LCY Zone transit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LCY Zone transit
I was looking at possibly flying down South later this week (as the weather is nice!) and unfortunately LCY is right in the way of my planned flight path. Therefore, I wonder what the possibility that they'll let me transit their zone is? (overhead) I'll be filing a VFR flightplan of course.
Also, if anyone has a phone number for Ops/ATC so I can pick their brains, it would be appreciated.
Also, if anyone has a phone number for Ops/ATC so I can pick their brains, it would be appreciated.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what you're flying - but do bear in mind the "glide clear" rule, if you're going that way.
Unless you've got a "spare" engine then you'll be pushed for most of the time you're in their zone (unless you're within range of the Thames).
Just a thought.
OC619
Unless you've got a "spare" engine then you'll be pushed for most of the time you're in their zone (unless you're within range of the Thames).
Just a thought.
OC619
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that you are single engine, there is no route to the LCY overhead that will allow you to glide clear in the event of engine failure. Once you are far enough East to be legal, you may as well just route around the zone. It will take a maximum of 1 minute longer and give you a nice view of the QE2 bridge.
If you have 2 engines, then I believe LCY (is it still called Thames Radar?) are fairly accommodating, traffic permitting.
Incidentally, a VFR flight plan will make no difference in either case as en-route ATC will not be addressed.
If you have 2 engines, then I believe LCY (is it still called Thames Radar?) are fairly accommodating, traffic permitting.
Incidentally, a VFR flight plan will make no difference in either case as en-route ATC will not be addressed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is even an interesting article on this: https://www.euroga.org/forums/hangar...by-se-aircraft
I had considered the glide clear rule but as I'm heading diagonally away from LCY (if that makes sense) ie. routing towards Dartford I believe I maintain glide clear (Thames...) - I will do some more calculations.
NB. I'd be flying at 2400ft (as far as I can go without getting into the LTMA), I guess LCY counts as a 'good' place to land (given it's a runway...)
I had considered the glide clear rule but as I'm heading diagonally away from LCY (if that makes sense) ie. routing towards Dartford I believe I maintain glide clear (Thames...) - I will do some more calculations.
NB. I'd be flying at 2400ft (as far as I can go without getting into the LTMA), I guess LCY counts as a 'good' place to land (given it's a runway...)
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article is correct in that the CAA have published their opinion that the Thames is too busy to be considered suitable for ditching and should be considered a built-up area.
Since that discussion on EuroGA (which basically says who cares if you break the law if you don't get caught) mode-S and FlightRadar24 have ensured that you will get noticed.
Edit to add that the Lee Valley lakes are also considered to be dubious for ditching if that features in your plans.
Since that discussion on EuroGA (which basically says who cares if you break the law if you don't get caught) mode-S and FlightRadar24 have ensured that you will get noticed.
Edit to add that the Lee Valley lakes are also considered to be dubious for ditching if that features in your plans.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't read it quite like that but I was a little worried about the prosecution bit... I wasn't intending 'not to get caught' - if I can't do it legally I won't do it at all.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transit
I've never been refused a transit and every time have found Thames Radar and LCY Tower to be extremely helpful and accommodating. As always, be prepared to fly accurately and anticipate the need to hold before you get clearance to cross the runway or extended centreline. Be aware that to the north a lot of construction is taking place around the Olympic Park area and there are some very high cranes looming up there.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baldegret were you flying a ME aircraft when transiting? I have a feeling I'll have to detour further East in order to maintain glide clear in a SEP.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by crablab
I'd be flying at 2400ft
Yes, the CAA considers the River Thames in London to be a 'congested area'. And here is a CAA poster regarding flight over built-up areas.
From the point of view of the legality, both the directive cited in the EuroGA thread and the poster predate the change to Part-SERA, which uses subtly but importantly different wording.
That said, I frequently cross the City CTR north-south in a twin (and yes, Thames or Heathrow Special are brilliant), but I would be very uncomfortable doing it in a single.
For the OP, AIP GEN 3.3 lists in para 6 at the end some contact numbers. The London Terminal Control Watch Supervisor is your best contact for the ATC aspects of your request, though I would expect the answer "we'll see what we can do at the time, subject to traffic". I imagine that NATS will not offer an opinion on compliance with low flying rules.
That said, I frequently cross the City CTR north-south in a twin (and yes, Thames or Heathrow Special are brilliant), but I would be very uncomfortable doing it in a single.
For the OP, AIP GEN 3.3 lists in para 6 at the end some contact numbers. The London Terminal Control Watch Supervisor is your best contact for the ATC aspects of your request, though I would expect the answer "we'll see what we can do at the time, subject to traffic". I imagine that NATS will not offer an opinion on compliance with low flying rules.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
It's solely the pilot's responsibility to comply with the low flying rules, ATC may not be aware of how they affect any particular flight.
Yes, the CAA considers the River Thames in London to be a 'congested area'
I'm discussing this purely from a legal standpoint but if one ditched in the Thames with no loss of life have you contravened the ANO?
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fireflybob,
I don't think anyone would really care if that were the case. The PLA / RNLI / passers by will gladly pick you up, and you'll be sipping something nice within minutes of your ditching. Most of the Thames has live camera feeds to the PLA, so someone will be there very quickly indeed!
When it comes to insurance however (also if there was the loss of life), the insurance company will no doubt try to claim that you (or the pilot) was not abiding by the rules and probably do their best not to pay out. Classic insurance though - i'd be honest though - much more happy to be alive!
I don't think anyone would really care if that were the case. The PLA / RNLI / passers by will gladly pick you up, and you'll be sipping something nice within minutes of your ditching. Most of the Thames has live camera feeds to the PLA, so someone will be there very quickly indeed!
When it comes to insurance however (also if there was the loss of life), the insurance company will no doubt try to claim that you (or the pilot) was not abiding by the rules and probably do their best not to pay out. Classic insurance though - i'd be honest though - much more happy to be alive!
Last edited by alex90; 25th Aug 2016 at 20:30. Reason: spelling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fireflybob
Talkdown, do you have a reference for that?
This is a quotation from GASIL 2006/2:
Flight over congested areas
Listening to conversations among groups of pilots, we have been reminded that some may not be fully conversant with the application of the Rules of the Air regarding flight over congested areas. While the Rules themselves are clear, the interpretation of the phrase “congested area” is perhaps not.
As defined in Article 155 of the Air Navigation Order 2005, the “congested area” in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes. While most of that may be obvious, it is often forgotten that an area within the boundaries of any such city, town or settlement which is used for recreational purposes forms part of the congested area. The pilot of any aircraft (except helicopters which have their own rules) must be able to alight clear of the whole congested area in the event of failure of a power unit. What might appear from above to be a possible suitable emergency landing field in the middle of a town will almost certainly be substantially used for recreational purposes, as will stretches of water such as the Lea valley to the North of London City Airport. We would also remind everyone that air traffic controllers do not know whether an aircraft is capable of alighting clear of the congested area in the event of the failure of a power unit, and may offer a pilot a routing which he cannot legally accept. It is the commander’s responsibility to ensure that he remains legal and safe at all times, so if an air traffic clearance would contravene the Rules of the Air, the pilot should inform the controller that he is unable to accept it and request an alternative clearance.
Listening to conversations among groups of pilots, we have been reminded that some may not be fully conversant with the application of the Rules of the Air regarding flight over congested areas. While the Rules themselves are clear, the interpretation of the phrase “congested area” is perhaps not.
As defined in Article 155 of the Air Navigation Order 2005, the “congested area” in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes. While most of that may be obvious, it is often forgotten that an area within the boundaries of any such city, town or settlement which is used for recreational purposes forms part of the congested area. The pilot of any aircraft (except helicopters which have their own rules) must be able to alight clear of the whole congested area in the event of failure of a power unit. What might appear from above to be a possible suitable emergency landing field in the middle of a town will almost certainly be substantially used for recreational purposes, as will stretches of water such as the Lea valley to the North of London City Airport. We would also remind everyone that air traffic controllers do not know whether an aircraft is capable of alighting clear of the congested area in the event of the failure of a power unit, and may offer a pilot a routing which he cannot legally accept. It is the commander’s responsibility to ensure that he remains legal and safe at all times, so if an air traffic clearance would contravene the Rules of the Air, the pilot should inform the controller that he is unable to accept it and request an alternative clearance.
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).
An air traffic controller may give a pilot clearance to fly on a special VFR flight through a control zone. Such a clearance entitles a pilot to disregard Rule 5(1)(a)(ii) (so that he may fly below 1500 feet where so instructed by ATC) but not Rule 5(1)(a)(i) (the alight clear requirement). It remains the pilot’s responsibility to be able to comply at all times with Rule 5(1)(a)(i) regardless of whether or not he has been issued with a special VFR clearance.
An air traffic controller may give a pilot clearance to fly on a special VFR flight through a control zone. Such a clearance entitles a pilot to disregard Rule 5(1)(a)(ii) (so that he may fly below 1500 feet where so instructed by ATC) but not Rule 5(1)(a)(i) (the alight clear requirement). It remains the pilot’s responsibility to be able to comply at all times with Rule 5(1)(a)(i) regardless of whether or not he has been issued with a special VFR clearance.
The River Thames is part of the 'congested area' of London
Last edited by Talkdownman; 25th Aug 2016 at 23:48.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness, the ATC will be too busy messing around with Heathrow traffic (Heathrow Radar) to be worrying about whether a GA aircraft has glide clear etc. It is very definitely the pilots responsibility.
That said, I am taking a different route, nearer the QEII as suggested above. It's over many fields so I will have glide clear.
That said, I am taking a different route, nearer the QEII as suggested above. It's over many fields so I will have glide clear.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts