London overflight restrictions

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[AlanM]

It shouldn't affect too much - how many fly less than 1400ft over the built up area anyway?? (apart from the Copper/HEMS etc)

[greenarrow]

Where this will hurt will be for the girls and boys inbound/outbound from Battersea on Direct tracks or via Brent in their twins. Also for those inbound/outbound on H4 having to hold for City when they are on Easterlies and the weather is marginal. All the Non Standard Flight clearences are also changing on the 20/10/04 (Whiskey numbers), so operators be prepared. Good to see there was consultation on this!.

[AlanM]

Why will it hurt the boys and girls coming in from Brent to Battersea - the clearance is LEVEL AT 1500 feet?

It will definitely affect the NSF operations - not sure how you plan 28 days in advance for a task which could be very late in coming.

[ATCO Two]

Hi greenarrow,

Direct track clearances are not given below 1500ft in CTR East, the restricted areas go up to 1400ft, so where is the problem? There may be slightly greater delays on H4 when City are on Easterlies and the weather conditions preclude VFR, but otherwise there will be limited impact.

[greenarrow]

Think about it, 1500ft no descent until almost in the Battersea overhead, No cruise climb to be level at 1500ft. It will be circle to climb in the overhead. Ali Paly inbounds and out bound will have to be aware of the restrictions sometimes asked by Thames and City not an easy task when the pressure is on. And no doubt our friends in the glass house will find ways of chasing a prosecution. :uhoh:

[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.

[AlanM]

Maybe I am showing my ignorance here, but BRENT-LW crosses just to the Western extremity of R157 - and according to my map from Mauve 134 - means you are clear of R157 with 1.5 miles to run to the LS.

Therefore, given the extra track mileage for a right/left base final (not massive I will concede) means that you have about 2miles to drop from 1401 feet to landing.

Is that unworkable?

Again, showing my ignorance, but can you not make 1401 feet after 1.5-2nm from take-off?

I am sure there is someone here who was around when the specified area came in to play. (apart from ATCO Two!) :) Interested to hear how that was dealt with. (when was it brought in??)

[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.

[headsethair]

This is more than bizarre. What exactly do they think they are achieving with this ? I can only assume that they think these moves will protect certain areas. So - let's all assume there's an infringment. Let's all assume that the ATC screens show a problem.

What then ?

If it's the bad boys, they will carry on unimpeded.

If it's the good guys, they will get prosecuted.

Hrrrrrrmmmph! Where the hell is the sense in all this "security" rubbish ?

Bit like travelling on commercial airlines. You go through all the checks, as a passenger, they ensure you're not carrying anything you shouldn't be. Then they allow you into the shopping mall on the otherside of security where you can buy explosive (perfume and other alcohol) and igniters (batteries) and a selection of "weapons" - and then get onboard with no checks.

Was at Zurich last weekend - there you can buy a Swiss Army knife just before boarding!

[AlanM]

HSH

I pretty much agree with your sentiments - but it IS here (or soon will be!) - so the question is not "is it worth it?" but "Is it workable?"

[headsethair]

AlanM: of course it's workable - because people like you have the ability to work closely with heli pilots and thread us through.
My point (and that of nearly everyone here) is that this is yet another cack-handed piece of legislation which does not achieve its aims.
And the cynic/realist in me says we are just a few steps away from total H4 closure.
Then what ? Ban all trucks bigger than vans ? Ban all people with strangely bulging overcoats ?
I'm getting a fed up with these idiotic non-solutions which appear to be the product of political rather than public service minds.
Like Brighton this week - a 3.5nm radius TRA up to 3500 ft. Controlled by the Sussex Police. So - along comes an aircraft at 3600 ft.......or 1000 ft. Doesn't matter - the TRA won't stop the situation.
Same applies with the new London Restricteds - 1400 ft. For what REAL reason ? Becuase it isn't security.

[Helinut]

I had a feeling this sort of garbage restriction was going to arrive eventually. As you might expect, given the lack of knowledge of those making the decisions, we have a set of restrictions that appears to be doing something, will inconvenience some law-abiding people, but will have no practical risk reducing effect. At the same time, other more serious threats of terrorist action continue without any restriction.

