If I were a passenger on a plane that broke down and failed to clear the runway, I wouldn't be cheered to know that heavy jets would be landing over me or behind me, and that all I could do was trust that they wouldn't hit any 'bits' on the runway (say, left by a plane that had a problem on landing) and blew a tyre. Isn't there an issue of passenger protection here?
I think passengers are normally removed/evacuated from aircraft that are going to be stuck on a runway for some time, plus the remaining runway would be checked for 'bits'.
You may be interested to know that it is standard procedure in the UK, if the weather and runway length allow, to have an aircraft touch down before the previous aircraft that landed has vacated the runway. This is a much more dynamic situation than having a stationary obstruction at a known distance from the threshold but it doesn't seem to raise many questions.
Passenger aircraft operate in/out of airports with a large variation in runway length, width, slope, altitude, surface friction, etc. There are established methods to calculate the required stopping distances and to add a safety margin to these. What's beyond the end of the runway, once you have taken "stopway" into consideration, is fairly academic. There is only a certain amount of "what if?" you can reasonably do: for example, 09R at LHR has a dual carriageway and a petrol station 4-500m from the far end... This has not, to my knowledge, stopped anyone taking off or landing.
Regarding the 3-engined 747, could those so prepared to criticise perhaps read the report below in its entirety before making further uninformed comments
I'd decided that further comment from me on the 3-eng 747 was unacceptable thread drift, albeit not originally blown off course by me, and was going to go back to my cave, but - and one does occasionally wonder who is 'up there' pulling the strings ! - for I had no sooner signed off from PPRuNe when I read an e-mail from a friend who would qualify for the -
.........logical analytical decision making and risk assessment by highly qualified and well trained pilots.
role, employed by a major International Airline, and discussing with me a totally unrelated aviation topic, but during his discourse to me he happened to write quote .......... Our Fleet Superindent actually stated at a pilots’ meeting that, if an engine on a B747 failed after reaching top of climb on a Los Angeles to London flight, it was quite in order to proceed on to London ! Not that many line pilots would have agreed with him but that’s another story…
Makes you wonder why Boeing went to all that trouble to certify the aircraft to continue flight on three engines instead of just instructing pilots to land ASAP
Certifying it to do something only satisfies the Insurance Companies, just as ensuring that The Good Book might legally allow you to land on a contaminated or partially blocked runway, it doesn't necessarily make it the most suitable action to take under the prevailing circumstances, which I agree have to be assessed each and every time.
I rest my case, must go out and snag a few Prehistoric cavemen for dinner.
Last edited by YorkshireTyke; 6th Feb 2012 at 19:44.
After 4 pages of interesting discussion, the question remains, did this happen, and if so, apart from a single original post, how are the reports of "a very short scary landing by all accounts" substantiated ? who's accounts and where ?. Having made a few discrete inquiries at DGAA , nobody seems to have any recollection of this event occurring.
Given the resourceful nature of posters to these forums, has anybody found anything to indicate that this was a real event ?
Forgive an aged SLF for going off thread somewhat, but what is the opposite of landing short? In the good old days Aden Airways DC3s cominng in to Khormaksar used to cross wind half way down the runway and touch down in the last third, saving lots of taxi time to the terminal. But then those guys were used to landing downwind into mountain sides on rough stony 'strips' every day of the week (I've still got some cine I shot from the cockpit of such an event).
Pretty sure I remember landing on 27R at LHR in the 90's with a stricken DC10 (Varig?) at the end of the runway that had performed a high speed reject. It had burst a load of tyres and was in the process of being moved but in the meantime the runway was re-opened with a reduced LDA. The runway had just been re-surfaced and one of the wheel rims dug a nice long groove in pristine tarmac that you could see for years afterwards.
As a helicopter pilot, this all seems a lot of fuss and hand wringing about nothing. If the remaining runway was long enough for the landing aircraft to make a safe landing, i.a.w. required distances, what is the actual problem, apart from the fears of some individuals? The runway was still a runway, just a somewhat shorter one! The captain of the aircraft at the time is, by the privileges of his licence, responsible for the safe operation of his aircraft. Why not just allow him the privilege of doing just that?
I was once denied landing permission at London heliport as we turned onto final approach because the management suddenly decided it wasn't safe because they had a couple of inches of snow on the FATO (raised helideck) after a shower had passed through. We could have landed perfectly safely, even if an engine had failed (we operated Class 1) and in fact our departure point had been a helipad with much deeper snow on it.
We had to divert back to Denham where there was eighteen inches of uncleared snow. Still no major problem for us, but the pax suffered a hell of a lot of inconvenience afterwards, for no good reason except for the over-cautiousness of others who weren't in a pilot's position to judge the situation properly.
Some overly sensitive/cautious FW pilots could do themselves a bit of learning and go fly in a Class 1 performance helicopter, on a safe and legal flight, to and from an average private landing site. That would open their eyes a bit with regards to "obstructed" operating areas.
I digress slightly, but there is relevance in that an aviating decision had to be made away from the norm. Going into LHR in HS125. ATC said continue due to a BA lined up and waiting for release. Subsequent delay to BA's release and at 500' ATC asked us to G/A. We were going to vacate at the far end so we asked if we could land long over the top. ATC approved it with a pleasant surprise at our flexibility. A win win for everyone.
So after requesting you GA at 500' where you subsequently suggested the better course of action would be the overflight of a fully loaded aircraft and long landing to vacate at the far end, LHR tower ATC agreed to your suggestion?
RAT 5. You're saying, if I understand correctly, that you deliberately left the approach path, flew over the top of a passenger transport that was lined up for takeoff and then landed on an occupied runway, with an aircraft lined up for takeoff behind you, on your runway, on the same one.... the exact same piece of tarmac. An occupied runway. You landed on it? And ATC approved this? Was this at an airshow, or one of the world's busiest airports?
This is interesting. Have you ever landed in Barcelona runway 07L, or Malpensa 35L? Overflight of fully loaded passenger aircraft just before landing is quite normal on these international airports. Ok, the aircraft are on an official taxiway, but the threshold of the landing runway is quite close, a few hundred meters upwind.
So why would a light aircraft not be allowed land long, touching down 2 kilometers upwind on a runway with an occupied threshold? I wouldn't do it in a 737 or 320, but I certainly would in a Cessna 152 or slightly bigger.
Some of us realise that as long as the company that employs us to operate their aircraft, continues to pay our wages we are not there to mess around doing that "pilot stuff" if it's is detrimental to the safe operation of the aircraft... You know, the bit we get paid to do.
If a GA is the safer choice you take it, as I'm pretty sure your wonderfully guessed calculation was not part of the perf planning or the aircraft certification. It would be an interesting conversation at the inquiry when, should you happen to overrun due to a reverser and brake failure you would still have to justify why the overflight was the correct choice in the circumstances.
Professional aviation is not a game for the those who wish to play around destabilising approaches at low level... For that hire a toy at the weekend and noon around to your hearts content!
Think why we are paid to do a professional job and if we can justify our actions to the boss and the CAA. If the safest course of action requires us to depart from the rules and that can be justified, then fine, go ahead otherwise be prepared to have your job your licence or even liberty removed from you.
So when you go to Doha with a 1,400m threshold displacement due to WIP and do a visual approach, what's the difference? In terms of flying the a/c and the approach, diddley squat! It's an a/c. The perf calculations don't care what you fly over, only the obstacle height and whether you can stop in the LDA.
wonderfully guessed calculation was not part of the perf planning or the aircraft certification Much like the unintended float on a wet & windy day. Bet you don't always do a GA.
Professional aviation is not a game for the those who wish to play around destabilising approaches at low level... Visual approach with a small level platform, hardly destabilised. If you refer to the "manoeuvring", it's an HS125 on a 50m wide runway. Try the old Kai Tak, JFK Canarsie or countless others.
Just a thought, if you press TOGA and the donk falls onto something, will the CAA do you for unauthorised dropping? Yes, I'm yanking your chain!