Heathrow 3rd runway

[Joseph_Pestell]

As mentioned above, Heathrow was never the right place to build London's main airport. Back in the 1960s, when Govt realised the mistake, they looked for an entirely new site. I can still remember all the protests about Wing/Cublington.

 

Of course, when that did not happen, further investment was made in Heathrow (Terminals 4 & 5) which make it very difficult to justify financially abandoning Heathrow. It's a typical fudged mess. No UK Govt has dealt with this properly.

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

For those who would like a very brief overview of how planes currently arrive at Heathrow, the video on this site gives a good outline. Much clearer that those 'helpful' diagrams on the BBC site!

 

Brian

 

http://www.heathrow.com/noise/heathrow-operations/arrival-flight-paths

[Ron Ron Ron]

No new terminal?

 

 

Yes, there will be a huge new terminal.

Read post 15 above.

 

Ron

 

 

.

[edcayton]

I don't see why people are rubbishing the idea of a ski-jump. It was OK for years on aircraft carriers.

 

Ed

[Joseph_Pestell]

I don't see why people are rubbishing the idea of a ski-jump. It was OK for years on aircraft carriers.

 

Ed

And still is. That Russian carrier in the Channel last week had a particularly steep example.

 

Great for take-off but the landing method on a carrier might not suit civilian passengers too well. And failure rate is quite high.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Back in the Wing/Cublington era, there were still large brickworks  in the flat lands SW of Bedford and E of Milton Keynes. But those have long gone and that gives a fairly bleak but flat landscape ideal for building an airport. Connectivity both to London and the rest of the country would be good with HS2 freeing up space on the WCML. Two runways here would cost less than one at Heathrow, a great deal less.

 

I do get the "hub" concept that Heathrow is aiming at. But that could be more cheaply, and more acceptably, achieved by a branch off HS2.

 

Failing that, why not shift all the domestic flights to helicopters/VSTOL aircraft. Expensive to run but much cheaper to build a heliport than a runway.

[Bernard Lamb]

I don't see why people are rubbishing the idea of a ski-jump. It was OK for years on aircraft carriers.

 

Ed

If you have ever been to Lukla you will find that it works rather well.

Bernard

[PMP]

That's the one I was referring to, thanks.  There are in fact quite considerable variations off those tracks for inbound flights due to the need to achieve the correct separations between successive aircraft thus we will frequently see smaller aircraft turning inside while some of the larger types turn roughly on the track while others turn outside - all depending on traffic density.  And of course in addition at the busiest times the turning points move further out - thus for example the southern east-west approach which turns onto a landing heading over Reading can move 10 miles or more (at ground level) depending on traffic density.

 

Quite honestly I can't see the addition of a third runway changing those approach tracks because although the 'proposed' shows them turning in much earlier even if aircraft are landing in two parallel streams they will still need to be put into those streams at a suitable distance from the runway threshold (or maybe their angles of descent are going to be changed as well?).  We get them over us when 09L is used for landings so even if 09centre and 09L are used in future the two streams will have to form in a roughly similar place to get the correct separations (or am I missing something?) however if the 'new' 09L and 09R are used for landings while the centre runway is used for takeoffs that would definitely reduce the number of incoming aircraft passing over us as the incoming streams could be divided and approach the turning point completely separately.

 

The diagram shown by the BBC has no context, however, the schematic is for is for departures, no arrival routes as far as I can see are shown, on either 'current' or 'forecast' routes.

 

As far as positioning for final approaches go you can assume that an aircraft will be aligned with the runway by 7 nautical miles of a standard glideslope of 3 degrees. Ideally alignment should be earlier in the approach to assist with the most effective noise reduction Continuous Descent Approaches. The place an aircraft joins that approach is subject to a significant number of variables, but one that can't be broken is the wake vortex separation, which is spacing to avoid turbulence from the preceding aircraft.

 

This para explains it very well.

Once aircraft reach the final approach they cannot lose too much altitude as they need to be at a certain height when they join the final approach into Heathrow. The angle of landing for the final approach is set at 3° and as a result aircraft will be at a set height for distance from the runway.

There are rules laid down in the Airport’s AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication) which states that the minimum height at which aircraft can join the ILS during the day (between 6am and 11pm) is 2,500ft which approximately 7.5 nautical miles from Heathrow. At night (11pm to 6am) they must be no lower than 3,000ft at 10 nautical miles from Heathrow. As the ILS beam extends about 29 miles out, aircraft can join the final approach at any point after the distances mentioned above. However, this will vary depending on how aircraft are sequenced each day by the controllers.

 

Whilst this covers altitude, the track the aircraft flies is an integral part of the above procedure, different weather, direction, cruise altitude, and aircraft performance will give different tracks and significant variations in the swathes of the approach tracks. Controllers take this into account with their radar vectoring to get the aircraft at the right 'place' in the sky. At 10 miles they will show a distinct funnel shape as they make final adjustments down to about 7 miles where you will see a clearly defined limited variation in both track and altitude to touchdown.

 

From my work on the RUCATSE report this configuration at Heathrow will likely involve a shorter runway (the new No3) to the north. This will take short haul traffic that doesn't need the longer current runways and will operate both arrivals and departures simultaneously, as opposed to the current operations which tend to have an arrival or departure bias per runway. So its likely to be an almost independent airport to the north, but fully operationally co-ordinated with its southern twin. This configuration allows the integration of the new runway traffic into the current airways structure easier and also for the future airways development.

 

http://heathrowflightpaths.co.uk/images/current.jpg This map shows both arrivals and departures for current operations.

 

 

Departures show greater variation in track and altitude along the routes. Standard Instrument Departure design has to cover the variation between the biggest aircraft to use it and the smallest, and be able to be flown consistently and accurately within Pans Ops criteria by them. At 3,000 feet above aerodrome level aircraft can be vectored away from those routes for more efficient use of the airspace. Precision-Area Navigation P-RNAV, is becoming used on some departure routes, but the trials I was involved gave exactly what we thought would happen, a concentration of aircraft along the linear departure route. This is a difficult choice for airports and communities, concentrate it in specific areas, or work with the spread existing routes have, whilst is has performance benefits, it can have environmental disbenefits.

 

The Gatwick option isn't a realistic one. Simply put the airport is in the wrong place for UK PLc being south of London, with the ground access issues, and the integration of the traffic into the southern UK's airspace, as Heathrow won't decrease, the Gatwick option isn't a less Heathrow case, at best its a lesser growth at Heathrow scenario. Heathrow isn't ideal geographically of course. The 1971 decision to abandon the proposal at Wing/Cublington was flawed, that would have put a new (Heathrow closed), airport in effect at Milton Keynes. A far better prospect for UK PLc.

[jetmorgan]

As as been mentioned already Heathrow is not really in the best of places...even in it's early days. Apart from old railways and old aircraft...and most things that are old are my main interests I also like the Ordnance Survey maps and I've scanned a small section of sheet 170 of the One Inch series for London S.W. 1948 showing that even then Heathrow was already well hemmed in by housing, industry and roads. In case you are lost the obvious missing features are the M25 and the M4...a time when car driving could actually be a plesant experience!!!

[EddieB]

You forget Southend London airport!

[Joseph_Pestell]

Short overview:

 

London:

5 airports, 6 runways (City (1), Gatwick (1), Heathrow (2), Luton (1) Stansted (1))

 

Paris;

2 airports, 7 runways (de Gaulle (4), Orly (3))

 

Brussels:

1 airport, 3 runways (Zaventem)

 

Frankfurt:

1 airport, 4 runways

(but when the same area as London is used, one could argue including Cologne, which has 2 runways)

 

Amsterdam:

1 airport, 6 runways (Schiphol)

(however, if I apply the same generous area as London, it's 3 airports with 8 runways (Schiphol 6, Rotterdam 1 and Lelystad 1))

 

It needs to be said that not all runways are of equal length and quite a few mentioned are not capable of handling larger jets, thus eliminating a considerable number of the smaller airports for the transcontinental flights.

