HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons
Given how far the long haul heavies can roll on landing, is that wise or just slapdash graphics?
b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons
Given how far the long haul heavies can roll on landing, is that wise or just slapdash graphics?
However current declared lengths are
09L/27R 3,900m 12,795' grooved asphalt
09R/27L 3,660m 12,008' grooved asphalt
At current elevations and with current and known future aircraft you could easily displace the thresholds of both by 500 metres without impeding any operations if its primarily for noise abatement purposes.
There really aren't that many under performing DC-8 srs 61F or Tridents with go-cart engines in service these days
A third runway cannot be built at any cost ...
... to quote a rather surprising statement by Heathrow in their latest bit of PR:
http://your.heathrow.com/wp-content/...i_easyread.pdf (page 22)
Call me pedantic, but I don't think that's what they actually meant to say.
http://your.heathrow.com/wp-content/...i_easyread.pdf (page 22)
Call me pedantic, but I don't think that's what they actually meant to say.
Given how far the long haul heavies can roll on landing, is that wise or just slapdash graphics?
That's consistent with the displaced landing thresholds shown for the NW runway, though the current runway ends appear to have been given rather larger displacements, particularly 09L where the LDA appears to be reduced by about 800m to 2800m (it's currently just under 3600m).
A landing threshold displaced by 700m, all other things being equal, makes about 120' difference to the height of an aircraft at any point on a 3° ILS (though said document also makes a reference to "steeper landing approaches").
A landing threshold displaced by 700m, all other things being equal, makes about 120' difference to the height of an aircraft at any point on a 3° ILS (though said document also makes a reference to "steeper landing approaches").
I believe they were intending to use a 3.2 degree approach in addition to the displaced threshold to reduce noise disturbance. The summary document includes an estimated noise profile chart. I certainly remember reading that 747's and the like would not be allowed at Heathrow by the time the third runway, if approved, was built.
I believe they were intending to use a 3.2 degree approach in addition to the displaced threshold to reduce noise disturbance. The summary document includes an estimated noise profile chart. I certainly remember reading that 747's and the like would not be allowed at Heathrow by the time the third runway, if approved, was built.
"all approaches will be steeper than today at 3.2 degrees in 2030 and 3.5 degrees in 2040".
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Cambridge, UK
Age: 41
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T5 to be renamed...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LDA 2500m is enough for anything I think.
29 at DEL is 4000m but displaced threshold reduces LDA 2500m - doesn't seem to cause any problem
In this case I think it placates a temple - jets 500' higher over it as a result.
29 at DEL is 4000m but displaced threshold reduces LDA 2500m - doesn't seem to cause any problem
In this case I think it placates a temple - jets 500' higher over it as a result.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we take it from the graphic that the 'toast rack' will be complete before (or alongside) R3? That's a lot of building work...
Also, is the new R3 pier served by a new T6? The building just west of T5?
Also, is the new R3 pier served by a new T6? The building just west of T5?
Can we take it from the graphic that the 'toast rack' will be complete before (or alongside) R3? That's a lot of building work...
The current proposals show around 10 years' worth of terminal construction in the years after R3 would become operational:
Runway operational (2025)
T6A Phase 1 (J) (2026)
T6B Phase 1 (K) (2026)
T6A Phase 2 (J) (2027)
T6B Phase 2 (K) (2027)
T2A Phase 2 (C) (2032)
T2E (D) (2033)
T2D (E) (2034)
T2A Phase 3 (C) (2036)
T2C (A) (2036)
The letters A to J indicate the elements of the "toast-rack" (terminals and satellites) in order reading east to west. K is the T6 satellite adjacent to R3.
Also, is the new R3 pier served by a new T6? The building just west of T5?
This thread is a graphic demonstration of why we in the UK are just so hopeless at major projects and decisions. As one poster pointed out for all its faults LHR is the destination of choice and for some very good reasons, ground and air connectivity.
