Patches From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 280 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 19733 times:
How in the 'H' can all those loaded widebodys land at this airport? The Damn runway is less then 7200ft! I'm looking at the photoes and some of the 747's look like they are going to hit the fence!
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21245 posts, RR: 19 Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 19760 times:
Quoting Patches (Thread starter): How in the 'H' can all those loaded widebodys land at this airport? The Damn runway is less then 7200ft! I'm looking at the photoes and some of the 747's look like they are going to hit the fence!
When the 380 came to ORD, it was down to taxi speed within 4500-5000 feet of landing on 4R. It's takeoff that presents a bigger problem (though being at sea level helps).
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
AllegiantAir From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1729 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 19654 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3): Quoting N104UA (Reply 2):
340's to europe they hop to another island
Sure they can. AF runs a daily SXM-CDG on A340 nonstop
Well, KLM brings their planes to CUR, don't they? Even when I went down to SXM on SY, on the way back we had to stop at STT because with full fuel we wouldn't have been able to get out of SXM with a 738
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 19626 times:
Quoting N104UA (Reply 2): They can not bring the 747 and 340's to europe they hop to another island
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3): Sure they can. AF runs a daily SXM-CDG on A340 nonstop.
Depending upon if they're using 9 or 27, you could both be correct....
Once upon a time at Air Florida, one of our guys tankered 40,000 lbs of fuel down there on a charter, assuming that he could get out later on runway 27 (taking off towards the water) which had better takeoff weights than runway 9 (taking off towards the terrain). Murphy's Law came into play at departure time, and winds were out of limits for 27, and the lower weights on 9 meant that they were now radically overweight. No defueling capability, so they loaded half the pax and hopped over to SJU, dropped them off, and ferried back to SXM for the other half of the pax. Once they got back to SJU the second time, they got everybody back on board from the first SJU hop, and then went SJU non-stop to wherever.
I'm not familiar with the A340 performance numbers, but assuming their weights off 9 are less than off 27, the difference could theoretically be enough (depending on actual load) to warrant a fuel stop somewhere.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6890 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 19533 times:
Quoting AllegiantAir (Reply 4): Well, KLM brings their planes to CUR, don't they?
KLM does not operate A340's. The A340 has no problem making it non-stop back to Europe. It's the 747 that has a problem because when loaded with enough fuel it would be too heavy for the runway length. So they stop somewhere else with a longer runway to take on fuel. At least that's my understanding of the reason why the 747 can't go non-stop while the A340 can.
KensukeAida From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 217 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 19453 times:
For takeoffs, they stand on the breaks and run engines up to maximum. I don't know for certain, but I'm betting they drop flaps more than standard as well.
For landings, they come in really low (below normal glide slope).
It's a challenging airport with little margin for error, but it's doable.
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3036 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19258 times:
Quoting YYCowboy (Reply 8): I travelled SXM - YYC on Air Transat non stop, A310. 8+ hours westbound. Took off over the water though. I never figgured this was unusual.
All departures leave over the water, AFAIK. The big mountain at the other end of the runway kinda precludes an opposite direction departure.
DualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 641 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19235 times:
Quoting 777STL (Reply 9): All departures leave over the water, AFAIK. The big mountain at the other end of the runway kinda precludes an opposite direction departure.
Incorrect. A video search of FL350.com will show departures towards the mountain which requires a turn. I don't have my Jepps handy or I could pull our specific departure procedure but departures occur either way out of SXM.
PITops From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1442 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19201 times:
Quoting 777STL (Reply 9): All departures leave over the water, AFAIK. The big mountain at the other end of the runway kinda precludes an opposite direction departure.
Quoting DualQual (Reply 10): Incorrect. A video search of FL350.com will show departures towards the mountain which requires a turn. I don't have my Jepps handy or I could pull our specific departure procedure but departures occur either way out of SXM.
Alot of flights takeoff towards the terrain. Check out some of the vids on flightlevel350.com or even pics on here.
FlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19153 times:
Quoting AllegiantAir (Reply 4): Well, KLM brings their planes to CUR, don't they? Even when I went down to SXM on SY, on the way back we had to stop at STT because with full fuel we wouldn't have been able to get out of SXM with a 738
Yes, but a fairly empty 747 can takeoff in less runway than a fully loaded 737-800.
If you think widebody landings and takeoffs from SXM are impressive, you should look up some USAF C-17 videos.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19143 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 6): KLM does not operate A340's. The A340 has no problem making it non-stop back to Europe. It's the 747 that has a problem because when loaded with enough fuel it would be too heavy for the runway length. So they stop somewhere else with a longer runway to take on fuel. At least that's my understanding of the reason why the 747 can't go non-stop while the A340 can.
KLM currently operates the MD-11 AMS-SXM. The flights operate AMS-SXM-AUA-AMS. I think all KL flights to the Caribbean now use the MD-11.
747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1165 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 19096 times:
It is well known on this forum that AF indeed flies SXM-CDG nonstop with an A340, a plane often bashed on here for its so-called poor takeoff performance (I think it mainly suffers in climb performance rather than the actual takeoff run). But anyways, does this flight require a weight/payload restriction? For some reason, I can't see a widebody with a full payload (let alone an A340) or even a full passenger load using only about 6000ft. of runway on an 8 hour flight. I've spotted at JFK before, and nearly every airplane departing for a TATL flight - even 767's and 777's - were using closer to about 6500-7000ft. of runway. The A340's I saw used about 8000ft. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I'd just like to know if AF's nonstop SXM-CDG requires a weight/payload restriction.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, RR: 24 Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 18987 times:
Quoting 747fan (Reply 14): I'd just like to know if AF's nonstop SXM-CDG requires a weight/payload restriction.
SXM-CDG is 3426 nm. That's less than 50% of the A340-300's maximum range with a full passenger load so it's obviously going to be much lighter than on a nonstop sector twice as long since it's only going to need about half as much fuel.
Yankees From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 86 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 17203 times:
I was in SXM in March lst year and the AF 340 got up in the air using half or the runway. I was shocked but KLM stops in CUR but AF goes direct
Flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1526 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16933 times:
Quoting 747fan (Reply 14): It is well known on this forum that AF indeed flies SXM-CDG nonstop with an A340, a plane often bashed on here for its so-called poor takeoff performance (I think it mainly suffers in climb performance rather than the actual takeoff run). But anyways, does this flight require a weight/payload restriction? For some reason, I can't see a widebody with a full payload (let alone an A340) or even a full passenger load using only about 6000ft. of runway on an 8 hour flight. I've spotted at JFK before, and nearly every airplane departing for a TATL flight - even 767's and 777's - were using closer to about 6500-7000ft. of runway. The A340's I saw used about 8000ft. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I'd just like to know if AF's nonstop SXM-CDG requires a weight/payload restriction.
likely they are using reduced power for takeoff, helps with MX.
Excalibur From France, joined Dec 2007, 56 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16839 times:
Hi all!
I think the main concern here at SXM is for twinjets with their one-engine climbout performance.. Therefore, taking off toward the East with terrain quite close to the airport must reduce their MTOW.
However, Quads and specially the A340 , are much less limited at SXM than twins! I am sure Zeke or some pilots here could explain that far better than me... Runway performance or pure climb performance are two very different things, and the A340 is the most obvious example!!
FlySSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7313 posts, RR: 61 Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16760 times:
Quoting 777STL (Reply 9): All departures leave over the water, AFAIK. The big mountain at the other end of the runway kinda precludes an opposite direction departure.
Quoting 747fan (Reply 14): I'd just like to know if AF's nonstop SXM-CDG requires a weight/payload restriction.
easy : NO. Many A.Netters are used to fly AF on SXM-CDG. I did it myself several times an I can tell you that all the fights are packed most of the time.
Here is a video of an AF A340 taking off from Rwy 09 for its nonstop trip to Paris :
VarigB707 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1220 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16701 times:
787KQ From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15465 times:
Quoting AllegiantAir (Reply 4): Even when I went down to SXM on SY, on the way back we had to stop at STT because with full fuel we wouldn't have been able to get out of SXM with a 738
STT is certainly not an airport that can take larger planes than SXM. I believe a DC-10 landed there -- once. A 747 has never landed there, and I can't imagine it. And if you want to see terrain at the end of a runway, take a look at STT.
PYP757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 14978 times:
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 19): Oh really ??? So what's this ?
You are forgetting my favorite one! The 757 is definitely an awesome airplane. One of my favorite pic on A.net!
C680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 14904 times:
Quoting 747fan (Reply 14): I've spotted at JFK before, and nearly every airplane departing for a TATL flight - even 767's and 777's - were using closer to about 6500-7000ft. of runway. The A340's I saw used about 8000ft.
While this is interesting, it's not relevant or applicable. When calculating required runway length a pilot needs to look at several variables: weight, temperature, field elevation, and runway condition (wet or dry) are the basics. He then looks up in a large stack of performance charts the required runway length. This is based on the runway required to accelerate to V1 (Decision speed) and then abort the take off and stop (thats why a wet / slick runway will require more take off length) It is the runway needed to accelerate and then stop.
If more runway is available, some aircract manufactures have calculated flex power take off data, which allows pilots to use less than full power - there is a separate set of charts for that.
Quoting Excalibur (Reply 18): I think the main concern here at SXM is for twinjets with their one-engine climbout performance.. Therefore, taking off toward the East with terrain quite close to the airport must reduce their MTOW.
However, Quads and specially the A340 , are much less limited at SXM than twins!
Now we get to the second part of take off data: climb gradiant. This is what is needed for obstical clearance, and it is applicable to runway 09 at SXM. You are correct, a 4 engine aircraft will have a better climb gradiant because they are calculated with the loss of one engine. In a quad, that means you have 3/4 power remaining (and not soo much asymetrical thrust causing additional drag) with a twin, you loose 1/2 of your power (and the fact that the "good" engine is now trying to twist that twin the wrong way, which means countering with rudder and bank angle, which is anopther loss of performance)
The disconnect that spotters and passengers have is that most twins feel like they have stronger take offs than quads - if everything is working they do. But pilots work on a worse case scenario, and in the event of an engine failure on departure, a quad will almost always out perform a twin under similar circumstances.
So why can an A340 do it and a B747 cant? I dont have the numbers, but I'm willing to wager that a B747's V1 is a bit higher than an A340, thus more runway required.
My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
25 A342: I think you're wrong here. It is indeed 2349m/7708ft: http://gc.kls2.com/airport/SXM http://www.worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=NT00001 But what about c
26 Readytotaxi: How about this one, nice 747 landing sxm, from the cockpit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksmDuXO_k6E
27 FlySSC: Bananas, indeed, and most of the cargo are loaded from PTP/FDF to Paris. I believe 2350m/7708ft is the full lengh of the runway including the two ext
29 FlySSC: This video about SXM is my favourite : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLI0pvMcob4
30 TISTPAA727: Have to agree. I can remember some scary takeoff runs at STT in the 80s before they carved most of that mountain down. Even with the newer runway, th
31 PilotRecruit: AWESOME!! Taking a look at that video from the cockpit, man does the runway look short! I know it's not an incredible speed, but they're still at 60
32 Pinhammond: About 18 years ago I was involved in a study to see whether it was technically possible to operate a 747 200B into and out of Gibraltar. That runway w
33 Mtb555: In 1991, I flew to SXM on Pan Am (a 747). The flight to SXM from JFK was non-stop, but the return included a stop in MIA. I don't know if this was us
34 Acabgd: Yes, but with what load penalty? It probably never happened as it would not be financially viable.
35 Scramjetter: Others have no problem at all: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0466869/L/ Here's a great video of a 757 going into Honduras - no computers here, al
36 Pinhammond: Acagbd. Payload was not the problem. Very short sector for a 747 and no cargo. Nor were economics. The aircraft used ti arrive LGW in early morning an
37 Patches: I knew the runway was less than 7200ft? So tell me all you so-called experts, How many planes use the safety areas on each end of the runway? I think
38 FlySSC: The "safety areas" at the end of the Rwys are, like their name say it, in case of emergency and are not used in normal operations (clearly visible on
39 YULYMX: Pretty sure SXM runway is over 7500FT since renovation sxm 09/27 2 349metres 7 708 feet
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 280 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 143 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1526 posts, 
From France, joined Dec 2007, 56 posts, 
, are much less limited at SXM than twins! I am sure Zeke or some pilots here could explain that far better than me... Runway performance or pure climb performance are two very different things, and the A340 is the most obvious example!!
Printer friendly format 
