Heathrow 3 - Gatwick 2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plan for a dual-use 6,000-metre runway at LHR?
This sounds nuts to me. Does anyone know of any instance anywhere in the world where such an idea has worked?
The Davies Commission looking at options for extra capacity in London has shortlisted a plan to extend the northern runway at LHR to at least 6,000 metres (c 20,000'), and to allow the runway to be used for takeoffs and landings, simultaneously - in effect, as they put it, "enabling it to be operated as two separate runways: one for departures and one for arrivals".
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...interim-report
The Davies Commission looking at options for extra capacity in London has shortlisted a plan to extend the northern runway at LHR to at least 6,000 metres (c 20,000'), and to allow the runway to be used for takeoffs and landings, simultaneously - in effect, as they put it, "enabling it to be operated as two separate runways: one for departures and one for arrivals".
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...interim-report
they used to have this at FRA. one runway and two glide slope antenna. One for the heavies and one for the medium aircraft. In this way they could reduce the wake turbulence separation on final.
Also, there were two thresholds on that runway associated with the two separate G/S antenna's.
Haven't been there for a while though. The idea seems to have been abandoned in EDDF.
Also, there were two thresholds on that runway associated with the two separate G/S antenna's.
Haven't been there for a while though. The idea seems to have been abandoned in EDDF.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If runways were like this from the beginning and someone said they're going to put two runways side by side people would say that was nuts!
"You mean I could be landing and there could be an aircraft right next to me taking off!"
Look at the following pic which is as close as it gets.
Photos: Airbus A320-231 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Now put that CX747 10,000' further away as it takes off from the proposed second runway.
"You mean I could be landing and there could be an aircraft right next to me taking off!"
Look at the following pic which is as close as it gets.
Photos: Airbus A320-231 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Now put that CX747 10,000' further away as it takes off from the proposed second runway.
Last edited by SMOC; 17th Dec 2013 at 09:14.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens with a go around ???
Except the aircraft taking off is a further 3km away.
Think of approaching aircraft having terrain ahead and having to turn away in the event of a missed approach.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must say I still find this confusing. At the very least, and as the Report describes, it won't offer anything like the additional movements of a third runway.
If the first part is being used for arrivals and an aircraft is on finals, will a departing aircraft be cleared to line up on the second part? If it lines up and holds it's vulnerable to an overrun (however unlikely) of the arriving aircraft and if it's cleared for take-off it's vulnerable to a late go-around by the arriving aircraft. And if the first part is being used for take-offs and the second part for landings, the departing aircraft will have to hold until the landing aircraft has touched down, if not actually cleared the runway, so possibly a small increase in movements there. Finally, if the extended runway is being used just for take-offs or just for arrivals, it's possible to envisage slightly closer separations but the overriding concern will always be to ensure safety if something goes pear-shaped for an arriving or departing aircraft and this will always restrict the total number of movements compared to an independent separate runway
If the first part is being used for arrivals and an aircraft is on finals, will a departing aircraft be cleared to line up on the second part? If it lines up and holds it's vulnerable to an overrun (however unlikely) of the arriving aircraft and if it's cleared for take-off it's vulnerable to a late go-around by the arriving aircraft. And if the first part is being used for take-offs and the second part for landings, the departing aircraft will have to hold until the landing aircraft has touched down, if not actually cleared the runway, so possibly a small increase in movements there. Finally, if the extended runway is being used just for take-offs or just for arrivals, it's possible to envisage slightly closer separations but the overriding concern will always be to ensure safety if something goes pear-shaped for an arriving or departing aircraft and this will always restrict the total number of movements compared to an independent separate runway
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about an F50 departing with fast jet going around behind? at least with parallel runways the separation is constant or increasing.
How do you establish separation when an aircraft performs a go-around in LVPs?
How do you establish separation when an aircraft performs a go-around in LVPs?
The go-around (which will happen at latest from the TDZ of the first bit of runway) calls for immediate turn, so the aircraft going around will never be anywhere near a departing aircraft.
Quick passing of buck to not making a decision until after next election by give non options.
CMD can say well we did something, which was nothing and addressed the problem but we won't make a decision.
CMD can say well we did something, which was nothing and addressed the problem but we won't make a decision.
For the simple minded like me...
Has a double length runway with simultaneous arrivals and departures of jets each carrying 100+ people ever been done before at a large and busy commercial airport ?
I ask specifically about a commercial airport - I imagine there are all kinds of things that highly trained military pilots with very manouvrable aircraft and sharing a common mother tongue could achieve but would not be viable for civilian crew in a B747 with english as a 2nd or 3rd language
Would the double length runway idea really work operationally or is it full of flaws ?
Has a double length runway with simultaneous arrivals and departures of jets each carrying 100+ people ever been done before at a large and busy commercial airport ?
I ask specifically about a commercial airport - I imagine there are all kinds of things that highly trained military pilots with very manouvrable aircraft and sharing a common mother tongue could achieve but would not be viable for civilian crew in a B747 with english as a 2nd or 3rd language
Would the double length runway idea really work operationally or is it full of flaws ?
Would the double length runway idea really work operationally or is it full of flaws ?
