Discussion about airports and approaches

[Asher]

Years ago, cut my teeth on that approach the CRJ was to make. For the CRJ that is not a really short runway. It is more than adequate The approach is very straight forward. Once flight accepts landing on 33 the tower will clear next aircraft into position and hold runway 36. Tower says cleared to land 33 cross 36 or report across 36 during bad visibility situations. Once acknowledge land on 33 tower clears next airplane to taxi into position and hold runway 36. Once 33 landing clears 36 the aircraft in position is cleared to take off runway 36.

Now Bolling AFB is a real monster especially when it was still an active air force station. Do not know the situation now but Bolling and WASH used common frequencies with any military traffic not landing cross over center of field. Do not remember Bolling altitudes then but now helicopters are supposed to cross over at 200 feet AGL. Also, helicopter was not in Bolling airspace. The CRJ was in DCA airspace and at ~~400+ feet AGL.

Cannot ever remember a nighttime landing on 33 so cannot comment on visibility. With so many ground LED lights must be much more difficult now.

The approach is not straight forward, it’s a GPS approach with turns. With the restrictions and all the other distractions it’s dangerous.

 

[Stevenz]

The approach is not straight forward, it’s a GPS approach with turns. With the restrictions and all the other distractions it’s dangerous.

But it’s an approach that is flown tens of thousands of times every year. Pilots are trained for it, as with any GPS approach anywhere. What’s dangerous is some other pilot not understanding the realities of flying in controlled airspace at a major commercial hub.

 

[Asher]

But it’s an approach that is flown tens of thousands of times every year. Pilots are trained for it, as with any GPS approach anywhere. What’s dangerous is some other pilot not understanding the realities of flying in controlled airspace at a major commercial hub.

What makes it dangerous is the narrow airspace that is created by the restricted zones.

 

[Trollopian]

I've probably landed on airlines @ DCA a couple of hundred times on all the runways, both in daylight and @ night, and as a Licensed Pilot ( Commercial/Instrument Rated/ SEL-MEL ) can second that all the approaches into DCA are tricky, most of all the approach to Runway 33, and Dangerous due to the heavy air traffic, Commercial,Military and Private!

Most of the blame for the current status of DCA can be placed @ the feet of Congress, and all the Recemt President's, for pushing for ever more flights into DCA,and failure to solve the Air Traffic Controller shortage that has existed since Regan fired so many Controllers back in the early 80s!

Pausing most of the Helicopter flights along the Potomac is a long overdue good thing.

The NTSB does a really good job of investigating air crashes, and makes solid recommendations for improvements that the FAA and the Politicians usually don't follow!

Let's hope that this disaster is a Wakeup call that we need to answer since most US Airports have similar or even worse situations that need fixing!

Off the Soapbox, the Ball is in Congress hands now!

This. DCA is extraordinarily popular with Congress, which is increasingly a Tuesday-Thursday institution. They can get from the Capitol dome (or more prosaically, one of the House or Senate office buildings) to DCA in 11 minutes by car, 35 minutes if they deign to take Metro, fat chance. Over the decades I've spent in Washington, too, jets have become quieter, not quiet but quieter, and more direct flights to further destinations and at later hours are allowed out of DCA. Partly at Congress's behest.

Compare that with Dulles, which now blessedly has a Metro stop and frequent service, but it's a 60 minute ride from Capitol Hill. To BWI? About 35 minutes by MARC train from Union Station, on the Senate side; but only 1-2 trains an hour. And yes, those are very reasonable journeys for air travel. Our Congress and staff are spoiled.

I remember reading in 1982 that the doomed Air Florida plane's entire journey, from revving up the engines to final impact at the 14th St. bridge, would've fit on a runway at Dulles with room to spare.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

What makes it dangerous is the narrow airspace that is created by the restricted zones.

I know a lot more about trains than planes... what makes that dangerous?

 

[Cal]

I know a lot more about trains than planes... what makes that dangerous?

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that it means all the traffic has to fit inside a smaller space because there's a lot of airspace that you're not allowed to enter.

 

[alanh]

Air traffic has to fly over the Potomac, following its curves. To the NE of DCA is the National Mall (White House, Capitol), to the north is the Naval Observatory (VP residence), and to the NW is the Pentagon.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that it means all the traffic has to fit inside a smaller space because there's a lot of airspace that you're not allowed to enter.

Ah... I kind of thought all airports had designated flight paths? Again... I'm a train geek who didn't fly at all until a few years ago so I don't really know.

Air traffic has to fly over the Potomac, following its curves. To the NE of DCA is the National Mall (White House, Capitol), to the north is the Naval Observatory (VP residence), and to the NW is the Pentagon.

Why does that make landing in DC dangerous?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Ah... I kind of thought all airports had designated flight paths? Again... I'm a train geek who didn't fly at all until a few years ago so I don't really know.

Why does that make landing in DC dangerous?

My guess is it’s dangerous because the planes have to bank at a low altitude just before they reach the runway approach.

This is a plane flying over the Potomac from the north shortly before it has to bank right to the runway (I believe 36). This is a frame at the end of a video I was taking as we were just across the bridge into DC. The airport is behind and to the left. The plane has not started to bank right.

 

[jis]

Ah... I kind of thought all airports had designated flight paths? Again... I'm a train geek who didn't fly at all until a few years ago so I don't really know.

Why does that make landing in DC dangerous?

I don’t understand why step aside to 33 at DCA would be any more dangerous than say step aside used at EWR to the shorter cross runway? The approach to the longer runway 1 at DCA does not appear to be all that complex. In any case nothing remotely approaching the famous checkerboard approach at the old HKG.

 

[Cal]

My guess is it’s dangerous because the planes have to bank at a low altitude just before they reach the runway approach.

I don't think this is the reason, as this happens at many airports and just means the pilots have a little bit more work to do. I thought it was because there are a lot of restricted areas, all the traffic now has to fit within the small designated areas, creating a larger density of aircraft movements, and therefore more potential for a collision.

 

[PaTrainFan]

This. DCA is extraordinarily popular with Congress, which is increasingly a Tuesday-Thursday institution. They can get from the Capitol dome (or more prosaically, one of the House or Senate office buildings) to DCA in 11 minutes by car, 35 minutes if they deign to take Metro, fat chance. Over the decades I've spent in Washington, too, jets have become quieter, not quiet but quieter, and more direct flights to further destinations and at later hours are allowed out of DCA. Partly at Congress's behest.

A few years ago there was a strong-armed effort by some in Congress to force additional slots at National Airport for the sole convenience of western representatives. This failed in the end due to the objections of the FAA and airport officials who said the airport was already at capacity.

 

[Stevenz]

I think it is overstatement to call approaches to National “dangerous.” It’s not like it has an unusually high rate of incidents, or requires specially trained crews. If you want dicey airports visit Tenzing-Hillary, Funchal, Paro, or London City. (Or for an extra bit of adventure for those who enjoy this forum, take a look at Gisborne New Zealand.)

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

So in Gisborne, New Zealand do the airplanes have the right of way or the railroad that cross the runway have the right of way?

I think it is overstatement to call approaches to National “dangerous.” It’s not like it has an unusually high rate of incidents, or requires specially trained crews. If you want dicey airports visit Tenzing-Hillary, Funchal, Paro, or London City. (Or for an extra bit of adventure for those who enjoy this forum, take a look at Gisborne New Zealand.)

My take on this tragedy is there too many aircraft try to fit into a small space. This seems to be a common issue in the US.

UPS aircraft landing in Louisville have to crossing runway that is used by smaller aircraft. The UPS aircraft are to stop short of the runway, one of these days that will cause a problem. Boston the runway point towards a common location, that has yet to cause a crash, but definitely caused some stress in the past. Hartford Springfield had a runway that came over a mountain a few years back. A aircraft hit the trees on the way in. Only made it to the airport because ground maintenance had chopped trees down between the fence and the runway. All signs of too many aircraft try to use the same space at the same time.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I think it is overstatement to call approaches to National “dangerous.” It’s not like it has an unusually high rate of incidents, or requires specially trained crews. If you want dicey airports visit Tenzing-Hillary, Funchal, Paro, or London City. (Or for an extra bit of adventure for those who enjoy this forum, take a look at Gisborne New Zealand.)

San Diego and San Antonio also scare me, lots of the same problems that DCA has!

 

[George Harris]

While on the subject of dangerous appearing airports, the old Hong Kong airport should be high on the list. You were seemingly in a canyon formed by rows of apartment buildings on both sides of the approaches. This next experience was over 50 years ago. Anchorage< Alaska. It was a fueling stop for planes US - Vietnam. It looked like you were aimed straight at a mountainside when lined up for takeoff. Didn't help these were USDOD chartered very worn looking Boeing 707's labeled for Who Are You Airlines.

 

[jis]

While on the subject of dangerous appearing airports, the old Hong Kong airport should be high on the list. You were seemingly in a canyon formed by rows of apartment buildings on both sides of the approaches. This next experience was over 50 years ago. Anchorage< Alaska. It was a fueling stop for planes US - Vietnam. It looked like you were aimed straight at a mountainside when lined up for takeoff. Didn't help these were USDOD chartered very worn looking Boeing 707's labeled for Who Are You Airlines.

That is the Checkerboard Approach that I mentioned a few posts up. One flew in perpendicular to the runway towards a Checkerboard pattern on the mountain side and then made a ninety degree right turn to enter the canyon between tall buildings to land on a runway that ended sticking out into the sea. So if you failed to stop you went into the drink. Happened a few times too.

 

[jiml]

San Diego and San Antonio also scare me, lots of the same problems that DCA has!

I've never flown into SAT, however San Diego can definitely be an adventure for multiple reasons. I prefer getting there by train!

 

[railiner]

This and other procedures must make flying in and out of Aspen a challenge…
https://aspenairport.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ASE-Wrap-Procedure-Final-2.pdf

 

[MARC Rider]

I had a thrilling ride into Albuquerque once, the plane came down through a narrow notch beterrn two mountains, plus a sudden down draft that added a little more excitement.

I also once got a thrill coming into Philadelphia just after they built a new runway that projected out into the river. I thought we were going to ditch into the Delaware until I saw at the last seconds we were on land.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

San Diego and San Antonio also scare me, lots of the same problems that DCA has!

From what I've seen (and read) AUS seems to have more operational safety problems than SAT. Maybe SAT has a problem with ramp staff getting sucked into engines and people randomly shooting up the drop-off/pickup areas with assault rifles but I've only had one operational scare at SAT and it was ages ago.

I've never flown into SAT, however San Diego can definitely be an adventure for multiple reasons. I prefer getting there by train!

I've heard SAN is scary many times but I've never had any problems there and never really noticed anything unusual. Maybe I'm just desensitized to it.

I had a thrilling ride into Albuquerque once, the plane came down through a narrow notch beterrn two mountains, plus a sudden down draft that added a little more excitement.

Most of the time flying into or out of ABQ (and SAF) is relatively uneventful but every once in a while you can end up on a real roller-coaster and with a large percentage of relatively tiny regional jets you're likely to feel every bump and bounce. I don't mind the ride but many perfectly smooth flights end up with no drink or snack service on the off chance something might happen, so even if you're in a premium seat its best to bring your own with you.

 

[Bob Dylan]

From what I've seen (and read) AUS seems to have more operational safety problems than SAT. Maybe SAT has a problem with ramp staff getting sucked into engines and people randomly shooting up the drop-off/pickup areas with assault rifles but I've only had one operational scare at SAT and it was ages ago.


I've heard SAN is scary many times but I've never had any problems there and never really noticed anything unusual. Maybe I'm just desensitized to it.


Most of the time flying into or out of ABQ (and SAF) is relatively uneventful but every once in a while you can end up on a real roller-coaster and with a large percentage of relatively tiny regional jets you're likely to feel every bump and bounce. I don't mind the ride but many perfectly smooth flights end up with no drink or snack service on the off chance something might happen, so even if you're in a premium seat its best to bring your own with you.

My biggest concern @ SAT is the Miltary and Civilan Traffic Mix, not so much the Airlines!

And you are correct, Austin ( ABI) is dangerous due to a shortage of Controllers and Congestion because the Airport is too small for the Volume of Air Traffic there!( Commercial,Military and Private)

Lots of near misses @ ABI, most don't make the News!

 

[rookzie]

So in Gisborne, New Zealand do the airplanes have the right of way or the railroad that cross the runway have the right of way?

Gisborne Airport, with the the Palmerston North–Gisborne Line, crossing the main runway.



At Wynyard, TAS, Australia, the Far Western Railway of TasRail once crossed the north end of a runway at Burnie Airport


Chicago Municipal Airport (Midway) early in its life had its old and new field bisected by BRC (Belt Railway of Chicago) railroad tracks, before they were realigned around the airport

 

[BlackDiamond]

I also once got a thrill coming into Philadelphia just after they built a new runway that projected out into the river. I thought we were going to ditch into the Delaware until I saw at the last seconds we were on land.

Like landing on runway 27 in Boston, where you approach from the East over the water of Boston Harbor.

 

[railiner]

Like landing on runway 27 in Boston, where you approach from the East over the water of Boston Harbor.

Similar at LGA on the East River, and JFK on Jamaica Bay.
Common on many airports along the coasts and other bodies of water, due to lack of obstruction’s on approach or departure…’