Airport lounge

[tom_sawyer]

@cristi5: ai situatia explicata mai bine aici:

https://www.aviatiamagazin.com/aviatie-militara/fabrica-airbus-de-la-ghimbav-on-hold-ar-putea-fi-relocata-in-alta-tara/

La licitatia (de fapt au fost 2, ambele anulate din lipsa de ofertanti) pentru elicoptere medii-grele organizata de ISU nu au catadicsit sa depuna oferta. Inteleg din Hotnews ca vor neaparat o comanda pentru varianta militara pentru a da drumul liniei de asamblare.

[cristi5]

Operatorii aerieni, acuzati ca duc prea mult combustibil pt a evita alimentarea la destinatie. Combustibilul face avionul mai greu, rezulta mai mult dioxid de carbon emis

Climate change: Airlines accused of 'putting profit before planet' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50365362

[cristi5]

Piste circulare
- 3 avioane deodata pe pista
- ocupa mai putin spatiu
- evita vantul lateral

Think again: Will circular runways ever take off?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39284294

[Io]

Never and for very good reasons:
- o pista circulara trebuie sa fie inclinata. Asta inseamna ca virful aripii dinspre exteriorul cercului e prea aproape de pista iar motorul de sub ea e mai aproape de sol, cu risc mai mare de a aspira "debries" in el; inca: cit de mare sa fie unghiul de inclinare? Ce se intimpla daca aeronava iese in exteriorul pistei si "cade" pe partea cealalta?
- "rejected takeoffs" pun instantaneu tot aeroportul sub presiune; inca: "rejected takeoffs" (pentru ca, sa spunem s-a dus motorul 2 (dreapta) inainte de Vr). Insa motorul stinga continua sa impinga generind o forta centrifuga asupra aeronavei, forta care actioneaza pentru scoaterea aeronavei in afara pistei - am presupus evident o pista cu decolare in sensul trigonometric, ideea e identica in oglinda pentru o pista in sens orar; inca: manevra Go Around a unui singur avion pune tot spatiul aerian sub stres;
- poti sa uiti de ILS (il poti folosi doar la apropiere, atunci cind avionul vine la aterizare in linie dreapta) si eventual sa te rogi sa nu fie vreodata ceata sub 100m sau pe pista;
- ce faci daca pista e uda (si avionul cu tendinta de acvaplanare) sau inghetata?;
- vitezele de decolare si de aterizare vor trebui sa fie mai mari si implicit timpii de eliberare a pistei mai mari;
- costuri induse aiurea. Londra spre exemplu are 5 aeroporturi. Toate folosesc sisteme de approach similare. Daca Heathrow ar decide cumva sa faca piste circulare atunci si London si Lutton si Stanstead trebuie sa o faca sau macar sa-si modifice substantial approach-urile;
- in designul unei piste de aeroport ai din ratiuni de securitate a decolarilor/aterizarilor cite o zona la ambele capete ale pistelor care e un coridor liber de obstacole, turnuri, cladiri peste o anumita inaltime etc. O pista circulara ar presupune o astfel de zona libera mult mai mare;
- "emergency landing" sau avion "incapacitat", situatii Pan-pan-pan sau Mayday: nu i s-a deschis complet trenul de aterizare sau probleme de hidraulica (un rind "rebel" de flapsuri sau cirma blocata sa zicem); dificultatile sint mult mai mari si siguranta pasagerilor si a aeronavei mult inrautatite iar asta cu micsorarea sigurantei e un mare nu in industria asta.

Bottom end: ideea e foarte veche (cel putin din anii '60) si a venit ca un raspuns la o nonproblema, aceea a decolarilor/aterizarilor crosswinds. Pilotii gasesc astfel de aterizari/decolari ca fiind interesante si fara probleme mari (un procent semnificativ de aterizari se fac "crab", adica cu botul avionului nealiniat la pista, altfel spus e un unghi intre linia de lungime a aeronavei si linia pistei, unghi care depinde, evident, de componenta perpendiculara pe directia de zbor a vitezei vintului. Care vint va fi intotdeauna preferat sa fie din fata, cit mai aproape de 90 de grade. O pista circulara nu-ti va asigura asa ceva decit in doua locuri diametral opuse dar spatiul de separatie in zbor al aeronavelor e prea mic sa dai drumul la doua concomitent) insa macanitorii de pe margine au zis sa le rezolve cu rintasul asta.
Mai nou e un olandez pe nume Henk Hesselink care trage fonduri europene (cum altfel?) ca sa studieze el prostia asta. S-au luat public piloti de linie de el si raspunsurile lui nu au fost deloc convingatoare. Fara sa urmaresc neaparat subiectul am vazut ideea pompata de BBC (-ul devenit mai nou goarna ecologista si implicit promotor de stupizenii) de cel putin 3 ori din 2016 incoace. Sic transit ...

