HEATHROW
two runways in one
If it's OK to have an enormously long runway and use one half for landing and the other half for take-off (the "runway extension" proposal that's on the Airports Commission's shortlist), what would the prospects be for dividing one existing runway into 2 * 6000' runways and using them for aircraft of a suitable size?
If it's OK to have an enormously long runway and use one half for landing and the other half for take-off
And aside from that, the proportion of Heathrow movements that could operate satisfactorily from an 1800m runway is pretty small.
I hadn't realised it wasn't yet OK.
I read that a fully laden A321 can manage on such a short runway, but I would think the absolute length had a lot to do with the risk level.
I read that a fully laden A321 can manage on such a short runway, but I would think the absolute length had a lot to do with the risk level.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's OK to have an enormously long runway and use one half for landing and the other half for take-off (the "runway extension" proposal that's on the Airports Commission's shortlist), what would the prospects be for dividing one existing runway into 2 * 6000' runways and using them for aircraft of a suitable size?
It hasn't yet been established if it's "OK". Even the proponents of the scheme admit that the safety case is far from proven.
And aside from that, the proportion of Heathrow movements that could operate satisfactorily from an 1800m runway is pretty small.
And aside from that, the proportion of Heathrow movements that could operate satisfactorily from an 1800m runway is pretty small.
What happens when an aircraft is taking off on the western end at the same time as an aircraft landing on the eastern end gets into trouble and needs to do a "go around"?
If landings and takeoffs are not simultaneous on this system, there's no point, as the overall increase in movements will be insufficient to justify the investment costs.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: London
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow is so busy
Here you can see how busy Heathrow airport. 3rd runway is essential London Heathrow airport consecutive take-offs "TIME LAPSE" - YouTube
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What happens when an aircraft is taking off on the western end at the same time as an aircraft landing on the eastern end gets into trouble and needs to do a "go around"?"
they are several kms apart - if they are both still moving the one in trouble executes a standard Missed Approach and the other is instructed to turn the other way if there is any problem
The only issue is if the one in front rejects a takeoff below V1 - but if the runway is long enough he'll be in Slough when he stops while the other guy will be turning off the runway to the terminal before the spot the western aircraft joined the runway before starting his run
they are several kms apart - if they are both still moving the one in trouble executes a standard Missed Approach and the other is instructed to turn the other way if there is any problem
The only issue is if the one in front rejects a takeoff below V1 - but if the runway is long enough he'll be in Slough when he stops while the other guy will be turning off the runway to the terminal before the spot the western aircraft joined the runway before starting his run
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they are several kms apart - if they are both still moving the one in trouble executes a standard Missed Approach and the other is instructed to turn the other way if there is any problem
If you are correct, then why is there still a safety issue?
The main objection AFAIK is the need for permanent mixed mode and consequently the ending of respite for existing flightpath residents.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main objection AFAIK is the need for permanent mixed mode and consequently the ending of respite for existing flightpath residents.
OTOH the taxpayers i.e. us will be on the hook for the (rather high) cost of building this new airport whereas the third runway will mostly be funded privately with the exception of the new rail and changed road links AIUI.
In principle I support the idea of a new four runway airport for London. Regrettably it seems there would be too many financial, commercial and environmental issues with the proposed location and that's without accounting for the massive delay before such a new airport would even be partially open.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is what you'll get with a third runway and why with the only sensible solution (the Estuary Airport) you'll sleep peacefully whilst planes fly 24 hours a day on the other side of London, like a proper hub airport
(2) It's not only about sleepness nights, it's about daytime respite as well.
(3) An estuary airport cannot work if LHR remains open, so in the theoretical event of it being built and LHR closing, there would be plenty of sleepless nights as local people lose their jobs.
(4) An estuary airport cannot work if LHR remains open, so it isn't going to happen. LHR isn't closing.
(5) Of course we need a "proper hub airport" - at LHR, with 4 rwys.
OTOH the taxpayers i.e. us will be on the hook for the (rather high) cost of building this new airport whereas the third runway will mostly be funded privately with the exception of the new rail and changed road links AIUI.
In principle I support the idea of a new four runway airport for London. Regrettably it seems there would be too many financial, commercial and environmental issues with the proposed location and that's without accounting for the massive delay before such a new airport would even be partially open.
There were many things that did in the idea of Boris Island from a poor design point of view, but one was surely that it's runways were still East/West, meaning that aircraft would still pass over the metropolitan area, especially arrivals when they were on Easterlies. And with multiple parallel runways you typically need longer runs in when you are doing parallel approaches.
Why were the runways not north/south ?
Paris, for example, gets it right with both Orly and CDG being north and south of the metropolitan area, with runways east/west so traffic does not pass over the city.
Why were the runways not north/south ?
Paris, for example, gets it right with both Orly and CDG being north and south of the metropolitan area, with runways east/west so traffic does not pass over the city.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All it needs is one really bad accident at LHR - eg someone ploughing a 380 into W London suburbia - and I think you'd be amazed at how fast LHR might be closed down
btw what makes ploughing an A380 on final approach any more likely in London than anywhere else. Life is risky, deal with it, BA038 should be seen as a one off event, as one hopes OZ214 where a qualified crew banjoed a commercial airliner in CAVOK broad daylight. Risks are managed and mitigated but never go away, perspective tells me that crossing the road in London is still riskier.
I think you'd be amazed at how fast LHR might be closed down
What would change, of course, would be the dynamics of the Heathrow expansion argument - but we're talking about a hypothetical event so unlikely that there seems little point in considering it.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were many things that did in the idea of Boris Island from a poor design point of view, but one was surely that it's runways were still East/West, meaning that aircraft would still pass over the metropolitan area, especially arrivals when they were on Easterlies. And with multiple parallel runways you typically need longer runs in when you are doing parallel approaches.
It looks like there is a road crossing the rwy (will there be traffic lights on the road), what are we doing, recreating Lulsgate and the A38?
It also appears to be Boris Reclamation rather than Boris Island.
Crazy nonsesne, but then what can one expect with an aviation advisor who has no experience in the aviation industry.
Why were the runways not north/south ?
Have a look at the standard picture of Boris Island, why are the rwys so close to each other? If starting from scratch, wouldn't it be sensible to have wide spaced rwys?
It looks like there is a road crossing the rwy (will there be traffic lights on the road), what are we doing, recreating Lulsgate and the A38?
It also appears to be Boris Reclamation rather than Boris Island.
Crazy nonsesne, but then what can one expect with an aviation advisor who has no experience in the aviation industry
It looks like there is a road crossing the rwy (will there be traffic lights on the road), what are we doing, recreating Lulsgate and the A38?
It also appears to be Boris Reclamation rather than Boris Island.
Crazy nonsesne, but then what can one expect with an aviation advisor who has no experience in the aviation industry
Well at Stansted he was kept to the terminal. he didn't do anything about the runway - because it was left just as it was !
I'm no admirer of Foster's Stansted terminal building. What idiot thought unventilated toilets in the centre of the "adaptable" big cube would do anything other than stink out themselves and the adjoining areas. That's Architecture 1.01, Norman.
Oh, and he put the long term car park 3.5 miles away from the terminal - in a development put down in open countryside.
Actually, if you look at an annual Wind Rose, the percentage bias is not nearly as much as is made out. If it really is an issue, shouldn't the UK's premier aviation facility have a couple of cross runways as well ?
I'm no admirer of Foster's Stansted terminal building. What idiot thought unventilated toilets in the centre of the "adaptable" big cube would do anything other than stink out themselves and the adjoining areas. That's Architecture 1.01, Norman.
Oh, and he put the long term car park 3.5 miles away from the terminal - in a development put down in open countryside.
Er, because the prevailing winds are from the west?