KingAir B200 and London City Airport

[LibyanArabAirline]

I'm just wondering are King air's allowed to offer scheduled services out of LCY?

Tnx

[7xXx]

not with a nickname like yours ! :}

[MungoP]

You might find scheduled ops in a King Air a bit unrealistic. Depends on what sort of dispatch reliability you're aiming for. Nothing wrong with the a/c as exec transport but as it's not perf A you may find the minima tough to deal with. Scheduled ops would become very restricted every time the cloud base fell below about 800 feet.

[No RYR for me]

For nearly the same price per hour you could fly a Fokker 50 :8 So why a B200?

[Miles Magister]

Last time I checked, around 2 years ago, the B200 fitted with analougue instruments was cleared for LCY Ops but the PL21 version was not cleared for steep approaches therfore can not operate into LCY. Might have changed since then though.

MM

[plugg]

The B200 is cleared for 5.5deg approaches and does very well. Regarding minima, it,s as per the published (not sure where the 800ft comes from in the above post), but I can't see that a Kingair is right for a 'scheduled' service - not enough seats.
LCY also require 2 crew ops in and out of thier airport.

[drag king]

Scheduled ops would become very restricted every time the cloud base fell below about 800 feet.

Why?

We operate public transport (although not scheduled) 9 out of 10 with less than that both on TO and LDG. Why should that (800 ft) be an issue? Where does it come from? Anything to do with the step apporach?

Regards

DK :)

[bfisk]

Well, in our company we have steep approach and short landing approval for the B200 classic, and will shortly start operating B200 with the PL21 cockpit. I suppose it will carry the same approval, if not we'd have a very very restricted route network!

[McDoo]

MDA at both ends at LCY for cat B ops is just over 500 feet so no idea why 800 ft comes into play. Landing/handling fees would probably make B200 ops unviable because of the limited seating capacity.

Anyone know how BA are doing charging 4 grand a pop to NY on a 318 via SNN?

[dire straits]

bfisk,
No-one with a network of routes flying 200's in Norway, short runway approval does not have much to do with steep approach. Lufttransport is kind of special ops and will get all the approvals needed, easily!

[Miles Magister]

bfisk,

It might be worth asking the question and perhaps any PL21 operators can help by posting. I was involved with a PL21 King Air a couple of years ago and it did not have steep approach approval and Beechcraft advised they had no plans to carry out the flight testing, although I wrote to senior management suggesting they should.

They had a CAA supplement for the classic but not the PL21 B200. Steep approach requires a whole new set of flight trials and certification for each different flight system and autopilot. The aircraft must be cleared to fly an ILS to 1.5 deg greater than the approach being flown to allow for corrections from above. Some flight systems wil cope with a 7 deg approach and some will not. For example the Lear 45 must be hand flown on a steep approach as the flight system will display correctly but the autopilot will not cope with 7 deg.

To operate a steep approach you must have the steep approach supplement in your flight manual if the clearance is not already included in the main manual. Your manual should state the maximum glide path angle in all cases anyway. This is a certification standard so it applies to all flights.

Stay safe and have fun

MM

[His dudeness]

To operate a steep approach you must have the steep approach supplement in your flight manual if the clearance is not already included in the main manual. Your manual should state the maximum glide path angle in all cases anyway. This is a certification standard so it applies to all flights.

Sadly true, after years of trouble free flying KingAirs into LCY someone went mad and required the supplement. Common sense is gone these days. Not surprisingly there is little wood left - we all turn it into useless paper to make certain authorities happy.

[bfisk]

I'm just saying I'm convinced it's possible to get a steep approach approval for the B200 PL21. Now I don't have all the books for the new aircraft here, but we've operated one PL21 aircraft for a few years and it regularly flies at least 4.5 degree approaches. Let me check during the day if I can find the certification basis!

Edit: in part A, op.specs., it's specified "steep approach" for the B200 series, not specifying furter. In part B, which is specific to the B200 PL21, it's also specified that we hold steep approach approval according to JAR-OPS 1.550(a). And of course those manuals are approved by the regulator...

[Miles Magister]

bfsk,

I think you might have missed the point a bit, it must be in the flight manual for each individual airframe that flies the approach. LCY must be an ILS so the aircraft must be certified for it. Of course you must have it in your ops manual but that is in addition to not ion place of the AFM.

