London Airport Site - Wisley?
 

Does anyone know why the old airfield at Ockham/Wisley has not been looked at for another London airport site?

It would appear to be 2000m of tarmac already as well as being near the M25 and A3. Unless the debated waste plant has had the go ahead already for the site ?

Wisley Airfield (Abandoned)

just curious.................

Some very upmarket residential areas surround that airfield, I would imagine that noise from aircraft and surface traffic congestion would be primary grounds for objection, although they could build a spur off the M25 straight into the airfield.

A 2000m runway is inadequate for large jets and I don't see much space to extend.

True........It’s the not in my back yard argument I guess.

That said 150m more would give you a similar length to Luton.

Looks like its Boris Island then ;-) NATS will love fitting that lot into the London TMA.

Thanks for the reply :ok:

Add to Table's comments the fact that the site is already constrained by existing geography and development with poor surface links...and then try to integrate regular ops into the current routes in and around London!

Wisely has of course been looked at many times as a business airfield but the NIMBYs there are well connected and extremely vociferous.

It isn't too well placed, the A3 is a poor route into London and its on one of the worst stretches f the M25.

Now if they'd not built over Hatfield!

Bit like the A/M4 and LHR then.

That, I would say, is cause and effect. It is because of Heathrow that the A4 and the M4 / M25 interchange is so busy.

The proposed 3rd runway for Heathrow was originally to be configured for smaller aircraft ie A320 and 737 families and was supposed to give 2000m TORA/LDA, which could be provided at Wisley, however if you look at the western end of the runway, this already ends in a steep bank down to the level of the adjacent A3 - in fact you can see it travelling east on the A3. I don't think the CAA would licence this without considerable earthworks in order to provide a level area at the end of the runway.
Now if you were to look a few miles further west, there is already a licenced, ILS equipped runway with a paved surface of 2400m positioned adjacent to the M3 and the main railway line to Waterloo. It wouldn't take too much to equip this airport with a link to the M3, thereby allowing quick access to Heathrow.

To think a historic airport like this could be used as a composting sight brings tears to my eyes.

The waste of a 2000m runway is sacralage. A much better idea would be a high end residential airpark.

What would the whole site be worth?

I'm all for using it for GA, but bear in mind there are two public rights of way crossing the runway, each of which has Armco barriers either side to 'protect' it.
A guy force landed there many years ago (early 80s) and got down OK, only to take off his undercarriage on the Armco. There's still about 600m available between/outside Armco's though.

Where might that be Chevron-Farnborough?

I have often wondered if it could be used as a sort of Luton for SW London as it does have excellent transport links and indeed extending the runway to the west might be feasible too. The problems though are that much of the space which could be used for ramps terminals etc has been developed and unlike most airports which are or were fairly remote FNB is literaly in a town centre .

Wisley as has been stated would never get even a second look because of the rich Nimbys in that area. The problem UK has is that if Boris island is built then there are no airports west of London at all and who is going to travel out to the thames estuary when at the current rate of increase the rail fare would be about the same as a J class ticket to JFK (exageration yes but it makes a valid point)

So where next Blackbushe, Odiham, Lasham, Benson

TORAs are both slightly over 2000m, and the clearways are actually under-declared (they're both less than the length of paved surface!). LDAs are set at 1800m because that's what the types of aircraft using Farnborough needed; they could be increased, but by keeping the present threshold on 24, you could lower the GP to 3 deg and instal Cat 2 ILS, not possible on 06 however.

Greenham Common would have been ideal.

Farnborough has too many noise issues for further expansion. Chapter 4 only, no APU at night, reverse thrust to be avoided at all times consistent with safe operation of aircraft etc. Not to mention movement restrictions or the cost of operating out of there at present.

Type restrictions are now coming into place at Farnborough. "Examples of types that currently operate at the airport which will not be permitted after January 1st 2013 are Cessna 560 Citation V, Dassault Falcon 20, Dassault Falcon 50, Gulfstream 3, Hawker 125- 600A, Hawker 125-700A and Hawker Beechjet 400 depending on the individual engine type fitted to each aircraft."

Also, they are charging a green tax as of now. "The charge for 2013 will be £5 per kg NOx .Each aircraft invoice will have a separate item listed as Aircraft Emissions Levy. VAT will be charged where applicable."

Wisley was rejected by the local NIMBY crew even for use by GA and that was back in the 1980's.

Seems the locals would prefer poisoning by waste incinerator rather than a bit of occasional GA noise.................

Mind you if they are powerful enough to stop the development lobby - they will stop the waste plant too I'm sure................

At that stage even the ARNCO had not been put up (I think that was done to stop people racing cars up and down the strip)

I visited a couple of times - even then it was incredible to think that it had been a large production testing facility not long previously.............so quiet and tree lined...........all the buildings and hangars had been demolished by that stage.

Very Sad all round...........



Arc

I cycled up the runway at Wisley yesterday. Very strange experience. Wish I'd taken some photos but it was similar to this (although I didn't see the tyre dump):

Wisley Airfield - YouTube

The surface is strangely intact in places apart from the ingress of weeds, actually better than some of the surrounding roads! I asked where the airport buildings were/would have been but our guide didn't know. Would have liked to spend a little more time exploring but we needed to get back en route.

Shame about the barriers, and the neighbours. It would probably make a decent cycling track with a bit of tidying up. The NIMBYs would love that...

One of the other cyclists remarked that they'd seen planes there as recently as the last year. Is that possible?

Greenham would have been ideal in terms of the airfield itself and the nearby transport links, it's been discussed on here many times. Slighty more of an issue might be the Govt. "establishment" that lies exactly in the undershoot for the westerly runway about 5 miles from the threshold (have a look on google earth).

Such a pity that around 500m of Blackbushe's main east/west runway was cut up (at the eastern end) in the early 1960's, following it's demise from being London's 2nd airport. It's location is still ideal in many ways, and the land to put the runway back to around 1800m is still there (as neglected common land).

It's flat, well-drained, and has fairly unobstructed approaches. It is in a affluent, noise-conscious area, but surely better to start with a place that has at least some comprehension of aircraft noise (GA, including spamcans up to medium-size heli's and small/midsize jets) rather than somewhere like Wisley where the noise comes mainly from LHR inbounds holding at OCK.

No, it will be NHT for the short hop over to AMS for onward connections, just like the rest of the country.

Not only would the rail fare to the estuary be "about the same as a J class ticket to JFK", but complicated and time consuming (about half the time as a flight to JFK, no exageration) as well.

Actually it's an important point that: there would be NO airports west of London, the area where international companies have their European headquarters. Great planning!