B757 performance

Piarco · 02-28-2003, 11:55 PM

Just returned from a great 8-day ski trip to Vail, Colorado. Flew AA's B757 from SFO to EGE (Eagle County/Vail) and bypassed the trip to Denver.

Think the altitude of Eagle was about 8400 feet (city, not sure about the airport) and it is a small airport! However, AA, NW and DL all take 757's into there at various times--AA has 3 flights daily from DFW to EGE. United uses the BAe 146 regionals to DEN and CO used the 757 during the week I was there.

Upon departure, the captain turned off the AC system to enhance performance, but we seemed to clear the mountainous terrain by a country mile.

(Interestingly enough, the 757 had a problem with the APU upon arrival from DFW--it was inoperable! After boarding, the interior of the aircraft was about 20 degrees F! It delayed departure, but didn't seem to affect usage of the aircraft back to SFO)

My question is--how are small mountainous airports like EGE limited to what type of aircraft is used? For example, I can't even imagine an A340 trying to get up over the terrain at the end of the runway given what TraconDoug has related about the low altitude performance of the A340. Could 767's, 777's or A330's be used? Just curious and felt sure the aviation experts could have an answer.

Piarco

Piarco · 03-01-2003, 12:32 AM

Well after a little searching I determined that the elevation of EGE airport is only 6400ft (the surrounding towns of Vail, Beaver Creek and Edwards are higher). The runways at EGE are 8000 ft x 150 ft--so maybe it's not as small of an airport as it appears. What other larger aircraft could use this airport during the winter ski season or the summer season?

Piarco

Phugoid · 03-01-2003, 11:29 AM

Eagle is a special use airport per C67 of the Operations Specifications, requiring additional training per 121.445. The problem is not for normal operations, but takeoff climbs are established considering the performance of one engine inoperative. The one engine climb requires special maneuvers; departing runway 25 you turn left up Cotton Wood Pass toward Aspen, then you take a hard right turn toward Kremlin. The required climb gradient is 750 ft/nm up to 11,200 MSL. Departing runway 7 toward the Vail valley you follow the loc up to 14,000ft, climb gradient is 650ft/ nm to 11,800 then a normal 1.2 gradient to altitude. The BAC can do it because if they loose one engine, they still have three left, (though 146 really means one airplane, four engines, needs six). The 75 has the largest thrust to weight ratio of any commercial airliner. A 73-2 would not be able to achieve the minimum climb gradient when full, maybe when empty. Most of the commercial aircraft would not have the one engine performance to climb above the mountains within the space provided. In 96 or 97, UAL flew a 73-3, but that was just one season, and I don’t know how legal it was performance wise. Some of the older corporate jets cannot safely depart during the summer months, the Lear 24 & 25s and old Citations. The USAF flew Dan Quayle there in a DC-9 in the summer, maybe George Sr. was trying to get rid of him.

Piarco · 03-01-2003, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phugoid
Eagle is a special use airport....Most of the commercial aircraft would not have the one engine performance to climb above the mountains within the space provided....The USAF flew Dan Quayle there in a DC-9 in the summer, maybe George Sr. was trying to get rid of him.

!! Maybe he was!

Thanks for the information. Was the first time I've been to EGE and made for a very interesting trip. (and I'm guessing there's no way an A340 would be allowed at EGE?

)

Tracon Doug · 03-01-2003, 05:10 PM

KEGE Eagle County Regional Airport
Eagle, Colorado, USA

Runway Information
Runway 7/25
Dimensions: 8000 x 150 ft. / 2438 x 46 m
Surface: asphalt/grooved, in good condition
Weight limitations: Single wheel: 75000 lbs
Double wheel: 140000 lbs
Double tandem: 225000 lbs

Hi Piarco,

Sorry I didn't see your thread earlier! Performance notwithstanding, there's another operational consideration for Eagle: Runway strength.

Performance-wise, especially during the winter, a 767/330/777 would have no problem operating there. The problem lies in their typical operating/landing weights. Eagle's single runway is only certified to a maximum of 225,000 lbs, for a double tandem landing gear type aircraft. Some examples of double tandem wheels are the 757/767, L1011, DC-10-10, A330, etc.... The typical landing weight of all of those listed aircraft, other than the 757 are well in excess of 300,000 lbs. That's not to say that a structural failure of the runway would definitely occur if one of the above mentioned aircraft decided to drop in for a visit (more than likely, the runway would hold up fine), but there's a chance that they could have a problem. Ramp/parking area strength is a consideration also. I remember back in the very early 80's when the main runway at Kahului, Maui, was lengthened and strengthened for the now common direct service from the mainland, somebody dropped the ball on ramp strengthening. Shortly after direct service started, American had a DC-10-10, followed by a United DC-8-71, that both promptly sank into the asphalt ramp area, as they sat parked...... ooopsy.

Oh, and that pig A340?? Fugghedaboutit!

Scott · 03-02-2003, 12:48 AM

Phugoid, I can assure you that UA's use of the 733 was LEGAL!
I flew the 73 during that vintage but never had a schedule involving EGE. Almost certainly the aircraft were weight-restricted enabling them to conform to 1st and 2nd segment single-engine parameters.

Phugoid · 03-02-2003, 05:16 PM

First segment climb commences from rotation to gear up and requires only a positive climb gradient be established, it ends at 35 feet above the airport. Second segment climb occurs at the point of gear retraction and continues up to 400 feet above the airport, the gradient is 2.4% in this sector, thereafter the airplane is cleaned up with a required climb gradient of 1.2%. This is for certification purposes. Now EGE requires a climb gradient of 750ft/nm which equates to about 7 degrees or 12.3%, at a 73s single engine climb out speed, a rate of climb of 1860 fpm, up to 11,200 feet, that’s 4,665 feet above the airport. After that you still have to climb to the MEA of 16,000 en route. I’m not assured that the performance was adequate, I know what our company has tried to pull on us, and I know other companies do the same, all to make a buck – cheaply, not honestly.

Another point comes to mind though, do you really want to take an ol’ 73 out of EGE?

You (not necessarily you Scott, but just to make the story more relevant to our readers we’ll use this personal pronoun) show up for departure at EGE. As Piarco's airplane you notice the APU has been written up and MEL’d per SAM. Okay, well maybe they can fix it in ORD. The weather in ORD is CAVU, while local conditions are:

METAR KEGE 031551Z AUTO 09010KT 3SM –SG OVC 017 00/M03 A3001 RMK AO2 SGB05 T00111032

Not bad, you think, it should be an easy day. Tonight you and the crew have a long layover in MIA, skiing yesterday, beach today, ah the life of an airline pilot. So you go and get the airplane ready for the passengers, expecting an on time departure. Yep it’s a light snow outside so you order de-icing, everything else appears normal. Your weights are light today, just at 110,which when flipping through the speed cards gives you 123, 123, 133 for flap 5 takeoff. Doors closed parking brake is released, you’re getting paid.

Cleared for takeoff, with the checklist complete, you’re accelerating down runway 7, it’s your leg, you hear 80kts cross-checked, V1, and bang – it’s loud, if the coffee didn’t wake you up this did. A quick scan of the engine readings and your beloved CFM-56-3-b1 just became recyclable beer cans. Before you can swear you hear “Rotate”. Your heart has sank into the E&E compartment, no this can’t be, it’s not happening to me, I didn’t read the engine right, the thrust lever must have slipped back. Denial is not giving you airspeed.

Automatically you’ve already rotated and are pitching for Vsub2, positive rate gear up, hold Vsub2 to 400, accelerate and clean up. You are in the clouds now, you think about going back to EGE but it’s dropped below minimums, doesn’t matter the first priority is altitude. Good thing you were light coming out of EGE because your climb out speed is 157 kias and it is giving you 2000 fpm on the IVSI, just about a 7 degree climb. Only 100 fpm less and you wouldn’t be legal. You’re still a bit too busy getting everything settled down by 10,000 feet but the rubber jungle in back has deployed and the F/O is sharp enough to have his mask on. Finally, you get a chance to go on oxygen yourself, good thing you stay in shape and don’t smoke because you’re passing 12,000 feet.

