Pacific
Topic Author
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

Why I Would Refuse To Fly To Caticlan (Boracay)

Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:07 am

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.

I have found after much digging through conflicting numbers that Caticlan Airport has a runway length of 2,938 feet. http://business.inquirer.net/money/t...240715/Caticlan-flight-rules-eased


Airlines and Aircraft:

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!

Zest uses the MA-60 aircraft which stands out because it is an extremely heavy aircraft for the size. This 56-seat aircraft’s OEW is even heavier than the 72-seat ATR-72-500 aircraft that Cebu Pacific uses http://www.atraircraft.com/public/at...products.php?aid=506&pid=28706 and http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2001/2001%20-%202982.html The MA-60 is also 1,500kgs heavier when empty than PAL Express’ 50-seat Q300 aircraft. http://www.bombardier.com/en/aerospa...ducts/commercial-aircraft/q-series Information is vague about this aircraft but an official-looking PDF quotes a 3,600 feet required for a fully loaded takeoff. http://www.chinaga.com/UserFiles/MA60Aircraft.pdf This probably means the MA-60 would safely manage to takeoff with a limited number of passengers, say 25, instead of the full 56 and they are supposed to be restricted like this on this route. That said, they had 55 passengers when they overran in June. http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=481030

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.

[Edited 2010-02-14 17:16:03] For hyperlinks

[Edited 2010-02-14 17:16:31]
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: Why I Would Refuse To Fly To Caticlan (Boracay)

Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:26 am

I am struggling to see any logic to this thread...

Quoting Pacific (Thread starter):
Why I Would Refuse To Fly To Caticlan (Boracay)

Thanks for sharing?
 
scrubbsywg
Posts: 1095
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:35 am

RE: Why I Would Refuse To Fly To Caticlan (Boracay)

Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:26 am

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?"
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17114
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why I Would Refuse To Fly To Caticlan (Boracay)

Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:20 am

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." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9919
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Why I Would Refuse To Fly To Caticlan (Boracay)

Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:01 am

Quoting Pacific (Thread starter):

I have found after much digging through conflicting numbers that Caticlan Airport has a runway length of 2,938 feet. http://business.inquirer.net/money/t...eased

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'.

Quoting Pacific (Thread starter):

SEAIR uses the Dornier 328 aircraft to Caticlan.

Actually the 328-110, they have slightly better engines, better flaps, and ground spoilers than the original 328-100.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Pacific
Topic Author
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

RE: Why I Would Refuse To Fly To Caticlan (Boracay)

Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:31 pm

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
Posts: 5255
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Why I Would Refuse To Fly To Caticlan (Boracay)

Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:04 pm

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.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pierre Lacombe
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Felix Sieder

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=120

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.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Schmidt
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jordi Grife - Iberian Spotters

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=41

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'.

Admittedly, things get scary there at times.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Hemmings
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Hemmings


.....the barrier operator has to be extraordinarily alert and quick in lowering the boom.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
COSPN
Posts: 1535
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Why I Would Refuse To Fly To Caticlan (Boracay)

Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:21 am

CO I thought the Philippine ATO has beened everyone but PAL ???
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Why I Would Refuse To Fly To Caticlan (Boracay)

Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:54 am

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.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, speedbored and 11 guests