Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RWY 27 At Juliana - Why Not Used For TOs?  
User currently offlineSunandan From India, joined Jun 2005, 294 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3951 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Hi,

This has been a huge mystery to me ever since I saw the first pic from Juliana airport. Why don't they use RWY 27 for departures? It makes more sense to take-off towards the open sea rather than at a mountain, isn't it?

Any logic or reasons for not using RWY 27???


Cheers!

SS


You can either work for a living, or you can fly airplanes. I'd rather fly!
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They do you use it, just not often. During the week I was there, they used it just a few times. I specifically recall a BWIA 738 departing from 27. The a/c don't seem to have a performance problem going toward the mountain and the wind seems to favor a departure in that direction as well.

User currently offlineBoeingguy1 From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 415 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3897 times:

Quoting Sunandan (Thread starter):
Any logic or reasons for not using RWY 27???

I would assume the heavier aircraft, IE AF A340 and the KLM 747 might have some problems, as they would be loaded to the brim with fuel and passengers, this might be a reason.



Gatwick South! Id rather crash in Brighton!
User currently offlineFokker115 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

I believe the quick answer is trade winds. East to northeasterly winds are prevalent in the Carribean. That said, given that aircraft perform much better (get up quicker) taking off into the wind, runway 10 is used most of the time. When winds are lighter, or in certain weather patters, reversed, 27 may be used.

Another example of this can be seen in San Juan, where landings are mostly done on runway's 8 and 10. Same reason.


User currently offlineTIA From Albania, joined Mar 2006, 524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

They don't use the 27 for T/O because it might interfere with approach patterns.

Quoting Boeingguy1 (Reply 2):
I would assume the heavier aircraft, IE AF A340 and the KLM 747 might have some problems, as they would be loaded to the brim with fuel and passengers, this might be a reason.

I don't know what you are trying to say, but the heavies don't have a problem with the mountains either.


User currently offlineMdaigle From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3828 times:

It likely also saves time to taxi right to the end of 09 instead of backtracking to the end of 27 and then doing a 180deg turn to takeoff.

Michel


User currently offlineBoeingfanyyz From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 991 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3828 times:

The two main reasons are winds and performance (i.e. ability to climb-out and turn without hitting the mountains).

Cheers,
Boeingfanyyz  airplane 



"If it aint boeing, it aint going!", "Friends are like condoms...they protect you when things get hard!"
User currently offlineBoeinglover24 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 305 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3698 times:

The fact that there are many tourists at maho beach who flew thousands of miles to see planes land maybe a factor.....


Uhhh What?
User currently offlineAmerican762 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3671 times:

That doesnt have much to do with it, anyway, if the AF 340's can handle the hill, take it not as well as the 757 rocket take-offs, theres no reason not use it, especially if winds are more preferable. While I was there, I had the privelage of seeing a Curacao DC-9, a Falcon 2000, and an AA 757 take the Rwy 27 departure straight out.


Pan Am has a place of its' own. You call it the world, we call it home.
User currently offline777WT From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 875 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3634 times:

AF A340 doesn't seem to have problems with the mountain side departure from TNCM


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Rodgers



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tommy Mogren - Viking Slides



And as for RWY 27, they do use it:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Francisco José Jurado Ariza
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



User currently offlineLamedianaranja From Venezuela, joined Nov 2004, 1246 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3613 times:

Quoting Boeingguy1 (Reply 2):
the KLM 747 might have some problems, as they would be loaded to the brim with fuel and passengers

KLM is never fully loaded, on purpose, as they go to CUR before starting out back to AMS.

AF also goes to one of the other French islands I believe, before going back to CDG.



I wish that all skies were orange and blue!!
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

Quoting TIA (Reply 4):
They don't use the 27 for T/O because it might interfere with approach patterns.

 checkmark 
Along with the issue of prevailing winds, that's one of the reasons. With those mountains at the end of Runway 09, it's also very difficult for an aircraft such as a 757 or 767 to land on Runway 27. It's safe to say that landings on 27 are even rarer than takeoffs from 27.

Quoting TIA (Reply 4):
I don't know what you are trying to say, but the heavies don't have a problem with the mountains either.

That's because 747s and also 777s are heavily weight restricted and have to make a fuel stop before continuing to Europe. 767s, A330s and A340-200/-300s can fly nonstop back to places such as AMS and/or CDG. Don't know about the L-1011, DC-10 and MD-11, but I'm sure those can also fly nonstop to Europe to SXM.

Quoting Lamedianaranja (Reply 10):
AF also goes to one of the other French islands I believe, before going back to CDG.

That was the case when AF brought their 747s to SXM. With the A340 however, they can make it back nonstop to CDG. SS does make a fuel stop in Guadeloupe or somewhere on the French Carribean Islands since they use 747s. On some occasions though, SS operates the A330-200, which can make the trip nonstop to ORY.


User currently offline787KQ From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3520 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 11):
Quoting TIA (Reply 4):
They don't use the 27 for T/O because it might interfere with approach patterns.


Along with the issue of prevailing winds, that's one of the reasons. With those mountains at the end of Runway 09, it's also very difficult for an aircraft such as a 757 or 767 to land on Runway 27. It's safe to say that landings on 27 are even rarer than takeoffs from 27.

Wrong!

Its the prevailing winds just as at other airports in that part of the Caribbean, hills or no hills: STX, STT, SJU, Antigua, Tortola, etc.

Even though its one of the most popular airports in the region, its not busy enough to interfere with landing patterns, if it made sense to takeoff that direction. So when the winds change, takeoffs are in that direction, though fewer landings reverse. Same situation at STT, though except for FAA testing I can't recall commercial jets landing over the hills.


User currently offlineTWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 625 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3447 times:

Quoting Mdaigle (Reply 5):
It likely also saves time to taxi right to the end of 09 instead of backtracking to the end of 27 and then doing a 180deg turn to takeoff.

Ummm...when they land on rwy 09 they have to back taxi anyways to get back to the terminal .

Quoting TIA (Reply 4):
They don't use the 27 for T/O because it might interfere with approach patterns.

That's tough luck....Its the actual winds that drive what direction takeoffs and landings are - not prevailing....Prevailing winds are used in selecting which way a runway will be oriented when built (when there's available land.)

All/Most airlines takeoff/landing data is based on a headwind and adds penalties if you have a tailwind up to 10 knots. If over 10 knots tailwind ops are prohibited.
KD


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Not A340 For US Carriers? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 22:28:47 by Eastern023
Why ARJ 85 At LH? Why Not ARJ 70? posted Tue Apr 24 2001 15:03:10 by Airsicknessbag
Why Not 767 For Nwa? posted Mon Jan 22 2001 03:56:27 by Dandy_don
Is Rwy 23 At LHR Ever Used For Arrivals/departures posted Sat Apr 14 2001 00:18:06 by 777kicksass
Why Are Taxes Not Included For LatAm Airports? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 19:36:55 by RootsAir
British Airways @ Heathrow T3 Why Not Also At T2? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 13:52:08 by 8herveg
Asking For Medication On Board;why Not Possible? posted Mon Jun 13 2005 12:18:46 by RootsAir
Oslo - Gardermoen. Which Rwy Used For Arrival? posted Wed May 25 2005 13:12:01 by Thom@s
Why Not US Airways Hubs At LGA And DCA? posted Sat Feb 5 2005 16:31:11 by ACAfan
Boeing At Farnborough: Why A 747 And Not A 777 posted Mon Jul 26 2004 13:12:16 by Tolosy