[Harry]

Am auzi multe ineptii la viata mea dar asta cu pista circulara e ceva special ))

App de aeroporturi dubioase:

[Io]

A Tale of Two Cities: Berlin and Beijing
by David Hopwood | Nov 17, 2019

The history of Berlin in the 20th century is one of war, division and reunification. No single airport had served the traditional capital of the country because of the infamous 'Iron Curtain' dividing the city into east and west.
The city had been served from 1948 by Tegel. (TXL) Located in the former western French sector of the divided city, Tegel was for many years probably the most important airport in the city. Also in the west, Tempelhof (THF) had functioned as an airfield since 1909 - indeed the Wright brothers had flown there in September of that year. The airport cemented a place in history as the main terminus of the Berlin Airlift from June '48 to September '49. It reached capacity in the '60s and was closed in 2008. Schönefeld (SXF) dates from 1934 and is located in the former eastern sector. It carries the majority of European flights out of Berlin.

The city's airports had experienced massive growth from the late 90's; in '91, 7.9 million passengers used the Berlin airports; in 2014, this had more than trebled to 28m, One of the consequences was that by 1996 it was clear that Berlin was running out of passenger capacity and the decision was made to build a new facility, Berlin Brandenburg International (BER) by closing the airports of Tegel and Tempelhof, expanding Schönefeld and constructing a new runway, terminal building and related transport links.

With its reputation for efficiency, innovation and superb engineering, even a major construction project should have been straightforward for Germany.

Alas, no. After 15 years of planning, construction of BER began in 2006, at an estimated cost of €2bn and an opening date five years later of October 2011. It was expected to cater for 27m passengers each year. The latest estimates are a cost of €7.3bn (over three times the original estimate) and an opening in 2020. Or 2021. Or never.
Poor construction planning, appalling execution, awful management and allegations of corruption (sublinierea mea) have even resulted in some recommendations that the airport be torn down and rebuilt from scratch. A change to the standard airspace arrivals and departures resulted in renewed demonstrations from residents of Berlin. The number of faults and errors in design and construction are almost comic; significant problems with the fire safety system, 4000 doors wrongly labelled, escalators too short. All 750 flight information monitors had to be replaced earlier this year at a cost of €500 000. The costs of the airport remaining unopened amounts to €9-10m per month.

Contrast this with the construction of the brand-new Daxing airport (PKX) in Beijing. The existing Beijing Capital airport (PEK) dates from 1958, approached capacity in 2013 and currently caters for more than 95m passengers per year. It's currently the world's second busiest after Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta which had 107m passengers in 2018. To deal with huge anticipated expansion of passengers, construction of Daxing began in December 2013 and the first commercial flight took place on 26th September this year - 6 years later. It has an initial capacity of 72m passengers per year and a theoretical maximum on site of 200m per year. It's the world's largest single-terminal airport of approximately a million square metres. Its estimated costs were about the same as the current cost of Berlin Brandenburg: €7.2bn, but final costs are half as much again, €10.3bn.

The contrasts between Brandenburg and Daxing couldn't be more obvious; for about the same amount of money, Beijing has a working airport that can easily become the world's biggest in a few years. Berlin has a €7.3bn embarrassment that may (or may not) finally deal with some passengers ten years late.

But wait-there's more! The new 'Dubai' expected in 2027 is expected to cost €31bn. A true monster!

[frunzaverde]

@Io - Noul aeroport din Dubai - Dubai World Central / Al Maktoum e pus "on hold" permanent dupa faza 1 (o singura pista, un terminal cargo si un terminal pax modest). Emirates a zis ca nu-l vrea.

BER e un dezastru total. Politicieni la butoane, construind ceva cu o utilitate indoielnica, fara un client real...

[Io]

^ + 1
Dar sa n-o dam in politica Orientului Mijlociu si de-astea. Eu cel putin nu ma bag. Ce concurente au ei intre ei in ideea, altminteri plauzibila, de a constitui niste hub-uri/noduri de transport intre Europa si Asia in zona, ca-i Dubai, Doha sau ce-or mai face pe-acolo nu ma intereseaza decit daca imi permit dracului niste calatorii mai convenabile pina in Asia de SE, sa pot plec la ore convenabile si sa fumez citeva tigari intr-o escala. (Poate sa fie si la Istanbul din parte-mi, ma doare la trei metri-n spate, daca pot sa plec la o ora office din Otopeni si sa aterizez pe seara la Delhi e ok. Ihim, wishfull thinking  ). Pentru mine alt motiv de existenta a DXB nu exista azi si nu poate exista nici daca fac altul de 10 ori mai mare, e doar un loc prin care n-am incotro si trebuie sa trec intre doua avioane. Asta ca sa evit chinul statului 11+ ore intr-un tub de aluminiu intre Frankfurt sau asa si Asia de SE.
Am insa o vaga banuiala ca kestiile (e intentionata...) ca DXB sau DOH sint la concurenta nu doar intre ele ci si cu avioanele long haul pentru ca daca nu stiu care Airbus/Boeing va decola direct din Estul Europei pentru China/India/Malaysia/Indonesia/Korea (asa cum fac zborurile experimentale din lunile astea) aeroporturile astea isi vor injumatati clientela, fie ea si cea fumatoare 
Chiar sint curios ce opinie ai despre situatia asta.

