Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ex Concorde Pilot Proposal To Boost LHR Capacity  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 18379 times:

Although I have the greatest respect for any pilot, and specially for ex-Concorde pilots, I think this proposal to bust capacity in LHR is really un-orthodox. Captain William 'Jock' Lowe, who was Concorde’s longest serving pilot, is proposing that the existing northern and southern runways be extended from 3,900 metres and 3,700 metres to 7,500 metres.
This extension would allow aircraft to land and take off at the same time increasing the passenger capacity from 70 million to 140 million.

How will be handled a Go Around situation under this scenario of simultaneous landings and take offs in the same runway ? Doesn't the chances of a "piggyback" situation increases too much with this ??

Financial Times Link :

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f0a05...3f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2NK99WP3a

Rgds.
G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 1043 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18207 times:

And the runways would be doubled in length how exactly ?

User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18063 times:

Quoting TC957 (Reply 1):
And the runways would be doubled in length how exactly ?

Nah, it's alright, Slough is a craphole anyway....  

I do think this is a stupid idea of the highest order. Two go around at the same time heading towards each other? I can't POSSIBLY see what could go wrong there.....


User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1447 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18050 times:

Yeah cos there is so much space available!!!!

A lot of hot air blowing out ofsomeones mouth there!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlineabrown532 From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Feb 2008, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17992 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 2):
Two go around at the same time heading towards each other? I can't POSSIBLY see what could go wrong there.....

That wouldn't happen as due to the wind situation, both the takeoff's/Landings/Go-arounds would all be going the same direction so there is never the need for a head-on situation.


User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3054 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17930 times:

I really think it could work...

They could build an intersection on the M25 where the Motorway and Runways meet. When an aircraft is taking off/landing the barriers come down and the traffic waits for the aircraft to clear the runway. Then everyone on the M25 continues of their merry way!

It works for Gibraltar airport, why not Heathrow?!

[Edited 2013-03-12 05:21:22]

User currently offlineNonRev From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 59 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17562 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 5):

I assume this is a joke, you have driven on the M25 before, right?


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17526 times:

    I just noted that I wrote "bust" instead of "boost" in the title ( Moderators, Help !! ) ...although apparently there is not much of a difference considering the feelings this idea generates !!!!  
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 5):
I really think it could work...

They could build an intersection on the M25 where the Motorway and Runways meet.

I think that is probably the easy part of the project.... you can go with the M25 under the runway ( there are several highways going under runways all over the world ). I think the problems are more related with the simultaneous landings and take offs, but that is just my opinion...

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17472 times:

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/pub...eter-the-right-answer-for-aviation

In actual fact his idea is a "spin off" of the policy exhange's proposal late last year. As you can see what they recommended was "shifting" Heathrows runways a mile to the west and "pairing" them (and introducing a 5% glide slope).However it left about 80% of the existing Heathrow infrastructure intact. Many (including myself) felt that this was a very elegant and cost effective 'actionable' plan.

This one appears to be even simpler/cheaper still.

The fact is that the UK MUST have a bigger hub and it CAN'T afford any of the 'pie in the sky' schemes that certain people want. Either of these 2 schemes can be done and can be afforded.The clever thing is that by expanding the capacity you can negate the need for any night time T/O's or Landings. This is the major (only?)real bugbear for Londoners.

BTW create a Rail hub (as proposed by Arup) next to Heathrow that connects the (soon to be electrified) London-West rail,with.HS2 to Birmingham and the North, with HS1 and you suddenly get an affordable,deliverable, joined up transport policy - but that would be far too much to ask from our politicians  


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8505 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17443 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This could be the least controversial proposal for solving Heathrow's runway capacity problem. The Estuary Airport is really "out" there. Moving the runways west and having 4 runways would work too. Whatever the UK does please do it soon.

User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17421 times:

jfk777 - Hear hear- you can take over from Mayor Boris any day you like! (wish someone would)

User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 846 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17370 times:

I'm not saying its a good idea but there's nothing to stop go arounds requiring an immediate right/left turn 30/45/90 degrees at say 500' to put the A/C on different tracks, plus depending on where A/C are on approach vs the A/C cleared for takeoff they could be up to 3-5 miles apart at lift off.

I've done a go around at 100' with an A/C on the runway it lifted off as we passed around 700' we simply turned right to not stay on the same track. In the above situation the A/C would have been at least 3 miles ahead of us certainly a lot less dangerous.



C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17328 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9):
Whatever the UK does please do it soon.

Amen to that.

However, none of the political parties in the UK are anywhere near strong enough to absorb the ferocious fall-out that would be created by big segments of the electorate.

Also if the EU continues its arbitrary assault on the city of London then traffic (that pays anyway) might start declining.


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17325 times:

So its pretty much the same as building a new runway at either end of the existing ones?

Would you have departing aircraft entering the runway halfway down, and landing ones with the same existing thresholds?


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17228 times:

Well LHR does have flights every 2 mins.

Sounds like fun.


User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3054 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17114 times:

Quoting NonRev (Reply 6):
I assume this is a joke, you have driven on the M25 before, right?

Yes it was a joke and my usual sarcasm!  

I have the joy of driving on the M25 several times a week.


User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 837 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16852 times:



On another thread a year or more ago I proposed the options above. Both are kind of MAD style layout, offering a 4 runway operation, simultaneously, without the need to reclaim land or move one house. You would just have to build some tunnels for the M25. I think that is a perfect layout and solution for LHR.

[Edited 2013-03-12 07:59:02]

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11708 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16761 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Captain William 'Jock' Lowe, who was Concorde’s longest serving pilot, is proposing that the existing northern and southern runways be extended from 3,900 metres and 3,700 metres to 7,500 metres.

Highly unfeasible in reality I'm afraid. There are better locations than this.

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
This extension would allow aircraft to land and take off at the same time increasing the passenger capacity from 70 million to 140 million.

Maybe - I'm not sure how tight the proposal would place the departing threshold to the baulked landing surface of the arrival runway.

Quoting parapente (Reply 8):
However it left about 80% of the existing Heathrow infrastructure intact.

Unfortunately when you looked at it from a technical perspective it would require the demolition of Terminal 5, wouldn't safely be able to achieve the proposed level of operation, and generally was severely flawed.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinejayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1029 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16658 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 7):
I just noted that I wrote "bust" instead of "boost" in the title ( Moderators, Help !! ) ...although apparently there is not much of a difference considering the feelings this idea generates !!!!

HAHAHAHA bust sounds perfecttt!  
Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 5):

I am assuming this is a joke?     

Jokes apart, its crap coming from the highest order. Two airplanes are not permitted on the same runway for landing/takeoff at any time.
I'll take this with a pinch of salt.



Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlinemainMAN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 2115 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16545 times:

I'm still going with my double deck runway system, whereby landings arrive on the top deck, departures from the lower.......and reaching the required speed to lift off just as they appear in the open air  

User currently offlineb2319 From China, joined Jan 2013, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16282 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
This extension would allow aircraft to land and take off at the same time increasing the passenger capacity from 70 million to 140 million.

I've only had the 'pleasure' of using LHR three times in the last 5 years, & I do admit that last time, though, Terminal 5 was a big improvement over the likes of Terminal 2, with its claustriphobia and garish neon lighting.

However, does extending the runway automatically double the airport's capacity, which is inferred in what I quote? Isn't there a time where the infrastructure e.g. terminal capacity starts to creak?

I sympathise with others' views on UK politicians, past, present and future, and their inability to make sensible decisions on behalf of the UK. One of the reasons why I left the country, though don't want to take the thread off-topic.....   

Regards

B-2319


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16122 times:

The worlds busiest airport uses something like this configuration, IIRC - Oshkosh during EAA Airventure.

