Swiss Avro Greaser in LCY

[lamer]

this one has it all:

nice crosswind, possible windshear, hard landing, possible tailstrike, massive wingflex, 2.5 bounces, nosewheel touchdown before mains & nice drift!

no idea when but no, it's not the one that ended up on the barge.

s5prz1Ae5QM

[Avman]

Ouch! But they walked away from it........

[JaJaBinx]

Holy *hit that one is bad!!

I start flying them soon based at LCY... must learn how to fly again!!
JJB

[electricdeathjet]

ouch :eek:
what a great find!!
That nose wheel got a good work out too....

[AltFlaps]

They should not have continued that approach ...

[lambourne]

"ladies and gentlemen, we have attacked london and they have surrendered"

[flyhardmo]

Must have a been a few holes in the seat while trying to keep it straight on the runway with only the nosewheel and right man. Thumbs up to those designers at Avro. They built it as tough as a C-152 which is good in todays environment with alot of low timers coming off C-150's straight into a jet :}

[Capn Bloggs]

Slomo:

http://www.youtube.com/v/UG8HfLsZqs0

I thought I had a good understanding of how the Lift Spoiler system on the hushpuppy worked but after seeing that now I'm not so sure...

[non iron]

:) how can you have 2.5 bounces ?


Two or three surely ? :)

[non iron]

Watching the primary flight controls spills the beans.

No understanding of crosswind landings.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Is this the same jet that was subsequently grounded at LCY, had the titles quickly painted over, and was unceremoniously shipped out of there on a barge last year?

[Lower Hangar]

I think the 'thumbs up' should be given to the designers at De Havilland - the reason its called Avro RJ etc is more to do with the shutdown of Hatfield and the transfer of everything to Woodford- then that bit of BAe Commercial Aircraft business was re-badged as 'Avro'- I know I've still got my Avro name tag. Didn't the 146 have some 'rugged runway' capability as part of its early ( (1980's) sales blurb.

[FullWings]

Wow...:eek: That's an amazing advert for the strength of the airframe.

That sort of technique (or lack of it) is generally reserved for landing on aircraft carriers in a rough sea. Maybe they were doing trials for the Swiss Navy?

[cwatters]

Looks like it's still going sideways even as the clip ends.

[wobble2plank]

Should be fun trying that in a A318 after a long, dark trans-atlantic crossing :eek:

Damn difficult to hit the tail in a 318 tho :E

[Cityliner]

The one shipped out was in Star Alliance livery,
the one in the Video has the reguolar swiss painting!
Bit seeing this Video I would like to know what happend to the other Avro.
I think they must suffered the same hard landing but including a heavy tail strike!

[Atreyu]

I operate into LCY on a regular basis and let me tell you that was an absolute disgrace! (famous last words!) It seemed like he put the nose down just as it enters the frame? Maybe I'm wrong but it could explain the hard touchdown, Note the white lights either side of the centre line, just on the last set of instrument markers. The aircraft must have touched down by those lights but as you can see he was well short of that limit, which seems to suggest that he did actually stuff the nose down for whatever reason. You can experence a loss of energy even that far into the landing phase but putting the nose down was the wrong response, Just needs alot of power to be added until an airspeed decrease is arrested

Happy Landings into LCY everyone!

Atreyu

[swiss_swiss]

thats an old video and was previously posted

[Pilot Pete]

I know it is a steep approach, but that ROD near the ground was horrific! And the crosswind technique?!?

PP

[Madbob]

The last landing I saw that came close to the one on this thread was made by a Buccaneer! At least its uc was designed for carrier landings and the no flare arrival was deliberate!

Must have shaken loose a few fillings methinks....

Crew must either be very tyro or former navy pilots. One shudders to think of the consequences of lift dump devices failing to deploy due to a damaged microswitch.

Madbob

[Atreyu]

wobble2plank, I'm sure it can be done! :E

[MaxReheat]

I sincerely hope that any self-respecting crew would have entered 'heavy landing' in the tech log and the aircraft grounded pending an engineering inspection. Given my (limited) experience of the Swiss, I somehow doubt it.

[in my last airline]

Dead right. They were the hardest bunch of know it alls I've ever had to train. 'In Swiss we did it this way, in Swiss we did it that way!' Response was normally, 'Sure but you flew for Crossair didnt you?'

[jackharr]

I flew the 146 for 9 years. It was an incredibly easy aircraft to land and I can honestly count on one hand the landings that didn't please me, but nothing remotely as awful that one. Crosswinds were fun and that guy just didn't point it straight when he flared. (* but see comment below)

Mind you I was never checked to operate LCY as our airline didn't start using the airfield until I was about 58 years old. I declined the offer to get checked as I simply could not face those taxi journeys up and down the M11.

