Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can A 737 Land On A 2,400 Ft Runway?  
User currently offlineMozart From Luxembourg, joined Aug 2003, 2183 posts, RR: 13
Posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 17176 times:

I mean, can it land there safely? Assume sea level altitude, around 16 degrees celsius, about 1,000 tons of fuel left, 60 pax on board - too heavy to land there?

81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBrodieBrazil From Canada, joined Nov 2003, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 17134 times:

I would think if the pilot could flare the plane well before the numbers and be quick with the speedbrakes/reversers it might be possible. However keeping that plane close to stall speed and minimal fuel is probably not so realistic/safe.

User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17117 times:

Not with a thousand TONS of fuel. Two million pounds?

Land, yes, with really precise approach to the first few yards of runway and really agressive braking.

Getting it out of this field would be something to watch.

When thinking about the unthinkable, sometimes we come up with a plan that we'd hate ever to have to test. Precautionary landings in airliners are not unheard of, I've made a few. But out-and-out emergency landings are a rarity and I'd guess most pilots can go their whole career without one.

In an airliner that was seriously on fire, like the Air Canada DC-9 at CVG or the ValuJet DC-9 in Florida I think I'd rather go off the end of a 2000 foot runway at forty knots than into a timbered hillside at 200.

Same with a light single. I'd rather get it on the ground and get some hard braking done in, say, the width of a parking lot, than to simply slam into a hill while looking for better options.

It would be a tough choice but it should reduce damage and injuries.

As for the 737 on 2400 feet - I think I could get it stopped with fifty feet to spare. (With some practice.)





Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17054 times:

To put this into perspective, a C-172 at max landing weight takes about 1100-1400 feet to stop (around ISA, and over a 50' obstacle)...

SlamClick, if you ever tried this, I would love to be there to watch, that would be a friggin cool sight  Smile


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17051 times:

Well you can do it at least once.

Alaska and Markair flew theirs from the 3900 foot runway at Dutch Harbor.

Of course T/O's take more room then landings.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 16994 times:

Well, add the 50' obstacle for no good reason and we have to add a thousand feet for "landing distance." I'm just talking about ground run. It will do it. I have landed a DC-9-15 (no leading edge slats) with a medium load, at nowhere near sea level ISA with a 1700' ground run. Tower said: "Looks like you've got ninety people up in first class."

I've said it before, but not one in ten thousand of us; even lifelong professionals in air transport have ever even seen a maximum energy stop. Fuse plugs may let go, you may even have a fire. Anyone without a shoulder restraint may have a bloody nose when its over, but these things will stop far better than any light plane.

An operator of BAe-146 that used to be based in Satellite 1 at LAX used to land on 24R and make the turnoff at taxiway E-10 any time they wanted. That is 2400' from the runway threshold or 1400' from the touchdown markers. It was a harsh stop but it saved some taxiing and could keep you from getting stuck behind heavies that were trying to get to the south side.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineZBBbird From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 58 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 16936 times:

Not that it helps much but in flight sim I was able to put a 737-400 down on a 3350 foot runway using about only abot 1700ft. I had 647gal. of fuel and 23010lbs of payload using full braking and flaps 40. Also, full realism settings. So it seems that is may be possible.

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 16922 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

If I, a mere 172 pilot, can make the middle turnoff at Meigs in a 737-700 level D sim....a Boeing driver should be able to cut that landing roll in half.


2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 16918 times:

Hey I have a couple of Mpegs of the frontdoor (which the 737 used) and the backdoor approaches into Dutch Harbor...if anybody knows of a free site I can put them up on I will, so you can see the airport....up close and personal.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5003 posts, RR: 43
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 16879 times:

Get your Jeps out ... I landed a B737-200 on 08R at IAH and cleared at NG .. easily. And won a bottle of JW Blue Label while doing it. The terms were .. it had to be safe and comfortable ... it was.

For the record, we had about 60 pax on board and fuel for HOU as an alternate.

I think the ground roll was about 2500 feet.

While I am a very strong fan of the Airbus A320 I fly now, I would never try to do this in any Airbus product. Some things, like short runways are pure Boeing territory!

For the record, we also flew the B737-200 on very short paved, gravel and even ice runways in the Arctic.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16788 times:

It would be tough to get Airborne Again though.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16703 times:

Sure it could land on a 2,400ft rwy...getting it stopped before the end of it would be a nother matter enitrely. I've never flown a 737, but I have flown much smaller GA a/c and even something like a PA-44 Seminole would eat up a lot of that rwy on rollout...so for the 737, Im inclined to say no!


"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16709 times:

Well I have and I say yes.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16697 times:

Well, you would know more than me...would you set the brakes to the max braking detent or just do it manually? Max reverse too, Im guessing?


"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineAvionicMech From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 315 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16678 times:

I wouldn't take this as a definite, but maybe someone on here could confirm. I know that at BY when we took delivery of our 737-800's I heard that we couldn't fly them out of one field due to the stopping distance in the wet whereas we were already flying 757's out of there. I cant remember which airfield it was but it was said to be due to the fact that the 737's only have 4 sets of brakes as opposed to the 8 on a 757.

Is there anyone on here who can maybe confirm this? I am looking your way Slamclick or maybe Rick as I know you have definitely flown both types.

Regards

Avionic Mech


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 16699 times:

One thing I remember from my early days as a light plane pilot was how much wrong information I had about airliners.

Partly it grew out of light plane experience, because light planes are terrible performers when compared with airliners.

Takeoff distance:

A 2000 lb. airplane might take 2000 feet of runway. So a 130,000 lb 737 should take 130,000' right? (almost 25 miles) No way. Landing is similar. So airliners have runway requirements that are only maybe five times that of a light single, but carry a hundred, two hundred, three hundred times the weight.

Compared with a Seneca, the 737 is a STOL airplane.

The brakes on light planes are weak, compared with airliners.

Now as to the original question (disregaring the "THOUSAND TONS" of fuel which is more than a 747 would hold if the filler cap was on top the tail) I think I can put some realistic numbers to it. Using actual weight and balance documents from the last time/place I flew the 737:

72000 lbs BOW of the heaviest 737-300 in the fleet sample I have.
10380 winter weight of 60 passengers
1410 bags of 60 pax at the 23.5 lbs per in use at the time
6400 lbs landing fuel includes alternate at 100 nm away and :45 IFR reserve fuel
90190 landing gross weight of my sample Boeing

For 90K landing weight at Flaps 40 I get VREF of 116 knots. That means stall speed of 89.2 knots. So if I want to do a STOL landing I think I can do the last 200' or so at 1.1 VSO or 98 knots approach speed.

Add to that, automatic ground spoilers that are going to kill the lift upon wheel spin-up, thrust reversers that no one has said I cannot use, and the mind-boggling multi-disc, multi-puck, anti-skid protected brakes and I'm beginning to think that the last thing I'd see before sliding to stop in a cloud of tire and brake smoke is my own paint job sliding off the nose of the airplane.

I have a brake energy chart at hand. It is a "web of death" grid chart with skewed lines and I don't want to blow my whole day staring at that but I believe that I could start at the end with ultimate energy absorbtion (roll the fire trucks) and at the beginning with my weight and solve to the middle to find my runway length required. That is not what these charts are for, but I think I could do it and give the actual feet of runway that would be used up. I just don't want to take the time but I'm pretty sure it will support my claim.

Also, as stated in reply #2, second line, it would require a precise approach and landing and would absolutely not be "normal." but I'd bet my life that I could get it stopped between the first brick and the last brick of a 2400' runway.




Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16632 times:

Hey TinPusher007 I was writing that long-winded response when you posted last, so I did not see your questions.

Autobrake to the maximum setting will produce a rate of deceleration that will be more than you are used to, but will not scare the average passenger or cause the tower to hit the crash bell.

"RTO" which cannot be used for landing will produce even more braking effort and will scare the passengers.

Maximum manual (actually 'pedal' unless you use your hands) braking is what I would use if making an emergency landing on a 2400' strip in a 737. This means that I would plant my size-eleven dancing shoes on top the pedals and mash down until I am a straight line from my feet on the pedals to my shoulders against the seatback. Push down until the pedals will travel no further.

This ports all available hydraulic pressure to the brakes and that will be modulated only by the anti-skid system which will release the brakes for micro-units of time, repeatedly to keep the wheels turning but friction at the highest practical amount. My hat is off to whoever designed this system - it is fabuluous.

Reverse thrust I would use in generous amounts but its effect here is not near as important as the wheel brakes. If you come into the flare and touchdown unspooled and then grab a handful of reverse thrust the engines take a little while to spool back up and during that interval the wheel brakes will have carved off our speed a bunch.

In the landing I wrote about in reply #5, first paragraph, the engines never even got spooled up in reverse thrust before I was below 80 knots and had to start coming back out of reverse. Below that speed you can start re-ingesting heated exhaust air and get into compressor-stalling in the engines. I might risk that in an emergency landing but, again, the efficacy of the reversers is secondary in the stopping distance.

After all of this, we exit the runway, try to get a ground stair up to the plane. Chock the nosewheel, release the parking brakes, and have the fire department stand by at a safe distance because tires are going to start blowing in a few minutes.





Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineRightWayUp From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16623 times:

Tinpusher,
It would mean Max manual braking i.e. you literally stand on the brakes. On landing "max selection" does not give you full braking. The scenario would require a little if any flare, max reverse and max manual braking with ground spoilers. Basically it is the same technique as required for landing dist req given in the QRH for non-normals i.e. max performance stop.
For those interested looking at A319 figures for Max LDG Wt 61,000kg (approx 135,000lbs), the actual landing dist for max performance stop is 800m (approx 2400ft). Absolutely no margin included.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8294 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 16573 times:

about 1,000 tons of fuel left

That's alot of fuel!! But seriously, landing on the 2400 ft runway is tricky, but doable. Especially in the 732 which was designed for short runways. Getting the bird out is a different story, however.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 16567 times:

Yes, but that is what trains are for.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineCuda8596 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16324 times:

I'm surprised nobody has said anything about a headwind...anything more than a few knots could make a difference.

User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16249 times:

Boeing's invaluable airport technology brochures include landing length charts for every model, including the 737, for a variety of conditions (altitude, temperature, flap setting, wet/dry runway, etc.). Look in the "airplane performance" documents, near the end:

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/737.htm

Assuming 100,000 lbs. gross weight, sea level, dry runway, still air, and full flaps (40 degrees), a 737-700W requires a 3,800-foot runway to meet FAR requirements. An 80,000 lb. 737-200ADV with full flaps needs about 3,400 feet. IIRC, the FAR landing lengths do not include thrust reversers, as functioning reversers are dispatch-optional items.

The only aircraft for which I have actual stopping distance information is a 675,000 pound SST -- not the best comparison to the 737, but it might be interesting as color. For a typical landing weight and 20 degrees of flaps, the required FAR landing length for a dry runway with no reverse is 6,900 feet, but the actual stopping distance with full reverse is only 3,650 feet.

The FAR requirements in that document are calculated by dividing the actual stopping distance without thrust reversers by 0.6, giving a 67% safety margin in addition to what the reversers provide. If FAR distances are still calculated this way, both of the 737s described above technically should be able to stop in 2,400 feet, but the requirements may well have changed since 1966. Whether they could take off again would be a different story!

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16239 times:

A bit off topic, but I have a question for SlamClick. You say that below 80 knots, there is risk of a compressor stall while using reverse thrust. If that is the case, then why weren't these stalls common during the days of power push-backs? I would think that these push backs would not be allowed if there was risk of a compressor stall.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16239 times:

Slamclick

If you consider the 98 knot approach speed you quoted in reply 15 and assume an 11 foot per second squared deceleration at MAX AUTO autobrakes (not sure if this is accurate for 737 - it is a figure for the 777), then the rollout from point of touchdown to stop would be about 1250 ft using the formula d=1/2ATsquared.

Dl757Md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently onlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4206 posts, RR: 37
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16221 times:

SlamClick is my hero.  Smile Couldn't be explained any better.



I've personally stopped the CRJ in under 2000 feet of runway- and our approach speed is typically around 140 knots...we eat most planes alive on approach. Won myself a beer that night on the long layover! Needless to say those passengers were instantly converted into woodpeckers..haha.


The performance capabilities of airliners are phenomenal. I did a transition takeoff in the CRJ sim... loaded it very light and took off from 18C in memphis. Firewall thrust...held her around 10 feet off the runway...gear up, flaps up...crossed the other end of the runway doing 290 knots.... brought the nose up to 50 degrees. 16,000 feet per minute..woo! (a couple seconds later I heard laughing from the back of the sim as the instructor dumped the oil out of both of my engines)



Chicks dig winglets.
25 HAWK21M : Mozart.....Why 2400ft Which Runway,caused this question to be raised. regds MEL
26 Bobster2 : Why don't commercial airliners have drag parachutes for emergencies? They carry liferafts that will never be used (can you imagine a boatload of crash
27 Post contains links JHSfan : L-188 You mentioned that you have a couple of mpeg's. Have you tried http://www.flightlevel350.com/ I would love to see your footage. - JHSfan
28 SlamClick : Cuda8596 can't answer for others but I ignored headwind for a reason. I was thinking "standard day" or ISA in which there is no wind because it is the
29 Post contains images Starlionblue : Why don't commercial airliners have drag parachutes for emergencies? As SlamClick points out, parachutes need to be maintained. Having jumped out of a
30 SlamClick : Starlionblue back in the Mercury and Gemini phases of our space program (when we had one) I used to fear that it would be the parachute that would fai
31 Starlionblue : Indeed. Parachutes are amazingly complex things. I saw this docu on some Mars lander. Developing the parachute amounted to building models and testing
32 Post contains images AvionicMech : Slamclick there may be one thing you have forgotten and that is that if you have lost all hydraulics you wont be able to deploy the reversers as they
33 Bobster2 : The pilot of Soyuz 1, Vladimir Komarov, was killed in April of 1967 when the main parachute failed to deploy and the reserve got tangled with the drag
34 SlamClick : Right you are AvionicMech I assumed a -300 but did not say so. This is because I never flew the JT-8D powered miniBoeings. Fascinating reading is an i
35 Starlionblue : The pilot of Soyuz 1, Vladimir Komarov, was killed in April of 1967 when the main parachute failed to deploy and the reserve got tangled with the drag
36 Post contains images AvionicMech : Slamclick, did the -300 not have hydraulic reversers then? I thought all of the baby boeings had hydraulic reversers, I know for certain, the NG aircr
37 Post contains images SlamClick : "In reality, he spent the last few minutes of the flight loudly cursing the designers of his flawed craft." Well your immediately impending death does
38 Bobster2 : > Indeed. Parachutes are amazingly complex things. The Apollo parachute system was required to weigh under 500 pounds and fit in a very small space. A
39 AvionicMech : That's strange Slamclick, because I know that I have only worked on the -800's but they are definitely hydraulically powered with the 'A' system movin
40 SlamClick : Well, the truth is I only know -300 and -400 from flying and instructing on them. The NG I have only a slight acquaintance with. So, between you and m
41 AvionicMech : Well for that remark SlamClick I would have added you to my Respected Users list but I don't have enough posts yet. haha. It takes alot for some peopl
42 Dl757md : Hey SlamClick All of Delta's 737-300s have hydraulically actuated thrust reversers. They have CFM56-3 power plants. Personally, I've only ever seen hy
43 Lehpron : It seems that everyone in here thinks landing in doable but t/o is another story, is it truly unreasonable to apply full flaps on t/o?
44 AAR90 : Slamclick writes: For 90K landing weight at Flaps 40 I get VREF of 116 knots. My AA 738 Vref chart shows a 90K weight/Flaps-40 speed of 109. Take that
45 AvionicMech : Dl757md, I did not realize that there was C2's with hydraulically powered reversers, but I only have experience of the BY and Air Seychelles fleet of
46 Post contains images Dl757md : AvionicMech One of the things I love about this forum is learning about what it's like outside of my little corner of the aviation world. How things a
47 Post contains images AvionicMech : I couldn't agree more Dl757md, it is so easy to think that everything is going to be the same outside of our little hangar when invariably it is very
48 Post contains images 2H4 : KISS = Keep it Simple, Stupid. (Not calling you stupid, understand...just answering your question) 2H4
49 Post contains images HAWK21M : KISS Principle.....learn't something new today. Thanks. regds MEL
50 Post contains images HAWK21M : KISS Principle.....learn't something new today. Thanks. regds MEL
51 Mozart : Oops, this post has developed into quite something, hadn't checked for some days. First, to all: the "1,000 tons of fuel" in my first post were a typo
52 SlamClick : Mozart for regular operations this sound more like something for, perhaps a DHC-8 than a jet. Most of us were discussing whether in an emergency we co
53 Lehpron : >>"Highly doubtful a 90K 738 can accellerate quickly enough to get flying speed in 2,400 feet"
54 AvionicMech : Thanks 2H4, I, just like Mel, have never heard of this KISS principle. I guess it must be an American thing.
55 2H4 : No problem, AvionicMech. It goes both ways. I still have no idea what "bollocks" actually are. 2H4
56 Post contains images AvionicMech : Haha that so is funny.
57 SlamClick : Lehpron we don't do that, but it is not entirely ridiculous. Not really of very much value though, as the flaps are zero drag at zero airspeed and the
58 Airgypsy : Great reading! I was a BTV a long time ago and saw the book get throw out the window with an arrival on a ice covered runway. The DC-9-30 simply squat
59 Post contains images Starlionblue : You can always reverse before touchdown: That should make a dent in rollout length. Go arounds become rather tricky I suppose but if you have to land
60 Post contains images HAWK21M : You can always reverse before touchdown: Guess the Type of Aircraft matters. Whats the restriction on IL62M T/R deployment by mistake in Air at Higher
61 SCCutler : Wildly peripheral to the discussion, but recall the TACA 737 which landed successfully (after the rain-ingestion flameout) on the levee in Louisiana.
62 Post contains images Starlionblue : Rereading this wonderful thread (one of my all time favorites), it came to me that, yes, I can host pics of interesting stuff to illustrate topics. T
63 David L : SlamClick: Wow! There's a Bond movie on TV at the moment but your account of that hypothetical landing was much more rivetting! Looks good - I'll cert
64 Doug_Or : As long its not resitrcted by a weight on wheels switch.
65 Wardialer : It can be done if you have a good strong steady headwind. The lower your Ground Speed the better....
66 Sprout5199 : I have a question about the parachute idea. There are a lot more overruns than ditchings. I was thinking that you wouldn't need a large chute that doe
67 Post contains images SSTjumbo : A 100 kt headwind helps. Chances are you'll make the first turnoff.
68 Pilawt : While working as a flight instructor at KLGB in 1971 when the first DC-10-10s were in certification flight test, I watched the unpainted prototype lan
69 David L : Anyone read that novel about a DC-10 with the US president or vice-president on board that had to make an emergency landing on an aircraft carrier? I
70 HAWK21M : The largest Aircraft landing on an Aircraft Carrier has to be the C130. regds MEL
71 Post contains images HaveBlue : Well, being that our largest carriers, and thus the worlds largest carriers, are right about 1,098 feet unless you can get a DC-10 stopped in less th
72 Dw747400 : Keep in mind, a carrier can make its own headwind though... Enterprise could get you around 40 knots on a calm day according to some reports I've read
73 David L : Er... yeah - without "problems" there wouldn't have been a story! I guess you didn't read it. Bear in mind that the carrier speed and headwind could
74 Post contains images Starlionblue : I can't believe I wrote "mump the thread" instead of bump . Add to that the fact that you can't land using the entirety of the deck unless lots of pla
75 777ER : Yes. WLG runway is just under 1900 metres and we get B732s, B733s, B737-700s and B738s. Shortly possibly B734s[Edited 2005-07-03 10:15:28]
76 David L : The president was going to die otherwise! I guess no-one else read the book so it's really not worth pursuing without the details.
77 Mandala499 : WLG = Wellington? NZ? Add the 767 to that list of airport visitors... i went there in 1992 and there were regular QF (763) flights. On strong headwind
78 Post contains links Starlionblue : As Mandala499 points out, you also get 762s so no problem with length. This movie has a Qantas 767 landing at WLG http://www.rosboch.net/various/land
79 AGM114L : I could land it on about a 500ft. runway.....gear up.
80 Post contains images HAWK21M : Bet you'r not an Employed Pilot The NLG Air/Grd 2nd sense for T/R deployment mod might prevent that. regds MEL
81 Post contains images PPVRA : SDU is about 500ft longer and has daily 737 (-700 is the largest I think), F-100 and A319 operations: Only captains are allowed to land here as the ru
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Can A 737 Land On A 2,400 Ft Runway?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Can A LearJet Land And Takeoff On A 2500 Foot Runway posted Wed Feb 16 2005 05:37:35 by AirWillie6475
How Does ATC Choose Which Runway To Land On? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 23:24:10 by Fll2993
Runway 1000ft Shorter Than Usual, Can You Land? posted Sun May 21 2006 11:55:44 by JulianUK
Landing On Very Short Runway: Limit For 737? posted Wed Jun 22 2005 12:37:23 by Klm-md11
Can An Airliner Land On Water? posted Wed Dec 31 2003 21:04:46 by Jutes85
Why Pas Can't Have GPS On Com Airline posted Sun Nov 13 2005 02:54:48 by Airfoilsguy
Can A Quad Fly On Two Engines? posted Sat Sep 10 2005 18:35:55 by TaromA380
Where Can I Find Specs On Cessna 152/172/182? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 02:29:15 by 9V-SPJ
Can A 737-800 Fly SBRJ/SDU To SBSP/CGH? posted Sat Oct 11 2003 13:44:25 by Mozart
Can A 747 Survive On One Engine? posted Mon Sep 22 2003 04:33:24 by Tarzanboy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format