World's Scariest Runways

I see they think that "tarmac" is a generic term for parts of an airport, too. :p Must be members of the media.
 
I wouldn't consider ANY of them on that list scary.
 
Well in fairness Ed some you couldn't even see. But yea some were not that scary. But perhaps if you look at it from a 767 drivers seat they would be scary.
 
Anyone else here know something about JFK?

jfk-canarsie-approach-200804-ss.jpg


Why It’s Harrowing: Parkway Visual—a.k.a. the Canarsie Approach—is the especially daunting flyway here, since pilots have to avoid interfering with flights into New York’s two other close-by airports, LaGuardia and Newark. Set up in 1964 as a noise-abatement measure to pacify angry residents, this approach forces pilots to have a reported 1,500-foot ceiling and a five-mile visibility for their circular approach before lining up with runway 13L, with the threatening waters of Jamaica Bay beckoning at the runway’s end.



Off the end of what runway? And, just what runway is that a view of its departure end?

:rolleyes:
 
Re the Gibraltar airport:

And upon hitting the tarmac, pilots must quickly and fully engage the auto-breaks.

Why would the pilots engage the auto-breaks? wouldn't that make them not auto at all?
 
Well in fairness Ed some you couldn't even see. But yea some were not that scary. But perhaps if you look at it from a 767 drivers seat they would be scary.

That concept is so often mysteriously elusive to so many pilots.
Equipment v. quarry, as in light weight fly fishing tackle being used for shark fishing.
 
I have heard that flying into Cusco is a nail biter. The description I've heard of it sounds worse than the description of some of these...
 
Sensationalist garbage... I wonder what T&L is trying to do here... attract thrill-seekers? they might end up scaring off the more timid travelers...

Speaking from my own experience, I'd say the daunting approaches had little to do with the runway or where it was situated... it's the conditions that will make a given approach and landing "scary".
For example: first time I tried to land a 172 at Marlboro Airport in NJ, which is now closed, sadly, but had a 2159-foot runway with a 430-foot DT on one end and two sets of power lines close to that same end, the wind was a bit much for me at that point.
But once I was based there and had the opportunity to tackle it under more benign conditions, it became a piece of cake most of the time.
 
I think the writers need to spend more time in Alaska. They fly 737's into runways up here that are considered short for CONUS GA.


Yea, most of the airports are non issues. JFK, DCA are easy. Now a 1200 ft strip in the hills, that would be fun..... and it all depends on the equipment.

I'd rather hear your 737 war stories.... like that plane.
 
Cool but, it's smooth paved, long, and no obstacles!

Long until you get to the turn in the middle of it and no obstacles until you get to the broken planes at the end!

After watching that, I just shudder thinking of all the hazards flying out of JFK with the threatening waters of Jamaica Bay beconing beyond the threshold...
:rofl::rofl:

Hey, those waters would be quite foreboding should you run off the thousands of feet of runway and overrun and EMAS. And you could be out there for minutes before help would arrive!

The Canarsie Arrival isn't much worse than the Expressway Visual at LGA, and not even half as bad as the River Visual at National (sharp turn to final and the ever present threat of Prohibited airspace and missile batteries make that one fairly daunting). Still, I think they could have found some much better airports for the list! They certainly found some spectacular approaches (Gibraltar/ St. Maarten) but I wouldn't call them the scariest.
 
Long until you get to the turn in the middle of it and no obstacles until you get to the broken planes at the end!

:rofl::rofl:

.

Little turns are just little turns, and planes alongside the road are just planes alongside the road, not obstacles to clear...
 
Back
Top