John
Topic Author
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Aug 29, 2003 4:58 am

Are there any airports that typically can annoy the crap out of you? Whether it's the way they handle the air traffic, ramp congestion, challenging approaches, ridiculous noise abatement procedures, runway conditions/taxiway layout...etc. Tell us what airports you'd rather avoid if you had the choice. Spill your guts!
 
Ralgha
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 1999 6:20 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly

Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:53 am

Eugene, 'cause UO is nearby.  Big thumbs up
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
 
Guest

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Aug 29, 2003 10:04 am

Aspen, Colorado (KASE) isn't my favorite place to fly in and out of. I've been the many times and I've never got to the point (thank goodness) where I can relax.

Jetguy
 
cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Aug 29, 2003 10:58 am

KFRG. i fly from there all the time. it's a heavy training airport and a lot of the pilots learning to fly there don't know what they're doing.

then again, KHWV is just as bad. some pilots tend to think that no tower means hey can do whatever. like announcing that they are on 45 for a left base to rwy 33 when they want to land 6.  Confused
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
 
SkyGuy11
Posts: 532
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2001 7:09 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:29 am

Chino, CA. Nothing particularly hard about it... just every time I go there something goes wrong; bad vibes, man
.
 
John
Topic Author
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:53 pm

Wanna read some more stories, keep 'em coming!  Smile
 
saab2000
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Aug 29, 2003 3:37 pm

It is hard to think of a "worst" but sometimes the ATC in Zürich is very arrogant. Additionally, there are problems regarding departures and arrivals in ZRH at certain times which create huge delays for no good reason. Why ZRH has just 2 ILS approaches and just 3 total approaches is beyond me. ZRH can be a real pain in the A$$. But it can also be not too bad.

Some of the nicer airports are:

CDG (Charles de Gaulle, Paris) - works well despite its huge size.

THF (Berlin, Tempelhof) - Classic feel, right in the middle of the city. Time machine atmosphere. You feel as if you should see some DC-4s and 3s on approach and rolling around. Cool Airport.

FLR (Florence, Italy) - Beautiful approach.

BRN (Bern, Switzerland) - Friendly ATC, nice small atmosphere

MAD (Madrid, Spain) - Giant airport. One of the last places in Europe to see "Classic" airliners like 727s and DC-8s in action.

LCY (London City) - Approach to 10 right over downtown London. Steep approach. London ATC is VERY busy, but works smoothly.

But the best is LUG (Lugano, Switzerland) - 6.65° IGS, spectacular mountains all around, special certification required, spectacular visual approaches. This has been my home base for 2 years. As a pilot you will learn more there in 1 week than a year of flying 3° ILS approaches in the rest of Europe.

If I think of more I will post them.
smrtrthnu
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Aug 29, 2003 4:01 pm

I think ZRH's ATC can cause no end of problems. Remember that LX Avro RJ crash back in 2001? I believe that was caused by ZRH closing certain runways due to noise abatement reasons and the approach the Avro RJ did to another runway at ZRH resulted in a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) crash near the airport.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:55 pm

On our network, most of our pilots don't particularly like Bombay. We go in and out of there in the middle of the night at the worst time for our body clocks as well, which just doesn't help, but ATC is pretty bad in terms of English and skills.

There are dogs and people all over the runways and taxiways, and the airport is fairly dimly lit, especially the crossing runway, which is not even lit up as a runway, meaning you can taxi down it by accident when you are not supposed to.

They also try to give you your departure clearance when taxying at the wrong times, like my last trip when we were taxying down the short runway to join the parallel taxiway for Runway 27. ATC asked us if we could copy clearance just before reaching the taxiway. Had we copied, and missed the turning, we would be straight onto the active runway. At that moment, an MD11 rushed past on takeoff, just to remind us of the potential threat.

 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:56 pm

After doing all that, they tell you to line up. Once lined up, they often give you a revised clearance to climb to a certain altitude, turn right, intercept a certain radial inbound to the VOR, then depart on a different radial....and also cleared immediate takeoff, traffic at 4 miles!!

I tell you, it's a disaster waiting to happen....oh, and there's a hill just off to the left of the ILS on finals as you are descending onto a fairly short slippery runway where there is often very bad thunderstorms.
 
John
Topic Author
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Aug 30, 2003 12:03 am

Geesh, not that I have any reason to travel to Bombay....but I think I'll PASS!! Pretty scary!
 
m717
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:01 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:35 am

I'll pick a couple...

SNA, because of the ridiculous and (IMO) totally unnecessary noise abatement procedure required there.

and BUR, just because of the tight conditions on the ground, the always marginal VFR (at best) conditions that are prevalent, and because it is "VFR" all the time, a huge amount of VFR traffic at both Burbank and Van Nuys, as well as that which is transitioning the area. Although this last point could be true for any SoCal airport.
 
