Flight paths to be redrawn

[OPENDOOR]

Flight paths to be redrawn for first time in 60 years to cut air congestion

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/25/flight-paths-redrawn-first-time-60-years-cut-air-congestion/


Under the current plans, every major commercial airport in the UK will have to draw up proposals for new flight paths to and from its runways. Then the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) will then redraw all the flight paths from over 7,000ft.

The CAA is expected to release a draft masterplan in autumn that will give a general outline of the new flight path shakeup, but details of where new paths will be are not expected to emerge until next year when airports start releasing specific proposals.

I hope I'm not airborne the day that gets implemented.

[kenparry]

Good luck with that! The first thing it will do is bring out the anti-aviation mob in force.

[kcockayne]

On the face of it, this is the same sort of nonsense as the “tunnels in the sky” fiasco some years back. From what I read about this idea, it is designed to reduce delays & extended routing. But, the problem that causes these to happen is the excessive number of a/c which wish to operate into certain “congested airports” . That is, there are too many a/c wishing to operate into these airports because the runway capacity is less than the demand. You can fly extended routes on the approach or you can hold the excess in stacks, but unless you have the runway capacity you can never reduce the delays or avoid extended routings. The only other possible method of avoiding this would be to have strict control of departure times, en route times , & to ensure that every a/c flew the optimum track, without exception so that they all arrived at specified times with the appropriate distances between them at destination. Of course, this would require strict application of departure slots - resulting in delays ; & this would be impossible to implement on a workable basis because you could not allow for the actual traffic pattern at the departure airport which would be required in order for you to apply the timed departures which would be required.

[Bergerie1]

Many years ago, in a previous life, I was invloved in a multi-disciplinary investigation for expanding the capacity of the London airports. As with most things, it is never one factor alone which limits the overall capaciry. Yes - the runway is usually the limiting factor, but so also are the ways they are used, and the many other bottlenecks too - the terminals, the stands, the taxiways and the surrounding airspace management - the routes, the sectorisation, and the technologies used in the air and on the ground. Thus, a redefinition of the routes and airspace will help to advance the overall capacity - even though it will produce a backlash over noise.

[DaveReidUK]

That is, there are too many a/c wishing to operate into these airports because the runway capacity is less than the demand.

Presumably by "demand" you mean the actual number of aircraft using the runways. By definition, that can't exceed capacity.

In an ideal world, there would be a bit of headroom between the number of slots allocated and theoretical capacity of the runways (and the other airport/airspace infrastructure). In practice, planning to utilise 99% of that capacity during large parts of the operating day is inevitably going to result in delays, airborne holding and other inefficiencies, even on a good day.

Of course you can't blame airports that operate in the private sector for wanting to maximise shareholder value, revenue and profit by sweating their assets to the maximum. But anyone who thinks that adding more capacity while still planning to operate at an unrealistically high utilisation % is going to solve the problem, is living in a dream world.

[terrain safe]

On the face of it, this is the same sort of nonsense as the “tunnels in the sky” fiasco some years back. From what I read about this idea, it is designed to reduce delays & extended routing. But, the problem that causes these to happen is the excessive number of a/c which wish to operate into certain “congested airports” . That is, there are too many a/c wishing to operate into these airports because the runway capacity is less than the demand. You can fly extended routes on the approach or you can hold the excess in stacks, but unless you have the runway capacity you can never reduce the delays or avoid extended routings. The only other possible method of avoiding this would be to have strict control of departure times, en route times , & to ensure that every a/c flew the optimum track, without exception so that they all arrived at specified times with the appropriate distances between them at destination. Of course, this would require strict application of departure slots - resulting in delays ; & this would be impossible to implement on a workable basis because you could not allow for the actual traffic pattern at the departure airport which would be required in order for you to apply the timed departures which would be required.
A bit like what ACDM is trying to do then?

[kcockayne]

Many years ago, in a previous life, I was invloved in a multi-disciplinary investigation for expanding the capacity of the London airports. As with most things, it is never one factor alone which limits the overall capaciry. Yes - the runway is usually the limiting factor, but so also are the ways they are used, and the many other bottlenecks too - the terminals, the stands, the taxiways and the surrounding airspace management - the routes, the sectorisation, and the technologies used in the air and on the ground. Thus, a redefinition of the routes and airspace will help to advance the overall capacity - even though it will produce a backlash over noise.
Yes, I agree with all of what you say. I have simply included it all in "runway capacity". And that is the simple problem - not slots, new flightpaths, stacks or vectoring all over the sky.

