Another thing is you never really look at how long a runway you need to take-off. You can’t change the runway, but you can change your weight by loading less fuel, passengers, and/or freight. So you look at the runway you’ve got and ask “how heavy can we be and take-off from this runway?” But that’s not very exciting from a media perspective. It’s much more delicious to say “this aeroplane needs 9199’ to take-off but only has 6100’” instead of “this aeroplane needs to weigh 200,000 kg at most to take-off from this runway.”
So the plane doesn’t have a minimum required runway length for takeoff of 9199? I assume that minimum length in the plane’s manual would be for when it’s totally empty of cargo… no weight other than fuel and the people operating it. Thus 'minimum required runway length". It would need more length if it had heavy cargo.
I do agree it’s media hype, i’m sure there was no danger, and obviously it took off just fine. But I’d like to think they asked the manufacturer or somehow looked up the requisite runway length in the plane’s manuals on file with the FAA (as they’re required to be).
Yep, they would’ve found out the maximum runway length required at the maximum take-off weight. This has no relation to what they actually need on the day at the weight they are actually at, but it sounds exciting.
i did see where they temporarily closed the road that was closest to the end of the runway. just in case.
Someone at work asked why a new crew had to come in to handle the takeoff. He thought that was strange. I told him I thought there was no way Atlas was going to let two unemployed guys fly their airplane.
Actually, not practical at all. It was a separate experiment from the ground approach radar Clarke was working on. It was a failure. While it did disperse the fog for a time from around the runway, it left the air in that vicinity very turbulent. Turbulence is the last thing a pilot wants when landing. Combine that with the fact that it’s consuming large quantities of a vital resource (fuel) and you can see how it was not a success.
Could have been. The viewpoint character in the book was an enlisted man, which Clarke was for about half the war. He got a commission in '43, so it depends on when the incident actually took place.
The runway numbers are based on the magnetic compass heading. So it’s a difference between 180 degrees and 180 degrees on the compass, which isn’t that much in practical terms.
Jabarra doesn’t have a control tower. Most likely they were in contact with McConnell tower, told them they were on the ground, the tower personnel realized that the 747 wasn’t at McConnell, and then commenced to ask the plane crew if they knew what airport they were at (which exchange was taped and has now been broadcast).
The airports were separated by about 9 miles, which in aviation terms isn’t that much. Even if the controller did notice the blip was in the wrong place what the heck do you expect the controller to do? They don’t have a remote-control setup to fly errant airplanes back to the correct airport, LOL. This is a pilot mistake, not a controller mistake.
Ya gotta remember, the people in the media reporting on this are by and large not pilots and have no idea how to read the manual. Real airplane manuals list things like “maximum take off weight” and “minimum distance to clear 50 foot obstacles”. The minimum length is determined by a number of variables, from actual loaded weight to the outside air temperature and humidity. In extreme situations you can take off from a runway much shorter than what you would normally use.
My suggestion was that if all else failed, they could just put JATO bottles on the 747 and build a ski-ramp at the other end of the runway. Then again, every time I’m presented with an academic problem of “The runway is too short” for whatever reason, I’m always quick to suggest a ski ramp. It works on aircraft carriers, why can’t it work for airports?
Few months back, the same thing happened with a C-17 in Florida. I recall everybody on the news wondering if the plane would be able to take off again.
Mind you, the C-17 Globemaster is specifically designed for short takeoffs on shitty runways, so I thought the whole media circus was pretty funny.
In any case, launching and recovering airplanes is literally a science. The aircrew has a set of charts that tell them how much runway they need to take off at what airspeed with how much weight, with the solution variously changing based on the available factors. For more unusual situations, the aircraft manufacturer will usually have more extensive data to produce a solution from, which falls into the purview of things that the aircraft is capable of doing, but which the pilots shouldn’t, unless specifically told to (another example of this being barrel rolls, as one test pilot demonstrated with the Boeing 367-80 back in the day). There was never any chance the plane would be turned around and launched again if they didn’t know it should work. At least not a same-day turnaround.
Regarding the new crew being brought in, most likely explanation is that the old crew was no longer properly rested. Best to bring in fresh pilots to take over. Though the unemployed pilots thing could be a possibility in the long term.
empty versus maximum weight. It’s a function of speed and the less it weighs the shorter the amount of time it takes to reach that speed. Think drag racing with a bus versus a small truck. The plane literally doubles in weight between minimum and maximum loads.
And landing at the wrong airport is easy when flying visually. almost landed at a military base once by mistake due to haze and the sun in my eyes. I had just announced airport in sight when I realized the runway configuration was all wrong.
Going off on a tangent:
Several years ago a 747 really did land at an airport where they couldn’t take off again. This was deliberate; the plane was to become a static display at Rand airport in South Africa.
Here’s the video of the landing on the tiny, tiny runway, only a few feet wider than the landing gear.
Short article here, with some amazing still shots.
[sub]Should I use the word “hijack” in a thread about airplanes?[/sub]
Quite enjoyed this thread, and especially Richard Pearse’s insightful contributions to it. As a (very slowly, due to limited opportunities to get hours and also it’s difficult to fly a damn plane) budding sport pilot, this is all fascinating. 
Meanwhile, the situation does rather remind me of the episode of Cabin Pressure in which the crew wound up grounded at some airport in Africa and unable to take off because they couldn’t pay the fees. Solution: steal just enough fuel to be able to taxi down the highway to the next airport. 
I swear on Cecil’s grave I did not read the story linked below before I posted that comment:
Cecil ain’t dead.
Of course, he ain’t alive that we know of, but he still ain’t dead.
:dubious:
I wonder if it could make it around the world in eighty days.
Speaking of moving planes down roads, the USS Lexington (CV-16) is on display as a museum ship in Corpus Christi, Texas. One of the display pieces, IIRC, was an A-6 Intruder that they had to ship in on a very large flatbed truck that would entirely shut down traffic on any road they used, necessitating them to get a permit from the city before proceeding.
They presented their plan to move the plane at 2 in the morning, so as not to be a huge disruption. The Mayor shot the plan down, and told them they should do it at 2 in the afternoon instead. They ended up planning a parade around it.
And speaking of aircraft carriers, there is of course the impressive footage you can find of the Navy tests where they landed a C-130 Hercules on an aircraft carrier and launched it again. It turns out that it’s entirely possible, and the biggest limiting factor is that the plane’s wingspan is just narrow enough to avoid clipping the island on the carrier. Once they verified that it could be done (handy if a carrier group needed resupply quickly in the middle of the ocean), they never did it again.
Here ya go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84
Good luck with your training!
So I was a pax on a 737 at STL. Plane took a bird through one of the engines on landing.
Inspections were done. Engines were fired up while we were still at the gate.
Taxied to the end of the runway. Pilot stood on the brake and full throttled both engines. Engines spooled up, the entire plane was quivering. Pilot held it at what felt like WFO (Wide Fucking Open, this is a technical term) for about 10 seconds, then I guess everything looked OK up front because the pilot released the brakes.
Felt like that bird rolled about 75 feet before the pilot rotated the nose up.
That was a short field take off. 