Crazy Approach/Landing

[HAL Pilot]

How so? Just because you don't see airliners flying a normal VFR traffic pattern (which that approach looked an awfully lot like) doesn't mean that it's an amazing feat of piloting.

Brett

I think he is executing a circle to land off an approach. In this case, he is probably lower than a normal VFR traffic pattern. But it is still a routine flight profile that the pilots are trained to fly safely.

 

[whitesoxnation]

I can assure you that AA is not "throwing regulations out". If they can't land within the U.S. (since they are U.S. registered) AND the Honduran regulations, than they would not be flying into there.

Major airlines do not just "throw regulations out". Not if they want to keep their operating certificates. The FAA won't let them and the pilot's won't do it.

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about REAL landing distance instead of FAA safety factor where you have to add somewhere around 65% (I think, might be 66.6% of the actual distance.

So the FAA might say the landing distance for a 757 is 'x' (with the 65%, no thrust reversers, etc) while it can actually do much better.

 

[Brett327]

I think he is executing a circle to land off an approach. In this case, he is probably lower than a normal VFR traffic pattern. But it is still a routine flight profile that the pilots are trained to fly safely.

I tried to find a pic of that Sesame Street character that does that thing where the top half of his head flips up into the air when he gets nervous/scared. AHHH!

Brett

 

[gaijin6423]

^You mean like those filthy Canadians, with their flappy heads and toilet humor? Blame Canada.

 

[Brett327]

^You mean like those filthy Canadians, with their flappy heads and toilet humor? Blame Canada.

This pre-dates T&P by about 30 years, but the effect is the same.

Brett

 

[HAL Pilot]

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about REAL landing distance instead of FAA safety factor where you have to add somewhere around 65% (I think, might be 66.6% of the actual distance.

So the FAA might say the landing distance for a 757 is 'x' (with the 65%, no thrust reversers, etc) while it can actually do much better.

You are talking about the differences between the manufacturer's actual calculated landing distance (performance charts) and the FAA's added safety requirements as found in FAR 121. The FAR mandated additions to landing runway length is required to be met before an aircraft can be dispatched to that airfield. The FAA "safety factor" as you call it, is not "thrown out". If it is not met, the aircraft does not go.

 

[kejo]

jumping in here a little late...

i've flown into this airport a couple of times. my roommate of four years from boat school was a honduran exchange student who lives in tegucigalpa, great guy. i've been down there a few times to visit his family.

i'm suprised you don't see the typically dozens of locals gathered just outside of the field's perimeter fence. it's regular entertainment for the poorer folks down there to watch these big planes come in. i remember looking outside my window the first time i went down there and seeing what looked like people cheering as my flight landed.

tegucigalpa is a great city, and way fun to drink there. there's a club called bamboo where you pay about ten american bucks to reserve a table, and they keep bringing you bottles of bacardi at no extra cost

 

[whitesoxnation]

You are talking about the differences between the manufacturer's actual calculated landing distance (performance charts) and the FAA's added safety requirements as found in FAR 121. The FAR mandated additions to landing runway length is required to be met before an aircraft can be dispatched to that airfield. The FAA "safety factor" as you call it, is not "thrown out". If it is not met, the aircraft does not go.

.......................................

I never said the airlines threw them out, I said ~6k was plenty without.........................

 

[Viper 01]

Looked okay to me.
Steve

 

[FrankTheTank]

Here the minimum runway length for release:

Boeing 727 = 5000ft
Airbus 300/310 = 5700ft
DC-10/MD-10/MD-11 = 7500ft

 

[gaetabob]

I tried to find a pic of that Sesame Street character that does that thing where the top half of his head flips up into the air when he gets nervous/scared. AHHH!

Brett

Is this who you were looking for? Beeker?

 

[Brett327]

Is this who you were looking for? Beeker?

Nope.

Brett

 

[Mr. Blonde]

I'll tell you the craziest airport I've flown into was on the island of Roatan, Honduras. The island is long and skinny, running east/west, with the airport runway running parrallel on the south side of the island. I did a google search and they said the runway is only 3400 feet

We flew in a TACA airlines 737 (we joked it stood for Take A Chance Airlines) which they probably bought after southwest or some other airline retired it. Anyways, the pilot enters on the base turn coming from the north over the island, turns relatively hard for a short final, and as we descend you see land appear underneath you out the window and just when you think you're about to touch down, you pass over water (there's a small lagoon right before the runway) and your like sh#t, sh#t, sh#t, then a sliver of land and *thud* you touch down and fly forward in your seat as the pilot applies reverse thrust/brakes to stop. Funny thing is I'm going back in December, should be fun...

 

[Flugelman]

Tegucigalpa

TACA bends one in Tegucigalpa. 5 dead. I wonder if he didn't have an alternate or didn't have the fuel to get to the alternate. A4s ????

 

[Xtndr50boom]

Here the minimum runway length for release:

Boeing 727 = 5000ft
Airbus 300/310 = 5700ft
DC-10/MD-10/MD-11 = 7500ft

You sure about those numbers? The KC-10s 11-2KC10 vol 3 (AF Natops without the lee way) says our min runway length for both T/O and landing is 7000', and the AF is known to pad the numbers by a bit.

At quagmire we'd use the 7000' 18/36 regularly.