Gatwick arrivals

[tubby linton]

Why do the approach controllers for LGW seem intent on funnelling as many arrivals as they can over the towns of West Kent? It would be quite easy just to move the flow a few miles west rather than over 60000 people.
The UK AIP states that aircraft should fly a CDA but the details disappeared from the UKAIP years ago, and the commercial chart providers do not publsh this information ,hence a lot of operators do not bother.

[Nimmer]

I suggest you visit Swanwick and watch the Gatwick approach controllers, then watch TMA south, then you will have all the required information to answer your question.

[tubby linton]

The arrivals still fly over the towns in the early hours when traffic is slack. I remember being taken downwind for a 18 mile final when I was the only arrival in the sky. When I questioned why ,I was told by the atco that this was just the way she did it! A waste of fuel and time in the middle of the night.
Your suggestion still doesn't explain why the CDA information has been purged.

[highflyer40]

Well if it bothers those 60000 people they shouldn't have bought near an airport... Oh wait, they could afford their house because it was near an airport.

[DaveReidUK]

The UK AIP states that aircraft should fly a CDA but the details disappeared from the UKAIP years ago, and the commercial chart providers do not publsh this information ,hence a lot of operators do not bother.

On the contrary, there are plenty of references to the requirement to perform a CDA in the EGKK AIP.

[Gonzo]

I think tubby linton is referring to the detail on the mechanics of how to perform a CDA, rather than the requirement to do so.

These details have been gradually removed over the year as CDO has become more prevalent, perhaps based on the assumption that most pilots are now familiar?

[eastern wiseguy]

Ooooh what were we always taught about assumptions and ATC? :p

[patm92]

Nothing wrong with the way the Gatwick Directors do things. They controlling some of the busiest airspace in the world.

Always a pleasure checking in with the London Controllers & Gatwick (Director, Tower, Ground & Delivery) - couldn't ask for a more reliable & professional service.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

patm92.. I'm long retired but I am sure that my ex-Gatwick colleagues will be grateful for your comments. Thank you.

[tubby linton]

highflyer 40. When I first moved to this part of West Kent over twenty years ago you never saw an aircraft fly over the town, but over the years the arrival stream has been pushed further and further eastwards. It was also quite common to be offered a visual around the back of East Grinstead during quiet periods. This never happens now and from experience you still fly the full West Kent arrival in quiet periods.I certainly did not afford to buy my house cheaply because it was blighted by aircraft noise, because there wasn't any noise!!

I have talked to some of the chart providers and they do not include CDA information on their charts because it isn't explicitly described in the AIP and until it is they refuse to include it. I had an email discussion about it with somebody at Nats who was trying to shift the blame of the failure to republish the information onto the DfT.
For clarity the charts I have examined are Jeppesen ,Lido and Navtech
Until the information is republished, and the chart producers then react accordingly, we will continue to see emirates A380s and others flying along at 3000ft twenty miles out.

[Evanelpus]

Methinks Tubby lives in a town in west Kent;)

[RedhillPhil]

I'd just like to add that a similar situation is happening now in Redhill. When I moved here in 1990 just about the only time aircraft from Gatwick were experienced was on the occasional Saturday. Now - especially in the evening and Sunday afternoons - we get aircraft fairly frequently. I'm not complaining, just saying. Having said that, the police helicopter makes a hell of a racket when it goes overhead late at night.

[no slots]

A severe case of NIMBYism me thinks!:p

[chevvron]

What highflyer40 said.

[DaveReidUK]

Gatwick's most recent quarterly report quotes 92.58% of arrivals as having achieved a CDA (very similar to Heathrow's stats, in fact), which is hard to reconcile with the proposition that "a lot of operators do not bother".

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<EGKK AIP.>>

Crikey, have they got their own?

[ZOOKER]

It'll be published soon HD.....

"Forward by Paul Barron CBE". :E

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Should fit nicely on my shelf next to the Viz Annual..

[Trinity 09L]

T Linton
Are you in favour of a second runway at LGW to displace the noise evenly?

[DaveReidUK]

<<EGKK AIP.>>

Crikey, have they got their own?

