Flying Down the Thames

[All-The-Nines]

What is people's opinion on flying down the Thames in an SEP, towards London City airport, whilst LCY is closed on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning?

There was last a thread on this a couple of years back, but I wanted to know if anyone had any more recent experience.

Plenty of people at my flying club do it frequently but I've never really thought about doing it myself, I've always worried about the land clear requirement.

However, I was thinking that if I stayed as high as the base of the Class A allows (in this case just below 2,500ft) then I'd have a pretty good chance at gliding back towards the green land east of London, as long as I don't venture too far West. I guess in a real emergency you also have the runway at London City airport? Or would this be a court case/likely prison scenario?

Any other information i.e. who is best to call and ask for the transit of the Class D would be greatly appreciated.

And before you shoot me down, I have not decided to do this yet! Just gathering information and opinions...

P.S. On second thoughts, they might not allow you to transit the Class D as high as 2,500ft as you'll likely have airliners approaching Heathrow inside the Class D at 2,000ft or so if they're on the ILS..

[Tay Cough]

I've always worried about the land clear requirement.

Wear a life jacket, put it in the river and you're probably covered. ;)

Over LCY, LHR arrivals are generally at around 5000 ft, even when LCY is closed.

[All-The-Nines]

Wear a life jacket, put it in the river and you're probably covered.

Should have added that I don't fancy the Thames in December!

[bookworm]

P.S. On second thoughts, they might not allow you to transit the Class D as high as 2,500ft as you'll likely have airliners approaching Heathrow inside the Class D at 2,000ft or so if they're on the ILS..

Indeed the clearance in the London City class D is likely to be "not above 2000 ft". (I make no comment on the legality or otherwise of doing this in a single).

[18greens]

Do it with an instructor if you are concerned. Better still take a twin and go all the way to the houses of parliament.

We used to do it all the time out of biggin. Great fun.

[ShyTorque]

Better still go in a helicopter and fly the along heli-routes, all the way through to Bagshot mast, near Camberley.

[All-The-Nines]

I'm not concerned about doing it (as in I'm happy to call up Thames Radar and ask for a transit) I'm just questioning the legalities along with any recent experience of others on this board of doing it in an SEP.

[piperarcher]

I dont think if the information is elsewhere on this forum, but there are threads on Euroga.org and UKGA.com where there is a freedom of information document published on this exact topic.

From what I recall, the essence of the information is that London City controllers will clear you into their zone as it is not their job to police you based on your aircraft and requirements to be able to glide clear, but thats not to say you should go in. The Thames is apparently not defined as a suitable land clear destination, but it also seems that one would be unlikely to be prosecuted unless you actually endangered yourself or someone/something else. There was a case where someone was in the zone and ran out of fuel and just managed to land at the airport, and that annoyed some people was the subject of the debate within the FOI request.

Its up to you whether to chance it, and it's true you will get some good photos. I dont think you can get a definite yes/no on this.

[Talkdownman]

The Air Navigation Order defines a congested area as being ‘any area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes’
Dry...or wet...

the essence of the information is that London City controllers will clear you into their zone as it is not their job to police you based on your aircraft and requirements to be able to glide clear
Correct. ATC clearance may only be withheld for traffic reasons (or under a directive from HM Government). Compliance with Rules of the Air is the pilot's job.

the London City class D is likely to be "not above 2000 ft"
What's wrong with VFR not above 2400 QNH within the London City CTR/CTA?

you'll likely have airliners approaching Heathrow inside the Class D at 2,000ft or so if they're on the ILS
They'll be at 3 or above to intercept the GP at 10D or more ie. within Class A.

Do it with an instructor if you are concerned
What difference would it make doing it with an instructor?

[All-The-Nines]

My thinking is that if I'm at +2000ft, I should be able to get a couple of miles within the zone (i.e. approx half way to London City) and still be able to land clear to the fields close to the Dartford bridge (or make the runway at London City) should it all go horribly wrong at the very worst moment.

I'm not overly concerned at this stage about actually over-flying London City airport itself, it'd just be nice to venture a little bit closer to the City than you're usually allowed on any other day of the week. I think from 2-3 miles away you should still have a pretty good view...

Can I expect Thames radar on 132.700 to be particularly busy or will they most likely be twiddling their thumbs early on a Sunday morning?

[POBJOY]

I think you will find that the precident of this situation has already been recorded in Court,and that the Thames comes into the same arena as :- Parks,Sports fields,and other areas open to the public situated in built up area's.
The situation is different in the take off / landing case,but an overflight of a built up area in a single is always going to be difficult to justify,and indeed the description 'of a suitable place' anywhere is open to many variations that you may not want to explore from the 'dock'.

[Fuji Abound]

The point is entirely the land clear rule.

Many of us recall the popular transit down the Lea valley over City and out the other side. The argument was there was always plenty of water based opportunities to ditch in the valley, the Thames and surprisingly City south is not too built up. If it goes silent up front and you ditch who knows what view the Courts might take. In yester year I have lost count of the number of times I did the run down the valley, in more recent times I have tended to only go that way in a twin - although I am not entirely sure why. Running up the Thames form the QE2 to City and back would not unduly worry me at all either with the appropriate clearance if City were open or other wise if not.

To be fair although the Lea valley is quite fun and interesting the navigation north is tight over the top of Panshanger leaving Stansted to the east, and I doubt it significantly reduces the distance compared with going the other side of Stansted, but each to their own.

[007helicopter]

who is best to call and ask for the transit of the Class D would be greatly appreciated.

I do not think this has been answered, it use to be Thames Radar and now is Heathrow on 125.625

[englishal]

Can you be done for the "land clear" rule, when in fact nothing went wrong and you just flew in and flew out again? Would be pretty hard for a court to prove you could not have "landed clear" wouldn't it (in the same manner as only a pilot can tell the in flight visibility)? And you'd have to be reported and investigated in the first place.

I imagine if you ditched in the Thames this would be another matter entirely, but really what are the chances of having to ditch in the Thames unless you are really unlucky?

Sounds like a fun trip to do on a boring sunday morning ;)

[Dg800]

Would be pretty hard for a court to prove you could not have "landed clear" wouldn't it (in the same manner as only a pilot can tell the in flight visibility)?

Why would it be that difficult? Is the glide ratio of a specific plane really unknown and impossible to determine? :confused:
I think it would be pretty trivial for the prosecution to show, based on your radar track, that an engine failure would have resulted in you not being able to land clear for a significant portion of the flight, and this is really all that this is about.

[Lightning Mate]

Assuming that most SEPs have fixed undercarriage, have you ever practised ditching one?

[englishal]

You Honour,

There is 6000' in a nautical mile. It is 6nm from the restricted area EGR159 to the eastern edge of the class D airspace. LCY is 4.9nm from the edge of the airspace. I am flying at 2400' and my aeroplane has a glide ratio that exceeds 10:1.

This means I can glide for 4.0 miles from 2400'. At no time am I more than 4.0 miles from a suitable landing area - LCY or outside the Class D zone (and outside of the congested area). Damyns Hall is 7.2nm from LCY, so half way into the zone I can glide to LCY or Damyns Hall.

So you see your honour, I planned the flight taking into account Rule 5 and the ability to glide clear in the event of an engine failure.

[Dg800]

If your aircraft's performance does indeed always allow you to glide clear, than by all means go ahead and do it, but keep in mind that if this is not the case it will be just as easy for the prosecution to prove otherwise. :}
And then there is plenty of room for interpretation as to what a congested area and an area suitable for landing might be, your interpretation might not always match that of the presiding judge, in which case you might find yourself out of options.

Assuming that most SEPs have fixed undercarriage, have you ever practised ditching one?

I believe the general consensus is that in a small plane there is a roughly 50% chance of surviving a ditching unscathed(short term, long term depends a lot on circumstances such as Thames vs. North Sea etc.), which for me means that it can never be the primary option in case of forced landing.

Ciao,

Dg800

[englishal]

...of course you could always pull the chute ;)

Seriously though, I think that a judge would look on an airport or airfield as being a suitable place to land :D

[Dg800]

...of course you could always pull the chute

This begs the question: if a BRS is fitted, do you have a legal requirement to always be able to "float" clear of any built up or congested area? :E

[ShyTorque]

I believe the general consensus is that in a small plane there is a roughly 50% chance of surviving a ditching unscathed(short term, long term depends a lot on circumstances such as Thames vs. North Sea etc.), which for me means that it can never be the primary option in case of forced landing.

I wouldn't want to do it, either. If you fly along the Thames along the official heli-routes, you are deemed to have accepted the requirement to ditch between the high and low water marks, in the unfortunate event. If the tide's in at the time of your forced landing, tough luck. I see no reason for any other forced landing place being deemed acceptable by the CAA, especially because it's a fixed wing.

IIRC, the entire Heathrow CTR has fairly recently been deemed a congested area for the purposes of the "Glide clear" rule for single engined fixed wing. So the CAA are onto the case, as it were, even though you wouldn't be entering that airspace, by the sound of it.

[soaringhigh650]

For EGLC:
If you approach from the QE II bridge, and remain East of the airport you will be OK. You hit the water in the rare event of an engine failure.

