Thomas:
A quick sketch produced on your laptop is not a design for an airport it's just a pathetic attempt to belittle one of Britain's many great Architects . Yes I do know what am talking about as I spent seven years of my life gaining two Architectural degrees and membership of the RIBA. When you have done that I may take your proposals seriously. Until then my money is on Lord Foster's scheme.
Until you have a specific criticism of the plan don't waste your breath on
ad hominems, it makes you sound like a playground bully.
Now if you had any architectural/town planning skills you might well have argued that the airport is too far east, and that a site on the villages of St Mary Hoo and Stoke would be better for transport links. I might agree with such a notion, but point out that Gravesend and Gillingham would then have noise nuisance, and these estuary lands are populated by the three toed double-crested newt, and the lesser-spotted fibonacci snail.
But you didn't - you went straight for the
ad hominem instead, in which case your opinions are void.
Giffen:
To fit all that in with 9643 and various other docs would be quite a challenge. I especially like the south bounds of the northern!
Heck if they had spent 30 secs thinking about this ARETS would have been a must, okay would add to the size but, hey money no object right?
You will have to enlighten us on what exactly ICAO 9643 says about simultaneous approaches. I was just using Heathrow as an example. The runways there are 1,500m apart and can sustain simultaneous approaches, so an island 5 km wide should easily be able to accommodate 3 simultaneous approaches.
I presume by ARETS you mean over-run areas. You would have to calculate whether an extended run-off area is cheaper than arrester cables. I would presume the latter would be cheaper and more effective.
.