Trave OK

Safety at Burbank Airport Probed Following Southwest Crash

By David R. Baker, Jennifer Hamm and Harrison Sheppard

BURBANK -- As the battered body of a Southwest Airlines jet was towed
from Hollywood Way, local officials seized on the near disaster to renew
the debate on Burbank Airport safety, plans for a new terminal and
flight curfew.

The National Transportation Safety Board opened its investigation with
officials promising to examine everything from equipment on the 15-
year-old aircraft to the actions of its veteran crew.  Part of the
investigation will focus on the***pit data records, which were flown
to the NTSB lab in Washington, D.C.  Several of the plane's passengers
said the jet approached the airport too fast and at too steep an angle
to stop after touchdown.

"We're going to be -- starting tomorrow -- doing a very, very detailed
examination of the airplane's systems, every aspect of them, and we're
also going to be looking at the crew's performance," Jeff Rich, the
safety board's lead investigator, said Monday.

As workers hauled the damaged 737-300 back onto the airport tarmac, the
crash, which caused only minor injuries, reignited a long-running battle
over Burbank Airport's planned expansion.  Backers of efforts to upgrade
the airport seized on the accident as graphic proof of their arguments.

"The notion that there's not a safety problem at this airport vanished
(Sunday) night," said Carl Meseck, chairman of the
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority Commission.

The authority wants to relocate and upgrade the airport terminal, which
sits just 350 feet from the runway the plane overshot.

"We all need to sit down and see how we can move the relocation
forward," Burbank Mayor Stacey Murphy said. "It's a huge safety issue."

But former Burbank City Councilman Ted McConkey said the airport's
planned upgrade would do nothing to prevent similar incidents from
occurring in the future. The length of the runways would not change in
the proposed upgrade.

"There'd be nothing to stop the same accident from happening," said
McConkey, a longtime expansion foe. "It wouldn't have made any
difference."

Federal investigators aren't sure why Southwest Flight 1455 skidded off
the runway around 6:10 p.m. Sunday, crashed through a metal barrier and
barreled onto Hollywood Way, nudging an automobile and stopping just feet
from a Chevron gas station.

Rich said investigators already had interviewed the crew of a plane that
landed shortly before the ill-fated Southwest flight.  Despite the raging
storms that blew through the San Fernando Valley earlier Sunday, the
earlier crew reported a dry runway and good braking action.

"They described the conditions as fairly benign," Rich said.

The same could not be said of Flight 1455's landing, several of the 142
people on board said.

As the plane descended toward Burbank, flying east across the Valley,
the pilot made a sharp left turn, said passenger Garrett Hamil of
Hollywood. The plane then turned back to the right and swayed back and
forth, he said.

The plane hit the pavement at what seemed like the middle of the runway,
he said, and rocketed on through the metal barrier. On Monday, Hamil was
still marveling that the jet didn't hit the gas station and touch off an
explosion.

"Looking at that Chevron station and how close we were to that pump and
the jet fuel . . . we were saved," he said through tears. "It was not
our turn."

At 6,032 feet, the runway is shorter than those used by the largest
aircraft, but an acceptable size for commuter planes like the 737-300,
according to aviation experts.

"It's adequate for a 737. However, if anything goes wrong, it leaves
very little margin for luck to come in," said Frank Tullo, a retired
airline pilot and aviation safety consultant. "Most of the runways are a
lot longer than that."

Unlike the doomed Alaska Airlines Flight 261, in which all 88 people
aboard died Jan. 31 after the aircraft plunged into water off the
Ventura County coast, no one died in Sunday's crash.

All six people who were hurt, including the plane's pilot, were treated at
Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center in Burbank and released before
midnight Sunday, a hospital spokeswoman said.

Officials at Southwest Airlines declined to release the names of the
Oakland-based pilot and first officer, citing the ongoing investigation.

They described the pilot, however, as an experienced flier who served in
the U.S. Air Force before joining Southwest in 1988.  Company spokeswoman
Beth Harbin said the pilot has been flying 737s since 1980.  He suffered
a gash to his head during the crash.

The first officer, Harbin said, has 15 years of flying experience and
joined the airline in 1996.

The crew reported no problems with the aircraft during the flight,
according to company officials. The aircraft has flown 32,000 flight
cycles to date -- each representing one takeoff and one landing. Its
last service check, on Thursday, turned up no problems, Harbin said.

The aircraft might not fly again. The crash damaged its nose, landing
gear and right engine.

The plane was gingerly towed away from the crash site around 9 a.m.
Monday, with the assistance of two cranes brought in by a private
contractor and a flatbed truck used to keep the nose steady, said
Burbank airport spokesman Victor Gill. It was brought to an open-air
location next to the runway, where NTSB investigators pored over the
aircraft looking for clues to what went wrong.

Tuesday, March 07 2000 at 11:22 EST

=L=

Quote:>At 6,032 feet, the runway is shorter than those used by the largest
>aircraft, but an acceptable size for commuter planes like the 737-300,
>according to aviation experts

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggghhhhhhhhh!

The 737-300 is capable of flying Salt Lake City to Boston non-stop (WA used to
do it).

It is *NOT* a commuter plane.

-Erik

What *is* the largest aircraft that's used BUR?  IIRC the facilities
belonged to an LA-area airplane manufacturer and were used for test
flights up through the 60's.  (Lockheed?  I think it was Lockheed,
one of the area parks has an F-104 proudly displayed in the
playground!)

Don't know about the largest, but L-1011s used to be common there.

Robert Johnson

Lockheed.  C-5 Galaxy transports have used BUR, and you can't get too
much bigger than that.  Back when Lockheed's famous "Skunk Works" was
HQed there, large transport aircraft like the C-5 used to operate in and
out under cover or darkness to take partially assembled 'secret'
aircraft (YF-12/SR-71, F-117, etc.) out to desert test areas like
Edwards or Tonopah for final assembly and test flying.

Mike

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Quote:>>At 6,032 feet, the runway is shorter than those used by the largest
>>aircraft, but an acceptable size for commuter planes like the 737-300,
>>according to aviation experts

The other runway is 6800 feet. What really hurts is that both runways
have displaced touchdown thresholds, and I think some of the
approaches have a higher-than-usual approach angle as well. This makes
the airport trickier than, for example, Washingtion National (Reagan),
where the runways are about the same length.

DCA has only one straight-in jet approach (to 01) IIRC.

Quote:>DCA has only one straight-in jet approach (to 01) IIRC.

True, but except for the turns on the River approach to 19, the
approaches to 01 and 19 are unremarkable -- no obstructions in line
with the runway, no displaced thresholds. The Mt Vernon approach to 01
(or 33) is straightforward. Runway 03-21 would be more exciting, but
at 4900 ft it rarely sees a commercial jet, if ever.

Isn't there a 500 ft tall stone tower in line with the north end of
01-19 at a distance of 2.1 miles? ;-)

Quote:> no displaced thresholds.

Agreed.

I don't want to exagerate the situation at DCA. Planes manage to land at
DCA about 400 times a day, with few go-arounds.

Not only that, but before you run into that obstruction, isn't there also
a big prohibited airspace in that same area?

--Dan

The obstruction is well to the east if you were to do a straight line
approach to 19.  I've actually seen jets cross over the D.C. land as
they make turns onto 19.  They will, from time to time, cross just above
and abeam the Jefferson Memorial.

Rich

Quote:

> > > > >DCA has only one straight-in jet approach (to 01) IIRC.

> > > > True, but except for the turns on the River approach to 19, the
> > > > approaches to 01 and 19 are unremarkable -- no obstructions in line
> > > > with the runway,

> > > Isn't there a 500 ft tall stone tower in line with the north end of
> > > 01-19 at a distance of 2.1 miles? ;-)

> > Not only that, but before you run into that obstruction, isn't there also
> > a big prohibited airspace in that same area?

> The obstruction is well to the east if you were to do a straight line
> approach to 19.  I've actually seen jets cross over the D.C. land as
> they make turns onto 19.  They will, from time to time, cross just above
> and abeam the Jefferson Memorial.

My map doesn't make it entirely clear what's in the prohibited airspace
(P-56) that surrounds the whitehouse.  The monument sits at a magnetic
heading of about 1 degree from National airport.  The magnetic heading of
the runway is 5 degrees.  And, at a distance of 2.1 miles, that would put
a jet on a straight in approach on a clearance of about 400ft :)  The
prohibited space extends about one-half mile south of the Washington
Monument - parallel to RFK (it actually extends farther south than that
near the whitehouse but ...).

--Dan

I disagree.  The normal arrival runway for Burbank is runway 8,
and there is no displaced threshold (there is a ~230' one for 26,
but all of it is available for landing rollout).  There is also a
straight-in normal 3 degree ILS to the runway.  DCA has no
straight-in approach for 19 (no ILS).  I find it more of a
challenge to fly an approach into DCA and be stabilized than to
land on 8 at Burbank.  Runway 19 at DCA is a bit longer than 8 at
Burbank, however (~800')

--Mark Rogers

Quote:>Runway 19 at DCA is a bit longer than 8 at
>Burbank, however (~800')

Would the WN 737 have gone off the end if 8 were 800 feet longer? I've
been in a 737 that landed on 33 at DCA (5200 ft), although on a cold
dry day. It can be done, obviously, but there is no margin for error.

But there isn't a gas station on the overrun, just the bike path, the
Geo Washington parkway and the Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary.  I doubt
if a plane could get across the parkway without hitting a number of
cars, day or night.

The tower at DCA offers 33 when conditions make it plausible.  Most
airliners refuse, though the tower says they are supposed to make the
offer.  One afternoon, with 10-15 kt headwind on 33, I saw three 737 /
md80 land on 33 within maybe a half-hour.

Some years ago, when 36 (now 01) was discombuberated for a while, 33 was
in heavier use by jets.  On the WRC-TV site  
http://wxnet4.nbc4.com/scrCap/CityCam1.jpeg   I saw a 757 lined up for
takeoff on 33. The WRC-TV site doesn't always/often point at DCA.

Bob C.