LONDON CITY - 2
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is LCY a class 2 or 3 aerodrome??
Moderator please move me else where if appropriate!
Google Earth ruler (measuring tool) accuracy when you zoom in on high definition areas is +/- 0.101%, in other words “very accurate”. This I have validated on numerous UK airports, cross referenced to the UK AIP data and CAP168. Everything looks kosher until you start studying LCY.
I must stress that I have the greatest respect and acknowledge the skill and professionalism of all the operators/pilots who fly in and out of LCY. I have used the airport many times and I personally have no concern or issue with it. This posting is an attempt to stimulate discussion and debate, not stir a pot of poop!
I understand that LCY is a “unique” facility, facing numerous physical and environmental challenges, but with the introduction of larger aircraft using the airport (Q400 and maybe soon A318) it would appear that many rules and regulations as stipulated in CAP168 chapter 3 and 4 (aerodrome physical characteristics) are being “interpreted differently”. These rules within CAP168 have been carefully developed for a reason, primarily safety!
My observations of LCY has lead me to ask some questions? Is precedent being set? Does this now more accurately reflect the technology, skill and procedures in modern commercial air travel? Does CAP168 (some sections) need to be updated?
Some of my observations are:
- Hold point distance to centre line of runway is 60m this is OK for a class 2 aerodrome with a CAT 1 precision approach.
- Class 2 aerodrome definition is; an aerodrome with a TODA or ASDA (whichever is the greater) more than 800m but less than 1200m. LCY data from AIP is ASDA of 1319m both rwy. 10 & 28 and TODA of 1319m rwy. 10 and 1385m rwy. 28. By definition LCY should be a class 3 aerodrome (I do note that in CAP168, it is at the “discretion” of the CAA with communication with the aerodrome operator to establish the class number also the declared TORA is 1199m).
- The wingspan of Q400 and A318 being 28.42m and 34.10m respectively, then the apron taxiway centre line to “object” at LCY between hold Y and C should be 28.5m (Chapter 3 Table 3.4 CAP168), not the 22.5m as on Google earth. This means it is very tight if taxing past the stands and if the master plan is implemented aircraft will be nose in (push back) to the stand, then it will be even tighter.
- For class 2 aerodromes with a visual, non precision approach, the horizontal clear surface area is 75m either side of runway centerline (Chapter 3 section 4.3.3 CAP168) then a transitional slope of 1:5 (Chapter 4 section 4.3 of CAP168). LCY does not comply, there is a CAT 1 precision approach on both rwy 10 and 28, and also noted above LCY should be a class 3 aerodrome. With all this in mind, how else can an A318 fit nose in to a stand when the 5 new ones are built over the dock to the east?
- The current LCY apron and future parallel taxiway to hold L and M has (will have) a centerline to runway centre line separation of 87m this is fine for Code letter B aircraft (wingspan less than 24m) on a CAT 1 or 2 runway, but many commercial aircraft using LCY (exceptions; Do 226/328, Twin Otter, J41, ERJ 134, Saab 340 and Shorts 360) have a wingspan that infringes on these regulations. The scenario of two A318s with a nominal tip to tip separation of 52.9m with approach speeds of greater than 120 knots is (I believe) of concern. Does this mean the taxiway will be sterile when the larger aircraft are operating? How will LCY maintain the very high hourly movement rate?
Again I hope that this stimulates discussion because I believe that LCY could be the most advanced, optimized and efficient airport in the U.K. My wish is that LCY accelerate the proposed development (it gets real crowded sometimes) but to satisfy my curiosity; could you forum members (pilots, ATC, operations etc), who would have vast more skill and knowledge than me, offer your input.
Thank you.
Google Earth ruler (measuring tool) accuracy when you zoom in on high definition areas is +/- 0.101%, in other words “very accurate”. This I have validated on numerous UK airports, cross referenced to the UK AIP data and CAP168. Everything looks kosher until you start studying LCY.
I must stress that I have the greatest respect and acknowledge the skill and professionalism of all the operators/pilots who fly in and out of LCY. I have used the airport many times and I personally have no concern or issue with it. This posting is an attempt to stimulate discussion and debate, not stir a pot of poop!
I understand that LCY is a “unique” facility, facing numerous physical and environmental challenges, but with the introduction of larger aircraft using the airport (Q400 and maybe soon A318) it would appear that many rules and regulations as stipulated in CAP168 chapter 3 and 4 (aerodrome physical characteristics) are being “interpreted differently”. These rules within CAP168 have been carefully developed for a reason, primarily safety!
My observations of LCY has lead me to ask some questions? Is precedent being set? Does this now more accurately reflect the technology, skill and procedures in modern commercial air travel? Does CAP168 (some sections) need to be updated?
Some of my observations are:
- Hold point distance to centre line of runway is 60m this is OK for a class 2 aerodrome with a CAT 1 precision approach.
- Class 2 aerodrome definition is; an aerodrome with a TODA or ASDA (whichever is the greater) more than 800m but less than 1200m. LCY data from AIP is ASDA of 1319m both rwy. 10 & 28 and TODA of 1319m rwy. 10 and 1385m rwy. 28. By definition LCY should be a class 3 aerodrome (I do note that in CAP168, it is at the “discretion” of the CAA with communication with the aerodrome operator to establish the class number also the declared TORA is 1199m).
- The wingspan of Q400 and A318 being 28.42m and 34.10m respectively, then the apron taxiway centre line to “object” at LCY between hold Y and C should be 28.5m (Chapter 3 Table 3.4 CAP168), not the 22.5m as on Google earth. This means it is very tight if taxing past the stands and if the master plan is implemented aircraft will be nose in (push back) to the stand, then it will be even tighter.
- For class 2 aerodromes with a visual, non precision approach, the horizontal clear surface area is 75m either side of runway centerline (Chapter 3 section 4.3.3 CAP168) then a transitional slope of 1:5 (Chapter 4 section 4.3 of CAP168). LCY does not comply, there is a CAT 1 precision approach on both rwy 10 and 28, and also noted above LCY should be a class 3 aerodrome. With all this in mind, how else can an A318 fit nose in to a stand when the 5 new ones are built over the dock to the east?
- The current LCY apron and future parallel taxiway to hold L and M has (will have) a centerline to runway centre line separation of 87m this is fine for Code letter B aircraft (wingspan less than 24m) on a CAT 1 or 2 runway, but many commercial aircraft using LCY (exceptions; Do 226/328, Twin Otter, J41, ERJ 134, Saab 340 and Shorts 360) have a wingspan that infringes on these regulations. The scenario of two A318s with a nominal tip to tip separation of 52.9m with approach speeds of greater than 120 knots is (I believe) of concern. Does this mean the taxiway will be sterile when the larger aircraft are operating? How will LCY maintain the very high hourly movement rate?
Again I hope that this stimulates discussion because I believe that LCY could be the most advanced, optimized and efficient airport in the U.K. My wish is that LCY accelerate the proposed development (it gets real crowded sometimes) but to satisfy my curiosity; could you forum members (pilots, ATC, operations etc), who would have vast more skill and knowledge than me, offer your input.
Thank you.
If you refer to CAP 168 Chapter 3, para 4.3.3 (runway strip width), you will see that it states"....when the highest value of TODA or ASDA falls into the bottom third of code number 3 the width for a non-precision runway strip may be reduced to not less than 105m either side of the centreline....".
LCY is a code 3 aerodrome which presumably takes advantage of this rule as their TODA & ASDA is less than 1400m. I do not, however, understand how their runway is classified as 'non-precision' as it has CAT 1 ILS. Or is a CAT 1 ILS runway just an 'instrument runway' and not a 'precision approach runway' thus allowing LCY to benefit from this rule?
The apron manoeuvering area would also seem to impinge on the runway strip width, which I did not think was permitted.
I, likewise, am not trying to 'knock' LCY but just wonder if it operates under some form of derogation of the regulations due to the physical limitations of the site.
Can anyone shed any light of this apparent anomaly?
