How can Heathrow so many movements?
A comparison of peak Gatwick performance on a single runway far exceeds Heathrow's two runway equivalent.
Heathrow operates for most of the day in segregated mode (takeoffs on one runway, landings on the other).
Gatwick, of course, operates its single runway in mixed more, interspersing takeoffs and landings, which in itself increases runway movement rate.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Gatwick, of course, operates its single runway in mixed more, interspersing takeoffs and landings, which in itself increases runway movement rate.>>
??????????????????????
??????????????????????
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitfire 01234
Pprune buddies are correct. Your analysis might show that Heathrow does not have a capacity problem......only an operating problem. A third runway won't help much either and for your project you might examine the need for an additional runway against the under-used capacity of the two that are already there. You have to think "outside the box".
Here is a little something to think about on a slightly different topic.....If the ILS glidepath angle was increased by half a degree it would save a billion tons of CO2 and cut noise by half [I made that up, but official reports can be written to promote any pre-conceived outcome.....beware....think for yourself.....let us know what you think]
By the way, if you want to see slick operations you need to go and watch military ATC. The mil guys are experts at their craft. When there were F 1-11's at Upper Heyford I watched 73 get airborne in 35 minutes for exercise Salty Hammer 86.......and when they returned they were all on the ground in well under an hour.
Here is a little something to think about on a slightly different topic.....If the ILS glidepath angle was increased by half a degree it would save a billion tons of CO2 and cut noise by half [I made that up, but official reports can be written to promote any pre-conceived outcome.....beware....think for yourself.....let us know what you think]
By the way, if you want to see slick operations you need to go and watch military ATC. The mil guys are experts at their craft. When there were F 1-11's at Upper Heyford I watched 73 get airborne in 35 minutes for exercise Salty Hammer 86.......and when they returned they were all on the ground in well under an hour.
??????????????????????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank for your great hints from the practical point of view!
I have another question concerning the appliance of the wake vortex separations:
When will the wake vortex separation be used? The manual of the German air traffic control says the follwing:
"...
328.3 The [wake vortex] separation minima mentioned above do not need to be applied, if :
-.31 the pilot of an aircraft has declared that he has the preceding aircraft in
sight and will attend to an appropriate distance himself;
- .32 the pilot of an aircraft renounces wake turbulence separation;
- .33 the area within which wake turbulence is expected will not be penetrated.”
Does this mean that in bad weather conditions (IMC) the wake vortex separation has to be applied always, under VMC the separations don't have to be? Is it the more frequent case that WVS is not in use?
I have another question concerning the appliance of the wake vortex separations:
When will the wake vortex separation be used? The manual of the German air traffic control says the follwing:
"...
328.3 The [wake vortex] separation minima mentioned above do not need to be applied, if :
-.31 the pilot of an aircraft has declared that he has the preceding aircraft in
sight and will attend to an appropriate distance himself;
- .32 the pilot of an aircraft renounces wake turbulence separation;
- .33 the area within which wake turbulence is expected will not be penetrated.”
Does this mean that in bad weather conditions (IMC) the wake vortex separation has to be applied always, under VMC the separations don't have to be? Is it the more frequent case that WVS is not in use?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave. I just do not understand the suggestion that a single runway could move more traffic than two runways. Heathrow is effectively two airfields - one for departure and one for arrival. Are you suggesting that if just one runway was employed the movement rate would increase? There are lots of other factors to consider. I worked Heathrow Tower for 20 years but know little about Gatwick, for example, where a high rate is achieved on one runway. How much crossing traffic does Gatwick have, for example? Heathrow's southern runway is constantly being crossed by traffic.
My personal record for runway utilisation was at the PFA Rally at Cranfield one year; at one point I had 7 on the runway and another 14 on final - but they were all VFR of course!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD, I think with SRO, as at KK, (and eg. 6nm spacing) a higher utilisation rate is achievable by shooting the gaps with air movements (instead of crossers!). The problem at LL is that mixed mode provides FIN and DEP IFR separation issues because the runways are just too close together for high intensity and literal parallel ops (ie. rather than staggered parallels).
(I used to love SRO when working with a decent Air Movement Planner and the challenge of 55/hour...I doubt that what we did would be allowed now...!)
(I used to love SRO when working with a decent Air Movement Planner and the challenge of 55/hour...I doubt that what we did would be allowed now...!)
Last edited by Talkdownman; 6th Jun 2013 at 13:23. Reason: double negative
Dave. I just do not understand the suggestion that a single runway could move more traffic than two runways.
I was referring to the movement rate per runway.
segregated mode produces a lower movement rate per runway
Sorry for any confusion.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, M. I used to love SRO too. When I started there we'd have runway re-surfacing almost every year (or so it seemed) when we'd be SRO for 6 weeks. I think JK (No 2) and MR (Air) produced some extraordinary total in one hour but I'd rather not think how they did it! Didn't Rambo do a "big" hour once? My brain is like sawdust now so I can't recall the details.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick/Heathrow
Pprune buddies have hit it right on; if you think of Heathrow as effectively "two airfields" it does not handle double Gatwick movements by a big margin.
I back the Boris plan.......look at Hong Kong!!!! You need the one thing Heathrow can never have...SPACE. Compare the size of the Heathrow site to Paris CDG or Amsterdam....its like a football field by comparison.
Get away from the draconian operating restrictions that strangle Heathrow growth.....build another bigger airport.....unleash ATC and show how much traffic can be shifted.
I back the Boris plan.......look at Hong Kong!!!! You need the one thing Heathrow can never have...SPACE. Compare the size of the Heathrow site to Paris CDG or Amsterdam....its like a football field by comparison.
Get away from the draconian operating restrictions that strangle Heathrow growth.....build another bigger airport.....unleash ATC and show how much traffic can be shifted.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a great bloody thread! I am sure the young fella/lass is getting something out of this. Nice to see such well-mannered and thought-out-responses. Of course, the brotherhood has always been superior in that regard (generic term that includes our sisters as well). It's all a good read.
Spit, don't over complicate the mission in respect of 328.3 and get 'too far down in the weeds' to start off with. These are the exceptions rather than the rule. You will find that similar exceptions exist the world over.
However, and just again in my experience, at a major airport the exceptions make little difference when dealing with passenger-carrying traffic; and, hence, basic capacity. I can't recall a single PIC of a large passenger-carrying aircraft waving ATC wake-turbulence separation minima (wake-vortex minima in your language) and take the responsibility. My experience may be different from others on that point but, in general terms, the pilots take what ATC tells them on this one.
In my view 328.3.31 can be a little misleading. The procedure in this country is 'sight and follow.' But I doubt you'd find a controller worth his salt that would assign a 'sight and follow' in a situation where the wake-turbulence standard would be compromised with RPT (regular public transport).
Consequently, I believe that in respect of your thesis wake-turbulence is a secondary issue. Not with respect to safety, but with respect to an overall postulation on runway capacity.
I'd suggest an 'addendum' to the effect that 'odd instances of pilot acceptance of responsibility for wake-vortex separation do not significantly influence runway capacity,' or something similar.
I will now retreat to the bunker after having cracked a very good Chardy and put the the tin-hat on.
Spit, don't over complicate the mission in respect of 328.3 and get 'too far down in the weeds' to start off with. These are the exceptions rather than the rule. You will find that similar exceptions exist the world over.
However, and just again in my experience, at a major airport the exceptions make little difference when dealing with passenger-carrying traffic; and, hence, basic capacity. I can't recall a single PIC of a large passenger-carrying aircraft waving ATC wake-turbulence separation minima (wake-vortex minima in your language) and take the responsibility. My experience may be different from others on that point but, in general terms, the pilots take what ATC tells them on this one.
In my view 328.3.31 can be a little misleading. The procedure in this country is 'sight and follow.' But I doubt you'd find a controller worth his salt that would assign a 'sight and follow' in a situation where the wake-turbulence standard would be compromised with RPT (regular public transport).
Consequently, I believe that in respect of your thesis wake-turbulence is a secondary issue. Not with respect to safety, but with respect to an overall postulation on runway capacity.
I'd suggest an 'addendum' to the effect that 'odd instances of pilot acceptance of responsibility for wake-vortex separation do not significantly influence runway capacity,' or something similar.
I will now retreat to the bunker after having cracked a very good Chardy and put the the tin-hat on.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By definition, SRO will get you more than segregated. However, get the right mix on a good day and you can easily get a 55 departure hour.
Trick is to have 5 airborne and painting on radar within the CTR boundary!
Trick is to have 5 airborne and painting on radar within the CTR boundary!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<By definition, SRO will get you more than segregated.>>
Sorry, I don't get that at all. Maybe they ought to close 27L and just use 27R - no crossers to worry about. Are you seriously suggesting that this would improve the movement rate?
Sorry, I don't get that at all. Maybe they ought to close 27L and just use 27R - no crossers to worry about. Are you seriously suggesting that this would improve the movement rate?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what he's getting at here WRT segregated vs SRO is that there is less "dead time" on a SRO than there is with a segregated operation. If every aircraft was a 737 then all would be great but there are "heavies" which eventually need a wasted gap behind them which can be "filled" with and arrival in SRO.
<opens old can of worms>
Dual mixed mode ops at LHR anyone. 55/hour both sides?
<opens old can of worms>
Dual mixed mode ops at LHR anyone. 55/hour both sides?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD, I mean all other things being equal, one runway operating in SRO will have more movements than one segregated mode runway, albeit if the fates (and SID splits etc) align you could approach SRO movement rates with a departure only runway.
SRO runway, mid 50s?
Usual departure only runway, mid to high 40s?
Arrival only runway, low 40s?
I'm not comparing SRO with a two-runway airport operating in segregated mode.
I say by definition because with SRO you effectively negate vortex.
SRO runway, mid 50s?
Usual departure only runway, mid to high 40s?
Arrival only runway, low 40s?
I'm not comparing SRO with a two-runway airport operating in segregated mode.
I say by definition because with SRO you effectively negate vortex.
Spitfire
Apologies for us retired old farts hijacking your thread, But...
HD
I can remember once on GMP with a trainee we had about 12-15 minutes start up delay. Rambo arrived to take Air Deps so I said to the u/t 'start em' all up','Why?' he said. I replied,'Just watch this guy, he'll run out of aeroplanes unless you keep up!'.
Ah, JK, how many were cleared for take off at the same time?
On our 98 day, there were 52 deps and 4 landers on 09R and 42 landers on 09L. Hobbsie was Air Deps and I think JB was No2 over at TC.
Mind you Rambo and SH should have been good at Deps as they seemed to spend all their time on there or GMC!
HD
I can remember once on GMP with a trainee we had about 12-15 minutes start up delay. Rambo arrived to take Air Deps so I said to the u/t 'start em' all up','Why?' he said. I replied,'Just watch this guy, he'll run out of aeroplanes unless you keep up!'.
Ah, JK, how many were cleared for take off at the same time?
On our 98 day, there were 52 deps and 4 landers on 09R and 42 landers on 09L. Hobbsie was Air Deps and I think JB was No2 over at TC.
Mind you Rambo and SH should have been good at Deps as they seemed to spend all their time on there or GMC!
Last edited by Brian 48nav; 6th Jun 2013 at 17:41. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DelayReducer
"If you're strictly looking at runway capacity the real theoritcal stats you need are:
Occupancy Time
Arrival Separations
Departure Separations
Line-up times
Wake Turbulence Mix
They are the fundamental drivers".
I think you will find that the "fundamental drivers" in the "real non-theoretical" world, where most of us work, are:-
1. The number and positioning of RETs.
2. The training of the other "fundamental drivers", (i.e. those at the pointy end) in the use of those RETs at the speeds they were designed to be used at. That's down to the Check Captains of the airlines involved, ensuring that their line pilots understand how this affects their and every other airlines "on-time" operations.
Arrival separations are written in stone, until Mr. Airbus and Mr. Boeing get their act together and learn how to design planes that don't create wake turbulence.
Departure separations, same as above, direct your complaints to the perpetrators of wake turbulence. Controllers just have to adapt to aircraft manufacturers shortcomings and make their mistakes work.
Line-up times. Generally not a problem in mixed mode. You can't clear one to take off until the lander has cleared the same runway. And if they are that slow that they can't get into position and spooled up ready to roll the instant that the lander is clear, then they won't be flying out of your airport unsupervised for much longer.
"Wake turbulence mix". Now that is something that ATC can and do, subject to traffic, influence. A "medium" should always be ahead of a "heavy" if the two are arriving at the same time and conversely, a "medium" should always depart ahead of a "heavy" . Sadly, life isn't quite so simple and increasingly "heavies" outnumber "mediums" at major airports.
And that, my friend, is why the world needs Air Traffic Controllers.
On the beach
"If you're strictly looking at runway capacity the real theoritcal stats you need are:
Occupancy Time
Arrival Separations
Departure Separations
Line-up times
Wake Turbulence Mix
They are the fundamental drivers".
I think you will find that the "fundamental drivers" in the "real non-theoretical" world, where most of us work, are:-
1. The number and positioning of RETs.
2. The training of the other "fundamental drivers", (i.e. those at the pointy end) in the use of those RETs at the speeds they were designed to be used at. That's down to the Check Captains of the airlines involved, ensuring that their line pilots understand how this affects their and every other airlines "on-time" operations.
Arrival separations are written in stone, until Mr. Airbus and Mr. Boeing get their act together and learn how to design planes that don't create wake turbulence.
Departure separations, same as above, direct your complaints to the perpetrators of wake turbulence. Controllers just have to adapt to aircraft manufacturers shortcomings and make their mistakes work.
Line-up times. Generally not a problem in mixed mode. You can't clear one to take off until the lander has cleared the same runway. And if they are that slow that they can't get into position and spooled up ready to roll the instant that the lander is clear, then they won't be flying out of your airport unsupervised for much longer.
"Wake turbulence mix". Now that is something that ATC can and do, subject to traffic, influence. A "medium" should always be ahead of a "heavy" if the two are arriving at the same time and conversely, a "medium" should always depart ahead of a "heavy" . Sadly, life isn't quite so simple and increasingly "heavies" outnumber "mediums" at major airports.
And that, my friend, is why the world needs Air Traffic Controllers.
On the beach