N844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 22 hours ago) and read 2176 times:
Well, one of those proposals was for a stationary platform. Granted, it was a quarter of a billion dollars more than the semi-free-floating one, but in either case, glideslope wackiness would probably not be part of the equation -- how many airliners make six-hour final approaches? -- and tailhooks certainly would not. Remember, the platform only moves with the tide (or perhaps a tsunami, in which case approaching planes would probably be diverting far, far away.)
I have no idea if this plan is feasible, but it would not seem to be unfeasible for the reasons you mentioned.
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
BoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 weeks ago) and read 1914 times:
Okay... For starters...
1. The Taxiway Ovals are open... Big problem.
2. They suggest supporting the cost of the project by turning the area under the runway into parking (terrorist invite).
3. It's only been applied in a bay. Their most recent proposal is to build it 3.5 miles off the coast of San Diego. Keep in mind, the waves out there are anywhere from 5-10 feet in height, rolling constantly.
4. To get to the airport, they propose a floating tunnel. Um... Yeah.. Okay
5. They want to put it in the middle of a whale migration route.
6. Oops! We over ran the runway, but it's not 50' deep, it's 500' deep.