Most Extreme Airports?

I used to fly out of Reagan a lot when I was a kid, always fun at night when all you can see if water and you keep getting closer and closer. I've never flown into San Diego, but I think a combination of all the buildings around it and the amount of traffic it gets would be worse. That said I looked up runway lengths of both and was surprised to find DCAs longest was 2,000ft shorter than SANs.

 

The Aspen, CO airport is pretty extreme. You come in over the mountains and then have a huge descent. You gotta put the plane down pretty quickly since you will run out of runway. Takeoff is just as rough. Then add the wind coming through the rockies, etc

 

Ive seen that show also..i think a lot of how they rate it is the approach topography, there are hundreds of crazy mountain airports etc that if you have a Cub are just fun but anything else would be nuts. For me this is the best Video of and airliner coming in..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw4PHhLBbrU]American Airlines Boeing 757 Crazy Landing in Honduras - YouTube[/ame]

 

That is Tegucigalpa. Do a search of videos on YouTube for Tegucigalpa or Toncontin and you'll find a bunch.

The guys in that 757 were FLYING it in and NAILED IT as good as it can be done.

Here is an example of what happens when you DON'T hit your marks and try to stick it anyway.
Stood the thing on it's nose and burned the brakes off this A/P.
Notice how high the elevators were when he got to the end of the runway.
Just about bit that one.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJoXMcehrYo]Toncontin Feb 2009 - Risky Landing - YouTube[/ame]

 

No other words for that other than "holy ****" what was he thinking ? why would he not go around once he knew he had over shot it ? he was so lucky there....bugger me...im sure that would fail a check ride somewhere

 

St. Barts is another challenging approach.
Somebody's ego just cost them a bunch of money.
Go-arounds are so much cheaper.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z2o0acIlm4]St Barts Runway Overrun - YouTube[/ame]

 

Saba's in the Caribbean, close to St Barts. World class diving, volcanic so at about 130ft you can peek over the edge and see nothin but blue. Airport carved into the side of the mountain. Very strange watching the rock whiz by the wingtip onlanding, but the winair pilots make it look easy. Planes will freq dive off the end of the runway...at that point it's a plateau, maybe 300 ft up off the water....to pick up airspeed.
Google it. Was the site of the original "King Kong".
Islanders brought a Brit engineer in to design a road back in the 20's-30's. Guy said it couldnt be done, so they sent him home and built it anyway.
St Barts has gotten a LOT easier since they shaved 20 ft off the top of the hill on approach,but a student pilot put one into the underbrush about 2 weeks ago. Inst was hurt; student unscathed.

 

LOL I have seen that one plenty of times...My limited experience would tell me its harder to get a big airliner down and stopped than a small twin, but what do i know, i think the 8000 ft runway at Van Nuys is too short and narrow for the 172 i fly !!!

 

Saba is must try if you ever get to the Caribbean about the closest you can get to landing on an aircraft carrier.

Landing video :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVdaFv6kbkw]landing in Saba - YouTube[/ame]

Take off :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpjRTQ80XsU]Saba Airport 1 - Takeoff - YouTube[/ame]

You can fly into St. Marrten then do St. Barts and Saba from SXM if you are the trill seeking type. I cannot wait to get back out there.

Photo I took at SXM

JetPhotos.Net Photo » N203UW (CN: 30548) US Airways Boeing 757-23N by Robin Guess - www.Jet-Fighters.net

 

it's not the airport, it's the aircraft that is being used... it's the old cliche' about putting 10# of stuff in a 5# bag... it's done occasionally, like taking a Lear into Walker's Cay, Bahamas... used to be 2300' if I remember correctly

 

I remember the first time flying out of Aspen in a Challenger. The pilot turns around and says "It's going to look like we are flying straight into the mountains, but I assure you we will make it". The da there can be killer.

Justin

 

Looks REALLY small from the cockpit of a WWII fighter!

Saint Barths Airshow 2011 - Cockpit Cameras - Texas Flying Legends Museum - YouTube

 

The only ones on that list which I have personal experience with are Eagle and San Diego.

Eagle is interesting when the weather is poor, and no big deal otherwise. Aspen is much worse in either case.

San Diego is interesting because of the hill on final, and I suppose if you are an airline guy who is used to going to 10,000 foot runways on the prairie might seem a bit challenging. However, it is really not a big deal. Orange County, mentioned above, is easy-- the only issue there is entirely self-made, and that is the noise abatement procedure.

Another sporty one is Juneau, Alaska. For that matter, I thought the VOR approach into JFK was interesting... I'm sure in a 747 or the Concorde, it was quite sporty (not so much in a Learjet).

If you want to talk about places which are interesting when the weather is bad, take a look at Palm Springs, CA! Particularly the RNP approach.

 

Guys don't leave out Bhutan! The ultimate VFR landing!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZqN-uEgQU&feature=em-share_video_user]Most difficult landing in the world - Bhutan? (Original) - YouTube[/ame]

 

Bhutan reminded me of another, Queenstown, New Zealand.

 

No one has thought of Santa Catalina? It's interesting-- and I've never been in there in anything larger than a Baron.

 

I imagine being on the Falcon shown in the picture inside the terminal was a little more interesting than the Baron (or my Mooney). It is a unique airport due to the location but probably gets a little overhyped as far as difficulty. Lots of fun to take-off and stay about 10ft agl and then suddenly be 500ft agl after crossing the threshold (on a calm day). Telluride is also an interesting airport on a plateau, but also has the altitude issues.

Its all a matter of pilot perspective landing at some of these airports. The airplane doesn't know the difference. Most anyone can land a 172 in a very short distance, however there is a big difference in the perspective if the runway is only 1200 ft versus 4000 or 10000 ft. Then add some geography for good measure and the pucker factor increases exponentially.

 

About 10-12 years ago, I was flying a Citation II for a management company. The Director of Operations for the management company (not a Citation pilot) called me up and asked me what I thought about taking the Citation into a 3,000 foot strip.

Cautiously, I replied that it should be okay. "Which 3,000 foot strip?"

"Catalina."

"Not doing it, sorry."

The runway length isn't so much the problem as the approach-- because of the visual picture, it's hard to land near the end, and the Citation has a tendency to float anyway.

 

I got to thinking about my bad approach experiences and the one that sticks in my mind is Shaw Island years ago where the approach was from one direction only because the strip was a steep hill at the end of which were the duty power wires. The trees grow tall and tough in the San Juans and the approach was over a thick bunch of them. Then a cleared short run to the end of the strip that you had to hit before you went under the wires. Then a heavy blast of power to make the run up the slope to a turnaround pad. Take off was fun. Going down hill the ground just dropped away from you.

 

Maiquetia in Caracas is interesting for first timers, if one can only look out the side windows of the airplane... the Venezulean coast is mountainous at Caracas... to make the airport they leveled a couple of mountains at the coast line ( Caracas is inland in a flat valley )... the view out to the side of the plane as it is flying an approach along the side of moutains rising above the plane and the sea below, then touch down while still looking at montains ( while most newbies are saying "wtf" )

 

I landed my Pilatus on St. Barths this past New Year's Eve. Scratch one off the bucket list.