Cessna over Hampstead Heath
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cessna over Hampstead Heath
Whilst playing tennis on Hampstead Heath yesterday with some mates I saw what looked like a Cessna 172 flying relatively low, straight over the Heath, heading roughly NW at around 16.45 BST.
Now I haven't got my charts to hand, but wouldn't that put this guy/girl in the London CTR? So what kind of dispensation would you need?
Now I haven't got my charts to hand, but wouldn't that put this guy/girl in the London CTR? So what kind of dispensation would you need?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The London CTR actually cuts through the west side of Hampstead Heath. Immediately to the west and thus covering the rest of the Heath is London/City CTR. It (the Heath) is actually marked on the CAA half mil chart.
There is a little bit of the Heath, up near Kenwood house, which is actually outside both zones. Not sure I'd fancy trying it though - the lines on the map are over 300m thick. Who knows if the zone is marked by the inside or the outside of the line? And I can't see how you can land clear from from 2400'.
There is a little bit of the Heath, up near Kenwood house, which is actually outside both zones. Not sure I'd fancy trying it though - the lines on the map are over 300m thick. Who knows if the zone is marked by the inside or the outside of the line? And I can't see how you can land clear from from 2400'.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was similarly surprised to see a PA 28 heading north over the Heath at 11.10 on Sunday morning. I estimated its height as approx 2000 feet. Obviously I could not see what the pilot could see, but, knowing the area, I was doubtful that the aircraft could glide clear if its engine stopped. North of the Heath there is a large stretch of built-up area before you reach any significant open space. I don't recall seeing a single engined aircraft so far into London before.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although we are always a bit reluctant to "shop" pilots who we know have done something stupid and illegal, we have to remember that if this guy had come down in Highgate High Street or Camden Lock the anti GA lobby would have had a field day.
To some extent we are protected by the ignorance of the public and press (cv the Cessna which lost it's "main engine" near the Scillies last week) but it would only take an idiot like this to force land into bus queue or worse for demands to be made for SEPs to be banned either altogether or from anything but day VFR over farmland.
We actually have a duty to ourselves to try and stop this idiocy.
W
To some extent we are protected by the ignorance of the public and press (cv the Cessna which lost it's "main engine" near the Scillies last week) but it would only take an idiot like this to force land into bus queue or worse for demands to be made for SEPs to be banned either altogether or from anything but day VFR over farmland.
We actually have a duty to ourselves to try and stop this idiocy.
W
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bus queues? Camden Lock? Couldn't he have landed on the heath or another bit of open ground in the event of engine failure? Still illegal I guess, but far more sensible a choice and far less likely to result in carnage.
I recall a PA38 suffering smoke in the cockpit while over London many years ago. The pilot put it into a park IIRC. She was killed, but no damage to any 3rd parties, again IIRC.
SSD
I recall a PA38 suffering smoke in the cockpit while over London many years ago. The pilot put it into a park IIRC. She was killed, but no damage to any 3rd parties, again IIRC.
SSD
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me but what right do we have to sit and be judgemental from our armchairs?
We did not have the view from the cockpit and therefore the ability to decide of glidedclear was available or not. It is up to the pilot in command to decide if he is legal or not and if someone went wrong be able to justify his actions. It is perfectly legal to fly over London on a SVR clearance. It is the pilots duty to ensure that he is safe in doing so.
It is not our duty to sit and question another pilots judgement just because we don't agree with it.
Come on guys get a life!
We did not have the view from the cockpit and therefore the ability to decide of glidedclear was available or not. It is up to the pilot in command to decide if he is legal or not and if someone went wrong be able to justify his actions. It is perfectly legal to fly over London on a SVR clearance. It is the pilots duty to ensure that he is safe in doing so.
It is not our duty to sit and question another pilots judgement just because we don't agree with it.
Come on guys get a life!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not our duty to sit and question another pilots judgement just because we don't agree with it.
Remember, when talking about gliding clear, the rules relate not to having a "pretty good chance of making it to a park", you are required with reasonable certainty to be able to glide clear of congested areas.
Break those rules and it is reasonable to wonder what other rules the pilot(s) concerned are prepared to flout. I think WCollins is on the money.
2D
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is still not our responsibility to police other pilots, this is not a big brother state.
When I was granted my PPL I was under the understanding that I was responsible for my own actions and the fact that I had demonstrated both academically and physically my understanding of the rules and skills that I was capable of making my own flight safety decisions.
