London City

[chr]

Hello

Do you know any business jet able for takeoff on wet rwy conditions from EGLC ?
If yes , any payload possible ?
I already know Learjet 75 - impossible even empty plane as well G150

thanks

[Proline21]

List of approved aircraft:

http://www.londoncityairport.com/content/pdf/Types%20of%20Aircraft_and_Concessions.pdf

As for the conditions on how they can operate depends on how heavy you are and where you want to go. Impossible to make give a definite answer.

The main problem at LCY is not the (short) Runway, it's crew qualification and stepp approach capability of the aircraft.

[dirk85]

I dont have the charts here with me but if memory serves me well the runway is grooved, which means that according to some companies OM A it can be considered dry for performance reasons, even when wet.

[rightbank]

From JAR-OPS 1.480

(4) Dry runway. A dry runway is one
which is neither wet nor contaminated, and
includes those paved runways which have been
specially prepared with grooves or porous
pavement and maintained to retain ‘effectively
dry’ braking action even when moisture is
present.

LCY is grooved and maintained and thus is always dry for performance purposes.

Reference:

http://www.jaa.nl/publications/jars/jar-ops-1.pdf

page 1-F-2

[flying mechanik]

Citation Sovereign can easily do it :D

[JonDyer]

A grooved runway is not dry - it's wet. This was put to bed years ago.


CAP789 ch11 5.3

"It is not sufficient for a runway to be considered, for performance purposes, as dry when it is wet solely on the basis that it is constructed with, for example, grooves or porous friction course pavement. Dry runway performance must only be used when the CAA has accepted in writing that the aeroplane can actually achieve the 'effectively dry' braking action referred to in the EU-OPS definition. However, there is currently no provision in the UK for notifying operators of runways having such surfaces."

[dirk85]

It is accepted in our Operations Manual, which is approved by the national CAA, not the UK one, clearly.

[Welle]

The mentioned link seems not to be up to date.

BD700 (Vision) with SB installed is approved to fly to EGLC.
(have been there recently, all docs supplied)
rgds
welle





List of approved aircraft:

http://www.londoncityairport.com/con...oncessions.pdf

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

There's at least one other anomaly in the listing, but I'm not able to check it from the 'other side'. And I suspect quite a few of the listed types are only capable/approved with specific equipment/configurations.

[ginopino]

Also the the EU 965/2012 (Air-OPS) clearly says under Definitions in Annex I that:

41. ‘Dry runway' means a runway which is neither wet nor contaminated, and includes those paved runways which have been specially prepared with grooves or porous pavement and maintained to retain ‘eff ec-tively dry' braking action even when moisture is present.

And of course your OM has to be in accordance.... UK permitting of course :)

[JonDyer]

Hi ginopino

OK so, just in the interests of the discussion - how are you demonstrating that any particular runway has been maintained to provide 'effectively dry' braking action?

Is there a runway that you use that is endorsed to that standard and who endorsed it and how do you show that the endorsement is worth relying on?

These are genuine questions to which I don't know the answer.

Also, dirk85, unless you have a statement from your CAA to the effect that they agree then just cos it's written in your OM doesn't mean it's ok - it means that it might be OK but equally it might mean that no one has noticed up to now.


Just sayin'

[Proline21]

Grooved RWYs cannot be calculated as dry, same as the use of reversers cannot be calculated to reduce LDR.

[chr]

from the list of approved aircrafts I can see L45 , everything ok , we can land , we can takeoff but when there will be couple of days raining we are not able to get out because aircraft performance doesn't allow wet takeoff from runways so short

[Joe le Taxi]

WRT grooved runways in the uk, the point of them is not immediately obvious, but the effect is the same.. For a runway to be wet, it has to be shiny or reflective with water, according to the "wet" definition. For a grooved runway to reach such state, it would require heavy rain because the water drains too quickly for it to accumulate on the surface, and in light to moderate rains, it remains merely "damp". Hence, airports with grooved runways rarely declare the state as wet. If heavy rain really is soaking the tarmac, one can normally wait a short while for it to abate.

