Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Twin Runways - MUC Vs. LHR  
User currently offlineENCRJ From Italy, joined Nov 2004, 97 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 2 months 1 day ago) and read 3086 times:

Consider two airports with twin runways, namely MUC and LHR.
I would like to understand why they use the runways differently.
Indeed, while in MUC both runways are used for takeoffs
and landings at the same time, in LHR they are not.
Is it just due to LHR having more traffic than MUC?

By the way, it appears to me that which runway a certain
flight use (for takeoff/landing) in MUC depends on the flight direction.
In other words, "south traffic" goes to 8R/26L and "north traffic"
goes to 8L/26R. Am I right?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26450 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 3034 times:

Quoting ENCRJ (Thread starter):
Is it just due to LHR having more traffic than MUC?

Yes, it is. LHR has to operate in the most efficient way possible and also has to deal with very large populations on its borders. That means doing things that both negate noise and maximize runway use.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineENCRJ From Italy, joined Nov 2004, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Thank you for your prompt reply, 1120A!

User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 2995 times:

LHR uses a segregated mode of its two rwys, switching between rwy use in the afternoon. This is a old-fashioned way to reduce noiselevels beneath the take-off paths. However LHR is said to switch to a mixed mode-use of its rwys in the future as this would increase the number of a/c movements per hour by a tiny amount ...

Departures @ MUC: Can´t say, but would be logical. Another point might be gate assignment ...
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 1):
LHR has to operate in the most efficient way possible and also has to deal with very large populations on its borders. That means doing things that both negate noise and maximize runway use.

LHR still has the Cranford agreement (a decades old piece of legislature) that means that easterly takeoffs from the northern runway are avoided where possible. this explains why you will often see westbound takeoffs from either north or south runways, but eastbound takeoffs tend to go from the south runway only.

the agreement was to avoid too much noise over the housing area of cranford close to the east end of the north runway I understand.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Quoting HT (Reply 3):
However LHR is said to switch to a mixed mode-use of its rwys in the future as this would increase the number of a/c movements per hour by a tiny amount ...

expected by 2010/11 - the number of movements is actually projectd to increase by more than you might think....



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24932 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 2977 times:

MUC has a load of fairly quiet CRJs, LHR has a load of noisy 747s and 340s


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineFeroze From India, joined Dec 2004, 794 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

I quote for BA's Investor magazine:

"Next year there will be public consultations on mixed
mode operations and on the terminal infrastructure that would be
built with a third runway at Heathrow [by BAA]."

Full link at http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_...nualReportandAccounts2004-2005.pdf

Regards,

Feroze


User currently offlineGeoffm From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2111 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 2824 times:

Dunno about MUC, but aren't Heathrow's runways too close together for parallel moves? I understand they can have staggered alternate approaches on both runways but not simultaneous. In other words, in one instant of time 27L can have planes 1 mile out, 3 miles out, 5 miles out, while 27R would have planes 2 miles out, 4 miles out, 6 miles out, etc. (Those figures are just an example, not accurate).

Geoff M.


User currently offlineFlyinTLow From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 19 hours ago) and read 2804 times:

Quoting Geoffm (Reply 8):
Dunno about MUC, but aren't Heathrow's runways too close together for parallel moves?

That goes for FRA. But I am pretty sure LHR's runways are far away apart. Otherwise it would be pretty impossible to build a terminal in between them.



- When dreams take flight, follow them -
User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

Distance between runways:
LHR: 1450 meter
MUC 2350 meter
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 2710 times:

Quoting HT (Reply 10):
Distance between runways:
LHR: 1450 meter
MUC 2350 meter
-HT

LHR's distance is not optimum, but do-able for parrallel ILS per ICAO/FAA agreed to standard. MLS should help as well (Anyone know if this is up and running yet?) The prefered distance is 5,000 feet (1,524 meter), 4,300' feet (1,310 meter) is the minimum.


User currently offlineENCRJ From Italy, joined Nov 2004, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

I do not think distance between parallel runway is a real issue. At
least it is not in SFO, where parallel runways are very close!


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 2564 times:

Quoting ENCRJ (Reply 12):
I do not think distance between parallel runway is a real issue. At
least it is not in SFO, where parallel runways are very close!

They use simultanious offset approaches:

http://www.awp.faa.gov/affairs/news_releases/awp5-0404.htm


User currently offlineGeoffm From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2111 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

Quoting ENCRJ (Reply 12):
I do not think distance between parallel runway is a real issue

It is a real issue, as others have kindly provided the figures. Although Heathrow appears to be legal minimum, it would appear that even mild weather can prevent simultaneous approaches (5kt winds or more). And as we have such crap weather in Britain, maybe the weather prevents it more often than not! I'd be grateful if somebody can come up with hard facts rather than what I've researched on a.net...

Geoff M.


User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2302 times:

I´ve received an e-mail from a poor ladd w/o an A.net account  Smile
He has asked me to post the following to this thread:

This discussion we had in a MUC-based forum and there was a link to an article explaining exactly that: why MUC uses runways in mixed mode.
This is simply due to the fact that airports like FRA or LHR have more or less constant traffic all day but MUC has several arrival and departure peaks.
Testing the two alternatives one found out that by using the runways in mixed mode will give less congestion during the peaks.
As arrival and departure peaks have some hour time gap between them it is handled as follows:
Arrival peak = few departures, that means both runways are used to bring all the aircraft down as fast as possible. The few departures are put somewhere between it.
With the departure peak it's the other way round.
It is thought, however, that with growing traffic and a more constant traffic rate over the day, both runways will be used as seen in LHR as then it will possibly be more feasible.
Axel F


I found this information helpful & interesting, so I do post it here.

@Axel F.: An account @ A.net is only 25 USD once ...  Smile
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
VS LHR-BOM Loads posted Wed Nov 29 2006 15:20:41 by BCA2005
VS LHR-MCO & MIA Flights 10/08/06 posted Thu Aug 10 2006 15:49:22 by Cabinboy
VS LHR-DXB posted Wed Dec 21 2005 13:09:17 by Cabinboy
Which VS LHR 744s To LGW Config And When? posted Mon Oct 11 2004 16:04:34 by Intheknow
VS LHR-HKG Load Factor? posted Wed Aug 11 2004 01:58:56 by Qantas777
VS LHR-LAX - 744 - What Plane Does This Route? posted Tue Mar 23 2004 00:01:46 by Chris78cpr
LGW Vs. LHR posted Sun Sep 21 2003 04:46:23 by Ual767ord
LGW Vs LHR posted Fri Nov 2 2001 21:06:59 by Padcrasher
BA, VS, 9W - BOM-LHR Convenient? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 06:15:17 by B773ER
Connection In MUC? Schengen Vs EU posted Tue Sep 26 2006 02:51:32 by BDL2DCA