HEATHROW

[Trinity 09L]

Expansion ?

From local information.

HAL have announced proposals today that could see the benefits of expansion start to be delivered four years early. This includes proposals for up to an additional 25,000 flights per year from 2021.

Any increase in flights before a third runway opens would go hand in hand with our community and environmental commitments. We would introduce a stricter night-flight regime, with a ban on arrivals until 5.30am – an extension of one hour from today - and would bring forward the noise insulation scheme to coincide with the start of the new flights. Additional flights would also mean additional jobs – we estimate up to 5000 jobs on-airport.

I understand there may be some concerns locally regarding this announcement. We are announcing this now in light of the decision to leave the EU to demonstrate how Heathrow can help deliver the Prime Minister’s vision of a strong and fair post-Brexit economy. Any plans to increase flights would be subject to public consultation and planning approval and should Heathrow be selected, we will of course work with you and your residents to ensure people are kept fully informed about how they can make their views known throughout the planning process.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Trinity 09L

We would introduce a stricter night-flight regime, with a ban on arrivals until 5.30am – an extension of one hour from today

Interesting that Heathrow's 6-page "Brexit Boost" press release this morning omits any mention of a pre-05:30 arrivals ban:

Heathrow - Heathrow?s Brexit Boost to help make Britain stronger and fairer - faster

[Navpi]

I'm sure it was based on a blog by a NATs controller.

The point they were making was that to get the absolute maximum efficiency from a 3rd rw you would be looking at a continous straight in parallel descent but with the straight in model starting at 18k. The impression I got was not one of closing the Microwave from left or right but actually being already lined up. I assume this compresses traffic on the glide.

The only article I could find is this which does indeed quote the model Dave Reid described but the blog I read definitely referenced this other model.

If you can get past the AirportWatch brigade this seems to be the model but the diagram I saw did specify the 25 mile+ long approach.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/...fer-passengers

[coathanger16]

DaveReid

I seem to recall the CAA have cleared the Heathrow Hub idea from a safety perspective - clearly they don't see the need for any "safety system" in the event of an overrun.

What are the chances of such an overrun happening anyway? And what are the chances that there is an aircraft on the departure portion of the extended runway when the overrun occurs?

The Heathrow Hub idea has been around for a while now. One would assume that any safety concerns have been addressed otherwise it would have been ruled out.

[DaveReidUK]

Here's a NATS blog from earlier this year that may be the one you mean:

Is this the end of stack holding? - NATS Blog

It talks about alternatives to vertical stacking. The "Linear Hold" concept comes in two flavours: Point Merge (which NATS say elsewhere can't be done at Heathrow because of the proximity of other airports) and Trombone (as per my previous post).

But neither of those involves lengthening the straight-in segment of the final approach:

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by coathanger16

I seem to recall the CAA have cleared the Heathrow Hub idea from a safety perspective - clearly they don't see the need for any "safety system" in the event of an overrun.

The most recent statement I can find from Heathrow Hub re the safety case is:

"We have submitted a detailed safety case to the CAA. Our proposal faces no major obstacles on safety and in fact we believe our proposal could be even safer than the other two shortlisted options."

The CAA, in turn, has stated:

"Safety assurance can only be accepted after the proposer provides a fully detailed concept of operations (encompassing the entire operation) for how it intends to meet the various safety requirements placed on it by the applicable rules and regulations. This can only happen following planning consent and potentially after a permit to operate is in place. In this case the scheme would need to be assessed against the requirements in place at the time."

If you have a more recent update confirming that the CAA have approved the scheme in the meantime, please post a link.

[coathanger16]

DaveReid - apologies, I seem to have jumped the gun. Any idea when that was from? Indeed the latest I've seen is:

"the safety zone between the runways is 650m, over twice the length required by international regulations. But, as our runway solution is a relatively new concept, we have completed a thorough independent safety review with aviation experts. This concludes that our proposal is safe and efficient and complies with all relevant regulatory requirements.The CAA is currently assessing our safety report."

What do you see to be the safety issues with the hub proposal? (I'm not trying to challenge or dismiss your claims - just interested in your opinion).

