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.