Icy runways
Mar 27, 2002 | 3:34 pm
#1
Original Poster
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Michigan
Posts: 528
Icy runways
Do planes routinely land on icy runways???
Flew into Detroit last night just as a snow storm was ending. My friend who was conecting to Toledo, got on a small Jet and was unable to land in Toledo due to hydrolic problems with the brakes-- half the brakes were gone. They rounted them back to Detroit and landed safely.
Since the plane was unable to taxi in, a bus came to take them to the terminal. When she stepped off the plane the runway was a glaze of ice with frozen chunks of slush. Just walking to the bus was a hazzard.
About the same time this was happening to my friend, our plane was taxing out of Detroit to connect us safely to Lansing.
My question through all of this is, do planes routinely land on icy runways??? How dangerous is it???
Should we know the condition of the runway and have a choice of flying in or not? The storm had just passed and the snow was just ending. Apparently, snow and visibility may not be the only issues to be concerned about.
------------------
Some women are born wise, others achieve wisdom, still others have wisdom thrust upon them as they wonder through the posts of this board. Thanks one and all.
Flew into Detroit last night just as a snow storm was ending. My friend who was conecting to Toledo, got on a small Jet and was unable to land in Toledo due to hydrolic problems with the brakes-- half the brakes were gone. They rounted them back to Detroit and landed safely.
Since the plane was unable to taxi in, a bus came to take them to the terminal. When she stepped off the plane the runway was a glaze of ice with frozen chunks of slush. Just walking to the bus was a hazzard.
About the same time this was happening to my friend, our plane was taxing out of Detroit to connect us safely to Lansing.
My question through all of this is, do planes routinely land on icy runways??? How dangerous is it???
Should we know the condition of the runway and have a choice of flying in or not? The storm had just passed and the snow was just ending. Apparently, snow and visibility may not be the only issues to be concerned about.
------------------
Some women are born wise, others achieve wisdom, still others have wisdom thrust upon them as they wonder through the posts of this board. Thanks one and all.
Mar 27, 2002 | 10:45 pm
#2
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: IAD
Programs: Chase Million Miler, SPG Gold, HHonors Gold, Hyatt Platinum
Posts: 2,729
I suppose I should just let Mark touch this one, but...
Yes, airplanes routinely land on contaminated runways. The company's ops specs dictate the maximum landing weight based on a bunch of factors, and the contaminated runway is one of them. Therefore, you can get a weight restriction because the maximum landing weight is really low, and the aircraft won't be able to burn enough fuel to be under that threshold. So, ya gotta bump bags/people to insure you're under that weight. The amount of contamination on a runway is pretty much measured by a "braking action" report which is either compiled by the company or ATC for each airport.
Now, if there's one thing that pisses me off, it's passengers who think they know more than the flight crews/dispatch. Folks, these guys are trained professionals. I will concede that they are not perfect and make mistakes. That said, these guys have much much more training and experience than you do, and if they don't think it's safe to go, they won't go. These guys have reputations, FAA ratings, and jobs on the line, and they aren't worth risking to "hot dog" a seriously questionable flight. All you're asking to do in this situation is to "out guess" the pros, and that's all you're going to do, because I doubt that even your educated guess is going to be better than their experience, training, and knowledge.
Sometimes I hear complaints that the unions have work rules that "screw" the passengers. Most of these rules are actually in it for your protection. My company's pilots get paid when a flight cancels, which is a good thing. Why? Some of these guys aren't paid well, or maybe they just have a lot of bills to pay. Getting paid only for completing a trip encourages pilots to fly when they probably shouldn't. Making sure they get paid ensures that pay isn't a primary issue. Second, some of these guys work long hours under certain conditions. Fatigue rules exist so that if the pilots have been flying for three days straight, is at the end of their trip, has some sort of delay, some nav/autopilot stuff in the cockpit is deferred, and there is serious weather enroute, that they're allowed to say, "Screw it. We're tired, and we think that compromises the safety of the flight. We're not going."
Sorry for my rant, it's a pet peeve of mine. I know a lot more about flying airplanes than the general (and even frequent flying) public, and I know a lot more about airline ops than said groups as well. Exactly how much do I know? Enough to know I know nowhere near enough to second guess a crew's choice to fly.
Yes, airplanes routinely land on contaminated runways. The company's ops specs dictate the maximum landing weight based on a bunch of factors, and the contaminated runway is one of them. Therefore, you can get a weight restriction because the maximum landing weight is really low, and the aircraft won't be able to burn enough fuel to be under that threshold. So, ya gotta bump bags/people to insure you're under that weight. The amount of contamination on a runway is pretty much measured by a "braking action" report which is either compiled by the company or ATC for each airport.
Now, if there's one thing that pisses me off, it's passengers who think they know more than the flight crews/dispatch. Folks, these guys are trained professionals. I will concede that they are not perfect and make mistakes. That said, these guys have much much more training and experience than you do, and if they don't think it's safe to go, they won't go. These guys have reputations, FAA ratings, and jobs on the line, and they aren't worth risking to "hot dog" a seriously questionable flight. All you're asking to do in this situation is to "out guess" the pros, and that's all you're going to do, because I doubt that even your educated guess is going to be better than their experience, training, and knowledge.
Sometimes I hear complaints that the unions have work rules that "screw" the passengers. Most of these rules are actually in it for your protection. My company's pilots get paid when a flight cancels, which is a good thing. Why? Some of these guys aren't paid well, or maybe they just have a lot of bills to pay. Getting paid only for completing a trip encourages pilots to fly when they probably shouldn't. Making sure they get paid ensures that pay isn't a primary issue. Second, some of these guys work long hours under certain conditions. Fatigue rules exist so that if the pilots have been flying for three days straight, is at the end of their trip, has some sort of delay, some nav/autopilot stuff in the cockpit is deferred, and there is serious weather enroute, that they're allowed to say, "Screw it. We're tired, and we think that compromises the safety of the flight. We're not going."
Sorry for my rant, it's a pet peeve of mine. I know a lot more about flying airplanes than the general (and even frequent flying) public, and I know a lot more about airline ops than said groups as well. Exactly how much do I know? Enough to know I know nowhere near enough to second guess a crew's choice to fly.
Mar 27, 2002 | 11:30 pm
#3
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jun 2000
Programs: Honors Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, National Exec Elite
Posts: 36,111
Well said indeed!
As the old saw goes, "The pilot is the first to arrive at the accident." He or she is no more interestd in flying in unacceptable conditions than pax, and, as you point out, has a lot more information and training by which to make the judgment about what is or is not acceptable.
As the old saw goes, "The pilot is the first to arrive at the accident." He or she is no more interestd in flying in unacceptable conditions than pax, and, as you point out, has a lot more information and training by which to make the judgment about what is or is not acceptable.