NATS | AIS - Home (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=93&Itemid=142.html)

[tubby linton]

Trinity I cannot see how a second runway would displace the noise evenly because the approach paths will not change. I personally cannot see the need for it apart from when the main runway is closed for maintenance, but with emerging technologies I wonder how long it will be before there is a gbas installation for the standby runway to give it an increased capability.

[T250]

Whatever the 'need' may or may not be, Gatwick (and other London airports) offer enormous economic, cultural and social benefits which far far far outweigh your individual NIMBY concerns.

:ok::hmm:

[118.70]

The NATS presentation on the "stabilisation trials" and Dame Deidre's letters about Gatwick flight paths have been released by CAA :

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vectoring_changes_at_gatwick_air#incoming-640229

[rod_1986]

It is a bit silly.

In a quiet period last year, I was offered a visual approach to Gatters from the south, and got all excited.

US: "5 mile final okay?"
ATC: "Oh no. I'll still have to vector you to a 10 mile final".

Facepalm. We just did the ILS via Tunbridge Wells, as per usual.

[babotika]

Agreed. The management-class love of "standard" nonsense even when entirely unnecessary is heartbreaking.

If you live in / near Tunbridge you can complain to Gatwick Airport about the increased long finals on 26. They were implemented to reduce holding (but not real delays) and appease E Grinsted I believe?

I preferred holding, then diving for 6 miles, over the current tour of Sussex & Kent procedure.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Controllers don't wind you all round the skies for fun. They are constrained by the daft regulations to suit the anti-noise brigade. That said, I worked for many years with a colleague at Heathrow who blatantly ignored the "established no later than 10DME at night" rule. Nothing happened to him.

[GAPSTER]

Controllers don't wind you all round the skies for fun. They are constrained by the daft regulations to suit the anti-noise brigade. That said, I worked for many years with a colleague at Heathrow who blatantly ignored the "established no later than 10DME at night" rule. Nothing happened to him.

Unfortunately we are now living and working under a very different set of conditions.Regulations are proposed,well thought out arguments are offered by professionals as to why they may not be such a good idea,regulations are established.Woe betide you if you do not conform....real woe.

[ZOOKER]

But what are these "professionals", professional in GAPSTER?
I recently attended a presentation by the chairman of The Airports Commission, Sir Howard Davies.
A colleague of mine asked him why noise abatement procedures/arguments are still based on the noise-levels that aircraft made 20-30 years ago?
He didn't know the answer.

[kcockayne]

Don't you all realise ?

Life is all "bullsh*t !

[EastofKoksy]

In my experience, the final approach gaps (e.g. pack - minimum vortex spacing, alternate, 5 mile gaps or 6 miles after a Heavy) were always agreed between the respective Tower and Approach supervisors taking account of inbound/outbound demand and delay. Approach (TC) never just put an a/c on a 6 mile final because thy felt like it. The captain could always refuse of course if he/she considered the approach would be rushed (they rarely did).

Whilst the trial data shows missed approaches reduced by about 2 every 3 days, more a/c in the vectoring area on extended intermediate and final approaches would help to reduce holding delays that are measured by NATS.

[Del Prado]

tubby,
1) have you googled gatwick stabilisation trial?

2) CDAs go out the window if aircraft need to get under someone else's airspace.

[tubby linton]

Del , yes I have googled it. The trial seems to have been produced to minimise go-arounds. It would help if pilots were actually ready as they taxi over the holding point. i once saw a Norwegian 737 sit on the threshold for over two minutes whilst the tower were calling him over and over again He finally woke up, didn't apologise and departed. Luckily it was a slack arrival period and he didn't inconvenience anybody. A number of airlines SOP is for certain actions to be completed as they cross the line ,so they can never be fully ready before they are given line up clearance. if you then throw in that the crew may be under training this further slows the process., and because of this arrivals go on a tour of West Kent.
The criteria for a CDA is to avoid any level flight but the rules don't quantify whether this has been achieved wifh a uniform descent rate. Looking at the arrivals you see some aircraft who seem to have an excessive rate down to about 4000ft and then realise they are low and adjust to a V/S of 200fpm.This usuallly is noticable on base leg and coupled with the Airbus signature whine produces a lot of noise. Perhaps some minimum altitude gates should be introduced as part of the CDA. For instance instead of the current clearance to 4000ft and then 3000ft , make it 5000ft until the traffic is clear of Tunbridge Wells and then descend to 3000ft.
Nats need to remind pilots that they must be fully ready to depart and reinstate the guidance and requirements for a CDA and make the chart companies and airlines aware of it.
The tours of Sussex and Kent to avoid holding are nonsense as to a pilot trying to judge their descent rate you have no idea of how far west or east you are going to be taken and the resulting track miles. It is a blatent way to maniplulate the statistics and fools nobody and wastes time and fuel .

