Cleveland had to change theirs. No provision in ICAO for numbering as you suggest. People questioned at one time why an airport even needed parallels. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerard M Foley" <gfoley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:57 PM Subject: Re: Parallel runways > From: "Allan9" <exatc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:04 PM > > > > NO way to designate the fourth runway. I think you'll find DFW has the > same > > situation > > Al > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:42 PM > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 10:01 PM, Alireza Alivandivafa wrote: > > > > I like the LAX setup. 2 sets of nearly paralel paralels. > > > > > > The 4 runways at LAX *are* indeed parallel. The differing numerical > > > designations (24L/R, 25L/R) are simply for the convenience of ATC > > > communications. Take a look at an aerial photo: > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/j4me > > > > You could try 24SL, 24SR, 24NL, 24NR, but the differing numbers are > certainly better. They probably aren't exactly 240 anyway, and as we have > heard on the list, when the magnetic deviation changes enough they may or > may not renumber them. > > Gerry > http://foley.ultinet.net/~gerry/aerial/aerial.html > http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley > http://members.fortunecity.com/gfoley/egypt/egypt.html >