d wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:24:54 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
If there's a tipping point (in or out of debtor's jail in Dickens's
tale) saving the fourpence won't help at all.

Maybe not. But better to try and fail than just give up and do an Eeyore.


If trying and failing means that you destroy our economy and way of
life, are you really sure that you want to try?

Perhaps the Eeyore approach is worth a look. ;-)

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 22:00:18 on
Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Charles Ellson remarked:

The "taxiway" runway is an alternative to the normal one when the
latter is closed for some reason.

So not alternate runways but primary and secondary.

Yes, the use alternates between the two.


Wrong. That wording suggests more or less equal use, when in fact the
emergency runway is rarely used. It serves only a subset of the
aircraft that use Gatwick, being too short for the rest, and can only
be used in a strictly limited range of conditions thanks to no ILS.

As the main taxiway is taken out of use when it is used as a runway
(let's not forget that it *is* the main taxiway) the airport becomes
barely functional because the capacity of the taxiway system is so
severely reduced.

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 18:35:39 on Wed, 12
Oct 2011, Richard J. remarked:
We're all getting confused here. Bruce claimed that 08L/26R was really
just a taxiway because:

- 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.

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

- 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).

Confused, yes some might be. But don't miss the essential point that
when people say Gatwick is a "one runway" airport, what that means is
"only one runway in operation at any particular time".


Gatwick is a one runway airport with a parallel taxiway that can be
pressed into service as an emergency runway in a severely limited
range of conditions. It is not routinely used.

But it won't matter how many times you are told that, will it? You
will continue spouting the same nonsense, because you are Roland
Perry, and the Gatwick airport on your planet has two runways. ;-)

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:49:47 +0100
Bruce wrote:
And what would you suggest? Do nothing and hope for the best?


Exactly that. The UK produces less than 2% of world emissions,
probably a lot less. The cost of cutting that in half would destroy
our economy and life as we know it, yet it not would have any

Translation: I'm alright jack. That really goes down well when trying
to persuade others.

And if you really don't believe CO2 is a greenholuse forcer but is just an
effect of warming I suggest read up on Venus.


On Venus? Can't I read up on it here? Do Ryanair fly there?

When you're painted into a corner doing a clown act doesn't make the paint go
away.

B2003

In message , at 11:57:46 on
Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 22:00:18 on
Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Charles Ellson remarked:

The "taxiway" runway is an alternative to the normal one when the
latter is closed for some reason.

So not alternate runways but primary and secondary.

Yes, the use alternates between the two.

Wrong. That wording suggests more or less equal use, when in fact the
emergency runway is rarely used.

Perhaps I should have insisted on my original word: "alternative".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:00:56 on
Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:
Confused, yes some might be. But don't miss the essential point that
when people say Gatwick is a "one runway" airport, what that means is
"only one runway in operation at any particular time".

Gatwick is a one runway airport with a parallel taxiway that can be
pressed into service as an emergency runway in a severely limited
range of conditions. It is not routinely used.

But it won't matter how many times you are told that, will it? You
will continue spouting the same nonsense, because you are Roland
Perry, and the Gatwick airport on your planet has two runways. ;-)

Steady on, I'm the person here most in tune with your interpretation.
It's the "two proper runways" impression that I'm trying to defuse.

I regard it as one runway, plus a rarely used alternative (the taxiway
with its own runway number).
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:58:30 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:37:03 on Thu, 13 Oct
2011, d remarked:
If there's a tipping point (in or out of debtor's jail in Dickens's
tale) saving the fourpence won't help at all.

Maybe not. But better to try and fail than just give up and do an Eeyore.

The cost vs benefit is unfavourable, compared to many more useful things
one could be doing.

There's nothing like a good bit of short termist thinking. Let me guess,
education, hospitals, all the other standard issue emotive vote winners?
Fat lot of use any of them will be if the climate shifts drastically and
we're not ready for it.

B2003

"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.

In message , at 11:47:02 on Thu, 13 Oct
2011, d remarked:
The cost vs benefit is unfavourable, compared to many more useful things
one could be doing.

There's nothing like a good bit of short termist thinking. Let me guess,
education, hospitals, all the other standard issue emotive vote winners?
Fat lot of use any of them will be if the climate shifts drastically and
we're not ready for it.

Spend your time/money preparing for the climate shift, rather than doing
a Canute and hoping a reduction of your already tiny carbon footprint
will save the world.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:47:02 on Thu, 13
Oct 2011, d remarked:
The cost vs benefit is unfavourable, compared to many more useful
things one could be doing.

There's nothing like a good bit of short termist thinking. Let me
guess, education, hospitals, all the other standard issue emotive
vote winners? Fat lot of use any of them will be if the climate
shifts drastically and we're not ready for it.

Spend your time/money preparing for the climate shift, rather than
doing a Canute and hoping a reduction of your already tiny carbon
footprint will save the world.

Also, what no-one seems to have mentioned, geo-engineering may become an
essential tactic. We could be actively researching the various
proposals, so we're in a position to benefit when they become the only
viable solution. Personally, I think this is much more likely to succeed
than persuading the large CO2 producers to cut their emissions.