The FAA says runways without a 1000-ft overrun area are unsafe. The
solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
fishy to me. What am I missing here?

Reference:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/15925782.htm

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The FAA says runways without a 1000-ft overrun area are unsafe. The
> solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
> fishy to me. What am I missing here?
>
> Reference:
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/15925782.htm

If the official length of the runway establishes whether a given airliner
can land there, then shortening the official length (and correspondingly
extending the designated runoff area) can indeed extend the worst-case
safety margin.

--Gary

In article . com>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> The FAA says runways without a 1000-ft overrun area are unsafe. The
> solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
> fishy to me. What am I missing here?
>
> Reference:
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/15925782.htm

They are not going to physically shorten the pavement. The article says,
"shortening the length of usable runway". This (presumably) means
declaring some of the runway "unusable" by repainting runway markings,
changing lighting and signage, etc.

So, right now you've got (say) 9000 feet of pavement and performance is
calculated based on all 9000 feet. If you declare the last 500 feet to be
"unusable", everybody now has to do their performance calculations based on
the runway being 8500 feet long. Which means aircraft that require between
8500 and 9000 feet must either go elsewhere or somehow improve their
performance (typically by operating at lower gross weights, which means
fewer people, less freight, and/or less fuel).

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
>The FAA says runways without a 1000-ft overrun area are unsafe. The
>solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
>fishy to me. What am I missing here?
>
>Reference:
>http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/15925782.htm
>
What rampant stupidity. If a pilot cannot land/take off on the
useable runway then create a requirement that you must be able to
safely operate off the published runway length minus whatever safety
margin they demand. No painting is required...no signage changes
needed. Not every runway in the USA has to accommodate the largest
aircraft on the worst day. This also means that by default all
runways are within standards.

If we did not have as many idiotic pilots like Lidle and the KLEX
pilots, things would be much better. Or idiotic "rules" people.

Ron Lee

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The FAA says runways without a 1000-ft overrun area are unsafe. The
> solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
> fishy to me. What am I missing here?

Probably nothing Andy. Sounds about right for the average FAA solution :-)
Dudley Henriques

> The
> solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
> fishy to me. What am I missing here?

When you (officially) shorten the runway, you (legally) limit the
aircraft that can use it.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article . com>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> The FAA says runways without a 1000-ft overrun area are unsafe. The
> solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
> fishy to me. What am I missing here?

don't know.

But Massport did the same stupid thing at Logan many years ago.
(even dumber because the moved the thresholds AFTER building
highspeed taxi turnoffs.)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article >,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > The FAA says runways without a 1000-ft overrun area are unsafe. The
> > solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
> > fishy to me. What am I missing here?
>
> Probably nothing Andy. Sounds about right for the average FAA solution :-)
> Dudley Henriques

to pick a nit, the FAA isn't responsible for determining a runway length. That
"honor" is left to the airport.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > The FAA says runways without a 1000-ft overrun area are unsafe. The
>> > solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
>> > fishy to me. What am I missing here?
>>
>> Probably nothing Andy. Sounds about right for the average FAA solution
>> :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> to pick a nit, the FAA isn't responsible for determining a runway length.
> That
> "honor" is left to the airport.

Why do you think I said it sounds about right for the average FAA
solution??? :-)
DH

>>> > The FAA says runways without a 1000-ft overrun area are unsafe. The
>>> > solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
>>> > fishy to me. What am I missing here?
>>>
>>> Probably nothing Andy. Sounds about right for the average FAA solution
>>> :-)
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> to pick a nit, the FAA isn't responsible for determining a runway length.
>> That
>> "honor" is left to the airport.

Isn't the "standard/safety issue" coming from the FAA?

Ron Lee

On 5 Nov 2006 12:47:53 -0800, "Andrew Sarangan" >
wrote:

>
>The FAA says runways without a 1000-ft overrun area are unsafe. The
>solution? Extend the overrun by shortening the runway. That sounds
>fishy to me. What am I missing here?

Apparently for those airports where they don't have 1000 feet to
spare, they can install an Engineered Materials Arresting System
(EMAS) as a substitute. That's pavement material that will slow the
airplane quickly. It looks like they're talking about a kind of
concrete that would collapse under the weight of a heavy aircraft,
making it dissipate speed as it slogs through it. Out in the real
world, we call that mud. Or maybe sand could work well too, it works
for beach volleyball. Of course in this case it would have to be FAA
approved sand

High grass has a well-established effect of slowing down aircraft. And
it's organic. Maybe the airport management could save money by not
mowing the grass and call it a safety enhancement.

RK Henry