the runway?
Enny, G'day!
The proposede runway you so bitterly complain about is down to the say so of ASSI not ASA and has stonking great ravines at either end hence 300m RESA and not 240. A remote island is not the place to have a runway incident. Besides 275m is available for use in take-off and assuming that the minima for category is 300+1400+300 then you have 1675 metres to use in take-off and 1400 metres to land. Not much for 65 tons is itYou are not suggesting Norfolk's piddling little RESAs and ravines are ideal are you? the other thing is runway width. With twin runways can you have a different width for the take-off direction and the landing direction? That would cut costs. And in the ITCZ do these trade winds never reverse then?