Gift4tbone From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 616 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4972 times:
Today, during my first flight lesson. A NW A320, landed on RWY 5 at PVD. This wouldnt seem odd, except RWY 34, was the active. And I heard the NW flight request to land on 5, becuase of weight reasons. (can't remember the exact words). Any reason why?! Even the DL 762 (pats charter) landed on 34.
Gift4tbone From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 616 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4036 times:
My mistake of the 764. Never really got to know the 767 series very well.
So you say the -9s request a longer runway as well? is it just a NW thing then? (seeing as no other airline has used a -9 into PVD for years!) And why is it? bad performance on the a/c, and the pilots prefer to have more safe room? I just think its odd, becuase the 767 is a much larger and heavier a/c then an a320.
Veeref From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2292 times:
Most times when you see this kind of thing it's not necessarily the runway length itself but obstacles off the runway end. max landing weights are dictated not only by runway lengths, but by obstacle clearance criteria off the end should a worst case single engine go around scenario occur.
Runway 9/27 at XYZ is 10,000ft. long. Runway 9 arrivals are permitted at max allowable landing weight due to flat land and ocean off the departure end.
Runway 27 however has hills a couple of miles off the end. While the aircraft could still land and stop on the runway at max gross weight, it could not maintain adequate obstacle celarance in the event of a single engine missed approach.
There are other factors such as wind, runway gradient and braking energy limits...etc.