View Full Version : A good nights sleep at LHR? Not with EK
11th Apr 2012, 05:48
Just when you thought EK crew could get a good nights sleep the company come up with this idea:
Heathrow superjumbo night flights plan : Heathrow Airport News Stories (http://www.uk-airport-news.info/heathrow-airport-news-100412a.html)
No doubt lots of complaints by the locals if it does come off, as it won't just be EK. It would be any carrier with a A380.
11th Apr 2012, 06:16
Emirates, the largest operator of the A380, says that steeper-than-normal descents into Heathrow would reduce the superjumbo’s noise impact by 15% to 20%
The moment they allow the dugong to do such steepies I will buy a chunk of shares of its wheel rim manufacturer. More HKG-ies to come .... :E
Actually an e-newspaper was reporting that steeper approaches was only part of the new proposal, the other being touch down further down the runway (and thus greater overfly height over the houses on final)....:ugh:
11th Apr 2012, 10:19
So...a displaced threshold. What's so :ugh: worthy about a displaced threshold?
There are also plenty of glidslopes steeper than 3deg, so why is that something to get uptight about?
11th Apr 2012, 21:39
Normal conditions assumed, The A388 needs less than 2100m legal ldg field length, no problem there. On a 3.2 deg glide you will need flaps 3 instd of flaps 2 to avoid acceleration, with considerably added noise. And you will have to extend the ldg gear about 1000' higher, leading to even more noise. Overall, a stupid idea from people who seem to know little about a/c ops. No surprise there.
When a threshold is displaced it's either permanent due to an obstacle or temporary due to WIP or temp obstacle.
When the Glide is steeper than 3 degrees it is due to again similar reasons.
In any case the above items are a Threat and this is proven by the fact that they are included in NOTAMS, Route Manuals and approach briefings.
In my opinion if Geography, surounding buildings or WIP for improvement of an aerodrome can be reasons for those adjustments, revenue and profit should not.
Let's NOT create a hole in the cheese model....not when there is an other big one lining up, the one that is made by the 90 plus hour, night, multi time zone duties....
11th Apr 2012, 22:47
EK taking over the world....expect a riposte from BA.....hopefully
12th Apr 2012, 01:02
Will EK pay for the provision, installation and on going maintenance and calibration of an alternative ILS, rated as Cat3, that will handle the new threshold and steeper glide slope?
12th Apr 2012, 05:06
Does the mention of a steeper slope in the route manual make it a threat, or is it done for awareness? If the slope was a threat it would be NOTAMed as unserviceable or the route manual would say don't use it ie: Lagos. I remember the approach into London City Airport being pretty steep (them be the days), so the POMs have level of experience with this design
A displaced threshold becomes a threat when it reduces the available runway length to the Landing distance required. If the available runway length still retains margins even after the displacement is it a threat? Isn't SOP to go around if not landing in the TDZ? This mitigates the runway threat.
An FLS (LLZ. or RNAV) or GLS could be published at little cost, but would not be any good below Cat1 (GLS).
I am not saying this is a good idea, but please think before you complain as it would be nice for the pilot group to be known as professionals not bitching school girls. By this I mean come up with complaints based on fact not emotion.
12th Apr 2012, 05:47
What would happen on a 'go around' or an aborted landing? Surely any aircraft requires at least 90% of power to get it back in the air? The noise from that procedure would be enough to wake any bunny in his bed.
12th Apr 2012, 06:08
And that crewmeal this is why getting this approved is going to be very hard. Noise groups will say no, and I would doubt any politician will support it.
Kijangnim the 380 is CAT C so can fly slower. However, EK does make exception to the 1000' per min at other ports when required (Addis).
12th Apr 2012, 10:59
From the Financial Times:
Emirates, the largest operator of the A380, estimates that steeper-than-normal descents into Heathrow would reduce the superjumbo’s noise impact around Heathrow by 15 to 20 per cent.
The airline has used flight simulators to develop a landing approach that involves the aircraft initially flying in at a 5.5-degree angle, rather than the normal 3 degrees. A similar method could be developed for ascents.
Second, landing the A380 part way down Heathrow’s runways would provide greater respite to homes close to the airport. Rather than landing near the start of the 4km runways, as other jets do, the aircraft could touch down up to 1km along the strip.
Mr Clark insisted Emirates’ proposal was safe, although he accepted it would need further development with aircraft manufacturers, airports and regulators.
12th Apr 2012, 12:10
It would probably be an RNAV (RNP) type procedure with a steep descent to a FAF followed by a regular 3deg descent to the runway.
Sounds like fun!
13th Apr 2012, 16:05
Will EK pay for the provision
Have a look at NCL's sparkly new red logo'd control tower the next time you're there.......
For an anonymous forum some members seem to know enough about others to be publicly rating their level of professionalism or calling them "bitching school girls".
Point is everybody is entitled to their opinion, granted based on facts i.e. experience, data, statistics, trends etc..
I for one have spent enough time operating a/c, following data, working with IATA, FSF, investigating actual accidents not to be entitled to my cautious one.
The number 1 threat in aviation, after the advent of EGPWS, is the Human Being and it's limitations so if there is no real need to introduce adjustments and variations to an already demanding operating schedule lets not do it instead just go and land at STN and offer all 3 classes a preferential transport to the center.
13th Apr 2012, 23:38
Don't know what the locals are bitching about to be honest! Buy a cheap house near an AIRPORT......
.....And guess what?
It'll be a little noisy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heathrow was there before the CHAVS:}:}:}:}
14th Apr 2012, 06:00
Don't know what the locals are bitching about to be honest! Buy a cheap house near an AIRPORT.....
They got free double glazing as well.
14th Apr 2012, 06:37
Well, TC could go and ask Airbus to manufacture helicopters ... Huge hellos for five hundred passengers. They would just come over the airport and land there, making very little noise. And hellos have joysticks already :-)
Hello "insh Allah" tomorrow :-)
14th Apr 2012, 08:39
Yeah, I am a great pilot.... woohoo... let me fly that 5.5 degree glidepath to the FAF, then we can plunk it down on a temporary displaced threshold at 3am. No worries, I am a god of aviation!!
Sittingidly you need professional help. Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously with rants like that?
14th Apr 2012, 08:50
It's just a bandaid for the impact of the dugongs, now that Singapur wants to emulate EK with a 380 only ops into LHR.
These things slow down airport operations. The separations are lowering the hourly movements, especially in a mixed use with narrow bodies. No one admits, but simply do the maths.
Then pretending that a steeper approach path for dugongs reduces noise omits the fact that they have a way shallower climb out path than twins (the overwhelming number of movements) and that means more noise impact!
Unless you only want to land during the mentioned hours.
Airports are limited by landing slots, then by t/o slots. The situation on the tarmac follows third. So the dugongs are hampering airport efficiency. That's the real impetus for TC to come up with these silly proposals.
If you want to introduce some (slightly less safe) stunt procedures to increase capacity, it should therefore not be tried with the least flexible aircraft, but maybe with the more flexible ones, to begin with.
14th Apr 2012, 11:35
Touched a nerve eih?
Who talks about pax? Logically a dugong carries more.
I was talking about aircraft per minute, and that is the issue. The competition flying a narrow one doesn't give a hoot about how many you carry, they want to land and not wait longer behind a dugong.
Dubai has shown to start the bad habit of taking these biggies ahead of others and it starts creating some boiling blood ....
By the way, I do know about the performance issue of 2 vs. 4 engined aircraft. That's why I know that the 4 legged ones fly lower for the first couple of miles. Low means more noise, at least that's what the folks under the first few miles hear. Decibels vanish astonishingly fast with altitude and they stay annoyingly present at lower ones ......
As for the landing distance and steep approach capability, I do have to trust you.
14th Apr 2012, 16:38
That's what I meant: I touched your own mentioned nerve ....
Look, nobody is denying that the dugong has a good noise certificate. But it also climbs worse than twins. Therefore I cite your beautiful Aussie leaflet:
The above graph does not provide information about the absolute noise levels that people hear
But I didn't want to get into a slagging match with the 'nervous' fans.
Keep loving it, I don't blame you! Most other airspace users and controllers are a little more realistic though and can see the problems that arise. Some expose the rather silly solutions to minimize the impact, instead of joining the chorus-jubilation.
15th Apr 2012, 16:16
never understood why people live in houses near airports like LHR if they do not like the noise.....
16th Apr 2012, 16:27
I do not understand why airline managers do not live on board the 380 full time either...seems the safest place to put them to cause least damage.:ok:
17th Apr 2012, 00:57
Management pilot at EK likes to bow forward and open up their a**ses for shafting. If any moppet brings up this idea on account of the local residents' complaint of noise, have the guts to tell that guy to stuff it. They already had free double glazing and the dugong is an ICAO annex 16 stage IV compliant aircraft. What do they want next, the moon?
It's time management pilots stop pandering to the gallery, making the aviators' lot more stressful and unrewarding.
17th Apr 2012, 12:19
Analysis of the dugong noise over 3 years operation at Heathrow at
Are landing dugongs any better than landing 747's ?
23rd Apr 2012, 17:08
Seen a noise certificate in a GE 777 lately? It's stage IV too. This isn't about the airplane. It's about getting more slots into LHR. If commercial bookings say a 777 makes more sense than a 380 for a 3am arrival into LHR, than a 777 it shall be. It's just more convenient and provides better press coverage for TC to trumpet the 380.
23rd Apr 2012, 18:38
Didn't MLS get installed at LHR? Theoretically this could facilitate steeper approaches right?
I don't know if it's still the case but I was under the impression that BA have MLS fitted to their 320 fleet, so I imagine the whole idea is not beyond the realms of possibility.