Time to relax and make some decisions, go for Denver with maintenance and emergency equipment, or make a turn and go for GJT? No high mountains on the way to GJT. If you decide to go to Denver you still have the highest part waiting for you. How are the upper winds doing? Any chance of mountain wave activity, will the aircraft have the performance to fly out of a descending wave? Umm, GJT might be looking better. The MEA of 16,000 feet is not looking promising, besides now you notice some ice forming on the wind shield wipers, time for an application of some wing and nacelle heat. It’s amazing how much power is zapped when that bleed valve is opened up and the temp starts to rise, a little turbulence now, it’s getting more difficult to hold airspeed, the VSI is settling, what a bad flight, and just when things get really bad... you wake up. Your heart slows its beating and you roll over in bed smiling, realizing that you upgraded to the 757 and you now will have a bit more performance when you need it.

When Eastern got their A300 they tried to certify it for DCA, the Airbus test pilot flew it and the only way that he could make the runway was with a descent of 1000 fpm on final. Management tried to convince the pilots that this was a normal approach – ALPA refused and Eastern was never able to operate their A300 on that trip segment. Airline management does this all the time, it takes vigilance to keep them in check. You know the joke about the dog and pilot, well we really need a dog to watch and bite management when they get out of line, and no I do not think the FAA is an effective dog, and ALPO is turning into a bureaucracy only concerned that you pay your monthly dues. Woe be you when you need those dues to work for you. You’re on your own, as they say “watch out for number one.”

Piarco · 03-03-2003, 09:42 AM

Fascinating scenario, Phugoid...and thanks all around for the type of information and response I'd like to read more often around here. I for one, am grateful for the professionalism and expertise of pilots like you, Scott, Doug and others. I have several pilots as patients (AA, UA and Air Canada) and I'm becoming more and more aware of the amount of work required in maintaining your careers, along with dealing with crap from upper management as well. If anyone still reads "Airways", check out Drury's article concerning "Paychecks" in the back...worth a read. Thanks again.

Piarco

Scott · 03-04-2003, 12:44 AM

Nice scenario Phugoid, and a great exploration into the more esoteric realm of commercial flying. I still counter that a 733 can be safely operated into EGE, albeit at a reduced weight.
Given your parameters, the takeoff weight would be reduced to 105,000. This would yield a single-engine service ceiling of 19,100 ft, reduced to 16,900 with engine and wing anti-ice. The penalty for inop APU is an additional 1600 pounds - not very comfortable. UA would not dispatch a guppy to EGE in such disrepair, nor would I accept it. A last-minute malfunction prior to takeoff would incur a further weight penalty.

I'm not familiar with the A-300 series, what approach at DCA was in need of a 1000fpm descent?

ALPA is an imperfect organization currently shoveling against the relentless tide of competitive economics. Most of my brethren at UA can "look through the flight director" and lay significant blame at labor's tactics. If you are ex-Eastern your bitterness is certainly understood.

Phugoid · 03-04-2003, 03:09 AM

Thanks for providing more legitimate numbers, Scott. Though the 733 may be able to legally depart EGE, I’d rather be in a 75 with the big engines. That attitude may stem from the American attitude that more power is better.

The situation with A-300 and DCA was the stopping distance on rnwy 18. The approach to 18 is pretty tight, you got the Pentagram on the right and Casa Blanca on the left, over the river you’re heading about 155 on a modified right base, heck you probably have the chart, I don’t. Anyhow it’s a quick descending turn on short final. To get the stopping distance to be within parameters, apparently, the TP developed a high sink rate, otherwise the numbers didn’t work. The MEC over at EAL didn’t buy it. I don’t know the exact problem, if it was the 15% rule for wet runways or the 60% effective stopping distance. They’ve added to the runway since then, back in the late 70’s it was 6,870 but EAL never did fly their bus in there, other than the (dis-) proving flights.

Scott · 03-04-2003, 11:05 PM

I would absolutely agree the 757 has more performance reserve at EGE compared to a 733. And probably more economically viable, particularly in a mature market with a high demand for seats.

Interesting that the A300 was a marginal player at DCA. I've seen a FedEx widebody airbus at BUR. (possibly an A-310?)
Short runway as well, but can be flown with a traditional ILS or visual approach.

Travelin' Man · 03-04-2003, 11:30 PM

Boy Phugoid you have quite the imagination. EGE is a cake walk for a 737 that is flying within the performance requirements. Eagle is pretty tame compared to Aspen or Telluride. Of course you will not ever see a 737 or 757 at either one of those airports.
The way you describe it sounds like a 737 would perform like a Cessna 172 that is overloaded trying to make it over Vail Pass in a snow storm.

