Deputies want Petit Bot drop-off for runway build
Wednesday 20th July 2011, 2:30PM BST.
Deputies Sean McManus, left, and Barry Paint have suggested transporting the materials needed for rebuilding the airport runway by boat into Petit Bot bay and then on a conveyer belt up the cliffs. (Picture by Adrian Miller, 1161556)
Deputies Sean McManus, left, and Barry Paint have suggested transporting the materials needed for rebuilding the airport runway by boat into Petit Bot bay and then on a conveyer belt up the cliffs. (Picture by Adrian Miller, 1161556)
FULL details of a plan to use a conveyor belt through Petit Bot to transport hundreds of thousands of tonnes of material up the valley for the airport runway project will be released on Friday.
In a presentation to States members, deputies Barry Paint and Sean McManus will recommend using the bay as an alternative to driving lorry-loads of aggregate from Longue Hougue around the island to the airport.
But Public Services says the idea has already been explored in detail and rejected.
Deputy Paint said the department owed it to residents along the route that trucks would take from Longue Hougue to look at the option again.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
I really do question the sanity of some of our deputies on occasion. We’re actually paying them to come up with this type of ridiculous idea, it really is beyond belief. I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, but given the choice of Miss Watson’s benefits or a salary for one of these twerps I know which I’d choose my taxes to be spent on, and it ain’t the deputy!!
Report abuse
Yes, it certainly is a stupid idea. But if they have to waste more of our hard-earned taxes I would still prefer that they don’t give any more to Mrs Babyfarm.
Report abuse
Insane – less brains than an amoeba.
Cross Paint and McNamus off for the next election – they clearly should be locked up in padded cells just for being associated with such a ridiculous idea.
Report abuse
Pie in the sky. The first part of the cliffs are very soft and would never support a conveyor belt. I think a better idea would be to get Francis quin to do a few trips with the stuff in the back of his 4×4. He is up & down there everyday!
Report abuse
Petit Bot – are they mad? One of our most beautiful bays and valleys, used by lots of people and they want to stick a conveyor belt up it? Am lost for words!
Report abuse
Phil
Well its a case of NIMBYism for these two. Both Castel deputies with part of thier parish on the transport route. Roll on the next election when we can vote the loonies out!
Report abuse
Phil, would that include the Deputies on PSD? As PSD say they have already looked into it in depth.
I for one would rather have Deputies who question and suggest rather than just vote as sheep.
Report abuse
Sorry to disagree Phil, but those with any idea at all are nearly always outnumbered by at least 100 to 1, by those who don’t agree with a plan ,but seem unable to come up with an alternative solution.
Report abuse
April 1st comes round so quickly, eh? Wait, what? They’re serious?
Report abuse
These guys are insane. The absolute no doubt best way will be to use heavy lift helicopters eg the Chinook or Mil Mi-26. These beasts can handle a 12.7 and 20 tonne load respectively.
Let’s say we get 10 Chinooks to do 5 trips a day – I reckon the 300,000 tonnes could be shifted in about 472 days! (300 days for the Mi-26)
Problem solved, Petit Bot saved from an ecological and environmental disaster!
Report abuse
That little bloke who lives down in that cottage reckons it’s a good idea! Save I’m getting a taxi up to the happy landings every night!
Report abuse
Why import the material?
Could they not just skim the surface across the whole site at the higher-elevation end of the runway and truck it the – less than a mile – distance to where it is needed?
Thus levelling-up the unwanted gradient of the runway and surrounding land.
Remove the soil first, temporarily, then take the top remaining 3 to 5 metres off the high end.
Truck it to the low end. Landscape using the displaced soil & subsoil.
We would then have an even safer runway in prospect.
Report abuse
Deputy Paint and I have merely sought to have PSD explain why this alternative cannot be considered if it proves to be cheaper and less damaging than the current proposals.
It’s interesting to note the number of posters who wish to decry this consideration before they have seen the details of the suggestion or before Deputies have been permitted to see the results of the investigation PSD tell us thet have carried out.
Details will follow our meeting with other Deputies on Friday.
Report abuse
Ridiculous – are they mad?
It seriously worries me that these are the people governing this beautiful island.
Report abuse
Could someone please also table my heavy lift helicopter proposal?
I’m working on another involving space re-entry but I’m not sure I’ll have the details by Friday.
PS
Will the conveyor belt go over the Forest Road?
Report abuse
It would be cheaper to just have a new runway at the other end of the island, but the States wasted so much money building a new terminal which wasn’t needed!
Report abuse
Also – how do you expect to get huge ships to navigate there way in and out of the Petit Bot area, the tides are massive there as well.
Report abuse
I liked Barry’s other idea, young African women, brightly costumed, picking stones off the Beach,placing them in Wicker Baskets on their heads, no need for import,the Airport is a ten minute walk, five if you run.
