Another plane down

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:tQwve.106673$nG6.47123@attbi_s22...
Worse, Rwy 36 is only 2500 feet long now (with our newly
displaced threshold) and departs into steeply rising terrain and
downtown. As he staggered over us, his wings were rocking
and it looked to me like he was steering to the west to avoid
hitting the University of Iowa Hospital

Glad they made it ok! But a displaced threshold shouldn't have
mattered--that doesn't reduce the distance available for takeoff (or for
landing in the opposite direction).

Yeah, that didn't come out quite right.

I should have said "with our newly displaced threshold and the hundreds of
feet they've cut off the northern end of the runway."

Actually, neither factor should have reduced their altitude at any given
distance to the north of the airport.

And soon (like, within a year) we'll lose that runway altogether.

Nearby construction?

--Gary

Arnold Sten wrote:

NVArt wrote:
Hopefully, he learned from this experience. I love cheap lessons!

Sadly, the pilot, his wife, and two young daughters all perished in this
tragedy. Hopefully, all of us can all learn from his misfortune, once
the full NTSB report comes out.

Nobody perished in the event that was referred to with the "cheap lessons"
comment. It referred to an account that Jay Honeck gave of a plane
departing on a short runway toward rising terrain and obstacles with a
tailwind.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Worse, Rwy 36 is only 2500 feet long now (with our newly displaced
threshhold) and departs into steeply rising terrain and downtown.

Does the displaced threshold affect the runway available for take off?
Usually they only reduce the amount of runway available for landing (and exist
due to reasons like obstacles in the way of a descent to the very end of the
runway etc.)

Jeff wrote:

Does the displaced threshold affect the runway available for take off?
Usually they only reduce the amount of runway available for landing (and exist
due to reasons like obstacles in the way of a descent to the very end of the
runway etc.)

I just saw this addressed in another post.

tony roberts wrote:

If you don't include at least a portion of the post that you are
addressing, then your post is meaningless as we don't know what you are
responding to!

Quoting a small amount of relevant material is always a good idea, but
viewing the messages as a thread in a threaded newsreader makes it clear
what post was being referred to.

Quoting a small amount of relevant material is always a good idea, but
viewing the messages as a thread in a threaded newsreader makes it clear
what post was being referred to.

Only if the preceding message has actually =arrived= at that particular
server (they often arrive out of sequence for technical reasons). Also,
not all newsreaders thread properly (this includes the newsreader used
by the responder, whose response may not be attached to the same post he
thinks he's responding to)

And while I'm on the subject, if you separate your post from the sig
line (if any) by two dashes and a space followed by a carriage return,
many (most?) newsreaders will recognize what follows as a sig line and
treat it appropriately (different typeface, indentation, or whatever)
which lets the actual message stand out.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

(Jeff wrote)
" Quoting a small amount of relevant material is always a good idea, but
viewing the messages as a thread in a threaded newsreader makes it clear
what post was being referred to.


I (occasionally) run into problems figuring a post out because I often
delete the latest chunk of new messages after I've read through them. I
don't like all of those old messages hanging around - that's what
Google/Groups is for.

After I've cleared out the old messages, I'll generally read what arrives
new.

Oddly, I catch myself only skimming the fresh downloads when they are
dropped into an existing thread tree - an existing thread tree with hundreds
of old posts in it. Quirky me?

M$ OE 6.0
'Mark Conversation as Read' is a wonderful button :-)


Montblack

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
I should have said "with our newly displaced threshold and the hundreds of
feet they've cut off the northern end of the runway."


Actually, neither factor should have reduced their altitude at any given
distance to the north of the airport.


What if they had to climb slower than Vy because of the cut off part at
the northern end?

Displaced threshold should not have mattered, I agree on that.

Milen Lazarov wrote:
Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

I should have said "with our newly displaced threshold and the
hundreds of feet they've cut off the northern end of the runway."



Actually, neither factor should have reduced their altitude at any
given distance to the north of the airport.



What if they had to climb slower than Vy because of the cut off part at
the northern end?

Displaced threshold should not have mattered, I agree on that.

Never mind, I'm not thinking, shorter rynway should not have mattered
for their altitude either.

"Milen Lazarov" wrote in message
ink.net...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
I should have said "with our newly displaced threshold and the hundreds
of feet they've cut off the northern end of the runway."

Actually, neither factor should have reduced their altitude at any given
distance to the north of the airport.

What if they had to climb slower than Vy because of the cut off part at
the northern end?

You mean Vx, right? We're talking about maximizing altitude as a function
of distance rather than time, so Vx would be the optimal velocity. For the
particular aircraft and airport elevation under discussion, a 2500' ground
roll is well more than what is needed to reach Vx, even at 90F and with a 10
knot tailwind.

--Gary