The Virtual Pub
Come Inside... => Saloon Bar => Topic started by: Barman on April 13, 2008, 08:07:18 AM
-
PLANS for a third runway at Heathrow, the world’s busiest international airport, flout safety guidelines by placing a proposed crash-landing zone on top of a motorway junction.
The missiting emerged in an investigation by The Sunday Times into the expansion of Heathrow. The investigation also revealed that figures for carbon emissions and the impact on air quality have been downplayed. The government is under pressure to rethink the £12.7 billion project.
BAA, the airports operator, has decided that the risk of a plane crashing into the six-lane motorway, which rises to 65ft (20 metres), does not merit relocating the M25/M4 junction.
Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3736233.ece)
This is a great story – if this doesn’t boil your piss nothing will… cussing:
Read This (http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/heathrowproject.pdf)
It is so clearly a ‘done deal’ it is untrue – like T5 the decision has been made and no rule or regulation is going to stand in the way of it… noooo:
-
As you say. This is a done deal. IIRC the planning process was amended last year or the year before to make it far more difficult to object to major schemes like this
-
As you say. This is a done deal. IIRC the planning process was amended last year or the year before to make it far more difficult to object to major schemes like this
Bastards! cussing:
-
Agreed! cussing:
I feel happier living in North Wales now whistle:
-
To be fair the sudden appearance of a burning jet could be the only thing that clears the motorway gridlock these days. whistle:
-
To be fair the sudden appearance of a burning jet could be the only thing that clears the motorway gridlock these days. whistle:
If you look at the plans, the larger aircraft using the new runway will miss the M4/M25 junction by a few feet – they’ll have to lower the streetlights FFS. Banghead
A great place for watching aircraft…
…or being engulfed in a flaming ball of Jet A1. scared2:
-
Note to self: Any time that Nick's travel plans involve that junction - AVOID LIKE THE BLEEDIN' PLAGUE!!!!!!!!! scared2:
-
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.postimage.org%2FaV1RBnx9.jpg&hash=28b14921bdf7708c6ed25553c69aff79e21bb7bc) (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=aV1RBnx9)
Looking at the plans and doing a 'back of the fag packet' calculation I'd say a 747 would clear the junction by 300 -500 metres depending on how far down the runway it gets before take off.
-
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.postimage.org%2FaV1RBnx9.jpg&hash=28b14921bdf7708c6ed25553c69aff79e21bb7bc) (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=aV1RBnx9)
Looking at the plans and doing a 'back of the fag packet' calculation I'd say a 747 would clear the junction by 300 -500 metres depending on how far down the runway it gets before take off.
But they want to add another 500m to the runway length over the original plans... Hence the need to lower the streetlights on the junction...
-
Couldn't they stick the extra 500 metres on the east end of the runway?
-
Couldn't they stick the extra 500 metres on the east end of the runway?
Oh dear, oh dear Uncle… noooo:
You are assuming that there is some form of rational thought process that follows this instead of some back handing/thieving/troughing justification by MPs… point:
I dunno to be honest but having spent most of my life living around Heathrow I’ve taken an interest in it. Reading the report of the council is astonishing and when you think about it (if you know the area at all) the whole idea is farcical… Banghead
-
Couldn't they stick the extra 500 metres on the east end of the runway?
Oh dear, oh dear Uncle… noooo:
You are assuming that there is some form of rational thought process that follows this instead of some back handing/thieving/troughing justification by MPs… point:
I dunno to be honest but having spent most of my life living around Heathrow I’ve taken an interest in it. Reading the report of the council is astonishing and when you think about it (if you know the area at all) the whole idea is farcical… Banghead
You are mistaken, Reading is a lot further down the M4 than Heathrow. Silly Barman.
-
<Groan>
-
Given that a new airport should have been built at Maplin back in the 70s but wasn't there seems to be little choice but to shoehorn more and more in at Heathrow.
-
Given that a new airport should have been built at Maplin back in the 70s but wasn't there seems to be little choice but to shoehorn more and more in at Heathrow.
