I keep hearing the media state the CRJ fully loaded needs 5000+ feet for
takeoff. But the devil is always in the details: Does anyone have the approx
expected ground roll TO numbers? The expected roll distance to V1? And does
anyone know if runway 26 has runway remaining signage?
I'm asking because I would have expected rotation by 2500 feet and wheels
off by 3000. Contrast this with the media stating that the NTSB found scrape
marks on the departure end of runway 26 possibly from the CRJ overrotating.

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message news:34KIg.718

> I'm asking because I would have expected rotation by 2500 feet and wheels
> off by 3000.

Maybe empty, and maybe if it was a planned event, but loaded- I don't think
so. If someone has a book they could verify.

>Contrast this with the media stating that the NTSB found scrape marks on
> >the departure end of runway 26 possibly from the CRJ overrotating.

That would be consistent with a craft being muscled off the ground before it
was ready to fully fly. Possibly could have flown by 4500 or so feet, but
that's just a guess. As it was, it appears the craft sort of half-assed
flew for a half mile before settling back down. The flight path appears to
have been fairly straight, so I'd guess there was some degree of control.

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message news:34KIg.718
>
>> I'm asking because I would have expected rotation by 2500 feet and wheels
>> off by 3000.
>
> Maybe empty, and maybe if it was a planned event, but loaded- I don't
> think so. If someone has a book they could verify.
>
>>Contrast this with the media stating that the NTSB found scrape marks on
>> >the departure end of runway 26 possibly from the CRJ overrotating.
>
> That would be consistent with a craft being muscled off the ground before
> it was ready to fully fly. Possibly could have flown by 4500 or so feet,
> but that's just a guess. As it was, it appears the craft sort of
> half-assed flew for a half mile before settling back down. The flight
> path appears to have been fairly straight, so I'd guess there was some
> degree of control.

I understand that on some turbine A/C a standard procedure is to calculate
the power setting required for a given runway length, weight, density
altitude, etc. On takeoff, that power setting is used instead of full
power, saving wear and tear on the engines, and reducing noise and fuel
burn. Does anyone know if this is the case for the CRJ? I can imagine a
scenario where the pilots used a power setting calculated for a 7,000'
runway, whereas full power *might* have allowed the aircraft to safely
depart from a 3,500' runway.

Anyone familiar with these procedures for the CRJ?

KB

I can't imagine a fully loaded CRJ could make it off a 3500' runway...or
even intentionally try.
I fly a Hawker 700...full gross is 25,000 lbs...and we would never make
that...or even try it.

JMHO



"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
news:34KIg.718$wI5.407@trndny04...
>I keep hearing the media state the CRJ fully loaded needs 5000+ feet for
>takeoff. But the devil is always in the details: Does anyone have the
>approx expected ground roll TO numbers? The expected roll distance to V1?
>And does anyone know if runway 26 has runway remaining signage?
> I'm asking because I would have expected rotation by 2500 feet and wheels
> off by 3000. Contrast this with the media stating that the NTSB found
> scrape marks on the departure end of runway 26 possibly from the CRJ
> overrotating.
>

The fully loaded CRJ takes `5500 feet...

The airport diagram says no aircraft over 12,000 are to use 26 for landing or taxiing either.



"WRE" (remove nospam)> wrote in message ...
:I can't imagine a fully loaded CRJ could make it off a 3500' runway...or
: even intentionally try.
: I fly a Hawker 700...full gross is 25,000 lbs...and we would never make
: that...or even try it.
:
: JMHO
:
:
:
: "Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
: news:34KIg.718$wI5.407@trndny04...
: >I keep hearing the media state the CRJ fully loaded needs 5000+ feet for
: >takeoff. But the devil is always in the details: Does anyone have the
: >approx expected ground roll TO numbers? The expected roll distance to V1?
: >And does anyone know if runway 26 has runway remaining signage?
: > I'm asking because I would have expected rotation by 2500 feet and wheels
: > off by 3000. Contrast this with the media stating that the NTSB found
: > scrape marks on the departure end of runway 26 possibly from the CRJ
: > overrotating.
: >
:
:

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>
> I understand that on some turbine A/C a standard procedure is to calculate
> the power setting required for a given runway length, weight, density
> altitude, etc. On takeoff, that power setting is used instead of full
> power, saving wear and tear on the engines, and reducing noise and fuel
> burn.

That's correct. A "Reduced Performance Take-off" would have to be
specifically allowed by Comair's OpSpecs, and then there would likely be a
long list of conditions prohibiting its use. We used to have ten specific
conditions that could kill an RPT. Eleven, actually, as Captain's
discretion was at the top of the list :-).

> I can imagine a scenario where the pilots used a power setting calculated
> for a 7,000' runway, whereas full power *might* have allowed the aircraft
> to safely depart from a 3,500' runway.

I have no knowledge of the CRJ, but I don't think so. The power reduction
in a near-gross-weight airplane was enough to save a noticable amount of
fuel on the take-off, but not so great that it would effectively double your
take-off run.

We've had people in the sim at Downsview working this all day.
The deal is that the pilots missed several visual cues...
repaved runway now 150 ft. wide, new taxi routing,
small yellow sign a little down to the right that reads "3"...

Bush

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:26:07 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
> wrote:

>I keep hearing the media state the CRJ fully loaded needs 5000+ feet for
>takeoff. But the devil is always in the details: Does anyone have the approx
>expected ground roll TO numbers? The expected roll distance to V1? And does
>anyone know if runway 26 has runway remaining signage?
>I'm asking because I would have expected rotation by 2500 feet and wheels
>off by 3000. Contrast this with the media stating that the NTSB found scrape
>marks on the departure end of runway 26 possibly from the CRJ overrotating.
>

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:26:07 GMT, "Mike Isaksen" >
wrote:

>I keep hearing the media state the CRJ fully loaded needs 5000+ feet for
>takeoff. But the devil is always in the details: Does anyone have the approx
>expected ground roll TO numbers? The expected roll distance to V1? And does
>anyone know if runway 26 has runway remaining signage?
>I'm asking because I would have expected rotation by 2500 feet and wheels
>off by 3000. Contrast this with the media stating that the NTSB found scrape
>marks on the departure end of runway 26 possibly from the CRJ overrotating.


There are a number of runways here in British Columbia of around 5000',
which have been regularly used by CRJ's and/or 737's.
CYZT Port Hardy - 5000'
CYZP Sandspit - 5120'
CYDQ Dawson Creek - 5000'
CYCG Castlegar - 5300'

Many years ago I flew on a 737 from Vancouver to Port Hardy and
Sandspit.



randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/photos.htm

"randall g" > wrote in message >
>
> There are a number of runways here in British Columbia of around 5000',
> which have been regularly used by CRJ's and/or 737's.

5000+ ft seems to be the nominal number floating around for the CRJ, but
with proper configuration and/or load limiting, you can take some fairly
large airplanes into some fairly small places. DCA and LGA are obvious
examples. 727s at Tegucigalpa (TGU), with only about 5600 ft available
after the displaced threshold, and 747s into Marana (6800 ft) are a couple
of others.

They apparently got it in the air but hit the trees...



".Blueskies." > wrote in message et...
: The fully loaded CRJ takes `5500 feet...
:
: The airport diagram says no aircraft over 12,000 are to use 26 for landing or taxiing either.
:
:
:
: "WRE" (remove nospam)> wrote in message ...
::I can't imagine a fully loaded CRJ could make it off a 3500' runway...or
:: even intentionally try.
:: I fly a Hawker 700...full gross is 25,000 lbs...and we would never make
:: that...or even try it.
::
:: JMHO
::
::
::
:: "Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
:: news:34KIg.718$wI5.407@trndny04...
:: >I keep hearing the media state the CRJ fully loaded needs 5000+ feet for
:: >takeoff. But the devil is always in the details: Does anyone have the
:: >approx expected ground roll TO numbers? The expected roll distance to V1?
:: >And does anyone know if runway 26 has runway remaining signage?
:: > I'm asking because I would have expected rotation by 2500 feet and wheels
:: > off by 3000. Contrast this with the media stating that the NTSB found
:: > scrape marks on the departure end of runway 26 possibly from the CRJ
:: > overrotating.
:: >
::
::
:
:

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
om...
>
> They apparently got it in the air but hit the trees...
>

I saw a report that indicated it became airborne by hitting a berm after
leaving the runway.

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
om...
> They apparently got it in the air but hit the trees...
>
>

They got in the air because they launched off a ramp/berm much like a
British Aircraft Carrier. There were three sets of wheel marks on the ground
between the end of the runway and the beam.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:36:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> They got in the air because they launched off a ramp/berm much like a
> British Aircraft Carrier. There were three sets of wheel marks on the ground
> between the end of the runway and the beam.

Apparently, the CRJ does not work very well with a Jump Jet type of
takeoff... <sick-grin>

Speaking of which, I've become airborne more than once at the
intersection of 35 and 04 at HOU... Seems that when they put in the
04-22 runway, it's a bit higher than 35... Enough so that if you
haven't slowed down enough, it'll put you back in the air...

When I look at the figures quoted on Airnav for HOU, it actually
appears that 35 is higher than 04, but the way that I remember it
though is that there was a noticeable bump in 04 as you crossed it...
I don't fly into HOU much these days and rarely is the wind such that
we get to land on 35, so perhaps I'm just having an Alzheimer's
Moment... <grin>

>"randall g" wrote in message
> There are a number of runways here in British Columbia of around 5000',
> which have been regularly used by CRJ's and/or 737's.

Keep in mind that a reduced thrust power setting was likely used. Modern
airliners rarely use max power for take-off. If the crew set up for 7000' of
runway, the power was likely reduced quite a bit.

D.