WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
- McDoo the Irish Navigator
- Rank 2
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:04 pm
believe the CARs would require the landing distance available to be 3000' (for dispatch only).
I think John, that the aircraft must be able to be stopped within 3000' if dispatched into a 5000' foot runway, as opposed to having 3000' feet available.
When did you stop flying the 700?
I think John, that the aircraft must be able to be stopped within 3000' if dispatched into a 5000' foot runway, as opposed to having 3000' feet available.
When did you stop flying the 700?
Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean no-one's out to get you.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:34 am
Without knowing the reason behind why the crew landed and then departed that runway it still raises some operating questions. Was this purely a "lets see what it can do/ I'm a test pilot" kind of thing or was this an economic/operational decision. Would the wear and tear on the brakes during the landing and then the subsequent higher thrust setting for take-off be cheaper than the cost of landing and departing 09-27 ?? As well, by the numbers an AutoBrake 3 setting would have been appropriate. I have seen 3 used on a dry runway and it wasn't pretty. I thought our nose wheel was going to go through the floor. So if I had a choice between 09/27 and 13/31 I'm pretty sure 09/27 would win everytime no matter what the numbers say.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:34 am
An excellent common sense post..CCR wrote:Without knowing the reason behind why the crew landed and then departed that runway it still raises some operating questions. Was this purely a "lets see what it can do/ I'm a test pilot" kind of thing or was this an economic/operational decision. Would the wear and tear on the brakes during the landing and then the subsequent higher thrust setting for take-off be cheaper than the cost of landing and departing 09-27 ?? As well, by the numbers an AutoBrake 3 setting would have been appropriate. I have seen 3 used on a dry runway and it wasn't pretty. I thought our nose wheel was going to go through the floor. So if I had a choice between 09/27 and 13/31 I'm pretty sure 09/27 would win everytime no matter what the numbers say.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:53 pm
WJ T/O R13
WJ did a departure off R31 yesterday as well. 09/27 was notamed u/s until 1530 local for maintenace.
jetav8r Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:43 am Post subject: WJ T/O R13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WJ did a departure off R31 yesterday as well. 09/27 was notamed u/s until 1530 local for maintenace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jetav8r - what is your point?
This is a '37 we're talking about - not a '47.
5000' feet is a ton of room to get off under a lot of conditions.
The performance calculations are very sofisticated and uplinked to the aircraft through the ACARS. If an accelerate-stop or accelerate-go or obstacle clearance or tire or whatever limit was exceeded, no numbers would be uplinked to the plane.
When the ACARS is down - a manual Take-off and landing report is used. This TLR is generated by the dispatchers for that specific flight using existing environmental conditions and available runways.
Once again - no numbers - no go. It's simple and slick.
If you ever observe the same flight take off from 09/27 under similar conditions (weight/temp/etc.) and it uses up most of the runway - that is because the fellas are using performance numbers based on derates and assumed temperatures. Saves engine wear and tear - airlines have been doing this for years.
When needed - max blast is always available and is quite impressive.
On performance limited take-offs - flaps are selected to as much as 25 compared to the normal 1 or 5.
Combine the two and the mighty '37 leaps off the ground.
Don't worry my friends - the cowboy days are over - these days it's just SOPs and science all under the watchful eyes of the Flight Data Monitoring.
jjj
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WJ did a departure off R31 yesterday as well. 09/27 was notamed u/s until 1530 local for maintenace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jetav8r - what is your point?
This is a '37 we're talking about - not a '47.
5000' feet is a ton of room to get off under a lot of conditions.
The performance calculations are very sofisticated and uplinked to the aircraft through the ACARS. If an accelerate-stop or accelerate-go or obstacle clearance or tire or whatever limit was exceeded, no numbers would be uplinked to the plane.
When the ACARS is down - a manual Take-off and landing report is used. This TLR is generated by the dispatchers for that specific flight using existing environmental conditions and available runways.
Once again - no numbers - no go. It's simple and slick.