[dirk85]

Also dirk85 unless you have a statement from your CAA to the effect that they agree then just cos it's written in your OM doesn't mean it's ok - it means that it might be OK but equally it might mean that no one has noticed up to now.

The OM has been formally approved by the authority, whether they made the effort to actually read that chapter or not is not my business: as long as they did not openly disagree on that, and the CAA stamp is there, we are legal to follow what is written.

For the rest it is good common sense not to fly there with heavy rain if you are dubious about the runway conditions, grooved or not.

But we were talking of legality here...

[Joe le Taxi]

Well, if it ain't "wet", it's not an issue.

[BizJetJock]

The OM has been formally approved by the authority, whether they made the effort to actually read that chapter or not is not my business: as long as they did not openly disagree on that, and the CAA stamp is there, we are legal to follow what is written.

This just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the approval process. It is all the operator's responsibility, whether or not there is an approval stamp. The liability lawyers love such ignorance - it can make them very rich.

[JonDyer]

The OM has been formally approved by the authority, whether they made the effort to actually read that chapter or not is not my business: as long as they did not openly disagree on that, and the CAA stamp is there, we are legal to follow what is written.

Since the day I came into this industry I have been fed a load of bull**** - from pilots to pilots. That bad knowledge could bring you down if you're unlucky.

Someone once told me that lawyers have weeks to dissect decisions that pilots make in seconds. I think that was wise advice.

In the interests of not spreading more crap I'll say this: in the UK the responsibility for the legality of the contents of the OM rests fully with the operator. We can't just insert a sentence that says we're going to ignore runway perf factors and then, because the CAA miss it, start operating that way.

It may be different where you are - maybe you should check?

[tommoutrie]

I'm pretty sure the Authority doesn't approve the OM - it accepts it. It does approve certain parts, the FTL and the MEL, but the rest is accepted by the authority rather than approved so that the responsibility remains with the operator and the pilots rather than the authority.
Thats my understanding anyway.
The grooved runway thing has been a pain in the arse for years. However, I can't remember London City declaring a wet runway (have not been there that may times, about 40) and I have been there when its been raining pretty heavily, but the runway surface was not deemed wet by the airport.

[safetypee]

The history of LCY runway included the need to clean rubber deposits from the original concrete runway as jet operations increased. Unfortunately the cleaning process polished the surface resulting in the need of groves to overcome a restriction of ‘slippery when wet’.

The operational aspects are as per JonDyer. It is of little consequence of what runway condition the airport declares, the crew/operator bears the final responsibility; this is particularly so for dispatch as you are already ‘there’. A runway is either dry or wet, noting that the take/off landing distance safety margins in wet conditions might not provide the same level of safety as for dry – wet factors cannot cover all surface conditions.

From UKCAA FODCOM 03/2009 (superseded by ???) “… to inform operators of the importance of using the performance data appropriate to the existing runway conditions.”

“It is not sufficient for a runway to be considered, for performance purposes, as dry when it is wet solely on the basis that it is constructed with, for example, grooves or porous friction course pavement. Dry runway performance must only be used when the CAA has accepted in writing that the aeroplane can actually achieve the “effectively dry” braking action referred to in the EU-OPS definition.
… there is currently no provision in the UK for notifying operators of runways having such surfaces, and the CAA is not aware of runways elsewhere that fully meet the “effectively dry” criterion.”

“ In order to comply with EU-OPS 1.480 when a runway, or section of a runway, is reported as wet, crews must use wet runway performance data regardless of the type of runway surface unless the operator can demonstrate to the CAA that the runway surface and the aircraft’s braking capabilities fully meet the criteria of EU-OPS 1.480(a)(4).”

“Operators should review their performance data to confirm that inappropriate credit is not being claimedfor “effectively dry” braking action.
Operators should review and amend as necessary their guidance to crews on the use of wet and dry performance data, and review the associated training requirements.”