LCY is a code 3 aerodrome which presumably takes advantage of this rule as their TODA & ASDA is less than 1400m. I do not, however, understand how their runway is classified as 'non-precision' as it has CAT 1 ILS. Or is a CAT 1 ILS runway just an 'instrument runway' and not a 'precision approach runway' thus allowing LCY to benefit from this rule?
The apron manoeuvering area would also seem to impinge on the runway strip width, which I did not think was permitted.
I, likewise, am not trying to 'knock' LCY but just wonder if it operates under some form of derogation of the regulations due to the physical limitations of the site.
Can anyone shed any light of this apparent anomaly?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cheshire
Age: 49
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cityjet Hub at LCY
Hi,
Yes, just been announced to the following destinations:
Geneva - Madrid - Milan Linate - Nice - Zurich
Belfast Harbour Airport - Dundee - Edinburgh
Don't know what the frequencies or schedules are but it seems like good news.. Just hope they update those horrible old BAE146-200's!!
Cheers
Yes, just been announced to the following destinations:
Geneva - Madrid - Milan Linate - Nice - Zurich
Belfast Harbour Airport - Dundee - Edinburgh
Don't know what the frequencies or schedules are but it seems like good news.. Just hope they update those horrible old BAE146-200's!!
Cheers
Thread Starter
CityJet are indeed updating their 146s/RJs. They have bought the Northwest Airlines fleet, some of the most recent manufactured, which will replace the motley origin bunch they have at present. I believe the first of about 23 has just entered service.
CityJet effectively trade as Air France, even on the London City to Dublin route (all announced as Air France even on board) which I presume will continue.
Interesting to see the note about a cooperation with Scot. Wonder if Scot will actually handle some of the thinner routes like Belfast (I used that some years ago when FlyBe did it, pax numbers often in single figures).
CityJet effectively trade as Air France, even on the London City to Dublin route (all announced as Air France even on board) which I presume will continue.
Interesting to see the note about a cooperation with Scot. Wonder if Scot will actually handle some of the thinner routes like Belfast (I used that some years ago when FlyBe did it, pax numbers often in single figures).
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LCY-BHD has the potential to be a killer money earner, so many of the folks who control the strings to access to the pointy end of the bmi LHR flight are desperate to get away from LHR and bmi.
Sadly a Dornier 328 (as I understand it to be) will not do very well to attract the civil servants and politicians of Northern Ireland.
Sadly a Dornier 328 (as I understand it to be) will not do very well to attract the civil servants and politicians of Northern Ireland.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Underneath downwind R for 09 at EGLC
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of worn out RJ'S, yesterday SWISS 456 had to divert to STN because they had a flap problem on short finals to rwy 28 at LCY. Apparently the flaps were jammed at 18 degrees and would not retract or deploy! they took up the Alkin hold for a while and I was working locally and watched the drama.... all was well I assume with a slightly speedier landing than usual at Stansted 
Thread Starter
Not so fast on this one. I used the route in the couple of years when Flybe operated it, was convenient for me but seemingly few others. And at that time BMI operated into Belfast International.
I recall one trip in a 146 with about 20 on board, and others with the Dash8 where pax numbers were down to single figures. Flybe had a range of Dash8 types at Belfast then, it was always the smallest one that operated to London City.
That said, Heathrow has become more tedious and timewasting to get through, while LCY has retained its quickness, so there should be some advantage. And surely the politicians notice the low-level aircraft turning finals for LCY 10 right overhead the House of Commons terrace !
Can someone post a link to the detail of the new CityJet operation.
I recall one trip in a 146 with about 20 on board, and others with the Dash8 where pax numbers were down to single figures. Flybe had a range of Dash8 types at Belfast then, it was always the smallest one that operated to London City.
That said, Heathrow has become more tedious and timewasting to get through, while LCY has retained its quickness, so there should be some advantage. And surely the politicians notice the low-level aircraft turning finals for LCY 10 right overhead the House of Commons terrace !
Can someone post a link to the detail of the new CityJet operation.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM - There is a link to the CityJet annoucement on the main page of Air France UK webiste.