It is too easy for us to sit in judgement of others from the safety of the internet. We were not at the controls and therefore I ask how we can question someone elses decision making process.
Having never flown over that section of London I have no idea if there is glide clear space or not. Looking at the half mil chart not a lot of green is seen but looking at an OS map of the area it seems to me that there are plenty of green spots to "drop" into. If I was in an engine failure situtation I would not be concerned about a graceful landing but rather the saving of life and limb, both mine and others.
As a point as well it is also remarkably difficult even for a pilot to judge the height of an aircraft from the ground, a fact ably displayed by more than 100 members of our club at a recent fun day. Not 1 person was able to corectly judge the height of a Cessna 152 being flown over the airfield at 2000ft within a 1000ft!
It is hard to see unles we have followed the same route from the air ourselves we can make comment?
When I was granted my PPL I was under the understanding that I was responsible for my own actions and the fact that I had demonstrated both academically and physically my understanding of the rules and skills that I was capable of making my own flight safety decisions.
It is too easy for us to sit in judgement of others from the safety of the internet. We were not at the controls and therefore I ask how we can question someone elses decision making process.
Having never flown over that section of London I have no idea if there is glide clear space or not. Looking at the half mil chart not a lot of green is seen but looking at an OS map of the area it seems to me that there are plenty of green spots to "drop" into. If I was in an engine failure situtation I would not be concerned about a graceful landing but rather the saving of life and limb, both mine and others.
As a point as well it is also remarkably difficult even for a pilot to judge the height of an aircraft from the ground, a fact ably displayed by more than 100 members of our club at a recent fun day. Not 1 person was able to corectly judge the height of a Cessna 152 being flown over the airfield at 2000ft within a 1000ft!
It is hard to see unles we have followed the same route from the air ourselves we can make comment?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W Collins sums this up perfectly I reckon.
Said pilots may not be bothered about risking own life - let alone others. 'It will never happen to me.'
PFA permit aircraft have to operate clear of built up area's at all time - doesn't cause a problem just more careful planning - and is that a bad thing?
Said pilots may not be bothered about risking own life - let alone others. 'It will never happen to me.'
PFA permit aircraft have to operate clear of built up area's at all time - doesn't cause a problem just more careful planning - and is that a bad thing?
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose-x
...well maybe you should sit up and listen to those of us who have very often and do have an idea.
Yes, there are blue bits and green bits dotted around Central London. The blue bits have a lot of boats floating on them and the green bits are full of people throwing frisbees, kicking footballs and generally enjoying a peaceful life. Although landing on a football pitch (and most of the Heath that isn't trees is football pitch) may cause less death and injury than plummeting into a bus queue, there is still a considerable risk to entirely innocent people.
...um, no. SVFR only removes the 1500' obligation 1(a)(ii). It specifically does not remove the "land clear" 1(a)(i)
I agree that ChiSau may have been mistaken, and that the height may have been a little more than 2000' (remember that Hampstead Heath is quite high and the base of Class A is 2500' QNH), but even from that height there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of gliding clear of the congested area.
As for the argument that we should just go about our lives without judging others or interfering with their freedom to put lives at risk....well I don't know where to start. Do you stand by as muggers beat up old ladies? Do you allow yobbos to do handbrake turns down your suburban street at 70mph without raising an eyebrow or a telephone?
If you condone people flying SEPs over Central London (or any other major connurbation) you are risking losing everybody's freedoms. You just have to look at the sporting use of hand guns to see a corollary.
W
Having never flown over that section of London I have no idea
Yes, there are blue bits and green bits dotted around Central London. The blue bits have a lot of boats floating on them and the green bits are full of people throwing frisbees, kicking footballs and generally enjoying a peaceful life. Although landing on a football pitch (and most of the Heath that isn't trees is football pitch) may cause less death and injury than plummeting into a bus queue, there is still a considerable risk to entirely innocent people.
It is perfectly legal to fly over London on a SVR clearance.
I agree that ChiSau may have been mistaken, and that the height may have been a little more than 2000' (remember that Hampstead Heath is quite high and the base of Class A is 2500' QNH), but even from that height there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of gliding clear of the congested area.
As for the argument that we should just go about our lives without judging others or interfering with their freedom to put lives at risk....well I don't know where to start. Do you stand by as muggers beat up old ladies? Do you allow yobbos to do handbrake turns down your suburban street at 70mph without raising an eyebrow or a telephone?
If you condone people flying SEPs over Central London (or any other major connurbation) you are risking losing everybody's freedoms. You just have to look at the sporting use of hand guns to see a corollary.
