Citation Over-run in Brazil (video)

[swisspilot]

CJ3 = 7 windows. Book # wise 4,700 feet should not have been a problem, even wet. If someone posts the specifics (ICAO ident. an Wx conditions) I can plug it into APG for CJ3 for the hell of it.

The runway is 4,708, usually it`s not the one in use, you have to come in pretty high and dropp fast as there are a ton of high rise buildings on that side, you really see inside peoples windows when you land there.

 

[swisspilot]

Ya sure 'bout 'dat?

They use to operate Boeing 767–200 and Airbus A300 out of there.

 

[dasleben]

They use to operate Boeing 767–200 and Airbus A300 out of there.

Out of a 4700' runway? Empty maybe, and without what we'd consider legal numbers up here in the States.

I just flew a 767-300ER empty with about 25k lbs of gas, and a reject from V1 would have required a total distance of a little over 6000'*. The -200ER has better performance, but not that much better performance!

*Granted, reduced thrust and packs on.

 

[SteveC]

They use to operate Boeing 767–200 and Airbus A300 out of there.

Out of a 4700' runway? Empty maybe, and without what we'd consider legal numbers up here in the States.

I just flew a 767-300ER empty with about 25k lbs of gas, and a reject from V1 would have required a total distance of a little over 6000'*. The -200ER has better performance, but not that much better performance!

*Granted, reduced thrust and packs on.

Maybe by "out of there" he meant the airport, not that specific runway.

17L/35R 4,708'
17R/35L 6,365'

 

[dasleben]

Maybe by "out of there" he meant the airport, not that specific runway.

17L/35R 4,708'
17R/35L 6,365'

Ahhh, well that definitely makes more sense. Still tight, though.