Calgary International Airport - Page 272

Bigtime · #**5421** Posted: **Oct 3, 2011, 6:51 PM**

I wonder if they'll just tear it down?

You Need A Thneed · #**5422** Posted: **Oct 3, 2011, 6:57 PM**

I think it'll be torn down. I don't see any potential use for it that really makes sense. Too many issues to convert it into anything. Plus, if the new runway becomes the primary runway, the old tower won't be able to see half of that runway at all.

MalcolmTucker · #**5423** Posted: **Oct 3, 2011, 7:37 PM**

Would you need it to control taxing amongst the southern aprons? Or will ground radar take care of that?

Bigtime · #**5424** Posted: **Oct 3, 2011, 7:45 PM**

Nah, that will all be handled by the ground radar and the ground controller in the new tower.

tuffyy · #**5425** Posted: **Oct 5, 2011, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyeg66

I'm not convinced that it has. We all know about its couple of trips to YEG but not YYC. When I hear people talk about "The biiiiig Antonov" that came thru YYC, I'm almost certain they're confusing the -124 for the -225. Since there's only 1 flying example in the world, it's rare indeed.

To my knowledge the AN-225 has never been to YYC. It has been in Edmonton three times that I am aware of. The first time was for one of the final Namao airshows when it was present with a pair of Ukrainian Mig-29's. The second time a few years ago at YEG on overnight tech stop before heading off to Prestwick and the last time for the Helicopter lift to Afghanistan. I'm not sure YYC would welcome this bird during the day as it takes a wicked amount of time to power up while holding the brakes for take off, even more so than the AN-124 which is notorious for this when heavily laden with fuel and cargo.

lubicon · #**5426** Posted: **Oct 5, 2011, 6:42 PM**

About 15 years ago I lived in Beaumont (just south of Edmonton) which is pretty much off the departure end of Runway 02 at YEG. One of the big Antonov's, and I don't recall which one, was in YEG. They had to depart early AM (around 6 or 7) while it was cool enough that temperature did not affect takeoff performance too much. So we got a real early wakeup call that day as the thing passed over. Quite a sight to see. I would guess they would have the same performance limitations in YYC.

polishavenger · #**5427** Posted: **Oct 5, 2011, 7:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon

About 15 years ago I lived in Beaumont (just south of Edmonton) which is pretty much off the departure end of Runway 02 at YEG. One of the big Antonov's, and I don't recall which one, was in YEG. They had to depart early AM (around 6 or 7) while it was cool enough that temperature did not affect takeoff performance too much. So we got a real early wakeup call that day as the thing passed over. Quite a sight to see. I would guess they would have the same performance limitations in YYC.

What is the impact on temperature during take off? Is there less drag at cooler temperatures?

MalcolmTucker · #**5428** Posted: **Oct 5, 2011, 7:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by polishavenger

What is the impact on temperature during take off? Is there less drag at cooler temperatures?

Denser air = more drag but also more lift. Lift is what matters.

Bigtime · #**5429** Posted: **Oct 5, 2011, 11:47 PM**

I'm glad I'm not the only one that was almost 100% sure the 225 hadn't been through YYC.

Funny you mention the on-runway engine run-up tuffyy, do you recall how long it was for the 225? Usually the 124's coming through YYC request 2 minutes once in position for the run-up.

I just flew back into town from YWG today (the new terminal there looks great, too bad it STILL isn't open!) and unfortunately we used 34 so I couldn't get a good look at any of the parallel runway/terminal work from the plane.

tuffyy · #**5430** Posted: **Oct 6, 2011, 2:46 PM**

I can't be sure if it's totally consistent but the overnight tech stop departure was around 5 mins with power being applied. Seems they also pick hours of departure where it's less likely to impact other airport activity as that departure was around 2am when only the occasional freighter was active at the airport. I also more recently watched a AN-124 at MMUN depart in the late evening when it was still hot and humid, it was a good 5 mins before the crew released the brakes and rolled eating almost every inch of runway...

YYCguys · #**5431** Posted: **Oct 6, 2011, 2:50 PM**

Speaking of new terminal construction, have Air Canada Jazz/Express and CMA ground loading gate operations been relocated to accommodate construction activities, or is it still using that area (I never get to that end of the terminal anymore)?

Bigtime · #**5432** Posted: **Oct 6, 2011, 2:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuffyy

I can't be sure if it's totally consistent but the overnight tech stop departure was around 5 mins with power being applied. Seems they also pick hours of departure where it's less likely to impact other airport activity as that departure was around 2am when only the occasional freighter was active at the airport. I also more recently watched a AN-124 at MMUN depart in the late evening when it was still hot and humid, it was a good 5 mins before the crew released the brakes and rolled eating almost every inch of runway...

Wow 5 minutes in the middle of the day would give YYC ATC an aneurism!

I'm all for the 225 coming once we have the parallel, then they could depart during daylight so we could all see and they could hog one of the runways for a few minutes.

Cage · #**5433** Posted: **Oct 6, 2011, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Speaking of new terminal construction, have Air Canada Jazz/Express and CMA ground loading gate operations been relocated to accommodate construction activities, or is it still using that area (I never get to that end of the terminal anymore)?

