Page 1 of 2

Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:02 am
by PanAm747
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070114/news_2m14float.html

This should give you a laugh for the day...

Another proposal for us to "think outside the box"...and how about his company name - "Euphlotea", pronounced "You-Float-E-A"

 rotfl 

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:26 am
by Trvlr
More and more evidence that this city is truly screwed.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:46 am
by rampart
from the article:
"He believes his biggest obstacle is overcoming the natural human instinct to be skeptical of anything that has never been done before."

If we didn't have innovators, we'd never land an aircraft on an aircraft carrier, we wouldn't build runways on piers out onto the ocean, and we wouldn't reclaim land below sea level for useful construction. We wouldn't have airplanes flying more than 500 people, airports with more than 6 runways, and high speed transit links from downtown to the terminal. All the above are common, but considered unthinkable at one time.

So, don't embarass yourself by dismissing the concept entirely. (And take already biased reporting with a grain of salt.)

-Rampart

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:05 am
by Trvlr
I'm sure the idea will one day get its chance the succeed. Indeed, in my opinion the biggest obstacle is not the physical fundamentals of the concept, rather its enormous cost.

$20 billion is too much, in the desert or out at sea.

Aaron G.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:14 am
by flydreamliner
Quoting Trvlr (Reply 3):
I'm sure the idea will one day get its chance the succeed. Indeed, in my opinion the biggest obstacle is not the physical fundamentals of the concept, rather its enormous cost.

$20 billion is too much, in the desert or out at sea.

Aaron G.

Factoring in inflation... I think HKG and KIX have got to give that figure a run for the money.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:20 am
by rojo
I keep thinking that San Diego authorities need to decide soon on a site for the new or alternative airport. If not, you will see new and crazy ideas like this. Not that I think an airport in the sea is a bad idea, but it is so expensive and it could sink easily which could increase passenger facility charges... additionally, if you still have in land alternatives why not chose one now!
Anyhow, it is fun to read this kind of news!!

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:12 am
by AirTranTUS
Would the airport be able to position itself for any wind direction? So if the wind changes, the airport turns.

I realize this would be impossible due to the size of the floating island, but it is fun to think about.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:19 am
by kiwiandrew
when I glanced at the topic "Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal " my first thought was that an offshore airport for South Dakota would be a very impressive if somewhat futile achievement Big grin

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:26 am
by SLCUT2777
Even clear out at sea like that, it will still be opposed by the NIMBY's. When you get as many of them as you have in Southern California, they come out of the strangest places.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:40 am
by PPVRA
There are so many of these ideas. It seems like its a matter of time not if.

Google "Freedom Ship", youtube "Pykrete carrier". As mentioned, the Japanese already have a floating runway. Floating hotels exist, and I'm not just talking about huge cruise ships. Boeing lunches rockets into space from offshore platforms.

Oil rigs are enormous structures, and many float. There are plans for offshore floating wind mills to generate electricity.

The risks are still huge, but I hope to soon see some of these projects materialize.

The proposed airport could be quite efficient. Security lines, check-in lines, etc., can all be back in shore due to the airports isolation, making everything more efficient. And of course you can have multiple locations to do all these things.

Edit: Make it far enough and maybe they can put casinos in them  Wink

[Edited 2007-01-14 22:43:30]

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:09 am
by PPVRA
http://mikenguyen.brinkster.net/E/Images/OACaseStudy/Slide9.jpg

http://mikenguyen.brinkster.net/E/Images/OACaseStudy/Slide16.jpg

http://mikenguyen.brinkster.net/E/Images/OACaseStudy/Slide17.jpg

http://mikenguyen.brinkster.net/E/Images/OACaseStudy/Slide26.jpg

http://mikenguyen.brinkster.net/E/Images/OACaseStudy/Slide31.jpg

http://mikenguyen.brinkster.net/E/Images/OACaseStudy/Slide48.jpg

From the companies website.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:10 am
by FlyingTexan
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 9):
Make it far enough and maybe they can put casinos in them

Now thats a novel idea! A casino will pay that $20B fairly quick. (20 miles for intl water)

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:01 am
by mpdpilot
So I think that thought this idea is almost too far outside the box it is a start. I think that in a number of years this could be a reality and I think that is great. As to San Diego's current problem, why not an airport like KIX or HKG. Who says it has to float. Everyone says it is too expensive. I don't think so. I think you get what you pay for. Having almost no over flight of the city, having little or no constraints on expantion, I see no downside other than price, and our government has shown us time and time again it can find the money if it wants to. I think more people need to think like this man. We need to think outside the box and I mean way outside the box. We need to start to do even more and start doing things outside the box. I hope he gets someone to listen. I also hope that San Deigo starts doing something instead of pointing out all the bad things. What was wrong with Miramar? Sometimes I think people need to stop worring about every little inconvience that the airport brings. In my opinion SAN shouldn't have its night restriction either, the airport has been there for many many years and you should know that an airport makes noise when you decide to live there and if it bothers you don't move there.

Now that I am done ranting I hope this moves foward.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:22 am
by SANFan
Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 12):
Now that I am done ranting I hope this moves foward

...and backwards, and left to right in order to align with the prevailing...

Of course Al Gore would warn us that Lindbergh might be an ocean-bound airport in a few years anyway. (But, as Letterman would ask, "Will it Float?"

Other than the price, I think it's as feasible as anything else right now...
Only question I see is do we build ONE big one off the shore of Camp Pendleton to take care of both SD and LA, or do we each build our own? (Cooperation between SD and LA? I guess I answered my own question.)

bb

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:27 am
by WA707atMSP
In the early 1970's, a similar propsal was made for an airport 3 miles off Long Beach. The airport would have replaced SNA, and reduced the need to expand LAX. The airport's enormous cost, problems with fog, cancellation of the US SST program (one of the main drivers of the proposal was to keep SST noise away from populated areas) and the mid-1970s traffic downturn, doomed the proposal.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:13 am
by galapagapop
At first glance he seems like he's off his rocker, but there are some good points. San Diego's clock is ticking. If they don't work to try Miramar one last time before BRAC 2012, they basically signed away the last low cost land in the entire region and the last large standing empty landmass. So all that is left would be to just send the airport out to sea. But did they consider maybe a bridge? 10 miles seems a bit much, but I guess this has to be done carefully, they may have gotten over the rich near Miramar, but imagine the uproar when some hear that a new airport may be partially in view on their new 1/2 acre 5+mil abode. And even if far enough away, just wait until that is brought up, for me it's economical, but the number of opponents is going to be at five times that of what was for Mirmar. Only thing working in favour is no developer money involved in the campaigns.

Cheers!

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:59 am
by ltbewr
I would assume that it would be impossible to make an offshore island airport work in the San Diego area for several reasons:
1) Earthquakes and Tusimnis
2) Enviromental damage to the seabed, screwing up local sea life, pollution from runoff of oil and other hazardous materials
3) Difficulty of access - would need a boat with it's own set of problems as well as cheap and quick access for all of the employees.
4) Weather, including offshore fogs.
5) Cost, probably well over $20 Billion, by the time all of the whistles and bells and politicans payoffs included. The landing and operational costs would have to be paid for by extremely high airfares.
I think they still need to go back to the Tiuana border joint airport concept. They could have it built by a Mexican company with Mex workers for a lot cheaper.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:47 am
by rampart
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16):
1) Earthquakes and Tusimnis
2) Enviromental damage to the seabed, screwing up local sea life, pollution from runoff of oil and other hazardous materials
3) Difficulty of access - would need a boat with it's own set of problems as well as cheap and quick access for all of the employees.
4) Weather, including offshore fogs.

Good points. Earthquakes are not a huge problem in San Diego, though tsunamis might be (as they are currently for Lindbergh). The drawings I saw seem to put the deck fairly high, and it would be a major tsunami to overtake that. As for the sea bed, this is a floating platform but would presumably have anchors. Thus, environmental scrutiny would be high, and may be its undoing. Difficulty of access and weather are probably the biggest concerns. With only ferry boat access, I can see instances where high seas could make a hazardous if not uncomfortable commute. Fog is also a problem.

-Rampart

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:27 am
by skyharborshome
Did anyone else find it a bit funny that they chose an Air France 340 for the renderings. Well, I did. I am not sure SAN has seen Air France or an A340 in current years. I am now picturing..... "If you build it, they will come."

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:25 am
by oakjam
I will just say this If the State of California had a big fit for the new Eastern Span of the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge which was only $5 billion dollars. What makes you people in SD think that the state will chip in to build an Airport that cost $20 billion out into the sea. Will this Airport be built so that Southwest can increase their daily flights from OAK from 16 to 32 daily?

Come on people be more realistic, find a feasible cheap option for an Airport in SD, there has got to be alternatives. SAN or the new Airport will never be SFO or LAX. TIJ is pretty efficient why not make the best use of it in an Int'l collaboration.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:38 am
by futureualpilot
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16):
2) Enviromental damage to the seabed, screwing up local sea life, pollution from runoff of oil and other hazardous materials

Not to metion potentially screwing up many local surf spots, pissing thousands of us surfers off :-P

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16):
4) Weather, including offshore fogs.

What about CATIII capable ILS? I do, however, realize that is expensive and Wx may still close down the airport,.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:41 am
by Bicoastal
Sierra Club? Surfrider Foundation? Greenpeace? League of Conservation Voters? Yep. They'll support this one.  Big grin

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:50 am
by Aaron747
A submarine terminal? Bonkers!

Japan is the only country with a construction industry corrupt enough to build *every* airport offshore. This will never fly in California - the green brigade won't allow it and there's no way a city the size of SD can fund this without more than a 50% match in federal dollars.

[Edited 2007-01-16 03:50:36]

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:58 am
by lincoln
Quoting SANFan (Reply 13):
Cooperation between SD and LA? I guess I answered my own question.)

For as wise as you are you sure have some wacky ideas. The day LA and SD start cooperating is the day that California is no longer attached to the rest of the Continental United States.

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 21):
Sierra Club? Surfrider Foundation? Greenpeace? League of Conservation Voters? Yep. They'll support this one.

I'm trying to think of one political action group that would support one...Just thinking Republican and Democrat crosses both off the list for various ideological reasons

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:03 pm
by futurecaptain
Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 14):
problems with fog



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16):
offshore fogs.

Fog is no longer a problem.  Wink

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i129969_Slide17.jpg

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i129968_Slide16.jpg

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:44 pm
by SANFan
Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 24):
Fog is no longer a problem.

LOL... Somebody's got Photoshop up and running!

Quoting Oakjam (Reply 19):
Will this Airport be built so that Southwest can increase their daily flights from OAK from 16 to 32 daily?

By golly, you're right, 'jam. In the top picture, those 3 Fat Alberts taxiing to 10R are the 9:00 AM, 9:01 AM and 9:02 AM WN departures for OAK! (The 9:03 and 9:04 are in the final boarding process at their gates!)

My one concern is the number of DC-10s serving this FuturePort...

bb

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:40 am
by Coronado990
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 22):
A submarine terminal? Bonkers!

There should be two submarine terminals which can detach and cruise into port with all it's passengers every hour or so. One can be in port while the other is at the platform. Pax can check-in during their cruise to the airport.

Lindbergh would become the port for the huge submarines.

Just being silly of course. I am for an airport at the base of Camp Pendleton near the Oceanside City limit. And I am starting to like the idea of an airport on the Mexican border. A runway offset by 15-20 degrees from the current runway at TIJ (RWY 9-27) would make straight-in approaches to TIJ more feasible and not requiring an off set approach. This runway would cross into US territory and can be 12,000 feet long no problem and used mainly for international flights. Then add a third parallel runway right in between Brown Field and TIJ to accommodate as many US flights a possible.

Are the political problems between Mexico and the USA bigger than moving mountains or claiming the sea. YOU BET IT IS!!!

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:57 am
by DfwRevolution
Well it looks better than the Star Wars city that was first proposed....

For the love of God San Diego: just redevelop Miramar

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:03 am
by mpdpilot
Just out of curiosity why was miramar rejected as and idea?

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:14 am
by Bicoastal
Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 28):
Just out of curiosity why was miramar rejected as and idea?

