approach 11 for one more day, at least. CPS has contracted a job out to a NRC twin otter with uber-sensitive sensors, likely to try and locate a few bodies in the vicinity of Airdrie... In allowing them to fly unrestricted, we'll be landing 11 for a while today. What an awful situation for that family. As a father to four boys under 10, words can't describe.

[RyLucky]

It seems to me that the new runway would not only affect those residents at the ends of runways, but also those in the new approach and take-off paths.


Photo Above: Preferred Runway Operations
Red - Arrivals
Blue - Departures

Photo Above: South Wind Operations
Red - Arrivals
Blue - Departures

http://www.yyc.com/en-us/calgaryairportauthority/projectsprograms/aircraftactivityatyyc.aspx

I realize that total traffic is up, but is that not more significantly more traffic than before over the west side of the city, the side which might not have expected the runway to affect them? Would it not be better to have more flights enter the city directly from the north and south (ie, moving the west approach further west, curving over less populated areas near High River, etc)? The change in flight distance would be almost negligible. I'm not as big an avgeek as some of you, but it seems like a change that would be easy and economical (although the city may have little say and YYC may have little motivation to change..)

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Exactly. Those under the paths of 11/29 have paid their dues. Except we have to abuse them under the approach 11 for one more day, at least. CPS has contracted a job out to a NRC twin otter with uber-sensitive sensors, likely to try and locate a few bodies in the vicinity of Airdrie... In allowing them to fly unrestricted, we'll be landing 11 for a while today. What an awful situation for that family. As a father to four boys under 10, words can't describe.

Thanks for that info, as horrible as it all is.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

It seems to me that the new runway would not only affect those residents at the ends of runways, but also those in the new approach and take-off paths.

I realize that total traffic is up, but is that not more significantly more traffic than before over the west side of the city, the side which might not have expected the runway to affect them? Would it not be better to have more flights enter the city directly from the north and south (ie, moving the west approach further west, curving over less populated areas near High River, etc)? The change in flight distance would be almost negligible. I'm not as big an avgeek as some of you, but it seems like a change that would be easy and economical (although the city may have little say and YYC may have little motivation to change..)

Traffic on approach is usually very quiet though, no gear down and minimal flaps, and engines at or very close to idle.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Traffic on approach is usually very quiet though, no gear down and minimal flaps, and engines at or very close to idle.

extended approaches are a problem. The airplane must add power and nose up to account for longer than expected downwind segment, change of runway, or anything else that can happen when number of arrivals occur simultaneously.

Speaking specifically about YYZ noise restrictions. These have been inplace for since the days when Transport was in control of the airport and Hurricane Hazel was about Nenshi's age. Even then night time operations are allowed in limited circumstances. The instances of night time operations has crept up slowly over the last little while as cargo ops and pax flights grow. For example, jets over 50 seats could not be scheduled to depart or arrive before 6am. Ac solution in the 90s was to operate CRJ-100s at 10 minute intervals to get the traffic moving. Eventually this was deemed waste of resources so a large jet allowance was made for 5:30 departure. Same thing occurred for the red eye arrivals, in the mid 90s if the red eye arrived to early they would have to circle over the lake to wait for 6am. Eventually this too was deemed a waste so an early arrival is now okay.

In YVR noise restrictions, the majority of the restrictions included a clause that allowed for relaxation during times of need. For example if the old runway was closed for maintenance. the new run way would allow both departures and arrivals. Also night ops were restricted based on need, but not an absolute restriction. As YVR pax and movement numbers increase the noise restrictions are being altered.

[Bigtime]

YYC officially announcing that it will be a Delta hotel opening up in the new terminal.

[Jimby]

tweet from yyc:
Exciting announcement underway at YYC. Delta Hotels and Resorts announces new four-star experience as part of YYC's expansion. More to come!

edit: never mind!

[Doug_Cgy]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

YYC officially announcing that it will be a Delta hotel opening up in the new terminal.

Did they mention what will become of the existing Delta?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

We need to just straight up change 17L departures to a John Wayne style setup.

You haven't seen terrifying until you have seen an A300 do that.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

In fairness, some people may have lived their for 30 years in relative quite. Now with the new runway, they are suddenly in a flightpath. I'm not sure how happy I would be if that were my situation.

30 years ago there was still an airport within shouting distance. Anyone who thought that flight paths were set in stone, forever, especially in a city that grows as rapidly as Calgary does - quite frankly, is an idiot. Things change, technology changes, cities grow, new runways and new airplanes happen.

Some people can handle airplane noise, some cannot. Those of us who don't like it as much, well we chose houses 20km away from the airport. It really isn't a difficult thing to figure out.

I'll take this over Leduc any day, thank you very much.

[Tills13]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

YYC officially announcing that it will be a Delta hotel opening up in the new terminal.

Is this an additional structure or is it the hotel building that's already under construction?

[tuffyy]

Originally Posted by freeweed

30 years ago there was still an airport within shouting distance. Anyone who thought that flight paths were set in stone, forever, especially in a city that grows as rapidly as Calgary does - quite frankly, is an idiot. Things change, technology changes, cities grow, new runways and new airplanes happen.

Some people can handle airplane noise, some cannot. Those of us who don't like it as much, well we chose houses 20km away from the airport. It really isn't a difficult thing to figure out.

I'll take this over Leduc any day, thank you very much.

Agreed.

Leduc and Edmonton have had aircraft overflying the city (more so when YXD was still operational). But for years any northbound arrivals/departures off 02/20 from/to YEG head straight over Edmonton.

And although decreasing in numbers as newer types arrive a lot of loud classic 737-200's heading north, oh how I miss that...

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by tuffyy

Agreed.

Leduc and Edmonton have had aircraft overflying the city (more so when YXD was still operational). But for years any northbound arrivals/departures off 02/20 from/to YEG head straight over Edmonton.

And although decreasing in numbers as newer types arrive a lot of loud classic 737-200's heading north, oh how I miss that...

I think what Freeweed meant was he's content with airplane noise if it doesn't mean building an airport way outside the city because of the small, vocal minority, but maybe I'm wrong. In any event, at the rate Edmonton's growing south toward the airport, we're only about 5-10 years away from the bitching and moaning starting. "Sure, I bought a new house only a few miles from an airport but let's put an end to that noisy airplane nonsense".

And Tuffy, those -200's are like clockwork, 7 am every day off 02. I live on the south side, they're my weekday alarm clock if I'm not working. Beats the annoying beep of the aforementioned clock.