This is the design of Long Thanh International Airport, Vietnam. Can someone answer a few concerns of mine regarding of it? (Questions in the comment)

[-]

phucnguyen580754@reddit

Sao mình kiếm k ra á, b gửi link cho mình đc k =((

[-]

Full design thì có mỗi cái ảnh này thôi á. Còn file thiết kế chi tiết dạng pdf cho riêng giai đoạn 1 thì bạn search "Bản vẽ thiết kế sân bay Long Thành" là có một số web về kiến trúc họ đăng chi tiết luôn.

[-]

phucnguyen580754@reddit

oki cảm ơn b nha =))

[-]

TMT51@reddit (OP)

The airport is currently being built on a 5km x 10km land. A few questions I need to ask people on the sub:

There are 2 pairs of runways, each pair has 2 runways just 400 meters from eachother. Will this system work better than just 2 runways running idependently?
Is there a better way to place 4 runways so that all of them can run independently?
Is it necessary to build an underground metro system to carry people and luggage between the 4 terminals?

Would love some insight on the design of this airport. Thanks.

[-]

StartersOrders@reddit

The layout reminds me of LAX, i.e. four runways sandwiching the terminals.

I would assume it'll be operated in a similar fashion to LAX, the outer runways will be used for landing aircraft and the inner runways used for departing aircraft.

There looks to be well over a kilometre of separation between the two outer runways so parallel approaches won't be a problem.

[-]

zneave@reddit

Interesting I've noticed at Denver they like to use the inner runways for landing and the outer ones for take off. Wonder whats the deciding factor the airports use to determine that.

[-]

MaddingtonBear@reddit

When runways are aligned, you use the inner for departures so the lineup doesn't have to cross an active runway. When runways are staggered, you can minimize taxi distance. An example of the latter is PHL. The 27s are in use most of the time. They depart 27L and arrive 27R. You have a relatively short taxi from the main apron to the departure end of 27L, and rolling out from 27R, you exit the runway right to the apron.

[-]

StartersOrders@reddit

LAX does it the way round they do so departing traffic doesn't occupy a landing runway.

Denver also has staggered runways so that may be part of the reason they do it.

[-]

ProudlyWearingThe8@reddit

It's basically the same layout as CDG, including the taxiways between the runways.

I think this airport was designed by the latest standards, and looking at the planned layout, with three pairs of parallel taxiways left and right of the terminals connecting one side of the airport with the other and even in and out of every ramp looks pretty well-thought-out to me.

[-]

TMT51@reddit (OP)

Yes, there are a 2km of seperation between 2 inner runways so the 2 pairs can run independently to each other

[-]

DaSilence@reddit

Compare the layout here to KDFW.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2406/06039AD.PDF

To Q1 - yes, two pairs is far, far superior to 2 runways when you expand to the second terminal. This keeps planes from having to taxi across the access road that runs down the middle of the complex.

You land on one (normally the outer), and take off from the other (normally the inner). This allows for WAY more volume of traffic.

The goal with pairs is to cut down on taxi time / complexity and take burden off ops. Compare KDFW to KLAX - at KDFW, you have a tower for each side of the airport, and they have positive visual control over their entire side of the airport, whereas at KLAX, there are huge swaths of space (K, L, N, P, and Y) where the tower can’t see what’s going on, so they just kind of hope everyone does what they’re supposed to do (hope for the best, pray for the rest).

To Q2, you don’t want them operating independently. That adds a huge amount of complexity. You designate a pair for takeoffs (one on each side of the complex), and a pair for landings. You pick the direction based on the winds.

To Q3, transiting between terminals doesn’t need to be underground. DFW has elevated trains to move between terminals, stopping roughly 1/3 and 2/3 of the way around each terminal. I think the furthest theoretical you can do a gate to gate is from the satellite terminal in E (E22) to the satellite terminal in B (B39), and that takes about 30 minutes between walking and train. Practically speaking, this doesn’t happen, so realistically you’re never further than about a 20 minute train+walk from gate to gate.

[-]

the_whole_arsenal@reddit

1) yes, despite having to crossover one runway to access the terminal it will still be very efficient.

2) no, not really. You set them so they are either upwind or downwind at all times, and all four are still run independently through atc. The design may allows for end grounds to be added around the runways closest to the terminal.

3) a plane train following a figure 8 pattern would hit all 4 terminals every 4 minutes with just two trains running. Each terminal will have luggage collection, and they likely have a system to move luggage from one terminal to another.

This looks like a pretty efficient design capable of handling 50-70mm passengers annually.

[-]

TMT51@reddit (OP)

The official plan is to have 25m passengers per terminal per year, making it 100m capacity when all 4 terminals complete. Unfortunately there didn't seem to be any any system to carry people and luggage between terminals, which I'm concerned about. I hope they had it but simply didn't announce it publicly, else it will become a major flaw in the design

[-]

the_whole_arsenal@reddit

The designer is Japan Airport Consultants, and they have designed ~30 airports, and done retrofits to another 80. Because it is built in stages, there would not be a luggage system until it is complete. If the airport is designed as O&D, there wouldn't be a great deal of demand for transfers, therefore little need for a train.

Keep in mind, the designer takes the requests from the client. If they didn't ask for a train, they wouldn't get one. If the terminals were meant to work independently, there would not be a need for bag transfers either. JFK airport is like this.

[-]

TMT51@reddit (OP)

Thank you for the info. I'll take a look at JFK then.

[-]

Beahner@reddit

These are good questions to ask and learn more. To me this looks like a great usage of what we have learned about best running airports. The design is very nice IMO.

My local large airport (KMCO) also has two runways on each side of terminals. The two original ones on the west side are right next to one another (old SAC air base). The two on the east are not super close to one another, but I don’t think this was specifically by design for ops as land considerations. The first one is right off that sides terminals, but the other is out a bit.

That said if you come in or go out of that far east runway they have built it do you can hoof out there or back pretty quickly.

[-]

BikeMinistry26@reddit

SFO has 28L and 28R spaced even close than the 400 meters so its no issue. Next, by having 2 pairs of runways, 1 pair of runways can be further divided into takeoff and landing. When you have 2 pairs of runways and each pair is positioned on both sides of the airport, it reduces taxi time for aircraft. Lastly, people movers and baggage system is required because that is the most efficient way for the airport baggage and people to be moved as opposed to walking.

[-]

No1PaulKeatingfan@reddit

SFO has 28L and 28R spaced even close than the 400 meters so its no issue.

But SFO is an unique and special circumstance so I wouldn't use that one as the standard.

[-]

TMT51@reddit (OP)

Interesting. So it does increase number of flights take off and landing than just 1. I agree on the people mover system but sadly there isn't any of it in the initial design of this airport, which I think could be a mistake once the construction is done.