Why 10,000 Pounds of Rubber are Stripped From Runways | Cars Insider 

FKU

Hi Graham, Thank you so much! Im mohammad in the video and show videos of behind the scenes on my page !

@@MohammadTaher No thank YOU! I mean it sincerely. I’ll go and check your page too! I’ll see your work in a couple of weeks (LGW-UVF!)

How much rubber accumulates on runways at smaller airports that just don't keep up with rubber deposition? Is there a maximum rubber standard? How unsafe do they become?

@@southparklion I’m going to let Mohammed give his more informed answer, but my guess is the problem is much less acute, because they are much smaller lighter aircraft going in, with fewer wheels. A Boeing 777 can weigh 250 tons on landing and has 14 wheels. A Dash-8 Q400 won’t weigh more than 28 tons on landing and has six. A Boeing 777 approach speed will be around 130-140 kts, a Dash-8 maybe 100-110. And a Dash-8 is a comparatively heavy regional aircraft. I’m thinking of Southampton specifically. When I was base manager there I think we used to clean rubber once or twice a year (but I’m sure someone will correct me!) and the guys were excellent at cleaning runway lights if we observed they were dim. Something else about runway lighting: big airports like LHR and LGW have touchdown zone lights buried in the runway as part of CAT III approach systems - such lighting is mandatory for this. They also require centreline lights, typically with 15m spacing. A smaller regional airport has little requirement for such high precision approach capability as the aircraft that serve it aren’t so equipped. As a result they wont have touchdown arrays or possibly even centreline lights. So lighting issues are less acute. Finally, regional airports just aren’t as busy. LHR has departures and arrivals every minute (or less) at its peak, where’s airports such as Southampton tend to have periods of activity (for example first thing, lunchtime, evening) but the rest of the time are quiet. The sheer volume of traffic is much lower, consequently so is rubber deposition. For those more expert than I please comment and correct as appropriate!

Wow.

They could've gone into a bit more detail on the actual removal of the thickest rubber on the runway. We see what looks like melted rubber being collected, but they don't really discuss it. They went on too much about the lights.

Alright big time…

gee I’d feel real safe flying with you 😒

@@fifafutwizard7265 privet jet pilots are pilots to..

That's five tons!

That's a big lie though, divide that by 100.

@@Iseenoobpeoples Pretty sure at busy airports it is way more than 100 pounds a day but point taken.

@@Iseenoobpeoples 10,000 lbs divided by 1300 daily aircraft movements is about 15 lbs per landing (half of aircraft movements are takeoffs). That aligns rather well with the 20 lbs for an A380 landing quoted in the video. 10k pounds/day is the right order of magnitude.

@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus 90% goes up in smoke and is not laid on the tarmac.

they'd be little gyroscopes! Plus the systems to spin up tires would add extra things that could fail, and need maintenance etc

Ha, always wondered this. Thanks!

@@ThomasBomb45 and weight

I was thinking they should design the tread of the tyre so that the airflow starts them spinning. But what you say makes sense.

My exact thought answers thank you

Do you know what is ILS? If not don’t comment on it.

@@NOOne-li1pj AIM 1-1-9 Subpart a (3)(c): "The system may be divided functionally into three parts: Guidance information: localizer, glide slope. Range information: marker beacon, DME. Visual information: approach lights, touchdown and centerline lights, runway lights."

Right. Even when bringing a plane in on ILS, the pilot needs to be able to see the runway before reaching minimum altitude which is usually 200' AGL. If the field isn't in site by the time minimums are reached, a go around is required.

@@NOOne-li1pj chill my guy

@@NOOne-li1pj He's 100% correct. It says it right in the FAR under what components of a precision ILS exist. You're definitely out of your element Donny.

what

Thanks for that clarification regarding the coefficients of friction. I'm just supposing, but I think another aspect of wet runways would be that if an accumulation of rubber is filling the grooves in the concrete, water will not be able to flow off as readily and hydroplaning will occur.

@@MendTheWorld - You are 100% correct - that is a significant consideration as well as the direct reduction in the Coefficient of Friction in such wet conditions!

Hebes Chasma, Valles Marineris, Mars 🔴

My pleasure

It was this accident: "19 May 2013, at approximately 0950 Zulu (1420 local), a C-130J, tail number (T/N) 04-3144, assigned to the 41st Airlift Squadron, 19th Airlift Wing, Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB), Arkansas, ran off the end of a runway at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Shank, Northeast, Afghanistan, struck a ditch which collapsed the nose gear and eventually ripped the right main landing gear from the fuselage. The right outboard engine struck the ground, pressurized fuel and oil lines were broken, fluid was sprayed over the cracked engine casing, and the right wing caught fire."

