Future Infrastructure Developments

[User0001]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

The airport management team will be considering when to start the terminal building work at their October board meeting. This from the CEO.
The November 11th consultative committee would seem to be an appropriate time to ask what was decided.

 

[White Heather]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

I confirmed the date of that meeting and entered it in my diary just this morning, and you can be certain that if the airport don't volunteer the information I will be asking for it!

 

[Runway 32]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

The airport management team will be considering when to start the terminal building work at their October board meeting.

Bridgepoint really do know how to stretch things out! This should have been decided and released ages ago if they were considering starting the work this winter like they originaly stated.

 

[White Heather]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

You would think so, yes, but in reality the airport board will be dependent upon when the contractors (all of them) are able to start work and when the suppliers (again, all of them) can guarantee manufacture and delivery of everything that is required. The options for when to start will be subject to discussion and agreement reached on what start date will lead to completion in the quickest time and with the least risk of delay due to failed deliveries etc. The project architect will almost certainly take the lead in these discussions. It is not a question of the airport board just deciding to start on 1 November as that may not be feasible. We do not know whether or not, for example, all the consents from the likes of the Environment Agency (drainage, sewage and run off) are yet in place, and if not, then you can't start. The same applies with regard to the H&S plan required under CDM regulations, and there are varioius other hurdles to be jumped, many of which are only possible when the contractors are on board and a programme of works in place.

Even relatively small projects can take ages to get going if a lot of consents are required and this is very large, will require consents for all sorts (besides LA planning), and in terms of planning to enable the airport to operate effectively for 18 months whilst work is ongoing, it is very complex. If the plans are flawed, it will be chaos next summer. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they have not yet announced a start date, but as long as it does start this winter, I don't really care. The real problem would be if the project was shelved, although LBA's recent success would make such a decision inexplicable.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

Not the new fuel farm that was originally planned but a new fuel storage area is currently being built down on the remote stands. As far as I understand it will increase capacity by a third for next summer.

I don't know if the original plan has been shelved or postponed.

 

[pilot_737]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

So this storage place will take up a stand?!

I thought LBA was in desperate need for more stands!

 

[lbia]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

No a stand it not being used, if you look on Google maps at stand 21 where the Jet2 757 is parked, the additional tanks have been placed directly infront of the aircraft, where the vehicles are parked.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

No a stand it not being used, if you look on Google maps at stand 21 where the Jet2 757 is parked, the additional tanks have been placed directly infront of the aircraft, where the vehicles are parked.

 

[pilot_737]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

Cheers for clearing that up guys!

 

[Bigman]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

Why can't they build new stands South of 'N' taxiway starting just west of 'D' taxiway? Seems to me they have got room for at least 6 stands looking at the p[reviously posted picture.

 

[eastcoaster]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

I think you'll find that this area falls within the CAT 3 protection zone. I.E. If something is parked there with a high tail, it could deflect the ILS beam and would cause a malfunction with the system. So you will never see anything parked in this area. Also within the zone is the area east of taxyway D. The apron can go no further south of where it is now. So basically we are stuck with what we have, unless the terminal is demolished and stands are created north of the building!

 

[brtitania020]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

They could extend the Apron to the East a little more and then go North to the Apron that extends out where the B757 is parked on the above Google map. Yes they will lose a little car parking space as infill is needed just there.
Also why do they not Build a Multi Storey Car park in the short stay car park across from the Terninal as that already would be ideal with a walk way to the New Terminal Extension.
I also hope that when the new departure lounge is built/ extended that they will also build a small Pier to the Easterly stands cover for the passengers.
Come on Bridgepoint get your fingers out and spend some money we need an Airport to be proud of

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

I think you'll find that this area falls within the CAT 3 protection zone. I.E. If something is parked there with a high tail, it could deflect the ILS beam and would cause a malfunction with the system. So you will never see anything parked in this area. Also within the zone is the area east of taxyway D. The apron can go no further south of where it is now. So basically we are stuck with what we have, unless the terminal is demolished and stands are created north of the building!

Are you sure about that?

