Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

LGW second runway "by the back door" going ahead.

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

LGW second runway "by the back door" going ahead.

Old 15th Oct 2018, 18:33
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Uka Duka
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LGW second runway "by the back door" going ahead.

Plans will be submitted for "routine use" of 08L/ 26R to public consultation this Thursday...

Beeb:

"Gatwick Airport is due to unveil plans to use its emergency runway to increase capacity.
The airport's latest draft plan is set to be released on Thursday and will go out to public consultation, a spokesman said.
The emergency runway would be used for smaller aircraft departures, as part of future growth plans.
Opponents to expansion at the West Sussex airport have called it "a second runway by the back door".
An airport spokesman said it was "exploring how to make best use of its existing runways, including the possibility of bringing its existing standby runway into routine use".
"This would deliver an incremental increase in capacity that complements the expansion schemes of other airports across the South East."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-45861559
Auxtank is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2018, 19:05
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well you certainly wouldn't want a runway by your back door would you?
gcal is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2018, 19:06
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
LGW second runway "by the back door" going ahead

No, it's not even close to "going ahead" - there are a ton of legal and operational hurdles that would have to be overcome first, not least the safety case around using a pair of runways only 200 m apart at the same time.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 15th Oct 2018, 19:46
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How odd that this story should present itself just days after one regarding rumours on the NYSE that GIP were considering selling their stake in Gatwick.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...investor-group

One could almost surmise that they were trying to increase the 'potential' value of their asset... despite the fact that as has rightly already been said this is a long way from a reality...They stand to make a lot of money anyway but they'd have made even more if they could have sold it on with planning permission for a second runway. No different from doing the same with a small house on a large plot of land. This will just have to do I suppose.
hangten is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2018, 19:50
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Westward TV
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
No, it's not even close to "going ahead" - there are a ton of legal and operational hurdles that would have to be overcome first, not least the safety case around using a pair of runways only 200 m apart at the same time.
Tegel Airport in berlin operates 2 runways and they are certainly less than 200m apart.
GusHoneybun is online now  
Old 15th Oct 2018, 20:29
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by GusHoneybun View Post
Tegel Airport in berlin operates 2 runways and they are certainly less than 200m apart.
We will presumably find out more once the plan is published, but the somewhat sketchy announcement so far does not suggest that a TXL-type, segregated mode operation is what Gatwick has in mind.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2018, 12:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
We will presumably find out more once the plan is published, but the somewhat sketchy announcement so far does not suggest that a TXL-type, segregated mode operation is what Gatwick has in mind.
The quote said departure runway. So assume that a small slower aircraft such as a turbo-prop is given departure clearance on the short runway after an aircraft has successfully taken off from the long runway with the next inbound say 1.5 miles finals. So each short runway departure is between runway movements on the main runway. The SIDs would need to turn say 30Deg to the North after take off to keep clear of any missed approach on the main runway. There may also be wake issues from the departure on the main affecting the departure on the short runway. It could raise the airport acceptance rate if they have significant numbers of small turboprop aircraft.
Don't expect the idea to be operational next year though!
Ian W is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2018, 13:11
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 602
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Düsseldorf has two very close parallel runways in use as well, the northern one being the "main".
How often is Gatwick's reserve runway used these days?
Less Hair is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2018, 14:30
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 59
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's no "by the back door" about it. There was an agreement in place, which has expired or is to expire very soon. Without any new agreement, Gatwick should be free to use both runways subject to the necessary approvals.
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2018, 15:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Super VC-10 View Post
There's no "by the back door" about it. There was an agreement in place, which has expired or is to expire very soon. Without any new agreement, Gatwick should be free to use both runways subject to the necessary approvals.
Leaving aside the other issues, it appears that the "by the back door" accusation is a reference to the (then) BAA's 1979 undertaking that they would not begin construction before 2019 of anything that could ultimately become an operational runway in its own right, and West Sussex CC's agreement, based on that understanding, that they would not in turn object to the construction of the emergency runway.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2018, 17:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question Runway separation

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
No, it's not even close to "going ahead" - there are a ton of legal and operational hurdles that would have to be overcome first, not least the safety case around using a pair of runways only 200 m apart at the same time.
How far apart are pairs of runways normally? Is there a standard or recommendation?
msjh is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2018, 17:35
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by msjh View Post
How far apart are pairs of runways normally? Is there a standard or recommendation?
ICAO Doc 9643 - Manual on Simultaneous Operations on Parallel or Near-Parallel Instrument Runways
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2018, 18:07
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
ICAO Doc 9643 - Manual on Simultaneous Operations on Parallel or Near-Parallel Instrument Runways
Is there a one sentence answer that describes the recommended separation distance of parallel runways without shelling out $47?
msjh is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2018, 23:36
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So will we be getting ILS PRM ? I guess it’s the obvious place for the ATRS and suchlike to land, but the next smallest are the A3xxs and the 737s , could they use it everyday ?
Meester proach is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2018, 00:19
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 69
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
msjh,
SFO's main arrival runways 28 are 750 feet apart, and that goes bad frequently, so the magic number is more than that.
sb_sfo is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2018, 08:53
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landing on the wrong runway

Originally Posted by sb_sfo View Post
msjh,
SFO's main arrival runways 28 are 750 feet apart, and that goes bad frequently, so the magic number is more than that.
Thank you.

I guess another question then is just how often planes have landed on the wrong runway at Gatwick, as a purely pragmatic measure.
msjh is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2018, 09:05
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 602
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The FAA typically requires 4300 feet runway separation for independent IFR operations. On a case by case analysis only 3000 feet might be permitted.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 17th Oct 2018, 09:57
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by msjh View Post
I guess another question then is just how often planes have landed on the wrong runway at Gatwick, as a purely pragmatic measure.
You might want to widen your question to ask about landings on the parallel taxiway at Gatwick.

Originally Posted by Less Hair View Post
The FAA typically requires 4300 feet runway separation for independent IFR operations. On a case by case analysis only 3000 feet might be permitted.
That's in line with the runway separation distances in ICAO Annex 14, PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM:

1035 m for independent parallel approaches (subject to suitable SSR requirements, otherwise 1310 m)

915 m for dependent parallel approaches

760 m for dependent parallel departures

760 m for segregated parallel operations (less if runways are staggered)
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 17th Oct 2018, 11:09
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GusHoneybun View Post
Tegel Airport in berlin operates 2 runways and they are certainly less than 200m apart.
Measuring with googlemaps returns a result of 200m (+/- not very much).
nonsense is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2018, 12:25
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by nonsense View Post
Measuring with googlemaps returns a result of 200m (+/- not very much).
It's actually 205 m, according to the airport's own website: Flughafen Berlin Tegel

But still nowhere near the minimum required for parallel IFR operations.
DaveReidUK is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.