[Nimmer]

Tubby, you are a pilot that really really really needs a liaison visit to Swanwick.

Please arrange one at the earliest opportunity, as some of your ideas are ridiculous, as you will discover when you sit and watch Gatwick approach and the TMA.

I did send you a PM, and I will happily arrange this for you.

[tubby linton]

Nimmer,Pm never received.
I cannot afford the petrol to venture to Swanwick as I had a huge paycut last year courtesy of my employer's former owners.

I can happily sit and watch the arrivals and the TMA on Flight radar though, and perhaps you could tell me what I am missing.

I did visit West Drayton a number of years ago and an atco bought the first round at the close of proceedings!

Is there any particular idea you had issue with?

[30W]

Tubby,

I'm afraid Fligh Radar el al gives NO appreciation of the system, the constraints or conflicts - it is NO substitute for witnessing the REAL operation and discussing the issues over a coffee (or beer after shift) with our COLLEAGUES from the 'other side'...

Vectoring over Sussex/Essex is necessary to form the approach sequence and no different to that at LL albeit LL does it from North and South rather than just the South side at KK. Vectoring, forming the sequence, is an essential part of maximising/optimising the runway capacity - hugely important to us the customers as well as the airports themselves etc....

At first descent to an Altitude we are given track miles 99% of the time with which to set up the CDA. I observe many different ways of achieving it some intelligent, some less so as you suggest. 200fpm DOES however conform with the CDA criteria, however the fault is with us pilots in less intelligent use of ATC track distance (and other data available within the flight deck) rather than ATC :ugh:

I appreciate that times have been tough with your employer, you have my sympathies, I know you're employer is one I and many others would have jumped at the opportunity to join in better times, and one until recent times I personally held in high esteem...

PLEASE take Nimmer's invitation at face value (I don't know him/her - or at least don't think so..) but what I do know is there is NO greater education/understanding achieved other than visiting the coalface of the operation and meeting the great folk who work there TRYING to do their best for both us AND the system at large....

If petrol cost is the true reason for not visiting - 1. Sign up for a TRUCE and NATS will facilitate a visit upon request to the Ops room first AND will pay your petrol. 2. I believe in the relationship with the folk on the south coast so much, a one time only offer - sort a visit with Nimmer, PM me and I'll pay your actual petrol! (Genuine offer!)

So, sort a visit, go with an open mind and lots of open questions - learn, discuss your ideas and frustrations... they're ALWAYS glad to see and chat with us:ok:

Brgds
30W
(fellow pilot)

[Del Prado]

I did visit West Drayton a number of years ago and an atco bought the first round at the close of proceedings!

Now I know you're making it up!

While I take your point about go arounds caused by departing traffic on the runway, the stabilisation trial should reduce go arounds experienced due to unstable approaches.

As far as your last comment re wasting fuel and time is concerned, the primary aim for any airport operator would surely be to improve runway utilisation?

[RexBanner]

Speaking as a pilot it is often more or less impossible to achieve a CDA with uniform descent rates within the margin of or above 1000fpm as the aircraft simply won't slow down. A heavy 320 with Sharklets and a tailwind bears that out perfectly. Therefore you almost always need to get under the nominal glide path then slacken off the rate of descent to achieve the deceleration.

I agree hammering it down then reducing to 200fpm is a bit much though but what doesn't help is that Gatwick Director is almost always over optimistic with the estimated track miles, especially on 08. That is not a criticism as such as I appreciate it will often be very difficult to be that precise. However it does ruin the execution somewhat if you're told 21 miles by Director and it ends up closer to 30.

[Brian 48nav]

My No2 son and his wife are both TMA South controllers and I am certain they would be more than pleased to show you around Swanwick , not the management bit of course! They might even offer you a bed for the night.

