3rd Runway..is there airspace ?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam,
You are conveniently neglecting to mention Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, London City, Farnborough, Southampton and others.
Heathrow on its own would not be a problem, however there are numerous other very busy airports in close proximity. It is this fact that makes the airspace so complex and, dare I say it, close to saturation at times (though it still has some way to go to get to 2007 levels thanks to the ongoing economic downturn).
There are no doubt much better ways to use the airspace, there is a huge ongoing project at the moment looking into how to do so. The interaction between all the the major airports is what complicates matters.
Until such changes take place, then I personally think that a 3rd runway at Heathrow is smoke and mirrors. It certainly won't increase capacity to the magnitude that some folks say (200,000 plus extra movements per year!).
Of course the OP gave a radical solution - shut the other airports. Not going to happen... neither is the idea of using Gatwick for southbound departures, Stansted/Luton for northbound and Heathrow solely for east and westbound... but if you did that, it would cut out a hell of a lot of crossing SIDS and therefore complexity!
LAX and the surrounding airspace is a totally different proposition to EGLL... the LTMA needs to be updated, and it will be, however as well as coming up with the clever ideas, NATS then has to get it past public consultation, not an easy task.
You are conveniently neglecting to mention Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, London City, Farnborough, Southampton and others.
Heathrow on its own would not be a problem, however there are numerous other very busy airports in close proximity. It is this fact that makes the airspace so complex and, dare I say it, close to saturation at times (though it still has some way to go to get to 2007 levels thanks to the ongoing economic downturn).
There are no doubt much better ways to use the airspace, there is a huge ongoing project at the moment looking into how to do so. The interaction between all the the major airports is what complicates matters.
Until such changes take place, then I personally think that a 3rd runway at Heathrow is smoke and mirrors. It certainly won't increase capacity to the magnitude that some folks say (200,000 plus extra movements per year!).
Of course the OP gave a radical solution - shut the other airports. Not going to happen... neither is the idea of using Gatwick for southbound departures, Stansted/Luton for northbound and Heathrow solely for east and westbound... but if you did that, it would cut out a hell of a lot of crossing SIDS and therefore complexity!
LAX and the surrounding airspace is a totally different proposition to EGLL... the LTMA needs to be updated, and it will be, however as well as coming up with the clever ideas, NATS then has to get it past public consultation, not an easy task.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the question was in regards to Heathrow and the 3rd rwy, in all fairness.
In that class A environment with virtually no other air traffic than known IFR, then it's nowhere near handling as much traffic as, ORD, JFK or LAX. I'm not talking landings, but real air traffic. Most of the example class B is smaller than the class A in London, filled with mixed traffic of all kinds (no convenient glide free rules to keep the small fry out of your hair like in London) etc. So why is it that this is presented as somehow this gargantuan skillful task by the almost superhumanly competent airspace handlers in Europe, when much more traffic is quietly handled without chest thumping daily elsewhere? Heck, even Sydney deals with it all in class D, as far as I know.
The airspace is not overcrowded in class A and could easily accommodate a 3rd rwy or a 4th. Even at 4 rwy's, they'd be handling less real traffic than LAX. Sure they might have to change some procedures, but that's all doable. As for the adjoining airports in the London area, yes, it's crowded. But no more than JFK/La Guardia/Newark, or LAX/Long Beach/Burbank/John Wayne. But I bet the first thing they'll propose is to expand class A, so the get rid of those pesky unwanted little small airplanes with the amateurs in them and the annoying operators who are not paying into the system, right? If you can't cope with it, just force it out. That seems to be the MO here.
There's an age old Euro tendency of thinking we're superior and more skilled than everybody else and when that's proven not to be the case, we legislate the problem away rather than dig in and step up to the challenge. Cradle of civilisation and all that. I say this as a European, not an American.
In that class A environment with virtually no other air traffic than known IFR, then it's nowhere near handling as much traffic as, ORD, JFK or LAX. I'm not talking landings, but real air traffic. Most of the example class B is smaller than the class A in London, filled with mixed traffic of all kinds (no convenient glide free rules to keep the small fry out of your hair like in London) etc. So why is it that this is presented as somehow this gargantuan skillful task by the almost superhumanly competent airspace handlers in Europe, when much more traffic is quietly handled without chest thumping daily elsewhere? Heck, even Sydney deals with it all in class D, as far as I know.
The airspace is not overcrowded in class A and could easily accommodate a 3rd rwy or a 4th. Even at 4 rwy's, they'd be handling less real traffic than LAX. Sure they might have to change some procedures, but that's all doable. As for the adjoining airports in the London area, yes, it's crowded. But no more than JFK/La Guardia/Newark, or LAX/Long Beach/Burbank/John Wayne. But I bet the first thing they'll propose is to expand class A, so the get rid of those pesky unwanted little small airplanes with the amateurs in them and the annoying operators who are not paying into the system, right? If you can't cope with it, just force it out. That seems to be the MO here.
There's an age old Euro tendency of thinking we're superior and more skilled than everybody else and when that's proven not to be the case, we legislate the problem away rather than dig in and step up to the challenge. Cradle of civilisation and all that. I say this as a European, not an American.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 27th Aug 2012 at 19:07.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many Thanks "Anotherthing"
That was my assumption from "outside the fence".
My comment re 6 runways was mischevious, but surely to have so many airports in in such close proximity restricts the total number of movements that even an extra runway at LHR doesnt solve..
Would it not simply dilute rather than expand what is already in situ.
I just wondered as you say if there is some contingency to resolve the ATM issue at the sametime as laying plans for a 3rd RW, many observers who support RW3 seem totally blind to the fact that the airspace is so congested.
When BAA owned LHR LGW and STN (assuming it goes) then there could be a case for reducing slots at one airport and increasing at another, but by the end of 2012 we could end up with every single major airport having a different owner, so who is going to give up their slice of the action ?
Would /Could movements at LGW LCY or LTN be restricted to ensure LHR as the main gateway gets the full benefit of an additional runway ?
Now even Southend is in the mix......
To me this just seems total madness.
That was my assumption from "outside the fence".
My comment re 6 runways was mischevious, but surely to have so many airports in in such close proximity restricts the total number of movements that even an extra runway at LHR doesnt solve..
Would it not simply dilute rather than expand what is already in situ.
I just wondered as you say if there is some contingency to resolve the ATM issue at the sametime as laying plans for a 3rd RW, many observers who support RW3 seem totally blind to the fact that the airspace is so congested.
When BAA owned LHR LGW and STN (assuming it goes) then there could be a case for reducing slots at one airport and increasing at another, but by the end of 2012 we could end up with every single major airport having a different owner, so who is going to give up their slice of the action ?
Would /Could movements at LGW LCY or LTN be restricted to ensure LHR as the main gateway gets the full benefit of an additional runway ?
Now even Southend is in the mix......
To me this just seems total madness.
Last edited by Bagso; 27th Aug 2012 at 19:05.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to 2010 statistics, if you combine the London airports they are the busiest set of airports in the world (by pax - I haven't checked per movements):
World's busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World's busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guest
Posts: n/a
Approach operations to Heathrow are constrained by inter alia the Cranford Agreement.
An increase in capacity would be achieved by allowing independent mixed mode ops on both the north and south runways. Another capacity gain would be an extension in the hours of operations; even allowing low QC numbered a/c to land later/earlier might help.
A third runway could accept appropriate a/c from existing stacks. RNAV (GNSS) SBAS APV operated to RNP 3' 6" would be the enabler.
Lastly 4D trajectory flight management would help dovetail arrivals with stand availability.
"Ladies and Gentleman, due to favourable tailwinds over the Atlantic I'm pleased to tell you that, despite our departure from (K*** or C***) being 15 minutes behind schedule we'll have you at destination 45 mins early"
"Ladies and Gentlemen, as you will no doubt have noticed we are currently in a stack to the west of London. This is due to ATC delays caused by early morning congestion. So sit back and enjoy the rest of the flight."
Ladies and Gentlemen, from the flight deck may I add my warm welcome to London Heathrow. Due to the outbound a/c on our stand not quite being ready to depart we have been asked to wait here for a few minutes. Therefore I'd ask you to remain seated until the fasten seat belts sign is turned off. Crew, thanks for a wonderful flight, cabin doors to Manuel and cross dress."
Ladies and Gentlemen, as we pull onto stand can I repeat my welcome to London where the local time is 09.15 our scheduled arrival time. Thank you for choosing to fly BA (even though there's no-one else on this route) and wish you a very good morning."
Well Nigel, that went well don't you think? Yes boss, but if we'ed adjusted our flight to arrive on slot we would of used 3 tonnes less fuel.
SGC
An increase in capacity would be achieved by allowing independent mixed mode ops on both the north and south runways. Another capacity gain would be an extension in the hours of operations; even allowing low QC numbered a/c to land later/earlier might help.
A third runway could accept appropriate a/c from existing stacks. RNAV (GNSS) SBAS APV operated to RNP 3' 6" would be the enabler.
Lastly 4D trajectory flight management would help dovetail arrivals with stand availability.
"Ladies and Gentleman, due to favourable tailwinds over the Atlantic I'm pleased to tell you that, despite our departure from (K*** or C***) being 15 minutes behind schedule we'll have you at destination 45 mins early"
"Ladies and Gentlemen, as you will no doubt have noticed we are currently in a stack to the west of London. This is due to ATC delays caused by early morning congestion. So sit back and enjoy the rest of the flight."
Ladies and Gentlemen, from the flight deck may I add my warm welcome to London Heathrow. Due to the outbound a/c on our stand not quite being ready to depart we have been asked to wait here for a few minutes. Therefore I'd ask you to remain seated until the fasten seat belts sign is turned off. Crew, thanks for a wonderful flight, cabin doors to Manuel and cross dress."
Ladies and Gentlemen, as we pull onto stand can I repeat my welcome to London where the local time is 09.15 our scheduled arrival time. Thank you for choosing to fly BA (even though there's no-one else on this route) and wish you a very good morning."
Well Nigel, that went well don't you think? Yes boss, but if we'ed adjusted our flight to arrive on slot we would of used 3 tonnes less fuel.
SGC
Approach operations to Heathrow are constrained by inter alia the
Cranford Agreement.
Cranford Agreement.
The Cranford Agreement has not existed for the last couple of years or so, although its legacy (i.e. the asymmetric easterly runway layout) will continue to constrain operations until, we're told, 2014 at least.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Buster the Bear
Lots of work going on in the background to increase the airspace capacity in and around London. There was a plan a couple of years back which went out to consultation, but I understand although these plans were delayed, their implementation will occur in the future?
There was a proposal which went out to consultation and, as I recall, was objected to by many people on many different grounds and then 'withdrawn' in some way to get it out of the public eye. And Buster says that the plans were only 'delayed' and will happen in the future.
Which does make one wonder what the point of the consultation was. Is it just something that's done so that someone can put a tick in the box before going ahead regardless?
Or is it something that the regulators insist on before being told what will happen by the Government of the day based on whatever decision is calculated to win them the most votes?
The trouble with consultations involving aviation and a number of other industries is that the topic is highly emotive and there is no way to please everybody or, some regulators would have it, address all concerns that are raised. And the valid issues raised by professionals are often given no greater credibility that those raised by total crackpots. Whether any good comes of such consultations is arguable; the huge cost of running a public consultation, which ultimately has to be paid by someone, is not.
Returning to the original question, from what I know - although I've never worked in the London TMA - the airspace constraints that have been mentioned by some other posters will be difficult to overcome without a significant change to some of the widely held principles and/or freedoms claimed by some people. Maybe a more significant problem is the limited gains in movements that a third runway would be likely to provide - something that in my experience is not understood by the layperson.
