| Topic: | BA Flight Lands Short of Runway at Heathrow | |
| Posted by: | Kevin Regan | |
| Date/Time: | 17/01/08 16:25:00 |
| Surely the important point is that this airliner lost power and glided in just making the Heathrow runway. Whilst we appreciate the point that this is a one in a million event, it could so nearly have landed short, not necessarily so near to Heathrow. With no power the pilots had no ability to manoeuvre, just grit their teeth and hope. All credit to them for making it, but it could easily have been a major disaster. As a one in a million event, the more flights with 3 runways, the quicker the next million will arrive. Do we really need a catastrophe to prove that London has no additional sensible site for another runway? If Gatwick had 2 runways, and this had happened there, not only would Gatwick be able to continue operations, albeit in a restricted fashion, but the pilots would have had a less fraught approach. Today they had to make the perimeter to avoid a disaster and thankfully they did. Why would the planners still consider a third runway over densely populated areas of the capital where landing short on any of 3 runways would likely cause major loss of life and damage when a similar event at another airport would not have a disaster on the same scale? Just think of Lockerbie where, even with the fairly sparsely populated area of Scotland the wreckage narrowly missed a motorway and only a small portion landed on property, still with devastating effect on those living there. Now transpose that debris field over a map of London and see what might have been (or may yet happen). Please, let's see the cancellation of Runway 3. |