Manchester Low Level Route

[PPPPP]

I had a similiar but not as extreme experience as vancouv's in an adjacent thread yesterday afternoon in the Manchester LLR. setting out on my QXC it rapidly became clear that to the south the haze was coming down (again!) and Wolverhampton was looking a bit doubtful. After spotting an aircraft coming north at no more than 5k range I did a 180 and returned to Barton.
My point is this: On our fam visit to Manchester ATCC we were told that Manchester Radar really don't want to talk to GA traffic in the LLR, the comment was "on a weekend day its a mass of squawks", and we should just monitor the frequency. But what happens if everyone just monitors? Manchester Radar was working like the proverbial one-armed paper-hanger and it was difficult to get a word in on the radio anyway. It takes roughly 9 minutes to transit the corridor, in that time I saw three other aircraft that I had not heard on the frequency, in vis that was certainly less than 10kms.
If everyone were to just listen instead of announcing their presence in some way then there's no point in monitoring the very busy APP frequency. Is there a case for a dedicated LLR GA frequency here? Any other suggestions as to how to make this area safer?

[2Donkeys]

The LLR is just one example of a number of airspace-enforced ratruns around the country. Two others are the Luton Stansted gap between BKY and BPK, and the OCKham BIGgin corridor between the London Zone and the Gatwick Zone.

Since traffic squeezed into these parcels of airspace are operating under VFR and in class G airspace, you have the advantage of:

- not requiring a clearance;

- not *needing* to talk to ATC if you don't want to or can't;

along with the disadvantage of :

- needing to see and avoid (which is what VFR types are supposed to do);

- needing to work in a high-traffic-density environment.

Most if not all changes would take the form of some sort of reclassification of the airspace, and we know how GA feels about that :D

A dedicated GA frequency in class G is pretty meaningless because it would be optional whether or not people participated and people's idea of an A to A co-ordination varies somewhat.

How about making it class D with a toll for those who wish to use it, to pay for the dedicated controller :cool:

[Dusty_B]

Before I'd even got to the end of your post I was saying to myself "dedicated frequency".

The question is, if you are receiving a service from a unit and they are prepared to continue giving it, how/when/who makes the call on the dedicated frequency?

I'm trying to think of any other areas where such a frequency would be useful... any ideas?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It's just fine as it is. I've flown it on average probably more than once or twice a month for getting on for a quarter of a century. Sure, it's got busier in the latter years, but it still works OK.

Listen to 119.4 if you want, and KEEP A GOOD LOOK OUT. I've never heard of an air miss or 'close encounter' in the LLR from any pilot, ever.

Short of removal of the Manch zone (that ain't going to happen) it's the only way for VFR and non-radio traffic to transit north/south.

The old chestnut of dedicated frquencies has cropped up here before. As 2 Donkeys says, who pay for it and how would it be enforced? And what about non-radio aircraft?

I'm tempted to say that pilots these days seem to be trained in a 'high ATC' environment' - almost as if the radio were a primary flight control. But that might brand me an Old Git. I do, however, think it is leading to a culture of 'pilots looking to be told what to do by a controller', and losing the ability to be self-reliant.

As an illustration, please see my post 'They're down there because we're up here'.

SSD

[2Donkeys]

SSD wrote:
I'm tempted to say that pilots these days seem to be trained in a 'high ATC' environment' - almost as if the radio were a primary flight control. But that might brand me an Old Git. I do, however, think it is leading to a culture of 'pilots looking to be told what to do by a controller', and losing the ability to be self-reliant.


Ain't that the truth. This also ties back to the threads relating to FISOs. Whilst there are FISOs and (particularly) A/G operators that overstep their authority, there are hugely more pilots that seem to want to be given clearances to do things whilst operating VFR outside controlled airspace, and all whilst in receipt of nothing more than a FIS.

Turn the transponders on, and the radios off once in a while. :D

[Spiney Norman]

I completely agree with SSD. As someone who flies the LLR route regularly and also 'works' the LLR on 119.4 when doing my day job, I think it works pretty well as it is. By the way, the LLR IS class D airspace. Speaking as someone who was at the meetings to discuss the changes that happened to the LLR when it was re-orientated. I can tell you that AOPA, Liverpool ATC, Manchester ATC, and the CFI at Barton were all involved and many ideas were floated. At the end it was decided by all concerned that other than re-orientating it, to leave well alone.

Spiney.
P.S. if you regularly transit the LLR the Manchester Radar frequency changes on April 17th to 119.525. New flyers to the area may find this info handy.....
www.caa.co.uk/docs/299/DAP_ACD_ManLowLev.pdf
(first time I've done one of these so apologies if it doesn't work)!

[Whirlybird]

Those of you who fly the LLR regularly may be fine, but for those of us flying it occasionally, working out where you are, not infringing MAN airspace, and also keeping a very good lookout, amounts to quite a high workload - and if the vis is marginal too...
What's the problem with a dedicated frequency, with aircraft just giving position reports? That's what happens for helicopter traffic in Los Angeles, where the high traffic volume and frequent smog makes see and avoid difficult. Does it cost just to have an unmanned frequency?

[Spiney Norman]

Whirlybird
That's a good question. There seems to be a distinct lack of desire on the part of the relevent authorities to release frequencies for what they call 'recreational use'. This being a lose phrase for any frequency not allocated for a form of air to ground communication. I'd say there are definate merits in having them and the low level route could be one. The unfortunate bit with this is that it would only work if everyone used it. When you start to get into any form of compulsion the feathers really start to fly! There is no 'zone' frequency for the LLR because the Approach radar facility at Manchester is provided by NATS on contract from Manchester International Airport Plc. If you were MIA Plc would you want to pay for the controller hours neccessary to provide the service to GA in the LLR which provided you with no income? I'm afraid this is a fact of life in this modern world.

Spiney

[long final]

Unless Manchester are very busy I usually call for a FIS. I have always found them to be helpful wherever time possible, have not been made to feel a nuisance and prefer any extra traffic info I can get in that area, especially as most people fly around the 1000ft mark.

Just my ramblings

LF

[READY MESSAGE]

I too have always found Manchester friendly and obliging. I have always wondered why we listen out/call 119.4 though and not Liverpool. Even though Liverpool is becoming more and more busy, it is no where near as busy as Manchester. It would be several less things for Manchester to worry about and we would have a quieter frequency to work. I appreciate that the LLR is beneath Manchesters airspace but surely it makes sense...???

[Spiney Norman]

RR.
The need to call Manchester is one of those procedures that have applied since Bleriot flew the channel. It would be a possibility that Liverpool could work the LLR. The only problem would be, would they want too? Liverpool would be in the same situation that Manchester are, in that the money men who pay for the ATC service would no doubt say. "What do we gain from providing this service", and the answer, a service to the GA community transiting the LLR, wouldn't convince them it was worth spending the money on ATCO provision. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I agree with this approach. Unfortunately it's a fact of life these days. Personally I like the idea of a dedicated frequency for the LLR where aircraft can perhaps use a dedicated conspicuity SSR code and announce their position with no ATC involvment. I believe this is the basis of Whirlybird's post above regarding Los Angeles. Then there is the thorny point, do you make it compulsory for aircraft to make position reports. Otherwise you'll still meet unknown traffic? I'd be interested to know if anyone else thinks this is a good idea.

Spiney.

[PhilD]

By way of comparison here is a summary of the rules for the Special Flight Rules Area that allows VFR traffic to transit overhead (yes overhead) Los Angeles Airport (LAX):

----------------------------
- VFR conditions
- Squawk 1201 before entering the SFRA
- Have a current Los Angeles VFR Terminal Area Chart
- Navigate via the SMO 132 degree radial
- Fly southeast at 3,500 MSL or
- Fly northwest at 4,500 MSL
- Airspeed below 140 KIAS
- Turn on strobes, beacon and navigation position lights.
- The landing lights are also recommended

The frequency of 128.55 is provided for the exchange of information between pilots using this area. Tune it in and make position reports as you pass major landmarks in the area
----------------------------

Note - no communication with ATC required.

[The Nr Fairy]

And to transit the LAX heli corridor, you need to speak to LA Helicopters (someone in LAX tower), and you'll be cleared "150 feet or below" from just south of Santa Monica to the chimney stacks along the shoreline south of LAX. Then pop up to 500' and speak to Torrance or Santa Monica (direction dependent).

Now that's fun !

[Hersham Boy]

I'm writing this from my work desk without a) a chart in front of me or; b) any previous knowledge of the corridor so this may be a silly response, but:

i) I have always assumed (yes, that most dangerous of words!) that pilots follow some sort of 'keep right' rule (like line feature tracking) to minimise the chances of head-on approaches?

ii) Could some mini-quad/semicirc rule not be employed? eg. x000 ft on QNH in one direction and x500 in the other? I don't know if the ceiling of MSA make this impractical...

