Landing/taking off direction at LAX

[footballrunner800]

I work by LAX and drive on the 105 every day. Yesterday I noticed that planes were taking off the opposite direction (east instead of west). I always assumed that they took off this way so they crashed in the sea if they didn't make the takeoff. What would make them change this? Today they are back to normal.

First O/T post btw.

 

[Printer Bandit]

isn't east towards land?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I work by LAX and drive on the 105 every day. Yesterday I noticed that planes were taking off the opposite direction (east instead of west). I always assumed that they took off this way so they crashed in the sea if they didn't make the takeoff. What would make them change this? Today they are back to normal.

First O/T post btw.

Wind.

 

[coxmaster]

Wind.

Exactly this.

Wind always dictates takeoff/landing

 

[PowerEngineer]

Wind.

Direction.

Planes get more lift by taking off into the wind.

 

[footballrunner800]

Direction.

Planes get more lift by taking off into the wind.

This makes perfect sense. Didn't really think about it since it was the first time I saw it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Taking off in a tailwind increases the takeoff roll. A strong enough tail wind will cause that roll to exceed the length of the runway before sufficient lift is achieved as not enough air will be moving over the wings.

 

[TangoJuliet]

Exactly this.

Wind always dictates takeoff/landing

For the most part....unless there are other reasons that dictate something other

 

[CA19100]

As they said, wind normally determines it -- every 2 knots of tailwind adds about 10% to the ground roll on takeoff. If the wind is light enough (usually under 10 knots) and the runways are long enough, they'll use whatever works best for their traffic flow. For LAX, that's normally taking off and landing to the west.

A few months ago when I went in there at 2am, they were doing landings to the east on the northern runways, and takeoffs to the west from the southern runways. The runways are far enough apart that this won't cause a traffic conflict at 2am, and it's very convenient for all the cargo planes that are based on the southeast corner of the airport. Saves them a ton of fuel not having to taxi a couple of miles before takeoff.

 

[Blackjack200]

I hear they're going to install a treadmill so that planes can always takeoff to the West. :sneaky:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Most of the time the landing approach to LAX is from the east to west because of the onshore breeze. The only exception to this is when the santa ana winds are blowing. Ideally you want to take off and land with a headwind.

 

[SSSnail]

This is precisely why they should install giant treadmills at airports.

 

[phucheneh]

I...can't tell if the treadmill comments are sarcastic.

It's like...congrats, you're not one of those morons that thinks a plane can't take off on a treadmill/conveyerbelt/stupidlackofthoughtexperiment. But...you do realize a moving runway would not decrease the needed length whatsoever, right?

 

[brainhulk]

why don't they just catapult planes like those on aircraft carriers

 

[foghorn67]

Most of the time the landing approach to LAX is from the east to west because of the onshore breeze. The only exception to this is when the santa ana winds are blowing. Ideally you want to take off and land with a headwind.

This. Exactly.

 

[foghorn67]

I...can't tell if the treadmill comments are sarcastic.

It's like...congrats, you're not one of those morons that thinks a plane can't take off on a treadmill/conveyerbelt/stupidlackofthoughtexperiment. But...you do realize a moving runway would not decrease the needed length whatsoever, right?

Holy crap. Push yourself from the desk and collect your thoughts.

 

[phucheneh]

Holy crap. Push yourself from the desk and collect your thoughts.

...meaning...?

Please don't tell me you're going to argue that the ground moving (relative to the 'actual' ground/Earth, that is) will increase the speed of the air flowing over the wings...

 

[CA19100]

...meaning...?

Please don't tell me you're going to argue that the ground moving (relative to the 'actual' ground/Earth, that is) will increase the speed of the air flowing over the wings...

Sadly, I've seen this stupid argument over and over again, and yes, a lot of people believe that.

The airplane's engines are acting on the airframe, not the wheels like on a car. The wheels are, for lack of a better analogy, simply a lubricant to allow the plane to slide along the ground with a minimum of friction.

The plane flies when the wing is moving through the air at a high enough speed. How fast the wheels are spinning has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[sdifox]

I work by LAX and drive on the 105 every day. Yesterday I noticed that planes were taking off the opposite direction (east instead of west). I always assumed that they took off this way so they crashed in the sea if they didn't make the takeoff. What would make them change this? Today they are back to normal.

First O/T post btw.

wind?

 

[foghorn67]

Sadly, I've seen this stupid argument over and over again, and yes, a lot of people believe that.

The airplane's engines are acting on the airframe, not the wheels like on a car. The wheels are, for lack of a better analogy, simply a lubricant to allow the plane to slide along the ground with a minimum of friction.

The plane flies when the wing is moving through the air at a high enough speed. How fast the wheels are spinning has absolutely nothing to do with it.

No. I was saying you really lack perception in seeing where a conversation is going. It has nothing to do with the damn belt.
I was saying if you explain something obvious, you fool yourself into thinking you are actually intelligent. Which you are not. Because you fail at perception.

 

[phucheneh]

No. I was saying you really lack perception in seeing where a conversation is going. It has nothing to do with the damn belt.
I was saying if you explain something obvious, you fool yourself into thinking you are actually intelligent. Which you are not. Because you fail at perception.

Knowing that a lot of people believe silly things, and being unable to differentiate a serious comment from one made sarcastically, with no intricacies of speech (intonation, emphasis, ect) or body language to go on...not even a stupid 'emoticon'...means someone is stupid and 'lacks perception?'

I think you're the one fooling yourself...

 

[Yossarian]

why don't they just catapult planes like those on aircraft carriers

Maybe, someday. Airbus is considering it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/07/airbus_smarter_skies/

 

[darkxshade]

Standing plane with over 9000mph headwind... does it take off?

 

[skyking]

I've had to leave airports when the wind was too strong for the light plane I was flying. you could touch down alright, but really could not shut down

 

[phucheneh]

Standing plane with over 9000mph headwind... does it take off?

...since most planes are limited to reasonable airspeeds of like, I dunno, 8000mph or something? I would say the plane disintegrates.

;P

Given a non-deadly airspeed, yes, the plane would generate lift while sitting still (relative to the ground).