But wot about the campers look you!
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fcomedy%2Fcontent%2Fimages%2F2007%2F08%2F06%2Fhidehi_4_396x222.jpg&hash=617549b3726b27357b818ae9b966ad18e6f7594d)
-
<Groan>
Sorry. It's the boredom. Today I have managed to move 2 PCs and reset two passwords. That's it. I am now conducting experiments with elastic bands, vending machine cups and ceiling tiles.
-
Couldn't they stick the extra 500 metres on the east end of the runway?
Oh dear, oh dear Uncle… noooo:
You are assuming that there is some form of rational thought process that follows this instead of some back handing/thieving/troughing justification by MPs… point:
I dunno to be honest but having spent most of my life living around Heathrow I’ve taken an interest in it. Reading the report of the council is astonishing and when you think about it (if you know the area at all) the whole idea is farcical… Banghead
You are mistaken, Reading is a lot further down the M4 than Heathrow. Silly Barman.
…or being engulfed in a flaming ball of Jet A1.
It is also nowhere near the A1.
I think Stud Muffin failed O-level geography. noooo:
-
happy001 You have to admire his technique though.
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fbbcfour%2Ffeatures%2Fimages%2Fchildrens50s_muffin_gal.jpg&hash=7c325a24082a38b1455e83c4df3e2440b8d70c40)
-
Given that a new airport should have been built at Maplin back in the 70s but wasn't there seems to be little choice but to shoehorn more and more in at Heathrow.
I disagree…
Although the decision has obviously been made already (BAA wouldn’t have invested billions in T5 without assurance that the airport would stay at Heathrow), the obvious decision should be to start anew in the Thames Estuary. They could build a state-of-the-art airport with high speed rail links to the continent and all over the UK.
This new bit will cost billions and the environmental impact both in noise and pollution will be incredible… noooo:
-
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fbbcfour%2Ffeatures%2Fimages%2Fchildrens50s_muffin_gal.jpg&hash=7c325a24082a38b1455e83c4df3e2440b8d70c40)
". . . just whisper that part about stockings and high heels again"
-
Given that a new airport should have been built at Maplin back in the 70s but wasn't there seems to be little choice but to shoehorn more and more in at Heathrow.
I disagree…
Although the decision has obviously been made already (BAA wouldn’t have invested billions in T5 without assurance that the airport would stay at Heathrow), the obvious decision should be to start anew in the Thames Estuary. They could build a state-of-the-art airport with high speed rail links to the continent and all over the UK.
This new bit will cost billions and the environmental impact both in noise and pollution will be incredible… noooo:
They could do but seeing as they didn't 30 odd years ago are they any more likely now?
Also I believe that technological improvements will mean that noise and pollution will diminish in the future.
-
Given that a new airport should have been built at Maplin back in the 70s but wasn't there seems to be little choice but to shoehorn more and more in at Heathrow.
I disagree…
Although the decision has obviously been made already (BAA wouldn’t have invested billions in T5 without assurance that the airport would stay at Heathrow), the obvious decision should be to start anew in the Thames Estuary. They could build a state-of-the-art airport with high speed rail links to the continent and all over the UK.
This new bit will cost billions and the environmental impact both in noise and pollution will be incredible… noooo:
They could do but seeing as they didn't 30 odd years ago are they any more likely now?
Also I believe that technological improvements will mean that noise and pollution will diminish in the future.
That’s what they want you to believe Uncle… but is there any evidence of it?
Aircraft have improved an incredible amount but as one that stays in Windsor when I come over to the UK I can tell you that the very latest, quietest, most efficient and high-tech aircraft out of the factory make a fucking great noise when they lumber over your house at 6am en route to Runway 27L at Heathrow. The whole house shakes!
At least at the moment they switch runways so that most days you have a break from it for half-a-day…
The new runway will be ‘mixed-mode’ which means that you get the noise all day, every single day of your life… Banghead
And quite frankly, even with a move to more modern twin-engine aircraft you can’t have a Rolls-Royce Trent on each wing producing in excess of 76,000lb of thrust that isn’t going to produce a little noise and pollution… noooo:
-
Don't be negative BM ..... by the time all the enquiries and appeals have gone through the system and they get round to building it we could all be using "teleporters" like in the Jetsons ;)
-
Don't be negative BM ..... by the time all the enquiries and appeals have gone through the system and they get round to building it we could all be using "teleporters" like in the Jetsons ;)
Of course... whistle:
-
People who don't like noisy planes also ride gay motorbikes. Fact.
-
That’s what they want you to believe Uncle… but is there any evidence of it?
Aircraft have improved an incredible amount but as one that stays in Windsor when I come over to the UK I can tell you that the very latest, quietest, most efficient and high-tech aircraft out of the factory make a fucking great noise when they lumber over your house at 6am en route to Runway 27L at Heathrow. The whole house shakes!
At least at the moment they switch runways so that most days you have a break from it for half-a-day…
The new runway will be ‘mixed-mode’ which means that you get the noise all day, every single day of your life… Banghead
And quite frankly, even with a move to more modern twin-engine aircraft you can’t have a Rolls-Royce Trent on each wing producing in excess of 76,000lb of thrust that isn’t going to produce a little noise and pollution… noooo:
There is a simple solution to that BM. Invite Captain Calamity to stay for a couple of weeks. The Nick-o-rays will have a Bermuda Triangle like effect over the surrounding area that pilots will avoid like the plague. happy088
-
People who don't like noisy planes also ride gay motorbikes. Fact.
::)
-
Yes, I'm still bored.
Sorry.
-
Yes, I'm still bored.
Sorry.
No problem…
But, actually you couldn’t be more wrong.
I was born within the sound of aircraft taxiing at Heathrow. When they used the third runway there (it used to run North South and is now a taxiway – before your time prolly) the aircraft came right over our house. We were in the area that got 100% grant for double-glazing (this was in the 60s before the benefits of double-glazing for heat saving became apparent).
I loved the aircraft and as kids we found a tunnel under the perimeter road that allowed us to sit next to the runway and watch the aircraft taking off.
I then worked at Colnbrook on the end of the two main runways. When Concorde took off – especially in the summer your very soul would shake!
I’ve always loved aircraft and airports and have been a long-term supporter of Heathrow against the whingers who complained about noise and pollution while ignoring the thousands of jobs that it brought to the area…
But this new runway expansion is just going too far and it is time to think again IMHO.
-
Yes, I'm still bored.
Sorry.
No problem…
But, actually you couldn’t be more wrong.
I was born within the sound of aircraft taxiing at Heathrow. When they used the third runway there (it used to run North South and is now a taxiway – before your time prolly) the aircraft came right over our house. We were in the area that got 100% grant for double-glazing (this was in the 60s before the benefits of double-glazing for heat saving became apparent).
I loved the aircraft and as kids we found a tunnel under the perimeter road that allowed us to sit next to the runway and watch the aircraft taking off.
I then worked at Colnbrook on the end of the two main runways. When Concorde took off – especially in the summer your very soul would shake!
I’ve always loved aircraft and airports and have been a long-term supporter of Heathrow against the whingers who complained about noise and pollution while ignoring the thousands of jobs that it brought to the area…
But this new runway expansion is just going too far and it is time to think again IMHO.
eeek: eeek: eeek: eeek:
-
Yes, I'm still bored.
Sorry.
No problem…
But, actually you couldn’t be more wrong.
I was born within the sound of aircraft taxiing at Heathrow. When they used the third runway there (it used to run North South and is now a taxiway – before your time prolly) the aircraft came right over our house. We were in the area that got 100% grant for double-glazing (this was in the 60s before the benefits of double-glazing for heat saving became apparent).
I loved the aircraft and as kids we found a tunnel under the perimeter road that allowed us to sit next to the runway and watch the aircraft taking off.
I then worked at Colnbrook on the end of the two main runways. When Concorde took off – especially in the summer your very soul would shake!
