737 Landing at Jandakot? [Archive]

Johnny_56

19th Jan 2010, 00:34

G'day

I've heard rumours that TAFE WA has bought an Ozjet 737 and are planning to fly it into JT. Anyone know if it's true? or if it would even be possible - the main runway is "only" about 1200m long

If so when is it going to happen - I heard it was supposed to be before christmas.

It'd be some sight watching a 737 have to get lifted out of the sand at the end of 06 or 24 after over-running the RWY. Or JAH flling in the trenchs from where the thing touches down.

Cheers

The_Pharoah

19th Jan 2010, 00:56

Air Pac used to (not sure if they still do) fly the 737 into Nausori (NFNA) which is about 1800m long. Now THAT was a hard landing and they normally pulled up by the end...not sure how they'll go with 1200m :eek: (unless they're ex RAAF :}).

The Green Goblin

19th Jan 2010, 02:34

ZappBrannigan

19th Jan 2010, 04:16

Plenty of jet RPT going into <1800m strips in this country (YBMC/YBHM are two off the top of my head that are regularly visited by B737/A320), and although I can't give you any exact weights, they've normally got high passenger loads.

I'd still like to see an empty 737 blasting off on 1200m though.

ZEEBEE

19th Jan 2010, 04:54

During one of the airshows at Canberra some years ago, an Ansett 767 touched down on the threshold of 35 (or whatever it is) and turned off on the runway 30. I wouldn't think that it is more than 1200 metres.

PyroTek

19th Jan 2010, 05:03

I seem to remember apparently when they took VH-EBQ (747) to Longreach it landed with 400 metres to spare on a 1900m runway... :ok:

Pontius

19th Jan 2010, 05:21

Used to fly into Jersey (Channel Islands) all the time with a full 737 (300, 400 & 500). That runway was a mini-tad over 1700m and wasn't a problem. Never used more than autobrake 3 and very often could turn off way before the runway end.

As a boring aside, I once had to position a 737 to Glasgow airport. It was just the two of us up the front and we were keen to see just what max autobrake, full reverse looked and felt like. We were light (just as a Jandakot flight would be) and we touched down right at the very beginnig of the TDZ (probably 3 reds, 1 white). The bloody thing stopped so fast I'm glad I'd locked my harness and I never got to use the reverse because we'd stopped :eek: By using a bit of judiscious turning we were able to take the first exit off 05(?) which I reckon is no more than 550m from the threshold. I know, silly old fart, but I didn't half learn how quickly those things can stop if you need them to. 1200m, piece of piss :ok:

(edited to add: the aircraft was going to GLA for maintenance and would be there for at least a week, so don't start the normal gobbing off about the irresponsibilty of warming up brakes for the next crew etc)

PyroTek

19th Jan 2010, 05:49

Pontius, no humorous comments from ATC? :}

VH-XXX

19th Jan 2010, 06:22

A Virgin 737 recently landed at Mildura enroute Sydney to Adelaide. From memory that is 4,500ft / 1500 metres?

I'm of the belief that a STOL equipped 73 can operate out of 1300 metres reliably.

eocvictim

19th Jan 2010, 06:34

I'm wondering if a 100 would manage same performance though :P

I'm also wondering whether the concrete will hold it, if there is enough room to taxi it and finally where the hell they plan to park it? Would be cool to see though. Might take up a bit of room at the holding point while they wait 25 mins for departure instructions.

Another thought, would a 73 be able to comply with a mantl or armad 4 on 06 and not breach PH airspace? I'm assuming it could but it'd be interesting. Also cool to see.

Final thought, would they plan to give the 73 special treatment to make a strait in approach on 24 or would it be required to join at CNB like everyone else?

bentleg

19th Jan 2010, 06:47

Mildura (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/ersa/FAC_YMIA_19-Nov-2009.pdf) is 1830m. Jandakot (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/ersa/FAC_YPJT_19-Nov-2009.pdf) is 1392m

The Green Goblin

19th Jan 2010, 06:54

You'd be able to land at Jandakot but would not be able to leave the main runway without hitting things with the wings. Perhaps a taxi onto 30/12 from 24/06 may work then plonking it in the middle of RACWAs lot somewhere :ok:

Long Bay Mauler

19th Jan 2010, 07:46

I would imagine it will move soon as there is a new Logo on the side.

I think it say something like Western TAFE.:ok:

goin'flyin

19th Jan 2010, 07:49

It will happen at some stage when CASA feel up to ticking the boxes.
It will be a one shot deal, 1 arrival and there is to be no departure. Once it's at YPJT it will be staying. Arrival will be at min weight from Perth with operating crew only.

According to the engineer looking after the paperwork, operating into YPJT won't even raise a sweat.

eocvictim

19th Jan 2010, 08:12

Whats the purpose of parking it at JT? Any idea where they're planning on putting it?

I dont think anyone disagrees that it should be a museum piece.

Red Jet

19th Jan 2010, 08:36

This info straight from the 732-QRH
Landing distance (unfactored) FLAP 40 @ 38T - 1140 meters

Sounds like a job for Gordo:ok:

VH-XXX

19th Jan 2010, 08:44

Mildura (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/ersa/FAC_YMIA_19-Nov-2009.pdf) is 1830m

I see it's been upgraded, it was 4,800'ish. No dramas although it was a big change having it come in compared to the Jungle Jets.

Corkey McFuz

19th Jan 2010, 09:10

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, AirNZ used to operate the 200 out of Napier (with a load obviously) in the early 90s to AK WN and CH I believe...
Napier being 1300m

frigatebird

19th Jan 2010, 09:56

When Henderson was being re-developed/upgraded/strengthened in about '85, Air Pacific operated their 200 into the short section that was left for them to use. No alternative. And it had a big trench/stepdown at the end, so no overrun. When that section was done they got moved to using another end section. The most critical, was when the centre third section was being redeveloped.. Probably was only about 1200/1300 metres..!!? to play with. And they had to depart for Brisbane with enough payload (and fuel )for the 1150 n.m. sector to be profitable. Some sharp pencil work required..

Keg

19th Jan 2010, 11:16

A 767 can touch down on runway 16 at YMML on the 1000' markers and be stopped by taxiway echo which is 1300 metres. I'm sure the 737 will handle the 1300 metres at YPJT without any dramas at all.

legaleagle73

19th Jan 2010, 11:48

The idea is to use it to train aircraft engineers. They purchased a hanger at JT lasy year where it will be parked. I have a mate at Polytechnic West (as Swan Tafe are now calling themselves) who has promised to let me know when it's arriving - no word from him recently.

Cheers

triadic

19th Jan 2010, 12:41

For info, Mildura 09/27 was extended to the west in 1996. QF737 attended airshow that year and has been used a number of times as Altn when ADL fogged in.

Hasherucf

19th Jan 2010, 14:52

The idea is to use it to train aircraft engineers. at Polytechnic West (as Swan Tafe)

Is this the build it and they will come method ? They have no apprentices that work on jets . 100% are GA and there is about 15 per year of those .

Are they going to go head to head with Aviation Australia? ....... watch this thing become a white elephant

Having been an apprentice at Swan Tafe I know they cant organise a root in a brothel with a fist full of 50's. :ugh:

Weekend_Warrior

19th Jan 2010, 18:56

ANZ definately operated a once-only charter 737 into Gisborne - 1310 m - in the early 1990s - don't know which model, but certainly not one of the current ones.

Capt Fathom

19th Jan 2010, 19:22

I'm of the belief that a STOL equipped 73 can operate out of 1300 metres reliably

I'd like to know more about the STOL equipped 73! :E

frigatebird

19th Jan 2010, 19:26

Maybe he's thinking coral/gravel kit equipped.. a la Air Nauru..

c100driver

19th Jan 2010, 21:57

Air New Zealand operated a B737-200 service on week days Auckland - Napier - Christchurch for many years. it limited seats to 80 in the res computer but could take more depending on the conditions.

Napier is 1310 meters and Air NZ have operated charter flights in the 200 and 300 into Gisbourne 1310m, New Plymouth 1310m and Woodbourne 1425m.

So for a B737-200 into JT would be a peice of cake.

skyways

20th Jan 2010, 00:11

Hypothetically it could taxi without hitting anything as long the pavement was up to the weight, 737-200 has a 93ft wingspan, the DC-3 has 97ft and she operated quite easily assuming you kept an eye on things and taxied slowly. Plus the hangar that it's going to is the same one where the DC-3 was looked after, so an aircraft that size has been down there before.

VH-XXX

20th Jan 2010, 00:48

Capt Fathom said: I'd like to know more about the STOL equipped 73! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Well here you go Capt Fathom:

A short-field design package is available for the 737-600, -700 and -800, allowing operators to fly increased payload to and from airports with runways under 5,000 feet (1,500 m). The package consists of sealed leading edge slats (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Leading_edge_slats) (improved lift), a two-position tail skid (enabling reduced approach speeds) and increased flight spoiler deflection on the ground. These improvements are standard on the 737-900ER.

Capt Fathom

20th Jan 2010, 01:13

I thought they may have been equipped with a Robertson STOL Kit! :ok:

Wikipedia! Why didn't I think of that! :ouch:

Johnny_56

20th Jan 2010, 01:29

Thanks for the replys guys.

As others have said i think they only plan on landing it - so getting out of Jandakot won't be an issue.

Does anyone know about the weight/pavement? i know SFC sometimes brings their Lear 45's into JT and there used to be a DC-3 here, but surely an empty 737 would still be weigh more than them?

