Green-ing gone, green for Heathrow?

[WHBM]

Heathrow and Boris Island runways appear to be almost exactly in line, due east-west of one another, I make them 39 miles apart. The mid-point along this line (so when Heathrow is on westerlies this is what it will be like with Boris on easterlies) lies in the Thames between Canary Wharf and the O2, about 19 miles each way.

So if you go to Canary Wharf and look at the height of the overflying Heathrow traffic on westerlies, that is presumably where it will be when Boris Island is on easterlies. It's just where most traffic coming off Lambourne and Bovingdon is turned right onto long final. We live east of this point, further from Heathrow, and this traffic is certainly still prominent here.

The easterly track to Boris appears to descend from there over Woolwich, Bexleyheath, Dartford, and (particularly) Tilbury/Gravesend. However, Boris Island is portrayed as an unrestricted H24 airport, unlike Heathrow currently, with full parallel approaches.

From time to time Heathrow is on Westerlies while London City is on Easterlies, which leads to interesting separation over Waterloo as seen from the ground. The prospect of Boris on Easterlies when City is on Westerlies, however, seems even more of a challenge.

[I'm Off!]

Errr, not necessarily. That would pre-suppose that the chosen runway orientation for Boris Island or other estuary alternative was 09/27, far from certain. An adjustment to more SW/NE would alter flight paths and noise footprints.

[ETOPS]

And that would have the advantage of actually pointing into the prevailling wind!

[Dannyboy39]

On the subject of LCY and LHR flightpaths - when I was down at the Olympics Stadium a few weeks ago, LHR was landing on the 27L/R whilst LCY was departing on 27. Didn't realise how much seperation is needed on that "junction". All that, plus several commercial and police helicopters and a small advertising blimp - intense air activity in that part of London.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Heathrow was a dinosaur by the '70s. No room to expand,rubbish infrastructure,approaches over the City at low altitude. The bullet needs to be bitten.Boris Island,incorporating a tidal barrier and improved transport links Kent to East Anglian? Bin Heathrow now, it will have to be done eventually,sooner the cheaper."

Maybe, but it was the dinosaur, and remains the airport, that airlines and pax favour. Why do you think it runs at 99+% capacity and why do you think airlines pay millions for LHR slots?

Please return to the real world, there is no prospect of "binning" Heathrow.

[DaveReidUK]

Step in the right direction but just crazy time scales. 3 years??

Not necessarily.

From yesterday's DfT statement:


"the Commission will provide an interim report to the Government no later than the end of 2013 setting out:

• its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and
• its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long term options." [my emphases]

Assuming that "in the next five years" means over the course of that period, rather than doing nothing until 5 years has elapsed, it's not hard to work out what the recommendations are likely to be.

Aviation - News - Department for Transport

[Fairdealfrank]

Howard Davies's Commission

Just a thought: the commission has to make recommendations for "immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity" within one year.

Does this mean squeezing a quart out of a pint pot by ending segregated mode and rwy alternation at Heathrow and move to permanent all-day (everyday) mixed mode?

This would:
(1) increase available movements by 10-15%(?);
(2) do nothing to address congestion and delays;
(3) end the daily half-day of quiet for those under the flightpath.

It would also mean, ironically, that vocal opposition to airport expansion from miles away from Heathrow (Goldsmith, Greening, Johnson, etc.) would actually result in more noise for flightpath residents!

A spectacular own-goal if this the case!

[DaveReidUK]

Does this mean squeezing a quart out of a pint pot by ending segregated mode and rwy alternation at Heathrow and move to permanent all-day (everyday) mixed mode?

This would:
(1) increase available movements by 10-15%(?);
(2) do nothing to address congestion and delays;
(3) end the daily half-day of quiet for those under the flightpath.

The conventional wisdom is that full-time mixed mode would increase capacity by around 60,000 ATMs per year, which equates to 12.5% of the current limit. However we're told that such an increase would be contingent on airspace changes (but see below).

Whether this would or wouldn't reduce congestion and delays is a moot point. We're told that the object of the current mixed mode trials is to improve resilience, i.e. the airport's capability to recover from disruption, so presumably full mixed mode could provide more of the same, depending of course on how much of the increased capacity is absorbed by demand. Obviously if the scheduling limits were increased pro rata to the revised capacity, so that LHR was still operating at 99%, then congestion and delays would continue to be the norm.

But you're missing the point. The Commission, whose 3 or 4 members will be confirmed in the next week or so, will have fulfilled its obligations when it makes its recommendations for those "immediate actions".

It won't have any responsibility for implementing changes, and if any of its recommendations turn out to be infeasible (cf airspace design) or politically unacceptable (cf loss of respite for West London residents) then they will all be consigned to the "too difficult" tray and we'll be back to square one.

In other words, the Commission will have fulfilled its purpose - to give another year or so's breathing space - regardless of what conclusions it reaches.

[topoverhaul]

Mixed mode is needed now to help to alleviate the current arrival and departure delays, without deploying additional capacity. It is the wake vortex rules which are the current limiting factor, interleaving take offs and landings will be a major factor in reducing the continual waste of fuel involved in the stacking of arrivals throughout the day, a situation that the environmental lobby seems happy with as it is never mentioned by them.
In order to alleviate arrival noise, all the new technologies which are available should be deployed. A true 4D arrival planning should be instituted with EATs issued to aircraft to permit longitudinal holding if required. There is absolutely no need for arrivals to be directed to a 15 mile extended centre line over central London. There should be a fan of RNAV arrivals aiming at a final point at 5 miles with the spacing controlled by one of the available radar arrival sequencers. Indeed the opposite runway SIDs could be reversed to provide noise preferential arrivals, easy to achieve with current technology.
My impression is that these alleviations are not being opposed by the pilots or the operators but by those in charge of the ground environment who tend to resist anything which has a hint of deskilling.

[DaveReidUK]

Mixed mode is needed now to help to alleviate the current arrival and departure delays, without deploying additional capacity.

That sounds like the perfect description of a "lose-lose" scenario.

Delays are not the driver here - they are simply the expected and accepted consequence of scheduling at 99% of capacity for 16 hours of the day.

Nobody is going to propose a solution where the 60,000 additional slots generated per year are simply used as a buffer, without scheduling more movements.

That would certainly improve resilience and reduce delays, but would do nothing for capacity, while simultaneously upsetting large swathes of the West London population. That's not going to happen.

[PAXboy]

Indeed, DaveReidUK. The moment any more capacity is made available - by whatever means - then new slots will be created (and sold!) and the merry go round in the skies will continue.

I agree that NO ONE mentions this heinous waste of fuel, time and money, leave alone the pollution. Perhaps the NIMBYs cannot see further than their own back yard.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Indeed, DaveReidUK. The moment any more capacity is made available - by whatever means - then new slots will be created (and sold!) and the merry go round in the skies will continue.

I agree that NO ONE mentions this heinous waste of fuel, time and money, leave alone the pollution. Perhaps the NIMBYs cannot see further than their own back yard."

Exactly,the nature of a NIMBY is not to see beyond the backyard, nor above it for that matter.

As for the holier-than-thou greens, they may not even realise what's going on above, unless it can be taxed.