Graeme Wall wrote:
(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.

I asumed it was related to the position of the ends rather than the
angle.

I was making the point that the Heathrow situation is rather different
than the situation at the very large overseas airports.

Terry Harper wrote:

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.

Scientists do not yet have all the information they need to fully
understand the effects of H2O in the stratosphere (nearly all of which
is in the form of tiny ice crystals in suspension).

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"nightjar" wrote in message
. ..
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the
population
of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its
current
ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet
pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones.

Pollution levels do not include CO2 , they usually are only NOx , CO , and
SO2
which are a lot easier to meet. And how is it useful for the bulk of the
population? You think that Fred the bus driver needs to go to an important
business meeting in franfurt every other week?


This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of
all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to
achieve
that sort of level of growth.

Even if its 20% and not 40% , it doesn't matter. Its increasing , thats
the
problem. It should be decreasing.

The figure, being a proportion, is essentially meaninigless. If all other
sources were eliminated, it would rise to 100%, even if cut to one tenth of
its present levels in absolute terms.

....
Holidays may be nice , but they're hardly essential. Ask any farmer.
Besides
which there are plenty of ways to travel without using an aircraft.

None of which are realistic, if you want to travel any distance and don't
want to take needlessly long to do so.

....
Bully for you. And when you wonder why england in 30 years is like the
south
of france (and southern europe is a semi desert) and all the mative faunu
is
dying perhaps you can explain to your kids that it was partly down to the
selfishness, indifference and extravagance of people like yourself.

You seem to have much more faith than I that it is possible to make long
term predictions of climate behaviour from relatively short term
measurements. 40 years ago, we were, with equal confidence, expecting to see
the first signs of a mini ice age by now. The predictions are only as good
as the model used to make them and predictive modelling does not have a
particularly good record, especially where it takes a long time to get
corroborative feedback. AIDS, where feedback can be obtained in months,
rather than decades, is currently on about its fifth model and African
countries that should, according to the model, be virtually depopulated by
now are actually having problems of population growth. Even if you get a
reliable model, that is only as good as the data that gets fed into it. The
first claims for global warming were based upon sea surface temperature
measurements taken by ships. Later automatic equipment showed that there had
been an essential flaw in the basis for the measurements taken, which
virtually invalidated that data. That raises the unanswerable question of
how much reliance can be placed upon the data being obtained now. If, as
seems most probable, there is a real tendancy to global warming, opinions
are deeply divided as to what, if any affect human agencies have to do with
it. The fact that 2003 was the fifth warmest year on record has to be set
against the fact that 1949 was warmer, the worst floods in Europe for 100
years, only show that worse floods have happened before - Budapest escaped
any problems because its builders had allowed for those worse floods. As
yet, the measured variations are still well within what nature is quite
capable of achieving without man's help, although man probably isn't helping
the problem. However, trying to reduce man's impact by limiting what we do
is the way of the Luddite. The only realistic approach is the to follow the
path that we have been on for decades and to reduce the amount of impact
that what we continue to do has on the environment. Cars today produce a
fraction of the level of pollution that they did in the 1960s, despite
being, on average, considerably more powerful and the next generation of
airliners will use 20% less fuel. Those are the progressive ways to tackle
the problem. Of course, the largest single contribution to reducing
greenhouse gasses would be to replace all those fossil fuel power stations
with nuclear power plants.

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:51:00 +0000, Steve Peake
wrote:

The T5 planning inquiry, the flight cap was a condition of building it,
that condition was accepted by the Transport Minister.

It was a condition which of course is just that a condition which is not
legally binding. As you have found out what one Transport Minister can
accept another can over turn.


--
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

In message
"Terry Harper" wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
[snip]

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.

Strictly speaking, the decision to abort ought to be made before the pilot
goes to "full flaps", because that inhibits his ability to get away again
safely. When he does that, he's almost committed to landing. Trying to
climb away on full flap is not nice. You cannot safely raise them until you
have enough speed and altitude.

But if it is a choice between a not nice climb out on full flap or mating
with a Tupulov half way down the runway, I know which I prefer.

--
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:

Graeme Wall wrote:
(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.

I asumed it was related to the position of the ends rather than the angle.

Unless there is a large difference, would it have much effect?


I was making the point that the Heathrow situation is rather different than
the situation at the very large overseas airports.

The main difference being they will never get the third runway through the
planning procedures I suspect. Could build it on stilts over the M4 I
suppose.

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

"nightjar" wrote in message ...

