Bush jet damaged local runway (Air Force One)

news.com.au ^ | 23rd May 2006 | Peter Veness

[naturalman1975]

US President George W Bush's Air Force One aircraft damaged the runway when it landed at Canberra airport in 2003, leaving Australian taxpayers to pick up the bill, a parliamentary committee has been told.

The high-tech Boeing 747 jumbo jet, dubbed the flying White House, was much heavier than most aircraft that land on the runway and caused damage to the pavement.

Other military and VIP planes had also damaged the runway but the visit by Air Force One worried the airport owners to the point where they raised concerns about the weight of the jet with the Federal Government.

In response to questioning from Opposition transport spokesman Kerry O'Brien, a parliamentary committee today heard the Government had agreed to fix the runway.

Department of Transport and Regional Services deputy secretary Mike Mrdak said the Commonwealth did make "arrangements" to fix any damage done to the runway.

Those arrangements were delivered in last year's Budget, with the Government providing $28.5 million for runway strengthening at Canberra.

Bureaucrats fronting the committee denied it was solely the visit of Air Force One that had forced the strengthening work.

Senator O'Brien then asked why no heavy jets had landed on the runway since the visit by President Bush.

"It's interesting that after the Bush visit the dispensations (for heavy jet landings) had been discontinued," Senator O'Brien said.

Mr Mrdak replied: "There's a point at which the surface limitations come into affect and the airport operator does not wish to see further pavement damage and that was reached from that time on."

Canberra airport is the only airport in Australia to receive federal funding for runway strengthening.

[Gamecock]

***Is there anything anywhere in the world that ISN"T President Bush's falt???***

The stock market. The current economy. The current unemployment rate.

[truemiester]

Is that a T-43?

Got quite a few hours in them when I was at Mather AFB. Most of the time I was sweating bullets!

[Moose4]

Not sure about the designation, I think it may actually be a Boeing Business Jet (BBJ), which is a converted 737-700 with winglets. They add an executive interior and extra fuel tanks for extended range; BBJs have trans-Atlantic capability, something passenger 737s normally don't have. If that aircraft is designated as PM Howard's personal ride, I'd assume it's got an executive interior similar in concept to the VC-25s.

If I remember right, a T-43 is an old old 737-200 with the JT8D engines. Same basic airplane, thirty years' difference in the technology. :)

}:-)4

[narby]

Other military and VIP planes had also damaged the runway

So it was already busted up. But they have to blame Bush. Figures.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

Doubt it. The triple sevens weigh less and has only two engines. Less fuel burned and less maintenance costs per seat mile.

[Paleo Conservative]

Doubt it. The triple sevens weigh less and has only two engines. Less fuel burned and less maintenance costs per seat mile.

Read my later posts. The great circle between SYD and DFW passes through some of the most remote parts of the world outside Antarctica and would require an ETOPS rating of at least 240 which is 60 minutes longer than the longest standard ETOPS rating of 180 minutes. There is a 207 minute variance allowed for particular airlines with good ETOPS records on polar routes during winter. What would be the rules for maintaining aircraft for ETOPS-240 or ETOPS-330? How much more would that cost compared to ETOPS-180? Would QANTAS have to maintain a separate fleet of 777-200LR's for flying to DFW from the fleet flying to LHR or ORD?

[Red6]

More fun facts.

Air Force One is a 747-200, as you mention. As such the plane is lighter than some of it's newer versions. But.... Air Force One carries "maybe" as many as 60 people on board when they fly. It's setup for no more than slightly over 70.

Now imagine this jet fly's a long long distance (most fuel spent) and lands. I really can't believe that Air Force One is anything spectacular when it comes to weight.

Either the pad was damaged, or the runway needed repair anyway since it was neglected or finally there is the option that they ran over something (Which also occurs - lights, markers, etc get hit occasionally). But Air Force One is a relatively generic plane, is not even the heaviest of the versions out there and this plane is traveling lightly and coming in with little fuel. I seriously doubt that Air Force One is even close to its max gross weight when landing in Canberra. I seriously doubt that Air Force One is the first and only 747 landing there. www.canberraairport.com.au / http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/FactFiles.pdf It's an international airport.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

Dunno. They might alter their route from the ideal Great Circle to remain ETOPS compliant. You do know that ETOPS stands for Everything Turns Or People Swim, right?:-)

[DesScorp]

Notice how it's the "Bush Jet", not Air Force One....like W just decided on a whim to come in and fsck up their runway?

[phantomworker]

Maybe AF1 has been carrying more cache lately.

[Oztrich Boy]

Until 2003 it was a 707. Now it's a Boeing 737 BBJ

[Oztrich Boy]

You'd think Australia would have a runway capable of handling 707's or 747's at an airport near their nation's capitol.

What naturalman said

And Canberra is a small place. It;s not an internatiuonal airline destination. Most HOGs fly smaller aircraft than the 747, or commercaial to Sydney.

[AGreatPer]

That one main runway at Logan (Boston) gets cracks in it 7-10 times a year. Quick patch, in one hour, fixes it. People in the air think there is a traffic delay. Not true.

People don't know it but Logan is the most vulnerable runway in the US.

I have said too much already.

[AGreatPer]

Logan is built on a moving sand bar.

[phantomworker]

I have said too much already.

Now we have to shoot you? :)

[ketelone]

hahahahahhahahah thats great...

[RadioCirca1970]

"Bush Lied--Heavy Ride"

Quick someone get the Leftist D*ckheads to print up a t shirt...

[thinking]

I fully agree...this would never happen...for many reasons, one of which would be possible damage to AF1...

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

I would not want to get a truck off the runway or taxiway in a foreign land nor would I want to damage my runway in any way in case I had to make a hasty, unscheduled departure, if you catch my drift....

[dljordan]

"I can't believe the PIC (pilot in command) of AF1 would knowingly land on a runway that was not rated to support the landing weight of his aircraft. That makes no sense at all!"

It sure doesn't! You don't take even the slightest chance with that much money and responsibility.