About Us

Malcolm Weir

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.

Richard J.

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)

Malcolm Weir

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:51:11 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

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.

If martians fly out of your bottom, the National History museum will
want a word.

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?

Why not?

The point is simply that your scenario collapses, entirely, with a
trivial procedural change.

More realistically would be to simply sequence operations in such a
way that the runways are not being used simultaneously, but rather as
a means of reducing the in-trail separation of the traffic by
offsetting the traffic.

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

Yours too, I hope.

Sadly for your whining, my scenario matches what actually happens at
airports...

Malc.

Richard J.

Malcolm Weir wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:51:11 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

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.

If martians fly out of your bottom, the National History museum will
want a word.

Unintelligible comment 1.

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?

Why not?

The point is simply that your scenario collapses, entirely, with a
trivial procedural change.

If you regard runway alternation at Heathrow and the Cranford Agreement as
trivial, you have a lot to learn about the realities of operating Heathrow
airport.

More realistically would be to simply sequence operations in such a
way that the runways are not being used simultaneously, but rather as
a means of reducing the in-trail separation of the traffic by
offsetting the traffic.

Unintelligible comment 2.

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

Yours too, I hope.

Sadly for your whining, my scenario matches what actually happens at
airports...

I don't think you understand what actually happens at Heathrow.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
City Airport expansion gets go-ahead - incl. new DLR rolling stock	Someone Somewhere	London Transport	10	August 1st 16 06:37 PM
Airport expansion: Heathrow runway 3 and Gatwick runway 2 constituteshortlist	Basil Jet[_3_]	London Transport	44	December 21st 13 12:12 PM
OT - Massive fire at Olympic games site	Mizter T	London Transport	10	November 12th 07 11:06 PM
Massive Oxford Street Traffic Jam Saturday 28 Feb ?	Jonathan	London Transport	1	February 29th 04 03:26 PM
Congestion charging expansion plans: zone expansion.	Gordon Joly	London Transport	9	January 3rd 04 02:58 PM

Menu

About Us