Mixed mode at LHR (Noise?)

[SQUAWKIDENT]

Not good for us poor souls underneath (or between) the approach for 27L/R!

[perky35]

I dont want to start an argument or anything but for the people living under the flightpath - The airport was there before you!

[SQUAWKIDENT]

"I dont want to start an argument or anything but for the people living under the flightpath - The airport was there before you!"

Well no actually. Our house was built in 1890 and different generations of our family have lived in it since that time.

I am fully supportive of aviation and love aeroplanes and possess a PPL but I (and most of the residents of Fulham, Putney, Richmond etc) have had enough of the noise generated by traffic landing at Heathrow. It's not funny being woken up at 4.55am every morning by a 747-400 (with reheat switched on by the sounds of it). And that's at 10 miles DME!

I support my local airfield where I fly from (Denham) but actively campaign against any extra traffic at Heathrow.

[Sir George Cayley]

The agreement HAL entered into with the local authorities (The Alternation Agreement) under section 106? of the Town and Country Planning Act I think is, many believe, binding.

HACAN Clear Skies the pressure group are just waiting for HAL/BAA to break it.

I'm sure that NATS can write the safety case that proves parallel approaches could operate, but until the the agreement to use one runway for part of the day and the other after will be the sticking point.

Or is all of this just amunition to prove why Gatwick and a 2nd RWY there is the only viable option?

Sir George Cayley

[MrBernoulli]

SQUAWKIDENT,

Where do you travel from when you fly away on holiday/business? Heathrow? Or do you do travel from another airfield and somehow feel better because you are part of the 'noise' that is perhaps irritating someone else ...... but not your home locale?

I'm willing to bet you don't arrange to be on flights that arrive/depart during daylight so as not to be disturbing someone elses sleep. No, like the vast majority of us you pick your flights for convenience and cost. Perhaps?

[Evil J]

Not to mention all the people you disturb when flying out of Denham

[eurostar builder]

Just move if your bothered

Easy

[VP8]

Used to live 4 miles short in Twickkers right under flight path....never used to bother me except the odd Concorde!!:E you get used to it....try living next to one of Her Majesties flying clubs when you get a max generate takeoff :ok:

Get used to it or as said earlier move!!

VEEPS

[Danny_R]

I do find people who moan about airports rediculous...

If they don't like it.. simple... move... plus they knew there was an airport there before they moved in...

And it's amusing how when they want to go on holiday, it's great to have so many destinations on offer at their local airport.... but then when they get home... they moan at the fact those aircraft taking people to those destinations are making a noise over their house!

[jayteeto]

Didn't he say the family owned the house before airport days????
In my RAF days I tried to view a house under the Benson flight path. The owner said viewing was only at weekends. When I said I was an RAF pilot he let me view in the week!! Some people are nasty!

[the_flying_cop]

what is mixed mode?

i know but im not a pilot, i just give the orders lol.


regards


TFC

[Jerricho]

At Heathrow with the parallel runway setup of 09L/27R and 09R/27L, the operation runs with using one runway for arrivals while departing from the other. On the 27 operation side of things, the runways are "alternated" to share the noise (supposedly) while on 09 operations, due to the Cranford treaty (and the ground environment) 09L is the landing runway with departures off 09R.

Mixed mode will basically mean the use of both runways for both arrivals and departures. However, as the runways aren't sufficiently spaced, parallel operations of aircraft flying down the ILS side by side isn't always an option, especially considering the normally lovely English weather ;).

[ALLDAYDELI]

Folks, where can one get a copy of the Cranford Treaty? Interesting as deps of 09L are rare. Last night from around 2100z they were on single mode ops and departing off of said rwy.
Long taxi from far end T4 to 09L !!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<Folks, where can one get a copy of the Cranford Treaty? >

Dunno, but when you find it perhaps we could all join in a celebratory burning of the infernal thing!!

[Gonzo]

27L/09R was closed overnight, hence 09L single ops.

[Jerricho]

Best I could find at this stage regarding the Cranford Agreement:

a. The Cranford Agreement (as it applies today)

29.This is a 1950s undertaking to avoid easterly take-offs from the northern runway (09L) over Cranford when ever possible. Until the main runways were extended westward in the 1960s Cranford was the nearest residential area to the airport situated under the approach and departure tracks. It is not a written agreement, but is understood to have been a "best endeavour" undertaking given at a public meeting in 1952. The main effect of the restriction is to require take-offs to use the southern runway (09R) during easterly operations, which in turn means that most easterly landings must overfly Windsor and Poyle to use the northern runway (09L), thereby precluding runway alternation during easterly operations in the daytime.

(DfT Website: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_503451-03.hcsp)

[ALLDAYDELI]

Jerricho - many thanks.
Heathrow Director - it resides at the DfT - there you go lets withdrawn it, permanantly! Call it the Feltham agreement or the Stanwell Moor charter.

[Jerricho]

Nurries Allday :ok:

Actually, while having a little hunt around I found some interesting articles about certain residential areas (ok, let's be honest folks, 90% of the aea around Heathrow is residential) that are lobbying for the Cranford Agreement to be abolished. Some of these areas included Windsor and Datchet. More can be found here (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2004_Feb_20/ai_113464251) . I guess they have a point.

[Trinity 09L]

In respect of the Cranford agreement. Last year, 2004, I attended a meeting in Windsor re noise. I asked the BAA/HAL representative for answers to these questions.

1. To confirm that there was insufficient taxiway access if 09L was used for departures, to ensure the most"profitable" use of the runway.
2. That the construction of T5 with no blast walls/embankments nearby, cancelled the physical use of 09L, as aircraft need to turn and engines would blast dirt/grit etc across the aprons of T5.
3. The construction of T5 aprons & possibly the new Tower, restricts the abilities of wide bodies, 747 + 380, transitting south to north between T5 & T3 to reach the start of 09L.

No answers received.

If the Cranford agreement was overuled, BAA/HAL would have to spend millions on improvements for access to 09L, and thus impeding T5.

Additionally, the residents to the East of the airport support the currnet incumbent at #10 Downing St, and the lesser number in the West do not. Therefore politics feature heavily on any decision, not airport ops or safety.

PS I have no complaint about the noise, only the continous use when required of 09L.

:confused:

[Gonzo]

09L is less suitable as a departure runway, and 09R is equally less suitable as an arrival runway.

If we went 09R for landing tomorrow, I reckon we'd have to have half a mile or a mile on each gap to make things work. There is a distinct lack of decent turn offs from 09R.

That's not even considering Ground.