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.

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...

TWA, Eastern, and Delta operated L-1011's and United and American operated DC-10's from LGA if I remember correctly. It's been a while.

I used to fly in and out of LGA (slf) all the time on business trips when I lived in NJ. Flying to Phoenix, my favorite was TWA service on an L-1011. Also, American used B-767s on selected routes out of 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.

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.

A300's too.. I used fly a B 757-300 into LGA , not that big a deal just pay attention.

Thanks, looks like DC-10's once flew out of LGA as well:

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:

Pence calls airplane skid 10 seconds of uncertainty | New York Post

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. ;)

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, :mad: just happened.

Good one, re Marine Aviators, Airbubba. I know you're kidding but it was funny. Cheers KTM300 for responding to Airbubba and myself. :ok:

[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.

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.

Air Canada operated L-1011 and B-767 aircraft into LGA . I had a few flights in there as a newly minted F/E on the L-1011 in 1980. Later I flew the DC-9 in there a lot, and Airbus 319/320. In those days the controllers would ask, "Have you got the GW"? If you said yes they would clear you for a visual down the Hudson. You could get the right turn in for 31, coming from the North too, if you asked nicely.
Always wanted to do an Expressway Visual in there with the 767 but never got the chance..

Yes, very much at various airports - at least here in Europe. I'm pretty sure it's becoming more of a standard than an option, especially at newly-built runways.

Apart from Barajas, I'm struggling to think of any other EMAS installations in Europe.

What other airports are you thinking of ?

Kristiansand/ENCN has EMAS on both ends.

Manchester has some sort of arrestor bed on 23R - not EMAS but if memory serves it contained ash pellets which could stop a 747 at 60kts

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 :confused: ).
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 :*

Of the > 100 EMAS installations worldwide, only 5 are outside of the US, with 3 in Europe: 1) Madrid-Barajas; 2) Kristiansand, Norway; 3) Zurich, Switzerland.

Auto spoilers not armed, or rather deferred on this tail.

Rubber smell in cabin (hydroplaning), etc....should be a straightforward inquiry I think.

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.