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by coathanger16

What do you see to be the safety issues with the hub proposal? (I'm not trying to challenge or dismiss your claims - just interested in your opinion).

The CAA document from which I took that quote contains their preliminary safety assessment of the three short-listed proposals (which they stress does not constitute any "approval").

It identifies 13 safety criteria against which each proposal has been assessed and marks each as Yes/No/TBC, together with amplifying comments. The Heathrow Hub option gets 4 Y, 6 N and 3 TBCs (the NW runway proposal also gets a No for failing to provide safe separation without needing airspace changes).

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...Assessment.pdf

[PAXboy]

The CAA, in turn, has stated:

"Safety assurance can only be accepted after the proposer provides a fully detailed concept of operations (encompassing the entire operation) for how it intends to meet the various safety requirements placed on it by the applicable rules and regulations. This can only happen following planning consent and potentially after a permit to operate is in place. In this case the scheme would need to be assessed against the requirements in place at the time."

So, am I right in reading that to mean:
Once planning permission has been given. We will then look at the plans as to how to operate it? Would such plans not be part and parcel of the application?

Perhaps I'm being too cynical but that looks like (either) another kick into the long grass or a way to make their jobs even more important ... possibly both.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by PAXboy

Perhaps I'm being too cynical but that looks like (either) another kick into the long grass or a way to make their jobs even more important ... possibly both.

On the contrary, I suspect you're not being cynical enough.

The extended runway scheme has always been a makeweight, stalking-horse proposal designed to give the illusion of competition and pad out the short-list.

You would have to look hard to find anyone in the industry who takes the scheme seriously (including, I suspect, its backers) but apparently it's not considered polite to declare in public that it's a daft idea.

[coathanger16]

Often new concepts are considered to be daft until they are proven. Go back 100 years and try to explain to what extent aviation will develop between then and now and I imagine you'd probably be called insane.

Having read through that document, the CAA don't seem to have any presented any "showstoppers". Most of the issues that they flagged up were followed by a statement saying "the promoter needs to prove x,y,z" - worst case scenario the runways would be dependent thereby limiting capacity.

If the extended runway scheme was only included to, as you suggest, provide competition, why didn't the commission go for already proven concepts such as new runways at Stansted or Birmingham?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by coathanger16

If the extended runway scheme was only included to, as you suggest, provide competition

I didn't say it was included in the short-list to provide competition. It's there to provide the illusion of such.

why didn't the commission go for already proven concepts such as new runways at Stansted or Birmingham?

If you mean why didn't the Commission assess proposals for Stansted or Birmingham expansion - they did (in fact several different proposals, in the case of Stansted, out of the 52 that they considered).

If you mean why weren't they short-listed - the Commission's report and analysis is in the public domain for anyone to read the basis for their conclusions (and agree or disagree with).

[coathanger16]

I was already aware that Stansted and Birmingham were considered and then ruled out by the commission, and quite rightly so - I say that with Birmingham being my local airport.

Providing a second scheme at a site that has already been shortlisted doesn't to me at least provide the illusion of competition. If that was the sole reason for the commission including the extended runway proposal, it would have been much more convincing if they had chosen a third site besides Heathrow & Gatwick.

I don't mean to be rude but you seem to have a significant bias against the extended runway scheme - any particular reason?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by coathanger16

Providing a second scheme at a site that has already been shortlisted doesn't to me at least provide the illusion of competition.

Fair enough, if you don't share my cynicism that's probably to your credit.

I don't mean to be rude but you seem to have a significant bias against the extended runway scheme - any particular reason?

No offence taken.

Leaving aside technical and operational considerations, my biggest objection to the scheme is that both approach paths would need to be in continuous use during the airport's hours of operation in order to accommodate the planned number of arrivals and departures (in other words permanent mixed-mode operation on the northern and southern runways), meaning an end to scheduled respite for the communities under the arrival flightpath.

[EastMids]

Confused regarding Heathrow's Brexit Boost announced today...

Includes proposals for up to 25,000 a year on current operational levels, while the third runway is being built

How do they get 25,000 additional ATMs (that's 68 a day or around 4 per operational hour) from the existing runways? And why is the go-ahead for the third runway seemingly being linked to this extra capacity? If the extra movements can be accommodated while the new runway is being built, why should they not be enabled even if the decision goes to Gatwick?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by EastMids

How do they get 25,000 additional ATMs (that's 68 a day or around 4 per operational hour) from the existing runways?

There already exist measures that can be, and are, deployed at LHR to increase short-term runway capacity.

"Tactically Enhanced Arrivals Measures" (TEAM), and ditto for Departures (TED), involve short periods of mixed-mode use on the departure or arrival runway respectively, and can only currently be deployed to mitigate anticipated or actual delays subject to pre-defined triggers.

Relaxation of those triggers to allow extended periods of mixed-mode use would undoubtedly increase capacity by the stated amount. In fact increasing the arrival/departure rate per hour and/or extending the airport's hours of operation are the only two possible ways to generate more ATMs, and the latter has already been ruled out.

And why is the go-ahead for the third runway seemingly being linked to this extra capacity? If the extra movements can be accommodated while the new runway is being built, why should they not be enabled even if the decision goes to Gatwick?

It's called negotiation.

[EastMids]

Thankyou for the very concise and easily understood explanation DaveReidUK!

So Heathrow are saying- not only would we like another runway, we'd also like to use TEAM and TED before the new runway is built... Hmmm... Not sure that concept will win friends and influence people in the locality!

[coathanger16]

I have been following this somewhat on twitter as well - somebody suggested that the only way the 25,000 extra movements could be achieved was through mixed mode ops. The reply from Heathrow was that wouldn't be the case:

https://twitter.com/yourHeathrow/sta...00192109187072

They state the extra movements would be from operational efficiencies. I'm sure I read elsewhere that they would implement time based separation continually (instead of just during strong headwinds) - in effect decreasing the gap between landing aircraft and thus increasing capacity.

I think the increase in capacity is being linked to expansion because of Heathrow's cap on flights (currently 480,000). If Heathrow expands they'll be applying to increase this to 720,000 anyway. If expansion doesn't go ahead, Heathrow are unlikely to want to have to deal with all the legal challenges of increasing capacity by just 25,000 movements.

I.e. its linked to expansion because the flight cap will have to be increased anyway to accommodate expansion.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by coathanger16

I have been following this somewhat on twitter as well - somebody suggested that the only way the 25,000 extra movements could be achieved was through mixed mode ops. The reply from Heathrow was that wouldn't be the case:

https://twitter.com/yourHeathrow/sta...00192109187072

Bear in mind, though, that it emerged during the Operational Freedoms trials that Heathrow don't consider simultaneous arrivals and departures on one runway (TEAM or TED) to be "mixed-mode". They only use that term when TED or TEAM are deployed simultaneously on both runways, so either or both measures could still be deployed, just not at the same time.

They state the extra movements would be from operational efficiencies. I'm sure I read elsewhere that they would implement time based separation continually (instead of just during strong headwinds) - in effect decreasing the gap between landing aircraft and thus increasing capacity.

Yes, it's looking likely that the TBS is set to become permanent at LHR following last year's trial. Strictly speaking it only partially mitigates the effect of strong headwinds on the approach by restoring the landing rate to something that's closer to, but still a bit short of, the zero-headwind capacity. But the additional resilience that it provides could certainly be traded for increased capacity if desired.

It's also possible that expanding the use of RNAV SIDs could produce increases in the departure rate.

[Gonzo]

East Mids,

So Heathrow are saying- not only would we like another runway, we'd also like to use TEAM and TED before the new runway is built...

No, you're the one saying that. They haven't mentioned any specifics.

....And there is no formal procedure for TEDs anyway.

DR,

Yes, it's looking likely that the TBS is set to become permanent at LHR following last year's trial. Strictly speaking it only partially mitigates the effect of strong headwinds on the approach by restoring the landing rate to something that's closer to, but still a bit short of, the zero-headwind capacity. But the additional resilience that it provides could certainly be traded for increased capacity if desired.

There was no trial of TBS. It was introduced into limited service in March 2015 and has been in full service since May 2015.

The underlying time separations are based on a headwind of around 5-7kts.