Crossing London City CTR possible?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Delfgauw, NL
Age: 53
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossing London City CTR possible?
Hi,
This week a group of Dutch will make a tour through Southern England. On our last day, we are based NW of London, and would like to do a crossing of the London City CTR. Proposed route: From N(VRP Banbury Reservoir?), abeam Canary Wharf, to S(VRP Isle of Dogs?) and then East to Rochester, staying clear EGR160. So west of City Airport and east of the City centre is the intention. I have seen multiple VFR Reporting Points associated with London City, which suggests VFR traffic is common. We are all experienced pilots used to flying in controlled airspace.
Would this be an option at all, or do we have to forget this reckless plan? Anyone experience with this, or good advice on routing?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
This week a group of Dutch will make a tour through Southern England. On our last day, we are based NW of London, and would like to do a crossing of the London City CTR. Proposed route: From N(VRP Banbury Reservoir?), abeam Canary Wharf, to S(VRP Isle of Dogs?) and then East to Rochester, staying clear EGR160. So west of City Airport and east of the City centre is the intention. I have seen multiple VFR Reporting Points associated with London City, which suggests VFR traffic is common. We are all experienced pilots used to flying in controlled airspace.
Would this be an option at all, or do we have to forget this reckless plan? Anyone experience with this, or good advice on routing?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, such routings can be approved subject to the traffic flow at City Airport. The contact frequency is Heathrow Radar on 125.625 and clearance will be not above 2400ft AMSL.
BUT there is a problem for single engine aircraft to comply with Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations which requires an aircraft to fly at a height which enables it to land clear of a congested area in the event of an engine failure.
The Rule is here:
The Rules of the Air Regulations 2007
BUT there is a problem for single engine aircraft to comply with Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations which requires an aircraft to fly at a height which enables it to land clear of a congested area in the event of an engine failure.
The Rule is here:
The Rules of the Air Regulations 2007
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Delfgauw, NL
Age: 53
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That last remark, DLT1939, makes a lot of sense. South of the river there is a lot of uncongested spots (open fields), but north (Stratford) is a whole different ballgame.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The previous NOTAM that prohibited NSF clearances for single engine West of the London City NDB is a clue as to the CAA's thinking about the glide clear requirement.
No guarantee of anything though.
No guarantee of anything though.
It's normal for single engines to follow approximately the M25 motorway around N-E London, not above 2,500 ft, (I go for 2,200, to miss the 2,400 ft lot and the 2,000 ft round number types) and to speak to Thames Radar even if you are just outside the zone. Keep a good lookout as it's a busy VFR route.
From the ground at City Airport, you do see a single engine bumbling along from time to time, especially at weekends when the tower and airport is closed, which I've always assumed is a breach of the Land Clear requirements as there's just nowhere to put down, and even the City Zone has an upper ceiling of 3,000 ft. As a last ditch in the event of an engine failure you can always plan to put it in the River Thames, but that doesn't suit your routing.
VRP Isle of Dogs is for helicopters on their route H4 which follows the river.
From the ground at City Airport, you do see a single engine bumbling along from time to time, especially at weekends when the tower and airport is closed, which I've always assumed is a breach of the Land Clear requirements as there's just nowhere to put down, and even the City Zone has an upper ceiling of 3,000 ft. As a last ditch in the event of an engine failure you can always plan to put it in the River Thames, but that doesn't suit your routing.
VRP Isle of Dogs is for helicopters on their route H4 which follows the river.
Last edited by WHBM; 7th Sep 2015 at 14:14.
What is the normal procedure regarding Stapleford, in that case? The top of the ATZ is 2185'. Would it be reasonable to route from the A13/M25 junction at Upminster direct to Cheshunt, where the M25 crosses the Lea Valley, thereby missing the Stapleford ATZ? or do you leave Thames and call Stapleford?
Join Date: May 2014
Location: London
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the normal procedure regarding Stapleford, in that case? The top of the ATZ is 2185'. Would it be reasonable to route from the A13/M25 junction at Upminster direct to Cheshunt, where the M25 crosses the Lea Valley, thereby missing the Stapleford ATZ? or do you leave Thames and call Stapleford?
a) there is Class G airspace (and empty fields) between Stapleford and the City CTR.
b) you can go over - between 2185 and 2500 ft.
c) you can talk to them - but being A/G, they cannot tell you much.
d) whilst doing a or b, you put them on your second box and just listen in to get an improved situational awareness
However:
and even the City Zone has an upper ceiling of 3,000 ft.
?
B.
As far as the original question is concerned the glide clear rule effectively stays the same. Quote:
"without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface"
Ditching in the Thames (many sea craft and people) or anywhere within the built up area would surely be in breach.
"without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface"
Ditching in the Thames (many sea craft and people) or anywhere within the built up area would surely be in breach.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For my sins I was once a beleaguered Thames Radar London City CTR controller. Regardless of Class D and its access rights etc, sightseeing transit flight were, quite frankly, nothing less than a nuisance. Confined precision, time-constrained commercial operations take place in that tiny CTR, and the procedures coupled with Cat B and Cat A operations over the metropolis render it intense aerial activity. I doubt that the situation has changed very much. I suggest that you do yourselves and everybody else a favour by circumnavigating this very small CTR rather than encumber the LCY operation by flying over a highly built-up congested area which has very few alight-clear options. Following the M25 makes light work of it for all parties...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think any of us has given the OP a clear answer.
