Porter Airlines-Off end of Runway

[swordfish]

Is landing at CYTZ considered "off airport"?

That all depends on your definition of what a 4000', paved surface with approach aids, approach lighting, and control is. If that's a "runway", you might as well land on IT, not that 100' at the far end.

[Cat Driver]

I thought it would make more sense to compare airliners to airliners (and since the mighty Q-400 falls under TC's 705 subpart it would flown using the same performance calculations as an airliner), instead of DC-6's,

A DC6 is way more into TC's 705 category than a Q400.....and for sure we operated them into far more difficult places than the Toronto Island Airport.

[swordfish]

I thought it would make more sense to compare airliners to airliners (and since the mighty Q-400 falls under TC's 705 subpart it would flown using the same performance calculations as an airliner)

There was nothing "relative" or "comparative" in my post. It was a criticism of trash performance - an egotistical, absolute, categorical statement - which I am perfectly qualified and experienced enough to make. A case of the plane flying the pilot, not the other way round.

If my copilot misses the 1000' mark at Fort Simpson, Inuvik, or Yellowknife, he gets his ass spanked a pretty pink colour, and threatened with no take-offs or landings for the next 5 years. A simple "mental-discipline" adjustment is all that is required.

[Cat Driver]

he gets his ass spanked a pretty pink colour

As long as that does not get you aroused while you are punishing him it is O.K.

[Donald]

If my copilot misses the 1000' mark at Fort Simpson, Inuvik, or Yellowknife, he gets his ass spanked a pretty pink colour, and threatened with no take-offs or landings for the next 5 years. A simple "mental-discipline" adjustment is all that is required.

Nice...sure glad I don't work with you (7F??)



I assume you are the ultimate aviator then?

[swordfish]

Well actually it works 2 ways: if I miss the 1000' mark, he's briefed to say: "I have control"....

[TG]

We have reached a new high in a deep thinking post.

The French have a very good saying for that:

"Enculage de mouche"

[fanspeed]

kinetic energy

Sorry if I used big words and upset your tummy.

I'm quite comfortable with physics thanks. It was the flawed idea that your little jet and a Dash had equivalent kinetic energy.

[GyvAir]

So touching down even 1200 ft down the runway shouldn't be a problem

I regularly land a 125 knot (short final) jet on 4,000 feet
of pavement and I would never, ever dream of touching down
at 1,000 feet down the runway:

(Image of jet 1/5ish the size of subject turboprop)

Admittedly I don't have beta/reverse thrust that the prop
dash 8 does. It should be able to land in considerably
less runway than a jet with equivalent kinetic energy
over the runway threshold.

I had to read that about 6 times to figure out that you weren't making a direct comparison between the L-39 and the Q400 in terms of kinetic energy on landing.

[Colonel Sanders]

you weren't making a direct comparison

Kinetic energy is directly proportional to mass - see above.

Maybe I should work on contract for TC crafting incomprehensible
questions for the written exams?

[iflyforpie]

I had to read that about 6 times to figure out that you weren't making a direct comparison between the L-39 and the Q400 in terms of kinetic energy on landing.

I only had to read it once.

The word was 'a' which could be any jet instead of 'my' or 'the jet I fly' or 'an L-39'.

The other qualifier was 'with equivalent kinetic energy' which shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out excludes the L-39.

[GyvAir]

CS: As another poster mentioned, you may have to compete with pdw for for that position.

IFP: Given the paragraph context, I hoping you'll find our initially mistaking the "a" to be referring to the jet described in the preceding two sentences forgivable.

[Colonel Sanders]

37. Which of the following is the least correct answer:

a) The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plane.

b) Coriolis force is responsible for wind backing with
increasing altitude in the southern hemisphere.

c) None of the above.

d) All of the above.

PS I re-read "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
over the weekend. Hadn't read it in decades. What a pompous
weenie. If you can't get a PhD in Philosophy, write a self-serving
vindicating long-winded book about being tossed out of the graduate
program. No wonder 122 publishers turned it down. It's crap.

[AOW]

37. Which of the following is the least correct answer:

a) The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plane.

b) Coriolis force is responsible for wind backing with
increasing altitude in the southern hemisphere.

c) None of the above.

d) All of the above.

d) is the least correct....

[Slats]

And "U-all" gotta remember that lots of airplanes got wrecked back in the day by guys landing short, long, sideways, etc etc.

Sure, but probably not in such benign conditions on a large paved runway with approach aids and weather reporting and certainly not in an aircraft descended from a long line of STOL aircraft, and possessing all the latest trappings of wiz-bang technology designed to ensure the pilot has as easy a time as possible doing their job, including keeping it on the runway.

Under the described conditions, it doesn't seem that there could be much excuse for over-running the ample landing area. That being said, no aircraft damage, no passenger injuries...not a huge deal I suppose. Pretty embarrassing for the crew though, and rightfully so, if things were indeed as simple and benign as they appear to us armchair quarterbacks.

[onspeed]

If my copilot misses the 1000' mark at Fort Simpson, Inuvik, or Yellowknife, he gets his ass spanked a pretty pink colour, and threatened with no take-offs or landings for the next 5 years. A simple "mental-discipline" adjustment is all that is required.

Thats got to be the best quote of the year! I hope you bring that up in your next CRM EPT class if you do work at 7f

[Cat Driver]

Except I didn't make it.

[swordfish]

Guilty as charged. I don't work for 7F

[pdw]

Kinetic energy is directly proportional to mass - see above.

Hey, this ties the 172 (veering) example to this as well. There's hope !

When contemplating the question on the subject/context at hand, one that is worthy to ask on an exam for VFR or iFR approach, it could be in the format similar to "#37" ... or perhaps using "least wrong" to set the trap.

Let me see ... I guess I better try and get back to you on that

[Colonel Sanders]

Sure, but did you get the irony of Robert Pirsig's son being
killed after leaving the San Francisco Zen Center?

I am NOT making this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._ ... sonal_life