MAN777,

I'll stand by my point with the geography - when you have a country with one city much larger than #2 - 4x or more, and that city is already the home to the national flag carrier, is the political and commercial capital, and that city has a significant tourist infrastructure, it almost always follows that aviation activity will gravitate to that city. Whether you want to call it moths to the light, or a self-fulfilling prophecy, this will be the major hub, just as night follows day.

This situation is especially prevalent in the UK and France, but also I would say the same scenario applies in each of the Nordic countries, and in Ireland. I would also say it applies to Mexico, South Korea and Taiwan.

It is not a universal phenomenon, nor does it seem to have any impact on the overall success of a country - as it clearly does not apply to the USA, China, Italy, Spain, India, Canada, Germany (as discussed) or Brazil.

Wherever you have one dominant city, residents in the others will complain about it - but even in countries with several major cities of similar size and importance, you still have regional disparities and rural-urban tensions, it is a fact of life.


Now with respect to Swizterland and the Netherlands, you have two special cases. Zurich isn't the political capital, but the Swiss cantonal system is highly devolved anyway, and Zurich is a major financial centre, aswell as the hub of the national rail network. However, Geneva is both key to the UN (hence NYC being a viable destination), and a major centre for low cost flights serving skiiers. Therefore, ZRH will always be the hub, but there is viability for Geneva in its own way too.

The main population centres of the Netherlands are concentrated in the Ranstad region, which includes AMS, The Hague and Rotterdam, which is just 26 mins away from AMS by fast train. Therefore, AMS is a natural hub for the whole country, not just the (relatively small) population of Amsterdam itself.

If you don't have the conditions above for one city to dominate, then it is anybody's game to become the major hub - hence the evolution of cities in the USA where the airport is indeed built, and they do come.

Nonsense. Like many I would have backed New Labour if they had done something for the infrastructure and the economy, but they did nothing except social engineering for Marxist wealth distribution purposes (redistributing from the wealthy West to poverty-stricken tyrannical dictators who will buy more arms and population suppression materials).

Name me any great infrastructure project undertaken by New Labour during their tenure.



Exactly. See my comments above on New Labour. They were the most useless administration in the nation's history. And either incompetent or traitorous too - while they managed to build absolutely nothing, they simultaneously banckrupted the nation. Now that takes some doing !!

You will note that Spain also bankrupted itself - but at least they ended up with 5,000 miles of new motorways, 2,000 miles of highspeed rail, plus another 2 million houses and a whole host of new airports. We ended up with ....... errrrmm ........ the Birmingham toll road?




The Thames Airport is not about increasing local traffic, it is about capturing the huge increase in world traffic interlining into Europe. There are many locations in Europe that do not have easy direct flights, and there is huge demand for hubbing flights (as I do quite often). But with LHR so overcrowded and so susceptible to delays, it is much easier to go via AMS or CDG - and that is a big problem for the economy of London, and thus the economy of the UK.




Because you will end up with a mini-Heathrow situation. Northholt is slap ban in the middle of NW London, and the noise demonstrations will be huge and the night ban will be from 20:00 to 08:00. And if anyone does a BA 38 (777) on short finals, they will end up landing in the suburbs with vast loss of life. Northholt is a non-starter.

This is why we need an airport that is free from the sprawling conurbation that is the newly immigrant-inflated South East.



LCY would have to close. But if Boris Island (B.I.) was big enough to take regional/commuter aircraft, and was connected to Cross-Rail (and thus directly to London Docklands, London Central, and London Windsor Views), there would no longer be a need to have a city airport.

Likewise, if B.I. was orientated NE - SW, I see no conflict with AMS traffic. Anyone from ATC with a view on this?




No, LHR would have to close. It is the development and sale of LHR, as the largest and best-connected development site in Europe, that would pay for Boris Island.



But if you had a decent hub, like B.I., with five flights a day to MAN and eight TGV trains a day to MAN - would there still be that demand? Is not MAN living off the back of the capacity constraints at LHR?

Do passengers want to go to MAN at all? Or do they really want to go to Birmingham, Gloucester and Leeds, but find LHR too tiresome and the train connections so poor (you have to go via London and a separate tube journey).




I think we can disregard anything Lummox Foster says. This study is all about 'wildlife habitats' and 'nature reserves' - the buzzwords for any project in the New Labour era. I'm surprised his proposal does not include the huge benefits his folly will give to sustainability, equality, multiculturalism and community relations.

Meanwhile, back on the Ranch of Rationality, Foster's Folly still has runways that will not allow simultaneous approaches, or unrestrained taxying, and his flightpath still goes right across the center of London.

So not only will Foster's Folly have huge night restrictions due noise, it will also be mighty dangerous. Had that 747 that crashed out of Stanstead been taking off from Foster's Folly, it would have impacted right around the Westminster area. Are the Westminster Wallies listening to this?





Develop the site and sell the individual elements. If Docklands can be worth around £40 billion, I am sure LHR will be more so (Its right next to all those Thames corridor commuters, who would love to relocate their offices to London Windsor Views, rather than grinding their way into London Central each day.)

And there will be no unemployment around London Windsor Views - instead this will become the biggest development site in Europe, with jobs galore.

In fact, it is London Central that needs to worry. London Docklands will be right next to Europe's biggest airport, and have plenty of trade. London Windsor Views will be next to the wealthy lands of the Thames corridor, and so will have any number of private company offices relocating there. Meanwhile, London Central will be the sprawling dirty and overcrowded abortion that it has been for some time, served by a 19th century metro system that nobody has touched in five decades.

Where would you rather have your offices - London Windsor Views, London Central, or London Docklands?

P.S. Lets get rid of that London Docklands appellation, it hardly does the area justice. How about London Thames Views, or London Sunrise City??





.

.

Just one other thought.

If the UK cancelled its £12 bn overseas aid budget, you could pay for Boris Island in four years. Yes, you could pay for a new airport, plus a new TGV rail system all over the country, plus new roads and port facilities, all within 10 years. (£120 bn worth of infrastructure projects.)

But NO - prime minister Ca-Moron wants to give this money to despotic tyrants instead, so they can buy more weapons and oppress their people (and purchase more amfo trucks and semtex vests to be exported back to the West, as a small token of their thanks).


.

Well, I'm no apologist for the New Labour government which, despite two landslide election victories, failed to achieve very much at all apart from kow-towing to the USA and its crazy president. It depends on your definition of infrastructure I suppose, but I have to admit that the Labour governments did have some positive achievements including the largest hospital building programme ever with over 100 new hospitals opened, and over 4000 schools were rebuilt or refurbished. Both infrastructural improvements were greatly needed and had been avoided by preceding Tory governments.

I'm struggling to find much else though. They failed to support the Severn Tidal Barrage which would provide renewable energy for decades to come. I suppose Labour's White Paper on airport development from 2003 expressed support for runway extensions and terminal developments at several airports including Bristol, Stansted and Teesside - but then, as far as I'm aware, no finance was provided to support any of these developments. Hopeless.

Financed by PFI. So the Labour government did not actually pay for these improvements - we are paying for them now, and our children will paying for some time in the future. Admit it, the majority of all that enormous Brownite borrowing (borrowing during the good times!!) went on social engineering - and they never had the guts or decency to ask anyone at the polls if this is what they wanted.




I would not place much hope on the Severn Barrage - this is another Greeny pipe-dream that will be as hopeless as all those wind turbines.

Tidal barrages stop working either 4 times a day or 2 times a day, depending on how you operate them. Plus they generate next to nothing during neap tides (twice a month). And when peak tidal flow coincides with midnight and midday, the energy produced is unwanted and useless.

Thus every barrage needs a new fossil fuelled power station next door - burning and turning 24 hrs a day, and ready to take up the slack when the barrage quits generating 4 times a day. Thus you double the infrastructure and maintenance costs, and save bugger all in fuel costs and CO2 output. Barrages are Green window dressing, to salve the troubled consciences of Grauniad readers.




But who needs to extend Bristol airport's runway (if that is possible), when you have Bristol Filton next door - with a runway long enough to take a Brabazon ?!!

And why would you need to extend Birmingham, when you have Gaydon down the road?
And why would you need to extend Leeds, when you have Finningly next door?

This was a failure in political decision making, not finance.


.

Which airlines have explicitly said that as they can't expand LHR ops, they are "forced" to use MAN? Can MAN get Cathay Pacific back with the known large demand - no, they'll find ways to get a 4th LHR daily service up and running before satisfying the seemingly obvious choice of MAN to help relieve the constraints of limited frequency restricting passenger mumber .

There's been a few airlines who have stated that they are going to LGW as they can't expand LHR schedules. Some of those would be ones that MAN would like. We have some airlines stating that they are unable to serve Britain due to lack of access to LHR but it's the myopic view that London is everything in the UK that needs to be eradicated.

That's quite right. No airline in the right mind would want to go to a regional airport as there isn't the demand. So when EK surprise everyone by getting an A380 to MAN a bit ahead of schedule by suggesting enormous untapped demand and that customer feedback indicated that they would be able to sell F class then we have to accept this as uninformed airline logic? That there's a solid amount of premium demand collectively carried by around a dozen other airlines would suggest demand is there unless all those airlines are equally uninformed about passenger demand like EK?

If you want to go to Birmingham or Gloucester then you would not want to use MAN; AA's problem when they were serving BHX is that the premium passengers were using LHR. From the West Midlands southwards you will find only a small portion using MAN. Look at CO who stopped serving Bristol. There's a route that southwest England had to service America but it didn't last. That premium passengers perferred using LHR should tell you that there was barely any flow of passengers northwards and the idea that the displaced BRS aircraft miraculously helped to add frequency at LHR for them reinforces that view.


As for Leeds, yes there's a lot of passengers coming from the "wrong" side of the Pennines to use MAN, but there's more passengers outside southeast England using LHR - do all those passengers want to go to LHR (or Boris Island)? I doubt it. The view that MAN is only allowed to have passengers going through its terminals whose journey ends or begins in Greater Manchester and is not able to have passengers from adjacent metropolitan areas is, frankly, laughable.

Am going to give you another opportunity to rant against New Labour by noting that you spent two paragraphs doing just that in post 164, whilst claiming that my earlier post was nonsense.

Repeating your nonsense about Heathrow being worth £40 billion will not make it worth that. If you had any knowledge of the development world you would have long ago stopped making that claim.

As far as Lord Foster is concerned, have you designed anything let alone an airport. 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.

Finally I fail to see how stating " that is the newly immigrant-inflated South East." adds anything to the debate. To many people that comment could be seen to be racist.

SS,

....However, in your grand vision, the Thames corridor will become a ghetto of formerly occupied company HQs and service industry centres, as the main reason for them being in the Thames corridor was LHR!!!!!!!

So this new development of LHR with all this prime, high end financial/service companies will provide jobs for those formerly employed as security guards, aircraft cleaners, airline ground staff, baggage handlers, catering staff, lorry drivers?

LHR is the economic engine of West London and the Thames corridor. Just have a drive along the M25/M3/M4/M40 or their corresponding A roads and associated industrial/business parks one day, and see how many lorries have some connection with air freight or LHR, observe how many company premises you pass that have a connection to the same.

All those employees are suddenly going to be employed by the new companies who will clamour to occupy the site of a former airport which has very little else going for it, attractiveness-wise?

Also, just a thought, but if you refrain from using language such as 'Lummox Foster' and 'Ca-Moron' you might have a more engaged debate.

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?




http://wordlesstech.com/wp-content/u...-2-620x396.jpg






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).





.

.

And here it is. Instead of Fosters Folly, we now have Silver's Superhub.


Note the two commuter runways to the north have a separate terminal, to speed the flow of domestic/shengen traffic from the smaller aircraft - so large aircraft do not have to mix with smaller on the same approach. An underground metro would connect the two.

I see no reason for not doing triple simultaneous approaches, as long as the middle stream joins the furthest out, maximising the inbound traffic. Thus, on the commuter runways, the outer runway would be used for arrivals to allow simultaneous approaches, with the inner being for departures.

Note that all the departures (red lines) are over unpopulated areas, to the north, west and south. The blue arrow near Gillingham is the 10nm / 3,000 ft point for arrivals during N.E. landings. This altitude would cause minimal noise nuisance for the Rochester/Gillingham locale.



http://i44.tinypic.com/2yyz2gw.jpg




As to the rail links, the Chunnel line currently goes through Ebbsfleet, just west of Gravesend. A spur would be needed to link to the Silver Superhub Airport, or better still a whole new 'eastern route' that skirts the NE of London to connect to the north.

Links to the west would be via Crossrail. In a fit of planning stupidity, Crossrail ends at Abbey Wood, which is just 12 km short of the Chunnel line at Ebbsfleet. Why??? That is like ending the M6 a couple of miles short of the M1 !! The planners should be introduced to a long rope and a high lamppost. Linking these two lines together, and thence to the TGV spur from Ebbsfleet to the Silver Superhub Airport, would give instant access to the west.



.

Well your Architectural skills are so much better than Lord Foster I think you are wasted in aviation.

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.

I visit this site as I find the design and manufacture of aviation products interesting and also a good source of inspiration for my Architectural practise. So thank you to the vast majority of you for your well considered and interesting posts.

SS,

Sorry? Assuming we take that the artist's impression as a fixed blueprint (??), the LSA for CAT III ILS only has to be protected for landing clearance when the landing clearance is given, normally at 2nm, exceptionally at 1nm, so that''s not true. If you get confirmation that the departure is not using LLZ guidance, then you don't have to protect the LSA at all for departures.

You also claim:
Ever heard of wake turbulence separation? 2 minutes?

