Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RDUDDJI wrote:Due to high winds from the SW.
KCLT 071452Z 25014G28KT 10SM SCT035 SCT050 09/01 A2956 RMK AO2 PK WND 24030/1404 SLP005 T00890006 51058
That would also be the reason CLT is on a GDP. It hurts their AAR.
afcjets wrote:RDUDDJI wrote:Due to high winds from the SW.
KCLT 071452Z 25014G28KT 10SM SCT035 SCT050 09/01 A2956 RMK AO2 PK WND 24030/1404 SLP005 T00890006 51058
That would also be the reason CLT is on a GDP. It hurts their AAR.
What is a GDP and what is AAR?
Based on that and AA673 today doing a go around and ultimately having to land on 5/23, what would today at CLT be like if 5/23 had already closed?
I know closing it will help with ground traffic and allow for the eventual extension of concourse C and that a fourth and fifth parallel runway are planned, but is not having 5/23 going to be a bad thing?
afcjets wrote:What is a GDP and what is AAR?
afcjets wrote:
I know closing it will help with ground traffic and allow for the eventual extension of concourse C and that a fourth and fifth parallel runway are planned, but is not having 5/23 going to be a bad thing?
CanadianRedneck wrote:Is Air Force One about to land on 23?
afcjets wrote:This is really strange. It looks like AA673 which is an A330 was going to deviate from the pattern and land on 18C but did a go around and while it says it has landed, the go around looks like it was lining up for 23, but it disappears from flightaware a few miles out. I remember seeing Lufthansa land their 747 on 23 often so it's definitely long enough.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KPHL/KCLT
EDIT: Flightaware shows the completed flight now and it did ultimately land on 23. I knew flightaware had a slight delay but I had never seen it say a flight had landed and was taxiing but the flight path line ended before the runway with the airplane icon disappearing.
daumueller wrote:afcjets wrote:This is really strange. It looks like AA673 which is an A330 was going to deviate from the pattern and land on 18C but did a go around and while it says it has landed, the go around looks like it was lining up for 23, but it disappears from flightaware a few miles out. I remember seeing Lufthansa land their 747 on 23 often so it's definitely long enough.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KPHL/KCLT
EDIT: Flightaware shows the completed flight now and it did ultimately land on 23. I knew flightaware had a slight delay but I had never seen it say a flight had landed and was taxiing but the flight path line ended before the runway with the airplane icon disappearing.
Are you sure about LH?
AFAIK, they never flew there from FRA - just MUC. And Muc has no 747s.
afcjets wrote:daumueller wrote:afcjets wrote:This is really strange. It looks like AA673 which is an A330 was going to deviate from the pattern and land on 18C but did a go around and while it says it has landed, the go around looks like it was lining up for 23, but it disappears from flightaware a few miles out. I remember seeing Lufthansa land their 747 on 23 often so it's definitely long enough.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KPHL/KCLT
EDIT: Flightaware shows the completed flight now and it did ultimately land on 23. I knew flightaware had a slight delay but I had never seen it say a flight had landed and was taxiing but the flight path line ended before the runway with the airplane icon disappearing.
Are you sure about LH?
AFAIK, they never flew there from FRA - just MUC. And Muc has no 747s.
Yes, they flew to FRA way before MUC, from 1990 through the end of 1992. IAH-CLT-FRA 3xs weekly on a 747-200 Combi (where the passenger cabin ended just behind the wing and the last section was freight top to bottom). Their gate at CLT was D3 when D only had four jet gates.
Departed flights shows the domestic portion in this North American guide from 1991.
http://www.departedflights.com/CLT91intro.html
daumueller wrote:afcjets wrote:This is really strange. It looks like AA673 which is an A330 was going to deviate from the pattern and land on 18C but did a go around and while it says it has landed, the go around looks like it was lining up for 23, but it disappears from flightaware a few miles out. I remember seeing Lufthansa land their 747 on 23 often so it's definitely long enough.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KPHL/KCLT
EDIT: Flightaware shows the completed flight now and it did ultimately land on 23. I knew flightaware had a slight delay but I had never seen it say a flight had landed and was taxiing but the flight path line ended before the runway with the airplane icon disappearing.
Are you sure about LH?
AFAIK, they never flew there from FRA - just MUC. And Muc has no 747s.
daumueller wrote:afcjets wrote:Yes, they flew to FRA way before MUC, from 1990 through the end of 1992. IAH-CLT-FRA 3xs weekly on a 747-200 Combi (where the passenger cabin ended just behind the wing and the last section was freight top to bottom). Their gate at CLT was D3 when D only had four jet gates.
Departed flights shows the domestic portion in this North American guide from 1991.
http://www.departedflights.com/CLT91intro.html
You learn something new every day
afcjets wrote:Does anyone know the last time 5/23 was used during the daytime, or if it is even still used for red eyes?
Bradlee102896 wrote:Has this runway ever been used for departures in either direction? Also I have never recalled any flights landing on runway 5, has that ever happened before?
afcjets wrote:Bradlee102896 wrote:Has this runway ever been used for departures in either direction? Also I have never recalled any flights landing on runway 5, has that ever happened before?
Yes, red-eye landings were very common on 5, but I have never seen a daytime landing on 5. I believe 5/23 is the default after hours runway but pilots can and do claim for operational reasons they want a longer runway because it's short and they are often tired after a red-eye (that's what a pilot responded a few years ago).
flyjoe wrote:
Landings on 5 also took place late into the evening. I remember landing on 5 about 4-5 years ago after 11pm. It took me a few seconds to realize what runway we were lining up for and then the ‘something new’ excitement kicked in.
I had a 5 takeoff a few years back for an 6am departure. I thought we were headed for 36C until we lined up on 5. That was a nice treat. I’m sure 5 takeoffs were a bit of surprise to drivers on Billy Graham Pkwy when they come flying over just above the embankment.
flyjoe wrote:Landings on 5 also took place late into the evening. I remember landing on 5 about 4-5 years ago after 11pm. It took me a few seconds to realize what runway we were lining up for and then the ‘something new’ excitement kicked in.
I had a 5 takeoff a few years back for an 6am departure. I thought we were headed for 36C until we lined up on 5. That was a nice treat. I’m sure 5 takeoffs were a bit of surprise to drivers on Billy Graham Pkwy when they come flying over just above the embankment.
Use of the 5s and 23 for takeoffs would create so much havoc outside of the noise abatement hours.
afcjets wrote:It is scheduled to be permanently closed soon.........
flyjoe wrote:That’s a pretty cool with all of the 5 takeoffs. Makes sense with how close it was to the terminal. Was 5 used for landings when it was used for takeoffs or did they use 36 to land? I guess in the late 70s they could use 5 for both, as the traffic wasn’t anywhere as busy when the PI started.
KarlB737 wrote:afcjets wrote:It is scheduled to be permanently closed soon.........
Having read all the replies it sounds like there is a definite need and use for 5-23. Who's the clown that believes that a valuable asset needs to be closed. What do the rest of you think........
afcjets wrote:There is a misprint in that OAG it says US has a IAH-CLT flight on a 747 lol.
departedflights wrote:afcjets wrote:There is a misprint in that OAG it says US has a IAH-CLT flight on a 747 lol.
Thank you for pointing out that error. It has been corrected.
KarlB737 wrote:afcjets wrote:It is scheduled to be permanently closed soon.........
Having read all the replies it sounds like there is a definite need and use for 5-23. Who's the clown that believes that a valuable asset needs to be closed. What do the rest of you think........