Bush jet 'damaged Canberra runway'
Evertonian
Thread Starter
Bush jet 'damaged Canberra runway'
May 23, 2006 - 11:56AM
US President George Bush's aircraft , Air Force One, damaged the runway when it landed at Canberra airport in 2003, leaving Australian taxpayers to pick up the bill, a parliamentary committee has been told.
The high-tech Boeing 747 jumbo jet, dubbed the flying White House, was much heavier than most aircraft that land on the runway and caused damage to the pavement.
Other military and VIP planes had also damaged the runway but the visit by Air Force One worried the airport owners to the point where they raised concerns about the weight of the jet with the federal government.
In response to questioning from opposition transport spokesman Kerry O'Brien, a parliamentary committee today heard the government had agreed to fix the runway.
Department of Transport and Regional Services deputy secretary Mike Mrdak (Mrdak) said the commonwealth did make "arrangements" to fix any damage done to the runway.
Those arrangements were delivered in last year's budget, with the government providing $28.5 million for runway strengthening at Canberra.
Bureaucrats fronting the committee denied it was solely the visit of Air Force One that had forced the strengthening work.
Senator O'Brien then asked why no heavy jets had landed on the runway since the visit by President Bush.
"It's interesting that after the Bush visit the dispensations (for heavy jet landings) had been discontinued," Senator O'Brien said.
Mr Mrdak replied: "There's a point at which the surface limitations come into affect and the airport operator does not wish to see further pavement damage and that was reached from that time on."
Canberra airport is the only airport in Australia to receive federal funding for runway strengthening.
AAP
US President George Bush's aircraft , Air Force One, damaged the runway when it landed at Canberra airport in 2003, leaving Australian taxpayers to pick up the bill, a parliamentary committee has been told.
The high-tech Boeing 747 jumbo jet, dubbed the flying White House, was much heavier than most aircraft that land on the runway and caused damage to the pavement.
Other military and VIP planes had also damaged the runway but the visit by Air Force One worried the airport owners to the point where they raised concerns about the weight of the jet with the federal government.
In response to questioning from opposition transport spokesman Kerry O'Brien, a parliamentary committee today heard the government had agreed to fix the runway.
Department of Transport and Regional Services deputy secretary Mike Mrdak (Mrdak) said the commonwealth did make "arrangements" to fix any damage done to the runway.
Those arrangements were delivered in last year's budget, with the government providing $28.5 million for runway strengthening at Canberra.
Bureaucrats fronting the committee denied it was solely the visit of Air Force One that had forced the strengthening work.
Senator O'Brien then asked why no heavy jets had landed on the runway since the visit by President Bush.
"It's interesting that after the Bush visit the dispensations (for heavy jet landings) had been discontinued," Senator O'Brien said.
Mr Mrdak replied: "There's a point at which the surface limitations come into affect and the airport operator does not wish to see further pavement damage and that was reached from that time on."
Canberra airport is the only airport in Australia to receive federal funding for runway strengthening.
AAP
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Carolina, US
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummmmm,
I just have one question. Who was it that cleared them to land on a runway that was not stressed for the weight of the aircraft. Was there some question as to the type of aircraft being used? Was someone misinformed and thought that Air Force one was still a 707???
I just have one question. Who was it that cleared them to land on a runway that was not stressed for the weight of the aircraft. Was there some question as to the type of aircraft being used? Was someone misinformed and thought that Air Force one was still a 707???
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Cleared it to land'???? I hope you're not suggesting it had anything to do with ATC (it's not their job to clarify a pilot's administrative approvals before issuing a landing clearance !).
It's called a Pavement Concession, and they're issued all over the place, for a variety of good reasons. THIS was one of them.
It's called a Pavement Concession, and they're issued all over the place, for a variety of good reasons. THIS was one of them.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Carolina, US
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im saying that the people responsible for accomodating a visiting aircraft have the responsibilty to provide facilities that can handle it. This includes the runway, taxiways, ramp area, etc.
Does that mean the pilots are to blame? I don't know. I did not see their briefing packet nor their projected landing weight on the W&B.
Someone or Someones dropped a ball here.
Does that mean the pilots are to blame? I don't know. I did not see their briefing packet nor their projected landing weight on the W&B.
Someone or Someones dropped a ball here.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walt
The ball sure was dropped ..... as the airport was built and developed over the years it was done in typical el cheapo Australian fashion. Near enough was good enough.
