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

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???

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :E).

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 :D It looks like his little regional airport will soon live up to its namesake...

VI

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?:yuk:

The media and HM loyal Opposition should be asking a lot of questions.

Capitandejavu

This was not a good reason! Many Canberra citizens were not happy with his visit and the lock down of many parts of the city as a result.

But Good King John Howard and his taxpayer funded barnacle (Jeanette) were thrilled.

:{

Who cares???

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???

Lord Snot,

Nothin' at all with Dubya bashing... he's just the excuse Johnny et al will give for helping Mr Snow with his - er - "runway repairs"...

VI :ok:

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.

Oh PLEASE stop whinging...... this is the capital city we're talking about, not some hick Qld town. :rolleyes:

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.

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..........:hmm:

I guess Clinton didn't have as much baggage scran!:}

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? :rolleyes:
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.

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.?

I disagree, particularly after seeing the damage done to the runway at my local airport recently by a Hercules.

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

Doesn't take much to rip up an apron. I have seen Dash-8s eat holes in the bitumen on warm days doing there hairpin turns to get out of the bay. I can just imagine what a 744 would do :eek:

I bet the USAF Airforce One pilots wish they had a 744 :}

Okay, I'll bite...what do you think they're flying VI???:confused:

Isn't it a "B747-200B'?

Spot on, AN LAME !!

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...af1/index.html

Well there you go...and here I was thinking it was a 400 with a 200 bubble, like the 744F's.

What I didn't learn from Pprune wasn't worth knowing!:ok:

And no winglets either BH. The only 400's without them are the 400D's in Japan.
The only reason a 400F does not have the EUD is because it cuts into the ceiling height on the main deck. Causing a little problem with the loading of ULDs.
Bit of useless trivia for you. :8

Oh, I knew about the 400F's & their EUD...far too well!:cool: I'm just amazed that Johnny's got a newer plane!:E :ouch:

Good point, Little Johnny is one up on George W, even if it is a quarter of the size. I wonder which one has the best IFE?

Actually how old is AF1 now? The 707's were replaced in '90 (I think) with the 747's. They must have a few hours (and landings) on them now.

And CBR should have been upgraded years ago. It is the capital FGS!! Although I am sure if you asked a few Americans they would tell you SYD was. :ugh:

Did one of George W's advisors have to get an atlas out to show him where Us-trail-lee-a was? :\

I'll bet most 744 pilots wish they could have a go at flying AirForce one

AirForce One probably has more switches,buttons and tricks than a dozen standard 744's and a IFE system that would be the envy of most airlines and I bet you would never have to worry about ATC putting you in a holding pattern.

On the "What is the capital of " note...does anyone know what the capital of California is ?

Sacramento - and no, I didn't Google it.....

No Further requirements

Well done...

Just a side note, but Air Force One is the call-sign of the aircraft whenever the President of the USA is on board, regardless of type.
If he was flying in a Cessna 152, it would have the callsign Air Force One.:ok:

YSCB RW 17/35 PCN35FBYU
B747-400 ACN60

I don't know what the basic weight is of Air Force 1 but probably not much different from a commercial 747-400. Landing weight at YSCB would depend on landing fuel and POB and I would guess it would land at a relatively low weight.

The Boeing pavement Strength Overload Guidance states:

For normal operations, pavement limitations can usually be exceeded by 5 to 10% without any appreciable impact on pavement life. For low frequency operations, overloads in the order of 10 to 25% are acceptable, however the pavement should be in good condition, otherwise near term deterioation may be initiated by the overload. For emergency situations, a 50 to 100% overload allowance is generally accepted, subject to the discretion of the airport involved.

Where did Air Force 1 originate from before landing at YSCB? What tyre pressures did they use for the YSCB landing? Couldn't have done too much damage if it took the airport operator three years to complain about it.

Okay, keeping with the trivia theme...Name two American States that begin & end in A, and have Pacific views...

Alaska and Alabama.

Alaska is of course correct.

Alabama's coastline, also known as the redneck riviera, only has views of the Gulf of Mexico.

The only other US state that begins and ends with "A" is Arizona and they need some water to add to their extensive sand holdings to have a beach view of any sort.

Since the only other state or country with Pacific views that begins and ends with an "A" is Australia........ me thinks Buster may be paying taxes to the wrong Fed. ;)

Cheers!

It's a wind up. Buster is referring to Bush's best buddys homeland.:suspect:

How about Alaska and American Somoa...

You would need one heck of a telescope to see the Pacific Ocean from either Arizona or Alabama and a very tall tower or mountain

"How about Alaska and American Somoa.." hardly, American Samoa is an unincorporated and unorganized US territory; not a state.