[TurboTomato]

I live just slightly East of TW at almost the exact point where aircraft begin their left turn onto 26L. To be honest I've not noticed any increase in traffic in the last 5 years of living here and the noise doesn't bother me at all as it's hardly significant. We get disturbed far more by the noise of the traffic on the A21 when the wind is in a particular direction :rolleyes:

[EastofKoksy]

DeL Prado

NATS' own data shows go-arounds due to unstable approaches were approximately a 1/800 event. Is the aggravation the extended finals and more concentrated base leg is causing around Tunbridge Wells really worth the tiny gain? I understand one resident is going to the High Court to force NATS to revert to the old system.

[Del Prado]

I don't know. I don't speak for NATS nor have I viewed the data you reference.

But what's the point of running an approach stabilisation trial if not to encourage more stable approaches?

[Emma Royds]

Interestingly enough that up to 2.5nm level segment used to be accepted by NATS for CDA compliance. Perhaps the definition has changed over the years?

[DaveReidUK]

Interestingly enough that up to 2.5nm level segment used to be accepted by NATS for CDA compliance. Perhaps the definition has changed over the years?

For the purpose of determining CDA compliance or not, level segments of up to 2.5nm are indeed ignored, per the AIP.

[interpreter]

This whole discussion is based around changes made in 2014 for departures and arrivals at Gatwick without consultation - or without proper consultation. NATS is a private company with profits as its driving force and noise over the residents beneath the flight path is hardly in their mind. They have refused to connect with any of the protest groups and simply carry on regardless. Some are currently monitoring the ATC directions to incoming aircraft and I am advised that it is quite clear that arrivals directions are based upon NATS requirements and without consideration of the noise impact on those beneath track.

Autonomous navigation is already under test and this will enable both rapid continuous climb and CDA with wide dispersal for noise benefits without any need for ATC staff other than at the airport. "Times they are a changing"
It is only a matter of time.

[kcockayne]

And when they have changed, the complaints will still come rolling in !

[Nimmer]

Interpreter, what a load of tosh.

Some of the comments written on this thread are beyond belief, and I thought this was a "professional" forum.

Firstly fixed routes are already proving to be unpopular from the noise NIMBYS, as the routes are constant, and thus the noise path is therefore more concentrated.

No ATC other than at the airports?????? Weather avoiding, emergency traffic. need I go on.

As for consultation with the public concerning aircraft routes, I repeat my mantra, if you buy a house near an airport you must expect aircraft noise.

[chevvron]

Look at last year's fiasco with Heathrow departures, it was meant to facilitate a 'tighter' flow by more accurate track keeping, but it routed a constant flow of departures over areas like Ascot which had previously not experienced such levels of traffic.

[interpreter]

Nimmer. I appreciate your blunt response and if I was a controller, which I am not, but a pilot I also would be concerned at the way ATC is likely to develop. Noise has taken second place or even third place to CO2 emissions but it is more likely in the future to be heading for number one position. This will mean a definitive change in both arrival and departure procedures.

As for autonomous navigation, there is a clear future in each aircraft having its own onboard computer which takes in all the parameters of safety, fuel efficiency, noise reduction, traffic etc from just after take-off. Obviously there will need to be human emergency stand-by facilities - but it is coming. Believe you me.

[Nimmer]

So where is the need for a pilot in all this???

[ZOOKER]

interpreter,
like yourself, I'm not a controller, and unfortunately, I can't interpret from the first line of your last post whether or not you are a pilot.
If you are a pilot, (of whatever level of proficiency), please try and arrange a visit to EGKK.
Better still, try and arrange a visit to the ATCC at Swanwick. Granted, it's not as easy to set up these things as it was, but NATS is very customer-focussed still.
Most ATCOs enjoy talking to pilots about the job they do and the constraints which are imposed on them, - often by people not connected with aviation.
Oh, and if do visit an ATC facility, always take a tin of biscuits or chocolates, and I guarantee they'll make you a cuppa'.

[ZOOKER]

And another thing...
'ZOOKER Towers' is 3.5nm from the ARP of a very busy international airport. It's also located on a 'cul-de-sac', underneath one of that airport's SID tracks, which has been utilised extensively today.
I don't get passing road-traffic, but the aircraft passing overhead often still have take-off thrust set.
Today, I did one of my frequent 5 mile walks around the local area. On the through-roads, the noise of overflying aircraft was often masked by the noise from road traffic....But do the folk who live alongside the roads continually complain to the local council, The DVLA, or The Highways Agency?
Of course not!
Do the folks who live within earshot of the M1, M2, M3, M4, M25 etc ring up if the road-traffic-noise is irritating?
Of course not!
Even though the noise from these sources is usually continuous, unlike a/c noise, which is transitory.
I read recently that attending U.K. airshows is one of the most popular spectator-events, (after watching football).
Time to celebrate aviation, methinks, and the astonishing reductions in aircraft-noise that have occurred over the last 30 years.

[Not Long Now]

"This whole discussion is based around changes made in 2014 for departures and arrivals at Gatwick without consultation - or without proper consultation. NATS is a private company with profits as its driving force and noise over the residents beneath the flight path is hardly in their mind."
Well, yes and no. Yes, NATS is a private company, and yes, profits are very important nowadays. So why, if that were the case, would NATS be interested in doing anything at all, as everything new costs, and doing nothing is free....

[anotherthing]

As for autonomous navigation, there is a clear future in each aircraft having its own onboard computer which takes in all the parameters of safety, fuel efficiency, noise reduction, traffic etc from just after take-off. Obviously you are not only not a controller, but you have no idea of the complexities of airspace where there is a concentration of several busy airports.

Autonomous navigation in a TMA is a very, very long way off... if ever.

[ZOOKER]

I'm with Nimmer, et al,on this one.
Anyone who, knowingly, buys a property within 5nm of an ARP, and then proceeds to complain about 'aircraft-noise', is a 'nutjob'.

[Eric T Cartman]

@Zooker
'The most visible members of the ARP were the air raid wardens. ARP posts were initially set up in the warden’s home, or in a shop or an office, but they were later purpose-built.'
Don't think they had any more influence on aircraft noise then than they do now - or is that not what you meant ? :p

On a more serious note, I feel you need to qualify your comment - I can remember being at Stansted in 1960 for a couple of hours without a single movement. I don't think anyone had too many qualms about buying property around that area in those days - now look at it ! :-(

[tubby linton]

Zooker, for those of us who live twenty miles away, who never used to be bothered by noise when we bought a house , are we nut jobs too?

[T250]

Maybe you can find comfort in the fact that no doubt your home being twenty miles from a major UK airport pushes it's value up significantly as opposed to living far away from a major UK airport?

Location, location, location. :}:hmm:

[tubby linton]

You haven't tried driving there T250

[ZOOKER]

Tubby,
Certainly not. But, in the nicest way, if you're in the biz, you can't really complain can you?

[tubby linton]

Tubby,
Certainly not. But, in the nicest way, if you're in the biz, you can't really complain can you?
I can complain when other aviators canmot fly a CDA and be good neighbours.

[obwan]

Folk these days don't know the meaning of aircraft noise. In mah day we had Tridents BAC111 B727 not to mention Coronados AND we lived in a shoe box ot t'end of t'runway: noise? you don't know meaning of t'word:ok:

[Dan Dare]

Aye, but after 20 hours work in t'factory or down t'mine you never really heard t'noise

[Scrotchidson]

@interpreter

"Noise has taken second place or even third place to CO2 emissions but it is more likely in the future to be heading for number one position."

If that was a case then why are there restrictions when an aircraft can intercept the ILS at certain airports? Intercepting at say 10DME rather than 5DME due to noise restrictions surely adds tracks miles thus extra emissions?

[interpreter]

ZOOMER

Been there; done that, am old stick and yoker.

The principle feeling on noise is that those that should be exposed to noise are those who have purchased properties very close to the airport OR under the extended centreline in each direction. Those property prices would have reflected the noise issue.

However, NATS and GAL are now directing both arrivals and departures over new flight paths or a variation on flight paths that introduce serious noise to people who have purchased properties well away from the airport for peace and quiet or as the scientists call it, tranquility. The base db at these locations is about 35-42 db and when the aircraft pass over this can rise as high as 85 db - yes 85 db (I have a calibrated noise monitor). Around Heathrow for example the base db is frequently a constant 65db and on the approach to LHR from the east it is about 65 even 15 miles from the threshold.

