Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BP Petrol Station Under 27L At LHR - WHY?  
User currently offlinevxracing16 From UK - England, joined May 2011, 14 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12862 times:

Good morning everyone, I have recently joined the forum and this is my first post. I hope you all had a good Christmas.

I have recently watched the Air Crash Investigation series where a BA 777-200 crashes at London Heathrow on final approach due to lack of engine power. The captain was saying that there is a BP petrol garage under the flightpath just before the runway....

Why would they place such a highly flammable and dangerous product in this exact spot? Surely there must be a safer spot?

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLofty From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12847 times:

You also have a London Underground Station, Bus Station, Cargo, Catering, Hotel, Speedy Depot with generators all around the Hatton Cross Area.

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11664 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12752 times:

Quoting vxracing16 (Thread starter):
Why would they place such a highly flammable and dangerous product in this exact spot? Surely there must be a safer spot?

I suspect that it's been there for a long time, and pre-dates the current regulations controlling development in the Public Safety Zones of airports. That said, it may just be outside of the 1 in 10,000 PSZ, all the locations Lofty mentioned almost definitely are, although some will be in the 1 in 100,000 PSZ.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12513 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12533 times:

And it's of crucial refuelling importance to the legion of photographers heading to Myrtle Avenue!

User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 12257 times:

Quoting vxracing16 (Thread starter):
Why would they place such a highly flammable and dangerous product in this exact spot?

It was probably there before LHR was!


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6919 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 12051 times:

Airports are not designed with all-engine out on final approach scenarios in mind.
For undershoots and overruns, LHR has ample space... assuming some engines are still on   

It meets all current regulatory requirements. Don't like it? Change the rules!



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11664 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11794 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 5):
It meets all current regulatory requirements. Don't like it? Change the rules!

Actually it is highly unlikely that LHR meets all current regulatory requirements, you can be reasonably sure of this in relation to both PSZs and other aspects of the aerodrome's certification. But, since an irregularity pre-dating the regulation does not have to be retrospectively conformed to, it is not a problem.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 728 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11731 times:

Quoting vxracing16 (Thread starter):
Why would they place such a highly flammable and dangerous product in this exact spot?

Well, aircraft that might be falling from the sky at that place carry their own flammable and dangerous products with them. Maybe more than what the gas station has in its tanks.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4294 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11352 times:

To answer the question is so people can fuel their autos. Why it is at that location? I would assume it is not any more dangerous than most of the petrol stations While yes, it dispenses a flammable liquid in gasoline, I would defiantly be more concerned with the people who fill up with a cigarette in their mouth while they are talking on their cell phones. The probability of there being a problem with an aircraft crashing into the station is much less dangerous than the people who are filling their cars at the station.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3694 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11313 times:

Really, what are the odds of an aircraft hitting that gas station? At any rate, the devastation from a modern airliner hitting the ground would be so severe, it wouldn't really matter what it hit.


PHX based
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6161 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10858 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 3):
And it's of crucial refuelling importance to the legion of photographers heading to Myrtle Avenue!

The answer I was looking for!!



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlinecrj200faguy From United States of America, joined May 2007, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10824 times:

Someone can correct me if I have the wrong airport, but doesn't Gary Indiana have an oil refinery at the end of the runway?

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11664 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10420 times:

Quoting 777STL (Reply 9):
Really, what are the odds of an aircraft hitting that gas station?

The site will lie in either the annual 1 in 10,000 risk zone, or 1 in 100,000 risk zone - I suspect it's the latter considering that the site is 50m from the extended centerline and 700m from the threshold - but it's very marginal. This means that a person/object standing in one spot for a year has a 1 in 10,000/100,000 chance of being hit by a crashing/out of control aircraft.

Quoting 777STL (Reply 9):
At any rate, the devastation from a modern airliner hitting the ground would be so severe, it wouldn't really matter what it hit.

Not necessarily. Re-run the BA 777 or TK 738 crash landings with the aircraft impacting the ground in the field prior to the petrol station and then it sliding through it. The casualty rate would be far, far higher.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinerjm777ual From UK - England, joined Nov 2011, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9364 times:

That sounds pretty dangerous.


Greetings from Dulles!
User currently offlinePacific From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9048 times:

I've been to Myrtle Avenue to spot quite a few times, never even thought about it until reading this...

Reminds me of the close call when a Southwest jet overran at Burbank.

Edit: rlwynn beat me to it!

[Edited 2012-12-28 13:54:57]

User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9048 times:

Quoting 777STL (Reply 9):
Really, what are the odds of an aircraft hitting that gas station?

