WJ flt. 54 lands and takes off rwy 13 at YYJ

Ramp Monkey YYJ · Post by **Ramp Monkey YYJ** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:22 am

I wasn't on the ramp at the time, but I've been told that Westjet Flight 355 from Calgary landed on Runway 13, a runway which is exactly 5003 ft. long, with allegedly calm winds. Then, it took off on Runway 13 as flight 54 to Edmonton. Rwy 09/27, the runway Westjet uses about 99.9% of the time, was available.
I don't know much about the 737, but it strikes me that although a 5000 ft. clearly is adequate, it must be a bit of challenge. So why use a shorter runway when there is nothing to indicate that the weather/wind dictates it? And is there some kind of short field takeoff procedure that the flight crew would have followed in this situation?

Chuck Yeagermister · Post by **Chuck Yeagermister** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:10 am

Ive seen AC take off back in the day in the 727 and the 9er on 13

Tiny Voices · Post by **Tiny Voices** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:38 am

Hmmm!An aircraft safely lands and departs from a suitable runway...I too would like to know the reason for this??Someone needs to answer up!!

Schlem · Post by **Schlem** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:07 pm

If the numbers work then what's the problem and why is this a big deal?

Don't know about NG models but 200 series 737s can land at max landing weight on a 5000 foot runway and if they can land on it then they can also take off from it... even with a crosswind... shocking huh?

Liftdumper · Post by **Liftdumper** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:22 pm

The system is working. With a post like yours that is why they do not allow monkies to fly aircraft. Now go peel a banana.

JZA · Post by **JZA** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:48 pm

AC Took off RWY13 with the 319 a month or so ago destined for YVR. It's doable.

V1VRV2 · Post by **V1VRV2** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:14 pm

Oh well if Air Canada did it then it must be "Doable" give me a freeking break! as if AC pilots are the best in the world no wait the universe??

Ramp Monkey YYJ · Post by **Ramp Monkey YYJ** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:54 pm

Well, I just checked the METAR/TAF, and it appears that during the windiest stretch this morning, there wasn't even close to enough of a crosswind component for 09 to justify using 13. So it wasn't the wind.

Tiny Voices · Post by **Tiny Voices** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:37 pm

A tribute in spoken word and song:

http://www.l1011.homestead.com/AirportB ... ndler.html

Ramp Monkey YYJ · Post by **Ramp Monkey YYJ** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:24 pm

Tiny Voices wrote:A tribute in spoken word and song:

http://www.l1011.homestead.com/AirportB ... ndler.html

All I can do is hope that when I grow up, I can achieve the level of douchebaggery that you demonstrate with every breath you take.

low wing2220 · Post by **low wing2220** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:36 pm

C'mon.

Get a Life!!

Somebody give me the last 5 minutes of my life back for reading this post!

Ramp Monkey YYJ · Post by **Ramp Monkey YYJ** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:57 pm

Allright, well it's quite clear that I'm not wanted here. I just don't see what the big deal is, guys. I'm just curious as to why they would use 13 when the wind/weather didn't justify it, as I've never heard of this happening before. Anyways, mods, I suggest deletion, this is indeed a waste of everyone's time.

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:11 pm

Ramp Monkey YYJ wrote:Allright, well it's quite clear that I'm not wanted here. I just don't see what the big deal is, guys. I'm just curious as to why they would use 13 when the wind/weather didn't justify it, as I've never heard of this happening before. Anyways, mods, I suggest deletion, this is indeed a waste of everyone's time.

Maybe it was just the way you asked the question RMYYJ, 5000 feet is plenty of runway for a 737. Calgary is only an hour 20 away so the fuel load would be light enough to permit operations off runway 13.

I haven't been there in years now but used to frequent YYJ. We always liked 13 because it was a scenic approach and the exit at the end pretty much put you on the terminal ramp. That greatly reduced taxi times thus costs.

BTW, Takeoff distance is more critical than landing distance so if you can takeoff on that runway, you can certainly land on it.

Tiny Voices · Post by **Tiny Voices** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:19 pm

Now now...relax!!It was done because the numbers said it was safe to do so.The most limiting factor was probably the brake cooling schedule if it was a quick turn.

Here's another version that i know has been played to death... a little self depricating tribute for my Lo-cost brothers and sisters.Look at me i'm flyin!

http://www.l1011.homestead.com/DiscountPilot.html

Ramp Monkey YYJ · Post by **Ramp Monkey YYJ** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:40 pm

I guess that being a 17 y/o, RPP holder, Yellow Pass ramper, I naively interpreted it as being a much more significant event than it actually was.

Tiny Voices, I admit, I actually listened to all 3 of those and I must say that all 3 of those are pretty damn funny LOL

Just so that I don't do something like this again, what is the minimum take off distance req. for a 700 at Gross Weight?

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:25 pm

Ramp Monkey YYJ wrote:I guess that being a 17 y/o, RPP holder, Yellow Pass ramper, I naively interpreted it as being a much more significant event than it actually was.

Tiny Voices, I admit, I actually listened to all 3 of those and I must say that all 3 of those are pretty damn funny LOL

Just so that I don't do something like this again, what is the minimum take off distance req. for a 700 at Gross Weight?

