What’s Going To Be Done About Newark Airport’s Tricky Runway 29?

A few days ago, we saw a United Boeing 767 hit a truck and light pole on the New Jersey Turnpike while on final approach to runway 29 at Newark Airport (EWR). Fortunately no one was seriously injured, so hopefully there’s a lesson to be learned here, to prevent something similar in the future. Along those lines…

Newark Airport’s runway 29 is sort of a problem

There’s quite a bit of discussion going on regarding what could cause an accident like this to happen, because suffice it to say, commercial aircraft shouldn’t be clipping cars on the interstate.

While the above footage (from Sunday’s incident) is obviously the wildest, the reality is that there have been quite a few very low approach landing videos from this runway over time.

What’s going on here? Well, runway 29 is used as needed for landings based on the winds. Here’s the issue:

  • The runway is only 6,725 feet long, and for wide body aircraft, that’s very close to the minimum runway length they need; this means the room for error is limited, so pilots are going to try to land toward the beginning of the touchdown zone
  • It seems utterly moronic to have an elevated interstate right at the edge of such a short runway, for obvious reasons (see all of the above videos!)
  • There’s no ILS approach for runway 29, but just a series of RNAV approaches that go as low as 490 feet, at which point it becomes a visual segment

When you add in all of these factors, plus you see the above videos, it’s not difficult to think “oh, that could end very badly.” The United pilots and truck driver got really lucky here, as I see it. If the plane had instead been just feet lower, and had impacted that perimeter wall, I imagine this could’ve ended much worse.

Is there a practical solution to this runway issue?

Newark Airport is already known for constantly being congested, so any additional restrictions on runways will complicate things further. But of course safety is paramount, and can’t be overlooked in the name of operational efficiency.

It’s not that runway 29 needs to be shut down, but maybe investigators should look into whether restrictions should at least be placed on wide bodies landing there. Yes, pilots manage to safely land here day in and day out, but the safety margins just might not be there.

I’ve seen some people suggest that this portion of the interstate should simply be closed, but I don’t view that as a reasonable or practical solution.

Bottom line

On Sunday, a United Boeing 767 clipped a truck and light pole while on approach to Newark Airport’s runway 29. While that absolutely shouldn’t happen, when you look at the circumstances, you can kind of see what might’ve contributed to this.

Runway 29 is rather short (especially for wide body aircraft), and there’s an elevated interstate right at the approach end of it. When you consider that this is a visual approach, this all just seems rather risky. Also, in terms of plane spotting, the New Jersey Turnpike shouldn’t feel like Maho Beach, in my opinion.

Do you think we’ll see any new rules related to Newark’s runway 29? Or do you think this incident will be forgotten in a week?

Conversations (84)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

pmv Guest

Perhaps the pilots pay attention to the PAPI lights and DON'T FLY BELOW THE GLIDEPATH!

0
‼ 0
Mitch Guest

People keep speculating about this runway being at the limits for a widebody to land on. I literally just ran the landing data for a B772. on a dry runway at max landing weight, you only need a published landing distance available of 4324'. That is NOT how much distance it takes to stop the plane, but what the published landing distance available needs to be for the runway of intended landing (will be different on this runway vs runway length due to the displaced threshold) to comply with 14CFR Part 121.195 which states"...would allow a full stop landing...within 60% of the effective length of each runway described below from a point 50ft above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. This means, not withstanding obstacles, you overfly the threshold at 50' and land in the normal touchdown zone, you will stop within 60% of that runways length. Landing distance calculators are one of the most misunderstood apps in aviation and there needs to be a strong push on education to correct this misunderstanding.

0
‼ 0
Frankie Guest

Nothing. It’s not that tricky.

0
‼ 0
Anthony Guest

Can you imagine changing the Springsteen song, Born to Run. We're sprung from cages out on the NJ Pike Chrome wheeled, fuel-injected and stepping out over the line It's a death trap, with United flying on my head... ok lol

0
‼ 0
Sascha Guest

Obvious solution: elevate highway 75, and lower the turnpike instead

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published