For EGLL:
As long as you remain west of the airport you will be OK.

[bookworm]

IIRC, the entire Heathrow CTR has fairly recently been deemed a congested area for the purposes of the "Glide clear" rule for single engined fixed wing.

Deemed by whom? It seems unlikely, as it's not for the CAA to interpret the law in that way. Any chance you're confusing it with the "specified area" for single-engine heli ops?

[ShyTorque]

No, I think it was an AIC and not specifically for helicopters. I'll have a search around the bazaars for it.

[MrAverage]

Somewhat simplified, it was a permanent NOTAM that forbids single engine fixed wing inside the controlled airspace between North South lines over Heathrow and City.........

[Talkdownman]

See UK IAIP ENR 1-1-4-2 Para 1.7

1.7 Single-Engine Fixed Wing Aircraft Over Central London

1.7.1 With the exception of the Northolt RMA (including for Runway 07 the portion of the London Control Zone north of the offset centre-line) (see AD 2-EGWU AD 2.17) and the Local Flying Areas at Denham and Brooklands (see AD 2-EGLL AD 2.22), NSF or ENSF permissions will not be granted to single-engine fixed wing aircraft requesting to operate within those parts of the London and London City Control Zones between a North-South line extending through the LON VOR and a North-South line extending through the LCY NDB. In accordance with a directive from the CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy, applications which fall within the above criteria will be refused upon application to the NSF Co-ordinator due to the inability of such aircraft, in the view of the CAA, to be able to comply with the ANO Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 - Low Flying (Rule 5d).

[chevvron]

Yeah but from what I've heard recently in strictest confidence, something may be happening which will mean the rule above may have to go.
Sorry I can't say any more (but i'd like to).

[ShyTorque]

Talkdownman, thanks, I knew it was out there somewhere - that's the one.

My memory on the location of the order was hazy because I don't fly SEFW and so it doesn't apply to my type of operations.

[RTN11]

The thing to do would be looking up low flying prosecutions for some case examples. Most of these come after a pilot on the ground reports an aircraft low flying since non pilots have no knowledge of the rules, or how low something actually looks. The last one I read I seem to remember was low flying over a football stadium, possibly Manchester. In the court case the expectation was on the pilot to provide evidence of which field he would of actually used had an engine failure occurred, and football pitches and playing fields were not acceptable. They even had photos in the report of the field the pilot elected, which was then deemed not to have been suitable and the pilot was fined by my memory.

Not sure how they would view using the river itself, not sure there is any case law on this.

The caa only seem to push for prosecution if they know they will win, looking at the prosecution lists each year it is rarely just low flying, but also compounded with no medical or insurance, and they just get them to plead guilty to one of them.

[Fuji Abound]

I thought the entry in the aip only applied to non standard flights?

[soaringhigh650]

And my flights are of a good standard.

[ShyTorque]

I thought the entry in the aip only applied to non standard flights?

The definition of "non standard flight" is quite wide ranging and may include sightseeing/pleasure flying.

[mad_jock]

Why would you want to fly down the thames in a single anyway?

Its like poking a lion with a stick.

[ShyTorque]

That's no way to describe those nice London Air Traffickers.... :ooh:

[bookworm]

"Non-standard flights" for the purpose of that paragraph are clearly those seeking to use controlled airspace in a non-standard way:

1.1 A NSF in Controlled Airspace is considered to be an aerial task which does not follow published routes or notified procedures; a formation flight of civil aircraft, other than for VFR transit of CTA/CTR/TMA; ...

No NSF application is required for a simple sightseeing flight which adheres to normal procedures (i.e. talks to Heathrow on 125.62 and gets a S/VFR clearance on an ad hoc basis). The reluctance of the CAA to permit an NSF approval does not in itself mean that a single within that lateral area would breach rule 5(d). It's a pretty clear indication of the CAA view though!

It's worth noting that SERA is on its way, with an interesting change in wording.

UK RotAR 2007 5(d) says:

An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city, town or settlement shall not fly
below such height as would permit the aircraft to land clear of the congested area
in the event of a power unit failure.

Part-SERA says in its corresponding section:
3.1.2.1 Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the
competent authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities,
towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height
as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without
undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

The Part-SERA provision is considerably less restrictive, as it would in principle permit an emergency landing in a safe place within the congested area (and it might be argued that a ditching in the Thames would not present undue hazard).

[Sam Rutherford]

You and your passengers have an 88% chance of surviving (even uninjured) a deliberate ditching.

A further 38% then die because of the time taken before help arrives.

I think, then, your chances of surviving a Thames ditching are actually very high - just don't hit any bridges!

Fly safe, Sam.


PS Safety Sense leaflet 21. :O