Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:58 From: email@example.com (Malcolm Weir) Organization: Little to None References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
On 18 Jun 99 01:39:27 , andyweir <firstname.lastname@example.org> caused to appear as if it was written: >>Where did you get this from? AFAIK, Concorde doesn't really have a >>problem making it LHR-JFK or JFK-LHR. In the winter, Concorde flies >>direct from LHR - BGI, which is about a 4 hour flight. If it can do >>that, then the 3 to 3½ hours to/from JFK should be no problem. >I do recall vaguely a kerfuflle about 18 months ago over a Concorde >declaring a Pan over London because it was short on fuel, as well as >rumours that ATC always gives Concorde a straight-in approach to LHR >because fuel is tight. Am I also right in recalling that Concorde is >exempted from rules regarding its ability to make an alternate airport >to Heathrow? Anyone out there with the facts? I would note that a Concorde loitering over southern England in one of the stacks would be A Bad Thing from an environmental standpoint. The things are noisy, and I would suspect that it is in everyone's best interests to get it from the Bristol Channel to parked on the ground in the shortest practical time... Malc.