BA plane lands at Accra with runway blocked?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA plane lands at Accra with runway blocked?
Anyone heard about a British Airways Boeing that landed at Accra after another bizjet had landed and blocked the runway end with broken wheel, couple of days agol? Very short scary landing by all accounts!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More info?
How much runway was remaining?
If the business jet was, say, 2000 meters down the runway, then what is the problem? None what so ever.
edit:
Looked it up myself. 9800 feet of runway. If the business jet was sitting at the end I'm sure the BA could have landed safely at least twice on that runway before encountering any problems!
How much runway was remaining?
If the business jet was, say, 2000 meters down the runway, then what is the problem? None what so ever.
edit:
Looked it up myself. 9800 feet of runway. If the business jet was sitting at the end I'm sure the BA could have landed safely at least twice on that runway before encountering any problems!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is unwise?
If the runway has been inspected I see no other problems.
Say this runway is 9800ft with the last 300ft blocked. That still leaves 9500ft. Plenty of space to stop any aircraft. So please Denti, why is this unwise? What is the risk? To me it seems like a well considered command decision as far as I can tell.
A couple of days ago I landed on a runway of 6000ft with an nice cliff at the end. Was that irresponsible? What about the land and hold short (of crossing runway) clearances in the US. Are those irresponsible/unwise too?
If the runway has been inspected I see no other problems.
Say this runway is 9800ft with the last 300ft blocked. That still leaves 9500ft. Plenty of space to stop any aircraft. So please Denti, why is this unwise? What is the risk? To me it seems like a well considered command decision as far as I can tell.
A couple of days ago I landed on a runway of 6000ft with an nice cliff at the end. Was that irresponsible? What about the land and hold short (of crossing runway) clearances in the US. Are those irresponsible/unwise too?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Devon
Age: 46
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point here is it should not have happened.
You cant land on a runway with something already on it.
<< Removed as it has no relevance to this actual thread >>
In this case the aircraft was still on the runway and broken. As such no other a/c should be landing
You cant land on a runway with something already on it.
<< Removed as it has no relevance to this actual thread >>
In this case the aircraft was still on the runway and broken. As such no other a/c should be landing
Last edited by T668BFJ; 29th Jan 2012 at 20:29.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, why not? Should they have diverted to their alternate which maybe has a 5000ft long runway?
What if the runway was notam-ed as shortened with an obstacle at the end? Would you still refuse to go to Accra? That would shut down a lot of European airports!
What if the runway was notam-ed as shortened with an obstacle at the end? Would you still refuse to go to Accra? That would shut down a lot of European airports!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DGAA
Have heard nothing about this officially.. declared distance RW21 is 3403m,
(that's 11,165 feet) and normally aircraft vacate via the 05 threshold turnoff after a long ground roll.
It depends of course where the disabled aircraft was in relation to the runway itself, chances are that it was infringing the strip at the far end, though not on the runway itself.
Perhaps the OP could tell us more ?
(that's 11,165 feet) and normally aircraft vacate via the 05 threshold turnoff after a long ground roll.
It depends of course where the disabled aircraft was in relation to the runway itself, chances are that it was infringing the strip at the far end, though not on the runway itself.
Perhaps the OP could tell us more ?
Last edited by Teddy Robinson; 29th Jan 2012 at 19:10. Reason: Imperial units added
Yet if the runway gets temporary reduction in declared distances it would probably be OK. Without knowing more about it it seems more of a paperwork issue than a safety issue.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just forget about the 'land after', that is a red herring, it has nothing to do with this discussion. With some imagination you can compare this with land and hold short clearances.
But anyway, I'm still waiting on a rationale why it would be unwise to land on a long runway with a disabled aircraft at the very end.
1. You redo your performance calculations with the shorter distances and an obstacle. For legal peace of mind add the 1.67 factor.
2. ATC clears you
3. You land and hold well short
So what is the problem?
Have you never landed on a runway with works going on at the far end? I have landed in STN where the runway was reduced by 50%, from the start.
But anyway, I'm still waiting on a rationale why it would be unwise to land on a long runway with a disabled aircraft at the very end.
1. You redo your performance calculations with the shorter distances and an obstacle. For legal peace of mind add the 1.67 factor.
2. ATC clears you
3. You land and hold well short
So what is the problem?
Have you never landed on a runway with works going on at the far end? I have landed in STN where the runway was reduced by 50%, from the start.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are the pilot in command of an aircraft in flight. You see the stricken aircraft at the end of the runway. You have all performance tables available to you, even better, you probably have a laptop which will give you detailed performance figures. Chop off one third of the runway. Exaggerate the height of the obstacle, say 30 feet for that little business jet. Run your performance. Add the factors. If sufficient, inform ATC. Await their clearance. Land. File an ASR.
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is used to maximise RWY usage and in the UK IIRC it is only authorised for use at 3 airfields
Nonsense,........see MATS 1 for UK (which has naff all to do with Ghana)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 72
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Seriously a diversion safe, landing on a ocuppied runway, bonkers, and they call Ryanair cowboys."
Again it has to be asked, how much of the runway was blocked by the biz jet? Even if it was 1000m blocked on what another poster has claimed to be a 3400m runway, there would be enough distance left to carry out a legal approach and landing. (as long as ATC didn't close the runway). After all runways are occassionally shortened for works in progress and are still used!
Again it has to be asked, how much of the runway was blocked by the biz jet? Even if it was 1000m blocked on what another poster has claimed to be a 3400m runway, there would be enough distance left to carry out a legal approach and landing. (as long as ATC didn't close the runway). After all runways are occassionally shortened for works in progress and are still used!
.
I agree, second aircraft lands OK then suffers a brake, or reverser problem and would be OK proceeding into the overrun - except - it's blocked by another aircraft. Shades of PanAm and KLM in the Azores. What would you say to the Presiding Judge at The Subsequent Court of Inquiry - if you, at the sharp end, even survived the impact.
Couldn't happen ? Of course not, Mr. Murphy.
BOAC Britannia ( yes, many moons ago ) burst a tyre at Bermuda and stopped just before turning off at the end, adv. tower that they would be 'a few minutes awaiting a Company maintenance team'
Tower responded with - "This is an Operational US Navy Airfield ( it was then, a joint Military/Civil venture ) you have 5 minutes to move that heap, after which the bulldozers move in - your call."
.........landing on a ocuppied runway, bonkers,........
Couldn't happen ? Of course not, Mr. Murphy.
BOAC Britannia ( yes, many moons ago ) burst a tyre at Bermuda and stopped just before turning off at the end, adv. tower that they would be 'a few minutes awaiting a Company maintenance team'
Tower responded with - "This is an Operational US Navy Airfield ( it was then, a joint Military/Civil venture ) you have 5 minutes to move that heap, after which the bulldozers move in - your call."