*Although I never flew into LCY, I do believe the philosophy was to make a minimum flare to avoid "floating" down the runway. But that pilot did seem to take the advice to extremes!

Jack Harrison

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

As a former 146 pilot myself, I can only marvel at the magnificent design of such a machine - British engineering at its finest!

[Tediek]

When you check the slowmotion version, you can see that the body is touching the runway. is this the ac that was grounded due to heavy tailstrike?

[The Flying Pram]

Thats one hell of a tough undercarriage!
The Czechs build a pretty tough plane as well.... 6 bounces! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhUO4pdGCf8)

[PAPI-74]

Who the hell was flying that.......a 5 hour PPL Student.....can't be anyone with a CPL surely???

Donkey needs sacking!!!!!:ouch:

[Speedbird48]

As a 146/RJ training captain in my past life, that sure beats all the ones I saw. And, there were a few interesting ones!! Who the hell taught that guy "crosswind" landings (Crossair??)

If ever there was a need for a go round for another go this is it. The control movements are very interesting and the spoilers come out very late in the episode.

But then the Swiss are know for their attitudes as are certain other EU folks!!

De Havilland designed a wonderful rugged airplane, and Avro stole it in order to stop it when it was finally, belatedly, getting sorted out?? A most enjoyable airplane that I had a lot of fun teaching people in.

Speedbird 48.

[TotalBeginner]

It sure is a tribute to that landing gear!

Here is another 146 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTxCUcPY734) taking a bashing.

[kingair9]

Crew must either be very tyro or former navy pilots.


Sure, they flew for the Swiss Navy...

:ugh:

[Matt35]

The old story was of the new guy at the EEC meeting...

""I am the Swiss Minister of the Navy""

Loud laughter...

"Why not? The Italians have a Finance Minister"

Matt

[twochai]

Thread creep I know, but I wonder if the BA038 accident and the Swiss LCY debacle is will encourage airports to automatically film all arrivals on CCTV?

[Tandemrotor]

"Sonny, did we land, or were we shot down?"

[interpreter]

Clearly the 146 is tough but is it normal to come into City airport with the airbrakes deployed or was that just part of the "I'm gonner get this down whatever" style of landing? I'm only a PPL but I haven't seen worse anywhere.

[Tandemrotor]

Speedbrake is deployed at 1000' into LCY.

It's a little difficult (though not impossible) to fly a 5.5 degree approach without it.

Even on a normal approach, they are deployed prior to landing.

[Lurking123]

Did anyone fix the dents in the runway?

[BusinessMan]

A selection, but not just 146s...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RdxU-0W-RE

[Atreyu]

Tandemrotor, We open the airbrake on G/S intercept but I guess some SOP's may be different.

Atreyu

[amf1966]

Used to work at Hatfield, late 80s, early 90s.

In answer to some earlier posts, part of the design concept for the 146 was STOL ops from rough/grass strips with high/dry capability as wel.

The marketing people wanted to spread the net wide and snag some of the smaller less "mainstream" operators.

We were all very fond of her at Hatfield.....but then, you would be!

[Superpilot]

ROTFLMAO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgZM0nP5laI&NR=1)

What is it they say about landings you walk away from?

[operationsair]

a/c was grounded and inspected. 2 day stay

[MaxReheat]

Phew! Modicum of faith restored. Now, about that flare, Bloggs?

[Chequeredflag]

Isn't it a bit ironic that there are adverts for cheap Swissair flights at the bottom of this page!!

[BahrainLad]

I know landings at LCY are always a bit 'firm'...summed up here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUUh2dXhKi4

[swiss_swiss]

#22 yes it was.
#26 no it is not
#42 no 2 day stay involved - i saw it fly out the next morning

[Taildragger67]

FoxtrotAlpha18,

I quote from the opening post by Lamer:

no idea when but no, it's not the one that ended up on the barge.

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... "

[Thegaypilot]

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.

[Anotherflapoperator]

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.

[Mister Geezer]

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!

[Fatboy Ginge]

Check out this one into Leeds Bradford

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAljM7CaY10&NR=1

[Maude Charlee]

Geezer,

I suspect you know more than you're letting on - I'd recognise that technique anywhere! ;)

You still want to go and fly for them? :eek:

[Tandemrotor]

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.

[Tandemrotor]

I can't see why the glide angle would make any difference

Just curious to know when you last operated into LCY?

(Not being funny. Just don't think it would have suited me, that's all)

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

As a 5000 hour Barbie Jet pilot (or Embraer 145 as it's usually known), That crosswind landing at Leeds was textbook.:ok: 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.

[F4F]

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 :E



live 2 fly 2 live

[jackharr]

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

[JamesA]

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.

[silverelise]

I think the wing down method is a rather neglected technique - I rarely see it applied these days,
Maybe because wing down is more uncomfortable for the people down the back than crabbed?

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.

[Atreyu]

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):eek: Anyone flying into LCY yesterday? Sure was foggy! We had to go to SND :(

Atreyu :cool:

[Tandemrotor]

Atreyu

I think the discomfort comes from the 'ball' rather than the bank!

It just comes down to personal preference. No more, no less. Each has different advantages.

I have tried both techniques in every conceivable airframe configuration (even rotary wing) I just prefer crab, it always works for me.

But I'm happy that 'cross controlled' does it for others!

(Atreyu, thanks for the pm)

[pontifex]

I was taught wing down by the Canadians on the Harvard. Then, when returned to the RAF and flying Vampires, the old CFS technique of kick off drift was insisted on. When, subsequently, I became a tp and was involved in extensive landing trials on a number of types large and small, I tried both techniques for comparative handling assessments. The result was conclusive, wing down has it everytime unless the aircraft geometry precludes; and there are precious few that do. (B52, and that has a crabbing gear) and most underslung 4 jets. Opponents are sure that wing tips are vulnerable. But, if you measure the angle between the dangled gear and the adjacent wing tip, it is far, far greater than any sideslip bank angle you can reasonably achieve. Advantages are that it is much easier to judge the landing and, very importantly in a strong X wind, you touch down with the control deflections required for the roll-out already applied and not a blur of arms and leg as with the kick off drift. This was particularly useful on a well known WW2 bomber which could be a pig in a X wind, but 3 pointed with wing down, was pussy cat. Furthermore, got the PC9 prototype up to 35 kts with no trouble at all. I'm sold on it and do tend to preach a bit. As a flying instructor, I found it much easier to teach too.

[ronnie3585]

I was taught wing down by the Canadians on the Harvard. Then, when returned to the RAF and flying Vampires, the old CFS technique of kick off drift was insisted on. When, subsequently, I became a tp and was involved in extensive landing trials on a number of types large and small, I tried both techniques for comparative handling assessments. The result was conclusive, wing down has it everytime unless the aircraft geometry precludes; and there are precious few that do. (B52, and that has a crabbing gear) and most underslung 4 jets. Opponents are sure that wing tips are vulnerable. But, if you measure the angle between the dangled gear and the adjacent wing tip, it is far, far greater than any sideslip bank angle you can reasonably achieve. Advantages are that it is much easier to judge the landing and, very importantly in a strong X wind, you touch down with the control deflections required for the roll-out already applied and not a blur of arms and leg as with the kick off drift. This was particularly useful on a well known WW2 bomber which could be a pig in a X wind, but 3 pointed with wing down, was pussy cat. Furthermore, got the PC9 prototype up to 35 kts with no trouble at all. I'm sold on it and do tend to preach a bit. As a flying instructor, I found it much easier to teach too.

Great post pontifex, very informative:ok:

[bill_s]

Adopted the slip method early in light singles training because you could hold the attitude, with trims for the usual wind gradient, until the wheels hit,
at which time the fuselage was pointed straight down the rwy and all you have to do is roll out with the upwind aileron left up so that side doesn't try to fly again. A bonus with fixed gear is that the lateral load is taken
by the transverse gear strut in tension, which lessens chance of having to fill out a whole pile of forms after gear collapse if you bang it down.

Win win.

[Farfrompuken]

Having got a few hours in a couple of Lockheed's finest (L-1011 & C130) I'm sold on the wing down technique. I believe their U/C doesn't like side loads.

CFS seemed to be still more crab + kick focussed but all my students got to see both.

However, looking at the video the old adage "every landing you walk away from is a good one" spings to mind:E

[two green one prayer]

However, looking at the video the old adage "every landing you walk away from is a good one" spings to mind:E

Farfompuken you are plain wrong. With a good landing you can use the aeroplane again.

[Farfrompuken]

Farfompuken you are plain wrong. With a good landing you can use the aeroplane again.

Bit of sharp pencilling and I'm sure she'll be fine;)

[Atreyu]

Tandemrotor, Yeah I do see your point but I would also respectfully argue at 5 deg the ball wouldn't be too far out! :}

I'm sure I speak for all when i say SLF's comfort takes 2nd place to safety so I guess it's whatever method you feel most comfortable with! :eek: :P

And no problem :ok:

Atreyu

[hellsbrink]

[QUOTE][
Tandemrotor, Yeah I do see your point but I would also respectfully argue at 5 deg the ball wouldn't be too far out! :}

I'm sure I speak for all when i say SLF's comfort takes 2nd place to safety so I guess it's whatever method you feel most comfortable with! :eek: :P

And no problem :ok:

Atreyu
/QUOTE]

Personlly speaking, I'd rather get down on terra firma vaguely safely in those conditions than be complaining about my bowels appearing in my chest. A "safe" landing, in my book, means your internal organs return to their usual place whereas a "bad one" can tend to have othe complications....


Bu what do I know, I just pay for the privilege of these sorts of things

[Atreyu]

hahaha I agree, It's always a controlled crash with the ground anyway, especially so at City.

Atreyu:ok:

[PAPI-74]

Not if the speed is nailed and you are either on the glide, or just under it (2 reds and a pink). This gives you room in the touchdown zone for a nice round out.
The only problem is the last 500' with windshear, but normally this calms to mild turbulence by 30'. Gusts then have to be countered or the aircraft may weather-cock when on the ground.
It really isn't as bad as the stories you hear, it just takes bigger balls than any other normal approach.
Rock on LCY pilots!!!!!!
:ok:

[Atreyu]

I know, I operate into city, it was a bit of poor humour :ouch:

And two reds and a pink? Sure I've heard that somewhere before... :uhoh:

Atreyu:ok:

[Geotrash]

Best post I've read in months. Thanks for sharing your experience. I am much more comfortable with the wing down technique for the reasons you cite. In a gusty crosswind, it's easier for me to gauge the effects of my aileron and rudder inputs in response to changes in the wind. Trying to do that while kicking out a crab and flaring adds one more variable to compensate for when a gust catches the tail or upwind wing.

Since I don't see myself flying a 747 or A340 in this millenia, perhaps continuing to use the wing down technique will keep me from bending any airplanes. I know at least one crusty backcountry pilot who vehemently disagrees with my technique, so your post will provide me some fodder for hanger flying debates.

Dave

[Skydrol Leak]

The Captain should be prosecuted,no doubt, very hard and not safe landing on the end of the day.Thumbs down for the crew

[Atreyu]

Good to see the blame culture still alive and well in aviation:rolleyes:

We can all pass criticism, indeed I have myself, but I don't think prosecution is the answer. Besides, if the aeroplane isn't broken, and no-one died or was injured, what can you prosecute him for? A heavy landing? Yes it was bad but jesus if we all went to court for a heavy landing from time to time imagine the state the British judicary system would be in then! erm... actually, nevermind :D

But I suppose there are heavy landings, and then HEAVY landings:E Or would this swissair clip be defined as more of a 'light crash'? I can see The Sun's headline now...

"Hero pilot saves 110 lives at london city airport"

Sorry cynical old me again....

Atreyu:}

[PAPI-74]

Skydrol Leak,

Easy Tiger. Court is a bit harsh, anyway as Atreyu has pointed out, they are far too busy keeping criminals on the streets:ouch:
Next you will be saying that the local kebab shop should be fined when I wake up with a hangover and the trots.:{
You pay your money, you take your chances. The fact is that, in my humble opinion, Carlsberg don't make pilots, but if they did, they probably would be LCY pilots.:ok:

Maybe Tea and Biscuits for the Swiss pilot, followed a few remedial flights with the Chief Pilot and a visit to his local flying school to relearn xwind techniques. Oh! and while he was there, a brush up in how to get off the bloody runway a bit quicker so that we can get on with it...

I bet the worst thing that probably happened on that landing, apart from a few loose fillings that is, was a small Skydrol Leak, Skydrol Leak.:8

PAPI

[Atreyu]

PAPI-74, Yellow or Green leak?:8 (and yes smart-alecs I know skydrol is purple, well the hydraulic fluid is, maybe the pprune skydrol is purple too? Could his name be Ronnie, of Vimto fame? questions, questions...) And I agree with PAPI-74's sentiments, LCY pilots should be given lots of extra pay for flying in and out of there :E

Atreyu:ok:

[PAPI-74]

I would stear towards the yellower tinge of purple, if I had to hazard a guess......

[Atreyu]

tending to agree, I love the hydraulics bay it's quite interesting. Sad I know...:ugh:

Atreyu:ok:

[737forever]

what sink-rate at touchdown are we talking about?Comments are welcome

[PAPI-74]

At touchown the usual, but the trick is timing.
With a groundspeed of 160kts your ROD should be 1560FPM and 120kts 1170FPM, so about twice the normal ROD for a 3deg approach.
If this ROD is taken to the threshold and not timed correctly, inertia will win and the aircraft will just keep coming down, which is why I mentioned 2 reds and a pink to give you a bit of room to flare and hold off (unless the runway is wet and it is gusting 85deg to the runway when a +ve arrival is the safest. This does not mean a carrier landing, but just no greasing). I tend to start the gentle flare with the speed slowing from Vref+10 to Vref+5 at about 10-15' (less speed-less ROD reqd. to maintain the Glide Path). With the throttles closed at 5' Vref is only seconds away leaving only a brief flare, which is really only a few extra deg than a normal approach. The other option is to flare at the last moment quickly, checking the attitude from a few deg nose nown, to a few deg nose up. This makes me a bit nervous at that ROD and things can go wrong (too fast, balloon, hit the deck, etc...). This may seem to the uninitiated as the same as landing on a carrier, but broken down, with practice, not a great deal different (...once you are used to hanging into your -ve g strap all the way down:eek:).
The windshear and the narrow runway make it a challange.
Please comment if you do it another way as all aircraft are different, and indeed individual's methods.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

OK

For me. 2 reds 2 whites. there's no need to go lower.

50' power off

30' do something

10' finesse it.

Always works good but in calm conditions better to 'do something' slightly earlier than 30'.

+hand fly a bit when you can. always helps.

no charge.:ok:

[PAPI-74]

I am talking about the last 50'. Just saves using up the whole runway to help ATC. With the amount of traffic these days, every little helps....and they are looking at ways to increase flow to even higher levels per hour.

I bet that was fun with the door open.

[PPRuNeUser0215]

Just saves using up the whole runway to help ATC.

Landing on the right spot will achieve just that. I don't believe you need to do anything else than the right thing. In my case, if I have to use the whole runway to stop in a safe and controlled manner then be it. The last of my worries is how much time I "think" I can save to others established during a less critical phase of flight than a landing at LCY. How would I know for sure unless I am the ATCO planning the runway occupation sequence ?

Interesting video though.

[metalbudgie]

Just back from my first Glasgow-London City and found what upset the fellow passengers the most was the clearly audible shouts of FIFTY, FORTY shouted from the cockpit.
I remained a steely eyed hero on the outside.
I'm only 40 but that route reminded me of flying out of smaller airports in the Bahamas and US of A.
Fifteen minute checkins, double tinned on the beer front, preflight the A/C on the way out....

[Atreyu]

Either method works well, but having a 'pink' can help avoid the situation in the video, although the higher GS with a flatter approach argument is valid, the detremental effect depends on distance to touchdown I've found. The last 50 odd feet of the appraoch shouldn't increase your Landing Distance by too much! Either way, as long as it's down by the lights and not knackered by the touchdown it's good enough for goverment work. And the HMS LCY remark, pure class!:D:E

Atreyu:ok:

[safetypee]

“two reds two whites are the only correct way” :ok:
IIRC there are some less obvious differences in the PAPI setting and obstacle clearances at LCY, which require the glidepath to be followed accurately.
Due to the steeper approach angle the actual altitude difference between PAPI ‘beams’ will be larger than that for lower angle approaches, i.e. at LCY you are further below the glidepath with 3red 1white – closer to the obstacles, than for a 3 deg approach. In order to maintain a similar relationship with a 3 deg approach, the angle between the PAPI lights at LCY may have been changed; can anyone confirm/refute this.
Also, I recall that the ILS obstacle clearance surface uses the equivalent of a CAT 2 installation to provide clearance over all of the obstacles (some may have been removed now); this required the use of a higher accuracy ILS GS beam (possibly also a ‘tighter’ beam for the same reason as the PAPI above).
There should be a note somewhere about the need to use either an electronic or visual glideslope for all approaches into LCY.

“having a 'pink' can help avoid the situation in the video” :uhoh:
First, a well set up PAPI system has no ‘pink’ zone – only red or white with a sharp transition between the two (beware frosty mornings where ice or lamp warm up may appear pink).
Second, flying below the approved glidepath does not prevent an inadvertent harsh touchdown. In addition, it might invalidate any landing distance credit for the steep approach – check the performance section of the AFM.

“Landing on the right spot … I don't believe you need to do anything else than the right thing.” :ok:
Much better than thinking about how you were helping others - from the overrun area whilst they all divert!

[Atreyu]

So your saying the last 50' of the approach would invalidate landing distance calculations? I'm not so sure if I agree there, besides if you touch down before the lights, surely LD calculations are valid? That's the whole point of having those lights. :uhoh: (correct me if I'm wrong)

wo ping's comment about the last 200' of the PAPI's being unreliable seem's to ring a bell from somewhere :confused:

"i.e. at LCY you are further below the glidepath with 3red 1white – closer to the obstacles, than for a 3 deg approach"

PAPI-74 isn't talking about flying the whole 5.4 miles below the glide here! Just the last 50' or so, and being over the runway surface at this height, how many obsticles are you likely to encounter? :ouch:

As an F/O I don't get to land into LCY, so I really can't qualify my observations, and I guess it is just down to individual technique and A/C Type

Happy Landings nontheless!

Atreyu:ok:

[safetypee]

wo ping, you appear to be mixing up VASI with PAPI, not surprising as many installations are misidentified or ill defined e.g. “PAPI-VASI”. Each system provides a visual glidepath via different mechanisms. There are other sources of confusion, e.g. ‘T’ VASI, a good system found in Australia, but different again.

VASI, Visual Approach Slope Indicator, is the older system based on 2 sets of lights (red and white) set to the required glidepath angle. The boxes are located down the length of the runway, spaced either side of the GS origin (not to be confused with a second set of ‘long body’ PAPIs at the larger airports). Due to the type of light and installation, the VASI beam width is relatively wide resulting in a diffuse red/white mix near the change over point, i.e. ‘pink’ appearance. This and the deteriorating beam accuracy at low altitude (relatively large beam width) results in VASI being of little use below 200ft, i.e. they are not reliable.

PAPI, Precision Approach Path Indicator, is based on a set of 4 lamps located at right angles to the runway usually just beyond the GS origin. Each lamp unit provides both a red and white section of the beam. The changeover between the two is ‘sharp’ as the lamp unit uses a focussing lens and colour filter (like a projector) giving each a narrow beam width; this eliminates any pink zone and in theory enables the system to be used at much lower altitudes. Small differences in the beam setting either side of the required glidepath provide the 2 red / white etc combinations. A limiting factor is usually the narrow beam width at low altitude (small vertical displacement for colour change), but PAPI is still reliable although not very easy to follow.

Atreyu, to achieve a ‘slightly’ below glidepath position at 50 ft implies an earlier manoeuvre. In addition to any ‘unstabilising’ effect (either by reducing power or nose down pitch, both ill advised at low altitude), the obstacle clearance is reduced. IIRC the lights on the bridge just short of rwy10 are quite close – then you could consider the height of a London double-decker bus (which I believe was considered in the hazard assessment).

[PAPI-74]

...yes but the amount in question is still within limits (1 dot) and at 50' you are nowhere near the road, which is at least 200m away on either runway. There is also a displaced TH. which the ILS and PAPI are leading you past. What bus are you on about at 50'...the one on Flight Sim?:8
You do it your way and I will stick to mine!

Quote from a FAB doc.

The Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) is a simple visual aid that has been developed to assist pilots during their approach to landing. The development of the system by the RAE was reported in Ref 1 and the operational trials and technical evaluation by ICAO were reported in Ref 2. The PAPI system uses a set of four two-colour high intensity light projectors. Each beam consists of a white upper half and red lower half. The transition from one colour to the other occurs over a very small angle. This sharp transition is an essential feature of the PAPI system and it is therefore important that all units should exhibit this characteristic As the pilot’s vertical position changes, the color of the light as seen by the pilot changes instantaneously.

Well we all know that the transition is there and does appear as a soft Red or Pink. If it is such a small degree, how can one hit a bus for Christ sake, that is 200m away!
And how is the obstacle clearance reduced if the approach is within limits?
Unstabilised...how? By Tucking in at 50' by lowering the nose by LESS than 1/2deg...yer right.

[efcop]

our minimum RVR or take off with the Avro is 400m

rgds
efcop

[Noah Zark.]

Excuse the slight thread drift, but whilst on the subject of the 146, what became of the example which I believe was landed downwind on a Scottish Isle by a Royal Personage (who, I believe, hung up his "Wings" thereafter?)
Was the machine written off?

[WHBM]

Was the machine written off?No, it was fixed up, and returned to the RAF VIP fleet.

to provide clearance over all of the obstacles (some may have been removed now)Actually this is a strange one, the key obstacle clearance landing at London City on 28 is based on clearance over the East London River Crossing bridge - which hasn't been built yet.

Picture here (http://www.thames-gateway.org.uk/images/bridge/bridge1-02-b.jpg) The picture appears to be looking along the 28 approach at ground level.

The bridge will cross the river at the same point as the approach to 28 crosses the river. Its height is a squeeze between clearance above shipping in the river, and clearance under the flight path. There has been a great amount of shilly-shallying over the project over many years, still not certain it will ever be built.

how can one hit a bus for Christ sake I'm sure not. But I can tell you, as one who has been on the upper deck of a London bus on the roads across both ends of the LCY approach as someone comes over the top, it sure does look (and sound) close, and some of the other less aviation-aware passengers do duck - no quite certain what good that might do them though !

[Taildragger67]

There has been a great amount of shilly-shallying over the project over many years

What, shilly-shallying over a London transport/infrastructure project? Surely you jest! :ugh: :hmm: :{

[400drvr]

Do you mean the Take a deep breath, close your eyes and hope for the best technique?:) Wow what a an airplane! It looked like they were close to smacking the belly on that one as well.

Glad everyone walked away!

Cheers

[Atreyu]

Well I'm of the opinion any approach within halfscale is acceptable, not ideal, but acceptable and that obsticle clearance must take into account that an aircraft may be at Half scale fly up all the way. But I think the overriding factor in all of this discussion is to ensure that kind of incident shown in the video doesn't happen!

Happy Landings
Atreyu:ok:

[aviate1138]

Atreyu - where's Falkor?

[Mister Geezer]

Been told that the touchdown was just shy of 4G which is rather impressive.

Apparently the Swiss technique for landing the RJ is to select flight idle at 50 ft and then progressively flare. If that is true then they always carry extra speed on the approach or they like to live life on the edge! :sad: That is how you land a heavy jet and not a 146/RJ!!!

[swiss_swiss]

i was told the landing was 3.2G not 4

[Doors to Automatic]

What amount of g is a normal landing? and one say at 750ft/min. And what g would necessitate a heavy landing check? And what amount of g did the DC-9 that lost its tail experience?

[Mister Geezer]

I didn't say it was 4G - bit it was not far off it from what I was told. :}

[Mister Geezer]

Well the 146 (RJ probably very similar) AMM states that a heavy landing is when the descent rate at touch down is in excess of 10'/sec which is 600'/min.

Not sure if there are G limits as well?

[swiss_swiss]

difference between 3.2 and 4 is a big difference - where did your souce get the info from that it was 4 - i might be wrong u c

[Mister Geezer]

Someone from the 'inside' so to speak in ZRH!!! ;)

[Atreyu]

avate1138, I've hidden him in my cupboard in the hope of sending him to Narnia (I know, he's from The Never Ending Story):eek:

And I'd still say 3.2G is a heavy landing, I'm sure the engineers must have relished the prospect of carrying out an inspection after that carrier landing, Swiss Navy Stylee of course.:E


Atreyu:ok:

[Mister Geezer]

Atreyu

I heard your gingerbeers in LCY were the first to attend - supply one with a cuppa on the turn around and you will probably get the information first hand! :)

[Atreyu]

Next time their in for a nav database update or something lengthy I'll have an ask, I reckon it could a bit of a long story! Must have kept them busy though! Wonder if anyone has any pictures, looked like he scraped the belly to me...

Atreyu:ok:

[Jumbodriver74]

looked like he scraped the belly to me...


Nope, I've been told the aircraft was released next day for flight and since then HB-IXW in operating normally...

And the ADAS system will trigger a print-out at 1.8G.

J_74

[Atreyu]

Ah ok, It looked mighty tight!

Atreyu:ok:

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

@FlyEJF
That landing would have been classified as a "hard landing" on our products (any case where the landing is neither a three-pointer nor "both mainwheels together" counts as a hard landing, because it's outside the expected landing attitude so the load transfer to the structure may be out of the normal range). The criteria for a "hard landing" are in both the AFM and AMM IIRC, and the crew would be aware of them, and would be expected to report it. there's then a defined maintenance procedure to (a) confirm that it was "hard" and (b) define the inspections then required.

In the worst case the gear would have to be removed. (Assuming that nothing else broke, as if it did chances are it won't matter whether the crew reports it, ATC will notice the plane obstructing the runway!)

I suspect the AVRO procedures are similar.

@llondel. That 5.5 deg nominal glideslope about halves the reaction time compared to a 3 degree g/s when you think in terms of descent rate. What might simply be a "bad" landing elsewhere is likely to be that much more dramatic as a result. That's one reason you're supposed to have specific approval for London City.

[bluepilot]

The reason for the 5.5 deg slope at LCY is not for obstacle clearance it is to prevent "scatter" on the runway.

by increasing the angle of the decent it if far more likely you will land in the correct place on the runway and not float (scatter is wider and floating more likely from a shallower approach).

[safetypee]

A shallow approach might give a greater scatter in touchdown position, but a steep approach does not necessarily mean that it will be better, or that the aircraft will not float; this depends on how the flare and landing is flown (speed etc).
Touchdown scatter – long landings, can be a problem at LCY for some aircraft; a safety aid is the use of fixed distance markings / lights which identify the point by which touchdown should occur.
The 5.5 deg 10 approach at LCY was required for clearing obstacles (Canary Warf, and other buildings / cranes some of which have since been removed).
The 28 approach was designed to miss the river bridge – still not built; the 5.5 deg slope is retained because of the noise benefit.
BAe146 / Avro RJ operators can look up the difference in steep approach noise ratings in the AFM performance supplement.
The original approach angle at LCY was 7.5 deg, only usable by DHC-7 aircraft; this was primarily a ‘gimmick’ based on low environmental noise in order to get the airport approved.

[Mister Geezer]

I don't really buy the view that a steeper approach will ensure a more accurate touchdown location. It is just as easy to float from a steep approach than it is from a normal 3 degree approach. There are so many variables for a touchdown in the right place and no mater what type of approach you fly, one of these variables can easily change to affect your landing position!

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

A steeper approach does (usually) allow the OEM to take credit for a shorter "air distance" in the landings, regardless of the accuracy issue.

[safetypee]

The 146/RJ landing distance credit for steep approaches is in two parts.
First the distanced gained from the geometry of a steep approach and the allowable use of the 35ft threshold crossing height, and:
Second, the use of actual steep approaches (flight tests) to determine the AFM landing distance, thus gaining credit for the demonstrated flare performance vs simulated / calculated alternatives.

The 146/RJ, like other ‘STOL’ aircraft have high lift characteristics and usually very responsive pitch control systems; the positive benefits enable a sharper / later flare at a lower altitude (but be careful to avoid the tail scrape if the flare is too late).

[Squawk7777]

Has there been an accident/incident report released about this "controlled impact"? I cannot find anything on the AAIB website.

[Doors to Automatic]

Just watched this video again and found myself wondering what the result would have been of such a landing on the MD11! (obviously not at LCY!)

[JW411]

I flew the BAe 146 for 19 years and I have to tell you that, like a lot of other British built aircraft, it was built like the proverbial brick built sh*t house.

Not many aircraft would have survived this event with the possible exception of those aircraft that are designed to land on aircraft carriers!

[BOAC]

I don't really buy the view that a steeper approach will ensure a more accurate touchdown location. - tried a vertical?:)

[Piltdown Man]

I don't really buy the view that a steeper approach will ensure a more accurate touchdown location.

From having done a several hundred, I can tell you categorically that it is easier to land from a steeper approach than a shallower one.

It is just as easy to float from a steep approach than it is from a normal 3 degree approach.

Yup! If you are those people who "adds a bit for Mum and the kids" or someone who rounds out too high, then you'll always find it difficult if not impossible top hit the target. But there again, these are the sort of people who are also doing the wrong job.

PM

[remoak]

I'm pretty sure the 5.5 degree glideslope has nothing to do with "scatter", it is simply for noise abatement (as promised to local residents before the airport was allowed to go ahead), and to miss the rather tall buildings that would otherwise penetrate the lower surface of the approach cone.

It doesn't really matter anyway as far as flare/float is concerned, if you haven't touched down by the inset marker lights it's a mandatory go-around.

Did three years in and out of LCY in the 146, great fun mostly.

Did see one Aer Lingus that floated past the markers, eventually got it down and stopped less than a foot from the end with brakes smoking fiercely. They had to pull it back with ropes tied around the gear legs... fun times (except for the skipper who was crapping himself).

[DFC]

It doesn't really matter anyway as far as flare/float is concerned, if you haven't touched down by the inset marker lights it's a mandatory go-around.



No that is not the case.

If during the approach it appears that the touchdown will be beyond the lights then you have to go-arround.

Having completed the approach, if the flare causes a float then it is 100% up to the crew if they go-arround or continue with the landing.

If you do make an approach at the correct speed round-out / close throttles and then float past the lights, you could try a balked landing.

But.

If you hit the bridge or any other obstacle on the way out, you can not claim that the airport authority required you to make that balked landing it is a 100% crew decision at that stage.

Remember also that in many cockpits the lights are not visible after a certain point in the landing even if you hit the aiming markers exactly.

[remoak]

Hmmm... well it was certainly a mandatory go-around in our company, and that was what was taught by the BAe instructors in the 146 sim... maybe it was different for other types. The point was that once past those lights, you have absolutely no assurance of being able to stop in the 146 or AVRO.

[Teddy Robinson]

my understanding is that the 5.5 degree slope on 28 is to bring the t/d point nearer to the easterly end of the asphalt, thereby providing additional lda and therefore higher landing weights... someone said geometry ? this would be the bottom line.

[safetypee]

The history of LCY stems from the Dash 7, which because it could fly a 7.5 deg approach, this angle was chosen for noise abatement reasons. Actually a political rather than practical choice.

In consultation with the local authority and residents, the 146 operation should have been limited to 6 deg for noise and obstacle clearance reasons.
5.5 evolved as a better choice for aircraft handling. The obstacle problems on 10 were solved with a ‘cat2’ quality glide slope – enables reduce obstacle clearances, and there was some 'help' with building regulations. Hence the need for precision approach guidance, ILS or PAPI.
Touchdown scatter is (or should be) a by-product of a steep approach and the reduced threshold crossing height.

The original Dash 7 runway was ‘shortened’ (within the existing length) to limit operations to a level two airfield (jet) which had obstacle clearance and runway width / safety zone advantages.

The original ‘fixed distance markings’ were used to mark the optimum (last point of touchdown) zone. The teaching on the 146 was as remoak # 123 indicates. However, after a landing incident, it was recommended that additional lighting at the side of the runway be installed so that the crew could better define the point, as a long touchdown reduces the safety margin. IIRC a touchdown at the lights would assure a stop even with a spoiler failure (40%), but the crew had to recognise this and use full brake.

Since then the runway has been extended (level two torn up?) and the purpose of the touch down lights been reconsidered (146 interpretation still applies) as of a wide range of aircraft types now uses the airport.