Low level flying ban for London

[Fright Level]

From 27 October, aircraft and helicopters will not be able to fly below 1,400 feet unless they have been given security clearance 28 days in advance.

Link to BBC News article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3684672.stm)

[pilotwolf]

Saw similar on Ceefax but can't find anything on NATS or CAA site unless I m not searching for the right keywords....

Anyone have link to the circular? This potentially wipes out some of the helilanes....

PW

[Devils Advocate]

Please run this by me again; i.e. just what is this new rule supposed to prevent ? ..... and just to show what a 'kin dream world our politicos live in, we've got:It said that the transport secretary "deems it necessary, in the public interest" to restrict flying "on behalf of the Metropolitan Police for reasons of national security". and Flights to and from Heathrow and London City airports are exempt, as are police helicopters and certain other authorised aircraft.andAirspace can be closed anywhere in the UK at a moment's notice in response to a threat.Err, is it me or does this seem a bit ill-conceived ( much like the rest of the airline / airport security measures ) ?

I.e. How is one meant to tell a real police helicopter / aircraft from a fake one ? At any one moment in time, just how is Mr.Plod meant to know and address who is legitimately operating above the Capital from who is not ? Just how does one ‘close airspace’ ( other than with fighter aircraft ) ?

Imho, this is has about as much to do with counter-terrorism or ‘national security’ as does fox hunting and WMD's ( aka, Weapons of Mass Distraction ) !

[ATCO Two]

The information has been taken out of context. There are three new designated areas over Central London which are restricted up to 1400ft to helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. This will not have an appreciable effect on low level operations in the London and London City Control Zones, since ATC does not normally issue clearances in these areas below 1500ft anyway. There may be a minor effect on traffic spotters, but there should be little impact on the heliroutes. Since the airspace in question is Class A and Class D, pilots are required to contact SVFR or Thames Radar for an ATC clearance to enter. Therefore all traffic in the London area will be known to these agencies. Any unidentified traffic is tracked on radar, and appropriate action taken.

[ShyTorque]

ATCO 2:

<Any unidentified traffic is tracked on radar, and appropriate action taken.>

Which presumably means subsequent legal action against the pilot?

Not a lot of use if he has already crashed into a high-rise building or Buckingham Palace. This makes no sense to me and seems like a panic reaction by someone who doesn't understand the problem or has been told to "DO SOMETHING!" - so it has, for a nice tick in the box. :confused:

[birdbrain]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression (need to checkout my PPL books again...) that 1500ft. was the minimum legal alt. required over a built-up area, or large crowd/gathering anyhow, with 500 ft. elsewhere..... !:confused:

[Llademos]

Is this anything to do with the 'shock horror' story recently (and well covered in Pprune) about a reporter hiring a helicopter and going over London?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<How is one meant to tell a real police helicopter / aircraft from a fake one ? At any one moment in time, just how is Mr.Plod meant to know and address who is legitimately operating above the Capital from who is not ? Just how does one ‘close airspace’ ( other than with fighter aircraft ) ?>>

Strange comment from someone who cliaims to be an "airline pilot". As my buddy ATCO two has said, ATC has radar and knows who is there and who is not supposed to be there. Nothing moves over central London without some sort of ATC clearance. Areas within Controlled Airspace can easily be "closed" and it is fairly routine stuff around London for all sorts of reasons - security "incidents" and the Opening of Parliament to name but two. It's NOTAM'd and ATC prevent any aircraft from entering. That's why it would be extremely easy to spot an intruder. What happens thereafter would be up to the "authorities" but there is nobody in this world who can prevent another 9/11 over London - it just is not feasible, given the very short timescale in which such an incident could occur. Even if fighters could be scrambled in time (which I doubt) are they going to shoot down an aeroplane over central London?

As for Mr Plod.. Half the calls we used to get a Heathrow were from the police asking what a particular helicopter was doing over Buck House, or some similar high-profile place... you're right - the police helicopter.

[ATCO Two]

ShyTorque,

You ascribe too narrow a meaning to the words "appropriate action". Enough said. And believe me, the original airspace restriction proposals were far more draconian than those that will be implemented. Whatever our feelings about the reasoning behind the decisions, we must accept them and work with them.

[Juan Smore]

All the info is contained in AIC (Mauve 134) 91/2004 which is available on the ais website.

Three restricted areas are being established around Hyde Park, City of London and the Isle of Dogs the upper limit of which is 1400 ft AMSL. These areas do not affect helicopter traffic on route H4.

The conditions applicable to flight within the Restricted Areas are contained in AIC (Yellow 148) 87/2004, again available on the ais website.

Hope this helps.

[Devils Advocate]

Heathrow Director - I think you might have taken what I was referring to slightly out of context as, ( aside from questioning the nature of my employment ), you've proceeded to raise the very concerns that I too have about this.

I.e. the fact that you ( with your radar ) might indeed know who is supposed to be ( or not ) in various bits of the London TMA and / or associated airspace, but that knowing such will not prevent somebody with intent from commandeering ( legally or else wise ) an aeronautical conveyance ( small or large ) then careering about overhead the Capital city and / or spearing themselves into the any building of their choosing.

Veritably, the law abiding people will indeed obey the law and some people might indeed find themselves prosecuted by it; but it’s the other buggers, the really dangerous ones, who we need to protecting from and this new edict (imho) does not offer much more in the way of significant protection from what we’ve had previously, i.e. a 9/11 could still, relatively easily, occur in London – regardless of airspace restrictions & edicts from Whitehall.

[CaptainFillosan]

And since we all know that 1500ft is the ANO legal lower limit over a built up area. How, apparently recently, did an Islander do banner towing over London, at apparently, 1000ft? Isn't that a case to ponder? Isn't a potential 700kgs load a worry for Mr Plod or anyone with security worries? In my view this view from on high has no meaning or purpose.

I agree with DA in his wise words. Good points there sir.

Btw HD I can tell you that DA IS an airline pilot. Known him for years.

Oh and one more thing HD you quoted this:

It's NOTAM'd and ATC prevent any aircraft from entering. (London).

I have a great respect for you and your mates but you can't - can you. Not really. Not if somone is determined.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<I have a great respect for you and your mates but you can't - can you. Not really. Not if somone is determined.>>

No, ATC can't. I believe I made that point when I said nobody in this world can prevent a 9/11. However, under normal circumstances ATC can refuse clearance and 99.999% of pilots would accept that.

I didn't mean to doubt DA's bona fides... it's just that I've heard pilots ask such amazing questions that I misunderstood. No disrespect intended.

[sickBocks]

Birdbrain

with an SVFR clearance you can elbow the 1500' bit but not the glide clear.

sB

PS: The Lea Valley aint a legitimate place to land in a single in the event of an engine failure as per one of the GASILs from last year.

[CaptainFillosan]

HD, no need to worry. We know you, and where would we be without you. In my case 'would have been' without you. You know what I mean.