First of all, I am NOT accusing controllers of letting the pilots do what they want.... I am not spreading lies or rumours. I am looking for information only, and I now got what I wanted to know.... Thank you for your replies.

As far as the low flying is concerned, I consider that, given we are talking about Edinburgh city, 500 feet from any person or structure ;) is 500 feet agl ;)
Indeed, Arthur Seat is 824 feet high, but the 2100 feet figure for built up areas clearance has been confirmed by yourself as 2100 as Edinburgh Castle is approximately 600 feet high (505 exactly).... 600+1500=2100...
Oh, and by the way, Edinburgh Castle is not a thingy castle.... It is one of the most (if not the most) beautiful and picturesque castle in Europe.... Just to let you know in case you do not really know about it....
Cheers :)

PS: At the end of the day, aircraft sometimes fly above the City Centre, and that is a FACT....;)

P'raps so that they can see the pretty castle? Good grief aircraft fly over loads of city centres!As for tailwind departures perhaps one of the guys from BHD would like to comment on those (Tower Danger are you there?):uhoh:

It is indeed a fact. And of course it's also a fact that the aircraft are LEGALLY entitled to be there and ATC are legally entitled to let them be there :) Which should be the basis of any reply to the NIMBY who sent the letter to the newspaper.

It's academic. The 500' rule will never apply as the city will be deemed to be a congested area. The minimum will always be 1500' or sufficient height to allow the aircraft to clear the area in the event of the failure of a power unit (whichever is the higher).

I prefer Neuschwanstein Castle in Bavaria personally. :}

well said Radar! Must go to bed now as need my sleep before vectoring the EZY from Belfast over the city centre whilst working the Ryanair into Prestwick tomorrow morning;)

Dont think anyone ever argued that they dont fly over the city centre. Just that they don't fly low or illegally!!!

As for being pressured into letting them cut corners..... hehehehe. Only fun we have sometimes is delaying them;)

Prune stealthy radar hon, how can you say that Neuschwanthingy castle is nicer than our lil ickly thingy one on the hill??? You drank too much meths again??;) :p

Of course Neuschwanstein is better ....

there's no 500' Rule and you can park your aircraft/car in the courtyard

:p

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/07...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

:{
I despair of some people.

One of the best things about the aviation industry is that it's full of professionals who know what they're talking about. Unlike Pilrig it seems.

I heard a complaint a while back from a bloke in the city who had seen an A319 (after departure from rwy06) turn right over the Forth for wx avoidance. This a/c crossed the city southbound climbing through 5,000'. The complainant stated that the a/c was "nowhere near that height" and declared this to be unsafe "in case an engine failed" since there were apparently lots of families out in the sunshine that day.

I have yet to see a low-cost ( or other, for that matter) cut corners - if they did, I'd get heat for not stopping them - but hey, that's not an exciting journo scoop is it?

Fancy Navigator are you Mr Toberman? :hmm: About the only part of his letter that was accurate was the bit about aircraft flying over the city. While you say it is not rare, it is not common either. I live near the West End and seldom see aircraft on direct routings. I am also a frequent user of flights to and from EGPH and cannot remember the last time I was on an aircraft that routed direct.

Mr Toberman specifically has a go at easyJet. Why? Pissed off with them for being delayed or denied boarding for not having proper docs? Who knows. It was interesting that he signed the letter as chair of the Pilrig Residents Assoc. I wonder if he had the backing of his members?

Rather than bash easyJet he might have had more success in questioning some of the routings taken by the single engine fixed wing and helicopters to EGPH. And I say this as a PPL who bashed the circuit at EGPH until the moving (and eventual demise) of Turnhouse FC.:\

NudgingSteel - I know it is very fashionable around here to bash the journo's but in this case I don't think it is deserved. They gave space to a readers (seriously error ridden) letter but also published two letters of rebutal.

Gaza,

Fair point mate, no journo at fault here. I just get saddened when people can throw wildly wrong allegations around (Mr T) then a perfectly legit operator (easyJet) has to send in the standard letter of denial. Which one are people going to remember? I also agree with you that it seems somebody has an axe to grind with easyJet and he isn't telling us why.

Always heartening to see the great unwashed making muppets of themselves when it comes to aviation. Not really their fault I suppose when when all they have to go on is "Pushing Tin" and sensationalist 'docu-dramas' like "The Day Britain Stopped" etc.

Pprune Radar

Surely these people are NAMBY's - Not Above My Back Yard?

One of the funniest posts in ages - keep it up!:E

Gaza

OK, the gloves are coming off now - what routings are you talking about? The VFR routes in and out of EGPH are specifically chosen to minimise the possibility of breaching Rule 5. Can't comment on eggbeaters but I can't see what the problem is with fixed wing.

I know the preferred VFR routes in and out of EGPH are designed to prevent breaches of Rule 5. However, my point was that there is more risk from a single engine aircraft routing over some of the built up areas on the west side of the City than there is from a modern twin-engined jet passing over the City Centre at 5000 feet! For example: engine failure on a PA-28 while routing to take up the hold at Corstorphine Hill could cause problems. A 737 engine failure over the city may cause a bit of excitment in the cockpit but there is very little danger to those on the ground.

I'm not critisising the routings. I'm saying that if he wanted his complaint to carry more weight he could have used a better argument.:=

Yeah, but only for the golfers on Carrick Knowe;) (10th fairway's the one to go for BTW)

Let's hope he doesn't read PPRuNe then:uhoh:

I don't think it was safety that bothered him mainly - it was noise wasn't it?

I reckon the problem is that since they changed all the 06 SIDs a few years ago - and stopped using 12 for night departures - the burghers of Edin have become used to the peace and quiet. We used to have fully laden 737-200s turning right to Talla directly over the city virtually every day. Now that WAS loud.

But back to the main point. Has anyone actually counted how many IFR arrivals for 24 take a visual? And is it more nowadays than before Easyjet came along? And do Easyjet and Ryanair do more visuals proportionately than the others?

Part of Mr Pilrig's perception will no doubt be coloured by the fact that (a) Easyjet 737s are more easily identifiable than other airlines and (b) there's an increasing number of them, so even if they don't fly visuals more often than the rest, the perception will be that there's more of them doing it. And I've even confused myself now :confused:

No way. Too many trees plus its crosswind.:8 The 13th (long par 5 if my memory serves me correctly) would be better, although the two big bunkers in the middle could cause a problem!:p