Heathrow 3 - Gatwick 2
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, where's the cogent argument that show the two longitudinally-aligned runways idea to be crackpot?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Crowle United Kingdom
Age: 50
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is more of a shocker is the past two Governments and I use that term to Cover Conservative and Labour.
BOTH collectively to Blame for causing pur current situation. Draging (Both of them). , The Country from boom to bust from the 1950's.
Jointly Ie one after the other producing more red tape and ever more planning blunders. Then place restrictions on their own policy blunders that allowed such nlind devtion to avoiding doung the right thing.
The Tories started it with the railways using some highly paid bean counter with an axe to grind. Performed the actual data gathering in a week to the end of which has delivered us into the intercity/regional/cross city road and rail and yes even air gridlock as we have lost the backbone of the uk in the form of a rail system with the capacity to provide interuk travel at a reasonable cost and with much less cost to the environment.
Had he have had a different approach , Yes we would have still had closures . But because instead of 50 years of developing that huge network which now would be multimodal. And probably would have led to a different dynamic for the travelling public.
Wed have had high speed rail. Stations properly serviced close to most airports.
But probably less domestic flights. And less underused Airports.
The motorway network all of a sudden became ( like thus debate. Too contentious and too pricey (both parties are still dithering about completing projects outside the capital.
And because there doesnt seem to be any way of incentives for the airlines to offer flights from all the under used airports nation wide, Everone use Man Lhr and Gatwick.
Meanwhile the government like all the others are still throwing billions into Heathrow full in the Knowledge that if they expand it any further they will be gone.
Perhaps there should be some kind of infrastructure delivery organisation for airports and going a step futher they should be nationalised.
( don't shoot me down on that ). But the vital work and input from network rail has seen a vast rise in numbers mass spending. Line reopenings etc.
The highways agency does the same on a smaller scale for most of the roads.
The point being they are best qualified to find the best solution and offer it up to Goverments and the people.
The roads are state owned but often pfi was the way.
We have so many airports lying empty.
Prestwick as an example could be a frieght hub, With frieght going via there linked to a rail hub.
Freeing those slots from Heathrow.
But whomever is dithering is blisfully ignoring the fact that they have spent vast sums of taxpayer money rebuilding heathrow when its not really fit for purpose.
If they had decided twenty five years ago to build an estury airport we would be now there and probably just adding extra rail and road links to reach it.
Its time they sort this. And for now make use of all these underused airports whereever they are.
Not everything has to go via the southeast!.
But I would bet collectively all the studies and all the recent and current works and planned agreed projects would pay for the isle of grain airport alone.
And a final note. They seem to have neglected to mention the costs of totally redeveloping the area of Heathrow and the relocation of all the staff to move over there as well.
This is a national disgrace!
BOTH collectively to Blame for causing pur current situation. Draging (Both of them). , The Country from boom to bust from the 1950's.
Jointly Ie one after the other producing more red tape and ever more planning blunders. Then place restrictions on their own policy blunders that allowed such nlind devtion to avoiding doung the right thing.
The Tories started it with the railways using some highly paid bean counter with an axe to grind. Performed the actual data gathering in a week to the end of which has delivered us into the intercity/regional/cross city road and rail and yes even air gridlock as we have lost the backbone of the uk in the form of a rail system with the capacity to provide interuk travel at a reasonable cost and with much less cost to the environment.
Had he have had a different approach , Yes we would have still had closures . But because instead of 50 years of developing that huge network which now would be multimodal. And probably would have led to a different dynamic for the travelling public.
Wed have had high speed rail. Stations properly serviced close to most airports.
But probably less domestic flights. And less underused Airports.
The motorway network all of a sudden became ( like thus debate. Too contentious and too pricey (both parties are still dithering about completing projects outside the capital.
And because there doesnt seem to be any way of incentives for the airlines to offer flights from all the under used airports nation wide, Everone use Man Lhr and Gatwick.
Meanwhile the government like all the others are still throwing billions into Heathrow full in the Knowledge that if they expand it any further they will be gone.
Perhaps there should be some kind of infrastructure delivery organisation for airports and going a step futher they should be nationalised.
( don't shoot me down on that ). But the vital work and input from network rail has seen a vast rise in numbers mass spending. Line reopenings etc.
The highways agency does the same on a smaller scale for most of the roads.
The point being they are best qualified to find the best solution and offer it up to Goverments and the people.
The roads are state owned but often pfi was the way.
We have so many airports lying empty.
Prestwick as an example could be a frieght hub, With frieght going via there linked to a rail hub.
Freeing those slots from Heathrow.
But whomever is dithering is blisfully ignoring the fact that they have spent vast sums of taxpayer money rebuilding heathrow when its not really fit for purpose.
If they had decided twenty five years ago to build an estury airport we would be now there and probably just adding extra rail and road links to reach it.
Its time they sort this. And for now make use of all these underused airports whereever they are.
Not everything has to go via the southeast!.
But I would bet collectively all the studies and all the recent and current works and planned agreed projects would pay for the isle of grain airport alone.
And a final note. They seem to have neglected to mention the costs of totally redeveloping the area of Heathrow and the relocation of all the staff to move over there as well.
This is a national disgrace!
Paxing All Over The World
FlyingTinCans
Indeed. I have been saying that in these forums for over five years. I won't repeat the points here as they exisit in the threads and may be found.
The politicians have avoided the issue for 40 years and whatever they do now - even approving the 3rd TODAY - it is too late.
By the time the UK government agree on what airport gets what amount of runways in what configuration the UK won't need them, because pax and airline traffic would have already moved to Europe & the Middle East by then.
It may be a bleak and simplistic view, but due to the outstanding bureaucracy involved it is the most realistic outcome
It may be a bleak and simplistic view, but due to the outstanding bureaucracy involved it is the most realistic outcome
The politicians have avoided the issue for 40 years and whatever they do now - even approving the 3rd TODAY - it is too late.
Interesting, where's the cogent argument that show the two longitudinally-aligned runways idea to be crackpot?
a) it has never been done before at any airport in the world
b) there is no established safety case for such a configuration
c) it would mean a complete end to runway alternation
d) it has an even worse noise impact than the NW runway option
e) it provides 25% less capacity than an independent runway
?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 39
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the idea of splitting a runway in two. It can't be any more risky than taxiing on the undershoot for 13 at Edinburgh, or the overshoots for 25R at Barcelona or 36C at Amsterdam. I fail to see any connection to the TFS disaster and this runway configuration?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, where's the cogent argument that show the two longitudinally-aligned runways idea to be crackpot?
1 - Go-around, especially by crew inexperienced at a longitudinally-twinned runway and/or confused/pre-occupied by an emergency.
2 - Landing long (hey, look at all that runway!)
3 - Overshooting. (Nice to have all that accommodating tarmac but not so good if there's one of Mr Boeing's finest in your way.)
We saw the other day a 747 land at the wrong airport in Kansas when completely different airport runways were longitudinally aligned - and separated by about 10 miles.
Confusion, inexperience, unfamiliarity are the words that concern me. Add in technical trouble and it's a great combination.
Also, I'm curious: how do you number the runway? "Cleared to land on 27 Right Front/back"? "Take off on 09 Left Near/Far"? "27 Right 'A'/'B'"?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether it's suited to LHR, in terms of noise, terminal space is another matter, but regardless of location, two longitudinally-aligned runways would have to be separated by the RESA, two localiser antennas, and any extra space demanded by the obstacle free zone inner slopes to safeguard the missed approach gradient.
In terms of overrun risk, no different, and perhaps more desirable to have more manoeuvring area ahead than an airport perimeter fence and residential buildings beyond?
In terms of go-arounds, which one is safer? The case where a late missed approach is begun from a single runway with an aircraft just rotating maybe 1000m or less ahead of it, or the case where a missed approach has just begun and there is al least 2nm in which to resolve the issue, by either turning the go-around, stopping the departure, or allowing both to conitnue and separate vertically?
DaveReidUK, haven't read the report yet by why would this layout result in 25% less capacity than three parallel runways?
In terms of overrun risk, no different, and perhaps more desirable to have more manoeuvring area ahead than an airport perimeter fence and residential buildings beyond?
In terms of go-arounds, which one is safer? The case where a late missed approach is begun from a single runway with an aircraft just rotating maybe 1000m or less ahead of it, or the case where a missed approach has just begun and there is al least 2nm in which to resolve the issue, by either turning the go-around, stopping the departure, or allowing both to conitnue and separate vertically?
DaveReidUK, haven't read the report yet by why would this layout result in 25% less capacity than three parallel runways?
DaveReidUK, haven't read the report yet by why would this layout result in 25% less capacity than three parallel runways?
NW R3: +260,000 ATMs pa
HH R3: +190,000 ATMs pa
I assume that there would have been some NATS and/or CAA input to the model that produced those numbers.
Heathrow to close if Gatwick R2 approved ?
You read it here first ...
This, amazingly, is the ludicrous suggestion being made in yesterday's latest mailshot from the "Back Heathrow" astroturf campaign.
A second runway at Gatwick is listed as one of the "two other options the Commission agreed that could lead to the decline or even closure of Heathrow"
If anybody can find any reference to this scenario in the Commission's report, I'd be interested to know where it appears.
This, amazingly, is the ludicrous suggestion being made in yesterday's latest mailshot from the "Back Heathrow" astroturf campaign.
A second runway at Gatwick is listed as one of the "two other options the Commission agreed that could lead to the decline or even closure of Heathrow"
If anybody can find any reference to this scenario in the Commission's report, I'd be interested to know where it appears.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fa2fi.
There is a big difference from other airport practices.
LHR proposal , having one runway directly infront and in line with the other as this proposes with, little gap in between.
What happens if a plane on approach at the last split second has to overshoot when its in line with the take off runway in front. In a few seconds its over the takeoff runway possibly when a plane is already rolling for take off.
Then add to this doing it in LVPs fraught with possible dangers Id say and therefore expect it will be rejected and the new runway to the NW adopted.
Nigel
There is a big difference from other airport practices.
LHR proposal , having one runway directly infront and in line with the other as this proposes with, little gap in between.
What happens if a plane on approach at the last split second has to overshoot when its in line with the take off runway in front. In a few seconds its over the takeoff runway possibly when a plane is already rolling for take off.
Then add to this doing it in LVPs fraught with possible dangers Id say and therefore expect it will be rejected and the new runway to the NW adopted.
Nigel
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having one runway directly infront and in line with the other as this proposes with, little gap in between.
What happens if a plane on approach at the last split second has to overshoot when its in line with the take off runway in front. In a few seconds its over the takeoff runway possibly when a plane is already rolling for take off
What happens if a plane on approach at the last split second has to overshoot when its in line with the take off runway in front. In a few seconds its over the takeoff runway possibly when a plane is already rolling for take off
All it does is reduce the time between line up and touch downs displaced threshold if you like
When in operation there should only be one aircraft moving on either sector.
Much in the way close parallels work or similar in the way Manchester operates it two runways,
So for instance as the landing passes the threshold it has the opportunity to abort and climb straight ahead if necessary. Only when landed and confirmed as slowed to safe speed will the departing be instructed to line up and immediate depart.
The spacings on landing actually will have to increase from current segregated mode and in order to maintain safety and I suspect there may be many more power rounds as a result.
It not the answer however you look at it because it doesn't lead to much increase in capacity but absolutely increases ATC traffic load and risk.
What difference does LVP make?
I'm not competent to judge whether that will or won't be the case, but that's what the proposal says.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er Hang on a minute, this is complete lunacy !
I can barely believe its up for debate !
Are we saying INSTEAD of a proper runway there is the suggestion of ONE long motorway split into two ... used for both arrivals and departures ?
Think about it...
Now think about it again
And I thought I was mad considering we already have 5 major airports encircling the Capital with arr/dep lanes zig zagging over London...
Does anybody in Parliament ever ask the air traffic controllers what they think about all this ?
Where are the guys/gals from NATS in this debate ?
Safety ?
"Roll over and we will tickle your tummy"
I can barely believe its up for debate !
Are we saying INSTEAD of a proper runway there is the suggestion of ONE long motorway split into two ... used for both arrivals and departures ?
Think about it...
Now think about it again
And I thought I was mad considering we already have 5 major airports encircling the Capital with arr/dep lanes zig zagging over London...
Does anybody in Parliament ever ask the air traffic controllers what they think about all this ?
Where are the guys/gals from NATS in this debate ?
Safety ?
"Roll over and we will tickle your tummy"
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find strange is that the new super long runway extension will require the same amount of land and building materials as NW option minus the necessary terminal to handle the extra traffic. Let's face it the commission came up with 2 serious options, the same ones that have been around for years. Sadly neither will probably come to fruition in my lifetime.
Over the last couple of days I've been having an interesting, but ultimately frustrating, debate on LinkedIn with the guy - a former Eastern Airlines pilot - who first patented the split runway scheme and who is, naturally, an enthusiastic supporter of the Heathrow proposal.
Aerospace Split-Runway System fast-tracked :: Sequim Gazette
Suffice to say that, in the end, we had to agree to differ ...
Aerospace Split-Runway System fast-tracked :: Sequim Gazette
Suffice to say that, in the end, we had to agree to differ ...
I've just been reading the report...
There's a section on enhancing other airports which says:
... and the first sod was turned this week, after the scheme was announced even before the Airports Commission was formed!
There's a section on enhancing other airports which says:
The Government and the Highways Agency should develop a comprehensive strategy for motorway access to Luton, with a particular view to examining the case for enhancements to M1 Junction 10A
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
split rwy
a split rwy 09L/27R means no alternation and mixed mode: that's a problem in itself, apart from any technical/safety issues.
If not, there's no extra capacity and no point.
If not, there's no extra capacity and no point.