wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation?

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flexjet-demonstrates-london-steep-approach-with-lega-425613

Military transport aircraft have to
come down pretty steep slopes and a lot of them are just modified civilian
craft. Plus they wouldn't be near full load anyway as they'd have used up most
of the fuel.

Pilots don't like City airport much, either.

I can't imagine pax are too thrilled about it either. Visited it once , bugger
all facilities and a right slog on the DLR.

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.londoncityairport.com/media-centre/london-city-airport-wins-skytrax-award

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:30:38 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller
planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation?

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...london-steep-a
proach-with-lega-425613

Sorry, that article is supposed to tell me what? Nowhere does it state that
big jets would stall at a 6 deg approach angle.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to follow simple exglish.

Pilots don't like City airport much, either.

I can't imagine pax are too thrilled about it either. Visited it once ,
bugger
all facilities and a right slog on the DLR.

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.londoncityairport.com/me...rt-wins-skytra
-award

Just saying what I saw rather than reading it off a website. This was 10 years
ago so it may well have improved. It could hardly have got any worse.

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:30:38 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller
planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation?

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...london-steep-a
proach-with-lega-425613

Sorry, that article is supposed to tell me what? Nowhere does it state that
big jets would stall at a 6 deg approach angle.

It says they can't land at more than a 3° angle. If you knew even a little
about this subject, you'd know that Heathrow was targeting an increase to
3.5°, but even this will be hard. It's taking years of investigation:
https://www.heathrow.com/file_source/HeathrowNoise/Static/Slightly_Steeper_Approach_trial_(phase_2)_fact_she et.pdf

But they could just have saved themselves all that time and trouble just by
consulting our village idiot.


Once again you demonstrate your inability to follow simple exglish.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with 'exglish'. Is that your native language? I
realise English isn't.


Pilots don't like City airport much, either.

I can't imagine pax are too thrilled about it either. Visited it once ,
bugger
all facilities and a right slog on the DLR.

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.
https://www.londoncityairport.com/me...rt-wins-skytra
-award

Just saying what I saw rather than reading it off a website. This was 10 years
ago so it may well have improved. It could hardly have got any worse.

If you mixed with more cosmopolitan people you'd know that LCY flyers love
it, though less than they did a decade ago, when it was less crowded.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:52:20 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:30:38 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over
southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller
planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation?

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...london-steep-a
proach-with-lega-425613

Sorry, that article is supposed to tell me what? Nowhere does it state that
big jets would stall at a 6 deg approach angle.

It says they can't land at more than a 3° angle. If you knew even a little

It says nothing of the sort. Are you such a complete ****ing moron that you
don't even read the articles you post links to??

"The approach glidepath angle to land at most airports is a steady 3°"

Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy never
posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

about this subject, you'd know that Heathrow was targeting an increase to
3.5°, but even this will be hard. It's taking years of investigation:
https://www.heathrow.com/file_source...ly_Steeper_App
oach_trial_(phase_2)_fact_sheet.pdf

But they could just have saved themselves all that time and trouble just by
consulting our village idiot.

Well it seems someone used you as a consultant in the past so why not again.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to follow simple exglish.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with 'exglish'. Is that your native language? I
realise English isn't.

Oh dear, resorting to typo spotting? How the mighty... oh wait, you never were.

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:52:20 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:30:38 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:52:47 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 13/06/2018 12:02, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:31:18 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
Where the 25 mile approach path is not available, pilots have a low
opinion of the safety of using the airport, and the old Hong Kong

Someone better tell London City where final approach starts over
southwark
all of 6 miles away when landing from the west. Admittedly its smaller
planes
but they're still airliners, not cessnas.

Puddle jumpers. Now try the same trick with a 747 or Airbus 380, which

According to wonkypedia the largest aircraft that can use london city is
the bombardier C100. 108 pax and 60 tons MTOW. Hardly a puddle jumper.

normal 3 degrees for Heathrow and other major airports. A big jet can't
approach at 6 degrees safely anywhere near full load, as they tend to
stall and fall out of the sky.

That sounds iffy to me, got a citation?

Your extraordinary ignorance is on display, yet again.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...london-steep-a
proach-with-lega-425613

Sorry, that article is supposed to tell me what? Nowhere does it state that
big jets would stall at a 6 deg approach angle.

It says they can't land at more than a 3° angle. If you knew even a little

It says nothing of the sort. Are you such a complete ****ing moron that you
don't even read the articles you post links to??

"The approach glidepath angle to land at most airports is a steady 3°"

Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy never
posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

You've had your free education for this month. Go and do your own research.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:22:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy never

posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

You've had your free education for this month. Go and do your own research.

If you were a teacher I think your school would be in the "failing" category.

And as you well know, if someone makes an assertion its up to them to back it
up, not for others to disprove it. If he doesn't then I'll simply assume he
can't.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:27:07 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:22:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy never

posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

You've had your free education for this month. Go and do your own research.

If you were a teacher I think your school would be in the "failing" category.

And as you well know, if someone makes an assertion its up to them to back it
up, not for others to disprove it.

So why do you never, ever back up your own bizarre assertions? Could
it be that there is no supporting evidence?

If he doesn't then I'll simply assume he
can't.

Of course you will. But then, you have to keep up your track record of
invariably being wrong.

On 14/06/2018 13:27, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:22:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy never

posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

You've had your free education for this month. Go and do your own research.

If you were a teacher I think your school would be in the "failing" category.

And as you well know, if someone makes an assertion its up to them to back it
up, not for others to disprove it. If he doesn't then I'll simply assume he
can't.

As you seem not to believe anything you do not have personal experience
of, here is a quote from a Boeing 738 pilot "I can only speak from
personal experience - the steepest approach I've flown in the 738 was a
4.5° final descent, but that's fully configured at flaps 40 from the top
down. Anything steeper or the slightest tailwind and you won't make it."
As in, the aeroplane stalls and falls out of the sky.

Most commercial airliners are not even permitted to go as steep as 4.2
degrees. The reason is that to keep flying at steep glide angles, the
airspeed has to exceed the maximum safe landing speed. For an amusing
way to verify this information, load a Boeing 737 or other airliner
model into a free flight simulator program on your computer or phone and
play with various glide angles and the associated speeds until you get
bored or stop crashing.

If you want better proof, then try writing to Boeing or Airbus, who will
no doubt give you the answer you seem unable to believe.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.