Pakistan International Airlines

[Jordan-34092]

More than likely it will be the 200LRS used on the route as out of em all these are the least used.

 

[adam]

tonights LBA to ISB still on stand boarding when i landed at 2116 from Dusseldorf

 

[G-CELB]

Yes it won't be at MTOW as it will only be half full of fuel

Would that make enough of a difference? I can't find any stats as to how the take-off distances vary by fuel load. Will it go all the way to ISB from LBA on half a tank, bearing in mind that these flights are usually full and that everyone on board seems to take a hell of a lot of hold luggage per person, if the scenes I've witnessed at LBA are anything to go by?

Incidentally, a somewhat late PIA776 flew over as I started typing this. The A310 has quite a distinctive noise!

 

[Aviador]

Are you suggesting PIA and LBA haven't done their homework on this? Believe you me it can go direct without a problem. There will always be certain operating restraints and possibly more so that the A310. We don't know if PIA Boeing 777's will be able to use the autoland at Leeds for instance but time will tell.

 

[White Heather]

At the last consultative meeting, the LBA director confirmed that the Boeing 777 200 is the largest aircraft that can operate from the LBA runway on most routes that might ever be flown from LBA, without restrictions. If it couldn't fly non stop from LBA, PIA wouldn't be introducing it, and LBA wouldn't have been trying to get it for the past 18 months - they are trying to increase passenger loads, not scare them away by making them endure a tech stop for fuel.

Bear in mind also that if the aircraft uses runway 14, that is actually longer than 32 as it has more 'useable' runway available. Expect to see the 777 using 14 whenever the option is there for 'operational reasons'.

 

[Aviador]

That's only in departure circumstances. Runway 14 does have a shorter landing distance so if conditions aren't right PIA might ask for 32. Lets face it, we've had big birds here in the past operating on both runway 32 and runway 14. Unfortunately our younger members probably wont have been around to see them. Hopefully the arrival of the PIA 777 might make Bridgepoint re evaluate the idea of moving the touchdown zones. Not an easy task we know, but possible without extending the runway as we've discussed on F4A previously.

topic2055-120.html

 

[G-CELB]

Are you suggesting PIA and LBA haven't done their homework on this?

Don't worry - I'm not remotely of the belief that the relevant pieces of homework haven't been done. Just curious as to what limits they'll be working with to get such a big plane off the tarmac while ensuring it can go the distance. How much of a squeeze is it?

Bear in mind also that if the aircraft uses runway 14, that is actually longer than 32 as it has more 'useable' runway available. Expect to see the 777 using 14 whenever the option is there for 'operational reasons'.

Can you explain this a bit more for me? I've departed LBA in both directions and on all occasions the plane simply applied take off thrust once it was lined up and used whatever distance it needed to get airborne. I wasn't aware that the direction made a difference. Will the decision to use 14 or 32 still be dictated by the same criteria as applies to other aircraft, or might we see the 777s using 14 when smaller planes are using 32?

 

[Aviador]

It's basically down to obstacles at the end of the runway. Departing aircraft from runway 32 have the Chevin to contend with, whereas the land falls away at the end of runway 14 so there's no obstacle which gives runway 14 the longer take-off distance. The reverse is applied for landing aircraft so 32 has the longer landing distance.

Read the Runways, Aprons & Taxiways Thread for more on this.

 

[G-CELB]

That's interesting - I never considered that the Chevin could be an issue for departing aircraft. I always thought it might present an obstacle to planes approaching, maybe compromising the glide slope, but my experience of steep climb-outs from 32 in 737s, which [admittedly] only need half of the runway to get airborne, maybe misled me into thinking any aircraft could depart just as easily.

 

[JakeS]

Yes the correct term is a "Displaced Threshold".

According to NATS charts (at the time of posting this) on an ILS/DME RWY14 Approach the glidepath is 3.5* from 6.1DME whilst on an ILS/DME/NDB RWY32 Approach the glidepath is 3* from 5DME.

As the glidepath for RWY14 is 0.5* steeper, the threshold is slightly more displaced than RWY32.

 

[a300boy]

All performance data assumes an engine failure after V1 [ stop/go speed ] so if it happens you have performance to clear the obstacles by a given height. We brief the procedure before take off and write it on our take off data card so we are prepared. The fact the aircraft leaps off the runway normally with its two or more engines is irrelevant. My concern for this operation is landing distance available. I hope to be proven wrong.

 

[channex 757]

All performance data assumes an engine failure after V1 [ stop/go speed ] so if it happens you have performance to clear the obstacles by a given height. We brief the procedure before take off and write it on our take off data card so we are prepared. The fact the aircraft leaps off the runway normally with its two or more engines is irrelevant. My concern for this operation is landing distance available. I hope to be proven wrong.

I've just had a quick look and the 772 requires 5,600 ft of runway to land.

 

[a300boy]

Runway 14 landing distance available = 1802m [ 5912 ft ]
Runway 32 landing distance available = 1916m [ 6286 ft ]
not much room for error on a wet and windy night.
The numbers work otherwise they would not be operating but caution will be needed.

 

[channex 757]

It'll be interesting to see how many get diverted because of wind or low visibility because as you say a300boy, there's not much room for error.

 

[rmac]

All the above is very interesting. I know LBA have ruled out any runway extension and I know the options are limited for doing this but just out of interest what sort of extension to runway length would start to make a difference for more regular B767 and B777 operations. I seem to recall that the Gov't of the day many years ago had suggested a 300m extension for the future = maybe I am wrong!.

 

[White Heather]

You are not wrong rmac, I am sure it was 300m in the Government White Paper. Sadly the Government are not about to pay for it and the cost at LBA would be huge, with (equally sadly) not a chance in hell of LBA getting the money back in a reasonable timespan, because they will never (as a smallish regional airport) attract sufficient aircraft of the 777 size, that need that extension, to recover the outlay.

There is of course an argument (that I have tried myself) that the additional 300 m would increase safety margins considerably and reduce diverts in low vis situations, but according to the airport the numbers still don't stack up, particularly given that at the Horsforth end the land drops steeply away and an extension would result in runway lights encroaching into the Scotland Estate, whilst at the Yeadon end, the land also drops away, the Chevin gets even closer to the runway, and the cemetary would have to be removed - literally - and the spotters favourite viewing point with it, so be careful what you wish for!

Extending the runway at the Yeadon end would do nothing to improve landing distance on runway 14 though as to get an aircraft down nearer to the Yeadon end, the glide slope (to clear the Chevin) would have to be even steeper, which would not be acceptable. The only logical end to extend would therefore be the Horsforth end, bringing with it huge costs to infill the old reservoir and surrounding land, and to compulsorily purchase properties that are in the way of the new runway lighting requirements. You can imagine the hoo-ha if LBA tried to do that, and they clearly feel that the benefits would be out-weighed by the negatives, especially since the Boeing 787 Dreamliner (when they fix it) is claimed to be able to operate from runways such as LBA to the vast majority of destinations that LBA are ever likely to have services to (eg Florida, Toronto, New York).

In a nutshell, despite the Government White Paper recommendation, the numbers don't stack up for LBA, whereas they might at other airports that have less challenging geography to contend with.

The best solution is, as Aviador has said, the move the touch down point nearer to the end of the runway at the Horsforth end - back to where it was before the runway extension in 1984. It was only moved further down to pander to the NIMBY's at Horsforth who didn't want jets flying so low over their houses. You can be sure that if LBA were planning to move it back there again, there would be further uproar if the residents and MP's found that such as the 777 were going to be landing lower than they already do. I suppose they could increase the glide slope to 3.5 degrees as with runway 14 to lessen the impact, but I understand that there are whole host of issues relating to the ILS to overcome now - all of which are too technical for me.

An extension would be great to have, but I doubt I will see one in my lifetime.

 

[wawkrk]

The B777-200LR has a range of 9,395 nautical miles, London to Perth in Australia.
LBA to ISB is 3,300 Nautical miles.
Weight reduction about 6,000 nautical milesworth of fuel, or many many tons.
Short haul for this aircraft.
The B737-300 requires more runway for take off to Malaga.

 

[a300boy]

I would like another 600m to be safe and allow reasonable long range operations for existing long range aircraft. However new aircraft types are on the way [ A350 and B787 and it is suggested our runway will be adequate for them. We will see if this is the case.

 

[The Pole]

Incidentally, a somewhat late PIA776 flew over as I started typing this. The A310 has quite a distinctive noise!

was justing going to bed in Horsforth near new road side when I heard it whining as it spooled up for take off, it was quiet noisy, must have been the wind carrying the sound!

 

[White Heather]

I don't think there is a doubt that the 777-200 can get off LBA's runway on what is only a trip of less than half its capability. Landing is more of an issue given LBA's tendency to have a stiff breeze blowing at 90 degrees to the runway, low cloud etc, and the fact the runway is only a little bit longer than the landing requirements posted above. I think it is fair to say that the pilots of the 777 will need to be cautious and get it right. I would think though that those landing distances will be based on a particular landing weight, so if the aircraft is not fully loaded, it may stop more quickly. Different runway surfaces must also come into the equation and being ribbed concrete must help. Going against that though is the down-slope, and the 777 certainly can do without drifting down that slope on landing. Looking at the size of its engines though, I can imagine that in reverse thrust, they are well capable of stopping the 777 very quickly.

I wonder if Aroosh will still be coming to LBA after this change? Hopefully he will be trained up on the 777-200 and he may be able to comment now this is officially announced.

Incidentally, some on here have openly stated that the 777 'will never happen' despite assurances that it was very much on the agenda. What say you now???