.

Well, YOU might only rarely hear of it.

If you don't keep abreast of the proper channels through which incidents and accidents are publicised...

Hey Kit did YOU get out of the bed the wrong side today??

It's only an email forum,,Calm down

Larger aircraft do not automatically mean that a tail strike is more likely to happen. However, stretched versions within an aircraft type can be at greater risk. Thus, the Avro RJ100 will have a greater risk then the RJ70, with the RJ85 being in the middle for tail strike risk. The A318, due to fact that it is the shortest member of the A320 family will have a low risk of a tail strike. By the same logic. the short version of the jumbo, the B747-100SP will also have a low risk of a tail strike.
I think the Q400 has also had its moments due to it length.
Squart7000

Ok, time for a school physics lesson. KE=0.5MV(sq). When you land, brakes are used to bleed off Kinetic Energy (KE). M is Mass - of the aircraft in this case and Vsq) is the square of the velocity - of the aircraft in this case. And so, operationsair, what we learn is that, in fact, approach velocity has a much bigger impact than aircraft weight on aircraft landing performance. Given that a bigger aircraft such as the A318 usually has a bigger wing and thus "more" (or bigger) high-lift devices and spoilers, it's approach speed will be relatively low. Mass has an impact (no pun intended), sure it does, but KE varies with the square of speed.... Aircraft brakes are also dimensioned for the size, weight and speed of the aircraft... as saman says, all things are definitely not equal. I don't really know the capabilities of the A318 in much detail but I'm guessing it has much bigger brakes than an RJ100. Oh, and it has thrust reversers, too......

Some people are getting way off line on this thread as usual. We don't need another lesson in aerodynamics we need to find a solution to this problem at LCY
My mate (starling one) reckons it should be the mounted as the new Gate Gardian at LCY.
Comments please ....

Captphil
The solution to the problem of tail strikes at LCY = Remind the cockpit crews that if the approach goes AWOL, - go around and try again. No one gets it right everytime, especially at somewhere like LCY where the margins for error for very small due to the steep approach angle and limited runway length.

Nice to know you have such experience of London CityKit d'Rection KG
Perhaps you can tell us how to do a proper landing

Phil Space,

Yes, thanks, I have...

Many happy memories!

Won't bother you about landings, though... Like all the others, you're clearly expert already!

...and as for which side of bed, it's always the same side, after Mrs Kit has brought me my marmite on toast and second mug of coffee (she's a truly wonderful woman...). At least she doesn't try to talk like an expert about things she doesn't have the first genuine clue about!

Squawk 7000,

It's all very well saying "go around and try again" but you can still scrape a tail if you carry-out the standard go-around at low level (below 50 feet) due to the high rate of descent associated with a steep (5.5˚) approach.

A scrape will occur at 6.9˚ nose-up on an RJ100 (8.3˚ nose-up on the RJ85) with the oleos fully compressed. Bearing in mind, at 50 feet the rate of descent will still be in the order of 850 feet/min. As a result, initial LCY qualification should include a low-level go-around below 50 feet. When I flew the RJ100 we limited the low-level go-around to an initial attitude of 5˚ nose-up instead of the normal attitude of 10˚ nose-up.

As you say, there's little margin for error with an RJ100 at LCY.

Seat of the pants,, correct speed,, and on before the lights,, it's getting harder by the day with all the new builds. Still!!! That's what's flyings all about...

Actually, captphil, there are people here who do seem to need reminding of the basics of flight physics as they seem to believe that an aircraft that carries more passengers necessarily has worse field performance than one that carries less passengers - independent of the configuration of the aircraft.

One would hasten to venture that these persons are not pilots.

And if they are, they are certainly not very professional

p-k-b

CaptPhil,
I thought your original question was:
"How do you get a knocked-up RJ100 out of LCY?"

Any news on that subject?

Quote:

"How do you get a knocked-up RJ100 out of LCY?"

In pieces? Pieces In a skip?

ground_star,
I was going to suggest chopping off the nose and selling that on eBay : "Buyer Collects".

But IF it can't be repaired, you can be sure it will be stripped and picked clean of any and all useable spares, before the remainder is JCB'ed and dropped in a skip.

Let the fire department torch it & then put it out for practice then sling it in the thames

Has anyone bothered to ask the crew for what their excuse was for
fing this one up royally?

yep we did for some fun reason or much better we did due to our pilot shortage in the regio fleet, so that the newspapers cannot write any longer, that there are every day 4 avros on ground and btw we did for extra because we don't like to fly to lcy.... how funny

They have parked it right next to the fire training area. Doubt the firefighters will be too pleased.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6054107

You can see the scrape on the underside, if you know where to look. Looks like it might be there for a while.

They must have landed at a high angle of attack to manage to scrape the tail.! ?

Akuma, welcome.
As a newcomer..... relax !

We don't think a tailstrike is funny as such.
We don't think deciding how to get a seriously damaged RJ out of LCY is easy... or funny as such.

It doesn't stop us from keeping a sense of humour.

Any up to date info on this subject?

I heard that they may put it on a barge, float it across to the Red Bull Runway and work on it there. Such is the demand for space at LCY.

(It has been blocking the 10 Glidepath too)