[Bergerie1]

The study I referred to in my previous post was undertaken jointly in the early 1990s by BAA, NATS and IATA. It was mainly aimed at Heathrow, but also took into account the effects on Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City. By a combination of using both LHR runways in mixed mode, together with modifications to the taxiways on the ground to reduce runway occupancy times, and in the air, new SIDs with modified minimum noise routes to spread the departing traffic, we are able to show a very substantial increase in airport capacity (I forget the actual figures).

Three impediments prevented any substantial changes from being realised. (1) To use both runways simultaneously in mixed mode required planning consent. (2) Equally, any change to minimum noise routes also required planning consent:- https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/aircraft-noise-report.pdf (3) British Airways, when it found that a significant proportion of any increase in the slots made available would have to go to its competitors, threw could water on the results.

Extra parking stands would have also been needed, and BAA had plans to show how this could be done. All our new SIDs were proved to be practical by flying them out in aircraft simulators. And the improved runway occupancy times and throughput were all validated by BAA simulation models.

It was all interesting work which got no where. Nevertheless, many of the proposals we trialled are now in use many years later.

[WHBM]

In an ideal world, there would be a bit of headroom between the number of slots allocated and theoretical capacity of the runways (and the other airport/airspace infrastructure). In practice, planning to utilise 99% of that capacity during large parts of the operating day is inevitably going to result in delays, airborne holding and other inefficiencies, even on a good day.

Of course you can't blame airports that operate in the private sector for wanting to maximise shareholder value, revenue and profit by sweating their assets to the maximum. But anyone who thinks that adding more capacity while still planning to operate at an unrealistically high utilisation % is going to solve the problem, is living in a dream world.
It's not just maximising shareholder value, although this may well appeal to airport operators. But at key hubs like Heathrow it is in the prime carrier's interest (BA here) to have the place saturated, especially where they are allowed Grandfather Rights, as this prevents competitors coming in and assists yield. We have all seen comments that if the 3rd runway is built there, the likes of Easyjet would be applying for slots and routes, inevitably to places already served by BA. Indeed, if the 3rd runway were miraculously to be available tomorrow, BA (and American etc) would be falling over themselves with leased aircraft to fill it all up pronto to stop anyone else getting in.

[nicolai]

I'm sure the Torygraph is appealing to its core constituency of reactionary shire-dwellers to alarm them that they might actually hear the aircraft they love to fly in, on their business and holiday trips.

This will undoubtedly create an enormous fuss as everyone tries to make everyone else have aircraft fly over them while they themselves continue to use aviation for business and pleasure. They want all the gain, none of the pain. One has to bear in mind that the Prime Minister's constituency is full of well-off people who like the convenient global airport nearby (Heathrow) but don't want the aircraft to fly near them, instead to fly over some other (probably poorer) people. Now that the Boris Island airport idea is (mostly) dead, the next-best thing for his constituents is to direct the flights to the existing airports over someone else's head.

A cynic might also ask what unrelated things the government would like to bury under the noise screen, and who will be left in the worse position when the music stops and the chaos settles.

[DaveReidUK]

Three impediments prevented any substantial changes from being realised. (1) To use both runways simultaneously in mixed mode required planning consent.

It would also require the Government to ditch its historical commitment to segregated operations (one runway for arrivals, the other for departures) which currently provides more or less predictable respite for half the day for communities under the arrival flightpaths on westerly operations.

[lederhosen]

I was involved with another study in Europe involving airports, airlines and air traffic providers. One of the issues I remember was delays caused by choke points at particularly busy airway intersections/sectors, SPY near Amsterdam and TRA near Zurich being good examples. If the flow rates were predicted to be exceeded, this resulted in restrictions being issued with Eurocontrol delaying departures. If you could route the traffic avoiding such points there would seem to be plenty of potential for improvement.

[Bergerie1]

DavidReidUK,

That is what I mean by planning consent. Whether it is normal planning consent or an Act of Parliament, I don't remember.

