Gozo:
What experience in this sort of thing do you have?
2min separation is required for a/c departing on the same routes, depending upon the relative speeds.
Geffen:
As to time based departures look at CAP493 Section 1 Chapter 3 Page 9. Certainly has 2 min separation there and more.
You said 'wake turbulence separation'. Check CAP 493 Part I 9.6.2 - there is no wake separation on departure between same weight types.
And as I said before - most heavies will go from the longer international runways, while the mediums will go from the domestic/European terminal. In this case, there is little need to mix aircraft types, and thus incur wake turbulence separation delays.
And Geffen, you are looking at CAP 493 Part I 8.6, which has nothing to do with wake. Since I had the tracks diverging at 5nm, the following aircraft could be released in approx 1.6 mins. But with the new, revised departure tracks on the new map diverging at 1nm, they can now depart with very little separation - 30 seconds or so.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1corr.pdf
Geffen:
Route separation on departure (assuming same wake category) applies as follows at LHR. 1 min: Routes diverge by 45 degrees or more
AN-Conf/11-IP/3 3.2.1 Manual on Simultaneous Operations:
Independent IFR departures may be conducted from parallel runways provided:
b) the departure tracks diverge by at least 15 degrees immediately after take-off.
c) suitable surveillance radar capable of identification of the aircraft within 2 km from the end of the runway is available.
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/meet...003_app_en.pdf
VC10 (aaahhhhh VC10 !!)
However long would it take me to get to Silverland? Presumably I would have to get a car ferry to the island?
There is supposed to be a Thames barrier that runs from shore to shore, with a large motorway on top. London desperately need a new Thames barrier, before it becomes the new Bangkok (flooded).
I will draw it on the diagram.
Geffen
CATIIIC approaches would still get you a landing clearance at 1nm (on a CAT III approach) if approved by the CAA and you are warned. Nothing wrong with that.
There is a hell of a lot wrong with that.
I am at 300ft and fast approaching a point where I will have 1.25 seconds to make a land/go-around decision, and the last thing any captain wants is the aircraft swaying all over the place on an unstable ILS (Sensitive Area still compromised) and ATC wittering on about landing clearances and winds.
I have never had a CAT III landing clearance inside 4-5 miles, and I would consider it wholly unacceptable and highly irresponsible to do so.
Jabird
(Oil Terminal) Which is perpendicular to the runways. Are there any documented cases of aircraft even going into terminals,
From FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL, 18-24 July, 1990
BA REPORT REVEALS LHR 747 OVERSHOOT FROM 75ft.
"A British Airways Boeing 747, involved in a low offset overshoot
incident at Heathrow last November, came as low as 75ft, a
confidental letter to BA 747 aircrew from the airline's chief 747
pilot has revealed. The aircraft almost landed outside the airfield
boundary."
(Over the hotels to the north of the airfield)
Jabird:
(Bombs) Which can be exploded! Why hasn't this been done before? Costs too much. Why would this be done BEFORE laying a new airport on top of it? Costs too much not to!
Too much of it. A whole ship-full.
Look at the problem they had in Koblenz last week. They evacuated a whole town for 2 tonnes of explosives - the SS Richard Montgomery has 1,400 tonnes !
Are you going to light the blue touch-paper? Are you going to insure the oil companies, for damage and secondary explosions to the Isle of Grain refinery?
SS Richard Montgomery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This was the John Burke, also an ammo ship, exploding:
Thomas:
It's interesting that you consider my views void as they are "ad hominem"
as a large part of your argument is just that. I shall quote some of them.
"Foster's Folly"
"Brain dead Architects"
"Ca-moron"
You misunderstand what an
ad hominem is - it is a blatant device to negate the argument by attacking the person, and not the argument. However, it does not prevent someone being called 'stupid'.
A cat walks in front of us and someone says: "that is a horse".
If I reply: "you are an idiot" - that is an
ad hominem, for I have not addressed the error.
If I reply: "a horse has one toe, not four or five, therefore you are completely wrong and an idiot" - that is not an
ad hominem. I have given sufficient explanation to negate the person's assessment of the situation and prove them grossly incorrect - thus an idiot.
Your previous reply, to which I made the
ad hominem comment, made no objective criticism of the airport plan.
Jabird:
You on the other hand have taken a Google map (which anyone who knows anything about cartography will tell you are some of the most dumbed down maps going, most speficically because they lack contours), and drawn a box on it with 6 lines for runways.
You seem to forget that I am not paid £gazillions to come up with a viable plan for a new London airport (which everyone in the UK will have to contribute towards, and everyone will have to use for the next 60 years). In contrast, I just have 40 minutes spare every other day for perusal of such interests. You would have thought that an architect/pilot who is paid £gazillions to create architectural plans would have known about the Richard Montgomery and the prevailing winds in the UK.
You also seem to forget that the Thames Estuary has no contours.
.