Gate is still in the same space as bnefore (lower level below the Maple Leaf Lounge and security screening). However the access corridor has been completely redone. The corridor goes straight out to the end of the Apron before turning South. The aircraft park facing east and there are about 9 positions in total. Also there are 2 additional gates on concourse A that can handle CRJ.

The corridor/hallway is a long walk (3-5 minutes) from gate to the aircraft. Makes one feel like they have walked 1/2 to YEG.

Bigtime · #**5434** Posted: **Oct 7, 2011, 3:50 PM**

After arriving from YWG on Wednesday and seeing all the construction on the field in the daylight (and checking current NOTAM's), I am glad that I am not the poor ATC guy that gets to work ground control. So many closed taxiways and sections of taxiways closed, must be a lot of fun to work around it all!

cranium · #**5435** Posted: **Oct 7, 2011, 5:01 PM**

Indeed, the level of activity at YYC is astonishing. Not only have they been closing taxiways, 10/28 has been closed frequently while we installed ILS equipment (localizer and glide path) for 10. All four primary approaches at YYC are now on ILS.

Bigtime · #**5436** Posted: **Oct 7, 2011, 5:05 PM**

I had no idea that 10 was getting an ILS, that is pretty cool.

CalgaryLankan · #**5437** Posted: **Oct 11, 2011, 10:01 PM**

October 2011 update on tunnel construction is now posted in the city of Calgary web page for the airport tunnel.

http://calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/...nel-update.pdf

cyeg66 · #**5438** Posted: **Oct 12, 2011, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigtime

After arriving from YWG on Wednesday and seeing all the construction on the field in the daylight (and checking current NOTAM's), I am glad that I am not the poor ATC guy that gets to work ground control. So many closed taxiways and sections of taxiways closed, must be a lot of fun to work around it all!

Well, since you brought it up, yes, the poor ground guy may have had to work a little harder than under normal circumstances. Consequently, and to lessen his/her pain, we've been air sorting as much as we can. What, no "poor RayDar guy"?

All traffic for aprons 1 + 2 land on 10 as much as possible while all "southsiders" land 16. It sometimes makes for good shit storms when all inbound traffic from the east & southeast have to cross to the west to land 10... The impact of taxiway U being closed is not as great if we're on 34/28. Thankfully, just a few more years of this garbage. In 2016, it'll be a true parallel equipped airport.

The addition of ILS on 10 is nice. The minima will likely be higher (in the 250-300' range?) due to the hill. Not a big deal, either way, 'cause the weather isn't ever nasty when we're in 16/10 mode. It'll just eliminate pilots asking for 16 because they're not trained/certified/authorized to fly RNAV GNSS or NDB/DME approaches which is all we've currently got on 10. Now, if we could just find a way to eliminate the 30 knot tailwind on 10 to avoid fusing planes at the intersection....

Bigtime · #**5439** Posted: **Oct 12, 2011, 3:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Well, since you brought it up, yes, the poor ground guy may have had to work a little harder than under normal circumstances. Consequently, and to lessen his/her pain, we've been air sorting as much as we can. What, no "poor RayDar guy"? All traffic for aprons 1 + 2 land on 10 as much as possible while all "southsiders" land 16. It sometimes makes for good shit storms when all inbound traffic from the east & southeast have to cross to the west to land 10... The impact of taxiway U being closed is not as great if we're on 34/28. Thankfully, just a few more years of this garbage. In 2016, it'll be a true parallel equipped airport.

The addition of ILS on 10 is nice. The minima will likely be higher (in the 250-300' range?) due to the hill. Not a big deal, either way, 'cause the weather isn't ever nasty when we're in 16/10 mode. It'll just eliminate pilots asking for 16 because they're not trained/certified/authorized to fly RNAV GNSS or NDB/DME approaches which is all we've currently got on 10. Now, if we could just find a way to eliminate the 30 knot tailwind on 10 to avoid fusing planes at the intersection....

I've always pictured you as Billy Bob in Pushing Tin, so I figured you had it handled no problem.

Thanks for the quick rundown on the current ops, very interesting to get this firsthand knowledge of what is going on as far as impact to operations and how you are all coping!

Pegasus · #**5440** Posted: **Oct 12, 2011, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Denser air = more drag but also more lift. Lift is what matters.

I believe the significant impact is engine performance (and the Anotov 225 has 6 Ivchenko Progress D-18 turbofan engines, 51,600 lb thrust each), which is significantly impacted by altitude and ambient temperature.

Calgary's elevation is approximately 1048 m (3438 ft) above sea level downtown, and 1083 m (3553 ft) at the airport. This will reduce the engine power by about 13% compared to sea level performance, as a result of the lower mass of air going through the engine for a given volume. On a 225 (6 engines) this is almost like loosing one engine!

Reducing temperature increases the air density, and can offset the impact of altitude. Reducing the ambient temperature from 60 °F to 35 °F will increase the power produced by about 13%, more or less offsetting the impact of Calgary's altitude.

High humidity (rare in Calgary) is also good for engine power and performance as it increases the density of air going through the engine (but not in combination with high temperatures).