Heathrow 3 - Gatwick 2
A split 09L/27R will also mean that on easterlies, 09L would have to be used for departures, which I believe it isn't at present due to noise reasons.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK,
Cranford agreement is still in place, the government announced the intention to abolish the agreement when the airport was capable of delivering the schedule.
Cranford agreement is still in place, the government announced the intention to abolish the agreement when the airport was capable of delivering the schedule.
Cranford agreement is still in place, the government announced the intention to abolish the agreement when the airport was capable of delivering the schedule.
"With the Cranford Agreement gone, we can apply runway alternation throughout the year, no matter which direction the wind blows. But we can't do it straight away. Because Heathrow has developed within the context of the Cranford Agreement, it's not yet geared up to full-time runway alternation. There are too few access taxiways to the northern runway and too few exit taxiways from the southern runway."
Heathrow Noise: Cranford agreement
HAL are currently building the required taxyways/RETs etc to accommodate easterly operations from 09L. Some have been completed already so I would expect this to start in 2014...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DR,
We're getting to semantics, but they say 'we can' as the future tense.
All procedures are still in place, there is still an agreement not to overfly Cranford.
If the Cranford agreement had been abolished already, why are we not using 09L for departures when it's quiet enough that that mode of ops would not cause delay?
"In January 2009, following public consultation, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Cranford Agreement will end as soon as is reasonably possible."
"Ending the agreement will mean that departing aircraft will be able to use 09L on easterly operations."
Heathrow Airport departures noise fact sheet.
We're getting to semantics, but they say 'we can' as the future tense.
All procedures are still in place, there is still an agreement not to overfly Cranford.
If the Cranford agreement had been abolished already, why are we not using 09L for departures when it's quiet enough that that mode of ops would not cause delay?
"In January 2009, following public consultation, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Cranford Agreement will end as soon as is reasonably possible."
"Ending the agreement will mean that departing aircraft will be able to use 09L on easterly operations."
Heathrow Airport departures noise fact sheet.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Cranford agreement had been abolished already, why are we not using 09L for departures when it's quiet enough that that mode of ops would not cause delay?
Right now 09L is practically useless for anything beyond the odd shuttle departure.
The turning circle holding point area and at least a second entry point. The taxiways adjacent to T5 and passing/holding points all need to be constructed.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I accidentally use invisible ink in my post #66 just earlier?
I take it that the shoulder extensions to provide the necessary turning circle before the displaced threshold has been completed yes ?
I think it would be fair to say that while the Government clearly no longer considers itself to be bound by the provisions of Cranford, there is a reluctance to exercise those additional freedoms (yet), partly because of the infrastructure issues.
I think that's unduly pessimistic. Even without the planned RATs, ATC are able to achieve a reasonable departure rate from 09L when circumstances demand. One day in September, for example, the easterly runway roles were swapped for a period in the middle of the day and there were over 50 departures from 09L in around 90 minutes. Not earth-shattering, but hardly "useless" either.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL are currently building the required taxyways/RETs etc to accommodate easterly operations from 09L. Some have been completed already so I would expect this to start in 2014...
London Borough of Hillingdon - Planning application for the practical ending of the Cranford Agreement
The RETs (Rapid Exit Taxiways) are on 09R, to enable it to be designated as a landing runway under easterly alternation. Those have been built, this year, at the same time as the southern runway was resurfaced.
The RATs (Rapid Access Taxiways) are on 09L and are going to be built, subject to planning permission, as part of the northern runway resurfacing programme in 2014.
The RATs (Rapid Access Taxiways) are on 09L and are going to be built, subject to planning permission, as part of the northern runway resurfacing programme in 2014.
What about a close parallel runway at Gatwick? Hang on isn't there already one? Don't they work at ATL, LAX, SEA, etc. OK you may only talking about eight additional movements - say 55 to 63 per hour but that's still an additional 120 per day.
Here's something to think about. What if BEA hadn't moved from Northolt to LHR on the 50s but a tunnel had been built between the two airports and the runway rebuild to be parallel to the two at LHR? You would have a three runway complex. (OK I know that the passengers in the 50s wouldn't have made a tunnel feasible but what if a military reason could have been found to build one.) Hypothetical, of course, but I do remember sometime in the 80s, I think. the Sunday Times business section talking about the nonsense of keeping Liverpool airport open when Manchester was nearby.
I can think of three reasons for not building new ones. The first is environmental (CO2, NOx, etc. Its a real problem but there may well be technical solutions over a period time. The argument tends to be used by those who don't want an airport and environments against all growth, build an airport at a site that won't disturb anyone and it suddenly becomes less of an issue.
The second is demolishing houses. If you really want to guarantee that there is a consensus against building a new runway propose to demolish a few hundred houses. The Commissions proposals for a new runway to the NW fails here. You won't be dealing with Green Common / Greenpeace demonstrators (noisy but lacking wider support) you are dealing with pensioners refusing to leave their houses (widescale support).
The third is noise. A serious problem. However jets have got far quieter from the 707-320 turbojet (J57 powered I believe) to the latest jets. If you could have a further reduction in noise of a similar magnitude (99% of reduction of actual noise which is 20 decibels lower and a perceived reduction of 75%) it might go away as a problem.
Looking at the map, apart from Northolt it would be possible to build a new runway & terminal over the King George VI & Wraysbury reservoirs with minimal demolition. Obviously the residents of Stanwell & Old Windsor would be up in arms - unless you could reduce noise.
The question is, could you introduce the technology (active or passive) to reduce noise? I have taken the view that the Apollo programme shows that given the will technology can achieve a lot. If you can achieve silent aircraft and cheap fuel from algae aviation has a bright future.
(Sorry got a bit carried away with that post!)
Here's something to think about. What if BEA hadn't moved from Northolt to LHR on the 50s but a tunnel had been built between the two airports and the runway rebuild to be parallel to the two at LHR? You would have a three runway complex. (OK I know that the passengers in the 50s wouldn't have made a tunnel feasible but what if a military reason could have been found to build one.) Hypothetical, of course, but I do remember sometime in the 80s, I think. the Sunday Times business section talking about the nonsense of keeping Liverpool airport open when Manchester was nearby.
I can think of three reasons for not building new ones. The first is environmental (CO2, NOx, etc. Its a real problem but there may well be technical solutions over a period time. The argument tends to be used by those who don't want an airport and environments against all growth, build an airport at a site that won't disturb anyone and it suddenly becomes less of an issue.
The second is demolishing houses. If you really want to guarantee that there is a consensus against building a new runway propose to demolish a few hundred houses. The Commissions proposals for a new runway to the NW fails here. You won't be dealing with Green Common / Greenpeace demonstrators (noisy but lacking wider support) you are dealing with pensioners refusing to leave their houses (widescale support).
The third is noise. A serious problem. However jets have got far quieter from the 707-320 turbojet (J57 powered I believe) to the latest jets. If you could have a further reduction in noise of a similar magnitude (99% of reduction of actual noise which is 20 decibels lower and a perceived reduction of 75%) it might go away as a problem.
Looking at the map, apart from Northolt it would be possible to build a new runway & terminal over the King George VI & Wraysbury reservoirs with minimal demolition. Obviously the residents of Stanwell & Old Windsor would be up in arms - unless you could reduce noise.
The question is, could you introduce the technology (active or passive) to reduce noise? I have taken the view that the Apollo programme shows that given the will technology can achieve a lot. If you can achieve silent aircraft and cheap fuel from algae aviation has a bright future.
(Sorry got a bit carried away with that post!)
What about a close parallel runway at Gatwick? Hang on isn't there already one?
There is an emergency runway (usable if and only if the main runway is non-operational). Yes, it's parallel to the main, for obvious reasons, but it certainly isn't what is generally understood by a "close parallel runway" that would conform to ICAO Annex 14, and it doesn't add any capacity.
Of the three options that Gatwick has proposed for a genuine second runway, the closest is around 500m south of the current main runway (compared to 200m between the main and emergency runways) and the most widely spaced option is more than double that.
Dave
Of course you are right, it isn't actually a close parallel, but I wouldn't have thought that the runways at LAX (and certainly SFO) were much further apart and that close parallels could be established within the existing airport boundary (it might be necessary to demolish another hangar though).
Of course you are right, it isn't actually a close parallel, but I wouldn't have thought that the runways at LAX (and certainly SFO) were much further apart and that close parallels could be established within the existing airport boundary (it might be necessary to demolish another hangar though).
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: england
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.gatwickairport.com/Public...y19Jul2013.pdf page 26 to page 29 outlines the three options.