Report abuse
Well atleast mr paint won’t need a conveyor belt to get to his parish hospital!
Report abuse
Why not `beam the up` as in Star Trek? Just as sane an idea!
Report abuse
Hmmmm……surely there is a reason none of our ports are on the south coast!
Can’t think why mind :)
Report abuse
Sean, where is the meeting being held on Friday? Castel hospital??!!
Report abuse
Why not go the whole hog and convert the McManus/Paint conveyor belt into a proper funicular railway when the airport job is finished? They’ve got one on the Italian island of Capri and it works very well.
Bravissimo!!
Report abuse
Could not someone give them a push down the cliff. May save some money and by not pay the siry idiots(as benny would say).
Report abuse
Quite right, the trucked route is not ideal, however I am surprised that Deputies Paint and McManus think Petit Bot suitable for this kind of operation. I am assuming that they have a front loading type of vessel in mind and not building a quay! the vessel would have to be grounded probably about high tide, neaps (draught 8-10ft?)or 3/4 tide springs, this would give limited offloading time, plus the fact that Petit Bot can have a fair ground swell on SW to W winds (forget Southerlies completely). I am also assuming that the stone has to be on Island, or at least the majority of it before work begins as an insurance against transport problems once work commences,so not sure where it’s all going to be stored…220,000 tons next to the batching plant? The logistics of a conveyor belt to transport this amount of material over that distance..well!
But I do congratulate you both on stimulating some discussion as I do believe the whole thing overpriced albeit a little late in the day to support the Gollop/De Lisle amendment.If we do go with the proposals and get some sort of quay at Longue Hougue it may just change the logistics of exporting waste to Jersey as an interim measure, as I believe the cost of building such a quay has been included in that waste strategy option. Joined up Government or should I say joined up department??
Report abuse
Deputy McManus
Well done for coming on here to defend yourself, but………………….
this is not what the press are reporting – have they misquoted you? If so will you be seeking a public apology
If not and your quotes seem to imply it is correct then this has to be quite simply the most stupid and ridiculous proposal ever and the criticism and sarcastic comments posted here and which have come up in conversations are entirely justified. Yours and Barry’s comments represent the most bizarre political suicide note in Guernsey politics – surely there is no way back from this level of stupidity although never say never with the Castel electorate I suppose – our crass electoral system has demonstrated time and again and will continue to do so that it is almost makes it impossible to kick out morons.
Report abuse
Sean
The reason people dismiss this ludicrous idea out of hand is because (in my mind anyway) we don’t want to see one of our most beatiful, picturesque valleys destroyed (however temporarily) by this hair-brained scheme.
Do you not understand that? Are you deaf?
Report abuse
If this is the level of intelligence of these two deputies no wonder the island is in such a mess.
See your doctors urgently and get help.
Report abuse
I really thought after reading this article it was April Fools Day, I was sat in Jersey airport at the time, and the laugh it caused at the time with fellow passengers was hysterical, at least it passed the time while we were delayed.
Report abuse
Soph laughing, had to check date to see if it was All Fools Day
Most comments cover the obvious as to why it’s not a satisfactory solution!
We only need a small airport for a small island. Its up to carriers to ensure aircraft used comply with the current restrictions for Guernsey runway
So lets be sensible, just the resurfacing needed and not the rest
Good luck to John Gollop too. Hope someone can express how the extra £60,000,000 proposed spend is going to benefit islanders!
Report abuse
Whilst I’m totally against secrecy in Government wouldn’t this one have been better and less painfully discussed quietly behind closed doors first before splashing it across the front page?
Paul Domaille has an excellent point about a Longue Hougue aggregate quay possibly doubling up later as the ‘waste disposal’ to Jersey quay
Will any Deputy who reads these blogs please suggest that officially to PSD before they build an ‘unsuitable’ temporary aggregate quay only to have to demolish it in order to build a’proper’waste strategy quay
Report abuse
We can only hope this Ms Watson doesn’t contact her mates at the tabloids about this latest genius proposition, as we’ll NEVER live it down…..and we wonder why (some) people (mistakenly!) think Guern’s are idiots.
I’m embarrassed FOR them.
Report abuse
Fellow posters, conscious of A.J.’s comment that various critics don’t provide alternatives, I have been tirelessly researching my space re-entry proposal.
I have, however, had to reject the idea. Although the shuttle can carry 24.4 tonnes into Low Earth Orbit, it would require the airport to be extended before it could land. A classic chicken and egg situation, I think you’ll agree, which I’m glad I didn’t waste anyone’s time with!
I have also been contacted by various parties in the Forest and St Martins areas concerned at the noise and disturbance that my “10 Chinooks 5 flights a day” proposal would cause. After carefully weighing up all the facts, I have to say that the Paint and McManus scheme is beginning to look favourite.