Hersh

[Aussie Andy]

I think that self regulated corridors with only air-to-air frequencies in use are a great idea, and its not only the Yanks that have this sort of thing (ref. PhilD's note re- LAX SFRA above...

Take for example Sydney's Victor-1 VFR route (ref. Sydney Basin Pilot Guide (http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/pilot/download/SYDNEY/sydney.pdf) and photos (http://hoore.com/helo/victor1)). You have to to follow the coastal cliffs and remain not above 500' in order to stay under Sydney's Kingsford-Smith international airport approach and departure routes, and must announce your positions using blind calls on V-1 frequency 120.8 (a separate frequency for Sydney Radar 125.8 is provided in case of emergency and you need to speak to a controller). Aircraft on the V-1 frequency talk to each other as an aid to regular "see and avoid" separation. Works great in my experience fo a few flights through V-1 while there on holidays in a rented Arrow at Christmas time.

I think the merits of this approach are many: safer, easier, no cost, and reduced ATC workload. I can't think of any negatives. In my view this would be an ideal solution for the Manchester LLR. Does anyone know why this approach is not favoured here?

Andy

[phnuff]

Having never flown the Manchester LLR, I base my comments on the rat run between Stanstead and Luton - an area I know well and one that gets reasonably crowded with aircraft and microlites.

In principal, I think the idea of unmanned frequencies at GA pinch points is a great idea however lets bear in mind is that not all things that we roam the skies in are radio equiped and that the law created by Mr Murphy dictates that someone, sometime will rely on everyone being able to announce their presence and will fail to lookout to the commensurate degree and at best a near miss will occur, and at worse, people will get killed.

Maybe if we were to go to this kind of frequency, we need also to make it the law that all flying machines are radio equiped (and the radio is turned on!! ). These days, the equipment is relatively cheap and the advantages far outweight the disadvantages. I notice from the LAX example, there is the need to tune to a frequency and therefor non radio traffic would presumably be barred (a sub question - are non radio aircraft allowed in ther US ? ).

[Aussie Andy]

phnuff: in the case of Sydney's Victor-1 route "The carriage and use of radio is mandatory."

I don't see that this would be very onerous for such routes where safety would be enhanced by this approach. But I would say that wouldn't I, as I don't fly non-radio aircraft! In the case of Victor-1 the alternative is to go the long way around, so if you were non-radio and you wanted to get from Sydney's northern beaches to the south coast (e.g. Wollongong) then you'd have to route inland, skirting around Sydney. This would add a considerable distance to the journey.

I'm not sure this approach would work in the LLR if there is not a viable alternative route(?), but I would suggest that addition of a frequency for those aircraft that are readio equipped to use on an opt-in basis would still enhance safety. I don't agree with your argument, that people would look out less because of relying on radio broadcasts from other traffic, as "see and avoid" still prevails, and anyway there are plenty of times (like in a circuit at an uncotrolled field on a hazy day) where we do this and still can't always spot all the traffic even when we can hear them, so we still need to LOOKOUT!

That's my vote anyway ;) But if this is "controversial" at the level of a PPRUNE debate, then I guess the idead has 0% chance of adoption by the CAA!

Andy

[phnuff]

AussieAndy.

100% agree that 'see and avoid' still prevails and as my original RAF inspired instructor instilled 'there is still no replacement for the mark 1 eyeball' - . . . . . but still collisions do occur (thankfully rarely). Maybe I am being pessimistic in my Murphy's law comment, but I do get worried at things which may instill a false sense of security.

Anyway, you are probably right - the chances of any of this happening is approximately 0%

[PhilD]

As far as I know radios are required in the US in circumstances where ATC clearance is required. For VFR this means Class D and above. The LAX SFRA is in Class B, which is why the radio is required (as well as a Mode C transponder)

Spiney Norm - you said that the MAN LLR is Class D, which requires ATC clearance for VFR. This would imply radio is mandatory for the LLC - is this true?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

No clearance required for the LLR, so it's OK for non-radio aircraft. That's something worth keeping IMHO.