It is perfectly possible to plan CDAs that keep noise to the minimum and departures and arrivals that stay on or arrive at the Gatwick extended centre line until at least 7000 feet on take off and above 7000 on arrivals; well below LHR traffic. Arrival merge points should ALL be located over the Channel.

I am sure I do not have to remind you that noise amplitude measured in db is a logarithmic scale. Thus the amplitude of 90db is 10,000 times the amplitude of 30db. It can be horrendous.

As far as autonomous navigation is concerned I have a friend who is even now working on the system for the next range of aircraft.

[Nimmer]

Interpreter you talk total crap.

So all aircraft depart straight ahead to 7000ft, how does this fit in with GAL's drive for 55 movements an hour, as departures will need to be separated by 2 minutes. How do the Heathrow departures fit in around the Gatwick departures.

Arrivals all come straight in from the East, over the sea, what happens on Runway 08 then??.

Please, please please stop writing rubbish, remove yourself from your soapbox and visit Swanwick.

[T250]

What's in the national economic interest of the 60 million+ people of the UK population comes first, before noise to a small minority of near by residents. The greater good of LGW and other London airports is more important and outweighs your property price, lifestyle or tranquility. :hmm:

[EastofKoksy]

Ladies and gents it should be possible to have a discussion on PPRUNE without resorting to abuse of other posters.

Apart from the ADNID trial and the allegedly PBN design compliant departures from RWY26, the only impact of PBN is to make aircraft fly departure routes that correspond to lines along the ground they should have flown for many years.

As far as the 26 LAM/DVR SID is concerned, when I was a TMA controller some pilots told me the conventional SID was not flyable. I have lost count of the number of flights that overturned to the NW and had to head SE to regain the DET radial. If you look at the track plots of the PBN 08 SAM/KENET SIDs, presumably designed using the same criteria, they seem well within the NPR swathe but the 26 departures are not. Something is obviously wrong somewhere. Could it be the 26 LAM/DVR NPR has always been misaligned and this has only been exposed by the introduction of PBN?

Concerning the arrivals for 26, there has never been a fixed route nor has any warranty been given about where aircraft will be positioned on base leg/finals. Aircraft have been vectored in a radar manoeuvring area as a matter of routine practice for decades. The track plots show that most of the affected area was already overflown by Gatwick arrivals but concentration has increased significantly. Frankly I don't see how the benefit of avoiding some missed approaches that account for a tiny percentage of arrivals is worth Gatwick starting a war with its neighbours.

[LadyL2013]

Aircraft have got land somehow and as far as I'm concerned if the safest and most efficient way is over my house, then so be it.

I quite enjoy watching the various arrival and departure routes that go near me.

[obwan]

Well said LadyL and the good thing about planes is they obscure the noise from yapping dogs :D

[Norman.D.Landing]

Wont somebody think of the children! :mad:

I follow this quite closely and the hypocrisy of these people is unbelievable.
I saw a lady complaining via Twitter last night and on close inspection her Twitter page cover photo was a photograph of her on a very tropical looking beach somewhere.

Was she thinking of the noise her aircraft was making as it took her on holiday?

:=

[interpreter]

NIMMER. clearly I have touched a sensitive point with you. Gatwick will just have to handle what it can. As a totally foreign owned tax avoidance company operating the so called "Eurobond scandal" it gets no sympathy from me or most of West Sussex, Kent and East Sussex not to mention the North Weald area.

They will just have to knuckle down and have as many departures as they can safely operate off a single runway and they cannot, as a commercial enterprise, inflict their misery as they wish on the general public.

Returning to the matter of dispersal and 7000ft somebody, who shall be nameless, at Swanwick has confirmed that this is perfectly possible if required.

The fact is that Gatwick is just in the wrong place and permanently trying to operate beneath the arriving and departing aircraft of Heathrow. Now that Birmingham are wishing to increase their activity as well as Luton and Stansted Gatwick is becoming an anomaly in the major airport league. It will remain a cheap flight holiday destination airport and that is fine. With business travel down by some 23% and the CBI in London saying Heathrow is where they want expansion, creating more jobs and expanding business Gatwick is likely to settle down to a successful, largely holidaymaker airport.

[ZOOKER]

Here's an idea......
Let's build a second runway at EGKK.
AND, start immediately on the construction of a third runway at EGLL.....To replace all those they once had........Which now have 'terminals' built on them.......Which are causing 'runway-congestion'.
Oh, and while we're on a roll........Build a second runway at EGSS.
Then, between the 3 airports, London will have the same number of runways as EHAM has now.
It's not rocket-science.

[DaveReidUK]

AND, start immediately on the construction of a third runway at EGLL.....To replace all those they once had........Which now have 'terminals' built on them.......Which are causing 'runway-congestion'.So if Heathrow still had its six runways, how much extra capacity do you think it would have, compared to at present ?

Just curious.

[ZOOKER]

No idea Dave.
But using TBS on a pair of into-wind parallel runways, you might just get lucky.

[T250]

interpreter,

Quite a few points highlight your lack of knowledge and indicate some sort of grudge against LGW.

A few examples:

it gets no sympathy from me or most of West Sussex, Kent and East Sussex not to mention the North Weald area.

What are your statistics and evidence for this claim? This is at best an assumption and at very worst, totally inaccurate. :=

nflict their misery as they wish on the general public.

There's only misery found by people such as yourself who totally refuse to co-exist with a major airport and cannot accept that your frankly disproportionate views are under no obligation to either be heard or acted upon by GAL, NATS or anybody else. :yuk:

Returning to the matter of dispersal and 7000ft somebody, who shall be nameless, at Swanwick has confirmed that this is perfectly possible if required.

So you are suggesting that we essentially re-draw every procedure to do with LGW (and by extension some of LHR and LCY, as well as Biggin and Farnborough) simply to accommodate a compromise situation to appease people like you? :rolleyes:

The fact is that Gatwick is just in the wrong place and permanently trying to operate beneath the arriving and departing aircraft of Heathrow.

You do realise that there are other airports in the London TMA that are far closer together and conflict with each other's traffic, Stansted and Luton as well as LHR and LCY both spring to mind. So shall we go about changing the procedures there as well because they are 'just in the wrong place' :bored::ugh:

[GAPSTER]

No wonder they're nameless.Would be interesting to know their job title too.

[Not Long Now]

The fact is that Gatwick IS in the wrong place, but it's not the only one. IF we assume, for the sakes of ease and of argument, that Heathrow, as the largest and busiest of the London airports, would be most difficult to relocate, then why on earth would we have not just Gatwick, but Stansted, Luton, London City, Biggin Hill, Farnborough, Southend, Northolt and the host of other 'minor' airports all within less than 50 miles?
It is not Gatwick's fault, nor is it NATS' fault, but a result of historic development of infrastructure in a completely haphazard way with no single cohesive national transport policy, which in my view makes it the governments' fault, and so by implication, as members of our wonderful but hugely inefficient and cumbersome 'democracy', OUR FAULT.
Tinkering at the edges, as has been done recently, may produce some gains and benefits, but a radical redesign to provide a 'future proof' aviation model for not just the south east, but all of the country, will require a government who are willing to put in place a strategy which will, in the long term, prove beneficial to hopefully all, but in the short term will annoy a huge number. So let's see the plans put forward after May 7th..... but don't hold your breath.

[Nimmer]

Not Long Now, brilliant post. Being part of the team trying to re-design the London TMA for the past 3 years, your words get straight to the main issues.

I can't see any Government actually agreeing to another runway at Gatwick or Heathrow never mind a new airport. Unfortunately the noise lobby, (interpreter, Tubby and pals), are so powerful that all the politicians are frightened to upset them, as are the Airport owners. Therefore we will continue with the mess, extremely well controlled as it is, that is the London TMA.

[EastofKoksy]

Nimmer,

I was involved in earlier LTMA changes. I wish you luck. We just had to contend with NATMAC. You have FR24 and thousands of 'airspace design experts' with political support!

[ZOOKER]

Not Long Now,
I'm with Nimmer. A great post. We seem to have no long-term plan, not only for this, but many other facets of The U.K.'s infrastructure. It's all driven by the 5-year political-cycle unfortunately,
Skim-reading 6 of the current party manifestos, each one contains some good ideas.
In an ideal world, we need a group of people to select all the best bits and combine them into a coherent national plan with a life-cycle of at least 50 years.