LHR Capacity – change type of flight’s access?Back to Forum
Inquisitive – for someone who acknowledges they are not an expert you seem to have plenty to say, mostly of a half baked variety.
You really think there are issues with safety? How many incidents have there been in the last 2/3 years that have put people at risk? You don’t think there are CAA guidelines for this?
Some elementary research might help you here. For example 1. the main cause of wake turbulence is not engines and thrust, it is wingtip vortices, and 2. wake turbulence can be higher when the aircraft is at slow speed (landing).
Probably best to go quietly on this one…..8 Sep 2012
wake turbulence is not much of an issue on landing as the vortex always has a downward and downwind path, if you are on the glideslope you will not enter anyones wake vortex regardless of aircraft type as you are all on the exact same glideslope. On takeoff wake turbulence is only an issue betwen certain categories, ie. large – medium requires a certain spacing, large – small requires even more, small – large requires none, and medium – large requires very little. So if you have a 320 taking off, a 747 can take off right after the 320 has departed, whereas if you have a 747 departing a waiting 320 will need to hold for a while to ensure the proper wake seperation. This is standard all over the world, obviously if the airport is not as busy they can space everyone out more, but in regards to safety there is no need. A 747 will right through a 737 wake turbulence easily enough, which will happen quite frequently as the 320/737 will climb at a much higher rate than say the 747/380 ( therefore on profile these larger aircraft will be below the profile climb for the smaller aircraft and therefore flying right into the wake of the smaller aircraft.)8 Sep 2012
Google “Wake Turbulence” and choose images. There are some very nice diagrams which help explain it to a layman and add to Craigs explanation
Also some pictures which look quite scarey but it’s not. After all it’s only air. Quite!!!8 Sep 2012
As the past Transport secretary has been sacked and moved, she was the only opposition to the 3rd runway, this has now been removed. The New TS has open a 3rd 4th runway at LHR more an option for a long term strategy of a Thames gateway.
Sill, the other EU gateways are way ahead of the UK with various Chinese Airlines and destinations well established – KLM ex AMS, and AF EX CDG), which will leave them miles in front of the UK.
This debate is now Mostly irrelevant!8 Sep 2012
MarkRoberts9 it is not an accurate representation of the situation to state that Justine Greening was “the only opposition to the 3rd runway”.
Both the Coalition Agreement AND the Labour Party policy is currently against the creation of a short Third Runway.
Policy is not dictated by the individual Minister, but by the Party, PM and Cabinet; Ms Greening’s personal perspectives were a minor sideshow cementing her position in one of the party’s few London seats – that was why she was in the role she was in, and having successfully cemented her credentials with her constituents, it is time for her to move on to other things. A reshuffle is not the same as a “sacking”, and she certainly wasn’t sacked.
The creation of a Thames Hub is essential, and in the meantime Heathrow remains one of the largest European hubs with some potential for modest passenger (if not slot) growth still.
CDG is a basket case of an airport, Schipol much better but still only limping through with its crazy taxi-20-minutes to the runway solution.
Personally, I believe the hype over Chinese destinations (in the short term, at least) to be a distraction, and that it’s more important to keep the UK’s visa restrictions largely in place. Gatwick has capacity if needed; it isn’t being used which suggests such destinations aren’t as financially attractive right now as we might at first have thought.8 Sep 2012
Oh Dear, the dissonance reduction was short lived.
Ms. Greening was certainly demoted after only 10 months in the job and at a time when Mr. Cameron was endeavouring to increase the number of women in senior positions.
There were ample big hitters outside the DfT to comment without much fear of retribution. Ms. Greening was naive by threatening the PM, leaving him with little alternative. A wise person would have realised they would have been of more use influencing from the inside the DfT.
Ms. Greening could have easily played to safeguard both her seat and her influential position within the DfT, if she had the nous. Not much of a politician.8 Sep 2012
Please provide evidence that JG was “the only opposition to the [short] Third Runway”.
Greening played the right game for her personal career as an MP, and has has played her part perfectly. I expect she’ll be properly rewarded in due course. She’s certainly not out of favour, and has demonstrated good political skills.
Local Councillor-types may disagree.8 Sep 2012
Enough of petty “Councillor” and Communist jibes – try to maintain standards.
If Ms. Greening wanted to go down the histrionics route, instead of threatening and getting sacked she could have resigned making a statement along the lines…
“I am against the third runway and wish to fight on those lines. I believe an (future) independent commission will see the benefit of Thames Estuary development.
I wish to avoid the report and decision having any chance of being denigrated due to the secretary of state at the time being perceived to have a conflict of interest.
Should the opportunity arise, I would hope to rejoin the cabinet in the near future.”
That would have been the smart play in her position. But it assumes a smart politican.8 Sep 2012
Poor old Justine.
Express support for third runway and expect a backlash and possible loss of seat at the next General Election.
Express opposition to third runway and get demoted from your job.
Sounds like a lose/lose to me. Especially as the buck has now been passed to the next government.8 Sep 2012