SSD

[Spiney Norman]

Hello All.
Thanks for the response. I was out flying today, passed through the LLR twice, and am just enjoying a post aviation Gin & Tonic.
Re the points raised.....The Low level Route is class D airspace to allow it to be 'a route notified for the purposes of Rule 5 (2) (a) (i)'. In english this means you are absolved from the '1500ft' rule but must. 'Operate at such a height as to 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'. This is very necessary as it was impossible to raise the maximum altitude above 1250ft QNH without causing problems for both Manchester, and specifically Liverpool ILS traffic. I should add that, of course, this doesn't absolve you from the 500ft rule.
When the LLR was initially established alot more aircraft operated without radio than today. To allow them to transit what was then class A airspace the rules where written to allow transit without a specific clearance and no need for carriage of radio.
Now this is the problem. If, and I mean If, such a dedicated non intervention frequency were to be introduced. It would have to allow non-radio aircraft to use the LLR and you would then have to fall back on 'see and be seen' for them. If you didn't allow them to transit the LLR they would have to make a huge detour to avoid the Manchester/Liverpool CTR complex. Personally I don't see non-radio transits as a major problem as I would agree that very few non-radio aircraft are flying these days. Can you make it compulsory for people to select a conspicuity code and transmit their position on a specific frequency if they're radio equipped? Well, it would seem that the British GA community always has an aversion to any form of compulsion, and anyway, how could you make pilots comply with the need to make the reports?
The thing everyone who uses any of these choke points or rat runs should be aware of is that while receiving a Flight Information Service you are very very unlikely to recieve information on ALL aircraft. Here's a quote from The Manual of Air Traffic Services Pt1....'controllers will, subject to workload, provide pilots with information concerning collision hazards'..... The point being, if he's busy with IFR traffic, the quality of the FIS will be reduced and you won't get the complete picture from him.
If I interpret SSD's response correctly, he would not wish to make position reports. Personally I'd be more than willing and I suspect most people would, but I stand to be corrected.
Phew! I've written enough so over to you for any thoughts.

Spiney

SSD.
I apologise in advance. Having read your post again I see you're actually refering to the freedom for non-radio aircraft to operate in the LLR. I blame Mr Gordon's brain modifier!

Spiney

[Whirlybird]

I'd be happy to make position reports, and I'm sure a fair number of other people would. So at least some of us would know where some other people are, which is better than how it is now. Again, this is the same as helicopter traffic in LA, who aren't compelled to report where they are, but usually do, for safely. The only time I didn't was when I was lost! :eek:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

No probs, Spiney. Though I prefer Tanquary myself :~))

Long live the LLR in its current state!

SSD

[davebuckley]

Speaking as a Southern Shandy Sipper, I regularly fly through the choke points around London, and a few times a year through the Manchester LL route.

IMHO if one is not receiving a radar service, one is far better employed scanning outside the cockpit at these choke points than worrying about position reports, where the reference points are, if the other pilots are actually where they say they are etc. etc.

There is enough to do looking out and navigating accurately.

It is usually not the aircraft you know about that's the threat .....:ok:

[stiknruda]

Flew it for the first time on Sat - up then down from Barton.

First thoughts were that really it was a pice of ease. I did have a service from Man but on future occassions would probably not bother.

It is a "corridor" with quite a low ceiling (1250' on Man QNH) - so you know that the propensity to be near othertraffic is high.

MAN warned me of 5 contacts - 3 opposing, 2 same direction. I has seen 4 out of the 5 before I'd received the call - the fifth I saw before it became an issue. I'm pretty sure that I would have seen it anyway, although because it was lower than me it did take longer to acquire.

The same direction traffic was quickly overhauled and I made sure that I was seen as I passed them.

All in all, a useful facility I think.

Stik

[Spiney Norman]

Stiknruda.
Glad you found the LLR a breeze. Speaking with my pilot hat firmly on, I agree entirely with you and I never call Manchester, just select the frequency for the QNH and navigate through keeping a good look out. Now, putting my ATCO hat on the problem is the need to consider the views of those in the flying community who find the LLR intimidating as a busy choke point. When my boss asked me to look at it I have tried to think about a method of operation that would address their concerns but would not be compulsory. It's very likely the LLR will continue just as it is but we are looking at it's operation. Unfortunately, making it bigger or having a higher ceiling is not on the cards I'm afraid. I've been involved in consulting as much of the local aviation comunity as I can, and I've had some very useful feedback since the original posts on this thread were made. One thing is for certain...It certainly won't be closed and if I have anything to do with it there'll be no change that doesn't make it better!

Spiney.