New runway at Heathrow
I live in what could be called an 'outer affected area near Camberley. There was a minor protest when HAL/NATS did some trial departure routings without telling any one-apparently they only contact contiguous borough which is to put it bluntly ridiculously naive .
However the idea of aircraft closely following the exactly the same tracks on the SIDs will cause public nuisance complaints. The method used for years of aircraft for whatever reason following slightly different paths was perfectly accesptable and there were no good reasons given as to why the new method was required . One has to bear in mind that in my area there are current and retired pilots and ATCOs and numerous airline Ops staff so not only is it generally airport friendly it is also very knowledgeable. So planning the tracks for a third runway will need consultation but as Gonzo hints the way things go in the UK any current flying and ATCO staff of any seniority will be retired by the time R3 is built
However the idea of aircraft closely following the exactly the same tracks on the SIDs will cause public nuisance complaints. The method used for years of aircraft for whatever reason following slightly different paths was perfectly accesptable and there were no good reasons given as to why the new method was required . One has to bear in mind that in my area there are current and retired pilots and ATCOs and numerous airline Ops staff so not only is it generally airport friendly it is also very knowledgeable. So planning the tracks for a third runway will need consultation but as Gonzo hints the way things go in the UK any current flying and ATCO staff of any seniority will be retired by the time R3 is built
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pb,
That method only 'existed' because aircraft once navigated using pilot-interpreted, ground-based radio navigation aids. Over the decades we've seen aircraft manufacturers develop ever more accurate, computer-interpreted navigation systems, such as automatic DME/DME triangulation, inertial reference, VOR/DME RNAV and space-based systems. This means that aircraft themselves navigate incredbily accurately along procedures designed in the 1950s, such as at LHR.
The 'mew method' hasn't been 'required', hasn't been instigated by airports, it just 'is'. Saying we should revert is like asking all the ships using the oceans to determine speed by trailing a knotted rope and counting the knots that run through, or to determine depth under keel by dropping a weighted line
PBN/RNAV does give more options for flexbility, such as a selection of centrelines (1nm left, centre, 1nm right etc) for each route, which could be swapped each day/week, much as runway use is today.
I'm not sure that's what I was hinting at.
I was hinting that many people seem to assume that either no work is going on, or that there are several insurmountable problems, or that a new runway would just be plonked down in the middle of the current set-up with no changes. Or a mixture of all of them.
The method used for years of aircraft for whatever reason following slightly different paths was perfectly accesptable and there were no good reasons given as to why the new method was required
The 'mew method' hasn't been 'required', hasn't been instigated by airports, it just 'is'. Saying we should revert is like asking all the ships using the oceans to determine speed by trailing a knotted rope and counting the knots that run through, or to determine depth under keel by dropping a weighted line
PBN/RNAV does give more options for flexbility, such as a selection of centrelines (1nm left, centre, 1nm right etc) for each route, which could be swapped each day/week, much as runway use is today.
as Gonzo hints the way things go in the UK any current flying and ATCO staff of any seniority will be retired by the time R3 is built
I was hinting that many people seem to assume that either no work is going on, or that there are several insurmountable problems, or that a new runway would just be plonked down in the middle of the current set-up with no changes. Or a mixture of all of them.
Gonzo
I always read and treat your posts with respect because I know you are a professional unlike me and your comments are always informative so I do apologise for misinterpreting your post -on re reading things I realise I should have made it clearer since it was me sort of combining your comment and another about thee time it was likely to take to get R3 built. So once again sorry about that.
The other point was again me sort of short cutting things-i do realise that the spread of aircraft on SIDs is or was due to the 'old system' of VORs NDB less precise track following etc and so it was something that came about rather than being deliberately planned. The problem is that for people on the ground it works nicely because there isnt a constant stream of outbounds over them when you get out to my part of the world. Obviously the departure runway makes a different but aircraft on MID SIDs today seem to make the turn southwards for MIdhurst anywhere between just east of Bagshot to just west of Camberley. so that coupled with the quieter engines of today it distributes the noise nicely . Having them all fly precisely the same track was what caused people to complain was because it just took it from 'background noise' which they barely notices to a nuisance level which they did.
Anyway had a bad day with that post so I hope you will accept my apology and I will be more careful in the future( not a phrased to be used too often in your job I guess)
I always read and treat your posts with respect because I know you are a professional unlike me and your comments are always informative so I do apologise for misinterpreting your post -on re reading things I realise I should have made it clearer since it was me sort of combining your comment and another about thee time it was likely to take to get R3 built. So once again sorry about that.
The other point was again me sort of short cutting things-i do realise that the spread of aircraft on SIDs is or was due to the 'old system' of VORs NDB less precise track following etc and so it was something that came about rather than being deliberately planned. The problem is that for people on the ground it works nicely because there isnt a constant stream of outbounds over them when you get out to my part of the world. Obviously the departure runway makes a different but aircraft on MID SIDs today seem to make the turn southwards for MIdhurst anywhere between just east of Bagshot to just west of Camberley. so that coupled with the quieter engines of today it distributes the noise nicely . Having them all fly precisely the same track was what caused people to complain was because it just took it from 'background noise' which they barely notices to a nuisance level which they did.
