the 225 MPH also applies to the E-jet series from Embraer, after the factory told me could do anything we want to I figured it was fun to do a flapless at the factory runway.

It's interesting to do the approach, like people said the last couple of feet you'll loose sight of the runway. The plane was otherwise stable at the speed and I am happy I did not try to flare as you burn up runway really quick. Most limiting factor are the (ceramic) brakes which even at the light weight and 2 tons of fuel went into the amber range.

In '89 I did an All Flaps Up landing in a 732 at LGW. Despite setting up early and advising the Approach and Director controllers of a high speed Flaps up approach, as we switched over to tower on final approach at about 1200', we were horrified to see and hear a 747 taxiing on and being cleared for take-off at Alpha with the Tower controller obviously unaware we were bombing in at 195kts. We made it clear pretty quickly with a sudden urgent response. As we flared we were right in its vortex with the 747 lifting off at the other end. Full reverse and minimal brakes still had us stopping easily at the usual turnoff.

The attitude was higher, but not inordinately. I think it was about 5 degrees- no losing sight of the runway.

If you ever do this, make sure every controller is fully aware.

Rainboe...."If you ever do this, make sure every controller is fully aware"

One of the results of a lack of FAM flights to ATCO's. Many younger guys will have no idea.Mind you these threads do provide a very useful insight into flight deck ops.

Something about the EMB 170-195, I work for LOT and we had multiple flapless landings on the 170 in the last 2 months??????
Cheers

Don't know the landing weight but at MAX landing weight the numbers would be something like:
Vref 190kts
Landing distance required 1278m or 4200ft
All the E-jets have lots of brake capacity so the landing perf is good. For a 0 flap 0 slat landing the LDG Coef is 1.8 times the unfactored flaps full landing distance. The Unfactored landing distance at max ldg weight 0 wind SL 45T is 710m or 2330ft.
At MAX lndg weight the normal full flaps Vref would be 127kts the increment for 0/0 is +60kts.
The brakes are Carbon not Ceramic. Brakes in the amber is no big deal. The amber is the no take off limit. It's a long way below the Brake overheat limit.

Pro Pilots closed forum anyone? I would not qualify for entrance. :=

Sorry I meant carbon brakes instead of ceramic. Like you say they can absorb lots of energy without a problem. This was the only time I saw them well into the amber limit but still not close to the fuse plug melting "zone"

There are a few airfields with 10+ runways
Heathrow and Manchester both have two also Gatwick, EMA and Prestwick
plus as mentioned Boscombe Down

Ian

As I said on another thread in this forum I am a journalist by profession.
I have written a few paragraphs about the incident for the paper I work on and just for everyone's information Flybe's appointed spokesperson has denied this was a 'flapless landing', describing it as a 'minor techncal problem'.

Then perhaps it was partial flap or slat, the word 'flapless' implies no flap or slat.

Even with partial slat/flap BHD may have proven not to be long enough.

Another aspect as I see it would be how to brief the PAX in a situation like this.
If the ship is risking to run off the runway at the departure end, would the brace for impact position be the safer way to sit? How far would you want to take the cabin preparations? A simple cabin clear enough?
Reason I'm asking is that I saw the Brussels Airline RJ overshoot the departure end in AJR live. Although it is a clearway I believe, it looked like a very bumpy ride...

/LnS
Ps. Well done to the FlyBe crew.

frequentflyer,

The Embraer E-jets are designed as a very pilot friendly aircraft, The procedure we go into if either leading-, trailingedge lift devices or a combination of those is called a flapless landing, this is also the correct name in the non-normal procedures.

The plane handles as every normal airplane there are only some minor differences your approach speed in the worst case is about 60 kts faster than normal, increase of 150% hence the plane needs a longer runway (2.48 more than normal)

The plane is equipped with carbon brakes which are by far better than the steel brakes used on the latest versions of the 737. They're able to absorb huge amount of energy, this is like the people at Flybe said a minor technical difficulty.

I even practiced this on the factory aircraft with one of their pilots in Brazil.Only operational point is that you need a long runway

It isn't because the crew are trained and all the information is available for them to calculate the minimum runway they need and then they make sure they have plenty more than that by selecting an appropriate runway. If a briefing is made it would be along the lines of a slightly faster landing than normal so we have chosen a very long runway to land on.

This is not a crash and burn emergency and if you look at the numbers I gave you can see that they didn't need much runway at all. Worst case needs only 4200 ft and they had lots more than that.

It's not a none event but it's not a huge big deal either.

Well it stops the punters worrying about fumes I suppose......:}

Looks like the same thing happening again this evening at BHD. BEE974 E195 currently at the hold at MAGEE, with caution light on the flaps :ugh:.

And it is diverting to BFS. Same problem as the other night.

would be interesting to find out what type anti ice fluid they are using

I wonder if that could have any effect upon the flap extension..... or lack thereof

Just out of interest what is the landing distance of the E195 under normal conditions with full flaps and a dry runway?

take a look at post 27

Sorry - don't understand what exactly the numbers quoted in post 27 relate to. It is not very clear. Is the 4200ft quoted for a flapless landing or a normal one?
If it is for a normal one why is the VREF given as 190kts? If it's for a flapless one what is it for a normal one? :confused:

Doors to automatic,

Depends on the weight....

Heavier you are faster your Vref is. Also take into consideration wind/gust factors etc...

I would guess for a EMB195 with an average load a Vref of around 130kts with full flap, correct me if I'm wrong. Similar to the Airbus 320 and Boeing 73.

<<I am only a Cessna and Cherokee driver and practise flapless landings all the time. They are not a big deal >>

I'm with you mate ! Never realised it was that difficult or complicated...... bug up, GPWS off, check the distance.. fly the aroplane... works for Cessnas too