Advert in to-day's Torygraph.

[RedhillPhil]

There's a two page spread in to-day's Torygraph which is along the lines of, never mind about a third runway at Heathrow, just extend.
Basically the proposal is to extend one runway and use it in two sections with a 380 metre space as safety zone.
Erm, forgive my ignorance about this - no really - but am I to understand that one aircraft will be landing at one end of this enormously long runway whilst another is taking off from the other end. What happens if the landing one suddenly has to overshoot and go around again? What position does that put the taking off one in?

[chevvron]

Obviously proposed by someone who has no knowledge of iap and map design.

[DaveReidUK]

Heathrow Hub, the originators of the proposal, stated last year that the safety case had been published on their website.

However there is no sign of it there as far as I can see, and a recent announcement from them said that it was only submitted last month to the Airports Commission and the CAA for assessment.

Not that it really matters as the scheme is only shortlisted as a makeweight. It would probably have never have been included at all had the only member of the Airports Commission with actual experience of running an airport not been forced to resign because of a perceived conflict of interest.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<but am I to understand that one aircraft will be landing at one end of this enormously long runway whilst another is taking off from the other end. What happens if the landing one suddenly has to overshoot and go around again? What position does that put the taking off one in?>>

No real problem and ATC is well-equipped to deal with such things. Think of a single runway operation where a lander goes around just as the last departure has lifted.

[Doors to Automatic]

On top of which there would be a lot of distance and height between the two aircraft at any one point and the go-around procedure already calls for a turn as soon as possible if it is still the same as before.

[cavortingcheetah]

Perhaps Cat IIIC equipped aircraft and certified crew will become mandatory for approaches into Heathrow? That would reduce the likelihood of go arounds.
Sooner or later though, someone departing will have an EFATO while someone coming in will have had a Cat IIIC 'failure' and will have to go around. That should play a little havoc with noise abatement procedures.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Perhaps Cat IIIC equipped aircraft and certified crew will become mandatory for approaches into Heathrow? That would reduce the likelihood of go arounds.>>

I'd love to know how......?

[Hotel Tango]

......only by increasing the spacing. Oh, wait a minute, their might be something fundamentally wrong with that concept! :hmm:

[DaveReidUK]

I suspect the CAA will be interested in the landing overrun case, too.

But, as I said earlier, it's all a bit academic.

[Peter47]

Hope that runway alternation has been abolished by the time that extended runway is opened.

[Gonzo]

Why would the runway overrun issue be any different to any other airport, including today's LHR?

[DaveReidUK]

Why would the runway overrun issue be any different to any other airport, including today's LHR?

I suspect the fact that the proposed runway configuration has never been done before at any airport in the world might have grabbed the attention of the CAA.

[Gonzo]

I suspect the fact that the proposed runway configuration has never been done before at any airport in the world might have grabbed the attention of the CAA.

Ah, but that's a different issue, though, and I'm sure it has.

[ZOOKER]

Surely the 27R overrun area would also need the carry the 900-odd metres of approach lighting for the westerly half of the runway. Could they be inset into the surface or do they have to be on frangible supports?