180 kts to 4 DME (LHR Expansion)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
180 kts to 4 DME (LHR Expansion)
I guess by now we are all agreed that LHR must expand. It’s a given that to keep up in this world of aviation LHR needs to grow considerably faster than it is at present.
It makes sense as with the greens as having jumbo’s flying around in circles above London day in day out has to be worse than a few dozen hummers on day trips around the M25. Also the safety aspect, LHR is at breaking point and I for one am sure that if we didn’t have the best ATC in the world things would be very messy indeed.
There are going to be more and more aircraft so we have no option.
The problem is noise, so here’s the point of my thread. CDA’s are great but, can anyone see a problem with 180kts to 4DME? This would keep us cleaner for longer and reduce noise, also how about getting on loc at a minimum of 20nm, I find the turn on creates noise so 20 or even 30 nm would be much higher, this would also help with the stable approach as we would be 20kts faster. Just to add to it how about A/C coming in before the 06:00 approach ban be on a 3.5 degree slope.
Just ideas which are probably non starters but I would like professional opinions please.
It makes sense as with the greens as having jumbo’s flying around in circles above London day in day out has to be worse than a few dozen hummers on day trips around the M25. Also the safety aspect, LHR is at breaking point and I for one am sure that if we didn’t have the best ATC in the world things would be very messy indeed.
There are going to be more and more aircraft so we have no option.
The problem is noise, so here’s the point of my thread. CDA’s are great but, can anyone see a problem with 180kts to 4DME? This would keep us cleaner for longer and reduce noise, also how about getting on loc at a minimum of 20nm, I find the turn on creates noise so 20 or even 30 nm would be much higher, this would also help with the stable approach as we would be 20kts faster. Just to add to it how about A/C coming in before the 06:00 approach ban be on a 3.5 degree slope.
Just ideas which are probably non starters but I would like professional opinions please.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess by now we are all agreed that LHR must expand. It’s a given that to keep up in this world of aviation LHR needs to grow considerably faster than it is at present.
It makes sense as with the greens as having jumbo’s flying around in circles above London day in day...
It makes sense as with the greens as having jumbo’s flying around in circles above London day in day...
LHR is at breaking point...
LHR is in an extremely congested and complex piece of airspace - aircraft departing and arriving have to fly through airspace being use by EGKK (worlds busiest single rwy airfield), EGGW/EGSS/EGLC/EGLF/EGHI and even EGHH (all airfields which are experiencing a huge growth rate), most of these are within 30 miles of LHR - many much closer, with EGHH and EGHI not much further away.
All of these airfields have an impact (in ATC terms) on each other with the exception os say EGLC and EGHH/EGHI.
It's all very well saying LHR must expand - if only it was that easy!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No, we are not agreed. There is plenty of runway space in the south-east. It just needs to be better managed. And that will keep several City Uni Air Transport students busy with doctoral dissertations for years to come.
No, we are not agreed. There is plenty of runway space in the south-east. It just needs to be better managed. And that will keep several City Uni Air Transport students busy with doctoral dissertations for years to come.
So what is the real choice? Handicap LHR and steer a course between creating thousands of jobs or losing votes with expansion and the Green/noise lobby? Sounds like UK government policy for the last 40 years.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Logical system would be to charge differentially by route. That is, short-haul point-to-point tickets are charged very little if they use, say, EGSS but rather more if they choose to use EGLL. Meanwhile, long-haul and short-haul tickets with a connection to a L/H are charged rather less at EGLL. Hence EGLL becomes primarily a long-haul and connecting hub. Point-to-point stuff goes out of town.
This would, of course, require some 'joined-up thinking', doing things like making sure the Stansted trains were reliable
and cheap ...
Also strong encouragement should be given to new-entrant carriers, to avoid EGLL (not that the state of the terminals isn't encouragement enough!). eg. build decent lounges, again decent transport into town, etc.
Maybe breaking up BAA so that EGSS actually competed with EGLL might make a difference, but that would require some political cojones...