John
Topic Author
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Aug 30, 2003 4:03 am

I'll tell ya what, I'm not a pilot, but I always thought they went a little overboard at SNA. Aren't they essentially dictating to the pilots, "This is how you WILL fly your airplane"!? Plus that runway is way too fucking short, leaving little or NO margin for the slightest error....Do you find it almost like operating from an aircraft carrier there?
 
m717
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:01 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Aug 30, 2003 4:55 am

John,

Absolutely they are saying "this is how you WILL fly your airplane". The short runway is not that big of a deal, at least to me. True it leaves little margin for error, but you just have to make good choices and operate the aircraft by the numbers...which is what you should be doing anyway... anywhere, anytime. So, as long as the data says your are ok, the short runway isn't really a problem.

Now, doing this absurd maneuver and reducing the power to an abnormally low setting until you are 6 miles offshore, just so the people can live around the airport and not be bothered by airport noise...give me a break. Also, more often than not, the last thing the tower controller says before he says "cleared for takeoff" is "numerous targets between you and the shoreline". Just what you want to hear as you are about to rotate to a 20+degree nose up attitude where you couldn't see the traffic, no matter what. Oh wait, I guess you could see it once you reduce the power to 60% while simultaneously turning left and lowering the nose to around 10 degrees, so you are just maintaining altitude, After all, if you were climbing then you'd have too much power set, and therefore would be making too much noise. Better wait until you are 6 miles offshore to apply that climb power. Then no one will hear you.  Insane

Yep, SNA is one place I'm glad I don't go to anymore, and hope I never do again.
 
ScarletHarlot
Posts: 4251
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:15 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:14 am

I flew one trip to and from SNA, on Alaska, and was glad that the pilot warned us of the noise abatement procedure before takeoff...otherwise I would have been somewhat alarmed!

Are there any other airports that have (in your opinion) unnecessarily strict noise abatement procedures?

This is a great thread!
But that was when I ruled the world
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:20 am

One of my major concerns regarding SNA is what happens if an airliner experiences an engine failure during that initial steep climbout from the airport. I worry the airplane could end up in a dangerous low-altitude stall condition and there may not enough time to recover from the stall before the plane hits the ground.  Sad

The BAe 146/Avro RJ85 could handle this steep climbout quite a bit more gracefully, since they are designed as STOL aircraft with more wing lift capability. This means in case of engine problems during the climbout the BAe 146/RJ85 could recover quicker from a potential stall, allowing the plane to fly safely on reduced engine power to make a safe emergency landing.
 
ba299
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 9:18 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:33 am

I really hate:

Barcellona (BCN-LEBL): they don't know what means: "short turn-around". Normally the ramp agent look de disembark of the pax and that he go away and they simply forget about you. I can call on all the frequency in the world but they don't answer.
 
Rick767
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2000 8:11 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:43 am

Ba299,

Sorry but you have it easy.... try getting a fast turnaround in Luxor, while ensuring the ground crew aren't stealing the on-board furnishings....

Have to have eyes in the back of your head on the ground down there! Always a pleasure to actually depart, despite the 5 hour journey home  Big grin
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
 
SSTjumbo
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:29 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:57 am

You have to be local, but I hate landing at JOT (Joliet Park Dist. Arpt) during the winter time. Simply put, they don't know the meaning of snow plow. Other than that, Clow Int'l. in Bolingbrook, IL, is about the trickiest small aircraft airport to operate at in its region. The whole airport is about as wide as most of the runways at major airports, the runway itself is about as wide as the wheelbase of a Cessna 152, all sides are bustling with suburban shopping centers and what not, and you have to avoid high tension lines north of the runway, and we all know who wins when a 152 goes head-to-head with high tension lines, not the aircraft.


Cheers
-Mike
I don't know, so this is my signature.
 
John
Topic Author
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:43 am

On the subject of SNA again, I get a kick out of all the NIMBY WHINERS from Newport Beach and surrounding areas who chronically complain about the jet noise, yet love the convenience of John Wayne Airport and would have no objection to hopping on a plane there....Kind of hypocritical, isn't it? Can't live with it, can't live without it! A double edged sword, so to speak.
 
Ralgha
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 1999 6:20 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly

Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:55 am

Uhhh....

Clow Intl has a 50 foot wide runway. That is not narrow, nor anywhere even remotely close to a 152's wheelbase.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
 
ismangun
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 6:35 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:18 pm

Commenting about SNA's noise-abatement:

Aren't many of the houses there were built AFTER the airport was? Is it fair if you move next to, say, a shipyard, and you're annoyed by its noise, then you make a petition to force them move, or at least to lower their noise level?

I think this is a common case for many airports all-around USA.

Well no need to respond to this stupid nonsense, just wanting to circulate the air inside my head. Cheers.
If it's an Airbus, I'll take the bus
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Mon Sep 01, 2003 1:28 am

There's even a citizens' initiative to close THF (Berlin Tempelhof) - an airport which has existed in its current form for more than sixty years and played a decisive role during the Berlin airbridge! However, THF will probably be closed anyway, due to "economic reasons" - while an airport like LCY is a true gold mine.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:00 am

One of my major concerns regarding SNA is what happens if an airliner experiences an engine failure during that initial steep climbout from the airport.

One flys a standard engine-out profile [noise be damned]. With no tall obstacles anywhere near the departure path it is a very easy thing to do.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
SSTjumbo
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:29 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:48 am

Ralgha, was I insulting?

Anyway, I know it has a fifty foot runway, but everything around it totally throws you if you haven't operated out of there quite a few times. There is a taxiway and hangars right up next to the runway giving you the illusion of landing on an alley strip coupled with I think a mall on one side and houses on the other. Plus, the high tension wires on the north side aren't forgiving to aircraft which fly more than a mile if I remember correctly.
I don't know, so this is my signature.
 
Ralgha
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 1999 6:20 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly

Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:57 am

Of course you weren't insulting, I was just pointing out that it's not narrow.

 Big thumbs up
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
 
SSTjumbo
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:29 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Mon Sep 01, 2003 1:48 pm

Well, if there's one thing that we can't argue, it's that Clow's runway is definately wider than the one between your legs  Acting devilish. [cue rimshot]


sorry, back to the topic...
I don't know, so this is my signature.
 
User avatar
Luxair
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 12:17 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:08 pm

 Wow! Cx flyboy, you make me realy scary (concerning Mumbai AP) I will fly there in november from Amsterdam (on Northwest). I knew that India is not the best place to
fly in but if I read your post than I have the idea on going on a suicide mission  Wink/being sarcastic Can anybody confirm or post some experience on Mumbai?
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:50 pm

It's not the best of places to go, but bear in mind that example was the worst of my experiences. There are still dogs and people everywhere and it is a dark and dingy place, but on a clear day/night with little traffic and no need to rush things, it's not too bad.
 
Mr.BA
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:18 pm

CX flyboy

Indeed it is dangerous... can pilots actually point out these dangers to the airport authorities?

[Edited 2003-09-02 10:23:11]
Boeing747 万岁!
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:59 pm

We can file an Air Safety Report (ASR), and see what happens....normally it just vanishes into the mysterious black hole of paperwork.
 
codeshare
Posts: 1689
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 2:23 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:06 pm

One pilot once told me about Dhaka (DAC) in Bangladesh.

3 aircraft were approaching before 6 a.m. And all 3 were too early i.e. before 6.
So they went into holding until 6. Why? 'cause the airport opened at 6.

How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
 
gordonsmall
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2001 1:52 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:22 pm

3 aircraft were approaching before 6 a.m. And all 3 were too early i.e. before 6.
So they went into holding until 6. Why? 'cause the airport opened at 6.


This isn't all that unusual, for example Heathrow (EGLL) often has a pattern over Biggin Hill VOR at around 5.30am because the curfew doesn't allow aircraft to land before 6am. If they arrive early they just enter the hold and wait it out.

I believe that Sydney (YSSY) also operates a similar system for jet aircraft. I'm sure there are lots more but that's the ones that spring immediately to mind.

Now, if only Prestwick (EGPK) would start doing that and maybe stop those 747 freighters flying over my house at 1500ft in the middle of the night.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Regards,
Gordon.
Statistically, people who have had the most birthdays tend to live the longest.
 
John
Topic Author
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Tue Sep 09, 2003 12:25 am

Several years back, I was on a flight to LHR from BOS aboard a BA 747-200, that arrived early, at around 5:30a local time. After we landed and pulled onto the taxiway, the engines were shut down and we were towed to the terminal. The pilot did notify us over the intercom that it was due to a noise ordinance.
 
N6376M
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:54 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Tue Sep 09, 2003 1:28 am

Guys -

Can anyone post a link or a description of the SNA noise abatement procedures? I think that it would make very interesting reading.

Thanks.

-76M

 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Tue Sep 09, 2003 9:13 am

Can anyone post a link or a description of the SNA noise abatement procedures? I think that it would make very interesting reading.

How about:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/969/4/

If that doesn't work do a search for "(SNA)Orange County" as the SUBJECT and search "all dates" because you're looking for a May 2000 discussion.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
TERRA
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 2:37 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Wed Sep 10, 2003 2:23 am

Dangerous, well i work in SDA, nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!
 
John
Topic Author
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:18 am

Any Alaska pilots on here? Tell us about some of those obscure airports and operating conditions, especially DUT (Dutch Harbor)! That runway is ridiculously short for JET operations, nevermind the 737-200. How/why does the FAA permit a 737 to operate from a 3900 foot runway? Has Alaska ever operated a -400 or -700 from DUT? Is there a SPECIAL performance chart created just for 737-200C operations at DUT? I would assume those flights are severely weight restricted operating from that (general aviation) runway...
 
PW4084
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:31 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:36 am

John, I don't work for Alaska but I've flown into DUT many times. As long as Alaska (in conjunction with Boeing) can show that their performance data is legit for the runway there, it's just like any other airport. They are obviously weight limited but it's definitely feasible.

PW4084
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:56 am

For operations into DUT, the 732 is probably way more appropriate than a 734 or 73G, with the thrust reversers being the reason for it. On the 732, full engine thrust can be reversed due to the bucket-type layout of the t/r, whereas the cascade reversers on a 734 or 73G can only reverse bypass air/thrust. So I guess the 732 is the only version of the 737 that's certified for ops into DUT.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
goboeing
Posts: 2428
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 5:31 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Wed Sep 10, 2003 6:20 am

But I thought reverse thrust is not considered when calculating landing or takeoff distance?

Nick
 
SSTjumbo
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:29 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Wed Sep 10, 2003 12:55 pm

Goboeing, if I remember correctly from one of my professors, if during the flight the reversers fail, the flight must fly to an alternate field. That's fairly fishy in my mind though, so don't quote me on that.
I don't know, so this is my signature.
 
mozart
Posts: 2018
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 12:21 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:55 am

What about Kai Tak? Did pilots love or loathe it? I guess both... but interested in hearing some stories
 
flyingbronco05
Posts: 3484
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 11:43 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Thu Sep 11, 2003 5:06 am

Can anyone post a link or a description of the SNA noise abatement procedures? I think that it would make very interesting reading.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSNA
Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
 
m717
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:01 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Thu Sep 11, 2003 7:51 am

For those interested in operations into DUT, I flew in and out of there when I was a pilot at MarkAir. The aircraft the we operated there was the 732 with the JT8D-17 engines. Even with the -17 engines, in order to satisfy the required performance, we were moderately weight restricted for both takeoff and landing.

Even though the runway was eventually paved, it, like many runways in AK, could still be considered "unimproved". The reason that 737-200s are used at these places is the JT8Ds are somewhat less susceptible to FOD than are the high-bypass fans on other models of the 737. Also, many of MarkAir's 732s that operated in Alaska had the "gravel kits", which include a nose gear ski (gravel deflector) and "vortex dissipaters" (a pilot tube like device which blows bleed air forward on the underside of the engine to disrupt the vortex which the engine intake generates that could suck gravel, etc. into the engines). Alaska still operates many gravel kit equipped 732s in AK.

As Goeboeing mentioned, the use of reverse thrust is normally not counted when figuring rejected takeoff or landing performance data. Finally, to SSTjumbo, I have never heard that if the thrust reversers fail in flight, you must divert to an alternate airport. In fact, on most aircraft, you would not know if the thrust reversers fail "in flight". It would only become evident when you tried to use them on landing. Any aircraft I have ever flown can be dispatched with one or both thrust reversers inoperative and locked out.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Sep 12, 2003 4:55 am

Is a 732 certified for operations from unpaved runways when it's equipped with the gravel kits?

Just because I like plugging other people's photos, here are two pictures showing both the gear ski and vortex dissipater:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Solis
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Solis

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
m717
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:01 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Sep 12, 2003 5:39 am

Yes, they are certified for operations into gravel or unpaved runways with the gravel kits.

Those photos were taken at the Red Dog mine. Been there many times. I sure do miss flying in Alaska. It's easily the best, most fun flying I have ever done.

Here's a photo of the gravel runway at Red Dog:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Solis

 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Sep 12, 2003 6:37 am

Thanks! I remember having seen a 732 of Air Tanzania with a line like "the 737 went where no jet had gone before" beneath it, but couldn't remember if it was on a gravel runway or not - it probably was.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
SSTjumbo
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 3:29 am

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Fri Sep 12, 2003 11:56 pm

M717, thanks for clarifying that. Actually I think my old prof now was referring to anti-skid kits or something of that nature in some scenario. I don't care, everyone failed that meteorology class anyway, and we all had to be graded on a curve (I received an A- for getting 17% in that class Embarrassment). You guys are the ATPs around here, so obviously you guys will supercede me where we conflict  Big grin.
I don't know, so this is my signature.
 
m717
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:01 pm

RE: For The Pilots: Airports You'd Rather Not Fly To

Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:31 am

SSTjumbo,

Inoperative anti-skid would most definitely make a difference in the performance numbers.

I've been glad for the "curve" myself on occasion, so I know what you're talking about... Laugh out loud

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BravoOne, rcair1 and 8 guests