Overwhelmingly rejected in a county-wide vote of the people. Most, including myself, like our Lindbergh Field. We have no desire for a hub or large airport in San Diego and want most of the people and businesses who have moved here during the past 30 years (the point at which San Diego started to deteriorate in my mind) to pick up and leave.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:34 am
by DfwRevolution
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16):
I would assume that it would be impossible to make an offshore island airport work in the San Diego area for several reasons:
1) Earthquakes and Tusimnis

Actually, these would be less worrisome than you might think. Tsunami waves only become dangerous as they approach the shore.

In the open ocean, even massive waves like the 2004 Banda Ache tsunami are only about 1 meter high. There were numerous reports of fishermen just 1-2 miles off shore when the tsunamis struck that only experienced some minor rough seas.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16):
2) Enviromental damage to the seabed, screwing up local sea life, pollution from runoff of oil and other hazardous materials

Pollution run-off would be a major concern, but if properly engineered, they could mitigate such pollution to near zero.

As for harming local sea life, I would disagree. Many off-shore oil platforms create artificial habitats for sea life. Over 200 platforms in the Gulf of Mexico were left intact after production ended to preserve the new marine environment. Several rigs in California are slated to be retained for simmilar purposes.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16):
3) Difficulty of access - would need a boat with it's own set of problems as well as cheap and quick access for all of the employees.

Another major concern... although the idea of multiple "terminals" on land is certainly adds some versatility.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16):
5) Cost, probably well over $20 Billion, by the time all of the whistles and bells and politicans payoffs included. The landing and operational costs would have to be paid for by extremely high airfares.

Well, if building one is expensive, building two is cheaper. So who else is in the market for a floating airport?  Wink

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:37 am
by mpdpilot
Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 29):
Overwhelmingly rejected in a county-wide vote of the people. Most, including myself, like our Lindbergh Field. We have no desire for a hub or large airport in San Diego and want most of the people and businesses who have moved here during the past 30 years (the point at which San Diego started to deteriorate in my mind) to pick up and leave.

ok other than your opinion that San Diego's economy should just stop growing from where it was in the 70's. Why was Miramar rejected.

I don't really understand where your coming from if my home had a large number of people that wanted to live and work here I would welcome them with open arms. But you are entitled to your opinion.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:55 am
by Bicoastal
Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 31):
ok other than your opinion that San Diego's economy should just stop growing from where it was in the 70's. Why was Miramar rejected

Thanks for respect but not necessarily agreement of other opinions. That's rare on this forum.

In addition to why I opposed it, people seem to be afraid of the cost of an airport boondoggle. They're afraid of traffic. They like the Marines and want them to stay. They're afraid the environmentally sensitive open space around the Marine Corps base would be destroyed. And they don't seem to care that convenient Lindbergh might be maxed out some day in the future. Having non-stop service to Europe and Asia isn't an issue or concern to most San Diegans. These are just a few reasons and there are likely more which resulted in the overwhelming rejection of Miramar by the voters.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:09 am
by SANFan
Hey Coronado', you gave me such a great idea: while building this big-a** floating platform a few miles off the coast of SD, why not make it the world's coolest cruise ship terminal too! Talk about making it an easy transfer from airplane to ship...

You also keep those big messy ships out of the harbor and have lots of space for many mega-liners at the same time to tie up along the sides of the airport. (Heck if you built the thing out far enough -- in int'l waters -- they could even keep the casinos operating while the ships are tied up!) Brilliant!!!

...ok. back to my padded cell now...

bb

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:26 am
by jacobin777
Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 29):

Overwhelmingly rejected in a county-wide vote of the people. Most, including myself, like our Lindbergh Field. We have no desire for a hub or large airport in San Diego and want most of the people and businesses who have moved here during the past 30 years (the point at which San Diego started to deteriorate in my mind) to pick up and leave.

When San Diego starts to economically choke because it can no longer grow, expand and support its population, it will be people like you who will be first first to complain... sarcastic ....

SAN needs a new airport, its as simple as that......at least with LHR, one could substitute a big plane with even a bigger plane...heck, SAN can't even do that....