It has been a big airport for all my lifetime,I am 60, and I grew up next to it when ublike the 777s and A380s off today, there really was such a thing as aircraft noise, try a PW powered 707 fan jet on approach screaming like the banshees of hell. Or that otherwise lovely but dreadfully un-neighbourly craft, the VC 10, which shook building foundations on take off-no reduced thrust departures back then. So people living relatively nearby-let’s say a 10km circle have all moved their or grown up their knowing there was a massive airport close by. Many of them liked it because it gave those good jobs and many more because it was easy to get to and from.
Others may have notices the huge empty space just north of the ‘field’ where the LON VOR sits and wondered or deduced why it hadn’t become a housing estate in that time period.
Flying over Queenies house is actually a good thing since Windsor Great part has no population and a couple of immense open spaces where a dist4ess airline could attempt a desperation landing –or aim just to the north for the runway like Olympic rowing park which would be a perfect runway in distress.
So as everyone want to use it leave it where it is , even the lovies from Kew and Richmond who have the most influence if not the most sense will flip from environmentally (and house price) related opposition once they realise how far the alternatives are along with the £100 each way train fare to Boris island.
So in essence just get on and build R3 north of the airport as shown, no one lives in Sipson except transient airline staff and for any longer term residents just give them a fair compulsory purchase settlement, as opposed to the normal parsimony shown by the Government in these circumstances.
I could go on, transition to Boris Island-how long would that take, six months, a year, longer-perfect for a hub.
80, 000 jobs gone in West London, Surrey and Berks, if you live in say Camberley or Chalfont St G even if you are long haul crew Boris Island is just too damn far, for the army of skilled airline specialists are they all going to move ?? What is going to happen when it’s gone, houses?? Sure , that’s easy just get rid of the three fuel depots and the 100 square Km of 6-10 foot think reinforced concrete in the ramps runways and taxiways and it will be a delightful tree less and features desert.
So it has to be LHR . love it or hate it, just get on and build the bloody thing before we are eclipsed completely by FRA CDG AMS DXB IST and become a peripheral player in civil aviation just like we are in most every other field of commerce except finance and gambling and they are much the same thing today right?
It has been a big airport for all my lifetime,I am 60, and I grew up next to it when ublike the 777s and A380s off today, there really was such a thing as aircraft noise, try a PW powered 707 fan jet on approach screaming like the banshees of hell. Or that otherwise lovely but dreadfully un-neighbourly craft, the VC 10, which shook building foundations on take off-no reduced thrust departures back then. So people living relatively nearby-let’s say a 10km circle have all moved their or grown up their knowing there was a massive airport close by. Many of them liked it because it gave those good jobs and many more because it was easy to get to and from.
Others may have notices the huge empty space just north of the ‘field’ where the LON VOR sits and wondered or deduced why it hadn’t become a housing estate in that time period.
Flying over Queenies house is actually a good thing since Windsor Great part has no population and a couple of immense open spaces where a dist4ess airline could attempt a desperation landing –or aim just to the north for the runway like Olympic rowing park which would be a perfect runway in distress.
So as everyone want to use it leave it where it is , even the lovies from Kew and Richmond who have the most influence if not the most sense will flip from environmentally (and house price) related opposition once they realise how far the alternatives are along with the £100 each way train fare to Boris island.
So in essence just get on and build R3 north of the airport as shown, no one lives in Sipson except transient airline staff and for any longer term residents just give them a fair compulsory purchase settlement, as opposed to the normal parsimony shown by the Government in these circumstances.
I could go on, transition to Boris Island-how long would that take, six months, a year, longer-perfect for a hub.
80, 000 jobs gone in West London, Surrey and Berks, if you live in say Camberley or Chalfont St G even if you are long haul crew Boris Island is just too damn far, for the army of skilled airline specialists are they all going to move ?? What is going to happen when it’s gone, houses?? Sure , that’s easy just get rid of the three fuel depots and the 100 square Km of 6-10 foot think reinforced concrete in the ramps runways and taxiways and it will be a delightful tree less and features desert.
So it has to be LHR . love it or hate it, just get on and build the bloody thing before we are eclipsed completely by FRA CDG AMS DXB IST and become a peripheral player in civil aviation just like we are in most every other field of commerce except finance and gambling and they are much the same thing today right?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't understand WHY we have to be bigger than CDG, AMS etc etc - why are we sweating to get bigger?
If LHR stays exactly the same size then there is the same number of jobs, the same number of flights to the same places and a steady growth in passengers as larger planes replace the smaller ones................... even maybe a long term reduction in noise and pollution for the same reason
Most people wouldn't suggest we had to have the worlds tallest building just because they've built one in Dubai so why do we have to have the worlds largest airport???
If LHR stays exactly the same size then there is the same number of jobs, the same number of flights to the same places and a steady growth in passengers as larger planes replace the smaller ones................... even maybe a long term reduction in noise and pollution for the same reason
Most people wouldn't suggest we had to have the worlds tallest building just because they've built one in Dubai so why do we have to have the worlds largest airport???
HH
You are right , we do not need to be the biggest just for the sake of it, but we need to be comparable or competitive -real estate alone means CDG is and always will be bigger than LHR. However we have to allow for reasonable expansion-preservation and growth of the BA hub, rather than just giving the game to Emirates, and avoiding the long holding and ground manouvering delays endemic at present.
LHR has already started a slide downwards and unless it is arrested it will end up as a sort of Gatwick or Orly on Euro standards. Economically that's not good for UK inc and certainly not good for London and the South east. If I was promoting the idea of a really big airport -biggest in Europe- then I would be a Boris fan
PB
You are right , we do not need to be the biggest just for the sake of it, but we need to be comparable or competitive -real estate alone means CDG is and always will be bigger than LHR. However we have to allow for reasonable expansion-preservation and growth of the BA hub, rather than just giving the game to Emirates, and avoiding the long holding and ground manouvering delays endemic at present.
LHR has already started a slide downwards and unless it is arrested it will end up as a sort of Gatwick or Orly on Euro standards. Economically that's not good for UK inc and certainly not good for London and the South east. If I was promoting the idea of a really big airport -biggest in Europe- then I would be a Boris fan
PB
"..... we have to allow for reasonable expansion-preservation and growth of the BA hub, rather than just giving the game to Emirates....."
A) Do we really?
B) We? Surely this is a purely commercial concern between two Anglo-Spanish companies (IAG & Heathrow Airports/Ferrovial)?
C) Surely if expansion was in the plans then building major infrastructure and housing all round about the boundaries of the airport would not have been permitted, either by local authorities or by national government way back when it was a national asset before privatisation in 1987.
A) Do we really?
B) We? Surely this is a purely commercial concern between two Anglo-Spanish companies (IAG & Heathrow Airports/Ferrovial)?
C) Surely if expansion was in the plans then building major infrastructure and housing all round about the boundaries of the airport would not have been permitted, either by local authorities or by national government way back when it was a national asset before privatisation in 1987.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You want to handle economic growth without expanding capacity at our only hub airport? You know, the one airlines and people really want to fly from?
We really know how to gift a lead to others in Britain in commercial aviation. Yes let's give it to the French and Germans and the Desert Rats. Then we can close LHR and move to Boris' super hub where we will have clean air and everyone can cycle to work. Super.
Actually why do we need economic growth at all. We're good as we are surely?
Oh hang on, are we in debt? Our kids even more so? Mortaged to the hilt on a house price bubble with a growing split between haves and have nots?
That might be why......
Or :
Job creation? Construction? Re-connect to markets that were squeezed out?
Integrated transport policy?
Try and put our last hub carrier on a level playing field with protectionist French and determined Germans?
Harry you're assuming a lot that sitting back and being complacent will keep London at the forefront. However today LHR has very poor access to emerging markets and even China is under served in comparison to FRA/CDG. One day, the model will break and we'll all be wondering why no one took necessary steps before it was too late.
We really know how to gift a lead to others in Britain in commercial aviation. Yes let's give it to the French and Germans and the Desert Rats. Then we can close LHR and move to Boris' super hub where we will have clean air and everyone can cycle to work. Super.
