On 23/05/2017 09:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:44:54 on Tue, 23 May
2017, d remarked:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 17:06:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:51:16 on Mon, 22 May
2017, d remarked:
Given their lobbying for a 3rd runway I think its fair to say
heathrow don't
have a leg to stand on wrt enviroment concerns. And airliner on
takeoff
burns
the same amount of fuel per second as a couple of thousand cars.

That's a different aspect to the environmental impact. The ones the
NIMBYs worry about include traffic congestion and pollution from road
vehicles.

Worring about the wolf while not noticing the bear. I'd have thought
a 2
mile long slab of concrete plus god knows how many jets taking off
overhead
would have been a lot more to worry about than extra traffic.

There's a large five figure number of employees and about the same
number of passengers, every day. That's an awfully big impact on the
local roads and pollution.

Sure, I'm not saying the road traffic won't be worse. But tbh one traffic
jam is very much like another. When I worked down there it was pretty
much
gridlock already in the rush hour.

If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution would
be much worse.

How do you work that out?


We are where we are, and the improvements to public transport are mainly
to reduce the traffic and pollution.


Agreed

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote:
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God
knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which
isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote
control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure"
link. What could possibly go wrong?


Actually three separate secure links.

And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake.

If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I
suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that.

Hence the triple redundancy so you can switch to one of the back-up
circuits, which is probably done automatically.

I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.


What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft.
Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens
makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras
can give you a better visual image after dark.

You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the
screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business - there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places (especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.

In message , at 10:24:11 on Tue, 23 May
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:

If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution
would be much worse.

How do you work that out?

cough wouldn't be so bad.
--
Roland Perry

On 23/05/2017 10:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:24:11 on Tue, 23 May
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:

If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution
would be much worse.

How do you work that out?

cough wouldn't be so bad.

Ah! :-)

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at
02:46:34 on Tue, 23 May 2017, remarked:
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel
Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business -
there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City
airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places
(especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.

I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from
overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally.

It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day
who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use
Heathrow.

Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom
3,000 a day are actual travel buyers.

Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in
through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other
airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat.

Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling
booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:27:47 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
02:46:34 on Tue, 23 May 2017, remarked:
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel
Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business -
there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City
airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places
(especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.

I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from
overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally.

It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day
who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use
Heathrow.

Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom
3,000 a day are actual travel buyers.

Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in
through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other
airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat.

Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling
booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around.

No, but we were discussing the attractions of Crossrail vs HEx. Any of
those visitors who currently use Heathrow and HEx will certainly
switch to Crossrail. And some who previously flew to Luton may switch
to LHR and Crossrail, too. Or they can change at Farringdon to
Crossrail.

It's just one example of the many flows that will use Crossrail rather
than HEx.

On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote:
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God
knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which
isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote
control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure"
link. What could possibly go wrong?


Actually three separate secure links.

And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.


Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple
airports, London City is likely the first of many - see
http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/...d-surveillance

--
Colin

On 2017\05\23 09:44, d wrote:

Sure, I'm not saying the road traffic won't be worse. But tbh one traffic
jam is very much like another. When I worked down there it was pretty much
gridlock already in the rush hour. However that only affects a relatively
small area. The extra flights will affect all of london and a significant
portion of Berkshire. All so Heathrow Plc can increase its share price.

Heathrow can not spirit more money out of people's pockets unless it is
providing the entire population with more of what they want.

On Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:27 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote:
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which
isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote
control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure"
link. What could possibly go wrong?


Actually three separate secure links.

And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake.

If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I
suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that.

I suspect hackers would be somewhat subtler than just blanking the picture.

What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft.
Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens
makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras
can give you a better visual image after dark.

Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?

You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the
screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details.

See above.

--
Spud