Some of the world's most prestigious airlines fly regularly throughout Africa, and believe me, they would not be doing so if their destination airports were inadequate. Carriers cannot, on a whim, begin flying to a foreign city. Airports must meet Federal Aviation Administration approval, taking in runway length and condition, crash-and-rescue capabilities, approach and navigational equipment, and security measures. Even alternate and diversionary airports are evaluated for approval.
Delta is currently the only U.S. major with service to Africa, flying into Accra, Lagos, Johannesburg and Dakar (Cairo, Nairobi and Cape Town begin soon). Before inaugurating flights to these cities, teams of company auditors and inspectors were sent ahead, to ensure not only adequate passenger facilities but safety and security standards.
I once described Dakar's Léopold Sédar Senghor International as nothing short of the "the world's worst airport," but, trust me, it is not a dangerous place -- except possibly to your wallet when, like me, you're stuck there at midnight waiting for a predawn departure.
All of this can be extrapolated elsewhere, be it South America, India, China or Southeast Asia -- regions where commercial aviation is often, and unfairly, maligned as categorically hazardous.
A list of airlines from developing countries that have been fatality-free for at least the past 25 years.
Air Jamaica
Air Malta
Air Mauritius
Air Niugini (Papua New Guinea)
Air Seychelles
Air Tanzania
Air Zimbabwe
Bahamasair
Caribbean Airways (formerly BWIA)
Cayman Airways
Ghana Airways (ceased operations)
Lacsa (Costa Rica)
Pluna (Uruguay)
Royal Brunei
Royal Jordanian
Syrianair
TACA
Tunisair
I am flying soon to Tegucigalpa, Honduras, which I'm told is one of the most dangerous/difficult landing strips in the world. Should I be nervous?
I would never describe any approach as "dangerous." Even "difficult" is misleading. Flying is no different from any other profession: Some tasks are more challenging and work-intensive than others. In no way does that make them unsafe. Although some airports -- particularly those with short runways and surrounded by high terrain -- present less margin for error, crews will stay out of trouble so long as they fly by the book and maintain situational awareness.
Airport-specific training is required for some destinations, often designated as "special qualification airports." At my own airline, captains flying to certain Latin American cities for the first time must, in addition to reviewing the various takeoff, landing and emergency procedures, be accompanied by a training pilot. Unusual approaches like those into Quito, Ecuador, are frequently practiced in simulators.
I've been told that due to "noise restrictions" planes taking off from Long Beach, Calif., actually have to cut their engines for a short period of time during the climb. The plane levels off and coasts for a bit, then the engines are restarted. Is this true?
This is not the first time I have encountered this ridiculous legend. The answer is no. Indeed there are noise restriction rules when departing from Long Beach, just as there are from many other airports. In most cases this entails a delay in the flap/slat retraction schedule and an adjustment to thrust. By climbing at a steeper angle, the plane rises above noise-sensitive areas more quickly. This procedure might be combined with a turn or other pattern to avoid dense neighborhoods. In Boston, jets departing on Runway 22R make an immediate left turn after liftoff to stay clear of South Boston.
Noise restrictions or not, you will commonly hear the engines throttle back slightly and feel the plane shallow out moments after takeoff. The thrust used for takeoff is, in the interests of safety and performance, more than enough, so it's lessened once aloft to save wear on the engines and to keep the plane from exceeding reasonable speed. The plane is still climbing and is not decelerating nearly as much as it may feel. (Despite the impressive roar of the engines and spine-straightening acceleration, airliners usually do not take off at full bore. Maximum thrust is used when conditions dictate -- weight, runway length and weather -- but normally they don't, instead allowing a preordained thrust setting some degree below the available output. This helps preserve engine life.)
I was on board a flight that broke off its approach and diverted to another airport. We were told that it was "too foggy to land." How could this be true? Aren't modern, sophisticated airplanes -- it was an Airbus A320 -- certified for all weather conditions?
First, let's review how a plane lands in bad weather: Pilots navigate to the runway using something called ILS, or instrument landing system. They track a pair of radio signals -- one horizontal, the other vertical, transmitted from antennae on the ground. (The horizontal signal is known as a "localizer," while the vertical is called a "glide slope.") With the two beams centered in a kind of electronic cross hair, the plane is guided toward the runway with close to unfailing accuracy. The crew descends to a certain height at or near the threshold, at which point the runway must be visible for landing.
Not all ILS approaches are the same. Some allow for lower visibility "minimums" than others, dependent on ILS signal calibration, runway approach lighting, pavement markings, etc. The typical, Category I instrument runway permits approaches with a forward visibility down to about a quarter-mile. Others have so-called Category II approaches, allowing as little as 1,200 feet of visibility. Category III minimums drop to as low as zero visibility (a full-on auto-land is used for that one).
Cat I runways are common. Cats II and III are usually found at busier and/or fog-prone airports. Even there, however, not every runway is qualified. Here at Boston we have four main runways offering eight possible ILS approaches, only one of which is certified for Category III. During extreme low-visibility conditions, which fortunately don't happen very often, that's the only option. If, among other complications, the winds happen to be out of tolerance for that runway, everyone is out of luck and the airport effectively closes.
(Crews will often speak of "low ceilings" when making P.A. announcements during delays and whatnot, referring to the altitude of the base of the cloud cover. But technically, it's visibility that determines approach criteria, not ceiling.)
So, in other words, an airplane is only as capable as the runway it is landing on. Because a given jetliner is equipped and certified for zero-visibility Category III auto-land means nothing if the runway too is not similarly equipped and qualified. Most commercial runways are not.
I was flying out of Detroit. It was very foggy and we'd been sitting on a taxiway for several minutes. The captain announced that if the fog didn't lift within 10 minutes, he would taxi to the other side of the airfield "to use a longer runway." What's the advantage of a longer runway in the fog?
None, per se. It sounds to me like the captain didn't fully explain. Going back to the previous question and answer, just as not every runway can accommodate bad-weather landings, neither can they all accommodate bad-weather takeoffs. Normally, airline guidelines allow for takeoffs with as little as 600 feet of visibility, but only if the runway itself is appropriately outfitted. The lowest-visibility takeoffs require, among other things, a center-line lighting system and a minimum of three RVR readings (that's Runway Visual Range, a technology that measures precise forward visibility). As for the captain's announcement, above, the best-equipped runways tend also to be longer (though not always), which made for a simpler, if not exactly complete explanation.
Next week: The growing danger of runway collisions
Do you have questions for Salon's aviation expert? Contact Patrick Smith through his Web site and look for answers in a future column.
About the writer
Patrick Smith is an airline pilot. His column is archived here.
Related Stories
Ask the Pilot
Tough questions after a deadly catastrophe in Brazil. When is a runway "too short"? And, are some of our busiest airports unsafe?
Ask the Pilot
A filthy lobby, sullen-faced employees, no place to sit, and a vague sense of danger all add up to the World's Worst Airport.
Ask the pilot
No ticket? No problem. Hitching a ride in West Africa, the world's most "dangerous" place to fly.
Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)
Salon Directory (browse by topic)