Avro/LCY question

[Straighten Up]

Just noticed a 7700 for a Swiss flight out of city. Held over Rochester for a bit now heading towards stansted. Not getting overly excited about it but out of interest at usual TOW for Basel, would an immediate return to city be out of limits?

[Crazy Voyager]

Now I'm not a pilot, but as a PAX, given the choice between a steep approach to a 1500m runway with water and high buildings around it, or an extra 5-10 minutes flying time to a 3000m runway in the countryside with flat ground around it (and a higher fire cat than city) I know which one I'd want my pilots to go for unless they really really needed the thing on the ground five minutes ago.

However, as I said, I'm not a pilot, and I can't answer your actual question, but that was my initial reaction to your post.

[Lafyar Cokov]

As Mr Voyager stated, LCY is a CAT C airfield (for my operator anyway) a return to a it would a - require everything working, particularly things that stop you once on the runway b - only be done if an immediate landing was required eg Fire, someone having a heart attack on board etc. For pretty much anything else, Stanstead has the runway length, numerous taxi options and space to go to - so the most suitable option is to divert there over City.

[Straighten Up]

True - that seems sensible to me too particularly if a serious technical problem - I haven't seen anything online about the emergency and it just got me wondering more generally about the numbers at normal TOW - but I take the point - very few reasons I guess you would choose LCY over STN if there was anything at all wrong with the aircraft.

[mad_jock]

LCY is extremely limited for parking and any stay outside your slot is extremely penalised.

So much so when this occurred

Very bumpy landing - YouTube

They stuck the plane on a barge and moved it by water. Then fixed it enough for a ferry flight then moved it back to the airport. I was told but maybe this was incorrect.

It wouldn't be a crews first choice to go there anywhere as has been said for flight safety reasons. But add in the associated costs of an aircraft tech on the ground its really a last ditch option.

[DaveReidUK]

They stuck the plane on a barge and moved it by water. Then fixed it enough for a ferry flight then moved it back to the airport. I was told but maybe this was incorrect.Same airport, same type, different event.

[mad_jock]

What had happened with that event?

[DaveReidUK]

What had happened with that event?If you mean the event in the video, not a lot. The outbound flight was cancelled, presumably while heavy-landing checks were carried out.

The aircraft must have been declared serviceable because it departed LCY the following morning and returned on a couple of rotations later that day.

AFAIK, no video exists of the earlier (August 2007) event that resulted in the prolonged repair.

[mad_jock]

It was the one I was wondering about the 2007 one

[DaveReidUK]

Air Accidents Investigation: Avro RJ100, HB-IYU (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/august_2008/avro_rj100__hb_iyu.cfm)

[Defruiter]

Incident: Swiss RJ1H at London on Apr 27th 2014, engine shut down in flight (http://avherald.com/h?article=47399447&opt=0)

[mad_jock]

I thought the whole point of a four holer was you could continue to destination on three donks or hairdryer's in this case.

[DaveReidUK]

I thought the whole point of a four holer was you could continue to destination on three donks or hairdryer's in this case."Could" and "should" aren't the same thing at all.

[Flap40]

Another issue to factor in is that the 146/RJ can be ferried to a maintenance base (without pax) on three engines but the runway at LCY is not long enough for a three engine take off.

STN is long enough.

[mad_jock]

Aye I know quite a few 146 drivers that lost a donk and completed there flight.

And of course the famous one of a BA 747 going across the pond.

We don't know so can't comment on that aspect as I know its all linked to what services they have and other MEL items if its a continue or not.

[DaveReidUK]

STN is long enough.

Though I would expect its eventual departure from STN to be following an engine change (it's still there as I write).

[mad_jock]

3 engine ferry has to be Authorised by BAe and they will have to get a engineer there to sign it off before flight.

So it could still be the plan.

[DaveReidUK]

3 engine ferry has to be Authorised by BAeInteresting. Why would the manufacturer need to individually authorise each instance of an OEI ferry flight? Just curious.

Though my money is still on an engine change at STN, given the attitude of most regulators. The relevant part of JARs, for example, says:

"The use of one-engine-inoperative ferry flights should be considered only when no reasonable alternative course of action is available... Operators should always consider and favour bringing spare or replacement parts and a rectification team to the aeroplane rather than authorising a one-engine-inoperative ferry flight."

and CARs spell it out even more strongly:

"A Permit can only be issued for [one-engine-inoperative ferry] flight from a place where replacement/repairs cannot reasonably be expected to be made to a place where they can be made. Authorisation shall not be granted simply because replacement/repair is more convenient at one location than another."

[mad_jock]

Not type rated on them so I will bow to your knowledge.

[Straighten Up]

MJ - that landing sure was a thumper.

My folks fly LCY-ZRH/BSL 5/6 times a year, neither are good flyers and both have had heavy landings there in crosswinds and/or late go-arounds. We had what must have been a crosswind close to max arriving in ZRH (I swear I saw the runway out of the window early in the final approach) in an RJ100 but with 11000 ft to land on it's probably a bit less worrying than ending up in the Albert Dock!

Thanks for the report DeFruiter.

[Allan Lupton]

Anent three-engine ferry flights I probably shouldn't tell this, but in the pre-certification days we'd come back from a demo and landed at Luton to clear customs, it being a Sunday. In those days there was a tendency for the quill shaft in the starter train to fracture and sure enough when we were ready to go only three of the four started. Captain Speaking turned to me "you've done the ferry calcs: are we o.k. to take off?" and as we were only going to Hatfield we were quite light so off we went.
Levelling out at a suitable FL for the ten mile trip, Co-pilot Watching said "we've got good N1 and oil pressure on that engine: let's see if it'll start." It did, of course, so we had all engines running for the approach and landing after a three-engined take-off!

[mad_jock]

Was sitting at the hold as a 4 engine TP trundled past and gracefully lifted itself into the air. As the nose gear left the ground the number 2 engine spun down in a weird sort of way. Engine failure reported and ATC told they were going on route and not returning.

Grey haired aviation god next to me in the LHS sighs and said.

"Good job they got off the ground before the starter motor burned out"