I have always found the above pic surprising: just how much clearance must one have between an active runway and passenger terminals? I just feel that this is too close for comfort…
Goldenshield From United States, joined Jan 2001, 4050 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (3 weeks 1 day 19 hours 19 minutes ago) and read 1753 times:
Quoting Faro (Reply 2): That is bordering on the reckless! Are there limitations on use of the runway in strong, terminal-wise crosswinds?
There are two runways are BUR: 8/26 (the runway in question,) and 15/33, which, in the first picture, the MD-80 has just taken off from (Primary departure runway.)
However, to answer your question, they will typically switch to landing on 15/33 if the wind gusts or sustained winds get near the maximum demonstated crosswind for a given type, or at PIC request. Runway 8/26 is fairly short (5801 feet,) but pilots generally have enough common sense to decline landing on it if they feel that the crosswinds are outside of their threshold for this runway.
"I heard that there are rumors on the internets" -- G. W. Bush at the second 2004 debate
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4461 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (3 weeks 1 day 18 hours 19 minutes ago) and read 1728 times:
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 3): However, to answer your question, they will typically switch to landing on 15/33 if the wind gusts or sustained winds get near the maximum demonstated crosswind for a given type
I've seen departures on runway 33 but never arrivals. How do they do it? Circle to land off the runway 8 loc??
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
Bri2k1 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 831 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (3 weeks 1 day 14 hours 51 minutes ago) and read 1634 times:
The "ramp runway" at KPUB, while not served by any Part 121 operations, still has some special concerns. 8R/26L is really just a section of the ramp delineated by pavement markings and a few lights. It's about 350 feet from the nearest building. There are a huge number of runway incursions because of this (10 already this year). There are also LAHSO ops at PUB, and lots of fast-mover touch-and-go's because it's used by a couple different flight schools for jet training, with the occasional military bird given its proximity to COS and the other military installations around the area, so a little extra vigilance is a good when operating at PUB. There are tons of instrument approach options to the field, and a terrific FBO, so it's worth the trip.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13580 posts, RR: 68 Reply 9, posted (3 weeks 1 day 6 hours 51 minutes ago) and read 1403 times:
Quoting Faro (Reply 2): That is bordering on the reckless! Are there limitations on use of the runway in strong, terminal-wise crosswinds?
Hardly reckless. Pilots do tend to aim for the runway. Just because there is a crosswind doesn't mean they will land beside it. Any imprecision tends to mean they will land, at most, a few meters to the side of the centerline. Errors of tens of meters to the side are just not committed.
This all assumes winds within limits of course.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 10788 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (3 weeks 1 day 3 hours 42 minutes ago) and read 1335 times:
The western end of the short (4948 ft.) and narrow (98 ft.) runway at LCY is quite close to the terminal ramp. The 2nd photo was taken before the extension to the ramp (visible on left in 1st photo) was built.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5674 posts, RR: 56 Reply 11, posted (3 weeks 23 hours 45 minutes ago) and read 1274 times:
Quoting Faro (Thread starter): I just feel that this is too close for comfort…
I feel like I'm missing something...how could you get all the gear on the runway (anywhere on the runway) and get any part of the aircraft even close to a building?
Put another way...why would a pilot ever touch down if the gear aren't somewhere over the runway? And, if you really had to, why would do it on the side with the buildings?
Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 568 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 weeks 18 hours 1 minute ago) and read 1193 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 11): I feel like I'm missing something...how could you get all the gear on the runway (anywhere on the runway) and get any part of the aircraft even close to a building?
Put another way...why would a pilot ever touch down if the gear aren't somewhere over the runway? And, if you really had to, why would do it on the side with the buildings?
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 11): Agreed with Tom. How would the pilot miss by that much?
Specifically what I had in mind were landing incidents due to strong crosswinds and accidents (beyond heavy landings) where you may have aircraft parts break off and get projected off the sides of the runway. Would have thought that there was a regulatory minimum distance between runway and terminal to cater for such possibilities. Things like the Sioux City crash, although that is an extreme example.
As a general consideration though, you also have a very close-in runway on aircraft carriers, with parked aircraft perhaps not more than 10 meters away from the runway edge on the landing deck. We agree that carrier operations involve less stringent safety tolerances and this is achieved quite satisfactorily in the context and within the constraints of military operations. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would think that such carrier-like, tight separation would not be acceptable in civil aviation.
Intuitively -if not in regulatory terms- there should be a limit on spacing somewhere.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5674 posts, RR: 56 Reply 14, posted (3 weeks 12 hours 7 minutes ago) and read 1098 times:
Quoting Faro (Reply 13): Specifically what I had in mind were landing incidents due to strong crosswinds and accidents (beyond heavy landings) where you may have aircraft parts break off and get projected off the sides of the runway.
OK, now I get it...I though we were worried about the plane itself just landing off-runway.
For the case of a crash that sheds airplane bits, I'm not sure there'd be enough pattern to figure out a distance. A really bad crash, like Sioux City, could easily go a mile off the runway, and you're not going to locate the terminal a mile from every runway surface. An AA 767 suffered an engine failure during a ground test at LAX and threw at leats one piece across the *entire* airport. This may be a case where the focus is (rightly) on not having the incident in the first place, rather than mitigating the damage from the incident.
Okie From United States, joined Jul 2003, 1143 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (3 weeks 5 hours 20 minutes ago) and read 956 times:
The CO flight at KDEN within the last year came awfully close to the Firehouse.
KDEN has been built in recent history, whatever required distance is must not be that large.
Quoting Faro,reply=13: Would have thought that there was a regulatory minimum distance between runway and terminal to cater for such possibilities.
Without going too hardcore into airport design, there ARE
The Airport design AC requires 400ft (from rwy centerline to a non-frangible object) - but it's obvious in the Burbank photo that there isn't 400ft between the runway and the terminal. It's probably grandfathered.
Quoting Faro (Reply 13): We agree that carrier operations involve less stringent safety tolerances and this is achieved quite satisfactorily in the context and within the constraints of military operations.
The safety tolerance aboard a carrier is not any less stringent than its landbased counterpart. I'd say the tolerance is even more stringent as there is less room for error. However, the risk to aircraft, personnel and the ship itself is mitigated and deemed acceptable.
[Edited 2009-11-07 21:11:22 by woodreau]
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from surviving bad judgement.
Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 568 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 weeks 6 days 19 hours 48 minutes ago) and read 835 times:
Quoting Woodreau (Reply 17): The Airport design AC requires 400ft (from rwy centerline to a non-frangible object) - but it's obvious in the Burbank photo that there isn't 400ft between the runway and the terminal. It's probably grandfathered.
Thanx, that's what I was looking for; btw what does AC stand for, Architecture Code? Funny that grandfathering can be valid in this instance, I would have thought that matters touching on safety would not be eligible for exception.
Quoting Woodreau (Reply 17): The safety tolerance aboard a carrier is not any less stringent than its landbased counterpart. I'd say the tolerance is even more stringent as there is less room for error. However, the risk to aircraft, personnel and the ship itself is mitigated and deemed acceptable.
I guess you're right; I had based my opinion on the generally lesser reliability requirements for military equipment than comparable civilian equipment. On the other hand, it makes sense that military procedures can be more stringent than civilian ones, especially aboard a carrier, to cater for the greater risk.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13580 posts, RR: 68 Reply 19, posted (2 weeks 6 days 19 hours 17 minutes ago) and read 825 times:
Quoting Faro (Reply 18): Funny that grandfathering can be valid in this instance, I would have thought that matters touching on safety would not be eligible for exception.
Well, if it is "really" unsafe I guess you couldn't grandfather. However, if you had to rebuild for every new reg the cost would be astronomical, and far exceed any possible benefit.
Safety is never an absolute thing. There is always compromise. Example: If you want safety to be as good as it can be, you'd need to retire all the 30 year old designs. There's no doubt a 737-800 is "safer" than a 737-200. But the cost of replacing all those aircraft "before their time" would be huge, and the safety benefit really isn't that big.
If the industry went for maximizing safety, no one could afford to fly.
[Edited 2009-11-08 03:30:59]
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
AC in this context stands for Advisory Circular - the Airport design AC I am referring to is published by the FAA and it applies to all airports built in the United States. I would assume that each country has its own standards for airports built in their own country.
The 400ft comes from the runway obstacle free zone. Outside of that of that zone, the AC would appear to permit a terminal building to exist.
(Sorry for the off-topic diversion)
Quoting Faro (Reply 18): I guess you're right; I had based my opinion on the generally lesser reliability requirements for military equipment than comparable civilian equipment. On the other hand, it makes sense that military procedures can be more stringent than civilian ones, especially aboard a carrier, to cater for the greater risk.
Why should military requirements be less "reliable"? ( just picking - it appears to be just semantics
In the both the civilian and military world, there are policies and regulations to adhere to. The difference is in the civilian world, if you want to deviate from a policy - you don't have the liberty to do so (there are rare exceptions, like a pilot deviating from the regulations in an emergency). Otherwise, you apply for and ask for an exemption or waiver. The regulatory agency commissions a study or survey, and a few years later, the waiver is issued or denied and life goes on. All the decisions are centralized.