If you look at the airport masterplan it shows stands in exactly the areas that Bigman has suggested. I wouldn't have thought something such as the ILS would have been overlooked with respects of planning for additional parking areas. That is unless it is possible to move the ILS transmitters and this was considered during the development of the masterplan.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

I think you'll find that this area falls within the CAT 3 protection zone. I.E. If something is parked there with a high tail, it could deflect the ILS beam and would cause a malfunction with the system. So you will never see anything parked in this area. Also within the zone is the area east of taxyway D. The apron can go no further south of where it is now. So basically we are stuck with what we have, unless the terminal is demolished and stands are created north of the building!

Are you sure about that?

If you look at the airport masterplan it shows stands in exactly the areas that Bigman has suggested. I wouldn't have thought something such as the ILS would have been overlooked with respects of planning for additional parking areas. That is unless it is possible to move the ILS transmitters and this was considered during the development of the masterplan.

In fact I have had a look at where the ILS critical areas are and you are indeed correct, so can this be considered as a major blunder in the development of the airport masterplan?

If you look on the Google map the ILS critical holding points are shown on both taxiway D and N as:

This point is abeam stand 12 on taxiway November. With some careful reconfiguration of the stand layout in conjunction with a new parking area South of the stand 22-23-24 area and using part of the long stay carpark beyond stand 19. There maybe sufficient room to increase the area by about 6 stands.

 

[pilot_737]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

I think it would be possible just like in the masterplan?

I had a go at computer design! :dirol:

 

[pilot_737]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

Why not try this?

The green bits could be a bit far but I'm sure the rest wouldn't be too hard if we had the investment!

 

[rhinoscrazy]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

Why not try this?

The green bits could be a bit far but I'm sure the rest wouldn't be too hard if we had the investment!

why is everyone doing what i did months ago?

 

[eastcoaster]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

The formula for working out the critical CAT3 area is done as follows. Start on the runway centreline and take a line 90 degrees out, on a slope of 1 in a 100. eg Every 100 m away from centreline you climb up by 1 m. So where as the lower part of a B757 may be below the line, the tail will be above. So most of those parking spaces that have been created by photoshop or whatever, would either limit the airport to CAT 1 ops only, which is a no-no.
Interestingly, the control tower actually falls within the critical area, but as it is a constant, ie it does'nt ever move, so it can be factored out and various computer software programmes can remove it from being a limiting obstacle.
As someone said, the only real new apron area could be to go well east of the new apron which would take out a long stay car park. Also, forget creating parking on the south side as crossing airfields in CAT3 is not permitted, to get to the terminal. A new terminal would have to be constructed over there, or a perimeter road that was below the level of the runway was constructed round to the present one.
I feel we have to admit that because of the restricted space at LBIA, we are close to the maximum we can cope with and build on.

 

[eastcoaster]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

I also forgot to mention, that the CAT3 protected area for 32 is the reason why you don't see B737s parked on stand 1 to 4 nose in any more, as their tails are well in the critical area. J41 and EMB135/45s are about the only types to be able to use thiese stands now.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

The formula for working out the critical CAT3 area is done as follows. Start on the runway centreline and take a line 90 degrees out, on a slope of 1 in a 100. eg Every 100 m away from centreline you climb up by 1 m. So where as the lower part of a B757 may be below the line, the tail will be above. So most of those parking spaces that have been created by photoshop or whatever, would either limit the airport to CAT 1 ops only, which is a no-no.
Interestingly, the control tower actually falls within the critical area, but as it is a constant, ie it does'nt ever move, so it can be factored out and various computer software programmes can remove it from being a limiting obstacle.
As someone said, the only real new apron area could be to go well east of the new apron which would take out a long stay car park. Also, forget creating parking on the south side as crossing airfields in CAT3 is not permitted, to get to the terminal. A new terminal would have to be constructed over there, or a perimeter road that was below the level of the runway was constructed round to the present one.
I feel we have to admit that because of the restricted space at LBIA, we are close to the maximum we can cope with and build on.

Thanks for explaining that. Do you think the airport's masterplan has a fundamental problem with respects to aircraft parking or do you think some of it is achievable.