"nightjar" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote:
"Oliver Keating" wrote...

So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population
of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current
ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet
pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones.

And Gatwick may get one if Heathrow doesn't. 'Tis an absurd waste of
money to preserve what is effectively the status quo, when the
alternatives are just as good!

This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

That's a rather pessimistic figure - I hope the percentage will be much
HIGHER due to more use of renewable energy for electric power and land
transport!

These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve
that sort of level of growth.

I'd classify these as major expansions (even though more capacity could
be achieved with minor expansons).

The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people.

The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been
there longer than they have.

There are many exceptions (Her Majesty included) but I don't think
that's the point. Many more people would be inconvenienced by the noise
from an extra runway.

There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion
comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not
essential for the general operation of our society.

A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful
operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth
area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers.

Even if you assume overseas holidays are essential, there's no need to
build more runways at the main airports. England has HUNDREDS of disused
and underused runways, many of which are suitable for conversion to
airports.
...
As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of
once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth
paying.

What would you regard as a price worth paying?

Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I
will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one
long weekend in France each month as well.

My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another
runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they
handed it over.

I wasn't aware there were ever plans for Heathrow to have nine runways.
Where were the other three going to be?

I think Heathrow's better off as it is. It will be possible to more than
double the number of passengers simply by using bigger aircraft! Another
runway would have serious safety implications if there's a missed
approach on the center runway.

Aidan Stanger wrote:

snip

Another runway would have serious safety implications if there's a
missed approach on the center runway.

Rubbish!

They currently use one for takeoffs and one for landings - how would the
situation be any worse with a third runway?


--
MrBitsy

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Aidan Stanger wrote:

snip

Another runway would have serious safety implications if there's a
missed approach on the center runway.

Rubbish!

They currently use one for takeoffs and one for landings - how would the
situation be any worse with a third runway?


At present if an a/c taking off need to divert suddenly they simply turn
away from the other runway's flight path.

If you have three working in parallel where doe the middle one go?

Cast_Iron wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Aidan Stanger wrote:

snip

Another runway would have serious safety implications if there's a
missed approach on the center runway.

Rubbish!

They currently use one for takeoffs and one for landings - how would
the situation be any worse with a third runway?


At present if an a/c taking off need to divert suddenly they simply
turn away from the other runway's flight path.

If you have three working in parallel where doe the middle one go?

Straight on.....

--
MrBitsy

Cast_Iron wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Aidan Stanger wrote:

snip

Another runway would have serious safety implications if there's a
missed approach on the center runway.

Rubbish!

They currently use one for takeoffs and one for landings - how would
the situation be any worse with a third runway?


At present if an a/c taking off need to divert suddenly they simply
turn away from the other runway's flight path.

If you have three working in parallel where doe the middle one go?

The issue is not about a/c "needing to divert suddenly" but needing to go
around for another approach to land. If both the other runways have a/c
taking off at the time, I guess the middle a/c would fly straight ahead
until it was safe to turn under one of the other take-off paths. It makes
the circuit a bit longer, that's all. Presumably the problem has been
solved at Paris CDG and other multi-runway airports.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:

At present if an a/c taking off need to divert suddenly they simply
turn away from the other runway's flight path.

If you have three working in parallel where doe the middle one go?

The issue is not about a/c "needing to divert suddenly" but needing to go
around for another approach to land. If both the other runways have a/c
taking off at the time, I guess the middle a/c would fly straight ahead
until it was safe to turn under one of the other take-off paths. It makes
the circuit a bit longer, that's all. Presumably the problem has been
solved at Paris CDG and other multi-runway airports.

One of the three, at least, will be in use for take-off only. It ought to be
possible for the aircraft on the middle runway approach to turn towards that
other runway and do a circuit in that direction.

However at LHR the proposed third runway is a short one, and so presumably
will be used by smaller aircraft for both landings and take-off.
--
Terry Harper
http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Terry Harper wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:

At present if an a/c taking off need to divert suddenly they simply
turn away from the other runway's flight path.

If you have three working in parallel where doe the middle one go?

The issue is not about a/c "needing to divert suddenly" but needing
to go around for another approach to land. If both the other
runways have a/c taking off at the time, I guess the middle a/c
would fly straight ahead until it was safe to turn under one of the
other take-off paths. It makes the circuit a bit longer, that's
all. Presumably the problem has been solved at Paris CDG and other
multi-runway airports.

One of the three, at least, will be in use for take-off only. It
ought to be possible for the aircraft on the middle runway approach
to turn towards that other runway and do a circuit in that direction.

However at LHR the proposed third runway is a short one, and so
presumably will be used by smaller aircraft for both landings and
take-off.

Two outside runways have simultaneous take offs - I very much doubt they
will be turning towards one another, therefore the landing on the center can
go straight on!
--
MrBitsy

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
news
Terry Harper wrote:

One of the three, at least, will be in use for take-off only. It
ought to be possible for the aircraft on the middle runway approach
to turn towards that other runway and do a circuit in that direction.

However at LHR the proposed third runway is a short one, and so
presumably will be used by smaller aircraft for both landings and
take-off.

Two outside runways have simultaneous take offs - I very much doubt they
will be turning towards one another, therefore the landing on the center
can
go straight on!

We're not talking about a landing, but the need to "go round again" if the
landing has to be aborted. This is unlikely to happen later than when the
captain calls finals, when he will be a couple of miles away from the
threshold, at least. Consequently he can make a turn without conflicting
with the traffic taking off from the other runways.
--
Terry Harper
http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Aidan Stanger wrote:
"nightjar" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote:
"Oliver Keating" wrote...

The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people.

The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it
has been there longer than they have.

There are many exceptions (Her Majesty included) but I don't think
that's the point. Many more people would be inconvenienced by the
noise from an extra runway.

Actually the government yesterday imposed a very stringent limit on noise
at Heathrow which should have the effect of ensuring that more people are
*not* inconvenienced. Darling has committed to the 3rd runway being
conditional on the area of the 57 dBA noise contour being frozen at last
year's figure of 127 sq km.

The SERAS study claimed that a 3rd runway would expand the noise contour
area to more than 200 sg km; then last year's consultation paper decided
this was too pessimistic and predicted figures as low as 153 sq km, before
conceding grudgingly that it was just about possible to keep within the 145
sq km limit imposed by the conditions for building Terminal 5, even with 3
runways. Now the government says it must be not more than 127 sq km. I
think this may be more difficult to meet than the air quality limits.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message , Aidan Stanger
writes
A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful
operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth
area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers.

Even if you assume overseas holidays are essential, there's no need to
build more runways at the main airports. England has HUNDREDS of
disused and underused runways, many of which are suitable for
conversion to airports.

Personally, I'd like to see the re-introduction of Wisley airfield,
which while very handy for the M3/M25, would also increase the Nimby
factor.
My reasoning is that the more people that are affected by aircraft
movements then the more they'll empathise with the other poor buggers
living underneath them, and so vote for a moratorium.

--
Martin @ Strawberry Hill