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.
