HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From BAA's WebTrak tool, you can view flights on the 16th from 0830. There's a Lufthansa that touches down on 27R at about that time, then about ten mins later there's an Aer Lingus on 27R. Looks like standard TEAM to me (up to 6 aircraft per hour landing on the departure runway when inbound delay reaches 20 minutes).
I'm still awaiting the monthly report for the trials in February. Wonder if it will appear before the next one starts........
For the next round of trials, does anyone know what "aircraft will MOSTLY be routed within existing noise protection routes means" ? Is it likely to be 1 in a 100 planes will do something completely off the wall ? Or half the planes on a track will do an excursion outside the NPR over X to the north of the zone and the other half will do an excursion over Y to the south ?
The object of the exercise is to reduce the interval between successive departures that are planned to use the same SID - currently 2 minutes - down to 1 minute. That implies departure tracks immediately after takeoff that diverge by at least 45°, so something along the lines of your description would sound reasonable. I don't know how many pairs of consecutive departures on the same SID there are in a typical day, and I have no idea what "mostly routed within existing NPRs" is supposed to mean in this context.
Doubtless all will be revealed in July.
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 17th Jun 2012 at 20:59.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many in the government, at least on the Conservative side (the Libdems will never see sense on this one) appear to have "woken up and smelt the coffee" and want to do the U-turn on LHR expansion.
It is something along the lines of "do a U turn, use BHX".
Still can't quite work out if they mean get off the train and turn back to BHX or if they mean government should do a "u-turn" and support Brum. Neither really makes much sense to me, especially as Brum seem to think they can double capacity with ZERO new infrastructure, in which case they wouldn't need the government to do anything!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixed mode
It should be fairly obvious to all that without expansion, mixed mode operations will be brought in, probably by stealth. It's the only other way to meet demand, for now at least, and squeeze in perhaps another 10% more movements.
That being the case, the alternating mornings and afternoons free of noise for those under the flightpath will be a thing of the past. Is this really what those MPs who oppose expansion really want for their constituents?
Quote: "Papa India
Forty years today, since that tragic day"
Indeed it is.
Quote: "There is an ad at Coventry station presenting the different view.
It is something along the lines of "do a U turn, use BHX".
Still can't quite work out if they mean get off the train and turn back to BHX or if they mean government should do a "u-turn" and support Brum. Neither really makes much sense to me, especially as Brum seem to think they can double capacity with ZERO new infrastructure, in which case they wouldn't need the government to do anything!"
All very well, but the airlines need to be persuaded to use BHX. If they remain unconvinced, everything else is academic!
It should be fairly obvious to all that without expansion, mixed mode operations will be brought in, probably by stealth. It's the only other way to meet demand, for now at least, and squeeze in perhaps another 10% more movements.
That being the case, the alternating mornings and afternoons free of noise for those under the flightpath will be a thing of the past. Is this really what those MPs who oppose expansion really want for their constituents?
Quote: "Papa India
Forty years today, since that tragic day"
Indeed it is.
Quote: "There is an ad at Coventry station presenting the different view.
It is something along the lines of "do a U turn, use BHX".
Still can't quite work out if they mean get off the train and turn back to BHX or if they mean government should do a "u-turn" and support Brum. Neither really makes much sense to me, especially as Brum seem to think they can double capacity with ZERO new infrastructure, in which case they wouldn't need the government to do anything!"
All very well, but the airlines need to be persuaded to use BHX. If they remain unconvinced, everything else is academic!
Paxing All Over The World
Trinity 09L
A interesting thread running in History: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ago-today.html
Papa India
Forty years today, since that tragic day
Forty years today, since that tragic day
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixed mode
The latest wheeze for avoiding a third rwy is permanent mixed mode, which, apparently, can squeeze in another 120,000 movements, or 25% extra, (as reported on Radio Jackie news the other day).
Residents under the flightpath will lose their daily half-day of quiet, but are being softened up for it by the ongoing "trials". Ironically, more rwys really is in their (our) interests!
Had thought that only another 10% could be extracted from mixed mode, so it came as quite a shock. Of course it will do nothing to combat the congestion and delays, and if there's bad weather or an "incident", the backlog created will take even longer to shift.
With 600,000 annual movements on just 2 rwys, would this make LHR the first airport to be operating at 125% capacity?
Residents under the flightpath will lose their daily half-day of quiet, but are being softened up for it by the ongoing "trials". Ironically, more rwys really is in their (our) interests!
Had thought that only another 10% could be extracted from mixed mode, so it came as quite a shock. Of course it will do nothing to combat the congestion and delays, and if there's bad weather or an "incident", the backlog created will take even longer to shift.
With 600,000 annual movements on just 2 rwys, would this make LHR the first airport to be operating at 125% capacity?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 24th Jun 2012 at 01:20.
Had thought that only another 10% could be extracted from mixed mode, so it came as quite a shock.
"The penultimate scenario is the application of full capacity mixed mode operations. This cannot be modelled using statistics derived from current operations as the expected increase of around 15% in capacity and the much changed operational procedures cannot be reasonably extrapolated from the current situation. For this reason, the delay curve and validation of the statistical approach have been performed using data obtained from NATS HERMES simulation, which gives the only accepted prediction of mixed mode operations at Heathrow."
Reading the article in the Independent, the mythical 25% seems to have been obtained by simply doubling Gatwick's capacity of 54 movements/hour and comparing that to Heathrow's current maximum movement rate of 87/hour.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA B777-300ER to LHR
AA will introduce its B777-300ER (3-class F8 C52 Y250) on following routes:
from 30th January 2013 DFW-LHR
from 14th February 2013 JFK-LHR
from 1st June 2013 LAX-LHR
from 30th January 2013 DFW-LHR
from 14th February 2013 JFK-LHR
from 1st June 2013 LAX-LHR
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Belfast
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm from Ireland so I dont know who's in charge of Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted but I wish whoever is on charge would stop talking about all the long term risks/negatives/problems associated with a 3rd runway. We've heard it all before ! Hurry up and do something quickly !
I think the ideal solution is a 3rd and 4th runway and a terminal 6 at Heathrow, 2nd runway at Gatwick and Stansted. No new estuary airport, it will take too long & has as much negatives about it as expansion at Heathrow. I know my idea is a bit... Far fetched but I think this will facilate the aviation needs for London for decades to come. Look at markets where London missing out on (Osaka, big cites in China, Santiago)
I think the ideal solution is a 3rd and 4th runway and a terminal 6 at Heathrow, 2nd runway at Gatwick and Stansted. No new estuary airport, it will take too long & has as much negatives about it as expansion at Heathrow. I know my idea is a bit... Far fetched but I think this will facilate the aviation needs for London for decades to come. Look at markets where London missing out on (Osaka, big cites in China, Santiago)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How contstrained is T5 on domestic? Is it just stands 501, 502, 503, 505, 506 which have access to UK arrivals? Given they were flying GLA, EDI, ABZ, NCL and MAN, no one really expected any more domestic destinations to be added when T5 was built. I mean had you suggested BA would be flying LBA-LHR four daily on the A319 most would have scoffed at the thought.
Question for those most familiar with land use around Heathrow.
If R3 were built and getting close to capacity, is there room for a fourth runway ?
An article in PropertyWeek from 2008 suggests either the demolition of large chunks of Bedfont / Stanwell or siting it next to the M4. Presumably R3 would become a full length runway before R4 were proposed.
I'm struggling to see how both R3 *and*R4 would fit between the current north runway and the M4 while ensuring appropriate separation between runways, but could well be wrong on this.
Can someone knowledgeable comment on this ?
If R3 were built and getting close to capacity, is there room for a fourth runway ?
An article in PropertyWeek from 2008 suggests either the demolition of large chunks of Bedfont / Stanwell or siting it next to the M4. Presumably R3 would become a full length runway before R4 were proposed.
I'm struggling to see how both R3 *and*R4 would fit between the current north runway and the M4 while ensuring appropriate separation between runways, but could well be wrong on this.
Can someone knowledgeable comment on this ?
DJ6,
The plans put forward for R3 by BAA are reproduced here:
Interactive: map of the planned third runway at Heathrow | Environment | guardian.co.uk
It will achieve sufficient separation by being pretty close to the M4. I can't see there being room for R4 without significant demolition (and several public enquiries).
The plans put forward for R3 by BAA are reproduced here:
Interactive: map of the planned third runway at Heathrow | Environment | guardian.co.uk
It will achieve sufficient separation by being pretty close to the M4. I can't see there being room for R4 without significant demolition (and several public enquiries).
Last edited by LGS6753; 28th Jun 2012 at 19:10.
The cynical amongst us will also notice that the associated Terminal 6 will be built right on top of the overpriced Heathrow Express, so a station can be provided, and nowhere near the more sensibly priced Underground.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "I'm from Ireland so I dont know who's in charge of Heathrow/Gatwick/Stansted but I wish whoever is on charge would stop talking about all the long term risks/negatives/problems associated with a 3rd runway. We've heard it all before ! Hurry up and do something quickly ! I think the ideal solution is a 3rd and 4th runway and a terminal 6 at Heathrow, 2nd runway at Gatwick and Stansted. "
Agree with all this except for the need for another rwy at STN. STN is nowhere near capacity and, in fact, contracting. No one outside the no-frills and holiday charter market is interested in STN, so one rwy is sufficient. On the other hand, this market is not interested in Heathrow, so we have a sort of balance.
Quote: "No new estuary airport, it will take too long & has as much negatives about it as expansion at Heathrow. I know my idea is a bit... Far fetched but I think this will facilate the aviation needs for London for decades to come. Look at markets where London missing out on (Osaka, big cites in China, Santiago)"
Have to take issue with the comment that the estuary airport has "as much negatives about it as expansion at Heathrow", in truth the estuary airport has all the negatives, let's be honest, it is a non-starter. Expansion at Heathrow does not.
Apart from that, it isn't far-fetched at all, just exactly what is needed! Four rwys allows alternation to continue, and that provides a daily half day of quiet for those of us under the flightpath, which is reasonable.
The Transport Secretary, Justine Greening has, apparently, conceded that the UK will need a four rwy airport. That being the case, all she needs to do is join up the dots!
Quote: "How contstrained is T5 on domestic? Is it just stands 501, 502, 503, 505, 506 which have access to UK arrivals? Given they were flying GLA, EDI, ABZ, NCL and MAN, no one really expected any more domestic destinations to be added when T5 was built."
AFAIK, 507,508 and 509 also have access to UK arrivals, 510 (gate A10) is the "back to the 1960s gate", for those unfortunates taking a bus to a remote stand.
Quote: "I mean had you suggested BA would be flying LBA-LHR four daily on the A319 most would have scoffed at the thought."
Excellent, good to see that route revived! Hope it's not the only one.
Agree with all this except for the need for another rwy at STN. STN is nowhere near capacity and, in fact, contracting. No one outside the no-frills and holiday charter market is interested in STN, so one rwy is sufficient. On the other hand, this market is not interested in Heathrow, so we have a sort of balance.
Quote: "No new estuary airport, it will take too long & has as much negatives about it as expansion at Heathrow. I know my idea is a bit... Far fetched but I think this will facilate the aviation needs for London for decades to come. Look at markets where London missing out on (Osaka, big cites in China, Santiago)"
Have to take issue with the comment that the estuary airport has "as much negatives about it as expansion at Heathrow", in truth the estuary airport has all the negatives, let's be honest, it is a non-starter. Expansion at Heathrow does not.
Apart from that, it isn't far-fetched at all, just exactly what is needed! Four rwys allows alternation to continue, and that provides a daily half day of quiet for those of us under the flightpath, which is reasonable.
The Transport Secretary, Justine Greening has, apparently, conceded that the UK will need a four rwy airport. That being the case, all she needs to do is join up the dots!
Quote: "How contstrained is T5 on domestic? Is it just stands 501, 502, 503, 505, 506 which have access to UK arrivals? Given they were flying GLA, EDI, ABZ, NCL and MAN, no one really expected any more domestic destinations to be added when T5 was built."
AFAIK, 507,508 and 509 also have access to UK arrivals, 510 (gate A10) is the "back to the 1960s gate", for those unfortunates taking a bus to a remote stand.
Quote: "I mean had you suggested BA would be flying LBA-LHR four daily on the A319 most would have scoffed at the thought."
Excellent, good to see that route revived! Hope it's not the only one.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 28th Jun 2012 at 20:54.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest wheeze for avoiding a third rwy is permanent mixed mode, which, apparently, can squeeze in another 120,000 movements, or 25% extra, (as reported on Radio Jackie news the other day).
We have the real time wake turbulence system, not that crap LIDAR, but all weather...with our system, monitoring shows that under most conditions, wake sep can be less than the other variables of ROT and radar sep...
If you look at the queue with wake separation, a blended queue could easily give you 25% more capacity, especially when coupled with ground ops...
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they are learning...they just didnt have a way to measure the vortex real time, but at every 2.7 seconds...we can show them the path to enlightenment!
(not necessarily mixed mode, but def with blended mode)
(not necessarily mixed mode, but def with blended mode)
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 28th Jun 2012 at 21:40. Reason: clarification