wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?

You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg

I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards
instead of being vertical.

Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg

On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the
human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?

You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg

I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
instead of being vertical.

Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg

You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree
with everything I say.

They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.

--
Spud

On 23/05/2017 16:36, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:35:02 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
But passengers in transit through the hub still require airlines to
prepare, clean, fuel and crew aircraft, transfer baggage, and make and
deliver on-board meals.

Transit passengers are therefore making much the same demands (and
providing much the same revenue) for the local economy as non-transit
passengers.

Given that the staff can come from anywhere I doubt the "local" economy
sees many benefits at all.

Most of the routine service and clerical staff do tend to come from the
immediate surrounding area.

OTOH The extra traffic might reduce it quite
significantly if people stop bothering visiting the shops or companies.

Do many people travel to Heathrow just to visit the shops?


in the first place. Without the transit passengers the airlines might
decide not to run them (or as many) at all.

One could only hope.


Ah, yes. You don't believe in travel do you?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 2017\05\23 16:57, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the
human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?

You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg

I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
instead of being vertical.

Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg

You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree
with everything I say.

They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.

This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him?

On 23/05/2017 16:40, d wrote:

I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards
instead of being vertical.

Well I was told by people who spent their lives in aviation it's so air
traffic controllers don't see distracting reflections in the windows -
e.g. of other controllers or VDUs or doors opening or whatever. They
are tilted so the internal reflections are of the ceiling which don't
have lights.

And guess what? Lots of sites have the same explanation. Eg

http://www.airport-world.com/item/44-tall-story


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/05/2017 16:39, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:26:35 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/05/2017 14:13, d wrote:
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?

And the advantage of being able to look at the foot of the tower would be?

I don't know, something happening nearby that may be of concern. Use your
imagination. The human eye is quite good at catching motion on the peripheral,
perhaps a vehicle or person where they shouldn't be etc. Something you won't
necessarily spot with screens showing narrow angle camera views.

If you looked at the reports you'd see they aren't narrow angle views.


You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the
screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details.

See above.


See what above? You haven't addressed the point at all.

The point being you could do all of that in the control tower. FFS, you can
get all that on flightradar24!


You still need a screen to to display it, once you accept that then we
are back to the point where it doesn't matter where the screen is
physically located.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 23/05/2017 16:40, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?

You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg

I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards
instead of being vertical.


Strangely that is not to enable you to look vertically down.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 23/05/2017 17:01, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\23 16:57, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control
tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as
the
human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction
almost
instantly including vertically down?

You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg

I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
instead of being vertical.

Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me
with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg

You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to
disagree
with everything I say.

They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they
need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural
flourish?
Aww, bless.

This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him?

No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his
ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/05/2017 16:36, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:35:02 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
But passengers in transit through the hub still require airlines to
prepare, clean, fuel and crew aircraft, transfer baggage, and make and
deliver on-board meals.

Transit passengers are therefore making much the same demands (and
providing much the same revenue) for the local economy as non-transit
passengers.

Given that the staff can come from anywhere I doubt the "local" economy
sees many benefits at all.

Most of the routine service and clerical staff do tend to come from the
immediate surrounding area.

OTOH The extra traffic might reduce it quite
significantly if people stop bothering visiting the shops or companies.

Do many people travel to Heathrow just to visit the shops?


in the first place. Without the transit passengers the airlines might
decide not to run them (or as many) at all.

One could only hope.


Ah, yes. You don't believe in travel do you?

I guess people who afraid of flying begrudge others' right to travel.

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 10:24:11 on Tue, 23 May
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:

If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution
would be much worse.

How do you work that out?

cough wouldn't be so bad.

The cough wouldn't be so bad, I agree.

--
Colin Rosenstiel