Single Engine into London City

[nouseforaname]

I'm working quite near london city airport at the moment and wondered if under any circumstances can a Single Engine be it turbine or piston, land in city?

thanks,

[niknak]

No.

Single engined and VTOL aircraft, helicopters (expcept HEMS, police and SAR), and any flying club activity are not permitted.
It's part of the planning consent for day to day operations.

Captains of aircraft must have a CPL or ATPL and must have completed a course of training which includes at least 3 approaches into the airport using the 5.5 degree glidepath.

Basically they don't want you, largely for environmental reasons - one of which is the local, heavily populated, environment would suffer if your engine stopped on climb out or on the approach, but also it's as busy as hell on the ground with very limited space.

If that's not enough, the landing and handling charges, even outside peak times, would pay for one Ken's Congestion Charge Season tickets for a year or so.

www.lcacc.org

[AlanM]

No when it is open and a licensed field.

However, back in July we went there in a PA28....

http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/image/46277895.jpg

More pictures here (http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/lcy_funday_2005)

[SATCO Biggin]

No when it is open and a licensed field.


...and then only if you know the right people to talk to or have a funny handshake!

:}

[unfazed]

So why can't singles fly into London City ?

Safety??

Oh but don't worry about that if we have a fly in ???

Consistency ?????

[robin]

Nice to see they'd let the Tiger Club Turbs in. But I suppose they are fully airways-equipped Turbs with backup engines.

[Vino Collapso]

...and do they need lots of those lovely 'Exemptions' from the ANO that get handed out at times like this. Is an exemption from Rule 5 needed, other than that normaly required for display flying. Is an exemption from Aerobatics over a Congested Area required?

But of course...if they fly up and down the river then they are not over a congested area...or is it that the river is also considered a congested area?:(

Ah the taste of double standards. :*

I can imagine the exchange of E mails....

"Excuse me Mr CAA but I would like to fly my aeroplane up the River Thames, inverted at 300 feet."

answer..

"No"

[ginjockey]

I see there's a bloke in a glider in those pictures.......... what's the regs on flying no - engine into London city? Noise pollution can't be a problem...........

[Send Clowns]

Unfazed

It is a case of local support / opposition. Flying singles in and out increases opposition, by making people feel vulnerable; remember that many non-pilots think aircraft pretty much fall out of the sky if the engine fails! A fun day increases local support. That's the balance here - we in aviation all know that flying a single in the heli lanes is no less safe than flying one over the sea, as the Thames is always within reach.

[AlanM]

Loads of singles call me for transit up and down the Lea Valley and over LCY itself ALL day.

Therefore, why should flying in on runway 28 be such an issue in a single...? You approach from the QE2 bridge and it is never far from the wet stuff.

There are more comments from people on here about this than the consistent transit at 1500 feet. (YES PEOPLE DO THAT!!) :)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

So how do you wangle an invite to the fly-in, open day, or whatever? A nice red Chippy like ours would be a real enhancement to any such day. :ok:

SSD

[Vino Collapso]

Therefore, why should flying in on runway 28 be such an issue in a single...? You approach from the QE2 bridge and it is never far from the wet stuff.

Lots of discussion about Rule 5 and such on this and other forums over the years, with no definitive answer as to whether routing via the Lea Valley is kosher or not. I guess it is ok until you end up in someones back garden when suddenly the courts will decide it is not.

I wonder what would happen if Pilatus attempted to gain access to City using the PC12? It fits in the same business class as the Citations etc that are allowed in.

[AlanM]

I wonder, but you have to remember that banning singles is part of the airports operating licence.

The airfield was unlicenced for the afternoon, for 5 hours of the year only.

So Pilatus would probably be told no.

(Still, being a single has never stopped 9 shiny red hawks from pootling along at high speed and low level over London!)

And for the record, I wouldn't fly down the Lea Valley at 1500 ft as some do. I am not that brave.

[Vino Collapso]

Once upon a time when I was young and gulible I flew an old Rallye from Biggin Hill to Elstree in a straight line, with Heathrows permit to enter the zone SVFR of course. Not above 1500 SVFR I think was the clearance.

On reaching Elstree I vowed never again. Shortly after that there was a lot of paper issued by the CAA advising that such flights were alleged to breach Rule 5 and the habit was dropped by most pilots.

But the basic discussion continues. If Citys decision to not approve singles is based on commercial reasons then fair enough, but if it based upon safety issues then, aerodrome licenced or not, those safety issues continue to be relevant.

Not that I have an axe to grind here, I have no desire to fly into City.

[Fried_Chicken]

I think Cessna (Ce208), Pilatus (Pc12) & Socata (TBM700) have all expressed interest into gaining certification for LCY but all have been told no!

FC

[nouseforaname]

I was at work today and saw a TB20 or something (def. a single anyway) fly right over the dome which is <1m from the threshold of the easterly runway.

And this made me think that it would be nice to fly over london but if you only get 'not above 1500' clearance then your a bit screwed if the fan stops!

[unfazed]

If Citys decision to not approve singles is based on commercial reasons then fair enough,

Sorry ? Run that one by me again? Why should it be fair enough to ban singles for purely commercial reasons?

[AlanM]

nice to fly over london but if you only get 'not above 1500' clearance then your a bit screwed if the fan stops!

But people do that constantly! (EVEN when cleared not above 2400 ft people are seen on CAVOK days at lower levels)

[Vino Collapso]

If Citys decision to not approve singles is based on commercial reasons then fair enough,

Sorry ? Run that one by me again? Why should it be fair enough to ban singles for purely commercial reasons?

Straight out of the book of business. Limited runway and stand capacity means you make as much as you can out of the flights you get. Lots of pax means lots of passenger tax, bigger aircraft mean bigger landing fees, fuel uplifts etc.

Running an airport is not a hobby.

[unfazed]

Vino Collapso - Flying is a mode of transport no different to any other. It should be accessible to all regardless of the size of their wallets. If we take your business principles to the extremes then we would not have viable general aviation and airports would be run by greedy monopolised self interested business people who focus on the bottom line and lining their own pockets to the detriment of others ......Then again?

this is the situation we have and which you quite rightly describe. I would like to point out that it doesn't have to be that way and just because we are in that situation doesn't mean that there aren't better ways to achieve a more diverse, balanced and thriving situation.

Back to the thread.....safety is safety and should not change just because you have a fly in. I can understand the PR benefits of inviting the local community to share in the fun of aviation but I can't help feeling that if it's only for air show days then the self serving business interests are just using GA as a convenient PR tool when it suits them. The fact that you can faff around with the status (licensed or not) to justify your aims is ludicrous....why not make the airfield unlicensed on Sunday evenings? Answer - because it would loose money for somebody who wants to maximise profit ! No wonder local residents need to be won over....perhaps they can see the greed and double standards clearly.

Suggested new role for airports - provide good transport services for every part of your local community, in fact why can't local residents learn to fly at City airport ? That would be a more honest PR exercise.

[TheOddOne]

why can't local residents learn to fly at City airport

'cos they can go just up the road to Stapleford where there's already an excellent training organisation and an aerodrome suited to that activity.

LCY was specifically built for a particular type of activity and it seems irrational to expect it to offer services that it was never designed for, on a regular basis.

It's a bit like asking Waterloo station to accommodate people running old steam locos for their own amusement. There are plenty of preserved tracks and steam locos around the country for that sort of activity - I'm a supporter of one such group myself. I don't expect them to disrupt regular paying commuter traffic, however. Occasionally, at a weekend, steam specials are allowed to operate on the main lines - not interfering with regular traffic and complying with current safety rules, which are a lot different from when steam was the norm!

The Odd One

[AlanM]

It's a bit like asking Waterloo station to accommodate people running old steam locos for their own amusement.

For me the best quote on here for years!!!! :)

[Vino Collapso]

For me the best quote on here for years!!!!

Seconded ! Motion passed for more quotes involving steam loco's.

....but back to the discussion...I am a long time participant in GA and would like to see it thrive but I am concerned that it is not going to if we think we have some kind of right to do whatever we want and not be excluded from anywhere. I am not allowed to drive in bus lanes or park on double yellow lines but I am not going to bang my civil rights drum about it.

Aerodrome licences come in two flavours, Public Use and Ordinary. If you have an Ordinary licence you can exclude just about anyone you want to, use of the aerodrome is subject to the licence holders agreement. Public Use aerodromes are supposed to be open to all and the only way to remove any unwanted sector is to either price it out or require it to apply for a runway slot which it will never get. So you can fly your Cessna 150 into Heathrow but it will cost you an arm and a leg, and be at a completely unsociable hour of the day.

Now what type of Licence does city have?

[unfazed]

I]It's a bit like asking Waterloo station to accommodate people running old steam locos for their own amusement.[/I]


Oddone - Great Quote ! But I do not agree with your analogy because single engined aircraft are not all obselete and oldfashioned (check out Cirrus, Cessna Caravan, Pilatus blah blah blah.......), also they can be flown by professionals not volunteers !

If you have never known any other way of doing things then I guess you think that our overregulated and monopolised system is the bees knees !

Check out how other countries combine GA and Commercial traffic in a safe and sensible way - Oh and they make money !

So does anyone know what type of license London City have ? let me guess , could it be a privately owned airport just as Canary Wharf is privately owned ? So much for local people calling the shots !

If we all just sit back and accept that we cannot fly in certain areas then those areas will spread and spread and spread - pretty soon you will find that you are not welcome when you call Birmingham, Luton or Stanstead for a FIS and zone transit.....Oh sorry I forgot...that is already the case....

[Vino Collapso]

.....Oh sorry I forgot...that is already the case....

We are starting to wander a bit off topic here but still......

