JYO's runway to be shortened

woodstock

woodstock

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
9,342
Location
Out of a suitcase
Display Name
Display name:
iTravel
temporarily. not sure when, but they plan to start runway work this summer which will shorten it to 2400 feet. ouch!!
 
woodstock said:
temporarily. not sure when, but they plan to start runway work this summer which will shorten it to 2400 feet. ouch!!
Click to expand...
Woohoo! Good short field practice. It's all kinds of different when you 'pretend' you've only got 2500 feet on a 7000 ft runway than when you really DO.
 
woodstock said:
temporarily. not sure when, but they plan to start runway work this summer which will shorten it to 2400 feet. ouch!!
Click to expand...

No big deal... a Skyhawk needs less than a thousand feet of that. They've still got more than twice what you need :)
 
Joe Williams said:
No big deal... a Skyhawk needs less than a thousand feet of that. They've still got more than twice what you need :)
Click to expand...
Although it does make touch and goes a whole lot more interesting. ;)
 
Brian Austin said:
Although it does make touch and goes a whole lot more interesting. ;)
Click to expand...

There comes a time when one must learn to appreciate the beauty of full stop landings LOL
 
According to AirNav this rwy is 5,500. To hack almost 60% off the useable rwy is foreboding. To what end or for what purpose is this being done? That is the big question. What's next, displaced thresholds? Perhaps limited hours of use? Next thing you know you become one of the last to ever have JYO in your logbook.
 
Richard said:
According to AirNav this rwy is 5,500. To hack almost 60% off the useable rwy is foreboding. To what end or for what purpose is this being done? That is the big question. What's next, displaced thresholds? Perhaps limited hours of use? Next thing you know you become one of the last to ever have JYO in your logbook.
Click to expand...
They want to expand it for bigger jets (bottom of page 4):

http://www.leesburgva.gov/services/capital_projects/CIP.news.pdf

(NOTE: link requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)

Three months of short runways for considerably more opportunities later. A nice tradeoff in my book.
 
what sucks is that eventually it means no more just calling out to Leesburg traffic. It's so nice to just say intentions and go. (and stay plugged into Potomac departure/approach, etc.)

wonder how long before a control tower is put in.
 
They're trying to get the Bizjets out of Dulles. Since DCA's been closed, a lot of the bizjets end up at Dulles. Manassas was interminably under construction for the same thing a couple of years ago.
 
They're not lengthening the runway yet. Just repairs/resurfacing. The airport director says they have to increase their operations by 500 before they can lengthen. They're going to crown the rwy and groove it. Also putting in rwy edge lights. I'm hoping an ILS is in the near future.
 
Greebo said:
Heck, that's 400 ft longer than what I had when I first started flyin!

http://www.airnav.com/airport/0W3http://www.airnav.com/airport/0W3http://www.airnav.com/airport/0W3
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about heading down there. It seems like it would be good practice for Mallory and other challenging strips. Butter Valley here can be good practice if you try to limit yourself to the paved part, but it's not a cross country.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/WV12

http://www.buttervalley.com/airport.htm
 
Joe Williams said:
I've been thinking about heading down there. It seems like it would be good practice for Mallory and other challenging strips. Butter Valley here can be good practice if you try to limit yourself to the paved part, but it's not a cross country.
Click to expand...
It certainly is good practice for "short" field landings (as if 2000 ft is short to a 172...) and precision landings - especially if the winds are favoring 10 at 0W3 because its on a downhill grade and you've got obstructions on the departure end, so if you land long on 10 there is no saving it - you GO AROUND and fast.

Another couple good ones around here for that kind of practice are W42 (Fallston) and also 58M (Cecil County - never landed there but look at how its totally tree surrounded...)
 
woodstock said:
what sucks is that eventually it means no more just calling out to Leesburg traffic. It's so nice to just say intentions and go. (and stay plugged into Potomac departure/approach, etc.)

wonder how long before a control tower is put in.
Click to expand...


Elizabeth, the following was the last straw which directly resulted in KSBP getting a tower. If all pilots at all times accurately did what they should do in the proper sequence perhaps there would not be a need to wrest control away from the pilot. The report does not mention that it was CAVU or that the commuter crew heard but did not acknowledge (no attempt to coordinate)the inbound 112 Commander.


NTSB Identification: DCA84AA034A.
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 25365.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Friday, August 24, 1984 in SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Aircraft: BEECH C-99, registration: N6399U
Injuries: 17 Fatal.

AT ABOUT 1118, A BEECH C-99 (WINGS WEST FLT 628), N6399U, & A ROCKWELL 112TC, N112SM, COLLIDED IN MIDAIR ABOUT 8 MI WEST-NORTHWEST OF THE SAN LOUI OBISPO COUNTY ARPT. THE ROCKWELL 112TC HAD DEPARTED PASO ROBLES, CA & WAS DESCENDING TOWARD THE SAN LOUI OBISPO COUNTY ARPT. THE BEECH C-99 HAD DEPARTED SAN LOUI OBISPO & WAS CLIMBING ON A FLT TO SAN FRANCISCO. THEY COLLIDED HEAD-ON AT ABOUT 3400 FT MSL IN CLEAR WX. THE C-99 CREW HAD JUST CONTACTED LOS ANGELES ARTCC. AT THAT TIME, THE AIRCREWS OF BOTH ACFT WERE GOVERNED BY THE 'SEE-AND-AVOID' CONCEPT WITH REGARD TO EACH OTHER. AN INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT THE STANDARD DEPARTURE & INSTRUMENT APCH PROCEDURES SHARED A COMMON TRACK. THE C-99 WAS DEPARTING ALONG THE DEPARTURE TRACK. JUST PRIOR TO THE COLLISION, THE 112TC CREW HAD CONTACTED UNICOM & REPORTED AT THE DOBRA INTERSECTION WHICH WAS ON THE ILS APCH COURSE. AFTER COLLIDING, BOTH ACFT CRASHED ON OPEN TERRAIN & BURNED. THE CONTROLLER HAD ONLY SECONDS TO APPRAISE RADAR DATA & ISSUE A SAFETY ADVISORY. WINGS WEST REQD 1 RADIO ON COMPANY FREQ.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

ARTCC SERVICE..DELAYED..PILOT IN COMMAND
RADAR ASSISTANCE TO VFR AIRCRAFT..NOT USED..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT





Contributing Factors INSUFF STANDARDS/REQUIREMENTS,OPERATION/OPERATOR..COMPANY/OPERATOR MGMT
VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT IN COMMAND
VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
 
Richard,

I'm not sure either one was procedurally wrong here.

Neither one saw each other (see and avoid is tough). The Commander was apparently practicing instrument approaches VFR, which he's allowed to do. The airliner was departing on the IFR procedure, which was probably called out in his ops specs or IFR clearance.

The main lessons to take away are 1) be aware of the airport procedures and 2) See and avoid is really, really hard to accomplish when the targets are coverging at >200 knots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top