Cessna over Hampstead Heath

[ChiSau]

Whilst playing tennis on Hampstead Heath yesterday with some mates I saw what looked like a Cessna 172 flying relatively low, straight over the Heath, heading roughly NW at around 16.45 BST.

Now I haven't got my charts to hand, but wouldn't that put this guy/girl in the London CTR? So what kind of dispensation would you need?

[S-Works]

You don't need a dispensation, just an SVR clearance, Transponder and stay within the glide clear rule.

[drauk]

The London CTR actually cuts through the west side of Hampstead Heath. Immediately to the west and thus covering the rest of the Heath is London/City CTR. It (the Heath) is actually marked on the CAA half mil chart.
There is a little bit of the Heath, up near Kenwood house, which is actually outside both zones. Not sure I'd fancy trying it though - the lines on the map are over 300m thick. Who knows if the zone is marked by the inside or the outside of the line? And I can't see how you can land clear from from 2400'.

[Zlin526]

Bose,

I challenge anyone to glide clear from overhead Hampstead Heath to a non-congested area...in a 172??

Definately shouldn't have been there :confused:

Z

[ChiSau]

Always tricky to judge height from the ground up, but I'd say he was around 1000' AGL.

[FNG]

I was similarly surprised to see a PA 28 heading north over the Heath at 11.10 on Sunday morning. I estimated its height as approx 2000 feet. Obviously I could not see what the pilot could see, but, knowing the area, I was doubtful that the aircraft could glide clear if its engine stopped. North of the Heath there is a large stretch of built-up area before you reach any significant open space. I don't recall seeing a single engined aircraft so far into London before.

[Timothy]

Although we are always a bit reluctant to "shop" pilots who we know have done something stupid and illegal, we have to remember that if this guy had come down in Highgate High Street or Camden Lock the anti GA lobby would have had a field day.

To some extent we are protected by the ignorance of the public and press (cv the Cessna which lost it's "main engine" near the Scillies last week) but it would only take an idiot like this to force land into bus queue or worse for demands to be made for SEPs to be banned either altogether or from anything but day VFR over farmland.

We actually have a duty to ourselves to try and stop this idiocy.

W

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Bus queues? Camden Lock? Couldn't he have landed on the heath or another bit of open ground in the event of engine failure? Still illegal I guess, but far more sensible a choice and far less likely to result in carnage.

I recall a PA38 suffering smoke in the cockpit while over London many years ago. The pilot put it into a park IIRC. She was killed, but no damage to any 3rd parties, again IIRC.

SSD

[S-Works]

Excuse me but what right do we have to sit and be judgemental from our armchairs?

We did not have the view from the cockpit and therefore the ability to decide of glidedclear was available or not. It is up to the pilot in command to decide if he is legal or not and if someone went wrong be able to justify his actions. It is perfectly legal to fly over London on a SVR clearance. It is the pilots duty to ensure that he is safe in doing so.

It is not our duty to sit and question another pilots judgement just because we don't agree with it.

Come on guys get a life!

[2Donkeys]

It is not our duty to sit and question another pilots judgement just because we don't agree with it.

Good point... but on the other hand, any mildly experienced pilot will tell you how unreasonable it is to expect to glide clear from 2400 feet over Hampstead Heath. There comes a point when all but the very inexperienced pilot doesn't need to speculate too hard from the comfort of his armchair to spot a potential problem.

Remember, when talking about gliding clear, the rules relate not to having a "pretty good chance of making it to a park", you are required with reasonable certainty to be able to glide clear of congested areas.

Break those rules and it is reasonable to wonder what other rules the pilot(s) concerned are prepared to flout. I think WCollins is on the money.

2D

[S-Works]

It is still not our responsibility to police other pilots, this is not a big brother state.

When I was granted my PPL I was under the understanding that I was responsible for my own actions and the fact that I had demonstrated both academically and physically my understanding of the rules and skills that I was capable of making my own flight safety decisions.

It is too easy for us to sit in judgement of others from the safety of the internet. We were not at the controls and therefore I ask how we can question someone elses decision making process.

