Pence plane Skids Off New York Runway

O

over50

Pre-Flight
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
38
Location
Texas
Display Name
Display name:
over50
Free media coverage for Trump and Pence. Anybody know if the runways at LGA have the new engineered materials arresting system. Sure does look like that's what saved the day from the pictures I've seen. Guess I could look in the Chart Supplement US (new name for the AFD courtesy ICAO).
 
It's got EMAS for 22 and 13.

Media says they landed on 22, although LGA was using 4 earlier today when I was there. Not my favorite airport - the braking action always seems to be worse than it should be given the conditions.
 
kayoh190 said:
It's got EMAS for 22 and 13.

Media says they landed on 22, although LGA was using 4 earlier today when I was there. Not my favorite airport - the braking action always seems to be worse than it should be given the conditions.
Click to expand...

Most guys I know hate landing at "The Carrier", as I've heard it called.
 
Sounds as if there might have been a tailwind on 13...combined with low vis, turbulent approach, standing water, shortish runway, and you have your hands full.

John Wayne's 20R is quite a bit shorter, and sees a ton of 737 traffic...5701 feet, versus LGA's 7003, but we have the advantage of purdy nice weather most of the time. I wonder what's the shortest runway that 737s routinely land on?
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Sounds as if there might have been a tailwind on 13...combined with low vis, turbulent approach, standing water, shortish runway, and you have your hands full.

John Wayne's 20R is quite a bit shorter, and sees a ton of 737 traffic...5701 feet, versus LGA's 7003, but we have the advantage of purdy nice weather most of the time. I wonder what's the shortest runway that 737s routinely land on?
Click to expand...

Key West maybe? KEYW
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Sounds as if there might have been a tailwind on 13...combined with low vis, turbulent approach, standing water, shortish runway, and you have your hands full.
Click to expand...

Plane landed on 22, so shouldn't have been a (significant) tailwind issue.
 
I always enjoyed going into LGA, KEYW was fun, KCRW required attention for sure, KDCA a bit challenging. These airports just pumped me up a bit more vs flying into places like KATL, where I was based for 24 years.
 
And the funny thing is the NG 737s have the fastest approach speeds of any Boeing air carrier aircraft. With only single axles to apply brakes to as well.
 
NTSB has already confirmed the cause:
"Upon further inspection of the runway surface, our investigators found numerous objects scattered the length of the surface. These objects were found to be resembling condoms,ribbed and lubricated type. Consequent searches of the area recovered numerous condom wrappers containing the brand name and the words "Slick Willy's Willy Slickers" and have been identified as belonging to a gentlemen from Arkansas"
" It is our conclusion that the prophylactics were drawn into the brake rotors where they melted and formed a lubricant that delayed the aircraft coming to a complete stop before the end of the runway"
 
News story had a familiar theme... then I remembered this video....

 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Sounds as if there might have been a tailwind on 13...combined with low vis, turbulent approach, standing water, shortish runway, and you have your hands full.

John Wayne's 20R is quite a bit shorter, and sees a ton of 737 traffic...5701 feet, versus LGA's 7003, but we have the advantage of purdy nice weather most of the time. I wonder what's the shortest runway that 737s routinely land on?
Click to expand...

Through the '70s and '80s PWA used to fly multiple daily flights in 200-series 737s in/out of Blatchford Field (CYXD), which was right in the middle of the city of Edmonton. Runways were 5700 and 5870, the airport was at 2200 ft ASL and the weather for much of the year was not quite fun-in-the-sun California. Like so many other airports, Blatchford was closed (in 2013) to make way for the seemingly insatiable appetite for stucco-box condominiums. :(
 
SkyDog58 said:
So did it slide off to the right or the left? :D
Click to expand...

To the right, of course!

39CAB22200000578-3880736-The_aircraft_overshot_the_runway_and_was_slowed_down_by_a_new_sp-a-10_1477643799604.jpg


Looks like a nice EMAS save from an otherwise bad outcome.

39CE135000000578-3880736-image-a-27_1477645993594.jpg
 
Art VanDelay said:
And the funny thing is the NG 737s have the fastest approach speeds of any Boeing air carrier aircraft. With only single axles to apply brakes to as well.
Click to expand...

Don't think it's an NG. Looks to be a short body (300?), but the same applies as far as the axels.
 
Oh yes, that EMAS pad was there to save the day. The hwy was probably cringing watching the jet slide toward it. :)
Now how many millions (per sq ft) to replace the damaged EMAS? Could we just dump a truck load of gravel instead? ;)
 
Wow - what a picture! Would have been ugly if the plane made it to the highway.
 
Has there been any other actual EMAS pad saves to date other than this one...which apparently worked as designed.
 
labbadabba said:
Don't think it's an NG. Looks to be a short body (300?), but the same applies as far as the axels.
Click to expand...
All of their airplanes are NGs.

The picture shows no tail-skid which would make it a 737-700. It's an NG. The -700 has much slower approach speeds than the stretched models (-800 and -900 and the upcoming 8 MAX and 9 MAX).

Landed a 737-900ER in EWR last week in gusty conditions. Target speed on final was 165kts with 6502' available for landing on Rwy 29. Of course, that was a dry runway so good braking action. In a -700 the target speed could have been nearly 20kts slower. Last night in LGA, not so much...
 
Shawn said:
Has there been any other actual EMAS pad saves to date other than this one...which apparently worked as designed.
Click to expand...

In 2014, they claimed EMAS saved 9 aircraft and 243 people:

 
Mike I said:
In 2014, they claimed EMAS saved 9 aircraft and 243 people:

Click to expand...

While they might be able to claim they saved 9 aircraft, I am not sure that they can claim they saved the 243 people. Not all if many runway overruns end in a 100% fatality rate. I am assuming that is where the 243 number came from, the total people on board those 9 aircraft.
 
Sitting here trying to figure out the over/under on the number of days that someone is going to get on this thread and make this a big political thing. o_O
 
Shawn said:
Has there been any other actual EMAS pad saves to date other than this one...which apparently worked as designed.
Click to expand...

I saw a Gulfstream at KTEB use it a few years ago. We were waiting for a ride out to our airplane when we saw the Gulfstream on approach. We were saying he better go around or get that thing on the ground. Touched down 1/2 way down. Full brakes full TR's left the runway doing around 50kts. Stopped within 30 feet. Very impressive stuff.
 
SkyDog58 said:
While they might be able to claim they saved 9 aircraft, I am not sure that they can claim they saved the 243 people. Not all if many runway overruns end in a 100% fatality rate. I am assuming that is where the 243 number came from, the total people on board those 9 aircraft.
Click to expand...
The places EMAS are installed are usually for a reason. One in particular in my memory was a CRJ on an aborted takeoff. Just beyond the EMAS was a sharp drop that would have likely destroyed the aircraft and maybe the occupants.
 
SkyDog58 said:
While they might be able to claim they saved 9 aircraft, I am not sure that they can claim they saved the 243 people. Not all if many runway overruns end in a 100% fatality rate. I am assuming that is where the 243 number came from, the total people on board those 9 aircraft.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? That's an average of only 27 passengers in each of those 9 planes.
I suspect there's some more sophisticated stat calcs being applied to arrive at their figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top