Back to Squawk list
  • 12

Climate campaigners win Heathrow expansion case

Controversial plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport have been thrown into doubt after a court ruling. ( Altro...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

astonishing the short sightedness here- Heathrow is at saturation, holding patterns are standard parts of the landings, yet this silly decision now appears. How about building high-speed rail between Gatwick and Heathrow. How about building a second big runway at Gatwick and run passengers back and forth between both airports?
Scheduling will have to finesse many travelers, but at least at Heathrow the old village and the motorway north of the field will survive.
canuck44 0
They need to go back to the original proposal of a Thames Airport Hong Kong style with similar connections to downtown London. They could then have four parallel runways and close Heathrow or at least degrade its function.
This plan would leave lots of space for newcomers to build homes after opening of the airport so then they could complain of airport noise as has happened at every airport.
s2v8377 5
Just when you think you couldn't be more disappointed in the British this comes along. England has lost its way which to me personally is very sad.

The 3rd runway at LHR was vital to the UK's economic future. It also seems that no one took into account that aircraft burning needless fuel circling in holding patterns would have been eliminated. The 3rd runway would have also improved taxi delays to the active departure runway as LHR would have no longer been forced to only have one departure runway during peak departure times saving fuel burn as well.

This decision hurt the environment and the climate. It's a shame the flight shamming idiots and ignorant government officials couldn't get their arms around actual facts.

I believe in climate change and supported the 3rd runway at LHR, because I try to have something others don't seem to want to practice these days, common sense!!!
These nut jobs exist to destroy capitalism.....the world won't know the difference of another runway or ten of them. It's a way for these nitwits to feel important......
Time these climate protestors realised climate is cyclical and in a few decades they'll be protesting because its too cold!
Michael A. 6
Please look at the facts. Climate is cyclical by nature, on a very large time scale. What we are experiencing now is not natural. The huge increase in average temperature and atmospheric CO2 within only a few decades that we can MEASURE now is unprecedented in Earth history.
You should check your facts. There have been periods of history where CO2 levels have risen at least as fast as they are rising today. Periods of relatively high volcanic activity have pumped CO2 into the atmosphere at rates higher than humans cause today.

Perhaps you mean “unprecedented in human history”. That would be true, but of course human history has been but a blink of an eye compared to Earth history.

Looking at more recent times, the natural cyclic nature of the climate is due to send the earth into another ice age (think glaciers covering the northern part of the U.S. and the resulting significant reduction in arable land). It is extremely likely that CO2 emissions will prevent this much worse (but naturally) occurring disaster.

The climate-change alarmists seem to accept as their religion that all ‘natural’ (i.e. non-human-caused) climate change is good, and all human-caused climate change is bad. I don’t subscribe to that fallacy. I look at the effect on our environment, and when you do that, you see that climate change always has been, and will always continue, and what really matters is that it does not head in a pattern that will result in mass extinctions, which has always accompanied colder temperatures.
Michael A. 2
What we know about the CO2 content of the atmosphere is derived from ice core samples that go back about 300,000 years. And during that time, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has NEVER been nearly as high as today. Changes used to occur very slowly in the past over the course of hundreds or even thousands of years, not within a few decades, as we are seeing today.

And out of interest: Which organizations/institutions are predicting another ice age in the next few hundred years and on what basis?
300,000 years is but a blink of the eye in the climate history of the Earth. There is significant evidence that in the billion year history of life on earth there has indeed been periods with quickly rising CO2 levels, with subsequent periods of the rapid advancement and diversification of life on the planet.

Check out this: There is overwhelming evidence that without current CO2 emissions the cyclic nature of the climate would soon begin a normal period of global cooling such that glaciers would advance (as they have done repeatedly over the past 400,000+ years deep into the mid-latitudes. Glaciers were in Oklahoma within the past 20000 years! If you want to validly alarm people on the climate, this is what is truly alarming. If this is prevented, then we as a species will definitely benefit.
Michael A. 3
That's exactly my point: Such (natural) changes occur over thousands of years. What difference does such a possible cooling of the planet over a period of Thousands of years make for our civilization, when we'll reach 4 or even 5 degrees of average temparature rise compared to pre-industrial times already within the next 100 years? Tipping points will probably make the process irreversable, long before the slow cooling might have any effect.

Besides: Everyone can upload anything to Wikipedia. Unlike the sources that I've mentioned, the content provided there is not peer-reviewed according to scientific standards.
You play pretty lose with their term ‘scientific standards’ while admitting that the crucial step of scientifically proving hypotheses is not possible with climate science. Without experimentation and proof, do we really have science? I suggest that we don’t have science (not that it’s anyone’s fault) but only conjecture that cannot be supported by any reasonable confidence.

This is a key part of my conclusions:

1. The attempt to halt climate change (by any cause, human or ‘natural’) has been acknowledged to cost the world significantly (at 100% confidence), leading to reduced standards of living and greater levels of poverty and suffering.

2. The ‘science’ that suggests that current climate trends will produce great human suffering is conjecture that cannot be supported with real science, and provides very low (close to zero) confidences.

Therefore, do we thrust the world into a guaranteed period of suffering in order to prevent something that is quite likely just fear of the unknown?

I say no. You are free to make whatever changes you want in your life. But to force me to make changes that by reasonable conclusions will either be ineffective or inessential, is to become a tyrant. Don’t be the next tyrant.
Michael A. 4
By scientific standards in this context, I mean that every publication has to be independently peer-reviewed.
The fact that we've not already destroyed a civilization on an exact copy of the Earth does not mean there's no science. We already have enough knowledge gathered through experimentation and proof to understand and explain the current changes. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature on the Earth surface would be -18°C. And if mankind is not the cause, where does all the additional CO2 come from that we can measure? Why has the last decade been the warmest on record? Please don't say it's the sun. Solar activity does not correlate with these changes.

We are already experiencing more heavy weather, more droughts, rising sea levels (talked to anyone from the Marshall or Solomon islands recently?) as well as more fires (recently in Amazon rain forest, Australia, Siberia). So to say that it's climate change mitigation action that causes suffering is really a bit bizarre.
Again, I am not debating that mankind has caused CO2 emissions. I accept that, it is very reasonable based upon the data.

Your argument that climate science is true science because we CAN’T experiment and prove hypothesis (i.e. destroy the planet) is not reasonable. It’s nobody’s fault, but to claim that it’s science that tells us we will destroy the earth when science is not possible is irresponsible. Call it what it is, ‘Climate Hypothesis”, or “Climate Conjecture”, or “Climate Consensus”. It is a disservice to science when a necessary step of real science can’t be done.

The past decade has been the warmest on record? You are totally wrong. Did you mean to say ‘Human record’? Like the last 100 years? What’s a hundred years of 1 billion? Not much.

Carbon Dioxide is increasing plant yields, which increases the world’s food supply. Warmer weather increases arable lands, which increases the world’s food supply. In addition, restricting carbon emissions to the levels that most scientists believe will stop global warming will significantly negatively affect the world food supply. All this is much more established than any significant affect of global warming on the human condition.

Again, you are free to personally do what you wish to stop this specter you believe will happen. Just don’t become the tyrant and suggest that I must be forced to accept the unreasonable.
Michael A. 4
Well, "On record" of course means since the time humans have started recording wheather data, and yes, it's meaningful if you compare the data to the time prior to industrialization because the conclusion is that the ocurring rapid changes are not natural. Furthermore, for our civilization, billions of years are not relevant. Of course, the planet will survive any climate change, but our civilization strongly depends on a stable climate.

You are right, within certain limits, CO2 will be beneficial for plants. However, experiments have shown that there's a critical CO2 concentration. When it increases further, it will be harmful for plants. I also don't think that the people in the Sahel would share your view that "Warmer weather increases arable lands". Desertification and droughts are a huge problem in many regions, forcing people to leave their homes.
Our civilization does NOT depend on a stable climate. A stable “snowball earth” would not benefit us in any way.

Our civilIzation depends on a favorable climate.

I understand that there is an upper limit of CO2 for the viability of plants, but I understand it to be very much higher than the upper limits of CO2 concentrations that could be achieved by the burning of all fossil fuels.

Climate changes do indeed change weather patterns. Some areas will benefit from increased arability, others will suffer. What the paleontologic record clearly shows is that the net affect on life is positive for warmer climates.

I’ll take net positive.
Michael A. 4
The critical concentration for plants could already be reached by the end of the 21st Century:
An even better article from NASA which shows current trends:

“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide”

More green obviously means more food for human (and animal) life. Vegetarians should be very happy.

“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

The key takeaway here is that plants acclimate to their environmental conditions. Again, good news.

By the end of the 21st century, we’ll pretty much have all the buried carbon back in the atmosphere were it originally came from, and there won’t be any more CO2 to put there. So things look good as far as plants are concerned, little need to worry about them, they’ll keep doing great, as long as we don’t take their CO2 away.

The more research that I do, the more I learn that no one is really sure about anything when it comes to what the real effects of climate change will be on human beings. The short-term is pretty clear... More carbon, good. Long term it is still just a an unproven guess, one I would like to NOT sacrifice the human condition trying to mitigate, when many climatologists suggest it is already too late to do anything of substance, regardless. We normally reject high cost, low return scenarios. I think that is a good plan.
Michael A. 4
We can't afford to burn all the remaining fossil fuels, our remaining carbon budget to keep the climate stable or "favourable" in your words will be long used up by then. We would be heading into the worst case "Hot house Earth" scenario, in which several tipping points such as the melting permafrost (which has already declined much faster than the worst predictions), the melting arctic sea ice (which is disappearing at record rates), the disappearing boreal and tropical rain forests, the changing monsoons would trigger an irreversible process.

And I don't know what's good about rising sea levels (which will threaten at least 150 million people according to the IPCC), more droughts, heat waves and floods (In total, weather-climate disasters cost 290 billion euro in 2017 - according to
1. Again, stability and favorable are two different things. You seem to have confused them again. Stability is not necessarily a good thing for life. Favorability is. They are not the same.

Tipping points have been suggested, but their existence are hypothesized and very uncertain. Past predictions of specific tipping points have been plagued by failure. It’s not a good scenario to be spending trillions of dollars on something that is so uncertain. It WOULD be pretty cool if we had actual science to help us out, but it is just not there.

Based on your description of ‘Hot House Earth’; it has happened multiple times before (i.e. no ice at the poles, therefore no permafrost). What was the result? An explosion of life on earth. Change? Certainly! Bad change? Not so much. During human history (before ‘recorded’ human history) reductions in sea ice were the result of the birth of civilization. This link references a paper published in science magazine that substantiates the benefits to human beings of less sea ice. I would link the actual science magazine paper, but a subscription is required.

Guess what, no climate disaster. No human catastrophe. Change? Yes! But it was good change for humans. In fact, the following cold spell (Ice Age) wiped out whole civilizations.

History (All history, not just the blink of an eye ‘recorded’ history) has consistently and confidently demonstrated that Warm Earth - Good for Life, Cold Earth - Bad for LIfe.

We used to blame weather disasters on God’s wrath. Now we blame them on ‘human caused climate change’. Little proof exists for either.
Michael A. 4
I'm not confusing anything. My point is that our civilization is very vulnerable to environmental changes, even more so in view of the growing world population.

I'm aware that there have been periods without any ice at all, and it's no problem for the planet itself, and life as such will continue to exist on this planet and adapt, but our civilization will not. Therefore, your equation Warm Earth - Good for Life, Cold Earth - Bad for LIfe (which of course also means warm Earth - more diseases!) is too simplistic, and it does certainly not apply to our modern (technological and economic) human life.

"Little proof exists for either."
The frequency of extremes is definitely increasing:
As the U.S. increases in population and creation of material assets, we will naturally see an uptrend in costly disasters.

From the study... “ The increase in population and material wealth over the last several decades are an important factor for the increased damage potential. These trends are further complicated by the fact that many population centers and infrastructure exist in vulnerable areas like coasts and river floodplains, while building codes are often insufficient in reducing damage from extreme events.”

The study then mentions that climate change is also a factor, but does not call it ‘important’. In fact there does not seem to be any serious attempt to analyze how much of the increase in these high cost incidents is due to increasing exposure and vulnerability versus the suggested increase in weather events due to climate change. That would have supported your point, but it seems to be entirely missing.

I also am not impressed with the 38 year time window. Very short when all possible weather-affecting phenomena are considered, such as sun spot activity.

