[RichHI1]

Runway spacing follows fairly international rules. There are pairs of runways that allow spaced use (not simultaneous take offs or landings and these can be closer together. Munich had a problem with runways being too close for simultaneous ops.
As a general safety point I would not advocate reducing the separation requirement. Where it may work 99% of the time, when there is an incident it can be vital.
Other factor for ewr and sfo is New York Center and NorCal center are very busy traffic areas and runway congestion often plays less of a role than clearing the routing out of the center.
I have noticed spacing does seem to differ between airports but I am not sure if this is ATC comtrolled or a factor of weather and altitude. Also it seems pilots following company flights seem to take off quicker. Obviously the larger the equipment the more wake vortex the bigger the spacing has to be.

[VintageKrug]

I think LAX had to re-space its runways; only finished a couple of years ago.

Re-spacing the existing parallel runways at Gatwick to make them useable simultaneously might get round the planning issue….I have a suspicion they’ve already laid the groundwork for T3 there…

Would increasing use of A380s at LHR actually reduce capacity due to the vortex issue…?

[BeckyBoop]

VK try and find a post made by i think Roger Victor, he answered a question about a380’s and the vortex effect. I think he said the spacing between planes would have to increase…not sure, but check if you get time.

[Bucksnet]

As I have posted before, SFO has 4 runways in 2 pairs, and the runways are quite close together: –

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=37.617937,-122.373834&spn=0.028384,0.038581&t=h&z=15

Before anyone says a pair of those runways cannot be used together, please look at this: –

http://www.airliners.net/photo/EVA-Air/Boeing-777-35E-ER/1968870/M/&sid=782c7d3288155f8fa15ebfd81b296211

The gap between the runways looks like double the width of a runway. Surely that would not be allowed if it was not safe?

[MartynSinclair]

Bucksnet:

Set standards between FAA & CAA/JAA is similar to set standards between UK and Europe!

Safe for one…………not for the other!

[Bucksnet]

Agreed. All countries have their own rules, but it cannot be that unsafe.

What I have been suggesting for a while is that there should be 2 pairs of runways, with the terminal(s) in the middle. Landings would take place simultaneously, not on a pair next to each other, but at opposite sides of the airfield. This I believe is the plan for the new airport as well.

[craigwatson]

that would work, but not as well as you would think, as you would then need to space arrivals and depatures out even more, as you will have landing aircraft having to taxi across active runways. Nothing scares me more than having to cross an active runway in reduced vis.

[FormerlyDoS]

And for good reason, Craig.

Linate springs to mind, as well as Tenerife.

[craigwatson]

As to SFO, they can only do paired approaches in good weather, so you cant plan an airport on that, especially here in the UK, or else when there is bad weather you would have 50% reduced runways and planes holding for ages and diverting everywhere.

[oasis1221]

I totally agree with the above “Paired Approaches” by craigwatson.
I wrote before in another forum here, that one quick fix is a third runway for LHR south of and parallel to the existing south runway over the remains of Terminal-4 and BA hangers!

[Bucksnet]

The solution for crossing active runways is to have landings on the inner runways and takeoffs on the outer runways. A landing plane could then turn off the runway and go straight to a gate. The layout must work as many airports have parallel runways. Atlanta has 5 parallel runways and is the busiest airport in the world.

[RichHI1]

Bucksnet some airports rotate landings and take offs to even out runway wear. If runways were only used for landings, the down time for resurfacing would be much higher.

[FaroFlyer]

Have only just caught on to this thread but am disappointed that most posters seem to think that a new Thames Island / Boris Island is the solution. I think that we need to consider the following:-

1) New aircraft are much quieter, and more fuel efficient..
2) There is no real argument against the fact that we need extra capacity
3) Any new airport will require a decade from start to finish

So, why don’t we convert Northolt to a “short haul” feeder hub, with an Express Rail link, underground, to Heathrow. This could accept short haul flights, maybe up to 1.5 hours, with super quiet aircraft, that can feed LHR and eliminate the current slots taken for the few remaining UK regional airports, as well as from AMS/BRU/CDG etc.

A very quick solution.

[Tete_de_cuvee]

FaroFlyer

http://www.businesstraveller.com/discussion/topic/Could-Northolt-work-as-a-Weat-London-LCY

[craigwatson]

and Bucksnet, you are then still going to have to have departing aircraft crossing an active runway, so you are going to have to space out the landings to alloww the crossing traffic. I never said it wouldnt work, just that it doesnt work as well as some may think.

[Author]

Posts