Report abuse
While we are on the subject could we replace all pavements with travelators, Gatwick-esqu? Thanks, bart for states seat.
Report abuse
Really?! what is the possible purpose of this? why does thousands of tonnes of material need to come up to the airport…. so it can be flown out of here?? dont bring it here to start with. whats wrong with a cargo ship?
Report abuse
Something tells me you will find that this idea, and a number of other solutions to the moving of the products has been investigated and either thrown out due to practical issues, or not pursued due to cost.
Still, may as well keep on talking about it rather than just getting on with it.
That way at least it will cost more in the future.
Report abuse
The principle is not as stupid as some people are suggesting but the Petit Bot location is totally wrong. Saints is the obvious answer of course with its ready-made harbour and docking facilities for ships the size of the President Garcia!!
Report abuse
This is insane – Deputies Paint and McManus have lost all sense of reason if they think this is an option. We have the infrastructure in place to enable the development to go ahead, roads (coast roads) and ports (St Sampson’s). There may be some disruption and congestion but I suggest this can be mitigated by ensuring the freight of materials happens outside of peak times, it’s pretty obvious. Why desecrate a bay and the coastal area with some hair brained scheme.
Report abuse
Surely the best solution:
1 Dig up all roads and use the material for runway
2 Turn former roads into canals
3 Turn Val de Terres into a ‘log flume’ amusement ride
4 Build a theme park on North Beach and the other piers.
5 Build an aquaduct joining the Islands using the defunct cars.
6 Oh, and rebuild Castle Cornet so it looks a bit Disney
The drawings are in my office and soon to be on my website
http://www.guernseygatewaytofun.not
Report abuse
It’s the same with the waste disposal issue – Public services dept looked long and hard at the options, worked out the calculations and the only one that was viable was incineration. The problem is that the staff involved are banned from talking to the press by their contracts and hence the ill-informed keep coming up with hair-brained ideas. So much work goes on in the civil service that we don’t know about.
Report abuse
You know: I’ve tired to see if there was any sense in those proposals of Petit Bot, alas…
But I did come to this conclusion…
Why blame these two when the whole house is of the same calibre,
Useless and shows it.
Then again- the people you and me and all the other voters are to blame; we allow them to dominate their worthless advice and have turned Guernsey into a laughing stock the world over.
I can now visualise investors thinking twice about investing money into an Island with fools as the commanding officers.
Carry on Captain Manuring.
Report abuse
@Jammy oyu are having a laugh I hope, if you are serios where have you been for the last 2 years?
Report abuse
In the words of Mr.Mcenroe – “They cannot be serious”!
Report abuse
I’ve just returned to read all the fan mail. In my view, thoe who resort to cheap jibes fail to do justice to Deputy Paint’s experience. It’s easy to see why some Deputies advise against my willingness to engage in debate on this blog, eh?
I’ve also had some more considered responses from people with real technical/engineering expertise who make it clear that Deputy Paint’s suggestion is certainly feasible in technical terms.
The details of marine and weather components will be discussed on Friday but there can be very few mariners who could claim a better understanding of local conditions than Deputy Paint. All relevant ideas and advice has been welcomed and will be drawn to the attention of the Project Board.
Given the significance of Petit Bot, both bay and valley, I can also assure readers that environmental considerations continue to be prominent in the minds of those involved.
Report abuse
It’s such a shame the German railway along the west coast was ripped out in 1945, we could have used that, maybe built a new bunker or two as well.
Of course, the other alternative would be to build a mulberry harbour at L’Eree, I’m sure plans for the casons would be available from the MOD or possibly the Imperial war museum, trucks could then just have the short drive up the Hill to the airport..
Report abuse
Best idea yet DA666
Report abuse
Please Sean consider the alternative.
Ask the States to obtain from the CAA a waiver for the Runway Safety areas. Upgrade the existing runway, and then spend the £50m you’ve saved on saving lives, like health care.
Report abuse
Ronez have, just this week experimented with a higher power explosive, on the first test, they have been able to reach Saline Lane,although at present there are still directional stability issues.It appears with further tests they may be able to blow up Petit Bot, most stone reaching the Airport, the road requiring only a light dusting.
Report abuse
Bloke In London.
I really don’t believe I have just read your post.
You want to reduce the runway safety areas to spend money on saving lives?
Pray tell exactly what you think a runway end safety area is for, if not for saving lives?
Then you say, upgrade the runway, although you don’t want the safety area upgrading to meet todays standards.
And where is the £50m that we would save from not putting down some grass.
On a different subject. All the contributors to this thread, making small minded comments about the deupties……why don’t you put up for election next year instead of hiding behind your computor screen.
Report abuse
@Rep McManus
I really think that, with your first post on this thread, getting arsey with posters who came out (and have come out since) in their spades against yours and Rep Paint’s ludicrous notion does you no favours whatsoever.
The article attracted our ‘Your Say’ responses, the fact that we didn’t wait until ‘proper procedure’ has taken place, is neither here nor there; your comment was innapropriate, arrogant, to say the least, and very silly, from a rep who hopes to be one still, come April 012.
Mind your manners and tongue.
Report abuse
I can see these posts going on for a long time!
Sean, congrats for replies too, brave for a deputy here
blokeinlondon Yes, but the states like spending not saving! Few of them know the reality between the 2
Report abuse
I was unsure whether to respond to this article as I am desperately hoping the idea will not be taken seriously by the powers that be.
I sympathise with people who are on the proposed road route but the disturbance will only last a finite time, albeit a considerable time, and the roads can be repaired. However, if Petit Bot is desecrated in the manner suggested it will never recover. The spoiling of one of our greatest natural treasures in this way just can not be allowed to happen.
Report abuse
I see nobody has mentioned building a tunnel ?
Report abuse
@ sammy
On the subject of tunnels . . . . Perhaps, instead of the States imposed ‘landing tax’, there should be a subsidy offered to air travellers to Guernsey encouraging them to pick up a pocketful or two of siftings from their point of departure which they can then empty, direct onto the runway, on the walk from the plane to the arrivals hall.
Report abuse
@ Sammy….how the hell are planes gonna land in a tunnel ?
Report abuse
How about hot air balloons?, one States member could provide enough hot air to power a ballon powerfull enough to carry a 100 truck loads of stone.
Report abuse
surely that wouldn’t work Sammy. where would they put all the rock? wait a minute….
Report abuse
What we need is a REALLY massive crane and pulley system. With some levers.
When the job’s done we could leave it in place like an Eiffel Tower. Use it to hang out some finance promo posters that can be seen from space. Or the latest GADOC piece.
Report abuse
Could you use Leree instead, its more spacious?
Report abuse
Jeffers, in the early 1930s L’Eree was an airfield. But it is a bog, always is and always will be.
Report abuse
The lack of any reasoning in these two is only matched by the stupidity of the Castel electorate. One can only hope it will result in both their political careers being ephemeral. If Oscar Puffin stood in Castel during the next election he would probably get in as their ‘bird of the people’
Report abuse
Nugget: Bloke in London does not want the safety areas shortened. He just doesn’t want them increased as much as they are planning. Our airport is already safe with what we have now or the CAA would have closed us down. The runway needs maintenance. Extending the safety areas as much as they are planning is over the top considering planes are getting safer and we have no history of fatalities with what we’ve got. You’ve got to wonder just what mitigation was sought when the CAA recommended (note the word ‘recommended’) longer safety areas.
Report abuse
Ah yes Ed.
Those were the days when L’Ereé was a thrive of activity,
Alas as now, people demand bigger, faster and more comfort.
The human mind is never satisfied.
If this airport business is done,. I bet a penny to a pound,. that in a few years time (perhaps less) demands will come again for more changes.
You can never satisfy many people.. they dream up Utopia.
When HC Anderson wrote that little story about the Inch worm. he was right–People cannot see the beauty, all they see is – Nothing really, just wild dreams.
Report abuse
@Nugget
Come on then, how many lives do you think will be saved as a result of the safety area and extension?
Exactly. You will absolutely save more lives spending 50m on health care, and financial support in old age than you will on a runway extension.
Every member of PSD will at some critical point in their future lives wish they had spent more on health care and pensions than they had the runway.
Resurface, put in drainage, save a pile. For gods sake deputies WAKE UP and demand that waiver from the CAA.
Report abuse
I Have posted this every time
Move the airport to the longue hougue reclamation. The states can create woodland and housing on the current airport site. Which will pay for an airport to be built. All the brightest nations are building their runways out to sea to save land !
Report abuse
Stiletto, really well said, i wanted to write exactly this after reading Sean’s comments but couldn’t have said it better than you.
Unfortunately i voted for Sean at last election. I cam assure you that this arrogant attitude has lost him my vote – not that he’ll care.
Report abuse
Ed
Sorry, I didnt explain myself very well. I didn’t mean to put the airport back on Leree, I thought landing the stone and carting it up Leree hill would be safer and less imposing on the landscape than using Petit Bot with its small lanes and streams etc.
Report abuse
That’s the best idea yet Damo it makes perfect sense and that’s the problem. The states will not listen to us mere mortals. They would rather go with some mental ideas which will cost everyone an arm and a leg and even more in the future, It will also cause as much disruption as possible. Along with ruining as much of this island as possible. That’s only after they have spent a few million quid talking about it and getting in as many consultants in as possible. Finally when it is finished they will pat themselves on the back and blame everyone else for the massive overspend.
Report abuse
Bloke in London, bloke in the Moon more like.
