5 Most Impressive U.S. Airport Final Approach Views

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Zeej

I was on that aborted landing flight. The pilot judged that he didn't have enough runway left so he kissed the tarmac and took off again. From where I was sitting, it looked like he was coming in high the 2nd time around too.

I don't love flying as it is, so I just about shit my pants.

Yeah, that whole thing looked crazy.

And what are the odds that a SSP forumer would be on that flight, and actually see this post?! Looks like a small prop jet - how many total passengers were on board?

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Yeah, that whole thing looked crazy.

And what are the odds that a SSP forumer would be on that flight, and actually see this post?! Looks like a small prop jet - how many total passengers were on board?

It was indeed a prop jet - Porter airlines fleet consists mainly of these Bombardier Q400 planes:

https://www.flyporter.com/en-ca/about-porter/our-fleet

I'm thinking they seat anywhere from 60-80 passengers.

[Mister F]

Billy Bishop is a smaller airport that doesn't handle jets. It gets around 3 million annual passengers. So the vast majority of people landing in Toronto don't get that view.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

Don't get me wrong here everyone. I don't think that the approach into LAX is boring, just that it's not particularly unique. Phoenix, DFW, and a lot of other Western US cities give you fairly similar views of their crowded freeways and flat suburban sprawl as you descend. Even in LA you've got Burbank, Long Beach, and Ontario all with fairly similar views of the city. If I hand to pick a favorite it'd be the rare northbound approaches into Burbank instead of the westbound approach into LAX, even.

• Video Link

There you've got most of those DTLA views, plus close ups with Universal Studios and Griffith Park, and some fairly steep turns to keep things interesting. Still not "the best" approach in the US imo, but it has a lot of charm.

Maybe I'm just spoiled after having landed there more times then I can count, or maybe being able to name a half dozen better places to see the LA skyline just off the top of my head has warped my views a bit. But this is all just people's opinions anyway.

That is a really interesting landing. You flew over some very pricey real estate, and the views of the basin were amazing. I am still very partial to a night time landing at LAX from the east while sitting on the left side of the aircraft where you can see those seemingly endless north/south arterial roads and the lights extending as far as the eye can see. The view at night in your posted video might be even more spectacular.

[JAYNYC]

Based on topography and seemingly endless density alone (for at least 25-30 minutes prior to landing), there is no final approach flight view in the U.S. comparable to that of inbound LAX from the East.

[10023]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Based on topography and seemingly endless density alone (for at least 25-30 minutes prior to landing), there is no final approach flight view in the U.S. comparable to that of inbound LAX from the East.

LGA approach flying north up the Hudson from the right side of the plane. There is nothing in LA as impressive as doing a fly-by of the entire Manhattan skyline.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by 10023

LGA approach flying north up the Hudson from the right side of the plane. There is nothing in LA as impressive as doing a fly-by of the entire Manhattan skyline.

Right, except 11,000 foot mountains, a beautiful coastline and a megopolis of 20 million people

[JManc]

I was just in Miami. Flew into MIA from IAH and then flew from MIA into Key West, great views of Miami proper, South Beach and the Keys on both flights.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Right, except 11,000 foot mountains, a beautiful coastline and a megopolis of 20 million people

Agree. And I *LIVE* in Manhattan.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by 10023

LGA approach flying north up the Hudson from the right side of the plane. There is nothing in LA as impressive as doing a fly-by of the entire Manhattan skyline.

Yeah, no. I fly that route and the LAX route I noted previously regularly, and strongly disagree.

**Edit - to be clear, I'm specifically referring to the approach into LAX from the East when viewed from the left side of the plane, which eventually gives views of the San Gabriel Mountains, DTLA, Koreatown, Hollywood, Westwood, etc., not the right side of the plane, which gives a southern view.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

LGA approach flying north up the Hudson from the right side of the plane. There is nothing in LA as impressive as doing a fly-by of the entire Manhattan skyline.

