Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Just in on the good ol' Tabloid TV

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I don't see the issue here - if you've got the numbers. The problem with airports like this (short runways wiith ILS approaches - Carlsbad, CA and Goshen, IN for example) is some guys tend to fly the glideslope to the touchdown point at ref +10 (or maybe more). That automatically takes off a minimum of 1000' plus even more for the "float" factor. The short runway becomes even shorter. Mix that with a dropoff at the end of the runway and you probably have the best arguement that I can think of to fly the airplane by the book.

By the way, we have our maintenance performed at the Carlsbad airport and we operate our mid-sized, swept wing jet out of there frequently with absolutely no problem.

'Sled
 
Last edited:
Nope, Not a major guy and probably a lot younger than you think...born in the 70's

You can put the DC8 into reverse while in the air....trust me it's fun!

Flown into Sun Valley and Aspen......Quito is in Ecuador (South America)....and they are two completely different vegetables.

Have the utmost respect for anyone flying 135 and corporate....

Very similiar job to mine, just smaller, newer and generally nicer equipment.

Eastern flew 727's into Key West also and Piedmont with the F28....the F28 would have been a better example of short runway, no leading edge device and a bigger aircraft.

Couldn't understand a blanket statement about 5000ft min with a light jet, excuse me, a MID-SIZE jet.....which was the reason for my first post...

We are still paid to fly people or boxes from point A to B?

I didn't mean to offend, I just considered it a light jet...find it amusing when folks get wrapped around the axle about size.

I call the A320 a light twin...love getting folks BP up with that one too.

Just like the 737 is FLUF.....FAT LITTLE UGLY F**KER!

Ya'll need a sense of humor!
 
smfav8r said:
I call the A320 a light twin...love getting folks BP up with that one too. Ya'll need a sense of humor!
I agree. A buddy of mine flies a B747. He calls his C210 his ultralight. :D I guess size does matter.

'Sled
 
HawkerF/O said:
A lot of runway for what? Piston twins, singles and KingAirs don't count. I don't know many Jet pilots that would operate anything bigger than a 5xx series Citation (3-hole falcons excluded) out of a 4600 foot strip unless all other options were exhausted. I think HP Jepps are 5000 feet minimum. Just my .02 cents.

The two aircraft I fly could (and can) do it. (Falcon 10 and 20)
 
I can't imagine why this has turned into a discussion of which aircraft can and cannot make it into this airport. This accident had nothing to do with the runway choice, it most likely had to do with a bad landing after a bad approach. Get it straight, people, most of these accidents have to do with us, not the plane.

Ace
 
Ace-of-the-Base said:
I can't imagine why this has turned into a discussion of which aircraft can and cannot make it into this airport. This accident had nothing to do with the runway choice, it most likely had to do with a bad landing after a bad approach. Get it straight, people, most of these accidents have to do with us, not the plane.

Ace

We have a winner!
 
Ace-of-the-Base said:
I can't imagine why this has turned into a discussion of which aircraft can and cannot make it into this airport. This accident had nothing to do with the runway choice, it most likely had to do with a bad landing after a bad approach. Get it straight, people, most of these accidents have to do with us, not the plane.

Ace

I agree. We don't know what happened but 4600ft in a 560 is a non issue every day of the week. God bless them all.
 
HawkerF/O said:
When I was flying Hawkers, I used 5000 feet as a min runway lenght to operate on a regular basis.. Landing is not the problem, it's getting out of there that would concern me, but apparently not many others share my concern I guess...But something without slats, like Hawker, etc, I just can't see it. Once again, my concern would be departing, not landing.

Come on, HawkerF/O, you know that given the conditions for a particular day the Value of D can be computed......making a 4600 ft strip longer than it actually is!

I know you knew that. I was just happy that I remembered that Hawkers had a Value of D.
 
TaxiDriver said:
Come on, HawkerF/O, you know that given the conditions for a particular day the Value of D can be computed......making a 4600 ft strip longer than it actually is!

I know you knew that. I was just happy that I remembered that Hawkers had a Value of D.
If you know anyone that knows how to use those charts 3 days after they leave recurrent, please have them come forward. The Brittish make a fine aircraft, but those charts are for the birds. If I could find the guy that designed those charts, I'd cold cock his a$$.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top