thomas:
Lord Foster has an international track record and being abusive will not change that. I expect you will now repeat your allegations that all Architects are brain dead.
Any architect who proposes a new airport that:
Points out of the prevailing wind,
Points directly across the center of a capital city,
Is bound to have nights restrictions attached, due to the above orientation,
Cannot do simultaneous approaches because the runways are too close together,
Is forced to delay outbounds (on the inners), to wait for inbounds (on the outers) to cross the runway,
Will be severely limited during low-vis procedures,**
Has no taxiways - can you see any taxiways?,***
Has a terminal building at the end of the runway, which is inherently dangerous,
Is built next to an oil and gas terminal, which is inherently dangerous,
Is built on a cache of unexploded bombs, which is inherently dangerous,
Such an architect is either brain-dead, or very badly advised. Perhaps Lummox Foster could tell us how many pilots, controllers and airport managers were on his design team. I can predict the answer - none. And only a brain-dead architect would do such a thing.
Its a bit like reading newspaper articles about aviation, which are generally written with an infant's knowledge of aviation. But this is more important, as Fosters Folly could end up as a huge, expensive and very embarrassing waste of your money. Politicians, easily dazzled as they are by celebrity, will probably be similarly dazzled by Foster's Folly, and give it the go-ahead. Foster needs a dose of reality, before he wastes a golden opportunity to build a first-class transport facility (on Boris Island, further out in the estuary).
** With runways that close together, departing aircraft lining up on the inner runway will be within the ILS protected area for the aircraft on a CAT III approach to the outer runway. Thus no low-vis departures can be made from this airport, while aircraft are approaching, or
vice versa. Is that mad, or what?
*** One presumes the aircraft stands are between the two runways. But how do you get from the runways, to the stands, if there are no taxiways?
P.S.
If you look at the size of CDG, it is obvious that Boris Island needs to be 5 x 5 km in area. This is a substantial lump of real estate in the estuary (draw it on a Google Earth image), and so it needs to be further eastwards than Foster's Folly. The south-western edge of this large reclaimed square of land, should lie on a line joining Shoeburyness and Eastchurch (on Sheppey), giving an orientation of about 245 degrees true. The NW apex of the island being 1km from Shoeburyness point (closer to Shoeburyness than Sheppey). The coastline at Shoeburyness point may have to be reinforced, due the invigorated tidal flows.
This would allow all SW departures from Boris Island to overfly the Isle of Grain and the Kingsnorth Inlet, and thus reduce noise nuisance in the area to an absolute minimum (the area is sparsely populated). Departures would then either:
a. Carry straight on between Gillingham and Gravesend.
b. Turn left 180 at 5nm and pass between Sittingbourne and Gillingham.
b. Turn right 270 at 5nm, and track to East tilbury, before turning north up the Basildon Brentwood gap.
Likewise, on NE landings, all the approaches would be just west of the Rochester gap, with no further conurbations inside this habited zone. Rochester would be at the 10nm / 3,000 ft zone, and having lived at this distance from a major airport, I can vouch that the noise nuisance is minimal.
Of course in the NE direction, there is only sea for the approaches and departures, and so this airport would be very noise-friendly. (And any CO2 emissions would end up in AMS - sorry, Cloggies).
.