They have also been very rapid and professional with publicity. I'm on their email list and got an email about the new routes last night.
They have also been very rapid and professional with publicity. I'm on their email list and got an email about the new routes last night.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe it to have been caused by a disabled aircraft on their rwy. It all kicked off at Southend about 0845 this morning with about 4 LCY inbounds diverting in around 30 minutes.
Thread Starter
LCY website :
We can confirm that an incident occurred at London City Airport this morning. The incident involved an Air France flight operated by CityJet from Paris Orly flight number AF5020 (aircraft type BAe146 - 200).
On landing at 08.35 the aircraft tyres burst. We can confirm the aircraft safely came to rest at the Eastern End of the runway and all passengers and crew on board have been safety transported to the terminal.
The runway is currently closed and we recommend all passengers travelling via London City Airport today contact their Airlines directly for further travel information.
We can confirm that an incident occurred at London City Airport this morning. The incident involved an Air France flight operated by CityJet from Paris Orly flight number AF5020 (aircraft type BAe146 - 200).
On landing at 08.35 the aircraft tyres burst. We can confirm the aircraft safely came to rest at the Eastern End of the runway and all passengers and crew on board have been safety transported to the terminal.
The runway is currently closed and we recommend all passengers travelling via London City Airport today contact their Airlines directly for further travel information.
Thread Starter
LCY website :
Incident Update @ 12.30
Following the aircraft incident that occurred at London City Airport this morning at 08:35 we can confirm the runway is still closed. The Airport is now working with the aircraft operator, CityJet, to organise the recovery of the disabled aircraft, we expect this to take several more hours.
London City Airport would like to thank all the emergency services for their efforts this morning. All emergency services have now been stood down.
On landing at 08.35 the aircraft tyres burst. We can confirm the aircraft safely came to rest at the eastern end of the runway and all 55 passengers and 5 crew on board have been safety transported to the terminal.
An investigation into the cause of the incident is underway and will continue once the aircraft has been fully recovered.
We recommend all passengers travelling via London City Airport today contact their Airlines directly for further travel information.
Incident Update @ 12.30
Following the aircraft incident that occurred at London City Airport this morning at 08:35 we can confirm the runway is still closed. The Airport is now working with the aircraft operator, CityJet, to organise the recovery of the disabled aircraft, we expect this to take several more hours.
London City Airport would like to thank all the emergency services for their efforts this morning. All emergency services have now been stood down.
On landing at 08.35 the aircraft tyres burst. We can confirm the aircraft safely came to rest at the eastern end of the runway and all 55 passengers and 5 crew on board have been safety transported to the terminal.
An investigation into the cause of the incident is underway and will continue once the aircraft has been fully recovered.
We recommend all passengers travelling via London City Airport today contact their Airlines directly for further travel information.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A long way from here.
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was stuck in LCY today due to this incident-
At about 0835, after what appeared to be a fairly normal touchdown (though landings on 10 are often sporting!), I heard the Cityjet crew report to ATC that they were stopped on the runway- the aircraft was at the upwind threshold end of 10, hard to be sure, but seemed to be to the left of the centreline, pointing somewhat to the right.
Lots of waiting around then ensued...
Crew later reported that the Capt and FO both tried their brakes to no good effect, emergency brakes used, and resulted in an immobilised aircraft.
When the 146 was being towed past us, the tyres (the ones on the wheels that hadn't been changed) were in a very bad way indeed.
Everyone OK, as far as I know, which is nice.
At about 0835, after what appeared to be a fairly normal touchdown (though landings on 10 are often sporting!), I heard the Cityjet crew report to ATC that they were stopped on the runway- the aircraft was at the upwind threshold end of 10, hard to be sure, but seemed to be to the left of the centreline, pointing somewhat to the right.
Lots of waiting around then ensued...
Crew later reported that the Capt and FO both tried their brakes to no good effect, emergency brakes used, and resulted in an immobilised aircraft.
When the 146 was being towed past us, the tyres (the ones on the wheels that hadn't been changed) were in a very bad way indeed.
Everyone OK, as far as I know, which is nice.