"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..

It is apparently clear the plane was cleared to use one runway but used
the other. The early reports speculated thaat the runway used MAY have
been too short, but did not state so unequivocally.

Is there anyone here who actually knows? Is 3500 ft adequate for a fairly
well loaded 202? It sounds short to me, but I have no data available, no
facts upon which to base a conclusion.


I can't say whether 3500' is sufficient or not but I suspect it is not. But
even if the book said it could be done, if the crew believed the runway they
were using was considerably longer than 3500' they'd probably be in the
weeds at the far end.