Sir Howard said on Radio 4 this morning that it "needs more work on the safety dimension", which is a masterpiece of understatement. His report puts it even more disingenuously:
"The novel nature of the proposal also means that further work to develop an acceptable safety case would be required to understand fully the capacity benefits, although the Commission has not seen any evidence to suggest that such a safety case could not be put into place."
The lack of evidence being because nowhere else in the world does such a lunatic arrangement exist.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: England
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one that's thinking the 'one runway as two' idea has been put in the shortlist simply to make the LGW and LHR other options seem much more palatable?
Kind of how you have a £500 t-shirt next to the £250 one to make the £250 look like a bargain.
Kind of how you have a £500 t-shirt next to the £250 one to make the £250 look like a bargain.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both the Lhr options are not thinking laterally. At the moment the M25 at this point is regularly grid locked so putting more traffic on it is going to make it chaotic. Also has anyone considered the construction phase for several years the road will become a nightmare
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dj6
its doable but far from ideal. Having read the report, i think its both realistic and independent, but politically aware, which is good.
Of course extending 27R could be passed off as extending rather than a new runway, but frankly GB PLC deserves better than that, Boris Island is dead in the water, it would mean closing both LHR (only one hub) and London City airport due to airspace concerns, that would be a huge bill and a seismic shift in London's business and domestic population.
London Gatwick needs another runway anyway, despite what the CEO says if LHR get the green light, politically DC cannot do a u-turn on this, Labour on the other hand probably couldn't careless about the non labour voters of West London or LGW and had previously approved a 3rd runway at LHR.
Until we run out of oil or something to replace it, then demand will continue to rise, as the report points out a 3rd of Londoner's where born overseas so there will continued demand for VFR (visiting Friends & relatives) and thankfully the crackpot idea's of using regional airport to temper SE demands is shown as unworkable.
I would bite the bullet and go for 4 runway option at LHR (new full length SW runway >3800m) and a shorter northern runway(<2500m) for aircraft up to 737/321 size to allow for more domestic services to other parts of the UK & Europe plus a airport to HS2 interchange that would put Leeds/Manchester within 2 hours of LHR rail head, North of that its quicker and cheaper to fly, i would allow LGW to build a 2nd runway if it can fund it.
Zac Goldsmith/Boris.......the next prime minster will be neither of them....
Of course extending 27R could be passed off as extending rather than a new runway, but frankly GB PLC deserves better than that, Boris Island is dead in the water, it would mean closing both LHR (only one hub) and London City airport due to airspace concerns, that would be a huge bill and a seismic shift in London's business and domestic population.
London Gatwick needs another runway anyway, despite what the CEO says if LHR get the green light, politically DC cannot do a u-turn on this, Labour on the other hand probably couldn't careless about the non labour voters of West London or LGW and had previously approved a 3rd runway at LHR.
Until we run out of oil or something to replace it, then demand will continue to rise, as the report points out a 3rd of Londoner's where born overseas so there will continued demand for VFR (visiting Friends & relatives) and thankfully the crackpot idea's of using regional airport to temper SE demands is shown as unworkable.
I would bite the bullet and go for 4 runway option at LHR (new full length SW runway >3800m) and a shorter northern runway(<2500m) for aircraft up to 737/321 size to allow for more domestic services to other parts of the UK & Europe plus a airport to HS2 interchange that would put Leeds/Manchester within 2 hours of LHR rail head, North of that its quicker and cheaper to fly, i would allow LGW to build a 2nd runway if it can fund it.
Zac Goldsmith/Boris.......the next prime minster will be neither of them....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with most of the above analysis. But my favourite term in the report, by far, is the suggestion of the increased use of 'APD holidays'. Good work by the Commission though; hopefully DC's establishment of it will prove to be a master stroke and the long-term recommendations will be heeded... 'after the next election'.
Both the Lhr options are not thinking laterally. At the moment the M25 at this point is regularly grid locked so putting more traffic on it is going to make it chaotic. Also has anyone considered the construction phase for several years the road will become a nightmare
In relation to construction then as most would be done one site I would see this minimised with local roads bearing brunt for materials but this can be shipped in at night or construct an offshoot from a rail line to deliver materials in from a staging area well outside London.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both the Lhr options are not thinking laterally. At the moment the M25 at this point is regularly grid locked so putting more traffic on it is going to make it chaotic. Also has anyone considered the construction phase for several years the road will become a nightmare
Paxing All Over The World
racedo
Yep - that was the plan from the start. A classic MP + Sir Humphry way of getting around something and using all the long grass available.
CMD can say well we did something, which was nothing and addressed the problem but we won't make a decision.
- The outcome of the enquiry was never in doubt.
- The reaction of all the parties (Biz + political) was never in doubt.
Wurzel's Brother
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: midlands, uk
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've not had chance to fully go through the report but does it cover off how the current terminal capacity will be increased to cope with all the additional flights? I know, from watching movements whilst doing my enthusiast thing, that some flights have to wait a very long time to get onto a stand (up to 45 minutes is not unusual) so the potential for further delays is, surely, quite large.
Presumably additional taxy time from remote runways is built into the schedules - AMS & FRA both can have some very long taxis?
Presumably additional taxy time from remote runways is built into the schedules - AMS & FRA both can have some very long taxis?