Actually why do we need economic growth at all. We're good as we are surely?
Oh hang on, are we in debt? Our kids even more so? Mortaged to the hilt on a house price bubble with a growing split between haves and have nots?
That might be why......
Or :
Job creation? Construction? Re-connect to markets that were squeezed out?
Integrated transport policy?
Try and put our last hub carrier on a level playing field with protectionist French and determined Germans?
Harry you're assuming a lot that sitting back and being complacent will keep London at the forefront. However today LHR has very poor access to emerging markets and even China is under served in comparison to FRA/CDG. One day, the model will break and we'll all be wondering why no one took necessary steps before it was too late.
A couple of additions to the reading list
Two interesting newly-published books on Heathrow:
Heathrow Airport - Operations Manual (Haynes) is a glossy, accessible insight into the day-to-day workings of the airport. Given the extensive access clearly granted to the author, it's not surprising that parts read like they were written by Heathrow's PR department, but it's fascinating nevertheless.
Heathrow - From Tents to Terminal 5 (Amberley) is written by a civil engineer and concentrates on the buildings and infrastructure. Illustrated with (mostly) B&W photos and line drawings, it's essential reading for those who know their beam soffites from their secant piles.
Both available from Amazon.
Heathrow Airport - Operations Manual (Haynes) is a glossy, accessible insight into the day-to-day workings of the airport. Given the extensive access clearly granted to the author, it's not surprising that parts read like they were written by Heathrow's PR department, but it's fascinating nevertheless.
Heathrow - From Tents to Terminal 5 (Amberley) is written by a civil engineer and concentrates on the buildings and infrastructure. Illustrated with (mostly) B&W photos and line drawings, it's essential reading for those who know their beam soffites from their secant piles.
Both available from Amazon.
As an outsider looking in, I think your government would be mad not to build RWY #3 at LHR. It's not just a hub for the U.K. or at least it wasn't. The amount of people using AMS instead over the last few years is huge. Then there's the people from BRS,BHX,EDI,GLA,LBA etc now going through DUB. Over 15% of pax crossing the Atlantic from Dublin every day originated in the U.K. and that number is growing.
If you don't innovate then you stagnate. The argument that by doing nothing and leaving LHR as it is means it won't start losing pax big time is in my view dangerous and wrong. The U.K. as a whole will lose out the longer the expansion is delayed. Other hubs are growing massively at LHR's expense. Those 80,000 direct jobs can only be protected by expansion.
If you don't innovate then you stagnate. The argument that by doing nothing and leaving LHR as it is means it won't start losing pax big time is in my view dangerous and wrong. The U.K. as a whole will lose out the longer the expansion is delayed. Other hubs are growing massively at LHR's expense. Those 80,000 direct jobs can only be protected by expansion.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there's the people from BRS,BHX,EDI,GLA,LBA etc now going through DUB. Over 15% of pax crossing the Atlantic from Dublin every day originated in the U.K. and that number is growing.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Crowle United Kingdom
Age: 50
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post deleted due to typical abuse from someone .
Just because I floated an idea about why could the UK national Hub not be in the Centre of the UK
And linked to Central London By High Speed rail.
My idea was Expand East Midlands and the Journey time from the right to the capital is about 40 mins if not less by HS2.
The response below is about par for the course.
Folk being deliberately RUDE.
Just for posting an idea.
I wonder if he'd be so ignorant to someone face to face but somehow on PPrune it's fine.
So thank you for that polite (Not response)
Just because I floated an idea about why could the UK national Hub not be in the Centre of the UK
And linked to Central London By High Speed rail.
My idea was Expand East Midlands and the Journey time from the right to the capital is about 40 mins if not less by HS2.
The response below is about par for the course.
Folk being deliberately RUDE.
Just for posting an idea.
I wonder if he'd be so ignorant to someone face to face but somehow on PPrune it's fine.
So thank you for that polite (Not response)
Last edited by onyxcrowle; 18th May 2014 at 23:27.