W
Last edited by Timothy; 15th Oct 2003 at 03:45.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD,
The PA-38 that you mention was attempting to land in a park after smoke entered the cockpit from a burnt out relay. The pilot misjudged it, overshot & then applied power to go around. Unfortunately for the pilot, she had already turned the fuel off in preparation for the F/L and the subsequent fate was to hit the side of a factory at the back of a house, narrowly missing the occupants. I know this because I spent most of that very pleasant, crisp December day in 1986 cutting both of the occupants from the wreckage!
It was also a congested area, so even if there were parks, heathland or open spaces, its still congested!
Bose-X,
Can't quite see where you are coming from here. The pilots who openly flout the ANO and risk landing in a congested area also threaten the remaining freedoms that we pilots in the UK have. You can just see the headlines now - "Single-engined Cessna flying over London crashes on Primary School - 30 children killed"
From the ANO, Article 129 - ‘Congested area’ in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;
From this, I read it that virtually anywhere that is built up (and this certainly includes Hampstead Heath and the surrounding parkland) is to be avoided in a single, because if you have an engine failure at 2400ft, you're not going to clear it!. At 4-5000ft, you may just do it, but then you'd be in the CTR.
It's certainly illegal, definately foolish and downright stoopid! The pilot should know the glide clear rules. If he/she doesnt, he/she shouldnt be flying!
It certainly IS our responsibilty to 'police' other pilots. They may be the ones who screw it up for the rest of us! Even something like "Hey Ace, do you realise it's a pretty dim thing to fly over London etc etc" will normally suffice. No 'Big Brother Tactics' needed, just gentle advice from those more experienced pilots who know the rules
I'll get me coat!
The PA-38 that you mention was attempting to land in a park after smoke entered the cockpit from a burnt out relay. The pilot misjudged it, overshot & then applied power to go around. Unfortunately for the pilot, she had already turned the fuel off in preparation for the F/L and the subsequent fate was to hit the side of a factory at the back of a house, narrowly missing the occupants. I know this because I spent most of that very pleasant, crisp December day in 1986 cutting both of the occupants from the wreckage!
It was also a congested area, so even if there were parks, heathland or open spaces, its still congested!
Bose-X,
Can't quite see where you are coming from here. The pilots who openly flout the ANO and risk landing in a congested area also threaten the remaining freedoms that we pilots in the UK have. You can just see the headlines now - "Single-engined Cessna flying over London crashes on Primary School - 30 children killed"
From the ANO, Article 129 - ‘Congested area’ in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;
From this, I read it that virtually anywhere that is built up (and this certainly includes Hampstead Heath and the surrounding parkland) is to be avoided in a single, because if you have an engine failure at 2400ft, you're not going to clear it!. At 4-5000ft, you may just do it, but then you'd be in the CTR.
It's certainly illegal, definately foolish and downright stoopid! The pilot should know the glide clear rules. If he/she doesnt, he/she shouldnt be flying!
It certainly IS our responsibilty to 'police' other pilots. They may be the ones who screw it up for the rest of us! Even something like "Hey Ace, do you realise it's a pretty dim thing to fly over London etc etc" will normally suffice. No 'Big Brother Tactics' needed, just gentle advice from those more experienced pilots who know the rules
I'll get me coat!
Oops!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devil's Advocate. . . .
If you condone people flying SEPs over Central London (or any other major connurbation) you are risking losing everybody's freedoms.
I agree with you up to a point but we can't, however, paint SEP's as the only villains of the piece. Things can go wrong in twins too (as shown by the accident at Shoreham) and had the Paris, Concorde accident happened at LHR whilst they were on Easterlies. . . . Well, it doesn’t bear thinking about. . . .
The fact is that ANY form of aviation over ANY built up area carries an element of risk. However, Single Engine Aircraft have been flown over the skies of London far longer than any of us have been ‘behind the wheel’ and by far greater men than any of us. We, therefore, have to ask ourselves, do we have the right to condemn and are we, by our very words in this thread, playing right into the hands of those who would see our pastimes, lives and careers go the same way as “hand guns”, simply because, one day, something might, just might happen?
G
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
greatorex
Heavens preserve us from yet another SEP/MEP interminable bore, but I have had a lot of engine failures in my time (8 or 9 depending what you count) and the ones in singles have been a lot more memorable than those in multis.
