Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MDW Runway Arresters  
User currently offlineTheGreatChecko From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 2212 times:

Is it true that MDW doesn't have enough room for the concrete arresting devices (if thats what they are called) like the City of Chicago has been saying?

I wonder because FLL has that system installed at the end of RWY 27R, with just about the same amount of room, maybe less. Right up against the runway is the perimeter road, then I-95, not much room for error and in my opinion very necessary.

I'm thinking MDW has plenty of room for these to be installed at the ends of the two longer runways.

Pictures for your examination....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jose Ramos
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ray Harvey




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Suresh A. Atapattu
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Morley



GreatChecko


"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 2186 times:

As you can see from some of the installations depicted here, some are not very long and you'd think they could squeeze them into MDW...

http://www.esco-usa.com/com/instal.html


User currently offlineTheGreatChecko From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 2166 times:

EMAS!!!

I knew it had a cool acronym. Thanks for the pics!

GreatChecko



"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
User currently offlineBA757 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2832 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

How do these arrestor beds work? I know it says they are concrete, but are they soft? Hard?

If they are solid, how come the aircraft doesn't just run over them, where does the grip come from?

Adam


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

Quoting BA757 (Reply 3):
If they are solid, how come the aircraft doesn't just run over them, where does the grip come from?

The simpliest thing, I think, is to think of that "solid" as having the consistency of piece of blackboard chalk. Yes, it's a solid, but it can't carry the weight of an aircraft, and it crumbles when an aircraft's weight is applied.


User currently offlineTheGreatChecko From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

The plane basically breaks through the surface. Its technically not just concrete, its an "engineered material." It provides a massive amount of resistance, slowing the aircraft down (usually collapsing the nose gear).

There is a video somewhere of an FAA test where they put a 727 into it. Pretty impressive if you ask me.

GreatChecko

PS Anyone have a clue as to why this is "impossible" at MDW?



"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
User currently offlineBA757 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2832 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 2068 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):
The simpliest thing, I think, is to think of that "solid" as having the consistency of piece of blackboard chalk. Yes, it's a solid, but it can't carry the weight of an aircraft, and it crumbles when an aircraft's weight is applied.



Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 5):
The plane basically breaks through the surface. Its technically not just concrete, its an "engineered material." It provides a massive amount of resistance, slowing the aircraft down (usually collapsing the nose gear).

Thank you guys!

Adam


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 5):
The plane basically breaks through the surface. Its technically not just concrete, its an "engineered material." It provides a massive amount of resistance, slowing the aircraft down (usually collapsing the nose gear).

Similar in principle to the stuff used in over-run areas on some road-race courses (think CART, F1, etc.)

Or... if you've ever seen them... to run-away truck ramps placed at the bottom of mountains on highways.


User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

Several years ago the City of Chicago did a study to see if EMAS would work at MDW. EMAS was not installed because there is only 80 feet distance between the end of the pavement on 31C and the fence. Several hundred feet are required for EMAS to stop an aircraft. There is a similar situation at the other runway ends so EMAS would not be a viable option within the current airport boundaries. That is why the airport has been quietly purchasing land at some of the runway ends in case the FAA mandates 1000 foot safety zones or EMAS.

User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

I head Mayor Daily was going to bring in Bulldozers one night soon and tear up the runways again. Start to look for Southwest to begin flying into ORD soon..!!


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9):
I head Mayor Daily was going to bring in Bulldozers one night soon and tear up the runways again.



Not even remotely possible since the Daley Administration has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into improving the airport in the past ten years.


User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9):
I head Mayor Daily was going to bring in Bulldozers one night soon and tear up the runways again. Start to look for Southwest to begin flying into ORD soon..!!

Although the City of Chicago has purchased some property at the MDW runway ends because of the cost of tunnels for the roadways, railroad relocation and home purchases which safety zone or EMAS would require. It would take hundreds of millions of dollars to make all of this happen. The city will not add either of these options unless they are mandated to do so by the FAA. The city is betting that this will not happen anytime soon because there are so many other airports in the U.S. such as Reagan Nation in DC who's runways also do not meet standards. At Nation you would have to do landfill in the Potomac River to make it compliant. Basically it not going to happen anytime soon.


User currently onlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3045 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

Quoting TheGreatChecko (Thread starter):
Is it true that MDW doesn't have enough room for the concrete arresting devices

Courtesy: WBBM-TV

Analysis Shows Space At Midway To Install Safety Zone

Video Report:

http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=18914@wbbm.dayport.com


User currently offlineTheGreatChecko From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

Is it just me, or does the City of Chicago have any clue what they are doing?

-Meigs Field
-No space for EMAS

You know, if the company that made this product was one of Daley's cronies, I bet they would have installed these years ago.

GreatChecko



"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

Does any one remember a Learjet run off in the mid 1970's...?? The jet failed to stop and went through the fence..? I remember being in Chicago visiting family and later learned my Uncle pulled one of the passengers from the plane.


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineRlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1064 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

SNA needs one. It would be bad news if a plane overran the runway and fell down on the 73.


I can drive faster than you
User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

SAN needs one!

And no this message is not too short....



Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

I'm pretty sure that FLL doesnt have it on the side the bumps up against 95

User currently offlineVegasplanes From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1509 times:

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 16):
SAN needs one!

That would be Harbor Drive for the 9.  Wink


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9234 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

MDW can support EMAS. EMAS for a 737/A320 is 275' long including the 75' ramp. At each end of the runway is a 200' blast pad and the localizers have a 50' set back and another 25' to the fenceline. Just enough without any loss of runway.

Runway length is gained because when a non standard safety area exists, the amount of the required 1,000' safety area that is not provided is subtracted from the actual length of the runway when doing performance calculations. Meaning, the roughly 6,500' runway at MDW is only about 5,700' when performing landing calculations. This will extend the distance available to the runway full potential.



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1404 times:

Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 5):
Anyone have a clue as to why this is "impossible" at MDW?

Simply Daley's latest fodder for ORD expansion.



DMI
User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9234 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

Quoting Rlwynn (Reply 15):
SNA needs one. It would be bad news if a plane overran the runway and fell down on the 73.

SNA has 1,000' RSA's and does not need one.

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 16):
SAN needs one!

San Diego (SAN) actually needs two of them and is getting one next year for RWY 27. The FAA is evaluating runway 9 and doing so will cut SAN's runway down about 400' at the East end because it would have to support a 767. Its more likely SAN will be getting a secondary single runway airport as a suppliment to SAN because Miramar is not on the table, and they would remove a total of 1,700' to return SAN to pre 1978 runway length of 8,400' with about 6,600' landing to get rid of obstruction issues (displacing runway 27 another 1,000'). It was waivered when the jet age came in. This would effectively limit the type of aircraft used to 737/A320's forcing most carriers to a new facility. San Diego has to take what they can get in terms of a new airport. If they can't get a new two runway facility, they need to get another single runway airport (perhaps East Miramar or North County). Not the same as Dallas as San Diego would actually "require" the two airports to meet demand and the airports would work in tandem.



Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
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...
MDW Runway Arresters posted Mon Dec 19 2005 07:12:46 by TheGreatChecko
MDW Runway Problem GS posted Fri Jun 11 2004 18:36:07 by Jjbiv
MDW Seeking Runway Expansion posted Thu Apr 13 2006 23:28:50 by Chicago757
Runway Possibly To Slick At MDW Incident posted Thu Mar 2 2006 22:50:19 by Lostintime
Airtran 737s At MDW posted Sat Jul 21 2007 18:17:37 by Highliner2
CGH Vs SDU (runway Lengths) posted Thu Jul 19 2007 19:20:53 by John
Third Runway At SEA Nears Completion posted Thu Jul 19 2007 18:30:53 by Gunsontheroof
One Of P5 E195 Overshoots Runway In Santa Marta posted Wed Jul 18 2007 00:12:36 by 777jaah
Runway 07L/25R At SVO 262ft Wide? posted Sun Jul 15 2007 23:42:34 by HT
Pacific Blue Taxiway/Runway Excursion posted Sat Jul 14 2007 22:10:11 by OzTech