Are you not the same person who felt we should spend more on EMAS?
Make your mind up.
No, hang on, with all your changes of mind and unreasoned argments, put up for election next year. Then you can change it from within the system.
And you can use the £50m you save for doing so to.
Report abuse
Instead of trying to find better routes for the materials, why not ask why so much material is needed in the first place?
The airport scheme is another PSD speciality project- oversized and overpriced.
PSD never sought any mitigation against international-sized Runway End Safety Areas. Jersey has resurfaced its runway without increasing the RESA. Southampton has a shorter RESA than we have now.
The moment aircraft are mentioned most people seem to envisage smouldering wreckage and roll over and agree to anything. PSD are relying on this. So before making wild claims about saving lives, Nugget, could you do a bit of research? Or maybe stick to reading/posting on the Daily Mail website where you might be more at home :-)
The truth is that by shifting the runway we are incurring huge unnecessary additional costs. However, it means that the Take Off Distance is increased. The only aircraft that this will effectively benefit are large private executive jets who are currently limited on our runway in certain meteorological conditions.
So your taxes will benefit rich jet owners. Just so you know
Report abuse
Jeffers I knew what you meant, I’m just saying that the place is a drain and would be turned not just to a quagmire but to a lake by HGWs and hundreds of tonnes of stone.
Report abuse
Stilleto & bart
Having read Deputy MacManus’ two posts a couple of times I still cannot see that he said anything to get upset about
I wish that more deputies would raise their head above the parapet from time to time.Far better than a ‘bullsh*t’manifesto (through the letterbox and run)every four years
Report abuse
Why are these two, or anyone else, even debating how materials will be transported to site?
I’m sure that PSD will tell us that the Lagan tender has been procured using all best practice techniques known to man or beast and that it has been analysed, dissected and vetted in line with similar principles to ensure full compliance with the tender documents issued.
Therefore, presumably somewhere in their tender Lagan have incorporated method statements which clearly spell out how they propose to carry out the works, and their FIXED price will of course reflect their chosen and stated methodology for moving materials – whether this be road, air or sci-fi teleporters
If the States now go back to them and say “by the way – you’ve got to moor boats off the south coast, build a conveyor belt and remove it and reinstate the valley upon completion” then the response wil be “ok – and here’s our bill for the extra cost since we didn’t tender on this basis.”
Of course I’m assuming that the States’ tendering process did in fact ensure total transparency on key issues such as how huge quantities of material will be moved around a small island, and that the process ensured that the price is fixed and final to allow for this.
That’s not a huge leap of faith, surely. Is it???
Report abuse
@nugget
Just so you know, since 1958, there have been 5 fatalities at Guernsey airport. And for comparison 28 in Jersey, 27 of which were in April 1965.
When you think of all the motocycle deaths in the island every year does spending $50m more than you have to cut it? of course not.
Worryingly if all the accidents in the channel islands happened in the new layout three aircraft accidents would have been worse due to planes running into Route de Pleasance. Safety is only increased with EMAS.
So deputies, you don’t want safety, you don’t want to spend on EMAS, fine, then do the bear minimum which is resurface and drainage.
I support Damo, long term the best economic outcome is to position the airport offshore, make it as long as you like. Damo is supported by pretty much every consultant who has come to the project.
Report abuse
Well said Ray. We give the deputies who contribute to these threads a hell of a lot of flack so we shouldn’t be too precious when they respond in kind. Both Stiletto and Bart are being somewhat pathetic on this one.
Report abuse
@bloke in london or guernsey or wherever you are at this moment in time.
First you say we would save £50m? Based on what.
Then you say you think we should have a waiver on having a longer safety area, presumbly beacuse that is cheaper, the money saved from which should be used to reduce motorcycle deaths?
And you also state that EMAS is the safest option but the states don’t want to pay for that, so you would rather them do nothing than trying to do something which complies with the standards PSD are trying to meet for the lowest cost.
Between you and J Jones trying to pass off spurious statistics as being relevant, why don’t you make your minds up.
Either you want the airport to be brought into the 21st century, or you don’t.
Or,
you want a new airport elsewhere, I would assume you think this is even cheaper than sorting out the one we have, and spend any savings on road safety?
please, make your minds up over what you want and stick to it. don’t keep changing your views and comments to suit whatever nonsense you feel is worth spouting.
Hard facts are what you need to put up.
Have you actually got any that support the £50m savings, cost of motorcyle deaths etc etc.
Report abuse
@stan,
Back of a fag packet, mate!
obvious when you see all the expert advice proving that everything PSD has done is clearly incorrect.
It will all come out in the wash!
Report abuse
@Ray
It may help you to understand if you look at his comment from this perspective;
Three years ago rep McManus was one of the would be reps knocking on doors, broadcasting and asking ‘what could he do for you’? We parishioners were prospective manna from heaven.
