Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA246945694; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:54:55 -0700 Return-Path: <jmilum@saba.com-DeleteThis> Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA278135693; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:54:53 -0700 Received: from sabafs.saba.com (mail.saba.com [208.197.163.68]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id LAA22150 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by sabafs.saba.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <L75P7W65>; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:51:39 -0700 Message-Id: <950B544CDA48D211BB1700104BC94B8933CEDA@sabafs.saba.com-DeleteThis> From: Jeff Milum <jmilum@saba.com-DeleteThis> To: "'wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis'" <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> Subject: RE: SFO expansion meetings Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:51:29 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Where are you viewing the plans? Not sure exactly what they all look like.
You are probably right on.
SFO's main problem now is that the parallel north/south runways are too
close together for IFR.
It seems to me that east/west runways just aren't going to get used that
much due to the prevailing conditions, and would be of lesser concern. I
worked off of airport blvd for a year and had a great view of the landing
patterns. They run North/South 85% of the time I'd say.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Frankel [mailto:mdf@sgi.com-DeleteThis]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 11:33 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: SFO expansion meetings
When I look at the airport runway alternatives, I keep having the same
recurring thought. It seems like there's a quite acceptable
alternative which would have much less impact on the bay. SFO needs
to scale down their grandiose plans, in order to have a win-win for
everyone.
As I understand, the current situation has four runways in a #
pattern. However the two sets of parallel runways are too closely
spaced to be used simultaneously in IFR conditions, which is when the
airport is most stressed anyway. Also, the runways cross at the
center which means they can't be used simultaneously. So four runways
are reduced to effectively just one in the worst case.
My feeling is that what the SFO people want is to have four
non-intersecting runways that can all be used simultaneously in IFR
conditions. I think they're asking too much. I'd propose alternative
MDF, with two new runways roughly parallel to the existing ones, in
the same # pattern. This would be somewhat like alternative BX,
except the new east-west runway, rather than extending way out in the
middle of the bay, would be much further west and would cross both the
north-south runways. Also, I'm unclear on why the existing
north-south runway needs to be extended out into the bay, since it's
presumably long enough as it is. Alternative MDF would still involve
quite a bit of bay fill but the overall "footprint" on the bay would
be much smaller.
Naturally, plan MDF would have no windsuring impacts. ;)
What do y'all think?
-- Martin Frankel |||| mdf@sgi.com-DeleteThis |||| (650)933-6191
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:43 PST