I’ve always loved aircraft and airports and have been a long-term supporter of Heathrow against the whingers who complained about noise and pollution while ignoring the thousands of jobs that it brought to the area…
But this new runway expansion is just going too far and it is time to think again IMHO.
That is a lovely tale of the joys of youth, Barman. But it doesn't explain the jessie motorbike ;D
-
rubschin: Oh I don't know ............ these things are laid down very early in life.
-
Yes, I'm still bored.
Sorry.
No problem…
But, actually you couldn’t be more wrong.
I was born within the sound of aircraft taxiing at Heathrow. When they used the third runway there (it used to run North South and is now a taxiway – before your time prolly) the aircraft came right over our house. We were in the area that got 100% grant for double-glazing (this was in the 60s before the benefits of double-glazing for heat saving became apparent).
I loved the aircraft and as kids we found a tunnel under the perimeter road that allowed us to sit next to the runway and watch the aircraft taking off.
I then worked at Colnbrook on the end of the two main runways. When Concorde took off – especially in the summer your very soul would shake!
I’ve always loved aircraft and airports and have been a long-term supporter of Heathrow against the whingers who complained about noise and pollution while ignoring the thousands of jobs that it brought to the area…
But this new runway expansion is just going too far and it is time to think again IMHO.
That is a lovely tale of the joys of youth, Barman. But it doesn't explain the jessie motorbike ;D
Trust me... the Yamaha is perfect for our village 'roads'... ;)
-
Yes, I'm still bored.
Sorry.
No problem…
But, actually you couldn’t be more wrong.
I was born within the sound of aircraft taxiing at Heathrow. When they used the third runway there (it used to run North South and is now a taxiway – before your time prolly) the aircraft came right over our house. We were in the area that got 100% grant for double-glazing (this was in the 60s before the benefits of double-glazing for heat saving became apparent).
I loved the aircraft and as kids we found a tunnel under the perimeter road that allowed us to sit next to the runway and watch the aircraft taking off.
I then worked at Colnbrook on the end of the two main runways. When Concorde took off – especially in the summer your very soul would shake!
I’ve always loved aircraft and airports and have been a long-term supporter of Heathrow against the whingers who complained about noise and pollution while ignoring the thousands of jobs that it brought to the area…
But this new runway expansion is just going too far and it is time to think again IMHO.
That is a lovely tale of the joys of youth, Barman.
I can do more than that... whistle:
I remember seeing the BOAC 707 flying over Ashford in flames when I was eight…
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fplanecrashinfo.com%2Fimages%2Fw19680408-1.jpg&hash=6dbfba69a8580173fc11b95db51e86181f2429ab)
It crashed back at Hethrow killing 5.
And when the BEA Trident stalled and fell out of the sky at Staines in 1972 all the streets around our home were gridlocked with sightseers…
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planecrashinfo.com%2Fimages%2Fw19720618.jpg&hash=94f0f1f719257de3c9bace3528a47527462df98f)
118 killed on board, none on the ground.
It is quite frankly amazing that there hasn’t been a serious accident at Heathrow leading to fatalities on the ground given how built-up the surrounding area is.
Time to stop expansion at Heathrow IMHO.
-
Oh aren't you young! eeek:
I can remember when to fly into London one went to Croydon! razz:
-
Oh aren't you young! eeek:
I can remember when to fly into London one went to Croydon! razz:
What were the Wright Brothers like? rubschin:
-
And then straight to IKEA. eveilgrin:
-
http://www.croydononline.org/history/places/airports.asp
That was when flying was fun!
-
Yes, I'm still bored.
Sorry.
No problem…
But, actually you couldn’t be more wrong.
I was born within the sound of aircraft taxiing at Heathrow. When they used the third runway there (it used to run North South and is now a taxiway – before your time prolly) the aircraft came right over our house. We were in the area that got 100% grant for double-glazing (this was in the 60s before the benefits of double-glazing for heat saving became apparent).
I loved the aircraft and as kids we found a tunnel under the perimeter road that allowed us to sit next to the runway and watch the aircraft taking off.
I then worked at Colnbrook on the end of the two main runways. When Concorde took off – especially in the summer your very soul would shake!
I’ve always loved aircraft and airports and have been a long-term supporter of Heathrow against the whingers who complained about noise and pollution while ignoring the thousands of jobs that it brought to the area…
But this new runway expansion is just going too far and it is time to think again IMHO.
That is a lovely tale of the joys of youth, Barman. But it doesn't explain the jessie motorbike ;D
Baldymort snapped on the bike in question.....
(https://www.virtual-pub.com/SMF/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsimg.bbc.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F44573000%2Fjpg%2F_44573104_scooter_afp466.jpg&hash=9d9c6a79b12d1135f82a46ba910b2ea3e0c66fe3)
whistle:
-
I see (surprise, surprise) that they have decided to go ahead with the third runway then...? noooo:
-
And the Tories have said that no matter what the costs or how far the planning/construction has got they will stop it if they win the next election.
Which pre-supposes that Gordon manages to get the idea through the House of Commons and currently the Tories + the Lib/Dems + 40 or more Labour MPs have said they will oppose it.
-
And the Tories have said that no matter what the costs or how far the planning/construction has got they will stop it if they win the next election.
Which pre-supposes that Gordon manages to get the idea through the House of Commons and currently the Tories + the Lib/Dems + 40 or more Labour MPs have said they will oppose it.
It seems unlikely that it will get through - why give it the green light then...? rubschin:
No doubt a 'promise' has been made in return for some underhand deal...
-
And the Tories have said that no matter what the costs or how far the planning/construction has got they will stop it if they win the next election.
Which pre-supposes that Gordon manages to get the idea through the House of Commons and currently the Tories + the Lib/Dems + 40 or more Labour MPs have said they will oppose it.
It seems unlikely that it will get through - why give it the green light then...? rubschin:
No doubt a 'promise' has been made in return for some underhand deal...
TBH I don't think Gordon is living in the same world as the rest of us. He seems to have a single vision all of his own (eye jokes accepted) of how the world works and he has reached that stage of meglomania when everything he thinks about he deludes himself into believing will come true. He seems to genuinely believe that he and he alone can save the whole world. He is in complete denial that any of the current troubles are of his making.
The man is utterly mad and should be locked up for the public good.
-
And the Tories have said that no matter what the costs or how far the planning/construction has got they will stop it if they win the next election.
Which pre-supposes that Gordon manages to get the idea through the House of Commons and currently the Tories + the Lib/Dems + 40 or more Labour MPs have said they will oppose it.
It seems unlikely that it will get through - why give it the green light then...? rubschin:
No doubt a 'promise' has been made in return for some underhand deal...
TBH I don't think Gordon is living in the same world as the rest of us. He seems to have a single vision all of his own (eye jokes accepted) of how the world works and he has reached that stage of meglomania when everything he thinks about he deludes himself into believing will come true. He seems to genuinely believe that he and he alone can save the whole world. He is in complete denial that any of the current troubles are of his making.
The man is utterly mad and should be locked up for the public good.
Or hanged... whistle:
-
And the Tories have said that no matter what the costs or how far the planning/construction has got they will stop it if they win the next election.
Which pre-supposes that Gordon manages to get the idea through the House of Commons and currently the Tories + the Lib/Dems + 40 or more Labour MPs have said they will oppose it.
It seems unlikely that it will get through - why give it the green light then...? rubschin:
No doubt a 'promise' has been made in return for some underhand deal...
TBH I don't think Gordon is living in the same world as the rest of us. He seems to have a single vision all of his own (eye jokes accepted) of how the world works and he has reached that stage of meglomania when everything he thinks about he deludes himself into believing will come true. He seems to genuinely believe that he and he alone can save the whole world. He is in complete denial that any of the current troubles are of his making.
The man is utterly mad and should be locked up for the public good.