Yes it is already the case and lets not forget even the more open minded Americans are also capable of throwing up restricted areas when the need arises. Lets not beat ourselves senseless trying to achieve access to places we are not allowed. We should be campaigning to reduce the other forms of regulation on GA if we are to keep our costs down and make it attractive to the public. A typical example being the removal of the restriction that flying training must be carried out on a licensed aerodrome, to name but one.

[unfazed]

Lets not beat ourselves senseless trying to achieve access to places we are not allowed.

Sorry but going back to the point made earlier ...it is obvious that if GA aircraft can be accomodated at City and safety considerations can be overcome for an annual fly in. I suggest that the same could be true for other quiet times not just fly in days once a year.

I do not wish to fly from a monopolised training centre of excellence near Lambourne beacon (I happen to think that competition is good for consumers).

I agree that it would be sensible to get rid of unnecessary red tape such as the licensed airfield money spinner for ab initio training.

"I'm obviously steaming and a rolling on this one" but if all else fails I will just volunteer for a steam railway somewhere away from the commercial areas to let off some steam ! (joke)

[AlanM]

It is not an annual fly in, it is the London City Airport Fun Day (or Newham Village Fete on the Apron)

Don't forget that the current ownership of LCY bought it cheap when it was doing terribly, and have turned it into a booming little operation.

Therefore, I think Mr Desmond and his team have the right to decide who comes in and who doesn't!!

[Wrong Stuff]

Yes it is already the case and lets not forget even the more open minded Americans are also capable of throwing up restricted areas when the need arises. Lets not beat ourselves senseless trying to achieve access to places we are not allowed.Yes, but with very few exceptions these generally apply to all aircraft or entire classes of operations - they don't just randomly exclude GA. The US is a huge area with some incredibly busy airports. Is there even a single one which arbirarily excludes either GA or singles?

[Fuji Abound]

Surely part of the issue here is that GA SHOULD make a commercial case to the operators, because I think we all accept airports cannot exist to supply their services for free.

There would seem to be agreement that Rule 5 is not an issue if the approach is from the QE2.

From my experience of passing by I cannot imagine that the traffic flow into LCY is ever high enough to cause slotting in GA traffic a problem - so that would also not seem to be a problem.

An issue maybe that London City (rightly or wrongly) feels GA isn’t worth the hassle.

Now, I don’t know the layout, but is there room to have say half a dozen or a dozen light aircraft parked up for the day? Probably there is room. I guess there are more than a few pilots who would pay £50 to land and £10 an hour to park, after all LCY would be very convenient, - half a million pounds in extra income at 100% occupancy! Whilst that level of occupancy is clearly not achievable there is a case for a good level of additional income at very little cost to the airport.

In short GA is worth the hassle - come on guys give it a try?

[AlanM]

From the London City Airport CC website:

ALL aircraft using the Airport must be of an approved type. To qualify for approval an aircraft must fit into one of the Airport's Noise Categories and be capable of making an approach at 5.5 degrees or steeper (this compares with 3 degrees at most other airports). Helicopters and other vertical take off and landing (VTOL) aircraft, and aircraft with a single engine, are prohibited and flying for club or leisure purposes is not permitted. Type approval is given by the Airport's Operations and Control Department, telephone: +44 (0)20 7646 0241, fax: +44 (0)20 7511 0248, e-mail: [email protected]

All pilots must hold a Commercial or Air Transport Pilots Licence and have completed at least three approaches at 5.5 degrees or steeper


See Here for more (http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/index.html)

and for conditions of use of the aiport click here (http://www.lcacc.org/fees/conditions04.pdf) to open a pdf.

[Fuji Abound]

AlanM - and your point is:confused:

The question was - can I fly a single into LCY - you have answered the question as the rules stand (again) - end of thread - but the debate moves on.

If you are in a position to do so you can legislate against anything but you can also change the rules - that is the debate.

I say there may be a commercial case for LCY to welcome GA. Others say LCY may have an obligation to welcome GA - after all I dont think there is a single airport in the States which refuses GA.
Why is this? Have we something to learn form our friends over the Pond or have they simply got it wrong?

[AlanM]

My point is why should they spend their time trying to convince the CAA just to make a small return. LCY is an increasingly busy airport that is limited to movements.

If they are to spend any time buttering up the CAA and local community it is to get longer hours, bigger aircraft and more real estate.

Your argument is very weak when Biggin, Stapleford and Elstree are all within 12nm!

Finally, how would you propose to land a single IFR aircraft on 10?

In the past couple of years the CAA have banned Visuals to 10 and visual manouevring at LCY.

Why is UK aviation constantly compared to the USA anyway.

Enough points there for you??

[Fuji Abound]

AlanM

“My point is why should they spend their time trying to convince the CAA just to make a small return. LCY is an increasingly busy airport that is limited to movements.”

.. .. .. but that is not what you said.


“Enough points there for you??”

.. .. .. none for me, because I simply suggested there might be a commercial argument in LCY’s favour for accepting GA.


