Project Genesis - LGW 2nd-ish runway
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Brighton UK
Programs: BAEC-Silver, AMEX-BA Prem' Plus & Standard, Accor Gold, HH-Silver, IHG,IBIS On Business
Posts: 955
Project Genesis - LGW 2nd-ish runway
So the cat is out of the proverbial bag enough ( many checks were taken to ensure) and Im sure several of you already know so it wont be news to those in the know but LGW still smarting from not getting their 2nd runway( still imho the better option from a taxpayer's side of thing if nothing else) have decided to push ahead with their fall back plan. GAL are to undertake widening and extending the main runway with a view to operating both takeoff and landings on a revised 08R/26L.
There has been widespread discussions with airlines and in particular with pilots which were subject to NDA's ( with the obvious subtle leakage that always happen no matter the industry or project) but GAL/ LGW is now getting ready to push ahead with the required works( for clarity we're not talking next week or anything like that). Additional land has been secured from the aviation museum bordering the airport to aid in this.
I am simply a FF from the place not a pilot, GAL airport staff or ground staff but I found it an interesting approach. Mrs Clam works there however this came from a trusted 3rd party source senior enough to know( Mrs Clam refused to confirm or deny). I know it's not the most common approach due to it's inherent issues however as a single runway airport any emergency closes the runway anyway( or forces use of the backup depending on the reason) but I wondered what others thought about having what i'll call a 'dual aspect runway' as I cba to look up the proper term at this ungodly hour. I think it's a smart move by GAL although it's far from perfect it will increase capacity which will be better for consumers overall. I'm sure they've [done the legal research] to check they can but I can still see the environmentalists kicking off.
Lastly apologies for the amount of caveats/ ( ....) but I wanted to state only what was known and not conjecture or points that could be broadly interpreted.
There has been widespread discussions with airlines and in particular with pilots which were subject to NDA's ( with the obvious subtle leakage that always happen no matter the industry or project) but GAL/ LGW is now getting ready to push ahead with the required works( for clarity we're not talking next week or anything like that). Additional land has been secured from the aviation museum bordering the airport to aid in this.
I am simply a FF from the place not a pilot, GAL airport staff or ground staff but I found it an interesting approach. Mrs Clam works there however this came from a trusted 3rd party source senior enough to know( Mrs Clam refused to confirm or deny). I know it's not the most common approach due to it's inherent issues however as a single runway airport any emergency closes the runway anyway( or forces use of the backup depending on the reason) but I wondered what others thought about having what i'll call a 'dual aspect runway' as I cba to look up the proper term at this ungodly hour. I think it's a smart move by GAL although it's far from perfect it will increase capacity which will be better for consumers overall. I'm sure they've [done the legal research] to check they can but I can still see the environmentalists kicking off.
Lastly apologies for the amount of caveats/ ( ....) but I wanted to state only what was known and not conjecture or points that could be broadly interpreted.
Last edited by NWIFlyer; Oct 13, 2018 at 12:02 am Reason: To comply with rule 16
#2
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
So the cat is out of the proverbial bag enough ( many checks were taken to ensure) and Im sure several of you already know so it wont be news to those in the know but LGW still smarting from not getting their 2nd runway( still imho the better option from a taxpayer's side of thing if nothing else) have decided to push ahead with their fall back plan. GAL are to undertake widening and extending the main runway with a view to operating both takeoff and landings on a revised 08R/26L.
It has been reported in local papers that they are planning to upgrade the emergency runway 08L/26R.
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Brighton UK
Programs: BAEC-Silver, AMEX-BA Prem' Plus & Standard, Accor Gold, HH-Silver, IHG,IBIS On Business
Posts: 955
YEAHHHH missed an important word after all those checks well done me! Simultaneous take off and landings, to clarify more extending the run so both can take at the exact same time. Landing at one end while one is on the runway further down and beginning it's roll to take off
#4
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Yes I understand how simultaneous operation works but it's the standby runway that needs upgrade surely, due to its reduced width and length
I'm struggling to see how the main runway could be extended anyway due to Lowfield Heath Rd at one end and London Rd at the other.
I'm struggling to see how the main runway could be extended anyway due to Lowfield Heath Rd at one end and London Rd at the other.
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Brighton UK
Programs: BAEC-Silver, AMEX-BA Prem' Plus & Standard, Accor Gold, HH-Silver, IHG,IBIS On Business
Posts: 955
I wont pretend to know the technical details as I dont but turning the backup up into an active gives the 2nd runway issue whereas they're of the belief extending and widening gets around that problem. I think the widening part will deal with the lowfield heath road by using some of the aviation museum land.
#6
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Honestly I think you (or your 'informants') are totally confused. The Aviation Museum land is north of the standby runway....it would be of no use in changes to 08R/26L. And as I said above the main runway could not be extended without closing either Lowfield Heath Rd or London Rd.
Your sources might be referring to changes to 08L/26R (the current standby). That would make some sense and could use some museum land for taxi/turning, although the main extension would need to be at the terminal end as the 08 end is already up again the road.
That is also what appeared in the local paper some months ago.
By the way there is no second runway 'issue', the legal restriction ends in August 2019.
Your sources might be referring to changes to 08L/26R (the current standby). That would make some sense and could use some museum land for taxi/turning, although the main extension would need to be at the terminal end as the 08 end is already up again the road.
That is also what appeared in the local paper some months ago.
By the way there is no second runway 'issue', the legal restriction ends in August 2019.
Last edited by simons1; Oct 13, 2018 at 3:22 am
#7
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,595
Surely the runways are too close together to allow for simultaneous operations? Even at LHR they don't simultaneous operations (ie, 2 aircraft landing at the same time or taking off at the same time).
#8
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Not a perfect solution but it could deliver marginal capacity gains.
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
#10
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 387
Close parallel operations are certainly possible, look at SFO for an example.
Whether there’s the operational infrastructure in place for such operations at Gatwick remains to be seen, assuming there’s the political will to allow them in the first place.
Whether there’s the operational infrastructure in place for such operations at Gatwick remains to be seen, assuming there’s the political will to allow them in the first place.
#11
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Lemonia. Best Greek ever.
Posts: 2,266
The CAA will have to look in to the Rulebook about this...............
However, as the ex-chair of LGW, the current deputy chair of LGW, is also the ex-Chair of the CAA, maybe words have been spoken in smoke filled rooms? You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Another problem for NATS and Airspace?
However, as the ex-chair of LGW, the current deputy chair of LGW, is also the ex-Chair of the CAA, maybe words have been spoken in smoke filled rooms? You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Another problem for NATS and Airspace?
#13
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,158
ICAO doc 9643 is the source for the rules on this. Frankly it seems a lot or far fetched rubbish. Even utilising SOIA and PRM approaches further backed up with RNP (AR) design criteria the centrelines are displaced by less than 2500 ft. Wake turbulence issues, Missed Approach traffic separation issues and a whole lot more would preclude this ever becoming a reality.
#15
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
ICAO doc 9643 is the source for the rules on this. Frankly it seems a lot or far fetched rubbish. Even utilising SOIA and PRM approaches further backed up with RNP (AR) design criteria the centrelines are displaced by less than 2500 ft. Wake turbulence issues, Missed Approach traffic separation issues and a whole lot more would preclude this ever becoming a reality.