Posted on 11/04/2006 9:09:42 AM PST by xrp
WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than half of U.S. commercial airports don't have a 1,000-foot margin at the end of a runway, an overrun area the federal government says is needed as a safety zone, according to a new report.
Some of the busiest airports in the country -- including Los Angeles International Airport, Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport -- have more than one runway that doesn't meet safety standards, according to statistics supplied by the Federal Aviation Administration.
"Our runways are out of shape, and the to move to correct the problem," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, , said Thursday. "If we don't get serious about runway problems, the result could be disastrous."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Can no one else in the world be responsible for anything? Why didn't Clinton do anything 1993-2001? It's not like any major airports have been built from the ground up during G W Bush's administration.
It is all so dumb that I'd just laugh if it weren't for that fact that the bunch of juveniles that is the democratic party could be running the House and/or Senate in four months.
How many of those runways were built during the Bush Administration? Also, while the stat might be accurate, how many of those are super-long runways that, based on the longest takeoff roll of aircraft using the runway, effectively have a 1000 ft or greater safety zone due to their length???
This is a win-win for the Dems. GW is damned because he hasn't done anything. If he had pushed this, I'm sure it would involve airports acquiring new land, right? Then the POTUS would have eminent domain issues hung around his neck, and the could call him "King George."
Oh, I thought he did, only Bush undid it all after stealing the election from Gore in 2000.
That's true. Usually adding 1000 feet to a runway involves buying a lot of peoples' properties who don't want to sell. Then Bush would be the evil land grabber. Women and minorities hit hardest! They would say Bush has a "Katrina" runway policy or some such rot.
These are primarily older airports that need to comply with newer regulations. For example, the affected runways in Milwaukee are perfectly safe. The main runway at Mitchell is more than 9600 feet long.
The proposed solution is to say the runway is shorter.
Two weeks ago my boss said that the fact that he had to appear in court over a traffic ticket stemming from an accident in which he was at fault, was Bush's fault. "Well, you know, with this administration it's not surprising that I can't just mail a check....." People really are delusional.
If you fly the damned airplace correctily you don't need the over runs. Over runs are for student pilots and retired Navy transport pilots.
Hey, I fixed one!
With many of the runways in question, physical lengthening would be impossible or impractical.
Resulting in the shortening of the official lenghth of such runways until they met the requirement.
Resulting in the elimination of certain kinds of aircraft from those that could land at that airport.
Resulting in the loss of commercial service, or at least certain flights, from certain airports.
Resulting in "Bush's Fault!" from the JackAsses.
Or Southwest pilots flying into Midway.
I bet every single runway that isn't in compliance was built several decades ago.
The proposed solution is to say the runway is shorter.
Do they really need a runway that long anyway? Modern high bypass engines have improved the runway performance of jets so modern jet aircraft don't need runways as long as earlier jets. Milwaukee isn't going to be an international air hub in the foreseeable future, so it would make sense to shorten the length of the runway.
Chicago Midway Airport (MDW)
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
THat's why we have reverse thrust.
Anyhow, its an adventure on a short runway. Try Burbank (Bob Hope Airport now).
Well, one reason for the MKE size was the refueling wing, although they're one of the ANG bases scheduled to wind down. The city's industry sees a few big cargo jets now and then, and the Antonov makes an occasional showing.
Hoo-boy! That sounds like a ground-looping fast-mover from the Air Force!
Anybody else?...........FRegards
The article goes on to say "The FAA says it is diligently upgrading the runways. The agency expects that all of them will meet the standard by 2015, when they are legally required to do so, according to FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown. "
How many of those runways were built during the Bush Administration?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