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:38 am
by Boeing7E7
Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 32):
In addition to why I opposed it, people seem to be afraid of the cost of an airport boondoggle. They're afraid of traffic. They like the Marines and want them to stay. They're afraid the environmentally sensitive open space around the Marine Corps base would be destroyed. And they don't seem to care that convenient Lindbergh might be maxed out some day in the future. Having non-stop service to Europe and Asia isn't an issue or concern to most San Diegans. These are just a few reasons and there are likely more which resulted in the overwhelming rejection of Miramar by the voters.

None of which is factually accurate.

The issue was layout, disclocation of the Marines against their will at a time of war and the associated cost with the proposed layout. Miramar, absent the Marines can support two independent parallel runways with a 9/27 heading with no damage to environmental elements on the property for about half the cost of what was proposed. It would also send aircraft over Sorrento Valley (north of what was proposed). The runways start 1,000' west of Kearney Villa Road. One 10,000' runway and one 12,000' runway - the west existing runway end (although re-aligned) is moved a full 2,000' east. The furthest north runway is just south of the freeway overpass for Miramar way, the southern most runway is just north of the airfield boundary for Miramar. If you google earth it, and flag airports/transportation you will see the South Boundary line, as well as the other environmental boundaries. The rest is built north of that boundary

People don't understand an issue in San Diego until it hits their wallet, then they will over react and it will cost twice as much. This is the San Diego way, yourself included.

Quoting Rampart (Reply 2):
So, don't embarass yourself by dismissing the concept entirely.

Okay.

1. How do you control pitch, roll and yaw? (which will certainly occur) This would handle 500,000 lb aircraft, not a lightweight fighter.
2. How would you deal with the Marine layer that hangs out 3 miles off the coast about 40% of the time in San Diego that would require CAT III landings? Less than 40% of all aircraft and less than 10% of all crews are CAT III qualified. There isn't an airport on the planet with this level of CAT III requirements.
3. For $20 Billion, you could build it in the desert (or campo for $17 Billion) and the technology to make this scenario happen is proven.
4. Perspective: You're talking about a platform on the open ocean in the middle of a whale migration route that is a mile wide and two miles long three miles to ten miles off the coast, not in a sheltered bay.

On the multi - heading question:

Charts are published. How to you publish the approach chart for an airport that is constantly moving and has a continuously variable field altitude?

I like this Letter to the Editor in the UT:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...b/20070116/news_lz1e16letters.html

Time to deep six floating airport idea
Regarding “Floating airport proposal resurfaces” (Local, Jan. 14):

I'll make the Union-Tribune a deal: You get to print another article about a floating airport off Point Loma when I finally get my flying car I was promised as a kid. Agreed?

MITCH FARMER
San Diego


[Edited 2007-01-16 21:49:02]

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:46 am
by TeamAmerica
Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 29):
Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 28):
Just out of curiosity why was miramar rejected as and idea?

Overwhelmingly rejected in a county-wide vote of the people. Most, including myself, like our Lindbergh Field. We have no desire for a hub or large airport in San Diego and want most of the people and businesses who have moved here during the past 30 years (the point at which San Diego started to deteriorate in my mind) to pick up and leave.

 spit No foolin', I laughed out loud when I read this. Talk about closing the barn door a little too late! Maybe you should pray for plague or a nuclear strike...that'll teach those interlopers a lesson.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:55 am
by TeamAmerica
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 30):
Tsunami waves only become dangerous as they approach the shore.
In the open ocean, even massive waves like the 2004 Banda Ache tsunami are only about 1 meter high.

One meter high and traveling at hundreds of kilometers per hour. It's still a helluva shockwave, and I'm not sure they've modelled for what that would do to such a large floating structure.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 30):
Pollution run-off would be a major concern, but if properly engineered, they could mitigate such pollution to near zero.

I'm not sure "mitigate" is correct. Run-off would have to be captured and either treated on site ($$$) or hauled off. Either way I suspect that's an additional operating cost that hasn't been properly considered. Think about the size of the fuel storage tanks that would be required, and the equipment required to contain a spill. None of this makes sense when land is available.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:56 am
by Tom in NO
Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 32):
They're afraid the environmentally sensitive open space around the Marine Corps base would be destroyed.

Every time I visit my mother's gravesite at the El Camino Cemetary (west of Miramar off Mira Mesa Blvd) and hear all the F-18's etc blasting off of Miramar I'm reminded of how really whacked those arguments are.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 35):
Boeing7E7 From United States, joined Dec 2005, 1220 posts, RR: 7
Reply 35, posted Tue Jan 16 2007 21:38:12 UTC (4 minutes 29 secs ago) and read 12 times:

Absolutely agree on all points made.

Tom at MSY

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:57 am
by mpdpilot
Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 35):
1. How do you control pitch, roll and yaw? (which will certainly occur) This would handle 500,000 lb aircraft, not a lightweight fighter.
2. How would you deal with the Marine layer that hangs out 3 miles off the coast about 40% of the time in San Diego that would require CAT III landings? Less than 40% of all aircraft and less than 10% of all crews are CAT III qualified. There isn't an airport on the planet with this level of CAT III requirements.
3. For $20 Billion, you could build it in the desert (or campo for $17 Billion) and the technology to make this scenario happen is proven.
4. Perspective: You're talking about a platform on the open ocean in the middle of a whale migration route that is a mile wide and two miles long three miles to ten miles off the coast, not in a sheltered bay.

These are all good questions that would need to be answered, but flying started with a whole bunch of questions that needed to be answered, that is no reason for discounting an idea. Cost is a reason if it can be done for cheaper someother way but that may not always be the case. For the sake of arguement I am going to take a stab at some of your questions.

1. Oceanliners all have stablizers that can hold the field in one place, and control pitch, yaw, and role. Another option would be anchor it so well that it never moved and the ocean just crashed against it like it would a beach.
2. train more pilots. The old Hong Kong airport had a very unusual approach I am sure that airlines would be able to get into the airport without problem.
3. It might be cheaper to build in the desert, but is it a better value? That is the real question. Answer me that.
4. Perspective. What when did that ever last. Ask someone in the 1800's about flying an airplane from london to Los Angles with 800 people on board and he will ask you to think about perspective too, but it can be done today. Also animals can adabt much better and quicker than we can so I think they will get over it. Also it isn't like we are going to plop it there in one night it will take years to build plenty of time for them to adjust their path.
5. Charts. The airport have to be properly anchored inwhich case it wouldn't move so the charts wouldn't change. As far as ILS goes it would move with the island so no worries there and a VOR on site would also move with the field so finding it would not be too bad.

Those are just some thoughts of mine. I love this kind of thing sometimes I want to be an engineer.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:04 am
by AADC10
I doubt that the floating airport would make any sense, particularly since passengers and cargo would have to travel by ferry. Pilots would also probably not be too happy about landing on a runway that changes elevation.

It would still be cheaper to build a remote inland airport connected by high speed train. I suspect they will do nothing and just live with Lindberg Field for the next generation or so. Fares will rise (but not intolerably so) and non-stop destinations would be limited but the NIMBYs will be happy.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:07 am
by mpdpilot
Can someone break down NIMBYs for me I think I have a pretty good idea about what they are but what does the word mean.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:28 am
by Boeing7E7
Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 39):
1. Oceanliners all have stablizers that can hold the field in one place, and control pitch, yaw, and role. Another option would be anchor it so well that it never moved and the ocean just crashed against it like it would a beach.

Additional cost. The O&M cost on such a system would be off the charts.

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 39):
2. train more pilots. The old Hong Kong airport had a very unusual approach I am sure that airlines would be able to get into the airport without problem.

Airports don't train pilots, airlines do. You have a $20 billion airport that would increase the cost of flying to San Diego to a rate twice as high as any airport in the nation. Then, you want to pass additional training costs onto the carriers? Good luck.

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 39):
3. It might be cheaper to build in the desert, but is it a better value?

Certainly. A new economy could grow around it.

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 39):
4. Perspective. What when did that ever last. Ask someone in the 1800's about flying an airplane from london to Los Angles with 800 people on board and he will ask you to think about perspective too, but it can be done today. Also animals can adabt much better and quicker than we can so I think they will get over it. Also it isn't like we are going to plop it there in one night it will take years to build plenty of time for them to adjust their path.

Perspective. People in the 50's thought they'd have flying cars. In the 70's, people believed the Helicopter was the future of short haul flying. Now many of the same dreamers with no perspective of cost and capability think the Osprey is the answer. All flawed assumptions.

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 39):
5. Charts. The airport have to be properly anchored inwhich case it wouldn't move so the charts wouldn't change. As far as ILS goes it would move with the island so no worries there and a VOR on site would also move with the field so finding it would not be too bad.

False. Cables are flexible allowing movement. The developers of this even suggest "people will feel as though they've been on a boat" - sea legs. That means it moves.

As to the ILS. The vertical component uses the ground to deflect the signal which means that the signal will pitch up and down with the surface. What you're missing in the latency of the system. In affect, the signal would pitch an aircraft up and while the aircraft stabilizing in reaction to the pitch, the surface would move out from under the aircraft. Reverse that and the signal latency causes the aircraft to pitch down as the surface moves up to the aircraft - ooops. ILS will not work. ILS going out the window? Fine. GPS requires a fixed immovable reference point.

Silly statement on their site:

A grey whale could surface "within" the structure for air. LOL

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 41):
Can someone break down NIMBYs for me I think I have a pretty good idea about what they are but what does the word mean.

Not In My Back Yard.


It's a nice idea for a massive closed in bay, say San Francisco or Japan, where forces are controllable and it can be effectively anchored. Or even anchored to the coast in a shallow body of water such as the Gulf of Mexico. It's an entirely different issue to put this in the open Pacific Ocean with constant waves and 1,000-feet plus water depths.

[Edited 2007-01-16 22:32:42]

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:31 am
by sllevin
Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 29):
We have no desire for a hub or large airport in San Diego and want most of the people and businesses who have moved here during the past 30 years (the point at which San Diego started to deteriorate in my mind) to pick up and leave.

I think that's pretty dramatic, but I do agree that no city wants to -- or should -- grow infinitely -- it would just be more and more crowded. Who wants to live in a warren?

Steve

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:35 am
by PPVRA
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16):



Quoting Rampart (Reply 17):
With only ferry boat access, I can see instances where high seas could make a hazardous if not uncomfortable commute.

Guys,

Go to the companies website and go through the presentation they have there. It answers a lot of the questions you all have.

It looks quite feasible, but maybe too expensive/risky for San Diego.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:35 am
by Boeing7E7
Quoting Sllevin (Reply 43):
I think that's pretty dramatic, but I do agree that no city wants to -- or should -- grow infinitely -- it would just be more and more crowded. Who wants to live in a warren?

I think he means "he has no desire" but he thinks he speaks for the entire San Diego population, or so it appears. I know plenty of people in San Diego who disagree with his assessment. He loves to make massive sweeping generalizations, usually based on his skewed view of what really happened on the vote with regard to this issue. Funny thing is, the only opposition argument that resonated with the public was the military issue.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:41 am
by PanAm747
Quote:
Can someone break down NIMBYs for me I think I have a pretty good idea about what they are but what does the word mean.

Not In My Back Yard.

Or my airspace.

Or anywhere near me.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:42 am
by Boeing7E7
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 44):
Go to the companies website and go through the presentation they have there. It answers a lot of the questions you all have.

It answers nothing. It's loaded with supposition and theory. No facts. In fact, Japan built a floating platform to study it (they proudly show a 10 year old photo of it). They then cut it up and it's used as a reef.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:32 am
by Marcus
Forget about a joint TIJ-SAN airport........everything arround TIJ and Brown field has been developed, back in the early 90's when this idea surfaced the area arround both airports was undeveloped, but now take a look at the area on google to see what I'm talking about.

Also, voter support from both sides of the border would not be that high for a project like this.

RE: Another Off-Shore SD Airport Proposal

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:16 am
by PPVRA
Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 47):
It answers nothing. It's loaded with supposition and theory. No facts. In fact, Japan built a floating platform to study it (they proudly show a 10 year old photo of it). They then cut it up and it's used as a reef.

It says fog is not an issue on slide 19.

Earthquake/tsunamis issues dismissed in slide 29.

Slides 32-40 provides access propositions.

Slides 41-44 answers questions relating to environmental issues.

Make sure you click on "Case Study" when you go to their website.