whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

This will or so they think will enable them to
fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport.
That's why Heathrow wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.

Heathrow is the one with fewer runways than it needs for the traffic
volume.

They were plans to add runways to other airports or to build a new London
airlort.

Irrelevant to the fact that Heathrow only has two parallel runways
and that its by far the highest volume airport in Britain.

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter,
so they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.

True, but thats for other reasons.

Yes because they donl;t like losing radar contact with planes,

Thats a lie with the long haul flights over the ocean. There is no
alternative.

because then no one knoes where they are for sure

Thats another pig ignorant lie, ACARS does.

and that;s not good for air traffic contol.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually
manage with long haul flights over the ocean.

They don't take the shortest route from A-B
they take a route where they can be tracked.

More pig ignorant silly **** with ACARS which
allows aircraft to be tracked anywhere now.

Didnlt find Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 did it.

Because they chose to turn theirs off to save on the cost.

Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan
why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean

Because the system is moving to the new system which
allows all ACARS equipped aircraft to be tracked anywhere.

Sure a systemn from 1978, being replaced by GPS.

ACARS isnt being replaced by GPS.

On Monday, 18 December 2017 16:58:36 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

This will or so they think will enable them to
fly more planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport.
That's why Heathrow wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.

Heathrow is the one with fewer runways than it needs for the traffic
volume.

They were plans to add runways to other airports or to build a new London
airlort.

Irrelevant to the fact that Heathrow only has two parallel runways
and that its by far the highest volume airport in Britain.

London has more than one airport, if yuo added runways to gatwick or standsted then it might be that heathrow wouldn't have the highest volume in Britain that;s the point spread the laod out not just pile into 1 or 2 airports.



The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter,
so they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.

True, but thats for other reasons.

Yes because they donl;t like losing radar contact with planes,

Thats a lie with the long haul flights over the ocean. There is no
alternative.

they are in the minority presently.



Didnlt find Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 did it.

Because they chose to turn theirs off to save on the cost.

So how comes they couldn't use radar to find where the plane was ?




Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan
why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean

Because the system is moving to the new system which
allows all ACARS equipped aircraft to be tracked anywhere.

Sure a systemn from 1978, being replaced by GPS.

ACARS isnt being replaced by GPS.

It will be replaced as ACARS isn;t in real time and can be turned off.
It is going to be replaced where they use the 'internet' rather than radio.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Irrelevant to the fact that Heathrow only has two parallel runways
and that its by far the highest volume airport in Britain.

London has more than one airport, if yuo added runways to gatwick or
standsted then it might be that heathrow wouldn't have the highest
volume in Britain that;s the point spread the laod out not just pile
into 1 or 2 airports.

You need to factor in how long and easy it is to get to the various London
airports. Which can make a big difference to regular business flyers. The
same applies to non passenger traffic.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 18 December 2017 16:58:36 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as
theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow
wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.

Heathrow is the one with fewer runways than it needs for the traffic
volume.

They were plans to add runways to other airports or to build a new
London airlort.

Irrelevant to the fact that Heathrow only has two parallel runways and
that its by far the highest volume airport in Britain.

London has more than one airport, if yuo added runways to gatwick or
standsted then it might be that heathrow wouldn't have the highest volume
in Britain that;s the point spread the laod out not just pile into 1 or 2
airports.

Which would interchange somewhat more complecx and lengthy

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 10:13:42 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Irrelevant to the fact that Heathrow only has two parallel runways
and that its by far the highest volume airport in Britain.

London has more than one airport, if yuo added runways to gatwick or
standsted then it might be that heathrow wouldn't have the highest
volume in Britain that;s the point spread the laod out not just pile
into 1 or 2 airports.

You need to factor in how long and easy it is to get to the various London
airports. Which can make a big difference to regular business flyers. The
same applies to non passenger traffic.

Same with any city. Nothing special about London.

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 10:26:45 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 18 December 2017 16:58:36 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

This will or so they think will enable them to fly more planes as
theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why Heathrow
wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.

Heathrow is the one with fewer runways than it needs for the traffic
volume.

They were plans to add runways to other airports or to build a new
London airlort.

Irrelevant to the fact that Heathrow only has two parallel runways and
that its by far the highest volume airport in Britain.

London has more than one airport, if yuo added runways to gatwick or
standsted then it might be that heathrow wouldn't have the highest volume
in Britain that;s the point spread the laod out not just pile into 1 or 2
airports.

Which would interchange somewhat more complecx and lengthy

Than what ?
There;s no ooptioin to just have one massive London airport is there.

We could just demolish most of south London and use that as London only airport.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 10:26:45 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 18 December 2017 16:58:36 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

This will or so they think will enable them to fly more
planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why
Heathrow wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.

Heathrow is the one with fewer runways than it needs for the
traffic volume.