And, finally, although it's a good while since I transited through or travelled to the UK via London, it seems to me that it's the ground infrastructure that cannot support many more pax.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As BAA pulled the planning application for the extra taxiways because they did not want to confuse it with the Operational Freedom Trials, can I assume that the extension of the Op Freedom Trials pushes the civil works to exploit the Cranford Agreement abolition even further into the future........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the airspace constraints that have been mentioned by some other posters will be difficult to overcome without a significant change to some of the widely held principles and/or freedoms claimed by some people. Maybe a more significant problem is the limited gains in movements that a third runway would be likely to provide - something that in my experience is not understood by the layperson.
Would there not have to be a cut in slots elsewhere ?
How does this work ?
I assumed that when BAA owned LHR LGW and STN there was an element of slot juggling, now all the airports are all owned by different operators airlines at say LGW who do not have service or partnership with LHR are not going to give up slots are they?
Would there not have to be a cut in slots elsewhere ?
How does this work ?
I assumed that when BAA owned LHR LGW and STN there was an element of slot juggling, now all the airports are all owned by different operators airlines at say LGW who do not have service or partnership with LHR are not going to give up slots are they?
As BAA pulled the planning application for the extra taxiways because they did not want to confuse it with the Operational Freedom Trials, can I assume that the extension of the Op Freedom Trials pushes the civil works to exploit the Cranford Agreement abolition even further into the future........
As I understand it, the additional access/exit taxiway works will be done at the same time as the planned resurfacing of the southern and northern runways (2013 and 2014, respectively), unless anyone knows better.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to 2010 statistics, if you combine the London airports they are the busiest set of airports in the world (by pax - I haven't checked per movements):
World's busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World's busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whilst I agree the airspace over the SE is congested I agree with other posters that it will take a LOT to change it as there are too many conflicting interests.
It seems to get a lot of people's backs up on PPRUNE..but the US does seem to manage congested airspace a little bit easier than the Brits (other issues aside). Los Angeles has already been mentioned with Van Nuys and LAX operation side by side....probably close to 900 000 movements a year between the two. New York should be the prime example. JFK, Newark, La Guardia and Teterboro....over one million aircraft a year....operating within approximately 25 square miles of each other and all serving a different purpose (international, domestic, combination, GA etc).
Why can't we use that example to help over the South East...especially given that airports like Stansted and Luton are quieter than LGA and EWR and are relatively further away from Heathrow than the New York airports are from each other?
Please don't mention "safety concerns" because it seems safe enough for most major airline carriers...including our flagship British one.
Last edited by Married a Canadian; 29th Aug 2012 at 13:56.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In front of the Tube
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think 'Married a Canadian' maybe onto something.
Let's base an LTMA redevelopment plan on the NY TRACON. We could give it a natty three letter acronym (I think 'CCF' has a cool ring to it), but to make it simple to understand in layman's terms we could refer to 'tunnels in the sky'.
Let's base an LTMA redevelopment plan on the NY TRACON. We could give it a natty three letter acronym (I think 'CCF' has a cool ring to it), but to make it simple to understand in layman's terms we could refer to 'tunnels in the sky'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on.....
LGW is closer than 25 miles to LHR as is LTN as is LCY as is Biggin as is Farnborough as is White Waltham as is....Blackbush etc etc
Surely all blocks of airspace are unique and what about the mix of traffic therein , it is impossible to compare LAX with say the London TMA ?
LGW is closer than 25 miles to LHR as is LTN as is LCY as is Biggin as is Farnborough as is White Waltham as is....Blackbush etc etc
Surely all blocks of airspace are unique and what about the mix of traffic therein , it is impossible to compare LAX with say the London TMA ?
Last edited by Bagso; 30th Aug 2012 at 15:46.
If I recall: tunnels in the sky was deemed inappropriate with the changeable weather on this isle, but I still think we should try again - if for no other reason than the juvenile acronym which has always put a smile on my face. The scientists seem to be insisting it's a good idea again because it has always worked on their fast-time simulator.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Adam,
As a not very frequent user of LAX airspace (in the back usually) I have only ever been there when it is 10/10 blue and atc are using visual separations. What is it like when there is no vsiaul seps and everything is IFR IMC?
ZKDLI
As a not very frequent user of LAX airspace (in the back usually) I have only ever been there when it is 10/10 blue and atc are using visual separations. What is it like when there is no vsiaul seps and everything is IFR IMC?
ZKDLI
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: YYZ via the UK
Age: 49
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGW is closer than 25 miles to LHR as is LTN as is LCY as is Biggin as is Farnborough as is White Waltham as is....Blackbush etc etc
Surely all blocks of airspace are unique and what about the mix of traffic therein , it is impossible to compare LAX with say the London TMA ?
Surely all blocks of airspace are unique and what about the mix of traffic therein , it is impossible to compare LAX with say the London TMA ?
Yes the airspace the airspace over the SE has its own set of challenges and yes it is congested...but by saying it can't be done because it is unique basically ignores any other congested airspace the world over.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest difference I found in NY area was that inbounds were down at 6000 feet or so still with 80 to 100 miles to run. That's obviously a bit different to the LTMA, not that it couldn't work though. Although the Dutch might have to do most of the sequencing for us, and it probably wouldn't help our giant CO2 footprint reduction masterplan. It's not just how stupidly close you can build your airports, it's what's around them too.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, the additional access/exit taxiway works will be done at the same time as the planned resurfacing of the southern and northern runways (2013 and 2014, respectively), unless anyone knows better.
However, I guess that most of the works would be in connection with the northern runway, so 2014 might work.
Incidentally, has the link 60 Grass Area 6C taxiway been done yet ?
The proposed additional link between Alpha and Bravo Taxiways would be used as additional holding areas for aircraft waiting to taxi onto the Terminal 5 apron, as it would allow a second aircraft to overtake one nearer to Terminal 5 without the nearer aircraft having to move. This situation would occur when the stand allocated to the second aircraft becomes free before the stand is available for the leading aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zkdli - I wouldn't know - I'm not even instrument rated yet! But I do fly a lot in the LA basin and my mechanic and IR instructor is based at Hawthorne, which is just right next to LAX. So I'm there all the time. I swoop under the Bravo for the approach (2000ft ceiling before it goes all the way to the ground) and then we line up on approach side by side with the LAX arrivals. Works like a charm, but there isn't much room for error. Your right wing is literally running down the line of Bravo airspace. On the way back I get the Mini-Route at 2500ft above LAX just for kicks. HHR issues you as squawk, talk to LAX tower, get a clearance and off you go right on top of the tower.
Married a Canadian - I agree with everything you say. It's time to stop being so prissy about the airspace and the workload. It's not actually that bad when it comes to movements compared to many other places. And I personally think London's TMA should become B airspace and not exclude anyone. Or stay A, but have corridors separated from IFR traffic for transition VFR.
Anyway, in 50 years time there won't be any controllers or airspace. We'll all be doing it ourselves with ADS-B and radar feeds piped to the aircraft.
Married a Canadian - I agree with everything you say. It's time to stop being so prissy about the airspace and the workload. It's not actually that bad when it comes to movements compared to many other places. And I personally think London's TMA should become B airspace and not exclude anyone. Or stay A, but have corridors separated from IFR traffic for transition VFR.
Anyway, in 50 years time there won't be any controllers or airspace. We'll all be doing it ourselves with ADS-B and radar feeds piped to the aircraft.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 31st Aug 2012 at 14:44.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Or stay A, but have corridors separated from IFR traffic for transition VFR.>>
Which is what happens, except the clockwork mice are under radar control! Several airfields within the London Control Zone have free lanes too.
Which is what happens, except the clockwork mice are under radar control! Several airfields within the London Control Zone have free lanes too.