Mr. Sausages Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 You've given her crab hands - naughty Mr. S! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Shouldn't Government departments have to prove that the requirement exists for capital projects? Is the airport handling in excess of the original design capability and are they expecting a massive increase in air traffic? If so based on what theory or projections? As I see it the government spends money based on some crazy idea that if we have the capacity to handle large volumes of people, traffic etc, we will get an influx of business, be it holiday or business. It seems that scant little is done in the first place or afterwards to attract anything or anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Hasn't the current tower been classified an unsafe work environment for some time now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Hasn't the current tower been classified an unsafe work environment for some time now? Do you have any more information on this that you could share? On what grounds has it been classified as unsafe? Are they issues that could be rectified for less than £6.5 million or are they so significant that replacement is the only answer? Politicians and public servants are now operating in a much more informed and 'networked' society that is able to ask questions about how their money is used. If this means that decisions about the use of public money need to be justified better that is a good thing and should not be feared (I am not saying that you are saying that). The discussion about the QB roundabout seems to be along similar lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 In all honesty, the problems with the work area in the tower seems to be a general impression I've built up over time. However, the Government's own release is somewhat more enlightening than the BBC article: http://www.gov.im/airport/ViewNews.gov?pag...mp;menuid=11570 I find it quite easy to believe that a building constructed during WW2 is no longer fit for purposes in the 21st Century. The space taken up by equipment and additional staff has obviously increased over the years, and what might have been appropriate in that auster age is, in all likelihood, unsuitable for an airport of even Ronaldsway's limited size, not least in terms of facilities for staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 I wonder had they gone for funding for this first, as I think they should have done, how many MHKs would have gone for the unnecessary IMO £44M runway extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 The runways extension is costing £22 million though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 The runways extension is costing £22 million though. £43,992,342. Even the pink book states £33,238,113 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 That's the funding for the entire runway project, of which half is to be spent on the promintory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 In all honesty, the problems with the work area in the tower seems to be a general impression I've built up over time. However, the Government's own release is somewhat more enlightening than the BBC article: http://www.gov.im/airport/ViewNews.gov?pag...mp;menuid=11570 I find it quite easy to believe that a building constructed during WW2 is no longer fit for purposes in the 21st Century. The space taken up by equipment and additional staff has obviously increased over the years, and what might have been appropriate in that auster age is, in all likelihood, unsuitable for an airport of even Ronaldsway's limited size, not least in terms of facilities for staff. The equipment used in those days for Radar/Radio etc IMHO would take up considerably more space than the equipment used today, there would have been loads of valves, and a fair amount of heat generated by the equipment. I would imagine the radar and radio kit in use today would be 10% of the size of stuff 50 years ago. ATC is a lot more complex these days, but tends to be done with a few consoles and TFT panels - this is also a lot smaller than the kit of previous generations. Why the need for a tower at all - couldn't it be operated in a more conventional style building, and perhaps mount a bunch of CCTV cameras on a mast for a 360 degree panorama that could be displayed around the control center? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Whilst I'm sure that would work, there is almost certainly a whole book of regulations on the need for and specifications of control towers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insomniac Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 The runways extension is costing £22 million though. £43,992,342. Even the pink book states £33,238,113 however you break it down the price has one up a lot As far as Jurby is concerned, we have already indicated advice that a rough estimate of the cost of reactivating Jurby as a commercial airport might be approximately £13 million. It is not expected, Mr President, that the cost of resolving the runway issue at Ronaldsway would come anywhere near that order of cost page 9 on http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/hansards/.../th18012000.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 bugger lost the diagrams, letters etc, will try for a better file when I get some help !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 A little light reading, hope this works couldn't shrink it !! safeweb.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.