In message , at 15:06:31 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:

If you have a link to anything that explains the 2005 proposals I
would be interested.

http://www.baa.com/assets/B2CPortal/...terim_masterpl
an.pdf

(It's 2006, sorry for the slightly duff date earlier).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:26:08 on Tue, 11 Oct
2011, d remarked:
So once everything everything out you're left with the 500 million
tons of CO2 that aircraft pump out each year.

That's about the same as emissions from petroleum and natural gas in the
UK alone.

Oh ok , if you're going to play that game then why worry about any form of
pollution since none of them individually come close to the total? I'm sure
there's a name for that sort of deceptive argument but I can't remember what
its called.

Petrol and natural gas are quite close to being "single targets", and I
agree that we should consider ways to reduce consumption of both of
them.
--
Roland Perry

On 11/10/2011 15:06, Bruce wrote:

At that time, the scheme that had previously been proposed for the
second runway had a separation from the existing runway of nowhere
near 1.0 km, so it is obvious that there has been at least one
significant change.

The previous proposal kept to a minimum the amount of demolition that
would be needed. I think it was limited to part or all of one
industrial estate. I would imagine that a 1.0 km separation would
involve much more demolition as the new runway would be significantly
closer to Crawley. The noise nuisance would also be worse.

Maybe someone is waiting for a proposal involving demolishing all of
Crawley...


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 11/10/2011 10:00, Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:53 am, wrote:

You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby. The sky is already a contrail polluted mess on most days

You do know what contrails are, right?

What they really are, or just what the government wants us to think they
are?

--
Arthur Figgis behind the grassy knoll

In uk.railway Bruce twisted the electrons to say:
But it remains a taxiway that can be used as a runway *only in
emergencies*. The absence of any form of ILS and the absence of
proper taxiways when the emergency "runway" is in use tell the story.

So what's that parallel strip of concrete to the north of Runway 08L,
complete with a twin-jet airliner on it in Google Maps' satellite view
then?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In message , at
18:58:57 on Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
You do know what contrails are, right?

What they really are, or just what the government wants us to think
they are?

They are actually a vast clandestine surveillance device listening to
all our emai.... No carrier.
--
Roland Perry

On 11/10/2011 19:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway Bruce twisted the electrons to say:
But it remains a taxiway that can be used as a runway *only in
emergencies*. The absence of any form of ILS and the absence of
proper taxiways when the emergency "runway" is in use tell the story.

So what's that parallel strip of concrete to the north of Runway 08L,
complete with a twin-jet airliner on it in Google Maps' satellite view
then?

That's the taxiway.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:06:31 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:

If you have a link to anything that explains the 2005 proposals I
would be interested.

http://www.baa.com/assets/B2CPortal/Static%20Files/lgw_interim_masterplan.pdf

(It's 2006, sorry for the slightly duff date earlier).


Thanks, Roland. That's just what I needed. I found the maps that
support the masterplan at this link:

http://www.gatwickairport.com/Docume..._oct06_pdf.pdf

The second runway is much further south than previously proposed.

d wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:32:43 +0100
Bruce wrote:
wrote:

Anyway , have a look at http://www.flightradar24.com to see the shear
numbers of aircraft in the sky already over europe. Personally I think its
quite enough given the precarious state of the enviroment at the moment.


You are either a scaremonger, or a victim of scaremongering, or both.

Sorry? Do you think the aircraft shown on that site are made up?


No, not at all.

Your reaction to them is, however, bizarre - bordering on paranoia.

The whole agenda of the 'global warming industry' is based on
(1) generating irrational fear among the general population, then
(2) presenting an alleged solution to the alleged problem that will
cost untold trillions of dollars, pounds, euros and yen (etc...) with
absolutely no certainty as to whether it will solve a problem whose
very existence in doubt.

You seem to have completed stage (1). The recent massive rises in
your energy bills represent the start of contributions to phase (2).

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:18:56 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:13:16 on Tue, 11
Oct 2011, Richard J. remarked:
So why does it have "08L" at the west end and "26R" at the east end? It
may not be a very good runway, but it IS a runway, and is shown as such
on pilots' charts.

It's best to describe it as an alternate runway, not a second runway.

Successive flights alternate between them ?