Oops... Airliner lands at the wrong airport...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
Imagine if Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Schwab, Mellon, all
those great industrialists would have been with business educations, much
less MBAs.

Hopefully they could have put together a coherent sentence in English,
unlike the example above.

Presumably you refer to Charles M. Schwab, who died insolvent. He was a
notorious gambler, union buster and a businessman of dubious ethics.
Charles R. Schwab, who certainly has had a significant impact himself on
the modern economy, is a graduate of Stanford University, earning a BA
in Economics in 1959 and an MBA from Stanford Graduate School of
Business in 1961. I know which one I would choose as a role model.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:


Well you wouldn't make much money.
You could take out of it any 3 engine Falcon with about 6000 lbs/2+hours
of fuel.


Out of a 3185 foot runway at 4000(?) feet? He might make it, but it would
sure be exciting to watch.


At 4000 feet? Then make that 1 hour+ of fuel (BFL).

Greg wrote:


Tom Sixkiller wrote:


"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" writes:


On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry

wrote:

Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know
which model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x
50 ft.) instead of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The
pilot hit the reverse thrust before the nosewheel touched
down...better pilot skill than judgement.

I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to
leave.Even a

straight

wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

He got out no problem. The first and probably last time we saw a
jet blasting over West Davis.

Any idea of how much room he had to spare...or at what point he
reached the go/no-go point? :~)

If it was the same pilot, I'd have to think that his judgment, as
you mentioned, leaves something to be desired.


How much Falcon time do you have and what do you base that on?

Haven't been following Tom's rants much, have you? He doesn't allow his
lack of experience or knowlege to keep him from pontificating on a wide
variety of subjects.

"Greg" wrote in message ...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

On 21 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, Bob Fry
wrote:

Just a few months ago a tri-engine Falcon Jet--I don't know which
model--landed by mistake at University Airport (3185 x 50 ft.)
instead
of nearby Yolo Airport (6000 x 100 ft.) The pilot hit the reverse
thrust before the nosewheel touched down...better pilot skill than
judgement.

I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
straight
wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

He got out no problem. The first and probably last time we saw a jet
blasting over West Davis.

Any idea of how much room he had to spare...or at what point he reached
the
go/no-go point? :~)

If it was the same pilot, I'd have to think that his judgment, as you
mentioned, leaves something to be desired.

How much Falcon time do you have and what do you base that on?

Let's see -- the pilot (hopefully experienced) had to hit the reversers
before the nosewheel was down.

When I think of all the accidents in the NTSB database...

Yeah, I'm sure he could (and in fact DID) get out. And when something goes
POP, then rehash what an idiot the guy was.

"gabriele" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:


Well you wouldn't make much money.
You could take out of it any 3 engine Falcon with about 6000 lbs/2+hours
of fuel.


Out of a 3185 foot runway at 4000(?) feet? He might make it, but it
would
sure be exciting to watch.


At 4000 feet? Then make that 1 hour+ of fuel (BFL).

Christ on a bike...I said he'd get out but IT WOULD BE EXCITING TO WATCH!!
Is that so goddamn hard to understand?

Legal...but stupid. Or maybe I'm too conservative. I'll have to archive this
thread until the next time someone posts a newspaper article about a pilot
pranging on takeoff and then compare the second guessers.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
straight
wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

Most Citations would have no problem getting out of there. The III, VI,
and VII
models might have to be trucked out; I don't have minimum fuel performance
specs.


A CJ would be about 2700 feet using short field techniques. Like I said,
though, virtually no room for error.

From: "Tom Sixkiller"
Date: 6/28/2004 03:01 Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
straight
wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

Most Citations would have no problem getting out of there. The III, VI,
and VII
models might have to be trucked out; I don't have minimum fuel performance
specs.


A CJ would be about 2700 feet using short field techniques. Like I said,
though, virtually no room for error.

And what kind of "short field" technique would that be?

"WIACapt" wrote in message
...
From: "Tom Sixkiller"
Date: 6/28/2004 03:01 Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
straight
wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

Most Citations would have no problem getting out of there. The III, VI,
and VII
models might have to be trucked out; I don't have minimum fuel
performance
specs.


A CJ would be about 2700 feet using short field techniques. Like I said,
though, virtually no room for error.

And what kind of "short field" technique would that be?

Catapult.

Okay...I misunderstood the situation. Sorry....don't beat me no mo' massa.
Ya'all the big shot experts.

I guess I'll have to find another source for discussion.

"WIACapt" wrote in message
...
From: "Tom Sixkiller"
Date: 6/28/2004 03:01 Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

I'd sell tickets to the guy's takeoff when he tries to leave.Even a
straight
wing Citation couldn't get out of that mess.

Most Citations would have no problem getting out of there. The III, VI,
and VII
models might have to be trucked out; I don't have minimum fuel
performance
specs.


A CJ would be about 2700 feet using short field techniques. Like I said,
though, virtually no room for error.

And what kind of "short field" technique would that be?

Throttles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SET FOR TAKEOFF

Slowly and smoothly apply power while referencing the

engine instruments. A rolling takeoff may be used with sufficient

runway available, but it should be remembered that

Flight Manual takeoff N1 settings assume a static runup.