Runway closing permanently at Allegheny County (KAGC)

The crosswinds runway needs $5.5 million in repairs and
safety-related work, none of which is eligible for reimbursement
by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Brad Penrod,
authority chief operating officer. However, the authority can
obtain federal funding to convert the runway to a taxiway.

Penrod said that if the authority spent its own money to repair
the runway, there would be nothing left for other improvements at
the county airport.

The runway targeted for closing is the county airport's shortest.
It is used primarily by recreational pilots in small aircraft and
by students learning to fly. At 2,547 feet, it's too short for
larger corporate jets and accounts for only 4 percent of all
take-offs and landings.

It has a southwest-to-northeast orientation that helps small
planes when crosswinds make landings on the other two runways
more difficult.

With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
has an east-west orientation.


http://www.pittsburgpost-gazette.com...164/330948.stm

it's sad to hear of any runway closure.. but at 2547ft.. it is pretty short
for most people.. and only a few light aircraft could use it..

If the county goes about this the right way.. and designates it a
"taxiway".. it may still be available for "emergency use"... when any
concrete available becomes a runway..

at our local airport.. we do not have a SW/NE runway.. for when the winds
blow hard from the SW.. so taxiway H can be requested.. the tower will so
state "land at own discretion" .. and keep others off that taxiway... land
with no incident.. no problem.. not keep it on the pavement.. could be a
problem... but landing on 50ft wide taxiway.. pointing somewhat into the
wind.. is better than a 90 cross at 30knts..

when it was built it could not be designated a runway.. because there are no
clear zones on the SW end.. but that was only one of the issues..

BT

"John R" wrote in message ...
The crosswinds runway needs $5.5 million in repairs and
safety-related work, none of which is eligible for reimbursement
by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Brad Penrod,
authority chief operating officer. However, the authority can
obtain federal funding to convert the runway to a taxiway.

Penrod said that if the authority spent its own money to repair
the runway, there would be nothing left for other improvements at
the county airport.

The runway targeted for closing is the county airport's shortest.
It is used primarily by recreational pilots in small aircraft and
by students learning to fly. At 2,547 feet, it's too short for
larger corporate jets and accounts for only 4 percent of all
take-offs and landings.

It has a southwest-to-northeast orientation that helps small
planes when crosswinds make landings on the other two runways
more difficult.

With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
has an east-west orientation.


http://www.pittsburgpost-gazette.com...164/330948.stm

In article , John R wrote:

With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
has an east-west orientation.

Regardless, in an emergency, you can still use it as a runway.

Hell, 2,547' isn't a short runway. The main runway at SMQ where I'm based
is only 2,133' if you subtract the 600' displaced threshold on 30. It does
"feel" longer from the 12 end, but we have King Airs and a Pilatus operating
out of there on 30 all the time. Someone warned me the other day when I was
planning a flight to visit him that the rw at his airport was "only" 3,500'.
Do people really have trouble landing single-engine a/c on 3,500' runways?

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:_tQyc.22469$fZ1.5865@fed1read03...
it's sad to hear of any runway closure.. but at 2547ft.. it is pretty
short
for most people.. and only a few light aircraft could use it..

If the county goes about this the right way.. and designates it a
"taxiway".. it may still be available for "emergency use"... when any
concrete available becomes a runway..

at our local airport.. we do not have a SW/NE runway.. for when the winds
blow hard from the SW.. so taxiway H can be requested.. the tower will so
state "land at own discretion" .. and keep others off that taxiway... land
with no incident.. no problem.. not keep it on the pavement.. could be a
problem... but landing on 50ft wide taxiway.. pointing somewhat into the
wind.. is better than a 90 cross at 30knts..

when it was built it could not be designated a runway.. because there are
no
clear zones on the SW end.. but that was only one of the issues..

BT

"John R" wrote in message
...
The crosswinds runway needs $5.5 million in repairs and
safety-related work, none of which is eligible for reimbursement
by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Brad Penrod,
authority chief operating officer. However, the authority can
obtain federal funding to convert the runway to a taxiway.

Penrod said that if the authority spent its own money to repair
the runway, there would be nothing left for other improvements at
the county airport.

The runway targeted for closing is the county airport's shortest.
It is used primarily by recreational pilots in small aircraft and
by students learning to fly. At 2,547 feet, it's too short for
larger corporate jets and accounts for only 4 percent of all
take-offs and landings.

It has a southwest-to-northeast orientation that helps small
planes when crosswinds make landings on the other two runways
more difficult.

With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
has an east-west orientation.


http://www.pittsburgpost-gazette.com...164/330948.stm

you'd be surprised.. but maybe not.. I see a lot of long landings with these
new kit builts.. Lancairs.. or RVs.. or even the GlassStar today used about
2000ft out of 4500 to just get it to touch pavement.. it's amazing what 5
knts of tailwind and a little extra speed on final will do you you...

I'm sure it's piloting technique.. and not the airplane that requires the
runway..
of course out here.. we have relatively hi Density Altitude..
BT

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message
...
Hell, 2,547' isn't a short runway. The main runway at SMQ where I'm based
is only 2,133' if you subtract the 600' displaced threshold on 30. It
does
"feel" longer from the 12 end, but we have King Airs and a Pilatus
operating
out of there on 30 all the time. Someone warned me the other day when I
was
planning a flight to visit him that the rw at his airport was "only"
3,500'.
Do people really have trouble landing single-engine a/c on 3,500' runways?

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:_tQyc.22469$fZ1.5865@fed1read03...
it's sad to hear of any runway closure.. but at 2547ft.. it is pretty
short
for most people.. and only a few light aircraft could use it..

If the county goes about this the right way.. and designates it a
"taxiway".. it may still be available for "emergency use"... when any
concrete available becomes a runway..

at our local airport.. we do not have a SW/NE runway.. for when the
winds
blow hard from the SW.. so taxiway H can be requested.. the tower will
so
state "land at own discretion" .. and keep others off that taxiway...
land
with no incident.. no problem.. not keep it on the pavement.. could be a
problem... but landing on 50ft wide taxiway.. pointing somewhat into the
wind.. is better than a 90 cross at 30knts..

when it was built it could not be designated a runway.. because there
are
no
clear zones on the SW end.. but that was only one of the issues..

BT

"John R" wrote in message
...
The crosswinds runway needs $5.5 million in repairs and
safety-related work, none of which is eligible for reimbursement
by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Brad Penrod,
authority chief operating officer. However, the authority can
obtain federal funding to convert the runway to a taxiway.

Penrod said that if the authority spent its own money to repair
the runway, there would be nothing left for other improvements at
the county airport.

The runway targeted for closing is the county airport's shortest.
It is used primarily by recreational pilots in small aircraft and
by students learning to fly. At 2,547 feet, it's too short for
larger corporate jets and accounts for only 4 percent of all
take-offs and landings.

It has a southwest-to-northeast orientation that helps small
planes when crosswinds make landings on the other two runways
more difficult.

With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
has an east-west orientation.


http://www.pittsburgpost-gazette.com...164/330948.stm

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:37:53 GMT, EDR wrote:

In article , John R wrote:

With the closing, the authority plans to use a 3,825-foot runway
with a northwest-t o-southeast orientation for crosswind
landings. The third runway, the airport's longest at 6,501 feet,
has an east-west orientation.

Regardless, in an emergency, you can still use it as a runway.

That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
companies will not pay, even if was an emergency. This official
(remember NACO, not FAA) said that you should land adjacent to the
runway but not on it, if you think you can survive the landing. Has
anyone ever heard of such a thing? I think I'd be inclined to land on
the closed runway, provided it wasn't butchered like Meigs.
Rich Russell

In article , Bob Chilcoat
wrote:

Do people really have trouble landing single-engine a/c on 3,500' runways?

As they say in Minnesota and Wisconsin... "You betcha!"
Many pilots are flying waaaay too fast on final and floating halfway
down the runway before touchdown.
I did my BFR three weeks ago with an instructor I have alot of respect
for, but was shocked when he told me the approach speed he wanted me to
use in the Archer we were flying. During preflight I had calculated the
speeds for the weight we were operating at. The speed he had me flying
was 15 knots above where we should have been, resulting in alot of
float.

In article , Richard
Russell wrote:

Regardless, in an emergency, you can still use it as a runway.

That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
companies will not pay, even if was an emergency. This official
(remember NACO, not FAA) said that you should land adjacent to the
runway but not on it, if you think you can survive the landing. Has
anyone ever heard of such a thing? I think I'd be inclined to land on
the closed runway, provided it wasn't butchered like Meigs.

I have read somewhere, that there is less damage to the aircraft
landing on the hard surface than on the turf during a gear up
emergency.

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
...
[...]
That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
companies will not pay, even if was an emergency.

NACO (whoever they are) doesn't set the rules for each policy. The
underwriter for the policy does. And unless the policy explicitly says you
cannot land on a closed runway, even in an emergency, the insurance company
would have a hard time justifying withholding payment on the policy. I know
my policy contains no such language.

It is up to the pilot to decide where the most suitable emergency landing
site is, and it is up to the insurance company to pay for damages to the
airplane that are a result of an accident. Most accidents are the result of
poor judgment on the pilot's part anyway, so even if a closed runway turned
out to not be the most suitable landing site (and that's not a foregone
conclusion anyway), the insurance policy should pay, barring some specific
language to the contrary.

Pete

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:55:30 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Richard Russell" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
That's what I always thought (and still do, as safety is more
important than money) but can anyone comment on this? I was told at a
NACO safety seminar that if you land on a closed runway insurance
companies will not pay, even if was an emergency.

NACO (whoever they are) doesn't set the rules for each policy. The
underwriter for the policy does. And unless the policy explicitly says you
cannot land on a closed runway, even in an emergency, the insurance company
would have a hard time justifying withholding payment on the policy. I know
my policy contains no such language.

It is up to the pilot to decide where the most suitable emergency landing
site is, and it is up to the insurance company to pay for damages to the
airplane that are a result of an accident. Most accidents are the result of
poor judgment on the pilot's part anyway, so even if a closed runway turned
out to not be the most suitable landing site (and that's not a foregone
conclusion anyway), the insurance policy should pay, barring some specific
language to the contrary.

Pete


NACO is the National Aeronautical Charting Office. I understand what
you are saying about the details of idividual policies. This fellow
(I wish I could remember his name, but he was very highly placed)
claimed that it was an issue of landing where landings are expressly
prohibited as opposed to landing on a suitable site where you are not
expressly prohibited from landing. He implied that this
interpretation was industry standard. As noted in my original post, I
would land on the closed runway, conditions permitting.

Rich Russell