Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984

Airport landing path question

Recommended Posts

As I sit at my computer, I often look out the window. Smack in the middle of the upper pane is a plane landing at MHT,  Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, the major runway is 17/35, 9000+ ft.  Btw, fifth busiest passenger airport in New England, third biggest for cargo. I am 3 miles north of MHT.

 

what would you figure is the probable altitude of the plane?  And he would be using runway 17?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9000+ feet?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the plane landing toward you or away from you?

 

You are north of the airport, so if the plane is landing toward you he's on runway 35. If he's landing away from you he's on runway 17.

 

I would think that they 9000 plus would be the length of the runway, not the altitude of the plane.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jet and heavy aircraft have standard 3:1 ratio.

3 nautical miles should be allowed for every 1000' of decent.

 

3 miles out from airport should have the plane at about 1000' +-.

Rate of decent about 600'/minute.

 

However this decent is rather fast and pressure changes could be uncompfortable.

So most airlines decend at about 300'/minute.

This would put the plane at about 500' to 600' at 3 miles out.

====================

Above I corrected the decent to feet per minute as pointed out by Trail Rider.

Thanks. (everything I work on now is in feet per second so I put the wrong info down.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Hanger #3720LR
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Cliff Hanger nailed it. 
 

My rail shop is on the flight path to LAX. Planes land on runway 24R nearly over my shop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to planefinder.org and search for MHT. In a side bar you will see scheduled arrivals and departures with their times.

 

You can watch flights in near real time as they takeoff and land. Hover your mouse over any plane and it will give you basic information like call sign/Flt #, Tail #, speed, and altitude. Click on it and you will get a lot more data and the map will follow that aircraft.

It will also leave a flight trail. Hover your mouse over the trail and you can see the time speed and altitude for that point.

 

Note that not all planes will be displayed for various reasons.

Edited by Sedalia Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched a CRJ9 take off from MHT going north west at about 350 degrees. 

Crossing I293 altitude was 750 ft

Crossing South Beech altitude was 1700 ft

Crossing Queen City Ave altitude was 2025 ft

Crossing the river altitude was 2600 ft.

 

 

Edited by Sedalia Dave
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

Reminds me a little bit of 1975-76 when I was under the glide path/take off route for the BUFFs at Griffiths AFB.  those boys were loud.

I grew up in a house under the landing pattern for Wright-Paterson AFB. Lots of interesting planes to watch. 

 

There was a squadron of B-52s on base at the time, and the whole town shook when they scrambled. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

I grew up in a house under the landing pattern for Wright-Paterson AFB. Lots of interesting planes to watch. 

 

There was a squadron of B-52s on base at the time, and the whole town shook when they scrambled. 

 

I live under their landing pattern, about nine miles out. I know military and civilian are two different things, but they come over my house at all altitudes. Some low enough to rattle the house and for me to look up into their wheel wells. Typically, we only get C-17s and C-130s these days, with the occasional fighter passing through. That I can recall though, since I've lived here I've had the following fly over, or turning for the runway just out my back window:

C-17

C-141 (along with a testing variant with the nose of an F-15 grafted on before they were all retired)

C-130

B-52 (That was a surprise)

F-16

F-15

A-10

AV8

E4 (Nightwatch... The Doomsday Plane. First saw it on 9/11. I've seen it several times since)

KC-135

KC-10

 

I know there are more, but those are the ones that stick out.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doc,

Were you around when the ARIA were still flying?  They were there at least I to the late 70s. I never understood how they flew with that radar nose. 

 

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197557/boeing-ec-135e-aria/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

As I sit at my computer, I often look out the window. Smack in the middle of the upper pane is a plane landing at MHT,  Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, the major runway is 17/35, 9000+ ft.  Btw, fifth busiest passenger airport in New England, third biggest for cargo. I am 3 miles north of MHT.

 

what would you figure is the probable altitude of the plane?  And he would be using runway 17?

