This pandering to mass wander lust just keeps on getting worse and
worse doesn't it.

" Residents will have to get used to more super jumbos filling the sky
after a reduction in safety limits means more of the giant planes can
land at Heathrow.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAA) has cut back the
wake separation between the A380 and other aircraft meaning Heathrow
will be able to handle four landings a day by the world’s largest
passenger plane.

What this means is that the distance between airplanes has been cut as
the vortex created by the enormous super jumbo has been deemed safe
enough to allow closer bunching..."

More:

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/3646528.HOUNSLOW__More_A380_super_jumbos_for_Heathrow/

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> This pandering to mass wander lust just keeps on getting worse and worse
> doesn't it.
> 
> " Residents will have to get used to more super jumbos filling the sky
> after a reduction in safety limits means more of the giant planes can
> land at Heathrow.

I'd have thought you'd agree that was a good thing - or do you prefer 
Boeing's approach of more flights by smaller planes to get the same 
number of people shifted?

> The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAA) has cut back the
> wake separation between the A380 and other aircraft meaning Heathrow
> will be able to handle four landings a day by the world’s largest
> passenger plane.

Four per day! Wow...

On 5 Sep, 07:38, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > This pandering to mass wander lust just keeps on getting worse and worse
> > doesn't it.
>
> > " Residents will have to get used to more super jumbos filling the sky
> > after a reduction in safety limits means more of the giant planes can
> > land at Heathrow.
>
> I'd have thought you'd agree that was a good thing - or do you prefer
> Boeing's approach of more flights by smaller planes to get the same
> number of people shifted?
>
No I take the view that ALL non-essential air travel is bad regardless
of mode. Also, demand tends to follow supply with hypermobility.
>
> > The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAA) has cut back the
> > wake separation between the A380 and other aircraft meaning Heathrow
> > will be able to handle four landings a day by the world’s largest
> > passenger plane.
>
> Four per day! Wow...
>
On top of all the other flights teeming in and out of Heathrow?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

Doug wrote:
> This pandering to mass wander lust just keeps on getting worse and
> worse doesn't it.
>
But Doug, look on the bright side. Some of their capacity will be for 
freight, some of which will be bringing your veggie foodstuffs in from 
foreign parts.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > This pandering to mass wander lust just keeps on getting worse and
>> > worse doesn't it.
>>
>> > " Residents will have to get used to more super jumbos filling the
>> > sky after a reduction in safety limits means more of the giant planes
>> > can land at Heathrow.

>> I'd have thought you'd agree that was a good thing - or do you prefer
>> Boeing's approach of more flights by smaller planes to get the same
>> number of people shifted?

> No I take the view that ALL non-essential air travel is bad regardless
> of mode.

Where "non-essential" = "doesn't bring my dinner". And, yet again, you 
seem to forget that airfreighting foodstuffs and other products you may 
deem "essential" wouldn't be economically viable without commercial 
passenger traffic.

> Also, demand tends to follow supply with hypermobility.

Even better that the A380's here, then. Because that demand can be 
catered to without an increase in flights - or even with a _decrease_ in 
flights on hub-to-hub trunking routes. I'd have thought you'd like that.

Oh, and the A380 is far more fuel efficient, seat-to-seat, than other 
planes. But, of course, as usual, this is nothing to do with the 
environment or safety or local residents - as ever, this all boils down 
to you not liking others doing things you can't do. 
You can't drive, because you're too incompetent and infirm. So you hate 
cars.
You can't fly, because you're skint through a lifetime of never bothering 
to get off your arse and _earn_ money for yourself. So you hate air 
travel.

The politics of envy.

>> > The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAA) has cut back the
>> > wake separation between the A380 and other aircraft meaning Heathrow
>> > will be able to handle four landings a day by the world’s largest
>> > passenger plane.

>> Four per day! Wow...

> On top of all the other flights teeming in and out of Heathrow?

No, there'll be the same number of flights all in - it's the landing and 
gate-handling slots which are the overall restriction. All that's 
happened is that the ICAA has said "It's OK, you can play with A380s 
according to the same rules as other large planes"

For somebody who has such regular rants, I'd have thought you'd have 
bothered to learn the basic facts. Oh, wait, it's you. Why spoil the 
habit of a lifetime?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:e7b5e08a-955a-418e-b000-39dd2cf682f8@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> " Residents will have to get used to more super jumbos filling the sky
> after a reduction in safety limits means more of the giant planes can
> land at Heathrow.
>
> The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAA) has cut back the
> wake separation between the A380 and other aircraft meaning Heathrow
> will be able to handle four landings a day by the world’s largest
> passenger plane.

