NZFF

by **Jimmy** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:40 pm

st maarten

yea, so easy for the crew to get distracted on short finals there.

Thats what I have always thought so dangerous about that airport, I suppose its the runway length thow is it? Not the nice sights on finals lol

by **creator2003** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:02 am

ZKTOM wrote:
QUOTE(ZKTOM @ Jul 22 2007, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What is the most dangerous airport used in international service in the world?

Share your stories here.

Anyone of them could be , :plane:

with the wrong day and pilot

by **ardypilot** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:07 am

Strong crosswind? Could go into homes/buildings to the side.

Well that could be said for any airport- not just Wellington :wacko:

by **A185F** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:58 am

Jimmy wrote:
QUOTE(Jimmy @ Jul 27 2007, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
st maarten

I suppose its the runway length thow is it?

Exactly, same with zanzibar there, no obstructions or anything funny but just short rwy length (for the big planes goin in there). I got a vid of one of brocks instructors (Baz) flying into zanzibar in a 767, twas like a carrier landing, slamed it down at the start and used every inch :blink:

by **FlyingKiwi** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:38 am

A185F wrote:
QUOTE(A185F @ Jul 27 2007, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Jimmy wrote:
QUOTE(Jimmy @ Jul 27 2007, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
st maarten

I suppose its the runway length thow is it?

Exactly, same with zanzibar there, no obstructions or anything funny but just short rwy length (for the big planes goin in there). I got a vid of one of brocks instructors (Baz) flying into zanzibar in a 767, twas like a carrier landing, slamed it down at the start and used every inch

Holy moly, a 767 into Zanzibar?

by **A185F** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:08 am

Yea well this vid was 10 yrs ago so i presume they still to a service into there, gulf air that is.. :thumbup:

It's prob longer now though

by **scon** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:00 pm

The one in Washington is Washington national Regan and yes it is VERY close to the pentagon, I came in there on a Delta 733 from JFK and you weren't allowed to stand up for the entire flight

Regan also uses RNP approaches

But Kai Tak still operates but only for helicopters

Also there are several in Alaska which are dangerous, one in particular which is known as Juneau, which was where the RNP approach started

No really dangerous but Osaka's Kan Sai can get quite fun

By the way RNP stands for Required Navigational Performance

Regards, Scott

by **victor_alpha_charlie** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:49 pm

chopper_nut wrote:
QUOTE(chopper_nut @ Jul 22 2007, 08:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How exactly could it end up like Sao Paulo?? Theres nothing off the end of the runways except sea. If the aircraft was carrying any speed at all, it would go straight over SH1 at the northern end.

Or it could plow through the traffic at the end, rip through the stupid trolley bus wires, and cause a massive explosion..

by **chopper_nut** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:58 pm

As I said, the wires trip out if they are broken. As for the traffic, people have said that our roads are dangerous.

by **Alex** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:12 pm

I dunno, it would have to be going pretty slowly for it to drop straight down that embankment at the end of 34 (start of 16), I reckon it would probably miss the road there. I do physics at school, does that give me any extra cred?

Alex

by **chopper_nut** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:49 pm

If it was carrying a bit of speed then yeah it would clear the road but the danger is when it isnt carrying any speed. This is what the RESAs are trying to help.

by **Kelburn** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:09 pm

Almost no chance of hitting a car as it would surely get stopped by the orange things at the end of the runway or dig into the earth as it falls down by the time it gets to the road it'd have to be going slowly plus there'd be enough time to react.
Also the plane would go over the edge then suddenly drop like in cartoons.

Anyway Wellington can be not so much dangerous but unnerving to passengers and a bit damaging to the aircrafts suspension.

by **chopper_nut** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:13 pm

Those orange things at the end of the runway are the localiser aerials. They arnt going to stop squat. In fact they are designed to disintergrate if an aircraft hits them. The aircraft wouldnt dig into the earth going down a slope like that. We are going to move the rocks that are in the middle of SH1 soon aswell.

by **Alex** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:23 pm

Well, I've worked out the speed an aircraft would need to be carrying to get over the edge of the road, into Evans Bay by momentum alone, but this does not factor into account any air resistance, and a couple of approximates. I have taken the height of the the embankment at 12.4m (41ft) at the Evans Bay end of runway 16, and the distance between the top of the embankment and the shore, to be a rough approximate of 50m. Below is the working;

Vy
d=Vi.t+1/2.a.t²
12.4=0+1/2.10.t²
12.4/5=t²
t²=2.48
t=1.57s

Vx
V=d/t
V=50/1.57
V=31.75ms^-1

Therefore, an aircraft would clear the road below at a speed of 61.72 knots, or 114.5km/h. And this is by momentum only, so even if the wings fell off, but the plane was still travelling at 61 knots, it would make it into the bay, with the wings of course, some extra lift would be generated, and would allow for a slightly lower speed.

Hope this makes sense.

Alex

by **flynz** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:34 pm

This is all fine Alex but that is only just clearing the road so you may still hit a high sided truck

by **scon** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:38 pm

Kelburn wrote:
QUOTE(Kelburn @ Jul 29 2007, 08:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anyway Wellington can be not so much dangerous but unnerving to passengers and a bit damaging to the aircrafts suspension.

As it goes a hard landing is a good landing

by **Alex** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:26 pm

flynz wrote:
QUOTE(flynz @ Jul 25 2007, 04:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is all fine Alex but that is only just clearing the road so you may still hit a high sided truck

It depends how high the truck is I suppose, you do physics (I'm pretty sure), but here is a handy sketch from Bucks County Community College (www.bucks.edu), that shows an example of projectile motion. It ends up going down more vertically than horizontally, and as long as it goes at a decent speed it should be able to clear the road.

Alex

by **flynz** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:46 pm

Alex wrote:
QUOTE(Alex @ Jul 25 2007, 07:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It ends up going down more vertically than horizontally

Well in that particular model it goes down faster than it travels horizontally as its horizontal movement is only 4m/s whereas 60kts is approx 30m/s. Ahh how i love physics and the debates we have in class

by **chopper_nut** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:24 am

The real danger is an aircraft travelling at 50kts sliding down onto the road, this is what the RESAs are supposed to prevent.

by **HardCorePawn** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:22 am

heh... this is getting to be a bit like:

Which is worse? Getting shot or getting stabbed?

To be honest, if the plane goes off the end of the runway, I dont think it really matters if it clears the road or not... its bad mmmKay?

NZFF

Most Dangerous Airport

Who is online