I totally agree with the new Government’s decision to scrap the third runway at LHR!

The last time I checked, this country had a £163bn deficit hanging over our heads…scrapping the third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow has saved an estimated £9bn, so we are already starting to make progress on reducing this!

How can not building the 3rd runway help reduce the deficit? If it’s £163bn now and they decide not to build it (which they have) then the deficit is still £163bn.

You wouldn’t actually get that far, like I said after Noise Abatement you would “most likely” be given a direct routing to SAINT ABBS.

Edit: As it happens I have actually found the correct procedure in my charts. For a SAINT ABBS departure this is what you will do:

RWY06: Climb straight ahead, at 640ft or I-VG 0.5 DME whichever is later, turn left, track 045°, then at I-VG 7DME turn right to SAB

RWY24: Climb straight ahead to UW, turn left to SAB. Noise preferential route terminates above 3,000ft

Hope this helps

Dean

No 🙂

End of the week mate.

Granted

But, was the BA flight in the ash affected area for more than an hour? Is this a good test bed for “sustained” periods of flying within the affected area? For instance, we fly from Exeter to Edinburgh, 1hr 10mis airborne, this would be completely inside the affected area. This is slightly different than BA conducting a test to see if they can fly across the atlantic or not, and maybe shouldn’t be used as a benchmark for other airlines operating solely within the affected areas.

The volcano can do what it likes, it’s a change in wind direction you should be praying for 😉

Moved to Commercial Aviation 🙂

Thanks for the heads up Lynda