WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Ramp Monkey,
One thing you'll learn about aviation is that the majority of guys you meet in person are great. But once they have ananymous handles and get on the internet, they turn into assholes.
Spend enough time on this forum and you'll know what I mean.
One thing you'll learn about aviation is that the majority of guys you meet in person are great. But once they have ananymous handles and get on the internet, they turn into assholes.
Spend enough time on this forum and you'll know what I mean.
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
"WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ".....that's what airplanes usually do at airports. Would you prefer they land and takeoff on fields?
GU
GU
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
I fly out of there quite often and usually they taxi down runway 2 to get to runway 9. so Im on a westjet 737-600 heading to edmonton and as usual the captain pulls out onto runway 2 as im sitting there reading my book and all of a sudden he powers it up and takes off down runway 2. I was shocked as was another guy sitting across from me a few rows ahead. Has anybody there every seen them use that runway?? Ive heard of them using runway 13 but not runway 2. I was so shocked I didnt even notice where he rotated but im assuming it was pretty close to the end...
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Shocked because it's unusual or shocked because you felt it was unsafe? Take-off would only be accomplished with Aerodata available for that runway. If the data shows it's safe to do then why not? For me, I would consider the amount of thrust used to depart versus the cost of taxi fuel to the longer runway. If it was a wash, then 02 get's my vote!
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
I love 3 year old topics... 

Drinking outside the box.
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:39 am
Re:
I'm curious as to where this piece of information came from as I've seen the use of MAX autobrake written into SOPs of an NG operator for use during short field operations. Perhaps it's something I've missed, but I can't recall ever having seen this written in a Boeing produced document. Could it be a company specific policy? If I've missed it somewhere, where can I find the source?jonny dangerous wrote:Fellas, a couple of points, (non-proprietary to any company), just to add to the discussion...
l) Machiavelli posted some numbers apparently from a 700, and I'd like to point out that the NG was not certified for MAX autobrake on a DRY runway, unless there's a defect requiring its use.
Cheers
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
It's WJ mantra for sure, and I'd have to have more energy than right now in order to look it up, but as Max is explained to us, it's only for slippery runways or dry runway 'emergencies'/'non-normals'.
Drinking outside the box.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:34 am
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Nice. I think if you read further I ate my hat and said it wasn't the case, just a WJ SOP, not a certification thing.
We use MAX autobrake on contaminated runways only, or as Four1OH says, for non normals.
We use MAX autobrake on contaminated runways only, or as Four1OH says, for non normals.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:48 am
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
This is not first and foremost a safety issue..the aircraft in question, the 700, can "safely" land and takeoff from 5000 feet. Having said that, I have approximately 10000 hrs combined on the 200-700 and I would never "take the short one" to save a pound or two of fuel if there is a longer runway available. The high speed reject off the short one could be an interesting bit of work if you're good that day, what if you're not?..The extra 2000 ft, 09-27, would look pretty good right about then. As professional pilots we manage risk.."the short one" for whatever reason other than it's the only choice, is poor risk management. Reject on 13-31..burnt out brakes, blown tires, possible overrun, and god only knows what else, aircraft out of service for how long? The same reject on a longer runway?..back to the gate to fix the problem and off you go an hour later? Maybe a little simplistic but I hope I've gotten my point across.
Quite a few years back I watched someone do the same thing out of YXX..back at the shop I asked the Capt why he had chosen that runway for takeoff? He said he had done it "just for fun"..I lost pretty much all respect for his judgement and questioned his maturity level. Each and every takeoff should be made in the safest possible way, keeping in mind that you are also carrying the future of Westjet with you each and every time you hit the TOGA button.
Quite a few years back I watched someone do the same thing out of YXX..back at the shop I asked the Capt why he had chosen that runway for takeoff? He said he had done it "just for fun"..I lost pretty much all respect for his judgement and questioned his maturity level. Each and every takeoff should be made in the safest possible way, keeping in mind that you are also carrying the future of Westjet with you each and every time you hit the TOGA button.
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Hotwing56,
Runway length is only part of the equation.
What if the '37 taking off was only 100 000 pounds at the airport in question? Winding up to V1 and then stopping would leave a lot of room ahead under most conditions - 09/27 would leave a bit more - so what - as long as an adequate margin existed in the first place.
If the Captain in question was taking off at flap 25, bump thrust and bleeds off vs. a flap 5 take off with a derate at a longer runway - then you have a point.
There are a lot of variables and this site does not provide adequate evidence for you or anyone to pass judgement about the event in question.
Economy plays into our decisions as managers and it must be weighed against many variables. It is up to the professional pilot to know where to draw the line.
Runway length is only part of the equation.
What if the '37 taking off was only 100 000 pounds at the airport in question? Winding up to V1 and then stopping would leave a lot of room ahead under most conditions - 09/27 would leave a bit more - so what - as long as an adequate margin existed in the first place.
If the Captain in question was taking off at flap 25, bump thrust and bleeds off vs. a flap 5 take off with a derate at a longer runway - then you have a point.
There are a lot of variables and this site does not provide adequate evidence for you or anyone to pass judgement about the event in question.
Economy plays into our decisions as managers and it must be weighed against many variables. It is up to the professional pilot to know where to draw the line.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:48 am
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
jjj
I don't pretend to know the numbers the guy had on that particular takeoff, maybe he was near empty, 5000 ft is really never enough for a "normal weight, normal load takeoff" out of YYJ..it gets done all around the world everyday, I'm sure, out of necessity, that doesn't make it right or "the safest course"..what I do know for a fact is that the lawyers, and our boss, would be questioning your decision to ever use a shorter runway to save fuel, or time, if something unforseen happened. I have always, and will always say that my job description is pretty straight forward..safely, then on time.
I actually do know my role as a manager at this company, we did a pretty good job of holding it together for a lot of years, safely, on time and making good solid decisions day in, day out.
I don't pretend to know the numbers the guy had on that particular takeoff, maybe he was near empty, 5000 ft is really never enough for a "normal weight, normal load takeoff" out of YYJ..it gets done all around the world everyday, I'm sure, out of necessity, that doesn't make it right or "the safest course"..what I do know for a fact is that the lawyers, and our boss, would be questioning your decision to ever use a shorter runway to save fuel, or time, if something unforseen happened. I have always, and will always say that my job description is pretty straight forward..safely, then on time.
I actually do know my role as a manager at this company, we did a pretty good job of holding it together for a lot of years, safely, on time and making good solid decisions day in, day out.
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Hotwing56,
I'm sure you do a fine job day in and day out..... however you seem to once again imply that safety was compromised for the sake of time.
I'm sure you do a fine job day in and day out..... however you seem to once again imply that safety was compromised for the sake of time.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:48 am
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
jjj
Was it the "safest" decision to take off on that runway? It was a revenue flight..I dare say the "safest" decision was to use the long one.
Was it the "safest" decision to take off on that runway? It was a revenue flight..I dare say the "safest" decision was to use the long one.
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
I was just shocked because Ive never seen it done and I am so used to going to runway 9. Im sure it would have been "safer" to use the other runway ( if it was available cause for some reason it may not have been ) but thats not to say I think it was unsafe. Just for info sake the plane was actually a 600 and it was full. The runway was dry and the winds were fairly light ( not sure which direction ). My thinking is that if they can do it, why not? Its faster.
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
HW56, you sound a lot like a guy I know`. Quote after requesting a 7 knot downwind landing on an 8800`rwy `your a smart guy tell me why that`s unsafe. needless to say I wanted to punch him in the head. my response was i have the numbers and we`ll save .1 and several hundred pounds of fuel.
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
With that reasoning, I assume that you, as a professional pilot, would never do a derated thrust takeoff? I only say that as using a derated thrust takeoff is equivalent to taking off of a shorter runway with max thrust and everything you say above would be applicable.hotwings56 wrote:. The high speed reject off the short one could be an interesting bit of work if you're good that day, what if you're not?..The extra 2000 ft, 09-27, would look pretty good right about then. As professional pilots we manage risk.."the short one" for whatever reason other than it's the only choice, is poor risk management.
Yep, that's a little simplistic. As I'm sure you know, an RTO near V1 is max braking no matter how long the runway.hotwings56 wrote: Reject on 13-31..burnt out brakes, blown tires, possible overrun, and god only knows what else, aircraft out of service for how long? The same reject on a longer runway?..back to the gate to fix the problem and off you go an hour later? Maybe a little simplistic but I hope I've gotten my point across.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:48 am
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
I don't think I'll get my point across here so one more try and I'll rest my case. You guys can do it your way and I'll do it mine. As someone suggested, I'm by no means ultra conservative, I get it done in spades, I just try to minimize the risk on every flight, that's my job.
A fully loaded 600 off that runway?, someone please do the numbers and see what the guy had going for him. I've never said what he did was unsafe, I just feel that maybe it wasn't the best choice under the circumstances.
A fully loaded 600 off that runway?, someone please do the numbers and see what the guy had going for him. I've never said what he did was unsafe, I just feel that maybe it wasn't the best choice under the circumstances.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:14 pm
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
The question is black and white in my opinion... is it safe or not? If it is safe, then there shouldn't be a question of if it's the safest option because "safe" takes care of that. If it is NOT safe, well then there is not a question. You either find another option or don't go!
We make a lot of decisions every time we fly, A LOT!!! It's either safe or not.
I have 2 runways that both work numberwise. One is 7100 feet, the other 7000 feet. Which one do I pick??? I have one that is 7100 feet, the other 11000... which one do I pick??? I have one that is 7000 feet, the other 5000 feet... which one do I pick???
I can go on and on and on and on.
Is it safe or not?!?!?
Next annually upcoming topic... de-icing!
We make a lot of decisions every time we fly, A LOT!!! It's either safe or not.
I have 2 runways that both work numberwise. One is 7100 feet, the other 7000 feet. Which one do I pick??? I have one that is 7100 feet, the other 11000... which one do I pick??? I have one that is 7000 feet, the other 5000 feet... which one do I pick???
I can go on and on and on and on.
Is it safe or not?!?!?
Next annually upcoming topic... de-icing!

-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:48 am
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Rigpiggy...you're quite a piece of work
, won't even dignify your post, Flying Nutcracker..if there's one thing I've learned in 30 years with a licence, safe is not black and white. I've even agreed to disagree and you guys seem to want to be right..I have a strong "opinion" on this issue is all...there's a saying, it's not who's right but what's right, whatever that may be..I feel I have a pretty good handle on the 'safe' issue..we'll all continue to do it the way we feel is best..carry on.

-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:03 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
I live in Sidney, which is the small village just off the end of Runway 09. I'm delighted to hear that some of the larger aircraft are now using 13/31. That minimizes noise over the village. Runway 09 seems to be the preferred runway for departures (and 27 the preferred runway for arrivals), which subjects the village to a fair amount of noise. I have to give credit to WestJet, though, they seem to have the quietest aircraft in their fleets - certainly quieter than Air Canada's Airbus equipment, Purolator's ancient 727, and the collection of 182s with float props that always seem to like to make predawn departures...
I landed on 13 today (not in a 737, but in a Twin Otter), and it certainly seemed like a fully satisfactory runway, with a stopway off the end of 31, and plenty of flat unobstructed grassland off both ends. If the wind is favouring 13/31, and the performance figures indicate that the takeoff can be safely made - why not?
Although I'm in Air Canada's SuperElite tier, maybe I'll start flying WestJet now, just to show my support for their decision to use this runway.
Michael
I landed on 13 today (not in a 737, but in a Twin Otter), and it certainly seemed like a fully satisfactory runway, with a stopway off the end of 31, and plenty of flat unobstructed grassland off both ends. If the wind is favouring 13/31, and the performance figures indicate that the takeoff can be safely made - why not?
Although I'm in Air Canada's SuperElite tier, maybe I'll start flying WestJet now, just to show my support for their decision to use this runway.

Michael
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
If the numbers work why not use it?
No one ay Westjet is trying to be a hero, just get the job done safely, and if possible, while saving money. If both can be accomplished (safety/saving money) why not?
No one ay Westjet is trying to be a hero, just get the job done safely, and if possible, while saving money. If both can be accomplished (safety/saving money) why not?
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
Re:
Hey JD, what would this home be worth today ya figure?jonny dangerous wrote:Yup, 700, it's me. Took a sabbatical to get my house ready for sale...it's now listed (Renovated log house, in the okanagan, lakeview, $349,900...make an offer), so I've permitted myself limited access to some forums.
![]()
Fly safe...
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
Chase lifestyle not metal.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:34 am
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Funny. That home sold last year for $372K. Even if people were buying houses in the Okanagan, I doubt one could get $280K for it.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 6:28 pm
- Location: not YYC
- Contact:
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
Are you sure you weren't just disorientated? Rwy 02/20 longer than 13/31 (by 26 ft.) but is restricted to 65,000 lbs. for t/o and landing. That's right out of the CFS. A fully loaded -600 isn't even close...hawk_318 wrote:I fly out of there quite often and usually they taxi down runway 2 to get to runway 9. so Im on a westjet 737-600 heading to edmonton and as usual the captain pulls out onto runway 2 as im sitting there reading my book and all of a sudden he powers it up and takes off down runway 2. I was shocked as was another guy sitting across from me a few rows ahead. Has anybody there every seen them use that runway?? Ive heard of them using runway 13 but not runway 2. I was so shocked I didnt even notice where he rotated but im assuming it was pretty close to the end...
There was line-painting going on during that day, but nevertheless they wouldn't use 02/20.
fly straight in
--

--

-
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3239
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:58 am
Re: WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ
I don't know guys and gals, Regency managed to run a Islander off the end of that runway in YYJ so if a BN2 Can't do it you WJ Cowboys are pushing your luck ............................. 
