KLEX CRJ TO distance

".Blueskies." wrote in message
om...

They apparently got it in the air but hit the trees...


I saw a report that indicated it became airborne by hitting a berm after
leaving the runway.

".Blueskies." wrote in message
om...
They apparently got it in the air but hit the trees...



They got in the air because they launched off a ramp/berm much like a
British Aircraft Carrier. There were three sets of wheel marks on the ground
between the end of the runway and the beam.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:36:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
They got in the air because they launched off a ramp/berm much like a
British Aircraft Carrier. There were three sets of wheel marks on the ground
between the end of the runway and the beam.

Apparently, the CRJ does not work very well with a Jump Jet type of
takeoff... sick-grin

Speaking of which, I've become airborne more than once at the
intersection of 35 and 04 at HOU... Seems that when they put in the
04-22 runway, it's a bit higher than 35... Enough so that if you
haven't slowed down enough, it'll put you back in the air...

When I look at the figures quoted on Airnav for HOU, it actually
appears that 35 is higher than 04, but the way that I remember it
though is that there was a noticeable bump in 04 as you crossed it...
I don't fly into HOU much these days and rarely is the wind such that
we get to land on 35, so perhaps I'm just having an Alzheimer's
Moment... grin

"randall g" wrote in message
There are a number of runways here in British Columbia of around 5000',
which have been regularly used by CRJ's and/or 737's.

Keep in mind that a reduced thrust power setting was likely used. Modern
airliners rarely use max power for take-off. If the crew set up for 7000' of
runway, the power was likely reduced quite a bit.

D.