Runway closing permanently at Allegheny County (KAGC)

[John R]

The crosswinds runway needs $5.5 million in repairs and
safety-related work, none of which is eligible for reimbursement
by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Brad Penrod,
authority chief operating officer. However, the authority can
obtain federal funding to convert the runway to a taxiway.

Penrod said that if the authority spent its own money to repair
the runway, there would be nothing left for other improvements at
the county airport.

The runway targeted for closing is the county airport's shortest.
It is used primarily by recreational pilots in small aircraft and
by students learning to fly. At 2,547 feet, it's too short for
larger corporate jets and accounts for only 4 percent of all
take-offs and landings.

It has a southwest-to-northeast orientation that helps small
planes when crosswinds make landings on the other two runways
more difficult.

With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
has an east-west orientation.


http://www.pittsburgpost-gazette.com/pg/04164/330948.stm

[BTIZ]

it's sad to hear of any runway closure.. but at 2547ft.. it is pretty short
for most people.. and only a few light aircraft could use it..

If the county goes about this the right way.. and designates it a
"taxiway".. it may still be available for "emergency use"... when any
concrete available becomes a runway..

at our local airport.. we do not have a SW/NE runway.. for when the winds
blow hard from the SW.. so taxiway H can be requested.. the tower will so
state "land at own discretion" .. and keep others off that taxiway... land
with no incident.. no problem.. not keep it on the pavement.. could be a
problem... but landing on 50ft wide taxiway.. pointing somewhat into the
wind.. is better than a 90 cross at 30knts..

when it was built it could not be designated a runway.. because there are no
clear zones on the SW end.. but that was only one of the issues..

BT

"John R" > wrote in message ...
> The crosswinds runway needs $5.5 million in repairs and
> safety-related work, none of which is eligible for reimbursement
> by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Brad Penrod,
> authority chief operating officer. However, the authority can
> obtain federal funding to convert the runway to a taxiway.
>
> Penrod said that if the authority spent its own money to repair
> the runway, there would be nothing left for other improvements at
> the county airport.
>
> The runway targeted for closing is the county airport's shortest.
> It is used primarily by recreational pilots in small aircraft and
> by students learning to fly. At 2,547 feet, it's too short for
> larger corporate jets and accounts for only 4 percent of all
> take-offs and landings.
>
> It has a southwest-to-northeast orientation that helps small
> planes when crosswinds make landings on the other two runways
> more difficult.
>
> With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
> with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
> landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
> has an east-west orientation.
>
>
> http://www.pittsburgpost-gazette.com/pg/04164/330948.stm
>

[EDR]

In article >, John R > wrote:

> With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
> with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
> landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
> has an east-west orientation.

Regardless, in an emergency, you can still use it as a runway.

[Bob Chilcoat]

Hell, 2,547' isn't a short runway. The main runway at SMQ where I'm based
is only 2,133' if you subtract the 600' displaced threshold on 30. It does
"feel" longer from the 12 end, but we have King Airs and a Pilatus operating
out of there on 30 all the time. Someone warned me the other day when I was
planning a flight to visit him that the rw at his airport was "only" 3,500'.
Do people really have trouble landing single-engine a/c on 3,500' runways?

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:_tQyc.22469$fZ1.5865@fed1read03...
> it's sad to hear of any runway closure.. but at 2547ft.. it is pretty
short
> for most people.. and only a few light aircraft could use it..
>
> If the county goes about this the right way.. and designates it a
> "taxiway".. it may still be available for "emergency use"... when any
> concrete available becomes a runway..
>
> at our local airport.. we do not have a SW/NE runway.. for when the winds
> blow hard from the SW.. so taxiway H can be requested.. the tower will so
> state "land at own discretion" .. and keep others off that taxiway... land
> with no incident.. no problem.. not keep it on the pavement.. could be a
> problem... but landing on 50ft wide taxiway.. pointing somewhat into the
> wind.. is better than a 90 cross at 30knts..
>
> when it was built it could not be designated a runway.. because there are
no
> clear zones on the SW end.. but that was only one of the issues..
>
> BT
>
> "John R" > wrote in message
...
> > The crosswinds runway needs $5.5 million in repairs and
> > safety-related work, none of which is eligible for reimbursement
> > by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Brad Penrod,
> > authority chief operating officer. However, the authority can
> > obtain federal funding to convert the runway to a taxiway.
> >
> > Penrod said that if the authority spent its own money to repair
> > the runway, there would be nothing left for other improvements at
> > the county airport.
> >
> > The runway targeted for closing is the county airport's shortest.
> > It is used primarily by recreational pilots in small aircraft and
> > by students learning to fly. At 2,547 feet, it's too short for
> > larger corporate jets and accounts for only 4 percent of all
> > take-offs and landings.
> >
> > It has a southwest-to-northeast orientation that helps small
> > planes when crosswinds make landings on the other two runways
> > more difficult.
> >
> > With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
> > with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
> > landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
> > has an east-west orientation.
> >
> >
> > http://www.pittsburgpost-gazette.com/pg/04164/330948.stm
> >
>
>

[BTIZ]

you'd be surprised.. but maybe not.. I see a lot of long landings with these
new kit builts.. Lancairs.. or RVs.. or even the GlassStar today used about
2000ft out of 4500 to just get it to touch pavement.. it's amazing what 5
knts of tailwind and a little extra speed on final will do you you...

I'm sure it's piloting technique.. and not the airplane that requires the
runway..
of course out here.. we have relatively hi Density Altitude..
BT

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
...
> Hell, 2,547' isn't a short runway. The main runway at SMQ where I'm based
> is only 2,133' if you subtract the 600' displaced threshold on 30. It
does
> "feel" longer from the 12 end, but we have King Airs and a Pilatus
operating
> out of there on 30 all the time. Someone warned me the other day when I
was
> planning a flight to visit him that the rw at his airport was "only"
3,500'.
> Do people really have trouble landing single-engine a/c on 3,500' runways?
>
> --
> Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
>
> I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
> America
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:_tQyc.22469$fZ1.5865@fed1read03...
> > it's sad to hear of any runway closure.. but at 2547ft.. it is pretty
> short
> > for most people.. and only a few light aircraft could use it..
> >
> > If the county goes about this the right way.. and designates it a
> > "taxiway".. it may still be available for "emergency use"... when any
> > concrete available becomes a runway..
> >
> > at our local airport.. we do not have a SW/NE runway.. for when the
winds
> > blow hard from the SW.. so taxiway H can be requested.. the tower will
so
> > state "land at own discretion" .. and keep others off that taxiway...
land
> > with no incident.. no problem.. not keep it on the pavement.. could be a
> > problem... but landing on 50ft wide taxiway.. pointing somewhat into the
> > wind.. is better than a 90 cross at 30knts..
> >
> > when it was built it could not be designated a runway.. because there
are
> no
> > clear zones on the SW end.. but that was only one of the issues..
> >
> > BT
> >
> > "John R" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > The crosswinds runway needs $5.5 million in repairs and
> > > safety-related work, none of which is eligible for reimbursement
> > > by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Brad Penrod,
> > > authority chief operating officer. However, the authority can
> > > obtain federal funding to convert the runway to a taxiway.
> > >
> > > Penrod said that if the authority spent its own money to repair
> > > the runway, there would be nothing left for other improvements at
> > > the county airport.
> > >
> > > The runway targeted for closing is the county airport's shortest.
> > > It is used primarily by recreational pilots in small aircraft and
> > > by students learning to fly. At 2,547 feet, it's too short for
> > > larger corporate jets and accounts for only 4 percent of all
> > > take-offs and landings.
> > >
> > > It has a southwest-to-northeast orientation that helps small
> > > planes when crosswinds make landings on the other two runways
> > > more difficult.
> > >
> > > With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
> > > with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
> > > landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
> > > has an east-west orientation.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.pittsburgpost-gazette.com/pg/04164/330948.stm
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Richard Russell]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:37:53 GMT, EDR > wrote:

>In article >, John R > wrote:
>
>> With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
>> with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
>> landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
>> has an east-west orientation.
>
>Regardless, in an emergency, you can still use it as a runway.

That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
companies will not pay, even if was an emergency. This official
(remember NACO, not FAA) said that you should land adjacent to the
runway but not on it, if you think you can survive the landing. Has
anyone ever heard of such a thing? I think I'd be inclined to land on
the closed runway, provided it wasn't butchered like Meigs.
Rich Russell

[EDR]

In article >, Bob Chilcoat
> wrote:

> Do people really have trouble landing single-engine a/c on 3,500' runways?

As they say in Minnesota and Wisconsin... "You betcha!"
Many pilots are flying waaaay too fast on final and floating halfway
down the runway before touchdown.
I did my BFR three weeks ago with an instructor I have alot of respect
for, but was shocked when he told me the approach speed he wanted me to
use in the Archer we were flying. During preflight I had calculated the
speeds for the weight we were operating at. The speed he had me flying
was 15 knots above where we should have been, resulting in alot of
float.

[EDR]

In article >, Richard
Russell > wrote:

> >Regardless, in an emergency, you can still use it as a runway.

> That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
> important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
> NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
> companies will not pay, even if was an emergency. This official
> (remember NACO, not FAA) said that you should land adjacent to the
> runway but not on it, if you think you can survive the landing. Has
> anyone ever heard of such a thing? I think I'd be inclined to land on
> the closed runway, provided it wasn't butchered like Meigs.

I have read somewhere, that there is less damage to the aircraft
landing on the hard surface than on the turf during a gear up
emergency.

[Peter Duniho]

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
> important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
> NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
> companies will not pay, even if was an emergency.

NACO (whoever they are) doesn't set the rules for each policy. The
underwriter for the policy does. And unless the policy explicitly says you
cannot land on a closed runway, even in an emergency, the insurance company
would have a hard time justifying withholding payment on the policy. I know
my policy contains no such language.

It is up to the pilot to decide where the most suitable emergency landing
site is, and it is up to the insurance company to pay for damages to the
airplane that are a result of an accident. Most accidents are the result of
poor judgment on the pilot's part anyway, so even if a closed runway turned
out to not be the most suitable landing site (and that's not a foregone
conclusion anyway), the insurance policy should pay, barring some specific
language to the contrary.

Pete

[Richard Russell]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:55:30 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>> That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
>> important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
>> NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
>> companies will not pay, even if was an emergency.
>
>NACO (whoever they are) doesn't set the rules for each policy. The
>underwriter for the policy does. And unless the policy explicitly says you
>cannot land on a closed runway, even in an emergency, the insurance company
>would have a hard time justifying withholding payment on the policy. I know
>my policy contains no such language.
>
>It is up to the pilot to decide where the most suitable emergency landing
>site is, and it is up to the insurance company to pay for damages to the
>airplane that are a result of an accident. Most accidents are the result of
>poor judgment on the pilot's part anyway, so even if a closed runway turned
>out to not be the most suitable landing site (and that's not a foregone
>conclusion anyway), the insurance policy should pay, barring some specific
>language to the contrary.
>
>Pete
>

NACO is the National Aeronautical Charting Office. I understand what
you are saying about the details of idividual policies. This fellow
(I wish I could remember his name, but he was very highly placed)
claimed that it was an issue of landing where landings are expressly
prohibited as opposed to landing on a suitable site where you are not
expressly prohibited from landing. He implied that this
interpretation was industry standard. As noted in my original post, I
would land on the closed runway, conditions permitting.

Rich Russell

[Peter Duniho]

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> NACO is the National Aeronautical Charting Office.

Ahh...I see. I knew that was one interpretation of NACO, but couldn't see
how they were involved in this issue.

> [...] This fellow
> (I wish I could remember his name, but he was very highly placed)
> claimed that it was an issue of landing where landings are expressly
> prohibited as opposed to landing on a suitable site where you are not
> expressly prohibited from landing.

That logic doesn't make any sense. For example, landings would normally be
prohibited in a schoolyard, for example. But in an emergency, if that's the
only suitable site or is the most suitable site, there's absolutely no
problem with landing there, not from the point of view of the FARs nor from
the point of view of any insurance company.

There are lots of places you're not normally permitted to land. Most
emergency landings are made on such places, and the choice of the landing
site should never be a hinderance to insurance paying out.

> He implied that this interpretation was industry standard.

Well, if that implication was intentional on his part, he simply doesn't
know what he's talking about. Which is not surprising. His job has nothing
to do with insurance.

> As noted in my original post, I
> would land on the closed runway, conditions permitting.

As should any pilot. Without having any worry at all about whether their
insurance will pay.

Pete

[BTIZ]

some times that extra 5 knots for momma and the kids.. ends up in a heap at
the far end of the runway..

BT

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Bob Chilcoat
> > wrote:
>
> > Do people really have trouble landing single-engine a/c on 3,500'
runways?
>
> As they say in Minnesota and Wisconsin... "You betcha!"
> Many pilots are flying waaaay too fast on final and floating halfway
> down the runway before touchdown.
> I did my BFR three weeks ago with an instructor I have alot of respect
> for, but was shocked when he told me the approach speed he wanted me to
> use in the Archer we were flying. During preflight I had calculated the
> speeds for the weight we were operating at. The speed he had me flying
> was 15 knots above where we should have been, resulting in alot of
> float.

[Paul Sengupta]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Bob Chilcoat
> > wrote:
>
> > Do people really have trouble landing single-engine a/c on 3,500'
runways?
>
> As they say in Minnesota and Wisconsin... "You betcha!"
> Many pilots are flying waaaay too fast on final and floating halfway
> down the runway before touchdown.

Blimey. If I floated 1750ft down from the start of my runway
I'd be into the trees or the fence pretty quickly.

Paul