Anyway had a bad day with that post so I hope you will accept my apology and I will be more careful in the future( not a phrased to be used too often in your job I guess)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5miles, exactly.
If they go for the NW-side R/W 3, how many houses will have to be demolished?
They're building about 3000 between EGCC and EGCD. Why don't HMG just re-locate all those that will be displaced to Cheshire?
If they go for the NW-side R/W 3, how many houses will have to be demolished?
They're building about 3000 between EGCC and EGCD. Why don't HMG just re-locate all those that will be displaced to Cheshire?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pb,
No worries, and certainly no need to apologise. Thank you for your words.
The way the aircraft fly at the moment is also a function of out-of-date SIDs and STARs. You mention the MID route. The published route itself goes too close to the OCK stack for continuous climb. Current rules say that as soon as 4000ft is passed, aircraft can be vectored off the route, so the variation in the turn is symptomatic of the different climb rates. All this requires ATC interaction, and radio transmissions, which increases workload.
Concentration v dispersion is an exhausting debate, not least because upon examining many complaints/comments you see that many people stand on different sides of the spectrum depending upon how they are affected. Out there on Twitter there are those who complain about concentration on departure tracks, yet who also complain about arrivals taking 'random' routes from stacks to the final approach track. Or some who complain about concentration regarding what they see as arrivals following the same routes from stack to final approach, and yet complain about departures being vectored off the SID route once through 4000ft which creates dispersion.
(not saying this is you in any way, pb!)
It's a difficult debate, and one that involves many parties (Airports, ATC, CAA, Airlines, Manufacturers). With the advent of flight tracking apps and sites, and the potential for misunderstanding of the data that is presented, it's a debate that is only going to get more difficult: Witness the fact that some are complaining about Stansted and Luton inbounds routing over LHR at 15000ft, claiming that this has never, ever happened before 2015. Or that noise complaints are being filed on aircraft transiting over London on their way from Dubai to New York at 37000ft.
No worries, and certainly no need to apologise. Thank you for your words.
The way the aircraft fly at the moment is also a function of out-of-date SIDs and STARs. You mention the MID route. The published route itself goes too close to the OCK stack for continuous climb. Current rules say that as soon as 4000ft is passed, aircraft can be vectored off the route, so the variation in the turn is symptomatic of the different climb rates. All this requires ATC interaction, and radio transmissions, which increases workload.
Concentration v dispersion is an exhausting debate, not least because upon examining many complaints/comments you see that many people stand on different sides of the spectrum depending upon how they are affected. Out there on Twitter there are those who complain about concentration on departure tracks, yet who also complain about arrivals taking 'random' routes from stacks to the final approach track. Or some who complain about concentration regarding what they see as arrivals following the same routes from stack to final approach, and yet complain about departures being vectored off the SID route once through 4000ft which creates dispersion.
(not saying this is you in any way, pb!)
It's a difficult debate, and one that involves many parties (Airports, ATC, CAA, Airlines, Manufacturers). With the advent of flight tracking apps and sites, and the potential for misunderstanding of the data that is presented, it's a debate that is only going to get more difficult: Witness the fact that some are complaining about Stansted and Luton inbounds routing over LHR at 15000ft, claiming that this has never, ever happened before 2015. Or that noise complaints are being filed on aircraft transiting over London on their way from Dubai to New York at 37000ft.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pb, the thing that many of those affected tend to not understand that although today aircraft are taken off route as Gonzo explains, there is nothing to stop any route being flown exactly as published by every aircraft that files it and causing the exact same noise problems that the RNAV trials created. This means that the routes that are there today could be left as they are, and everything else around them could move to make the route tracking become more accurate more of the time. That is completely hypothetical as the routes as they are currently will need moving to fit any RNAV vs Holding plan, but is still a thought to keep at the back of your mind.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saying we should revert is like asking all the ships using the oceans to determine speed by trailing a knotted rope and counting the knots that run through, or to determine depth under keel by dropping a weighted line.
Just think about how many you could fit side by side on the M40.Sarcasm aside (just in case you hadn't noticed), the crux of this issue as Gonzo says is concentration versus dispersion. The people cannot democratically decide this issue themselves as everyone will vote for concentration, but not over them. This is why we have an elected, representative Government to make decisions in the national interest that sometimes, just sometimes, we have to accept to our, or someone else's (hopefully, eh?) detriment.
Our economy needs aviation capacity and somebody will have to hear some more aeroplanes as there's no wilderness left within 40 minutes of London. Good luck everyone (me and my family included).
BTW we need more railways, roads, hospitals and schools too, and, shock, horror, they have to go near somebody's house.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW we need more railways, roads, hospitals and schools too, and, shock, horror, they have to go near somebody's house.
Thank you Gonzo-you are one of the stars of Pprune and I certainly learned a couple of things about what goes on over my head from your post.
For others here , all I was trying to say on this point, is that the current situation, i realiise it is not actually always intentional, is fine as far as the public are concerned in the area south west of LHR - if things can be elft like e that there will be no real complaints and that has to be a bonus for everyone. So infact people will not vote for concentration, on SIDs at least, as long as it is elsewhere but -as most people in this area realise LHR is a very valuable part of the economic community of N W Surrey E Berks and N hants. They will happily accept a degree of background minor nuisance noise as they have done for years-so if it is possible to retain some form of dispersion it will stop complaints occurring and everybody will be happy. Its not NIMBYism, or a sort aviation luddite view of variable and wavering signal VORs and NDBs and old fashioned analogue instruments just a plea for a bit of common sense and thought for people on the ground who largely support LHR when designing things for the future
For others here , all I was trying to say on this point, is that the current situation, i realiise it is not actually always intentional, is fine as far as the public are concerned in the area south west of LHR - if things can be elft like e that there will be no real complaints and that has to be a bonus for everyone. So infact people will not vote for concentration, on SIDs at least, as long as it is elsewhere but -as most people in this area realise LHR is a very valuable part of the economic community of N W Surrey E Berks and N hants. They will happily accept a degree of background minor nuisance noise as they have done for years-so if it is possible to retain some form of dispersion it will stop complaints occurring and everybody will be happy. Its not NIMBYism, or a sort aviation luddite view of variable and wavering signal VORs and NDBs and old fashioned analogue instruments just a plea for a bit of common sense and thought for people on the ground who largely support LHR when designing things for the future
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pb,
Thank you again.
Theoretically Performance-Based Navigation can provide a lot of options for respite; a track along the centreline, one 1nm left of centreline, and another 1nm right of centreline etc. The trouble is we need to trial PBN routes to prove they are safe and stay within the 'containment' so that each SID could have a variety of PBN centrelines as a first step. You can't just introduce such a complex structure without interim steps.
Thank you again.
Theoretically Performance-Based Navigation can provide a lot of options for respite; a track along the centreline, one 1nm left of centreline, and another 1nm right of centreline etc. The trouble is we need to trial PBN routes to prove they are safe and stay within the 'containment' so that each SID could have a variety of PBN centrelines as a first step. You can't just introduce such a complex structure without interim steps.
Gonzo
I am sure you can't make even small changes without a lot of thought and small steps since it involves so many people and airspace around Heathrow must be as busy as anywhere in the world so a change in one place probably has a knock on effect somewhere else- have you featured, even ina background shot in the Skies above Britain program ?
I am sure you can't make even small changes without a lot of thought and small steps since it involves so many people and airspace around Heathrow must be as busy as anywhere in the world so a change in one place probably has a knock on effect somewhere else- have you featured, even ina background shot in the Skies above Britain program ?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One tries to avoid the cameras.
The idea of being used as the 'face of ATC' (Library Pictures [sic]) in the hypothetical event of a negative story, even if not connected to that story in any way, is enough to put me off.
Anyway, I wouldn't want to muscle in on the housewives' favourite.
The idea of being used as the 'face of ATC' (Library Pictures [sic]) in the hypothetical event of a negative story, even if not connected to that story in any way, is enough to put me off.
Anyway, I wouldn't want to muscle in on the housewives' favourite.
Last edited by Gonzo; 16th Sep 2016 at 21:55.
I know LHR has some of the longest runways at about 4km, but as there is waste ground on the end of 27R, why not extend by an additional 1km+ each end?
With a 7km+ long runway you could have simultaneous arrivals and departures, if the departures line-up from the mid point.
Bet no-one has thought of that... yet.
With a 7km+ long runway you could have simultaneous arrivals and departures, if the departures line-up from the mid point.
Bet no-one has thought of that... yet.
Last edited by scifi; 11th Oct 2016 at 10:49.
I know LHR has some of the longest runways at about 4km, but as there is waste ground on the end of 27R, why not extend by an additional 1km each end?
With a 6km+ long runway you could have simultaneous arrivals and departures, if the departures line-up from the mid point.
With a 6km+ long runway you could have simultaneous arrivals and departures, if the departures line-up from the mid point.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know LHR has some of the longest runways at about 4km, but as there is waste ground on the end of 27R, why not extend by an additional 1km each end?
With a 6km+ long runway you could have simultaneous arrivals and departures, if the departures line-up from the mid point.
With a 6km+ long runway you could have simultaneous arrivals and departures, if the departures line-up from the mid point.
Oh is that the waste ground that includes multiple staff car parks (PEX) as well as passenger car parks and further to the east from them is Hounslow and residential housing. Rather dismissive to call it waste ground, bit of fact checking and respect in order here I think.