Like pretty much all of the climate change alarmism, I find the connection very weak and not at all well substantiated.
Michael A. 3
It says that climate change leads to a "rise in vulnerability to drought, lengthening wildfire seasons (...) and the potential for extremely heavy rainfall".

This is in line with the worldwide observation. The EU comes to the same conclusion: "It is estimated that By 2030, the world will be 1.5 degrees warmer than during pre-industrial times. This means that hotter summers will be the norm throughout Europe – but also in the United States, the southern neighbourhood and Asia. This will lead to increased occurrences of droughts and wildfires, as seen in the summer of 2018, the hottest on record and one in which 30-50% of certain key crops were lost in Europe. Studies show that healthcare costs increase significantly per heat wave, and that in the United States the cost of fighting wildfires reached $2 billion in 2017." (

Sun spot activity can't explain the current phenomena:
Quit wasting your time on Dan....

You can't fix stupid, look at all the trumpf supporters enabling a LYING CONMAN to ruin our country.
Typical response of one who has drunk the Kool-Aid... “Retreat, can’t handle being challenged.” Science encourages skepticism. Religion discourages it.
The science is in... climate changer IS man made is spite of your ignorance!

Religion IS mythology believed by idiots period.
Is ALL climate change man made? Think again, ‘science’ is very clear on that, and it does not agree with you. And it sounds like you have picked your religion, but your belief system is much more unreasonable than those you accuse of being ignorant.
It would be great if these conclusions were substantiated with data and analysis. As the paper admitted, Increased investment (more opportunity for damage from equal weather phenomena) would have a huge affect on this trend, and is not climate related. It is a fair question to ask; how much of the trend is climate related and how was that substantiated. I could not find the answer to this fair question and assume that this was not done, meaning it is poor support for an argument that human-caused climate change is causing more weather disasters. In the absence of actual science, I might as well continue blaming God.

Warmer temperatures mean more water vapor in the air, which increases precipitation, reducing droughts and wildfires. What mechanism removes the increased evaporation from the air without precipitation, such that droughts happen? Past data indicates that climate change favors some areas and disfavors others, with a net positive. I am wary when I see emphasis on the negative, and no mention whatsoever of positive affects in other areas.

Agreed that sunspots likely do not contribute to a trend that lasts over 20 years (cyclic period is about 11 years). However, there may be other cyclic contributions producing longer periods, such that when relatively short data sets (38 years) are analyzed, a cyclic pattern is missed that would be exposed with more data. We should have good disaster data well before 1980. The reason it matters is that past attempts to trim the data to support a pre-determined conclusion have made me more cautious in accepting small data sets with arbitrary trimming of the bounds. I have seen cases where both sides of the climate-alarm debate have done it.
Remember back in the 70’s there were “claims” we’d all be under a thousand feet of a new ice age. Pure BS hogwash. Only people getting rich are the Al Gore types & those accepting the big money to come up w/“studies” claiming the so called “climate change/global warming”.
We should be awash in garbage, out of oil, overpopulated, flying our cars and being obliterated by the lack of an ozone layer by now. Wolf!! Wolf!!
Have not these Idiots said we'll die in 12 years?? incredible how stupid 21st century baboons are behaving, maybe more oranges in their diet would help their shrinking brains, if do they have any!!
cowboybob 0
Ha! Good job climate-nazis...but please don't stop while your competition'll figure it out in the end when reality sets in since critical thought was not your first choice...
Michael A. -5
People who make the public aware of unpleasant facts are not Nazis. Do you believe that the entire science community consists of Nazis? There is a near 100% consensus among climate Researchers that man-made climate change is happening right now.
When climate scientists have no proof, consensus is all they have to offer. Consensus is not science, it is religion.
Michael A. 0
I suggest you look at the climate data published by NASA, the WMO, the UN's IPCC etc. They have the world's leading scientists and are certainly not religious organizations.
I don’t dispute the real climate data. I dispute the unsubstantiated disaster scenarios that are unscientifically derived from it. If there was science supporting these disaster scenarios, it would be provided. In the absence of science, there is only consensus. Consensus is not science
Michael A. 3
Again, all the science you need is provided in the IPCC reports, have you read them? Most people who deny man-made climate change have not and say the IPCC is corrupted, undermined etc. (Conspiracy theories)
I have skimmed it and found very little true science.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.’

