Not that it's any help but it's ex BA Citiexpress GCFAC!

Thought it might have been one of your fast approches CaptPhil:)

Chances are that after Bae take a look at it, a one off concession will be granted for unpressurised flight to maintenance base. Dependent upon scale of damage.

Fast Approach
 

1st Gear all the way Honest...... Mr Space.:8

Mmmm can't see that taking place. I heard that the ground staff in LCY had difficulty in opening the rear hold door which gives you an idea of the structural damage!

Wings off, road out ££££ not a chance ! Only option is repair at LCY.

Oh, that's interesting,
As I said, I was on this flight. We had a long wait for our bags and I overheard some staff talking about a buckled hold door that couldn't be opened. Thought they were joking about it at the time.

Okay, Who've I gotta bribe to get the haulage?

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flybe/Jersey did the same thing about six years ago .I ferried the damgade un out un-presssurised.

If i remember correctly was only two or three frames damaged.

There should be an AAIB report about it somewhere.

Walked over from the house and had a look at it from landside today. All the Swiss markings have been expunged by the simple expedient of covering them with blue plastic stuck down with orange hi-speed tape. Most unprofessional. Notably all the Swiss markings are thus removed but none of the Star Alliance ones, an interesting comment by Swiss about Star Alliance maybe.

There's been a Cityjet Avro (one of their new ones) also AOG for the last few days, pushed up to within a few feet of the Swiss, which makes an easy comparison. There's a mark from the tailstrike which if you didn't know you would probably think was dirt. That's it. Can't see the insurers writing it off for that.

If you want to go and see for yourself the best viewpoint is from the pavement at the Connaught Bridge roundabout, beyond the Jet Centre, when you will see it directly tail-on.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/g...x?ItemID=19083
Picture from flight global, whoops!

A few points to perhaps consider when discussing the possible removal of this aircraft from LCY. The wings are in one piece with a span of 26.34mtrs, not easy to remove or transport. As has already been said, and the recently published photo would seem to confirm, the rear baggage door is hard to open and many internal frames are cracked so the fuselage maybe twisted. The last time this much damage was caused to a 146-300, it took a full six months to repair in a fully fitted hangar.

From Flight International:

"The aircraft, a seven-year old example registered HB-IYU, had been operating a service from Geneva with 93 passengers and crew when it arrived."

Absolutely accurate - definitely an 'arrival' rather than a 'landing'!

For those following this one, the aircraft has been dragged this weekend across the 10 undershoot to be within a couple of feet of the fire trainer (and thereby seeming to prevent the use of the fire trainer). Never seen an aircraft on this hardstanding before.

It's sat tail-towards the 10 threshhold, right up against the final set of approach lights, those on finals are going to get a VERY close view of it. Maybe only westerlies are forecast in the weeks ahead !

London City seems to be having a hard time with AOG aircraft currently. A Lufthansa Regional ATR-42 has been stuck here for the weekend as well.

Very refreshing to read so much written by so many people who don't know what they're talking about (and who have nothing but a passing fatuous interest in the topic under discussion).

Thanks guys!

Interesting that the aircraft was previously.....G-CFAC.
Remember the tailscrape on 26 August 2003? G-CFAD. (AAIB #2 of 2005)
Remember the tailscrape on 7 January 2005? G-CFAA. (AAIB #4 of 2006).
Now what would a mature airport SMS be saying after the latest incident. Would it be, lets apply to increase the number of flights to 120,000 (from 80,000 presently), and encourage more jet operations and bigger aircraft to operate wherever possible?:rolleyes:

... and within minutes, there's another one (Red Four).

Aircraft size [does not equate to] tailstrike probability.

When I talk to (other) professional pilots, I'm often astonished at their lack of basic knowledge...

Perhaps they're all too busy reading and posting here to bother with little things like maintaining their standards..?

operationsair, I'm puzzled by your "Keep quite" remark... Good job you're not in a job where the ability to communicate effectively and succinctly are requisites, don't you think?

:ugh:

Size surely effects landing preformance? Size and weight factors, heavy landings etc.

Larger a/c being larger, meaning they carry more weight, but having to land in the same area/distance as an F50, these factors wil surely increase the risk of tail scrapes, its rare you hear about F50s, D328s ATRs etc tail scraping.

Whereas RJ/146s exsperiance their fair share.

One thing I have noticed, RJ/146s are lower to the ground than other aircraft, the A318 is much heigher from the ground, so just going on size will cause more trail strikes isn't 100% fair to go by.

But size/weight issues will effect this.

All things being equal, more weight leads to more runway requiremnt. BUT all is very far from equal in differing aircraft designs.
Can I suggest that such items as wing loading (Mass/wing area), High lift device (slat and flap) design and efficiency, geometrically allowable rotation angles and thrust-to-weight ratios have a bit of an influence on performace and tail 'strikabilty' and that generalising by saying that 'bigger & heavier must be badder' is not very helpful.
A stretched fuselage on a smallish wing with a low rotation angle is very different to a smallish fuselage on a relatively big wing with a high available rotation angle - even if the required angle of attack differs due to high lift device design.
Every case is different and needs to be treated on its own merits - IMHO.