many people wrote:
oh boy. never thought this little news would get so much attention.
i picked Talvieno for my response, just because he wrote so much
Talvieno wrote: (...) Humans make mistakes, and in systems where mistakes are easier to make, they tend to be more prone to making them. I would wager a guess that this system would not only fail to work - it would fail catastrophically. (...) adding new factors that are more complicated than all of these? I smell the potential for disaster.
I agree. Even with simulators these "flying-bus-drivers" would be inexpierenced. But those who made this design of the airport had some simulated landings/take offs. It doesn't seem to be a killing argument
Talvieno wrote:Another thought, while I'm at it - taking off and landing at a bank would greatly increase the stall speed - and aircraft have trouble with stable turns until they get up to speed anyway.
seems already been simulated too, or this concept wouldn't have gotten so far.
Talvieno wrote: On the subject of wind, normally pilots only have to deal with it from one direction - and wind can have an enormous effect on a plane. In this scenario, if it's windy, they have to deal with it from all directions as they go around the track.
Disagree. This seems to be the big plus. If there are strong winds you can just use another part of the circle, so the wind comes from the front. So the danger of
side winds can be reduced with a decreased capacity of the airport.
Talvieno wrote:
I'm also concerned about stresses on the tires and undercarriage, which are designed for one thing: landing on flat runways. In fact, if a tire blows on a traditional runway, the plane can just keep chugging forward and get the tire fixed after they unload the passengers. In this scenario, though, I would expect the plane to leave the runway entirely - in NASCAR you see cars completely leave the track when a tire blows, because suddenly they can't turn. Planes would probably do the same. Occasionally the gear collapse entirely, or you have to do a belly landing. These are extreme scenarios, but they must be considered. On a traditional runway, you're fine. On this runway, you're off the edge and survival is uncertain.
I'm also concerned that banked runways would probably limit wingspan... and I see the potential for a plane crashing because it banked too much as well, losing a wing, going out of control, and killing all passengers aboard.
has to be tested/calculated. in my opinion the radius combined with the slant seems to be enough to hold the plane within the runway till it stops.
And i guess it would probably wingspan. So no A380 at this airport
Talvieno wrote: On a traditional runway, there's set flight patterns pilots learn to use for things like missed approaches. How do they handle that here? Indeed, how would air traffic controllers deal with 360 degrees instead of just four to eight cardinal directions?(..)
You would also have to figure out exactly what point on the circle a plane should start its takeoff, so it would be facing in the appropriate direction when it got into the air...
Traffic control would need a special software for its airport, that is clear. But imho it is just software.
And some problems can be solved easily. For example lights which determine the runway can be dynamically turned on/off. And the approach of the plane can (and should) be directed so the plane just has to fly a straight line (until it lands).