New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if you had 4 runways, you could have two aircraft departing simultaneously via runways 1 and 3, and two aircraft landing simultaneously on runways 2 and 4, because 1 and 3 would be 1.5 miles apart, as would 2 and 4...?!
Simultaneous parallel approaches is when two aircraft are coming down their respective final approach tracks abeam each other, not staggered.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK,
No, that is dependent parallel approaches.
Independent or simultaneous parallel approaches means that aircraft can use the approach to one runway without regard to aircraft on the approach to the other runway.
No, that is dependent parallel approaches.
Independent or simultaneous parallel approaches means that aircraft can use the approach to one runway without regard to aircraft on the approach to the other runway.
No, that is dependent parallel approaches.
Yes, I understand the distinction between dependent parallel and independent parallel approaches, I'm just surprised that the term simultaneous isn't used to describe both, as in "simultaneous dependent parallel approaches" and "simultaneous independent parallel approaches".
Interesting twist in this story...
Club Statement: Airport Expansion
Seems unusual for an MP to flatten half his own constituency! Or at least plan to.
Club Statement: Airport Expansion
Seems unusual for an MP to flatten half his own constituency! Or at least plan to.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a flavour of the sheer difficulties of getting even a third runway approved, let alone a fourth!
In a certain irony, this would be more likely to go through with a Labour government given that most of the local area are Tory voters.
In a certain irony, this would be more likely to go through with a Labour government given that most of the local area are Tory voters.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo:
Simultaneous approaches most certainly are possible. They most certainly are not 'against the law', whatever that means. What law do you think we'd be breaking?
Simultaneous approaches most certainly are possible. They most certainly are not 'against the law', whatever that means. What law do you think we'd be breaking?
ICAO 4444 section 6.7 - Simultaneous Parallel operations.
But on rereading this doc, it seems that the minimum 1500m runway separation limit only applied during bad weather. Otherwise, you can come down to 1000m, which seems pretty close.
But it does mean that LHR would have to stop parallel operations during any Sigmet. That is the Law. And if you think a recommendation is not a law, then think what a smart lawyer would say when viewing the smoldering wreckage.
Dave
I don't want to get into an argument about definitions, but are you saying that a stream of TEAM arrivals on 27L/27R at 2nm diagonal spacing can't reasonably be described as "simultaneous parallel approaches" ?
I don't want to get into an argument about definitions, but are you saying that a stream of TEAM arrivals on 27L/27R at 2nm diagonal spacing can't reasonably be described as "simultaneous parallel approaches" ?
If the aircraft are to fly abeam each other, then this is an Independent Parallel Approach.
The spacing limits are obviously different, for the different types of airport and approach.
.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 10th Jul 2012 at 14:16.
Just a flavour of the sheer difficulties of getting even a third runway approved, let alone a fourth!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't mean EGLL would have to stop parallel ops, it purely means they would have to become dependent parallel ops which would mean traffic would then be staggered on either approach. Dependent parallel approaches are already done during TEAM in all weather conditions. Equally in good weather aircraft can fly parallel approaches with less than the prescribed radar separation, that is allowable today.
Okay, where we find the good weather is a different point.
Okay, where we find the good weather is a different point.
Last edited by Geffen; 10th Jul 2012 at 15:12.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: It could be, of course, that the Free Enterprise Group have just graduated en masse from Negotiating 101 - demand more than you want and then the other side is relieved when you agree to settle for half of your original request.
I think that is almost certainly what it is, and also the reason why the Estuary airport is being proposed as the alternative.
Shall we build a third runway, at a fraction of the cost, or build a mega expensive new airport in the middle of a wild fowl sanctuary on the other side of London?!
The third runway starts to look like the best option...
I think that is almost certainly what it is, and also the reason why the Estuary airport is being proposed as the alternative.
Shall we build a third runway, at a fraction of the cost, or build a mega expensive new airport in the middle of a wild fowl sanctuary on the other side of London?!
The third runway starts to look like the best option...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS,
No, ICAO is not 'the law'.
The civil ATC 'law' in the UK is provided by CAP393, and enshrined as procedure by the CAA in CAP493 and each ATC unit's MATS Part 2 (or Pt.2 for Geffen!).
The UK does some things that are not in any ICAO Manual/SARPs/Procedures.
The UK does not require some things that are in ICAO.
Hence why differences are filed with ICAO by states all around the world.
But as you have now discovered, even ICAO allows us to do it.
No, ICAO is not 'the law'.
The civil ATC 'law' in the UK is provided by CAP393, and enshrined as procedure by the CAA in CAP493 and each ATC unit's MATS Part 2 (or Pt.2 for Geffen!).
The UK does some things that are not in any ICAO Manual/SARPs/Procedures.
The UK does not require some things that are in ICAO.
Hence why differences are filed with ICAO by states all around the world.
But as you have now discovered, even ICAO allows us to do it.
Paxing All Over The World
Another delay? I think we can see where this is going! Postering and long grass come to mind.
Get on with it!
Get on with it!
Get on with it!
Most political pundits expect a Cabinet reshuffle soon, and it's pretty clear that Greening will go, not least because she lost much of her remaining credibility when the Chancellor trampled all over her with his decision to freeze the fuel duty hike.
He, of course, has become a more public advocate of a third runway and, given a more amenable Transport Secretary, I wouldn't rule out some sort of commitment/U-turn before the next election.
Gideon never has an idea of what he wants. Has this government actually kept ANY of its promises from 2 years ago? He does more U-turns than a 747 in a Heathrow stack in the peak.
Anyone know what time this document will be published? Whatever happens politicians from all parties will just keep delaying and delaying. Tea boy Clegg will not be happy.
Anyone know what time this document will be published? Whatever happens politicians from all parties will just keep delaying and delaying. Tea boy Clegg will not be happy.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gideon may have to pull his finger out and make a decision, but Milliband is playing a very clever game at the moment.
As we know, the last Labour government actually approved a third runway, but the current Edd & Edd iteration has given no indication where it stands.
The significance of course is that if it were to support a third runway (as is the logical thing to do) then Gideon wouldnt need to worry about Clegg and the Liberal loonies think. However, if they are to go it alone then the Lib Dems opinion actually counts, as the Tories need their support in the coalition.
My suspicion is that Labour would support the runway, but will do everything in their power to avoid saying that right up until election time for fear of handing the upper hand to the Tories.
As we know, the last Labour government actually approved a third runway, but the current Edd & Edd iteration has given no indication where it stands.
The significance of course is that if it were to support a third runway (as is the logical thing to do) then Gideon wouldnt need to worry about Clegg and the Liberal loonies think. However, if they are to go it alone then the Lib Dems opinion actually counts, as the Tories need their support in the coalition.
My suspicion is that Labour would support the runway, but will do everything in their power to avoid saying that right up until election time for fear of handing the upper hand to the Tories.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS2 will call at North London (Old Oak Common), and then spur off to LHR, then off to Birmingham and then possibly Manchester, Leeds and Scotland.
Phase 1 only goes as far as Brum / Lichfield.
Phase 2 will go to Manchester and Leeds, with as-yet undefined links to the ECML / WCML to head north.
It will NOT go to Scotland, where it might pick up passengers from air, yet HS2 Ltd are claiming it will still take 81% - yes 81% of the WHOLE market between London and Scotland.
So sadly, I think we will be seeing history repeat itself again - different projections, more users no doubt, but also significantly higher costs per mile and outright, still no hub airports served either.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justine Greening, the transport secretary says she is: 'determined to find a long term solution to Britain's airport crisis'.
What we do have is the pressure point at Heathrow - it has been running for many years at around 98% capacity, and there is very little that is going to change this.
We may or may not build a third runway there, but if that happens, it will fill up almost overnight by taking traffic which would otherwise stay at Gatters, and the "crisis" will still remain.
I respect KK MP for having the guts to propose demolition of half his constituency, but as a future pretender to the throne, he must surely know that this is a complete non-starter, therefore a risk-free approach to take.
For all the reasons we've discussed ad infinitum, an island airport is not a solution, especially as 2/3rds of its traffic is just going to be displacement anyway, hence the huge infrastructure costs which are going to need repaying, but which don't provide extra capacity.
It isn't sexy, it isn't ideal, but the most obvious and practical way for London to expand capacity is to add runways to its existing airports, and there is more space and less of a noise issue doing this at LGW first, then STN.
In the meantime, what we have is a "challenge", not a "crisis". London will not stagnate if it does not build a new island airport, nor will it stagnate if it only gets a 3rd runway at LHR instead of a 4th. Even if we have to make do with a 2nd or even 3rd runway at LGW, it will not be the end of London as we know it.
We have to admit that ours is a dirty industry, which is just as good at taking people away from London as it is at bringing them to London. The business passenger will always be able to fly where he or she wants.
If Easyjet get some routes displaced from Gatwick to Stansted and Luton, and MOL pulls a few Ryanair routes in a huff, are we really that badly off?
Last edited by jabird; 12th Jul 2012 at 15:15.