In the military world, there are still policies and regulations to follow, but the commanding officer is allowed to deviate from them on the spot as he deems necessary. He uses his best judgement based on the information that he has right now and makes the best decision he can make and allows the deviation. (and as time permits he'll notify higher of his decision to deviate from regulations, if it's required.) It seems like a lot of latitude and it is, but that is the way the military operates - the decisions are pushed to the lowest levels possible.
But just because the decision is made at the lower level doesn't mean that the decisions are impulsive. There is a method of weighing the risks involved and the benefits gained by not following the policies and regulations. It's the only way you can operate in a rapidly changing environment - for some decisions there isn't time to wait for a decision from a central authority otherwise nothing would happen.
There are consequencies however. The commanding officer is responsible for anything that happens as a result of the deviation from policy and regulations. So if something bad happens as a result of his decision, he'll hang just as quickly. A good commander will know when it's appropriate to make the decision to deviate at his level, and when it's appropriate to refer the decision to a higher commander.
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from surviving bad judgement.
Keta From Italy, joined Mar 2005, 388 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 weeks 6 days 17 hours 25 minutes ago) and read 789 times:
Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 15): Quoting Faro (Reply 13):
Would have thought that there was a regulatory minimum distance between runway and terminal to cater for such possibilities.
Without going too hardcore into airport design, there ARE
That's right, all the requirements for airport design are given in the Annex 14 of ICAO. All countries should follow the norms, and try to comply with recommendations; however, in case a norm can't be followed, it's OK as long as it's notified to ICAO. I know there are some airports which don't comply with RESA specifications and operate normally. I don't know, though, to what extent is acceptable not following a norm, who decides what is safe and what is not, and who is responsible of it.
Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 7): Not a problem as long as the terminal building is under the obstacle limitation surface.
Quoting Woodreau (Reply 17): The Airport design AC requires 400ft (from rwy centerline to a non-frangible object) - but it's obvious in the Burbank photo that there isn't 400ft between the runway and the terminal. It's probably grandfathered.
The info I have from Annex 14 is that no object is permitted within 45 to 77.5 m from runway centerline, depending on runway category and operation. In addition to that, the transition surface would be the determining obstacle limitation surface in this case; it extends from 75 to 150 meters from runway centerline with an inclination of about 14.3% (just for info), and no object is permitted trough it in landing operations. I agree that Burbank seems not to comply with regulations.
And more from this photo:
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 1): You think that's close? That's nothing. Check this out:
I'm still awed with the taxiway! There are also specifications on distance between runway and taxiway, which happen to vary between 37.5 and 190 m (and regarding the runway, I'd say the specification is about 100 m)
Goldenshield From United States, joined Jan 2001, 4050 posts, RR: 13 Reply 22, posted (2 weeks 6 days 17 hours 2 minutes ago) and read 779 times:
Quoting Keta (Reply 21): I'm still awed with the taxiway! There are also specifications on distance between runway and taxiway, which happen to vary between 37.5 and 190 m (and regarding the runway, I'd say the specification is about 100 m)
You should see the the other side of the terminal, adjacent to Runway 33:
Keta From Italy, joined Mar 2005, 388 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 weeks 6 days 16 hours 51 minutes ago) and read 774 times:
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 22): You should see the the other side of the terminal, adjacent to Runway 33:
Here
This airport is awesome. I wonder when, why and how are these runways used.
The terminal does for a great spotting location, though
Quoting Woodreau (Reply 20): AC in this context stands for Advisory Circular - the Airport design AC I am referring to is published by the FAA and it applies to all airports built in the United States. I would assume that each country has its own standards for airports built in their own country.
I should have added to my previous post that, indeed, each country can have its own rules; differences between national rules and ICAO ones are meant to be notified to ICAO.
FredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2101 posts, RR: 30 Reply 24, posted (2 weeks 6 days 14 hours 48 minutes ago) and read 738 times:
An AC is typically not a regulation, but rather lays down an acceptable means of compliance with the regulations in place. In this case it's ICAO Annex 14, with any national exceptions.
I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
Sponsor Message: 
From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 568 posts, 
From United States, joined Jan 2001, 4050 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4461 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Jul 2005, 1950 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13580 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 10788 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5674 posts, 
( just picking 
From Italy, joined Mar 2005, 388 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2101 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
