batboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 13 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2583 times:
Does anyone know if the extension of the DCA runway safety area 300 feet to the south on runway 1 will affect the approach paths? I mean, planes are already pretty low as they pass Alexandria...will the RSA to the south mean that the approach will be even lower and the touchdown point will be 300 feet to the south? How about taking off from runway 1? Will planes still be taking off from the same starting point as they do now or will they use the 300 feet of the RSA? How about runway 19? Does anyone know if anything is being done to the runway at the beginning of 19, or will planes still have the same approach path and touchdown point as they do now?
Some major components of the Runway 1/19 improvement project include:
Replacing the Runway 1/19 centerline lighting system
Milling and re-surfacing the entire 6,869-foot asphalt runway
Milling and re-surfacing large portions of a taxiway near Runway 1/19
Shifting one runway safety area 300 feet to the south
Replacing the runway approach light pier in the Potomac River
Replacing the runway approach light system
BigSaabowski From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2532 times:
The runway is not being lengthened and the declared distance will remain at 6869 ft. There will be no changes in any of the procedures. There will simply be a longer overrun for aircraft landing on 19.
batboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 13 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2482 times:
So the 300 foot RSA extension to the south will only be used in emergencies for landings on runway 19? Is it just extra concrete or is it a special surface?
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3704 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2419 times:
I remember back on July 5th, UA 455 -- a 320 with every seat filled -- landed on "the short runway" (as the captain explained to us over the PA). The plane landed with a gear-stressing thump and slammed on its brakes -- sending us all forward in our seat belts.
As the captain then said over the PA, "You didn't want me to into the water, did you?"
727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5770 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2348 times:
I m confused If they are going to resurface 1/19, then how will the airport function with it closed? Can these longer distance flights like SLC, LAX use 15/33? Also, why can t the runway be extended southward, say 1000 ft?
BigSaabowski From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2241 times:
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 4): I m confused If they are going to resurface 1/19, then how will the airport function with it closed?
The runway will only be closed at night.
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 4): Also, why can t the runway be extended southward, say 1000 ft?
The runway can't be extended because some very delicate creatures live in the area close to the runway. Any disturbance to their habitat may put their species on the endangered list in as little as 15 months. These creatures are politicians.
BigSaabowski From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2194 times:
Quoting batboy (Reply 6): Will the RSA extension be normal concrete or will it be a special surface only to be used in emergencies?
BigSaabowski From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2174 times:
Quoting batboy (Reply 8): So then why won't it will be used by airplanes as a new start point on their takeoff roll on runway 1?
Because that's not what RSAs are used for. Current ICAO regulations require a 300 foot RSA. The FAA previously required shorter RSAs, so I believe that this is being done to comply with ICAO rules:
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 4): Also, why can t the runway be extended southward, say 1000 ft?
You'll piss off the Alexandrians...
Actually, I bet with a longer runway, you could use a lower thrust setting, and have LESS noise in Alexandria. Can someone tell me if I'm dreaming this, or if that actually would be the case?
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 4): Can these longer distance flights like SLC, LAX use 15/33?
This guy just landed on 33, and used the whole thing on a severe crosswind day. Right now with the nightly closures, there are usually a few 738's and the like landing on 15 after the closure. They seem to manage just fine. It is QUITE a sight seeing the 738 practically landing on your car's roof at night.
The CRJs and E-jets use 15-33 all the time now, and I swear they must be using 4 on occasion since I can't figure out how they would fly over the ballpark low on takeoff otherwise.
Quoting BigSaabowski (Reply 5): The runway can't be extended because some very delicate creatures live in the area close to the runway. Any disturbance to their habitat may put their species on the endangered list in as little as 15 months. These creatures are politicians.
nicely done.
But seriously, I live in Old Town, and the noise truly can be a problem. Though it's almost always the MD-80s that are the problem.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8318 posts, RR: 28 Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2088 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting BigSaabowski (Reply 5): The runway can't be extended because some very delicate creatures live in the area close to the runway. Any disturbance to their habitat may put their species on the endangered list in as little as 15 months. These creatures are politicians.
Quoting D L X (Reply 11): Actually, I bet with a longer runway, you could use a lower thrust setting, and have LESS noise in Alexandria. Can someone tell me if I'm dreaming this, or if that actually would be the case?
It's a tradeoff, I would think. Lower thrust = lower immediate takeoff noise, but also a lower climb rate, so possibly more noise for communities under the flight path.
Quoting BigSaabowski (Reply 9): Because that's not what RSAs are used for. Current ICAO regulations require a 300 foot RSA.
Did you mean 300 meter RSA? Far as I can tell, the FAA requires 1000 foot RSAs on all new-build runways where possible.
Except under special conditions, the RSA standard
dimensions for runways used by aircraft with approach speeds of 121 knots or more (approach category
C) are 500 feet wide and 1,000 feet long. This is the RSA standard dimension for most, but not all,
runways used by commercial service carriers. See Figure 1.
Also, far as I know, part of the runway safety area can be taken up by a blast pad/stopway. In that case, some declared distances might be different, no (I forget which)? But RSA by itself doesn't change them.
Also worth noting that far as I've been able to find, having a standard EMAS (that will stop an aircraft at 70 kts) allows you to shorten RSA from 1000 to 600 feet.
Found this FAA order that makes for interesting reading regarding RSAs and EMAS beds. I don't know if it's since been superseded, but anyway:
BigSaabowski From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2080 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 12):
Did you mean 300 meter RSA? Far as I can tell, the FAA requires 1000 foot RSAs on all new-build runways where possible.
Yeah, if this was a new build, the FAA would probably require EMAS there. I found this which seems to indicate that the ICAO requires 90 meters (300 feet) on existing runways, even though they recommend a much longer RSA: http://www.mexico.icao.int/RASGPA/Toolkit/PBN_RESA_EMAS_definition.pdf (page 4).
GoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2636 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2000 times:
1/19 is really looking kind of ratty lately . . . I'm glad to see there is a project underway!
I couldn't believe how much paint was worn off when I landed on 19 the other day for the first time in a while. It looked like some little country airstrip deep in the midwest that had been neglected for years.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 13 posts, 
If they are going to resurface 1/19, then how will the airport function with it closed? Can these longer distance flights like SLC, LAX use 15/33? Also, why can t the runway be extended southward, say 1000 ft?
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
