JetBlue TrueBlue - A320 out/ into Burbank, safety

Hey,

I fly from JFK to California fairly often. I know that the Burbank runway is way shorter than the LGB runway. And I know that Burbank has some nasty hills right nearby, while LGB is nice and flat. If my California destination were in between Burbank and LGB, I would always fly in and out of LGB,from a pure safety standpoint.

I am trying to find out exactly _how much_ the runway length makes a difference. For instance, when an A320 has to take off from Burbank runway 8 on a hot day, could it clear the mountains if it suffered a complete failure of engine 1 very shortly after takeoff? I know that is a super-longshot situation, but I am just trying to get an idea of the difference between the two airports in safety. Another similar question -- how much more dangerous do those nearby hills make the approach, versus the LGB terrain?

Particularly, it takes me about 15-20 minutes to get from the place I stay in CA to Burbank, and takes 33-43 to get to LGB. So it's clearly way more dangerous to make the drive to LGB -- is the difference in air travel safety worth it?

Welcome to FT!

Statistically, you're safer on a failed engine departure just clearing the hills out of BUR than you are in your own car on a SoCal highway!

As far as safety between the two airports, the FAA has strict regulations in place and you're FINE at BUR. I flew to BUR in March and it's a great airport...harder breaking at the end of the runway on landing but no big deal.

Maybe dietcoke (and JetBlueFA) can add some insight as well...

Statistically, you're safer on a failed engine departure just clearing the hills out of BUR than you are in your own car on a SoCal highway!


THAT IS SOOOOO TRUE!!! :D

Particularly, it takes me about 15-20 minutes to get from the place I stay in CA to Burbank, and takes 33-43 to get to LGB. So it's clearly way more dangerous to make the drive to LGB -- is the difference in air travel safety worth it?

Absolutely not. The rules/limits/requirements for flying into any FAA-regulated airport are pretty consistent. They don't make exceptions to allow less safe approaches to one airport versus another. Specifically, the issue of being able to complete take off on a single engine is one that they take very seriously. At the end of the day, you're much safer in an airplane than you are driving down the road. Enjoy your flight.

Thanks everyone!

In other words, don't worry about it. Or at least don't choose the airport based on perceived differences in safety. Burbank's north/south runway is hardly short by commercial aircraft standards at nearly 7000 feet long.

In other words, don't worry about it. Or at least don't choose the airport based on perceived differences in safety. Burbank's north/south runway is hardly short by commercial aircraft standards at nearly 7000 feet long.

Especially considering DCA is just over 6,000 right on the water!

Don't know where you stay in the LA area, but you're more likely, as several other posters have suggested, to get killed driving to LGB on a given day than flying in or out of BUR (or any other airport). It's a great little airport, and I would fly in there on a regular basis if it weren't for my schedule getting here (the flights to LAX work much better for me on the BNA end). If my wife and I fly into BUR, one can walk to the rental car lot and get the car while the other waits for baggage.

i was at BUR a couple weeks ago. great little airport. and the runways seemed much longer then DCA, and i never feel unsafe flying out of DCA!

I am trying to find out exactly _how much_ the runway length makes a difference. For instance, when an A320 has to take off from Burbank runway 8 on a hot day, could it clear the mountains if it suffered a complete failure of engine 1 very shortly after takeoff? I know that is a super-longshot situation, but I am just trying to get an idea of the difference between the two airports in safety. Another similar question -- how much more dangerous do those nearby hills make the approach, versus the LGB terrain?
Runway length and topography are not major factors in assessing the risk associated with engine failure on take off. Engine failure on take off can be either managed regardless of runway/topography or can turn into a major accident even at an airport with a long runway and flat terrain.

Crashing into a hillside is not much more dangerous than crashing into a warehouse or a subdivision....

Regarding the approach, the hills surrounding BUR do not add any significant hazard to the approach, especially given that BUR has ILS.

One of the most hazardous approaches routinely made in U.S. aviation is the runway 31 approach at LGA (surrounded by flat terrain, of course). This involves the standard runway 04 approach then a bank to the right, a quick turn to left past Shea Stadium and Flushing Bay. On the average approach, the plane is straightened about 10 seconds before landing. It's an interesting experience in windy weather, to say the least.

But if you really want to make it interesting, you have to head down to the Netherlands Antilles and runway 09/27 at SXM, which is only about 7,150-ft long. When the heavies touch down, they virtually graze the beach before the runway.

Taking off on runway 9 means using virtually every inch of runway and then banking right to avoid the mountain at the end of the runway. It's an interesting experience at night...

Oh and by the way, all of this and no ILS...that's the only way to keep it real...

Still, there has never been an accident there, so I don't think there is any need to be worried.

Still, there has never been an accident there, so I don't think there is any need to be worried.

Never been an accident as the result of an engine failure. Southwest 1455 overshot the runway in BUR along with Alex Rodriguez's private jet.

TWA Fan, you mention some very interesting approaches. LGA's 31 approach is by far the strangest approach I have experienced. I only wish it felt like 10 seconds of being level on short final! I literally remember it being more like 3 seconds :D I've only experienced that once or twice. I usually get 13 or 22.

SXM looks incredible by the photos on a.net and jetphotos. I hope to make it down there one day!

Nonetheless, I'd take an approach into BUR, SXM and LGA all in one day over riding in a car on the highway any day of the week! Sadly, the latter occurs more often in pretty much all our lives.

Never been an accident as the result of an engine failure. Southwest 1455 overshot the runway in BUR along with Alex Rodriguez's private jet.IIRC, though, these were landing incidents, which is the more common occurrence of overshooting the runway.

Although BUR's short runway do increase the likelihood over overshooting, at least there is solid ground beyond the runway, unlike LGA where overshooting will most likely land you in the pristine waters of Flushing Bay (at least on the runway 04 & 13 approaches)...

Think that's the first time I've seen pristine waters and Flushing Bay used with in 300 miles of each other. :p

Real good question. Yep, Bur's runways are a little short so sometimes in the summer months we weight limit our loads. Often we'll only book to 145 rather to the usual 150.

Might help to know that the 320's computers are set to take over in case of a single engine failure and will restart the engine.

Trust me here, if I didn't have faith in the planes and more importantly our wonderful pilots, I'd be looking for another job.

Cheers