"Richard J." wrote:
We're all getting confused here. Bruce claimed that 08L/26R was really
just a taxiway


Rubbish. I stated (not claimed) that it is the airport's main
taxiway, because that is what it is. It is also used as an emergency
runway that can be used only in a very limited set of conditions.


- it could be used as a runway only in emergencies. Not true: it is
used whenever 08R/26L is unavailable, e.g. during maintenance. 08L/26R
is routinely in use as the operational runway for 3 hours every Thursday
morning if no runway maintenance is scheduled for that week.


That's 3 hours out of 168, or 1.8% of the time the airport is open.
For the remaining 98.2% of the week, it functions as the main taxiway.

Maintenance is scheduled at the quietest time of the week because the
operational capacity is the airport is severely reduced when the main
taxiway is taken out of use. The taxiway system is near-dysfunctional
without it.


- absence of ILS. True, but nevertheless it has full ICAO designation
as a runway.


Only in strictly limited conditions. There is no ILS.


- absence of proper taxiways when it's in use as a runway. As Alistair
Gunn pointed out (but his post was misinterpreted by Graeme and
Charles), there is an additional taxiway to the north of 08L which
functions as a taxiway at all times (shown as Taxiway J on the aerodrome
chart).


It functions as part of the taxiway system including the main taxiway.
The taxiway system can support the full throughput of flights only
when the main taxiway is in use. Take it out of use, and the capacity
of the airport is severely reduced. That's why it is only ever done
at the quietest time of the week.

If the main runway is ever closed for a real emergency outside the
quietest of times, the severely reduced capacity of the emergency
runway means that only a small proportion of normal traffic can be
handled and most flights will have to be diverted to other airports.



A general comment: Trainspotters on here get irrationally angry when
they see media reports about railways that get small details wrong, or
include a picture of the wrong train. They fulminate, often at great
length, about stupid journalists who should know better.

But when the same trainspotters on here start discussing subjects
other than railways, they are even more ignorant than the journalists
that they so bitterly despise. I have never seen such nonsense as
trainspotters spout on here about subjects they know less than nothing
about. Less than nothing? Because much of what they think they know
is wrong, and often completely wrong.

This thread is a prime example. Having worked in airport design,
admittedly a few years ago, I have tried hard to inform the discussion
with facts that I know. But it is very difficult to inform people who
are particularly ignorant about the subject, have not even the most
basic understanding about how airports work and are designed and,
perhaps worst of all, have stubbornly fixed ideas which are completely
wrong to the point where they simply beggar belief, who then make
ridiculous claims.

I am sure that a more intelligent discussion could be had with average
primary school children than with the profoundly ignorant and/or
socially challenged participants here. They should stick to what they
know, which patently is nothing to do with airports.