Co-ordinated European trains would also make a difference. And competition there, too - why is it that we have, what, six airlines competing between London and Paris, but ONE train operator?! If Ryanair can make money (using whatever is behind their revenue model) by charging punters 5 quid on a Tuesday afternoon, why does Eurostar still manage to charge 30-odd quid for the same trip?
This would, of course, require some 'joined-up thinking', doing things like making sure the Stansted trains were reliable
and cheap ...Also strong encouragement should be given to new-entrant carriers, to avoid EGLL (not that the state of the terminals isn't encouragement enough!). eg. build decent lounges, again decent transport into town, etc.
Maybe breaking up BAA so that EGSS actually competed with EGLL might make a difference, but that would require some political cojones...
Co-ordinated European trains would also make a difference. And competition there, too - why is it that we have, what, six airlines competing between London and Paris, but ONE train operator?! If Ryanair can make money (using whatever is behind their revenue model) by charging punters 5 quid on a Tuesday afternoon, why does Eurostar still manage to charge 30-odd quid for the same trip?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taildragger67
I don't know what your point is, or who it is aimed at but as a reply... do you realise how congested the airspace is around the airports in the south east? Do you have any idea of the complexity involved?
It's not just about how to manage the runways, it's how to fit the aircraft in already congested airspace.
Apart from some tweaks to it, the airspace is pretty much doing the best it can.
I can suggest a way that we can streamline it, but it's a stupid idea, not one that I would think will ever happen due to competition between airlines, but here goes... Get the airlines to radically change schedules (in consultation and agreement with each other) so that they do not all want to fly to the same place at the same times.
This won't happen because schedules are customer driven, but it would be the easiest and most effective form of flow control.
Another thing that would work, but will never happen as it is a stupid idea: All airports in the LTMA become one - maybe a subsidiary of LHR as it is in the centre.
Then EGGW & EGSS (renamed EGLLnorth) handle flights departing and arriving to/from the north.
EGLL (renamed EGLLcentral) handles flights to the east and west
EGKK EGHI (renamde EGLLsouth) handles flights to and from the south.
Then you can have a stream of aircraft from each airport, flying in the same direction, with no mulitude of crossing tracks to add complexity. The result would be less complex airspace with much increased capacity. Not gonna happen, because of those pesky customers again!
Obviously neither of the above is going to happen, and yes some tweaking can be done (PRNav comes to TCNE airspace very soon), but the fact remains, the airspace is already near to breaking point.
Lift the night ban at Heathrow - that would make an immediate effect and would stop the mad scramble that occurs every morning at 6am... That won't happen because of local residents.
I don't know what your point is, or who it is aimed at but as a reply... do you realise how congested the airspace is around the airports in the south east? Do you have any idea of the complexity involved?
It's not just about how to manage the runways, it's how to fit the aircraft in already congested airspace.
Apart from some tweaks to it, the airspace is pretty much doing the best it can.
I can suggest a way that we can streamline it, but it's a stupid idea, not one that I would think will ever happen due to competition between airlines, but here goes... Get the airlines to radically change schedules (in consultation and agreement with each other) so that they do not all want to fly to the same place at the same times.
This won't happen because schedules are customer driven, but it would be the easiest and most effective form of flow control.
Another thing that would work, but will never happen as it is a stupid idea: All airports in the LTMA become one - maybe a subsidiary of LHR as it is in the centre.
Then EGGW & EGSS (renamed EGLLnorth) handle flights departing and arriving to/from the north.
EGLL (renamed EGLLcentral) handles flights to the east and west
EGKK EGHI (renamde EGLLsouth) handles flights to and from the south.
Then you can have a stream of aircraft from each airport, flying in the same direction, with no mulitude of crossing tracks to add complexity. The result would be less complex airspace with much increased capacity. Not gonna happen, because of those pesky customers again!
Obviously neither of the above is going to happen, and yes some tweaking can be done (PRNav comes to TCNE airspace very soon), but the fact remains, the airspace is already near to breaking point.
Lift the night ban at Heathrow - that would make an immediate effect and would stop the mad scramble that occurs every morning at 6am... That won't happen because of local residents.
Last edited by anotherthing; 15th Feb 2008 at 09:18. Reason: Taildragger 67 posted whilst I was typing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: west
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radical solution
You only have to overfly LHR to get some appreciation of the difficulty of expansion. A very radical solution would be to start afresh at a site (now there's the next prolem!) which would permit a proper way to provide the airport that London actually needs. It would cost a phenomenal amount and would no doubt be a planning nightmare but it could be done. With a fresh start the infrastructure needed to make it work could be planned for including fast rail link to London as well as the surrounding region, enough runways to cope with forseable (always short sighted so far) demand plus an appreciation that more room may well be needed in the future. The existing site at Heathrow must be worth a fortune in terms of redeveloping and so goes some way to aiding the cost and whatever was built there would be better for the residents. So far only sticking plaster solutions are put forward whch are not going to work for long. Admitedly if you take all the surrounding "London" airports into account there are a lot of runways in the larger London area but where do people from outside Europe want to fly to when they think of London? Of course they are only given the choice by the airlines.
It's not just London of course. We seem to have been reluctant to bite the bullet in this country when it comes to providing the infrastructure at regional airports. Compare BHX and MAN with the likes of MUC, FRA or HAM. At MAN the solution was to build a second runway that can only be reached after queing up to dash across the first runway and then can only be used one way for take-off and the other for landing.
It's not just London of course. We seem to have been reluctant to bite the bullet in this country when it comes to providing the infrastructure at regional airports. Compare BHX and MAN with the likes of MUC, FRA or HAM. At MAN the solution was to build a second runway that can only be reached after queing up to dash across the first runway and then can only be used one way for take-off and the other for landing.
My Company has very strict ' stable by 1000ft ' rules, and 4 miles at 180kts is, ball park, 1200ft. Thus it would be impossible to meet the criteria required of us. Madrid have been doing this for a number of years, and I witnessed a horrendous approach doing a Command check from the jump seat, by a new Captain trying to follow ATC instructions.
Now we decline this request but allow 160kts to 4 if required.
Now we decline this request but allow 160kts to 4 if required.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHoever came up with 180 to 4 has clearly never flown a jet!
They'll cause themselves more trouble as a result of go-arounds from unstable approaches - a refusal is more than likely. .
They'll cause themselves more trouble as a result of go-arounds from unstable approaches - a refusal is more than likely. .
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My reply was to Hunterboy's question:
You're right, I do not know the inner workings of running complex airspace such as the LTMA. But it would seem logical to me that EGSS and EGLL are far enough apart to be able to keep their traffic away from one another. Several other cities have numerous airports and manage to do ok (admittedly probably not as well as done here) - NY, Tokyo, Osaka, Paris, Rome, Milan, Chicago... I'm sure I could find more.
And EGSS has less trouble with the neighbours (as there are less of them) and more space to put a second strip if eventually needed.
Maybe an integrated slot system for all LTMA airports might also help (ie. a carrier does not buy a EGLL slot, but rather an LTMA slot) by reducing some of the so-called 'presitge' in operating into EGLL.
My broader point is that no, we are not agreed that EGLL needs an extra strip. And rather than just gripe, I have tried to suggest a solution.
So what is the real choice?
And EGSS has less trouble with the neighbours (as there are less of them) and more space to put a second strip if eventually needed.
Maybe an integrated slot system for all LTMA airports might also help (ie. a carrier does not buy a EGLL slot, but rather an LTMA slot) by reducing some of the so-called 'presitge' in operating into EGLL.
My broader point is that no, we are not agreed that EGLL needs an extra strip. And rather than just gripe, I have tried to suggest a solution.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roffa. -170 to 5 would be an improvement I think
5150.- I have been flying jets all my life and still do into LHR and regularly have req to keep the speed up which causes no major problems.
I really cant see EGSS or EGKK as an alternative to LHR expansion as the only real solution to get there is the M25 which is another story.
I am convinced LHR will expand and we need to decide a way to keep it as unimposing on the non aero folk as possible. Maybe the City Uni students time would be better spent looking at that.
