Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2716 posts, RR: 5 Posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3409 times:
Does EWR ever change the configuration of their runways. I fly out of EWR often, and it seems as if 4L is only used for takeoff, 4R is only used for landing, and 11-29 is never used for anything. Why is this?
Theflcowboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
Keep in mind, the runways in use at EWR are based on the actives at LGA and JFK. It might be that 11-29 doesn't allow for an arrival or departure during certain wind conditions because it might bring planes through the flight path at the other 2 airports.
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8946 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3323 times:
I have seen 11 used quite a bit toward the end of July. I have family out in the Summit area, right under the approach for 11. Some days, I just sit out in their back yard and watch Continental 737s come in every couple minutes.
Lga1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3249 times:
Cory6188 - The reason why 4R is uses for take-off and 4L for landing is not just for ERW, every airport that has parallel runways uses that method. So if you turn around then 22L would be used for take-off and 22R for landing, its always the runway closer to the terminals is the one for take-offs.
N323er From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3210 times:
An Airport uses certain runways becuase of wind not because of other airport in the surronding area. If EWR is landing and departing on 4L/4R then LGA and JFK will more than likely have the same wind conditions and if i am not mistaken both JFK and LGA have runways 4's
Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2716 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3168 times:
The only reason that I could think of for 4L being used for takeoffs is because it is 11,000' long and 4R, at 9,900', is used for landings because airplanes don't need as much space to land. However, I know I may be totally wrong.
Tjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2546 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2973 times:
The inner parallel 4L/22R is used for takeoffs otherwise all traffic in queue for departure would need to cross the approach end of the active parallel. EWR often has 15-20 aircraft in queue for takeoff.
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
Flybhx764 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 278 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2889 times:
When I flew in one from BHX to EWR on the 752, we were put on gridlock, had to circle in the sky for an hour till the landing time, however, instead of waiting an hour, it only took 15 mins because we landed on 11. Thought i was gonna miss my connection but luckily never.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2842 times:
Once in January 1987 I watched a Delta DC-8-71 take off from 29, I was surprised to see a heavy depart from that short, DCA-length runway. The 8 leapt airborne pretty quickly so it couldn't have been too heavily loaded. I was aboard a Piedmont 737-300 that took off from 29 that same morning.
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
Pecoua From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2713 times:
I was a Flight Attendant for PEOPLExpress and I remember on a few windy days we would take off towards the west on either 11/29 (whichever it was) on a 747-200 to SFO and LGW. So the runway has to obviously be long enough...I do remember a very long engine spool-up before brake release though...the Captain would always tell us of this special takeoff since it was a bit different.
Cha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 806 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2545 times:
Is 11/29 the runway that is perpendicular to the New Jersey Turnpike? On several occassions, my wife and I have been driving and from a distance, it looks like the planes that are passing over the turnpike are about to hit one of the onramps. Of course, it's an optical illusion and the plane lands safely....but those planes are pretty low...when you're driving south on the turnpike and you see a plane approaching dead at you from the left, it tends to make you...well...tighten a sphincter or two.
You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
Cadet93 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2522 times:
I was on the way to the airport on Saturday and looked up and saw a 767 approaching. It went wide and turned and landed on 11/29. It is a real nice sight to be driving and see the large planes cross over the turnpike and land.
Newark was using that runway a lot last year as they resurfaced one of the major runways.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17165 posts, RR: 50
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
"Report Questions Region's Air Traffic Safety
Feb 15, 2004 9:17 pm US/Eastern
HACKENSACK, N.J. (AP) Funding cuts, understaffing and changes that would increase the number planes in the sky could compromise air traffic safety at New Jersey's airports, according to a published report.
Already, there were 19 incidents last year in which planes flew too close to one another in the skies above the New York metropolitan region, which includes Newark and Teterboro airports. There were 20 such incidents in 2001 and 24 in 2002, according to a report in The Record of Bergen County.
Federal Aviation Administration officials said the incidence of what it calls "loss of separation" is low when compared to the total number of aircraft operations handled by the regional monitoring centers -- about 2 million per year.
"When you put it in context to the total number of operations, statistically it represents a very small number," FAA Eastern Region spokesman Jim Peters told The Record.
Russ Halleran, an air traffic controller at Newark Airport, held a different viewpoint.
"The flying public is not aware," he said. "It is not a safe thing. We are not here blowing smoke. The FAA says everything is OK. Everything is not OK. We are kind of in a state of chaos at the moment."
Many air traffic control towers are understaffed and relying on overtime to do the job. At Newark, the tower is designed to have 40 controllers available but has only 34.
President George W. Bush has proposed cutting 13 percent from the Federal Aviation Administration's budget for upgrading air traffic control equipment. A new tower opened at Newark last year, but towers at La Guardia and Teterboro airports need to be rebuilt. Construction at La Guardia is scheduled to begin later this year, but could be affected if the reduced budget is approved.
The FAA is also proposing next year to tighten the spacing between in-air jets in order to get more planes in the sky and cut down on departure delays. Planes flying between 29,000 feet and 41,000 feet would need to have a vertical distance of 1,000 feet between them instead of the current 2,000 feet.
Pilots and controllers said the tighter spacing won't have a great effect at cruising altitude, but could make for more congestion on approaches and landings. FAA officials said they would hold traffic at the higher altitudes if there wasn't enough space below.
Halleran was skeptical that the new regulations could increase the number of planes landing in Newark, which currently can handle about 120 per hour.
"A lot of these airplanes at Newark are rolling down the runway and that next guy is right up your rear end," he said. "They are not going to be able to get threefold more airplanes into Newark. That's not going to happen." http://www.wcbs880.com