"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
...
And of course if one is "only" travelling as far as the South of France
one
doesn't have to fly does one?

Gatwick to Toulouse or Montpellier with BA scheduled flight is a couple of
hours for around £60 + taxes per person return. Driving is a couple of
days
each way, at around £1,000 for the trip, last time I did it. London to
Montpellier by Eurostar and TGV is 7-8 hours and £109 return. So, I don't
have to fly, but, particularly important for a long weekend, it is the
quickest and the cheapest way to travel.

Obviously air travel is too cheap - not properly reflecting its
environmental cost

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:13:27 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

[ Snip ]

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?

Most of the time.

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"?

No. But until you provide some shred of support for your claim that
the risk "would increase by several orders of magnitude" (that is, by
*at least* 100 times), you will be treated as a scaremonger.

The issue is not the identification of "possible risks", but your
bald-faced unsupported assertion that the risks are so dramatically
increased.

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?

First, on what insanity are you projecting on ATC? Why would aircraft
*be* taking off on both sides?

To illustrate the foolishness of your fear tactics, let's call the
runways Left, Right, and New. All proposals thus far have New be
much shorter than Left or Right, and is located to the north. So if
you are using New for departures to the west, you'd *also* use Right
for departures, and Left for arrivals. Aircraft departing on New
would bank gently right shortly after take-off, allowing aircraft
using Right to continue straight, and go-around manoeuvre on Left
would turn to the left.

Etc.

You seem determined to construct a totally assinine scenario, point to
it, and claim that for the UK to do what is routine in the USA would
immediately result in massive death and destruction.

I would simply note that your scenario has little or nothing to do
with reality.

(E.g. the new runway, to the north of the current long pair, will be
shorter than the others...)

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?

Each pair is not, but the northern pair is further west than the
southern.

IIRC each pair operates totally independently, with T/O and landing
clearances being given regardless of what is going on on the other two
runways.

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

Usually not. The landing aircraft use the outer runways, with
take-offs on the inner ones.

This has little to do with issues of safety, and more to do with
managing the flow of traffic on the ground (i.e. departures all go to
the end of the runway, but arriving aircraft can be and are dispersed
along the landing runway's turn-off to take advantage of multiple
simultaneous runway crossings when there's a pause in departures.

How many near misses have there been?

"Orders of magnitude" less than you'd like!

Malc.

Malcolm Weir wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:13:27 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

[ Snip ]
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?

First, on what insanity are you projecting on ATC? Why would
aircraft *be* taking off on both sides?

If alternation continues on the existing runways, with mixed-mode on the
new one, this scenario will happen 50% of the time.

To illustrate the foolishness of your fear tactics, let's call the
runways Left, Right, and New. All proposals thus far have New be
much shorter than Left or Right, and is located to the north. So if
you are using New for departures to the west, you'd *also* use Right
for departures, and Left for arrivals.

Why? And likewise, during easterly operations are you saying that 09L
would always be used for departures, a total reversal of the Cranford
Agreement?

I would simply note that your scenario has little or nothing to do
with reality.

Yours too, I hope.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

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

That is complete tosh. Most go arounds happen with a few feet of touchdown.
If the preceding aircraft is slow off the runway then the next aircraft may
start the go-around actually over the end of the runway.

In bad weather, a pilot may start a go-around at 50ft!

--
MrBitsy

In message
"Terry Harper" wrote:

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
news
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.

Last time this happened to me (Dublin) we were over the threshold when the
pilot aborted. Apparently an Aeroflot plane had, quote: 'Got lost' and
hadn't cleared the runway when expected to. We went up in a straight line
and much steeper than a normal take-off. I've also seen go-rounds at
Heathrow happen much closer than two miles from threshold.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In message
"Chris Jones" wrote:

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?!?!?!?"



Possibly because the train is not doing 183mph down Watford High Street...

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In message
(Aidan Stanger) wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:

[snip]

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?


What is the point in offsetting the runways? While they may point away from
each other at one end, when the wind changes direction they are pointing at
each other, far more dangerous. Much better to keep the runways parallel.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

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.

Oh really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3209672.stm

Oliver Keating wrote...

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.

That sounds like the Frejus Tunnel (France - Italy, the most westerly of the
trans-Alpine road tunnels).

The return toll is about £25 (for about eight miles of road).

Chris Jones wrote:
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.

Oh really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3209672.stm

Oh really indeed - how did I manage to drive a Metropoliton line train over
a bicycle, between Finchly Road and Baker Street then?
--
MrBitsy