ROTFL They have reduced the separation for light aircraft to 8Nm. The last 
person I know who was allowed into Heathrow with a light aircraft still owes 
them the 2/6d landing fee, as they parked him too far from the control tower 
for him to want to walk over and pay it. Heathrow takes few medium aircraft, 
while the wake separation for heavies and super-heavies remains unchanged, 
so this is very much a non-story.

Colin Bignell

Doug  wrote:

> This pandering to mass wander lust just keeps on getting worse and
> worse doesn't it.

No Duhng. The A380 is a significant and positive technological advance
permitting the movement of more people with the expenditure of less
fuel. So it's not "worse and worse" it is "better and better".

> " Residents will have to get used to more super jumbos filling the sky
> after a reduction in safety limits means more of the giant planes can
> land at Heathrow.

And they can also get used to areduction in the number of 747 flights
which are more frequent and noisier than the A380, a quieter, more
modern aircraft.

Nor is this a 'a reduction in safety limits', it's simply a recognition
that the initial (guessed and hence extremely conservative) wake
separations were unnecessary.

> The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAA) has cut back the
> wake separation between the A380 and other aircraft meaning Heathrow
> will be able to handle four landings a day by the world's largest
> passenger plane.

Gasp, a whole four a day.
 
> What this means is that the distance between airplanes has been cut as
> the vortex created by the enormous super jumbo has been deemed safe
> enough to allow closer bunching..."

And? Are you now claiming to be a expert in the problems caused by the
wing-tip vortices of super-heavy transports?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:e7ea5641-dd1b-4d71-8082-1301d3e371bb@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On 5 Sep, 07:38, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > This pandering to mass wander lust just keeps on getting worse and worse
> > doesn't it.
>
> > " Residents will have to get used to more super jumbos filling the sky
> > after a reduction in safety limits means more of the giant planes can
> > land at Heathrow.
>
> I'd have thought you'd agree that was a good thing - or do you prefer
> Boeing's approach of more flights by smaller planes to get the same
> number of people shifted?
>
No I take the view that ALL non-essential air travel is bad regardless
of mode. Also, demand tends to follow supply with hypermobility.

You do realise that most of this "non-essential" air travel also carries air 
cargo don't you Duhg?  Like your flown in food. In fact about 70% of air 
cargo is carried on passenger flights. So, if you stop those flights, then 
you have to increase cargo flights.

Once you stop eating your flown in food, you *might* have a right to 
criticise others. Until then, shut yer trap.

Mike P

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1imsk4i.umko3f11vc6foN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Doug  wrote:
>
>> This pandering to mass wander lust just keeps on getting worse and
>> worse doesn't it.
>
> No Duhng. The A380 is a significant and positive technological advance
> permitting the movement of more people with the expenditure of less
> fuel. So it's not "worse and worse" it is "better and better".
>
>> " Residents will have to get used to more super jumbos filling the sky
>> after a reduction in safety limits means more of the giant planes can
>> land at Heathrow.
>
> And they can also get used to areduction in the number of 747 flights
> which are more frequent and noisier than the A380, a quieter, more
> modern aircraft.
>
> Nor is this a 'a reduction in safety limits', it's simply a recognition
> that the initial (guessed and hence extremely conservative) wake
> separations were unnecessary.
>
>> The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAA) has cut back the
>> wake separation between the A380 and other aircraft meaning Heathrow
>> will be able to handle four landings a day by the world's largest
>> passenger plane.
>
> Gasp, a whole four a day.
>
>> What this means is that the distance between airplanes has been cut as
>> the vortex created by the enormous super jumbo has been deemed safe
>> enough to allow closer bunching..."
>
> And? Are you now claiming to be a expert in the problems caused by the
> wing-tip vortices of super-heavy transports?

I doubt Duhng would know a wake vortex or if it blew him over..