 

FYI, HTH!

Arguably you could add Southend to that list. Biggin Hill could be added as well.

 

Edit: Eddie beat me to it.

[jjb1970]

With airports small is best IMO. All the big airports are the same, awful ground handling experiences, endless walking, a set up designed to try and get you to buy over priced tat you'd never ever consider buying outside of an airport (or outside of Dubai) and an experience that makes me avoid flying. Smaller airports where the walk from a drop off point to the gate is short, procedures are quick and where it is actually an airport and not an over priced mall taking advantage of a captive audience are far superior. For example I much prefer Rotterdam to Schipol, Antwerp airport is excellent and of the London airports I'd rate City as the best.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I never claimed to be comprehensive, let alone complete

 

But if you add those to the list, so should Antwerp (B), Liege (B), Maastricht (NL) and Twente (NL, near Enschede on the German border) as well as putting in arguments for Duisburg, Dortmund and Stuttgart (all D) to be included as well. It seems the French don't have smaller regional airfields anywhere near Paris (or I've overlooked them!)

 

Of the list, it's Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam that are the main competitors to LHR with the latter 2 in particular to gain most traffic from the London area in years to come. Yes, that 3rd runway was announced yesterday, but it'll be quite a while before it's there to be used. If ever

 

Ryanair use Beauvais as their main Paris airport, as Dan-Air used to many years ago. About an hour into Paris by coach from there.

 

I think that there is another one to the SW of Paris which has a few scheduled flights but mainly business/government private use.

[brianusa]

Heathrow is a victim of its success.  In the wrong place or not, it was the most viable airport in Europe at the time especially fuel hopping over the Atlantic from the US, Gander, Iceland, Shannon, etc.  Small it may be now but it was adequate for the aircraft and business of the time.  Flying was out of the question for the average person and the planes didn't carry many passengers to cause chaos.  But it was close in and the very fact that government allowed it to be surrounded by development ensured it being kept small and prevented expansion when necessary.  Many improvements have been squeezed into this confined space and now the third runway will encounter opposition from the usual sources which will guarantee a long drawn out building period.  This hopefully will be adequate until its finished when more expansion will be needed if the industry carries on at its current pace.

 

Brian.

[Oakydoke]

From my work on the RUCATSE report this configuration at Heathrow will likely involve a shorter runway (the new No3) to the north. This will take short haul traffic that doesn't need the longer current runways and will operate both arrivals and departures simultaneously, as opposed to the current operations which tend to have an arrival or departure bias per runway. So its likely to be an almost independent airport to the north, but fully operationally co-ordinated with its southern twin. This configuration allows the integration of the new runway traffic into the current airways structure easier and also for the future airways development.

 

Paul, the shorter runway proposal was the previous plan, ten years ago.

The plan that has been proposed and accepted this time round is for a full length 3500 metre runway.

It will be used by all aircraft sizes that are expected to be using the airport, including the largest.

 

The exact pattern of operation is yet to be worked out and decided upon, but there will be more runway alternation than occurs with the current 2 runway operation, to provide some respite during the day for the people most affected by aircraft noise.

 

It's expected there will be a mixture of single mode (landing only, or departure only) and mixed mode (both landing and departures) in different permutations, in use at the same time.

The operational configuration will have to vary across all three runways throughout the day, to satisfy the requirement for runway alternation (i.e. respite from noise).

 

 

Departures show greater variation in track and altitude along the routes. Standard Instrument Departure design has to cover the variation between the biggest aircraft to use it and the smallest, and be able to be flown consistently and accurately within Pans Ops criteria by them. At 3,000 feet above aerodrome level aircraft can be vectored away from those routes for more efficient use of the airspace....

At Heathrow, departing aircraft cannot be cleared or vectored off the Noise Preferential Routes (the first part of the departure SID's), until they are above 4000ft (London QNH not the aerodrome QFE) except in an emergency situation or in the event of avoiding action being required.

[Legend]

Expansion makes sense to me as some one in Glasgow that connects to flights to Europe, mainly, but also Asia and US occasionally, the latter mainly on holiday.. To me going through Terminal 5 is the preferred route . Particularly outward bound it's very well organised. Coming back you have to go through customs which slows it down a bit, but again it's pretty efficient and well organised. To get to Sweden last year I had to transit Schipol which admittedly was partly getting rebuilt , but it wasn't nearly as seem less as I expected with long queues through security again .

 

So all for Heathrow expansion. It's 30 years too late and I don't like the fact it's going to take 8-10 years to build it. Doesn't show the country as it's best . And all these people complaining about carbon emissions, I bet it doesn't stop them getting on a plane to head off on their holidays, possibly two or three times a year. Aviation and travel is increasing. I think that's a good thing as we experience each other's cultures and countries. We need a runway somewhere. The reality is Heathrow has the most connections and is the worlds choice. Gatwick a poor second, outside the UK I bet few have heard of it , let alone make a connection through it.

[Dunsignalling]

Expansion makes sense to me as some one in Glasgow that connects to flights to Europe, mainly, but also Asia and US occasionally, the latter mainly on holiday.. To me going through Terminal 5 is the preferred route . Particularly outward bound it's very well organised. Coming back you have to go through customs which slows it down a bit, but again it's pretty efficient and well organised. To get to Sweden last year I had to transit Schipol which admittedly was partly getting rebuilt , but it wasn't nearly as seem less as I expected with long queues through security again .

 

So all for Heathrow expansion. It's 30 years too late and I don't like the fact it's going to take 8-10 years to build it. Doesn't show the country as it's best . And all these people complaining about carbon emissions, I bet it doesn't stop them getting on a plane to head off on their holidays, possibly two or three times a year. Aviation and travel is increasing. I think that's a good thing as we experience each other's cultures and countries. We need a runway somewhere. The reality is Heathrow has the most connections and is the worlds choice. Gatwick a poor second

Wouldn't it be better for all concerned if you could fly direct to these destinations from Glasgow?

[caradoc]

As as been mentioned already Heathrow is not really in the best of places...even in it's early days. Apart from old railways and old aircraft...and most things that are old are my main interests I also like the Ordnance Survey maps and I've scanned a small section of sheet 170 of the One Inch series for London S.W. 1948 showing that even then Heathrow was already well hemmed in by housing, industry and roads. In case you are lost the obvious missing features are the M25 and the M4...a time when car driving could actually be a plesant experience!!!

 

Thanks for posting jetmorgan. What that map also shows is how close Heathrow is to the railway through Feltham, and consequently how absurd is was that there was no rail connection to the Airport until the Underground was extended in the 70s; Even then it was tube-size trains stopping at every station, until Heathrow Express was built. Given that a major objection to expanding Heathrow seems to be the pollution caused, not by planes but by additional road traffic, an essential part of the plan must be greatly improved rail connections.This should be from both the GW and the LSW main lines.

[Edwin_m]

Surely all this talk of runways needs to consider the number that can be used simultaneously, not the total number? 

 

As seen in #35, Heathrow used to have runways at three different angles, being roughly NW-SE and NE-SW as well as the E-W pair that exist today.  Some of these are still visible on aerial mapping but encroached on by other facilities so no longer useable as runways.  Presumably someone has decided that all aircraft can use the E-W pair within permissible cross-wind limits in all wind conditions that might credibly happen at Heathrow. 

 

A quick look at Schipol (Bing maps only, more detail no doubt available elsewhere) shows three parallel runways roughly N-S with others in different orientations and not parallel.  Madrid has a pair of runways N-S and two more NW-SE.  I imagine simultaneous use of non-parallel runways at the same airport isn't possible, so the runway capacity of the airport is actually the number of parallel runways that are useable in the worst credible wind conditions. 

[Dunsignalling]

I was told last night that Heathrow had SIX runways when it first opened but most have been built over by handling facilities.

[Legend]

Wouldn't it be better for all concerned if you could fly direct to these destinations from Glasgow?

But really unlikely. How many people do you think need to travel Glasgow - Stockholm regularly? Apart from holiday flights Glasgow supports regular services to London , Amsterdam and Dubai, but that's mainly because of their connectional abilities. Obviously heathrow a catchment area is much larger and can sustain point to point flights

[jetmorgan]

Thanks for posting jetmorgan. What that map also shows is how close Heathrow is to the railway through Feltham, and consequently how absurd is was that there was no rail connection to the Airport until the Underground was extended in the 70s; Even then it was tube-size trains stopping at every station, until Heathrow Express was built. Given that a major objection to expanding Heathrow seems to be the pollution caused, not by planes but by additional road traffic, an essential part of the plan must be greatly improved rail connections.This should be from both the GW and the LSW main lines.

I completely agree with you caradoc. I've found it most bizarre that Heathrow...Britains major airport...didn't get a rail connection until the underground arrived. So you had to travel into London to travel back out again. Then Heathrow express arrived in the late 1990's and you still have to go into central London and do battle with the underground with your luggage. When I travel to see a friend in Bristol I never go into London...it's Edenbridge to Redhill to Reading then Reading to Bristol and the same on the way back. The only connection there was to the railway were dedicated airport bus connections from stations like Woking. It wonder if it's still possible to connect up with the SR lines at Staines so a service could have been run from Paddington to Waterloo, make use of the old Eurostar terminal and give such access that travellers don't have to go into central London to come back out again.

[Legend]

I was told last night that Heathrow had SIX runways when it first opened but most have been built over by handling facilities.

It was built in the traditional Star of David pattern of runways so that planes could take off regardless of wind direction. You used to see the same in bomber bases in East Anglia to allow bombers to take off into the wind. And actually of you are flying and a clear day it's fun spotting these old WW2 airfields because of their triangular pattern. As time went on and modern aviation developed they didn't use most of these runways and concentrated on and expanded the two main ones now. If you look at an overhead photo of Heathrow it is still just possible to make out the triangular pattern, although terminals and stands are now built over most of these runways.

[chris p bacon]

Back in the Wing/Cublington era, there were still large brickworks  in the flat lands SW of Bedford and E of Milton Keynes. But those have long gone and that gives a fairly bleak but flat landscape ideal for building an airport. Connectivity both to London and the rest of the country would be good with HS2 freeing up space on the WCML. Two runways here would cost less than one at Heathrow, a great deal less.

After the brickworks the landscape is anything but flat now, there are endless hills of landfill between MK and Bedford with pipework capturing the methane for power generation. The land itself is very unstable.

I remember one of the proposals in the 70's for another runway was Thurleigh in North Bedfordshire an ex RAF and USAAF airbase.

[hayfield]

Having been under the landing route for a small light aircraft airport, aircraft noise from these small aircraft was most annoying so I personally would hate to be on the flight path of the big ones. Having said this the airport was there first like Heathrow so I for one would not even have looked to buy a property in that area.

 

I guess the new runway is a bit different as the area to be developed is adjoining the airport rather than under the flight path and I would assume the existing flight paths will remain much the same except where very close to the airport

 

As for building the airport elsewhere is a bit of a non starter as both the carriers and passengers don't want to go there. Stanstead for example is at 60% capacity and lets face it what is stopping Gatwick building a second runway ? In fact it has one as we landed on it many years ago as the main runway was closed being repaired. I guess its not up to the standard require for constant use, but its there already and could I guess be easily rebuilt to the required strength 

 

Travelling through France on the TGV's shows how far we are behind in our infrastructure, we need better railway links as well as better road links, sometimes some folk have to be relocated for the greater good of the rest. I am certain this is little comfort to those affected though