Dual Use Runway?
Discussion
I've been reading some of the stuff about the possible expansion of Heathrow.
The option to build anew runway to the north-west of the airport is pretty straightforward but how would the other option work?
I can't figure out how they would be able to use the same runway for take-off and landing simultaneously. Does anywhere else currently do this?
The option to build anew runway to the north-west of the airport is pretty straightforward but how would the other option work?
I can't figure out how they would be able to use the same runway for take-off and landing simultaneously. Does anywhere else currently do this?
I've been trying to figure this one out since I heard it this morning. I can see how it would work normally, i.e. a long strip with planes landing on the first bit and taking off on the second, but I can't figure out how a go-around would be handled without colliding (or coming close to colliding) with the departing aircraft. Just having the go-around turn as quickly as possible doesn't seem too reliable.
Surely you have them landing at the start, planes join at the middle and take for from there?
That way planes can land and take off continuously without waiting for one to land between the next taking off.
It's all arbitrary anyway, Gatwick will get it if they've got any sense.
Gatwick now and Birmingham in a few more years. These 2 take the short hauls and Heathrow becomes more of a hub.
When you look at the plans for Gatwick and Heathrow the disruption to the M25 and surrounding areas compared to Gatwick make it the cheaper and more logical choose. This is why Gatwick has been upgrading so much recently? IMHO
That way planes can land and take off continuously without waiting for one to land between the next taking off.
It's all arbitrary anyway, Gatwick will get it if they've got any sense.
Gatwick now and Birmingham in a few more years. These 2 take the short hauls and Heathrow becomes more of a hub.
When you look at the plans for Gatwick and Heathrow the disruption to the M25 and surrounding areas compared to Gatwick make it the cheaper and more logical choose. This is why Gatwick has been upgrading so much recently? IMHO
3rd runway at Heathrow (not this silly extended mixed use idea) plus an extra runway at Stanstead with Crossrail extended into Lindon-Stanstead line to allow Heathrow Connect rail service run from Heathrow-Central London-Stanstead to allow full high speed connections between all 3. By far the most sensible and practical option.
Which is why it won't happen, as the UK doesn't do sensible and practical joined up thinking, just fudged political clusterf
ks are the norm here.
Which is why it won't happen, as the UK doesn't do sensible and practical joined up thinking, just fudged political clusterf
ks are the norm here.ridds said:
Still doesn't explain how the long runway at Heathrow will work. 
There is talk in the Gatwick plans of the 2 runways running in parallel. All depends on how far apart they get built but they have 3 distance options on the table.
The radio report I heard seemed to suggest that two planes could take off simultaneously from the middle. I can't see that you could ever have two planes landing together though. For take-off at least it's the most efficient use of space as far as I can see. I don't think you'd want two planes landing head-on even if they were 2 runway lengths apart!There is talk in the Gatwick plans of the 2 runways running in parallel. All depends on how far apart they get built but they have 3 distance options on the table.
The way the dual use runway was explained this morning on Radio 4 was having an extra long runway with aircraft using one half for takeoffs AT THE SAME TIME as the other half is used for landings.
Not terribly safe in my view and I can't think of any other airport where this is used.
It's not a completely new concept. In the 1920s, some early aircraft carriers conducted takeoffs from the forward end of the deck as aircraft landed on at the rear.
Not terribly safe in my view and I can't think of any other airport where this is used.
It's not a completely new concept. In the 1920s, some early aircraft carriers conducted takeoffs from the forward end of the deck as aircraft landed on at the rear.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Never underestimate the human ability for stupidity (even amongst professionals).
What happens if a landing aircraft has some kind of technical problem that means it doesnt slow down in time before entering the 'take off' section. Or a landing pilot mistakenly enters the take off zone, or if a plane needs to go-around etc etc.
If implemented, the 'sterile' area between the landing and take off area would need to be so fecking huge it would become quickly impractical. Theres literally litte/no point to it as far as I can see.
As I understand it the additional runway length would be to the west of the current airfield perimeter, so no real conflict. Go rounds would need thinking about but I don't think the idea should be rejected out of hand.What happens if a landing aircraft has some kind of technical problem that means it doesnt slow down in time before entering the 'take off' section. Or a landing pilot mistakenly enters the take off zone, or if a plane needs to go-around etc etc.
If implemented, the 'sterile' area between the landing and take off area would need to be so fecking huge it would become quickly impractical. Theres literally litte/no point to it as far as I can see.
After all an aircraft can have a technical problem and go off the end of the runway now, or land on the wrong runway or even airport come to that.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff