London City vuole un sentiero di discesa meno inclinato

[malpensante]

London City Proposes Shallower Approach, Eyes Larger Narrowbodies

Victoria Moores March 02, 2026

London City Airport (LCY), which is known for its steep 5.5-deg. approach, is looking to add a shallower 4.49 deg. approach, which could open the downtown airport to larger new-technology narrowbodies like the Airbus A320neo.

All aircraft landing at London City currently use a 5.5-deg. approach—compared with a more conventional 3 deg. approach—because of the airport’s downtown location and short runway. This means the number of aircraft types certified to serve the airport is heavily restricted, and they must be flown by specially trained crews.

However, as part of the UK CAA’s airspace change program, London City is seeking opinions on a new landing approach. The public consultation will run from March 2 to May 17, and responses will be published later this year.

“The change would enable larger, quieter and more efficient aircraft, such as the Airbus A320neo,” London City said.

Aircraft ground tracks, existing flight paths and departure routes would remain unchanged, but the vertical profile would be altered in the final few kilometers before landing, using satellite-based navigation. The airport estimates this would save 5,780t of fuel, 18,380t of CO₂ emissions and reduce noise for 110,000 people over the next 12 years, compared with existing procedures.

“Our proposals would allow us to grow more sustainably by reducing the number of flights and the level of noise people would experience when compared with not making this change,” London City Airport CEO Andy Cliffe said.

Currently, London City has a government-imposed cap of 9 million passengers per year. Movements are also limited, but larger aircraft could accommodate more passengers per flight, allowing some additional growth without additional movements. If smaller-capacity aircraft movements were consolidated into higher-capacity aircraft, this could lead to 76,500 fewer flights over 12 years, London City said.

The new procedure would be limited to “specifically authorized new-generation aircraft, such as the Airbus A320neo.” Other aircraft would continue to use the existing 5.5-deg. approach.

London City estimates the change could deliver up to 4,000 new jobs and expand its existing 30-destination network, resulting in £38.4-97.4 million ($51.7-131.3) in net economic growth.

Commercial aircraft that are currently approved to operate into London City include the ATR 42, ATR 72, De Havilland Dash 8-400, Embraer 190-E1, E190-E2, E195-E2 and the Airbus A220-100. The Saab 2000, Dornier 328 and E170-E1 are also approved, but not currently in use at the airport.

A London City spokesperson said the airport has no specific aircraft type or variant in mind for the proposal.


https://aviationweek.com/air-transport ... 9d33d8b77e

[I-GABE]

“Our proposals would allow us to grow more sustainably by reducing the number of flights and the level of noise people would experience when compared with not making this change,” London City Airport CEO Andy Cliffe said.

Currently, London City has a government-imposed cap of 9 million passengers per year. Movements are also limited, but larger aircraft could accommodate more passengers per flight, allowing some additional growth without additional movements. If smaller-capacity aircraft movements were consolidated into higher-capacity aircraft, this could lead to 76,500 fewer flights over 12 years, London City said.

Questa mi pare la classica boiata del tipo: prima chiedo aeromobili piu' grandi ventilando un minor numero di movimenti, poi chiedo un aumento nel limite dei passeggeri tornando ai movimenti di prima.

Sicuramente avranno fatto le loro valutazioni, ma mi chiedo come pensino di gestire gli atterraggi da ovest (le volte che capitano) con un angolo inferiore. Li' le limitazioni sono ovviamente maggiori che da est. Spediscono altrove gli aeromobili in quei casi?

[mxp98]

Sicuramente avranno fatto le loro valutazioni, ma mi chiedo come pensino di gestire gli atterraggi da ovest (le volte che capitano) con un angolo inferiore. Li' le limitazioni sono ovviamente maggiori che da est. Spediscono altrove gli aeromobili in quei casi?

Non ho idea quante volte si inverta la direzione di utilizzo delle piste in un anno a LCY, in tal caso si riduce la capacità oraria dell"aeroporto.
Succede anche a Malpensa quando sono in uso le 17, con ritardi e a volte dirottamenti. Qui le limitazioni sono dovute all'orografia a Nord del campo che non permette una gestione "snella" del traffico (es. non si possono fare avvicinamenti diretti per chi arriva da oltralpe) e non alla pendenza del sentiero che è sempre di 3° come sulle 35.



Inviato dal mio 23117RA68G utilizzando Tapatalk

[I-GABE]

Non spesso, per fortuna, ma mi e' capitato. Wiki dice il 70% degli atterraggi e' da est, io direi qualcosa in piu' empiricamente, ma sicuramente i dati si trovano.
Magari non fara' effetto Kai Tak, ma un po' di impressione si'.

Sarebbe interessante sentire un parere esperto (ergo non il mio), ma con un po' di geometria spicciola, in atterraggio da ovest ora gli aeromobili sorvolano la zona di Canary Wharf a circa 385m di altezza, che scenderebbero a 314 passando all'angolo inferiore.
Dando retta ai risultati di google, le torri in Canary Wharf arrivano a 236m di altezza (One Canada Square) con almeno altri 4 edifici sopra i 200m.
Un bel panorama, insomma.