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.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• In Margot Fonteyn's footsteps
• Forget beautiful people, let's have wonky Brits
• Fundamentalist brew: faith and power