Seriously, glad you are in the debate, and we like a good debate.

So far as the points you now raise,

LCY is limited to movements? You may well know better. Who is it limited by, what are the limits, do the limits apply to GA?

Of course there are other airports in the vicinity. There are other airports in the vicinity of most other airports! That doesn’t stop people wanting to get closer to their destination. That doesn’t stop people wanting to go some where different.
Have you ever tried getting into the City from any of the other airports? I have on many occasions.

The CAA has banned visuals to 10. Good for them. I wonder why? What good reason is there for a GA aircraft not landing on 10 visually?

Why is UK GA constantly compared to the USA?


1. The US has a thriving GA community. It creates lots of jobs, exports for the country, enables people to get around efficiently and generally enjoy their hobby if that is all it is. On this forum people support GA and would also like it to thrive in the UK.
2. In the US this all happens without too many bureaucratic restrictions at airports that are far busier than any we have here.

An analogy. In the UK the general public has significant land access rights, in the US hardly any. Go to most beaches around New York and you have to pay to go on the beach! The Americans believe we have a wonderful system and so do we. In the same way there are many of us who think the way they run GA is better than our way.

Finally, to return to my point, £200K at little additional cost is always welcome, if I am correct – I might not be.

[AlanM]

Fuji,

You need to differentiate between GA and light singles. That was why I posted my former post given you the terms of conditions for operating into LCY. It is a condition that no singles come into LCY.

Senecas/Partenavia's/Beech/Navajos aircraft are cleared to come into LCY. Aircraft operator's/maunfacturer's do come into LCY with the CAA to trial aircraft and certify them. However, a friend wanted to bring his Challenger CL604 Bizjet into LCY for his boss but can't as it is not certified.

I think it is all about obstacle clearance, engine-out performance etc.

Anyway - the issue of the Open Day is different, as it is approved for 4 hours only to be unlicensed. (Approved by the CAA)

Maybe you should email the ops department and ask if you can come in - and use your gusto at them.

[niknak]

How long does it take to get to London's key financial and trading businesses after landing at London City? - minutes is the answer.
How long after landing at Biggin Hill, Elstree and the like? - ages is the answer.

The average income of each sheduled passenger using London City is in excess of £100K per year.

How much is your time really worth?

The average user of those chartering aircraft to fly in and out of London City is far in excess of the vast majority of us, (in fact it is around £2K per hour).
That gives you some perspective as to the real reason that London City airport does not need, or want G/A in any shape or form.


So bitch and procrasternate as much as you want, but get take a reallity check.

[Fuji Abound]

"The average income of each sheduled passenger using London City is in excess of £100K per year, - take a reallity check."

I thought it would be helpful to miss out the irrelevant bit in the middle. :p

For the avoidance of doubt I dont support GA having access to LCY per say - but I do agree with others who say if LCY has the capacity consider using it. If they dont have the capacity then dont.

However, whilst LCY may be a special case watch it isnt also the short end of the wedge. I well rememeber when another major provincial airport almost excluded GA by their pricing policy. When the commercial sector slowed down they were the first to realise their mistake. Prices were rapidly reduced to their former level, but it took some while for people to come back. Eventually they did and the price has remained reasonable ever since.

[Fried_Chicken]

Now, I don’t know the layout, but is there room to have say half a dozen or a dozen light aircraft parked up for the day? Probably there is room

No, flew in there the other day & there were around 11 bizjets/props parked on the GA apron, not much room to swing a cat.

Fried Chicken

[morning mungrel]

If they will let "Senecas/Navajo's/Partenavias" in and not a CL604, then it most definately isn't about obstacle clearance or engine out performance.

[AlanM]

MM - I gues you are right.

Maybe it is something to do with the 5.5 degree GP.

Or maybe the lack of runway length meaning they can't carry much fuel making it a bit less attractive for a bizjet that goes long distances.

More likely though, no-one (operator's or aerodrome authority) have invested the time and money to get it certified.

[unfazed]

Alan M - I am with Fuji abound on this one as you don't seem to want to acknowledge the points that he has made, defensive ?

I take it from your earlier comment about Mr whatshisname decising what happens that City is indeed privately owned (what a surprise- not !) - It's pointless just posting the rules because rules are man made and can be changed (where there is a will there is a way)

Not enough space ? - Get real - the docklands of London are massive and the Royal docks are developing on a massive scale (I am sure that if there was a will then space for a reasonable apron could be found ) - they found enough money and space to extend the railway for goodness sake.

As for average passenger incomes I can tell you that I have flown from City and so have my friends and family but we definitely didn't turn up in chauffered limo's (mores the pity !)

Without wishing to attract all those Yank bashers I personally think that a visit to a large commercial US airport would be a bl&*dy eye opener for most UK airport officials (but then they know that anyway - why change if you don't have to?)

Most of our GA fields are run by well established monopolies and CAA pricing schemes are able to bleed you dry in a very fast and efficient manner ! Just ask any student pilot what they think of the bill at the end of the lesson and in some cases the lack of customer satisfaction at the rude and downright arrogant attitude of the training provider.

Competition is good ! Come on London City why don't you read this thread and set an example to others !

Alan M - You could help to make it happen if you wanted to !

[AlanM]

For one, I have absolutely no ability to make it happen. In case you haven't realised yet, I work as an ATCO. I don't own the airport - just a contractor to them. AS for being defensive? Frankly I get paid the same and go home at shift end irrespective of whether or not a single lands at LCY. I offered you a reasoned explanantion of why it is unlikely to happen.

The whole topic on this thread is about singles into LCY; how do you propose you will land on 10 and comply with the ANO? The CAA will no longer allow ANY aircraft making a visual on 10. Do you want to be vectored at 1800 over cental London in your single?

A bit of history for you: There used to be visuals on 10, visual manoeuvring etc but that has been banned for a number of reasons - noise/post 9/11 concerns etc. Even when visuals were allowed on 10 (and they are still on 28) they were not allowed to join the final apporach inside 5nm because of noise abatement.

The single engined ruling is part of the operating license of the airfield. Have you any idea how hard that is to change? It has taken the consultation process 5 years to try and extend the zone by 1.5nm. The local authorities have a say in what happens at LCY and do you think they will be happy with it? There is already an edict saying we should avoid holding ANY light aircraft in the zone because of the constant noise complaints. Fixed wing singles are now banned by the CAA if on an non-standard flight (banner towing/photography etc) west of LCY.

I gave you the rules so you could form an argument and the email for ops at LCY so you could do something about it. If you think that a rant on here will change the world then carry on - but I think we all know you would be better off using your energy to bully the CAA and the airport itself.

[Fuji Abound]

AlanM - I think you have misunderstood the issue.

The debate on the thread has evolved into a discussion about whether there are any sustainable reasons why singles should not land at LCY. For example there are some who would say the need to make an instrument approach is not sustainable on safety grounds.

You are almost certainly correct that the likelihood of the rules changing is almost nil whatever the comment made here or for that matter were we to follow your other suggestions. I suspect we are all worldly wise enough to have reached that conclusion.

However I also think the point made by unfazed is the key one. There is always the danger that we as the GA community will accept the ever increasing burden of bureaucracy on us until GA ceases to exist. There is a real moral when the regulators tell us “you cant do that” in the simple response “well they do it in the States, they have done it for years, and their safety record supports the way they do it”.

Take one example. Over the years it has become more and more difficult for the private pilot in Europe to gain an instrument rating. (IR as opposed to am IMC). We are told there is an adequate system in place to enable you to gain and IR and the degree and level of complexity of that system is required if the grant of the rating is to be safe. The problem is the American model disproves the argument. There are those that would argue there is a rather different reason which is that the authorities and or the airlines don’t want the added burden of GA in class A airspace. Fortunately because of the comment and work within the GA fraternity there is some possibility this might change. It would however have been all too easy to accept the position, as it would be to allow more airspace to be re-categorised as class A or class D etc. as it would to accept more airport operators pricing GA out of their fields or effectively preventing them on the basis of dubious safety grounds.

Finally I am not saying LCY may not be a genuine exception but it is interesting hearing the reasons why it may be a genuine exception form those that know rather than “you are not earning enough to land there” or the rules prevent it so there!

[unfazed]

Fuji abound - well summarised !

Alan - M - Nothing personal intended, as an ATCO you are ideally placed to influence and win over key people. I know it probably won't make a difference but that shouldn't mean that we lie down and accept the status quo. If enough people thought it was OK then it could happen. We need to start with those who are well informed as to what is safe and what isn't.

You could make a difference (but only if you wanted to !)

Will call you up for a transit not below 1500' sometime soon !

[LowNSlow]

As a privately owned airfield I think it's a case of "it's my airport and I don't want singles and helicopters to land there". It doesn't seem to be a case of beaurocracy spreading just somebody exercising their right to chose who use their facility.

[AlanM]

Aaaaghhhh!!

I am NOT influential - and in case you didn't know we don't even work at LCY - so who can we influence?

As said, if the owners said No Singles (and no helicopters as LNS says) then so be it. This has nothing to do with the state.

Let's face it, if it was purely about money then the Helicopter World would be fighting for access.

And you can transit at what ever level you feel approriate - but only yesterday I had someone within a mile of Canada Square at 1200feet on a transit (and they insisited that towards Alexandra Palace was acceptable)

Events like that are unlikely to impress the CAA/SRG when they see the paperwork.

Have fun.

[unfazed]

Double Aaaargh !! with bells on

Ever heard of a dangerous attitude called "resignation"

If somebody says I own that toy and you can't play with it then OK (selfish sod but OK), when it comes to City centre airports in the major Metropolis then I think that different rules apply.