To operate into LCY you must have company approval, aircraft certification and approved pilot training and have operated into there in the last 12 months.

Stay safe

MM

[wigglyamp]

Sorry to resurrect a very old thread, but has anyone yet obtained a steep approach approval in their AFM for an EASA- registered Proline 21 B200? Happy to discuss by PM if necessary.

[May88]

Would be curious to know more about the hoops operators have to jump through to get approved for LCY. Personally I didn't know a F50 costs the same to operate as a King Air! Says a lot of about the versatility of the F50 design; old but rugged!

Btw, I believe that 800ft minimum mentioned above comes from UKCAA single pilot IFR minima?

[papazulu]

Btw, I believe that 800ft minimum mentioned above comes from UKCAA single pilot IFR minima?

...then it should read 800 meters (RVR), which is a quite common restriction when operating CAT S/P, unless your bird is fitted with an A/p that can fly a coupled approach all the way down to 1.25 x DH.
Considering that all APP for this type would be CAT I and taking into account 15-20 ft for an ILS (50 for a NPA) for positioning-error, even al old Sperry will take you down to a DH of 250ft without much trouble.

800 ft is indeed an odd figure and it would be nice to know where it comes from.

PZ :cool:

[Miles Magister]

800m is single pilot without a coupled auto pilot. It comes from the UK AIP but have not had time to look it up for you.

LCY approvals are quite easy to get once you have the AFM supplement. It is only an airport approval and nothing more. You need the AFM supplement provided your avionics can cope with the steep approach. Then you need to train within your organisation and you are approved. Training programme is straight forward to write. Basic requirement is for the avionics to be certified for steep approach. When I flew the P21 B200 it was not certified but might be by now. The avionics have to be able to cope with 1.5deg more approach angle than the ILS. So if the ILS is 5.5 deg then the avionics and a/c have to be able to fly a 7 deg approach to cope with being above the GP and remain in control.

As an example the Citation 550 could fly a coupled approach into LCY but the LR45 had to be hand flown because whilst the avionics could cope with 7 deg the autopilot could not.

MM

[Miles Magister]

Above I stated that the 800m is stated in the UK AIP, is is no longer there. The UK AIP now states in AD 1.1 4.5 that For Aerial Work and private aircraft operations the AOM in relation to Article 109 shall be no lower than published in EASA Ops unless more restrictive minima are notified in respect of a particular aerodrome.

The RVR minima are based on aerodrome lighting intensity and the ability of the pilots to achieve visual references. I believe that the original 800m single pilot limit without an autopilot came from the FAA and part 91 regulations and was imported into Europe as best practice.

UK CAA CAP 789 states that;
2 Single Pilot Operation – Approved Autopilot
2.1 When an operator elects to conduct single pilot IFR flights the aircraft must be fitted with an approved autopilot. An approved autopilot means an autopilot that is specified in the AFM as approved for use with that aircraft and capable of providing, as a minimum, both altitude and heading holds. However, in the case of an aeroplane, if it is not cleared for controlling the aeroplane whilst coupled to both the glide path and the localiser of an ILS down to Category I Decision Height (DH), the Runway Visual Range (RVR) for all single pilot instrument approaches shall be either that specified in EU-OPS Subpart E for a Category I approach, or 800 m, whichever is the higher.

Sorry, do not have the time to scour Part Ops for you at the moment but I hope the above is useful.
Fully coupled AP then you can use published Cat I minima
No coupled AP then you need 800m RVR

[chevvron]

A 5.5 deg approach cannot be Cat 1; max for Cat 1 (correct me if I'm wrong) is 3.5 deg.

[Sepp]

The EASA definition contains no such limit on glide slope angle:

‘Category I (CAT I) approach operation’ means a precision instrument approach and landing using an instrument landing system (ILS), microwave landing system (MLS), GLS (ground-based augmented global navigation satellite system (GNSS/GBAS) landing system), precision approach radar (PAR) or GNSS using a satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS) with a decision height (DH) not lower than 200 ft and with a runway visual range (RVR) not less than 550 m for aeroplanes and 500 m for helicopters.

As always, though, best to check AMCs ad GM for contradictory and/or qualifying conditions (AMC4 and 5 CAT.OP.MPA.110 being a good place to start)!

edit/ I had a quick look at the UK AIP entry for EGLC, and ILS09 OCA includes the caption "Cat I", but ILS 27 does not.