That one is good. The LGA approach that cuts north across Brooklyn and Queens is better. There is no approach in the U.S. that beats it.

ETA: This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8t2b3xP8sU

[Just-In-Cali]

Ill Agree on the East-in flight into LAX. I will also say coming in from the west can be quite impressive. Coming in from over the ocean, over the Malibu coastline and the Santa Monica Mountains, then suddenly over the Hollywood Hills, with the Valley and 8 to 10 thousand foot San Gabriel Mountains beyond, with snow in the winter. Below is the beaches of Santa Monica and Venice. Then since the approach is from the east, the plan makes a wide turn that swings right over the west side and downtown, very low. Its a very diverse and spectacular landscape the runs on to the horizon.
The mix of natural and man made wonders are truly what makes it spectacular. From the east, going from vast colorful desert, to snow covered 11,000 foot peaks, to vast dense urbanity, to coastal enclaves, all within a 20 minute span of flying, is a singular trait of SoCal in the US. Many others have a superior facet of one of these things, but none seem to have them all together.

[Maldive]

Not sure if it's "most impressive" but after half a dozen approaches to the strip of pavement (city street or airport?) into downtown San Diego, that's my most bone-chilling "memorable" final approach bar none (not counting my failed approach to a six foot amazon at passport control).

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Yeah, no. I fly that route and the LAX route I noted previously regularly, and strongly disagree.

**Edit - to be clear, I'm specifically referring to the approach into LAX from the East when viewed from the left side of the plane, which eventually gives views of the San Gabriel Mountains, DTLA, Koreatown, Hollywood, Westwood, etc., not the right side of the plane, which gives a southern view.

Your plane must be making a backwards landing! LAX approach from the east gives southern view from left side of plane, etc. That's the view I prefer at night with the endless carpet of lights. DT, Hollywood, and SM mountains, etc. are a bit underwhelming at night.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Your plane must be making a backwards landing! LAX approach from the east gives southern view from left side of plane, etc. That's the view I prefer at night with the endless carpet of lights. DT, Hollywood, and SM mountains, etc. are a bit underwhelming at night.

I am referring to the left side of the plane as you are boarding (i.e., starboard), not while seated (i.e., port).

Apologies for the miscommunication.

[urbanview]

There's nothing particular scenic about the NY approaches other than a view of Manhattan from above, which is not as impressive as from below. I'll go LA here, mountains make a difference.

[urbanview]

Originally Posted by chris08876

That Burbank landing is very scenic. LA is a monolith, just flat out huge. It might sprawl, but no doubt it is dense and an urban vista that extends to the horizon. Beautiful topography with the mountain side neighborhoods on a side note.

I wish the clip had sound though.

It would be far better if LA wasn't so spread out. European cities and a few American (NY, SF, Boston) are just better in their compact yet dense format because the streetlife is better and people walk around more. And, L.A isn't dense at all. It's known to be a spread out city. Check the numbers. It's a low density city compared to East Coast cities and euro cities.

[JManc]

LA is actually pretty dense. It's just massive and as a metro, bigger than most European cities and chopped up by mountains.

[urbanview]

Originally Posted by JManc

LA is actually pretty dense. It's just massive and as a metro, bigger than most European cities and chopped up by mountains.

8,483.02/sq m is the density for the city which is not very dense. Even DC is denser. Even if you take away some of those mountains, it still won't be considered a dense city. DC has a density of over 11 thousand people per square mile and has plenty of parkland. DC is not dense and considered a small town by folks who live in big cities like NY and London (live in DC and know people in both towns). That density figure for LA is low for a major world city. Compare it to NY or London. This shows me that LA city itself is not doing a good job with sprawl, and it needs to densify.

[JManc]

London and Shanghai are the upper ends of density but I didn't say LA was that dense, I said it was pretty dense and it is. Houston, is an area that isn't very dense and we are more or less laid out like the LA area; spread out and decentralized. But no where near the density of LA.