Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are Runways Unsafe?  
User currently offlineGlidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 45
Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

Hello all!

Regarding the AF 358 accident, and a lot of other overrun accident's in the past, I think that runways should be equipped always with overrun beds.
(Filled with sand/little stones similar to F1 beds)

Are runways without those overrun beds unsafe, since they're not able to break an overrunning a/c down before crossing the airport fence?

IMO, all runway ends should be straight shaped, with no bumps and no ravines. This could have a avoided the AF accident and lots of others in the past.

I think EASA/ICAO/IATA, all the airlines, airports and A/C manufacturers should work together to create safety regulations for runways to avoid such overrun accidents in the future as much as possible!

What do you think about this?

Regards,
Patrick


Aviation! That rocks...
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

Well, it would cost the earth to do the landscaping etc. but the sand and stones could be a good idea.

Has anyone noticed that on the roads in the UK, when you approach some Junctions, roundabouts etc. there is a special surface to grip your tires when you brake?

Couldn't runways have that about 200 or 300m at the end?

Thanks
Mike


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

If the world was a perfect place, yes. In the world we live in, the positioning of runways is often a compromise.

Geographic location, prevailing winds, availability of land, geomorphology and many other factors determine where a runway goes, its profile, gradient(s).

Don't forget many runways started off much shorter than they are today. Extensions have, over decades, brought some runways much closer to hazards than when they were originally built.

As in all of life, there have to be risks and compromises, the trick is to mitigate the risk as much as possible.

As far as the runway used at Pearson goes, it is well within limits for the landing performance of the aircraft that use the airport, with adequate room for stopping on landing - until the one in a million exception occurred.


User currently offlineWukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

Quoting Glidepath73 (Thread starter):
Are runways without those overrun beds unsafe, since they're not able to break an overrunning a/c down before crossing the airport fence?

IMO, all runway ends should be straight shaped, with no bumps and no ravines. This could have a avoided the AF accident and lots of others in the past.

Since we're going for the IMO factor; no qualified pilot should overrun the landing surface with an airworthy craft. Perhaps all runways should be an infinite length and an infinite width. Pave the planet.

Yeah. It's a cocky response, but don't you think that the airport designers and the folks who build the planes have taken runway length into consideration?

Unfortunately, things happen... and even if we made the entire planet a runway, someone would find a way to crash into the moon and blame it on regulations.



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2081 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 1):
Couldn't runways have that about 200 or 300m at the end?

What about when the opposite runway was being used. On a long take-off roll the plane would just slow down and never get off the ground.

Quoting Philb (Reply 2):
Don't forget many runways started off much shorter than they are today. Extensions have, over decades, brought some runways much closer to hazards than when they were originally built.

I totally agree. Lots of runways have an end leading into water and it would cost a lot of money to make an unneeded extension. For instance 16R and 16L in Sydney as well as ourbeloved St Maarten.

Quoting Wukka (Reply 3):
Unfortunately, things happen... and even if we made the entire planet a runway, someone would find a way to crash into the moon and blame it on regulations.

Too true, no matter how safe we can make airplanes there will always be the odd crash that someone will blame on anyone and anything.

[Edited 2005-08-04 09:49:30]

User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):

No,

It only slows you down when you break because the tires grip the surface when they are not turning.

Thanks
Mike


User currently offlineGlidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

Passenger security comes first! Why not here as well?

At least at new planned runways and on those where it would be possible, they should add those overrun bed's. Hills or ravines on the runway ends should be avoided as well.

Regards,
Patrick



Aviation! That rocks...
User currently offlineOhTheDrama747 From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2005, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

Quoting Glidepath73 (Reply 6):
Passenger security comes first! Why not here as well?

At least at new planned runways and on those where it would be possible, they should add those overrun bed's. Hills or ravines on the runway ends should be avoided as well.

Regards,
Patrick

In a perfect world there wouldn't be any hills in the way. But it's not as easy as you put forward. These extensions would cost time and money. Not all the airports have this luxury.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

In the US, Canada, and the EU (I believe), every runway that has commerical aircraft operations, has a runway safety area (RSA), an object free zone (OFZ), and what is called a primary surface (see, for the US, CFR part 139 and CFR part 77).

The RSA is centered on the runway (the centerline), extending 250' to each side and 1000' from each end. It does not have to be paved, but must be strong enough to support "the occasional transit of aircraft and ARFF equipment under dry conditions". It cannot have any pavement elevations differences greater than 3" (76mm), ruts or depressions.

The OFZ is extends 400' off each side of the runway, from the centerline, and 400' from each end, must be clear of all objects, except those that are needed, or "fixed by function" (runway lights, taxiway and runway signs, PAPIs, VASIs, Localizers, ect. Any required object within the OFZ will have a frangable base, so if struck by an airplane, it will break away before it can cause any damage to that airplane. A frangable base has a breakaway strenght of about 7lbs (3 kilos).

The primary surface is an imagiunary surface, centered on the runway and extends 500' to each side, and 200' from each end, where it meets the transistional surfaces (7:1 slope of the sides of a runway, 50:1 slope for a precision instrument runway). Any object that penetrates above this surface must be approved by an airspace study conducted by the regional FAA Office. Approved objects (glide slope antennas, DME antennas, Localizer antennas, etc.) must be marked with obstruction lighting (red lights).

Runways are most likely the most restricted structures built. They are overdesigned for what they do, they usually have a life of 20-25 years. They are abused by heavy and sudden loads, up to 1000 times per day.

This is only a small portion of what runways really are, and how they are maintaned. There is much, much more. But, that will fill an entire book.

