MrBitsy wrote:


So, are you saying that if there is a chance of somebody not following set
procedures, no expansion should take place?

That just about every expansion plan, on all forms of transport, for ever
more then.

No, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm simply saying that removing a safe
'escape route' from a potentially dangerous situation has serious safety
implications, and that I consider it to be a real problem. Due various
people's ignorance of the Heathrow expansion plans retaining the
existing pattern of operation on the existing runways (resulting in
aircraft taking off on both sides, which is not the usual procedure for
large airports).

I did not claim it couldn't be overcome - I expect it could (although
all the extra backup systems needed would probably make an already
expensive project even costlier).


This was not the main reason why I oppose the new runway - I just
mentioned it because nobody else had! Other reasons why I oppose it
include:

* It would require the destruction of two villages
* It is not needed
* A dispersed solution (greater use of smaller airports) would bring
greater economic benefits
* Revenue from landing fees would be better spent on improving surface
access to the airport than on another runway
* A six terminal airport would be far more difficult to serve by rail