View Full Version : LHR mixed mode operation
TopBunk
16th Dec 2003, 22:43
Following on from the White Paper that suggests increasing LHR capacity through mixed mode operation, what do you ATC guys see as being the result?
In this I assume that in order to work properly, then the restrictions on easterlies and the use of 09L for take off will have to be rescinded.
What is the theoretical improvement achievable with mixed mode. At the moment LHR lands what - about 45 per hour with a similar number of departures. What does LGW achieve, 60 per hour? Does that mean LHR could achieve 2 x 60 or 120 total movements, up from 90 at present?
From a pilots perspective, mixed mode should reduce the number of go-arounds I would think.
Interested in your views....
caniplaywithmadness
17th Dec 2003, 03:13
I wouldn't bank on mixed mode operations reducing go arounds, EGLL tower controllers have gotten too used to saying "Cleared to land" "Cleared for Take Off", ask them to start judging gaps and get departures away in a busy sequence is just inviting trouble, look at all the instances of MOR's being filed during single rwy operations because they can't judge gaps!!!
One in particular springs to mind which ended up involving the AAIB.
360BakTrak
17th Dec 2003, 04:27
Oooooh! Any minute now some LHR controllers are gonna be fighting back about that comment Mr Madness!:mad:
ATCO Two
17th Dec 2003, 06:04
As the best aerodrome controllers in the world (probably), we have nothing to prove. How good are you madness????
So good that he's probably either Gatwick or Manchester controller... Now the Stansted guys could teach us a thing or two!! ;)
Jerricho
17th Dec 2003, 14:34
At the moment, especially first thing in the morning, when both runways are in use, T4 becomes very, vey full. Admittedly, with mixed mode there will be departures as well which will clear the stands, but the ground environment at the moment can get a little grid locked. T5 will alleviate this.
Staffing is also going to become a problem. I have lost count of the number of times in the past year we have had a call at TC asking for "six mile spacing" due to staff shortages and the bandboxing of Ground. Obviously, approach won't be stuffing inbounds 2.5 miles apart, but the concrete will fill up very quickly.
Gonzo
17th Dec 2003, 16:06
The only way, IMHO, mixed mode would work is if 27L was used for T4 and, say T3 deps, and 27R was used for T1 and T2 deps. This would mean that the outbound SIDS would have to be abolished and we'd fire them out on headings for a departure radar controller to catch them and point them in roughly the right direction. Not sure how the abolition of Noise Preferential Routeings would sit with the 'increased environmental controls'.
Even then Ground would be a complete nightmare.
If the SIDS were kept, we'd have to get southbounds off 27L and northbounds off 27R, and that would work for about 20 minutes before the airfileld ground to a halt.
shack
17th Dec 2003, 17:06
Can't work out what all the fuss is about.
Is there anybody else other than HD and myself who remember the Parallel Trials?
Exciting it was but it worked
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
17th Dec 2003, 22:15
Oh yes.....! And remember the runway surface work that used to last for weeks each summer? We could do "mixed mode" OK from day 1..... it was the pilots who took a while to get into the swing of things but after 2-3 go-arounds they soon got the idea!
TopBunk
18th Dec 2003, 00:51
.... and to get back to the original question, what increase in flow rates would be likely guys.
Gonzo
18th Dec 2003, 00:54
Reckon about 10 an hour runway movements.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
18th Dec 2003, 02:18
<<Reckon about 10 an hour runway movements.
>>
That's until GMC goes under and they start asking for 8nm spacing!
Gonzo
18th Dec 2003, 03:21
Oh yes, runway movements only! And theoretical at that. Not airfield movements! :cool:
055166k
18th Dec 2003, 05:41
Introduce LAHSO and start using 23/05.....the current waste of capacity is a farce perpetuated by conventional thinking. Jump on an RJ to Paris....then the world. My sister lives further north and uses Amsterdam mostly, sometimes Paris. Loads of concrete and massive modern terminals.....Heathrow could be Stonehenge with a roof by comparison! If a Stansted expansion results in more cost to the airlines then the low fares boys will be gone in 24 hours.......the low fares model does not require airlines to come to the passenger; the passenger will seek out the airline...has the last half decade taught nothing?