Quote:
Originally Posted by vapilot2004 View Post
LGA requires more than a bit of planning, stabilization, and discipline. Anyone that has landed a large commercial aircraft knows this.
Has anything larger than a 757 regularly operated from LGA?
I've never flown the 737 except as a pax. I have operated into La Guardia in years past in bizjets and airline 727's.
This article excerpt claims that the MD-80 and 737 are more challenged by the short runways at LGA than other types (I guess e.g. the A320 family):
Quote:
Though no flight would legally operate unless within those specified limits, there are two aircraft types that serve LGA that are more strained by the runway length than others, and one may surprise you.
The McDonnell Douglas MD-80 is a powerful aircraft, and a workhorse for several airlines. Though reliable and safe, the low-bypass engines respond slower to input than other aircraft types with larger engines. This means that it takes longer for the aircraft to build speed when rolling down the runway, demanding a longer takeoff distance. This is exacerbated on hot summer days when the air is thinner, requiring more speed to develop lift over the wings.
Airlines that operate this type into LGA encounter a difficult time on those dog day afternoons, and they usually deal with it by removing passengers to bring the aircraft’s weight down. A passenger headache? Perhaps. A safety issue? No. It’s actually an example of safety measures working to keep you safe.
The other aircraft that sometimes needs special consideration at LGA is a more modern type; the Boeing 737-800/900. The reason goes back to the late 1960s when the first, much shorter, -100/200 versions were birthed. You’ll notice that the 737 is a “low rider,” with its fuselage very low to the ground. This is because many airports that the aircraft served at that time did not have jet-bridges, and needed to board passengers walking up to the aircraft. Like a few models back then (such as the Boeing 727, Douglas DC-9), the early 737s offered built-in stairs that appeared from underneath the forward door, making boarding and deplaning simple for any airport.
The problem came years later, as newer versions of the 737 offered a lengthened fuselage. With the main landing gear still residing in the same place, the tail of the aircraft came very low to the ground when raising the nose on landing, risking a tail strike.
This resulted in the aircraft needing to keep the nose lower than it might otherwise aerodynamically prefer while on approach. This smaller angle of attack creates a faster approach speed, which can sometimes be around 15 knots faster than most other jets. The affect on runway length comes into play because the higher speed means it needs more stopping distance. But again, the math is done in advance. If it can’t stop within 60% of the strip, it won’t be allowed to take off to begin with.
Over the Edge: How Safe Are La Guardia's Short Runways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noflynomore View Post
Still, with the incomprehensibly garbled RT from the controller its a wonder anyone gets anything right there.
I'd say the ATC comms were pretty clear and normal for the EWR, LGA, and JFK area.
Knowing how busy it is there, listening to the recording I think the controller did excellent. Between LGA tower and departure they would have gone from zero to a 100 mph in micro seconds. Also to the crews going around, good job.