Hello all,

Wasnt sure where to put this, probably the appropriate section!

I *thought* there was a restriction on using reverse thrust at London City, in that you aren't supposed to use it unless absolutely nessecary, to reduce noise. 

I can't find any reference to this though, and I've looked in the notes on the NATS site on the Aerodromes charts, but the noise restrictions just seem to be about taxiing on minimal power and APU use.

Does anyone know of any reverse thrust restrictions? Trying to do my LCY operations in P3D as realistic as I can, like turning AP off for the glideslope, using the GPU all the time except for using the APU for engine start (Dash 8 I'm using), and landing I use the brakes and the Dash is good at slowing down with power levers off anyway. But with a bumpy landing the brakes pedals are usually fully to the floor!! 😄

 

James.

Hi James,

I searched online for London City Airport Noise Abatement and found the following:

https://www.londoncityairport.com/corporate/Environment/Noise

https://assets.ctfassets.net/ggj4kbqgcch2/1czImzKtB4qQywCckYCisW/08bd8f7a5576c42508859cfe82b3e8c2/LCY_s_Proposed_Aircraft_Noise_Categorisation_Scheme.pdf

This last document outlines aircraft movements in section 6:

https://assets.ctfassets.net/ggj4kbqgcch2/195in8o4z2mu444aUsQUic/cf696d09610e6257551640e6b767c621/Noise_Action_Plan_2018-2023.pdf

Edited June 9, 20205 yr by HUSSAR

30 minutes ago, HUSSAR said:

Hi James,

I searched online for London City Airport Noise Abatement and found the following:

https://www.londoncityairport.com/corporate/Environment/Noise

https://assets.ctfassets.net/ggj4kbqgcch2/1czImzKtB4qQywCckYCisW/08bd8f7a5576c42508859cfe82b3e8c2/LCY_s_Proposed_Aircraft_Noise_Categorisation_Scheme.pdf

This last document outlines aircraft movements in section 6:

https://assets.ctfassets.net/ggj4kbqgcch2/195in8o4z2mu444aUsQUic/cf696d09610e6257551640e6b767c621/Noise_Action_Plan_2018-2023.pdf

Interesting reading, thanks. The OPs question is answered at the bottom of page 19. Essentially, it states reverse thrust is to be kept to a minimum but there is nothing about it being only if absolutely necessary. Unusual or excessive usage will prompt an investigation but reasonable normal usage would seem to be accepted.

Thank you very much!

Just the answers I was looking for, and I agree with Ian, very interesting read as well in total. I see the line Ian is referring to, thank you, at least I know I can use them, but basically don't land then throw on full whack reverser's for the whole landing until you are nearly stopped basically!

 

Thanks again for the swift replies!

James.

We should consider the landings at London City is one of the steepest in the entire world, so some help from the engines will normally be necessary, I think.

Cheers, Ed

You can see here that reverse thrust is not as 'restricted' as some might think:
https://youtu.be/HD4oMnQOrT0

Additionally, watch all of the landing aircraft in this video. Any aircraft that has the capability uses it:
https://youtu.be/74lUOU5StVs?t=233

Even this crew:
https://youtu.be/p0PN5X9GwO4?t=20

With aeroplanes using LCY increasing in size, using reversers is necessary for safe stopping.
 

James,

 

The best source to find out if there are any official restrictions about reverse thrust usage (APU) and other airport restrictions you will find out in AIP and Jeppesen airport briefing pages (usually 10- pages).

All these environment publications and activists are not the official agencies, they just keep on pushing their agenda.

Aside from the AIP and Jepps each airline developed its own special qualifications/requirements for each airport and is approved by aviation authorities.

So the bottom line is whatever is published on AIP or Jeppesen is the legal criteria, not local environment publications.

What's nice about it is when everything goes thrown out of the window in view of safety, they can investigate all day and night and as much as they wish, when we make a decision (PIC) in the interest of safety or a preventive action I welcome anybody to challenge that decision.

 

IMHO this airport with approach landing EAST should not be allowed for transport category airplanes when you have a glide path of 5.5 degrees (more than double of the norm), vertical speeds of minimum 1,000FT/MIN and disabling the GPWS calls, the autopilot cannot follow safely the vertical path, extensive pilot qualifications etc.

This is what happens when an airport is built in the middle of a well established City on some spare dockland...

Come to think of it this is what happens even when an airport is established BEFORE some entitled nitwits move into their new house on the threshold... 😎

"Health & Safety? Nope, don't care about that, you just need to be quiet!"

I've seen those restrictions at different airports in Europe. I would see it at EDDF restricting reverse thrust after hours. I never accept those restrictions or LAHSO OPS. I don't like operations that have me deviate from the flight manual. If I overrun the runway and they find that I didn't utilize my reversers, then the questions start. The last heavy I flew was the DC10-30. The reversers on the DC10 were more effective at the higher speeds. So if I went light on them and suddenly needed more because of an other issue, I just wasted some of their effectiveness. People joke a lot about the effectiveness of the reversers. I can take a Gulfstream 5/550 at max landing weight and bring it to a stop in 7 thousand with the reversers without using brakes. Works very well on icy runways. 

I find residents in P3D don't complain much about noise 😁😁

2 hours ago, G550flyer said:

..I never accept those restrictions or LAHSO OPS. I don't like operations that have me deviate from the flight manual. If I overrun the runway and they find that I didn't utilize my reversers, then the questions start. ..

THIS ^ This is why authorities should listen to pilots and not some NIMBY residents (Not In My Back Yard). 

@G550flyer,

You are 100% correct Rick.

Now they try to shove down to our throats with new stuff (actually since a few years ago), trying to replace LASHO with remarks in ATIS as to expect to vacate by a certain taxiway. More pronounced is in DXB or AUH. Every day there is a genius with more ridiculous ideas and more people to find it normal.

Very interesting times.

Thank you for the video's! Didn't think to look up video's for some reason!

I did look at those briefing pages on the eAIS under London City, but no mention of reverse thrust, which made me think I must have been thinking wrong, and I was 😄

Interesting about the DC-10, thanks for that!

 

1 hour ago, HighBypass said:

THIS ^ This is why authorities should listen to pilots and not some NIMBY residents (Not In My Back Yard). 

Authorities?

 

Another example of corruption, none of these approaches to the East are stabilized approaches by any definition. Funny thing, when you get a sim ride, line check, or an observation ride they talk and emphasize the criteria about what defines a  stabilized approach (like attitudes, speeds, rate of descends, etc) and they will harshly criticize your performance.

Here?

The big get out clause here of course is that it is up to the pilots to be as safe as possible and it is difficult to argue against that. Nevertheless, many airports have noise monitoring stations around them; for example at Manchester, if you bust the sound levels there can be penalties in the form of losing slots (this is detailed in the Aerodrome booklet).

Unsurprisingly, if you look at the noise limiting around Manchester and how it relates to the various SIDs and STARs, there is a suspicious although unsurprising correlation between this and the posh bits around Cheshire where MPs and other people able to impart influence on such rulings tend to live. For example the old CONGA 1R procedure, which included aircraft passing over Congleton (a posh bit) was subject to many of these noise abatement rules.

Personally, I find that when people go to buy a house near Manchester airport - which is an airfield that opened in the middle of the Second World War, so has been there for about 70 years - then complain about the sound of aeroplanes, they've really only got themselves to blame. The big rows of landing lights on poles in the surrounding fields is a bit of a clue.

You can bet that this desire for noise restrictions in London's revamped docklands, where all the bankers and brokers work (and often live too if they can afford a couple of million for a shoebox-sized apartment), is the reason behind this. If London City Airport had council house estates surrounding it, I bet you they'd let the Red Arrows practice their displays overhead on a daily basis and encourage ESA to launch their Ariane space rockets from there.

Edited June 9, 20205 yr by Chock