...
Holidays may be nice , but they're hardly essential. Ask any farmer.
Besides
which there are plenty of ways to travel without using an aircraft.

None of which are realistic, if you want to travel any distance and don't
want to take needlessly long to do so.

For long distance yes , for medium and short distance no.


...
Bully for you. And when you wonder why england in 30 years is like the
south
of france (and southern europe is a semi desert) and all the mative faunu
is
dying perhaps you can explain to your kids that it was partly down to the
selfishness, indifference and extravagance of people like yourself.

You seem to have much more faith than I that it is possible to make long
term predictions of climate behaviour from relatively short term
measurements. 40 years ago, we were, with equal confidence, expecting to see
the first signs of a mini ice age by now. The predictions are only as good

40 years ago we didn't have computer prediction, they basically were
working on guesswork. Aside from models theres the basic physics that C02
is a green house gas and more CO2 = more trapped energy in the atmosphere
whatever effect that may have.

as the model used to make them and predictive modelling does not have a
particularly good record, especially where it takes a long time to get
corroborative feedback. AIDS, where feedback can be obtained in months,

So in other words you can't tell if the models are correct until the predicted
result has come about. Well thats a great argument for doing nothing, lets
wait until the climate goes haywire THEN start worrying eh?

rather than decades, is currently on about its fifth model and African
countries that should, according to the model, be virtually depopulated by
now are actually having problems of population growth. Even if you get a

People are a teensy bit harder to model than atmospheric physics. You dont
have free will to take into account. Bad example.

it. The fact that 2003 was the fifth warmest year on record has to be set
against the fact that 1949 was warmer, the worst floods in Europe for 100

And the last decode had the other 4 warmest years too. So 1949 was hot? Big
deal , all that shows is that short term random fluctuations can cause
short term perturbations as great as the overall long term change.

the problem. However, trying to reduce man's impact by limiting what we do
is the way of the Luddite. The only realistic approach is the to follow the

I'd imagine the population of the Easter Island took the same point of view.
The end result is that they destroyed their enviroment and died out.

path that we have been on for decades and to reduce the amount of impact
that what we continue to do has on the environment. Cars today produce a
fraction of the level of pollution that they did in the 1960s, despite

Err no, thats a specious argument. Cars produce a fraction of SOME pollution
compared to the 1960s. Mainly NOx, CO and SO2. You'll find however that the
most important pollutant (ie CO2) has only been reduced by something like 30%
per unit of distance travelled , and considering there are probably 4 times
as many cars on the roads (in the UK anyway) as in the 60s .. well I think you
can do the maths.

being, on average, considerably more powerful and the next generation of
airliners will use 20% less fuel. Those are the progressive ways to tackle

If the volume of air traffic is to double as the forcasts suggest , how exactly
is a 20% reduction going to help? Overall there wil still be 1.6 times the
amount of fuel being burnt. I don't call that progress.

the problem. Of course, the largest single contribution to reducing
greenhouse gasses would be to replace all those fossil fuel power stations
with nuclear power plants.

Well we finally agree on something. Nuclear power is a far mroe realistic
and reliable alternative to wind farms, wave machines etc but its been killed
off my green activists who couldn't tell you the difference between and alpha
and beta particle if their lives depended on it. Ah well, as history has
shown time and time again, humanity seems to have to learn its lessons the hard
way.

B2003

wrote:

... Nuclear power is a far mroe
realistic and reliable alternative to wind farms, wave machines etc
but its been killed off my green activists who couldn't tell you the
difference between and alpha and beta particle if their lives
depended on it.

Quite.

I'm never sure whether they are in favour of burning only coal or perhaps
would prefer to see everyone keep warm by shivering and wearing woolly
jumpers.

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...

But if it is a choice between a not nice climb out on full flap or mating
with a Tupulov half way down the runway, I know which I prefer.

If there is a Tupolev halfway down the runway, you should never have got
that far. I've done a full-flap overshoot in an Oxford, and didn't enjoy it
much. It took forever to get to a height where I could reduce the flap
setting, even with the wheels up.
--
Terry Harper
http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

(Boltar) wrote in
om:



Well we finally agree on something. Nuclear power is a far mroe
realistic and reliable alternative to wind farms, wave machines etc
but its been killed off my green activists who couldn't tell you the
difference between and alpha and beta particle if their lives depended
on it. Ah well, as history has shown time and time again, humanity
seems to have to learn its lessons the hard way.

At the current rate of consumption you are probably right. Of course a
better alternative to all of these is not to use so much enerhy in the
first place. But that's a bit boring...

--
Adrian