Posted on 05/22/2006 7:54:31 PM PDT by 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.
Oops. That should be
15370 Km not 13,363 Km.
ping
*****call that wimp feingold..censure President Bush..he and he alone is responsible for damaging that strip..*****
well if he wasnt on that plane, it would have been lighter!
wait, didn't Teddy join him on that trip?..." =P
So Canberra can't handle 747s?
I guess it goes without saying that the A380 won't be going there.
How does the 747-8I compare to the 777-200? In words, not range statistics. 747-8 can carry more payload? Higher MTOW?
Oh, cool. And I even posted on that thread. Thanks!!
So the 747-8 pax and 747-8 freighter would better compare to the A-380. I'm sure they wouldn't design a plane to replace one of their existing models (777-200LR).
It can carry 450 passengers compared to 300 for the 777-200LR. If you look at an ETOPS map of the great circle between SYD and DFW, you will notice it goes right through one of the biggest ETOPS dead zones outside of Antarctica, so the fact that the 787-8 has four engines might be a plus. DFW is American Airlines biggest hub which has lots of room for expansion compared to LAX, and are in the same alliance as QUANTAS so they can feed QUANTAS's flights.
That should say 747-8 not 787-8.
Hummmm.. Let me think. Nope, can't think of a thing.
I googled Extended-range Twin-engine OperationS (ETOPS) dead zone and found nothing. Dead zone? Like the Bermuda Triangle? (LOL)
Look at the shaded regions on the map I posted. The great circle between SYD and DFW passes through the area between ETOPS-180 and ETOPS-240. The one between SYD and IAH just touches the ETOPS-240 limit. The one between SYD and MIA goes right through the middle of the area greater than ETOPS-240. Even if a 747 loses one engine it can continue on to its scheduled destination while a twin engined plane like the 777 must land at the closest available airport. The longest currently used ETOPS rules are ETOPS-207 and they are only used during the winter in the north Pacific.
How interesting. Thanks!
Many of us would say it's a back-water town that happens to be the national capital of Australia. Canberra has been described as a good waste of a sheep paddock.
It's actually a rather small city and the airport is strictly a domestic one - a good domestic one, but domestic nonetheless. It's unusual for a 747 sized aircraft to land there.
When people like the Queen come, they normally come in on a smaller aircraft. When President Clinton came here in the mid 1990s, I believe the USAF flew out a smaller plane in addition to the 747 to be used to fly to Canberra from Sydney (where the 747 landed). Safety concerns (there was a minor problem with the smaller aircraft - not serious, but enough that the President of the United States couldn't fly on it) meant that he did use the 747 to travel to Canberra and I believe for that reason he had to land at a RAAF base rather than Canberra Airport.
This really is a story about nothing - regardless of how rare it is, Canberra Airport should be rated for large aircraft as a matter of common sense. This incident is not the reason it's being upgraded - it's simply an incident that points to the need for an upgrade.
Brilliant!
Within Australia, the Prime Minister generally travels on an RAAF 737.
I can't swear to it, but if I recall correctly, Clinton had to land at a RAAF base near Canberra rather than Canberra Airport because Air Force One was too heavy for the airport.
Which means people - both Australians and Americans - were aware of the problems in the 1990s, and so presumably the USAF was assured that there wouldn't be a problem in 2003. If a mistake was made, I would guess it was most likely made by an Australian - the USAF should be able to rely on information coming from Australian aviation officials.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.