Minimum runway for RJ operations?

deskjockey

deskjockey

New Member
For any of the Regional pilots out there, I was wondering what your airlines normally use for a minimum runway requirement? Depending on weight, approach speeds, wx, etc what is the minimum you can land on?

I'm writing a paper for a ERAU online class and this info would be helpful, and I promise not to quote anyone directly... at least without appropriate compensation. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
You answered it yourself, it depends! EYW Which has 4800 feet and is the shortest, that I know of that airlines operate landings and takeoffs out of there. THe ERJ135 can do it full, with a Max power takeoff. I believe the CRJ700 does it with a reduced load.
 
[ QUOTE ]
For any of the Regional pilots out there, I was wondering what your airlines normally use for a minimum runway requirement? Depending on weight, approach speeds, wx, etc what is the minimum you can land on?

[/ QUOTE ]
The limiting factor for taking a jet into an airport is usually not the landing distance. You are more likely to be runway limited for takeoff, since you are much heavier on takeoff than landings.

The September issue of Flying contains a test report of the Embraer Legacy, which is a business jet version of the EMB-145. The main difference is the extra fuel and posh interior. It requires 5614' for takeoff and 2684' for landing. Both figures are for max weight @ S.L. on a std. day.

The landing roll sounds like an 'unfactored' number. Usually for commercial operations (part 135, I assume it is similar for 121) they multiply the required landing distance by 1.67 for a dry runway and 1.92 for a wet runway. This will usually give a required landing distance very close to the runway required for takeoff. This enhances safety. Few really understand how the FAA requires an aircraft to be certified, and how punishing the actual test procedures are. No pilot lands an aircraft as required during testing, and few passengers would enjoy the experience. The factored numbers allow a normal landing, with some room for pilot error without going skidding off the end of the runway.

Takeoff distance is not factored, making a high speed abort just prior to V1 one of the most hazardous operations you could attempt if runway limited on takeoff.
 
Thanks!

The article that spurred this question talks about using 6000' as the minimum required runway length for RJ's. It gives 5645' as the required T/O length for the ERJ-145 and 5010' for the CRJ-200. I just thought 6000' would really be limiting Regional operators.
 
Well to put it in perspective, Orange County, Ca's rwy is 5700' long and everything from CRJ's (900's included, I think) to 757's and MD-80's depart fairly heavy and with strict climb gradients for noise abatement. It's pretty interesting to see some of the heavier Mad Dogs depart. They use just about every bit of that runway. Doug can probably attest to that.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks!

The article that spurred this question talks about using 6000' as the minimum required runway length for RJ's. It gives 5645' as the required T/O length for the ERJ-145 and 5010' for the CRJ-200. I just thought 6000' would really be limiting Regional operators.

[/ QUOTE ]

6000 feet is "limiting" for ERJ145s. As stated up top, landing isnt at all a problem with 6000 feet at any weight. Takeoffs would be limiting b/c we would have to do "full power" takeoffs instead of our standard "reduced"(ATL TO) power takeoffs, which are better for the engines. LGA has 7000 feet runways, and if you are full, and going somewhere were you have to take a good amount of fuel, youll be doing a full power (TO) takeoff.
 
The CR7 and CR9 will use less runway thanks to the leading edge devices. The CR2 tends to be a runway hog. That being said, we do operate the CR2 out of San Luis Obispo. That's a short one.

My most favorite and the one that gets the heart beating the quickest is MDW. Go in there on a hot and humid day, no problem. When you leave, though, you get to see just how tall that fence at the end of the runway is.
shocked.gif


Shortest runway I've ever used for landing is 26 in PHL. It's 5000' on the nose. Departing would be SBP at 5300', not much shorter than the 22s at MDW.
 
And the climb rate, geez, I wish they'd give you guys JATO for the climb!
 
[ QUOTE ]
And the climb rate, geez, I wish they'd give you guys JATO for the climb!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well a MD-88/90 isn't really all that much better is it?


Matthew
 
No exactly a star performer, but if we're outclimbing CL-65's, something's wrong!
 
[ QUOTE ]
No exactly a star performer, but if we're outclimbing CL-65's, something's wrong!

[/ QUOTE ]

Im assuming you meant "not" outclimbing.
 
I've jumpseated a few times into and out of MDW on ATA in both the 737 and 757. Awesome to watch these aircraft operate at that airport.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah well the CR2 will outclimb an A321, so we've got that going for us...

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, maybe I saw it wrong, but I was on a jam packed full Skywest CL-65 from SLC to PHX and they climbed at 250 for quite a while. Kind of weird!
 
[ QUOTE ]
We're like 250 to 10K, then about 315 to 330 to .770.

[/ QUOTE ]

340 til .75, then .75 til level off here.
 
[ QUOTE ]
No exactly a star performer, but if we're outclimbing CL-65's, something's wrong!

[/ QUOTE ]
Man! Doug getting vicious.
grin.gif


[ QUOTE ]
General profile is 250kias to 10,000' (obviously) then 290 until .70. General.

[/ QUOTE ]
you forgot......"and 500fpm."
spin2.gif


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're like 250 to 10K, then about 315 to 330 to .770.

[/ QUOTE ]

340 til .75, then .75 til level off here.

[/ QUOTE ]

300/.80-.82 to FL430+
Sorry, couldn't resist.
grin.gif
insane.gif
 
I just remember that almost immediately after the "predominant airline" in DFW terminal "E" 'de-gauged' and added a bevvy of shiney new CL-65's to the operation there, virtually overnight regional depature would instruct us to climb at 250 to 280.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top