Thread: Runway Lengths
View Single Post
  #19  
Old October 22nd 03, 02:55 PM
Roger Hamlett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steve Robertson" wrote in message
...
Never thought about that before. However, my guess is that it is to make
sure that aircraft insurance requirements as to minimum runway lenght for
certain types is exceeded rather than simply met.

Anybody else?

Best regards,

I think you are correct.
The posters talking about the tarmac getting longer/shorter, or other
similar ideas, are ignoring the fact that the published 'runway length',
rarely matches that of the actual surface. Most airports, do not have the
threshold painted exactly on the ends of the runway surface. A local
airfield to me, exactly meets the other type of example being given (with a
runway 1 foot under a round number), yet the actual surface extends over 50
feet past the threshold markings. Hence the markings have been deliberately
placed inside the physical runway length, and an insurance/physical planning
limitation on particular aircraft types, would seem to be the only logical
explanation.

Best Wishes

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer

Ace Pilot wrote:

Can anyone explain why runway lengths are sometimes "X thousand and
ONE feet" in length? I was just looking through a list of Iowa's
approximately 110 airports and 7 of them have runways that are "X
thousand and one feet" long.

Do runway manufacturing companies offer special deals like "Buy 5,000
feet of runway, get your next foot free!!!"

There's got to be a logical explanation - anyone know it?