Airline Pilot Central Forums
Page 162 of 163
« First
62
112
152
158
159
160
161
162
163
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Charter (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/charter/)
-   -   Swift Air - The truth (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/charter/116014-swift-air-truth.html)

captjns 03-09-2022 10:59 AM
Originally Posted by gearup1006 (Post 3385678)
Yes poor runway choice, from what I understand the landing distance was over 6000 and the 6003 is from the start of the runway not the 1000 foot markers, so in reality they had 5000 feet. Wet probably standing water from a thunderstorm passing
Mr. Boeing defines landing distance as follows:

The reference landing distance is a reference distance from 50 ft above the threshold to stop based on a reference landing weight….
Adjustments are made for slope, wind, weight etc. Info is contained in the FCOM for deviations from standard paths and speeds.

Brickhut 03-09-2022 11:39 PM
Originally Posted by captjns (Post 3385944)
Mr. Boeing defines landing distance as follows:



Adjustments are made for slope, wind, weight etc. Info is contained in the FCOM for deviations from standard paths and speeds.
”Mr. Boeing” also said the MAX was a safe airplane. He’s a shifty SOB, I don’t know if I’d take him at his word.

captjns 03-10-2022 02:16 AM
Originally Posted by Brickhut (Post 3386282)
”Mr. Boeing” also said the MAX was a safe airplane. He’s a shifty SOB, I don’t know if I’d take him at his word.
38 years on 737 as it morphed from the -100 through the MAX-9 and future -10, with magical STCs, I’d take Boeing at their word when it comes to landing performance… just saying.

dera 03-10-2022 11:17 AM
Originally Posted by captjns (Post 3385944)
Mr. Boeing defines landing distance as follows:



Adjustments are made for slope, wind, weight etc. Info is contained in the FCOM for deviations from standard paths and speeds.
And that's the factored landing distance as well. So if the book says 5990ft, in reality you use a lot less.

threeighteen 03-10-2022 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by gearup1006 (Post 3385678)
Yes poor runway choice, from what I understand the landing distance was over 6000 and the 6003 is from the start of the runway not the 1000 foot markers, so in reality they had 5000 feet. Wet probably standing water from a thunderstorm passing
Originally Posted by Brickhut (Post 3386282)
”Mr. Boeing” also said the MAX was a safe airplane. He’s a shifty SOB, I don’t know if I’d take him at his word.
Landing distance at 121 ops is calculated touching down 1500' past the threshold to account for the 50' obstacle, and also includes the FAA factored distance percentage from AC91-79A which on a wet runway makes the landing distance close to 200% of what is actually needed. So landing on the 6,000 foot runway was probably doable, but like others have said, still not a great idea.

Pumperpilot 03-12-2022 05:28 AM
No defense for a bad runway choice made soley due to a 15kt crosswind. Boeing Shmoeing.

Flybywyre 03-18-2022 02:25 AM
It would be nice to see what the data says. 6000ft is plenty to stop a 737.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TiredSoul 03-18-2022 06:00 PM
March madness no doubt…lost a tire…whoopsie

https://avherald.com/h?article=4f62b761&opt=0

nitefr8dog 03-18-2022 06:35 PM
[QUOTE=Flybywyre;3390640]It would be nice to see what the data says. 6000ft is plenty to stop a 737.


Evidently not.............

Pumperpilot 03-19-2022 03:27 AM
Hmmmm too much attention in a short span of time


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:14 AM.
Page 162 of 163
« First
62
112
152
158
159
160
161
162
163
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands