B738 Pilots, especially GOL Airlines. Little help.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B738 Pilots, especially GOL Airlines. Little help.
Hi there!
The airline I work for is starting (non SFP) 738 ops in few weeks and I've noticed some particular aspects regarding the 738's takeoff and landing performance, especially in short runways.
I am aware that, in order to guarantee an acceptable tail clearance, both takeoff (V1,Vr,V2) and approach (Vref30&15) speeds have been "artificially" increased above their aerodinamic values. This has the adverse effect of increasing takeoff and landing distances, thus making short rwy ops a bit more challenging, to say the least.
I'd like to know if your SOPs or airline policies call for any particular restrictions or specific procedures when operating out of or into shorter runways.
Examples of those would be mandatory flaps 40 landings (unless winshear or strong headwinds), max landing weight limitations, more limiting crosswind components, certain flap-setting-vs-weight type policy, or even pilot limitations like minimum time on type, etc...
Any details on the subject from anyone from any airline willing to contribute, will be greatly appreciated.
If anyone wishes to send any kind of material, my email is
[email protected]
Thank you all!!
SW.
The airline I work for is starting (non SFP) 738 ops in few weeks and I've noticed some particular aspects regarding the 738's takeoff and landing performance, especially in short runways.
I am aware that, in order to guarantee an acceptable tail clearance, both takeoff (V1,Vr,V2) and approach (Vref30&15) speeds have been "artificially" increased above their aerodinamic values. This has the adverse effect of increasing takeoff and landing distances, thus making short rwy ops a bit more challenging, to say the least.
I'd like to know if your SOPs or airline policies call for any particular restrictions or specific procedures when operating out of or into shorter runways.
Examples of those would be mandatory flaps 40 landings (unless winshear or strong headwinds), max landing weight limitations, more limiting crosswind components, certain flap-setting-vs-weight type policy, or even pilot limitations like minimum time on type, etc...
Any details on the subject from anyone from any airline willing to contribute, will be greatly appreciated.
If anyone wishes to send any kind of material, my email is
[email protected]
Thank you all!!
SW.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We operate a mix of SFP and non-SFP aircraft. There is no fixed pilot or performance restriction. However operations has to make sure that SFP aircraft are scheduled in certain airports to enable the necessary performance, otherwise we might be forced to offload some passengers and/or cargo/bagagge.
Performance is calculated with an EFB tool which knows via the tail number if the aircraft is SFP or not and uses boeing performance data to calculate the required flap settings, derates and assumed temperature based on current conditions and configuration. Landing performance is calculated with an EFB tool as well, both for dispatch and inflight as well as non normal configurations.
The only SOP we have is that we should use flaps 40 with any tailwind component, which is not a bad idea on the -800 but sometimes bloody stupid on the -700 due to the slow speeds.
Of course there are airport restrictions for some airports, all of them class C ones. For example funchal is restricted to take off and landings of experienced and specially trained commanders (experienced is a joke though, 200 hours on type as PIC), innsbruck falls into the same category, but might be still restricted to -700s, at least on an operational level.
Performance is calculated with an EFB tool which knows via the tail number if the aircraft is SFP or not and uses boeing performance data to calculate the required flap settings, derates and assumed temperature based on current conditions and configuration. Landing performance is calculated with an EFB tool as well, both for dispatch and inflight as well as non normal configurations.
The only SOP we have is that we should use flaps 40 with any tailwind component, which is not a bad idea on the -800 but sometimes bloody stupid on the -700 due to the slow speeds.
Of course there are airport restrictions for some airports, all of them class C ones. For example funchal is restricted to take off and landings of experienced and specially trained commanders (experienced is a joke though, 200 hours on type as PIC), innsbruck falls into the same category, but might be still restricted to -700s, at least on an operational level.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Denti,
Good talking to you again...
Thank you for your reply. We are a few years short of EFBs but it´s always good to know how larger companies operate.
Would your company program a non SFP into (say) a 2100 m rwy? assumming normal conditions of wt and wx.
Good luck with the union negotiations.
Best Regards,
sw.
Good talking to you again...
Thank you for your reply. We are a few years short of EFBs but it´s always good to know how larger companies operate.
Would your company program a non SFP into (say) a 2100 m rwy? assumming normal conditions of wt and wx.
Good luck with the union negotiations.
Best Regards,
sw.
Mistrust in Management
800 landing performance
From my experience regardless of what official landing performance has been provided:
Be very careful when on a wet runway (especially those that become like ice rinks due poor drainage)
If in any doubt when wet use flap 40 and full reverse as early as possible. Do not strive for a smooth touchdown.
The much higher reference speeds combined with poor braking performance could lead to tears.
It is a very different beast to the 700/300 and obviously 200.
The 'briefing' I was given prior to operating was mainly centered around the danger of tailstrike on take off. Whilst this is of concern and must be addresed, the main issue is in my opinion landing performance (or lack of)
Regards
Exeng
Be very careful when on a wet runway (especially those that become like ice rinks due poor drainage)
If in any doubt when wet use flap 40 and full reverse as early as possible. Do not strive for a smooth touchdown.
The much higher reference speeds combined with poor braking performance could lead to tears.
It is a very different beast to the 700/300 and obviously 200.
The 'briefing' I was given prior to operating was mainly centered around the danger of tailstrike on take off. Whilst this is of concern and must be addresed, the main issue is in my opinion landing performance (or lack of)
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, with no major obstacles 2100m is quite enough for most weights. We operate full 800s (full pax load, usually around 63t+) into a 1850m Runway which can be problematic when wet depending on wind. However the longest outbond sector is around 2 hours, so we won't hit MTOW as we can be limited there depending on temperature and runway condition. Most of us still prefer the 700 there, probably because there is no overrun, only a 50m drop on both ends of the runway (its on top of a hill).
For the 800 50t is actually a pretty lightweight landingweight in my opinion, as the plane has DOWs around 43t.
For the 800 50t is actually a pretty lightweight landingweight in my opinion, as the plane has DOWs around 43t.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BOAC,
The airline does have the charts. I haven't had access to them just yet as they're still working on some of the airports. All I want to know is if the operators that have used the airplane for quite a while have come up with any particular policy, procedure, recommendation, etc regarding flap settings for takeoff and landing based on wt, winds, rwy length etc.
Thank you for contributing. I still remember you sent me the cb list a few months ago! thank you for that as well...
sw.
The airline does have the charts. I haven't had access to them just yet as they're still working on some of the airports. All I want to know is if the operators that have used the airplane for quite a while have come up with any particular policy, procedure, recommendation, etc regarding flap settings for takeoff and landing based on wt, winds, rwy length etc.
Thank you for contributing. I still remember you sent me the cb list a few months ago! thank you for that as well...
sw.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll try to send a scan of the QRP if you PM me an email address - I no longer have yours. You'll see that 63T into 1850 is OK but requires the dashing skills of Denti (to be sure
).
).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BOAC, my email address is [email protected] thank you for all of your help.
SW.
PS: at 63T a non SFP 738 approaches at a little over 140 k. I could definitely use Denti's skills to stop it in 1850m...lol...
SW.
PS: at 63T a non SFP 738 approaches at a little over 140 k. I could definitely use Denti's skills to stop it in 1850m...lol...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for PM and I have an appointment at Specsavers this afternoon having seen your address in post #1 - doh!
140kts - a mere crawl! We used to stop the Lightning in 7500ft from 165kts even - without a brake chute.
140kts - a mere crawl! We used to stop the Lightning in 7500ft from 165kts even - without a brake chute.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice little winged rocket. Low aspect ratios must be fun to fly. Closest I came to flying something like that was a mirage sim. I did enjoy it. Approaches at >190 k. About 10 deg pitch. Chute is really needed unless landing at KSC. High lift devices would have helped.
Good talking to you.
Good talking to you.
This sort of stuff is Pprune at its best which is why I am not afraid to admit I am more or less addicted to it. I love the little vignettes such as that by BOAC and his Lightning. Never had problems with short wet runways in the Mustangs I flew in the early fifties because if you hit the brakes too hard you could stick the thing on its nose and pull up real quick if the prop dug in. Sliding down the long nose to reach the runway would have been tough especially if you hands or bum touched the exhaust pipes on the way down. Of course all this was in theory as fortunately all our runways were long and I never put one on its nose. I did in a Wirraway once when the brakes jammed solid and up we went. Awfully embarrassing it was. Sorry 
thread drift..
thread drift..
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737-800 approach speeds are not adjusted because of the fuselage length. Take the stall speeds and multiple F30 by 1.3 and F40 by 1.23(1.25?) and you get the Vref speeds. There is no 'correction'.
Dozens of daily flights into DCA(2090m).
Dozens of daily flights into SNA(1740m).
Lately, due to runway construction at DCA, carriers have been landing on rwy 15/33. 1590 meters. Landing performance restricts landing weight to 140K(63.5T metric).
Dozens of daily flights into DCA(2090m).
Dozens of daily flights into SNA(1740m).
Lately, due to runway construction at DCA, carriers have been landing on rwy 15/33. 1590 meters. Landing performance restricts landing weight to 140K(63.5T metric).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: S51 30 W060 10.
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
If the speeds have not been corrected to guarantee acceptable tail clearance, how can you explain that for the exact same weight, the B738 F30speed is at least 5 kts faster than the B737? same wing, same landing gear...
The FCTM confirms takeoff speeds are established based on tail clnc among others, and that's the limiting factor for longer bodied airplanes. Why wouldn´t they do the same thing for approach speeds.
Additionally, the SFP does use slower approach speeds, higher pitch attitudes as stated in the FCTM as well.
If the speeds have not been corrected to guarantee acceptable tail clearance, how can you explain that for the exact same weight, the B738 F30speed is at least 5 kts faster than the B737? same wing, same landing gear...
The FCTM confirms takeoff speeds are established based on tail clnc among others, and that's the limiting factor for longer bodied airplanes. Why wouldn´t they do the same thing for approach speeds.
Additionally, the SFP does use slower approach speeds, higher pitch attitudes as stated in the FCTM as well.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The moon
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737-800 approach speeds are not adjusted because of the fuselage length
– Higher approach speed more distance
– Example 737-800 has increased flaps 30 and
40 approach speed for tail clearance.
– Example 737-800 has increased flaps 30 and
40 approach speed for tail clearance.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The moon
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can get it using this link. There is loads of other intresting 737 related topics on it as well.
http://www.captainpilot.com/files/B737/Landing.pdf
Page 19 is the page with the tail clearence notes.
http://www.captainpilot.com/files/B737/Landing.pdf
Page 19 is the page with the tail clearence notes.