Comments on: "…not supposed to be used for commercial flights…" https://lahso.megginson.com/2006/08/27/not-supposed-to-be-used-for-commercial-flights/ Flying a small plane. Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:09:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Aviatrix https://lahso.megginson.com/2006/08/27/not-supposed-to-be-used-for-commercial-flights/#comment-348 Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:09:03 +0000 http://www.megginson.com/blogs/lahso/archives/2006/08/27/not-supposed-to-be-used-for-commercial-flights/#comment-348 According to data a pilot posted on a private list, the aircraft required just slightly more than the 3500′ available to reach Vr, and the balanced runway length was around 5800′. Can’t find the e-mail I’m paraphrasing.

And surely you know it isn’t a ‘commercial flight’ in the media unless it departs from a terminal equiipped with computer screens, and has jet engines, washrooms and flight attendants.

]]> By: Mr. Flight https://lahso.megginson.com/2006/08/27/not-supposed-to-be-used-for-commercial-flights/#comment-347 Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:38:44 +0000 http://www.megginson.com/blogs/lahso/archives/2006/08/27/not-supposed-to-be-used-for-commercial-flights/#comment-347 I did listen in on that press conference and you are correct, the NTSB spokesperson did not say that commercial planes are not supposed to use that runway. I can’t recall exactly what she said, but she was extremely careful with her words to avoid saying they were using the wrong runway.

I believe what happened is one of the reporters said something like “isn’t runway 22 the runway used by commercial planes and runway 26 used by small planes?” to which she said something like “all we know is the aircraft data showed the aircraft was lined up on and departed runway 26.” I’m likely way off on the quote, but that is the gist of it.

]]>