Minuteman From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 271 posts, RR: 0 Posted (15 years 1 month 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1446 times:
I've found that SNA has a disproportionate number of tailstrikes (and even landing incidents) when compared to other airports. I'd appreciate hearing your opinions on what it is about the noise abatement procedures that makes it such a bear.
Iainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1367 times:
The porblem is not on take off it is more on landing. You make it sound much worse then it really is, I have only heard one plane having a tail strike (a buddy of mine was holding short when it happend) but a couple more have bust tires on landing. But I would not say it is any worse then any other airport.
>>with a pretty stiff wind blowing in from the ocean. Made for intresting Cessna watching<<
When we land the other way (1L and 1R) when the Santa Ana winds are blowing it is much more fun to whatch, and go and play in.
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3564 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 month 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1359 times:
JMHO, but I suspect it is because airlines make such a big issue about SNA noise procedures to their pilots that get those pilots overly agressive trying to fly "perfect" profile. I have seen checkairmen briefing new (to their aircraft) pilots for more than 30 minutes on just the takeoff procedure. It really isn't that difficult, just a little different.
Add to this the fact that AA's airport pages have very detailed descriptions of very specific flight profiles and procedures for each aircraft/runway combination to operate at SNA (I'm sure every airline has similar "warning" pages). These, combined with a reminder message on all flight plans to/from SNA about its cerfew and noise monitor locations places undue stress on pilots not familiar with the airport and its procedures. Same goes for landings.
Had a captain once brief me for 15 minutes on not "floating" the landing because of the short runway. When he was done I asked him if the runway was as short as an aircraft carrier (823 traps), then greased the landing and exited the runway at taxiway-E (short of full length) using idle reverse and minimal brakes. He never briefed me again -- and did all SNA landings the rest of the month.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Minuteman From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (15 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1340 times:
Heh...pretty cool. It sounds like the most significant contributing factor is the (excessive?) emphasis placed on arrival and departure procedures.
Just for reference, my research shows that SNA typically has twice to four times as many tailstrike and hard landing incidents than other airports, depending on the aircraft type. So there are numbers are there to support the claims, but on the other hand, the claims appear to be influencing the numbers...