DIJKKIJK From France, joined Jul 2003, 1677 posts, RR: 5 Posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1481 times:
So you have a few hundred cars, all with fuel, standing close to the operational runways. All it takes is one little loss of control even by a small aircraft and.....you get the picture.
So should long term open carparks be allowed near airports? Bad idea, I think!
Never argue with idiots. They will bring you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, RR: 79 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1481 times:
Quoting DIJKKIJK (Thread starter): So you have a few hundred cars, all with fuel, standing close to the operational runways. All it takes is one little loss of control even by a small aircraft and.....you get the picture.
So should long term open carparks be allowed near airports? Bad idea, I think!
And just where are you planning on putting those cars? There are also lots of gas stations around airports which could go boom a magnitude more than a lot with cars if hit by an airplane (one almost was when WN went off at BUR). Oh and how about the rental cars and their lots.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
HS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1465 times:
Well if they're all in a car park there's going to be nobody in them, so whilst there might be a lot of damaged property there probably wouldn't be a great loss of life. Now using your logic you could argue that passenger terminals shouldn't be near airports for the very same reason!
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 50 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1445 times:
Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 3): Underground carparks, with reinforced roofs maybe?
Which would lead to the question:
How to pay for such an expensive structure? Surely not through parking fees, as such a costly structure would require high parking fees, which would be sure to scare off potential customers.
And going by the way of thinking here in general, with that logic, all airports should be at least 10 miles away from any larger collection of cars, read: city. Not to mention that in short-term parking there are probably even more cars than in long-term parking, and let's not forget all the fueled-up rental cars. You can't put all those parking spaces underground, seriously.
HS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1433 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 5): Arent there huge fuel depots on airport grounds anyway, probably vastly outweighing the amount of fuel that would be in any carpark?
SJCRRPAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1433 times:
I think Southwest ran into a car and it didn't explode. Actually, I never heard of a car explode when getting hit by an airplane, so why spend money trying to protect against something that there is only a remote possiblitiy of occurance. The money would be better spent extending runways and installing restraining devices to prevent runway overshoot.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, RR: 79 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1390 times:
Quoting CRGsFuture (Reply 8): Well if people are that worried why not encourage mass transportation via electric railways like Europe's rail to air idea.
Oh, that would be great, but it is not just the US that does it. Europe too has long term and short term lots. The OP just didn't seem to look at the logistics of all this.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
CRGsFuture From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 536 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1375 times:
Quoting N1120A: Oh, that would be great, but it is not just the US that does it. Europe too has long term and short term lots. The OP just didn't seem to look at the logistics of all this.
I think you missed my point. I understand that Europe has that as well but in America we encourage people to drive to the airport, at places like CDG and FRA you have the option of driving or taking the railroad. (Wished LIS had this but their Metro continues to expand) To me this idea needs to be implemented more, give people the alternatives.
Flying you to your destination; your girlfriend to her dreams.
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4537 posts, RR: 13 Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
Quoting DIJKKIJK (Thread starter): So you have a few hundred cars, all with fuel, standing close to the operational runways. All it takes is one little loss of control even by a small aircraft and.....you get the picture.
So should long term open carparks be allowed near airports? Bad idea, I think
It makes for good compatable land use, afterall what would you rather have there? The areas off of runways area called Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) and can extend from 1,000 to 2,500 ft beyond the runway end. In these areas it is reccomended that there be no areas where people congregate such as shopping malls or churches etc...
Outisde of having absolutely nothing at all, a car parking lot is the next best thing.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3131 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
I agree that the risk of the fuel depots on the airports is larger.
However, are there airports where car parking is forbidden for LPG-powered cars? In France and Switzerland, in parking garages, I often saw signs "no access for LPG cars" (they do have a risk of explosion, other than normal gas or diesel cars). Has anyone seen this? And how much is LPG used in other countries? (In the Netherlands, I guess it's around 15-20% of all cars).
Carduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, RR: 11 Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1248 times:
Perhaps a more serious situation was around 1993 when a small truck with a makeshift rocket launcher was left at a hotel car park at LHR. This together with some 'missiles' (rockets) from the then 'uninhabited' SW of LHR actually made some 'hits' on T4.
I was there at the time meeting a friend from New York. T4 was evacuated - not by us going outside, but by taking the Underground to either the Central Area, or, as a number of other people and I did, we carried on, straight into the centre of London.
I returned late that evening to retrieve my car from the T4 car park, and had rather a hassle with the attendant for the 'amount due' After negotiation he eventually agreed to charge me only for the time I arrived to the actual evacuation alarm!
A lot of cameras appeared in and around the car parks soon after!
Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
Yes, somebody actually proposed a parking structure on the landing side of runway 27 at SAN. It was approved and built before anyone noticed it might interfere with landing operations.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, RR: 48 Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1155 times:
Quoting Joost (Reply 15): However, are there airports where car parking is forbidden for LPG-powered cars? In France and Switzerland, in parking garages, I often saw signs "no access for LPG cars" (they do have a risk of explosion, other than normal gas or diesel cars).
A couple of reasons for this. LP gas is stored under pressure so in the case of an accident a rupture may cause fuel to escape at great velocity and cause an explosive cloud. Conventional fuels are not and if tank ruptured the fuel will generally just run on the ground(if there is no heat source to ignite it)
This scenario is not generally a concern in parking garages as the speeds would be(should be) too low to rupture the tank. The main concern is a leaky tank or valve. LP gas is heavier than air and could pool into an ultimately explosive concentration in the lower parts of a building. Petrol, Diesel or Aviation fuel(they are almost the same) evaporates into a lighter than air state, rising and venting out of the building thus imposing a lower risk.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Jul 2003, 1677 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3131 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