Having never flown over that section of London I have no idea if there is glide clear space or not. Looking at the half mil chart not a lot of green is seen but looking at an OS map of the area it seems to me that there are plenty of green spots to "drop" into. If I was in an engine failure situtation I would not be concerned about a graceful landing but rather the saving of life and limb, both mine and others.

As a point as well it is also remarkably difficult even for a pilot to judge the height of an aircraft from the ground, a fact ably displayed by more than 100 members of our club at a recent fun day. Not 1 person was able to corectly judge the height of a Cessna 152 being flown over the airfield at 2000ft within a 1000ft!

It is hard to see unles we have followed the same route from the air ourselves we can make comment?

[tonyhalsall]

W Collins sums this up perfectly I reckon.

Said pilots may not be bothered about risking own life - let alone others. 'It will never happen to me.'

PFA permit aircraft have to operate clear of built up area's at all time - doesn't cause a problem just more careful planning - and is that a bad thing?

[Timothy]

bose-xHaving never flown over that section of London I have no idea...well maybe you should sit up and listen to those of us who have very often and do have an idea.

Yes, there are blue bits and green bits dotted around Central London. The blue bits have a lot of boats floating on them and the green bits are full of people throwing frisbees, kicking footballs and generally enjoying a peaceful life. Although landing on a football pitch (and most of the Heath that isn't trees is football pitch) may cause less death and injury than plummeting into a bus queue, there is still a considerable risk to entirely innocent people. It is perfectly legal to fly over London on a SVR clearance. ...um, no. SVFR only removes the 1500' obligation 1(a)(ii). It specifically does not remove the "land clear" 1(a)(i)

I agree that ChiSau may have been mistaken, and that the height may have been a little more than 2000' (remember that Hampstead Heath is quite high and the base of Class A is 2500' QNH), but even from that height there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of gliding clear of the congested area.

As for the argument that we should just go about our lives without judging others or interfering with their freedom to put lives at risk....well I don't know where to start. Do you stand by as muggers beat up old ladies? Do you allow yobbos to do handbrake turns down your suburban street at 70mph without raising an eyebrow or a telephone?

If you condone people flying SEPs over Central London (or any other major connurbation) you are risking losing everybody's freedoms. You just have to look at the sporting use of hand guns to see a corollary.

W

[Zlin526]

SSD,

The PA-38 that you mention was attempting to land in a park after smoke entered the cockpit from a burnt out relay. The pilot misjudged it, overshot & then applied power to go around. Unfortunately for the pilot, she had already turned the fuel off in preparation for the F/L and the subsequent fate was to hit the side of a factory at the back of a house, narrowly missing the occupants. I know this because I spent most of that very pleasant, crisp December day in 1986 cutting both of the occupants from the wreckage! :ugh:

It was also a congested area, so even if there were parks, heathland or open spaces, its still congested!


Bose-X,

Can't quite see where you are coming from here. The pilots who openly flout the ANO and risk landing in a congested area also threaten the remaining freedoms that we pilots in the UK have. You can just see the headlines now - "Single-engined Cessna flying over London crashes on Primary School - 30 children killed"

From the ANO, Article 129 - ‘Congested area’ in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;

From this, I read it that virtually anywhere that is built up (and this certainly includes Hampstead Heath and the surrounding parkland) is to be avoided in a single, because if you have an engine failure at 2400ft, you're not going to clear it!. At 4-5000ft, you may just do it, but then you'd be in the CTR.

It's certainly illegal, definately foolish and downright stoopid! The pilot should know the glide clear rules. If he/she doesnt, he/she shouldnt be flying!

It certainly IS our responsibilty to 'police' other pilots. They may be the ones who screw it up for the rest of us! Even something like "Hey Ace, do you realise it's a pretty dim thing to fly over London etc etc" will normally suffice. No 'Big Brother Tactics' needed, just gentle advice from those more experienced pilots who know the rules :ok:

I'll get me coat!

[greatorex]

If you condone people flying SEPs over Central London (or any other major connurbation) you are risking losing everybody's freedoms.

Strong words WC!

