Close to the fence accidents – What if… ?
The recent accidents involving British Airways Boeing 777 in London and Kalitta Air Boeing 747 in Brussels both occurred really closed to the airport perimeter. One was landing, and the other was taking-off, but both were close to crash outside the airport. The Kalitta one is probably even slightly out, and the nearby railway had to be temporarily closed.
The pictures below show how close to off-airports accidents these cases are.
Each accident raises an endless list of “what if ?” questions. In these two cases, there was a special focus on “what if it had been longer / shorter”. Thanks to Google Earth, it’s rather easy to answer these questions. I measured the distance from the runway threshold or runway end to the next building (roads, parkings and railways excluded).
In Brussels, the first building in the axis of runway 20 is as 1.2 kilometers, and in Heathrow the last building before landing is at 1.0 kilometer. On standard ILS approaches, planes descend by 52 meters for each kilometer flown. Climb rates are much higher, and strongly variable, depending on aircraft type, load, and weather.
Both Heathrow and Burssels are in relatively dense areas. To compare, I measured the same distances for various airports and runways:
| Zurich | Runway 14 | 7.0 km |
| Runway 34 | 1.2 km | |
| Paris Charles de Gaulle | Runway 27R | 10.5 km |
| Runway 09L | 3.3 km | |
| Madrid | Runway 18 | Nothing found ! |
| Oporto | Runway 35 | 1.7 km |
| Runway 17 | 4.4 km | |
| Vienna | Runway 29 | 2.6 km |
| Runway 16 | 8.3 km | |
| Frankfurt | Runway 25R | 12.3 km |
| Runway 07L | 5.2 km | |
| Amsterdam | Runway 36 | 1.0km |
| Berlin Tempelhof | Both runways | 0.7 km |
This little survey is not a safety benchmark, but is intended to show the how varied are airport implantations throughout Europe. Tempelhof (which is about to be closed) and Madrid are certainly exceptions. An airport like Madrid with nothing around might seem better, but this has its counterpart: even with a taxi, a transfer to city center takes 30 minutes.
If you want to measure distances between your home and the landing point, do it to threshold, or to the touchdown zone. Many runways have displaced thresholds – planes can’t land at begin of runway, but only after the numbers.
This is to make sure they come in high enough if they are roads or other things to protect before landing, to avoid things like what happened to this Iberia plane.
Geneva runway 05 threshold is displaced by 330 meters. The part of runway which I highlighted in red can be used to take-off run only. This ensures that approaching planes fly with sufficient height over the public road highlighted in blue.
So next time you’re on an airliner and wonder why your pilot did not landed at runway begin, you’ll know why. Ok, sometimes they also just land loooooooong by mistake.
I can’t finish this post on landing distances and what’s shortly before the airport fence without mentioning the famous Princess Juliana airport, in St-Marteen. This is where some of the most famous airplane photos have been taken, picturing Boeing 747s approaching low over the beach. There’s displaced threshold as well, it’s anyway impressive. I have to go there one day…
4 Comments, Comment or Ping
JeanGuy78
Hello, good article.
You ask “What if?” Response: Little ’11september’!
But it’s NO terrorism, it’s MONEY. EVIDENCE.
So, they made more AND more DEVIL’s Airports like Heathrow or let them go bigger and bigger.
Remember recent accident in South America, in Brasil…
Newspapers don’t often speak of the problem, this SCANDAL.
Scandal of Noise, Particles of fuel, and absolute choice and LOSS OF SECURITY.
The problem is also on TAKE-OFF.
For exemple, people think that in the Concorde crash in Paris-CDG, pilot ‘chooses’ to turn to Le Bourget (also same problem of suburbs, they crash on side meters of an hotel who was burned, with several employees victims) and crash also BECAUSE turning, in order NOT to risk finish with an emergency lanfing straight direct an HOSPITAL and buildings in the axe of the pists!
It is worse in reality: all the circuits near these airports are on overcrowded suburbs.
And we ‘accept’ it, in the name of fatality, no other possibilities….
No other? Not sure! It’s our responsability to REFUSE these airports and contribue to safer conception.
Choosing other solutions is the responsable answer: boycott.
Lot of airports were made in the filds fifty yearsbefore in the campain….
Fatality? NO, it is unacceptable, but all authorities let this continue.
JeanGuy78 .
Jul 19th, 2008
PlasticPilot
I agree with you, JeanGuy, that mixing suburbs and airports is not the most brilliant idea of all. However, I make a slightly different analysis.
In many cases, the airports were there before, and scandalous real-estate projects got developed close to them, because of low land price – cause by all the negative factors you mentioned.
When some of Geneva’s suburbs got build close to the airport in the late 60’s, there were even adverts like “And you will be able to see planes taking-off and landing from your balcony !”. Who would dare to use such arguments nowadays ?
Another side of the problem is that when we turn ourselves into passengers, we like having airports close to city centers, and don’t really care for neighbors.
Add on that the impossibility to simply destroy or move suburbs or airports, and you get a rather tough problem to solve…
Jul 19th, 2008
JeanGuy78
Sure, I agree.
Q:Who would dare to use such arguments nowadays ?
ALL just after a little 11 september in Paris, London, Geneva or otherplace and then forget and let continue to the next and… bigger.
In France the only action is to attenue the … noise in changing fensters! And an argument to build more and more. Fool.
Constructions so near airports are dangerous and it is criminal to continue in that way.
I think also that companies are testing ‘economic’ (in fuel) landings. An other dangerous idea near these airports. JeanGuy78 .
Jul 21st, 2008
Reply to “Close to the fence accidents – What if… ?”