Dual Use Runway?

[ridds]

Yep BBC report it as 6km long so I'm not as daft as people made me out to be.

• A new runway at Gatwick Airport more than 3,000m in length
• A new 3,500m runway at Heathrow Airport constructed to the north-west of the existing airport
• An extension of Heathrow's existing northern runway to the west to at least 6,000m, enabling it to be used for both take-offs and landings

tbh I think it's a stupid idea. Hang on, can you just move that freshly rebuilt M25 please and those huge reservoirs please....

[ridds]

Pinched from Airport Watch, Tim Leunig scheme. Not the proposed scheme but will be similar (and only runway).

[ridds]

The three options for Gatwick, allowing different levels of arrivals and departures depending on the distance the runways are built apart.

• Space the two runways less than 760m (2,493ft) apart. Use one for arrivals and one for departures. Due to their close proximity to one another, only one runway could be used at a time
• Space the two runways more than 760m apart with arrivals on one and departures on the other in use at the same time
• Space the two runways more than 1,035m (3,395ft) apart so each runway can accommodate both arriving and departing aircraft at the same time

And yes, the Heathrow runway extension is amazing!

[aeropilot]

Aah.......nows it's clear.

Actually it's not a bad idea tbh.

Converts a two runway config into a 4 runway.

[V8LM]

How many times has a landing aeroplane at Heathrow not managed to stop before the end of the runway?

[ridds]

aeropilot said:

Aah.......nows it's clear.

Actually it's not a bad idea tbh.

Converts a two runway config into a 4 runway.

That image is miss-leading as they would only do one runway so you would get 3 total.

It is 3 separate runways just joined with a stretch of tarmac in between.

[V8LM]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Looks better now I have seen those graphics, they actually look to be separate runways.

I work in the business and all I will say on the matter (again) is never underestimate the human potential for laziness and stupidity. I would not be surprised to see a landing aircraft lined up for approach to the take off runway - in fact over an extended time period id be more surprised to see it not happen tbh!

With regards to the quotation - never, obviously.... but it happens every year somewhere around the world - having another active runway at the end obviously adds to the potential fk up.

I was thinking the worst ef-up could be a departing aircraft, used to leaving LHR, enter the runway and turn and line-up in the wrong direction.

[aeropilot]

ridds said:

That image is miss-leading as they would only do one runway so you would get 3 total.

I can't see how it would work by just extending the one....??

Unless they mix use the south runway, alternating landings and TO's...??

[ridds]

aeropilot said:

ridds said:

That image is miss-leading as they would only do one runway so you would get 3 total.

I can't see how it would work by just extending the one....??

Unless they mix use the south runway, alternating landings and TO's...??

I would have thought so yes. Even if not you still slightly increase capacity as the north runways would see a higher throughput.

Do they Mix use currently?

[kowalski655]

Maybe they can use the extra long runway for take off only,and the 2 planes start in the middle and go in opposite directions
Use the short one for landings.
Does seem an odd way of doing it, with a greater risk of a fk up than just having another runway.

Does any other airport in the world do it in the proposed manner?

[paolow]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

This too

It all adds a lot more holes to the Swiss cheese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X713aevxjaU

Rightly or wrongly this scenario leapt into my mind. Grim - though I appreciate there is no real comparison.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

It sounds like a bloody mad idea to me, probably dreamed up by bean counters with no experience of operating a/c.

V8LM said:

How many times has a landing aeroplane at Heathrow not managed to stop before the end of the runway?

Heathrow? No idea.

However, as a Co-Pilot I was gifted three R/W departures (over-runs) by differing Captains and one of those was off a 9000+ ft R/W.

The problem isn't really an over-run but an overshoot (go-around), engine out, that encroaches into the airspace above where a/c are taking off.

[anonymous-user]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

kowalski655 said:

Does any other airport in the world do it in the proposed manner?

I cant think of one, id be really surpised.

This inst by accident.

The LHR 'solution' is pandering to the ECO lobbyists etc - making the best of a bad situation - this doesn't mean its inherently 'safe' though.

Oshkosh in the states runs a dual set up for landing when they have their fly in with two landing points one at the start and one half way up the runway however these are mainly short field capable and light aircraft and a temporary measure.

[anonymous-user]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Oshkosh is a bit of a special situation, and GA only

Agree but it might be scalable, I think two take offs from the same mega long runway and two landings on the other one at the same time would be safer than combining both operations on one. Effectively it's 4 runways with two laid end to end anyway.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

OneDs said:

Agree but it might be scalable

There's a fairly fundamental difference between a small GA and a several hundred seat Perf A!

[anonymous-user]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

OneDs said:

Agree but it might be scalable

There's a fairly fundamental difference between a small GA and a several hundred seat Perf A!

Ginetta given your expertise what do you think the most fundamental issues are? I'm not sure it would be primarily the take off and landing to be honest.

The number, location and expertise of the air and ground controllers that operate during the Oshkosh fly-in, I'd struggle to see how they'd replicate that on a day in day out operation with CA and maintain any sort of schedule. I could see it descending in to a free for all pretty quickly (which is essentially what Oshkosh is in a semi controlled manner).

And that's just the aircraft control issues, god knows how the logistics of the passengers and their effects, aircraft turnaround and servicing needs, taxiing to and from stands would work with that amount of traffic.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 18th December 10:31

[JuniorD]

I'm quite surprised that the circular runway option hasn't been explored.

[motomk]

Can't they give Stansted and Gatwick proper second runways each?
Remove all the local flights from Heathrow?
High speed connect all 3 with Maglev express trains!
I can't really talk as the major airport my work feeds into has been reviewed by people from the UK to try and improve the arrival/Departure rate.

[scubadude]

motomk said:

Can't they give Stansted and Gatwick proper second runways each?
Remove all the local flights from Heathrow?
High speed connect all 3 with Maglev express trains!
I can't really talk as the major airport my work feeds into has been reviewed by people from the UK to try and improve the arrival/Departure rate.

The answer is a Monorail! Cue the Simpsons...

FWIW- Not sure I fancy being in a plane landing, knowing there is another one directly over us also landing :-(

[-Moley-]

Excuse my ignorance, but if Heathrow got the 3rd runway what would stop Gatwick building a second, as they are privately owned, so not as if the government or CAA would have to pay for it (assuming they got planning permission of course)