I thought I was hallucinating or time traveling when I saw a jet that looked like it might be on approach to Runway 23 just now, so I went to flightaware.com and could not believe a bunch of jets are now lined up to land on 23! This is the short crosswind runway which in decades past was the airport's most preferred runway. It is scheduled to be permanently closed soon and AFAIK it hasn't been used in years, except for red-eyes, and even that I thought was rare now too since the third parallel runway opened which is further from residential areas. CLT has really intense winds today so perhaps that has something to do with it.

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.

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.

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:

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?

Not sure about AAR but a GDP is a Ground Delay Program. Experience it all the time when flying into ORD!

From FAA.gov "Ground Delay Programs (GDP) are implemented to control air traffic volume to airports where the projected traffic demand is expected to exceed the airport's acceptance rate for a lengthy period of time. Lengthy periods of demand exceeding acceptance rate are normally a result of the airport's acceptance rate being reduced for some reason. The most common reason for a reduction in acceptance rate is adverse weather such as low ceilings and visibility.""Flights that are destined to the affected airport are issued Controlled Departure Times (CDT) at their point of departure. Flights that have been issued CDTs are not permitted to depart until their Controlled Departure Time. These CDTs are calculated in such a way as to meter the rate that traffic arrives at the affected airport; ensuring that demand is equal to acceptance rate. The length of delays that result from the implementation of a Ground Delay Program is a factor of two things; how much greater than the acceptance rate the original demand was, and for what length of time the original demand was expected to exceed the acceptance rate."

afcjets wrote:

What is a GDP and what is AAR?

GDP = Ground Delay Program
AAR = Average Arrival Rate (per hour)

Can all be found here https://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/

Is Air Force One about to land on 23?

CLT AAR is down to 35. That is a huge hit.

Does anyone know the last time 5/23 was used during the daytime, or if it is even still used for red eyes?

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?

Airplanes (esp jets) these days are very tolerant of crosswinds. That was not so 50 or so years ago when many US airports were designed. That's why airports like ORD had three sets of directional runways (to handle crosswinds). Today, most airports go with the parallel approach (in the direction of the prevailing winds), as it is the safest and most efficient. There will always be a few days a year where the crosswind component may be too high for some types*. But overall the risk is worth the reward. A good example is ATL. They don't have any crosswind runways, just the 5 parallel ones. It's the busiest airport in the World, and has pretty efficient ramp/taxiway flow.

When I worked at IAD, there was always a couple days a year where they would lane on RWY 30. That was cool to watch, because they appear to line up with 1R, and then make a sharp left.

*I say a few days a year where we see winds like this, but with Climate Change, who knows, that could be more like 10-20 days a year.

CanadianRedneck wrote:

Is Air Force One about to land on 23?

It doesn't look like they're using it anymore.

I see that runway 23 at 7,500 feet is regarded as short. However unless the arriving aircraft are heavily-loaded heavy jets this should not pose any great difficulty. The short runway at DUB is 6,500 feet and when the wind requires it all types up to B77W can land on it. It's not ideal but eminently doable.

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:

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

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

You learn something new every day

Air Force One landed on 18L

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.

Great video of the LH 747 at CLT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMl1GSx9yW4

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

There is a misprint in that OAG it says US has a IAH-CLT flight on a 747 lol. But these videos are great proof and footage of LH 747s at CLT...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uYMhFGxsK40

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cMl1GSx9yW4

It actually looks like runway 23 was used for landings for about a 24 hour period starting the day before on Thursday. The same A330 flight the day before also landed on 23. You can see it circling near RDU which is likely when the tornado was passing through when the winds started. It looks like it had to circle for awhile as flightaware shows the block time at 2:55.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KPHL/KCLT

I love 23

it has a hump just where the touchdown zone should be.

if you do it right you should kiss the ground

Beautiful runway to land on

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?

It was used sporadically during the day as late as 2017. I think (anecdotally) most of the use the “end of life” was at the request of pilots of regional jets coming from the southwest who didn’t want to taxi to E from 18R and could line up for 23 more easily than for 18L. Made for quite a nice aerial tour of most of the city of Charlotte, with a downwind leg essentially right over uptown.

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?

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)

I am sure takeoffs on 5 before the second parallel runway opened in 6/20/79 when there were only two runways were common though, but I have never seen one that I can remember except as a kid in the late 1970s watching a Delta DC9 depart from it during the day and a takeoff at night when picking up my grandfather at the airport in the mid 70s. It was night and I didn't know my planes then as I was really young but I am almost certain it was a white Eastern 727 or DC9 Whisperjet, as were most flights back then as they had a CLT hub that lasted until 1986 and Piedmont didn't yet. The image in my head is 727 though but I didn't know what one was yet lol.

As far as takeoffs on 23 though, those were fairly common even throughout the 80s and 90s, not as common as ones on the parallel runways but definitely not out of the ordinary, even during the daytime.

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).

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.

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.

It was WAY past my bedtime last night when I posted and after reading your post I realize I had my runway numbers reversed in the last two paragraphs in reference to takeoffs (the landing number to use on the runway is much more intuitive to me because you fly right over it, but for takeoff I sometimes also want to use the number flown over and forget for a second it's the number where the takeoff roll begins). So yes, I was correctly referring to runway 5 being common for landings for after hours. The takeoffs though that I said were fairly common into the 80s and 90s during the daytime were actually 5 takeoffs to the NE giving awesome close-up views of the skyline from the right side that Cubsrule talked about when landing on 23 (from the left side). What I can't remember is seeing a takeoff on 23 to the SW during the day since the 1970s.

Actually I just learned 5/23 closed last April for taxiway construction and only recently opened. Here is a video explaining more.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ke7ZouXwsjs

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.

As you can see in 1979, runway 5/23 was popular. This video is a few months after the second parallel runway which is 10,000 feet and significantly longer than the other two (this is before 18L/36R was extended in the early 90s) opened and yet every flight in this video departs from 5. The new control tower is finished (or almost) but the new terminal is barely under construction across 5/23. Too bad we don't get to see the A300s and L10 on the ground take off from 5, I would love to see that but they might have used the new runway.

https://youtu.be/eirRl1cjxWs

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.

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........

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.

I am sure it was used for both simultaneously in the 70s considering there were only two runways total until mid 1979. I don't ever remember 5 or 23 being used for both simultaneously during the daytime in the 80s or 90s though but I could be wrong and it's not like I'm a pilot (or was even old enough to drive for part of it.) It was always either landings on 23, or takeoffs on 5, but not during the same time period obviously. But for after hours, 5 or 23 would be used simultaneously for takeoffs and landings unless the pilot requested another runway for operational reasons (which was not uncommon as mentioned in a previous post) as it was the default runway during that time for noise abatement as there are no residential areas in it's path in either direction. The volume would be so light at that time though it wouldn't be an issue using them for both.

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........

Have you experienced how bad the ramp traffic is at CLT? Closing 5/23 (which is only a "valuable asset" to a.net) provides a lot of room to expand the ramp and perhaps one day expand the terminals.

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.

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.

You're welcome, thanks for having such an awesome website!

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........

It’s not really that much of an asset. It’s only use maybe like once to twice a year. It’s mainly used as a taxiway now for 36C when the airport is in a north operation. They need to raze it open a midfield concourse to open up ramp space.