COU Shut Down Over Apparent Runway Issue
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Bonvoy Ambassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 499
COU Shut Down Over Apparent Runway Issue
Wanted to get this breaking news out there since I know how crucial COU is to so many of your travel plans
https://www.columbiatribune.com/news...umbia-regional
Apparently both regional carriers for AA and one of the two for UA have canceled all flights in/out of COU over complaints that runway 13/31 isn't up to snuff. That's as technical as I can get right now; I've been looking all over for any information on what they think the problem is but I don't have anything yet. The main runway (2/20) is out of service for scheduled maintenance, but 13/31 was just recently completely renovated, so I'm really not clear what the problem could be. And the fact that one carrier (Air Wisconsin FTW!) is still flying and apparently doesn't see an issue seems pretty weird.
I was scheduled tomorrow COU-DFW-AUS; they put me on AAL385 STL-DFW with the same connection, so it's not a huge deal or anything (though the 2-hour drive and earlier timing isn't exactly great); my upgrade even cleared within an hour of getting the flight changed. That said, I suppose I'll go ahead and be typical FT guy: should I be hassling somebody for some free miles or something over this? Or does a mod need to merge me into the "least substantive complaint" thread?
Mostly joking there of course; I'm fine with the situation. Just seems very strange, and I really hope the get it sorted soon; an extended bout of STL flights will become increasingly inconvenient.
https://www.columbiatribune.com/news...umbia-regional
Apparently both regional carriers for AA and one of the two for UA have canceled all flights in/out of COU over complaints that runway 13/31 isn't up to snuff. That's as technical as I can get right now; I've been looking all over for any information on what they think the problem is but I don't have anything yet. The main runway (2/20) is out of service for scheduled maintenance, but 13/31 was just recently completely renovated, so I'm really not clear what the problem could be. And the fact that one carrier (Air Wisconsin FTW!) is still flying and apparently doesn't see an issue seems pretty weird.
I was scheduled tomorrow COU-DFW-AUS; they put me on AAL385 STL-DFW with the same connection, so it's not a huge deal or anything (though the 2-hour drive and earlier timing isn't exactly great); my upgrade even cleared within an hour of getting the flight changed. That said, I suppose I'll go ahead and be typical FT guy: should I be hassling somebody for some free miles or something over this? Or does a mod need to merge me into the "least substantive complaint" thread?
Mostly joking there of course; I'm fine with the situation. Just seems very strange, and I really hope the get it sorted soon; an extended bout of STL flights will become increasingly inconvenient.
#2
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 38
The FB page for COU has fairly up to date information on the situation. COU management, FAA, the airlines, and other stakeholders are holding a conference call tomorrow (4/8) to discuss and, hopefully, resolve the issues and resume scheduled flights.
Last edited by SC54HI; Apr 7, 2019 at 3:21 pm Reason: Trying to fix link to COU FB page but giving up.
#4
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 163
Latest chart has it at 5500 https://www.airnav.com/airport/KCOU, CR7 needs 5265 at MTOW https://commercialaircraft.bombardie...specifications
#5
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
Doesn't leave much room for error, particularly if its wet.
The website suggests it's also a condition issue which seems odd since it was just redone. Must have some pilot complaints.
The website suggests it's also a condition issue which seems odd since it was just redone. Must have some pilot complaints.
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Bonvoy Ambassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 499
I anticipate the "room for error" is built into the runway requirements. Certainly those numbers don't represent "this is exactly how long it will take to get this thing off the ground" right? Also, given the only destinations are DEN/DFW/ORD I doubt they're loading up to MTOW, though that's just a guess.
Also (and hey, honest question here; I don't know at all how this works) does wetness actually matter in this context? I didn't think they were depending on wheel friction for any of the important accelerations?
Yeah, since my first post I saw somebody tweeted a report that a couple days ago a pilot got on the mic to warn pax that takeoff would be rough because "there's a bump in the runway." That doesn't sound like the ideal approach to the problem to me...good way to freak out some pax. But yeah, point is I think your suspicion of pilot complaints looks right on.
Also (and hey, honest question here; I don't know at all how this works) does wetness actually matter in this context? I didn't think they were depending on wheel friction for any of the important accelerations?
Yeah, since my first post I saw somebody tweeted a report that a couple days ago a pilot got on the mic to warn pax that takeoff would be rough because "there's a bump in the runway." That doesn't sound like the ideal approach to the problem to me...good way to freak out some pax. But yeah, point is I think your suspicion of pilot complaints looks right on.
#7
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 42
I was on that runway for takeoff last Wed 4/3 and there was a big bump at lift off - it seemed like we had done a hop skip at the end. Everyone kind of laughed it off and looked at each other. At the time I didnt realize this was a different runway than usual. It’s very disappointing.
#8
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,801
Runway condition affects breaking, which is important when taking off in case of a rejected take off for whatever reason, especially in case of an engine failure where reverser thrust is limited/unavailable.
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Bonvoy Ambassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 499
I was on that runway for takeoff last Wed 4/3 and there was a big bump at lift off - it seemed like we had done a hop skip at the end. Everyone kind of laughed it off and looked at each other. At the time I didnt realize this was a different runway than usual. It’s very disappointing.
#10
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 163
I anticipate the "room for error" is built into the runway requirements. Certainly those numbers don't represent "this is exactly how long it will take to get this thing off the ground" right? Also, given the only destinations are DEN/DFW/ORD I doubt they're loading up to MTOW, though that's just a guess.
#11
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,107
Wow, that really doesn't sound great. I haven't flown out since they closed 2/20; last week I went out of STL for the direct to LGA. Anyway a big bump like you're describing doesn't seem like the sort of thing that they can fix immediately. I wonder if they can back out of the 2/20 maintenance, or if they've already started work that can't easily be undone. Really hope they can work something out.
Issue with 13/31 seems to revolve around a drainage crown (or whatever it’s called) and it creating a slight bump. Of note was that both AA and UA were fine with it when it was completed. Guess minds were changed.
I wouldn’t be thrilled having to be bumped to STL or MCI (even SGF), but not much AA can do with it at the moment.
#12
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Bonvoy Ambassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 499
That's a real shame. Wish they'd have waited a bit after the switchover to make sure everybody was OK on the other runway before making it irreversible. But then I guess I recognize that they really want to minimize the time they're using 13/31.
Thanks everybody for the knowledgeable responses.
#13
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
I anticipate the "room for error" is built into the runway requirements. Certainly those numbers don't represent "this is exactly how long it will take to get this thing off the ground" right? Also, given the only destinations are DEN/DFW/ORD I doubt they're loading up to MTOW, though that's just a guess.
Also (and hey, honest question here; I don't know at all how this works) does wetness actually matter in this context? I didn't think they were depending on wheel friction for any of the important accelerations?
Yeah, since my first post I saw somebody tweeted a report that a couple days ago a pilot got on the mic to warn pax that takeoff would be rough because "there's a bump in the runway." That doesn't sound like the ideal approach to the problem to me...good way to freak out some pax. But yeah, point is I think your suspicion of pilot complaints looks right on.
Also (and hey, honest question here; I don't know at all how this works) does wetness actually matter in this context? I didn't think they were depending on wheel friction for any of the important accelerations?
Yeah, since my first post I saw somebody tweeted a report that a couple days ago a pilot got on the mic to warn pax that takeoff would be rough because "there's a bump in the runway." That doesn't sound like the ideal approach to the problem to me...good way to freak out some pax. But yeah, point is I think your suspicion of pilot complaints looks right on.
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 31,010
It also affect braking.
fwiw, the airport responded to the cancellations with
I'm not sure that's the best reply when your customers cancel flights due to safety concerns.
fwiw, the airport responded to the cancellations with
COU wants to assure passengers that runway 13-31 is an FAA certified ‘part 139 runway’ and is safe and compliant