London City
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: europe
Age: 41
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London City
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
List of approved aircraft:
http://www.londoncityairport.com/con...oncessions.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.
http://www.londoncityairport.com/con...oncessions.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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 2,567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
(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
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Camped on the doorstep
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A grooved runway is not dry - it's wet. This was put to bed years ago.
CAP789 ch11 5.3
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."
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: on.tour
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
list of acft
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Moon
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Camped on the doorstep
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'
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'
Last edited by JonDyer; 13th Nov 2014 at 07:16. Reason: Typo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: europe
Age: 41
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 2,567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Camped on the doorstep
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dirk75
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.
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?
Last edited by JonDyer; 13th Nov 2014 at 10:34. Reason: Clarity was absent
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