I;ve heard they plan on landing it early in the morning so it will be cooler and the pavement will be 'stiffer'? Would that make that much difference?

cheers

Awol57

20th Jan 2010, 06:54

I believe it has special tyres fitted which are larger than normal.

It will be towed from the runway to its new home on the northern apron. Whenever it arrives it will be at 0700 or there abouts one morning.

As mentioned earlier, one way flight.

Pontius

20th Jan 2010, 09:30

Pontius, no humorous comments from ATC?

Sorry for the delay in responding; some bar steward decided I had to earn my wages and fly a bloody aircraft.

Anyway, yes, our GLA antics did earn some comments from the Tower. I don't really know who was laughing the most because we could barely reply to their instructions to vacate next right and they were obviously amused and talking through the giggles. Despite being the ramblings of a saddo, it really was very funny at the time but we learnt something about the performance of our little toy :).

PS: I had a play today and would have had no trouble drawing up a fairly well laden 767 within 1200m, so I stick with my proposition that a 737 would do it easily. I had to use the aircraft again today, so didn't thrash it but just did a little bit of test piloting :ok:

Jabawocky

20th Jan 2010, 11:07

...........that would be "performance monitoring" no doubt. ;)

On to the tyres, I assume they are larger in width because larger diameter affects braking and gains only a small amount in area. That being said it is not hard to work out the effects, and one would say they will pull her up even with reduced braking from larger rubber!

yowieII

20th Jan 2010, 11:49

I would be more concerned about how many wheels on the truck that it will have to be on the back of, and the width of the opening of the airport:}

Mach E Avelli

20th Jan 2010, 14:29

Yowie, ya got it in one. By the time they meet all the CASA and FAA requirements, it will be cheaper to truck it in sans wings, then bolt them back on.

mic310

20th Jan 2010, 23:50

If this is going to happen, does anyone know when???

piston broke again

21st Jan 2010, 00:30

767's seem to pull up on a dime without too much effort. Also seen a 743 pull up by rwy 21 when landing on 24 in Perth (1256m). Spoilers must actually work in these puppies...737's spoilers are pretty ineffective at slow speeds.

Pontius

21st Jan 2010, 06:58

737's spoilers are pretty ineffective at slow speeds

All spoilers are ineffective at slow speeds 'cos there's fewer bernoullis flowing over them, compared to high speed. Also, whilst spoilers do help to slow the aircraft down they are more about putting weight on the wheels as opposed to creating form drag to reduce speed. The brakes do most of the work (assisted by the spoilers) and reverse thrust helps to keep the brake temps down.

I would suggest the reason for you seeing 767s and 747s slow down more effectively than the 737 is because most, certainly not all, 767s, 747s etc have carbon brakes while the majority (but not all) 737s have steel brakes. These 'fade' quicker and have poorer performance when it comes to stopping an aircraft than their more modern brothers. Also the older 737s had a pretty crap, high aspect ratio wing, compared to the newer Boeings, so the Vref is really quite high and I've certainly had higher Vrefs in the 737 than I did in the 744 or 767 (obviously quite light). Higher touchdown speeds, coupled with steel brakes, means no surprises when the newer boys exit the runway sooner.

The Bunglerat

21st Jan 2010, 07:53

Used to fly into Jersey (Channel Islands) all the time with a full 737 (300, 400 & 500). That runway was a mini-tad over 1700m and wasn't a problem. Never used more than autobrake 3 and very often could turn off way before the runway end.

Pontius, as a young kid growing up in Jersey during the late 70's, I remember BA sending a Tristar down to the island a couple of times, to pick up the backlog of passengers that were sometimes stranded for days as a result of fog. Now that was an impressive sight on a 1700m runway!

test7875

9th Apr 2010, 05:55

Any word on the date of this yet .. or has it all gone by the wayside

Homesick-Angel

9th Apr 2010, 08:04

I worked in a 737-800 Sim for a while, and when there was some free time, we used to see where we could put it down..

YMMB was pretty interesting..

Shepparton was pretty straightforward at 3760 feet(1146M) and is pretty close to Jandakot length....

We even used to have a crack at St Baarts where this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z2o0acIlm4) bit of madness occured.The words GO AROUND come to mind..We used to come at it from the other end and you had one shot only..:\

Would like to watch it go at Jandakot tho....Where would they park it?

Joker 10

9th Apr 2010, 11:36

Since Jandakot has a pavement limit of 21,000 kg I doubt this could ever happen even if it was long enough.

Mach E Avelli

11th Apr 2010, 01:32

There is the minor matter of getting the aeroplane airworthy again. Plus a few regulatory exemptions which are needed such as strip width. Often, pavement strength is not an issue if the operator agrees to underwrite the cost of any damage caused. Nothing money couldn't fix.

Engineer_aus

15th Apr 2010, 00:27

I have heard along the grape vine that it has been cancelled due to Casa and the FAA saying the aircraft are not airworthy.

TBM-Legend

15th Apr 2010, 05:39

that's nothing compared to this...
YouTube - Boeing 747 SP retirement landing at Rand Airport (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap_nyRzEOMI)

Joker 10

15th Apr 2010, 10:43

It is go on Saturday next

Peter Fanelli

15th Apr 2010, 11:10

Is this the build it and they will come method ? They have no apprentices that work on jets . 100% are GA and there is about 15 per year of those .

Are they going to go head to head with Aviation Australia? ....... watch this thing become a white elephant

Having been an apprentice at Swan Tafe I know they cant organise a root in a brothel with a fist full of 50's.

Geez what a pessimistic p***k you are, just what the industry needs more of. You're right of course, they shouldn't waste money on training aids of this type, in fact why not sell all the training aids so they can buy more slates and chalk for the students to use.

Hasherucf

15th Apr 2010, 11:46

Thanks Pete

The fact is I was a swan tafe student once doing Aero skills training and then moved to Queensland. There is no doubt that WA TAFE needs more training facilities as the East coast training is miles ahead. Take Aviation Australia for example.

Sorry but they missed the boat in terms of timing, they are a good 10 years too late. The staff there can’t provide for a course of 15 let alone 200 like AA.

Sorry to be pessimistic but it’s just my first hand experience of this organisation.

randomx

24th Apr 2010, 10:43

I just saw the aircraft parked at the grass patch along twy A at YPJT today... Did anyone see how it landed and taxied? I wonder how it managed to taxi without hitting anything!

The Green Goblin

24th Apr 2010, 11:03

Anyone have any pics? or Youtube footage of the landing then?

Awol57

24th Apr 2010, 11:20

It landed at approximately 0710 this morning. Polytechnic were alerted to the fact it was happening today when it became airbourne at YPPH. Five mins later it was on the ground. Done under FAA rego with FAA crew.

There might be some footage of it, but given the lack of notice to anyone at all I doubt it will get onto youtube. But hey you never know. Probably some lucky sod with a phone was about :ok:

The crew taxied it unguided and parked it in front of the hangar. It was subsequently pushed to the limestone parking area by polytechnic staff. Not a bad effort given the proximity of aircraft to the taxiways.

yowieII

24th Apr 2010, 17:44

Yep definately one less statue on the eastern tarmac:eek:

Centaurus

25th Apr 2010, 04:32

an Ansett 767 touched down on the threshold of 35 (or whatever it is) and turned off on the runway 30. I wouldn't think that it is more than 1200 metres.

Most of the watching punters wouldn't have a clue whether it was an impressive short landing run or not - although they would have loved the sound of max reverse thrust. Cynics such as this writer when observing such a display by the 767 pilot, would have thought what a cowboy for risking a brake fire and costing Ansett that much more money for brake and tyre wear which that company could later on, ill-afford...

ZEEBEE

25th Apr 2010, 05:49

Most of the watching punters wouldn't have a clue whether it was an impressive short landing run or not - although they would have loved the sound of max reverse thrust. Cynics such as this writer when observing such a display by the 767 pilot, would have thought what a cowboy for risking a brake fire and costing Ansett that much more money for brake and tyre wear which that company could later on, ill-afford...

Trust me the punters were impressed. :ok:

Probably more impressive was the fact that it looked effortless.

As for costing Ansett lots ??? Pretty academic now, wouldn't you say ?

Mick.B

28th Apr 2010, 07:33

Video Here. I new someone would get it.

YouTube - 727 Jandakot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te3va8-6-QU)

Homesick-Angel

28th Apr 2010, 14:45

Awesome Vid:ok:

nitpicker330

29th Apr 2010, 07:08

Nice Video.

When on the 777-200/300 occasionally when landing on RWY 25R in VHHH I used to exit at A7 high speed ( a 135 deg left turn, and one subject to no conflicting traffic coming down taxyway A )
Naturally I briefed the FO and did it only in appropriate conditions and we advised ATC.

That's a total distance of 4600' from the displaced threshold and a ground roll of only 3,100'

Truth is it wasn't too hard, fly an accurate approach, a nice little flare at 20', normal touchdown and moderate ( not heavy at all ) Braking...........simple.
The Pax wouldn't have even noticed.

You had to be careful making the turn and watch the groundspeed though!!

It just goes to show what a big Jet can do if you try.

AVIACR3W

30th Sep 2010, 14:49

It was not any problem at all landing Jandakot...could have had the aircraft stopped in half the runway distance. For the approvals we had to have engineering study show that there would be no undue stress on the runway from this operation. Insurance was obtained to cover any damage if the engineering was wrong. The airplane was in perfect flying condition and one of the best equipped -200 series I have flown.