Yep, I’ve seen it in Singapore too.
I doubt it. According to the theory, I think the runway use would be in the case of a nuclear war, where all of our SAC airfields would be obliterated while the planes were out dropping bombs, and when they returned, they’d need somewhere to land. Remember that this was back in the fifties, before it was simply assumed that a nuclear war would obliterate all life on the planet.
Not saying that it’s true that interstates were designed to double as runways, just that it’s not as outlandish as you might think.
What about the weight of the aircraft, on the wheels? Would a freeway’s asphalt be strong enough to support a landing 747? I think runways are pretty thick. Moot question anyway.
But I don’t know.
Peace,
mangeorge
quote"Yup, but would such “rinky-dink” airports have a runway suitable for landing a 747?"
You wouldn’t really need to use the rinky-dink places to ground all of the 747’s. There have only been about 1300 total built (not sure how many of that total have been retired). Considering you could park at least a dozen of them at each major airport, you’d run out of planes long before you ran out of gates to park them at.
Well, it all depends on the size/weight of the plane. Under a certain size a plane doesn’t need a runway, it can land on any reasonably flat and level spot (flat being more important than perfectly level)
Using the interstates would also require that 2-3 mile stretches be free of vehicle traffic to land - in the event of WWIII I think the general assumption would be the Traffic Jam from Hell, unless the city folk got absolutely no warning whatsoever.
Traffic jam from hell in Montana and Nevada and Nebraska, where the roads are emptiest and straightest? Seems unlikely. And in WWIII, if I’m piloting a bomber that has to land because of an emergency (well, if I’m ever piloting a plane that has to land…), I’m looking for any relatively clear, flat piece of land. Interstates just about everywhere 15-20 miles from city centers would be just as good a bet as anywhere else (other than airports).
Another thing to remember as far as the OP is that, in an emergency where every plane had to land, I don’t think FAA regulations would be enforced or adhered to. I’m certainly no expert, but there certainly are regulations on how quickly one plane can land after another, and no doubt there are regulations on how closely they can be parked on operating tarmacs, etc. In an emergency, planes would be landing much more quickly and packed in once on the ground.
Assuming such an emergency did exist… normal regulations would not need to be adhered to. There is a provision in the rule book that allows a pilot in an emergency to do whatever is required to deal with the emergency including bending or breaking of regulations. (Of course, you may also be required to explain yourself later and the expectation is that rule-breaking is a last resort)
How quickly planes can land is mostly a function of air traffic control. A sophisticated system in ideal conditions can result in landings closer together than two minutes on the same runway, and simultaneous operations on parrellel runways that are sufficiently far apart. However, I believe the hypothetical emergency would not qualify as “ideal conditions”.
There are no Federal regulations regarding how close planes can park to each other, although there may well be rules at a particular airfield or in the operating procedures of an airline or military squadron. In fact, there is a airplane skin disease called “hangar rash” that usually results from planes being parked too close together and scraping up each others’ exteriors.
In such an emergency the big problem will be getting the planes safely on the ground, not parking them afterwards.
It looks like we’ll get our answer today, at least in the United States.
Last reports were about 50 planes which have all probably landed by now, plus 22 international flights en route. A number of flights (international) were diverted to Canada, which may also be grounding domestic flights or US flights, I’m not sure.
It is extraordinarily eerie to read this thread, especially Broomstick’s last post in it.
It is also strange to look up in the sky and realize that you don’t just see or hear no planes right now, but there may not be any up there all day.
I think the rinky-dink airports are your answer. I am sure that some of them operate far under capacity.
Some even have facilities/runways that can hold far bigger planes than they normally see. Omaha can land the Concorde, for example. I think of of the rich guys (not Warren Buffet, I don’t think, but the Godfather’s Pizza tycoon) had it flown in for a birthday party.
Also, around here there is an old military airfield which is now used 100% for cargo. I am sure there are dozens like it around the country, and they could be used for commercial passenger aircraft in a pinch.
ever heard of an URBAN LEGEND ???
They are reporting here in Canada that diverted flights are landing in Gander, Newfoundland at the rate of one every minute and forty-five seconds. I have not heard any concern about being able to land all of the traffic, just being able to deal with all of the people on the planes who have nowhere to go. I know that here in Calgary a few diverted flights have landed, and that all of the hotels here are now full.
Slightly OT, There are reports that two 747s from Korea were escorted into Whitehorse by fighters and are being treated on the ground like they are hijacked. No one has said that they are hijacked, just that they are being treated as such.
Well, guess we got our answer - you CAN land all the planes in the US. Very quiet, very erie.
The local field by my house has an unusual number of planes parked, but no trouble finding room for all who showed up.
My husband was listening to our aviation scanner. Seems they broadcast on all aviation frequencies that there was a national emergency and all aircraft were advised to land as soon as possible. Thank god we have clear weather over most of the US today, it had to have helped considerably in getting everyone down.
As for the diverted planes being treated as hijacked - with thousands dead, you can hardly blame anyone for preferring to err on the side of caution.
On the contrary. It’s even more important to stick to procedure when things are otherwise chaotic. Otherwise, it’s far too easy to make a tragic mistake.
Also, the landing separation is entirely for safety. Wake turbulence from the leading plane can make the following plane very difficult to land safely. A smaller plane, like a DC-9, following too closely behind a heavy, like a Boeing 777, can literally be flipped over by wake turbulence. And there would be nothing the DC-9 pilot could do about it.