I agree with you up to a point but we can't, however, paint SEP's as the only villains of the piece. Things can go wrong in twins too (as shown by the accident at Shoreham) and had the Paris, Concorde accident happened at LHR whilst they were on Easterlies. . . . Well, it doesn’t bear thinking about. . . .

The fact is that ANY form of aviation over ANY built up area carries an element of risk. However, Single Engine Aircraft have been flown over the skies of London far longer than any of us have been ‘behind the wheel’ and by far greater men than any of us. We, therefore, have to ask ourselves, do we have the right to condemn and are we, by our very words in this thread, playing right into the hands of those who would see our pastimes, lives and careers go the same way as “hand guns”, simply because, one day, something might, just might happen?

G

[Timothy]

greatorex

Heavens preserve us from yet another SEP/MEP interminable bore, but I have had a lot of engine failures in my time (8 or 9 depending what you count) and the ones in singles have been a lot more memorable than those in multis.

Yes, we can all run out of fuel and we can all have structural failures...we can indeed all have smoke in the cockpit (though last time I did I just flicked off the master switch and landed on a runway, arguably preferable to piling into a factory) but if we are as careful about fuel as we are about low flying rules engine failure is the most likely cause of a power loss, and that is catered for by the MEP, which is why we MEPpers are allowed over the congested area and SEPpers ain't.

I doubt if my mentioning hand guns will cause anyone to change the law. But a crash of a SEP into London may well.

W

[S-Works]

Wcollins.

I bow to your no doubt superior knowledge and experiance in this matter. As you have no doubt flown that particular route many times, assumably in a twin, with the correct fuel on board and 2 perfectly working engines and had time to analyse all of the possible (or not) landing sites.

On the times I have flown accross London in a twin I have always made a point of looking for landing places and while not always perfect there are a number of them. There is no reason not to put an aircraft down into one of the many patches of water already mentioned in another post.

I suggest that if you think this pilot committed an unlawfull act that you report it to the CAA. I am sure they will be happy to take our armchair opinions!!!

:D

[Aussie Andy]

Well, speaking of... armchair opinions ...... no shortage of those here then!?! :=

IMHO, regardless of what was or wasn't seen over Hamsptead Heath, as the case may be, woe betide anyone who chooses to fly SEP over a built-up area such as London.

No matter what people may care to argue here, it would be a different matter to have to defend your decision to the CAA or - worse - an insurer who may choose a more strict interpretation of "land clear" than you! If the safety arguments don't convince you, then perhaps the risk of personal bankruptcy might?

So, each make his own decision and live (or not?) with the consequences... we're all big boys and girls now aren't we!

Best to all,



Andy :uhoh:

[paulo]

Hmmm... well, you can take a view on who's "responsibility" it is to report infringements. But any notion here that the right to allege that someone has broken the law is limited to only trained professionals is void.

Anyone who feels that they have witnessed a legal violation has the right to report it. Not investigate it, not prosecute it, not judge it, but to report it: yes. That's not aviation specific, nor specific to Britain or even Western society either. Now that we understand that, then you have to ask yourself, should pilots - vs. joe schmo - feel an obligation to report percieved infringements:

(a) Less than non pilots. ("He who casts")
(b) About the same.
(c) More. (Better informed as to geniune threat?)

Interesting debate.

edited to correct the italic.[/I]

[Aussie Andy]

take a view on who's "responsibility" it is to report infringementsOK - as I neglected to comment on that part of the debate - I agree with Paulo and others (I think with the sole exception of bose-x?) that anyone - whether pilot or no - can and should report anything untoward. That hardly makes it a police state, nor infringe anyone's rights.

bose-x said:When I was granted my PPL I was under the understanding that I was responsible for my own actions and the fact that I had demonstrated both academically and physically my understanding of the rules and skills that I was capable of making my own flight safety decisionsYes, but that doesn't mean that if you ever did something wrong you shouldn't be reported. Just as your car driver's license once proved that you were responsible (at least at some point in time) to safely drive a car does not mean that you are forever immune from complaint or prosecution. Sorry mate, but I don't see the logic of your argument...