 

If I am looking correctly, most (Heavies) land from the south, east or west and only a few from the north. I found one 737 that landed south on rwy 17 in recent days. My guess would be somewhere around a thousand feet at only on a three mile final approach for runway 17.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/wn3350#2386a645

 

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA3350/history/20200115/0300Z/KBWI/KMHT

In the following video, the audio calls out "one thousand" at about a three mile final with this 737
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFGguiO5ceo

Edited by Savvy Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

Doc,

Were you around when the ARIA were still flying?  They were there at least I to the late 70s. I never understood how they flew with that radar nose. 

 

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197557/boeing-ec-135e-aria/

 

 

We built our house in the late '90s, but I don't recall seeing them even when I was at the University of Dayton from '92 to '95.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the instrument landing approach plate (diagram) for Rwy 17, the plane needs to be at 2500’ msl (mean sea level) at an approach fix 6.9 nautical miles from the runway. That’s about 2200-2300 above the ground. 
 

From there, it descends to the outer marker for short final where it needs to be at 1600’ msl 3.8 NM from the runway. 

 

From there, the descent continues at about 350’/min, depending on wind, to the touchdown zone. The runway is 266’ above sea level and 9,500’ long. 
 

Edited by Abilene Slim SASS 81783
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I think Cliff Hanger nailed it. 
 

My rail shop is on the flight path to LAX. Planes land on runway 24R nearly over my shop. 

He has mucho hrs as a pilot. ;)

OLG 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more noise and jet fuel air pollution at takeoff.
This is one of the criteria I use when searching for a new place to live.

We found several nice properties in Prescott AZ, all for sale, all directly under the takeoff strip.
Deal breaker.

Every airport has documentation as to the prevailing wind direction, and takeoff instructions for the pilot.
This will help you determine the flight path and altitude as it passed over a given residential area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bgavin said:

There is more noise and jet fuel air pollution at takeoff.
This is one of the criteria I use when searching for a new place to live.

We found several nice properties in Prescott AZ, all for sale, all directly under the takeoff strip.
Deal breaker.

Every airport has documentation as to the prevailing wind direction, and takeoff instructions for the pilot.
This will help you determine the flight path and altitude as it passed over a given residential area.

 

LOLOLOLOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an example, Atlanta Georgia

340,000 vehicles travel past Atlanta (not including traffic INSIDE Atlanta) every day. That is nearly right by Hartsfield airport as well.

2,700 flights in and out of Hartsfield

One 747 Jumbo jet creates the same pollution as about 200-300 mid-sized family cars during take-off and landing.

Less for modern design jets, more for big trucks etc.

2,700 jets equals about the same pollution as 450,000 vehicles.

Pollution from vehicles stays close to and on the ground while most of jet pollution travels horizontal and spreads out over a larger surface.....not directly under the flight path.

More pollution from an aircraft directly under the departure and landing path by an airport is the most absolute hysterically funniest thing I ever herd.

Edited by Savvy Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Savvy Jack said:

More pollution from an aircraft directly under the departure and landing path by an airport is the most absolute hysterically funniest thing I ever herd.


LOL.. for starters, is is "heard" not "herd."
Thanks for playing.

The cancer and air pollution documentation is well established and much higher for those living in a 5 mile range of an airport.
You are certainly welcome to tell all those cancer researchers they have it all wrong.
Whether you like it or not, there is less jet fuel pollution farther away from the airport than 1,000 feet under the takeoff path.

If you think auto pollution stays close to the ground, you have obviously never been to California.

If I wanted car pollution, I have any number of big cities to choose from.
Hell will become exothermic before I ever would live in Atlanta.
Schooled there.. was enough to show me the terrible traffic problems.

Edited by bgavin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bgavin said:

California.
 

 

You just answered your own problems!  From the same people that claim proscribed burns are bad.....LOL!
Komifornia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was in the Corps, California had the world's finest transit. They had rail everywhere, a subway and an elevated. Those big brains tore it all up by 1962 so they could have more highways. Why should we be surprised that those intellectual elite are doing such a great job today!!!!    :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.