Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Talkdownman
#1708889
kanga wrote:ISTR one plan from decades ago, possibly after the Foulness plan had been scrapped, was to have a shortish new extra Northern runway, to be used only by STOL (relative) airliners like dHC-8s, 748s, etc

This one?

Image
kanga liked this
By chevvron
#1708890
kanga wrote:ISTR one plan from decades ago, possibly after the Foulness plan had been scrapped, was to have a shortish new extra Northern runway, to be used only by STOL (relative) airliners like dHC-8s, 748s, etc

I wouldn't call a 2000m runway short, but that was the plan.
But if they were planning on that, why bother with building a new runway and displacing all those people from their homes when Farnborough has a runway which fitted the specification and has easily upgraded links with Heathrow plus at least on runway 24, it could be upgraded to Cat 2 ILS?(
By Dominie
#1708906
chevvron wrote:Course with all those taxiways, it wouldn't be possible to convert one to a runway (600 - 1000m) suitable for GA traffic would it; IF and I repeat IF the new runway is built, why not add a small one too?.
Amazing that US airfields seem to be able to slot small runways in between IFR runways and taxiways eg Orlando/Sanford.

I'm sure it would be very easy to do but why would they bother? They have no incentive to accept GA at the sort of landing fees we would like to pay, and they would expect that GA would simply cause congestion on the frequencies for no real benefit to them.
JAFO, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Talkdownman
#1708920
Dominie wrote:They have no incentive to accept GA at the sort of landing fees we would like to pay, and they would expect that GA would simply cause congestion on the frequencies for no real benefit to them.

Heathrow doesn't want aeroplanes. It wants passenger revenue. The passengers just happen to arrive and depart in very large aeroplanes which occupy the airspace, the runways and the groundspace for the minimum possible time. Tiddlers take up too much space for very little revenue. I suppose HAL (or whoever it is this week) might consider it for a couple o' grand landing fee. ATC wouldn't have a great problem with it, it wouldn't mean any more R/T. (RTF for chevvron...)
JAFO, Ben K liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1708926
why would they bother?


I suppose the same question could be asked to small aerodrome owners too - after all more money is made by selling the land for property development.

So if the “why bother?” mindset was used by all owners or new owners, then there would be nowhere to fly into.
User avatar
By SteveC
#1708934
James Chan wrote:
why would they bother?


I suppose the same question could be asked to small aerodrome owners too - after all more money is made by selling the land for property development.

So if the “why bother?” mindset was used by all owners or new owners, then there would be nowhere to fly into.


Welcome to the real world..... :lol:
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1708946
Has anyone still got a link to the *Hitler is informed..." clip where he runs a Microlight school and a student lands at Heathrow instead of Popham... I looked for it last month and couldn't find it.
(And not the 1st time I have asked, Google says)
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1708965
With a few notable exceptions that is what is happening.


I know!
By chevvron
#1708986
James Chan wrote:Typical uses would be to drop people off or pick them up for interchange with commercial flights.


Just have to continue using Fairoaks then; quite a few people land there and the pax use surface transport to Heathrow via the M25; less than 20 min journey if it's not too congested.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1708997
Imagining that Heathrow would have any reason at all to welcome GA is cloudcuckooland. Actually, imagining the third runway in the next twenty years isn't much more credible.
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1709008
I am glad that thirty years after I left Redhill, for it to become a Gatwick satellite with no place for light aircraft, that we are still allowed to fly there.
By golfcharlie
#1709030
I fear that the only way small GA will ever get access to LHR is to change the law and place a public service obligation on all airports compelling them to allow GA access. I don't know if the land is owned (or leased, or rented) by the airport operators, but if the land is owned by the Government, they own it on our behalf.
User avatar
By kanga
#1709099
In the US, any airport in receipt of any federal funds ever must allow access to all aircraft on an equitable basis. Latter can include exclusion by price, of course, eg at Washington National. That policy owes much to aopa lobbying.

There are also genuinely private airfields, of course
Flyin'Dutch', Stu B liked this