@@get2dachoppa249 dope 😂

@@get2dachoppa249 Shank...mortar city. Don't miss it.

@@zaffo757 I was at Kandahar for a good while, don't miss it either.

Probably not, when the tires touch down and you see all the white smoke they're getting very hot which makes them stickier and allows for more braking.

The cost benefit isn't there. The additional weight of anything powerful enough to drive the wheels plus the costs for getting it certified plus the costs for ongoing maintenance wouldn't be less than the cost of the reduction in tire wear, and it would probably be minimal compared to what is lost trying to stop how many tons of airplane seconds later anyway

Manual transmission commercial airliners have clutches, the pilot just needs to upshift

This was tried in WW II using pockets on the side of the tire. The problem is that spinning tires become gyroscopes that impede the ability of the plane to maneuver at a critical time

@@briancunningham483 Thanks for the info, that makes perfect sense as to why that hasn't been implemented.

Because it's a big lie divide the number by 100

@@Iseenoobpeoples what?

@@leopinty5103 You must have low knowledge about science, I'm I right?

@@Iseenoobpeoples and you have no knowledge about English. You can prove nothing

@@jackcumins6320 I can spot BS when I see it. I speak multiple languages how about you?

Maybe they make playgrounds with it

It's a big lie divide the number by 100

And waste a whole lot more time, effort, weight on the planes and obviously money both coming up with (and certifying) and maintaining such systems. The idea sounds nice but if you even think about it for a few minutes, you’ll probably find even more reasons not to

FWIW, decades ago a vehicle tire manufacturer looked at the disposition of worn off or shredded tire rubber and concluded about 95% of it stays on the road or within a few meters on either side.

It might be able to be recovered and recycled, but it probably isn't since it is contaminated with a bunch of other stuff also on the runway.

Congratulations 👆👆👆, I have a package for you🎁🎁🎁

Same thought. Would save wear on tires. Probably wouldn't want to have motors because of the weight but some air powered turbines on the hub caps wouldn't add much.

They've probably come up with stuff to do that but I doubt it would be cost effective or durable enough.

Had the same question. I'm thinking though that if it were practical it would have been implemented by now considering the complexity of modern jets. I'd like to know if there's a specific reason that it's not done as well. Maybe the additional braking force from the wheels being motionless on landing helps with landing distance? Saves on reverse thruster and wheel braking maybe?

Any extra mechanical solution is another mechanical issue. More service, more malfunctions and so on. Add weight, more pressure on landing gear and more maintenance and service. Also spinning wheels become gyroscopes and make plane harder to maneuver.

They would literally not be worth their weight in fuel to carry.

Congratulations 👆👆👆, I have a package for you🎁🎁🎁

It’s possible the rubber gets dried out and then recycled along with car tires that are no longer useful.

I don’t think that’s an actual problem…they only clean them twice a week, so they’re not exactly short for time..

It showed in the video they can and do remove lights on a schedule. 3:13 you can see one removed, and 3:52 you can see one in the runway, and see the bolts they undo to remove them. They do maintain then off-site since they can't do all of them at once.

You can’t have ANYTHING which could possibly come loose easily due to foreign object ingestion risks, hence why most maintenance for in-runway lighting is either minor in place things like cleaning, changing bulbs/lenses and such or remove and replace the fixture for off-site service.

Any extra mechanical solution is another mechanical issue. More service, more malfunctions and so on. Add weight, more pressure on landing gear and more maintenance and service. Also spinning wheels become gyroscopes and make plane harder to maneuver.

It's a big lie divide the number by 100

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Thanks for the laugh.

@@clayboi6939 what part is dumb

@@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606 well all of it but especially the part where race tracks want to add rubber to thier tracks to make them slick

@@clayboi6939 Race tracks don’t want the added rubber, the drivers want the added rubber. Race tracks will diamond grind the track to add friction and that causes a layer of rubber to form

@@clayboi6939 He’s not wrong. A green track is slower and has increased wear.

it would not be more efficient. and a small motor would not work for a 70 tonne 737.

If you "motorise" the wheels of an aircraft and these pre-spinning wheels touch down at any off-angle to the direction of travel of the aircraft, the aircraft will careen off the runway.

weight. fuel. efficiency

The added weight of the motors would increase fuel consumption. It has been calculated already and it is cheaper to change tires than to carry extra weight and have extra maintenance of said motors the main reason is landing on wet runways. That brute first contact helps disperse water and ensure the tires touch the tarmac before the brakes are applied. Spinning wheels make it far more likely to aquaplane. You need the tires to drag so they can "cut thru" the water.

I doubt that spinning wheels could have enough momentum to have any significant effect on these aircraft, but agreed that they often land with some amount of crab, so the wheels will skid in any case.

I was told the centifugal forces without being under load would shred them to pieces.