Aircraft involved was G-BZAW.

Oh right. So it's not BA then? Is that right? Do they wholly own their "mainline" aircraft? What is mainline anyway, do they run a train service? What is the point you are making?
To 99.99999% of the world's population it is BA and they are correct. Look, tt even says so on the aircraft and it even has a little BA logo on it too, just like the big big big planes they have.

reply
 

Correct, Captain's can only land in LCY, if they're flying RJs or 146s anyway.

Also, if there was any uncertainty about the hydraulic systems, they would have diverted to Stansted or Heathrow. You can't land in LCY without all lift spoilers serviceable, which require green and yellow hydraulics, so I don't think it was a hydraulic fault.

You have to be quick with the flare and today there was varying winds and several runway changes. I flew into LCY shortly before the BA flight and we had a tailwind on the approach. The surface wind was quite calm so the approach speed was quicker than usual. You have got a very small gap to flare in order to touch down before the white lights. With the higher speed today and the steep approach, you really had to be on the ball. If you don't get it your going to land on the nose.

Test the pilots blood?
 

I used to fly 146's into LCY and found it extremely challenging and even quite a hit and miss affair due to the unconventional flare required.

For me it was either spot on or a big bang and an 'arrival'.

I had to stop flying in 2005 due to 'chronic stress' but I had my blood and fat tested about a year later and highly abnormal amounts of chemicals were found plus we ALL had significant cognitive dysfunction - as did 26 other 146 & 757 pilots who were tested at the same time.

Scientific Reports - Aerotoxic Association - Support for Aerotoxic Syndrome Sufferers

Maybe it would be worth checking the blood and fat of this crew to see if they had the same problem that we all did?

The net effect is to make one feel intoxicated and misjudge difficult landings etc.

When will the AAIB understand that checking the pilots blood and fat is just as important as all the other factors that they measure so precisely?


DB :cool:

Nigelinoz - that's a bit harsh on our Aussie media mate! Only this morning I got the following from Bigpond online news:

British Airways passenger jet carrying 67 passengers and 4 people has crash-landed at London City Airport on Friday evening, officials said. All were evacuated safely.

I'm not sure what the 67 passengers were but obviously not people. Something funny going on here.

Wait a minute .... Bigpond news is Aussie media isn't it? As you were saying Nige....

cheers
dghob

On Sky News the Aircraft is G-BXAR - Is it the same as last weeks?

Same aircraft
 

The aircraft this evening at LCY did leave Ams and it was
G-BXAR it could clearly be seen in the CNN film/picture
The AR registartion above the cockpit window is easy to spot

Wings 1011

Dreambuster,

26 pilots out of how many? That number could make all the difference.

Apparently the guys had a certain abnormality with the gear which made them decide to go for a 'short field (positive) landing'. This ended up in a bad landing on which the nosegear hit the ground very hard, and it collapsed.

A certain abnormality?
 

Steep approach + short field means if you have any gear abnormality, you go elsewhere. If they did and decided to make an approach due to some sort of "get-home-itus" then that was a very bad decision. It's just not worth it in LCY.

Another hard landing at LCY...OUCH!

YouTube - Hard landing near crash London City Airport - Bad Heavy turbulence windshear - Schwere Turbulenzen

I'd consider it a crash if it can't leave the runway under it's own steam.

Get-Home-Itus
 

Paddy, a decision based on "Get-home-itus" is a bad decision anytime, not just at LCY

If the gear collapses on landing, and the airplane blocks the runway, then crash landing would seem to be an honest description of the event to me. What's the problem?

This is obviously a bit more than a "heavy landing", where the g-meter shows out of limits, and perhaps there is a rubber jungle down the back.

I am not usually much of a supporter of the media or journalists efforts when reporting aviation matters, but this seems fair.

27 0ut 0f 27 - 100% hit rate?
 

Paddy,

UCL tested 27 pilots and all 27 pilots had the same problems.

A 100% hit rate.

Normally one might expect everybody (pilots and cabin crew) to have their blood / fat checked, but in the world we live in the study was stopped abruptly.

Does everybody agree that it is not unreasonable to check the pilots blood / fat for contaminants after such an incident?

I can assure you, the AAIB do not agree.

By the way, I am totally on the pilots side.

DB :ok:

Not an incident
 

Looks like an accident to me.

WARNING

The link posted at 0816 contains a virus.

All,

Do not click on "Ichatfilipinas" link .. by the time I realised what his/her name spelt and where the link took me it was too late. Corrupt trojan file swiflty deleted.

Mods; can this user be deleted and blocked please. :ugh:

Already done! And user banned.

The aircraft had NO problems during the approach and landing. AFTER landing the nosegear collapsed for whatever reason that is now under investigation.