Re: Fracturing the Pacific

Date:         19 Aug 97 04:14:07 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6
Followups:    1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>Considering the benefits of twins, would investing in a bit of concrete
>not be advantagious by the airlines with large Asia-America traffic?

That or other upgrades such as ILS at an airport which already has a
long runway but perhaps doesn't have very good weather.

>(I had the same thoughts concerning some Atlantic diversion sites in
>Greenland earlier. To my knowledge no Greenland sites were expanded to
>allow acces to bigger planes like 767s)

In all the ETOPS literature I've read (early feasibility studies, UA
flight supplement, etc.), the only alternate in Greenland is Sondre
Stromfjord, which apparently already had a decent-sized runway.
Narssarssuaq is geographically desireable, but it has only a 6,000'
runway, it's surrounded by mountains, and has no navaids other than
an NDB.

>However, considering the precedent, the problem might be solved by a
>further extension of ETOPS rules.

Possibly, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for such an action.
I'd think it much more likely that one or more Russian airports on the
Arctic Coast would be upgraded as needed, which would allow the entire
Arctic region to be flown under the existing 180 minute rules.

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com
		|Work	kls@netapp.com
		|WWW	http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills