| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
June 13th 18, 08:28 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: On 12/06/2018 09:50, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:37:28 +0100 Robin wrote: On 11/06/2018 16:21, wrote: Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask them how they solved it. I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used to be rather good at) Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit. Actually they are. They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed with little effort. |
|
#3
June 13th 18, 09:02 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 13/06/2018 09:28, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 12/06/2018 09:50, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:37:28 +0100 Robin wrote: On 11/06/2018 16:21, wrote: Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask them how they solved it. I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used to be rather good at) Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit. Actually they are. They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed with little effort. No they can't. It takes quite a lot of effort on an international scale to change them. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
|
#4
June 13th 18, 10:10 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:02:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: On 13/06/2018 09:28, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 12/06/2018 09:50, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:37:28 +0100 Robin wrote: On 11/06/2018 16:21, wrote: Well somehow planes managed to land at manston for decades so why not ask them how they solved it. I do know that actually, having first landed at Manston in 1965 in a Chipmunk. But why not share your figures for Manston's previous peak performance and tell us where the extra flight paths will come from to justify I also know that Manson never achieved a fraction of the movements necessary to justify the infrastructure investment you are calling for? Or are they Scotch mist (mist being something Manston used to be rather good at) Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit. Actually they are. They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed with little effort. No they can't. It takes quite a lot of effort on an international scale to change them. Why would low level approach flight paths purely over the UK require an international effort to change? |
|
#5
June 13th 18, 10:31 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 13/06/2018 09:28, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 12/06/2018 09:50, wrote: Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit. Actually they are. They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed with little effort. They are fixed to a large extent by the positioning of the runways. To land safely, most airliners need a straight line approach exceeding 25 miles, entered from a turn of about 10 miles in radius,so for Heathrow, they start their final approach over the Thames estuary area. For Manston, that approach would skirt the French coast, so would need international co-operation between air traffic controllers. Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong airport (AKA Kai Tak, aka HEart attack airport) used to be regularly voted the worst airport in the World by pilots, due to the twisty approach between high rise buildings. The new one is rated as being much safer, due to its unobstructed approach over water. Air traffic control would also have a low opinion of aircraft taking off from Manston into the densely occupied landing approach areas round Heathrow and Gatwick. This would be even more fun when the wind changed and all of them were taking off and landing while travelling East, so that Heathrow and Gatwick traffic was taking off into Manston's approach pattern. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
|
#6
June 13th 18, 11:02 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote: On 13/06/2018 09:28, wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:20:44 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 12/06/2018 09:50, wrote: Flight paths are not fixed tracks in the sky, they can be adjusted to suit. Actually they are. They're not fixed infrastructure such as roads and rails, they can be changed with little effort. They are fixed to a large extent by the positioning of the runways. To land safely, most airliners need a straight line approach exceeding 25 miles, entered from a turn of about 10 miles in radius,so for Heathrow, they start their final approach over the Thames estuary area. For Manston, that approach would skirt the French coast, so would need international co-operation between air traffic controllers. Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller planes but they're still airliners, not cessnas. Air traffic control would also have a low opinion of aircraft taking off from Manston into the densely occupied landing approach areas round Heathrow and Gatwick. This would be even more fun when the wind changed and all of them were taking off and landing while travelling East, so that Heathrow and Gatwick traffic was taking off into Manston's approach pattern. If you lived in north london like I do you'd see airliners on approach and departure from heathrow passing each other with minimum vertical and almost no horizontal seperation every day. |
|
#7
June 13th 18, 12:52 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
|
|
#8
June 13th 18, 01:59 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote: On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100 John Williamson wrote: Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller planes but they're still airliners, not cessnas. Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper. normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to stall and fall out of the sky. That sounds iffy to me, got a citation? Military transport aircraft have to come down pretty steep slopes and a lot of them are just modified civilian craft. Plus they wouldn't be near full load anyway as they'd have used up most of the fuel. Pilots don't like City airport much, either. I can't imagine pax are too thrilled about it either. Visited it once , bugger all facilities and a right slog on the DLR. If you lived in north london like I do you'd see airliners on approach and departure from heathrow passing each other with minimum vertical and almost no horizontal seperation every day. You do, of course have the radar records to back this up. However, it Flightradar24 is your friend. |
|
#9
June 13th 18, 02:30 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100 John Williamson wrote: On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote: On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100 John Williamson wrote: Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller planes but they're still airliners, not cessnas. Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper. normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to stall and fall out of the sky. That sounds iffy to me, got a citation? Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flexjet-demonstrates-london-steep-approach-with-lega-425613 Military transport aircraft have to come down pretty steep slopes and a lot of them are just modified civilian craft. Plus they wouldn't be near full load anyway as they'd have used up most of the fuel. Pilots don't like City airport much, either. I can't imagine pax are too thrilled about it either. Visited it once , bugger all facilities and a right slog on the DLR. Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again. https://www.londoncityairport.com/media-centre/london-city-airport-wins-skytrax-award |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| No Crossrail stations to be scrapped in cost-cutting | London Transport | |||
| LEZ phase 3 for vans and minibuses scrapped - Boris has no balls | London Transport | |||
| Western Extension Scrapped | London Transport | |||
| Boundary zone n fares scrapped? | London Transport | |||
| Massive Oxford Street Traffic Jam Saturday 28 Feb ? | London Transport | |||
Hybrid Mode
