Concorde using 09L/27R for LHR departures
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: LHR and beyond
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde using 09L/27R for LHR departures
Could anyone in the tower at LHR please tell me why
Concorde is using 09L/27R for take off at LHR when the
southern runway is in use for departures.
Is it because of the resurfacing of the southern runway and
the unlikely possibility of debris being left on the runway or
is there another reason.
Just curious as today advised by director that concorde was due
to depart in the gap on the approach to 27R and yesterday we landed on 09L and 2 minutes later it departed 09L when both days the southern runway in use for departures
cheers guys
fc
Concorde is using 09L/27R for take off at LHR when the
southern runway is in use for departures.
Is it because of the resurfacing of the southern runway and
the unlikely possibility of debris being left on the runway or
is there another reason.
Just curious as today advised by director that concorde was due
to depart in the gap on the approach to 27R and yesterday we landed on 09L and 2 minutes later it departed 09L when both days the southern runway in use for departures
cheers guys
fc
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The world's biggest beach
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely due to the resurfacing work.
Not debris but more to do with 'ramps'? (I'm sure someone will correct me if wrong) between new runway surface and old on 27L/09R.
Not debris but more to do with 'ramps'? (I'm sure someone will correct me if wrong) between new runway surface and old on 27L/09R.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and long may this continue
i like to hear and see this beast depart in the morning from my house (harlington) on the north side
great sound
reminds me of the vc10 days!
*more noise - more smoke - real planes*
i like to hear and see this beast depart in the morning from my house (harlington) on the north side
great sound
reminds me of the vc10 days!
*more noise - more smoke - real planes*
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham, Surrey. ENGLAND
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say it's more to do with it being Concorde than the ramps as every other 'plane will be able to handle them; and on 27L/09R they will be less steep (1:500) than those done on the northern last year ( 1:250).
Apparantly they don't want to stress the old thing too much.
Apparantly they don't want to stress the old thing too much.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it is all due to the ramps which will be left on the S runway during the day. Up to 42mm the notice says - I don't know why they need to leave ramps of over 1.5 inches, but there you are. No aircraft likes ruddy big ramps left in the runway but Airbus would need to deduct mucho life cycles per departure off the S runway so we're looking after her - she's worth it.
The 09L departure is designed to get us onto the 09R path as quickly as possible, and ATC have been excellent at accomodating us into the non-conforming runway with little distruption to others - thanks (again) guys. Personal note - I rekon its time for LHR to use both runways for takeoff & depature like most other airports with parallel runways.
Believe me we have no desire to land on 27R and take all evening to struggle down to T4 (it snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in bterms of schedule arrival time last night) - roll on a proper flat runway....
The 09L departure is designed to get us onto the 09R path as quickly as possible, and ATC have been excellent at accomodating us into the non-conforming runway with little distruption to others - thanks (again) guys. Personal note - I rekon its time for LHR to use both runways for takeoff & depature like most other airports with parallel runways.
Believe me we have no desire to land on 27R and take all evening to struggle down to T4 (it snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in bterms of schedule arrival time last night) - roll on a proper flat runway....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NW1. The ATC problems associated with "mixed mode" operations are very significant. The idea has been mooted on and off for at least 40 years (I still have a magazine article which I wrote in the early 60s about the subject) but it would take a great deal to make it workable to the extent that it would beat existing landing rates.
1. Heathrow is so congested that GMC, a nightmare at the best of times, would be made almost unworkable.
2. In the approach phase (my bit) except under very good weather conditions we would have to provide minimum radar separation between consecutive landers. We can do that on one runway so why use two? Only during the day and in good VMC can we use visual separation, and that doesn't happen too often in our climate.
Major problems arise when an inbound from the north for the south runway is followed by one from the south for the northerly runway. Increasing noise restraints mean we have to try for CDAs every time (and pilots will shortly be reminded of this). CDAs present major problems to us in achieving vortex spacing between landers on different runways.
ATC staff would have to be increased as the approach phase requires the use of two final directors, one for each runway.
The idea of Mixed Mode always sounds very clever but under present circumstances it's probable not workable.
1. Heathrow is so congested that GMC, a nightmare at the best of times, would be made almost unworkable.
2. In the approach phase (my bit) except under very good weather conditions we would have to provide minimum radar separation between consecutive landers. We can do that on one runway so why use two? Only during the day and in good VMC can we use visual separation, and that doesn't happen too often in our climate.
