Bombay/VABB 27/09 WIP?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombay/VABB 27/09 WIP?
Anyone been into Bombay recently, I thought the work in progress was finsihed - but notams now have :
Does this mean LDA 27 is restricted to vacating at C, ie. 2300m?
On a 744 the runway is too narrow for a 180 turn if you overshoot ...
Usual vague Indian NOTAM's ... any recent users of the airfield I would appreciate to hear what the picture is there?
PORTION OF TWY D FM BEGINNING OF RWY 09 UPTO SHORT OF TWY C
NOT AVBL FOR OPS DUE WIP
NOT AVBL FOR OPS DUE WIP
On a 744 the runway is too narrow for a 180 turn if you overshoot ...
Usual vague Indian NOTAM's ... any recent users of the airfield I would appreciate to hear what the picture is there?
The Bumblebee
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Inside the shiny tube.
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MFDS,
going there tomorrow morning so I will let you know. Last I was there three days ago and the work was still going on and as we vacated on C I was D was still dugup. So more than likely D is still not available to vacate the runway. There was also work going on A3, so to get to your bay you may have to take J, F, F1 or G, F1.
I will let you know tomorrow
Desi
going there tomorrow morning so I will let you know. Last I was there three days ago and the work was still going on and as we vacated on C I was D was still dugup. So more than likely D is still not available to vacate the runway. There was also work going on A3, so to get to your bay you may have to take J, F, F1 or G, F1.
I will let you know tomorrow
Desi
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LDA is redeuced to 2300m vacating at C. Went there 3 weeks ago in a 744 and was ok with Flap 30, Autobrake 4 (I think) and Partial Reverse.
More interesting for those visiting BOM at the moment are the inbound delays, 45 mins are to be expected around 0530 and 1830 (UTC). When we were passed onto BOM they told us to expect 70 mins, however this came forward to approx 35 mins plus extended vectors for 27.
BOM......Beware!
More interesting for those visiting BOM at the moment are the inbound delays, 45 mins are to be expected around 0530 and 1830 (UTC). When we were passed onto BOM they told us to expect 70 mins, however this came forward to approx 35 mins plus extended vectors for 27.
BOM......Beware!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desi and Flap33 - Thanks.
So I presume full length is available if you can do a 180 turn OK on 27?
From memory its 45m wide ... too narrow for a 744 requiring 46.6m for a 180.
Arguably 09 would be better with a light tailwind?
Yes, inbound delays of 45 min sadly is fairly normal there ...
So I presume full length is available if you can do a 180 turn OK on 27?
From memory its 45m wide ... too narrow for a 744 requiring 46.6m for a 180.
Arguably 09 would be better with a light tailwind?
Yes, inbound delays of 45 min sadly is fairly normal there ...
Last edited by mfds; 13th May 2008 at 19:01.
The Bumblebee
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Inside the shiny tube.
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MFDS,
Was there yesterday and today of course no problems vacating at W or C in A321.
Yesterday a Saudi 744 landed on 27 and could not vacate at C, another aircraft had to go around as Saudi had to do a 180 so that they can vacate via C. The runway is 150' wide or 49 m, so it should be tight but enough for you to make a 180. It seemed like Saudi had no problem with 180.
I guess it'd be better to advice ATC that you'd be unable to vacate by C and you'd need 180. This way they can maintain more separation saving someone a go around.
Desi
Was there yesterday and today of course no problems vacating at W or C in A321.
Yesterday a Saudi 744 landed on 27 and could not vacate at C, another aircraft had to go around as Saudi had to do a 180 so that they can vacate via C. The runway is 150' wide or 49 m, so it should be tight but enough for you to make a 180. It seemed like Saudi had no problem with 180.
I guess it'd be better to advice ATC that you'd be unable to vacate by C and you'd need 180. This way they can maintain more separation saving someone a go around.
Desi
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desi - Thanks for that.
I did go in there on Tuesday night.
In a 744 at close to MLW stopping by C (2300m) was not an issue.
Re. 180 turns - Our Aerads show it as 45m wide - we need 46.6m for a 180 turn .. so not sure how the Saudi managed it, unless their is a bit more width still useable at D.
I did go in there on Tuesday night.
In a 744 at close to MLW stopping by C (2300m) was not an issue.
Re. 180 turns - Our Aerads show it as 45m wide - we need 46.6m for a 180 turn .. so not sure how the Saudi managed it, unless their is a bit more width still useable at D.
Up until a couple of weeks ago the portion of Rwy 27 between taxiways C and D (the end of the runway) was NOT available as there was gravel and workmen all over it. Typically, all that the NOTAM stated was that taxiway D was not available. This NOTAM could have, and should have, been clearer! It is now as described above, with the portion of runway between C and D available, but the last usuable exit from Rwy 27 being C. My airline will not allow 180 degree turns for a B777 here because the runway is not wide enough to consistently and safely do this. A tug would be required if we overshot taxiway C.
Saudia? Not sure they worry too much about rules anyway. More interested in not being embarrased, and saving face!
Saudia? Not sure they worry too much about rules anyway. More interested in not being embarrased, and saving face!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saudia? Not sure they worry too much about rules anyway. More interested in not being embarrased, and saving face!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: mumbai
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
