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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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
are the size of plane that is needed for a decent hub and long distance
airport to survive. Technical differences include the approach glide
path descent angle for city airport being 6 degrees as against the
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.

Pilots don't like City airport much, either.



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
does make the point that airspace is already very crowded over London
and the South East of England, and adding an extra airport would only
make things worse.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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.

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

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:30:38 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
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/ar...london-steep-a
proach-with-lega-425613

Sorry, that article is supposed to tell me what? Nowhere does it state that
big jets would stall at a 6 deg approach angle.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to follow simple exglish.

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/me...rt-wins-skytra
-award

Just saying what I saw rather than reading it off a website. This was 10 years
ago so it may well have improved. It could hardly have got any worse.