Now, he is saying pipe down and, speak when you, (us public voters) are spoken to; would he have dared to behave like that to contemporaries in his previous ‘career’? I think not.
Report abuse
Bloke in London,
I think it is wrong to infer that a RESA inbetween the minimum (90m) and maximum (240m) recommendations is unsafe. If this were true, many airfields would have to close. Indeed, If it is true, the we should stop operating immediately.
I would be interested in the details of the 5 fatalities. Are any of the aircraft they happened in still operating in Guernsey today.
Did the aircraft in question have anti-skid, lift dump and reverse thrust? Did they have mandatory go-around procedures for being over a certain speed or altitude displacement on the approach as aircraft do today?
Report abuse
Stiletto
Sorry to be such a disappointment… but do get in touch if you’d like a more comprehensive account.
Sight of the ISL (PSD’s consultants)May 2010 Feasibility Study makes it clear that Deputy Paint was correct re. the landing and movement of materials; possibly even at a lesser cost. However, the contractors and the Project Board have taken the view that road transport suits them better and it saves even temporary dislocation in Petit Bot Valley.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have sight of that study and have called upon Deputy Flouquet and his board to release it in the interests of open government and informed decision making. Indeed, one might speculate upon the impact of its release prior to the RESA debate.
Thanks to all those who have been prepared to engage in this debate on the blog.
Report abuse
Nugget, you say “Between you and J Jones trying to pass off spurious statistics as being relevant, why don’t you make your minds up”
I can’t speak for the other poster, but please do tell me which of my ‘statistics’ you think are spurious and I will happily substantiate them.
Report abuse
Isn’t It strange, that the more sophisticated the world becomes (the techniques etc) the more difficult it seems to be, or is it just Bull.
When the Castle Cornet was built, there was no electric, no steam engines, nothing like the tools we have today.
Yet they quarried Crevichon; brought stone to Guernsey, or rather to the Island of Cornet.
They built a fabulous Building(S) without any kind of mechanical aid.
The ships that carried the stone depended on the wind and tides, there were no harbours- all material had to be manhandled..
Oh yes… in those days they were men, not moaning Minnie’s who want everything on a platter.
Isn’t it about time that the States got their ¨finger out and engaged people who know.. not consulting firms who will beat their brains with so called knowledge, knowledge that Guernsey people call ‘Merde’.
Report abuse
@Sean McManus
Thank you for your courteous offer, which I decline. I am confident that PSD will release full information, in due course.
You have disappointed me, and very many others, off forum, as well. Some of us voters have been around a lot longer than you have been here in your teaching mode, a large part of which, I hope, was demonstrating respect for your fellow man and, woman.
Report abuse
Guernsey needs an airport it can afford, it does not need the displacement west and extended RESA proposed. Having read again the Mott MacDonald report it clearly shows that there were alternative options available for considerate review, with perhaps the best compromise being to extend 45m west towards, but not over, La Mare road. Thus giving the option of EMAS at both ends of the runway, if it was deemed essential by the CAA at some future point.
I do not accept the proposed option C is the right option for Guernsey, nor do I accept it is actually safer due to the new proximity of the RESA and a main arterial road. What if in a few years time the CAA decide that this is not an acceptable arrangement and more exuberant cost is incurred and the main arterial road has to be relocated.
Get the design right now, with the potential to install EMAS, and put a stop to the monumental degrading of our island environment.
Report abuse
J Jones…(I am assumign this is not Jack Jone, the butcher from warmington on sea)
Spurious statistics.
Would you provide any evidence for each of your paragraphs in your post of 22nd July, 1:45pm please.
I will be more than happy to appologies for any offence I may have caused on submission of any correct facts supporting each and every paragraph, if that proves to be the case.
Of course you may find that suggesting I do some research, might prove difficult for you to provide evidence for but I will confirm I don’t read the daily mail. So we shall assume you can ignore that paragraph entirely. Of course, if you know you can indeed comment. But I guess if you know me, you would know what research I have done on this subject. Or not!
May I also point out on one of your other posts. 90M RESA is not a recommendation, it is a minimum requirement. Perhaps you may indulge us in telling everyone exactly what the requirements for RESA are?
I still like the EMAS supportors banging on about how 180m is safer than 198m and 240m and that spending more money is cheaper than spending less. It would be great if EMAS was installed and then the CAA said it was not appropriate don’t you think?
Report abuse
Nugget – I do not support EMAS, I do not think there is a need for either EMAS or 240m RESAs.
The opportunity exists for mitigation to be sought from the CAA, when undertaking remedial work, to avoid having to comply with the 240m recommendation. PSD did not seek any such alleviation. Mott McDonald said it would have made sense to have sought it. It is quite feasible that the airport could have been kept within the existing boundary while still enhancing safety. One of the biggest enhancements is simply grooving the runway surface, which I believe will be done.
