Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BUR -- Terminal And Runway Safety  
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3156 posts, RR: 6
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4761 times:

Looking at the ideal aerial photo just posted on the favorites:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/1559091/L/

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages



This used to be my airport of choice when I lived in LA. Loved the convenience, loved the simple procedures. What a great little vintage terminal. But good God, that runway adjacent to the terminal is a disaster waiting to happen!

I remember landings from the west, abrupt braking, and then a nearly as abrupt turn off the runway right into the gate. ("While your at it, can you just drive down the street a bit? My driveway is just ahead...") I'm aware that there is some sort of grandfather clause allowing this runway-terminal separation that would be illegal otherwise. I'm also aware that a plan for a new terminal near the Lockheed plant on the north end was defeated, a sad turn of events. And, everyone remembers the WN 737 that overran the end of the runway into the gas station on Hollywood Way (gas station not there any more?). Isn't there now EMAS installed at the end of the runway now?

Which brings me to ask, is there any EMAS installed between the runway and the apron, or is it even possible? Anyone have any further details on how they manage this odd proximity to the runway? Future plans for the airport?

-Rampart

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4724 times:

Quoting Rampart (Thread starter):
I'm aware that there is some sort of grandfather clause allowing this runway-terminal separation that would be illegal otherwise.

There's no standard of runway to terminal separation. Its runway centerline to a fixed or moveable object or runway centerline and a parked aircraft. That distance is 500-feet.

That said, what really applies is the runway OFZ. No object (other than lights and NAVAIDs) can be within the OFZ which is 200 from the centerline, their minimums indicate a straight up OFZ vs. a sloped outward surface. The taxiway centerline is a rediculous 180-feet from the runway centerline in the areas around the terminal. Technically, a plane can't land unless the adjacent taxiway is clear of all aircraft, but they could take off.

So there is some kind of waiver in place, probably under the 306(a)(1)(a) standard of AC 150/5300-13 which reduces the 200 feet to 150 feet. The dimensions there are just insane. Or, they don't allow landings while aircraft are on the adjacent taxiway. Haven't seen their operation to know if this is done.

If they ever have to rebuild they've have to meet the standards and any waivers would be null and void so I hope they have some other land to do that with. Maybe north of RWY 26 and east of RWY 15??? Short sighted if they haven't been considering this future reality.

[Edited 2009-07-29 09:29:43]

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4708 times:



Quoting Rampart (Thread starter):
gas station not there any more?)

Ya its gone. I believe its a parking lot now. There is a bunch of new developments (shops & restaurants) being built on that side of the airport.

Quoting Rampart (Thread starter):
Isn't there now EMAS installed at the end of the runway now

Yes 170ft at the departure end of runway 26. Originally built in 2002, and has been made use of by atleast two business jets that have overrun in the last few years.

Quoting Rampart (Thread starter):
Future plans for the airport

None really. The cities not they want to to do anything anyhow, are legally hand tied by the ordinance that voters approved.

The really only big news with Burbank was the completion of its Part-161 study, which is now in the hands of the FAA to impose a hard curfew at the airport replacing its current 10pm-7am "voluntary good neighbor" statue which is ignored left and right by air carriers and private pilots. FAA has until November 1st to rule.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2908 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4525 times:

Let's not forget that, when BUR opened, it was a state of the art facility - the largest and most modern in the entire LA basin. Back then, the San Fernando Valley (and Orange County too) was nothing but vast farmlands. Opening such a large, expensive airport out in the boonies probably would have seemed like opening DEN back in the 1990s. Of course, today Burbank's once large airport is completely landlocked inside the heart of a fully developed and mountainous region. Folks all the way out in Santa Clarita and Palmdale probably prefer BUR due to its location right off the 5. Modern full size jet aircraft have much different needs than the props did back when the airport was designed. Essentially, factors beyond the airport's control have rendered it woefully inadequate. But then again, shutting down the airport entirely over safety concerns would force traffic to use LAX, shifting the burden to that overcrowded airport. Basically, maintaining the status quo is the only viable solution.


