Fog: government conspiracy theory alert!

[Dave B]

Well obviously not, but that's probably what some people think of the recent fog!

Last week a report comes out recommending a third runway at Heathrow and a second at Stanstead. Admittedly it was produced by an ex-BA man, but the government were quick to stand by it and say that more airport capacity was desperately needed.

Environmentalists were horrified, saying we should be looking at other, "greener", forms of transport - even though a full 747 is more efficient per head than a Toyota Prius.

Now we've seen many airports - Heathrow in particular - crippled by several days of heavy fog. And what's being blamed? Not the weather, that's for sure. No, all the disruption is down to the fact that LHR operates to over 95% capacity, so the slightest problem causes havoc.

So is the report right? Should we add capacity to airports or invest in alternatives - perhaps ones which aren't so prone to disruption by the elements?

[Robinho]

if they lined up all the planes grounded by the fog, turned on the engines and held them on the brakes how long would it take to clear the fog?

[Ian McC]

a second at Stanstead.

Joy, that will make my life better no end! :(

[Daniel]

if they lined up all the planes grounded by the fog, turned on the engines and held them on the brakes how long would it take to clear the fog?


Errrr are you serious? Do you know how many tonnes of fuel a jet burns off per hour? It's quite possibly cheaper and easier just to deal with the delays.

[bowler]

"a fully laden jumbo is more fuel efficient per person than a prius"

saw that here somewhere

[CarlMetro]

Errrr are you serious? Do you know how many tonnes of fuel a jet burns off per hour? It's quite possibly cheaper and easier just to deal with the delays.

A similar, albeit slightly more basic, ploy was used by the RAF in the second world war. When there was particularly bad fog they would dig ditches either side of a runway, fill them with kerosene and then set it alight. this helped to disperse the fog around the surrounding areas and enabled the planes to land. There were a few drawbacks however, like skidding off the runway into a ditch full of burning kerosene :s

Getting back to the original question though........

LHR is the busiest airport in the world and yet has fewer runways than just about all of it's European contemporaries. I heard a spokesman for BAA on the radio the other day who explained that both the airports and the planes have highly sophisticated systems which allow them to take off and land in zero visibility, however as an extra measure of safety they had had to increase the distance in between landing aircraft from 3 miles to 6 miles as a precaution.

At it's peak times LHR has a plane taking off and another landing every 79 seconds which means it's finite reasources are stretched to the limits. If something like we've seen recently with bad weather or the extra security measures happens, then something somewhere has to break. With a third runway, the pressure on the system would be alleviated considerably, meaning less disruption when a spot of fog means that extra distance between planes is required.

[Robinho]

Errrr are you serious? Do you know how many tonnes of fuel a jet burns off per hour? It's quite possibly cheaper and easier just to deal with the delays.

yes and no, whilst i'm sure it would be possible to shift the fog that way it is quite possibly the least efficient use of the jet engine. i bet it would have worked though.

[Daniel]

I bet it wouldn't have worked :)

[Mark]

With a third runway, the pressure on the system would be alleviated considerably, meaning less disruption when a spot of fog means that extra distance between planes is required.

But would it? Or would it just mean they land more planes hence taking it up to capacity again?

[CarlMetro]

But would it? Or would it just mean they land more planes hence taking it up to capacity again?

Well according to BAA, even with the opening of T5, Heathrow would not be able to handle many more passengers than it does now because the infrastructure surrounding it would not be able to cope with increased volumes. Therefore it is fairly safe to say that a third runway at Heathrow would not increase the ammount of flights to and from.

Of course, they could be lying..........

[luvracin]

If you have an extra runway it may even be better for the environment..no no.. stay with me here...

Many times planes are lined up, engines idling waiting their turn to take off. Likewise, when in the air they are doing "circle work" in holding patterns waiting for a clearance to land.

With an extra runway you can potentially get planes in and out of an airport faster meaning less "engine on" time. OK, forget about the terminal not supporting extra flights, I'm talking about dealing with the current level of flights.

[BDunnell]

If you have an extra runway it may even be better for the environment..no no.. stay with me here...

Many times planes are lined up, engines idling waiting their turn to take off. Likewise, when in the air they are doing "circle work" in holding patterns waiting for a clearance to land.

With an extra runway you can potentially get planes in and out of an airport faster meaning less "engine on" time. OK, forget about the terminal not supporting extra flights, I'm talking about dealing with the current level of flights.

But sadly, the fact is that the overall number of flights would increase. Bigger aircraft and bigger airports are not, despite what some may have you believe, more environmentally friendly. The rate of growth of air travel would quickly outweigh any advantages size increases may have.