It almost happened in 2000 when WN flight 1455 overran the runway at BUR and came to a stop pretty close to a gas station. As a result of that accident, the gas station was closed and torn down to prevent a potential disaster in the future.

One thing to remember is that many airports are heavily developed around them because they have been in place for decades and development around airports is generally related to services that airport customers and employees require like gas, food and lodging. This is what makes it difficult for some airports to expand as they are landlocked and the price to acquire neighboring parcels may be cost prohibitive. This is even an issue around some military airfields located in suburban areas. There's a reason why airports like DEN were built so far out from the city, as that was where they could acquire large enough tracts of land to not only be able to expand down the road but to also regulate some of the development along the airport perimeter.


User currently offlinesciurusmdg From Argentina, joined Apr 2012, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8922 times:

Quoting 777STL (Reply 9):

Really, what are the odds of an aircraft hitting that gas station? At any rate, the devastation from a modern airliner hitting the ground would be so severe, it wouldn't really matter what it hit.

Sods law says that if its is there, a plane with a loss of control will hit it.

From my part of the world we had that with TAM 3054, since it skidded to the left it hit the TAM Warehouse and Shell gas station - had it gone to the right, there were much fewer things to hit and it would of ended up in a lake... most probably with some, if not a good number of survivors.


User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3547 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8492 times:

YYZ has a Petro Canada at the end of 05/23. It's a favourite among spotters in addition to the Wendy's beside it.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Phil Debski




Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25626 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8314 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 16):
Quoting 777STL (Reply 9):
Really, what are the odds of an aircraft hitting that gas station?

It almost happened in 2000 when WN flight 1455 overran the runway at BUR and came to a stop pretty close to a gas station. As a result of that accident, the gas station was closed and torn down to prevent a potential disaster in the future.
Quoting sciurusmdg (Reply 17):
From my part of the world we had that with TAM 3054, since it skidded to the left it hit the TAM Warehouse and Shell gas station - had it gone to the right, there were much fewer things to hit and it would of ended up in a lake... most probably with some, if not a good number of survivors.

An AA 727-100 from JFK overran the then-very short (4,658 ft.) runway at St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (STT) in 1976, crossed a road beyond the end of the runway and came to rest in a Texaco station and caught fire (although the fire wasn't related to the gas station). 37 fatalities of the 88 aboard. As a result of that accident, AA ended jet service to STT until the runway was extended a decade or more later.

Following from the official NTSB report:

The aircraft continued across the 500-foot overrun and struck perimeter fence. The right wingtip struck an embankment along the fence the ILS localizer antenna and a portion of the airport's chain link and the outboard portion of the wing was torn from the aircraft's structure. The aircraft crossed a road, which runs parallel to the perimeter fence, and destroyed several automobiles in its path. The aircraft came to rest in a gasoline station and against a rum warehouse. A passenger in an automobile, which was being serviced at the time the aircraft struck the service station, was injured seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_625

Seven years earlier, in 1970, a Trans Caribbean Airways 727-200 en route from SJU had an almost identical overrun accident at STT and caught fire, although it didn't reach the gas station. Two passengers of the 55 persons aboard were killed. (AA acquired Trans Caribbean Airways in 1971, which was the origin of AA's first Caribbean routes.)
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19701228-1

Another aircraft that struck a gas station was a Southern Airways DC-9-31 that had both engines flame out after encountering hail and heavy rain in a severe thunderstorm en route from HSV to ATL in 1977. The aircraft was also struck by lightning. They were unable to restart the engines and attempted an engines-out forced landing on a rural highway, striking a gas station-grocery store and other structures and catching fire. 63 of the 85 persons aboard the aircraft were killed, plus 9 on the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Airways_Flight_242


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8048 times:

Quoting 777STL (Reply 9):
Really, what are the odds of an aircraft hitting that gas station?

The station is 2,300+ feet from the runway threshold and 250 ft north of the center line. It is very unlikely that an aircraft would be that short of the runway, or that far off the center line at that point.

It is possible to have a fire at a gas/ petrol station related to the fuel. However, very little of the stored fuel can become involved in the fire. Fuel from the underground tanks stops pumping when power is shutoff to the pumps, or the pumps are destroyed by a crashing vehicle/ aircraft.

Yes is does create an impressive flame, but the amount of gas/ petrol involved would be minuscule compared to what is on board the aircraft hitting the station, or the fuel in vehicles at the station.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4294 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6246 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 17):
YYZ has a Petro Canada at the end of 05/23. It's a favourite among spotters in addition to the Wendy's beside it.