User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1761 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16078 times:

Not such a strange idea, I learned to fly that way. Nothing like dozens of 21/22 year old future Navy pilots with inflated egos trying to land and takeoff on the same runway with T-34's. With modern aircraft and real pilots landing and taking off on thee same runway has to be a lot safer.

User currently offlinesandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15862 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9):
This could be the least controversial proposal for solving Heathrow's runway capacity problem

I actually think there is some Merit in this idea. Depending on how you define 'runway' then you could run the same piece of tarmac as two seperate runways. Go-arounds would require a defined departure to avoid Airprox.

Quoting TC957 (Reply 1):
And the runways would be doubled in length how exactly ?
Quoting TC957 (Reply 1):
Nah, it's alright, Slough is a craphole anyway....  

Depending on how much civil engineering you want to do (bridging M25 and claiming land from the Wraysbury reservoir) it would be possible to extend the runways west and effectively double the length.

Quoting CARST (Reply 16):
On another thread a year or more ago I proposed the options above.

this is an interesting proposal and is similar to the Polderbaan at AMS. I can see this working although longer taxi times might not be popular.

Although there would be little displacement of existing property (mostly low-grade industrial) the new runways would eat into a lot of parkland / green land and the NIMBYs will never allow that!

Sandyb123



Member of the mile high club
User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15751 times:

Quoting b2319 (Reply 20):
I've only had the 'pleasure' of using LHR three times in the last 5 years, & I do admit that last time, though, Terminal 5 was a big improvement over the likes of Terminal 2, with its claustriphobia and garish neon lighting.
Quoting b2319 (Reply 20):
I sympathise with others' views on UK politicians, past, present and future, and their inability to make sensible decisions on behalf of the UK. One of the reasons why I left the country, though don't want to take the thread off-topic.....

The recently built Terminal 5 was voted one of the worlds' best not so long ago.

Heathrow is the worlds' busiest 'international' airport and a very big majority of its users now rate it as an excellent airport.

Terminal 2 has been razed and the new Terminal 2 will be on a par with Terminal 5.

Terminal 1 will be closed by the end of 2014. It is expected to be demolished shortly thereafter to make way for the second phase of Terminal 2.

A new baggage system connecting to Terminal 5 (for British Airways connections) to Terminal 3 is currently under construction. In addition to the baggage system, the baggage claim hall is also set to undergo changes with dedicated A380 belts and an improved design and layout.

During the very successful London Olympics some 240,000 people passed daily through the airport without a hitch.

So, all in all one can hardly accuse the UK of standing still on LHR.

[Edited 2013-03-12 09:48:07]

25 Post contains images Gonzalo : SCL and LHR are totally different animals, but if experience with smaller airports is permitted, I will say you have a very good point. A few years b
26 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Both reservoirs would be completely removed in such a situation. They are contained within elevated banks, not sunk into the ground. Dan
27 hivue : Sounds a lot like RVSM for take offs. Why not?
28 alfa164 : "end-to-end is what he is proposing; would it not be better (and there should be enough room) to stagger them slightly - say 150-200 feet. That would
29 KL911 : Why does London need those extra runways? I don't mean the airport but the city. * A lot of traffic via LHR is connecting, and can be moved to other a
30 Post contains images b2319 : Maybe. Behind ICN, SIN and HKG would be my guess. You are free to provide a link/source. I agree it has improved from 2007 to 2012. From memory, T2 d
31 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Demand from the London and South East area will have exceeded runway capacity within a decade. Now is already too late to be planning extra runways,
32 1400mph : Oh of course ! Very gracious ! No and no. I am just pointing out that it is not a bad airport that deserves sarcasm like..."I have not had the 'pleas
33 waly777 : Having read through the entire link and seen a pictographic representation, this seems to be the most logical and possibly cost effective solution to
34 Post contains images 666wizard : NIMBY's ?? What NIMBY's ?? Gonzalo you do know of course however for others NIMBY is "Not In My Back Yard!" A very UK problem, unfortunately. 666wizar
35 Max Q : Couldn't get the link to work..
36 trex8 : I wish, there are enough of those around ORD also!
37 exFWAOONW : But hardly unique.
38 Dufo : These lengthened runways don't seem like a bad idea. With proper separation safety shouldn't be an issue any more than in already existing parallel op
39 sankaps : Option 3, but with the extensions offset by about 100-150 feet from the current runways, seems like could work quite well!
40 bendewire : I somehow think a lot of people involved with Heathrow are missing a very important point, Heathrow origanlly had 4 Runways (8 directions) and British
41 FlyingCello : This idea has some merit...you would use the new runways for southerly departures, and northerly arrivals. The only problem is that this may well put
42 Post contains images PlymSpotter : That's not an option, you would have to knock down the whole of Heathrow and hundreds of large buildings for miles around. Dan
43 VS11 : I also think the idea is doable, especially for smaller aircraft that require less runway. Not sure what the percentage of A320/B737 type of aircraft
44 bendewire : Gonzalo, the Examples shown especially option 1 is somewhat incorrect, the runway would run almost parralell to the M4 so Southall would not be affec
45 Post contains images Gonzalo : Sorry, I was just putting the graphics in the article since some fellow members had problems with the FT link. If there is some mistake, I couldn't s
46 Post contains images cornutt : If they make that runway much longer, they can just taxi to Birmingham.
47 peterinlisbon : Maybe they could create two new parallel runways, and extend them a little bit westwards by putting a short stretch of the M25 in a tunnel, and leave
48 bendewire : No need to apologise, as I can see this was the work of other people, who, are not familiar with Heathrow's History. The extra runway story has been
49 cornutt : ATL has exactly such a setup... A/C landing on 8L or 26R can use taxiway V to go around the approach end of 8R, and not have to wait.
50 macsog6 : I once did a simoutanious landing at Oshkosh for the Airshow and shook for two days afterwards. One aircraft landed on the numbers, slammed on the bra
51 blueflyer : That would be much more expensive, however. The plan in the OP involves extending existing runways at both ends each. In essence, half (or a bit less
52 Post contains links and images CCA : The more I look at it the better an idea I think it is. Clearly new rules would have to be made and it would generate several new threats to be mitiga
53 Post contains images b2319 : You're entitled to your opinion mate. I'm entitled to use sarcasm, I think. Also, I would consider this as sarcasm myself. Retaliation often covers a
54 sankaps : True, but still a heck of a lot cheaper (and likely more useful with much higher ROI) than building a new airport on the Thames estuary!
55 peterinlisbon : I think the point is that the runway extension plan actually means creating an airport with 4 separate runways by cutting the current runways in two a
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...
BA 777s Ex-LGW: Different IFE To Ex-LHR? posted Fri Mar 26 2004 11:33:24 by GBOAC
British Airways Concorde To Depart LHR On 26/7/00 posted Wed Jul 26 2000 11:16:37 by Airline2000
Ex-Airplane Mechanic Attempts To Smuggle 7 A300's posted Mon Mar 11 2013 12:02:11 by ks5114
Vueling To Start LHR-PMI posted Fri Nov 23 2012 10:31:12 by santos
B6 Pilot Osbon To Be Freed From Jail posted Fri Nov 9 2012 10:39:16 by AirframeAS
EU Proposal To Revolutionize European Aviation! posted Sun Sep 23 2012 23:59:32 by ju068
AA's STL Pilot Base To Officially Close posted Thu Sep 13 2012 10:54:00 by Atrude777
VS To Launch LHR To EDI & ABZ posted Wed Sep 12 2012 03:13:40 by euflyer
BA To Increase LHR-DUB To 8 X Daily posted Thu Aug 16 2012 08:19:20 by GSTBA
UA To Cut Domestic Capacity posted Fri Mar 30 2012 07:16:28 by enilria