Bruce, what are those videos supposed to prove? The argument in favor of the round runway is that you can come in at the best possible angle relative to the wind. These videos show dicey landings where you can't do that. You are showing the problem the round runways claim to solve.

No I'm not, I'm showing how badly big planes react to gusting, changing wind conditions like you get over a fucking bowl. You don't live far from a major airport, go watch them land at night, when you can see 8 or 10 sets of headlights lined up on the glide path coming in to land. Or watch them take off every minute or so. Do you think the pilots or the tower has time to fuck around with changing vectors and landing/take off patterns? Do you know every pilot, from California or Turkmenistan has a map of the airport showing runways, taxiways, traffic patterns and terminals. The only thing that changes is which direction they come in from which the tower will tell them. If the wind changes, it has to be a major increase in speed to bring everything to a halt and change the pattern's direction, stacking up dozens of planes.
This is a fucking ridiculous idea for a decent size commercial airport.

A little aerodrome out in the sticks for small private planes with slow landing speeds with short wings it might work after you get all the pilots to unlearn what they've been doing, and retested by the FAA(in the US). But a small areodrome out in the sticks usually doesn't have a space problem

Operative word in glatt's post: "claim".

A circular runway sounds like a really, really bad idea.

.