Massive Airport expansion announced
 

Terry Harper wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Cast_Iron wrote:

At present if an a/c taking off need to divert suddenly they simply
turn away from the other runway's flight path.

If you have three working in parallel where doe the middle one go?

The issue is not about a/c "needing to divert suddenly" but needing
to go around for another approach to land. If both the other
runways have a/c taking off at the time, I guess the middle a/c
would fly straight ahead until it was safe to turn under one of the
other take-off paths. It makes the circuit a bit longer, that's
all. Presumably the problem has been solved at Paris CDG and other
multi-runway airports.

One of the three, at least, will be in use for take-off only. It
ought to be possible for the aircraft on the middle runway approach
to turn towards that other runway and do a circuit in that direction.

However at LHR the proposed third runway is a short one, and so
presumably will be used by smaller aircraft for both landings and
take-off.

Two outside runways have simultaneous take offs - I very much doubt they
will be turning towards one another, therefore the landing on the center can
go straight on!
--
MrBitsy

Massive Airport expansion announced
 

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

The green house effect is caused by CO2 in the upper atmosphere bouncing
back infra-red radiation to the earth.

Are you sure? I thoght it was caused by the atmosphere absorbing the
radiation.

The fact is, incoming radiation from the sun is high frequency because
the
sun is very hot. CO2 is transparant to high frequency radiation.

Incoming radiation is a mixture of high and low frequencies.

The Earth is much cooler, so it emits low-frequency radiation, which CO2
absorbs and reflects - hence greenhouse.

I'd not heard anything about the reflection effects of CO2 before. Have
you got a source for that?

Up to this point you are reasonably correct, but it is not possible for CO2
to reflect radiation. It absorbs infra-red in well-defined bands, as does
water vapour. Water droplets in the form of clouds can reflect radiation,
which is why it is cooler on cloudy days. What can happen is that CO2 can
absorb short wavelength radiation and re-emit it as longer wavelength
radiation, but that depends on temperature, and is unlikely to occur in the
atmosphere.

However, I had heard about the reflection effects of H2O, of which there
is quite a lot in aircraft exhaust emissions. The URL Angus supplied
confirms that H2O in the stratosphere is thought to be a problem due to
the amount of back radiation it reflects being slightly higher than the
amount of incoming radiation it reflects - although scientists are far
from certain on this.

Because the atmosphere contains a lot more H2O than it does CO2, the effect
of water vapour is considerably more than that of CO2, but the processes of
condensation and re-evaporation tend to balance it out. CO2 absorption
depends more on photosynthesis than anything else, although some will
dissolve in water droplets.

Scientists know exactly what happens. Pseudo-scientists don't.
--
Terry Harper
http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Massive Airport expansion announced
 

Malcolm Weir wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:10:24 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

wrote:

The runways are offset so there is scope for an early turn.

AFAICS this is not the case for the Heathrow plans.

International Procedures have to be adhered and this is taken into account
when designing the airfield.

There are procedures that should prevent any incedent from occurring.
However, if something goes wrong then Air Traffic Control would have
little time to react, and I consider that to be a problem.

ATC already have "little time to react" in many cases, and it's got
nothing to do with the number of runways.

But how often is it a "fail to danger" situation with a complex
solution?

Did you see the BBC docufake "The Day Britain Stopped"? Their plane
crash scenario is not very realistic under the present situation, but if
a third runway were to be constructed then the risk would increase by
several orders of magnitude.

This is pure nonsense, a simple "fear tactic".

Do you always regard the highlighting of possible risks as a "fear
tactic"? Having already spotted two major errors in the programme, I
doubted the reason for the plane crash because I thought it would be
obvious that (with only 2 runways) the thing to do would be to send the
aircraft that had failed to land round the other way. When they
mentioned that there had been a similar incident a few years ago that
resulted in a near miss, I looked on the net to see if that was true,
and found it was. I don't have the URL to hand, but try asking Google
for "UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch - Aircraft Incident Report
No: 5/98"

(Not to mention that
ridiculous and unfounded hyperbole with that "several orders of
magnitude", a statistic that's based on, errr, nothing).

I admit I don't know the figures, but when the standard missed approach
procedure is to go round on the side where aircraft aren't taking off,
do you really think that the number of potentially dangerous movements
for mixed approaches WOULDN'T increase by several orders of magnitude if
aircraft were taking off on both sides?

Los Angeles International Airport has FOUR parallel runways. It ain't
a big deal, despite what the doom-sayers claim.

Are they offset so there is scope for an early turn?

Do aircraft land on the middle runways while others take off at the edge
runways?

How many near misses have there been?

Massive Airport expansion announced
 

Aidan Stanger wrote:

snip

Are they offset so there is scope for an early turn?

Do aircraft land on the middle runways while others take off at the
edge runways?

How many near misses have there been?

So, are you saying that if there is a chance of somebody not following set
procedures, no expansion should take place?

That just about every expansion plan, on all forms of transport, for ever
more then.

--
MrBitsy

Massive Airport expansion announced
 

Massive Airport expansion announced
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Terry Harper wrote:

One of the three, at least, will be in use for take-off only. It
ought to be possible for the aircraft on the middle runway approach
to turn towards that other runway and do a circuit in that direction.

However at LHR the proposed third runway is a short one, and so
presumably will be used by smaller aircraft for both landings and
take-off.

Two outside runways have simultaneous take offs - I very much doubt they
will be turning towards one another, therefore the landing on the center
can
go straight on!

We're not talking about a landing, but the need to "go round again" if the
landing has to be aborted. This is unlikely to happen later than when the
captain calls finals, when he will be a couple of miles away from the
threshold, at least. Consequently he can make a turn without conflicting
with the traffic taking off from the other runways.
--
Terry Harper
http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Massive Airport expansion announced
 

Terry Harper wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Terry Harper wrote:

One of the three, at least, will be in use for take-off only. It
ought to be possible for the aircraft on the middle runway approach
to turn towards that other runway and do a circuit in that
direction.

However at LHR the proposed third runway is a short one, and so
presumably will be used by smaller aircraft for both landings and
take-off.

Two outside runways have simultaneous take offs - I very much doubt
they will be turning towards one another, therefore the landing on
the center can go straight on!

We're not talking about a landing, but the need to "go round again"
if the landing has to be aborted. This is unlikely to happen later
than when the captain calls finals, when he will be a couple of miles
away from the threshold, at least.

That's not a reasonable assumption. A go-around sometimes happens much
later than that, for example because of the previous aircraft not having
cleared the runway, or because radio contact with the tower is lost (see
photo of a recent example at http://www.airliners.net/open.file/426634/M
and you will realise just how low it was). The standard procedure is climb
straight ahead to 3000 ft and then proceed as instructed by ATC.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Massive Airport expansion announced
 

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or
Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way.

How come when a train does 183 mph, everyone's all like "woohoo, this is
the
best thing ever, trains rule"... but when a car does 183 mph, everyone's
all
like "what an irresponsible, dangerous thing to do, why won't you think of
the children?!?!?!?"


When an aicraft does 600 miles an hour, people sip champagne and eye up the
totty.

When a car does 600 miles an hour the press descends from all over the
world.

On your logic, an aircraft can do 600 miles an hour in perfect safety, so
now I will go and buy Thrust SSC and do 600 mph down the M40 because that is
a safe speed.

Massive Airport expansion announced
 

"PeterE" wrote in message
...
Robin May wrote:
"Chris Jones" wrote the following
in:

Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or
Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way.

How come when a train does 183 mph, everyone's all like "woohoo,
this is the best thing ever, trains rule"... but when a car does
183 mph, everyone's all like "what an irresponsible, dangerous
thing to do, why won't you think of the children?!?!?!?"

Because trains are pretty safe at 183mph whereas cars are pretty
dangerous.

Given a clear track and a highly-trained driver and I would suggest a car
easily capable of 183 mph would be fairly safe.

And there aren't many trains operating in the UK that can safely do
anything
like 183 mph. A Pacer dmu is far more alarming than a Mondeo at 50.

It is important to remember that the only time continental trains reach 183
(or 186 more precisely) is on dedicated, purpose built track that has
built-in signalling.

The infrastructure is what allows the trains to go fast, rather than the
trains themselves.

I once toyed with the idea of a single-lane motorway construction for high
speed cars (150mph), with a signalling system to keep safe distances.

This would be better with more technological developments, but such a "road
track" would be exceptionally expensive compared to the amount of traffic it
could handle.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

Massive Airport expansion announced
 

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
Because trains are pretty safe at 183mph whereas cars are
pretty dangerous.

But train tracks don't have the visibility for 183 mph. If some kids throw
some garbage onto the line (like they did a few weeks ago when they pushed
a
car onto the CTRL), by the time the train driver sees it, too late he's
dead. He can't steer around it or take any other avoiding action.
Sounds pretty dangerous to me.


Ironically high speed trains have a better safety record than conventional
trains.

Incidentally all the high speed rail lines were built recently and are all
fenced off, even the bridges have fences to stop people throwing things.

There is also a sensing system so that if livestock does get onto the rail
line, the signallers know about it, and can reduce train speeds.