And what you percieve to be dangerous today may be perceived as run of the mill tomorrow otherwise we would all be walking in front of our cars with a red flag

OK I have banged on enough so I will say cheerio !

[nouseforaname]

when i was out in California doing some flying i went to pick up a mate who had just flown into LAX.

I landed at a place called Hawthorne which is less than 2miles from LAX airport. Why is it that the americans can organise all this kind of stuff and we can't.

It just amazes me it really does. Even our ATC over here, i tried to get an airways join the other day at 7am in the morning and all i get told by London info is London south director "doesn't want to work you".

having said that though when they do want to work you they are 1st class....it's just accomodating light GA they don't seem very good at

[Fuji Abound]

Strange - I thought we taxpayers partly paid for the controller that didnt want to work you .. .. ..

[niknak]

7 am is one of the busiest times of day at the London airports and the area ATC centres, take advantage of the tours of LATCC & Swanick that are ocassionally posted on these good pages, or even better organise one yourself, you may just come away with some idea of what goes on at the other end of the microphone.

[Fuji Abound]

niknak - I understand the pressures to which you refer but equally how does the London controller decide who he does and doesnt want to work?

[rodan]

Unfazed:
Not enough space ? - Get real - the docklands of London are massive and the Royal docks are developing on a massive scale (I am sure that if there was a will then space for a reasonable apron could be found )

Well, you seem to have the will. Here is an aerial photo of City's apron area. Please tell us where you would put your GA apron.

http://www.piczs.com/is.php?i=12666&img=cityapron.jpg

[unfazed]

Nik Nak - Get some more bums on seats if required and improve efficiency of processes (busy to a UK airfield is a lot different to busy at others worldwide)

As for lack of space and aerial pictures
1 - Get a wider perspective on the ground options
2 - ever heard of taxiway bridges that can go over docks for example? If you can build luxury flats you can build a tarmac parking area (especially as you guy's think that everyone who disembarks is carrying wads of money).

[SATCO Biggin]

We are talking of two different systems and two different regulators overseeing how the industry performs in their part of the world.

I can understand the cries of 'why can't we be like the Americans' but the straight fact is we are not, and whats more we are heading deeper into this Eurpoean morass of red tape and stupid Euro-requirements.

In the meantime no you cannot operate your single into City for whatever reason.

:uhoh:

Oh and Unfazed....the reason we are losing aerodromes in this country is that the land is more valuable for other uses, not for building aprons on......but thats down to government and industry to change.

[Fuji Abound]

Looking at the picture I was a bit confused where all the aircraft were - was the airfield disused at the time or are they camouflaged?

[unfazed]

SATCO BIGGIN

I can understand the cries of 'why can't we be like the Americans' but the straight fact is we are not, and whats more we are heading deeper into this Eurpoean morass of red tape and stupid Euro-requirements.

Assumption made ? Yes the Yanks have a damned good system but so do many other countries in Europe, France, Germany and others.....UK is definitely not a shining light for GA !

Fuji abound is quite right - look at the picture that was posted and ask where everyone is ?

We are talking about a world capital city, the docks in London accomodated massive liners and ships from all over the world - what do you mean there isn't enough space???

Small aprons are great for elite type operations - and yes I know it's up to Govt AND Industry to play their part but you and I are part of the Industry bit ! and if you can't be ars$d to try and change things then we may as well all sit her typing keyboards all day rather than provide a service to the guy who asked for a FIS.

Anyway - since when did Biggin start dictating what happens at City ?

You guy\'s are in for a shock when 2012 comes around !

[SATCO Biggin]

You guy's are in for a shock when 2012 comes around !

I have no intention of taking part in the Olympics, I am a well known couch potato.

Anyway - since when did Biggin start dictating what happens at City ?

We do not. I was just re-iterating the theme of this thread. But since you come to mention it when did Unfazed start dictating what should happen at City?

and yes I know it's up to Govt AND Industry to play their part but you and I are part of the Industry bit ! and if you can't be ars$d to try and change things then we may as well all sit her typing keyboards all day rather than provide a service to the guy who asked for a FIS.

I have been a supporter and participater in GA for more decades than I care to think about. But one thing older age has brought me is realism. Fight the fights you can win, changing the attitudes of property developers is not one of those.

[unfazed]

satco Biggin

Fair point - I am not trying to dictate what City do and yes I am realistic as well (not expecting to see singles flying into City in this millenium unfortunately)

What I am trying to do is change "attitudes" and "perceptions" and one of the hardest to change would appear to be RESIGNATION and APATHY

Unfortunately this seems to prevail throughout the general aviation community.
City airport started off as somebody's idea in their head, luckily they didn't look at their dream and say "good idea but I can't possibly make it happen"

Change your mind and the rest is easy !

[Fried_Chicken]

Fuji abound is quite right - look at the picture that was posted and ask where everyone is ?

Presumably the pic' was taken on a Saturday afternoon/Sunday Morning when LCY is closed?