Major problems arise when an inbound from the north for the south runway is followed by one from the south for the northerly runway. Increasing noise restraints mean we have to try for CDAs every time (and pilots will shortly be reminded of this). CDAs present major problems to us in achieving vortex spacing between landers on different runways.
ATC staff would have to be increased as the approach phase requires the use of two final directors, one for each runway.
The idea of Mixed Mode always sounds very clever but under present circumstances it's probable not workable.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Director (perhaps I should use my callsign only!!),
Thanks for explaining about mixed ops. at LHR - I guessed there must be a good reason for the way things are and your explanation makes good sense. On that score, thanks are due for looking after us (and particularly my fleet) whilst the south runway is re-laid. We had a very sparky approach the other day, and we were very impressed with the way you or your colleague fed us through to 27R with traffic landing on the left. Helped by the most flexible airliner in the sky when it comes to energy management on the approach!
On the subject of CDA - Occasionally when cleared (for example) "descend to 2500' then with the ILS" if you're already below the 3 degree profile and descend slowly it can generate a comment to the effect that you were expected to descend normally and *then* follow the glide rather than regaining the 3 degree profile with a low descent rate. Perhaps an addition to your clearance like "descent rate at your discretion" would help?
Cheers for now.
Speedbird Concorde Two.
Thanks for explaining about mixed ops. at LHR - I guessed there must be a good reason for the way things are and your explanation makes good sense. On that score, thanks are due for looking after us (and particularly my fleet) whilst the south runway is re-laid. We had a very sparky approach the other day, and we were very impressed with the way you or your colleague fed us through to 27R with traffic landing on the left. Helped by the most flexible airliner in the sky when it comes to energy management on the approach!
On the subject of CDA - Occasionally when cleared (for example) "descend to 2500' then with the ILS" if you're already below the 3 degree profile and descend slowly it can generate a comment to the effect that you were expected to descend normally and *then* follow the glide rather than regaining the 3 degree profile with a low descent rate. Perhaps an addition to your clearance like "descent rate at your discretion" would help?
Cheers for now.
Speedbird Concorde Two.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NW1,
As well as HD's post, there's also the issue of who departs of which runway. If you go for outbounds from T4 and the southern half of the central area off 27L, and northern half off 27R, what happens when you've got a slow CPT just rotating from 27L, and a 757 on a southbound SID that needs to roll now, or the one at 3 miles is going around? Okay, maybe visually one could work something out, but in less than perfect weather?
If you go for all northbounds off 27R, and all southbounds off 27L, then I can say now that I'll never Ground again!
Gonzo.
As well as HD's post, there's also the issue of who departs of which runway. If you go for outbounds from T4 and the southern half of the central area off 27L, and northern half off 27R, what happens when you've got a slow CPT just rotating from 27L, and a 757 on a southbound SID that needs to roll now, or the one at 3 miles is going around? Okay, maybe visually one could work something out, but in less than perfect weather?
If you go for all northbounds off 27R, and all southbounds off 27L, then I can say now that I'll never Ground again!
Gonzo.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hayling Riviera
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have to agree with Heathrow Director (and it's not just because I work with him) in that CDAs would go out the window if we went to mixed mode - and for that reason I don't see it happening politically. Having said that, politically, someone is going to have to wake up soon and realise that the quart going into the pint pot is only just working (but safely) and with almost constant delays, and what we need is CONCRETE!
NW1 - Usually I drop you to 2500ft (at 11 track miles from touchdown) to stop you (you in the plural sense meaning all of my "customers") levelling off (or to avoid a request for descent when I need to turn the next one base leg!) How you organise the vertical profile is down to you - it's obviously better to stick to the glide path though
P.S. My best fam flight was with "Stack" Butterley (sp?) a few years ago to KIAD/KMIA - memorable!
NW1 - Usually I drop you to 2500ft (at 11 track miles from touchdown) to stop you (you in the plural sense meaning all of my "customers") levelling off (or to avoid a request for descent when I need to turn the next one base leg!) How you organise the vertical profile is down to you - it's obviously better to stick to the glide path though
P.S. My best fam flight was with "Stack" Butterley (sp?) a few years ago to KIAD/KMIA - memorable!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The advantage of mixed mode is that with the interlacing of ins and outs there is much less need for wake vortex spacing, both on approach and departure, and that is where the capacity increase is gained. (Gatwick can do 55 an hour and we can't.)
The problem of separating conflicting departures would boil down to outbound radar using diverging tracks to establish vertical separation before turning onto the desired tracks but the noise penalty would be significant and makes it unlikely.
Even if these problems could be solved, just a 10% increase in traffic would add significantly to the problems should we ever lose one of those runways, even for a short period. We need redundancy in the concrete itself, not higher loadings on what we already have.
Point 4
The problem of separating conflicting departures would boil down to outbound radar using diverging tracks to establish vertical separation before turning onto the desired tracks but the noise penalty would be significant and makes it unlikely.
Even if these problems could be solved, just a 10% increase in traffic would add significantly to the problems should we ever lose one of those runways, even for a short period. We need redundancy in the concrete itself, not higher loadings on what we already have.
Point 4
Last edited by 120.4; 13th May 2002 at 08:10.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As SLF, I find this interesting, because while waiting for my EI connection at gate 88 or so in T1 on the 6th, I was delighted to see a Concorde going full belt [with sound and shudder within the pier!] down a runway [09L/27R I now know?] which everyone else was using for arrivals.
If the change of runway does nothing else, it certainly makes outbound Irish pax pleased to see the old girl streak down the tarmac!
unfortunately, that's probably as close as I'll come to the great bird but it was a damn fine three seconds.
all the best [with much envy] to those who fly her.
If the change of runway does nothing else, it certainly makes outbound Irish pax pleased to see the old girl streak down the tarmac!
unfortunately, that's probably as close as I'll come to the great bird but it was a damn fine three seconds.
all the best [with much envy] to those who fly her.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another bit on VORTEX in mixed mode. It's fabulous if all the traffic from the north lands on 27R and that from the south on 27L; then we could really pack 'em in. Unfortunately, as has been proved many times, traffic into Heathrow comes in chunks (!) - sometimes offering from the north, later from the south. That means that we would often be faced with a "crossover" situation - north traffic landing 27L and vice versa. That's where VORTEX problems arise in IMC, which is usually the case in the UK. In IMC the traffic crossing behind has to be at least min VORTEX horizontal separation from the one ahead unless it's 1000 ft higher. If you go for vertical and #1 doesn't descend fast enough (the guy waiting for the glideslope when he's been told "descend altitude 3000 ft") somebody driving a 744 after a 13 hour flights gets popped on at 10nm at 5000 ft. In VMC we can use visual separation and go down to 500 ft vertical for VORTEX, but that doesn't happen every day.
Under certain holding conditions we can land on the departure runway to reduce delay but many is the time the Tower has complained that we have not achieved any benefit simply because traffic has been slow to descend so the one behind for the other runway could not be descended quickly enough to meet the glideslope.
If Mixed Mode is ever trialled at Heathrow both ATCOs and pilots will require a degree of education.
Under certain holding conditions we can land on the departure runway to reduce delay but many is the time the Tower has complained that we have not achieved any benefit simply because traffic has been slow to descend so the one behind for the other runway could not be descended quickly enough to meet the glideslope.
If Mixed Mode is ever trialled at Heathrow both ATCOs and pilots will require a degree of education.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the bumps on 09R still there? Mrs PhilD and I went to JFK on BA1 last Thursday (13 Feb) and we departed on 09L when everyone else was using 09R.
As an aside we were in row 5, which is not far from the nosegear and during our extended tour from T4 to 09L I was wondering if the regular(ish) bumps were caused by the tyres hitting the taxiway lights. If so, it was some pretty accurate taxying!
As an aside we were in row 5, which is not far from the nosegear and during our extended tour from T4 to 09L I was wondering if the regular(ish) bumps were caused by the tyres hitting the taxiway lights. If so, it was some pretty accurate taxying!
Last edited by PhilD; 17th Feb 2003 at 12:14.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
centreline bumps
Next time fly on a Trident, the nosewheel is offset to one side and it retracts sideways. Gosh, must stop living in the past! Good idea though. Nice to share a line with someone who can afford to fly on needlenose.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Age: 70
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, now that the HS121 has made its way into this thread with is off set nose wheel, can any one explain why this beast coud take a stronger crosswind from one side of the aircraft than it could from the other. There were many times at EGAA where, in a cross wind situation a shuttle would need to land on the opposite end due to cross wind limitations.
ex-egll (and egaa)
ex-egll (and egaa)