The worst runway design ever

[FinallyRetired]

A Brazilian Airbus 320 skidded off a wet runway at Congonhas airport in Brazil yesterday and killed over 200 people. The jet tried to take off again when it was skidding, went off the ruway, and slammed into a fuel depot a short distance from the end of the runway. A fuel depot in line with the end of a runway? Helloooo. But it gets worse. That runway was notorious for poor drainage in heavy rains, and it rains there a lot. The day before another plane skidded off in rain. This problem was so bad that a local judge banned certain aircraft from using it, but the ruling was overturned by an appeals court.

I don't think I will complain about Washington National for a while.

Here is the story

BBC NEWS | Americas | Brazil jet disaster probe begins

 

[grumpy]

My son called last night and talked about the Sao Paolo airport. He flew there with his Brazilian girlfriend last year and took pictures from the plane to show how scary it looked. Not sure if this link will work for you:

IMG_4557.JPG on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Put your cursor on the lady on the sidewalk to see the comment he attached to the picture.

 

[dex]

The old Hong Kong airport was interesting to fly into - but not like this one.

 

[FinallyRetired]

Put your cursor on the lady on the sidewalk to see the comment he attached to the picture.

That's downright frightening. And the saddest thing is that they've waited until 200 people died before doing anything, that is, if they do anything about it even now. In spite of the FAA's problems, at least they don't allow this type of crap to go on in major US airports. The DC area has limits on building height, for example, to provide minimum clearances between National's landing patterns and the building tops. It's not much, but at least there is some regulation. There are smaller US airports that are a bit scary to fly into, the one in Monterey California comes to mind. The wheels almost touch the trees as the plane clears a hill on the approach.

 

[scrinch]

The old Hong Kong airport was interesting to fly into - but not like this one.

In the evening you could look in a couple dozen apartment windows and see what the folks were having for dinner during final approach to landing. In the afternoon you could help them take in the laundry hanging on their balconies!

 

[CCdaCE]

It's one thing that the runway is so close, but in order for that to happen, people have to want to live that close.

In the US people complain about living under/near the areas that planes often travel, let alone them living off the end of the runway.

That'd have to be some damn cheap rent for me to shack up that close.

-CC

 

[dumpster56]

It is called the poor of the world stuck living where the can.

 

[FinallyRetired]

The old Hong Kong airport was interesting to fly into - but not like this one.

I don't know if this link will work but here is a google maps photo of the airport. Look how incredibly close the houses are to the end of the runway. I think I also see where the fuel depot is, or was. These don't look like shacks, either, though it's hard to tell from overhead. But it looks like the airport was built first, then the houses went in, and they were allowed to build that close to the airport. Can you imagine the sound a jet on takeoff must make when you are inside one of those houses just a few hundred feet (or less) below the plane?

sao paolo brazil - Google Maps

 

[saluki9]

It is called the poor of the world stuck living where the can.

Hmmm not too poor for garages and swimming pools

 

[saluki9]

Sorry, Double

 

[BigMoneyJim]

DFW has fuel stores just offline from the runways near northeast air freight. (Two white circles upper center of the view. You can tell the active runways from the skid marks near the end.) Delta 191 hit them in 1985. They were dented for years...might still be if you look closely (in person, not in the Google photo) on the West side. On this article about Delta 191 the "Investigation & Clean Up" link in the box to the right has photos of the wreckage and the damaged fuel drums.

Can you imagine the sound a jet on takeoff must make when you are inside one of those houses just a few hundred feet (or less) below the plane?

I don't have to. I got stranded at ATL a couple of Thanksgivings ago and got stuck with a motel that--as best I could tell by the sound--was only inches from the wheels of the landing jets. I'm pretty sure maker D on the map was my motel.

 

[packrat44]

At the time of the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska I was called back to active duty and stationed in Homer, Alaska. One day I sent a Petty Officer out to a town on the tip of the Kenai Pennisula to interview a few of the locals. He came back very shaken up and asked that I never send him there again. If he did have to go back, that I would arrange for him to go by heliocopter.

I asked him what was wrong (beside finding he had a fear of small aircraft). He told me the the pilot took several passes before setting down. When asked why, he was told that because the mountains were so close to each other there was not enough length for a straight runway so it had to be made curved. The pilot had to slide the aircraft on landing. He then told by interviewer that the locals had "used up" all of their aircraft earlier that year. I arranged for a helo for all others that I sent to that town.

 

[BigMoneyJim]

Homer's no picnic to land at, either. The mountain close to the runway causes all sorts of interesting winds.

People freak out about those small planes and don't understand some of the techniques. Slipping is needed for a small plane to keep aligned with the runway with strong crosswinds. I seriously doubt the runway itself was actually curved, but the approach might have appeared to be cockeyed because of the need to slip.

Multiple approaches isn't something to freak out about. It's just a safety thing. If the landing isn't set up perfect it's much better to go around again than to try to make a bad approach work. Or maybe the pilot was doing touch-and-go's to annoy your guy.

I lived in AK as a kid, and we owned a private plane. My mother flew commercially for Valdez Airlines and landed all the time at Homer, Kenai and other places. We took the Cessna 172 here and there, too. No biggie.

 

[FinallyRetired]

BigMoneyJim, didn't realize DFW had the same problem with fuel tanks. Makes you go mmm... what were they thinking? And here's my very own Washington National, check out the fuel tanks. Guess I hadn't picked up on that from civilian runways, it's more common than I thought. Military runways tend to be a little more careful about collateral damage.

washington dc - Google Maps

On that ATL picture, there's a jet on final just to the right and below the motel you stayed at. And I note lots of tanks at what looks like a rail yard by the motel as well. Probably agricultural rather than fuel but still would make for a real mess.

 

[VoyT]

There are smaller US airports that are a bit scary to fly into.

My DH, who once lived in Chicago, refuses to fly into Midway ....
Think it was also at Midway last winter that a plane went off the runway during a snowstorm, and ran into an intersection where it hit a car.

 

[BigMoneyJim]

On that ATL picture, there's a jet on final just to the right and below the motel you stayed at. And I note lots of tanks at what looks like a rail yard by the motel as well. Probably agricultural rather than fuel but still would make for a real mess.

I noticed that after posting it. "Inches" was exaggerating, but not by much! And there were military transports landing with wounded that night. Very very loud.

Also interesting...look at the landing zone on the runway...there's another plane just touching down. That's way too close! That must be two pictures of the same plane. I wonder if it's the same plane yet again on the high-speed exit ramp further down the runway. They're all AirTran Boeing 717's.

My DH, who once lived in Chicago, refuses to fly into Midway ....
Think it was also at Midway last winter that a plane went off the runway during a snowstorm, and ran into an intersection where it hit a car.

"My light was green! You better be insured!"

 

[FinallyRetired]

Also interesting...look at the landing zone on the runway...there's another plane just touching down. That's way too close! That must be two pictures of the same plane.

Wooow... I don't know, Jim, that may be two planes. If they were the same plane in two different frames, I would expect double images for each of the other planes but they are single. If those are two planes, they are about 3000 feet apart, which is the minimum separation for airports with parallel runways, like Atlanta, that use precision runway monitor (PRM) equipment. But AFAIK that only applies to planes landing on parallel runways, not to course separation, which I believe is at least 2.5nm. The most basic rule for aircraft separation is not to have two planes on an active runway at the same time. I thought maybe the plane was crabbing in a crosswind to land at the parallel runway but he's too close to the runway for that, and there's already a plane landing on the other one. I've got a buddy who works ATC I'll see what he says and let you know.

 

[TromboneAl]

CNN is saying "One of jet's thrust reversers was disabled after problem," but I haven't seen any more info than that. Does that mean that when they worked on some other problem on the airplane, someone turned on the "Thrust Reverser Safety Disabler" or something? It's not clear from the article.

 

[FinallyRetired]

CNN is saying "One of jet's thrust reversers was disabled after problem," but I haven't seen any more info than that. Does that mean that when they worked on some other problem on the airplane, someone turned on the "Thrust Reverser Safety Disabler" or something? It's not clear from the article.

I wondered how long it would take this time before the cause was identified as "pilot error" or "maintenance error." It's a convenient way to keep the planes flying, just as they did with the Airbus rudder separation problem or the 737 rudder control.

