Palomar Airport: Critical Thinking, Blog 28

Eighteen months ago, the County promised an $800,000 Palomar runway study. Should the runway grow from 4900 to 6000 feet?   When do we see the study?

Last year, a reader suggested that a longer runway means more safety but not bigger planes.  Let’s think about that. 

Reader Suggestion 1:  There is a ton of information out there that is just plain incorrect. For example, the planes will never get any bigger than the biggest airplanes there now.  It is an issue of WIDTH NOT LENGTH.”

Response 1:  The Palomar runway can’t be widened to FAA standards if lengthened.   Unless perhaps buildings move.  And retaining walls create land near Palomar Airport road.   A retaining wall about the size of the one at El Camino and Salk avenue near Scripps offices.

But recall that in 2012 the FAA was willing to grant plane wingspan waivers so that certain bigger C-III airplanes could use Palomar, a B-II airport. 

True, the FAA can grant waivers now.  But the incentive for airlines to seek waivers increases when longer runways permit flights with more fuel to far off cities. Hence, a longer Palomar runway may well induce bigger planes.

Bad Safety Waiver Precedents

Can you recall a past air disaster caused by waiving safety needs?  Think Space Shuttle Challenger explosion; 7 astronauts dead.  Gases escaped from the rocket motors around “protective O-rings” (large rubber gaskets).   Decision makers ignored the safety experts and launched the shuttle on a bitterly cold day.    

The explosion surprised everyone except experts.  They had warned that O-rings were too rigid for freezing weather.  Decision makers rated the risks as remote. Remind you of an FAA and County mantra?   Palomar landfill dangers are remote?

Plane Size v. Plane Frequency

But assume the FAA halts Palomar big plane waivers; no bigger planes even on a 6000 foot runway.   Will Palomar safety and environmental impacts lessen with a longer runway?

Palomar has about 150,000 flights per year.  Mostly small planes and helicopters. Assume the “big” planes Palomar now handles are corporate jets and small commuter jets with about 10,000 flights annually.   Assume the runway is lengthened and regularly scheduled commercial flights increase.   Tomorrow Palomar may handle 20,000 more passenger flights with the big planes (about 5 flights per hour).       

Growing the existing big plane flights from 10,000 to 30,000 adds 1.4 million passengers annually if the added 20,000 flights average 70 passengers per plane. Noise, pollution, and traffic will increase.  Extending the runway is no small matter even if flights were limited to the existing big planes.  

Reader Suggestion 2:  A longer runway allows planes to load more fuel to go to destinations further away & increases safety.  Makes sense - more room for error as you approach to land.

Response 2:  True, large planes flying 60% loads could use a longer Palomar runway to carry 90% loads to fly further.  But heavy  planes require longer stopping distances.

One study shows planes of 60,000 pounds or less at 60% load stop within 4,700 feet.  But at 90% load, the runway should be designed for 6,280 feet. [August 6, 2007 Cuyahoga County Airport Recommended Runway Length Study, p. 7.]

And a longer runway will attract more planes that Palomar can’t now serve but will be able to serve at the 60% design load – at least if the FAA grants wingspan waivers.   Result: old planes at 90% load, new planes at 60% load.

When the County does release the Palomar runway study, question the analysis.  Is it objective?   One tip:  Look for the longer runway, heavier plane, longer landing distance analysis.

Postscript:  The Challenger accident was notable for two reasons, one commonly known, one not.  The known: the loss of life and space program setback.  The “unknown”:  American nuclear missiles may have also used the rigid O-rings.   Hence, the ideal time to attack the U.S. was during very cold weather when the reliability of the U.S. nuclear strike capability was compromised.

Isn’t it interesting what happens when politicians deviate from safety standards?

Would the Challenger explosion have been avoided if the experts had argued national security, not just safety? 

Yes, there is a ton of information out there that requires your critical analysis.