If you ever observe the same flight take off from 09/27 under similar conditions (weight/temp/etc.) and it uses up most of the runway - that is because the fellas are using performance numbers based on derates and assumed temperatures. Saves engine wear and tear - airlines have been doing this for years.
When needed - max blast is always available and is quite impressive.
On performance limited take-offs - flaps are selected to as much as 25 compared to the normal 1 or 5.
Combine the two and the mighty '37 leaps off the ground.
Don't worry my friends - the cowboy days are over - these days it's just SOPs and science all under the watchful eyes of the Flight Data Monitoring.
jjj
I suggest you check the following thread "WestJet Pilots and De-icing" before concluding the cowboy days are over..Enough said, it's time that the WJ professional pilots which are the majority, peer pressure the cowboys before you folks have an accident.jjj wrote:jetav8r Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:43 am Post subject: WJ T/O R13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't worry my friends - the cowboy days are over - these days it's just SOPs and science all under the watchful eyes of the Flight Data Monitoring.
jjj
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:53 pm
Rebel: Allow me to be blunt.Rebel wrote:[
I suggest you check the following thread "WestJet Pilots and De-icing" before concluding the cowboy days are over..Enough said, it's time that the WJ professional pilots which are the majority, peer pressure the cowboys before you folks have an accident.
Bugger off. You are not God's gift to aviation, just because you work at big red.
We deice when we have to, not because every other pussy on the field is too lazy to climb up a ladder and feel the wing, and send the cherry picker up to the tail to check it too. Political sprays are for fat guys too lazy to get their heavy asses out of their seat.
I will not add a contaminant to my wing unecessasarily.
"Listen brain, I don't like you and you don't like me, so let's just get through this one thing and I can go back to killing you with beer"
I can safely conclude that you are not among the WJ professional pilots that I was referring too. Political spays is that an expression coined by WJ? Is TC aware of this new WJ de-icing criteria and terminology? It’s been approved of course? The cost of a spray is peanuts compared to the PR damage that you folks are doing to the WJ image. The cost of an accident, priceless..grammar boy wrote:Rebel: Allow me to be blunt.Rebel wrote:[
I suggest you check the following thread "WestJet Pilots and De-icing" before concluding the cowboy days are over..Enough said, it's time that the WJ professional pilots which are the majority, peer pressure the cowboys before you folks have an accident.
Bugger off. You are not God's gift to aviation, just because you work at big red.
We deice when we have to, not because every other pussy on the field is too lazy to climb up a ladder and feel the wing, and send the cherry picker up to the tail to check it too. Political sprays are for fat guys too lazy to get their heavy asses out of their seat.
I will not add a contaminant to my wing unecessasarily.
I for one would never allow any folks that I know to fly WJ some of you folks are down right scary...
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:53 pm
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:53 pm
Blah, blah, blah little man. Take your "They told me on my 550 course that we are the cream of the crop, and goshdarnit, I am!" crap somewhere else.Rebel wrote:Could be but I've never hurt anyone on my watch. With your attitude I really wonder how long before some one gets hurt..
You have no idea how stupid you look continually bashing your competition with vague references questioning safety. Put up or shut up. Go to Transport if you are really worried, otherwise, keep your condescending crap to yourself.
Questioning the professionalism of another outfit who happens to be eating your company's lunch (domestically anyway), is the lowest of the low. You wouldn't be related to Brent Jang, would you?

I've seen some questionable antics from guys flying aircraft with leaves on the tail, but you don't see daily updates on the stupid shit you guys pull... It's called professional courtesy. Maybe you were in the can taking a dump when they covered that in groundschool...

This conversation is over from my end. Feel free to have the last word.
"Listen brain, I don't like you and you don't like me, so let's just get through this one thing and I can go back to killing you with beer"
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2589
- Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm
Blah, blah, blah little man. Take your "They told me on my 550 course that we are the cream of the crop, and goshdarnit, I am!" crap somewhere else.
I don't remember that in my 550 course. I was probably hung over that day. There was a koolaid machine in the corner but most of us drank the shitty coffee downstairs. Yet another AC myth has been busted me thinks. Keep it coming boys. I don't know who's looking worse in these little squabbles.

WJ R13
Thanks for the input JJJ
I was responding to the initial post on this thread. Thanks for enlighting us with your knowledge and expertise. I will be sure to contact you when I need my toilet unplugged.
It still amazes me how some "professionals" on this forum still cannot give a simple answer to a simple question without letting the world know what they know.
My rant for the day
Jetav8r
I was responding to the initial post on this thread. Thanks for enlighting us with your knowledge and expertise. I will be sure to contact you when I need my toilet unplugged.
It still amazes me how some "professionals" on this forum still cannot give a simple answer to a simple question without letting the world know what they know.
My rant for the day
Jetav8r
How do suggest that I respond to this thread.
I believe that responces such as "don't worry fellas - she's all good!!!" without any technical info would have only fueled the fire against WJ and the implication that we hurl ourselves dangerously in and out of airports. My answer was extremely abbreviated - sorry if it took the wind out of your bias. My apologies for using aviation speak on an aviation forum.
Kiss my ass jetav8r.
jjj
I believe that responces such as "don't worry fellas - she's all good!!!" without any technical info would have only fueled the fire against WJ and the implication that we hurl ourselves dangerously in and out of airports. My answer was extremely abbreviated - sorry if it took the wind out of your bias. My apologies for using aviation speak on an aviation forum.
Kiss my ass jetav8r.
jjj
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:29 pm
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
So, given the information presented, it would be safe to assume (I know you should never assume) that even though Red Deer (YQF) is almost 3,000 feet higher in elevation, it is possible for a WJ 737 NG to get in and out of there? I know I've seen a WJ 737-200 on a charter in YQF before.
So if thats the case, I wonder if Air Canada can get an RJ 200/700/705 in and out of YQF as is?
So if thats the case, I wonder if Air Canada can get an RJ 200/700/705 in and out of YQF as is?
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Don't have an AIP with me but I believe YQF is a lower elevation than YYC so no sweat. I believe they also have a nice long runway 16 I recall - anyone with the exact numbers?
I have no insight to offer about RJs.
BTW - WS takes off from Maui on almost a daily basis. Runway 02 is 6995 feet long at sea level - temps always seem to be high 20's or even low 30's. We can take a fully loaded 800 out of there at a weight of about 165 - 170 000 pounds.
Hey is jetav8r still around here to talk smack?
I have no insight to offer about RJs.
BTW - WS takes off from Maui on almost a daily basis. Runway 02 is 6995 feet long at sea level - temps always seem to be high 20's or even low 30's. We can take a fully loaded 800 out of there at a weight of about 165 - 170 000 pounds.
Hey is jetav8r still around here to talk smack?
- twinpratts
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:38 am
- Location: The Wild Wild West.
- Contact:
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
"The system is working. With a post like yours that is why they do not allow monkies to fly aircraft."
Hahahaha!
Hahahaha!

I want to die like my grandfather did, peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming in terror like his passengers...
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:26 am
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
705.60 is that really old red herring thing that gets misinterpreted by new guys once in the air. Once the aircraft hits V1 on takeoff, ALL of that 60% stuff is out the window. It's gone and the pilot in command is back to the actual landing distance charts.
Your interpretation of the CAR is correct PRIOR to the aircraft hitting V1 on takeoff from whatever airport it's leaving from. The 60% requirement is only for dispatch before takeoff. The emphasis should really be on the word DISPATCH. Once you're committed to takeoff at V1 it's all gone, finito, out the window, finished.
Your interpretation of the CAR is correct PRIOR to the aircraft hitting V1 on takeoff from whatever airport it's leaving from. The 60% requirement is only for dispatch before takeoff. The emphasis should really be on the word DISPATCH. Once you're committed to takeoff at V1 it's all gone, finito, out the window, finished.