Aviation Strategy

Written evidence from Dr William D Lowe (AS24)

1. The following is a personal and individual submission dealing primarily with making better use of existing aviation capacity at Heathrow and the reduction of some of the constraints on expansion of capacity, in particular noise and oxides of nitrogen.

2. The author has a Degree in Engineering, PhD in Applied Science and Honorary Doctorates from the University of Birmingham and London City for services to aviation. He was Director of Flight Operations for British Airways for five years and Chairman of the UK Flight Operations Director Group. He has served as President of the Royal Aeronautical Society and Master of the Guild of Air Pilots. He is a non-executive Director of Regional Airports Ltd and a Trustee of CHIRP. In addition to being a Concorde Pilot for 25 years, he was also Commercial Manager responsible for Concorde profitability within British Airways.

3. The submission suggests:

a) Doubling the capacity of Heathrow without building a new runway.

b) A means of reducing dramatically the noise footprint of aircraft arriving and departing from Heathrow.

c) A method to reduce the concentration of the oxides of nitrogen in the north-eastern corner of the Heathrow runway and road complex.

4. The suggestions on capacity and noise can all be adopted separately but clearly provide the maximum benefit in terms of aircraft movements and noise reduction if applied together.

5. Doubling Heathrow Runway Capacity without a New Runway

The two existing runways at Heathrow are longer than and twice as wide as required. By extending both existing runways to the west, towards but not as far as the M25, the length of both runways can be 20,000ft or more. This would allow the simultaneous use of each runway, the first part being used for landing whilst, at the same time, the second part is used for take-offs.

6. The four segments of the runways can be of different lengths to accommodate varying aircraft requirements and a large section in the middle will be the "safe zone", to accommodate over-runs etc. Further amelioration of safety concerns can be introduced such as using the left side of the runway for landing and the right side for take-offs, high speed turn-offs and operational procedures.

7. The significant increase in landing and take-off slots will provide expansion for decades to come and, for some considerable time, will provide operational flexibility to allow non-mixed mode for periods of the day which will provide some noise relief.

8. One further advantage would be available for the early morning arrival bulge. As there are no departures, the second part of the runway could be used for landings. This would serve to further reduce the arrival noise footprint at a troublesome time by moving it westwards for the majority of arrivals.

9. There do not appear to be any regulations which would preclude the adoption of this suggestion.

10. Reduction of Noise Footprint

This suggestion is not new but does not appear to have been adequately assessed. It involves a number of elements..

11. Firstly, the intermediate approach height of aircraft into Heathrow currently has a base of 4,000ft. This can be raised to approximately 7,000ft. This alone will reduce the noise levels for a large part of London.

12. The approach slope to Heathrow can then be divided into two segments. The first, steeper segment, will start at 7,000ft and be at approximately five or six degrees as opposed to the current three degrees.

13. The steeper slope will translate into a normal three degree slope at approximately 1,500ft. This gradual transition will ensure that the stabilised approach gate required by many airlines at 1,000ft will be achieved.

14. In this respect, this procedure is fundamentally different from that adopted at London City Airport where approaches of five and a half degrees are flown down to ground level.

15. This will mean that the aircraft engines will be close to idle power and by changing the operating procedures, the drag features of the aircraft can be spoilers/speed brakes which are located on the top side of the wing which reflects the noise upwards, rather than large flap settings and undercarriages which send noise downwards.

16. This should preferably be an autopilot flown procedure although this is not essential.

17. Additional electronic guidance will need to be provided, using microwave landing systems (already installed at Heathrow) and/or GPS.

18. For a number of reasons, overall safety levels will be improved by the adoption of this procedure, in addition to the reduction in noise.

19. Modern guidance systems, such as MLS or GPS allow curved approaches to be flown although they are more difficult to integrate into the long established air traffic control procedures. By adopting the use of curved lateral approaches with the two segment vertical approaches, further noise mitigation can be achieved.

20. Once the intermediate approach height is raised for approaches, steeper initial climb-outs are also possible. This, too, would also significantly reduce noise, except for those under the immediate take-off path (1-2 miles from the airport).

21 Reduction of Oxides of Nitrogen in the North-East Corner of Heathrow

One significant constraint on the increase in movement rate of aircraft at Heathrow is the recorded level of the various oxides of nitrogen, particularly in the north-eastern corner of the airport.

22. This build up is caused by the road use and emissions of aircraft on take-off. The problem is primarily in existence in the presence of the prevailing south-westerly wind.

23. The road traffic emissions can be reduced by the use of electric airport vehicles and the exclusion of some high emission diesel vehicles from the road system.

24. The bulk of the aircraft emissions could be channelled by the prevailing wind through ducts located at a safe distance from the side of the runway but within the airport boundary. The normal venturi effect should be adequate but, if not, fans such as those present in road tunnels could be used to augment the wind flow.

25. Most of the oxides are heavier than air and so lend themselves to this solution.

26. Once channelled through the ducts, extraction of the oxides of nitrogen is a relatively cheap and easy process using water scrubbing or ammonia extraction.

16 October 2012