Airport Noise Related to - Flight Path Just After Takeoff - Takeoffs Now Radically Increasing?

[BaronOfThunder]

Reviewing the above information, the most pertinent reply seems to be that of CNX :

"""The xmas new year and weeks around it are the busiest time of the year for tourist arrivals. Flights are full, extra flights, hotels are full, room rates are at the highest level etc.

Regardless of the wind direction (unless there is a storm and strong winds) flights will land from the south over Hangdong , Mahia area. 80% of flights are coming up from the south anyway. When its time for the flight to depart regardless of wind direction the airport will depart the flights to the south. Even the chinese and korean flights. Taking off towards the south can only happen if there are no inbound flights coming in to land from the south. With it being the busiest time of the year there is a steady stream of flights landing this is not possible. Thats why the last 5-6 days you have noticed more take offs to the north.

A lot of the chinese flights are operated by modern boeings and airbuses fresh from the factory in last 12 months. There are no A380's flying into Chiang Mai. My feeling with the recent boom in flights from China, is that this is only the beginning.

If you do move probably best not to Mahia or the Sanphakwan area. When the traffic dies down a bit the a lot more flights will depart to the south so one aircraft roars over those areas twice."""

This explains why, a, people are hearing planes taking off from both sides of the runway almost at the same time, and b, why sometimes over an hour can go by without any flights over flying the north of the runway area, since the flights are then directed to depart from the south.

Looking at the fr24 app, I have not noticed any flights taking off to the south, however with 200 flights departing in a day, they cannot all be passing overhead or we would know it.

Someone above mentioned OCD and biting bullets. I doubt I am particularly compulsive, maybe somewhat obsessive regarding research topics, and certainly I would be biting bullets if I were not also sweating them during this record breaking high season. I am supposed to be advising on a research paper in the early afternoon, and I worry I either will not have enough sleep by then, or still be obsessing on takeoffs from the North.

Edited January 3, 2016 by BaronOfThunder

[briley]

Reading this makes me wonder how many remember the MD11 flown by 12Go? Now that was a noisy plane.

Agreed, this year is worse than last year, more flights out to the north.

Funnily enough last year was worse than the year before, and I will predict next year will be worse than this year. Strange really.

Personally do not find much difference over the holiday periods, only a few extra flights. SongKran is the worse period for extra flights. Joys to come for the Baron!

[Johpa]

Another 737 just went over.

HO1326 / DKH1326

Juneyao Airlines

HO1326 / DKH1326

Juneyao Airlines

Aircraft(B738)

Boeing 737-8B5

And it is actually true that these Boeing jets are about the nosiest that I have heard. Or, maybe just lower in altitude.

KE2670

Many of the current Boeing 737s are about to be replaced by the 737 Max which adopts technology from the 787 and which is to my untrained ears a relatively quiet aircraft on take-off. The now aging 747s are also about to be replaced by the far quieter two-engine 777X.

Now if you want real jet noise then skip the F-16 and stand near an Anatov 124 that is about to depart, one of the joys of working at the Boeing visitor center on occasion.

[BaronOfThunder]

Reading this makes me wonder how many remember the MD11 flown by 12Go? Now that was a noisy plane.

Agreed, this year is worse than last year, more flights out to the north.

Funnily enough last year was worse than the year before, and I will predict next year will be worse than this year. Strange really.

Personally do not find much difference over the holiday periods, only a few extra flights. SongKran is the worse period for extra flights. Joys to come for the Baron!

Thank you for the warning about the April festival and holiday. I have not been here to see it this past year, and I still have a few months to plan for the passenger flight increase.

This morning, I have been using the FR24 app that I just purchased for 3.99USD to search out the airports in the vicinity which seem least busy.

If you look at NAN airport, you will see that there is nothing there in the way of planes going or coming. IF this app can be believed, then that is the place to go during these crazy holiday secular pilgrimages to Chiang Mai.

So after noticing that NAN looks off the beaten flight path,

I think I will do more investigation and use NAN as a last ditch destination of final resort when this guesthouse becomes again under the gun, so to speak.

[Ricardo]

Also, this means that if CM had two runways, then most of the flights would always take off south, and could also land from the south, BECAUSE 80 percent of the flights are going or coming from BKK.

So this means that people should encourage the building of one more runway if they want to have quiet here.

Sorry, but it's not that simple.

Aircraft need to be landing & taking-off into the wind, the wind-speed reduces the effective ground-speed, while the air-speed over the wings is higher, to provide lift. Taking-off with a strong tail-wind is not safe, and is not normally done !

So you cannot just land from-the-South, into a wind from-the-North, and then turn round and take-off to-the-South.

It's probably true to say (but I don't have a source, just based on years of observation) that most flights into CNX land from the South, but take-offs to-the-North are also therefore the normal pattern, except when winds are low & a take-off to-the-South is possible, when they do try to do that.

So building a second runway would not help, unless you found a way to change the wind-direction down it too, and anyway CNX's single-runway is nowhere near capacity, so it is not justified economically. Note that LGW handles close to 40-million passengers a year, with a single runway, although a second runway there is urgently needed. CNX is nowhere near that level of use.

The number of flights & passengers has increased, in recent years, there was a slight-extension to the runway/taxiways & a new international-terminal completed just a few years ago, which released the full space of the old terminal for domestic-operations.

At some point, if traffic continues to grow, then further terminal construction will be needed (South of the cargo-terminal, or on the site of the current cargo-terminal, or north of the terminals on airforce-land) , until then car-parking and the access-roads are bottle-necks, but there is ample space for expansion of parking, perhaps an entirely-new long-stay car-park, & access across the Wing-41 airbase or a direct road-link to the 2nd-ring-road may eventually be proposed.

I would expect the airport to continue to get busier, probably quite quickly as the Chinese tourist-numbers grow, and domestic-travel within Thailand continues to increase due to LCCs & the inadequate rail-system.

The medium/long-term answer is not to live under the flight-path.

[Tywais]

Sorry, but it's not that simple.

Aircraft need to be landing & taking-off into the wind, the wind-speed reduces the effective ground-speed, while the air-speed over the wings is higher, to provide lift. Taking-off with a strong tail-wind is not safe, and is not normally done !

So you cannot just land from-the-South, into a wind from-the-North, and then turn round and take-off to-the-South.

Just to clarify this. It is not a forced requirement to disallow departing with a tailwind as long as it doesn't exceed airport & aircraft maximums. For nearly all heavies the max tailwind component is 10kts (18kms/h). The average wind speed for Chiang Mai for a 12 month period is 3-4 kts (http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/chiang_mai).

This is a chart of the Beaufort scale of winds for the last year. Maximum shows is 3bft which means gentle breeze. The Beaufort scale though is based on physical effects as opposed to an absolute wind speed.

Also need to take into account the seasonal predominant wind directions which do a nearly 180 deg shift between the two primary seasons. Basically, the winds in Chiang Mai have minimal impact on departure/arrival direction choices, it will be predominantly traffic based.

[brommers]

I can guarantee that almost everyone who is complaining about aircraft noise arrived in Chiang Mai by plane. Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind!

[BaronOfThunder]

Yes, exactly:

"Just to clarify this. It is not a forced requirement to disallow departing with a tailwind as long as it doesn't exceed airport & aircraft maximums. For nearly all heavies the max tailwind component is 10kts (18kms/h). The average wind speed for Chiang Mai for a 12 month period is 3-4 kts (http://www.windfinde...tics/chiang_mai)."

Which is why I stated that it would definitely solve the noise problem for the North of the runway to build a second runway, and then fly all traffic South, and since the traffic is mostly heading south to BKK, this would solve everyone's problem.

Except, I have no idea what is South of the runway. If it is all zoned commercial, with factories and the like, then perhaps the second runway could be completed quickly, and the airport would not need to be moved outside the city.

I know very little about the airport surroundings, other than what I have seen to the immediate vicinity north.

Other than the noise, having the airport so close to CM city is beneficial in many ways, such as minimum transport time to the airport, low transport cost, and much time savings for all.

Also, from September first until 2 weeks ago, there truly was not any discomfort that I noticed here, north of the runway, at any time.

When the number of flights per day increases beyond some point, then residents begin to take notice. Otherwise, it is not a problem, judging from what I have experienced.

(Moot point, anyway, since it is exceedingly unlikely that any city planner will listen to me, and probably for good reason.)

Edited January 3, 2016 by BaronOfThunder

[Mapguy]

North? South? Hobson's choice ! Traffic is up!

[arunsakda]

Yes, exactly:

"Just to clarify this. It is not a forced requirement to disallow departing with a tailwind as long as it doesn't exceed airport & aircraft maximums. For nearly all heavies the max tailwind component is 10kts (18kms/h). The average wind speed for Chiang Mai for a 12 month period is 3-4 kts (http://www.windfinde...tics/chiang_mai)."

Which is why I stated that it would definitely solve the noise problem for the North of the runway to build a second runway, and then fly all traffic South, and since the traffic is mostly heading south to BKK, this would solve everyone's problem.

Except, I have no idea what is South of the runway. If it is all zoned commercial, with factories and the like, then perhaps the second runway could be completed quickly, and the airport would not need to be moved outside the city.

I know very little about the airport surroundings, other than what I have seen to the immediate vicinity north.

Other than the noise, having the airport so close to CM city is beneficial in many ways, such as minimum transport time to the airport, low transport cost, and much time savings for all.

Also, from September first until 2 weeks ago, there truly was not any discomfort that I noticed here, north of the runway, at any time.

When the number of flights per day increases beyond some point, then residents begin to take notice. Otherwise, it is not a problem, judging from what I have experienced.

(Moot point, anyway, since it is exceedingly unlikely that any city planner will listen to me, and probably for good reason.)

Have you missed the point that it is not practical for ATC to coordinate opposite direction departures when there are aircraft close in on approach to land, or do you refuse to accept it?

By the way in our operation B737NG can takeoff with a tailwind up to 15 knots as long as certain conditions are met. This is an operational decision however that results in performance penalties, (think may not be able to take all pax and cargo) higher tire speeds, Higher thrust setting, and diminished safety margin in the event of RTO. Basically it costs the airline money and most Captains would choose to avoid it if there is a safer alternative.

Now if you need to make a curfew or 100 people are going to miss their connection in NRT if you need to taxi 15 minutes to another runway...

Edited January 3, 2016 by arunsakda

[eyecatcher]

The weather is too good here for all these anoraks

[Konini]

I can't believe how many posts are here - OP, you do know that the more you think about it, the louder it's going to get don't you? Try forgetting about it and it will eventually get less noticeable.

[CNXBKKMAN]

I have been sweating like a pig with my anorak on today but i did enjoy the sight or three Thai B747-400's departing north. Two during the morning and one about 45 minutes ago. Different engine sound which the Baron has probably noticed and recorded. Possibly caused a different pattern of ripples in his coffee.

Three in one day is very unusual but its the first Sunday after the new year and many people have to be in work tomorrow. Peak of the peak season. Busiest day of the year or joint busiest with one of the Songkran days, who knows?

Baron it should start easing up as January progresses. Still best for you to move away from the runway centerline. You don't have to go far before the aircraft won't be an issue. Its a lot easier than relocating to Nan.

[JLT]

The OP said "If you look at NAN airport, you will see that there is nothing there in the way of planes going or coming",well that's not quite right there are the twice weekly (Friday and Sunday) Kan Air flights to and from CNX.

Q) And why is that, you might ask?

A) Because there's bugger-all in Nan!

[CNXBKKMAN]

The OP said "If you look at NAN airport, you will see that there is nothing there in the way of planes going or coming",well that's not quite right there are the twice weekly (Friday and Sunday) Kan Air flights to and from CNX.

Q) And why is that, you might ask?

A) Because there's bugger-all in Nan!

Buriram, Chumphon, Phrae and Korat would all be suitable for low aircraft noise. I think they vary from no flights to a couple of flights on odd days. Chumphon may have gone a decade or so without a flight. Nirvana.

[JaseTheBass]

I live to the side of the flight path and quite enjoy seeing them appear above the nearby buildings. Even more so when I'm on my roof terrace - it's a lovely sight watching them go past Doi Suthep and then bank as they (usually) head south. I can hear the planes but it's usually just in the background.

Edited January 3, 2016 by JaseTheBass

[Ricardo]

Sorry, but it's not that simple.

Aircraft need to be landing & taking-off into the wind, the wind-speed reduces the effective ground-speed, while the air-speed over the wings is higher, to provide lift. Taking-off with a strong tail-wind is not safe, and is not normally done !

So you cannot just land from-the-South, into a wind from-the-North, and then turn round and take-off to-the-South.

Just to clarify this. It is not a forced requirement to disallow departing with a tailwind as long as it doesn't exceed airport & aircraft maximums. For nearly all heavies the max tailwind component is 10kts (18kms/h). The average wind speed for Chiang Mai for a 12 month period is 3-4 kts (http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/chiang_mai).

This is a chart of the Beaufort scale of winds for the last year. Maximum shows is 3bft which means gentle breeze. The Beaufort scale though is based on physical effects as opposed to an absolute wind speed.

Beaufort CM.JPG

Also need to take into account the seasonal predominant wind directions which do a nearly 180 deg shift between the two primary seasons. Basically, the winds in Chiang Mai have minimal impact on departure/arrival direction choices, it will be predominantly traffic based.

"It is not a forced requirement to disallow departing with a tailwind as long as it doesn't exceed airport & aircraft maximums"

Thanks, you said it better than I did, which is why I said "Taking-off with a strong tail-wind is not safe".

Are narrow-body twin-jets (ie not 'heavies'), the types which are most common at CNX, better or less-able at handling tail-winds ?

The wind-speed statistics are interesting.

[BaronOfThunder]

Yes, exactly:

"Just to clarify this. It is not a forced requirement to disallow departing with a tailwind as long as it doesn't exceed airport & aircraft maximums. For nearly all heavies the max tailwind component is 10kts (18kms/h). The average wind speed for Chiang Mai for a 12 month period is 3-4 kts (http://www.windfinde...tics/chiang_mai)."

Which is why I stated that it would definitely solve the noise problem for the North of the runway to build a second runway, and then fly all traffic South, and since the traffic is mostly heading south to BKK, this would solve everyone's problem.

Except, I have no idea what is South of the runway. If it is all zoned commercial, with factories and the like, then perhaps the second runway could be completed quickly, and the airport would not need to be moved outside the city.

I know very little about the airport surroundings, other than what I have seen to the immediate vicinity north.

Other than the noise, having the airport so close to CM city is beneficial in many ways, such as minimum transport time to the airport, low transport cost, and much time savings for all.

Also, from September first until 2 weeks ago, there truly was not any discomfort that I noticed here, north of the runway, at any time.

When the number of flights per day increases beyond some point, then residents begin to take notice. Otherwise, it is not a problem, judging from what I have experienced.

(Moot point, anyway, since it is exceedingly unlikely that any city planner will listen to me, and probably for good reason.)

Have you missed the point that it is not practical for ATC to coordinate opposite direction departures when there are aircraft close in on approach to land, or do you refuse to accept it?

By the way in our operation B737NG can takeoff with a tailwind up to 15 knots as long as certain conditions are met. This is an operational decision however that results in performance penalties, (think may not be able to take all pax and cargo) higher tire speeds, Higher thrust setting, and diminished safety margin in the event of RTO. Basically it costs the airline money and most Captains would choose to avoid it if there is a safer alternative.

Now if you need to make a curfew or 100 people are going to miss their connection in NRT if you need to taxi 15 minutes to another runway...

Do not worry, I agree with all you have stated here.

And, my point was that if there were two parallel runways, such as at the airport in San Francisco for example, then you could have the terminal in the middle, so that there would be equal distance to taxi to both runways,and you could have one runway devoted to takeoff to the south, and the other to landings from the South.

This way, you would never have a plane taking off or landing to or from the North.

(UNLESS: During the rare cases where the wind was over 10 knots, from the North )

Edited January 3, 2016 by BaronOfThunder

[arunsakda]

So now you not only insist on launching opposite direction departure aircraft in the direction of IFR traffic you want the whole airport rebuilt?

By the way TG121 just took North. Wind reported calm. Don't think it gets any louder than a B744!

Edited January 3, 2016 by arunsakda

[JLT]

There were occasions Stardome golf course when I would hear the take-off roar of an aircraft and then see it climbing against the backdrop of Doi Suthep, it really was a remarkable sight and something to behold.

[BaronOfThunder]

So now you not only insist on launching opposite direction departure aircraft in the direction of IFR traffic you want the whole airport rebuilt?

By the way TG121 just took North. Wind reported calm. Don't think it gets any louder than a B744!

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1451830454.927200.jpg

The strange thing was, after an almost totally sleepless night, having been awakened at about 06:09, this morning, I fell asleep for a moment around the time you mention, not intentionally but from creeping exhaustion while watching Dick Cavett interview John Lennon in NYC on the tube.

Really, I cannot stand it if it persists. And, as I told a physicist from BKK who would be taking a flight back early Monday, and who I was having dinner with at about 6 this evening, "I need to move closer to the mountains", and I meant it!

Still, I honestly cannot figure why one could not have traffic simultaneously taking off and landing from two separate runways, if the runways were separated by about a click if they took the proper precautions.

Remember, you would have one 180 runway launching aircraft.

And then you would have the other 180 runway receiving aircraft.

Sounds like a winner concept, to me. Because it would also double the capacity, and it would be close to Chiang Mai, and taxi time would be no greater. I say, please consider this plan.

The good doctor also stated that starting Monday, air fare would be reduced, and so I am hoping that the peak traffic time is over!

PS: At exactly 00:47, some kind of aircraft just roared over above me. What it was, I do not know, because I am tired of opening another tab in Chrome each time I hear something. However, anyone who thinks flight operations end at 12am, is not here.

Edited January 3, 2016 by BaronOfThunder

[Tywais]

Still, I honestly cannot figure why one could not have traffic simultaneously taking off and landing from two separate runways, if the runways were separated by about a click if they took the proper precautions.

It would not be legally nor technically possible. The minimum separation for simultaneous parallel operations require specialized, high rate radars. And for ILS approach and landings requires a minimum of 4,300ft (1311m) separation between runways. For VFR operation around 300m separation. That would mean creating a 2nd runway, if west of the current one, somewhere on the Canal Road. Or if east, on Hang Dong road and part of the moat. This doesn't even take into account all the auxiliary systems and taxi ways that would take up all the land between there. So not even remotely possible at the current location to do so.

[Konini]

Two problems with your 2nd runway theory; Unjustified cost - there just aren't and probably never will be enough passengers to warrant a second runway and you would be passing the noise problem on to a lot of new people living under the other flight path who didn't pay less for their property or pay less in rent because of it.

That's apart from the technical problems pointed out by Tywais.

[Ricardo]

Still, I honestly cannot figure why one could not have traffic simultaneously taking off and landing from two separate runways, if the runways were separated by about a click if they took the proper precautions.

It would not be legally nor technically possible. The minimum separation for simultaneous parallel operations require specialized, high rate radars. And for ILS approach and landings requires a minimum of 4,300ft (1311m) separation between runways. For VFR operation around 300m separation. That would mean creating a 2nd runway, if west of the current one, somewhere on the Canal Road. Or if east, on Hang Dong road and part of the moat. This doesn't even take into account all the auxiliary systems and taxi ways that would take up all the land between there. So not even remotely possible at the current location to do so.

IIRC runway-separation was always a problem at Don Muang, when it was the main airport for Bangkok ?

And 10-15 years ago, over Christmas & New Year, Thai International would put on some 20 extra flights to boost peak-season capacity, as well as using larger aircraft wherever possible. These days it's easy enough to add extra flights onto the airlines web-sites, to boost capacity over busy week-ends, and they don't seem to feel the need to announce it as something out-of-the-ordinary !

Anyway the busy-period is almost over now, and the B744s can go back to sitting-on-the-ground at Swampy, in-between long-haul flights.

[BaronOfThunder]

I seem to be in a slightly better frame of mind than I was this past weekend. Maybe it is because I see an end to this sort of war time sorties kind of feel to the takeoffs. I remember seeing those F4 fighting Phantoms take off with afterburners right above DaNang Harbor, and I think those fighters were slightly louder than North of this runway.

But, why talk about that.

I have noticed some discrepencies between what I observe on site here and what some of the above armchair pholosophers think might be happening.

1. For one thing, I do not see ANY aircraft departing from the runway 180 heading south. And yet someone stated that during these days, if there was not too much traffic, then the airport control would have some aircraft taking off headed south. I think they stated taking off against traffic. Well, this simply is not what I am observing. ALL aircraft are taking off headed North from the 360 runway. How do I know this? Because I have been monitoring FR24, and I have been watching from my Balcony, which I should add is almost as good a viewing point as the Chiang Mai Airport Control Tower.

2. Now let us have a word about TRENDS. What are trends even good for? Some guys here wondered why I was so particular about asking for and wanting to see flight history from 5 years ago to the present. Does this mean I might be OCD? Well, I could be OCD, but that is not why I want to see the data.

In fact, trends are good for many things, but especially good for predicting the future. Some of you may be following the US publication GLOBAL TRENDS, for example. So yes, I want to use the historical data to see trends, so that I can predict the future, whether it be the future, tomorrow, or the future next month or next year, regarding takeoffs and landings from the airport, including direction of takeoff and landing.

I still do not know where I will get this data. I am very surprised that it is not readily available for free. But that is yet another story, because we all know that there are too many gatekeepers in this world, just like Mayan Priests, who want to hoarde the data for themselves, because they think it will give them power over us, which it sometimes does.

3. I also want to say a word about subjective feelings when exposed to airport noise pollution caused by takingoff aircraft or landing aircraft. I feel that there is sort of a sweet spot......what you might call a Goldilocks Zone in this aircraft observing and aircraft listening situation. I have found that if the RATE of planes going by my balcony in one hour does not exceed a certain level, then I can tolerate it. Any more than that level, and it makes me hopping mad. And I have even noticed that if I do not hear a plane in about 5 hours, then I begin to wish I could again hear one go by, just once. So it is like a love hate relationship. Sometimes you long to see them, and mostly they will drive you mad if the number exceeds a certain quantity, and this also can be compared to a marriage, or living with one's wife. Sometimes you want to see her, but usually you just want to be undisturbed in your Den, doing what you like to do by yourself.

4. The other factor is sleep: Of course it is easier for us to tolerate stressful circumstances when we have adequate sleep. This is why I am in a better mood today, because I had 5 hours sleep last night, instead of 2. And, this is why the airport noise pollution is so very insidious: It is a POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP! Sure, the more the planes fly over, the less you sleep, the tireder you get, which causes less resilience to stress, which causes you to get pissed off, causing an inability to sleep, which inturn lowers your ability to be tolerant of a noisy situation, and on, and on.

Therefore, it is good to try to take a break from this if you can, by planning to get out for a stay at your gf or something, if she lives in the mountains where there are no planes, is my thinking. I have no gf, but next year I WILL plan for this. And this is why I NEED the historical data.

I can APPLY this historical data and know in advance, based on last year's history, what I should do THIS year. It is NOT because I am OCD, even if I am, or were, but it is because of LOGIC that I ask for the data, so that I can make educated assumptions about what will follow in the next hour, next day, next month, next year, and the next 2 years. After that, I really do not care because I do not anticipate being in this same spot 24 months from now.

So basically, this is how I see the situation as of this early afternoon. The planes are NOT heading south on takeoff even if they wish to fly south to BKK. And, this whole mess has very little to do with China, Chinese, or China aircraft.

Most of the noise is attributable to domestic traffic which is going to and coming from Bangkok airport. If we were to ban travel to Bangkok, and welcome all China traffic to Chiang Mai, then i think this would be a complete improvement.

So, you might notice I am now feeling less under the weather here, today.

[taotoo]

1. For one thing, I do not see ANY aircraft departing from the runway 180 heading south.

You haven't been watching for long enough. Sometimes you will see the odd one take off to the south. During some periods they will all both takeoff and land to the south (they were possibly doing that when you first arrived).

[BaronOfThunder]

1. For one thing, I do not see ANY aircraft departing from the runway 180 heading south.

You haven't been watching for long enough. Sometimes you will see the odd one take off to the south. During some periods they will all both takeoff and land to the south (they were possibly doing that when you first arrived).

I do not disagree with what you state.

My point is that, while I sincerely hope that takeoffs will again revert to being mostly Southern heading takeoffs, I have not seen even one aircraft take off toward the south, since I started monitoring using the FR24 software on my phone and on my browser.

And my question is: When will the majority of traffic revert to taking off to the South. I realize that this will probably not happen any time soon, however if I had more TREND data then I could easily predict WHEN I would begin to see this welcome shift back to allowing the people living South of the runway to enjoy more of the action.

At this time, however, and as you say, it seems to me that 98 percent of traffic is approaching from the North, and taking off toward the north, from runway 360.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

And, my point was that if there were two parallel runways, such as at the airport in San Francisco for example, then you could have the terminal in the middle, so that there would be equal distance to taxi to both runways,and you could have one runway devoted to takeoff to the south, and the other to landings from the South.

This way, you would never have a plane taking off or landing to or from the North.

Sounds like a winner concept, to me. Because it would also double the capacity, and it would be close to Chiang Mai, and taxi time would be no greater. I say, please consider this plan.

1. The limiting factor in capacity currently is the number of gates, and overall terminal facilities to process passengers and luggage. The limitation is not the single runway. London Gatwick has a huge number of flights, all from a single runway. (Biggest single-runway airport in the world.)

2. If a new airport gets built for Chiang Mai then it may have two runways, or at least space allocated for a second runway for future expansion. Chances are that few of us will be around to see it.

3. It's interesting to want to look at trend data about something you have no influence over. If it makes you feel any better, my last 4 departures out of Chiang Mai took off to the South, most recently about 3 weeks ago. I notice this because I prefer a take-off to the North for the city views, and usually book a seat on the right side of the plane for this reason.

4. Stop looking at Flightradar24, start looking at real estate / rental sites!

Edited January 4, 2016 by WinnieTheKhwai

[BaronOfThunder]

And, my point was that if there were two parallel runways, such as at the airport in San Francisco for example, then you could have the terminal in the middle, so that there would be equal distance to taxi to both runways,and you could have one runway devoted to takeoff to the south, and the other to landings from the South.

This way, you would never have a plane taking off or landing to or from the North.

Sounds like a winner concept, to me. Because it would also double the capacity, and it would be close to Chiang Mai, and taxi time would be no greater. I say, please consider this plan.

1. The limiting factor in capacity currently is the number of gates, and overall terminal facilities to process passengers and luggage. The limitation is not the single runway. London Gatwick has a huge number of flights, all from a single runway. (Biggest single-runway airport in the world.)

2. If a new airport gets built for Chiang Mai then it may have two runways, or at least space allocated for a second runway for future expansion. Chances are that few of us will be around to see it.

3. Stop looking at Flightradar24, start looking at real estate / rental sites!

Yes, you are right, and I already am starting to plan my move!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO WAY in the world I can stay here with this racket, because it really does cause the quality of life to deteriorate very fast.

However, before I do leave, I am also wondering when the majority of traffic will revert to taking off with South heading.

Also, I can see you have thought more about this than I, who had no real interest in this topic until last week, or maybe 10 days ago.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Yeah.

Also, I like taking off to the North.

Didn't get this lucky the last four departures though, all to the South. (Last one was three weeks ago and it again departed South.)

Edited January 4, 2016 by WinnieTheKhwai