Question about the giant 170

[G2T]

Hey 170 drivers..got a question for you:

Why is it that none of the Chattutleublic 170's ever land on rwy 35 in PHL? It can't be length, MDA used to do it, and I watched one land on 28 in ROC yesterday which is the same. SW lands it's 737s on it all the time, and Mainline US will throw a few planes there too if the wind is right. What gives?

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Chick Factor.

 

[BoilerUP]

I've seen Shuttle Delta flights land on both 35 and 17. Granted it wasn't a normal west operation (strong winds down the runway each time) but they have done it...

 

[DrewBlows]

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?

 

[SizzleChest]

Doesn't make sense to use it given that they park on C gates.... the taxi from 35 to C would be a pain for ramp or ground control as you would have to cut through a lot of pavement. 27R to Spot 7 is the best way.

 

[SennaP1]

Now, Now. The answer everybody is looking for is.....



They lack the airmanship, the FO's have spikey hair, they underbid RWY 35 and 17.

Something to that effect.

 

[LearLove]

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.

 

[Jack Mehoff]

Now, Now. The answer everybody is looking for is.....



They lack the airmanship, the FO's have spikey hair, they underbid RWY 35 and 17.

Something to that effect.

Don't forget about the IPOD's and Backpacks! haha

 

[BlueCanoe]

Hey 170 drivers..got a question for you:

Why is it that none of the Chattutleublic 170's ever land on rwy 35 in PHL? It can't be length, MDA used to do it, and I watched one land on 28 in ROC yesterday which is the same. SW lands it's 737s on it all the time, and Mainline US will throw a few planes there too if the wind is right. What gives?

We did when we parked at the F gates.

 

[8HourPilot]

It was tough to read your post, I had my oakley's on as well. :laugh:

Don't forget about the IPOD's and Backpacks! haha

 

[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.

 

[The Drizzle]

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

not talking to you ******************************nozzle

 

[Axel]

Hey 170 drivers..got a question for you:

Why is it that none of the Chattutleublic 170's ever land on rwy 35 in PHL? It can't be length, MDA used to do it, and I watched one land on 28 in ROC yesterday which is the same. SW lands it's 737s on it all the time, and Mainline US will throw a few planes there too if the wind is right. What gives?

We were just waiting for some idiot on flightinfo to imply it was stupid. Now that you have revealed yourself to be that idiot the 35 landings at PHL can recommence. About time you said something. That unnecessarily short taxi from 27R to the C gates was getting annoying.

 

[WSurf]

Hmmm, I agree with Tool! Kinda like your alternate airport, its put on your release for legality purposes! But once your in the air, you can go to any airport your heart and dispatcher likes!

 

[G2T]

We were just waiting for some idiot on flightinfo to imply it was stupid. Now that you have revealed yourself to be that idiot the 35 landings at PHL can recommence. About time you said something. That unnecessarily short taxi from 27R to the C gates was getting annoying.

A little touchy are we? I was just commenting on what I see. They used to land there, and now they don't. If you read the thread I said I hadn't thought about the parking situation. How silly of me to forget that you don't park at the F gates with us lowly express pilots...oh wait, nevermind. I'm glad you don't use 35, more room for us, not only for landing but in the F terminal. There may have been some sarcasm in my original post, I'll admit to that. But you know what? This is the pretend world of flightinfo and I don't care what you think, I was just asking a question.

 

[SizzleChest]

....more room in F terminal to sit and wait for the ramp to stop shooting craps up against your tire and park your hiney....at least in C the rampers push you while listening to their ipods and wearing sunglasses with their backpacks on as they finish the shift....

 

[Axel]

Actually, I am one of the lowly express pilots also. I will go to the giant 170 when I have a gun to my head and not a moment sooner. If/when I do, I will land on whichever runway and whatever airport is best suited to the circumstances. Just as you and all the other professionals in this industry do regardless whether we are in the big or minor leagues.

Sensitive? Actually I will admit to that, but only in the context that I am sensitive to the way management plays us off against one another and what willing victims we are, as evidenced by the implied tone of the original question.

 

[BlackPilot628]

I know there are some differences between the certificates.
At Shuttle we must have landing numbers for the runway of intended landing.
Unless of course it's an emergency.

If we don't have any numbers on the plane, AERODATA people will configure them and have then ACARS'ed over to us. (via dispatch)
This can suck sometimes, as we diverted to CHA one afternoon trying to get into ATL. We got the landing numbers right away; but once on the ground it took them 3.5 hours for us to get Take off numbers.

Some of the post above have been referring to runway length. Runway length only plays a part in your TO numbers. For Example, For those of you that fly jets into HPN. You will see that taking off runway 34 you will take a large weight penalty. On the E170 we loose like 4,000lbs of weight taking off 34.
If we take off runway 16. We can take pretty close to MGW. With in a couple of thousand pounds.