FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1964
1964 - 0873.PDF
486 FUGHT International, 2 April 1964 AIR CO E R C E THE THIRD LONDON AIRPORT AS briefly recorded in last week's issue, the Ministry of Aviation'sinterdepartmental committee set up in November 1961 to look into the need for a third London airport has now reached its conclusions and made its recommendations.* These are that, from about 1972, Heathrow and Gatwick will be unable to handle all London's air traffic and that a third airport the size of Heathrow— to handle mostly short-haul international services but big enough for intercontinental SSTs—must be operational within ten years from now if traffic is not to be turned away. The most difficult part of the work of the 15-man committee under Mr G. V. Hole, Under-Secretary for Aerodromes, was not in predicting the inadequacy of the present London airports (for that was made apparent by even the cautious assumption of a slightly decreasing passenger growth rate based on present trends) but in selecting a site to meet all the many conflicting requirements. The final choice, though far from ideal, has not unexpectedly rested on Stansted. With most of the airspace in the London area already being used for the sequencing of aircraft in and out of Heathrow and Gatwick, the third airport had to be located far enough away for all three to operate to their capacity without imposing delays or detours on 'Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Third London Air-port, CAP 199; Her Majesty's Stationery Office, price 7s 6d. aircraft. If, as would be ideal, both Heathrow and the new airport were to be capable of handling traffic from all points of the compass simultaneously, then the new airport would have to be sited at least 80 miles from central London—much too far for a London airport. Even if only one of the two is to be omnidirectional then the third airport must be at least 50 miles from the metropolis— again this was considered too far. With the choice of Stansted (which will be within an hour's drive of central London on com- pletion of the Ml 1 motorway) both the third airport and Heathrow may be operated omnidirectionally, though not at the same time. However, none of the three airports will be omnidirectional when all are operating to their capacity. This disadvantage would have applied to any of the sites considered within about 50 miles of London. The possibility of adding further runways at Heathrow and Gatwick was ruled out, even if it had been desirable on other grounds, because there was no more airspace for holding and sequencing areas. Possible sites in the Thames Estuary area were discarded because they were too distant from central London and were no better off with regard to airspace. Luton Airport, it was stated, would interfere badly with Heathrow's traffic. Compared with the 17 or so sites considered by the committee, and apart from being the best from an air traffic integration point of view and being acceptably close to London, Stansted would have other advantages. Part of the site is already an airport with a The possible distribution of aircraft movements~_between Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted when all three airports are operating to capacity ONE LEGEND INBOUND —— OUTBOUND (WESTERLY TAKE-OFFS) — — —OUTBOUND (EASTERLY TAKE-OFFS) APPROACH PATH-LANDING TO WEST APPROACH PATH-LANDING TO EAST —<"*— OVERPASS (S) SEQUENCING AREA 18—6 MAXIMUM-MINIMUM HOURLY MOVEMENT RATE
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