[Ian W]

If you think about it 60 years since the last change effectively means since the Patch Report in 1961. Super Constellations were still operating and the military had Meteors, Vampires and Hawker Hunters and of course the V-force. ATC was provided by Joint Air Traffic Control Radar Units. Secondary radar was in its infancy and there was no ATC automation. There were more military aircraft and less civil aircraft than today. While there have been many incremental airspace structure changes, it would seem that a 'ground up' redesign would be a good exercise although implementing the changes could be difficult (as stated above). The main impetus for the redesign should be efficiency, Some exercises in continuous en-route climb and descents already carried out by NATS show significant fuel savings (and emissions reductions if that worries you). The EUROCONTROL FABs are slowly becoming Free Route Airspace at high level, so the lower airspace should be redesigned with that in mind. There are other ways of maintaining runway acceptance rates that could be more efficient than stacks at LHR.

So I think it is a worthwhile exercise but the goal should be safety and flight efficiency and not maintaining majority slot holder positions ;-)

[WHBM]

I really don't understand the "redrawn for the first time for 60 years" comment. London City only opened in 1987 and I can recall two total revisions since then (the last of which sends inbounds from Ireland within sight of Northern France before coming back in, never used to happen). Elsewhere the same.

[Ian W]

I really don't understand the "redrawn for the first time for 60 years" comment. London City only opened in 1987 and I can recall two total revisions since then (the last of which sends inbounds from Ireland within sight of Northern France before coming back in, never used to happen). Elsewhere the same.

The change to SIDs and STARS or adding a new approach pattern for a developing airport is minor., If you look at the overall design of the UK airspace route structures it has not altered significantly since 1965. The UK government has issued Airspace Modernization (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/airspace-modernisation) and it is clear this is a fundamental redrawing of the airspace to allow continuous climb, cruise descents, direct flight out over Ireland as it is the same Functional Airspace Block (FAB). It may also be that free routing is allowed at high level so aircraft can come off the free route SHANWICK and continue across UK to the FABEC. Savings could be significant for some operators.
This could be a big deal - I would suggest that air carriers take note and make certain that their views are taken into account - it might be another 60 years till there is another opportunity.

[OldLurker]

The advantage of 3- and 4- (or more) runway airports is obvious, preferably with different directional orientations to facilitate less hazard crosswind operations and - when the wind is light - variable direction runway usage to selectively alleviate noise pollution in different locations near the airport.3, 4 or more runways, yes. Heathrow may or may not get a third runway – decision not yet made – but no-one's even started talking about the next stage: lengthening of the new third runway and/or adding a fourth. Those will surely be demanded in due course by the airport operator, BAA. How else, BAA will say, could Heathrow be a viable 'hub' to compete with Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol?

Different directional orientations? Many major airports seem to get away with runways in one orientation only. Heathrow once had crosswind runways forming a nice hexagon, but they're now taxiways.

[WHBM]

The advantage of 3- and 4- (or more) runway airports is obvious, preferably with different directional orientations to facilitate less hazard crosswind operations and - when the wind is light - variable direction runway usage to selectively alleviate noise pollution in different locations near the airport.
Not obvious to authority, as virtually every UK airport with different direction runways has had its cross runways closed over the years - Heathrow, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Birmingham etc. I can only think of Belfast Aldergrove as remaining.

[DaveReidUK]

3, 4 or more runways, yes. Heathrow may or may not get a third runway – decision not yet made – but no-one's even started talking about the next stage: lengthening of the new third runway and/or adding a fourth.

From 2013:

Super Heathrow: airport unveils 4-runway plan which would let it handle one million flights per year (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/super-heathrow-airport-unveils-4-runway-plan-which-would-let-it-handle-one-million-flights-per-year-8713879.html)

[golfbananajam]

What would the likely impact be on GA, gliders etc?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Not obvious to authority, as virtually every UK airport with different direction runways has had its cross runways closed over the years - Heathrow, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Birmingham etc. I can only think of Belfast Aldergrove as remaining.
Prestwick's is still open and in common use, mainly because it's the only one that's actually into wind during the winter....

[kontrolor]

in the heart of Europe free route airspace from GND to UNL is in use for some years now, no problemos what so ever.

[pax britanica]

Surely in the London area only a bit of tinkering is possible since with airports at every point of the compass and a huge proportion of flights headed east or south there is very little that can practically be done.

Sounds like an airborne version of 'smart ' motorways to me , and on a day where Northern Rail is nationalised by an arch tory government underlines that we really dont do transport very well in the UK. Although saying that thnka sto the ingenuity of those in the flying and ATC business we manage to keep things going with substandard facilities better than most but in the end that lack of long term planning and lack of actual space on the ground or in the air catches up with us

[1985]

Free route over the London FIR will come in. NATS are working on it. It'll probably be FL310+.

