Gatwick-2
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qatar airways From LGW
This might already have been said, but it appears Qatar Airways are continuing LGW/DOH throughout the winter. 3 Daily 0810, 1405, 2030, all code share with BA. Wonder what it is doing to Emirates share of the market?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't fully agree. The emergency runway is not too close to the main runway for parallel use - it is too close for simultaneous use. The biggest problem with the emergency runway is that it is too close to the parallel taxiway - you cannot have an aircraft landing or departing on 26R/08L when another aircraft is using the parallel taxiway. If a new taxiway was built, giving adequate separation, I think the use of the emergency r/w could allow a worthwhile increase in movements. Of course it is also being reported that GIP may sell part or all of its investment in LGW and any plan to increase movements would ramp the price.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting propisal to use the main and the northern together however. Place your bets on who blinks first - the CAA or GAL....
It seems just a piecemeal proposal when what LGW really needs is a properly spaced second runway to allow simultaneous parallel operations. The only way it would work would be to build a new taxiway on the south side to allow traffic landing on 26L to vacate left whilst another aircraft takes off from 26R.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Packer 27L - I will bow to your superior knowledge - it has also been a long time since I saw the LGW local regs. Fact remains 'though that the parallel taxiway remains a problem.
"In response to a question raised by the environmental and amenity groups’ representative, Mr Wingate advised that as part of GAL’s review of its airport master plan, GAL would be looking at the capability of Gatwick’s main runway and the northern (Maintenance/Emergency) runway before looking at a new runway over the coming months. GATCOM was reminded that the 1979 legal agreement, which prohibited the concurrent use of the emergency runway, expired in 2019."
I don't know how serious the proposal to use the "emergency runway" in addition to the main is, but I cannot see any possibility of it ever being used simultaneously. It surely is too close to the main & it is too close to the taxiway. Even if they were both to be used simultaneously, how would a/c get to & from the main runway without crossing the "emergency runway" ? Surely this would remove any extra capacity expected to be generated by the use of the "emergency runway". Similar problems would also be caused by the proximity of the taxiway.
The CAA have a good record of abandoning long standing safety regulations to accommodate the commercial needs of operators & ATC, but I cannot see it countenancing this half baked suggestion.
The CAA have a good record of abandoning long standing safety regulations to accommodate the commercial needs of operators & ATC, but I cannot see it countenancing this half baked suggestion.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 39
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know how serious the proposal to use the "emergency runway" in addition to the main is, but I cannot see any possibility of it ever being used simultaneously. It surely is too close to the main & it is too close to the taxiway. Even if they were both to be used simultaneously, how would a/c get to & from the main runway without crossing the "emergency runway" ? Surely this would remove any extra capacity expected to be generated by the use of the "emergency runway". Similar problems would also be caused by the proximity of the taxiway.
The CAA have a good record of abandoning long standing safety regulations to accommodate the commercial needs of operators & ATC, but I cannot see it countenancing this half baked suggestion.
The CAA have a good record of abandoning long standing safety regulations to accommodate the commercial needs of operators & ATC, but I cannot see it countenancing this half baked suggestion.
I.E. One plane lands on the main runway, while another begins it's take off roll on the shorter runway. Once the aircraft is airborne, the landing aircraft will have slowed enough and will be able to exit and cross the second runway while another plane positions to take off and a 3rd plane is landing on the main runway. Repeat ad Infinitum.
I don't think simultaneous use is possible, but they could still be used in sync.
I.E. One plane lands on the main runway, while another begins it's take off roll on the shorter runway. Once the aircraft is airborne, the landing aircraft will have slowed enough and will be able to exit and cross the second runway while another plane positions to take off and a 3rd plane is landing on the main runway. Repeat ad Infinitum.
I.E. One plane lands on the main runway, while another begins it's take off roll on the shorter runway. Once the aircraft is airborne, the landing aircraft will have slowed enough and will be able to exit and cross the second runway while another plane positions to take off and a 3rd plane is landing on the main runway. Repeat ad Infinitum.
If so, things have just got a lot more complicated than you describe.
If not, then you have reduced the movement capacity of the main runway at a stroke, probably by an amount not far short of the extra capacity that the shorter runway would provide.
"Simple" solutions rarely are.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could practically be operated as EDI says. I suspect this is probably a peak hour operation only (SH departures on 26R) while 26L remains for LH and arrivals. You can always switch to single runway when things are quiet
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think to operate both runways simultaneously they need 210m minimum distance between centrelines and this is for visual operations.(ICAO). If they were to move the N runway centreline slightly north by around 15m then it may be possible. Taxiway J centreline would also need to move north to ensure taxiway to runway centreline minimum distance applies. Having said all this there are many safety issues to be considered if these distances were applied.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Waters edge
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite interesting that they are considering widening the emergency runway so they can achieve the full 210m separation from the main runway. I haven't ploughed through most of the document - is there any mention of a new parallel taxiway?