Why is starting to dirty up at 4 miles a problem if you have everything else done by 4 miles you would be landing flap, powered up and on app at 1200' it would all be in place easily by 1000'
5150.- I have been flying jets all my life and still do into LHR and regularly have req to keep the speed up which causes no major problems.
I really cant see EGSS or EGKK as an alternative to LHR expansion as the only real solution to get there is the M25 which is another story.
I am convinced LHR will expand and we need to decide a way to keep it as unimposing on the non aero folk as possible. Maybe the City Uni students time would be better spent looking at that.
Why is starting to dirty up at 4 miles a problem if you have everything else done by 4 miles you would be landing flap, powered up and on app at 1200' it would all be in place easily by 1000'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other thing with LHR there are quite a few scabby areas that would be better served levelled and covered in concrete the residents could relocate to the various parts of the 3rd world they came from and we would have plenty of room.......
Now that idea is about as realistic as some of the others. Can we get real here and look at the realistic options? The politicians are never going to do anything radical, a long term solution costing lots will never get the go-ahead as the present government will spend the cash doing all this good work for the next bunch to step in and reap he rewards. No it has to be relatively cheap and fairly instant, it has to work within a year or two at worst. 180 to 5 is both as is 3.5' slope but they are harder work for us I agree.
The airspace over London is managed extremely well considering all the holding taking place. Get the aircraft on the ground without holding and you will free up 30-40% of the airspace. The problem is LHR is full and we have no room to land, no room to take off and no where to park when we do finally get on the ground.
A 3rd runway is always going to help but this is not nearly enough, we need parking stands and terminals T5 will also help but again not enough.
This has to be a good thing for anyone involved in aviation, creating more jobs and opportunities for one thing along with the obvious safety aspects, aircraft on stand is a far better place to be than F90 over OCK
Now that idea is about as realistic as some of the others. Can we get real here and look at the realistic options? The politicians are never going to do anything radical, a long term solution costing lots will never get the go-ahead as the present government will spend the cash doing all this good work for the next bunch to step in and reap he rewards. No it has to be relatively cheap and fairly instant, it has to work within a year or two at worst. 180 to 5 is both as is 3.5' slope but they are harder work for us I agree.
The airspace over London is managed extremely well considering all the holding taking place. Get the aircraft on the ground without holding and you will free up 30-40% of the airspace. The problem is LHR is full and we have no room to land, no room to take off and no where to park when we do finally get on the ground.
A 3rd runway is always going to help but this is not nearly enough, we need parking stands and terminals T5 will also help but again not enough.
This has to be a good thing for anyone involved in aviation, creating more jobs and opportunities for one thing along with the obvious safety aspects, aircraft on stand is a far better place to be than F90 over OCK
Ah yes. Let's see .....
Stansted rebuilt about 1990, when Heathrow was pretty much as full as now. Stansted was empty then. Wonderful.
1. Very few mainstream carriers went there.
2. The mainstream carriers who went there found out how unpopular new, relocated aviation facilities to the east of London are but only after losing bucketloads of their stockholders money.
3. The advent of a completely new market sector, the LCCs, at Stansted did nothing reduce movements at Heathrow.
4. The airlines want to use Heathrow for one simple reason, that is where their paying customers want to go. Especially the business users.
5. The passengers don't want to go East because they don't live near there and their offices are not near there. Nor are their connecting flights (look at how few connecting pax go through Stansted).
6. The additional surface travel time to get there far outweighs any disadvantage of Heathrow. Have you ever tried to drive from say Reading to Stansted on a Friday evening ? Or to go by public transport with your baggage ?
7. The South-East surface transport infrastrucure has spent many decades adapting to Heathrow being the air traffic centre. For example a 5 mile tube extension in the 1970s and 5 mile railway branch in the 1990s. That's all that has been achieved. It would take far longer to adapt to a new location.
8. There is no nearby available housing for the tens of thousands of airport workers who currently live around Heathrow.
Stansted rebuilt about 1990, when Heathrow was pretty much as full as now. Stansted was empty then. Wonderful.
