737-800 Limitations
10-01-2012 | 06:24 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
737-800 Limitations
Hey guys what is the deal with SWA's 737-800's. Hearing alot of talk that the short runways in MDW and being wet runways is a problem. So what does SWA do with 30+ 737-800's if they are limited on landing on a short wet runway AKA MDW?
10-01-2012 | 09:44 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: 737 F.O.
I went in last week near max landing weight with high gusty winds that raised the approach speed above V-ref. The only approved auto brake setting was max braking. The runway was dry and if I remember correctly max braking showed a stopping margin over 1100 feet. Just because I was interested I also looked at the numbers for wet-good braking and we were still legal but obviously with a reduced stopping margin. I didn't check fair or poor braking calculations but I would guess fair would have yielded little to no stopping margin and I'm pretty sure poor would have sent us to an alternate. When the snow starts falling in Chicago I'm sure there will be multiple operational decisions made to right size the equipment to the existing conditions.
10-01-2012 | 10:25 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
From: 737 Right
We have the biggest network in the nation. Our 800's make up less than 5% of our entire fleet.
I haven't run the numbers but MDW in the winter can pose some challenges. It is one of our biggest stations but there's 70 others we can fly too that have either better weather or longer runways.
I haven't run the numbers but MDW in the winter can pose some challenges. It is one of our biggest stations but there's 70 others we can fly too that have either better weather or longer runways.
10-01-2012 | 12:57 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Among similar transports, the -800 landing speed and stopping distance rates relatively poorly.
When I transitioned, my check airman said something along the lines of "Boeing's recommended Vref was significantly slower than what is now in the FMC. The airplane can definitely land slower, but there were too many spine crunchers due to poor technique, so they upped the Vref to cushion things a bit."
I have no idea if this is true or not. It sounds possibly true.
In my opinion, getting consistent, sweet touchdowns in the -800 is harder than most other jets. You'll get 20 in a row, #21 sucks, and sometimes it's hard to figure out why. A couple extra knots seems to help in general but is poor technique and eats runway.
When I transitioned, my check airman said something along the lines of "Boeing's recommended Vref was significantly slower than what is now in the FMC. The airplane can definitely land slower, but there were too many spine crunchers due to poor technique, so they upped the Vref to cushion things a bit."
I have no idea if this is true or not. It sounds possibly true.
In my opinion, getting consistent, sweet touchdowns in the -800 is harder than most other jets. You'll get 20 in a row, #21 sucks, and sometimes it's hard to figure out why. A couple extra knots seems to help in general but is poor technique and eats runway.
10-01-2012 | 05:15 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,443
Likes: 128
From: Window seat
Among similar transports, the -800 landing speed and stopping distance rates relatively poorly.
When I transitioned, my check airman said something along the lines of "Boeing's recommended Vref was significantly slower than what is now in the FMC. The airplane can definitely land slower, but there were too many spine crunchers due to poor technique, so they upped the Vref to cushion things a bit."
When I transitioned, my check airman said something along the lines of "Boeing's recommended Vref was significantly slower than what is now in the FMC. The airplane can definitely land slower, but there were too many spine crunchers due to poor technique, so they upped the Vref to cushion things a bit."
10-01-2012 | 05:56 PM
#9
Redeye avoider
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 937
Likes: 21
From: 737 Captain
10-01-2012 | 10:14 PM
#10
Feeling blessed.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 571
Likes: 10
From: Happily coasting in the left seat until it ends.
My -800/MDW experience:
It was a challenge.
Normally, always a Flaps 40/Brakes 3 landing. (SOP with <7000') With very light weights, Brakes 2 will work. Gusty winds = Flaps 30 was acceptable if 40 would result in Flap Load Relief issues. Landing distance not a problem here. BA reports must have been "Fair" or better. We used WSR performance calculations. Pay attention to that tailwind component! If you know MDW, you know they don't like using 13.
Warm weather takeoffs, greater than 85ºF or so, = 27K, Flaps 25, Alternate bleed, with winds and altimeter corrections to get off and to the west coast. Generally started bumping pax starting around 88º, depending on winds. OGG and LIH T/O performance was even more limited.
It was fun.
It was a challenge.
Normally, always a Flaps 40/Brakes 3 landing. (SOP with <7000') With very light weights, Brakes 2 will work. Gusty winds = Flaps 30 was acceptable if 40 would result in Flap Load Relief issues. Landing distance not a problem here. BA reports must have been "Fair" or better. We used WSR performance calculations. Pay attention to that tailwind component! If you know MDW, you know they don't like using 13.
Warm weather takeoffs, greater than 85ºF or so, = 27K, Flaps 25, Alternate bleed, with winds and altimeter corrections to get off and to the west coast. Generally started bumping pax starting around 88º, depending on winds. OGG and LIH T/O performance was even more limited.
It was fun.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
