Pacific From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1033 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6577 times:
After on and off research lasting a year, I have finally found the information I needed. I decided to look up hard numbers after Zest Air had two accidents at this airports within 6 months.
Official takeoff distances are at 15 celcius. Caticlan is 30 celcius, meaning air is less dense, requiring a longer distance for takeoff. These quoted distances are supposed to include safety margins such as an engine failure situation.
SEAIR uses the Dornier 328 aircraft to Caticlan. The President personally claims this aircraft can operate at MTOW using a runway of just 2,460 feet. http://www.flyseair.com/node/168 This is definitely not the case. At MTOW, the Do328 needs 3,570ft according to an approved maintenance contractor for this aircraft. http://www.328support.de/en/328/328-prop.php Dornier itself no longer exists so I cannot dig up their numbers. Even if the Do328 is likely to be 1,200kgs under full weights from Caticlan to Manila, it’s doubtful whether the takeoff distance decreases by 638 feet. SEAIR was allowed to continue flying to Caticlan even with runway restrictions in place because “the planes were smaller”. This is a misconception. The Do328 is a “high-speed” turboprop. To allow for the high speed, the aircraft needs to have less drag/lift which means it needs long runway for its size!
PAL Express’ Q300 aircraft has a full-weight takeoff run of 3,865 feet. This would mean considerable reductions in weight (by limiting number of passengers) to shorten the safe takeoff distance by over 800 feet, as required for this airport.
Cebu Pacific’s ATR-72 aircraft requires 4,232 feet of runway. This means even more weight-shedding is needed. After the obvious overloading by Zest, it is obvious there is lax regulation and I really question if PAL or Cebu Pacific really does the weight shedding. I am therefore curious if PR and 5J really enforce this.
Of course, the old Asian Spirit actually used a suitable aircraft in the past, the Dash-7 to Caticlan. This aircraft however was notoriously expensive to operate.
scrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1486 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 6440 times:
Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 1): I am struggling to see any logic to this thread...
i think it is mostly a case of presenting a topic and information in a way no one understands.
OP, you have to give some background at the start of this post, especially if something took you a year to research. And also, your formatting will lead most to look at all the text and links and think "what?"
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6405 times:
I'll join in the confusion about this thread. What, pray tell, is your point?
Anyway, just for yucks, I'm going to focus on this part:
Quoting Pacific (Thread starter): SEAIR uses the Dornier 328 aircraft to Caticlan. The President personally claims this aircraft can operate at MTOW using a runway of just 2,460 feet. http://www.flyseair.com/node/168 This is definitely not the case. At MTOW, the Do328 needs 3,570ft according to an approved maintenance contractor for this aircraft
If the plane needs 3570 feet at MTOW, then I'd assume the airline is not taking off at MTOW. It's hardly an uncommon occurence.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
The runway is now 3117 x 98 feet, 950 x 30 meters, and as I understand still getting longer.
Quoting Pacific (Thread starter):
Official takeoff distances are at 15 celcius. Caticlan is 30 celcius, meaning air is less dense, requiring a longer distance for takeoff. These quoted distances are supposed to include safety margins such as an engine failure situation.
It is also the distance to 35' with one engine out, the aircraft can reach 35' whilst over a clearway, as departures/arrivals are over water, it is not an issue.
The takeoff distance available is equal to the takeoff run available (the runway pavement, 3117' or 950 m) plus the clearway (area clear at the end of the runway where the aircraft can climb to 35'.
Pacific From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1033 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 6298 times:
What I'm trying to say is that current Caticlan ops is very tight and I really suspect the airlines are going beyond the safe numbers. I have not heard of SEAIR having to take a passenger penalty and at 100kg per passenger plus the trip fuel indicated in the chart, their Do328 will be taking off 1,200kgs below MTOW. Do the official charts (which I cannot get hold of) indicate this is enough to reduce the safe takeoff distance by 600 feet?
Zest has been clearly flying their MA-60s to full pax capacity, which means it is overweight for Caticlan. Given the general lack of a safety culture and accountability in the Philippines, are we sure PAL and Cebu are doing their weight restrictions properly? PAL-Ex, Cebu and Zest are also supposed to be in the low-cost market for domestic flights offering cheaper fares than SEAIR, yet their CASM for this flight must be horrendous with the weight restrictions.
@Zeke
Thanks for the reply. I have been reading the internet on and off for a year because runway length statistics varied from 2,700ft - 3,200ft. I have read that there is actually 950 metres of paved surface but the airport has moved the runway markings so that the usable length is still only 896 metres after the recent 60 metre extension. As for the clearway, there is a 240ft hill on one end. On the other side, you have to fly over a road before reaching the sea which may influence the 'clearway'.
SEAIR indeed does use the 328-110 but I have found the STOL version with the more powerful engine is actually the -120. Only 1 out of 4 aircraft of SEAIR is the -120.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5950 times:
Quoting Pacific (Thread starter):
PAL Express' Q300 aircraft has a full-weight takeoff run of 3,865 feet. This would mean considerable reductions in weight (by limiting number of passengers) to shorten the safe takeoff distance by over 800 feet, as required for this airport.
Were it still in production, Bombardier's Q200 would have been better suited for MPH operation.....
There must still be some low cycle, later production aircraft available. Unfortunately, the bottom line drives potential operators to higher capacity models.
Quoting Pacific (Thread starter): Cebu Pacific's ATR-72 aircraft requires 4,232 feet of runway. This means even more weight-shedding is needed.
Similarly, the ATR-42-500 would've avoided most of the drawbacks.....
Quoting Pacific (Thread starter): After the obvious overloading by Zest, it is obvious there is lax regulation and I really question if PAL or Cebu Pacific really does the weight shedding. I am therefore curious if PR and 5J really enforce this.
Quoting Pacific (Reply 5): Zest has been clearly flying their MA-60s to full pax capacity, which means it is overweight for Caticlan. Given the general lack of a safety culture and accountability in the Philippines, are we sure PAL and Cebu are doing their weight restrictions properly?
Was on record here questioning the wisdom of using those planes at Caticlan. However, it takes two to tango, so to be fair, one needs to see who are operating those aircraft.
Quoting Pacific (Reply 5): I have read that there is actually 950 metres of paved surface but the airport has moved the runway markings so that the usable length is still only 896 metres after the recent 60 metre extension.
That was to provide a safety threshold.
Quoting Pacific (Reply 5): On the other side, you have to fly over a road before reaching the sea which may influence the 'clearway'.
COSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1473 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5556 times:
CO I thought the Philippine ATO has beened everyone but PAL ???
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13336 posts, RR: 64 Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5544 times:
Actually I´ve seen the airport myself about 20 years ago (I didn´t fly in, but we came with my ex-brother-in-law´s jeepney up from Iloilo City via Kalibo on the road visible in post 6).
Boracay Island is a major tourist destination in the Philippines. It is located at about 20 minutes by boat off the northern coast of the bigger island of Panay, on which Caticlan is located as the nearest airport.
Back then IIRC the airport only had a grass strip.
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1033 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1486 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4427 posts, 
From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1473 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13336 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