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

While BUR as LGB is a great little airport for ease and convenience, but as the area around BUR continues to grow ever more residential (used to be quite commercial), chances for any meaningful changes in coming years become remoter by the day.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



Also the airports geographic location does not help make friends, as its basically in a bowl on 3 sides where the noise generated bounces off the hills and across much of the Valley, especially at night. I've been at friends 10+ miles from the airport but can hear the echo of departing commercial or bizjet.

For trivia sake - BUR was the frst commercial US airport in 1987 to mandate use of only quieter Stage-3 aircraft by airlines,.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineType-Rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4418 times:

In what year was the current BUR terminal completed? Before LAX wasn't this the main airport for LA?

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4363 times:

Burbank Airport has a long rich history.

It opened in 1930 by Boeing Aircraft and Transport (future United Airlines) and initialy known as United Airport. By 1940 Lockheed which had it main aircraft production facilities on the field purchased the airport and renamed it the Lockheed Air Terminal. The airport until the 1950s served as Los Angeles busiest commercial airport.

By the late 1970s, Lockheed whose operations were declining at the airport sold the facility to a joint authority by the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena.

What is not well known for many is that the nearby in Glendale, Los Angeles had another signifciant airport - Grand Central Airport which opended in 1923, and was the location for many first and pionoeerign events including the terminus for TWA's first transcon flights.
Grand Central closed in 1959, but for all ppractical purposes did not support commercial service post WWII, which had migrated to nearby BUR.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4267 times:



Quoting Rampart (Thread starter):
What a great little vintage terminal. But good God, that runway adjacent to the terminal is a disaster waiting to happen!



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 1):
The dimensions there are just insane. Or, they don't allow landings while aircraft are on the adjacent taxiway. Haven't seen their operation to know if this is done.

I tend to agree. If you look closely at the first picture, you will notice the taxi lane's edge line is actually a continuous hold short line for the runway (the double line; one solid and one broken).

As far as limiting the use of the taxiway while an aircraft is landing, I do not believe there are any limitations as long as no part of the taxiing aircraft crosses that hold short line. In fact I have pushed back and taxied on that taxiway while an aircraft has landed.

What amazes me is that UPS flies 757s and even wide body A-300s into BUR.



FLYi
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4253 times:

Here is another view; you can clearly see the hold short lines


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vivian A Watts




FLYi
User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4246 times:



Quoting PITrules (Reply 7):
What amazes me is that UPS flies 757s and even wide body A-300s into BUR.

The runway at SNA is shorter and UPS sends in 757's and FedEx sends in A310's with an occasional A300 like they both do at BUR.

FX1816


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4240 times:



Quoting FX1816 (Reply 9):
The runway at SNA is shorter and UPS sends in 757's and FedEx sends in A310's with an occasional A300 like they both do at BUR.

Yes, but it is not the length at issue, but the wingspan spacing between runway and taxiway. I do not believe SNA has the same issue as BUR?



FLYi
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4232 times:



Quoting PITrules (Reply 7):
What amazes me is that UPS flies 757s and even wide body A-300s into BUR.

And back in the day, PSA brought in L-1011s!

But in all fairness all types of large planes have made it to BUR including plenty of military types such as the C-141, C-5 and others larger jets like the 707 and DC-8.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6902 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4213 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
The airport until the 1950s served as Los Angeles busiest commercial airport.

Most airlines moved to LAX in 1946.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
PSA brought in L-1011s!

Scheduled flights? When?


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4205 times:



Quoting Timz (Reply 12):
Most airlines moved to LAX in 1946.

As I said it remained the "busiest" airport into the 50s. While the early LAX did attract carriers post WWII, BUR remained quite busy including all the CAB non-sked(charter) carriers with boarding numbers and activity staying strong until early 50s.

Quoting Timz (Reply 12):
Scheduled flights? When?

Briefly (well entire PS L-1011 experience was brief) SAN-BUR-SFO
I recall the return to SAN was in the evening to get plane back to PSA's maintenance base.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4174 times:



Quoting Timz (Reply 12):
Scheduled flights? When?

