LAX_LHR ... We must agree to differ. A multi-storey car park located in a development such as Airport City which is not under the approach is clearly safer than a surface car park development in the undershoot of the final approach to a busy runway. None of us want to dwell upon the possibility of an aircraft accident occurring, but the survival odds are much better if the point of contact with the ground is green pasture land rather than a high density car park. This proposed car park undoubtedly satisfies the letter of the law (as it must), but it is a significantly less safe option than the viable alternative which objectors put forward for consideration. The difference between the two is that a multi-storey costs more money to construct.
I could continue onto the invisible costs of environmental destruction and the cost of writing off the 'Good Neighbour' legacy, but these are additional factors which have been discussed earlier in the thread and there is no point going around in circles.
As for you comment that "Huh? A crash is a crash" ... well, I'm amazed that someone in the industry could glibly come out with this. There are all manner of innovations which have been introduced to improve the "survivability" of aircraft accidents. This is very much a holy grail within the industry and rightly so. The surface upon which an impact occurs is a significant factor in aircraft accident survivability. With the benefits of a robust safety culture being applied, aircraft accidents can be considerably less bad than the worst case scenario. Eroding that safety margin away in the name of expediency and (relatively) modest cost savings is not the way to go.
I have never mentioned "carmaggedon" ... that colourful word is your own. I am not into Hollywood theatrics when discussing a safety case. However, it is certainly reasonable to point out the survivability of one surface versus another in a discussion of this nature. I do not argue that an aircraft accident *will* happen, but I acknowledge that it *could*. The aviation industry must always be mindful of accident prevention and mitigation. The lessons learned and innovations applied from accident investigations worldwide have saved thousands of lives. It is wise to value the contribution made by a robust safety culture and not just sidestep it when convenient to save afew pounds on construction costs. And remember, aviation safety best practices are derived from worldwide data, so "it's never happened before at Manchester" doesn't really cut it in this context.
By the way, I did not initiate the discussion on the safety aspect of Manchester's 9000 space car park application. Read my post #1340 on this thread and you will note that I introduced the car park news with a quite different discussion emphasis. However, I have since seen contributors here dismissing safety concerns raised by other posters. That, to me, is something worthy of a rebuttal posting. We must never allow our complacency to shunt aside the safety culture which is so vital to this industry. It is deserving of our attention and respect.
Best to all. SHED.
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 27th Oct 2013 at 02:53.