CONFIDENTIAL
An operating scheme, based on the staggered position of the runways with respect to facilities, would likely involve a preferential runway utilization mode. When operating to the southwest, arrivals would generally be assigned to the northern runway F and departures to runway F2.
1
When operating to the northeast, arrivals would generally be assigned to runway F2, departures assigned to the less restrictive runway F1. This also appears to be preferable from a noise impact standpoint. noise analysis purposes, these assumptions were made:
For
During the 6 busy hours of the day 50 percent of departures were assigned to each runway, while during the remaining hours all departures were assigned to the northerly runway. Approaches from the northeast were assigned in a similar manner: during the 6 peak hours approaches were split equally between the two runways, and during the remaining hours all approaches were assigned to the northerly runway.
Operations to the southwest reversed these conditions. Peak hour operations were again equally split between runways, but non peak hour southwesterly departures and approaches were assigned the southerly runway.
The results of the noise exposure analysis with these initial
Note that assumptions for Scheme "B" are shown in Figure 3-4. the primary difference between this figure and that for Scheme "A" (Figure 3-3) is that the 25 NEF contour extends slightly farther to the south as а result of daytime northeasterly approaches and departures on the southerly runway. Land use compatibility implications of this exposure are discussed at Section 5.
3.7
OBSTACLE CONSIDERATIONS
To provide protection for the 1.6% take-off and climb surface (TOCS) the "Tsim Bei Tsui" peninsula should be reduced in height to about 20M APD.
Subject to further study there may be a requirement to reduce the 222M APD spot-height at position HK Grid 827225E 839750N to 192M to protect the 1.6% TOCS for runways F1 and D.
At some future date,
it would be prudent to reduce the 341M hill at position 827200E 83800ON to 283M APD to protect the 2% TOCS from runway F2. Protection of the 1.6% TOCS would require a reduction to 228M. This would require cost-effectiveness analysis and may not be worthwhile.
Costs of future obstacle removal are not included in the engineering studies.
Some of the areas to be safeguarded from the control of obstructions viewpoint lie within the PRC. Fortunately these areas tend to be at the periphery of the normal areas to be safeguarded where height restrictions are more generous. Nonetheless the erection of, say, a TV aerial in a critical position could be constraining.
3-11
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.