Runways are safe!!!!!!  Wink


User currently offlinePipoA380 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1594 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2107 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think that if the runway can get a 300m flat surface at each end, the runway itself will be extended... But it sure would be a good idea!


It's not about AIRBUS. it's not about BOEING. It's all about the beauty of FLYING.
User currently offlineLN-KGL From Norway, joined Sep 1999, 1041 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

How many runways round the world end up in deep ravines within their safety zones?
By landing on YYZ relatively new runway 24L you definitely can - and the result is given.


I know of one other runway that has the same deep ravine problem - runway 24R at Manchester international Airport, UK.

The river Bollin ravine west of rwy 24R is even deeper and steeper than the one at YYZ.

Why don't the airport owners sort out this problem by filling in these ravines?!

Kurt


User currently offlineLegacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

Quoting Wukka (Reply 3):
no qualified pilot should overrun the landing surface with an airworthy craft

Should not, that's right but do you want to say that everybody who was already overrunning a runway end was an unqualified pilot? I think this is very much "general" and can't be regarded that way.

As KC135TopBoom perfectly explains, runways basically are safe. Just as with anything on this planet, it can come to a constellation that leads to a overrun, somewhat what happened here in Toronto. This can range from purely human failure to the absolute worst case, where pilots become spectactors and can't do much against. What happened here to the AF crew, we shall know soon.

I can give you an example, that happened to me, I just was lucky that we did not overrun:
A couple of years ago I was on approach into LSZB (those days a 3900ft runway) in winter with a C560. The approach was at night and we got relatively soon the runway lights. It seemed uneventful, nearly no wind, good visibility and 3900ft with a C560 is under normal circumstances a piece of cake. On short final we asked the controller to dime the runway lights. Flying trough the gate I closed the throttles and started the flare. We touched well within the touchdown zone, my Copilot opened the speed brakes and I applied reverse thrust. Just at this moment, the runway lights got dimmed. Now I could realize, the entire runway was well covered with snow. To late to go around, how to stop the plane..... I applied full reverse and told my co that I will go on reversing even at low speeds, that he watches the ITT (Inter Turbine Temperature) to make sure, I am not going to put an engine on fire. I was lucky, the plane stopped maybe 300ft before the end. With the heartbeat in my head, I informed ATC. The controller apologized maybe three times. The LX SAAB2000 on approach behind me made an immediate go around and joined the hold meanwhile the runway was cleaned.

So you see, even doing everything right, it an happen and we all shall be lucky if there is no ditch at the end of the runway.

Cheers  Wink
Legacy135


User currently offlineEK156 From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2005, 765 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2046 times:

The safety bed or safety net is a good idea!!! Maybe it can be built inside the end of the runways. This way it will only come out or be used in emergency landings or during bad weather that might cause a roll out!!

But how safe would that be as well?? If the rollout is fast, it might even cause a worse problem!! Then again it might be a perfect and safe solution!!


User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2043 times:

Quoting Dogfighter2111 (Reply 1):
there is a special surface to grip your tires when you brake?

Couldn't runways have that about 200 or 300m at the end?

That´s why most concrete surfaces of rwy are grooved as part of the contruction ! This process is intended to give better braking performance on a wet runway.


Re: "Extending runways by 200 - 300 meters at each end"
No need to discuss this in length. Everybody who is involved in flying would like his runway as loooong as possible, but not every airport can build a 16000 ft runway as DEN did (maybe in sume circumstances even THAT runway will be too short) !
Just take terrain, finance and NIMBY´s into account ...

-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

Do you know what the two most worthless things in aviation are, to a pilot?

1. Altitude above you.

2. Runway behind you.

That said, JFK has one end of one runway that has a material that can stop an airplane (though I don't know what material it is). It is a dry foam based material. The FAA tested it using their B-727-100, and it stopped the airplane, with no damage.

Then after the "system" was installed, a Saab-340B, had a problem and this material prevented it from leaving the runway, again with no damage, and no injuries.

The way it basicly works is, as the airplane travels across this dry foam, it progressively sinks deeper and deeper into it until the airplane stops. With the B-727 pictures I saw, all the wheels on the landing gear were sunk under the foam and the gear struts were dragging through it. The Boeing entered the "foam" somewhere around 85 knots at around 145,000lbs gross weight. The foam stopped the airplane in something like 400'.

Forgive me if I am a little off on those numbers, but, IIRC, I believe those are correct, or very close.

There is a problem with this material, hot sun and very cold tempurtures make it deteriorate. It is a very expensive material, and apparently only lasts for about 18 months, before it needs to be replaced.

I wish I knew more about this stuff, there is a potential benefit, if it can be made to survive the enviornment. Maybe someone in the New York area is more familiar with it than I am here at DFW.

But, as far as I know, this stuff is still experamential.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Are Runways Numbered? posted Mon Feb 14 2005 03:59:58 by Mattmilw
Are Sari's Unsafe? posted Wed Jan 16 2002 10:58:44 by Indianguy
Are Canadian Minimums Unsafe? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 18:20:15 by YYZYYT
What Are The Short Runways? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 18:45:24 by B777A340Fan
Why Are Russian Aircraft Unsafe? posted Sun May 25 2003 05:13:09 by BR715-A1-30
How Many Runways Are Needed? posted Mon Nov 4 2002 17:30:24 by JohnJ
How Long Are Wichita's Runways? posted Sat Mar 18 2000 05:12:55 by BH346
Are There Any Flight Trackers For Europe And Asia? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 20:10:20 by UAL747
Are These The New COex CRJs? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 07:22:16 by Graphic
PTVs In Y: Are They Worth It For The Airlines? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 20:14:50 by MaverickM11