Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ACV's New SLC Service And Runway Length  
User currently offlineAirnerd From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 255 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3867 times:

Been wondering about the new DL SLC service to ACV and what it means for the proposed runway changes...

The post discussing the new service is archived here:

Original Post

The Airport Master Plan Draft from 2005 anticipated the possibility of flights with CRJs and CR7s in the future to places like SLC and DEN and noted that the current runway length of just under 6,000 ft could make these flights difficult to operate with full loads in certain weather conditions. That master plan doc is available here:

ACV Master Plan

So the question is, with CRJ flights to SLC beginning in June, is the runway length/configuration going to be an issue? Are improvements or runway extensions going to become a higher priority?

Thanks.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN747PE From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3733 times:

ACV has an Alt. of 218ft and the weather on the Northwest California coast should not cause load limit problems for this summer. Finding the airport in the fog will be another issue. The airport authority might want to start bugging the FAA about an upgraded approach. The Skywest crews might want to keep the plates for RDD and SMF at the ready. It will be an interesting summer.

User currently offlineFlyboy7974 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3719 times:

If I'm correct at what I just found, runway 14/32 is 6000 feet long exactly. Then what are you talking about being that the runways in BUR/SNA are both shorter then that and they both handle much more and much larger traffic then ACV? Weather mostly matters for a/c during the approach phase and not as much for takeoff, and for that matter, every airport has times that weather can effect landings and a/c face diversions.

User currently offlineFlashFlyGuy From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 439 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3700 times:

I remember the days of flying into and out of ACV in 727-200's and 737-200's. Oh, and DC-9's too....  Wink

User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3672 times:

The Air Force has landed C-141's there is support of the Coast Guard, the old Air Force One (707) landed/and took off with President Nixon. United's 727-200; 737-200, Air West's F-27 and DC-9's(some went non-stop to LAX) and PSA's 146's, and United Express has used a 146 and CR200 in the past, so what's the problem.

User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3653 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 4):
The Air Force has landed C-141's there is support of the Coast Guard, the old Air Force One (707) landed/and took off with President Nixon. United's 727-200; 737-200, Air West's F-27 and DC-9's(some went non-stop to LAX) and PSA's 146's, and United Express has used a 146 and CR200 in the past, so what's the problem.

lack of slats on the CRJ


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3640 times:

And Salem, Oregon has a shorter runway, and the old DC-9's had a hard wing (no slats) and it worked.

User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3617 times:

I think the question here is of CRJ's and their reputation for going out weight restricted in many conditions. Larger airplanes like DC-9's, 737's, and so on, have better thrust-to-weight ratios than CRJ's - am I correct in this assumption? And without high-tech lift devices, CRJ's need a longer take-off run in certain conditions.

However, given weather conditions and ACV's altitude, "hot-and-high" will not be the problem. Weight at some point might be, as will fog - but in this case, every airline that has operated into ACV deals with it.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineAirnerd From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3586 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 7):
I think the question here is of CRJ's and their reputation for going out weight restricted in many conditions. Larger airplanes like DC-9's, 737's, and so on, have better thrust-to-weight ratios than CRJ's - am I correct in this assumption? And without high-tech lift devices, CRJ's need a longer take-off run in certain conditions.

Right. The other major difference is that the larger AC that used to serve ACV were typically never flying farther than SFO or maybe PDX at a stretch. Also, I used to fly those flights quite a bit, and I never remember them going out full. SLC is more than twice as far as SFO and will require more fuel, more weight, longer runway lengths. Could be that the speculative DEN flights discussed in the master plan (that may or may not ever come to fruition) are more the issue than the SLC destination, but I think it will be interesting to see if they run into any issues with these flights.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3571 times:



Quoting Airnerd (Reply 8):
The other major difference is that the larger AC that used to serve ACV were typically never flying farther than SFO or maybe PDX at a stretch. Also, I used to fly those flights quite a bit, and I never remember them going out full.

At one time Hughes AirWest did operate ACV-LAX non-stop. Occasionally, Casino Express would operate a charter and they used to go out full in their old 732 to Elko.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 7):
every airline that has operated into ACV deals with it.

 checkmark  In short they wouldn't be coming to ACV if they didn't think it would work.


User currently offlineDLOnur From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 290 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3557 times:

The problem with ACV (as someone who worked there for almost 6 years) is that all AC have to take extra fuel on board for possible diversions to SMF/SFO/RDD if the weather is down in ACV. Weight restrictions are a fact of life in ACV when you couple together weather, short runways, and heavy loads.

Being a non-rev in ACV was really quite difficult.

-o-



What you believe is what you see.
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3547 times:



Quoting DLOnur (Reply 10):
ll AC have to take extra fuel on board for possible diversions to SMF/SFO/RDD if the weather is down in ACV.

Doesn't all aircraft have to take on enough fuel to reach an alternate airport is case of a possible diversion? Hey you forgot to include CEC in your list of diversions spots, our United Express flight was diverted there once, it was great since that was my hometown airport.


User currently offlineJkudall From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3429 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 11):
Doesn't all aircraft have to take on enough fuel to reach an alternate airport is case of a possible diversion?

Yes, but only when an alternate is indeed required to be in the flight plan. And thats usually anytime the forecasted weather looks grim. So if its VFR, you usually don't need the reserve fuel for an alternate, just the normal reserves.


User currently offlineFlyboy97502 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3377 times:



Quoting DLOnur (Reply 10):
The problem with ACV (as someone who worked there for almost 6 years) is that all AC have to take extra fuel on board for possible diversions to SMF/SFO/RDD if the weather is down in ACV. Weight restrictions are a fact of life in ACV when you couple together weather, short runways, and heavy loads.

Diversions due to Wx have also come over to MFR.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 11):
Doesn't all aircraft have to take on enough fuel to reach an alternate airport is case of a possible diversion? Hey you forgot to include CEC in your list of diversions spots, our United Express flight was diverted there once, it was great since that was my hometown airport.

IIRC isn't the SFO - ACV flt a thru flight to CEC? or have they changed it so CEC gets its own service?

Quoting Jkudall (Reply 12):
Yes, but only when an alternate is indeed required to be in the flight plan. And thats usually anytime the forecasted weather looks grim. So if its VFR, you usually don't need the reserve fuel for an alternate, just the normal reserves.

 checkmark  Exactly, thats when they will often head over here to MFR, for some extra fuel, and as a SFO-RDM flight found out last week, Headwinds make a difference on a already load restricted flight, they had to stop in MFR for some more fuel!



SKYHIGH Airlines- It's important that we get the SkyHigh message out there. That message? Thank you for your money.
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3327 times:



Quoting Flyboy97502 (Reply 13):
have they changed it so CEC gets its own service?

Own service now to CEC-SFO, with one flight CEC-ACV-SMF


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6027 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3322 times:



Quoting Flyboy97502 (Reply 13):
IIRC isn't the SFO - ACV flt a thru flight to CEC? or have they changed it so CEC gets its own service?

CEC has its own flights to SFO, but can also be found on SFO-CEC-ACV-SFO, SFO-ACV-CEC-SFO, or SMF-ACV-CEC-SFO.

Quoting Flyboy97502 (Reply 13):
and as a SFO-RDM flight found out last week, Headwinds make a difference on a already load restricted flight, they had to stop in MFR for some more fuel!

In this case, the fuel would have been planned in accordance for the given and forecasted winds at the time of dispatch, but, as with most things in nature, not everything goes as planned.  Smile

Quoting Jkudall (Reply 12):
Yes, but only when an alternate is indeed required to be in the flight plan.

Indeed, only as required by law. However, given current prices, the cost of fuel at both ACV and CEC are rather expensive—even for bulk fuel prices, so fuel will often be tankered, but only as payload allows.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
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...
Delta To Start New ACV-SLC Service posted Wed Feb 6 2008 09:43:40 by Airlinebrat
FL And New SAN Service posted Mon Apr 2 2007 11:32:31 by SANFan
CUN New T3 And Runway posted Fri Mar 2 2007 02:10:54 by Cun757
DL Starts New LGA-LAS And LGA-LAX Sat Only Service posted Thu Apr 13 2006 19:56:49 by Panamair
A380 Required Runway Length To Take Off And Land posted Sun Jan 8 2006 05:45:36 by NZCH
New Delta Service To LGB(new) And MSY(old) posted Tue Jan 3 2006 22:42:17 by OttoPylit
New DL Service: BDL-SLC posted Sat Sep 17 2005 16:39:48 by FlyPNS1
New Delta Service To Managua And Roatan posted Sat Sep 3 2005 18:11:58 by MAH4546
CO: New EWR-CUR And EWR-GCM Service posted Sun Jul 10 2005 02:26:02 by MAH4546
New RDU - SLC Service DL posted Wed May 25 2005 22:43:31 by Squirrel83