Heathrow Approach Path

[DaveReidUK]

09LMID 33.3% on track could be 2 out of 3 off track

09LSAM 6.7% on track is at least 14 out of 15 off track

Is there something that is limiting operation of the SID ?

If it helps, the monthly breakdown of 09L departures this year is as follows:

Jan: 18
Feb: 8
Mar: 239
Apr: 236
May: 204
Jun: 217

I don't have the breakdown by SID, and that varies from day to day anyway depending on NAT tracks, en route winds, etc, but I've seen figures (I don't know how representative they are) showing around 6% of departures each on CPT and SAM, and around 17% on MID, with the remainder on DVR, BPK and BUZAD/WOBUN.

[PAXboy]

krsmith The post #2906 in thread: http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...throw-146.html should interest you. at the time of writing, the last post in the thread.

[krsmith]

Heathrow - reply to PAXboy

Thanks for the pointer to your thread. Noise was not theimmediate reason why I started my thread on approach paths, but naturally, every one living in West London is interested in the subject.

[DaveReidUK]

Thanks for the pointer to your thread. Noise was not theimmediate reason why I started my thread on approach paths, but naturally, every one living in West London is interested in the subject.

I would imagine that the point Paxboy was making (and if he wasn't, I will) is that the chart shows an entire day's worth of arrivals (in red, around 650 of them in total, roughly 50% on each runway), and of those, only a handful join the ILS after Putney (as the aforementioned statistics confirm).

[PAXboy]

Thanks DRUK, that was the thought. That multi-overlayed image seems to answer the o/p question with (what the vernacular refer to as) a 'Slam-Dunk'

[DaveReidUK]

Thanks for the confirmation. I look forward to the OP moving the goalposts yet again, in an effort to prove that the statistics are d*mn*d lies.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<every one living in West London is interested in the subject.>>

How many of those have moved in since the airfield opened?

[PAXboy]

It would be interesting to try find long term residents who can (accurately) remember the progression from (examples only):

• Constellations and other large 4x piston
• 707 / VC 10
• 747-100
• A340 / 747-400
• A380
• 777 / 787

Also

• DC-9 / BAC 1-11 / 737-200
• 727 / Trident / L-1011
• 767 / A310
• 737-400 / A320

The factors should be for both noise AND smoke! Today might not be ideal but BOY things have changed in 50 years.

But then, that would be a good news story and no one wants that. Particularly the HACANites. (No, I don't deny their right to do the best for their subscribers, that is what every organisation does)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Perhaps a few Coronados and BAC-1-11s down the approach would remind those people how lucky they are.

[Trinity 09L]

What noise?

Staines 1972 - 1996, Windsor '96 to present, lets not forget the Convair 880, all the Russian jets & props- what noise

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Yes indeed - fantastic. My family used to live under one of the approaches to Brize Norton when they were doing crew training with VC10s. What joy.

[mixture]

Perhaps a few Coronados and BAC-1-11s down the approach would remind those people how lucky they are.

Or just Concorde into LHR.

[ExRAFRadar]

I live in Twickers and when you lot are on Westerlies going into Heathrow I get a fantastic view of the 'String of Pearls' as they all line up nicely. And that mus be at least 5 miles from my back window.

Going into Waterloo in the morning's I don't see many aircraft that are not obviously on ILS until we get to about Vauxhall . The you start to see a few turning gently to intercept the ILS. Matter of fact when I took my daughter into London a few months ago I managed to persuade her I was bit psychic as we would look at an aircraft and I would say 'She's going to turn left anytime now' and then she would.

As for the noise. Well I have lived here for 9 years now, 8 of those in Whitton where some of the flights flew right overhead. The new, modern jets have much reduced noise footprint. Those old 747's would rattle the windows sometimes.

My only complaint is that the old Queens building has gone. Many happy hours up there as a kid with that bloody big book 'Spotters list of Aircraft' (or whatever it was called),

I might pop down the Hare and Hounds and see what all the fuss is about.

[118.70]

How late can you get established for landing ?

I was intrigued by the approach of BA212 early on Saturday morning

WebTrak: Heathrow

at approx 04:48.

It appeared to meander following the curves of the Thames, got almost in line for the wrong runway over Mortlake and then turned off to get in line for the northern runway just about as it crossed the Piccadilly line at Hounslow.

I guess it isn't a plan to spread the early morning 747 noise around a bit !

[TopBunk]

How late can you get established for landing ?

I took a look at the replay and it is a little unusual - could have initially been a late turn on by ATC to the localiser, causing an overshoot and reposition from the south, but then it veered off again - as I say, a little unusual.

In terms of how late can you etc, well at JFK when doing the Carnasie to 13L then typically you don't roll wings level until about 300 ft (or 1 mile) from the runway vs the 1400ft / 4 miles in this case. The old Kai Tak IGS approach to 13 was similar with a ~50 degree to the right started at 600 feet / 2 miles.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I think there's more to that flight than meets the eye. In my book, QF9 off LAM should have been ahead of BA212 which seems to have had priority - high speed, southerly heading off BNN then a left turn downwind inside the QANTAS. Speed on base leg was high, leading to going through the LOC. Possibly a medical emergency?

[Hartington]

Prior to 9/11 I happened upon a BA Captain I know on a flight from CDG to LHR and was invited to the cockpit. As we turned finals there was a Virgin 340 with an emergency crossing our track. We were heading for 27R he for 27L (coming from the north - right to left across our track). He turned on towards 27L but then continued the turn to line up on 27R ahead of us. The plane lined up on 27L had failed to depart because he'd seen something falling from the preceeding departure onto the runway. Sounds very similar to BA212.

We ended up getting clearance to land as we crossed the perimiter track (or that's what it felt like) and overheated the brakes in clearing the runway in time for the next plane behind us.

Colleagues in the cheap seats had no idea until I told them!

[Hartington]

And, on the subject of people living under the approach path. I was born in Chiswick and for the first 5 years of my life lived right under the 28R centre line. Then we moved 200 yards nearer to Heathrow so we were still under the 28R centre line. My parents moved out in 1977 some 28 years later.

We went from everything being piston/prop via what I might call the "Viscount/Vanguard" era to the Comet, 707, BAC111, 727 and early 747s. It wasn't just the aircraft that were different, it was also the way the approach was flown - gear and flaps deployed earlier than they are today so everyone on high power. In the early days GCA then ILS both captured from below so often lower than today.

It's not as if you could hide the planes but when my parents put the house up for sale they had no problem finding a buyer.

As for the accuracy of the approach path I wasn't measuring but even in those days the vast majority seemed to pass right over the house. There was very little deviation.

[PAXboy]

I unexpectedly encountered a reference to the man who developed a means of measuring the annoyance caused by aircraft to people living near Heathrow airport, taking account of how close they were to the flight paths and numbers of the aircraft coming in.

The construction of the Noise and Number Index (NNI) was a major innovation. It demonstrated the strength of the link between how annoyed people were and the physical measurement of the noise that they were experiencing.

The development of such an index influenced the subsequent design of aircraft, the noise restrictions placed on them and the orientation of runways. The study also helped make the case for compensation to be paid to the families living at the most severe NNI levels.

The work led to an invitation to him from the Port Authority of New York to work on the local community’s response to Concorde. He accepted but concluded that the noise annoyance evidence against Concorde was not strong enough to justifying banning it.

[DaveReidUK]

And, coincidentally, NNI celebrates its 50th birthday this year, although for practical use it was replaced 20-odd years ago by Leq.

1963 | 1254 | Flight Archive