The increase in the take-off run which will be created by shifting the runway westwards will make the runway more usable by private jets such as Gulfstream Vs operating under an AOC, who are currently restricted.
It is not required by any commercial operators.
I don’t know about you, but I am not overly enamoured with my tax facilitating life for those who can afford to travel by these means.
Report abuse
To be fare to the guys atleast there thinking of alternative solutions, this one is not the best but then transporting by road isnt ideal either
Report abuse
Islander, I trust it won’t be you or your family who will building the new runway with their bare hands.
But of course you will be flying off to exotic destinations once it has been finished, on the back of the hard toil of others.
Islander, please join the St Sampsons’ Constables and all the other old men who have rose tinted views of days gone by….
Report abuse
You’re pushing it a bit there Town Dweller. Lovely chap that he is, I doubt if Islander has ever ventured as far as Jersey by boat, let alone flying to ‘exotic destinations’.
(Please correct me if I am wrong)
Report abuse
@Town dweller.
Maybe I won’t be handling any of the work at the Airport
As for flying off to some exotic place shows the vivid imagination you have, however we’ll let that pass by,Might just mention to me an exotic journey would be a day’s trip to Herm, the pension might just cover that. but only.
So a word of advice Town dweller, Go wash your mouth, for your attempt to belittle older people is that of a Cujon.
As for joining the old men, well I daresay like me we did our bit for our Island, we suffered, but to most it was worth it.
are you tired of lifting a pen all day long?
Report abuse
@nugget.
Perhaps you think I’m bloke in moon but if that’s true I recon I’ve got a better view up here.
(1) Moving the runway towards route de pleasance negates the additional benefits from an extended RESA. Please see link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AwTynFrzIg
(2) Technology has reduced the frequency of accidents and severity of incidents to 0.001 per 100m passenger miles. That’s a third what is was in the 70s, and the trend is still down. The probability of an accident requiring a RESA is tiny.
(3) The biggest factor in all accidents in Guernsey was a wet runway which is best addressed by simply resurfacing the existing runway, putting grooves in it, and adding drainage.
(4) Runway resurfacing projects in Jersey cost £17m, Edinburgh Airport £16m.
So there is nothing progressive about being on mad dash to spend £80m during unprecedented economic uncertainty. PSD’s case that safety is improved by moving the runway is not that strong. Just like the Suez incinerator, the project is simply too big.
Report abuse
Why don’t we just dig a new quarry to extend the runway rather than importing all the aggregate from overseas?
When it’s done we’ll have a new hole in the ground to dump our rubbish in – no need for an incinerator!
Two birds with one stone!
;-)
Report abuse
Can an offshore build not pay for itself?
Spend existing capital and, if necessary, get a loan for an offshore build.
Pay it off by selling the massive belt of land that is the existing airport to the Barclays for £100m+ who could build a massive hotel complex and entertainment centre (water park, anyone?) attracting plane loads of tourists over thereby stimulating the local economy.
Or maybe not.
Of course the offshore airport should be built off Perelle, i.e. NIMBY.
Report abuse
An offshore build could pay for itself, but why this desperation to hand chunks of our precious island over to mega-rich outside interests for a song? You weren’t involved in the Guernsey Telecoms giveaway were you, planespotter?
Report abuse
@Bloke in London
(3) The biggest factor in all accidents in Guernsey was a wet runway which is best addressed by simply resurfacing the existing runway, putting grooves in it, and adding drainage.
From memory, the last three accidents I can recall involving commercial aircraft were down to error. The Channel Express crash was due to bad loading, The Air Uk which overshot, touched down too late and should have gone round and the Isle of Man (748 I think) also touched down too late in foggy conditions, it was actually the heavy rain previously which saved them when the overshoot grass acted as a boggy sort of EMAS, had it been dry they way well have ended up straddling the lane which is going to be closed. How long do you make a runway to prevent accidents from aircraft touching down too late ?? The pilots mindset is “I believe I have enough runway left”. Emas would overcome this.
Sorry, veering OT
Report abuse
Yes pilot error, because the pilot should have aborted the landing and gone around. However the G-BNCY air accident report states that the Air UK flight landed late opposite the firestation; and then aquaplaned and lost directional control on standing water. The pilot was observed by the copilot to be standing on the brakes trying to stop the plane. The skidding aircraft turned into the crosswind and veered off the runway. It was however slowed when it ran through an earth bank.
But what of the planned changes to the airfield? Move the Air UK resting place exactly 120 metres to the west, and discount the breaking from the earth bank the aircraft ends up squarely in Route de Pleasance.
But lets go more off topic, how has Flouquet convinced deputies that flying closer to buildings makes the airport safer?
Report abuse
No amount of RESA would have come to the aid of the Channel Express aircraft.
