General News

[Tommy G]

3rd runway at Heathrow - the political gift that keeps on giving. I'm sure @leicsmac and many other climate activists oppose this?

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

3rd runway at Heathrow - the political gift that keeps on giving. I'm sure @leicsmac and many other climate activists oppose this?

Interested to know what you define as "climate activist"? Are you also including those who are concerned about the rapidity of climate change? 

[Tommy G]

12 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Interested to know what you define as "climate activist"? Are you also including those who are concerned about the rapidity of climate change? 

Correct - apologies if the term wasn't correct, I think you got the gist

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

3rd runway at Heathrow - the political gift that keeps on giving. I'm sure @leicsmac and many other climate activists oppose this?

Anyone vaguely familiar with the problem and how it might be solved knows that energy generation is the elephant in the room - transport, including air, is a piece but far from the biggest.

 

I can see why people have concern, but my own take is that I don't really have a horse in that particular race because it's rather far down the priority list climate wise.

 

Of course, local environmental pollution and biodiversity regs need to be looked at carefully and adhered to if it goes ahead.

Edited 30 January 2025 by leicsmac

[Otis]

55 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

3rd runway at Heathrow - the political gift that keeps on giving. I'm sure @leicsmac and many other climate activists oppose this?

Previously our Prime minister opposed the 3rd runway on environmental grounds. I wonder what's changed. 🤔 

[Paninistickers]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

How on earth did a US military helicopter collide with a civilian airliner coming into land in one of the most ATC-intensive areas of the world?

Absolutely extraordinary isn't it? 

 

If you're in the helicopter, atc or no atc, transponder or no transponder, trainee or qualified....you can see the ****ing runway FFS and anyone can work out that you are bang in the way. 

 

You don't have to be a driving licence holder to work out walking across the three lanes  of the M1  you are likely to get run over 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Otis said:

Previously our Prime minister opposed the 3rd runway on environmental grounds. I wonder what's changed. 🤔 

Possibly people not making the distinction correctly between climate environmental concerns and pollution/biodiversity environmental concerns, as per above?

 

 

3 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Absolutely extraordinary isn't it? 

 

If you're in the helicopter, atc or no atc, transponder or no transponder, trainee or qualified....you can see the ****ing runway FFS and anyone can work out that you are bang in the way. 

 

You don't have to be a driving licence holder to work out walking across the three lanes  of the M1  you are likely to get run over 

And your TCAS will also be going nuts, too.

 

So what happened?

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

... because those same people elected him. Kindred spirits.

But Trump hates Karen on FB.

[Tommy G]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Possibly people not making the distinction correctly between climate environmental concerns and pollution/biodiversity environmental concerns, as per above?

 

 

And your TCAS will also be going nuts, too.

 

So what happened?

Black Hawk won't have a TCAS system, even so the system is inhibited when close to the ground. 

[Paninistickers]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Possibly people not making the distinction correctly between climate environmental concerns and pollution/biodiversity environmental concerns, as per above?

 

 

And your TCAS will also be going nuts, too.

 

So what happened?

...TCAS Apparently doesn't work below 1000ft....but at that height means the helicopter can clearly see the runway, literally on top of it 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Black Hawk won't have a TCAS system, even so the system is inhibited when close to the ground. 

 

6 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

...TCAS Apparently doesn't work below 1000ft....but at that height means the helicopter can clearly see the runway, literally on top of it 

Thanks for the clarification 👍

 

Either way, as said here, a bloody big airliner coming in to land tends to stand out visually too, so one would think that someone has done something catastrophic here.

[Dunge]

Seems to me there are two possibilities here:

 

1. Some sort of auto-control technical malfunction that sent the helicopter to that exact spot - perhaps a checkpoint in flying data - and held it there without responding to the pilot.

2. The pilot did it deliberately for reasons as yet unknown.

 

Whatever’s happened, it doesn’t look like Trump knew about it. He apparently asked “why didn’t the helicopter move up or down?” which, while it sounds like a bit of a daft thing to ask, is also an entirely sensible thing to ask.

Edited 30 January 2025 by Dunge

[Zear0]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Thanks for the clarification 👍

 

Either way, as said here, a bloody big airliner coming in to land tends to stand out visually too, so one would think that someone has done something catastrophic here.

Speaking as someone who nearly landed a plane on another plane quite recently, visibility for things above/below in aircraft is absolutely dreadful.  You rely so much on ATC to just ensure you're not put in that position.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Speaking as someone who nearly landed a plane on another plane quite recently, visibility for things above/below in aircraft is absolutely dreadful.  You rely so much on ATC to just ensure you're not put in that position.

Yeah, I can imagine.

 

I'm just wondering what's gone on considering the ATC warnings and that one would think a Black Hawk heli would have all round visibility enough to see the airliner if it's also a military vehicle where that, I assume, is pretty important.

[Paninistickers]

7 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Speaking as someone who nearly landed a plane on another plane quite recently, visibility for things above/below in aircraft is absolutely dreadful.  You rely so much on ATC to just ensure you're not put in that position.

