Flight paths to be redrawn
Not obvious to authority, as virtually every UK airport with different direction runways has had its cross runways closed over the years - Heathrow, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Birmingham etc. I can only think of Belfast Aldergrove as remaining.
Surely in the London area only a bit of tinkering is possible since with airports at every point of the compass and a huge proportion of flights headed east or south there is very little that can practically be done.
Sounds like an airborne version of 'smart ' motorways to me , and on a day where Northern Rail is nationalised by an arch tory government underlines that we really dont do transport very well in the UK. Although saying that thnka sto the ingenuity of those in the flying and ATC business we manage to keep things going with substandard facilities better than most but in the end that lack of long term planning and lack of actual space on the ground or in the air catches up with us
Sounds like an airborne version of 'smart ' motorways to me , and on a day where Northern Rail is nationalised by an arch tory government underlines that we really dont do transport very well in the UK. Although saying that thnka sto the ingenuity of those in the flying and ATC business we manage to keep things going with substandard facilities better than most but in the end that lack of long term planning and lack of actual space on the ground or in the air catches up with us
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Free route over the London FIR will come in. NATS are working on it. It'll probably be FL310+.
The problems with redesigning the London FIR are
1. There is limited space because of the closeness of the airports in and around London.
2. The amount of traffic that wants to go south and east from London and the same with overflights
3. No matter how well you design SIDs and Stars that theoretically miss each other IF the aircraft flies them exactly you will end up with some traffic being penalised at the expense of others (that's a big if...)
4. You can redesign the airspace around London as much as you want, take the traffic from one place to another, change this route and this route etc etc but you've still got to connect it to Europe which is not going to redesign their airspace to suit the UKs fancy plan...
5. The military
The problems with redesigning the London FIR are
1. There is limited space because of the closeness of the airports in and around London.
2. The amount of traffic that wants to go south and east from London and the same with overflights
3. No matter how well you design SIDs and Stars that theoretically miss each other IF the aircraft flies them exactly you will end up with some traffic being penalised at the expense of others (that's a big if...)
4. You can redesign the airspace around London as much as you want, take the traffic from one place to another, change this route and this route etc etc but you've still got to connect it to Europe which is not going to redesign their airspace to suit the UKs fancy plan...
5. The military
For all you ATC people, could something like this help at the London airports?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cross border arrival management
Cross border arrival management - Gatwick
Free route over the London FIR will come in. NATS are working on it. It'll probably be FL310+.
The problems with redesigning the London FIR are
1. There is limited space because of the closeness of the airports in and around London.
2. The amount of traffic that wants to go south and east from London and the same with overflights
3. No matter how well you design SIDs and Stars that theoretically miss each other IF the aircraft flies them exactly you will end up with some traffic being penalised at the expense of others (that's a big if...)
4. You can redesign the airspace around London as much as you want, take the traffic from one place to another, change this route and this route etc etc but you've still got to connect it to Europe which is not going to redesign their airspace to suit the UKs fancy plan...
5. The military
The problems with redesigning the London FIR are
1. There is limited space because of the closeness of the airports in and around London.
2. The amount of traffic that wants to go south and east from London and the same with overflights
3. No matter how well you design SIDs and Stars that theoretically miss each other IF the aircraft flies them exactly you will end up with some traffic being penalised at the expense of others (that's a big if...)
4. You can redesign the airspace around London as much as you want, take the traffic from one place to another, change this route and this route etc etc but you've still got to connect it to Europe which is not going to redesign their airspace to suit the UKs fancy plan...
5. The military
#5 The military have been reluctant to let go of 'their MTAs' and ranges. However, there are ways that military can fit into FRA as it matches the existing Operational Air Traffic (OAT) ideas and the Flexible Use of Airspace. So a restricted area can be generated and removed as required this is a lot easier with automation and System Wide Information Management. There are similar issues with reserved airspace for civil operations. I would expect that flexible use of airspace will be part of the overall redesign of UK airspace.
The future is flexible. For airlines your FOCs should be looking at the issues raised for flight planning if there are no 'fixed routes' or 'preferred routes' (in NAS speak). So canned plans will no longer exist - or not for profitable aircraft operators - so lots more work for dispatch to plan efficient flights.
I fear that any aviation proposal for anything nowadays, regardless of its value, will get swamped in the media and politics by the "don't you know there's a climate emergency" increasingly hysterical bandwagon. Regardless also of the fact that the public still increase their use of aviation each year.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear that any aviation proposal for anything nowadays, regardless of its value, will get swamped in the media and politics by the "don't you know there's a climate emergency" increasingly hysterical bandwagon. Regardless also of the fact that the public still increase their use of aviation each year.
For those who are not quite sure what Free Route Airspace (FRA) is, take a look at this Eurocontrol video:-
Europe needs to implement FRA as widely as possible across the whole ECAC airspace, and for individual states to develop the Terminal Area (TMA) route structures so that they maximise flight efficiency and throughput (not always mutually compatible) and which connects with the surrounding FRA. If this is done correctly for the London TMA, these routes will then be compatible with the FRA across France, Belgium, Holland and Denmark to the east and to the joint UK/Irish FRA airspace to the west.
I sincerely hope this is the aim of the this work on the London TMA. The main problem will be the public outcry when certain minimum noise routes are changed. But aircraft a good deal quieter these days. The PR drive should be directed towards describing the benefits of the greater flight efficiency (reduced fuel burn and emissions) and the reduction of holding delays (also reducing fuel burn and emissions) and improving punctuality.
Pie in the sky - I hope not!!
Europe needs to implement FRA as widely as possible across the whole ECAC airspace, and for individual states to develop the Terminal Area (TMA) route structures so that they maximise flight efficiency and throughput (not always mutually compatible) and which connects with the surrounding FRA. If this is done correctly for the London TMA, these routes will then be compatible with the FRA across France, Belgium, Holland and Denmark to the east and to the joint UK/Irish FRA airspace to the west.
I sincerely hope this is the aim of the this work on the London TMA. The main problem will be the public outcry when certain minimum noise routes are changed. But aircraft a good deal quieter these days. The PR drive should be directed towards describing the benefits of the greater flight efficiency (reduced fuel burn and emissions) and the reduction of holding delays (also reducing fuel burn and emissions) and improving punctuality.
Pie in the sky - I hope not!!
