Flights out of Phoenix, AZ cancelled

robyntmorton

... due to good weather.

American Eagle flights out of Phoenix, Arizona have been cancelled today, due to the CRJ aircraft's operating temperature being exceeded.

I can imagine the announcements in the terminal:

"American Airlines apologises for the cancellation of your flight, but you will be accommodated on the next available departure. In the meantime, please accept this complimentary ice... eh, complimentary cream."

http://www.thejournal.ie/phoenix-planes-hot-cant-fly-3454171-Jun2017/

smurfjed

This has happened for years, the environmental envelope for the Bombardiers is lower than Boeing/Airbus, so as the temperatures creep up, the aircraft get grounded

ironclaw

Always remember being facinated by the larger Boeings (777?) out of Mexico City in the summer. The runway is well over 2000m above sea level and you need all of it to get one of those off the ground. Bonus fact for MEX, the plane is so large it has its own taxi pattern for leaving.

I'd suggest this article for anyone curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_and_high

Irish Steve

If you want a hot and high departure thought provoker, then the best example I can suggest is Windhoek. A few years ago, Air Namibia were using A340's on the routes to Gatwick and Frankfurt. The departures were scheduled for around 2100 local, and even at that time, they needed most of the runway to get into the air, when you then look at the length available, that's some ground roll, the runway is 4,532 metres, 14,869 Ft, and the flight we were on used almost 14,000 ft of the runway, I had a stop watch running on the take off roll, and it was significantly in excess of 90 seconds ground roll, with rotation being within 1000 Ft of the end of the runway. Similar altitude to Mexico, 5640 Ft (1719M) above sea level.

That's probably changed now with the replacement of the 340's with 330's on the remaining route to Frankfurt, the route to Gatwick is no longer operating.

bkehoe

Irish Steve wrote: »

If you want a hot and high departure thought provoker, then the best example I can suggest is Windhoek. A few years ago, Air Namibia were using A340's on the routes to Gatwick and Frankfurt. The departures were scheduled for around 2100 local, and even at that time, they needed most of the runway to get into the air, when you then look at the length available, that's some ground roll, the runway is 4,532 metres, 14,869 Ft, and the flight we were on used almost 14,000 ft of the runway, I had a stop watch running on the take off roll, and it was significantly in excess of 90 seconds ground roll, with rotation being within 1000 Ft of the end of the runway. Similar altitude to Mexico, 5640 Ft (1719M) above sea level.

That's probably changed now with the replacement of the 340's with 330's on the remaining route to Frankfurt, the route to Gatwick is no longer operating.

Don't forget that most commercial aircraft will perform a reduced thrust takeoff to minimise engine wear and stresses while maximising use of the runway so this form of assessment isn't accurate in determining if the aircraft is anywhere near its limits.

Irish Steve

bkehoe wrote: »

Don't forget that most commercial aircraft will perform a reduced thrust takeoff to minimise engine wear and stresses while maximising use of the runway so this form of assessment isn't accurate in determining if the aircraft is anywhere near its limits.

Friend of mine works in the industry, and when we got back to the UK, he checked with his people to see if they had been in a position to use Flex for take off, and the information he got back was that with the altitude, temperature, and the load, there was no flex available, it needed everything it had to get off the ground.

It was a nice aircraft to fly in, but the 340-300 had a reputation for being a ground hugger, and it would be fair to say that the climb performance after rotation was not exactly spectacular either, so I'd be prepared to go with the report we got that it was close to the aircraft's limits.

L1011

The joke about the 343 was that it only got airborne due to the curvature of the earth's surface.

Irish Steve

L1011 wrote: »

The joke about the 343 was that it only got airborne due to the curvature of the earth's surface.

On the flight back from Windhoek, I would have to agree with that sentiment, it took a very long time to get out of ground effect.

Comhrá

The joke about the 343 was that it only got airborne due to the curvature of the earth's surface.

In BEA, back in the day, they used to say something similar about the Trident III.
It's nickname was "The Gripper".

L1011

Comhra wrote: »

In BEA, back in the day, they used to say something similar about the Trident III.
It's nickname was "The Gripper".

Became enough of an issue to make it the Quadrent with the take-off engine in the tailcone on the latter models.

smurfjed

so I'd be prepared to go with the report we got that it was close to the aircraft's limits.

And whats the problem with this? 4 engine aircraft usually use the clearway for their takeoff calculations, so they can use all the concrete.

Irish Steve

smurfjed wrote: »

And whats the problem with this? 4 engine aircraft usually use the clearway for their takeoff calculations, so they can use all the concrete.

I don't recall saying it was a problem, I knew before we even started the take off roll that it was going to be a long roll, so I was ready for it, we'd been discussing it in the lounge before boarding.

Hot and high operations in Africa have been a known issue since the beginning of long haul jet operations, the main issue being that the tyres are under more stress for a longer period of time.

Given we'd left Gatwick 3 weeks earlier, which is about 3000 Ft shorter, and it was an unremarkable departure performance wise when compared to other types, I was interested to observe just how much difference the height and temperature difference made in terms of the effect on the aircraft performance, the ground roll at Windhoek was almost 50% longer than the roll at Gatwick.

martinsvi

PukkaStukka

Irish Steve wrote: »

It was a nice aircraft to fly in, but the 340-300 had a reputation for being a ground hugger, and it would be fair to say that the climb performance after rotation was not exactly spectacular either, so I'd be prepared to go with the report we got that it was close to the aircraft's limits.

Not for the first time that hot and high performance of this particular bird has been questioned.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4a81da6e&opt=0