Love and hugs (lest we let this thread get over heated as another nearby thread has recently done!) :ok:


Andy

[Timothy]

I bow to your no doubt superior knowledge and experiance in this matter. As you have no doubt flown that particular route many times, assumably in a twin, with the correct fuel on board and 2 perfectly working engines and had time to analyse all of the possible (or not) landing sites. Yes, quite so in every particular. I operate an Aztec out of Biggin and whenever I go North (~80% of the time) I cross Central London. I also do a fair number of tourist and photographic flights over Central London, so have had plenty of time to analyse the forced landing possibilities, and they are not rosy.There is no reason not to put an aircraft down into one of the many patches of water already mentioned in another post.Boats full of tourists and sailing dinghies do it for me.I suggest that if you think this pilot committed an unlawfull act that you report it to the CAA. I am sure they will be happy to take our armchair opinions!!!Had I witnessed it, I probably would. However it is entirely up to ChiSau to decide if se wants to. I imagine the Enforcement Branch would indeed be interested in a witness who is prepared to make a statement.

W

[greatorex]

I have had a lot of engine failures in my time

Blimey WC, with your luck, no wonder you've got yourself into such a Tiz over this!!!!! :D ;) :D ;)

I must be the luckiest man on earth because I've only ever had one engine faliure. . . . That did, however, result in the catastrophic and total loss of the aircraft. . . . but coertesy of Messers Martin, Baker & Chums I did manage to avoid going down with it, (and by some miracle, I also managed to avoid the "Locals" who decided to fire the object up my chuff that caused said engine failure). . . . :O :} :O :}

As I said, before, ANY form of aviation over ANY built up area carries risks, If I were you WC, when routing to the North, I'd go straight up the Lee Valley from Biggin. . . that'll save you the inconvenience of having to have tea and biscuits with the CAA when someone takes it into their head that they are self-important enough to report you to the 'Enforcement Branch'.

Have fun!

G

[tonyhalsall]

greatorex,
you are actually in agreement!! the only point being that some people are tempting fate and one day the issue will be forced on us by a tragic accident.
By not tempting fate in the first place will at least maintain the status quo.
tony

[Bright-Ling]

Many people ask on a daily basis to fly up or down the Lea Valley in a SEP.

But what about the GASIL of September 2002 - and Page 19 in particular? GASIL Sept 2002 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_gasil2002_03.pdf)

Some of the text...

Single Engined aircraft have been seen flying over the built up area of greater London, in the area of the London City Control Zone. While the map shows area which appear to have no major buildings (for example along the river Lee, to the west of the aerodrome), this is still regarded by the courts as being a 'congested area of a town, city or settlement' for the purposes of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996

If anything went wrong with an aircraft and the worst happened, I am sure that this would be presented to the court.

(I am not saying it is right or wrong... have never flown it)

[S-Works]

Actually I was making that point that if you SAW something and it was wrong you should report it if you felt it was your duty.

Those who did not SEE it have no right to sit and judge it from the comfort of there keyboards giving sage advice.........

And WC, your "hose" as obviously much bigger than mine as you have already decided that flying an Aztec makes you more qualified/experianced than me without any actual idea of my experiance. Nice one!

:D

[strafer]

I'm going to have to bow to WCollins as well. Not due to his superior experience but because he's 100% right.

We live in a world where the general public don't understand GA, they don't like it and they think you can blow up nuclear power stations with a Cessna 150. When ignorant/rash or even inexperienced pilots start landing aircraft on their children, then there may be a measured and balanced response once the full facts are know - but more likely is a knee-jerk reaction from some muppet politican and more GA restrictions for all of us. Therefore it behoves (one of those words you'd never use in speech!) us as pilots to try and stop the Top Gun wannabes from spoiling it for the rest of us. Whether that's a sharp word in the shell-like, or a CAA prosecution.

Regarding 'armchair judges' - this is pprune, this is what we do.;)

[Aussie Andy]

Those who did not SEE it have no right to sit and judge it from the comfort of there keyboards giving sage advice......... Regarding 'armchair judges' - this is pprune, this is what we do. I agree with the latter, not the former! b-x seems to be suggesting that here on PPRuNe we shouldn't comment on what we read on threads. D'oh...!

[S-Works]

Hey! I was not suggesting that at all. I am just saying that we have acted as judge and jury with no knowledge of the even other than a one liner that started it!

We don't even have all of the facts yet everyone has made there mind up that this pilot should be hung, reported, castrated or is just plain and simply guilty!!!

I seem to be a little more open minded on not making judegement while not in possession of the facts!

[greatorex]

tonyhalsall

you are actually in agreement!!

Umm, yes, wasn't that what I said in my original post?

What I disagree with is us all turning into 'Private Eye's'. How would WCollins feel, the next time he's up in his little Seneca to find, upon landing at his destination that someone has made a complaint about him because they 'reckoned' he was too low and could he report to The Belgrano, first thing on Monday Morning? It simply doesn't work. I've been flying for more years than I care to remember from Fast Jets to Big Jets and the one thing that I've learnt is that I am far from being an expert. . . . Then again, I've never flown a Seneca. . . . ;) :p ;) :p

I'm all for making flying safer and for getting rid of the cowboys, but let's not all start becoming 'Experts' and reporting every little crime that we think has been committed. GA has enough enemies without us turning unnecessarily on our own.

Cheers,

G

[Aussie Andy]

bose-x:hung, reported, castrated Huh??? Where does it say that: I think people have been at pains to explain that they recommend merely REPORTING the incident IF you happen to be person who SAW the alleged aircraft in the alleged location with the alleged number of engines. CALM DOWN MATE!

Sheesh!!! :ugh:

greatorex:How would [whoever] feel, the next time he's up in his little Seneca to find, upon landing at his destination that someone has made a complaint about him because they 'reckoned' he was too low Probably would feel the same as anyone would: not worried if had been flying within the rules; worried if not. No different really to when local NIMBY's complain from their back gardens. Why should this be different?

It seems like people believe that as we are all pilots that the 11th commandment "though shalt not dob" should apply!?

Andy :D

p.s. definition if required from http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html: Dob (somebody) in : inform on somebody. Hence dobber, a tell-tale

[S-Works]

hey its apparantly an Aztec not a Senneca, apparantly only us lesser mortals fly Sennecas!

:D :} :ok:

[greatorex]

Aussie Andy

I appreciate exactly what you are saying, but as was said earlier, perceived height is often different to actual height. The RAF have countless low flying reports daily - most of them totally unjustified - and it's a pain for all concerned.

As to the dobbing, I'll just send 'the lads' round to 'have a little word' with you about that! :D ;) :D ;)

Bose-x

hey its apparantly an Aztec not a Senneca

Cheers mate, though God knows what the difference is, they all look the same to me. . . but you can guarantee WC will be the world's greatest expert on the subject. . . . . :E ;) :E ;)

[Aussie Andy]

G'day greatorex, I totally agree re- the perceived height problem - we nearly lost an instructor at our club due to a NIMBY complaint following an EFATO, but Flying Lawyer (TO) was able to get him off precisely because of inability of witness to prove height was below 500' - HOWEVER that's hardly likely to the issue in case of the alleged "glide clear" infringement in the TMA (presumably SVFR) or under the 2,500' 1st TMA step.

Hey ho, each can make his own choice :O

Andy

[PPRuNe Radar]

Those who delight in criticising the person and not their arguments might fall foul of the judges, jury, and executioners that are the PPRuNe Admin staff.

We only have a couple of sentences which we can pass down ... mostly draconian ;)

So put your willies away boys, no one cares who has got the biggest, trust me !! :p

[greatorex]

PPRuNe Radar

Thanks for that, willy back where it should be!! :D ;) :D ;)

The fact still remains that ANY form of flying over a built up area such as London is a risk. I remember when City Airport was being built there were major concerns about the potential of accidents (and that was before they went and built two chuffin' great skyscrapers on the glidepath/climb out :uhoh: ). As WC rightly said above:I doubt if my mentioning hand guns will cause anyone to change the law. But a crash of a SEP into London may well. Statistically, however, it's far more likely to be a jet of some sort that goes down over London and should that happen, would it spell the end for the likes of LHR and LCY, whose final approaches and climb outs take them over such densely populated areas? I honestly don't know and I hope that it never happens - just wondered what other's views on this are?

