Manchester Low Level Route

[Okavango]

Hi. Just planning some XC's and need to use the above. I know you're supposed to listen to Manc without transmitting, but is there not a frequency you can transmit on while listening to Manc approach? Surely it must be safer by being able to transmit your position and listen out for movements of others in such congested airspace?

[Roffa]

Not that I'm aware of.

If you've not seen it before, there's a NATS guide to the LLR here. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/299/Manchester%20Low%20Level%20Route_2008NOV_CAA.pdf)

[GearDownFlaps]

The current procedure is to maintain a listening watch on 118:575 and squawk 7366 , they then know you are listening out and can if the need arises contact you with traffic info.
I have had them contact me once in aabout a million transits , there is nothing to stop you asking for a basic service if you wish , but you are just making a busy atc service busier when you dont need too.

[Okavango]

I'm aware of the procedure and don't want to transmit on a busy frequency - but you reinforce my point. If you've only been contacted once in your million transits, I can't believe you haven't come close to other traffic in that time with potential for a collision - is this really the safest way?

[englishal]

but you are just making a busy atc service busier when you dont need too.
Should we feel guilty about that? I'm up that way soon and I think I may ask for a zone transit of Liverpool right over head at < 3000'. Seems much safer all round than running around at < 1250' with everyone else doing the same thing....

[JUST-local]

Direct LPL zone transit - I have managed this around the same number of times geardownflaps has been spoken to by MAN.

[Rod1]

If you are worried about other traffic get a Zaon MRX Collision Avoidance System. Should cost you about £400, they are very good and you will be astounded just how busy it is up there.

Rod1

[tmmorris]

You shouldn't be put off from asking for a zone transit just because you won't get one.

Is there still a survey going on on refusal of access to CAS?

Tim

[Sir George Cayley]

You could start any call to Manch with " Ah, Radar - Speedbird seventy.. er correction G-Bxxx..." It gets them every time!

Ooooh we've got a Sky God called Nigel, lets give him whatevor he wants.

Only joking NATS honest

Sir George Cayley

[NorthSouth]

GDF:there is nothing to stop you asking for a basic service if you wishA Basic Service, inside Class D airspace? How would that work then?
NS

[SlipSlider]

Perhaps because GDF's posted comment clearly relates to the Low Level Corridor which is Class G?

[DaveW]

SlipSlider - it is Class D. See, for example, the CAA's guidance document (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/299/Manchester%20Low%20Level%20Route_2008NOV_CAA.pdf):

What sort of ATC service can I expect?

Flight Information Service.(sic) Because you are operating within Class D airspace and below minimum safe altitude for IFR flight the RIS & RAS (sic) are not available within the route. The level of service you will receive depends on the level of traffic for the controller. If it is quiet you may be passed Radar derived traffic information but do remember, even if allocated a squawk you will NOT be receiving a formal radar service. There may, in fact almost certainly will be, traffic using the lane that is not communicating with Manchester.

Edited to say that there is a proposal (http://www.nats.co.uk/text/249/manchester_control_zone_acp.html)to release portions - e.g. the LLR - of the current Class D to Class G, but there has been no announcement yet.

UPDATE 01 June

The consultation closed on 31st January 2009. A Consultation Feedback Report will be available in due course and NATS Manchester continues to negotiate with the CAA over the detail of a formal ACP application. Any changes as a result of a proposal are unlikely to be introduced before October 2009 at the earliest.

[flybymike]

I find the assertion that the LLR is class D airspace baffling. Such airspace requires a specific clearance for entry, and yet no such clearance is apparently required.

[Spiney Norman]

Good Afternoon all.
Well. I wrote the route brief that is quoted above but, as I've retired now I'm a bit surprised the 'new' owner with responsibility for the updates hasn't done so.
Here we go....The LLR is currently class D but it's a very unusual, in fact unique, piece of class D airspace. If you read the brief you'll see that there are a number of very specific rules relating to the LLR regarding in-flight visibility and the fact that it is not neccessary to obtain a clearance, or listen out on the appropriate frequency. (I won't list them all because they're on the brief). The original intention of the LLR when it was established was to allow access to the Manchester CTR for aircraft operating without a radio both during night and day. I'm not sure exactly when it was established but it was definately before 1970 as I was working at Liverpool at this time and it was well established then. At this time the Manchester CTR was 'rule 21' airspace which is pretty much the equivalent of the current class A. Procedures for Liverpool and Manchester airports were written to seperate from the LLR. Unfortunately the changes made in latter years have resulted in something of an anomoly regarding the rules. The procedures and provision of a basic service within what is currently class D airspace result from a decision made by the CAA right back at the original introduction of the route, (although of course it was then a FIS), which of course makes the LLR unique. It has to be said though that when consideration was made to make the proposed changes to the airspace no one could find any documentary evidence of this but then it was eons ago!
Getting back to the original thread query......Your options are.
1. Transit non-radio
2. Transit monitoring 118.575 with 7366 selected.
3. Call for a basic service on 118.575
Whichever of these options you select you will never know all the traffic within the low-level route as all these options are available to all the other users. Many aircraft appear to choose option 1, probably because they have limited RTF battery life and/or no transponder anyway.
These anomalies were intended to be addressed by the airspace changes to the CTR which would make the LLR revert back to class G airspace amongst cropping various parts of the Class D zone. I'm afraid I have no knowledge as to the current state of the revisions but it was hoped they would be completed late this year.
I'll just add that the current release of class D airspace going through the revision process was entirely the work of flying ATCOs at Manchester Airport who have worked hard in their own time to get it to the stage it is now. If anyone thinks I'm blowing my own trumpet I'll just say that I was only involved in a very minor way but to those of you who know John Rhodes around the NW flying scene, if it goes through then buy him a drink!

[Spiney Norman]

flybymike.
I think you must have posted whilst I was writing my possibly rambling entry above. The answer to your point is the CAA wanted the route to be class D as it then had the option for it to be notiifed for the purposes of rule 5 thereby allowing a transit of the Warrington built up area 'at such a height as would enable an aircraft to alight clear of the congested area' instead of what was then the 1500ft rule. As the cap on the LLR is/was 1250ft QNH this would have made a transit very much a grey area legally! When the rules changed to make the '1500ft rule' the '1000ft rule' this problem solved itself to some extent and the possibility of a revision of airspace classification to class G for the LLR became possible. As you have pointed out, the contradictory nature of the current general rules for class D airspace and the LLR are very difficult for most of us to come to terms with but they are, (currently), as they are I'm afraid. Hopefully though, not for much longer.

[flybymike]

Many thanks for the (not at all rambling) explanation Spiney.;)

[Okavango]

Thanks Spiney - appreciate your time and effort. I guess all will be well though can't help feeling the current arrangement makes it a bit like russian roulette!! Will keep a very keen eye out!.

[Spiney Norman]

Okavango.
No problem! I am an LAA aircraft owner and transit the Low-Level route regularly so I'm not just looking at this with an ATCO hat on. Although it may seem intimidating at first it's really not so bad. As I say at the end of the briefing document....'First transit completed and, lets face it, it was a piece of cake really!':ok:

[NorthSouth]

Leaving aside my googly above re provision of Basic Service in Class D, I should place on record that my experience of the service from Manch controllers while transiting the LLR is that they are absolutely excellent, have no trouble juggling vectoring IFR inbounds with passing radar-derived traffic info to LLR traffic, and seem to be capable of being pleasant and cheery even when busy.:ok:

Because of that, when using the LLR I always call Manch because apart from that leading to (at least the potential for) better traffic info for me, it also means better traffic info for everyone else too. Plus it gives the controllers the option of (1) ignoring me if they're too busy, (2) leaving me as unidentified but giving general traffic info, or (3) identifying me and giving more specific traffic info if able.

NS

[Okavango]

Thanks all. Did the LLR this evening. Must say I was surprised how quiet Manc were. Not sure where the ref to GPS came from in the last message, but I was just about to actually suggest it to anyone low experienced transitting the first time or so. Though I'd made myself familiar with landmarks it was nice to have a GPS reference for back-up.

[Mariner9]

Well done Okavango, hope you enjoyed the flight :D Ignore the earlier stupid comment re GPS - its all very well advising people to follow the "Old Sankey canal" when you live in and know the area as magpienja evidently does - quite something else when you're not local and faced with umpteen waterways including the river Mersey, the Leeds Liverpool canal and the Manchester ship canal :=

[cessnapete]

Why cannot some old f..ts realise that GPS is now the primary means of nav for most of us in light aircraft. GPS to maintain track, with a map backup, not the other way around. In public transport IFR ops it is normally the sole means of airways flight.
I cannot remember when I last manually tuned a VHF NAV aid, except the ILS to land, in the jet aircraft I fly in my day job.
In the case of the Manchester LLR etc. GPS waypoints should be published, as are most VRPS on our topo maps, that would make for a far safer operation.
GPS Aproaches??? Don't get me started! In the USA there are now 1500+ stand alone GPS procedures, all using the same satelites and nav equipment we use in UK.
(Usual caveats apply regarding hand held GPS and up to date data-base etc.)

[Spiney Norman]

In the case of the Manchester LLR etc. GPS waypoints should be published, as are most VRPS on our topo maps, that would make for a far safer operation.

Couldn't agree more. We tried to get this done on several occasions over a period of years. However, the objection was that this would focus traffic down a particular track. I did point out that it was possible to fly an offset and we could make it quite clear that this was desirable in the various publications, (both official and unofficial). I also though it would enable us to establish a 'flow' system through the LLR. The CAA view favoured the establishment of VRP's which are roughly along the edge of the LLR as the preferable option. I can't see it myself but there you are.
As to navigating the LLR by GPS. Well, let's face it, if you have a valuable tool available that you find works for you then why not? Speaking from the position of an 'old fart' I know the route well and navigate it visually but....I've got my Garmin 296 set with the route and a plog as well. I like to have a card up my sleeve.

[NorthSouth]

Cessnapete: Speaking as an old fart, you're right that GPS seems a lot more sensible, and it may well be that the reason it hasn't been adopted is that the CAA is also populated with people similar to myself. I do think though that you really need to teach people how to fly a heading and if you fly on GPS as your primary aid there's a very strong temptation to track-crawl and spend too much time head-down.

As to Manch LLR nav methods, I always go (southbound) Reebok Stadium to Leigh Flash then track the Whitegate NDB. Might be cheating but it works for me.

NS

[ShyTorque]

Speaking as an fart even older than some in the CAA.....

I put in two GPS waypoints, fly relative to the line on heading mode and look (and listen) outside for conflicting traffic on the appropriate frequency while squawking mode C . I also use the TCAS in an appropriate way to enhance my own traffic awareness.

I therefore don't have to worry about navigation and it's surely safer because I'm not tied up eyes looking at a chart, or for ground features.

[Rodge91]

A friend has asked to come on a flight with me and has asked if we can fly over his house.

His house is about 1 mile north west of haydock park racecourse. I'm just checking that I would be allowed to circle over his house to convince a non flyer that the trip is worth £40 (providing I have a good look out for any aircraft around). I got thrown off when reading the NATS guide.

Thanks.

[GIZZAJOB]

Just give LPL radar a call on 119.850 ak for a basic service giving them your intentions , they wont have a problem with it , judging by where oyu want to go , set up for SSC circling aorund your mates house , the wind may just put you inside their zone , so just give them a quick shout and let them know they will be fine with it . Only prob you will have is if all the RYR's and sleazys are returning or leaving in which case you wont get a word in edgeways.
I recently had to take some piccies of Burtonwood , it really is no issue .
have fun