Or maybe the lack of runway length meaning they can't carry much fuel making it a bit less attractive for a bizjet that goes long distances.

As for the CL604, they did try the Gulfstream 4 a couple years back but found that due to LCYs runway, it could only depart with a limited payload thus limited the distance it could go, not ideal with a bizjet capable of transatlantic flights.

FC

[atb1943]

This won't help the present debate, but a bit of LCY-related history anyway...

I can well remember the fights I had with various groups in the office about issuing instrument approach charts for LCY. The arguments I got were that the original one or two operators certificated for LCY were not customers, so no need for charts. I kept chipping away and, with the help of requests from various manufacturers involved in trials, eventually won the day. But you still won't find a Bottlang chart for LCY, because LCY has asked not to.

Personally, I think LCY could be made to work for GA, and I don't mean merely UK GA. Look at the hundreds of European GA owners of sophisticated singles who have business interests that require their presence in the city. They would accept high user fees in exchange for the flexibility private aircraft ownership offers. I had to use LHR recently and was appalled to say the least, what with the traffic, and the need to check in the day before almost for security reasons.

And I don't think LCY need expand the apron either. They could commission a load of barges with tie-down points, moored so that you just taxi on, and steam off down the river to the strains of 'sailin dahn the RIVER, on a Sundy arterNOOOON'.

Bet they have it in place for 2012, so I'm off to the patents office....

Carmen.....Toothy Gordon....moored!

(with profuse apols to Denis N et al)


Oh, and AlanM....good name, good location (bet yer lives in Fleet!)

cheers

atb

[unfazed]

atb 1947

Welcome to the debate, what a creative and refreshingly straightforward fellow you are. Your knowledge and ideas are simple and easily implemented......drat that could be their downfall (joke)

Sounds like you have experience of City and the views that prevail.

[arcwi]

What a lovely debate you guys have here, may I join you?

I think that the problem here is not that the airport management decide the rules - you will all agree that it is a commercial operation and the management must do whatever is most appropriate for the commercial success of the airport.

Said, that I think that the management have gone just too far in pushing the rule of law.

What I mean is that they discriminate, which is in principle illegal.

(1) They discriminate PPL from CPL/ATPL, by implying that the latter license reflects better skills.

By definition, ME SP PPL/IR is much, much better qualified pilot and always allowed to fly in most complex conditions - something a CPL/ATPL will never be allowed to do - have you ever heard of SE flights conducted by an ATPL?

(2) They discriminate one form of transportation from another - SE aircraft from ME aircraft, by implying that the number of engines reflects the risk these aircraft impose on safety of flight.

Here someone might be tempted to assume a side, before doing that, stop and think - is not this unfounded discrimination and should not this be a case of until proven that SE aircraft poses higher risk, they do not have a right to ban such flights.

If they were clever, they would impose conditions that are impossible to be met by a SE aircraft - like the one on transatlantic flights - 4 hrs reserve - that forces everyone to fly with a ferry tank and no passengers.

But they are not - so they open themselves for a nice case...If there was just someone to take them on...

[unfazed]

Que ? Is it me ! Can anyone understand the previous post ?

[Piltdown Man]

It's not sensible to operate a single from LCY. Here's why. Take off from Rwy 28 and you are immediately in contravention of the low flying rules. There is nowhere to go! Rwy 10 gives you the Thames or the Thames. It is also too busy - you will have to wait for ages for your go! It is also too expensive - £750 per landing I believe. And how do you legally fly there, over a congested area? And where do you park? At many times of the day it is chock-a-block. LCY is not a place for singles!

[IO540]

Take off from Rwy 28 and you are immediately in contravention of the low flying rules

It is the case at many, many, many airports in the UK and elsewhere that an engine failure after takeoff would land you in a house - if it happened in the few brief seconds. Same for landings for that matter.

If your steering fails on the motorway, or you get a major tyre failure, same thing and probably much bigger carnage, but for some reason people accept that and are willing to run the risk for hours on end, continuously, perhaps hundreds of hours a year.

The other day I went to an airport in France, where the entire specified circuit gives you no options whatsoever; well... either houses or large trees.

It's not illegal - low flying rules don't apply to takeoffs or landings, for obvious reasons :O

The alternative is a twin, but you pay a helluva premium (hauling a whole second engine around en-route, twice as many bits to go wrong) for covering the very small time windows where in a single one has no options. This is why the market for private-category twins is very small.

[Piltdown Man]

If you depart from an airfield where the only choice, following an engine failure, is a crash in a house, office, supermarket etc. I'd suggest that you need to re-think your choice of airfields. I used to think that the low flying rules were a bit onerous, but now I'm not so sure.

[IO540]

Few areas are so densely built up that there are no gaps to go into, but if you wanted to always have a field to glide into, GA would come to an end - except between farm strips deep in the countryside.

No such thing as zero risk.

Low flying rules are nothing to do with this. They are to address the case where the pilot is deliberately flying too close to people and stuff, or deliberately flying in a manner where an engine failure would be hazardous to same. The one time where low flying is unavoidable is takeoff or landing and low flying in those situations is of course permitted.

If you mean the glide clear rules, same applies. It's easy enough to avoid, EN ROUTE, flying over towns and everybody flying a single should do that. A breach of the glide clear rules is also a deliberate pilot action.

As I've said, no such thing as zero risk. Some would not fly a single over water. Less obviously so but certainly more hazardous than water (one can carry a raft) is flying over large areas of forest.

[Fuji Abound]

Ah - I see we may be back to the usual ill-informed comment.

“Here's why. Take off from Rwy 28 and you are immediately in contravention of the low flying rules. “

As IO540 says the low flying rules do not apply so we can dispense with that argument.

“Rwy 10 gives you the Thames or the Thames.”

So. Shoreham only has GA aircraft. 20 gives you the sea or the sea if it goes quite at the wrong moment. 07 gives you houses. As I0540 comments there is a risk at many airports that an engine failure at the wrong time would be very unwelcome, but the risk is potentially even more serious for a twin in similar circumstances. How many cases a year do you know of catastrophic engine failures in cat A public transport aircraft on takeoff?

“It is also too expensive - £750 per landing I believe.”

Since they do not accept light singles where does this figure come from?

“ And where do you park? At many times of the day it is chock-a-block.”

Is it? Maybe you are better informed? In any event as others have suggested it might be possible to find extra parking.

[unfazed]

Piltdown Man - Might be worth reading all of the posts so that you understand the comments already made (saves going round in circles)

If your logic prevails then how do you account for the open day where singles did fly in ? double standards? reckless endangering of local population?7537062065

Fee's - even if it was £750 someone would probably pay and not care (so irrelevant)

Parking - What about the barge idea to gain more space - already suggested and likely to happen in 2012

[IO540]

When is this Open Day; is it at LCY??

[Fried_Chicken]

The LCY Funday is usually in July, either the first or last Saturday, can't remember which.

Open from 1300-1800 I believe

Fried Chicken

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

I have requested and received clearance for a 500' overfly of the runyway in a helo on a Saturday if that's any use ? ( providing you get the nice guy at Thames )

[Talkdownman]

I don't do it for everybody.

[AlanM]

The FlyingSquirrell is clearly a liar!

There are no nice guys at Thames, are there?!?!!?!?!? :)

[Talkdownman]

You speak for yourself...............;)

[Fried_Chicken]

I'm lead to believe a TB20 pilot got LCY in his/her log book last week, unfortunetly though due to an emergency landing :(

FC

[AlanM]

A TB21 to be exact......!

Not quite as black and white as an emergency landing though... :cool: :sad:

[skydriller]

Not quite as black and white as an emergency landing though...
......Care to expand...

I hate it when posters intimate(sp?) they know alot more than they state, but then dont tell us...Grrr!!
....sorry, end of rant, just that its happened alot recently... :suspect:

[nouseforaname]

I just saw that someone said LCY is not a place for singles because it costs 750 pounds to land there....i could name you plenty of people that would be prepared to pay that to land there.

I just got back from New York last week and landed in JFK 3 times with a light single. Cost me 25 USD because avoided peak times. England is about 30yrs behind the US aviation wise....

[DFC]

I'm off to scrape the dust and dirt off an old twin engined microlight with my ATPL before taking a "student" who owns the aircraft on a training flight (aerial work) for money (commercial activity) so that they can shoot 5 steep approaches to LCY.

The permit to fly now allows flight over a biult up area provided we are making an approach to a licensed airfield and as for landing in the Thames, no chance - we can approach at a 60deg approach angle and depart at a nice steep one as well so that EFATO results in either land back on the runway ahead or a circuit back round to land on the departure runway cause one has enough height before the land ahead option ends. :D

Of course, there is never a call from apermit to fly aircraft requesting transit over a built up area at any height now is there????

Or, on the day of the fly-in, with the airfield being unlicensed, it becomes unavailable to permit to fly aircraft!! - No chippies or microlights or home-builts etc then........

Not much of a fly-in / open day if the arrivals are limited to spam cans! :)

Regards,

DFC

[Fried_Chicken]

Not much of a fly-in / open day if the arrivals are limited to spam cans!

But the Spitfire, Hurricane, Jet Provost, P47 Thunderbolt, Boeing Stearman etc.. that also usually visit provide a different view to the usual Dornier 328s, Citations etc..

FC

[DFC]

But the Spitfire, Hurricane, Jet Provost

Do they have a C of A or are they Permit to Fly Aircraft?

Permit to fly - no overflight of built up area unless landing at ot departing from a licensed or government aerodrome.

The CAA seems to put a lot of work (exemptions, change of aerodrome hours, NOTAM action etc etc) into giving a small group of workers at a Private piece of Real Estate a few hours to play with aircraft otherwise banned!

:\

Regards,

DFC