Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Sdmccray1984
- Posts: 150
- Joined:
A350 landing at LaGuardia?
When USAirways Flight 1549 was airborne but losing power, it was interesting that Teterboro was recommended by TRACON. Obviously, they couldn’t make it there, but it has me thinking: Can a fully loaded A350 or B777 land at LaGuardia if absolutely necessary? And could an empty one take off from there to shuttle back over to JFK or Newark? What are the specs? Thanks guys.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
The runway at Teterboro is equally as long as the runways at LaGuardia at 7,000 feet. The problem with an A350 trying to land there is part of the runways sit on piers, so I don't know if they were designed to support that kind of weight.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
AirKevin wrote:The runway at Teterboro is equally as long as the runways at LaGuardia at 7,000 feet. The problem with an A350 trying to land there is part of the runways sit on piers, so I don't know if they were designed to support that kind of weight.
I highly doubt that piers would be designed that couldn’t handle at least a one-off use from a larger than expected aircraft. All structures are designed with a safety factor, usually 2-4 times the expected maximum loading. The force of a hard landing from an A320 is likely comparable to a normal landing from an A350, considering that the A350 also has more wheels to distribute the forces.
Also, those piers have been designed to hold a massive amount of dead load (think planes parked nose-to-tail and 24” of wet snow, then the safety factor on top of that), a force much greater than even a fully loaded A380 setting down hard.
The piers may be ‘rated’ for a certain landing weight, after which point they may require a cursory inspection, but nothing about the piers would preclude a one-off landing from even the largest planes.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
An A320 or 737 would have no problem landing under completely normal circumstances at TEB.
In an emergency so extreme that JFK wasn't an option, LGA wouldn't break off into the Long Island Sound is an A350 landed there. They'd just have to find a place to put it with that big wing span until they flew or trucked it off.
In an emergency so extreme that JFK wasn't an option, LGA wouldn't break off into the Long Island Sound is an A350 landed there. They'd just have to find a place to put it with that big wing span until they flew or trucked it off.
-
- PlanetPlane23
- Posts: 1
- Joined:
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
In the 1980s and a little beyond, LGA got plenty of domestic-use L-1011s, DC-10s, A-300s, 767s. All a bit smaller and lighter than an A-350, but close enough.
-
- GalaxyFlyer
- Posts: 12405
- Joined:
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
The KLGA runways have a PCN of 63 FBWT, I doubt a landing 350 has a higher ACN than 63.
-
- ArcticFlyer
- Posts: 433
- Joined:
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
For comparison's sake, 22L at EWR only has 8,200 feet of available landing distance (due to displaced threshold) and 4R at JFK is only 8,400 feet long. Both of these runways regularly see widebody arrivals. Not having flown either the 777 or the A350 I'm not sure if there is a weight penalty on those runways but, when you consider the fact that (at least for FAA rules) airliners need to be able to land within 60% of the available distance, 7,000 feet should be plenty in an emergency.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
GalaxyFlyer wrote:The KLGA runways have a PCN of 63 FBWT, I doubt a landing 350 has a higher ACN than 63.
KSAN has a PCN of 75 and LDA of 7280 and has regularly seen 77W service and sees multiple daily A350 service, so KLGA should be just fine in the apocalypse where KJFK and KEWR are unavailable. Each of the KLAX primary landing runways have a PCN of 70, and...well...Yeah.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
ArcticFlyer wrote:For comparison's sake, 22L at EWR only has 8,200 feet of available landing distance (due to displaced threshold) and 4R at JFK is only 8,400 feet long. Both of these runways regularly see widebody arrivals. Not having flown either the 777 or the A350 I'm not sure if there is a weight penalty on those runways but, when you consider the fact that (at least for FAA rules) airliners need to be able to land within 60% of the available distance, 7,000 feet should be plenty in an emergency.
Depends on runway conditions. This article explains what can happen.
https://www.flyingmag.com/jumpseat-comp ... e-request/
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
During recent runway works in MEL closing the main 16/34, our A350s were routinly landed on shorter cross strip 27 exiting at N, which is only 4740'. The A350 has lower approach speeds to the A330.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
The runway at LGA can land a 764 on daily commericial operation.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
zeke wrote:During recent runway works in MEL closing the main 16/34, our A350s were routinly landed on shorter cross strip 27 exiting at N, which is only 4740'. The A350 has lower approach speeds to the A330.
Presumably, for the paperwork, the LDA was the full length, which is around 7500", right?
ArcticFlyer wrote:For comparison's sake, 22L at EWR only has 8,200 feet of available landing distance (due to displaced threshold) and 4R at JFK is only 8,400 feet long. Both of these runways regularly see widebody arrivals.
I'll see your 8200' and raise you BOS's runway 9-27, which is 7000' long. It sees both widebody takeoffs and arrivals.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
Airbus' airport planning guide shows approximately 1650m = 5500' minimum(<165t), 2100=7000' maximum(235t) required dry runway landing distance at sea level for A350-1000.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
Airbus' airport planning guide shows approximately 1650m = 5500' minimum(<165t), 2100=7000' maximum(235t) required dry runway landing distance at sea level for A350-1000.
-
- AAPilot48Heavy
- Posts: 599
- Joined:
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
Sdmccray1984 wrote:When USAirways Flight 1549 was airborne but losing power, it was interesting that Teterboro was recommended by TRACON. Obviously, they couldn’t make it there, but it has me thinking: Can a fully loaded A350 or B777 land at LaGuardia if absolutely necessary? And could an empty one take off from there to shuttle back over to JFK or Newark? What are the specs? Thanks guys.
Easily. Now, I don't know what you mean by 'fully loaded', but landing would be zero issue at all. Frankly, they could even take off with quite a bit of weight, thought not MTOW.
The bigger issue at LGA, as others have alluded to, is the wingspan and how it would impact other operations once on the ground.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
zeke wrote:During recent runway works in MEL closing the main 16/34, our A350s were routinly landed on shorter cross strip 27 exiting at N, which is only 4740'. The A350 has lower approach speeds to the A330.
Hey Zeke,
Did you scrape the first class passengers off the flight deck door after the landing?
Cheers,
Hendric
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
Originally they had planned to make the 777 with folding wingtips to be able to taxi and park at LGA - now we see the folding wingtips on the 777X
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
Kno wrote:Originally they had planned to make the 777 with folding wingtips to be able to taxi and park at LGA - now we see the folding wingtips on the 777X
Yes, though they are very different. On the original 777-200 design, nearly half the wing would fold, including structural components. The 777X will only fold the tips to allow for fitting into the current box
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
But the takeoff will suffer enough...
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 21730
- Joined:
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
rt23456p wrote:But the takeoff will suffer enough...
Not as much as you might think. We used to take off from 10R at DUB, which is 8652ft and thus not that much longer to LGA 7000 foot runways, on 11-hour flights with a full load in the A350-900.
Of course, environmental factors play a role but they're both basically at sea level and LGA doesn't get that hot.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
rt23456p wrote:But the takeoff will suffer enough...
If they were able to get the Dreamlifter out of Jabara an A350 could most likely get out of LGA if it had to
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
I’ve landed an A340-600 on PER 06 which is 7096ft.
-
- airportgeek
- Posts: 173
- Joined:
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
Definitely possible for takeoff and landing. The LGA runways are around 2134m. According to the ACAP, with 2000m runways and sea level(0 ft), the A350-900 could take off at 235 metric tons. Operational empty is around ~142 tons, and MTOW is 283 tons. So the A350-900 could definitely take off with a solid payload and fuel. Obviously the conditions are idealized, but still lots of margin.
https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta136/files/2022-05/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A350-900-1000.pdf
https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta136/files/2022-05/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A350-900-1000.pdf
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 21730
- Joined:
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
airportgeek wrote:Definitely possible for takeoff and landing. The LGA runways are around 2134m. According to the ACAP, with 2000m runways and sea level(0 ft), the A350-900 could take off at 235 metric tons. Operational empty is around ~142 tons, and MTOW is 283 tons. So the A350-900 could definitely take off with a solid payload and fuel. Obviously the conditions are idealized, but still lots of margin.
https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta136/files/2022-05/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A350-900-1000.pdf
The operational empty weight is WAY below 142 tonnes. And MTOW 283 tonnes is only on some of the newer tails. More typically under 280 tonnes.
That notwithstanding, you are right. 235 tonnes will get you a long way.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
hitower3 wrote:zeke wrote:During recent runway works in MEL closing the main 16/34, our A350s were routinly landed on shorter cross strip 27 exiting at N, which is only 4740'. The A350 has lower approach speeds to the A330.
Hey Zeke,
Did you scrape the first class passengers off the flight deck door after the landing?
Cheers,
Hendric
Not sure what you are trying to say, the approach speed of the A350 would typically be lower than a 737 or 767, the deceleration rate rate required to make the first exit would be lower.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
Starlionblue wrote:airportgeek wrote:Definitely possible for takeoff and landing. The LGA runways are around 2134m. According to the ACAP, with 2000m runways and sea level(0 ft), the A350-900 could take off at 235 metric tons. Operational empty is around ~142 tons, and MTOW is 283 tons. So the A350-900 could definitely take off with a solid payload and fuel. Obviously the conditions are idealized, but still lots of margin.
https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta136/files/2022-05/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A350-900-1000.pdf
The operational empty weight is WAY below 142 tonnes. And MTOW 283 tonnes is only on some of the newer tails. More typically under 280 tonnes.
That notwithstanding, you are right. 235 tonnes will get you a long way.
I think the 142 tonnes comes from wiki. People have adjusted it to the correct value however it get reverted back to this incorrect value.
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
zeke wrote:
Not sure what you are trying to say, the approach speed of the A350 would typically be lower than a 737 or 767, the deceleration rate rate required to make the first exit would be lower.
Dear Zeke,
I know this...
I was trying to be funny but I am a German.
Cheers!
-
- Aircellist
- Posts: 1788
- Joined:
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
hitower3 wrote:zeke wrote:
Not sure what you are trying to say, the approach speed of the A350 would typically be lower than a 737 or 767, the deceleration rate rate required to make the first exit would be lower.
Dear Zeke,
I know this...
I was trying to be funny but I am a German.
Cheers!
Re: A350 landing at LaGuardia?
For the A300-B4 to operate out of LGA, Eastern Air Lines had to get Airbus to modify the footprint of the MLG. IIRC, the bogie was lengthened by about 4" and the track was widened by 2-3". The MLG (Built by Messier at the time) was named the LGA style and also required modified MLG main doors and changes to equipment in the wheel well.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests