Heathrow Expansion
 

Hi Folks

I’m not an ATC, but am in the application process, just have a quick Q.

Now that runway three has been given the go-ahead, one thing never mentioned is how an extra 200k flights a year will be managed. I would have thought that the south east’s skies were congested as it is, without this burden.

Just curious as to how this will be achieved? Also how much space is there up there considering there is talk of Gatwick/Stansted expansion in the future as well?

I realise there are busier airports than Heathrow, but few if any surrounded by other busy expanding airfields.
thanks

Short answer... regulate flow (delays?)

Regulating flows will only work to a certain extent if the operating hours are not extended!

Heathrow should be a 24hr operation, this would help even today, reducing the daily scramble to land at 0600.

I get it. Three under-utilised runways 'cos there isn't enough sky, political egg on face, meet 200k target by extending airport operating hours. Hand Joe Public some sort of hideously complex runway utilisation plan to convince him that things are no more noisy/polluted than before. Marvellous. :ok:

It's Brown's baby, I can't see it ever being born. By the time the jaw jaw is completed, Brown will be history.

So will runway Three.

Alternative to Sipson??
 

As a PPL, I have no professional view as a site surveyor or ATC'er.

But I see there may be an alternate to Sipson (ie a // 3rd runway to the north)

Many of you will be familiar with EDDF/FRA, and the 3rd runway layout.
Could this work at LHR??

There is land to the west, // to the M25 in a 02/20 NNE/SSW layout, with what looks like a clear 4.5km.

Stanwell Moor would lose some houses, but in my estimation far fewer than Sipson, and without the old A4 Bath road impact.

Access appears possible either south or north of T5, or both.

Downside is that there would not be room for T6.

So;

Q. ATC, can this layout accommodate the same volume as the Sibson layout, or does the conflict significantly reduce the volume compared to // ops??

Q. Are the approach/takeoff areas more or less of an issue than Sibson??

Q. Is the wind/weather a serious issue for 02/20??

Q. Do we definitely need more terminal space, or is T5 and a redeveloped T2/3 enough??


Any other thoughts, pro or con??

Spectacled Owl:Why?
NS

airscrew, the name you are after is sipson not sibson.

having worked in west drayton for 7 years before moving to swanwick in my opinion it will probably improve the village of sipson as it is a bit of dump to say the least!

I'm not convinced that this 3rd runway would work that well.Is it going to improve the landing capacity,because it's rather close to the existing runways for independant ops.
As far as departures,I suppose that if traffic is heading north it would be of use,but it still would have to be integrated with the other runways.Has this been considered from an ATC point of view.Somehow I doubt it.
I would have thought improving Northolt,Gatwick,Stansted,Luton,City or even Manston would be better.Or take away journeys to Manchester,Paris onto to rail to ease congestion and pollution.Plus the Greenpeace patch will possibly put a spanner in the works.
Airports in the middle of the sea,or estuaries cost huge amounts of money.Both Kansai and CLK have had problems with land sinking.CLK had water all over the place in a typhoon.Just imagine a NorthSea storm.Also the road/rail system to link these places cost as much as the airport.
Anyway I will still use Amsterdam,3rd runway 6th terminal whatever.

Thanks Mr Red.

And your view on using Stanwell Moor??

The airspace out to the east is already complex enough as it is. Getting traffic down early enough would require massive work not just by us, London Control, but also Maastricht and/or Brussels. I just can't ever see them "helping" us out as there is nothing we could do in return.

Plus, there is the small problem of d138, Shoeburyness Ranges, which is active pretty much every weekday.

But West??

<<As far as departures,I suppose that if traffic is heading north it would be of use,but it still would have to be integrated with the other runways.Has this been considered from an ATC point of view.Somehow I doubt it.>>

No problems.. Once staff are properly trained it will become second nature - that's what ATCOs do. We used to run three, or even 4 runways, occasionally at Heathrow before they were converted to parking areas, eg 27R to take off, 23L and 27L for landing. No problems; in fact it would be much easier with all runways facing the same direction.

I just wonder about that little RAF airstrip - Northolt!!

Little airstrip!!..It's a fully fledged international airport :hmm: The original whitepaper stated that any expansion at EGLL had to accomodate Northolt operations. DofT and TAD amongst others, have been working on designs to address this.

On the point of TMA congestion, will PRNAV procedures increase capacity?

Airscrew

There is no vacant land west of LHR that doesnt thave reservoirs on it or adjacent to it. Can't move those and they are not exactly compatible with aviation. Also that area is very very prone to flooding .

And thats aside from having a N-S Rwy operting across two parrallel east west ones or the conflicts with Luton and Gatwick from planes launching to the North and South. Could not see that working tho those who know like HD may tell me I am wrong there.

The estuary case wont be helped by yesterdays events in New York . Mayor Boris might be an idiot in some ways but he isnt going to christen himself Boris the Bird Butcher is he. Also how long would it take us Brits to build a monster airport in a river estuary without it running three times over budget,sinking , being built somewhere its foggy 150 days a year etc etc etc.

Sadly the Rwy 3 option is all there is and its no coincidence that the great big vacant space due north of LHR has stayed a great big vacant space for the last 40 years is it.



PB

Perhaps a little further west going towards Swindon with a whole new airport and infrastructure is really the key and shutting down Heathrow a bit like they did with Munich.

Maybe though this is just a cunning ploy to bring in H24 at Heathrow as maybe the locals will see it as a least worst option and agree to H24 over a new runway?

Really? But it's 279ft agl and not much further from the new runway than it is from e.g. the threshold of 27L - and all the intervening buildings are low because of proximity to 09L/27R.
NS