Yeah, but the helicopter's on the glide path FFS. 

 

If ever there's a place not to hang around....

 

 

[Zear0]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, I can imagine.

 

I'm just wondering what's gone on considering the ATC warnings and that one would think a Black Hawk heli would have all round visibility enough to see the airliner if it's also a military vehicle where that, I assume, is pretty important.

I honestly don't know wtf ATC were doing (assuming pilots were doing as trained).  They direct aircraft flight levels to prevent this exact thing from happening.

 

Having said, the thought of a Blackhawk pilot being a cowboy isn't exactly a stretch for the imagination.

[Zear0]

8 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Yeah, but the helicopter's on the glide path FFS. 

 

If ever there's a place not to hang around....

 

 

I know, it's just bonkers all around.

[Paninistickers]

The video suggests the heli flew towards the plane. Almost chased it.

 

I'm gonna be generous and assume that the Heli was climbing, kinda in a 2 o clock direction unaware the plane was coming from the pilots left at a sort of 11 o clock. 

 

And that the plane couldn't see the Heli as it was below and right to the cockpit and their focus on final approach.

 

I cannot fathom what the passengers felt  that millisecond of a huge  bang when they were sitting comfortably waiting for landing in the next thirty seconds or so 

 

 

[Lionator]

If I were transport policy king I’d 

 

- close down Heathrow and sell off the land. Use that money and private funds (Middle East states would be all over it) to build a massive new airport or expand Gatwick, basically anywhere away from a large urban dwelling (way outside the M25).

- instead of this ‘varsity line’ crap. High speed rail, London to Edinburgh along the east coast, and a line that joins it going along the north - Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield/Leeds (branches) - York. And of course finish off HS2 as so desired. 
- Give each major city license to build or expand a light rail/tram system. 
 

[Tommy G]

16 minutes ago, Lionator said:

If I were transport policy king I’d 

 

- close down Heathrow and sell off the land. Use that money and private funds (Middle East states would be all over it) to build a massive new airport or expand Gatwick, basically anywhere away from a large urban dwelling (way outside the M25).

- instead of this ‘varsity line’ crap. High speed rail, London to Edinburgh along the east coast, and a line that joins it going along the north - Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield/Leeds (branches) - York. And of course finish off HS2 as so desired. 
- Give each major city license to build or expand a light rail/tram system. 
 

Trioble is the 3rd runway I think is £12-15bn alone - just runway. The sale of the real estate wouldn't generate enough money to build a new 3 runway airport plus the road network and transport links around it. Doesn't make any financial sense. 

Edited 30 January 2025 by Tommy G

[Dr The Singh]

I want to know what sexy Reeves is going to do now to increase growth and wealth, not on projects 10 years away.

 

I'm shocked she isn't getting atleast 50% of the gorgious LisTruss treatment.

[Spudulike]

https://metro.co.uk/2025/01/29/woman-charged-inappropriate-videos-uks-first-cyber-farting-case-22459049/

 

[Tommy G]

15 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

https://metro.co.uk/2025/01/29/woman-charged-inappropriate-videos-uks-first-cyber-farting-case-22459049/

 

I bet the boxing day one she sent was an absolute ripper - no wonder this got to court 

[izzymuzzet]

46 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I want to know what sexy Reeves is going to do now to increase growth and wealth, not on projects 10 years away.

 

I'm shocked she isn't getting atleast 50% of the gorgious LisTruss treatment.

Not having a go at you personally because I think this is a very common British viewpoint, but maybe if we'd invested in infrastructure 10-15 years ago when interest rates were rock bottom, the economy would have been in a better place. Instead the Coalition government cut numerous energy and transport programmes.

 

There's a famous clip of Nick Clegg from about 2011 justifying the cancellation of some nuclear energy schemes because the benefits wouldn't be seen for "another 10 years". Those nuclear generators would have come online just before Russia invaded Ukraine and gas prices went through the roof. Just because infrastructure takes time doesn't mean we shouldn't build it.

[kenny]

16 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

Not having a go at you personally because I think this is a very common British viewpoint, but maybe if we'd invested in infrastructure 10-15 years ago when interest rates were rock bottom, the economy would have been in a better place. Instead the Coalition government cut numerous energy and transport programmes.

 

There's a famous clip of Nick Clegg from about 2011 justifying the cancellation of some nuclear energy schemes because the benefits wouldn't be seen for "another 10 years". Those nuclear generators would have come online just before Russia invaded Ukraine and gas prices went through the roof. Just because infrastructure takes time doesn't mean we shouldn't build it.

Rachel Reeves was on LBC yesterday saying she opposed other airport expansions 4 years ago on environmental ground was justified, as new fuels are more sustainable so expansions are fine.

 

This isn't true, its just politicking, but if it was, it goes to show that they (RR) has no idea that technology changes faster than UK infrastructure projects and you have to just get on with them if they are beneficial.