airtraffic

Author Topic: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN  (Read 15952 times)

Offline jonnevin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« on: October 09, 2008, 07:00:55 PM »
This morning between 915am - 1000am is some decent listening at KSAN. A string of low altitude alerts / missed approaches on LOC27, runway switch over to 9 and inbound IFSD emergency on AAL 1802 (945am)



Offline tyketto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
Re: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2008, 07:34:13 PM »
This morning between 915am - 1000am is some decent listening at KSAN. A string of low altitude alerts / missed approaches on LOC27, runway switch over to 9 and inbound IFSD emergency on AAL 1802 (945am)

Hmm.. 5SM, 700ft ceiling and haze, with the marine layer just starting to burn off, and they wanted to run LOC 27 approaches.. technically they are VMC, but that's hellish with the CBD close. So it's understandable that there were missed approaches there..

METAR at the time:

Quote
KSAN 091551Z 16007KT 5SM HZ FEW005 OVC007 19/16 A2984 RMK AO2 SLP104 T01890161

BL.

Offline KSYR-pjr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
Re: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2008, 08:21:22 PM »
Hmm.. 5SM, 700ft ceiling and haze, with the marine layer just starting to burn off, and they wanted to run LOC 27 approaches.. technically they are VMC, but that's hellish with the CBD close.

For my clarification, what do you mean by "technically they are VMC"?

pilot221

  • Guest
Re: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2008, 09:59:38 PM »
That's IFR.

VMC you wouldn't be able to tell unless you were in the cockpit and it's always changing.

VFR minimums are 3 miles and 1000ft ceiling (BKN or OVC). Visibility is there but not the ceiling.

Offline jonnevin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2008, 06:07:56 PM »
As you can hear, when they are using 9 instead of 27, although it gives them lower minimums due to the ILS, it can create problems for departures because the length of usable runway is shorter. Thus there are weight restriction issues. (You hear on the recording many of the 733s indicating that they can not accept a 9 departure)

Offline tyketto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
Re: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2008, 07:17:35 PM »
As you can hear, when they are using 9 instead of 27, although it gives them lower minimums due to the ILS, it can create problems for departures because the length of usable runway is shorter. Thus there are weight restriction issues. (You hear on the recording many of the 733s indicating that they can not accept a 9 departure)

I don't think it is just that the runway would be shorter, because it really isn't.. The big problem would be the rate of climb when departing 9 instead of 27. Looking at both the BORDER5 and LNSAY2 charts, you're looking at a rate of climb of 610ft per NM to 1900 off of runway 9, compared to 310ft per NM to 400 off of runway 27. Yes, you'd need to use less of the runway for the climb out rate, but there you go..

BL.

EDIT: BTW, pt9 is absolutely right. VFR minimums are 3SM and 1000ft ceiling. For some (stupid) reason, I had it in my head that it was OR, when it definitely is AND. So SAN was IMC at this time, making LOC27 hellish.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2008, 08:03:58 PM by tyketto »

Offline cessna157

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
    • facebook
Re: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2008, 08:49:12 AM »
As you can hear, when they are using 9 instead of 27, although it gives them lower minimums due to the ILS, it can create problems for departures because the length of usable runway is shorter. Thus there are weight restriction issues.

You are half right.  The runway is the same length.  What is off the end of the runway changes.  27 you takeoff out to sea.  9 you takeoff into terrain.  We have specific climb gradients (search 1st segment climb, 2nd segment, 3rd segment).  With there being high terrain and obstructions off the end of 9, takeoff weights are limited to satisfy the climb restrictions.

Offline jonnevin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2008, 01:26:33 AM »
I'm fairly certain the runway is the same length in either direction :wink: 

pilot221

  • Guest
Re: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2008, 01:43:48 AM »
I'm fairly certain the runway is the same length in either direction :wink: 

While that's technically correct for takeoff, it's not correct in terms of landing.

Landing runway 9 you have 8701' available. Landing runway 27 you have 7591'.

Displaced thresholds at both ends, one longer than the other...not available to land on.

Offline jonnevin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2008, 02:12:43 AM »
The conversation was clearly about departures, not landings and I was really just making light of the situation...obviously the runway is no shorter one way or another, but let's not turn this great site into an adversarial airliners.net forum.

I have attached a pic showing the view in both directions for those not familiar. It is from google earth so it is what it is, but gives an idea of the crowded urban area to the east that causes the issues with runway 9 departures.

pilot221

  • Guest
Re: Emergencies / Missed Approaches at KSAN
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2008, 02:50:52 AM »
Uh...ok. I guess.

Don't want to be responsible for doing whatever it is you said to this site. I'd hate to be the controller who ruined an ATC site. Didn't realize I was out of line and I'm sorry for not studying the post more in depth.