Mike P

In message <1imsk4i.umko3f11vc6foN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> of Fri, 5 Sep 
2008 11:15:01 in uk.transport, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>Doug  wrote:

[snip]

>> The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAA) has cut back the
>> wake separation between the A380 and other aircraft meaning Heathrow
>> will be able to handle four landings a day by the world's largest
>> passenger plane.
>
>Gasp, a whole four a day.

Doug quoted a report which interprets another report without giving a 
reference to that second report. I am VERY sceptical about that "four 
landings a day" as it means that a 6 hour interval will be needed 
between A380 landings. An 8 mile interval is also mentioned. 8 miles in 
6 MINUTES is consistent with a speed of 80 miles per hour. 
Alternatively, assuming a 16 hour day, 120 miles per hour. I suggest 
there is likely to be an order of magnitude error in the report that 
Doug quotes.
-- 
Walter Briscoe

Walter Briscoe  wrote:

> In message <1imsk4i.umko3f11vc6foN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> of Fri, 5 Sep
> 2008 11:15:01 in uk.transport, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
> >Doug  wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAA) has cut back the
> >> wake separation between the A380 and other aircraft meaning Heathrow
> >> will be able to handle four landings a day by the world's largest
> >> passenger plane.
> >
> >Gasp, a whole four a day.
> 
> Doug quoted a report which interprets another report without giving a
> reference to that second report. I am VERY sceptical about that "four
> landings a day" as it means that a 6 hour interval will be needed 
> between A380 landings. An 8 mile interval is also mentioned. 8 miles in
> 6 MINUTES is consistent with a speed of 80 miles per hour. 
> Alternatively, assuming a 16 hour day, 120 miles per hour. I suggest 
> there is likely to be an order of magnitude error in the report that 
> Doug quotes.

Slightly more than an order of magnitude, I suspect.

<http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/
06_09_28_vortex_study.html>

Airbus themselves state:

Approach / Landing

No wake constraint for the A380 as a following aircraft

A380 followed by Heavy = +2nm extra to existing ICAO separation (6 nm
absolute distance)

A380 followed by Medium = +3nm extra to existing ICAO criteria (8 nm
absolute distance)

A380 followed by Light = +4nm extra to existing ICAO separation criteria
(10 nm absolute distance) 

[snip]

Or, for time based operations: Heavy = 2 minutes; Medium, Light = 3
minutes


Taking the two minute separation for a heavy, Duhng is oput by a mere
two orders of magnitude.

Sadly this isn't as far out as some of his previous spectaculars. I'm
trying to recall his biggest miss, which was IIRC about five orders of
magnitude out.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> Sadly this isn't as far out as some of his previous spectaculars. I'm
> trying to recall his biggest miss, which was IIRC about five orders of
> magnitude out.

Litres per cubic metre, IIRC.

"Walter Briscoe"  wrote in message 
news:ujJWda+9aUwIFwdP@freenetname.co.uk...
...
> An 8 mile interval is also mentioned. 8 miles in 6 MINUTES is consistent 
> with a speed of 80 miles per hour.

As a result of the changes, light aircraft have a wake separation of 8Nm and 
80 knots is a bit fast for the landing speed of some light aircraft - 
usually the one ahead of me when I was flying a twin with a 90 knot blue 
line speed (do not go below until comitted to landing). In practice, there 
will be very few airports where a light aircraft is likely to be landing 
behind an A380.

Colin Bignell

Doug wrote:
> This pandering to mass wander lust just keeps on getting worse and
> worse doesn't it.
> 
> " Residents will have to get used to more super jumbos filling the sky
> after a reduction in safety limits means more of the giant planes can
> land at Heathrow.
> 
> The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAA) has cut back the
> wake separation between the A380 and other aircraft meaning Heathrow
> will be able to handle four landings a day by the world’s largest
> passenger plane.
> 
> What this means is that the distance between airplanes has been cut as
> the vortex created by the enormous super jumbo has been deemed safe
> enough to allow closer bunching..."

And you know all about wake turbulence do you? I thought not. I suspect 
the Evening Standard journos collectively know FA about it too.


-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

In article <e7ea5641-dd1b-4d71-8082-
1301d3e371bb@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...


> No I take the view that ALL non-essential air travel is bad regardless
> of mode.

Yet you think that buying airfreighted food is OK...

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams