Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Marie Woolf
Star musicians and your favourite Times writers at the Albert Hall
IN January, BA38 from Beijing limped into Heathrow, skimming over the airport fence and crash-landing short of the runway. It was hailed as the “great escape” for those on board, and the ramifications are still being felt in Whitehall today.
When the stricken flight passed over motorists on the southern perimeter road, the jet was said to be so low “you could reach out of the window and touch it”.
The drama, however, raised a worrying question for those championing airport expansion: what if it had been trying to land on the proposed third runway?
Under the plans for Heathrow’s expansion, Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, intends to sandwich one of the busiest runways in the world between the elevated M25/M4 junction to the west and the residential area of Harlington to the east.
It emerged last week that the motorway junction, 650 yards from the end of the proposed runway, will be in the crash landing zone or “public safety zone” where there is an accepted higher risk of an accident.
Kelly’s department failed to include maps showing this zone in the consultation documents, which critics say would have caused uproar.
Department for Transport (DfT) officials have already been accused of fixing the evidence in favour of a third runway.
“It’s ridiculous to put a runway so close to a major motorway junction and residential areas,” said Geraldine Nicholson, who lives adjacent to the junction and chairs the No Third Runway Action Group.
“They are wanting to put this runway in one of the most built-up areas in Britain and we’re being told they haven’t even yet carried out a detailed risk assessment. It’s crazy.”
When the government’s 2003 white paper backed the third runway, it envisaged it would be 1.2 miles long. It has now been lengthened, partly to accommodate a greater mix of aircraft, but also to allow flights to clear the considerable obstacles at both ends safely.
The government’s consultation document states: “The position of the third runway is governed by the need for aircraft to maintain a safe distance from the elevated M4/M25 junction to the west and the Harlington church spire to the east.”
To date, the row over Heathrow expansion has centred on the extra noise and pollution. Flight BA38 has focused attention on the safety problems.
Tim Jurdon, manager of the aviation team at Hillingdon council, said: “The safety zones are where it’s most likely there could be a crash. If it wasn’t at Heathrow, we would argue there would be less risk.”
Jurdon’s team have drawn up the “public safety zones” at both ends of the third runway. He says the western zone crosses the M25/M4 junction. This was not disputed last week by the DfT, which said safety would be considered by any future planning inquiry.
The government’s policy on airport safety zones is detailed in a 2002 circular and states that the number of people in the zones should be kept to a minimum. It says: “The basic policy objective governing the restriction on development near civil airports is that there should be no increase in the number of people living, working or congregating in public safety zones and that, over time, the number should be reduced as circumstances allow.”
With a likely surge in traffic growth if Heathrow expansion is approved, the government appears to breach its own guidelines by allowing a safety zone to cross a motorway junction. They state that busy traffic routes should be considered on a par with housing developments when assessing the impact of the zones.
Geoff Marks, an executive council member of the Aviation Environment Federation, a nonprofit making organisation campaigning for sustainable aviation, said: “The fact the maps of the public safety zones are not even in the consultation document suggests the government hasn’t done its job properly.”
Marks said the government should consider adding airport capacity in more open areas, such as the Thames estuary, where there would be a significantly lower risk of casualties in the event of a crash.
He said other large airports, such as Charles de Gaulle in Paris and Munich International airport, were located away from big cities partly to reduce the risk of ground casualties in the event of a crash.
A report commissioned by the DfT on airport public safety zones in the 1990s said it was too costly to relocate transport routes that already fell within the zones.
Safety objections will be aired in a planning inquiry if the government approves the third runway this summer.
New documents released under the Freedom of Information Act also show the Civil Aviation Authority raised a series of safety concerns during the consultation process.
CAA officials were understood to have been concerned about the extra air traffic at Heathrow and the potential conflict with air traffic from nearby RAF Northolt, which is regularly used by ministers. In one DfT meeting, officials were told there was a “conflict of objectives” between expanding commercial activities at Northolt and the proposed Heathrow expansion.
The CAA also raised concerns about proposals to have gaps of just 60 seconds between planes taking off in the same direction from the two existing runways. CAA officials were concerned the proposal might breach international safety standards.
The DfT last week said “the issue of the number of people affected by any new public safety zone would need to be looked at as part of any future planning application”. It failed to respond to whether allowing the M25/M4 junction to be at the end of a runway broke its own guidelines.
The department said the guidelines were publicly available and the question would be a matter for any future inquiry. The statement said: “Safety is the government’s top priority. The proposals and location for a third runway at Heathrow in the consultation document have been developed with the CAA and safety considerations were taken fully into account.”
The DfT said the “airspace arrangements” for Heathrow expansion had been reviewed by the CAA and approved for the consultation document. “The proposals are not definitive and would need further detailed work.”
Follow our three athletes' progress in their preparations for the London Triathlon, and pick up training tips and more
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles


Overseas contacts and local business information

A treasure trove of baubles, booty and stylish quests

Dubrovnik, the Dalmatian Coast and Montenegro

£129,500
Bentley Edinburgh
£79,850
Mercedes-Benz of Northampton
£26,995
Unit 1, Woodfield Business Unit, Kidderminster Road, Ombersley, Worcester.
Great car insurance deals online
90k + Bonus + Options
Confidential
London
£23,716 +
Highways Agency
National
£
£43,405 - £48,228 pa
Notting Hill Housing
London
£30,000 base, £100,000 OTE
Riches Consulting
London/South
with annexe accommodation and 5.25 acres
£1,100,000
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Studios £33K, 1 Beds £60K, 2 beds £79K
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Presumably there will have to be large signs on the M4 & M25 reading:
AIRCRAFT CRASH ZONE
You enter at your own risk
John Golding, London,
I always knew that Gordon Brown, Ruth Kelly and their friends in the aviation industry didn't care about people under flightpaths or living near airports.
Now its confirmed that they don't even care about those up in the air - or those who might to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, like driving on the M25 or M4.
They can't even be sure that, all things considered, another runway at Heathrow will actually be of any benefit to the country.
Further expansion at Heathrow is going to be a disaster, whichever way you look at it.
Christine Taylor, Harlington, Middlesex
It is quite frightening and extremely worrying to have your home threathened by airport expansion. BUT horrifying to thing that you have been put through all this heartache by a government colluding with the airline industry with plans that are NOT definite and would need further detailed work. All INDICATIVE.
For us it is like being in a torture chamber and in my wildest dreams would never have believed that a British Government would stoop so low as to this to their own people.
linda mccutcheon, SIPSON,