Here is a bit more on PSA L-1011s, including mention of BUR service.
PSA L-1011 (Early 70's)? (by Jabpilot Nov 24 2001 in Civil Aviation)

While in this thread about UA 767 service at BUR, someone remembers flying the PS L1011 to BUR-SAN.
767's At BUR? (by ZChannel Jan 16 2006 in Civil Aviation)



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4133 times:



Quoting PITrules (Reply 10):
Quoting FX1816 (Reply 9):
The runway at SNA is shorter and UPS sends in 757's and FedEx sends in A310's with an occasional A300 like they both do at BUR.

Yes, but it is not the length at issue, but the wingspan spacing between runway and taxiway. I do not believe SNA has the same issue as BUR?

That's true but as LAXIntl pointed out, airplanes even bigger have flown into and out of there. But I was just responding to your remark about being amazed that 757 and A300's fly into there.

FX1816


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4055 times:



Quoting FX1816 (Reply 15):
That's true but as LAXIntl pointed out, airplanes even bigger have flown into and out of there. But I was just responding to your remark about being amazed that 757 and A300's fly into there.

FX1816

Yes it is even more impressive that L-1011s flew in here; that must have been an awesome sight

Here is Gulf Air's first L-1011 at BUR before it was delivered. Note the PSA tug.

http://www.airlinersairlinersairliners.net/900/Gulf_Air2.jpg
photo M. Daniels

[Edited 2009-07-30 01:09:01]


FLYi
User currently offlineBananaboy From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 1589 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4014 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 1):
the runway OFZ.



Quoting Rampart (Thread starter):
any EMAS

Can we please have a "translation" of these terms?  Wink


Mark



All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3156 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4007 times:



Quoting Bananaboy (Reply 17):
Can we please have a "translation" of these terms?

Sorry, I shouldn't have presumed everyone knew.

EMAS is Engineered Materials Arrest System. It's a collapsible pavement that slows an aircraft that over-runs the runway without an extended safety area.

OFZ is Obstacle Free Zone.

-Rampart


User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2264 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3941 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
Burbank Airport has a long rich history.

It opened in 1930 by Boeing Aircraft and Transport (future United Airlines) and initialy known as United Airport. By 1940 Lockheed which had it main aircraft production facilities on the field purchased the airport and renamed it the Lockheed Air Terminal. The airport until the 1950s served as Los Angeles busiest commercial airport.

By the late 1970s, Lockheed whose operations were declining at the airport sold the facility to a joint authority by the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena.

What is not well known for many is that the nearby in Glendale, Los Angeles had another signifciant airport - Grand Central Airport which opended in 1923, and was the location for many first and pionoeerign events including the terminus for TWA's first transcon flights.
Grand Central closed in 1959, but for all ppractical purposes did not support commercial service post WWII, which had migrated to nearby BUR.

When Burbank and Glendale were chosen to be Los Angeles' main airports, planners chose them instead of LAX (which was then known as Mines Field) because the San Fernando Valley is less affected by fog than coastal areas like El Segundo / Playa del Rey. Advances in instrument landing systems during the 1930s and 1940s made it possible for aircraft to land in poor visibility - this is one of the reasons the airlines moved to Mines Field / LAX after World War II.

The first (Summer 1977) issue of Airline Quarterly has a great article about the history of BUR. This magazine shows up on EBay from time to time, and is definitely worth buying if you want to learn more about BUR.



Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3880 times:



Quoting PITrules (Reply 7):
As far as limiting the use of the taxiway while an aircraft is landing, I do not believe there are any limitations as long as no part of the taxiing aircraft crosses that hold short line. In fact I have pushed back and taxied on that taxiway while an aircraft has landed.

Yeah, but that hold line is too close. Its at 125-feet and it should be at 250-feet.

Table 2-2 for Approach Category C&D Aircraft.


http://www.faa.gov/airports/resource.../media/150-5300-13/150_5300_13.pdf


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3849 times:



Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 3):
Let's not forget that, when BUR opened, it was a state of the art facility - the largest and most modern in the entire LA basin.

Usurping Glendale, which was THE airport of choice, especially for movie stars to fly their toys around. But reportedly, the winds around Glendale were problematic, as it was located in the pass that connects the valley to the basin, and there were instances where planes trying to take off from Glendale reached zero ground speed once aloft...

Now it's just a building in need of restoration, and the runway is now a street in the warehouse/industrial area of Glendale near the Amtrak/Caltrans tracks.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 10):
Yes, but it is not the length at issue, but the wingspan spacing between runway and taxiway. I do not believe SNA has the same issue as BUR?

It's the mountains that make it more dangerous, not the runway length.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3843 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
What is not well known for many is that the nearby in Glendale, Los Angeles had another signifciant airport - Grand Central Airport which opended in 1923, and was the location for many first and pionoeerign events including the terminus for TWA's first transcon flights.
Grand Central closed in 1959, but for all ppractical purposes did not support commercial service post WWII, which had migrated to nearby BUR.

You can still see the old Grand Central terminal in Glendale off of "Air Way Street", and Grand Central Ave. actually used to be the runway. You can see the outline of the old airport on Google maps if you look at the streets bounded by Sonora and Flower, with Grand Central as the main runway and Air Way as the taxiway.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...&spn=0.01092,0.022681&z=16&iwloc=A

Here's a picture of the old tower:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3853602


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3777 times:



Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 20):
Yeah, but that hold line is too close. Its at 125-feet and it should be at 250-feet.

Table 2-2 for Approach Category C&D Aircraft.

It is too close yes, but as far as any operating restrictions for Group III aircraft taxiing and landing at the same time at BUR, I am not aware of any as I've done this myself (A-320 with a landing 737 - wingspans of Group III aircraft - many of which are in the Approach Category of C&D). As you mentioned earlier, the airport must have some kind of waiver to be able to do this.

That's not to say they don't have procedures or limitations in place for some of the larger aircraft mentioned.



FLYi
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6902 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3645 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 13):
[BUR] remained the "busiest" airport into the 50s.

American Aviation for 15 Mar 1948 has a table: in 1947 LAX had 73339 "Air Carrier Operations", that being 44.9% of its "Total Operations"; BUR had 34112, 26.1% of its total.

Next question: what's an "Air Carrier"? 12/47 OAG shows 16 daily scheduled passenger ops at BUR on WA, 12 on TWA and 10 on UA, so they must be counting a lot more than just them.

As for the PSA TriStars: all I have is the 8/74 timetable and the 3/75 OAG, which don't show them. Can anyone do better?

(The 9/75 OAG shows one weekly TriStar LAX-SFO-- think that's a mistake?)


25 LAXintl : For BUR add in cargo and private flying. Post war, BUR was very much the Los Angeles cargo airport initially as the Valley was the center for much ind
26 MSNDC9 : The definitions changed in the 1950's I beleive. Up until then Air Taxi operations were lumped into Air Carrier.
27 Timz : Suspect they're included in Total Operations, which apparently was 163+ thousand for LAX and 130+ thousand for BUR.
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...
BCN New Terminal And Click/Vue Merger posted Fri Mar 6 2009 08:42:57 by Richardw
Future Of CVG Terminal 2 And Terminal 1? posted Tue Aug 12 2008 07:22:02 by WA707atMSP
FAA Announces Runway Safety Improvements posted Mon Jul 14 2008 11:08:53 by DUALRATED
Low Time Pilots And Runway Incursions? posted Sat May 10 2008 01:52:11 by Marklavoine
AUS New Terminal And Construction posted Mon Mar 24 2008 18:18:25 by Slovacek747
ACV's New SLC Service And Runway Length posted Fri Mar 7 2008 09:07:14 by Airnerd
LAX Terminal 6 And 7 International Arrivals? posted Mon Jan 28 2008 09:00:55 by UCLAX
JFK Terminal 5 And JetBlue... What Will Happen? posted Thu Dec 20 2007 10:37:13 by BR715-A1-30
YYZ Cutting Terminal And Landing Fees Jan 1 posted Tue Oct 16 2007 18:12:02 by CayMan
Runway Safety Buffer Zones posted Fri May 4 2007 02:08:17 by Clipper002