Fer Crisakes! It's the national capital. The airport should have been built FROM THE WORD GO to handle anything, or redeveloped as needs arose.
Didn't the airport get a big dose of development in the 1960s? The B707s / DC-8s / VC-10s / C-141s were already in service, and C-5s / B747s were being developed. Shouldn't have taken a genius to work out that the airport might need to accomodate such types - taxiways, runways, aprons, etc etc.
The ball sure was dropped ..... as the airport was built and developed over the years it was done in typical el cheapo Australian fashion. Near enough was good enough.
Fer Crisakes! It's the national capital. The airport should have been built FROM THE WORD GO to handle anything, or redeveloped as needs arose.
Didn't the airport get a big dose of development in the 1960s? The B707s / DC-8s / VC-10s / C-141s were already in service, and C-5s / B747s were being developed. Shouldn't have taken a genius to work out that the airport might need to accomodate such types - taxiways, runways, aprons, etc etc.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: out of a suitcase
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies in advance if this seems like 'sucking eggs' stuff. That's not the intention.
If the pilot is taking an aircraft into somewhere that is likely to overload the manoeuvring areas (ACN, PCN, etc), it is the PIC, or the organisation they work for, to obtain the appropriate Pavement Concession (PC). It is still the ultimate responsibility of the PIC to ensure that this is 'in hand' before planning to go there (except in an emergency, of course).
In AF1's case, a PC would have been:
a. granted on the understanding that pavement damage would have been minimal (which it was, in reality); or
b. granted on the understanding that, although the aircraft ACN was excessive, the aircraft 'movement' would be within the allowed maximum number of movements at CBR with excessive SIWL (relating to cumulative damage over several movements); or
c. deemed 'not required' because the Gov't, after weighing up all costs and other political factors (ie. land Vs not land), they agreed to bear the cost of repairs.
We'll never know. Does it really matter ? Just repair the tarmac and keep on governing.
If the pilot is taking an aircraft into somewhere that is likely to overload the manoeuvring areas (ACN, PCN, etc), it is the PIC, or the organisation they work for, to obtain the appropriate Pavement Concession (PC). It is still the ultimate responsibility of the PIC to ensure that this is 'in hand' before planning to go there (except in an emergency, of course).
In AF1's case, a PC would have been:
a. granted on the understanding that pavement damage would have been minimal (which it was, in reality); or
b. granted on the understanding that, although the aircraft ACN was excessive, the aircraft 'movement' would be within the allowed maximum number of movements at CBR with excessive SIWL (relating to cumulative damage over several movements); or
c. deemed 'not required' because the Gov't, after weighing up all costs and other political factors (ie. land Vs not land), they agreed to bear the cost of repairs.
We'll never know. Does it really matter ? Just repair the tarmac and keep on governing.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SE Aus
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Canberra International Airport" is privately owned. I believe the astute gentleman's name is Terry Snow. He bought it a few years ago for a pittance.
Having frequently used Pavement Concessions, I can say that almost without exception, one of the conditions of the PC is that the (aircraft) operator will meet the costs of repairing any damage to the surface caused by the overweight or high tyre pressure movement.
Since the case in point was a US Presidential visit of political significance, I reckon the Canberra International Airport saw this as a prime opportunity to write a contract of sorts which almost guaranteed some free upgrades paid for by yours truly. So the PC was granted, with the condition being that someone (US Government, Australian Federal Government - didn't matter who) would cough up some money after the damage was done (assuming of course there was any significant damage
).
Perhaps Johnny's mob - embarrassed by their little Canberra backwater with it's crappy sub-standard runway and the prospect of George W being told to p1ss off in the future - agreed to step up with the dollars to avoid loss of face with George W. Don't reckon Air Force One would visit many national capitals needing a PC, let alone ANY where the application for one would be denied...
So it would appear Mr Snow has done very nicely thank you
It looks like his little regional airport will soon live up to its namesake...
VI
Having frequently used Pavement Concessions, I can say that almost without exception, one of the conditions of the PC is that the (aircraft) operator will meet the costs of repairing any damage to the surface caused by the overweight or high tyre pressure movement.
Since the case in point was a US Presidential visit of political significance, I reckon the Canberra International Airport saw this as a prime opportunity to write a contract of sorts which almost guaranteed some free upgrades paid for by yours truly. So the PC was granted, with the condition being that someone (US Government, Australian Federal Government - didn't matter who) would cough up some money after the damage was done (assuming of course there was any significant damage
).Perhaps Johnny's mob - embarrassed by their little Canberra backwater with it's crappy sub-standard runway and the prospect of George W being told to p1ss off in the future - agreed to step up with the dollars to avoid loss of face with George W. Don't reckon Air Force One would visit many national capitals needing a PC, let alone ANY where the application for one would be denied...
So it would appear Mr Snow has done very nicely thank you
It looks like his little regional airport will soon live up to its namesake... VI
Last edited by Victor India; 23rd May 2006 at 06:09.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Victor India. You don't realise how close to the mark you are. Very 'astute' owners of the airport they are. How much have they actually contributed to all of the upgrades,a scompared with Australian Taxpayer contributions?
The media and HM loyal Opposition should be asking a lot of questions.
The media and HM loyal Opposition should be asking a lot of questions.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Footlights College, Oxbridge
Age: 47
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Force One, damaged the runway when it landed at Canberra airport
The yanks built half the roads in NSW back during the war, they can go digging them up again if they want.
They got money, who cares???
What's with all the Dubya bashing???
Oh, good-o, $28.5 mil of our money is freely available to upgrade one runway for overweight visiting aircraft, but they still can't be stuffed to fix national highway 1 between Townsville and Cairns to stop it being cut off for days on end every second wet season.
Yeah, what was I thinking - they do deserve more down there, it's true. Instead of one govt. vehicle lining up down the airport road for each minister, there should be two!
The capital is a bit light-on for facilities, must be most inconvenient for our hardworking representatives.
The capital is a bit light-on for facilities, must be most inconvenient for our hardworking representatives.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny that when President Clinton had said same Air Force One come to Canberra several years before this visit there was no such complaint......
then again, that was before the airport was sold..........
then again, that was before the airport was sold..........
I doubt that the "runway" was actually damaged by the landing aircraft. Damage is usually caused when making tight turns after landing (Eg unsuitable taxiway exits requiring a backtrack manoever). This can be avoided by using a tug, but that would not have been very elegant would it? 
Damage can also be caused to the apron area when the heavy aircraft is stationary for more than a few hours.
I tend to agree with others above. Mr Snow has seen a way to upgrade his substandard airport. Last time I looked it did not even have the correct signage and lighting.
Damage can also be caused to the apron area when the heavy aircraft is stationary for more than a few hours.
I tend to agree with others above. Mr Snow has seen a way to upgrade his substandard airport. Last time I looked it did not even have the correct signage and lighting.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sorts of questions we operators should be asking are
What was the AUW of Air Force One for the landing, the departure taxy and take off and the relevant pavement strengths?
What is/was the assessed extent of damage to the pavements?
Where was the worst damage - runway or taxiways?
If we have to operate into an airfield with a concession what extra precautions are recommended for us to minimise pavement damage.?
Does the extent of damage justify the current media/political reaction or is it a beat up by the avarice airport owner to get Government funded enhancements to his runways.?
What was the AUW of Air Force One for the landing, the departure taxy and take off and the relevant pavement strengths?
What is/was the assessed extent of damage to the pavements?
Where was the worst damage - runway or taxiways?
If we have to operate into an airfield with a concession what extra precautions are recommended for us to minimise pavement damage.?
Does the extent of damage justify the current media/political reaction or is it a beat up by the avarice airport owner to get Government funded enhancements to his runways.?
Originally Posted by jungmeister
I doubt that the "runway" was actually damaged by the landing aircraft.
DF.
DF,
Fair enough for your "local airport", but the alleged damage at CB International was done in 2003. I am sure that the runway has not remained in use without repairs since then.
I still reckon that the damage more than likely occurred on the apron or turnoff point from the runway. Media reports often get it wrong.
Pavement concessions are generally only allowed within fairly tight parameters. IE if the stated limit PCN is exceeded by a factor of time or small magnitude in weight.
Can anyone from Canberra airport enlighten us?
J
Fair enough for your "local airport", but the alleged damage at CB International was done in 2003. I am sure that the runway has not remained in use without repairs since then.
I still reckon that the damage more than likely occurred on the apron or turnoff point from the runway. Media reports often get it wrong.
Pavement concessions are generally only allowed within fairly tight parameters. IE if the stated limit PCN is exceeded by a factor of time or small magnitude in weight.
Can anyone from Canberra airport enlighten us?
J