[TibiV]

Ionut, poti sa stergi postarea...
Dar este absolut INCREDIBIL!!!
Ma rog, credibil daca vorbim despre China....

Contrast this with the construction of the brand-new Daxing airport (PKX) in Beijing. The existing Beijing Capital airport (PEK) dates from 1958, approached capacity in 2013 and currently caters for more than 95m passengers per year. It's currently the world's second busiest after Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta which had 107m passengers in 2018. To deal with huge anticipated expansion of passengers, construction of Daxing began in December 2013 and the first commercial flight took place on 26th September this year - 6 years later. It has an initial capacity of 72m passengers per year and a theoretical maximum on site of 200m per year. It's the world's largest single-terminal airport of approximately a million square metres. Its estimated costs were about the same as the current cost of Berlin Brandenburg: €7.2bn, but final costs are half as much again, €10.3bn.

Cam un chinez din 6-7 ar putea zbura pe acolo...

Hahahaha....
Noi facem CF GdN-Otopeni pentru Euro 2020, care evident NU va fi gata pentru Euro 2020....

Pana la urma, poate aia din Muntenegru au ales bine... 

[frunzaverde]

Timpul nu iarta nici avioanele... Si ele imbatranesc, ca si noi - dupa 30 de ani in aer se umplu de rani si cicatrici:



Si din interior:



Si inca zboara, si inca pot face "magie", indiferent cat de batrane sunt. Cu el am aterizat pe CAT II, cu vizibilitate 200 m pe METAR, pe ceata de injura Uberistul ca nu vede nimic pe DN1... Zboruri bune!

[Io]

^ Si uite cum vine de se leaga desi parca ieri au fost lansate in productie: primul Airbus A 380 a fost dus azi la scrap dupa ceva mai mult de 10 ani in serviciu (Singapore Airlines) si 11 luni de lucrari de dezafectare si de recuperare a componentelor.

[TibiV]

Spectaculos, ca pentru anul nou...

I was able to film a few epic crosswind landings in 2019 and I decided to edit a ranked video of the most amazing x wind landings. I included the crazy Airbus A380 go around at Amsterdam Schiphol and the Boeing 747 of KLM which almost touched the ground with engine number 4 after fighting with 40 knots crosswind from the south.

But my personal highlight of the year was the crosswind landing of the Antonov An-124 of Volga Dnepr which touched down with the front gear. Watching such a massive plane with the main gears in the air while the front gear already slided above the ground was a breatheaking moment and the most amazing aviation moment of 2019 for me.

[Harry]

Berlin 1954

[istvan78]

^ Si uite cum vine de se leaga desi parca ieri au fost lansate in productie: primul Airbus A 380 a fost dus azi la scrap dupa ceva mai mult de 10 ani in serviciu (Singapore Airlines) si 11 luni de lucrari de dezafectare si de recuperare a componentelor.

Cu incetarea productiei anuntata in 2021, pretul pieselor de schimb noi de la producatori va exploda. Asa valoarea in piese a unui 380 utilizat creste si ajunge sa depaseasca valoarea in stare de functionare (care e oricum indoielnica).

Probabil vom mai vedea multa vreme 380-uri zburand, dar se vor "hrani" cu piese canibalizandu-si semenii.

[Io]

^ Asta e, piata a spus ca nu se va duce intr-acolo si tehnologia ii da bice.
Citeva date ma lasa cu gura cascata la motorul GE 9X: diametru cit cel al fuselajului unui 737 (!), 10% mai eficient decit GE 90, mai silentios, mai putin poluator, de 4 ori mai puternic decit un F 16, atit de puternic incit furnizeaza 2/3 din tractiunea rachetei care l-a dus pe Gagarin pe orbita.
A, si piese printate 3D de tineri ingineri (de 25-30 de ani) care nu facusera la scoala asa ceva! N-au avut cind, tehnologia era pe plansete si in laborator.
Banuiesc ca au sunat niste alarme pe la Rolls Royce.