Cheers,

G

[FlyingForFun]

Should that [a jet of some sort... goes down over London] happen, would it spell the end for the likes of LHR and LCY, whose final approaches and climb outs take them over such densely populated areas?I suspect not.

The public generally understand airliners, or at least understand their reason for being there. They will put up with an airliner going down over London in the same way that they will put up with train crashes... lots of sympathy from the big bosses, a big public enquiry, two years later a few hundred recommendations would be made and a few of them will be followed up on. No one would seriously suggest closing down LHR because everyone realises the damage it would cause the local economy (not to mention that they'd have to drive further to the airport for their trip to a sunny beach every summer).

GA, on the other hand, is not understood by the public - the vast majority of them can't see any downside to banning light aeroplanes - and it wouldn't take very much of an excuse to get a large lobby of people together.

Just my opinion, and also an opinion which is based on a generic situation and not on any specific case.

FFF
--------------

[IO540]

I read somewhere that several SEP pilots flying overhead LCY have over the years been prosecuted by the CAA under the glide-clear rule. Is this true?

If true, I suppose the only defence would be if he did not have Mode C and claimed he was at say 4000ft. But then he would get done for something else....

[greatorex]

IO540

According to the above GASIL link, it would seem to be the case: Single-engined aircraft have been seen flying over the built up area of greater London, in the area of the London
City Control Zone. While the map shows areas which appear to have no major buildings (for example along the valley of the river Lee, to the west of the aerodrome), this is still regarded by the courts as being a ‘congested area of a town, city or settlement’ for the purposes of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996. Pilots have been prosecuted and penalised for flying over that area at a height below that which would allow the aircraft to
alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of a failure of a
power unit, as required by Rule 5(1)(a)(i). but don't know any further info. . . .

G

[Timothy]

Deary, deary me. Bose-x said earlier in the thread that he didn't fly the route regularly and therefore didn't have direct experience, fair enough. I say that I do and I have and he and Greatorex start slagging me off for thinking I am such a great pilot.

Nowhere have I made any such claims. I fly over London a lot. Period. I am not saying I do it well or badly, nor whether an Aztec is better or worse than a Seneca or a SEP or anything else. You should both read what I am saying before you are so rude to me.

Also I never said that that particular aircraft should be reported. I don't know, I wasn't there. I made the general point that in my opinion we owe it to ourselves to report such things when they happen.

I also didn't suggest a sentence. In my experience if the pilot were earning £25,000 a year, the fine would be about £500 for a guilty plea and £750 if convicted. I don't know where castration was mentioned, but presumably by whoever mentioned penis size.

[Edited to remove the closest thing to a personal comment, cos I don't want to give anyone any further ammunition to make unwarranted personal insults.]

W

[Bright-Ling]

I read somewhere that several SEP pilots flying overhead LCY have over the years been prosecuted by the CAA under the glide-clear rule.

You could always glide back to LCY!!!!! (try to avoid the LCY traffic!!!)

Seriously - WC makes his usual informed and correct points regarding the whole affair.

For what it's worth - it was probably a "non-standard flight" with LHR ops NSF authorisation (I wasn't at work). Having said that, it still needs to be able to glide clear of course.

Hey ho - I am sure that a similar occurence will happen soon, and that we will talk about it all again!!!

B-L

[S-Works]

Some people have no sense of humour........

:(

[greatorex]

Thank you WCollins, for a refreshingly humble posting.

You have talked a lot of sense - I still disagree with you that we should become some sort of ‘vigilantes’- reporting our colleagues for apparent misdemeanours. As I said before, that doesn’t mean to say that we should ignore actions that we KNOW to be dangerous (i.e. a 152 at 3500ft directly ahead of us in the TMA) but not to start making such public judgements about our fellow aviators just because we THINK they might have been naughty boys or girls.

Anyway, I’m sure that we’re both big enough, old enough and ugly enough to agree to disagree on this one, so there we have it. . . .

Cheers,

G