The problems with redesigning the London FIR are

1. There is limited space because of the closeness of the airports in and around London.

2. The amount of traffic that wants to go south and east from London and the same with overflights

3. No matter how well you design SIDs and Stars that theoretically miss each other IF the aircraft flies them exactly you will end up with some traffic being penalised at the expense of others (that's a big if...)

4. You can redesign the airspace around London as much as you want, take the traffic from one place to another, change this route and this route etc etc but you've still got to connect it to Europe which is not going to redesign their airspace to suit the UKs fancy plan...

5. The military

[Bergerie1]

For all you ATC people, could something like this help at the London airports?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urynweDiWv4&feature=emb_logo

[Ian W]

For all you ATC people, could something like this help at the London airports?
<<SNIP>> video<<SNIP>>

I think NATS is up to speed on multi-airport sequencing they have also extended the sequencing out into adjacent FIR/UIR see:

Cross border arrival management (https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/ses/ses-award-2016/projects/extended-cross-border-heathrow_en)
Cross border arrival management - Gatwick (https://www.nats.aero/news/cross-border-arrival-management-procedure-goes-live-at-gatwick-airport/)

Free route over the London FIR will come in. NATS are working on it. It'll probably be FL310+.

The problems with redesigning the London FIR are

1. There is limited space because of the closeness of the airports in and around London.

2. The amount of traffic that wants to go south and east from London and the same with overflights

3. No matter how well you design SIDs and Stars that theoretically miss each other IF the aircraft flies them exactly you will end up with some traffic being penalised at the expense of others (that's a big if...)

4. You can redesign the airspace around London as much as you want, take the traffic from one place to another, change this route and this route etc etc but you've still got to connect it to Europe which is not going to redesign their airspace to suit the UKs fancy plan...

5. The military

#4 - the FABEC as kontrolor stated above is already moving to 'Free Route' Airspace' (FRA) so it will actually simplify the adjacent FAB traffic management as the same concept will be in place seamlessly across Europe into the mid-line of the Atlantic and possibly into NAV Canada airspace as ADS-B surveillance is now available through AIREON.

#5 The military have been reluctant to let go of 'their MTAs' and ranges. However, there are ways that military can fit into FRA as it matches the existing Operational Air Traffic (OAT) ideas and the Flexible Use of Airspace. So a restricted area can be generated and removed as required this is a lot easier with automation and System Wide Information Management. There are similar issues with reserved airspace for civil operations. I would expect that flexible use of airspace will be part of the overall redesign of UK airspace.

The future is flexible. For airlines your FOCs should be looking at the issues raised for flight planning if there are no 'fixed routes' or 'preferred routes' (in NAS speak). So canned plans will no longer exist - or not for profitable aircraft operators - so lots more work for dispatch to plan efficient flights.

[WHBM]

I fear that any aviation proposal for anything nowadays, regardless of its value, will get swamped in the media and politics by the "don't you know there's a climate emergency" increasingly hysterical bandwagon. Regardless also of the fact that the public still increase their use of aviation each year.

[Ian W]

I fear that any aviation proposal for anything nowadays, regardless of its value, will get swamped in the media and politics by the "don't you know there's a climate emergency" increasingly hysterical bandwagon. Regardless also of the fact that the public still increase their use of aviation each year.

It may actually go the opposite way if UK CAA/NATS is savvy about things. There are several research papers analyzing the impact of the Free Route Airspace over mainland Europe and the flight miles saved and associated fuel savings are very significant. So it should be put forward as a redesign of the airspace to reduce fuel consumption [cough] emissions.

[Bergerie1]

For those who are not quite sure what Free Route Airspace (FRA) is, take a look at this Eurocontrol video:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=297-ypIIsHc

Europe needs to implement FRA as widely as possible across the whole ECAC airspace, and for individual states to develop the Terminal Area (TMA) route structures so that they maximise flight efficiency and throughput (not always mutually compatible) and which connects with the surrounding FRA. If this is done correctly for the London TMA, these routes will then be compatible with the FRA across France, Belgium, Holland and Denmark to the east and to the joint UK/Irish FRA airspace to the west.

I sincerely hope this is the aim of the this work on the London TMA. The main problem will be the public outcry when certain minimum noise routes are changed. But aircraft a good deal quieter these days. The PR drive should be directed towards describing the benefits of the greater flight efficiency (reduced fuel burn and emissions) and the reduction of holding delays (also reducing fuel burn and emissions) and improving punctuality.

Pie in the sky - I hope not!!