Swiss Avro Greaser in LCY
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know landings at LCY are always a bit 'firm'...summed up here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUUh2dXhKi4
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FoxtrotAlpha18,
I quote from the opening post by Lamer:
So in answer to your question as to whether the a/c in the vid is the one which subsequently got shipped out on the barge, that would indicate that no, it's not the one that ended up on the barge.
F/O does a hard arrival; while rolling out, captain takes over and says: "My aircraft, I don't want you touching anything after that effort. Now get on the P/A and apologise for that landing!".
F/O keys the P/A and begins: "Ladies and gentlement, as the captain is busy taxying the aircraft to stand, he has asked me to apologise for the hard landing... "
I quote from the opening post by Lamer:
no idea when but no, it's not the one that ended up on the barge.
F/O does a hard arrival; while rolling out, captain takes over and says: "My aircraft, I don't want you touching anything after that effort. Now get on the P/A and apologise for that landing!".
F/O keys the P/A and begins: "Ladies and gentlement, as the captain is busy taxying the aircraft to stand, he has asked me to apologise for the hard landing... "
Last edited by Taildragger67; 13th Feb 2008 at 11:15.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have watched it a few times now and I am pleased to say it makes my landings look quite reasonable now!! As for technique etc. I think there is room for improvement but the main thing looking at the clip was how incredible the AVRO RJ stood up to that sort of punishment,wow is the main thing that comes to mind.Had it been a 737 or a barbie jet the engines and wings would have divorced themselves from the body and gone for a smoke in the Thames!! Well done to the builders of the AVRO/146 the tank of the skies.
Guest
Posts: n/a
With only 4,000hrs on 146s to my name, I'm quite junior to many I know, but that arrival (not worthy of being called a landing) would be a full-on tea with NO buscuits job in my old company. Utter crap. Must have been a management pilot......
146/RJ sops are usually to pull the airbrake out at @200 ft. when committed. it givesd a slight nose up pitch and loses you about 5-15 kts at touchdown, which should be REF-7kts.
On steep apps, it's out all the way down, to ensure the engines are spooled up better. With the rudder of the 146/RJ, that yaw was inexcusable. The Spoilers on the RJ are auto, unlike the 146. Makes the nose drop hard too.
I miss flying the 146, and hopefully there'll be one to play with in the next world for me....They really don't make em' like that any more.
146/RJ sops are usually to pull the airbrake out at @200 ft. when committed. it givesd a slight nose up pitch and loses you about 5-15 kts at touchdown, which should be REF-7kts.
On steep apps, it's out all the way down, to ensure the engines are spooled up better. With the rudder of the 146/RJ, that yaw was inexcusable. The Spoilers on the RJ are auto, unlike the 146. Makes the nose drop hard too.
I miss flying the 146, and hopefully there'll be one to play with in the next world for me....They really don't make em' like that any more.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was actually in LCY when that aircraft landed and it parked next to the stand that our aircraft eventually parked on. I was standing outside with my F/O and we were waiting to change crews. The passengers off the Swiss all walked past us on their way to the terminal and one lady stopped and asked me if I was 'Airport Staff' and she looked a bit flustered. Obviously I said 'No' and thankfully so since I now know that the comments were not going to be positive!! I saw one of my colleagues who unknown to me was a pax on that flight. He got off and looked a bit white and remarked 'That aircraft is going nowhere now - very heavy landing'!
Shortly after that a plethora of ground vehicles started to appear! Only happened in January! It was windy but not that severe really! I didn't actually see the landing which was ashame!
Shortly after that a plethora of ground vehicles started to appear! Only happened in January! It was windy but not that severe really! I didn't actually see the landing which was ashame!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hook Norton
Age: 54
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this is how you really do it!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the Embryo into LBA was pretty good. Certainly not in the same category as the Swiss!
As for the 747, our flying manual states; "The 'Crab' technique is used for crosswind landings." For pretty obvious reasons!
The Boeing autopilot uses the 'wing down' technique in the latter stages for reasons that don't necessarily translate into manual flying.
Horses for courses I guess. Down to personal preference (to an extent!)
Though I'm not at all convinced 'wing down' is the way to go on a 5.5 degree approach into the City.
As for the 747, our flying manual states; "The 'Crab' technique is used for crosswind landings." For pretty obvious reasons!
The Boeing autopilot uses the 'wing down' technique in the latter stages for reasons that don't necessarily translate into manual flying.
Horses for courses I guess. Down to personal preference (to an extent!)
Though I'm not at all convinced 'wing down' is the way to go on a 5.5 degree approach into the City.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see why the glide angle would make any difference
(Not being funny. Just don't think it would have suited me, that's all)
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a 5000 hour Barbie Jet pilot (or Embraer 145 as it's usually known), That crosswind landing at Leeds was textbook.
The 145 must be landed 'flat' ie crab technique as the wingtip clearance is marginal. Correct technique is to crab in- point it straight with rudder and simultaneously apply opposite aileron to counteract the secondary effect of that rudder you just applied. At the same time, close the thrust levers and flare. The 145 is tricky to fly one days like this due to its general lack of speed stability and the fact that Vapp can be 139Kt and max speed with land flap is 145Kt.
The RJ100 on the other hand is a big pussycat in a crosswind and as a current London City pilot (and in a non-judgemental way for surely it could be me tomorrow-literally!) that Swiss landing was truly 'orrible to watch. I know it wasn't the a/c with the massive tail strike- but was it the same pilot!
.
LCY approaches can be a bit fraught, but for sure the RJ is the 'weapon of choice' for this job.