I have seen no experimentation to test the hypotheses of climate catastrophe put forth. Without any testing of the hypotheses, there is no true science, just conjecture, followed by an attempt to obtain consensus using attempts to humiliate those who question the hypotheses. Which, by the way, is NOT part of true science, as well.

“The scientific method involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, ”.

If ‘rigorous skepticism’ is required when applying the scientific method, why are skeptics ridiculed at all costs?

Open your mind, apply true science, ask intelligent questions, and you, too will see that what is being passed off as science is much more related to religion.
Michael A. 3
So you have found "very little true science" in the IPCC report, but you do find it on Wikipedia? Maybe your criteria what is "true science" is less strict when the hypothesis is more convenient?
Nope. Try again.
jetserf 0
There isn’t near 100% consensus.
Michael A. 0
Oh come on, there's absolutely no debate about this anymore among serious scientists. If you insist on fooling yourself, you'll only find what you wanna hear on conspiracy theory youtube channels or similar dubious sources. I don't know where you live, but in most countries, the effects of climate change are already obvious and measurable and affect peoples lives.
You are correct, if you define ‘serious scientists’ as is defined today.... “Those who have drunk the climate change disaster Kool-Aid”. Just as you are doing today, serious scientists who question the poorly supported conclusions of climate change disaster, are demeaned instead of refuted with proven science. If you think there is science supporting climate change disaster scenarios, try to find it. If have challenged many others to do so and my challenges have always been met with.... No science. Just religion.
Michael A. 2
Well, I guess the only "proven science" you'd accept would be the completed transformation of Earth into Venus 2.0.
The physics of the greenhouse effect are really quite basic and have been well understood for decades; and for decades the science community has warned that global warming is a reality and is getting worse, and that's exactly what's happened.
Your challenge is to conduct a huge 1:1 experiment with the Earth atmosphere, and that's exactly what we are doing right now. But it's an experiment we can only do once.
You probably love Aviation like everyone else here, and so do I. And it's tempting to deny developments that may threaten the things we love. But we have to face reality and find solutions and not just look away.
You misrepresent my position, which is common when one argues their religious position.

I accept global warming. The earth’s climate has dramatically warmed and cooled over ALL OF HISTORY! What I don’t accept is that global warming is bringing catastrophe to human beings or our Earth. Periods of global warming have been accompanied by the explosion of life on Earth. Periods of global cooling have been accompanied by accelerated extinctions.

What is being put forth for the potential catastrophe of this particular warming period is not supported by historical observations, and that which is reasonable is not very alarming. Ask for confidence intervals on the predictions of catastrophe. They are not provided because they either do not exist, or when effort is spent to calculate them, they are very low.

In summary, global warming is good for life. Global cooling is bad for life, including human life. Natural cycles strongly suggest a return in the future to an ice age. Ice Age, bad for life. No Ice Age, good for life. Something that prevents a future Ice Age is good for life.
Michael A. 3
You keep going on about religion. I am atheist and strongly believe in science, not religion. I'd like to ask you directly: Do you believe that NASA, the World Meteorological Organization, the Commission of the European Union or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, which have all taken a very clear stance on the topic of man-made climate change, are religious organizations?
Atheism is a religion. Do you believe there is no god? Have proven that not a single one exists?

In answer to your question... I have stated it before, to the extent that those organizations say that the climate is changing, I agree wholeheartedly. It would be stupid to deny that the climate does not change. What seems just as stupid is to suggest that we can stop it from changing.
Michael A. 3
Atheism is the opposite of religion. I don't have to prove that there is no flying Spaghetti monster either.

Anyways, those organizations do not only say that the climate is changing, but they also clearly state that human carbon emissions are the cause.

Why should we not be changing the climate? If you look at the Earth from space, you can see how much we have already shaped and drastically changed the planet. We are digging up billions of tons of carbon that has accumulated there in millions of years and we are releasing it into the atmosphere. And if we keep doing this long enough, of course it will change the climate. It would be stupid to think we can keep doing it without any effects. Besides, you said that the current CO2 emissions are good because they protect us from a new ice age. And if that's true, then we would be stopping the climate from changing, right?
Atheism responses at the end, to keep this more on topic....

Is the climate changing? Yes. (We are in agreement with that, please don’t keep suggesting I don’t agree with you on that point).

