Gonzo:
True, if they had everything straight ahead to 5nm before turning. However, LHR SIDs split earlier, so we can get 1 minute departure separations. So we can theoretically get 60 departures airborne in 1 hour.
In which case, Silver Island can do likewise. Not everyone will be going straight ahead, just as they don't all go straight ahead from LHR.
The only difference is the addition of the extra domestic-shengen runways. But if they do a circling departure (as you have to do from many airports, especially if terrain is a factor), then there is little or no departure conflict here.
So Silver Island would theoretically be able to get 60 flights airborne per hour from the right runway, 60 from the left, and 30 from the center.
And as an side, I have not noticed many departures from LHR doing split-arse 45 degree turns at 300 ft after take off (the one minute point). Perhaps you could explain this dichotomy. Do you have some example SIDs for us?
Gonzo:
And yet you seem to be the only pilot who's complaining!!!!! We've done it that way for years. So have other airports. Where are the reports of airliners flying into the ground due to infringed ILS sensitive areas outside of 2nm from touchdown?
So you'd spend £XXbn for an airport that would not actually deliver any capacity increase.
I have never been given a Cat III landing clearance inside 3nm. And that includes some very busy airports. And if you cannot get the landing clearance in by 3nm, when the Cat III approach spacing is about 5-6 nm, then something is wrong.
And on the contrary, Heathrow DOES have capacity constraints and flight cancellations, especially when low-viz procedures are in force (when 3nm spacings suddenly become 5-6nm spacings). The whole point about the 3-runway layout, is that the approach and landing capacity is sufficiently high, so there would be no difference between normal and low-viz procedures - you could always have 5-6 nm approach spacing.
And remember, Silver Island can have 24 hour operations, and that represents another 25 - 30% capacity over Heathrow.
Man7
Yes you are correct the Burj tower in Dubai is built on sand with the help of the below !!!
"Over 45,000 m3 (58,900 cu yd) of concrete, weighing more than 110,000 tonnes were used to construct the concrete and steel foundation, which features 192 piles buried more than 50 m (164 ft) deep.
We are building a 3-story terminal, not a 1000 ft high skyscraper.
And you may not know this, but Dutch roads are built straight on top of the sand, without any elaborate foundations. As I said before, sand is a very good foundation, if you can keep it contained and stabilised.
Man7
Having spent many an hour wandering the shoreline of the thames at low tide I can assure you that this stuff won't hold anything heavier than a seagull !!
Construction is not really your subject, is it?
What you are describing is Thames silt and mud, not sand. For building purposes, you go out into the estuary and dredge nice clean sand, just like the Dutch do. And there is plenty of it around, which is why you have locations called 'sands' all over the estuary.
Jabird:
My figure was based on buying the town out entirely for airport / related usage. I'm not sure that you could just 'bribe' people with a payment for noise, although airports do have insulation grant schemes. Either way, that would be a large group of antis to placate.
It was not my idea to use the Isle of Grain, that was the Foster suggestion. As I said, the location has some merits, but also some problems. But check out the new departure layouts that could negate some of the problem. Nothing you can do about N.E. inbounds though.
Jabird:
And can you please stop referring to these flights as being domestic / Schengen - the UK isn't part of that agreement, and is unlikely to be.
So says your crystal ball?
Anyway, as you well know, both customs and immigration are far easier for European inbounds than the rest of the world. Most European passport holders can sail though immigration without much of a second glance. So the same argument pretty much applies - a separate domestic/shengen terminal is the easier solution, rather than mixing passengers in one terminal.
Jabird:
The Dutch reclaim land behind dykes, the Thames Barrier 2 would remain open most of the time.
Yes, but we are not going to allow the tides to flood over Silver Island !! This will be reclaimed land, the same as any reclaimed land in Holland.
And Yes - all of the runways at Schiphol are built on reclaimed land in exactly the same fashion as they will be at Silver Island, and they seem pretty stable to me. (I'll give you a clue, all of Schiphol is about 12 feet below sea level. )
Fairdeal:
Unfortunately, all advocates for the Thames airport consistently fail to explain (1) who will pay for it, and (2) why the airlines would leave one of the world's largest hubs (Heathrow) for a deserted backwater.
1. The sale of LHR, plus the construction costs already earmarked for the new Thames crossing and the new Thames barrier.
2. Well, with LHR shut, they could either choose a brand new hub with all facilities, or use Manston.
Silver-Boris Island, with new departure tracks and sea defenses:
Silver-Foster, with new departure tracks and sea defenses:
.