If this strip is so important as a safety net, why not pass the cup to the airlines for some repair cash?
BTW, my new favourite word is "Aerosexual." :-D
Canadian airport Goose Bay has closed due to a “sticky runway”. Don't laugh: this is serious, for two reasons. Airport staff noticed the stickiness on the wheels of their vehicles and quickly surmised it was sealant applied during recent runway maintenance. Sealant is used to fill gaps between slabs of concrete, to fix cracks …
"As an aside, here is what happens when you fuck around with runway maintenance when operating jet planes"
Many years ago at the opening of the newly laid strip at PMR, a Vulcan crew (a bit the worse for wear) who'd been there for the opening display ripped down the runway, stood it on its tail and lit the afterburners - burning a hole in the runway as they exited to 20,000 feet. Cue airport being closed for 18 months for repairs.
As for the crew, they only went 15 miles to OHA (via Wellington, 90 miles south, where they ripped up the undercarriage cocking up a touch and go), landed hot and fast and ripped the already damaged undercarriage off. When the rescue crew arrived, the aircrew were so drunk they could barely walk. It all got hushed up and the aircraft was quickly repaired.
"Fist of all, with female pilots it is not a cockpit anymore but a box office."
You have heard he one about the emergency landing where an African lady removed her underwear?
She was asked what she was doing and she said "don't you know they always look for the black box first" !...
The airlines that use that runway already pay for the privilege. In the case of west-bound refueling stops for short-haul aircraft bucking the jet stream (757, I'm talkin' 'bout you ...), it's a "normal" stop, and the airlines pay whatever landing fees that Goose Bay asks. In the case of an emergency, the airline's insurance company foots the bill. Part of these fees and insurance payments are used for maintenance. The bulk of the upkeep of Goose Bay is probably split between the US and Canadian taxpayers, though.
The bulk of the upkeep of Goose Bay is probably split between the US and Canadian taxpayers, though.
Although Goose Bay airfield does have a small international airport, which is mostly geared towards domestic Canadian flights and general aviation, it's main reason for existence is the CFB Goose Bay. So it is pretty much all paid for by Canadian taxpayers.
I rather doubt Uncle Sam contributes much, if anything at all, towards its continued existence at this point.
I know the USAF pulled out in the 1970s, but I was under the impression that the US still maintained a "monetary footprint" for obvious strategic reasons (I know Raytheon still has presence there) ... although come to think of it, they probably use the loot to help keep Thule open.
CFB Goose Bay is a Nato lift point -- oddly, several European countries are part of Nato, I rather suspect that some small portion of Nato's budget gets spent on things in and about Gander.
Perhaps CFB Goose Bay's most famous moment is Sept 11 2001, as it became home to rather a *lot* of aircraft and travellers. There's even a broadway show about it I think.
And well, there's the fact that it is in newfie. So, go, visit the towns and have a good time. Just, don't kiss the fish.
"The airlines that use that runway already pay for the privilege. In the case of west-bound refueling stops for short-haul aircraft bucking the jet stream (757, I'm talkin' 'bout you ...), it's a "normal" stop, and the "
References? There is very little scheduled commercial traffic at Goose Bay. It is an unusual airport, in that there is more unscheduled traffic than scheduled. So if re-fueling stops by scheduled was actually a thing, that wouldn't be the case. The only planned re-fueling that you would have, is ferry flights, of medium-haul aircraft that are being moved being continents. Airlines would use the correct airplane for scheduled intercontinental flights.
And one of the sticky runways has already been returned to operation:
As a safety net, perhaps having a (post-it note grade) sticky runway is a good idea, as it could help slow an landing plane that might not be in complete control of its engines and brakes.
It's not just a good idea - many countries (including the US and Canada) already require that the runway safety area in major airports be equipped with an Engineered materials arrestor system - basically a long strip of crushable material, which will slow down a runaway airplane with only moderate damage to the plane or its occupants.
Goose is a strategically important airport, simply because it is damn near half-way between Europe and North Am (even though it is in NorthAm....). Ask the folks who landed there during the 9/11 crisis. Documentaries were made about how the Newfies took care of their guests.
During the cold war days the airport had the largest RCMP detachment in Canada. Every flight from the USSR (& satellites) en route to Cuba had to stop at Goose to re-fuel. Therefore, it had the highest number of claims for political refugee status.
I took a flight from Austria to NYC on Lauda Air (1980/81?). I was going to visit my parents in Nova Scotia (yes, I'm Canadian). I didn't realize we would be re-fueling in Goose, and figured it would be easier to grab a flight from there to Halifax. So, I went to the passport/immigration officer, and said "I'd like to stay here". "Oh futz", said he "Another one." And we laughed and laughed.....
Not really. Most (all) modern airliners have ETOPS of more than 3 hours (ETOPS-180). Besides, the airport is not closed per se, just one of the runways (the preferred) is effectively closed.
The Airbus A350 has 6 hours and 10 minutes (370 min) ETOPS, the most any has been awarded upon service entry.
to commemorate the RAF's involvement with the airfield
Back in the late 50s & 60s, Goose Bay was more than just a stopover for the transports, it was a dispersal airfield for NATO strategic nuclear bombers including the RAF, in the days before submarines took over the strategic deterrent role. Whilst there were SSBNs from the mid 50s, it wasn't until the late 1960s that the sub-launched ballistic missiles had a range greater than 1,000 miles. That sort of range meant that the subs had to loiter embarrassingly close to European coasts. As soon as the subs had missiles with 1,500-2,500 mile range, there was no need for aircraft launched strategic nukes.
So if military tensions were heightened, the UK (and probably US) nuclear bombers wouldn't all sit around in a straight line on their home airfield, they'd be dispersed to a whole range of different airfields, to minimise the risks of a first strike attack by the Russians, and Goose Bay was used in that capacity.
For more on the rather disturbing front falling off incident
Caution, site contains content of an aerosexual nature.
As an aside there appears to be some argument as to whether it was an un-contained engine failure as that normally refers to an incident where bits of the engine exit the housing, but in this case everything seems to have remained in the housing. Just not necessarily on the aircraft.
I read the linked article, and I noted "The passengers report they were kept on board of the aircraft until arrival of the replacement aircraft because the airport does not have stairs to accomodate the A380". So I presume that either the replacement aircraft brought along a very big step ladder, or the passengers had to run along the top of the wing, and jump onto the parallel parked 777 and 737.
Or perhaps they just parked nose to nose to the transfer?
"Mind the gap....Mind the gap....mind the gap...stand clear of the doors...this plane is ready to depart".
Other thoughts come to mind. They rounded up all the bean bags to be found in the Goose Bay area, piled them under the A380's doors, and the passengers had to jump. Or maybe they rigged up a bosun's chair.
"The passengers report they were kept on board of the aircraft until arrival of the replacement aircraft because the airport does not have stairs to accomodate the A380"
I suspect in reality the crew made up something to tell the passengers to keep them on the aircraft rather than have them wondering around the airport! I believe it isn't really equipped to deal with an A380's worth of people at short notice.
"Goose Bay...... The strip's Newfoundland location means it isn't a major diversion from planes using great circle routes between Europe and North America."
Goose Bay is in Labrador - Gander is in Newfoundland (technically where the Newfies are, although it has wider, often derogatory, usages).
I know that it is very 2017 to be careless with non-tech details . . .
I wonder if anyone else saw the story in last Saturday's Times about the Welsh rugby team on their flight to Australia some time in the 1970s. The captain persuaded his hooker (after all others had failed) to move out of first class back into economy where he was supposed to be sitting. It seems he told him that "the first class section isn't going to Australia."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019