However, airline Standard Operating Procedures have changed significantly in the last decade or so and this cannot be ignored. In addition ‘spies in the cab’ reinforce these changes. The chances of ‘landing deep’ which is historically the primary reason for (landing) runway end excursions have been dramatically reduced.
Aircraft are also better at stopping. Furthermore, most commercial aircraft have three independent braking systems, anti-skid, lift dump and reverse thrust. I have not checked the actual figures, but I would bet that in extremis a fully loaded ATR 72 could stop in well under half the runway length.
Report abuse
Regrettably these 2 deputies really have made such an absurd suggestion it really does make the electorate wonder who on earth is running this island. Deputy Paint a Mariner and well qualified too has clearly overlooked, even if the rest of the proposal had even one iota of sense, one major factor – the weather !!!.
How on earth can such an operation be planned,cost effectively when the weather, one of the most unpredictable factors one could ever base a business proposal on, would dictate the continuity of such a project. And who would insure a vessel to go in there anyway? – one hell of a ‘stick your neck out’ underwriter would even entertain such a farce. Any wind from the South East to the South West OR any ground sea whatsoever would make it a no go area and what if that weather pattern lasted for prolonged periods of time ?. Comical – We have harbours – they deserve the revenue so what really is this all about ?. Perhaps a vote seeking ploy thats gone drastically wrong ?.
Report abuse
LOL. Some deputies are not planning on being re-elected, evidently. This idea has been rejected though, so no discussion necessary really ;)
Report abuse
The more I read the more ridiculous this project seems, and I had thought that there was no more room for it to be any more incredulous. How the hell can we have an iota of faith in the project design activities if this is the best that PSD can come up with! Who did the risk assessment to come up with this design, and did they get given all the facts.
Report abuse
My comment is in reference to the runway displacement west etc.
Report abuse
@ Damo/Planespotter
Let’s build an airport out to sea – what a wonderful suggestion, £80 million quid wouldn’t cover the cost of reclaiming the land needed let alone anything else!
My guess would be a minimum of £350-£400 million to relocate the airport, exactly where do you think Guernsey can find that sort of money?
With that sort of thinking you could stand for the next States election.
Report abuse
Why not reinstate the German train track to the airport to take the stuff up.. it work for that government and this lot don’t seem that much different to me..
Report abuse
@Kevin.
You’ll have 250 acres at the airport to develop.
Golf course, residential development. etc. The additional land will generate wealth and taxes making Guernsey more valuable.
Report abuse
Kevin
250 acres equals at least 500 good size plots, allowing for roads etc.
Imagine what 500 plots of this size would be worth in the Open Market, £350-400 million would seem like chicken feed.
Report abuse
blokeinlondon,
I’m sure the sale of the existing airport land would generate wealth and taxes but I’d take some convincing if I was to believe that it would be anywhere near enough to finance an airport relocation.
Surely if relocation was a realistic option someone far more knowledgeable than ourselves would have done some proper research into it?
Report abuse
Yes, the Chamber of Commerce did this in the 70′s and it came out favourably.
Also if you think in terms of Guernsey plc an overlooked part is the impact on house prices by having the airport and approaches moved over the sea. Based on an estimate of the sound footprint there are currently 8,000 properties in the high parishes suffering from aircraft blight, particularly if we bring in bigger jets. As this covers Fort George to Torteval thats some $3-$4bln of housing stock devalued to the tune of $300m-£400m.
This will directly improve concierge and the valuation of all the housing stock accross the whole island.
Report abuse
It is moving our runway to the west that is causing all the extra work and money needed. And we are (supposedly) moving it west to increase the length of the run-off safety areas. But why? We have an excellent safety record as it is and planes are getting safer. This whole project is too big and completely unnecessary.
If saving and improving lives is wot they want, then spend the money doing that- on health & education. Just think of what we could do with those millions.
Report abuse
Guernsey needs educated and trained representatives to debate such matters and manage the island. When is the island going to grow up and realise this group of uneducated “locals” are not qualified.
The professional services community think the system is laughable and are happy to keep the peasants “squabbling in their meetings”, as it suits their means.
I don’t see any other island in the world governed by such an old-fashioned and obsolete system.
Wake up Guernsey, before it is too late.
Report abuse
New Resident.
You don’t need to be an ‘educated and trained representative’ to see that our airport has an excellent safety record over the last 60 years. Joe Bloggs can see that.
While the runway needs maintenance, improved drainage and lighting, (all of which will make it even safer than it already is), moving the whole lot to the west adds tens of millions to the price and is beyond what we can afford. If spending this money is about making a safe runway safer, in order to save lives (that are not being lost), then surely, even someone ‘uneducated and trained’ can see that we could get a bigger bang for our buck if we spent the money on something that really would enhance and improve lives. Education and health would be where I would start.
Report abuse