Question about the giant 170

[TOOL CRIB]

I don't know about Chautauqua, but (if memory serves me) Comair doesn't even have rw35 numbers in the CR7, which is curious because we have numbers for rw33 in DCA which is shorter. Must be a "don't use it if you don't need too" mentality. I don't know?

You don't need runway numbers if you're already in the air. At least at ASA, we just have a generic "Stopping distance" number on our speed cards. For the 50 seater it's usually between 3000-3500ft. That is of course from the point of touchdown. You need the runway numbers to plan the flight before takeoff, but once you're off the ground you can land wherever your pilot's discretion will let you.

 

[wahoo250]

because we park at the C gate. MDA used 35/17 when they parked at the F terminal. When MDA moved twards the end to the C gates most landings/TO's used the 27's.

Dont you guys get paid by the hour???

 

[Mr Wu]

You don't need runway numbers if you're already in the air. At least at ASA, we just have a generic "Stopping distance" number on our speed cards. For the 50 seater it's usually between 3000-3500ft. That is of course from the point of touchdown. You need the runway numbers to plan the flight before takeoff, but once you're off the ground you can land wherever your pilot's discretion will let you.

You're smoking crack.

 

[willNOTfly4free]

You need the runway numbers to plan the flight before takeoff, but once you're off the ground you can land wherever your pilot's discretion will let you.

Not when flying 121, buddy.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

Prove me wrong fellas! I'll give you a hint. FAR 121.195. Notice the phrase "no person may take off...". You must meet the performance criteria for landing weight on the most favorable runway at your planned destination and stop within 60% of the runway. Wet or slippery runways must be 115% longer than the length needed for landing in those conditions. Again this is planned performance before you take off.

Once you are airborne, in 121 ops, you can land wherever you want as long as your company procedures dictate you have adequate stopping distance. You don't need to be able to stop in 60% of the runway. Just like you don't need your full reserve fuel when you land at your destination.


So you are flying to a podunk airport with 2 runways in your CRJ. You planned on using the 10000ft runway when you ran your performance numbers. However, enroute a 182RG gears up and blocks the runway. You now only have a 4500ft runway to land on and you are landing at a weight that dictates you can stop in 3000ft. Legal? Yes. Would you divert to another airport? That's up to you. You probably wont be able to takeoff again from that 4500ft runway, at least with any people on board. But it is legal to land.

 

[The Drizzle]

I always love a post that is meant to mock or make another pilot look like a pu$$y only to backfire with reality.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

I always love a post that is meant to mock or make another pilot look like a pu$$y only to backfire with reality.

Yeah one is an ATP and the other is a GOLD SEAL CFI!!! How can they be wrong?!?!

 

[paddlehigh]

too much brains and not enough nuts, or maybe too much plane and not enough pilot so they think

 

[Minimaniac]

Just landed 17 two weeks ago... not a big deal. We operate the 170 three times daily out of EYW, which is shorter than 17/35 and 26 at PHL. We also use rwy 33 for landings in DCA with regularity. 17/35 is simply a longer taxi, and ATC decided that it is more benficial to their traffic flows to have us land on the 27's/9's. Also, why waste brakes stopping on a shorter runway when a longer one is available? As was said before, when we parked on the F terminal in PHL, 17/35 was the norm for us.

 

[G2T]

Just landed 17 two weeks ago... not a big deal. We operate the 170 three times daily out of EYW, which is shorter than 17/35 and 26 at PHL. We also use rwy 33 for landings in DCA with regularity. 17/35 is simply a longer taxi, and ATC decided that it is more benficial to their traffic flows to have us land on the 27's/9's. Also, why waste brakes stopping on a shorter runway when a longer one is available? As was said before, when we parked on the F terminal in PHL, 17/35 was the norm for us.

Thanks, makes sense. Just curious. Hadn't thought about parking.