LCY E190 operating limits
Jul 24, 2019, 10:27 am
#77
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 198
I’m struggling to see your concern? Both scenarios discussed has the aircraft operating to its limit. Whether that be by virtue of maximum limits or limits regulated by environment. Both are equally safe and covered by design, regulation, procedures and operational conservatism.
BA are a business and are utilising their assets accordingly, and in compliance with the necessary regulation. Your feeling of reduced safety margins, or increased risk, is just that, a feeling!
Should you wish to be transported skyward from a long runway with less takeoff thrust, choose a flight from a different airport! That flight however, won’t be inherently safer than your flight from LCY.
BA are a business and are utilising their assets accordingly, and in compliance with the necessary regulation. Your feeling of reduced safety margins, or increased risk, is just that, a feeling!
Should you wish to be transported skyward from a long runway with less takeoff thrust, choose a flight from a different airport! That flight however, won’t be inherently safer than your flight from LCY.
Then suddenly, the thread gets derailed by two claims I didn't even make. One that this is the only flight like this (I never claimed that, though I'm sure it's not common on short-haul flights from Heathrow or Gatwick), and second that operating an aircraft at the maximum of its capability means it is unsafe (I never claimed that, though of course it is flying 101 that operating towards the limits can create additional challenges and risks).
Last edited by APUBleed; Jul 24, 2019 at 10:34 am
Jul 24, 2019, 11:57 am
#78
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
If you're looking at a 3-hour flight and a 4-hour flight, you wouldn't regard the extra hour's fuel on the latter as a "precaution", would you? It's just what you do to operate the aircraft to its destination.
Similarly, to some destinations the aircraft will be loaded to no more than 72 pax rather than no more than 98. That is not a "precaution", either - it's simply how you fly there. I think that's why people may be misunderstanding where you are coming from.
Jul 24, 2019, 1:10 pm
#79
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 198
Swap precaution with ‘risk mitigation strategy’. You limit the load to 72 to mitigate the risk of not being able to take off safely - a risk that in this context wouldn’t even exist on a 12,000 foot runway. That is why in this context of course there are additional risks, but the mitigation of these risks mean in normal operations and planned-for failures, it is equally safe. The whole reason this is a safe operation is because we recognise the risks associated with it and take action to mitigate them.
Jul 24, 2019, 10:21 pm
#80
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 36
I think I understand the point you are pushing, but you are simply incorrect, the point you are making does not exist.
No, there are no additional risks. The load is not limited to mitigate against an unsafe takeoff. An unsafe takeoff won’t occur. It’s limited to comply with regulation. The same regulations that apply on a 4000m runway.
Short of encouraging you to undertake an ATPL performance course, I don’t know how else to explain this to you!
No, there are no additional risks. The load is not limited to mitigate against an unsafe takeoff. An unsafe takeoff won’t occur. It’s limited to comply with regulation. The same regulations that apply on a 4000m runway.
Short of encouraging you to undertake an ATPL performance course, I don’t know how else to explain this to you!
Jul 25, 2019, 2:29 am
#82
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
I think I understand the point you are pushing, but you are simply incorrect, the point you are making does not exist.
No, there are no additional risks. The load is not limited to mitigate against an unsafe takeoff. An unsafe takeoff won’t occur. It’s limited to comply with regulation. The same regulations that apply on a 4000m runway.
Short of encouraging you to undertake an ATPL performance course, I don’t know how else to explain this to you!
No, there are no additional risks. The load is not limited to mitigate against an unsafe takeoff. An unsafe takeoff won’t occur. It’s limited to comply with regulation. The same regulations that apply on a 4000m runway.
Short of encouraging you to undertake an ATPL performance course, I don’t know how else to explain this to you!
Jul 25, 2019, 3:11 am
#84
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 198
I think I understand the point you are pushing, but you are simply incorrect, the point you are making does not exist.
No, there are no additional risks. The load is not limited to mitigate against an unsafe takeoff. An unsafe takeoff won’t occur. It’s limited to comply with regulation. The same regulations that apply on a 4000m runway.
Short of encouraging you to undertake an ATPL performance course, I don’t know how else to explain this to you!
No, there are no additional risks. The load is not limited to mitigate against an unsafe takeoff. An unsafe takeoff won’t occur. It’s limited to comply with regulation. The same regulations that apply on a 4000m runway.
Short of encouraging you to undertake an ATPL performance course, I don’t know how else to explain this to you!
Jul 25, 2019, 3:18 am
#85
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
Are you really an airline pilot? I’m quite sure the load limit for LCY to JMK is due to runway limits with the fuel load required for JMK. I have seen the e190 performance tables. It’s how I recognised this issue would exist in the first place. Otherwise, what are the limits/regulation you are referring to?
Jul 25, 2019, 3:36 am
#86
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 198
And why does this exist? Surely you are not blindly following these processes without thinking why. Go and look at the E190 performance tables. It appears to be within specifications for the E190 to do London to Mykonos with a higher payload than 72 pax, but it would require a longer runway than 5,000 feet. Thus, it appears that the constraint here is the runway length.
Jul 25, 2019, 3:39 am
#87
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 59K
Posts: 2,301
Are you really an airline pilot? I’m quite sure the load limit for LCY to JMK is due to runway limits with the fuel load required for JMK. I have seen the e190 performance tables. It’s how I recognised this issue would exist in the first place. Otherwise, what are the limits/regulation you are referring to?
The aircraft could carry much more from that runway if it wasn't subject to the regulations. If you planned to use the entire runway for take off roll and didn't have to worry about stopping after failure at high speed, or didnt have to clear the fence or obstacles by a margin after a failure then you could probably carry a full load to JMK. But you do so you cant.
Jul 25, 2019, 3:59 am
#89
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,596
And why does this exist? Surely you are not blindly following these processes without thinking why. Go and look at the E190 performance tables. It appears to be within specifications for the E190 to do London to Mykonos with a higher payload than 72 pax, but it would require a longer runway than 5,000 feet. Thus, it appears that the constraint here is the runway length.
Jul 25, 2019, 4:19 am
#90
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 198