They were plans to add runways to other airports or to build a
new London airlort.

Irrelevant to the fact that Heathrow only has two parallel runways
and that its by far the highest volume airport in Britain.

London has more than one airport, if yuo added runways to gatwick or
standsted then it might be that heathrow wouldn't have the highest
volume in Britain that;s the point spread the laod out not just pile
into 1 or 2 airports.

Which would interchange somewhat more complecx and lengthy

Than what ? There;s no ooptioin to just have one massive London airport
is there.

Amsterdam manages very well with just the one.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 10:54:41 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 10:26:45 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 18 December 2017 16:58:36 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

This will or so they think will enable them to fly more
planes as theere can be more routes.

The bottle neck is the runways at the airport. That's why
Heathrow wants to build a new one.

Not all planes fly to heathrow.

Heathrow is the one with fewer runways than it needs for the
traffic volume.

They were plans to add runways to other airports or to build a
new London airlort.

Irrelevant to the fact that Heathrow only has two parallel runways
and that its by far the highest volume airport in Britain.

London has more than one airport, if yuo added runways to gatwick or
standsted then it might be that heathrow wouldn't have the highest
volume in Britain that;s the point spread the laod out not just pile
into 1 or 2 airports.

Which would interchange somewhat more complecx and lengthy

Than what ? There;s no ooptioin to just have one massive London airport
is there.

Amsterdam manages very well with just the one.

So does the orkney islands.
Rockall doesn't even need one.

But amsterdam is mainly a hub relatively few people arrive at amsterdanm as their final destination.

there's lots of other difernces between amsterdam and London that have an effect too.

Population of Amsterdam 821,752 (2015)
Population of Amsterdam 8.63 million (2015).

So that;s less than a tenth the pop. of Lndon but they need one airport so in theory we'd need 10.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 18 December 2017 16:58:36 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter,
so they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.

True, but thats for other reasons.

Yes because they donl;t like losing radar contact with planes,

Thats a lie with the long haul flights
over the ocean. There is no alternative.

they are in the minority presently.

Irrelevant. And when the system handles those fine,
no point in having full radar coverage over the long
haul routes over land when its nowhere near any
major airports.

Didnlt find Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 did it.

Because they chose to turn theirs off to save on the cost.

So how comes they couldn't use radar to find where the plane was ?

Because its not possible to have full radar coverage over oceans
as big as that. And planes arent forced to fly where there is full radar
coverage either, most obviously between the RSA and Australia. The
alternative works fine and has done for well over half a century now.
In spades with the Pacific and southern Atlantic.

Friend flew from gatwick to cacun on tuesday explan
why they didn't just fly directly across the ocean

Because the system is moving to the new system which
allows all ACARS equipped aircraft to be tracked anywhere.

Sure a systemn from 1978, being replaced by GPS.

ACARS isnt being replaced by GPS.

It will be replaced as ACARS isn;t in real time

Thats is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

and can be turned off.

So can transponders.

It is going to be replaced where they use the 'internet' rather than
radio.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage, and thats
saying something.

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 16:59:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 18 December 2017 16:58:36 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter,
so they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.

True, but thats for other reasons.

Yes because they donl;t like losing radar contact with planes,

Thats a lie with the long haul flights
over the ocean. There is no alternative.

they are in the minority presently.

Irrelevant.

Very relavant.

And when the system handles those fine,

whe it does, I donlt think the seefax technology of teh 70s will be kept for much longer.

no point in having full radar coverage over the long
haul routes over land when its nowhere near any
major airports.

True but the problem is it can't be done cheaply.


Didnlt find Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 did it.

Because they chose to turn theirs off to save on the cost.

So how comes they couldn't use radar to find where the plane was ?

Because its not possible to have full radar coverage over oceans
as big as that.

Well done at last, only about 10% of the world is covered by radar so that's a lot of space not covered by radar and a lot of space where planes could be.


And planes arent forced to fly where there is full radar
coverage either, most obviously between the RSA and Australia. The
alternative works fine and has done for well over half a century now.
In spades with the Pacific and southern Atlantic.

No it doesn't capacity is being lost and planes are taking longer routes because of it.




It will be replaced as ACARS isn;t in real time

Thats is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

No it isn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-26544554


While GPS (Global Positioning System) is a staple of modern life, the world's air traffic control network is still almost entirely radar-based.

Aircraft use GPS to show pilots their position on a map, but this data is not usually shared with air traffic control.

Some of the most modern aircraft are able to "uplink" GPS data to satellite tracking services, but handling large volumes of flight data is expensive and such systems are usually only used in remote areas with no radar coverage.

The satellite data which suggests flight MH370 flew on for several hours are basic 'pings' sent by the plane, and so far only help to identify two very approximate flight corridors north and south.

Over the next decade, a new system called ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast) is expected to replace radar as the primary surveillance method for air traffic control

ADS-B will see aircraft work out their position using GPS and then relay data to the ground and other planes.


and can be turned off.

So can transponders.

Yes they can, but not by accident or error.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 16:59:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 18 December 2017 16:58:36 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter,
so they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.

True, but thats for other reasons.

Yes because they donl;t like losing radar contact with planes,

Thats a lie with the long haul flights
over the ocean. There is no alternative.

they are in the minority presently.

Irrelevant.

And when the system handles those fine,

whe it does,

It already does.

I donlt think the seefax technology of
teh 70s will be kept for much longer.

Yep, long range radar is on its way out now.

no point in having full radar coverage over the long
haul routes over land when its nowhere near any
major airports.

True but the problem is it can't be done cheaply.

Corse it can, gps and acars isnt expensive in heavys.

Didnlt find Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 did it.

Because they chose to turn theirs off to save on the cost.

So how comes they couldn't use radar to find where the plane was ?

Because its not possible to have full radar coverage over oceans
as big as that.

only about 10% of the world is covered by radar

So your stupid pig ignorant claim that planes are only allowed to fly
where there is radar coverage is just that, a stupid pig ignorant claim.

so that's a lot of space not covered by radar

Yep.

and a lot of space where planes could be.

They have always been there, most obviously with
the atlantic and pacific and indian oceans etc.

And planes arent forced to fly where there is full radar coverage
either, most obviously between the RSA and Australia. The
alternative works fine and has done for well over half a century
now. In spades with the Pacific and southern Atlantic.

No it doesn't capacity is being lost

That is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

and planes are taking longer routes because of it.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. They fly the obvious
great circle routes with very little radar coverage at all.

It will be replaced as ACARS isn;t in real time

Thats is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

No it isn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-26544554

While GPS (Global Positioning System) is a staple of modern life, the
world's air traffic control network is still almost entirely radar-based.

That is just plain wrong with the long haul routes over oceans. Its talking
primarily about
the heavily congested areas around airports, not the long haul routes
between them.

Aircraft use GPS to show pilots their position on a map,

Utterly mangled all over again.

but this data is not usually shared with air traffic control.

Utterly mangled all over again. Thats what ACARS does.

Some of the most modern aircraft are able to
"uplink" GPS data to satellite tracking services,

Thats ACARS and that is becoming a mandatory requirement.

but handling large volumes of flight data is expensive

So is radar.

and such systems are usually only used in remote areas with no radar
coverage.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than some fool journo usually manage.

The satellite data which suggests flight MH370 flew on for several
hours are basic 'pings' sent by the plane, and so far only help to
identify two very approximate flight corridors north and south.

Because that very budget airline chose to not pay for full ACARS
coverage even tho their aircraft are fully equipped to use it.

Over the next decade, a new system called ADS-B (Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast) is expected to replace radar
as the primary surveillance method for air traffic control

And that isnt the gps you pig ignorantly rabitted on about.

ADS-B will see aircraft work out their position using GPS
and then relay data to the ground and other planes.

Its been doing it for quite a while now. And isnt what
is used around the heavily congested major airports.

and can be turned off.

So can transponders.

Yes they can, but not by accident or error.

Just as true of ACARS and ADS-B. In fact the
arsehole flying MH370 turned his off deliberately.

On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 18:56:14 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 16:59:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 18 December 2017 16:58:36 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets lighter,
so they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.

True, but thats for other reasons.

Yes because they donl;t like losing radar contact with planes,

Thats a lie with the long haul flights
over the ocean. There is no alternative.

they are in the minority presently.

Irrelevant.

And when the system handles those fine,

whe it does,

It already does.

Doesn;t on all, a number of flight disapear from radar,
especaily those more than about 200 miles from the coast.


I donlt think the seefax technology of
teh 70s will be kept for much longer.

Yep, long range radar is on its way out now.

Yes but then again it never really existed.


no point in having full radar coverage over the long
haul routes over land when its nowhere near any
major airports.

True but the problem is it can't be done cheaply.

Corse it can, gps and acars isnt expensive in heavys.

those are NOT radar though that is the point.
GPS is the way forward ceefax is outdated but doesn't need much bandwidth so has it's limited use.



only about 10% of the world is covered by radar

So your stupid pig ignorant claim that planes are only allowed to fly
where there is radar coverage is just that, a stupid pig ignorant claim.

I never claimed that.
I said it was the reasons most flight don;t go direct across oceans is because of lack of radar coverage.


so that's a lot of space not covered by radar

Yep.

and a lot of space where planes could be.

They have always been there, most obviously with
the atlantic and pacific and indian oceans etc.

But they haven't in genral because sending a plane there means it canlt be tracked so if all airlines sent their planes to a similar area not trackable by radar is risky.



It will be replaced as ACARS isn;t in real time

Thats is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

No it isn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-26544554

While GPS (Global Positioning System) is a staple of modern life, the
world's air traffic control network is still almost entirely radar-based.

That is just plain wrong with the long haul routes over oceans. Its talking
primarily about
the heavily congested areas around airports, not the long haul routes
between them.

"almost entirely radar-based"

Reading problems again ?


Aircraft use GPS to show pilots their position on a map,

Utterly mangled all over again.

yes you are.



but handling large volumes of flight data is expensive

So is radar.

another reason to go GPS.






ADS-B will see aircraft work out their position using GPS
and then relay data to the ground and other planes.

Its been doing it for quite a while now. And isnt what
is used around the heavily congested major airports.

and can be turned off.

So can transponders.

Yes they can, but not by accident or error.

Just as true of ACARS and ADS-B. In fact the
arsehole flying MH370 turned his off deliberately.

Someone did and we don't know why, you can;t turn it off from the cockpit either.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 18:56:14 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 16:59:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 18 December 2017 16:58:36 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
whisky-dave wrote

The economical cruise altitude rises as the plane gets
lighter,
so they want to climb gently all the way across the ocean.

But they don't do that.

True, but thats for other reasons.

Yes because they donl;t like losing radar contact with planes,

Thats a lie with the long haul flights
over the ocean. There is no alternative.

they are in the minority presently.

Irrelevant.

And when the system handles those fine,

whe it does,

It already does.

Doesn;t on all,

Corse it does.

a number of flight disapear from radar, especaily
those more than about 200 miles from the coast.

And the flight still completes fine, because the INS
get the plane to where its supposed to go and it
doesnt matter a damn that its not visible on the
radar when it more than 200 miles from the coast
and ACARS and ADS-B lets the system see that its
still where its sposed to be.

I donlt think the seefax technology of
teh 70s will be kept for much longer.

Yep, long range radar is on its way out now.

Yes but then again it never really existed.

Bull**** it didnt.

no point in having full radar coverage over
the long haul routes over land when its
nowhere near any major airports.

True but the problem is it can't be done cheaply.

Corse it can, gps and acars isnt expensive in heavys.

those are NOT radar though that is the point.

The point is that they eliminate the need for radar that
can see planes in the middle of the 3 big oceans.

GPS is the way forward ceefax is outdated but doesn't
need much bandwidth so has it's limited use.

Utterly mangled all over again.

only about 10% of the world is covered by radar

So your stupid pig ignorant claim that planes are only allowed to fly
where there is radar coverage is just that, a stupid pig ignorant claim.

I never claimed that.

Corse you did with your stupid claim that they fly down the coast so they
are still in radar coverage. Pigs arse they do when flying from the RSA to
Perth, across the pacific, from south america to europe etc etc etc.

I said it was the reasons most flight don;t go direct across oceans

Most do in fact follow the great circle route. In spaces now that they
have much longer range so they dont need to make refuelling stops.

is because of lack of radar coverage.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
usually manage and thats saying something.

Have a look at the routes between the RSA and Perth,
across the pacific, from south america to europe, etc
etc etc. There is **** all in the way of radar coverage on
those routes and they are used all the ****ing time anyway.

so that's a lot of space not covered by radar

Yep.

and a lot of space where planes could be.

They have always been there, most obviously with
the atlantic and pacific and indian oceans etc.

But they haven't in genral

Corse they are.

because sending a plane there means it canlt be tracked

Corse it can be and is with ACARS and ADS-B

so if all airlines sent their planes to a similar
area not trackable by radar is risky.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
usually manage and thats saying something.

They are fully tracked using ACARS and ADS-B

It will be replaced as ACARS isn;t in real time

Thats is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.

No it isn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-26544554

While GPS (Global Positioning System) is a staple of modern life, the
world's air traffic control network is still almost entirely
radar-based.

That is just plain wrong with the long haul routes over oceans.
Its talking primarily about the heavily congested areas around
airports, not the long haul routes between them.

"almost entirely radar-based"

ONLY in the congested areas around airports.
NOT in the middle of the ****ing ocean.

Aircraft use GPS to show pilots their position on a map,

Utterly mangled all over again.

but handling large volumes of flight data is expensive

So is radar.

ADS-B will see aircraft work out their position using GPS
and then relay data to the ground and other planes.

Its been doing it for quite a while now. And isnt what
is used around the heavily congested major airports.

and can be turned off.

So can transponders.

Yes they can, but not by accident or error.

Just as true of ACARS and ADS-B. In fact the
arsehole flying MH370 turned his off deliberately.

Someone did and we don't know why,

Corse we know why, so no one could track it once it headed south
down the indian ocean, so the plane would be impossible to find
once that arsehole had ditched it and could prove that he was
such a complete arsehole as to commit suicide that way and have
that impossible to prove so his family would still get the payout.

you can;t turn it off from the cockpit either.

Still completely trivial to do.