Mike Pence's plane skids off runway at LGA
I wonder what speed the plane was going when it entered the EMAS? Looks to be quite slow in which case they very nearly got away with it.
My guess - a bit fast over the threshold, long flare and touchdown 4,000 feet in.
My guess - a bit fast over the threshold, long flare and touchdown 4,000 feet in.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EMAS was installed to protect access to the Employee Parking lot :-)
I think it's been made clear that LGA requires your complete attention. Gotta love the lollipop school crossing guards on the repositioned taxiway A. They're in for a long cold winter...
I think it's been made clear that LGA requires your complete attention. Gotta love the lollipop school crossing guards on the repositioned taxiway A. They're in for a long cold winter...
Has anything larger than a 757 regularly operated from LGA?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Airbubba:
Has anything larger than a 757 regularly operated from LGA?
Has anything larger than a 757 regularly operated from LGA?
Runway 22 was the prime landing runway as the prevailing wind was out of west or southwest most of the time. I can remember landings in MD-80s where you felt suspended over the East River, making little progress to the runway, the wind was so strong. Also, once landed in a B-737 on 13 with no flaps after a low level circle over JFK to make sure the landing gear was indeed down, a hydraulic failure of some sort and it was windy and raining, remnants of a hurricane. Towed into the terminal from the stopping point.
Last edited by Turbine D; 28th Oct 2016 at 16:22. Reason: spelling correction
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CYYC
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vapilot2004 View Post
LGA requires more than a bit of planning, stabilization, and discipline. Anyone that has landed a large commercial aircraft knows this.
Has anything larger than a 757 regularly operated from LGA?
I've never flown the 737 except as a pax. I have operated into La Guardia in years past in bizjets and airline 727's.
This article excerpt claims that the MD-80 and 737 are more challenged by the short runways at LGA than other types (I guess e.g. the A320 family):
Quote:
Though no flight would legally operate unless within those specified limits, there are two aircraft types that serve LGA that are more strained by the runway length than others, and one may surprise you.
The McDonnell Douglas MD-80 is a powerful aircraft, and a workhorse for several airlines. Though reliable and safe, the low-bypass engines respond slower to input than other aircraft types with larger engines. This means that it takes longer for the aircraft to build speed when rolling down the runway, demanding a longer takeoff distance. This is exacerbated on hot summer days when the air is thinner, requiring more speed to develop lift over the wings.
Airlines that operate this type into LGA encounter a difficult time on those dog day afternoons, and they usually deal with it by removing passengers to bring the aircraft’s weight down. A passenger headache? Perhaps. A safety issue? No. It’s actually an example of safety measures working to keep you safe.
The other aircraft that sometimes needs special consideration at LGA is a more modern type; the Boeing 737-800/900. The reason goes back to the late 1960s when the first, much shorter, -100/200 versions were birthed. You’ll notice that the 737 is a “low rider,” with its fuselage very low to the ground. This is because many airports that the aircraft served at that time did not have jet-bridges, and needed to board passengers walking up to the aircraft. Like a few models back then (such as the Boeing 727, Douglas DC-9), the early 737s offered built-in stairs that appeared from underneath the forward door, making boarding and deplaning simple for any airport.
The problem came years later, as newer versions of the 737 offered a lengthened fuselage. With the main landing gear still residing in the same place, the tail of the aircraft came very low to the ground when raising the nose on landing, risking a tail strike.
This resulted in the aircraft needing to keep the nose lower than it might otherwise aerodynamically prefer while on approach. This smaller angle of attack creates a faster approach speed, which can sometimes be around 15 knots faster than most other jets. The affect on runway length comes into play because the higher speed means it needs more stopping distance. But again, the math is done in advance. If it can’t stop within 60% of the strip, it won’t be allowed to take off to begin with.
Over the Edge: How Safe Are La Guardia's Short Runways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noflynomore View Post
Still, with the incomprehensibly garbled RT from the controller its a wonder anyone gets anything right there.
I'd say the ATC comms were pretty clear and normal for the EWR, LGA, and JFK area.
Knowing how busy it is there, listening to the recording I think the controller did excellent. Between LGA tower and departure they would have gone from zero to a 100 mph in micro seconds. Also to the crews going around, good job.
Originally Posted by vapilot2004 View Post
LGA requires more than a bit of planning, stabilization, and discipline. Anyone that has landed a large commercial aircraft knows this.
Has anything larger than a 757 regularly operated from LGA?
I've never flown the 737 except as a pax. I have operated into La Guardia in years past in bizjets and airline 727's.
This article excerpt claims that the MD-80 and 737 are more challenged by the short runways at LGA than other types (I guess e.g. the A320 family):
Quote:
Though no flight would legally operate unless within those specified limits, there are two aircraft types that serve LGA that are more strained by the runway length than others, and one may surprise you.
The McDonnell Douglas MD-80 is a powerful aircraft, and a workhorse for several airlines. Though reliable and safe, the low-bypass engines respond slower to input than other aircraft types with larger engines. This means that it takes longer for the aircraft to build speed when rolling down the runway, demanding a longer takeoff distance. This is exacerbated on hot summer days when the air is thinner, requiring more speed to develop lift over the wings.
Airlines that operate this type into LGA encounter a difficult time on those dog day afternoons, and they usually deal with it by removing passengers to bring the aircraft’s weight down. A passenger headache? Perhaps. A safety issue? No. It’s actually an example of safety measures working to keep you safe.
The other aircraft that sometimes needs special consideration at LGA is a more modern type; the Boeing 737-800/900. The reason goes back to the late 1960s when the first, much shorter, -100/200 versions were birthed. You’ll notice that the 737 is a “low rider,” with its fuselage very low to the ground. This is because many airports that the aircraft served at that time did not have jet-bridges, and needed to board passengers walking up to the aircraft. Like a few models back then (such as the Boeing 727, Douglas DC-9), the early 737s offered built-in stairs that appeared from underneath the forward door, making boarding and deplaning simple for any airport.
The problem came years later, as newer versions of the 737 offered a lengthened fuselage. With the main landing gear still residing in the same place, the tail of the aircraft came very low to the ground when raising the nose on landing, risking a tail strike.
This resulted in the aircraft needing to keep the nose lower than it might otherwise aerodynamically prefer while on approach. This smaller angle of attack creates a faster approach speed, which can sometimes be around 15 knots faster than most other jets. The affect on runway length comes into play because the higher speed means it needs more stopping distance. But again, the math is done in advance. If it can’t stop within 60% of the strip, it won’t be allowed to take off to begin with.
Over the Edge: How Safe Are La Guardia's Short Runways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noflynomore View Post
Still, with the incomprehensibly garbled RT from the controller its a wonder anyone gets anything right there.
I'd say the ATC comms were pretty clear and normal for the EWR, LGA, and JFK area.
Knowing how busy it is there, listening to the recording I think the controller did excellent. Between LGA tower and departure they would have gone from zero to a 100 mph in micro seconds. Also to the crews going around, good job.
Longtimelurker
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: killington Vt
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Little Airport That Could: La Guardia's Tri-Jet Heavies
I remembered vaguely that performance out of LGA was somehow factored into the DC-10 and L1011 designs and maybe LAX-HNL required the third engine in the pre-ETOPS era.
As far as the EMAS save, as Governor Mike Pence put it:
“Our son is a Marine Corps aviator and he says every landing you walk away from is a successful landing,”
We were also taught in Naval Aviation that a Marine knows that he forgot to lower the landing gear when it takes too much thrust to taxi after landing. Maybe that's also how he knows he's rolled into the EMAS.
Last edited by Airbubba; 28th Oct 2016 at 18:28.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kingdom of Oz
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway of 7000 ft short for a B737? I think not. In another life flying for MH in Borneo Island in the 1990s, we operated into and out of an airport called Tawau airport...TWU, WBKW which was only 4500ft. Because of two hills close to the extended centreline, the displaced threshold meant that the LDA for rwy 17 was only 4200ft with a downslope to boot! In tropical torrential rain and gusty wind conditions, it was a challenge to land a B737-400. They had Boeing short field markers painted.
If landing is not assured with the Boeing short field TDZ, a wave off or rejected landing is mandatory. Special training and qualifications required. In the years of B737-200/300/400/500 operations, no mishaps occurred. Of course, there were a few close calls, nothing disastrous until a F-50 flown by an ex-AirFarce jockey crashed overshooting the runway in a botched landing.
They have now moved to a different located with rwy 06/24 of 8800ft long.
LGA might really need a little more attention but not that difficult by any means. Maybe,
just happened.
If landing is not assured with the Boeing short field TDZ, a wave off or rejected landing is mandatory. Special training and qualifications required. In the years of B737-200/300/400/500 operations, no mishaps occurred. Of course, there were a few close calls, nothing disastrous until a F-50 flown by an ex-AirFarce jockey crashed overshooting the runway in a botched landing.
They have now moved to a different located with rwy 06/24 of 8800ft long.
LGA might really need a little more attention but not that difficult by any means. Maybe,
just happened.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good one, re Marine Aviators, Airbubba. I know you're kidding but it was funny. Cheers KTM300 for responding to Airbubba and myself. 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Long Island
Age: 75
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Airbubba;9559271]Has anything larger than a 757 regularly operated from LGA?
Lot's of DC-10's and L1011's from various carriers in the seventies and eighties, and I believe American flew 767's out of there until fairly recently.
Lot's of DC-10's and L1011's from various carriers in the seventies and eighties, and I believe American flew 767's out of there until fairly recently.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American, Delta, and United all operated 67s out of KLGA. That could expand if the port authority, which operates the airport, would amend rules regarding paired cities. Currently the limit is cities within 1,500 miles of KLGA, although Denver is an exception.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: CYUL
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anything larger than a 757 regularly operated from LGA?
Always wanted to do an Expressway Visual in there with the 767 but never got the chance..
Last edited by Retired DC9 driver; 29th Oct 2016 at 03:04.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, never heard of EMAS before, but it seems it's been around a while. Not sure if it's used outside the USA?
Apart from Barajas, I'm struggling to think of any other EMAS installations in Europe.
EMAS is fairly common in the US - especially on the shorter runways (I understand we don't have it at SEA because they have 1,000 ft. of overrun - personally I think this might be questionable logic because at the end of that 1,000 ft. is quite a steep drop-off 
).
My understanding is MEAS is rather rare outside of North America. Perhaps the international publicity of this incident will help expand the use of EMAS outside of this continent.
It would mean something positive came out of this train wreck of a presidential election
).My understanding is MEAS is rather rare outside of North America. Perhaps the international publicity of this incident will help expand the use of EMAS outside of this continent.
It would mean something positive came out of this train wreck of a presidential election
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An acceptable conclusion to any approach is a missed approach. But he would have needed to make that decision before touchdown - especially at LGA with a wet runway with a slight quartering tail wind.
Presuming that the airplane was properly configured: full flaps, autospoilers and autobrakes armed, AND that he had a stable approach: on speed and a normal glide path, he might have tried to "plant it" on the end and got a nasty bounce instead.
Presuming that the airplane was properly configured: full flaps, autospoilers and autobrakes armed, AND that he had a stable approach: on speed and a normal glide path, he might have tried to "plant it" on the end and got a nasty bounce instead.
