Just to update some of the previous info from WHBM about LCY. The dominant approach obstacle on RW10 is Canary Warf, although others mentioned such as the ‘protected’ warehouse and heritage cranes (some moved), will also restrict the takeoff fight path. The Canary Warf problem was solved with a combination of the 5.5deg glidepath and claiming a less restrictive obstacle free zone by use of a Cat2 ‘quality’ glidepath beam (although not certificated for use) with PAPI; so do not go low on the PAPIs.
The requirement for a steep approach on RW 28 was the need to clear the planned new bridge - the East London River Crossing; this has not been built. The dominant obstacles would have been a London Bus and the bridge road lights. I assume that the 5.5. deg glidepath is retained for noise reasons.
ElNino please don’t even think of taking off in a tail wind, apart from the problem of noise (even in a 146) you need all of the safety margins on your side at LCY.
Moogie I would be surprised if your perf figures differed significantly from the AFM; the last that I saw originated from a common 3rd party provider based on the AFM. Don’t forget that Swiss operate the heavier RJs and that some of the RJ100 have flap33 takeoff clearance. The 146’s have a range of wt limits lower than the RJ for many reasons such as commercial as you indicate or structure depending on build standard.
The 146/RJ is a great performer at LCY and at any hot and high airfields in comparison with other aircraft with similar load range capabilities.