On the 737Ng and A320, the stopping distance would basically be the same anyway as the charted stopping distances are taken from the autobrake deceleration rate. 
 

Got a quote that said ‘The function of Thrust Reversers on the CFM equipped 737 is to make lots of noise and consume fuel.’. 

Although it would help with heat build up as AB3 excel rate is higher then using reverses thrust. No shorter roll but less heat, Perhaps a  quicker turnaround. 
 

edit: and should add that on wet or short runways, I’d want everything available to stop. Saves having your picture in the paper.  

Edited June 9, 20205 yr by Doug47

9 hours ago, killthespam said:

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.

And yet apart from 2 incidents, both over a decade ago and both involving RJ100s, the airport sees approximately 120 arrivals land safely each and every day.
 

54 minutes ago, Chock said:

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.

That's really not the case, Alan. It does have council house estates surrounding it, lots of them.
Newham is one of the poorest areas in England.
This map shows that the darker the red, the more deprived. The darker the green, the more affluent.



One of the most deprived areas in the borough sits right under the glideslope of 09. Overall, the dark red area to the west of the dropped pin surrounds the Excel Centre and Victoria Dock. That is in the bottom 8% in the country.

The area immediately surrounding the airport perimeter is in the bottom 18% of areas nationwide.
Any area coloured pink is in the bottom 30%. That small, dark green patch? Not in the top 20%.

Anyway, back to aviation content:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtFqykrPhSU

 

Edited June 10, 20205 yr by F737NG
Runway number

1 minute ago, F737NG said:

That's really not the case, Alan. It does have council house estates surrounding it, lots of them.

Yes, it does, but not exclusively so, which is the point I was making; i.e. there is some of the most expensive real estate in London there as well.

I just looked at the three EGLC 40-P1 Airport Briefing pages on the Jepp chart package at Navigraph Charts

No mention of use or non-use of reverse thrust at all. Under “noise abatement” there was an advisory to shutdown APU’s as soon as practical after gate arrival, and start no more than 10 minutes before departure - unless temperatures are below 5C or above 20C, and even then only after advising ATC.

A lot of warnings regarding runway occupancy - since all aircraft have to back taxi for departure, pilots are advised to have all pre-takeoff checks completed before entering the runway and to be prepared for immediate takeoff upon reaching the threshold.

A couple of restrictions as to which runway turnoffs can or cannot be used for larger aircraft like the A318.

And, of course, a note stating that all aircraft and flight crews landing at EGLC must be certified for conducting a steep approach of 5.5 degrees.

But, nothing about reverse thrust.

12 hours ago, Chock said:

.... and encourage ESA to launch their Ariane space rockets from there.

LMAO!  I may just be able to see an actual full size rocket launch * for just the price of a return train ticket and taxi fares and don't have to go to Florida or French Guiana..

* I attend International Rocket Week up in Scotland where they launch model and high power rockets, both regularly busting 400 feet AGL at very high speeds, and, if going more than 2500 feet have launch windows coordinated with Glasgow ATC.. none of this sub-250 gram nonsense..😜

On 6/10/2020 at 1:13 AM, Chock said:

Yes, it does, but not exclusively so, which is the point I was making; i.e. there is some of the most expensive real estate in London there as well.

Where are you getting this from? The final approaches to City pass over some of the most deprived areas of London. Thamesmead to the east is a real hole, North Woolwich isn't much better and Poplar and Limehouse over to the west are middling shoebox sized flats at best.

That doesn't mean the people living in those areas don't complain about noise just because they're poor, either. Quite a lot of Tower Hamlets borough is high-density council flats; you are assigned a home whereever there's space. If you're dumped under short finals I can see why a young family might kick off with noise complaints, pointless as they are. Not everyone has the choice of where they live.

The approach is also perfectly safe. As a passenger it's one of the best views of London it's possible to get on a clear day. The stabilised criteria are not unsafe, just different for the 5.5 degree glideslope: you hit the FAF fully configured and ready to manually initiate a ~1,200fpm ROD. Try and nail it in P3D, it's a real buzz to get the flare right on the TDZ. Looking at Youtube videos, flight crews find it tricky with the usual building turbulence as well.

The Q400 might land like a shopping trolley, as evidenced here, here and here.
However, it is relatively easy to get into and maintain a slow and stable approach for EGLC.

The fun comes when trying to keep a passenger jet slow enough on final, then try desperately not to bury it into the runway or float outside the limited TDZ.

The Aerosoft A318 replicates steep approach mode rather well, but the hardest jet (officially permitted into the airport) for me was the FeelThere EMB-190v2. Never got a good landing at EGLC using that aircraft.
 

2 hours ago, lambourne said:

As a passenger it's one of the best views of London it's possible to get on a clear day.

Best flight for me was an easterly approach, clear sky at dusk. Practically over my house, banked over Waterloo station, saw the City, the Shard, Tower of London and Tower Bridge all lit up and from at least 1,000 feet lower than on a westerly approach into EGLL.
You feel like you can almost touch One Canada Square as you pass over Canary Wharf.

3 hours ago, lambourne said:

 

The approach is also perfectly safe. As a passenger it's one of the best views of London it's possible to get on a clear day. The stabilised criteria are not unsafe, just different for the 5.5 degree glideslope: you hit the FAF fully configured and ready to manually initiate a ~1,200fpm ROD. Try and nail it in P3D, it's a real buzz to get the flare right on the TDZ. Looking at Youtube videos, flight crews find it tricky with the usual building turbulence as well.

Very interesting how you came to the conclusion that "the approach is also perfectly safe" when:

 

Special aircraft, training is required and only special crews are authorized to conduct this kind of operation and there is an endorsement on your training file.

 

A normal path angle for a VNAV approach is between 2.75 up to 3.50 degrees while an ILS approach is between 2.50 and 3.25 degrees where the automation can keep up with it. 

 

You need to look at tables and compare what is a normal rate of descend for normal criteria and what implies a 5.5 degrees angle of approach.

 

You need to familiarize yourself with GPWS calls and see what it does trigger based on certain situations, what they disable during this approach in different airplanes.

 

It's so much involved in this scenario involving crews, airplanes, training and this is not a perfect safe/stabilized approach under any circumstances and imagination.

 

You have no idea what a crewmember has to go and train for this to give you "the best view of London".

 

At least you got it right with the flare and building turbulence.

According to Wikipedia, London City Airport was built 33 years ago with the approval of the majority of local residents. Originally, the glide path was 7.5 degrees but, a few years later, was changed to 5.5 degrees and the runway extended to allow more (presumably bigger and noisier) aircraft types to operate. Perhaps that was when the complaints started coming in.

40 minutes ago, killthespam said:

Very interesting how you came to the conclusion that "the approach is also perfectly safe"

And yet, approximately 40,000 landings each year for the last 5 years and at least 35,000 each year over the past 15, refutes your claim of it being an unsafe approach. If it really were unsafe, we would see more incidents and fewer aircraft movements.

EGLC has special requirements and / or complicated manoeuvres, but so do many others.
Do we cancel MHTG? LSGS? KSBS? KASE? KEGE? SBRJ? KEYW? or how about LOWI?

1 hour ago, F737NG said:

And yet, approximately 40,000 landings each year for the last 5 years and at least 35,000 each year over the past 15, refutes your claim of it being an unsafe approach. If it really were unsafe, we would see more incidents and fewer aircraft movements.

EGLC has special requirements and / or complicated manoeuvres, but so do many others.
Do we cancel MHTG? LSGS? KSBS? KASE? KEGE? SBRJ? KEYW? or how about LOWI?

Unfortunately, they had some incidents and even today lots of go-arounds. 

All this data you mentioned about 40K or so safe landings are because of us the pilots have special qualifications and training for different airports, that doesn't make an approach safe or not. As I mentioned some of you guys need to familiarize with certain training requirements.

Because somebody lands and takes off from an airport doesn't make a safe or unsafe approach. 

 

MHTG besides terrain has the app path of 3.50 degrees not 5.50

 

KEGE only 3.8 path not 5.50

 

SBRJ 3.0 or less not 5.50

 

KEYW. 3.0 not 5.50

 

LOWI 3.7, 3.6, 3.77, 3,55 not 5.50

 

But the last 3 you mentioned have similar issues with path angles and also might require special training/ qualifications.

 

LSGS 6.0 with a 6500 FT RWY

 

KSBS with 7.75 path, wih 4500 FT RWY worth than EGLC operations but from what I see in and out is only with small aircraft.

 

KASE WITH 6.59 PATH but 8000 FT RWY

Thanks to F737NG's pprune link, I have found a new reason for my sub-optimal landings:

 'blimey, did you feel that bit of cheekiness in the wind just as I flared?' 😄

1 hour ago, HighBypass said:

Thanks to F737NG's pprune link, I have found a new reason for my sub-optimal landings:

 'blimey, did you feel that bit of cheekiness in the wind just as I flared?' 

The replies are brilliant, which is why I still remember that thread over 10 years later!

Gives me a lot of satisfaction knowing that when I don't grease a Q400 landing in the sim, I can use the old pro excuse of:
"It lands like a shopping trolley because that's what it is made from. Most other airliners get turned into shopping trolleys after service, not before." 😆
 

I wouldn't label an airport as unsafe, I'd call it challenging. Some airports require that you be precise, meaning no slop. From a pilot's perspective, one must know the procedures and their aircraft when transiting these locations. Of course, weather, winds, terrain and other factors can add to the challenge. These challenging airports will usually have special certifications, special procedures and company specific approaches to get in and out.

Take Aspen for example(KASE). It has serious terrain, adverse winter weather, a highway runs near and along it, 4.55 gradient with a final of 3.5%, one way in/out, high pressure altitude, challenging winds and very tight circling/missed appraoch area. Easily the chain of challenges can stack up against you. This airports has had it's share of accidents with the most recent being a Challenger 600. Your aircraft has to have low speeds/a tight turning radius with missed approach flaps. I can't get in there with a G3, but a G5/550 has low speed at missed approach flaps and circles with full flaps. As someone mentioned, you can get in and out of this airport without issue as long as you are precise. I am certified and been through it frequently. One of the big issues with airports like EGLC and KASE is the descent gradient. You have to have good speed control and be able to maintain speed through out the approach. I always end up at Stansted when going into the UK.

My big thing with steep approaches is being on speed at the IAF. When I transit KASE, at DBL(IAF), I am gear down, full flaps and at approach speed. I drag it in until its time to descend. If you start down hill before configuring and reaching speed, you ain't going to make it.      

On 6/9/2020 at 2:03 PM, edpatino said:

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.

Certainly at least use of idle reverse would be wise in all circumstances and full reverse when the runway is contaminated, whatever airport you're at. However, for certification and landing distance charts reverse thrust is not allowed to be factored in, all the regulatory stuff is worked out on the basis brakes and spoilers alone.

Indeed, the A380 only has reverse because the FAA insisted, Airbus felt the brakes alone were good enough but the FAA disagreed so Airbus elected to fit engine reverses to the inboard engines only to reduce FOD risk.