Are human carbon emissions the cause? Probably (So again, don’t suggest we are not in agreement on that.)

Why should we not be changing the climate? Do you mean ‘why should we not attempt to keep the climate from changing?’ Isn’t this your real question?

For a few reasons; 1. The real cost of attempting the change the climate is enormous. 2. As has been suggested by many climate scientists, efforts will be highly likely ineffective. 3. Unintended consequences; attempting to control what we do not well understand may very well cause negative effects (such as not preventing the next ‘naturally’ occurring ice age.

In answer to this question: “And if that's true, then we would be stopping the climate from changing, right?” Uh, no. We would be changing the climate by preventing a naturally occurring cycle that would hurt us. And that would be changing it. For the better.

Atheism is a belief system (i.e. a belief that there are no gods) that is unprovable. If you believe that there is no god, and you are unable to offer definitive proof, then you have a religion. Your spaghetti monster example is misapplied for your argument. It is good defense of agnosticism, but not in atheism. An atheist, in order to suggest that atheism is not a religion, must prove that no god exists. In order to prove that no god exists, one must look everywhere (even beyond the observable universe) with complete knowledge. In essence, to prove that no god exists, one must be a god i.e. omniscient.

Prove that no god exists anywhere inside or outside this universe, including in any forms that you are unable to sense (assuming that your senses are limited to only what human beings have), and you have no religion. Fail to provide such proof, and you have a belief system, and a religion. And I might add, that belief system requires GREAT FAITH.

Do you believe in dark matter? If so, why? Have you seen it? Can you prove it exists? Why choose to believe that dark matter exists but that it is impossible for a god to exist, when similar evidence exists for at least one?
Michael A. 2
So if I understand you correctly, you admit that human carbon emissions are changing the climate, but we should keep doing it because it may change the climate for the better. Otherwise, who knows, there may be a bad Ice Age coming... That would of course be very convenient. But I'm afraid what NASA, WMO, EU and the UN are saying is much more realistic.

Religious people always try to put Atheism into the same category as religions. But I personally don't accept being put into this category. I don't say "I believe there is no God", but rather "I don't believe in God". That's a difference. If you want to rather call it Agnostisicm then okay, if you accept agnosticism as not being a religion. My main criteria is the absence of a religious belief and I have no interest in disproving God either.
I accept that human activity that transfers carbon from beneath the surface into the atmosphere where it originally was, has the potential to change the climate. Not quite what you said, but more accurate concerning my position.

After that, you mistake my position. I suggest that we continue to place real human needs first and not attempt actions that will, at 100% confidence, have significant negative impacts on humans without significant scientific proof that the actions will result in a net improvement in the human condition.

Your judgement of what is ‘realistic’ is much less rigorous than mine. As a proponent of true science, I accept what has been proven by science, and tend to reject unproven theories and unsupported ‘consensus’, which is all that I have found when it comes to trying to justify severe changes in order to ‘save the climate’.

Yes, I accept agnosticism as not being a religion. It is a position that is not based on a belief system that cannot be proven, but is based on doubt, which can be a good thing. Agnosticism is a much, much more reasonable position than atheism, which claims that there are zero gods, which of course is impossible to prove. I further separate Agnostics into two categories, those who are searching for the truth with open minds, whatever it may be, versus those that who close their minds to the truth, for fear of what it may require them to do.

Thanks for a constructive dialog, I have enjoyed it!
Michael A. 3
Thank you, it's rare that this topic can be discussed calmly and without personal attacks, as in some other posts on this page.
Right. So the jets will waste more fuel waiting in line to take off instead. Idiots.


Non hai un account? Registrati adesso (è gratis) per usufruire di funzioni personalizzate, allarmi voli e molto altro!
Questo sito web utilizza cookie. Continuando a usare e a navigare su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo dei cookie.
Sapevi che il tracking dei voli di FlightAware è supportato dalla pubblicità?
Puoi aiutarci a mantenere FlightAware gratuito accettando gli annunci pubblicitari di Ci impegniamo per far sì che i nostri annunci siano pertinenti e discreti per offrire la migliore esperienza. Aggiungere gli annunci ammessi su FlightAware è facile e veloce oppure puoi prendere in considerazione i nostri account premium.