Common, man. Say it. Show your true colors.

No, the PAPI part, the PAPI or GS guarantee 50’ above threshold, the only way you know the TCH is on the chart for that approach. Many approaches are above 50’, 54’ etc.

Hitting a truck and a light pole 300 feet from the threshold significantly reduces the amount of runway needed.

The RNAV W 29 is NOT an RNP approach!! No curved segment like the Y. So, at least for the guppy fleet, AP has to be off by 50’ below MDA which is just by the AXELL fix and you fly it visually from there. Adherence to the PAPI is crucial.

A great example of why we should have the same
landing data app Delta has. It can’t be more expensive than paying FedEx 8 figures to use the same PMR training.

It’s still a RNAV approach with a stable 3 degree glide path all the way to the runway. So on this approach you simply turn the autopilot off over AXELL at 880’ and continue to follow the exact same vertical deviation scale pointer down to the flare just like you do on any other RNAV approach. Same thing with following the glide slope to the runway on a straight in ILS. This is just basic pilot stuff and not that difficult. I can see where crews, especially heavy crews that almost exclusively shoot straight in ILS’s to long runways could not be as proficient in RNAV approaches to shorter runways as NB crews, but that is a fault in our training and not the design of the approach.

Granted a 763-ER not a 764, but I've flown this exact approach (RNP) just done 2 white / 2 red, not a slam but no milk it in the flare, AB4, Flaps 25, and comfortably made W2. Could've made U.

How much more runway does the 764 take at similar landing fuel (probably 15k) and full pax?

I've made S in an empty 757 (NBA charter)

Yes, to filter out aircraft that should not be attempting it and allow for a precision glidepath w/o object penetration. I assume you already can't land the space shuttle or A-380s on that runway, so it's not like you should be able to land any aircraft on any runway at any time. If you look at other airports, you'll find a lot of crosswind runways are shorter, sometimes much shorter. Alaska lands 737s in Nome and Kotz, 5900 for runway 27 in Kotz. The runways have been shorter at times for construction and projects. Special crew qualifications and they aren't bringing Max-9s in there obviously.

It's unfortunate that they built the runway/tollway like this...but boohoo, either re-route the tollway or displace the threshold. If they displace the threshold, yeah, it might change what aircraft can land there. That's kinda the point. Only aircraft capable of meeting the performance requirements for the distance should be landing there.

The problem with your argument is that people were trying to blame DEI before we even knew the race and gender of the pilots, just like they did with that runway incursion in DFW, just like the geniuses in this thread are doing right now. That’s why it’s racist and sexist.

The threshold is already displaced 224 feet. How much more do you want to displace it? 1,000 feet on 3º glidepath gets you 52 feet in height. This aircraft was more than 52 feet too low. If anything more displacement could lead to more complacency about being below the glidepath since you know there's runway there if you land short.