737-800 Limitations
10-02-2012, 04:47 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,491
Flaps 30 Vref is bumped to 1.3 Vso.
Flaps 40 isn't bumped.
Years ago 1.3 Vso was pretty standard. Now they appear to certify using 1.23-1.25.
10-05-2012, 07:58 AM
#12
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 20
Had a FAA dude from the CMO office in Dallas on the JS watching our Class 2 flight to SJU a few weeks ago. He told us SWA stopped taking -800s due to perf issues mostly in MDW. Before the company turned off us getting landing data from acars, you could compare those numbers with the new SWA paper numbers we have to use. The difference is shocking. The SWA numbers add about 2500 feet to landing performance. No more idle reverse except for brakes one, etc.
10-06-2012, 05:25 AM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: ATCS/Retired
Posts: 61
My -800/MDW experience:
It was a challenge.
Normally, always a Flaps 40/Brakes 3 landing. (SOP with <7000') With very light weights, Brakes 2 will work. Gusty winds = Flaps 30 was acceptable if 40 would result in Flap Load Relief issues. Landing distance not a problem here. BA reports must have been "Fair" or better. We used WSR performance calculations. Pay attention to that tailwind component! If you know MDW, you know they don't like using 13.
Warm weather takeoffs, greater than 85ºF or so, = 27K, Flaps 25, Alternate bleed, with winds and altimeter corrections to get off and to the west coast. Generally started bumping pax starting around 88º, depending on winds. OGG and LIH T/O performance was even more limited.
It was fun.
It was a challenge.
Normally, always a Flaps 40/Brakes 3 landing. (SOP with <7000') With very light weights, Brakes 2 will work. Gusty winds = Flaps 30 was acceptable if 40 would result in Flap Load Relief issues. Landing distance not a problem here. BA reports must have been "Fair" or better. We used WSR performance calculations. Pay attention to that tailwind component! If you know MDW, you know they don't like using 13.
Warm weather takeoffs, greater than 85ºF or so, = 27K, Flaps 25, Alternate bleed, with winds and altimeter corrections to get off and to the west coast. Generally started bumping pax starting around 88º, depending on winds. OGG and LIH T/O performance was even more limited.
It was fun.
10-06-2012, 09:31 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,803
Had a FAA dude from the CMO office in Dallas on the JS watching our Class 2 flight to SJU a few weeks ago. He told us SWA stopped taking -800s due to perf issues mostly in MDW. Before the company turned off us getting landing data from acars, you could compare those numbers with the new SWA paper numbers we have to use. The difference is shocking. The SWA numbers add about 2500 feet to landing performance. No more idle reverse except for brakes one, etc.
We're talking about situations where you have to use full reverse and brakes 2 on 9,000' dry runways. Oh well, at least fuel's cheap and it's much more fun to make noise with full reverse instead of idle reverse. Oh, and then the subsequent three minute cooling time that's required. Ah, fuel costs fuel smosts.
10-06-2012, 10:13 AM
#16
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
The new performance data/numbers we have to use at AirTran are RIDICULOUS! I'm not sure if it's a knee-jerk reaction because of the SWA overruns, but it is WAY too conservative.
We're talking about situations where you have to use full reverse and brakes 2 on 9,000' dry runways. Oh well, at least fuel's cheap and it's much more fun to make noise with full reverse instead of idle reverse. Oh, and then the subsequent three minute cooling time that's required. Ah, fuel costs fuel smosts.
We're talking about situations where you have to use full reverse and brakes 2 on 9,000' dry runways. Oh well, at least fuel's cheap and it's much more fun to make noise with full reverse instead of idle reverse. Oh, and then the subsequent three minute cooling time that's required. Ah, fuel costs fuel smosts.
The -800 is a pig, there's no doubt about that, though. Going from the 757 to that thing felt like sitting in an airplane where the engineers got drunk on a saturday night. Sloppy flight control, sloppy braking, and those oh so advanced systems. The only the -700 improved was it climbed a bit better.
10-06-2012, 02:30 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
3 min cooling time after landing on a CFM56 is standard. What did yall used to use?
The -800 is a pig, there's no doubt about that, though. Going from the 757 to that thing felt like sitting in an airplane where the engineers got drunk on a saturday night. Sloppy flight control, sloppy braking, and those oh so advanced systems. The only the -700 improved was it climbed a bit better.
The -800 is a pig, there's no doubt about that, though. Going from the 757 to that thing felt like sitting in an airplane where the engineers got drunk on a saturday night. Sloppy flight control, sloppy braking, and those oh so advanced systems. The only the -700 improved was it climbed a bit better.
10-06-2012, 02:33 PM
#18
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
10-06-2012, 08:58 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 270
10-06-2012, 09:45 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: A-320 Capt
Posts: 270
TW
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