They are all computer generated numbers that show up via ACARS. I can't tell you the exact numbers but 5000 feet as a rough rule of thumb is pretty easy in that airplane. On any given day it barely uses 70% of its thrust on De-rated, reduced take offs.
A similar example was a departure I did out of YQM last spring, it for was cross wind but I departed in a nearly full -800 from the short runway that is a little more than 5000 feet. It was still a de-rated, reduced thrust, with a bit of extra flap out. Had there been a second segment climb concern like YYJ it would have added more thrust and less flap.
Also, Canadian Airlines operated out of Edmonton Muni for years (5000 feet) in a 737-200 as well.
Cheers.

Tiny Voices · Post by **Tiny Voices** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:12 pm

As WJ700 said, the takeoff data comes in via ACARS and is based on takeoff conditions that we've entered...temp/QNH/FOB and of course the runway.We can also go the manual entry route off the TLR.We don't actually see runway length required, just whether or not we can use the runway in question, and the flap, speeds, trim required to do it.No takeoff distance charts in the FOM but we do have supplimentry charts in the plane.

No takeoof data here but none the less a pretty interesting website:

http://www.b737.org.uk

Back to breathing douche baggery air

[/url]

JZA · Post by **JZA** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:34 pm

V1VRV2 wrote:Oh well if Air Canada did it then it must be "Doable" give me a freeking break! as if AC pilots are the best in the world no wait the universe??

Are you OK dude? You might want to take something.....

I was simply stating the fact that given the right set of circumstances 5000' is sufficient for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft to conduct a Take-off.

Who said anything about pilots?????

Ramp Monkey YYJ · Post by **Ramp Monkey YYJ** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:18 am

Thanks for all the info guys, keep it comin if you like!

Tiny voices... about that douchebag comment... thanks for not saying something stupid back, even though i deserved it. i'm very prone to snapping at people right now.... just really stressed out about a girl and thus feeling very bad right now. And I apologize for wasting everybody's time with my stupid topic where I thought that something monumental had occurred, when in fact it's nothing of the sort. and i guess i should apologize again for now making this really awkward comment that nobody in their right mind could possibly respond to. there, i've poured out my heart on an internet chat site. chicks... you gotta love em, and you gotta hate em

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:24 am

In this case it may not make much sense, but I've seen flights depart in similar fashion because the runway in use was opposite or away from their eventual flight path. It just makes more sense to use a different runway if its going to point you closer to where you want to end up. WJ and Jazz do it out of YHM all the time. On calmer days, of course.

And as a side note, an airline, I think it was Mexicana, brought their 757 into YHM a few weeks ago on RWY 24 (6,000 ft), and landed beyond the intersection of 12/30 and 06/24, which leaves them with around 4500 ft or less. It was quite the approach...

Tiny Voices · Post by **Tiny Voices** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:16 am

No problem RMY.I should be thanking you for adding "dochebaggery" to my vocabulary!

Ramp Monkey YYJ · Post by **Ramp Monkey YYJ** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:27 pm

Well actually, the "noun" Douchebag, would be used as a direct insult to a person

ie. that George Bush is such a .....

but the variation that i used, douchebaggery, aims to detract from one's actions,

ie. George Bush and his douchebaggery in Iraq

lol I'm only 17 allright, I'll grow up soon enough

flystraightin · Post by **flystraightin** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:25 pm

I was there at the time. It wasnt the length, it was the v. speed at which they came in with that was impressive. Looked like the thing came over the terrain and dropped out of the sky. It was pretty intense, they just finished some work on 31-13 so with full reverse and speed brake up, dirt was kicking up all over the place.

It was an amazing approach and he landed probably a good 400ft past the numbers, used up every last bit of rwy and basically didnt stop until he made that turn on A for the terminal.

Just for reference...I also saw the 319 about a month ago and I've seen a Puro 727 off of 31.

And a couple GREAT commercials I leave you with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D62S-5DZFo0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0OSIEJHN2s

Machiavelli · Post by **Machiavelli** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:24 pm

Landing distance for a -700 in YYJ with:
Dry Runway
Flaps 40
Speedbrakes/Antiskid
Max Landing Weight
ISA
0 Wind
0 Slope
Auto Brake MAX
No Reverse Thrust
Wheels down at Vref on the 1000ft marks is 3410ft.
Auto Brake 3 it's 4660.

Rotten Apple #1 · Post by **Rotten Apple #1** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:27 am

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.

2) For a landing on runway 13, there is a displaced threshold, giving 4576' for landing distance, not the 5003' posted above. (the 3 degree VASIS is based on that displaced threshold)

3) Landing distance charts are for inflight use only. For dispatch purposes, the CARs say:

705.60 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall dispatch or conduct a take-off in an aeroplane unless

(a) the weight of the aeroplane on landing at the destination aerodrome will allow a full-stop landing

(i) in the case of a turbo-jet-powered aeroplane, within 60 per cent of the landing distance available (LDA), or *Anybody know if that is a correct interpretation of the CARs?*

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#705_20

So if a 5000' runway was all that was available at an aerodrome, the CARs would require the landing distance available to be 3000' (for dispatch only)?

4) The landing distance charts assume a VREF approach speed. I've always been curious if the normal VREF+5 (calm winds) approach speed means an adjustment would have to made to account for the extra distance. (Realizing that the touchdown is assumed to be at VREF, the steady state wind adjustment assumed to have been bled off)

Counterpoints requested...