I’m quite amazed by the amount of funding this guy seems to be getting. Even being open minded about the practical aspect of doing a stabilised landing with a turn and bank, some of his arguments in favour seems really light. “We can decide that everybody around the airport gets the same amount of noise” → so impacting vastly more people in the process, for exemple. Aircraft speed on approach will actually be higher because of the bank. Also if the main argument is reducing cross winds, letting 3 aircrafts land at the same time seems counterintuitive, even before thinking about missed approach procedures.
And it is not even 1st April yet. What a load of ……………………………. As a Dutch tax payer it is my money he is wasting.
European funding, so we all share that joy!
We also need to invent circular ILS and spiral ALS to amend the whole idea 
I remember this idea being mentioned in some popular magazine back in mid-1970s.
I was listening to a radio programme yesterday where people send in their great ideas, for discussion by the panelists.
I remember listening to helium filled bubble wrap to make parcels lighter, selection boxes of biscuits without any crap ones that no-one wants, double decker arm chairs and sofas and randomly organised days of the week, chosen by lottery, so people get more interesting lives.
Maybe he should send this idea into them.
I believe the first “runways” (airfields) were circular—at least you always landed into the wind. Makes a certain amount of sense. Of course, back then, they were grass.
A little different from what is described here, more like a disc, on which you would land straight into the wind.
At least the airfield of Saint-Auban (LFMX) is still a “classical” flying field. Powered planes land on the grass, but there is no distinctively marked “runway”. The hard strips are only for the gliders.
This is handy for tailwheel crosswind departures.
RAF Bicester, or, as it is now, Bicester airfield.
