Richmond Heathrow Campaign

Safety First

Aircraft safety at and around First World airports is very high. However, the crash landing of BA038 on 17th January 2008 at Heathrow demonstrates that problems can and do occur.

Several factors compound the risk of an accident happening as a result of Heathrow expansion:

Volume: the proposed increase in air traffic by nearly 50%
Complexity: the increased challenge of managing mixed mode and three runways
Change: the disruption resulting from making major changes to airspace in the south-east of England

These increase the likelihood of:

A mid-air collision because air traffic controllers have too much congested airspace to manage
Crash as a result of difficulty in manoeuvreing in congested air space to return to the airport following takeoff problems or a missed approach

In addition to the impact on passengers in the air, the area in the vicinity of an airport is particularly vulnerable if and when an accident occcurs.

We believe that the consideration given to air safety in the consultation is inadequate, and are concerned that it is being driven more by commercial gain than risk mitigation.

Air Congestion, Complexity and Risk

The skies over south-east England are amongst the most congested in the world. Aircraft coming into Heathrow join their final approach paths around 23 miles from the airport. This enables them to adopt a continuous descent approach, which minimises their noise impact.

The introduction of mixed mode and the addition of a third runway will make the situation even more complicated. Airspace may have to be redesigned as far afield as Southampton and Luton airports. The current four stacks will need to be positioned.

NATS (National Air Traffic Services) has indicated that mixed mode and a third runway are both feasible options. However although NATS has stated that a 5% increase in flights may be possible with mixed mode, they have also said that the proposed 15% mixed mode increase is not viable.

Managing a significant rise in aircraft movements in south-east England's crowded airspace introduces increased risk of accidents. The period of transition to any new regime also carries with it its own further risks as pilots and ground staff have to adapt to change.

Accidents do happen

Aviation in the First World is exceptionally safe. However, accidents involving ground casualties in the vicinity of airports do happen. Examples of three in recent years from the Aviation Safety Network are:

On 4^th October 1992, an El Al cargo 747-200 suffered structural failure on its departure from Amsterdam Schipol Airport. On attempting to return to the airport it crashed into an apartment building killing 39 people as well as all four on the aircraft.
On 25^th July 2000, an Air France Concorde hit a strip of metal on its departure runway at Paris Charles de Gaulle, destroying a tyre whose fragments ruptured a fuel tank. The resulting fire and crash into a hotel claimed nine casualties on the ground as well as all 100 on board.
On 12^th November 2001, an American Airlines A300 hit wake turbulence on its takeoff from New York JFK Airport. The First Officer appears to have suffered a loss of situational awareness in his response to this, and the resulting crash into a residential area killed five people on the ground as well as all but one of the 260 on board.

Mid-air collisions are also a risk when air traffic controllers have too much to do. On 1^st July 2002, an imminent separation infringement in Swiss airspace was not noticed by air traffic controllers in time. As a result, a cargo 757 and passenger Tuploev 154 collided killing 71 people in the air.