Or hanged... whistle:
That too. cussing:
-
It seems unlikely that it will get through - why give it the green light then...? rubschin:
I think I have just answered my own question! (http://devilskitchen.me.uk/) cussing:
-
I have a question about this, Seeing as Heathrow is owned by a private company how are they going to get the villagers to move. Something tells me that compulsory purchase orders are not going to have much of a chance here. Even if they do get one, the appeal would drag through teh courts.
-
Not given Gordon's new planning laws where Local Authorities and Government can bypass all the old consent requirements and just plough on "in the national interest" as if there is nothing in their way.
-
And Boris is against it too! cloud9:
-
Boris wants a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Seems like a good plan to me when you look at the mess of waste scrub land that sits from Barking Creek all the way to Southend.
-
Not given Gordon's new planning laws where Local Authorities and Government can bypass all the old consent requirements and just plough on "in the national interest" as if there is nothing in their way.
This is where the European Court of Human Rights plays a part. If a case is proceeding then it doesnt matter what law Gordin passed, does it?
-
Not given Gordon's new planning laws where Local Authorities and Government can bypass all the old consent requirements and just plough on "in the national interest" as if there is nothing in their way.
This is where the European Court of Human Rights plays a part. If a case is proceeding then it doesnt matter what law Gordin passed, does it?
That seems to be Greenpeace's hope anyway. We will see. I've emailed an offer to buy 3 square inches of that field of theirs.
-
Boris wants a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Seems like a good plan to me when you look at the mess of waste scrub land that sits from Barking Creek all the way to Southend.
Starting again is the only option...
Anybody that has tried to get in or out of Heathrow recently (or even drive past it on the M25) must realise that... noooo:
-
I've just thought, how old are these villages and what are the criteria for getting a building listed status. That could throw a spanner in the works.
-
The matter has already been decided. The Government has refused a debate or vote in Parliament, they have already taken the powers to override any planning laws including listed buildings etc. Greenpeace have purchased a field that stands in the way of the proposed development and are selling bits of it off. They hope that having thousands of people each owning a small piece of the field will cause the Government huge problems in making the necessary compulsory purchase orders. It will however, they accept, not in itself actually stop the Government ..... just slow it down.
-
The NY plane crash yesterday ought to act as a reminder. New airport on the Thames or new runway next to the M25/M4 junction?
-
That was scary! eeek:
-
Happy landings!
-
Scary indeed but I had to laugh at the Yank Passenger I heard being interviewed who said "I saw water coming into the cabin and thought this is it I'm going to drown to death"
Well death does tend to be the inevitable outcome of drowning noooo:
-
If all goes according to government plan, construction would start in 2015
And there was I thinking the bulldozers would be moving today.
-
rubschin: Just enough time for an election of the Tories who will cancel it and then another election when Labour might get back in and it'll all be on again ::)
This could run and run ~ like the Mousetrap ~ until we all have flying cars or teleporters and make the whole thing surplus to requirements
-
Scary indeed but I had to laugh at the Yank Passenger I heard being interviewed who said "I saw water coming into the cabin and thought this is it I'm going to drown to death"
Well death does tend to be the inevitable outcome of drowning noooo:
In a similar vein, how often to you hear the dim and simple say "I cut through the mower cable and got electrocuted" when they mean they received a shock.
Electrocuted, like Executed, means a one-way trip involving undertakers and a happy wife clutching insurance documents.
-
I drowned once.
Well, almost spider:
St Tropez, 1977. NOt pleasant. I had to grab a fisherman
-
I drowned once.
Well, almost spider:
St Tropez, 1977. NOt pleasant. I had to grab a fisherman
Not a fishermans friend?
-
He smelt of crabs, so no
-
Lots of soldiers have had crabs too. eyes:
-
I drowned once.
Well, almost spider:
St Tropez, 1977. NOt pleasant. I had to grab a fisherman
I read this far and wondered if anyone was going to suggest "not a fishermans friend"? ::)
-
I drowned once.
Well, almost spider:
St Tropez, 1977. NOt pleasant. I had to grab a fisherman
I read this far and wondered if anyone was going to suggest "not a fishermans friend"? ::)
At least this site never disappoints ;)