Banner towing over London

[Seloco]

There is currently (13:00Z) a single engined light aircraft (C150/180) towing a banner over the City of London, advertising EdF Energy. I was under the impression that there were humungous rules and regs around this, including a ban on single-engined aircraft over London. Can any one advise how this one has been allowed?

[yintsinmerite]

I was just thinking the same. He certainly could not glide away from a built up area in the event of engine failure

[delta96]

Could it glide as far as LCY?

[RVR800]

Yes (P)FL into London City, LHR no probs!:hmm:

[Seloco]

At the height he is at over the city, there is no way he could glide to LCY or LHR! London Hospital heliport - perhaps......

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Yes (P)FL into London City, LHR no probs!>>

Nice try!!

[yintsinmerite]

He was probably at something like 1000 feet and over Kings Cross so FL into City . . . . I think not

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Unless things have changed he shouldn't be below 1500 ft there, unless he has dispensation..

[Seloco]

Question for HD:

Do you know if there is a blanket ban on single-engined flight over the city? Presumably "specials" like Battle of Britain Flight get dispensation anyway, but banner towing??!!

[treadigraph]

Someone did the same thing last winter in a 172 over Croydon towing a very large banner - estimated height at times was well under 1000ft, probably 500ft or even lower - no way of gliding clear, and if the banner had been dropped on a major road...

[WHBM]

Presumably if an engine failure occurred he could put it in the Thames.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Do you know if there is a blanket ban on single-engined flight over the city? Presumably "specials" like Battle of Britain Flight get dispensation anyway, but banner towing??!!>>

One of my currently active colleagues will hopefully reply but I do not know the current situation. When I was operational there was no such restriction providing the pilot could obey the Rules of the Air. No flights by light aircraft were permitted below 1500 ft over Central London but plenty operated at 1500ft.

[sammypilot]

I seem to remember that there was a pronunciation from the CAA several years ago to the effect that they didn't regard open space in the London area such as parks etc as suitable force landing grounds.That effectively stopped single engine flight over London because it was not possible to comply with the Rules of the Air concerning flight over congested areas.

[PilotsPal]

Saw it over Fleet Street and Ludgate Circus at lunchtime and wondered if rules and regulations had suddenly changed.

[Little Friend]

I too saw the 180 just east of the junction of Oxford and Regent Street.

Have towed alot myself and tried to buy a business some time ago. The rules were you could tow over London/large city but had to use a twin-and meet all the usual regs in the event.........

As for hight( rule 5), not sure, but that was a big banner and having had engine problems towing before, you don't go far and dropping the banner invites all sorts of issues.

It was a long time ago for me, but I can't see that rules have been relaxed. Interested to know.

[redsnail]

Well, that Santa's stuffed then...

[sammypilot]

Nope - he's definitely 4 engined.

[skydriller]

That would be 4dp.....(deer power!!):p

[BEagle]

It is most definitely contrary to Rule 5 to operate a SEP aeroplane in the manner so described....

One hopes that certain people in Kingsway were looking out of the window!

[PPRuNe Pop]

As I said previously on another thread. I received dispensation to drop leaflets over London in 1978 for Hydrocephalus and Spina Bifida awareness. But that was in an Islander and for a much loved cause.

These days there is in fact a few firms offering these services and they appear to be legal. I would doubt people's assessments of heights though - whatever dispensations were given. Being too low to place the aircraft free of buildings on the ground would be most difficult. Almost impossible in fact. At 500' you would not have a chance! At a 1000' you are still pushing it. I would also say that Tower Bridge would normally be their zone limit. Certainly with one engine. I have looked at the ANO and it is not clear. Is an AOC required? What restrictions are there? Is a CPL required? What exemptions are available etc? All very interesting. The money they charge starts at about £233 per hour. You go up from there.

But a search of Google will give you more hits than you may thought possible. Have a look.

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. ;)

[Thirty06]

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.

[hobie]

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 :ugh:

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 :ok:

[Loose rivets]

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.:eek:

[BEagle]

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!

[Seloco]

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?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<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!

[Navajo8686]

It was a Cessna 172N (I put the N in for the pedantic amongst us) from Blackpool advertising Tower of London and some Power Company

Navajo8686

[Seloco]

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............

[ALEXA]

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*

[Navajo8686]

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

[BEagle]

<<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?

[Talkdownman]

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.

[Bright-Ling]

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

[Loose rivets]

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.

[Seloco]

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!)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

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.

[Seloco]

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!

[PPRuNe Pop]

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.

[AlanM]

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 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89566&highlight=city+transit)

[ThamesOperations]

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.:uhoh:

[Seloco]

Thanks ThamesOps for the clarifications.

From the various responses on this thread, and from information received separately from other Authorities, it does now seem apparent that Monday's banner flying stunt over central London should not have been allowed to happen. Even if the aircraft had been at the permissable height (ie 1500 feet above the height of any fixed object within 600m), and even if there had been a realistic ability to land clear in the event of engine failure (and it would be fascinating to know where the pilot in question believed that this might have taken place in central London!), there is still the vexed #5(i) question of just how the large banner would have landed clear of any congested area once released. And this is before considering all the additional post 9/11 constraints that have also been put in place in the capital's airspace.

HOWEVER, what seems to be far more interesting/worrying is that, in spite of the above, there would appear to be no defined mechanism in place to stop it happening, since ATC, as the only authority involved in the event in real time, do not have the responsibility to do so. SO, if not them, then who? It may not be such an innocent publicity stunt next time.......

By the way, dear PPrune moderators, I'm wondering whether there is not a more logical forum for this thread than Spectators Corner - assuming of course that people think that the debate is a reasonable one?

[BOAC]

Quite right, seloco. I guess because it started as many others with a 'spotter's hat' on, but it has now outgrown its hat!

I'll try the Airlines/routes forum. It MAY get moved again. 'Be prepared'.

[Vedeneyev]

saw the banner towing myself and was amazed - defintiely no more than 1000' over smithfields market (and yes i believe i can judge 1000'). looks like if the caa prosecute this chap it will turn into a test case of the P.1's 'land clear' judgement. surely he would have had to have been a foreigner with a loose grasp of the rules to pull such a stunt? even though a precedent has already been set, as has already been mentioned, i'm sure everyone will be very interested to see the outcome for their sunday aftrnoon jaunts with grandma etc!

couple of points - if he had SVFR clearance this would absolve him from the 1500' rule and the only applicable provisions of Rule5 would be 500' and land clear. also aren't there several no-fly zones over various strategic areas of central london where only police operators can regularly operate without exemption? (used to be notam'ed but can't find it any more.)

sure the controllers have no responsibility to advise him of the legality of his flight, but who else would warn the authorities about a potential threat such as this? he must have been there for over an hour and i never once saw a police helicopter in the vicinity....

[AlanM]

about a potential threat such as this

Why was it a potential threat? It had a non standard flight number, the pilot phoned beforehand and had RT contact!

several no-fly zones over various strategic areas of central london

Do you mean the new restricted areas EGR157/8/9? Started in October. Check the Mauve and Pinks. Up to 1400 feet and not needed as I think the aircraft was at 1500 feet.

[P.Pilcher]

Sorry - I don't see the arguement here - ATC issue a clearance and the pilot has to make the decision as to whether he can accept it in accordance with air law. The pilot of a motor glider who wants to gross central London may have a glide angle which enables him to glide clear and comply with rule 5 on an SVFR clearance not above 1500 feet. The pilot of a C152 will almost certainly not have such a glide angle and therefore will not be able to comply with rule 5 therefore he should refuse the clearance and try to renegociate one which will enable him to comply with said rule (SVFR not above 6000' via LAM maybe!?). Compliance with the rules of the air rests fully and IMHO correctly on the shoulders of the pilot in command. ATC merely does their best to facilitate any action that a pilot wants to take.

P.P.