The people making these decisions do not understand the risks they are trying to control or the means by which they try to control them. Unfortunately, they also choose not to ask people who do know.

The helicopter industry is an easy target for such nonsense because it is a cottage industry with no clout.

The fact that the threat is tiny and the proposed precautions provide no real protection at all is simply ignored.

As one of the ATCers has said, the only thing is that it could have been much worse. The height limit at 1,400 ft and excluding traffic on H4 means that much "normal" traffic is not affected. The "special flights" will be very difficult to organise - why 28 days notice for goodness sake? The other aspect is that it will encourage those with 1,500 ft clearances to Battersea etc to maintain 1,500 ft when not able to remain VMC, but "they" were never worried about flight safety anyway......

It is exactly the same nonsensical "logic" that gives us the totally pointless and worthless restrictions for helicopters around some prisons. If they want to stop people being lifted from the exercise yards, string a load of wires across them. Otherwise forget it, cos this sort of adminstrative "restriction" will never stop the bad guys or allow any action to be taken in time.

The other aspect is that every time these stupid additional restrictions are imposed the terrorists are winning.

The trouble is we can see the nonsese that this is, and agree it is pointless, but no one will listen.

[mickjoebill]

Not good news for filming assignments. Are camera ships exempt:)

Will it be possible to "book" permission in advance as required, for say 3 days at a time? May give us half a chance to have a fair day.

How can we possibly know what the weather will be like 28 days in advance?



mickjoebill

[headsethair]

I hear now some sense has crept in. Apparently Capital Radio's Flying Eye didn't fancy filing individual applications for each day it operates, 28 days ahead!
And some of the twin heli operators have been asking for blanket exemptions. Seems there's some back-tracking going on amongst the desk flyers.

[ThamesOperations]

Here's the "story" from the Desk-Flyers.

The Secretary of State deemed it necessary to have some form of control over low flying aircraft over the seat of government etc.

Historically, Thames where constantly being pestered by security organisations over the identity and task of helicopters flying around London.

So, in order to provide a "Known traffic environment", the restricted areas were established. The security services would then have a mechanism whereby they would already expect said flight before it happens - therefore reducing the "trigger happy" response to a potential threat.

Originally the restricted areas covered the majority of London, but were cut down to manageble sizes. Also, they started off with a vertical limit of some 3000ft! That too was chopped down to reflect general traffic operations. Those responsible for the introduction of these areas carried out a full consultation with NATS on how best to manage this requirement. Many meetings were held between parties to identify a logical way forward.

Operators were fully briefed on the requirements within these restricted areas. They were also made aware, at the outset, that blanket exemptions were available. CAPITAL, LNX, etc etc have all applied for said blanket exemptions (these are renewed yearly). All the operators have to do is make 2 phonecalls (instead of 1) to inform the security services and ATC of their request. Job done.

No backtracking, no changes of mind. Simply a pragmatic approach to instigating the requirements as set out by the Secretary of State.

Although nothing can stop an unauthorised penetration of these areas, we now have mechanism to allow those on the ground with the "hardware" to identify "Friend or Foe". Action can then be taken immediately on any percieved threat.:ok:

[Helinut]

TO,

Thanks for your explanation of things from a desk. I don't think it was your desk that was being criticised. It is clear that ATC and those that represent ATC have done a great job, on behalf of aviators and helicopters in particular, in negotiating a system that is workable (for most cases). I think we appreciate that and are grateful.

I believe the weakness in the overall argument lies in your last sentence: How long does it take a helicopter to descend from 1,400 ft to ground level - less than 1 minute? How much response is there going to be in that 1 minute? None.

It may make someone feel good with the illusion that they are doing something, but the real risk reduction is effectively zero.[But then the risk from a light helicopter is pretty trivial anyway].

Can I take this opportunity to thank you and all your ATC colleagues for all their hard work in helping us to get to our destinations safely :ok:
Merry Christmas (unless you are working?! :rolleyes: :sad: ) and
a Happy New Year

[AlanM]

unless you are working?!

only if there is an AAVA (overtime!) in the offering..... :)