vxracing16 From UK - England, joined May 2011, 11 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11515 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?
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, RR: 63 Reply 2, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11405 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.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6172 posts, RR: 74 Reply 5, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10704 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 !
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, RR: 63 Reply 6, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10447 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.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 611 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10384 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.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3163 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10005 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.
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3031 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9966 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.
crj200faguy From United States of America, joined May 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9477 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?
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, RR: 63 Reply 12, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9073 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.
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, RR: 51 Reply 15, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7701 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.
sciurusmdg From Argentina, joined Apr 2012, 53 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7575 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.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, RR: 24 Reply 18, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6967 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
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6140 posts, RR: 25 Reply 19, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6701 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.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3163 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4899 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.
maxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 854 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4853 times:
In July 1955 a Braniff Convair 340 hit a gas station sign on approach to Chicago Midway, with 22 fatalties.
copter808 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 752 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2660 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.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, RR: 63 Reply 24, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2614 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.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, RR: 24 Reply 25, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2699 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 20): 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.
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/watch?v=jWQ0XOFKRCg
peterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 226 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2620 times:
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 doesn't really make much difference. Ideally around airports you would have open land, but a crash in a built-up area is going to be bad news anyway. By the way I was there this afternoon, it's a great place for watching landings on 27L and it has a little café with free wifi. Every time a plane went over the windows shook!
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, RR: 63 Reply 27, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 26): I think if you have a serious crash you would already have tonnes of jet fuel and a fire
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 in the fuselage breaking into sections, but no destructive fire. Even with the Air Bagan crash a few days ago the fire did not take hold until most passengers had escaped.
Other recent incidents with no fire:
AA B738 at Kingston - overran, broke into three sections.
Turkish B738 at Amsterdam - landed short, broke into three sections.
AIRES B73G at San Andres - landed short, broke into three sections.
TACA A320 at Tegucigalpa - overran, broke into three sections.
Kalitta 742F at Brussels - overran, broke into sections.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6140 posts, RR: 25 Reply 28, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2473 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24): 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.
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 300,000 lbs or more might penetrate the ground enough to rupture the fuel tanks.
But an aircraft landing - they don't have the weight footprint with the gear down to break through the surface and rupture the tanks.
Large wide body aircraft weigh a lot - but the weight is spread out by the gear foot print.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, RR: 63 Reply 29, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2321 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 28): 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 300,000 lbs or more might penetrate the ground enough to rupture the fuel tanks.
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. Enough to obliterate everything including the entire buried tanks.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 28): But an aircraft landing - they don't have the weight footprint with the gear down to break through the surface and rupture the tanks.
Large wide body aircraft weigh a lot - but the weight is spread out by the gear foot print.
Presuming the aircraft is still somehow on its wheels then the weight will be spread relatively evenly, but this doesn't mitigate the pressure exerted by each wheel (on a large plane) being far greater than the bearing strength of any station forecourt I've come across. You're lucky if they equate to a PCN of 25, or in other words enough to carry a truck's weight spread over 6 axles. Tanks are usually single skin and where several are installed they are generally contained in the same pit, sometimes they are not even under the forecourt (under adjacent grass) and have no real capping. Whichever, if you end up parking a bogie carrying any weight above one (the A321 for instance ideally needs a PCN over 60 for concrete over poor road type subgrade) then you risk sinking in and rupturing it, impact with any force and that likelihood increases.
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 landing overrun in 1965 at the old Kansas City Municipal airport (MKC).
SAS MD-81 crashed after takeoff from ARN in 1991. Both engines flamed out due to ice ingestion due to failure to properly deice the aircraft before takeoff.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21208 posts, RR: 19 Reply 31, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1793 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 29): 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. Enough to obliterate everything including the entire buried tanks.
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 the whole concept of PSZs. Surely, we aren't going to ban filling stations anywhere because of the chance that an airplane may fall out of the sky. An accident in a PSZ is much more likely to have (relatively) little vertical speed/acceleration involved.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, RR: 63 Reply 32, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1557 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 31): 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 the whole concept of PSZs. Surely, we aren't going to ban filling stations anywhere because of the chance that an airplane may fall out of the sky. An accident in a PSZ is much more likely to have (relatively) little vertical speed/acceleration involved.
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 of the scenario rfields5421 posed.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3246 posts, RR: 14 Reply 34, posted (4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
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 end of every runway in the world. I remember similar discussions after similar accidents.
The simple fact is there needs to be *some* kind of limit to how far out you build air infrastructure and restrict civilian building. Otherwise the justifications for clearing a path for any potentially crashing airliner would be endless. For example, why did the authorities in Amsterdam allow an apartment building to be built in the path of El Al flight 1862?? Couldn't they have foreseen that an airliner might crash into it?? Why did the authorities in Long Island allow for such a steep hillside and houses to be built so close to JFK that Avianca flight 52 hit?? Surely any area under a landing pattern should just be flat grasslands!
Etc.
If you extended out the "empty" zone away from an airport to, say, 1 mile, then if somebody built a gas station 1.01 miles out, you'd have some people saying "how could this gas station be so close to the perimeter? Sure, it may *technically* be within regulations, but that can't be safe! It's just outside the fence! We need to extend the perimeter!" People are going to say that no matter how much room you give planes. And there will always be planes crashing just outside whatever perimeter you define, because life is unfortunately messy that way - crashes don't always occur in pre-defined safety zones, regardless of how big that zone is.
You can't design the whole world as some kind of big buffer in case an airliner falls out of the sky. At some point, you have to trust that airliners are designed and built well and pilots trained well, and assume that they won't crash. You take reasonable precautions against the unforeseeable, but you have to draw a line somewhere and allow for regular civilian activity past that point. And that means airliners are going to fly over things like gas stations sometimes during phases of flight other than cruise.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, RR: 63 Reply 35, posted (4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1092 times:
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 34): If you extended out the "empty" zone away from an airport to, say, 1 mile, then if somebody built a gas station 1.01 miles out, you'd have some people saying "how could this gas station be so close to the perimeter? Sure, it may *technically* be within regulations, but that can't be safe! It's just outside the fence! We need to extend the perimeter!" People are going to say that no matter how much room you give planes
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 calculated on the runway/airport's individual circumstances and can expand or contract over time depending on the predicted movements. The issue is that it only applies to new development and only within the 1 in 10,000 contour is there a requirement for existing development to be removed/restricted. That leads to situations like this, and LHR is not alone.
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 34): You can't design the whole world as some kind of big buffer in case an airliner falls out of the sky. At some point, you have to trust that airliners are designed and built well and pilots trained well, and assume that they won't crash. You take reasonable precautions against the unforeseeable, but you have to draw a line somewhere and allow for regular civilian activity past that point. And that means airliners are going to fly over things like gas stations sometimes during phases of flight other than cruise.
Hence the PSZs. If you were locating LHR where it is from scratch right now, that petrol station would have to be moved and the owners compensated, along with a huge amount of other commercial and residential property in the area.
Regarding the crash at VKO, it will not have been helped by the RESA (safety area) appearing to be around 80m shorter than is ideally required. This means the embankment which it impacted should have been further away and the terrain less severe meaning the aircraft shouldn't have been able to 'fly' over the drop. In my opinion the solution is not to to divert the road or reduce the runway length, but to make engineered material arresting systems mandatory for situations where the overshoot RESA is not sufficient or there is significant terrain immediately after the safety area. Had such a system been in place it is unlikely the aircraft would have over-run.
Quoting sciurusmdg (Reply 16): 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
Quoting CaptCufflinks (Reply 33): As others have mentioned, it doesn't really matter what an aircraft hits on the ground
It matters a huge deal to the survival chances of people on the ground and on the aircraft.
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - England, joined May 2011, 11 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 195 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11108 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11948 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6172 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 611 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3163 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3031 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1032 posts, 
From Argentina, joined Apr 2012, 53 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 226 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
