yowviewer From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 45 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6621 times:
According to Wiki, YUL runway 28 is 7000 ft (2134m) and is rarely used for international departures to Europe based on my observations growing up there. Yesterday Swiss 87 in their A330 actually departed off rwy 28 on its way to Zurich. The active was 24L (24R is closed for maintenance) and the winds were between 330 and 350 degrees at 20kts. Since growing up living at the end of runway 28 I have never seen Swiss, or any other europe-bound aircraft use 28 with one exception - KLM last summer in their MD-11.
My question is could the aircraft only have been half-full of passengers, or what has to fall into place for the Captain to decide that a 7000 ft runway is just fine for an A330 flying from YUL to ZRH ? Is it the version of A330 that Swiss is using, or the engines ? Note: 10 minutes later AF345 departed 24L for Paris in their 777 using a good 75% of the runway. Thanks !
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 1, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6573 times:
Quoting yowviewer (Thread starter): My question is could the aircraft only have been half-full of passengers, or what has to fall into place for the Captain to decide that a 7000 ft runway is just fine for an A330 flying from YUL to ZRH ?
As long as the performance calculation works out, you're good to go. YUL-ZRH is only 3200nm, well within the A330's comfortable range. There's no way they're at max weight. It's just a question of enough thrust; the most likely situation is that they usually run a derate on the longer runway and they have to use less derate (or full rate) on the shorter runway to make up the performance.
As a reference point, Boeing often launches aircraft out of BFI (~9000') at maximum weight without any major issues. Shaving off 2000' to run a commercial load at partial range shouldn't be a big problem out of YUL.
Quoting yowviewer (Thread starter): Is it the version of A330 that Swiss is using, or the engines ?
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4280 posts, RR: 36 Reply 2, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6507 times:
Just out of interest, I ran the numbers using the performance for an A330-300, using our performance computer. I am not sure however, if our A330s are the same as Swiss'.
Using the conditions you state, and 30C, I calculate the A330 can take off at a weight of 222,600 Kgs, or about 7400 Kgs below MTOW. This is using Config 3, and packs off.
That is more than enough for a full load, YUL-ZRH with a GVA alternate, and about 5000 Kgs for freight. Again, that is assuming Swiss' A330s are similar to ours.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8211 posts, RR: 28 Reply 3, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6136 times:
yowviewer From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6097 times:
Excellent stuff, thanks for all the information guys. I am a bit surprised that I don't see them do this a little more often, but it could also be partially due to the noise abatement procedures..... I hear there are quite a few calls in to ATC every time a "Heavy" uses Runway 28. I have one neighbour who complains, and wants to know what airline it was. I usually tell her it's "Quebecair".
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4280 posts, RR: 36 Reply 6, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5729 times:
Quoting yowviewer (Reply 4): Excellent stuff, thanks for all the information guys. I am a bit surprised that I don't see them do this a little more often, but it could also be partially due to the noise abatement procedures..... I hear there are quite a few calls in to ATC every time a "Heavy" uses Runway 28. I have one neighbour who complains, and wants to know what airline it was. I usually tell her it's "Quebecair".
Oddly enough, I would guess the biggest issue is timing. Unless prepared, and warned in advance, the cabin does not have enough time for a 28 departure, it is a very short taxi! It's usually easier to go the extra few minutes to 24L.
28 is an tough approach for a heavy. It is a non-precision approach, and the step downs (over downtown Montreal) are pretty steep. We often do it in the simulator to keep in practice and unless you slow first and get flaps out early, you'll never make it!
Ahhhh Quebecair, oh to hear those RR Speys again!
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4280 posts, RR: 36 Reply 8, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5107 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 7): LX's A333s were acquired from 2009 til 2012, so they are definately equal or better in performance than AC's 1999-2001 A333s.
While that is likely, it is not a given.
Some airlines derate the engines for engine wear and reduced maintenance. Also, some airlines licence the aircraft for a lower MTOW to reduce landing fees.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8211 posts, RR: 28 Reply 10, posted (10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5015 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting zeke (Reply 9): I computed the actual performance on our system,
24L
TORA/ASDA 9600
TODA 10584
SLOPE -0.21
The A330-300 can go max weight, which is our case 235t at ISA+15 (30 deg C) with still some margin
What about runway 28 (I think that's the runway he was asking about)?
Thanks Zeke.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3952 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (10 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4924 times:
While we are talking about runway length and at the risk of incurring the mods wrath can one of the flyers explain the following terms that Piano X uses in its outputs:
The takeoff distance on a dry runway is the greater of (some other as well, e.g. all engines, see the regs):
1) Distance covered from the brake release to a point at which the aircraft is at 35 feet above the takeoff surface, assuming the failure of the critical engine at VEF and recognized at V1
2) 115% of the distance covered from brake release to a point at which the aircraft is at 35 feet above the takeoff surface, assuming all engines operating.
Balanced field length basically means the point where you would reject a takeoff and the distance to continue would be the same.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2749 times:
Quoting longhauler (Reply 6): 28 is an tough approach for a heavy. It is a non-precision approach, and the step downs (over downtown Montreal) are pretty steep. We often do it in the simulator to keep in practice and unless you slow first and get flaps out early, you'll never make it!
It's high time AC puts some GPS on those 767's. Then you could fly the RNAV app on rwy 28, making it a bit easier to manage than the NDB app on 28.
Thenoflyzone
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4280 posts, RR: 36 Reply 15, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 14): It's high time AC puts some GPS on those 767's. Then you could fly the RNAV app on rwy 28, making it a bit easier to manage than the NDB app on 28.
Some do have GPS, some don't. With the advent of the B787, I can't see putting more in the B767. The GPS installation in the older A320s apparently costs about $1M a ship!
Regardless .... they would still make us do the NDB approach in the simulator ... just in case. A couple sims ago, I did that approach, lost an engine in the go-around, then did a single engined Cat3 on 6L. If I ever saw a day like that in real life ....
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2307 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2583 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 14): It's high time AC puts some GPS on those 767's. Then you could fly the RNAV app on rwy 28, making it a bit easier to manage than the NDB app on 28.
Quoting zeke (Reply 16): Sounds more than just a GPS, that would probably be a MMR and ADIRU update as well.
No 767-200/-300s have ADIRUs. They have the seperate 3 IRUs and 2 ADCs (Air Data Computers). Only the 767-400s have 3 ADIRUs. Likewise, most older 767s don't have MMRs. They have the seperate GPS and ILS receivers (if they have GPS, otherwise just ILS receivers). If the airplane has an MMR then it has GPS.
Unfortunately, it would take an FMC retrofit to add GPS and RNAV/RNP capability. GPS was added to the 767 and 757 concurrent with the newer "Pegasus" FMC. You either have both GPS and Pegasus FMCs, or you have neither.
There are some STCed installations where older airplanes (especially 737 Classics and 757s) added a GPS input only to EGPWS for the terrain look-ahead, but not the FMC. Not sure if any old 767s have that, but probably, but it wouldn't add RNAV capability just give you better terrain avoidance capability.
So, if AC wants to add GPS to their 767s they are also going to have to add expensive Pegasus FMCs. Evidently, they've made a business decision not to do this.
All 767s and 757s built after around 2000 (give a take a year or two) have GPS, Pegagus FMCs and RNAV/RNP capability. For example only the last about 14 767s that AA purchased (and some like number of 757s) were delivered with GPS and Pegagus FMCs. The 757/767 Pegagus FMC is every bit as technically advanced and capable as the 777 FMCs or any other airplane like the A330.
DFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 469 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2555 times:
I flew a 777-200ER from IAH-NRT back in 2005. We got off runway 15R at IAH in just under 7,000 ft. That was a pretty heavy bird with fuel lift for about 14 hours + holding + alternate. I remember the flight was pretty darn full passenger wise too.
I know you are talking about a different aircraft, so my point is that most airplanes can really boogie and get off the runway when they need to.
While I don't have any specific numbers for the flight the OP is talking about, you are only talking about perhaps 8-9 hours of flight time and temperatures that aren't that hot at YUL so I'm not surprised that it got of a 7,000 ft runway.
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2307 posts, RR: 7 Reply 20, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2325 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 19): Did you read the text that I quoted ? Does a 767 even have a MMR ?
Yes, I thought I responded. MMRs were cut in on all Boeing models quite a few years ago (I forget the exact time but it was also around 2000). All current 767-200/-300/-400 built since then have MMRs. The MMR combines GPS and ILS receiver capability. So older 767s without GPS only have ILS receivers. Those with both would have separate GPS receivers and ILS receivers.
I hope I answered your question correctly. This is off-topic from the original subject, of course, but interesting.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jun 2010, 45 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8211 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