 

[REWahoo]

Also interesting...look at the landing zone on the runway...there's another plane just touching down. That's way too close! That must be two pictures of the same plane. I wonder if it's the same plane yet again on the high-speed exit ramp further down the runway. They're all AirTran Boeing 717's.

The source of the photo is Google Earth, which is a mosaic of thousands of satellite shots put together like a huge jigsaw puzzle. Most likely the photo of the aircraft on the runway and that of the aircraft on short final were taken at separate times.

 

[FinallyRetired]

The source of the photo is Google Earth, which is a mosaic of thousands of satellite shots put together like a huge jigsaw puzzle. Most likely the photo of the aircraft on the runway and that of the aircraft on short final were taken at separate times.

Ding Ding! Give that man a cigar! That's exactly what's going on. I lined up the plane touching down with its shadow, then I lined up the plane on final with its shadow, and they are about 10 degrees different. Then I looked closely at the highway section between the two planes and you can see where it was stitched together. Good thinking!

 

[Rustic23]

My vote is they are the same aircraft. A Airtrans Boeing 717. http://images2.jetphotos.net/img/2/5/9/0/16011_1183651095.jpg (another shot). If you look at the pictures using google earth, the markings are the same, the difference in shadow I think is due to altitude. I don't know how many AirTrans fly out of Heartsfield, but it would seem unlikely there would be two on finale same time same day, but not impossible. It would be highly unusual for the tower to clear two aircraft and even more unlikely that the press would not find out about it.

 

[BigMoneyJim]

The press usually gets technical details of aircraft completely wrong.

This was a twin engine plane. If one thrust reverser was engaged and the other wasn't and both engines were spooled up I think the jet would have turned off the runway and rolled and burned rather than speed down the runway too fast. Or perhaps the engine pods would have fallen off. (They're designed to do that under certain stresses...737's have dropped them a few times on takeoff, and I think the pods of the AA jet that crashed into Queens lost its pods due to shear forces before plummeting.)

Thrust reversers aren't the only way to slow down. They extend the flaps, raise air brakes and have disc brakes on the wheels. Usually all three methods are used, but I've noticed sometimes pilots favor reversers over brakes or brakes over reversers.

So I'm not buying what CNN is saying, because one bad thrust reverser doesn't lead to accelerating. The only ways I can imagine them accelerating would be if they intended to take off again or if the computer goofed up and didn't think they were landing. I don't know why you would try to take off if your wheels were already on the ground, so I'm thinking pilot confusion or computer problem. That is assuming the plane was accelerating after landing as the article said.

 

[Texas Proud]

Big Jim....

I read some article that the reverse thruster was 'disconnected'... it had a problem a couple of days earlier and that they had 10 days to look at it... so someone disconnected... don't know what the pilot did.. but if he knew you would think he would have backed off that engine and maybe used the other... but... maybe that would have been enough to jerk it off line also.. I am not a pilot... so guessing from me here...

 

[Rustic23]

I am not a 'large aircraft' kind of guy. I flew fighters, so maybe ReWahoo would be better to comment here. Normally lowering flaps would not be used to reduce stopping distance. Lowering flaps prior to landing slows the landing speed and that has an effect, but once on the ground, lowering flaps would increase lift which would tend to reduce brake effectiveness and therefore lengthen the landing role. There would be a trade off with drag but that decreases as speed decreases. As far as a single thrust reverse, the Boeing 717 has two engines at the tail and should be a 'centerline thrust' aircraft. Loss of one engine or thrust reverse on only one side should have limited effect. As far as the pods falling off, that should not happen with single reverse. Reverse thrust on a jet works by sliding a clam shell over the rear of the engine causing some of the thrust to reverse. If you have a jet ski with reverse you can see the same action. Stress on the engine should be the same regardless of what the other engine does. This is born out by the fact that the A/C is allowed to operate with only one operative.

Why would you try to take off if the wheels were on the ground. You landed fast, or long, knew you would not be able to stop and decided to go around. You may have made the decission before you touched down, and the engines were spooling up when you touched down, you then thought you could stop and you chopped the power. It didn't work. That is what accident investigation boards are far, and CNN's speculation just gets in the way. We should know is several months after they rebuild the A/C and review all the tapes and eye witnesses reports.