I forgot about that station. I remember when you could park in the parking lot of the old Douglas plant that was on the north side of YYZ. But I digress. Yes, that station is right across the road from the threshold of runway 23's threshold. They have even extended the runway closer then it was before the airport improvements were made. If you go to the other side of the airport, there are quite a few gas/petrol stations on Dixie Rd. as well, which for those of you who don't know the area are at the other end of 23.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1106 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6200 times:

In July 1955 a Braniff Convair 340 hit a gas station sign on approach to Chicago Midway, with 22 fatalties.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twa1049g/8172717850/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twa1049g/8197270185/in/photostream/

[Edited 2012-12-28 21:11:43]

User currently offlineplanefixer From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Its not exactly in line with the runway, the A30 would be more of a problem for an aircraft on take off

User currently offlinecopter808 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1103 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4007 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):
It is possible to have a fire at a gas/ petrol station related to the fuel. However, very little of the stored fuel can become involved in the fire. Fuel from the underground tanks stops pumping when power is shutoff to the pumps, or the pumps are destroyed by a crashing vehicle/ aircraft.

Wow!! Nineteen posts before anyone mentioned this!

Methinks too many people have been watching too many movies...fire starts, gas station goes "Boom!"

Folks, this is one of the reasons we have underground tanks.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11664 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3961 times:

Quoting copter808 (Reply 23):
Folks, this is one of the reasons we have underground tanks.

Even ignoring other reasons, that is not a safety feature which would permit a garage to be in the highest risk zone. Even the strongest forecourt/tanks will not bear the weight of a large plane, let alone withstand impact forces of an aircraft landing short without rupturing.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
25 Post contains links Viscount724 : Lots of videos of landings over the Petro Canada station. This one from July 2009 includes an EK A380 at about the 4:30 mark. http://www.youtube.com/
26 peterinlisbon : I think if you have a serious crash you would already have tonnes of jet fuel and a fire, whether it hits a hotel or a road or a petrol station it doe
27 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Even very serious crash landings/over-runs do not mean a fire is inevitable. Take the sad accident at VKO yesterday - high speed over-run resulting i
28 rfields5421 : Yes, in a ValuJet type crash where the plane hits the ground at high speed at a high impact angle, over 60 degrees, a wide body aircraft weighing 300
29 Post contains images PlymSpotter : That would be an understatement - the most obvious such crash which comes to mind was Lockerbie, where a 200ft long crater 20ft deep was carved out.
30 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : And many others in earlier years where the aircraft broke up but no fire occurred. Two random ones, both fortunately with no fatalities: CO 707-124 l
31 Cubsrule : But mentioning Lockerbie or J7 doesn't make sense in the context of this thread because those type of accidents can - and do - happen anywhere, so th
32 Post contains images PlymSpotter : I agree that an impact of such magnitude is unlikely in a PSZ, even less likely without a fire, but Lockerbie is probably the most memorable result o
33 Post contains links CaptCufflinks : I'm surprised no one mentioned TAM 3054: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Airlines_Flight_3054 Not a direct hit to the petrol station, but as near as
34 spacecadet : On AVHerald, there's discussion going on right now about the Red Wings crash with some saying there should just be an empty, flat grass field at the e
35 Post contains images PlymSpotter : I would expect the 1 in 10,000 contour to extend around a mile beyond each threshold at Heathrow, the 1 in 100,000 contour many times that. They are
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...
Runway 27L At LHR posted Fri Feb 4 2005 02:45:05 by GBOAF
Why No LAN At LHR? posted Tue Dec 4 2012 03:07:18 by VCy
Why No Pre-clearance At LHR? posted Fri Jul 20 2012 12:44:46 by vinniewinnie
Why Are There 2 JAF B744's At Lhr Today posted Sat May 19 2012 06:16:37 by Spacemanuk
Delays And Cancellations At LHR Today - Why? posted Sun Nov 20 2011 06:35:29 by EGSUcrew
Why Does El Al Use Terminal 1 At LHR? posted Sat Jan 1 2011 15:35:09 by jgw787
ET 757 At LHR T5? Why? posted Tue Jul 20 2010 13:41:51 by kiwiandrew
Why Was There A BA 320 & B767 At LHR T1 Yesterday? posted Mon Jun 23 2008 11:01:33 by 8herveg
Jet Landing At LHR Under Escort posted Sat Jun 14 2008 05:05:31 by St530
How Long For Landing Again At LHR On 27L posted Sun Jan 20 2008 04:12:20 by Kubik