Swiss Avro Greaser in LCY
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Not sure if there are G limits as well?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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.
Atreyu
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.
Atreyu
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Atreyu
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the big blue
Age: 50
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looked like he scraped the belly to me...
And the ADAS system will trigger a print-out at 1.8G.
J_74
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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).
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).
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
official investigation?
Has there been an accident/incident report released about this "controlled impact"? I cannot find anything on the AAIB website.
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!
Not many aircraft would have survived this event with the possible exception of those aircraft that are designed to land on aircraft carriers!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
PM