Airliner crash lands in London

[Phillippe M]

Airliner crash lands in London
From correspondents in London - Reuters - February 14, 2009 08:17am

A BRITISH Airways passenger plane crash-landed at London's City airport today, injuring two of the 72 passengers and crew, a Fire Brigade spokeswoman said.
The front under-carriage of the four-engined plane failed on landing at the airport in east London, the spokeswoman said.

Sixty-seven passengers and five crew got out of the plane before emergency services arrived, she said.

Two people were injured, she said, but she did not know how seriously.

There was no fire and the Fire Brigade did not have to intervene, she said.

Sky News reported the plane had arrived from Amsterdam.

Spokesmen for British Airways and City airport could not immediately be reached for comment.
An eyewitness told Sky News the plane was on the runway surrounded by fire engines, ambulances and police cars.

"It looks like the policemen and fire crew have worked very diligently and managed to bring everything under control," he said.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...-23109,00.html

[Mike W]

A four engined plane at London City... that would have to been a Bae 146 or RJ70/100

[Nigel C]

Live coverage and footage from http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-...ely_From_Plane suggests its an Avro RJ100

[Grahame Hutchison]

Image of the 146 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...y-Airport.html

The BA flight was from Amsterdam.

Short interview with a passenger at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7889728.stm

[Mike W]

Airliner Crash Lands in London

Hardly a "crash" by the look of things

[Matt D]

City airport is largely served by Avros/146's and Fokker 70's.

The approach is difficult primarily because it's twice as steep as the standard approach, no reverse thrust allowed and the runway is short. (only slightly longer than Bankstown's main runway)

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/cu...GLC_8-1_en.pdf

To add to the interest it's built on a dock and is surrounded by water on three sides.

Here's an example of what can go wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5prz1Ae5QM

(added later) and a cockpit view of the approach
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ed6H4TJD8

peak hour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY5Tu...eature=related

[Nathan Long]

Originally Posted by Matt D

...no reverse thrust allowed...

IIRC, reverse thrust is not a factor in landing runway length calculations anyway.

[Will T]

Nathan,

This is the quote from the B747-400 Performance Limitations manual 'Background Information - Landing / Certification' section:

Reverse thrust is not employed to establish the Landing Field Length required. However, CASA require that a major retarding device be available in reserve; or failing that, the required field length be increased (by 15%). Reverse thrust provides the required margin.

Our company adds an LDR margin of 200m if one reverser is inoperative, and requires a 300m LDR surplus in order for idle reverse to be used.

The Autobrake system provdes fixed rates of deceleration with or without reverse selected (it varies the brake pressure to achieve the target deceleration). However, if full manual braking was applied, the use of reversed thrust in addition to the braking would result in a shorter stopping distance over the no or idle reverse case.

In any case, I digress!

[Nathan Long]

Thanks Will. The use of reverse in this case is moot anyway, as the 146 doesn't have any!