But then in your masterplan;
So if all departures go straight ahead to 5nm, then every single departure would be a minimum of 2 minutes separation behind the last. As I'm sure you know, the ICAO regulations in SOIR DOC9643 say that simultaneous departures from parallel runways should diverge immediately after take off. Also, good luck on trying to make sure that the southbound aircraft from the 'commuter runway' don't get in the way of the west and northbound aircraft from the other two runways! At the end of the day, I don't think looking at that you'd have any more capacity from your plan than we do in theory from LHR! With two extra runways! What a waste of money!

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?

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.





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.


.

One would hope that Foster does not issue flights of fancy to the press and the public, and had thought about the project for more than 2 minutes. What will be his next project, a skyscraper leaning at a 45 degree angle? ( "Yes, well, it was only an artist's impression...." )




If you give me a CAT IIIb landing clearance at just 1nm/300ft, and declare the Sensitive Area to be cleared just at that time, I'll be knocking at your door.




Errr, you like to give the impression you are in Heathrow ATC. Are you really?

There is no time separation between similar weight types, which is why I attempted to separate small aircraft from larger in this runway layout. Thus, as any real controller would know, there is no 2 minute separation for departures. (But there is a distance separation of 5nm, if I remember correctly.)

Take a look at 2.7 in the following CAA AIC.
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1166.pdf

The only exception to this is the A380. But I think this was a political move by Boeing, to decrease the appeal of the A380 by giving it extra time separations for approach and departure.




And they do diverge - at 5nm (the 2 minutes is a red herring). Ok, so if you want to increase departure rates, then you diverge a bit earlier - by the recommended 15 degrees. Which gives the following departure routes. The only real restriction here is waiting until the Left departure turns (at 3nm), before the Center departure rolls.

The 'domestic' departure tracks crossing the heavies, to fly south is more of a problem, I agree, so I have included a circling departure. Not so efficient for the operator, but may be necessary during peak flow times (but not at other times).



http://i39.tinypic.com/24ct6s3.jpg


.

Silver, I took my wife to Heathrow last week from Derby, it took about 2 hours.
However long would it take me to get to Silverland? Presumably I would have to get a car ferry to the island?

Maybe it would be easier to build the new airport in northern France.

Yes, I work in Heathrow ATC. I have done so for nearly 13 years, and I now work in the ATC Operations department.

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. In the UK, at certain airports, and with CAA approval, you may use 5nm instead providing that the routes diverge. If they diverge by more than 45 degrees, and speeds are comparable, then you can get the 1 minute separation.

Why should I waste my time criticising an obviously flawed plan. Especially as I doubt that you would accept criticism from a brain dead Architect
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"

Whilst I can see the funny side of the above three quotes I must add that your comment:
"The planners should be introduced to a long rope and a high lamppost." is also in extremely bad taste as well.
So if am a "playground bully" what does that make you?

This is a really interesting thread that is being spoilt by rude & sarcastic oneupmanship, can we please get back to discussing this in an intelligent professional manner without reference to people hanging and other completely irrelevant comments.

Ok, Heathrow's runways are 1415m(ish) apart. Does not allow for simultaneous independent approaches in IMC therefore they are dependent on each other, unless VMC. 9643 and other ICAO docs stipulate you need at least 1500m for independent arrival streams, so in theory 5km airport would allow this for 3 runways.

CATIIIC approaches would still get you a landing clearance at 1nm if approved by the CAA and you are warned. Nothing wrong with that.

As to time based departures look at CAP493 Section 1 Chapter 3 Page 9. Certainly has 2 min separation there and more.

ARETS= Around The End Taxiways, best way of reducing runway crossings.

Gonzo is usually on the mark with this stuff. ;)

I agree with you MAN777. I only repeated SS quotes to
1. Refute his "ad hominem" statement
2. To point out that this forum is no place for tasteless remarks.

I am more than happy to discuss this in a professional manner. but see little point in doing so with SS; for the reasons I have given in my earlier posts.

Finally I have no wish to enter into a one-upmanship contest with SS.

SS,

Not sure now if you're deliberately mixing my points up.

2 min wake turbulence separation applies on departure (assuming all full length departures) between:
J followed by H,
H followed by M/S/L
M/S followed by L;
3 minutes applies between;
J followed by M/S/L

Completely separate from that;

Route separation on departure (assuming same wake category) applies as follows at LHR
1 min: Routes diverge by 45 degrees or more
2 min: Similar/same route. For those that diverge, but less than 45 degrees, with the approval of the CAA and because we are qualified for advanced use of the ATM, we can reduce that to 5nm spacing.

The above are modified depending upon relative speeds.

Therefore, I was making the point that with all your SIDs going straight ahead to 5nm, all departures would be subject to 2 minute separation. Perhaps a more stringent MDI would apply to some routes due to their interaction with other London airports or LACC/French/Belgian/Dutch sectors (as it is at LHR with DVR followed by DVR) which might be 3 minutes. Perhaps we could argue that some combinations of routes may be reduced to 5nm, but that's best case. With all SIDs going straight ahead to 5nm, you will never get 1 minute separations.

Regarding CAT IIIb approach landing clearances at 1nm, that's a regular feature at LHR. With 6nm spacing on a dedicated landing runway, in 'normal' CATIII conditions, the one ahead of you will only be vacating the LSA (137m from the runway centreline) when you pass 2nm. If they are slower than usual for any reason, the 1nm point is the cut off. What is your decision height on a CATIIIb approach? Are you getting mixed up with the ILS sensitive areas and the ILS critical areas? We give landing clearance in CATIII conditions as soon as the sensitive areas are clear, which as I said can be as late as 1nm from touchdown.

Geffen,

Thanks.......:ok: Maybe we should put this down as Project Y??? :}

Your own diagram shows flight paths deviating rapidly from the centre-line, so what makes you think this airport (or any other) would be different?

Also, your reference to the KE STN incident 'occuring over Westminster' is a total red herring, as this occured within 3 miles of the airport, as indeed most incidents do.

I wouldn't expect it to, it is an early concept sketch. Look at many maps which feature airports - some just have a plane symbol, some have runways, it is rare to find maps with taxiways, even those generate by the airport itself (for usage by passengers). Taxiways are a detail which are relevant to the aviators, something for later.

I contacted Foster + Partners for more details, and would like to get their explanation of this. However, it is a cargo terminal, not for passengers. There are buildings within a very short distance of the runways at many airports - although I don't know why they have been placed there in what is obviously a new scheme. However, my concern is more that we have terminal + cargo, little evidence of parking structures, or of plans to include revenue generators like airport hotels and offices. However, these are still details further down the line - given that much of this facility is going to be on reclaimed land, the cost will be high, so maybe that is why they aren't features, or maybe the 'airport / cargo city' will include some commercial (non-cargo) facilities.

Which is perpendicular to the runways. Are there any documented cases of aircraft even going into terminals, let alone buildings behind them, or separated by a concrete barrier? Maybe a Q400 in HKT? DFW microburst - but tanks still much more vulnerable there than on this site / doppler radar prevents microbursts from being issue today???

(SS, before you get on your horse, I will play my hand - like Nick Thomas, I trained as an architect, but went into the field of websites, seeking 'Ryanair' turnarounds! I run two transport related websites, so my interest is in the impact the new airport will have on route networks, and naturally in the design of the building itself and its surface access. I therefoe comment on operational matters as an outsider)

And 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!

I wouldn't mind you having a go at architects and planners if you were either a) amusing or b) accurate. The reality is actually that the mindset to practice in either professions is very similar, especially as both rely on extensive usage of maps and other geographical data, and both are frequently hassled by the beancounters to get the maximum output from their machines.

Now when it comes to Foster, you really have picked the wrong fight! Not only has he designed THREE world class airport terminals (Stansted pre-mall, HKG & BJS3), but as it happens, he IS both an architect AND a pilot of jets and helicopters! This is all openly documented fact - you can debate the architectural or operational merits of any of his buildings, but they are all there to see. 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. Have you considered what going so far east does for surface access? Depth of the sea? And presumably, your fantasy island is so far east that it enters Dutch waters, and therefore IS part of the Schengen zone which you keep on saying the UK is part of!

Silver & Co

This is indeed a very interesting thread but could someone do another plan of the estuary region showing the original proposed positions of ALL the past estuary-based airport options over the last couple of decades - four options at least have been tabled. This needs to include the runway alignment, no. of runways and throw in Southend for clarity in terms of its current proximity. That might make the debate a little easier to comprehend as I can't pinpoint where Foster, Boris or any of the older proposals were supposed to be - reclaimed land or otherwise. Armed with that, a tour of the flightpaths using Google Earth would be infinately more insightful. Very soon indeed, this is going to be on the nations agenda with a myriad of clueless politicians having their say being led by hugely overpiad consultants thinkin gthis could be the world's biggest gravy train for the next decade. If the simpletons of PPRUNE land have a better clue about what's what than westminster, that is a rather frightening prospect.

Dab hand with PowerPoint anyone?

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



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



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.




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.




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)




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:


http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/623101-1/burke6




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.




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.



.

Yes, I did say 'wake turbulence separation'. Look back. That was in response to your comment that departures would have to be delayed for crossing inbound traffic. My comment was that, sometimes, departures are delayed anyway due to wake turbulence separation. LHR's traffic mix is about 30% Heavy. So if you restrict Heavies to the long runways in your plan, and all Mediums to the small runways, then you'll either have realtively low demand for departures off the two long runways, in which case there is no delay due crossing traffic, or you'll have Mediums in the mix there as well, in which case you'll have WTS gaps to get the inbounds across.
You know most Heavies take 45-50 seconds to get airborne? With 30 seconds separation then you'll be clearing an aircraft for take off with the one ahead still on the runway.

You missunderstand me. I am talking about departures from the same runway, not parallels! If the routes of successive departures from the same runway do not diverge 45 degrees then you must leave 2 minutes between them. From the same runway.

Then I suggest you should never fly into a capacity constrained airport in CATIII. To give you a landing clearance at 4nm, then we'd have to apply spacing of 8-9nm between lanbdings, not 6nm, in CATIII. LHR's CATIII capacity would go down even more.


And I'm sure you are aware of all the mitigations in place to ensure that doesn't happen again.....

As I don't accept your comments as being objective or reasonable it follows that your argument is "ad hominem".
I have better things to do than carry on this pointless dialogue with you so I shall leave this thread to you.

Good idea. This is a rough image of where the last four proposals have been sited.


http://i39.tinypic.com/e0okd0.jpg





And for those who are fans of Foster's Folly, this is what it would look like if it was turned into wind, to allow all approaches to be over the countryside, instead of over central London.

This arrangement has considerable merits, including not being near the oil refinery and the unexploded ammunition ship. It is also much closer to established transport links, like the Channel tunnel link and Cross-rail, and would join easier onto the motorway network.

Having said that, I really don't think the Greens will let anyone build on the habitat of the three-toed double crested newt and the lesser-spotted fibonacci snail. The Greens have a great desire to destroy the nation, and they know exactly how to achieve their nefarious goals - pulling every emotional string in their arsenal.

The residents of Gravesend might not be too pleased either. Perhaps they could be bought off with cash. I am not sure how many houses there are in Gravesend, but at £20,000 a household, you would only be talking £40 million or so.



http://i39.tinypic.com/b3o9xg.jpg


.

Something to consider that I dont think has been mentioned yet is where is all the rock and cement going to come from to create the island ?

All the various options look considerably bigger than anything that has gone before, Hong Kong had the luxury of a mountain on site to re-profile. Any Thames based project is going to need Millions of tons of rock to create a platform to replace the mud of the estuary.

Very interesting report here which includes a short history of all the past proposals

http://http://www.smithschool.ox.ac....es_airport.pdf

A Thames estuary airport makes no sense:

(1) There are already FOUR airports east of London: London (LCY), Manston, Southend, and Stansted. Why do we need a fifth? What would be the implications for air traffic control with five airports so close to each other?

(2) The proposed airport is too far away from London AND other centres of population in the UK. Heathrow is the nation's major hub airport not just London's, so many passengers (perhaps a majority) are not travelling to/from the centre of London. For them to have to cross congested and crowded London to access the Thames Estuary airport is really not a good idea.

(3) If an airport so far away from London is really acceptable, it's better to use Farnborough, Hurn (Bournemouth) or Manston. These airports already have runways capable of taking the largest jets.

Alternatively neighbouring Northolt might be a suitable Heathrow “overflow” in the short term to allow for the return of “thin” domestic routes (but only with fast surface access between the two, otherwise forget it).

The recently floated “Heathwick” idea is a non-starter, and smacks of desperation: Gatwick is almost as full as Heathrow! If it was a serious idea, why would Ferrovial be forced to sell Gatwick? It is a classic example of a lack of joined up thinking! With airports under different ownership, who would pay for the proposed fast link between the two? What about the security implications of passengers in transit making a forty mile journey between flights? or would they have to go through border control, collect their bags and check in again at the other airport? Why would they bother when changing at Amsterdam is an option?

(4) An island in the Thames would be an environmental nightmare, expensive to build, and ecologically unsound, it cannot be justified. The area is haven for livestock especially birds, so a birdstrike problem in that area is a major likelihood, presenting more safety implications.

(5) There is always a threat of serious flooding and surge tides in the area, this is why the Woolwich barrier had to built. Hydrologists will be able to advise on the effect of an artificial island on tidal flows in the estuary, chances are that it is probably more significant than is admitted.

(6) the “green” arguments against Heathrow runway expansion are bogus: how is it “green” to have aircraft burning fuel circling while waiting to land, and to have aircraft burning fuel idling while queuing up to take off? Bear in mind also that Frankfurt Rhein-Main got approval for two more runways WHILE THE GERMAN GREEN PARTY WAS IN GOVERNMENT.

(7) UK airports are privately owned, not franchised like the railways, not contracted out to the private sector, and not leased out or on any PFI deal. Thatcher sold off the publicly owned airports in the 1980s, and they are wholly owned by, and the assets of private companies. So all talk of of Heathrow “closing” is not realistic, why would it‘s owner, Ferrovial, kill off a “good earner“?

Who would pay for the Thames airport and how long would it take for the investment to pay off? It really does not sound like a brilliant commercial proposition. Why would the airlines leave one of the world‘s busiest hub airports in order to use a deserted backwater? The deserted backwater would have no decent surface links until years after it opened, it is the same at all new airports. On the other hand, more runways at Heathrow are a good business proposition and, unlike high speed railways, would be built using no taxpayers‘ money.

(8) Rail, high speed or otherwise, is not an alternative to aviation, the two complement each other and will continue to do so as the roads get more congested. Unfortunately two of the three proposed high speed rail destinations (Birmingham and Leeds) no longer have air links to Heathrow, so no choice there. More runways at Heathrow can be built much quicker than either high speed railways or the Thames Estuary Airport.

Countries with high speed railways also have very large domestic networks out of their hub airports. There are large number of flights on offer between Madrid and Barcelona; Paris and Marseille, Rome and Milan, and Tokyo and Osaka, for example, all city pairs with high speed rail connections. The reason is obvious: not every passenger is travelling city centre to city centre and people want choice.

(9) For all the alleged complaints about Heathrow, it is where the airlines want to be, and that is because it is where their passengers want to be. Airlines are falling over themselves to gain access to Heathrow, as demonstrated by the EU-US openskies arrangements, and are prepared to pay millions to acquire slots, this will not change.

(10) It is not a case of "build it and they will come", as well illustrated by the Montreal-Mirabel experience, and that airport was much nearer the city centre! In a country with publicly owned airports, airlines were directed by the government to use Mirabel rather than Dorval and they STILL could not make it work!

　
The facts are simple: Heathrow needs two more runways, and it needs them yesterday, there is no getting way from it, and it will happen, probably later rather than sooner regretably. Live with it.

Hope this helps.

MAN777,

Yes, good point. SS had obviously been listening to the Shamen's 'Move any Mountain' - yet he denies there are any mountains, or any kind of contours in the Thames Estuary!

The other problem with this is that articifial islands are subject to sinking (Kansai). I can just about get my head round a £20bn airport generating a return for investors - although this seems wildly optimistic as the land based Rugby option was pencilled at £6bn in 2003. When costs start to rise, do the investors chip in more, or do they get a government bailout? Even Kansai is still blighted commercially as ITM remains both open and busier.

SS,

To the best of my knowledge, there are no documented cases of aircraft leaving the runway out of control and then impacting either a terminal or other structure nearby, hence the oil and gas terminal adjacent to the runways should not be a problem if there is a suitable barrier. Yet your relocated 'Foster's Folly' might involve aircraft overflying the facility, and therefore it would be a risk.

Exactly the comparison I made yesterday between Foster's Island and Silver Island!

Why don't you do a little research before proposing such a ridiculous figure!

The population of Gravesend is around 50,000 - so if you wanted to move houses and commercial premises, I suggest a figure of £100k per head, or £5bn would be closer.

Now did you also suggest £40bn for LCY? This is an extremely thin wafer of land, so, like LHR, its usage as an airport in terms of revenue generated per acre is actually very efficient. Has it not occured to you that, just maybe all those sharks working in the city would have long since stripped it out by now if they thought the land was better off as offices? Consider that such a move might also involve a consortium of Docklands land owners who would then have less restrictions on building heights - and that a 2% shareholding to Tower Hamlets residents' associations might assure a smooth run through the planning process? City types might like their fast access to the ski slopes of Davos via ZRH, but if one of them had smelled the cash, they would have pounced by now!

SS,

Looking at your island, you are also doubling the width to get these 'domestic' runways, yet wouldn't one of the aims of such a new airport be to consolidate all passengers under one very large roof - or a series of linked terminals?

Fairdealfrank you have eloquently put across some very valid arguments and points of note. The most notable of all being:
I couldn't agree more with this last comment. Heathrow is in dire need of two more runways, and it's about time the powers that be did what is required. I, too, fear it will be later than sooner, but one can only hope that the new runways at Heathrow and Stansted will be built in the near future.

FDF,

I would agree with many of your points, some of which echo what I have said earlier on this thread.

Where you talk of HSR complementing domestic flights, in some cases the choice you mention is a desire to connect onward from those hubs, although CDG does offer that option direct from numerous other cities in France. As for MXP - two high speed trains a day isn't quite cutting it yet, whereas MAD-BCN has seen massive cuts in flights since the AVE link opened, but AVE frequency is still some way off VT BHM or MAN - EUS.

I would question this though:

a) Were the Greens not in coalition, and b) would that decision not have been taken locally, and still subject to many German equivalents of a Section 106 agreement?

Spend out of the recession
 

Would a major project, such as the "east london" airport, be a worthwhile project, to provide work for many many unemployed workers.

At the same time, relocation of many environmently sensitive factory developments.

A new HI HI speed train system, linking the major urban areas, thus providing a more friendly heavy good transportation system.

The land that LHR occupies is prime residental land for London, and as such would have a positive cash flow to this project.

Perhaps also relocate LGW as well, with a HI HI speed rail, looping from Brighton via the Gatwick area.....

Unless GB PLC acts soon, all the profitable by product of the major hub UK has provided till now will be lost FOR EVER.....

Relocate the capital there too........ Cambera (east).....

Build the New Thames Barrier, let the land side silt up, have a cosmetic River Thames, and gain all the usable land.

glf

I still fail to see why the gvmt can't plop money in to Stobart for Southend to grow. These ideas are all looking stupid. I even prefer Heathstedwick or Heathwick than all these.

And dolphins swim....

This would happen to any airfield anywhere, and is not a specific problem to a Thames airport.




And a better explanation for why LHR should be closed down would be harder to find.

Just because capacity restraints have influenced a legal administrator to write a paragraph declaring a 1nm clearance to land on a Cat III approach to be 'legal', does not make it 'right' nor 'safe'. Likewise with LGW clearing you to land an allowing you to land with another aircraft sitting on the runway.

These are merely signs and warnings that we should be designing a new airport with much greater capacity, and now.




They would use sand, of which there is plenty in the region. The Dutch use sand to build new land, as they are doing around Amsterdam right now. The only problem being that the sand takes 10 years to settle (using water wicks), and so you need to build the island NOW, if you want construction to start in early 2020. I think the vibrational method is quicker, but the water wick is certainly the cheapest.

Actually, this is not a good point, Jabird. Sand is one of the strongest and most stable foundations you can have, if you compact it and stabilise it well enough. Just in case you are unaware, this thing is built upon sand - yes, sand:


http://www.dubai-forever.com/images/...r-distance.jpg




Please read the thread, before jumping in, most of your points have already been answered.

Expansion of other small airports is not what is needed. LHR expansion is about capturing the international traffic and funnelling them efficiently into London or onto interlining flights and TGV trains to the rest of Europe. Only a large and well-connected airport can do that, and not an enlarged Bournemouth.

I can just imagine the South American passenger stuck in Bournemouth looking for his connection to Denmark, the Baltics, or even Scotland - via a 19th century train line to Gatwick or Manston. Yep, that will reeaaly bring in the dollars to UK PLC.




Quite.

In other words you agree with me that we need a new Thames airport. There is absolutely no room for another two runways at LHR; and even if you destroyed much of W London to squeeze them in, you would still have the same old LHR problems. ie:

All inbounds over central London (noise, safety)
All outbounds over central London (noise, safety)
Long night curfew
Poor rail links to the rest of the country
Road congestion in the whole area
Cramped taxiway space.



I have nothing against the Silver-Foster airport (on the Isle of Grain) being chosen in preference to the Silver-Boris Island proposal (in the estuary) - as long as it is pointing into wind; away from an over-London approach; and with sufficient runways and taxiways to accommodate the vast multitude of aircraft that will eventually use it.

But such a proposal does not come without compromises - and noise being one of them, both for Gravesend and also Southend (along with those darn newts and snails).

Ok, so Gravesend has about 12,000 homes. At £20k per household compensation, this equates to £240 million. (Your £5 bn figure is from the days of New Labour, when they thought money grew on trees. I think £20k compensation would satisfy most residents).

And please bear in mind, this is only for the revised Silver-Foster location (to keep the Foster supporters happy). The Silver-Boris Island estuary location would incur no such additional costs.





If you can think of a better way, then propose it.

The problem is that aircraft taxying across runways is both time-consuming and dangerous. Thus three runways either side of a large terminal is not the optimum solution - two separate terminals linked by a rapid transit subway is more efficient.

This is doubly so, when you take customs and immigration into account. If you can separate off all the domestic/shengen traffic from the international passengers, the passenger handling is much more efficient. Likewise, if you can keep all the international transit passengers 'offshore' in one terminal, the immigration checks are again reduced.





Finally:
For the Silver-Foster concept to work, the airfield would need to be moved slightly further NW - to miss the Halstow Ridge, which conveniently runs to the SW in the same line as the take-off and approach path. But this revised location does mean even more noise nuisance for Gravesend.



http://i41.tinypic.com/24v8gap.jpg


.

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 from one runway, assuming the same wake category. Therefore, you're getting the same theoretical maximum departure rate off your two runways on a £XXbn man-made island than we currently have from LHR.

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. You're just moving the same amount of traffic to the east of London.

SS

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.


Stabilising the mud of the thames estuary will be like plaiting fog !

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 !!