1. Very few mainstream carriers went there.
2. The mainstream carriers who went there found out how unpopular new, relocated aviation facilities to the east of London are but only after losing bucketloads of their stockholders money.
3. The advent of a completely new market sector, the LCCs, at Stansted did nothing reduce movements at Heathrow.
4. The airlines want to use Heathrow for one simple reason, that is where their paying customers want to go. Especially the business users.
5. The passengers don't want to go East because they don't live near there and their offices are not near there. Nor are their connecting flights (look at how few connecting pax go through Stansted).
6. The additional surface travel time to get there far outweighs any disadvantage of Heathrow. Have you ever tried to drive from say Reading to Stansted on a Friday evening ? Or to go by public transport with your baggage ?
7. The South-East surface transport infrastrucure has spent many decades adapting to Heathrow being the air traffic centre. For example a 5 mile tube extension in the 1970s and 5 mile railway branch in the 1990s. That's all that has been achieved. It would take far longer to adapt to a new location.
8. There is no nearby available housing for the tens of thousands of airport workers who currently live around Heathrow.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The obvious answer to all you folks that operate to LHR on a regular basis is...
Convince Lockheed to start production on the L1011-500 once again, because...
*The type can very easily negotiate 180 to 4...and yes even 190 to 4 is doable...in a pinch, even 200 to 4.
* It gets rid of all those pesky narrow body types, thus needing fewer aircraft.
*It speeds passengers in comfort and safety at high mach numbers, quite unlike lesser types.
*Has unrestricted CATIIIB ops.
*The type is very quiet.
Presto, problems solved.
Edited to add, I should have remembered....with three engines, more business for RollsRoyce, thus adding to the British economy.
Lockheed, solving problems, as well as providing one of the finest aeroplanes ever made...with proper RR engines, of course.
Ahhhh, the finest, Lockheed.
Convince Lockheed to start production on the L1011-500 once again, because...
*The type can very easily negotiate 180 to 4...and yes even 190 to 4 is doable...in a pinch, even 200 to 4.
* It gets rid of all those pesky narrow body types, thus needing fewer aircraft.
*It speeds passengers in comfort and safety at high mach numbers, quite unlike lesser types.
*Has unrestricted CATIIIB ops.
*The type is very quiet.
Presto, problems solved.
Edited to add, I should have remembered....with three engines, more business for RollsRoyce, thus adding to the British economy.
Lockheed, solving problems, as well as providing one of the finest aeroplanes ever made...with proper RR engines, of course.
Ahhhh, the finest, Lockheed.
Last edited by 411A; 15th Feb 2008 at 18:13.
Heathrow is full.
I pax'ed in from FRA on Thursday on BA. First we had to go-around due to being too close to the one in front, then after landing we had to wait about 20 mins. for our stand to be vacated.
This is nothing unusual.
I operate cargo into LHR and we often have to wait 25 mins. at the holding point.
Jeremy Clarkson had the right idea in his Sunday Times column a few years ago. Build at least 2 more runways and tell all the people who live nearby to move if they don't like it. There have been Jets at LHR (LAP) since the 1950's, and I doubt many people have lived there that long.
I however, will be retired before there is another runway in the south east (10 years to go).
Why can't we just get on with things in this country instead of having endless public inquiries before anything gets built. i.e. T5 etc.!
I pax'ed in from FRA on Thursday on BA. First we had to go-around due to being too close to the one in front, then after landing we had to wait about 20 mins. for our stand to be vacated.
This is nothing unusual.
I operate cargo into LHR and we often have to wait 25 mins. at the holding point.
Jeremy Clarkson had the right idea in his Sunday Times column a few years ago. Build at least 2 more runways and tell all the people who live nearby to move if they don't like it. There have been Jets at LHR (LAP) since the 1950's, and I doubt many people have lived there that long.
I however, will be retired before there is another runway in the south east (10 years to go).
Why can't we just get on with things in this country instead of having endless public inquiries before anything gets built. i.e. T5 etc.!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that no one is in the full picture,the ATC are doing their best and if it was'nt for the good system and the standard followed which came after thorough studies,LHR would'nt be able to take as much traffic and with such safety records