Todos
← 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) Mais...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
There's no problem with the plane, the problem with the pilots
Boeing make a huge error in using the 1962 airplane, the 737-100 and kept trying to make larger and larger, the 737-900 is an example that is was time to stop, they take lots of runways, cruise at 320 feet and are uncomfortable. The should have worked of the 757/767 or went ahead and built the 797. I hate to fly any of the 737 series above the737-700 or the 737-800. This will be studied in the business schools as a mistake similar to the new COKE. Boeing use to be about quality and know the build junk, I not sure Airbus in any better. Profits over safety.
With SW and many other airlines standardized on the 737, why build yourself out of customers? There were many other factors in the decision but marketing by far is the most important.
Great comment chalet about long haul departures out of Bogota on Rwy 13. The implication being that the B787-9 has a better climb gradient on one engine than the A340-300 is able to manage on three engines. That is unless the Airbus had suffered some kind of double engine failure???
It is not only the WAT factors to take into consideration, it is what they call "Escape Routes" which deals with what kind of terrain lies right ahead of an airport if a twin engine aircraft at MTOW has one engine failure right after V2. For instance the new Quito, Ecuador airport has severe escape route limitations specially when taking off from runway 36. Bogotá ditto when taking off from runway 13 (an 340-300 had a dicey take off in 2017 which prompted the BEA to consider it a very serious incident; they are flying now 787-9 from that airport; Iberia is all 340-600 to Bogotá; LH switched from -300 to -600 shortly thereafter). Now La Paz, Bolivia has a dubious "square situation": 13,000 ft. altitude and 13,000 ft. long runway and still can not sustain flights longer than 5-6 hours
Escape routes are visual only, IFR departures requires a climb gradient with an engine inop. predicated on W.A.T.
The three airports that I mentioned are surrounded by hills and mountains all quadrants.
And what does that have to do with meeting second segment climb gradient other than it’s definition?
Where there ain't enough room for a safe first segment and worse off a second segment, say your prayers.
The only way the airlines could cheat the 2.4/2.7 or 3% climb gradient for Two/Three or Four engine aircraft was to do a VMC departure so that in the event of a engine failure they could see and avoid rising terrain and return to the airport. If everything worked out ok they then had the fuel required for the planned trip. I never liked that idea especially on the A340-300 which required over 10,000’ of runway at GTOW at Sea Level let alone high elevation airports.
The 340-300 was always considered to be underpowered whereas the -600 version with the RR engines is considered somewhat overpowered for take offs at sea level but very well suited for high altitude airports.