Why don't jiu hu build a 50 storey swift nesting building under seletar flight path?

syed putra

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
84,792
Points
113
They did the same at narita airport, by building a multistorey building at the end of second runway rendering it unusable which was removed just recently.

Malaysia is standing firm
Published 39 minutes ago on 12 December 2018
By Debra Chong
20181210FL12.JPG
Transport Minister Anthony Loke has urged Singapore to withdraw the ILS announcement and to amend the flight path as per Malaysia's request. — Picture by Firdaus Latif
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 12 — Transport Minister Anthony Loke posted a short video on his Facebook page last night explaining Malaysia’s move to reclaim its southern airspace over Johor and its objection to the Instrument Landing System (ILS) at Singapore’s Seletar Airport.
While the Singapore government has sought to portray Malaysia as a bully by suddenly seeking to take back the Johor airspace relegated to the republic since 1974, the video shows the stakes Malaysia risks losing if it concedes.

“Hi Singapore, Seletar Airport is yours, but Pasir Gudang, Johor, Malaysia is ours. So please hear us out.

“To Malaysians, please watch and share this — there are reasons why Malaysia has to oppose the ILS (Instrument Landing System) of the Seletar Airport which Singapore wants to implement from 3 Jan 2019,” Loke said in his Facebook post accompanying the video.
The 1.34-minute starts by highlighting Firefly’s suspension of all its flights into Singapore after it was told to relocate to Seletar Airport from December 1, by pointing out Malaysia’s opposition to the ILS that Singapore wants to use from January 3 next year.
The video explained that the flight path used by the ILS — a precision runway approach system that makes it safer for planes to land even with poor visibility — will encroach into Malaysian airspace.
Singapore’s Seletar Airport is merely 2km from Malaysia’s Pasir Gudang.
20181212_JOHOR_AIRSPACE_SCREENCAP.jpg
Screen capture of the video showing the side view of the flight path.
That means all planes that are to land at the Singapore airport will have to go in from over Pasir Gudang in Johor, which is Malaysian airspace.
The video also explains the height buffer of between 54 metres and 154 metres from a distance of 3km and 6km from the Seletar Airport runway, and which would subject Malaysia’s Pasir Gudang Port to higher risks and multiple restrictions.
The height limits means that even a mobile crane, which have a height of 103 metres, would be in the way of any descending plane’s flight path, and there are many tall buildings in Johor.
“We can’t even build tall buildings in Pasir Gudang if we allow that flight path,” Loke said in the video.
The video showed that the impacted area in Johor would cover Pasir Gudang on the state’s south-east tip and all the way up north to Ayer Tawar, almost to Kota Tinggi.
“Our position is very clear. We are not against Seletar, but as far as the descending flight path is concerned, it cannot be over Pasir Gudang.”
The video highlighted that previously, pilots who flew into and out of the Seletar Airport would be able to manoeuvre around obstacles.
It pointed out that there was no need for any height regulations around flight path area either.
But with the Seletar Airport planning to use the ILS from January 3, height restrictions would be compulsory and Malaysia would face restrictions to development and shipping operations even on its own territory, contrary to the Singapore government’s argument otherwise.
The Singapore Ministry of Transport had claimed the ILS for Seletar had been issued months prior and would not negatively impact other airspace users or businesses in Johor.
“We urge Singapore to withdraw the ILS announcement and to amend the flight path as per our request,” Loke reiterated in his concluding message.
 
If the flight path is approved by ICAO then Malaysia can't say much. ICAO will won't give 2 hoots about sovereignty . It all purely from flight operations perspective.
 
If the flight path is approved by ICAO then Malaysia can't say much. ICAO will won't give 2 hoots about sovereignty . It all purely from flight operations perspective.
Narita flight path also spproved, but locals build a building anyway. Rendering runway worthless untill recently when building was demolished after 2 decades,
 
Narita flight path also spproved, but locals build a building anyway. Rendering runway worthless untill recently when building was demolished after 2 decades,
That is all within the perogative of the government if they want to close the runway it demolished the building. Here when it concerns transnational airspace, sinkieland and ICAO must agree with any alterations . Malaysia has the least say here.
 
That is all within the perogative of the government if they want to close the runway it demolished the building. Here when it concerns transnational airspace, sinkieland and ICAO must agree with any alterations . Malaysia has the least say here.
Wnat was wrong with the previous flight path? Nobody complained then?
 
Flight path is the same I.e Straight in approach to the runway. Don't think ICAO will entertain such request on sovereignty ground. If they do then what next?

The Malaysian will do the same for Changi follow by the Indonesian. The whole Changi terminal control airpspace will sliced in different traffic control. Changi airport might as well close shop
 
Finally the truth from Malaysia. How can decide on a landing system which will impact your neighbour without due consultation ?
 
Flight path is the same I.e Straight in approach to the runway. Don't think ICAO will entertain such request on sovereignty ground. If they do then what next?

The Malaysian will do the same for Changi follow by the Indonesian. The whole Changi terminal control airpspace will sliced in different traffic control. Changi airport might as well close shop
Changi is different. Its flight path in both direction is into the sea. No hindrance and does not disrupt local town planning and population.
 
To build a 50-storey building takes time and cost a lot. Just fly some hot air balloons suffice.
 
Last time also mudland complained about concord so pap dropped concord and SIA made less money?
 
Changi is different. Its flight path in both direction is into the sea. No hindrance and does not disrupt local town planning and population.

Let not forget the argument they used is essentially about sovereignty and not town planning. Not a logical thing to slice control of final approach into 2 different Atc.
 
Last time also mudland complained about concord so pap dropped concord and SIA made less money?
India also barred concorde from flying. In fact most countries on concorde flight route barred it due to noise. Sonic boom.
 
Let not forget the argument they used is essentially about sovereignty and not town planning. Not a logical thing to slice control of final approach into 2 different Atc.
Ok. So can they build their high rise on approach to seletar landing or not.
And why cannot take off and land from the south if town planning is not a issue.
 
Dr M can start to build Pasir Gudang Towers now to trump the Petronas Tower.

Make it into the shape of this :FU:
 
If the flight path is approved by ICAO then Malaysia can't say much. ICAO will won't give 2 hoots about sovereignty . It all purely from flight operations perspective.

International organizations are facing rebellion. ICAO will play along with Mudland.
 
Back
Top