Banner towing over London
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Harpenden
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotted the beastie at about 12:30 ish over Little Portland Street.
Looked about typical circuit height.
Glide clear ? Regent's park maybe, ointment for tiger bites carried as essential kit I guess.
Possibly related to the banners that have been seen around Denham.
Looked about typical circuit height.
Glide clear ? Regent's park maybe, ointment for tiger bites carried as essential kit I guess.
Possibly related to the banners that have been seen around Denham.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP says ......
"However, I have to say this. Please DO NOT place any links you find on here. They are ALL advertising and they will be removed - and you will not be popular"
oooooops ........... sorry, missed that rule and I stand admonished
ps. seleco - a google search will give you some company names
in the Banner world and I'm sure a quick call to them will get you the restriction rules that apply
"However, I have to say this. Please DO NOT place any links you find on here. They are ALL advertising and they will be removed - and you will not be popular"
oooooops ........... sorry, missed that rule and I stand admonished
ps. seleco - a google search will give you some company names
in the Banner world and I'm sure a quick call to them will get you the restriction rules that apply
Psychophysiological entity
Funny things banners. 'Turned onto finals at Ostende one day, only to have the wind-shields full of a yellow background...displaying a Batman emblem! Having avoided the vast area of canvas, I nipped down the back and put on my outfit.
Running on memories now, but I took my dentist's au pair to LHR one stunningly clear spring morning. "Cleared on track for (Suffolk ) not above 500' " Wife searched for her old office, while I searched for green patches. There were more than you might imagine...or at least there were then. You would still have needed a shed load of luck to have contained a dead-cut.
Running on memories now, but I took my dentist's au pair to LHR one stunningly clear spring morning. "Cleared on track for (Suffolk ) not above 500' " Wife searched for her old office, while I searched for green patches. There were more than you might imagine...or at least there were then. You would still have needed a shed load of luck to have contained a dead-cut.
Such an ATC clearance would not absolve you from the requirements of Rule 5. You need to know what those are and refuse any clearance which would result in you infringing them....
Mind you, some Air Traffickers seem to have no idea about the 'glide clear' rule and will just give you what seems to them the most expeditious clearance. One pilot recently planned to route from DET to LAM to BNN in the middle of the night - and was cleared direct from shortly after DET direct to BNN within the London TMA. A good part of his flight was obviously in clear breach of Rule 5; fortunately for him no-one noticed and the engine didn't stop!
Mind you, some Air Traffickers seem to have no idea about the 'glide clear' rule and will just give you what seems to them the most expeditious clearance. One pilot recently planned to route from DET to LAM to BNN in the middle of the night - and was cleared direct from shortly after DET direct to BNN within the London TMA. A good part of his flight was obviously in clear breach of Rule 5; fortunately for him no-one noticed and the engine didn't stop!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle's reference to Rule 5 of the the Rules of the Air provided some interesting reading. On the face of it yesterday's little publicity stunt contravened Rule 5(i) twice (no available alighting point clear of the congested area in the event of the failure of a power plant, and flying at a height that would not have allowed a dropped banner to land clear of said congested area), and also probably Rule 5(ii) in terms of not flying at least 1500 feet higher than any fixed object within 600 metres of the aircraft (ie Telecom Tower at c.600 feet requiring a minimum height of 2100feet).
If, in spite of all this, the banner-towing Cessna was operating quite legally, why does one not see banners in the sky all the time over London, since it is obviously a very effective way to get one's message across? Come to think of it, what is to stop me applying to take my little C150 for a joyride to show Granny the sights of the City from the air?
If, in spite of all this, the banner-towing Cessna was operating quite legally, why does one not see banners in the sky all the time over London, since it is obviously a very effective way to get one's message across? Come to think of it, what is to stop me applying to take my little C150 for a joyride to show Granny the sights of the City from the air?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Mind you, some Air Traffickers seem to have no idea about the 'glide clear' rule.>>
Not required to - pilot's responsibility entirely. If I had to write a book about the antics of some light a/c pilots I'd be here all millennium!
Not required to - pilot's responsibility entirely. If I had to write a book about the antics of some light a/c pilots I'd be here all millennium!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I believe it was EdF (Electricite de France, owner of the former London Electricity) advertising "Power for London", but I may have misread the last bit.
Navajo: how do you know it was from Blackpool? Seems a long way to come with a banner............
Navajo: how do you know it was from Blackpool? Seems a long way to come with a banner............
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw it overhead Elstree heading roughly 300 deg at about 13.30 - It was certainly advertising EdF and it seemed (from the ground) to be above circuit height, but not hugely so. The banner looked very big and was very easy to read
Saw it a little later heading east (probably following the M25).
Perhaps someone should ask Elstree whether it spoke to them as it passed through their ATZ!
*Edited to remove reference to Blackpool*
Saw it a little later heading east (probably following the M25).
Perhaps someone should ask Elstree whether it spoke to them as it passed through their ATZ!
*Edited to remove reference to Blackpool*
Wurzel's Brother
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: midlands, uk
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ooops "Power for London" does so look like "Tower of London" 
Seloco - I read the reg! In fairness it was registered to an operator at Blackpool which is not the same as it coming from Blackpool!
Navajo8686
Seloco - I read the reg! In fairness it was registered to an operator at Blackpool which is not the same as it coming from Blackpool!
Navajo8686
<<Mind you, some Air Traffickers seem to have no idea about the 'glide clear' rule.>>
Not required to - pilot's responsibility entirely. If I had to write a book about the antics of some light a/c pilots I'd be here all millennium!
A truly helpful comment from the Flying Prevention Branch..... We know. Or rather most of us know; however, wouldn't it be an idea to remind pilots about Rule 5 if you clear them across the middle of London? If the engine failed, would a smart lawyer argue that you aided and abetted the resulting accident?
Not required to - pilot's responsibility entirely. If I had to write a book about the antics of some light a/c pilots I'd be here all millennium!
A truly helpful comment from the Flying Prevention Branch..... We know. Or rather most of us know; however, wouldn't it be an idea to remind pilots about Rule 5 if you clear them across the middle of London? If the engine failed, would a smart lawyer argue that you aided and abetted the resulting accident?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it would not be appropriate to remind pilots about Rule 5. An ATCO may only with-hold clearance for air traffic reasons. Far be it for ATC to have the temerity to remind pilots of their responsibilities.
The disrespectful 'Flying Prevention Branch' comment from BEagle is even less helpful than his suggestion.
The disrespectful 'Flying Prevention Branch' comment from BEagle is even less helpful than his suggestion.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
I have sat in an aircraft with you on at least 2 occasions - and I am hugely respective of your flying ability.
Your comments are unhelpful to say the least.
Please go and learn the rules or attack ATCOs with fact.
** EDITED AS CALLING SOMEONE A BIT OF AN ARSE ANY TIME OF THE YEAR IS UNFAIR ** Sorry Beags
I have sat in an aircraft with you on at least 2 occasions - and I am hugely respective of your flying ability.
Your comments are unhelpful to say the least.
Please go and learn the rules or attack ATCOs with fact.
** EDITED AS CALLING SOMEONE A BIT OF AN ARSE ANY TIME OF THE YEAR IS UNFAIR ** Sorry Beags
Last edited by Bright-Ling; 22nd Dec 2004 at 07:37.
Psychophysiological entity
Grammar Bright-Ling. It should be a arse, not an arse........well no, come to think of it, it shouldn't be either of these...it's Christmas.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before this thread degenerates into a distinctly Scroogey slanging match, I am wondering if any of the professional pilots or ATCOs out there can answer my original starting question, which I might restate as follows:
If I am flying a single-engined aircraft towing a large banner over central London at somewhere between 1500 and 2000 feet, is there any way that I can comply with Rule of the Air 5(i)? If there is not, then presumably I should not be there unless someone (CAA?) has given me some form of special dispensation.
(Incidentally I would cut and paste said rule here but I suspect that might contravene copyright....I'm sure most PPruners know it off by heart anyway!)
If I am flying a single-engined aircraft towing a large banner over central London at somewhere between 1500 and 2000 feet, is there any way that I can comply with Rule of the Air 5(i)? If there is not, then presumably I should not be there unless someone (CAA?) has given me some form of special dispensation.
(Incidentally I would cut and paste said rule here but I suspect that might contravene copyright....I'm sure most PPruners know it off by heart anyway!)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seloco.. The answer is that YOU are the person who should decide whether you are able to comply with the Rules of the Air. It is wholly your responsibility and you must also comply with any additional restrictions in your Special Flight authorisation, which you would have to obtain before engaging in any non-standard aerial activity.
Many, many times a day, light single-engined aircraft are issued with ATC clearance to fly over built up areas whilst en-route from A-B and ATC cannot be expected to know if the pilot or aircraft are suitably "qualified", nor should it be an ATC responsibility to brief every pilot on his responsibilities when a clearance is issued. The system relies on people knowing what they are doing. Thankfully, this system usually works.
In the case of non-standard flights over London (and other big cities no doubt), special authority has to be obtained in advance and various conditions will be laid down in writing to the pilot and he must comply with them. He then contacts the appropriate ATC unit by telephone in advance to see if the flight is possible. If an pilot calls ATC and asks to fly circles over Buckingham Palace for half an hour the controller will determine whether dispensation has been granted before he issues a clearance.
Many, many times a day, light single-engined aircraft are issued with ATC clearance to fly over built up areas whilst en-route from A-B and ATC cannot be expected to know if the pilot or aircraft are suitably "qualified", nor should it be an ATC responsibility to brief every pilot on his responsibilities when a clearance is issued. The system relies on people knowing what they are doing. Thankfully, this system usually works.
In the case of non-standard flights over London (and other big cities no doubt), special authority has to be obtained in advance and various conditions will be laid down in writing to the pilot and he must comply with them. He then contacts the appropriate ATC unit by telephone in advance to see if the flight is possible. If an pilot calls ATC and asks to fly circles over Buckingham Palace for half an hour the controller will determine whether dispensation has been granted before he issues a clearance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, thanks HD; I think I am getting close to the answer to my original question, and it as follows:
If I want to tow a banner behind my single-engined plane over the special zone that is the City of London, then I need to get official permission from the appropriate authority (presumably this is the CAA?). If this is granted then it is done so on the assumption that I as pilot can fully comply with the relevant Rules of the Air. When I apply for ATC clearance for said flight, ATC first check that I have the appropriate dispensation, and at that point may clear me into the zone, again on the assumption that I am responsible for ensuring that I comply with said rules.
Having said all that, I still do not understand how a Cessna 172N towing a banner over the City can possibly comply with Rule 5(i), whether it has official permission to be there or not!
If I want to tow a banner behind my single-engined plane over the special zone that is the City of London, then I need to get official permission from the appropriate authority (presumably this is the CAA?). If this is granted then it is done so on the assumption that I as pilot can fully comply with the relevant Rules of the Air. When I apply for ATC clearance for said flight, ATC first check that I have the appropriate dispensation, and at that point may clear me into the zone, again on the assumption that I am responsible for ensuring that I comply with said rules.
Having said all that, I still do not understand how a Cessna 172N towing a banner over the City can possibly comply with Rule 5(i), whether it has official permission to be there or not!
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly cannot understand it.
Notwithstanding the fact that no one cannot accurately judge the height of an aircraft overhead it follows that said aircraft MUST be in a position to make a safe landing in the event of engine failure. Then there is the question of dumping the banner! There is a law for that too!
I have read the relevant issues in ANO and the latest RotA and it is clear as discussed. Special VFR can usually only be used for transit and I wouldn't have thought that an ATCO would allow it for a prolonged period.
Then there is REWARD. What would anyone want to carry a banner for if they were not being paid for it. That takes it straight back to an AOC.........................................so it goes on.
Maybe someone in the know at the CAA can throw light on it.
Notwithstanding the fact that no one cannot accurately judge the height of an aircraft overhead it follows that said aircraft MUST be in a position to make a safe landing in the event of engine failure. Then there is the question of dumping the banner! There is a law for that too!
I have read the relevant issues in ANO and the latest RotA and it is clear as discussed. Special VFR can usually only be used for transit and I wouldn't have thought that an ATCO would allow it for a prolonged period.
Then there is REWARD. What would anyone want to carry a banner for if they were not being paid for it. That takes it straight back to an AOC.........................................so it goes on.
Maybe someone in the know at the CAA can throw light on it.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting that everyone is saying that people should not be allowed to fly there.
NATS or it's controllers do not own the airspace - we simply manage it within the constraints of the rules set ultimately by the Government.
Surely a unilateral decision by me withholding ATC clearance for anything other than traffic reasons would be against your human rights or civil liberties.
The CAA have put it to you, as the aircraft commander, to comply with the rules.
With regards to the Non Standard Flight: When you apply for such a flight you get a whole host of reminders saying that you have to comply with the Rules of the Air, to stay away from Buck Pal etc. There are contact numbers for the CAA/Diplomatic Protection Group (part of the Met) should you wish to fly within a list of sites.
If you think that you need to be 2000 feet over central London to glide clear and you are given 1500 feet then you should not accept the clearance.
Simple as that I am afraid.
The other side of the argument (more access for singles etc) can be seen here
NATS or it's controllers do not own the airspace - we simply manage it within the constraints of the rules set ultimately by the Government.
Surely a unilateral decision by me withholding ATC clearance for anything other than traffic reasons would be against your human rights or civil liberties.
The CAA have put it to you, as the aircraft commander, to comply with the rules.
With regards to the Non Standard Flight: When you apply for such a flight you get a whole host of reminders saying that you have to comply with the Rules of the Air, to stay away from Buck Pal etc. There are contact numbers for the CAA/Diplomatic Protection Group (part of the Met) should you wish to fly within a list of sites.
If you think that you need to be 2000 feet over central London to glide clear and you are given 1500 feet then you should not accept the clearance.
Simple as that I am afraid.
The other side of the argument (more access for singles etc) can be seen here
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: To close for comfort
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be advised :
TC Operations, when issuing a Non-Standard Flight, evaluate the request ONLY on the impact said flight may cause to other traffic.
It is noted on the NSF notification that dispensation from ANO requirements is NOT to be inferred from the approval.
ATC is NOT responsible for checking/confirming/conferring dispensation from rules and regs as notified in the ANO.
A pilot MUST take care of this him/herself. Should that pilot request activation/approval of the NSF, at the levels notified in that document then they are directly implying that they have already considered and applied for exemptions as necessary.
ATC do NOT have sight of, and do not consider these exemptions, because it is NOT our responsibility.
ATC will therefore approve/deny the flight on traffic grounds alone.
Do NOT expect ATC to police your license.
In this specific instance, the banner tower confirmed with ATC that he could alight clear. That statement could not be challenged by us, therefore we had no grounds on which to refuse the clearance.
I expect to be able to notify TC controllers of further information on this subject shortly.
TC Operations, when issuing a Non-Standard Flight, evaluate the request ONLY on the impact said flight may cause to other traffic.
It is noted on the NSF notification that dispensation from ANO requirements is NOT to be inferred from the approval.
ATC is NOT responsible for checking/confirming/conferring dispensation from rules and regs as notified in the ANO.
A pilot MUST take care of this him/herself. Should that pilot request activation/approval of the NSF, at the levels notified in that document then they are directly implying that they have already considered and applied for exemptions as necessary.
ATC do NOT have sight of, and do not consider these exemptions, because it is NOT our responsibility.
ATC will therefore approve/deny the flight on traffic grounds alone.
Do NOT expect ATC to police your license.
In this specific instance, the banner tower confirmed with ATC that he could alight clear. That statement could not be challenged by us, therefore we had no grounds on which to refuse the clearance.
I expect to be able to notify TC controllers of further information on this subject shortly.