FirstClass! From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (15 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
We've had a discussion on runway overshoots after AA 1420. The LAPA crash in Argentina proves that runway overshoots can be deadly. The president of Argentina Carlos Menem said that he is closing the airport because it is too dangerous. Should all urban airports close? It would be a costly move but I prefer saving lives rather than save money.
Another alternative is rerouting highways so they can be underground or far away from the runway end. There was several ground fatalities in the LAPA crash w/ people inside cars virtually charred when the plane dragged several cars.
LGA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (15 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1441 times:
Many urban airports in America, such as LAX, SFO, LGA, JFK, BOS and DCA have runways and prevailing wind approaches around water. This helps to prevent accidents in urban areas close to water from killing people on the ground as well as in the air. Also, new airports in landlocked areas, such as DEN, have been built futher away from the city center in efforts to avoid tragedies like the one in Argentina.
Flyinglen From Canada, joined May 1999, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1426 times:
Close all urban airports???
I think that is getting a little bit of paranoia going... There are billions of dollars of infrastructure in place around the world, would it make sense to shut them down... I think not. I could see doing something if this happened half regurarly, but it doesn't, so it should be a none issue. What would be next, banning all flights over cities, commercial and private, and then over all land areas, just to be safe???? I don't think that's a viable option.
PT-BRA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 10 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1422 times:
WELL, HERE IN MIA THE AIRPORT IS SURROUNDED BY ROADS, INTERSTATES, WAREHOUSES AND HOUSES. ALL THE CRASHES THAT ALREADY HAPPEN CLOSE TO THE AIRPORT, SOMEONE FROM OUTSIDE DIED. AND INSTEAD OF THEM DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, THEY ARE FINISHING A BRAND NEW TOWER AND STARTING ON WHAT WILL BE THE FOURTH RUNWAY, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THEY ARE PLANING ON CLOSING OR MOVING SOMEWHERE ELSE REALLY SOON.
TP343 From Brazil, joined May 1999, 312 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (15 years 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
It's quite difficult to advance with this proposal, as there are - big - social and economic interests and politics behind the existence of central airports in all parts of the world.
Just an example:
If São Paulo-Congonhas didn't exist, on one hand the KK402 crash (TAM F100 to Rio, in October 31st, 1996) would not have killed 6 (?) people in the ground; but on the other hand, without CGH, TAM wouldn't be the strong airline it's today! Very much of what TAM is today is deserved to the existence of a central airport in São Paulo, where airlines such TransBrasil, VARIG and VASP face a lot of restrictions not applied against TAM!
My opinion (passenger and citizen view): central airports are great... unless we disconsider accidents risk and other problems such noise and poluition! Accessibilities to these airports use to be much easier then to distant airports (Ex. CGH easier than GRU). But we must have in mind that the problem is not really the airport, but the city that advances towards the suburban regions. At this point, São Paulo-Congonhas is once more an example: when build, this paulistano airport was 2km far from the nearest urbanized region of this city! But, as time went on, the city started to get bigger and bigger. Much of the efforts to avoid public danger situations regarding the proximity of airports and urbanized zones are up to the local government, as they need to realize that it's easier to avoid the construction of a house than to move an airport!
As LGA has commented, some of these problems will be solved with the construction of new airports in more adequated places, and in my opinion, local authorities should make efforts to be careful and avoid transpassing safety limits by not urbanizing the zone and not creating another problems with another airport. But, on the other side, I agree with Flyinglen as well: if we are rigorous, we will also have to bane planes of flying over all and whatever populated zones which would cause - HUGE - problems on air routing systems, causing delays and crowding even more air spaces...
FirstClass! From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (15 years 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
2 runway overshoots, both being fatal, within a year does raise concerns, considering there was none last year so yes, this topic should be brought up.
Are you people kidding me? You seem as if the problem will go away. Yes, it might be at an impossible front to shut down all urban airports, but there has to be a solution as to what we can do about them. I prefer the idea of underground highways I mentioned in my first post.
All I am saying is we should do something to reduce tradegies in incidents like these before another overshoot occurs, maybe this time something even more serious, with an overpopulated city with 8-lane highways next to the highway and urban housing in the way of the plane, and yes people, these type of obstacles do exist.
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (15 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1392 times:
Living just across the harbour from Boston, I see many missed-approaches (it actually happens more times than you think) all of which TOGO without incident, but how long could this last. BOS has an excellent safety record for and airport with sudden violent wind sheer, bird strikes, and a hemmed in population centre, despite all this the last crash was in 1982 when a World Airways DC-10 dunked into the harbour. Two people were never accounted for. Massport, the Massachusetts Port Authority, which owns Logan Airport, as well as others, has now invested US$1 billion in refurbishing an airport that is almost full to capacity as it is. If they built a new one away from the ocean abd population centres you would reduce the likelihood of a crash into a school or office complex etc. All this for maybe US$3 to 4 billion more. But, NIMBY is very popular round here.
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
United946 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (15 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1378 times:
Yeah, urban airports are dangerous, but the AA and LAPA crashes were two overshoots out of countless landings that go without incident. Besides, some areas have so much urban sprawl that an airport that's away from urban areas would be so inconvenient nobody would use it.