Pre-planned single engine into LHR?

[Chunky Monkey]

In the sim recently I ended up in a "heated debate" with the trainer because I chose to divert to a rural airport rather than go into LHR with a problem necessitating an engine shutdown at TOD (leaving me single-engine).

I was challenged to justify my refusal to contemplate continuing (i.e. "You show me where it is written down!"), and so today located the source of my reticence:

...5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3):
(a) An aircraft other than a helicopter shall not fly over any congested area of a city, town or settlement below:
(i) such height as would enable the aircraft to alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit.....

The question is - knowing in advance about the necessity to be single-engined for the descent and approach, is there a LEGAL duty to divert, or is it just me being OTT?

Needless to say I will not be operating any differently in these circumstances as a result of the discussion...

[Chunky Monkey]

It was a amply long "international" airport where we operate regularly... and an uneventful diversion.

The question though is whether there is a LEGAL duty under the rule not to overfly London... LHR on 27L ... I don't want to criticise the trainer, simply to explore the issue that he clearly thought my company would be very upset with me for diverting, while I think to carry on would leave me open to prosecution.

[NigelOnDraft]

CM...
I'm afraid to disagree with your stance... Apart from the lack of ability to fly an airliner into any airfield, single engine, whilst being able to guarantee you could force land it "without danger to persons or property", Rule 5 also states you cannot fly within 500' of person / vessel / vehicle / strucutre etc. so you couldn't land anywhere :uhoh:
The solution to the dilemmas are the standard Rule 5 exemptions:(3) Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
(a) Landing and taking off
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from any low flying prohibition in so far as it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.

[Chunky Monkey]

Hmm... My inference from the excemptions had been that it is clearly not reasonable to prevent an aircraft from doing what is NECESSARY in order to land. The duty of care to those on the ground has to be balanced against the fact that the aircraft has to fly low in order to land.

My problem with using this exemption is that it is NOT necessary to fly past a serviceable, fairweather, suitable airfield and continue single-engine to fly over the city at low altitude. I can't help feeling that in circumstances where we know in advance that we will be single-engine we are bound by the rule to avoid the area if practicable.

Incidentally, I chatted with an SRG lawyer to ask whether this rule might apply in these circumstances, or whether it is simply a "low flying" rule, and in his opinion the rule would apply to this aircraft - although the circumstances the aircraft finds itself in may constitute exemption (i.e. if what it is doing is NECESSARY to land [my opinion in brackets]).

[NigelOnDraft]

CM...
Flying "low over London" to reach LHR, or not, does come under common sense, and to knowingly hazard the City by flying an airliner with a distinct possibility of "coming down" could be seen as unwise. See the 747 with potentially no engines report.

However, I am not sure that Rule 5, which does (IMHO) apply as much to us as a light aircraft, is relevant here.

You have subtely altered things as well, going from because I chose to divert to a rural airport rather than go into LHR with a problem necessitating an engine shutdown at TOD (leaving me single-engine).
tois that it is NOT necessary to fly past a serviceable, fairweather, suitable airfield and continue single-engine to fly over the city at low altitude.I would agree - in Airbus speak single engine is Land ASAP - and "pressing on" to LHR might need justifying - whereas your first post implied you actively sought an airfield that was "not LHR".

In short, an interesting debate. However, I am not convinced that LHR/London is a "special case" - very few airports we fly into are truly remote, and under the ANO definition (2000 people?) airports and the associated infrastructures are towns in themselves... and the weather's we train to fly in are not sufficient to meet the Rule 5 requirements i.e. guarantee being able to force land without danger to persons or property (NB this does not say minimise - it as bad a breach to hazard 1 person and his bicycle as the whole of the City <G> )

[Chunky Monkey]

Careless words but the meaning is the same: If you have to shut an engine down to descend than at the point that it matters you will be single engine - so while carrying on is legal/safe to TOD, it doesn't escape the fact that at the approach phase you will be SE over a city.

Interesting point about the man and bike! Does this remove the test of what is reasonable?

[Piltdown Man]

If I were unlucky enough to be single engine (or N-1 as we say now) I would divert to the nearest BIG airport. With a BIG emergency, given the choice, I'll choose the BIGGEST airport. I'll do battle (well, I'll let BALPA lawyers do that for me) with those who say I broken the rules after I have landed safely. And the way I see it, by landing as soon as possible, I am following the rules.

[issi noho]

for reasons already stated I believe it is legal and normal to plan an approach to LHR 27L/R OEI;

however, if you consider the Kegworth BMI 737 incident, (where a planned OEI approach was made to a 'rural' airport rather than any other of the options which would have included LHR) I can see why the question would be asked. I can only say that before I flew over a congested area I might ensure the operating engine was 'normal' with a period of level flight before commiting myself.

I have absolutely no wish to get into a debate about Kegworth, it was simply an example of an OEI approach which did not turn out as sucessfully as the crew intended.

[issi noho]

This isn't strictly about OEI apps but its taken me ages to find, so here it is. Para (b) probably applies to the topic in general. This is a supplementry instruction from UK manual of AirTraffic Services, its old and either incorporated in the revised manual somewhere or obsolete, but somebody once thought it important enough to write.

MANUAL OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES Part 1
2/93-1
Supplementary Instruction No. 2 of 1993
HANDLING OF AIRCRAFT EMERGENCIES
In a recent Aircraft Accident report the AAIB made two recommendations in respect of aircraft diverting in emergency. In this particular case the captain of the aircraft, which had suffered a structural failure, declined a request from the airport authority at his selected diversion to land at an alternative airport. The AAIB determined that the airport authority's request was
reasonable but that, as the pilot had not been informed of the reason for the request, he did not have sufficient information on which to base a decision to divert elsewhere. An additional concern was that the aircraft flew over densely populated areas when there was a possibility of further structural failure which could have led to part of the aircraft detaching itself. In response to the AAIB recommendations in respect of this accident the following instructions and advice have been issued for handling aircraft in emergency.

(a) When a pilot has declared an emergency and stated the aerodrome to which he wishes to proceed, controllers will acknowledge this message. If the controller is instructed to inform the aircraft that it is required or requested to divert to another aerodrome then the reason for this change should be established. The message, including the reason, will then be passed to the captain and his intentions requested.

(b) It is desirable that aircraft in emergency should not be routed over densely populated areas. If this is inconsistent with providing the most appropriate service to the aircraft, for example when any extended routeing could jeopardise the safety of the aircraft, the most expeditious routeing is the one that should be given. Where possible, suggestions of alternative runways or aerodromes which would avoid densely populated areas and be
consistent with safety should be passed to the pilot and his intentions requested.

The decision to comply with advice or instructions to land at an airport other than his selected diversion lies with the captain of the aircraft. It is stressed that the captain has ultimate responsibility for the safety of his aircraft.

It is recognised that controllers providing en-route services at ATCCs may not be aware of the boundaries of major towns or cities or of the position of minor towns and villages. Controllers providing approach, approach radar or aerodrome control services should, however, be familiar with the centres of population within their areas of jurisdiction.
29.6.93


So I now think that when in the sim with your OEI a/c, you should have asked for a div to LHR where upon your intructor should have considered your request and told you to go rural on behalf of LHR Ltd. Likely. Not.