The route you propose from Banbury Reservoir to Canary Wharf follows the Lea Valley lakes. This used to be a common route for single engine. Some still do it, but because of the glide clear requirement, there is much debate about whether it's legal.
If you ask for that clearance from Thames Radar, you may well be granted it, but you may have some awkward questions to answer afterwards. Recently, I was in an aircraft that requested that route and Thames asked us if we were single or multi engine. (It was a twin.)
East along the Thames from London City to Rochester would allow you to glide clear into the Thames. Again, there is debate about whether that meets the requirements. I have flown single engine from Dartford QE2 Bridge to London City and back, along the Thames at a weekend when London City was closed. The clearance was requested and given. But, on a weekday, you (as talkdownman has made clear) are going to conflict with London City movements and that bit of your route may be a big problem to them.
Continuing South from Canary Wharf really doesn't give much option for glide clear. Greenwich, Lewisham, Catford and Bromley are congested areas.
I don't think your proposed route is reasonable on a weekday and the view of the City of London as you track the M25 is pretty good.
If you fly direct from VOR BPK to M25/A127 junction, a route I fly often in a single, you will get enough sightseeing to please the eye. If you overfly Stapleford ATZ at 2,400ft QNH there's no need to speak with them, or if you prefer, you can go just a little South of their ATZ. For radio, either turn it down and enjoy the view, or take a service from Farnborough Radar North. Follow the M25 to the Dartford QE2 bridge, then the river towards Rochester. Pay attention to Southend's airspace along the Thames, but they will almost certainly give you a clearance through their space on your way to Rochester, if you want to stick with the river.
The route you propose from Banbury Reservoir to Canary Wharf follows the Lea Valley lakes. This used to be a common route for single engine. Some still do it, but because of the glide clear requirement, there is much debate about whether it's legal.
If you ask for that clearance from Thames Radar, you may well be granted it, but you may have some awkward questions to answer afterwards. Recently, I was in an aircraft that requested that route and Thames asked us if we were single or multi engine. (It was a twin.)
East along the Thames from London City to Rochester would allow you to glide clear into the Thames. Again, there is debate about whether that meets the requirements. I have flown single engine from Dartford QE2 Bridge to London City and back, along the Thames at a weekend when London City was closed. The clearance was requested and given. But, on a weekday, you (as talkdownman has made clear) are going to conflict with London City movements and that bit of your route may be a big problem to them.
Continuing South from Canary Wharf really doesn't give much option for glide clear. Greenwich, Lewisham, Catford and Bromley are congested areas.
I don't think your proposed route is reasonable on a weekday and the view of the City of London as you track the M25 is pretty good.
If you fly direct from VOR BPK to M25/A127 junction, a route I fly often in a single, you will get enough sightseeing to please the eye. If you overfly Stapleford ATZ at 2,400ft QNH there's no need to speak with them, or if you prefer, you can go just a little South of their ATZ. For radio, either turn it down and enjoy the view, or take a service from Farnborough Radar North. Follow the M25 to the Dartford QE2 bridge, then the river towards Rochester. Pay attention to Southend's airspace along the Thames, but they will almost certainly give you a clearance through their space on your way to Rochester, if you want to stick with the river.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Last time I was round that way, going into Thurrock for maintenance, I got a very good service from Southend, worth a call, I'd say...
TOO
TOO
Back in the day, we used to go SVFR not above 1000' LHR QNH, straight across Buck House and Parliament! Crazy in a SE light aircraft, but maybe our Lycomings and Continentals were more reliable than the Merlins of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Bobbington
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR in the region of London….
Many years ago (I mean a very long time ago) when our Pa 24 single Comanche was new rather than a respected vintage aeroplane I was cleared to route direct from Biggin Hill to Bovingdon - initially not above 1000' qnh - later corrected to at 1000' qnh.
It was 8.30 pm (local) on a fantastic summer evening, the view of the Thames was quite superb, and did any of us have a camera with us? Of course not and it was very much before we all had mobile 'phones with cameras!
Shortly afterwards a Cessna 210 suffered an engine failure over London and landed on some waste ground. No casualties but the interpretation of the rules changed very shortly afterwards.
Ah, the good old days - and it used to cost £15.00 per hour wet to run the Single Com!
It was 8.30 pm (local) on a fantastic summer evening, the view of the Thames was quite superb, and did any of us have a camera with us? Of course not and it was very much before we all had mobile 'phones with cameras!
Shortly afterwards a Cessna 210 suffered an engine failure over London and landed on some waste ground. No casualties but the interpretation of the rules changed very shortly afterwards.
Ah, the good old days - and it used to cost £15.00 per hour wet to run the Single Com!
I was told just a week ago that the 210 was apparently carrying live lobsters to Elstree and made a successful let down on Wormwood Scrubs (if you discount the danger to dog walkers, boys playing football and courting couples). The biggest dilemma was dealing with the lobsters beyond the forced landing. This may need verification as Elstree has far more rumours than any airfield I have ever known...............
