NZAA NOTAM | Warning to Pilots

Greetings, everyone! Today is a quick NOTAM to warn pilots about Auckland International’s (NZAA) current setup.

As you all are well aware, the runways there are compressed together so tightly (even more so than Gatwick), that using both results in an incursion of one runway or the other, regardless of how inbounds are handled.

Due to this, we ask for your patience as ops run slower than normal and a higher influx of go arounds are possible, as pilots (and even controllers alike) may be confused on which hold short to use when a certain runway is in operation. For instance, if 23R were active, then taxiing along it would technically result in multiple violations of the hold short line.

So, NZAA is best treated as a one runway airport. Today, 23L was used for traffic. Where do you go if 23L is in operation?

The picture below shows which hold short to stay behind when Runway 23L is active. Although you would still be within 23R, it will not be treated as an incursion due to the one runway setup being used.

  • The airport editors have been notified about this issue and have removed 23R/5L for the next airport update patch. Until then, keep this NOTAM in mind when conducting operations out of NZAA.

FullSizeRender 5


Thanks for this NOTAM, Josh! I was confused about this before. Although I have a question. Do we still have to request permission to cross RWY 23R/5L?

So this is kind of what happens at gatwick in real life? If the answer is yes, could that mean that there is a possibility that the same will happen at LGW anytime in the near future?

1 Like

With the RWY being removed, will it be replaced as a taxiway, because it’s used as that IRL

But there isn’t a 23R irl, it’s been replaced as a taxiway.

Yes. It’s still a runway in IF. The issue is running ops at a point where it doesn’t violate anything.

No. Gatwick still has runways. The difference is that NZAA’s 23R/5L is being removed, which solves the issue. NZAA is never using 23R, period, while Gatwick does use their other runway on occassion.

^^^ @the777fan says it best.

I don’t know why 23R is still there in IF, but it’ll be resolved.


I assume you mean in real life, right?
I am not very “remove the runway at gatwick” guy, but I wondered if this would be possible considering the measures that have been taken in Auckland’s case.

23R does not exist at Auckland at all. It was removed a number of years ago and construction on a northern runway being considered to lighten traffic loads. I suppose the editors simply never got around to addressing it.

The difference is that 8L/26R still exists at Gatwick.


Thank you for making this. Now I won’t annoy you the next time I come to you at this airport.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.