I expect this Swiss RJ pilot learned something from this 'landing'. If not he should take up knitting.
BTW correct technique in the RJ is - crab in, point straight, wing down, flare.
The 145 must be landed 'flat' ie crab technique as the wingtip clearance is marginal. Correct technique is to crab in- point it straight with rudder and simultaneously apply opposite aileron to counteract the secondary effect of that rudder you just applied. At the same time, close the thrust levers and flare. The 145 is tricky to fly one days like this due to its general lack of speed stability and the fact that Vapp can be 139Kt and max speed with land flap is 145Kt.The RJ100 on the other hand is a big pussycat in a crosswind and as a current London City pilot (and in a non-judgemental way for surely it could be me tomorrow-literally!) that Swiss landing was truly 'orrible to watch. I know it wasn't the a/c with the massive tail strike- but was it the same pilot!
.LCY approaches can be a bit fraught, but for sure the RJ is the 'weapon of choice' for this job.
I expect this Swiss RJ pilot learned something from this 'landing'. If not he should take up knitting.
BTW correct technique in the RJ is - crab in, point straight, wing down, flare.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once more, fascinating comments from SLFs and other youtube link fans, thanks soo much
As for the ARJ, 146, quadrapuff, British engineering at its finest or whatever you wanna call the 5 APU thing, the best part of the design is certainly the strong trailing link landing gear. Smoothes out all but the firmest...
As for the rest of the beast, well, I would humbly say (spent a tad short of 3K on it, many moons ago) it is vastly overengineered, proof amongst others the overhead panel with its NIPS lights or the reverse flow engine.
The rest, namely basic lack of performance combined with low operating efficiency gives the clue to its demise, RIP
live 2 fly 2 live
As for the ARJ, 146, quadrapuff, British engineering at its finest or whatever you wanna call the 5 APU thing, the best part of the design is certainly the strong trailing link landing gear. Smoothes out all but the firmest...
As for the rest of the beast, well, I would humbly say (spent a tad short of 3K on it, many moons ago) it is vastly overengineered, proof amongst others the overhead panel with its NIPS lights or the reverse flow engine.
The rest, namely basic lack of performance combined with low operating efficiency gives the clue to its demise, RIP
live 2 fly 2 live
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nairn, Highland
Age: 85
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earlier it was said
>BTW correct technique in the RJ is - crab in, point straight, wing down, flare.
I wouldn't disagree and that was more or less what we did on the 146.
However, earlier in my career, I was amazed to learn that the recommended technique on the C130 Hercules was to set up the wingdown/sideslip at around 600 feet on finals. It worked, but any combination of that and the 146 method is feasible - land on one set of mainwheels and then roll onto both sets.
One advantage of wingdown/land one side first is often overlooked. If the aircraft is not pointing QUITE straight at the moment of touchdown, the jar/judder is far less than if landing on both sets of mainwheels.
I spent large parts of my career as a QFI or training captain. On the Varsity, standard procedure was to kick-off drift; that often went wrong. I can say without hesitation that trainee pilots found the wing down method much much easier than kick-off on things like the Herc, 146 .
At one time, after experimenting with the Varsity, I impressed my Varsity Squadron Commander when I showed him wing-down. He asked me to submit a paper to Central Flying School outlining the advantages. Those who knew CFS in the 1960s/70s will be only too well aware that I was banging my head against the wall trying to persuade them that there might just be a better way than the CFS way!
Jack Harrison
>BTW correct technique in the RJ is - crab in, point straight, wing down, flare.
I wouldn't disagree and that was more or less what we did on the 146.
However, earlier in my career, I was amazed to learn that the recommended technique on the C130 Hercules was to set up the wingdown/sideslip at around 600 feet on finals. It worked, but any combination of that and the 146 method is feasible - land on one set of mainwheels and then roll onto both sets.
One advantage of wingdown/land one side first is often overlooked. If the aircraft is not pointing QUITE straight at the moment of touchdown, the jar/judder is far less than if landing on both sets of mainwheels.
I spent large parts of my career as a QFI or training captain. On the Varsity, standard procedure was to kick-off drift; that often went wrong. I can say without hesitation that trainee pilots found the wing down method much much easier than kick-off on things like the Herc, 146 .
At one time, after experimenting with the Varsity, I impressed my Varsity Squadron Commander when I showed him wing-down. He asked me to submit a paper to Central Flying School outlining the advantages. Those who knew CFS in the 1960s/70s will be only too well aware that I was banging my head against the wall trying to persuade them that there might just be a better way than the CFS way!
Jack Harrison
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding construction of BAe 146. An aquaintance of mine pointed out the main gear is a copy from the Buccaneer. (Ready to be corrected, but as he was an ex-Bucc man, I let him have his say). Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly looks quite an agricultural piece of equipment when compared with many other designs. And LCY isn't much longer than the standard issue USN carrier.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the wing down method is a rather neglected technique - I rarely see it applied these days,
I recall my FI showing me a wing down approach in my PPL training. The crosswind component was something like 12kts and we were at such an angle it felt like I was almost falling out of the seat on to him.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wing down is superior as it was pointed out, the 'throw-you-of-the-side-of-the-runway' vector (actual JAR terminology btw) is reduced on one wheel compared to two. In the 146/RJ you rarely see more than 5 degrees on during a wing down landing so the argument that it's uncomfortable for the pax doesn't fly (pun intended)
Anyone flying into LCY yesterday? Sure was foggy! We had to go to SND 
Atreyu
Anyone flying into LCY yesterday? Sure was foggy! We had to go to SND Atreyu