All
← Back to Squawk list
Boeing has called its 737 Max 8 ‘not suitable’ for certain airports
Before last month’s crash of a flight that began in Ethiopia, Boeing Co. said in a legal document that large, upgraded 737s “cannot be used at what are referred to as ‘high/hot’ airports." (www.latimes.com) More...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Again, another article I can't read without buying into another provider. If you are going to link to it, I shouldn't have to pay to read it!
I totally agree
A workaround is to right click on the link for the LAT and choose private or incognito mode.....no cookies to track you. Doesn't work for all sites like WSJ or Financial Times.
I tried using the incognito window and got a paywall drop down. Using a regular window allowed me to read it. LAT can see private browsing.
This the kind of crap that gets non aviation readers upset? The simple truth is that all aircraft are W.A.T. limited (weight/altitude/temperature), and there are charts (old school) and FMS calculations (new school) available to determine aircraft performance. What’s not taught sufficiently during training (sim) is how degraded performance affects particular aircraft aerodynamics. It’s easy to stop or go after an engine comes apart before or after V1, but whether at Mexico City, Quito, Ecuador or Miami, aircraft performance (or lack of) generally surprises the heck out of the crews when in the real world!
Some planes are worse than others , the 737-900s especially use a lot of runway. The 737-700s do ok, my opinion is the airplane should have been elevated with a taller gear, similar to the Airbus series or 757. Probably will see the 757/767s around for a while is my guess
Unfortunately Boeing chose to continue the 737 series instead of the 757 product, which was in many ways a generation ahead.
If you would like to see "using a lot of runway" and have a laugh, see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/7tndcz/the_vodka_burner_is_rolling_russian_cargo_jet/
Pardon my ignorance but it seemed to me that he didn't sit on his brakes and allow the noisemakers to fully wind up before rolling. I am under the impression that those (appear to be older) low-bypass engines needed several seconds to spool-up before you started to roll. Or am I wrong on this ? Also I didn't notice a windsock, maybe there was no headwind, it was Australia so the OAT have been very high and, since it was Australia, a long way from anywhere else, he might have had very full tanks.
That video looks like it was taken from the Control Tower of Canberra Airport (YSCB). It is taking off on runway 17 before it was extended from 2683m to 3283m (8802ft to 10771ft).