LHR Departures..

[boeingbus2002]

Hi there folks... a little question.
IS there a noise reg to prevent Take offs on 09L at Heathrow? Ive never seen them Take off on that runway..(i know they change round at 1500hrs on 27L/R.

Which leads to no.2: Ive seen Concorde Take off form 09L at Heathrow recently when 09R is the normal departure runway...is this a new procendure..and why?!

Cheers
:p

[airsmiles]

Not sure about any new procedures, but a 09L departure always used to be avoided due to noise disturbance to the village of Longford situated very close to the 09L threshold.

This is the sort of question normally answered by ppruners like Heathrow Director on the ATC forum. Maybe you could try reposting your question there.

[exeng]

The Conc uses 9L for departure because currently 9R is considered too 'rough'.

Apparently cracking has occurred on the fwd top fuselage and to reduce this occurence sufficiently smooth runways only are to be used for departure.


Regards
Exeng

[PaperTiger]

...cracking has occurred on the fwd top fuselage...
Care to elaborate or qualify that before the journos go off half-cocked ? Then again, maybe not...

[Aluminium Importer]

Airsmiles almost has it right.

The village is called Cranfield and is at the far end of 09L (i.e. near the 27R threshold). Another reason used to be taxying problems at the 09L holding point, but I'm not sure if this is the case now.

Due to the current resurfacing of the southern runway, Concorde can only depart from the northern runway. This is due to the runway being (temporarily) slightly more bumpy than normal.

During the resurfacing, Conc is able to land on either runway, but the northern one will normally be offered.

This will be the case for the next few months while the resurfacing takes place.

AI

[ATCO Two]

Aluminium Importer almost has it right!

The "village" is called Cranford and is not really a village at all, rather part of the Hounslow conurbation. 09L is not routinely used for departures as a result of the "Cranford Agreement" which probably dates back to the early fifties. Assurances were made at the time that for noise and safety reasons aircraft would not depart over the then residents of said village. There is probably mention of this somewhere in the Terminal 5 Inquiry records. The noise monitoring terminal is very close to the upwind end of 09L, making the requirement that aircraft should cross it at 1000 ft climbing, difficult to achieve. There is no real problem with the 09L holding point; in past years, aircraft taxiing up the extension taxiway used to interfere with the Marconi S264 radars in the vicinity, but these are long gone. Indeed now there is a parallel extension taxiway being built towards 09L threshold. Who knows what the future holds.....

[airsmiles]

Thanks for the clarification of this point. For 20 odd years I have always thought the noise problem was connected with the village nearest the 09L threshold!

Just goes to show that there is always something to learn.

[Aluminium Importer]

B0ll0cks - better get the books out for my next LCE!

:D

AI

[gordonroxburgh]

To even more fully clarify the Concorde situation:

Where the new and old surfaces meet there is a ramp to bridge the 2 heights. If concorde wer to rool over this at high speed it would plance a lot of additional stress on ther crown area of the fuselage. This is the area that during the D checks in the late 80's/early90s was strengthened to prolong Concorde's lifespan.

No need to put additional stress on it if it can be avoided!

[boeingbus2002]

Cheers for the replies folks!
I knew 09L wasnt used 'cos of noise, and as such I was intruiged as to why Concorde of all aircraft was using it!!!
:rolleyes: