Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Heathrow Runway Debate, A New Web Site Launched.  
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3276 posts, RR: 2
Posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 10996 times:

In the UK the Heathrow runway debate continues with a full page ad in The Sunday Times newspaper.

http://www.heathrowhub.com/

Web site is quite polished.Not sure whos money is behind this?


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVasu From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 3921 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10904 times:

Some interesting reading there - thanks!

User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1286 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10843 times:

Is this certifiable? Go arounds would be a major issue.


You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineLN-KGL From Norway, joined Sep 1999, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10778 times:

I think the concept to create four runways out of the two today, and keep them within the M25 boundry is fantastic. Heathrow will be reduced to an airport only for shot haul traffic with four maximum 2,000 metre long runways. The risk arriving aircraft bumping in to aircraft lined up for take off is only moderate, but it is there. There is also a risk for an aircraft with problem and need to go around may end up riding on the back of a departing aircraft. From a safety point of view this proposal could be catastrophic (I would certainly not fly to such an airport) and taking money I wonder how much income will come from no more intercontinental traffic and therefore alomst no transfer.

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10688 times:

Quoting A346Dude (Reply 2):

Is this certifiable? Go arounds would be a major issue.

I have my doubts. But, they have an experienced airport director on their board, who I expect would bring insight to this. Until I see a report by a 'red-brick' consultancy I'm going to treat this with a lot of skepticism.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10594 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A346Dude (Reply 2):
Go arounds would be a major issue.

I really don't see how this is very different to a busy single-runway airport like LGW. Planes are often cleared to land at LGW when on very short final with a departing plane just airborne. Departing aircraft in the proposed configuration would be much further away from the landing plane. Any plane needing to go around would simply need to turn away from the centre-line.

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 3):

I think the concept to create four runways out of the two today, and keep them within the M25 boundry is fantastic. Heathrow will be reduced to an airport only for shot haul traffic with four maximum 2,000 metre long runways.

No, they're clearly talking about diverting or bridging over the M25. From one of their diagrams, I estimate the runway length to be at least 6,100m, with the M25 diverted 2km to the west.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2649 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10454 times:

Interesting proposal. Not sure why it would not work, but would require new procedures I'm sure. Would make sense to make one of the runways longer allowing a longer runway for landing and departure for each directional flow. The runways don't have to have the same end point in the middle.
How much length does this proposal allow for each "set" of inline runways?


User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 812 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10437 times:

I wonder what the residents of Windsor will think of the idea as departures would be that much lower over them

User currently offlineabrown532 From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Feb 2008, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10293 times:

I've always cited this as the most plausible method for increasing LHR's capacity. They government would be stupid not to get this under way within a year.

User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1399 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10287 times:

I don't see how this doubles the runway capacity, as I have always understood that the runways at LHR are too close together to allow independent operation. My rather unscientific guess is that it will increase runway capacity by about 50% (at most). In my view any approval in increase in runway capacity at LHR should also be required to include a buffer contingency (spare, unallocated capacity) so that some slack is available to recover when there are problems (unlike the current situation).

The expanded footprint also appears to not include the "Heathrow Hub" rail etc. interchange that they propose.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlineaffirmative From France, joined Jul 2009, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10242 times:

There are already airports with immediate turn on G/A.. Usually at 4-500ft or so, given that a G/A generally happens early in or before the touch down phase you will quite easily be at 4-500ft before the end of the runway and are quite safe to turn away from the centerline. Operation wise I think it's about the same as staggered runways where you dont have enough distance for simultaneous ops (don't remember the exact distance). And with enough room between the first and second runway theres also an overrun protection. Initially when I saw this concept I was a bit hesitant but looking closer I'm starting to thing its really the best option given the small impact on surrounding areas compared to the other proposals.


I love the smell of Jet-A1 in the morning...
User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10210 times:

Quote from 3/Quiet:

''The extra capacity could reduce noise impacts by, for example, allowing the airport's opening hours to be reduced.''


Surely they mean the opposite !!


User currently offlineevomutant From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 499 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10182 times:

Quoting abrown532 (Reply 8):
I've always cited this as the most plausible method for increasing LHR's capacity. They government would be stupid not to get this under way within a year.

Spoken like someone who has never had to plan road closures and diversions.

What would YOUR idea for handling those 12 lanes (more with sliproads) of the M25, complex junctions and T5 access be with less than a year to plan for it and perform any necessary modifications and upgrades to other parts of the network?

To say nothing of the surveying, design and land acquisition required for the new routing of said motorway.


User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7563 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10086 times:

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 9):
I don't see how this doubles the runway capacity, as I have always understood that the runways at LHR are too close together to allow independent operation.

There are many examples of well documented simultaneous parallel operations at LHR. The most notable of these was on 22 October 2003 in the last week of BA Concorde operations. Concorde G-BOAD operating BA002 (JFK-LHR) made a simultaneous parallel landing with sister ship 'AG returning from its farewell visit to MAN (BA9021C). However the record does show that 'AD touched down seconds before 'AG. The landing time for 'AD was recorded as 16:58 BST and for 'AG as 16:59 BST although touchdowns were only seconds apart.

I have also personally seen a simultaneous parallel departure from both LHR runways.

I have also seen (at LGW) a go-around created by a delay in a departure with the arriving aircraft climbing away above the airborne departing aircraft. Such incidents should create a significantly smaller problem with separate in-line runways as are being proposed here than at busy single-runway airports . With in-line runways a go-around will only be created by a delay in another arriving aircraft clearing the runway. It will be initiated with much greater lateral separation (6,000 m) between the arriving and any departing aircraft than will the case when this happens at a single runway airport like LGW. That greater lateral separation will directly ensure that the vertical separation is significantly greater.


User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1399 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9981 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 13):
There are many examples of well documented simultaneous parallel operations at LHR

I believe, as most notably one sees at SFO with two very close runways, that parallel operations at LHR can take place during daylight hours when visual separation can be maintained but I also believe that the default setting when calculating runway capacity at LHR is to assume instrument conditions apply (not surprising given the weather / winter darkness) and, in that situation, I have always understood that the runways are too close to allow true independent operation (e.g. the arrivals have to be co-ordinated between runways and that to maintain separation the arrivals have to be "staggered" i.e. minimum separation is maintained across the "diagonal" distance between the aircraft).

[Edited 2013-11-10 07:09:17]


Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9951 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 9):
I don't see how this doubles the runway capacity, as I have always understood that the runways at LHR are too close together to allow independent operation.

They're 0.9 miles apart. How far apart do they need to be?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2649 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9842 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 15):
They're 0.9 miles apart. How far apart do they need to be?

FAA says for dual ILS operations 4,300 feet is minimum, can be less if staggered. If LHR currently uses both runways for takeoffs and landings, capacity wouldn't be doubled as I believe you can operate more flights alternating departures and arrivals on two runways than having one dedicated for departures and one for arrival. Of course wake turbulence separation needs to be addresses under all scenarios.

There are airports in the US where arrivals are told to hold short of an intersection on roll out to allow departures on the intersecting runway. This wouldn't be much different, maybe even safer as go arounds would have a prescribed heading to avoid departures. The issue I have is the actual length of the combined runways. If 20,000 feet is available, you could choose the south side to have something like 10,500 and 7,500 with a 2,00 buffer. Ont he other side, you could have the lengths reverses, so you'd have 10,500 available for takeoff from either east or west flow.
would the buffer zone be concrete or would it have crushable concrete {for overruns} and be truly different runways?


User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9824 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 13):
There are many examples of well documented simultaneous parallel operations at LHR.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 15):
They're 0.9 miles apart. How far apart do they need to be?

Have a look here for all the various conditions for totally independent IFR parallel runway operations. LHR does not meet the conditions for fully independent parallel runway operations.

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Parallel_Runway_Operation

That is why the proposal for the UK Airport Commission submitted by LHR Airport itself, presents a different runway lay out to this Heathrow Hub Group.

http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.c...ashx?MediaDetailsID=1613&SizeId=-1


And here is what LHR proposes as short-term solutions using the present runways.

http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.c...ashx?MediaDetailsID=1457&SizeId=-1


User currently offlineSelseyBill From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9543 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 13):
Quoting VV701 (Reply 13):
There are many examples of well documented simultaneous parallel operations at LHR...............I have also seen (at LGW) a go-around created by a delay in a departure with the arriving aircraft climbing away above the airborne departing aircraft. Such incidents should create a significantly smaller problem with separate in-line runways as are being proposed here than at busy single-runway airports . With in-line runways a go-around will only be created by a delay in another arriving aircraft clearing the runway. It will be initiated with much greater lateral separation (6,000 m) between the arriving and any departing aircraft than will the case when this happens at a single runway airport like LGW. That greater lateral separation will directly ensure that the vertical separation is significantly greater.

I don't know about the technicalities and legalities of this sort of proposed air operation @ LHR, but what I do know is that this report is absolutely right to suggest an expanded role for integrated rail operations @ LHR to take over some short-haul sectors like MAN in the short term, and EDI/ GLA/ BRU and CDG in the medium term.

It is absolutely ridiculous that our politicians voted positively for the HS2 High-Speed rail scheme last week, before the 'Davies Commision' reports into the future of air capacities in SE England. The two issues in my mind are inextricably linked.

IMO, the UK does not have the money available to spend on ridiculous schemes like 'Boris Island', when affordable, practical solutions like 'Heathrow Hub' are available.

I believe they are barking up the right tree with this proposal........


User currently offlinehufftheweevil From United States of America, joined Oct 2013, 379 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9381 times:

It is a very interesting idea, however, I don't see it being very plausible from a pilot's point of view. Visualize yourself being on final for any runway at this "new" LHR. Then all of the sudden you see an aircraft take the runway you are about to land on. You know the runway configuration at this airport is unique and there is a runway for departing traffic directly beyond your own runway. But how do you know for sure that this traffic is at the correct position on this super-long runway and not on your half?

I only point this out because of something that has happened here in PHL recently. I'm not sure of the details, but apparently some pilots were raising concern of aircraft using Taxiway Yankee at the end of Runway 27R (see http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1311/00320AD.PDF). They reported that it appeared the aircraft were crossing their runway, even though the taxiway is off the approach end of 9L. So the procedure now is to operate Taxiway Yankee in that area as a runway crossing intersection, with hold-short and read-back requirements. Another option is to taxi all the way down to Zulu, operated as a normal taxiway.

So I guess it really depends on how the two runways are separated. Both the separation distance and how it appears to pilots landing are important factors. I suppose its possible but with some special procedures and rules.



Huff
User currently offlinekevinkevin From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2013, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8671 times:

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 9):
as I have always understood that the runways at LHR are too close together to allow independent operation

They still don't necessarily need to be operated simultaneously. As one aircraft starts rolling, 15/20 seconds later the other plane starts rolling. As one place takes off, one lands. LHR ATC are brilliant at how they operate LHR's capacity ATM and maximize it. They could do the same with the proposed runways.


User currently offlineSelseyBill From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8541 times:

Quoting hufftheweevil (Reply 19):
It is a very interesting idea, however, I don't see it being very plausible from a pilot's point of view.

Don't you think the authors of a major report into the airport operations of one of the busiest airports in the world might have sought a little professional input before publishing ?


User currently offlineLN-KGL From Norway, joined Sep 1999, 1039 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6873 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 5):
No, they're clearly talking about diverting or bridging over the M25. From one of their diagrams, I estimate the runway length to be at least 6,100m, with the M25 diverted 2km to the west.

One of the important illustration doesn't show any bridging or a diverted M25:


Even with a total length of 6,100 m, there has to be a safety zone between the runways 300 m or 600 m, and with the smallest safety zone you end up with two 2,900 m long runways - and that is 1,000 m less than what the northern runway is today. With such a runway length you could kiss goodbye to all even close to MTOW 777s and for the 744 the TOW would max be 315 tonnes to get off the ground for such a short runway.

To have similar runway lengths as today with safety zones you had to end the safety zone of the north west runway around 300 m out in to the Queens Mother Reservoir. Windor Castle will then be 4 km from the western end of the north west runway. I guess the Queen would have hesitated if she had to sign a government paper for approving such a project.


User currently offlinekevinkevin From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2013, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6650 times:

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 9):

LHR, daily, use parallel operations. Most notably morning rush hour. In fact what is proposed, isn't much different to how LHR operate their runways during heavy rush hour. Really it's an expansion and you will see parallel operations as the norm.

27L(a) 27R(a) departing
27L(b) 27R(b) arriving
In the case this is how the runways will be referred as.

As the departing plane on 27L(a) leaves the tarmac, the arriving plane touches down on (b). If the departing plane hasn't left the ground as the arriving plane is at X amount of feet, a go around is performed. An immediate left turn for the arriving plane on the L and vice versa for the R. This isn't an unsafe operation and is very plausible. Altitude and speed restrictions will obviously be altered for arriving and departing aircraft but I think if this gets the go ahead I think it will be successful. Aircraft will have already had their flight plan slot into LHR. 27L/09R aircraft to south stacks for holding and vice versa for 27R/09L. Holding time will be reduced - less fuel used.


User currently offlineSelseyBill From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6619 times:

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 22):
Windor Castle will then be 4 km from the western end of the north west runway. I guess the Queen would have hesitated if she had to sign a government paper for approving such a project.

She's too busy at Buckhouse, Balmoral or Sandringham to notice whats going on at Windsor.

I wouldn't like to be the PPS who drops this report into her 'IN' tray though........


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2649 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6422 times:

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 22):
Even with a total length of 6,100 m, there has to be a safety zone between the runways 300 m or 600 m, and with the smallest safety zone you end up with two 2,900 m long runways - and that is 1,000 m less than what the northern runway is today. With such a runway length you could kiss goodbye to all even close to MTOW 777s and for the 744 the TOW would max be 315 tonnes to get off the ground for such a short runway.

No problem, 2900 meters is 9514 feet average. Looking at the four runways, let's make the Northeast located runway 11,000 feet and the Northwest located runway 8028 feet, plenty for all landing and domestic flight departures. The south runways would be the opposite with the east one being 8028 and west one 11,000.

During east or west flow one long runway would be available for landing and one for takeoff at all times

11,000 ft long enough? Other sea level airports at or under 11,000 ft.: LGW, PDX and EWR, which handles EWR-HKG/BOM/DEL and the longest flight EWR-SIN.

While longer is always better, LAX/SFO/SEA/ATL all get along with approximately 12,000 ft. and ATL is 1026 elevation and has much hotter temperatures than LHR.

The other option would be to allow max heavies to use part of the other runway for the start of their takeoff run. This would have to be coordinated and not ideal.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13152 posts, RR: 100
Reply 26, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5888 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would bet a beer that the runways are moved slightly out of alignment with the current runways. Say 800 ft to each side.


Its a shave LHR hasn't been expanded. I believe the ME3 hubs grew due to the lack of European/Indian hub building (including the implementation of curfews which creates a natural need to wait until the European airports are open in the morning).

30% connecting traffic is pretty much the minimum. If an airport has less than that, then the connections fade away for there are not enough option to make it worthwhile to consider that airport for connecting. But 30% is low. That means O&D to new destinations is not be utilized due to the lack of slots.   (e.g., new cities in the interior of China)

I wish I could be more optimistic on the chance of an expansion at LHR. *any* airside expansion.

But hey, its been since 2009 when LHR was larger than PEK.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1588 posts, RR: 10
Reply 27, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4473 times:

This proposal is in fact as much if not more about the communications rail "Hub" than the twin additional runways part. "The hub" could exist on either of the 2 'one extra runway' proposals that have been forwarded North or South west of the existing runways.(or the other double runway proposal)
Ove Arup put this rail hub proposal together quite a few years ago. It was a fantastic idea then and is still is now.It is IMHO the key. (I am certianly not qualified to say which of the 4 Heathrow proposals is besy any one would work I imagine).
But 'The Hub' is the glue that sticks it all together.
1.You will 'soon' have a 'new' fully electrified great western line to Bristol. And there is a powerful pressure group to extend this electrification to Cardif/Swansea.There is another group pushing to extend it to Exeter. (IE Capitals of Wales and the South West of Great Britain.It just so happens this railway runs next to Heathrow and on to London! It is a no brainer.
2.As they have shown (but ignored by government) if you pay a little extra the HS2 can be run via Heathrow.Thus linking Birmingham/midlands (Another regional capital) to Heathrow.
3.By default, (in time) obviously Leeds/Manchester ('The Y route' for HS2) will als link in thus covering the North East and West 'capitals'.
4. London (and S/E) is a given with Crossrail 'nearly' completed.
5.And they are of course right in stating that Heathrow is on the M25 and near all the arterial motorways to the rest of the country.

So much of this (The Motorways/Crossrail/Tube line/ Great Western train line/And poss HS2) - which could link with HS1_ is already or about to be build. To ignore this truly enormous and 'paid for' comms infrastructure would be utter maddness.


User currently onlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3010 posts, RR: 7
Reply 28, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4333 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kevinkevin (Reply 23):
LHR, daily, use parallel operations. Most notably morning rush hour. In fact what is proposed, isn't much different to how LHR operate their runways during heavy rush hour. Really it's an expansion and you will see parallel operations as the norm.

27L(a) 27R(a) departing
27L(b) 27R(b) arriving
In the case this is how the runways will be referred as.

True both runways are used for a short period each morning however they are NOT parallel landings more rather reduced spacings.


User currently offlinetcxdegsy From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 517 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4223 times:

Forgive me if I've missed something.. but with all those extra flights.. where are the passengers going to go?
There's no way additional terminal capacity that's not already in plan could be created without ridiculously lengthy consultation.

LHR is at capacity, not only for flights, but for passengers.. you can't expand one without the other



next flights: BA1441 0566 0581 1446 EDI-LHR-MXP-LHR-EDI
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 30, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4202 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 22):
One of the important illustration doesn't show any bridging or a diverted M25:

I think you're reading far too much into a schematic that's designed to show the ground transportation links.

Look at this from the site, it clearly shows a significant diversion of the M25 to the west.
New LHR


Quoting tcxdegsy (Reply 29):
There's no way additional terminal capacity that's not already in plan could be created without ridiculously lengthy consultation.

See the above, it clearly shows additional terminal buildings to the west of T5. Every proposal I've seen recently for LHR expansion has show additional terminals.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1621 posts, RR: 6
Reply 31, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 30):
Look at this from the site, it clearly shows a significant diversion of the M25 to the west.

indeed, read the full report and it discusses the costs and impacts of three scenarios on how to deal with the M25:

1) M25 realignment avoiding runway alignment
2) New offline M25 with cut and cover tunnels
3) Cut and cover tunnels on the current M25 alignment

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 22):
Even with a total length of 6,100 m, there has to be a safety zone between the runways 300 m or 600 m, and with the smallest safety zone you end up with two 2,900 m long runways - and that is 1,000 m less than what the northern runway is today. With such a runway length you could kiss goodbye to all even close to MTOW 777s and for the 744 the TOW would max be 315 tonnes to get off the ground for such a short runway.

The proposal does not suggest splitting the runways in the middle, instead having the runway split at 3400m / 2400m or 3,100m / 2700m depending on L or R runway and direction of operations. These include a 600m saftey buffer between each runway set

I'm no expert on take-off distances however wikipedia (sorry!) suggests this is sufficient for a MTOW 777-300ER @ which equires 3,050m to take off, or 3,090m for a 747-400ER or 747-8i

[Edited 2013-11-11 05:54:47]

User currently offlinekevinkevin From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2013, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

If the proposal goes ahead, theoretically, the airport will be under major construction. How will the airport operate on a day to day basis while the runways are being altered. Will runway maintenance be throughout the night?

User currently offlinec172akula From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 1003 posts, RR: 4
Reply 33, posted (10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

Didn't The Economist have a similar proposal to this? Except I think they added 4 runways instead of 2.

User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2961 times:

Quoting kevinkevin (Reply 32):
If the proposal goes ahead, theoretically, the airport will be under major construction. How will the airport operate on a day to day basis while the runways are being altered. Will runway maintenance be throughout the night?

They should be able to manage it, doing as much as they can to prepare before impacting current infrastructure. They do manage to re-lay the entire runway without affecting operations.

I think their biggest problem will be in overcoming the water obstacles - the river they've already had to divert once for T5 and the big reservoir to fill/segment.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 17):
Have a look here for all the various conditions for totally independent IFR parallel runway operations. LHR does not meet the conditions for fully independent parallel runway operations.

If they really wanted to, I think they could spread the runways a bit, even the existing ones. There's quite a bit of space laterally though they may have to relocate a car park.


User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3276 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2815 times:

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter):
though they may have to relocate a car park.

Gone in a heart beat if the money is there.



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2759 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 17):

The idea that Heathrow cannot do simultaneous arrivals with nearly a mile of runway separation is not an operational problem, but a philosophical problem. The limitations put on that airport are rubbish. Same thing with Gatwick. The UK needs to move to allowing for close parallel runways and stop whining about its lack of airport capacity. It's a made up problem with a 15 minute solution. Add close parallels to both airports and be done with it.

[Edited 2013-11-12 12:34:03]

User currently offlineferengi80 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2455 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think this has to be the way forward. Very interested to see that Jock Lowe is on board, if he believes this is the best option, I am not going to argue!


AF1981 LHR-CDG A380-800 10 July 2010 / AF1980 CDG-LHR A380-800 11 July 2010
User currently offlinekevinkevin From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2013, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 36):

Why are parallel landings disallowed at LHR. Are the runaways really that close together or is it more "rules" rather than how close the runways are together. Looking at a map it doesn't seem catastrophically insane to allow parallel landings? What's the actual lateral distance between each plane on parallel approach at LHR and is it really unsafe?


User currently onlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3010 posts, RR: 7
Reply 39, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2148 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kevinkevin (Reply 38):
Why are parallel landings disallowed at LHR. Are the runaways really that close together or is it more "rules" rather than how close the runways are together. Looking at a map it doesn't seem catastrophically insane to allow parallel landings? What's the actual lateral distance between each plane on parallel approach at LHR and is it really unsafe?

The minimum separation for parallel runway simultaneous operations is 2500ft and only two major UK airports have twin runways.

That said there is the additional consideration of wake turbulence and given that almost all traffic landing in the 1 hour dual runway landing frame currently allowed at LHR are Heavies or indeed Supers genuine parallels are avoided.

What does happen is reduced separations (Staggered) approaches on each runway. This also allows for a few departures to be fitted in the sequence.

The airport also as a certified maximum movement limit per hour.

Additionally you have to contend with the risk of ILS and Microwave interference.

For most of the day the airport continues to operate in segregated mode.

[Edited 2013-11-13 15:15:43]

User currently offlineBoysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 16):
Quoting scbriml (Reply 15):
They're 0.9 miles apart. How far apart do they need to be?

FAA says for dual ILS operations 4,300 feet is minimum, can be less if staggered.

A mile is 5,280 feet so 4,300 feet is 0.814 miles, or less than the 0.9 miles at LHR! Personally I do not see the problem if incoming flights are staggered. A plane may land on each runway every 90 seconds but done so that 27L receives a plane, then 27R 45 seconds later, then 27L a further 45 seconds after that!


User currently offlinekevinkevin From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2013, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 39):

Is that 2500ft following distance or side by side?


User currently onlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3010 posts, RR: 7
Reply 42, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2102 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kevinkevin (Reply 41):
Is that 2500ft following distance or side by side?

Centre line to centre line of each runway,

At this distance FAA and CAA allow simultaneous operations however not parallel ops.
They are constrained by risk of ILS/Microwave interference and turbulent wake issues.


User currently offlinekevinkevin From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2013, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

How far apart do the runways need to be for parallel operations?

I just opened up Google earth and measured and center line to center line they're about 4650ft apart / 0.88miles.


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...
Air Canada New Web Site posted Wed Jun 28 2006 19:38:18 by Salomon
Frontier's New Web Site posted Tue May 16 2006 00:46:51 by King
New Web Site Vienna Airport posted Wed Feb 1 2006 19:43:06 by Panamandy
New Web Site For Norwegian posted Wed Feb 4 2004 23:53:43 by Heisan67
Swiss New Web Site posted Sat Mar 23 2002 05:44:48 by MightyFalcon
Midwest Express' New Web Site! posted Tue Oct 10 2000 23:22:09 by Tekelbery
Pan Am's New Web Site! posted Sat May 27 2000 01:57:49 by Boeing 707
New Heathrow Runway Plan posted Fri Jun 7 2013 05:47:44 by AirbusA6
New Air Jamaica Web Site posted Sun Jun 18 2006 05:17:39 by Miafll
New Lufthansa Livery (On STA Travel Web Site) posted Mon Apr 17 2006 22:44:36 by Birdwatching