LMML 14/32 From Malta, joined Jan 2001, 2566 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3030 times:
Sometimes these jumbos are weight restricted to be able to take off. They either take fewer pax or less fuel then make a tech stop somewhere else. It interesting to note that having sufficient runway to abort safely is also a consideration when calculating field requirements. When runway is wet or in icing conditions the length required to stop increases significantly.
Ammunition From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 1065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2957 times:
The PIA 747 has a scheduled stop at copenhagen en route to pakistan, so they were able to take off as they had very little fuel required for the 1 hour or so flight, and also the number of passangers may not have been the maximum possible for the plane. I think they are restarting BHX later this week or the beginning of april, with an A310- which should not require a stop, but whether they are adding one for the sake of it remains to be seen, maybe someone can confirm this, it has been discussed before recently
Saint Augustine- 'The world is a book and those who do not travel, read only 1 page'
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8628 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2894 times:
Remember that aviation is a business and it is in the interest of airlines to consume as little fuel as possible (they waste enough in holding patterns after all). So the take-off thrust will be calculated to ensure fuel economy. So a flight might use most of the runway even if it could lift off halfway along, but due to a reduced power take-off VR comes somewhere near the end. Doesn't mean the flight is near max weight.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2854 times:
Rwy 15-33 in BHX is 8537 feet long, while the runway at SXM is 7000 feet long, and handles 747's regularly (although they T/O with a light fuel load and fly to a larger airport in the region). BHX's elevation is about 300 feet higher.
Couple that with United and Northwest making NRT their hub and they visit daily with their numerous 747 trans-Pacific fleet. Is that a lot of 747s or what? Since NRT is a major destination, 747s from other carriers are also very evident everyday!
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
Lekky-Man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2628 times:
Apart from anything else, that piccy of the PIA 742 makes the runway look really short, but i can tell ya, you wouldn't wanna run from one end to the other!!!
Anyway's, it all makes it really exiting watching these things come and go.
A couple of weeks back when we had all those extreme winds, i was at BHX when they were using runway 15, and I watched the Emirates A.330 arrive, after several had done go arounds due to wind sheer. It managed to get down eventually just before the intersection!! I don't think I'll ever get the chance to see an A.330 on full reverse ever again!!! (almost like chucking out an anchor!!)
757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (14 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2493 times:
That photograph is taken at such an angle whereby it deletes the remaining 3000ft or so runway remaining. The PIA 747's used to rotate off BHX's main runway at around the halfway point on average, usually with over 300 passengers on board. The tech stop in CPH enabled them to do this. The runway at BHX is a similar length to DUB and GLA - two airports which handle widebodied aircraft on a regular basis. BHX is more than big enough to handle the 747 - It just can't handle fully loaded examples. Not even a 3000m strip can do that though...