Phugoid · 03-05-2003, 02:15 AM

Don't get me started. Aspen's cool 'cause you can wave to the people that live in Starwood while you're on downwind. But Telluride (KTEX) is a hoot. RMA flew BE-02s in there, the c and b models. Single engine runway 9 was to drop below the airport, feather and clean up, gain altitude on the downwind in the valley so you could turn base and land again runway 9, Runway 27 was drop down into the valley and fly to Montrose, I think. That was under the old system of 135, don’t think you could get away with that kind of planning today. KTEX elevation is 9078 and this is final for 9.

Chansen · 03-05-2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phugoid
RMA flew BE-02s in there, the c and b models.

Travelin' Man · 03-05-2003, 03:58 PM

I talked to a pilot last week that flys a G-V into Telluride on a regular basis. He says that the G-V handles much better then the G-IV. Now that sounds like fun.

As for myself, forget the Jet's, I would rather fly in a Pilatus PC-12/45 over my beloved Rockies. Sure you only got one engine, but boy does she rock. Of course the PC-6 Porter would be a fun ride as well.

Don't foget that if you are landing on 33 at KASE, you run the chance of hitting some of the big air moto riders from the ESPN-X Games when you pass over Buttermilk!

mikeytex · 03-05-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phugoid
....But Telluride (KTEX) is a hoot..........

I flew into Telluride on a Beech 1900 about 5 years ago. The pilot had opened the "door" to the cockpit after we had reached cruise altitude, and it remained open the entire duration of the flight. Needless to say, I was looking out the cockpit window upon our arrival. Talking about wild!!!! Bump city, and the runway looked as though we were coming in at a steep angle. I was glad when we landed!! Thank God I made my return trip departing from Montrose.....

Piarco · 03-05-2003, 09:24 PM

Well, that does it...now I've got to schedule a trip to fly into Telluride sometime soon! That looks very cool...

02-28-2003, 11:55 PM	#1
Piarco Mondo Zouk & Soca Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Mateo, California (SFO) Posts: 553	B757 performance Just returned from a great 8-day ski trip to Vail, Colorado. Flew AA's B757 from SFO to EGE (Eagle County/Vail) and bypassed the trip to Denver. Think the altitude of Eagle was about 8400 feet (city, not sure about the airport) and it is a small airport! However, AA, NW and DL all take 757's into there at various times--AA has 3 flights daily from DFW to EGE. United uses the BAe 146 regionals to DEN and CO used the 757 during the week I was there. Upon departure, the captain turned off the AC system to enhance performance, but we seemed to clear the mountainous terrain by a country mile. (Interestingly enough, the 757 had a problem with the APU upon arrival from DFW--it was inoperable! After boarding, the interior of the aircraft was about 20 degrees F! It delayed departure, but didn't seem to affect usage of the aircraft back to SFO) My question is--how are small mountainous airports like EGE limited to what type of aircraft is used? For example, I can't even imagine an A340 trying to get up over the terrain at the end of the runway given what TraconDoug has related about the low altitude performance of the A340. Could 767's, 777's or A330's be used? Just curious and felt sure the aviation experts could have an answer. Piarco Last edited by Piarco; 03-01-2003 at 12:01 AM.

03-01-2003, 05:10 PM	#5
Tracon Doug Vector For Spacing Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Portland, Oregon Age: 51 Posts: 857	KEGE Eagle County Regional Airport Eagle, Colorado, USA Runway Information Runway 7/25 Dimensions: 8000 x 150 ft. / 2438 x 46 m Surface: asphalt/grooved, in good condition Weight limitations: Single wheel: 75000 lbs Double wheel: 140000 lbs Double tandem: 225000 lbs Hi Piarco, Sorry I didn't see your thread earlier! Performance notwithstanding, there's another operational consideration for Eagle: Runway strength. Performance-wise, especially during the winter, a 767/330/777 would have no problem operating there. The problem lies in their typical operating/landing weights. Eagle's single runway is only certified to a maximum of 225,000 lbs, for a double tandem landing gear type aircraft. Some examples of double tandem wheels are the 757/767, L1011, DC-10-10, A330, etc.... The typical landing weight of all of those listed aircraft, other than the 757 are well in excess of 300,000 lbs. That's not to say that a structural failure of the runway would definitely occur if one of the above mentioned aircraft decided to drop in for a visit (more than likely, the runway would hold up fine), but there's a chance that they could have a problem. Ramp/parking area strength is a consideration also. I remember back in the very early 80's when the main runway at Kahului, Maui, was lengthened and strengthened for the now common direct service from the mainland, somebody dropped the ball on ramp strengthening. Shortly after direct service started, American had a DC-10-10, followed by a United DC-8-71, that both promptly sank into the asphalt ramp area, as they sat parked...... ooopsy. Oh, and that pig A340?? Fugghedaboutit! __________________ Piss On Noise Abatement! Doug Kenaga Portland TRACON Dallas/Fort Worth TRACON SoCal TRACON Los Angeles TRACON

03-02-2003, 12:48 AM	#6
Scott Insane Collector Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Escondido, Ca. USA Age: 50 Posts: 2,763	Phugoid, I can assure you that UA's use of the 733 was LEGAL! I flew the 73 during that vintage but never had a schedule involving EGE. Almost certainly the aircraft were weight-restricted enabling them to conform to 1st and 2nd segment single-engine parameters. __________________ Fly the Friendly Skies of United uniTED takes wing Feb 12, 2004

03-02-2003, 05:16 PM	#7
Phugoid Collector Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 90	First segment climb commences from rotation to gear up and requires only a positive climb gradient be established, it ends at 35 feet above the airport. Second segment climb occurs at the point of gear retraction and continues up to 400 feet above the airport, the gradient is 2.4% in this sector, thereafter the airplane is cleaned up with a required climb gradient of 1.2%. This is for certification purposes. Now EGE requires a climb gradient of 750ft/nm which equates to about 7 degrees or 12.3%, at a 73s single engine climb out speed, a rate of climb of 1860 fpm, up to 11,200 feet, that’s 4,665 feet above the airport. After that you still have to climb to the MEA of 16,000 en route. I’m not assured that the performance was adequate, I know what our company has tried to pull on us, and I know other companies do the same, all to make a buck – cheaply, not honestly. Another point comes to mind though, do you really want to take an ol’ 73 out of EGE? You (not necessarily you Scott, but just to make the story more relevant to our readers we’ll use this personal pronoun) show up for departure at EGE. As Piarco's airplane you notice the APU has been written up and MEL’d per SAM. Okay, well maybe they can fix it in ORD. The weather in ORD is CAVU, while local conditions are: METAR KEGE 031551Z AUTO 09010KT 3SM –SG OVC 017 00/M03 A3001 RMK AO2 SGB05 T00111032 Not bad, you think, it should be an easy day. Tonight you and the crew have a long layover in MIA, skiing yesterday, beach today, ah the life of an airline pilot. So you go and get the airplane ready for the passengers, expecting an on time departure. Yep it’s a light snow outside so you order de-icing, everything else appears normal. Your weights are light today, just at 110,which when flipping through the speed cards gives you 123, 123, 133 for flap 5 takeoff. Doors closed parking brake is released, you’re getting paid. Cleared for takeoff, with the checklist complete, you’re accelerating down runway 7, it’s your leg, you hear 80kts cross-checked, V1, and bang – it’s loud, if the coffee didn’t wake you up this did. A quick scan of the engine readings and your beloved CFM-56-3-b1 just became recyclable beer cans. Before you can swear you hear “Rotate”. Your heart has sank into the E&E compartment, no this can’t be, it’s not happening to me, I didn’t read the engine right, the thrust lever must have slipped back. Denial is not giving you airspeed. Automatically you’ve already rotated and are pitching for Vsub2, positive rate gear up, hold Vsub2 to 400, accelerate and clean up. You are in the clouds now, you think about going back to EGE but it’s dropped below minimums, doesn’t matter the first priority is altitude. Good thing you were light coming out of EGE because your climb out speed is 157 kias and it is giving you 2000 fpm on the IVSI, just about a 7 degree climb. Only 100 fpm less and you wouldn’t be legal. You’re still a bit too busy getting everything settled down by 10,000 feet but the rubber jungle in back has deployed and the F/O is sharp enough to have his mask on. Finally, you get a chance to go on oxygen yourself, good thing you stay in shape and don’t smoke because you’re passing 12,000 feet. Time to relax and make some decisions, go for Denver with maintenance and emergency equipment, or make a turn and go for GJT? No high mountains on the way to GJT. If you decide to go to Denver you still have the highest part waiting for you. How are the upper winds doing? Any chance of mountain wave activity, will the aircraft have the performance to fly out of a descending wave? Umm, GJT might be looking better. The MEA of 16,000 feet is not looking promising, besides now you notice some ice forming on the wind shield wipers, time for an application of some wing and nacelle heat. It’s amazing how much power is zapped when that bleed valve is opened up and the temp starts to rise, a little turbulence now, it’s getting more difficult to hold airspeed, the VSI is settling, what a bad flight, and just when things get really bad... you wake up. Your heart slows its beating and you roll over in bed smiling, realizing that you upgraded to the 757 and you now will have a bit more performance when you need it. When Eastern got their A300 they tried to certify it for DCA, the Airbus test pilot flew it and the only way that he could make the runway was with a descent of 1000 fpm on final. Management tried to convince the pilots that this was a normal approach – ALPA refused and Eastern was never able to operate their A300 on that trip segment. Airline management does this all the time, it takes vigilance to keep them in check. You know the joke about the dog and pilot, well we really need a dog to watch and bite management when they get out of line, and no I do not think the FAA is an effective dog, and ALPO is turning into a bureaucracy only concerned that you pay your monthly dues. Woe be you when you need those dues to work for you. You’re on your own, as they say “watch out for number one.” Last edited by Phugoid; 03-02-2003 at 05:19 PM.

03-04-2003, 12:44 AM	#9
Scott Insane Collector Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Escondido, Ca. USA Age: 50 Posts: 2,763	Nice scenario Phugoid, and a great exploration into the more esoteric realm of commercial flying. I still counter that a 733 can be safely operated into EGE, albeit at a reduced weight. Given your parameters, the takeoff weight would be reduced to 105,000. This would yield a single-engine service ceiling of 19,100 ft, reduced to 16,900 with engine and wing anti-ice. The penalty for inop APU is an additional 1600 pounds - not very comfortable. UA would not dispatch a guppy to EGE in such disrepair, nor would I accept it. A last-minute malfunction prior to takeoff would incur a further weight penalty. I'm not familiar with the A-300 series, what approach at DCA was in need of a 1000fpm descent? ALPA is an imperfect organization currently shoveling against the relentless tide of competitive economics. Most of my brethren at UA can "look through the flight director" and lay significant blame at labor's tactics. If you are ex-Eastern your bitterness is certainly understood. __________________ Fly the Friendly Skies of United uniTED takes wing Feb 12, 2004

03-01-2003, 12:32 AM	#2
Piarco Mondo Zouk & Soca Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Mateo, California (SFO) Posts: 553	Well after a little searching I determined that the elevation of EGE airport is only 6400ft (the surrounding towns of Vail, Beaver Creek and Edwards are higher). The runways at EGE are 8000 ft x 150 ft--so maybe it's not as small of an airport as it appears. What other larger aircraft could use this airport during the winter ski season or the summer season? Piarco

03-01-2003, 11:29 AM	#3
Phugoid Collector Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 90	Eagle is a special use airport per C67 of the Operations Specifications, requiring additional training per 121.445. The problem is not for normal operations, but takeoff climbs are established considering the performance of one engine inoperative. The one engine climb requires special maneuvers; departing runway 25 you turn left up Cotton Wood Pass toward Aspen, then you take a hard right turn toward Kremlin. The required climb gradient is 750 ft/nm up to 11,200 MSL. Departing runway 7 toward the Vail valley you follow the loc up to 14,000ft, climb gradient is 650ft/ nm to 11,800 then a normal 1.2 gradient to altitude. The BAC can do it because if they loose one engine, they still have three left, (though 146 really means one airplane, four engines, needs six). The 75 has the largest thrust to weight ratio of any commercial airliner. A 73-2 would not be able to achieve the minimum climb gradient when full, maybe when empty. Most of the commercial aircraft would not have the one engine performance to climb above the mountains within the space provided. In 96 or 97, UAL flew a 73-3, but that was just one season, and I don’t know how legal it was performance wise. Some of the older corporate jets cannot safely depart during the summer months, the Lear 24 & 25s and old Citations. The USAF flew Dan Quayle there in a DC-9 in the summer, maybe George Sr. was trying to get rid of him.

03-03-2003, 09:42 AM	#8
Piarco Mondo Zouk & Soca Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Mateo, California (SFO) Posts: 553	Fascinating scenario, Phugoid...and thanks all around for the type of information and response I'd like to read more often around here. I for one, am grateful for the professionalism and expertise of pilots like you, Scott, Doug and others. I have several pilots as patients (AA, UA and Air Canada) and I'm becoming more and more aware of the amount of work required in maintaining your careers, along with dealing with crap from upper management as well. If anyone still reads "Airways", check out Drury's article concerning "Paychecks" in the back...worth a read. Thanks again. Piarco

03-04-2003, 03:09 AM	#10
Phugoid Collector Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 90	Thanks for providing more legitimate numbers, Scott. Though the 733 may be able to legally depart EGE, I’d rather be in a 75 with the big engines. That attitude may stem from the American attitude that more power is better. The situation with A-300 and DCA was the stopping distance on rnwy 18. The approach to 18 is pretty tight, you got the Pentagram on the right and Casa Blanca on the left, over the river you’re heading about 155 on a modified right base, heck you probably have the chart, I don’t. Anyhow it’s a quick descending turn on short final. To get the stopping distance to be within parameters, apparently, the TP developed a high sink rate, otherwise the numbers didn’t work. The MEC over at EAL didn’t buy it. I don’t know the exact problem, if it was the 15% rule for wet runways or the 60% effective stopping distance. They’ve added to the runway since then, back in the late 70’s it was 6,870 but EAL never did fly their bus in there, other than the (dis-) proving flights.

03-04-2003, 11:05 PM	#11
Scott Insane Collector Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Escondido, Ca. USA Age: 50 Posts: 2,763	I would absolutely agree the 757 has more performance reserve at EGE compared to a 733. And probably more economically viable, particularly in a mature market with a high demand for seats. Interesting that the A300 was a marginal player at DCA. I've seen a FedEx widebody airbus at BUR. (possibly an A-310?) Short runway as well, but can be flown with a traditional ILS or visual approach. __________________ Fly the Friendly Skies of United uniTED takes wing Feb 12, 2004

03-04-2003, 11:30 PM	#12
Travelin' Man Insane Collector Join Date: May 2000 Location: Aspen USA!!! Posts: 1,919	Boy Phugoid you have quite the imagination. EGE is a cake walk for a 737 that is flying within the performance requirements. Eagle is pretty tame compared to Aspen or Telluride. Of course you will not ever see a 737 or 757 at either one of those airports. The way you describe it sounds like a 737 would perform like a Cessna 172 that is overloaded trying to make it over Vail Pass in a snow storm.

03-05-2003, 02:15 AM	#13
Phugoid Collector Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 90	Don't get me started. Aspen's cool 'cause you can wave to the people that live in Starwood while you're on downwind. But Telluride (KTEX) is a hoot. RMA flew BE-02s in there, the c and b models. Single engine runway 9 was to drop below the airport, feather and clean up, gain altitude on the downwind in the valley so you could turn base and land again runway 9, Runway 27 was drop down into the valley and fly to Montrose, I think. That was under the old system of 135, don’t think you could get away with that kind of planning today. KTEX elevation is 9078 and this is final for 9.

03-05-2003, 03:58 PM	#15
Travelin' Man Insane Collector Join Date: May 2000 Location: Aspen USA!!! Posts: 1,919	I talked to a pilot last week that flys a G-V into Telluride on a regular basis. He says that the G-V handles much better then the G-IV. Now that sounds like fun. As for myself, forget the Jet's, I would rather fly in a Pilatus PC-12/45 over my beloved Rockies. Sure you only got one engine, but boy does she rock. Of course the PC-6 Porter would be a fun ride as well. Don't foget that if you are landing on 33 at KASE, you run the chance of hitting some of the big air moto riders from the ESPN-X Games when you pass over Buttermilk! Last edited by Travelin' Man; 03-05-2003 at 04:01 PM.

03-05-2003, 09:24 PM	#17
Piarco Mondo Zouk & Soca Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Mateo, California (SFO) Posts: 553	Well, that does it...now I've got to schedule a trip to fly into Telluride sometime soon! That looks very cool...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: