« | Home | »

How long a runway?


Assuming the pilots of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 didn’t destroy the plane; assuming they didn’t crash-land it either; and assuming instead they got it to an airfield, how long would the runway have to be to accommodate a jet as large as a Boeing 777?

According to the plane’s manufacturers, anywhere between 1200 and 2500 metres. The variable factors are: the altitude of the runway (the higher it is, the longer it has to be); the weight of the plane; and the weather. A 777 at its maximum landing weight arriving in the rain at high altitude requires twice the distance to land as an unladen 777 landing at sea level on a dry runway.

Vast as the search area for MH370 may be, there aren’t thousands of airfields with runways at least 1100 meters long. So you’d think the places to look could be narrowed down.

And yet. Boeing 777s have such excellent crash-landing records. It is the safest commercial airliner ever built. The British Airways flight from Beijing to Heathrow that crash-landed in 2008 came to a halt in no distance at all. The plane touched down before reaching the tarmac, the undercarriage and one of the engines were ripped away, fuel leaked from the plane but didn’t ignite. The co-pilot, John Coward, who brought the plane down safely, was said to be a hero.

In other words, if MH370 didn’t disappear into the ocean, and was landed by whoever was in control of it, then the area to search remains absolutely vast. Several hundred metres of flat grassland might be all that was needed to bring it to a stop.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement