Pence’s landing at LaGuardia

by philg

A Boeing 737, N278EA, carrying the Republican VP nominee (Mike Pence), overran the runway at LaGuardia at roughly 2315Z (7:15 pm says the New York Times; Z denotes Greenwich Mean Time; Daily News says 7:25 pm).

The runways at KLGA are grooved (airnav.com), which theoretically prevents hydroplaning and therefore landing calculations are done as though the runway were dry. (Book numbers for landing a jet on a “wet” runway are at least 15 percent longer than for a “dry” (or grooved) runway.)

Let’s see what the weather was like…

KLGA 272351Z 10010G15KT 3SM RA BR OVC010 13/12 A3010 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 4 SLP192 P0032 60061 T01330117 10139 20072 58018 $
KLGA 272251Z 09009KT 3SM RA BKN009 OVC015 13/11 A3014 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 4 SLP205 P0014 T01330106 $

The closest METAR (weather observation) is from 2251Z. By jet standards the wind was light, blowing at 9 knots. However, considering that they were landing on runway 22 (224 degrees magnetic; 212 true), the direction of the wind was unhelpful. It was blowing from 090 true (METARs are in true degrees while runway numbers are abbreviations of magnetic directions). So the groundspeed would have been at least as high as the airspeed (about 120 knots Vref for a lightly loaded 737 (37 passengers plus 8 crew on board), plus 5 knots for the gusts?). The ceiling doesn’t seem to have been a factor. BKN009 means they’d have broken out of the clouds 900′ above the runway, well above the 200′ minimum. Visibility was 3SM (3 statute miles), well above the 1800′ minimum.

The incident generated a bunch of FAA NOTAMS (Notices to Airmen):

!LGA 10/167 (KLGA A2470/16) LGA RWY 22 PAPI OUT OF SERVICE 1610280141-1610292359
!LGA 10/166 (KLGA A2469/16) LGA NAV ILS RWY 22 GP OUT OF SERVICE 1610280137-1610292359
!LGA 10/165 (KLGA A2468/16) LGA NAV TKD LOC TYPE DIRECTIONAL AID RWY 22 LOC OUT OF SERVICE 1610280113-1610292359
!LGA 10/164 (KLGA A2467/16) LGA NAV ILS RWY 22 LOC OUT OF SERVICE 1610280058-1610292359
!LGA 10/163 (KLGA A2466/16) LGA RWY 04/22 CLSD 1610280030-1610281800

Pilots won’t be getting glide path assistance either from a radio beacon (ILS RWY 22 GP) or from the red/white lights (PAPI OUT OF SERVICE). The radio-based left-right guidance system is also broken (RWY 22 LOC OUT OF SERVICE). A $50,000 airplane with a WAAS-based GPS will find it easier to land at LaGuardia than will a $20 million airliner (the cost of adding modern avionics to airliners is prohibitive due to regulatory compliance costs).

How is it possible to run a modern jet off the runway? LaGuardia has some of the shortest runways of any busy U.S. airport. See My visual approach, and Asiana’s for what happens when a beginner tries to land there! Presumably the pilots of Pence’s chartered Boeing 737 were experienced, so in theory the 7000′ runway at LGA should not have presented a challenge. Boeing’s numbers suggest that even if wet, at a lighter weight, a 5000′ runway provides a comfortable margin of safety (see page 182, for example; I’m not quite sure exactly which variant of the 737 was carrying Pence).

Related:

  • Southwest 1248 (B737 ran off a snow-covered runway at Chicago Midway)

7 thoughts on “Pence’s landing at LaGuardia”

  3. Any thoughts on the reports from embedded reporters that the Pence plane has a recent history of hard landings, such that the press corps are always expecting it? Does this seem more like a pilot or possible equipment problem?

  4. Good question on Runway 13. First, runway usage in New York is more about keeping airplanes separated as they operate to/from JFK, LGA, EWR, HPN, and TEB. (An ILS 13 approach to LGA goes right over TEB, for example, and is close to EWR, whereas an ILS 22 approach comes in from the Greenwich, CT area.) Second, if the controllers are using one runway for arrivals and one for departures it may make sense to give the headwind to departures. Planes will get off the ground sooner and climb away from the ground quicker, thus (slightly) reducing noise for people who live nearby. A plane that loses an engine during the takeoff process will have a better chance of stopping on the runway.

  5. Those METARS readings look as cryptic as Apple’s dream programming language. It’s amazing pilots can translate the masses of cryptic data coming from the ground without error.

  6. Once you know the code the METARs are not hard to read. Know that they come from the era of teletypes and tickertapes and you will understand why they are so cryptic. Once you have learned the code (as all pilots have) then I’m not sure that verbose is really better.

Comments are closed.