Yes, we can all run out of fuel and we can all have structural failures...we can indeed all have smoke in the cockpit (though last time I did I just flicked off the master switch and landed on a runway, arguably preferable to piling into a factory) but if we are as careful about fuel as we are about low flying rules engine failure is the most likely cause of a power loss, and that is catered for by the MEP, which is why we MEPpers are allowed over the congested area and SEPpers ain't.
I doubt if my mentioning hand guns will cause anyone to change the law. But a crash of a SEP into London may well.
W
Heavens preserve us from yet another SEP/MEP interminable bore, but I have had a lot of engine failures in my time (8 or 9 depending what you count) and the ones in singles have been a lot more memorable than those in multis.
Yes, we can all run out of fuel and we can all have structural failures...we can indeed all have smoke in the cockpit (though last time I did I just flicked off the master switch and landed on a runway, arguably preferable to piling into a factory) but if we are as careful about fuel as we are about low flying rules engine failure is the most likely cause of a power loss, and that is catered for by the MEP, which is why we MEPpers are allowed over the congested area and SEPpers ain't.
I doubt if my mentioning hand guns will cause anyone to change the law. But a crash of a SEP into London may well.
W
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wcollins.
I bow to your no doubt superior knowledge and experiance in this matter. As you have no doubt flown that particular route many times, assumably in a twin, with the correct fuel on board and 2 perfectly working engines and had time to analyse all of the possible (or not) landing sites.
On the times I have flown accross London in a twin I have always made a point of looking for landing places and while not always perfect there are a number of them. There is no reason not to put an aircraft down into one of the many patches of water already mentioned in another post.
I suggest that if you think this pilot committed an unlawfull act that you report it to the CAA. I am sure they will be happy to take our armchair opinions!!!
I bow to your no doubt superior knowledge and experiance in this matter. As you have no doubt flown that particular route many times, assumably in a twin, with the correct fuel on board and 2 perfectly working engines and had time to analyse all of the possible (or not) landing sites.
On the times I have flown accross London in a twin I have always made a point of looking for landing places and while not always perfect there are a number of them. There is no reason not to put an aircraft down into one of the many patches of water already mentioned in another post.
I suggest that if you think this pilot committed an unlawfull act that you report it to the CAA. I am sure they will be happy to take our armchair opinions!!!
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, speaking of
... no shortage of those here then!?! 
IMHO, regardless of what was or wasn't seen over Hamsptead Heath, as the case may be, woe betide anyone who chooses to fly SEP over a built-up area such as London.
No matter what people may care to argue here, it would be a different matter to have to defend your decision to the CAA or - worse - an insurer who may choose a more strict interpretation of "land clear" than you! If the safety arguments don't convince you, then perhaps the risk of personal bankruptcy might?
So, each make his own decision and live (or not?) with the consequences... we're all big boys and girls now aren't we!
Best to all,
Andy
... armchair opinions ...
IMHO, regardless of what was or wasn't seen over Hamsptead Heath, as the case may be, woe betide anyone who chooses to fly SEP over a built-up area such as London.
No matter what people may care to argue here, it would be a different matter to have to defend your decision to the CAA or - worse - an insurer who may choose a more strict interpretation of "land clear" than you! If the safety arguments don't convince you, then perhaps the risk of personal bankruptcy might?
So, each make his own decision and live (or not?) with the consequences... we're all big boys and girls now aren't we!
Best to all,
Andy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm... well, you can take a view on who's "responsibility" it is to report infringements. But any notion here that the right to allege that someone has broken the law is limited to only trained professionals is void.
Anyone who feels that they have witnessed a legal violation has the right to report it. Not investigate it, not prosecute it, not judge it, but to report it: yes. That's not aviation specific, nor specific to Britain or even Western society either. Now that we understand that, then you have to ask yourself, should pilots - vs. joe schmo - feel an obligation to report percieved infringements:
(a) Less than non pilots. ("He who casts")
(b) About the same.
(c) More. (Better informed as to geniune threat?)
Interesting debate.
edited to correct the italic.[/I]
Anyone who feels that they have witnessed a legal violation has the right to report it. Not investigate it, not prosecute it, not judge it, but to report it: yes. That's not aviation specific, nor specific to Britain or even Western society either. Now that we understand that, then you have to ask yourself, should pilots - vs. joe schmo - feel an obligation to report percieved infringements:
(a) Less than non pilots. ("He who casts")
(b) About the same.
(c) More. (Better informed as to geniune threat?)
Interesting debate.
edited to correct the italic.[/I]
Last edited by BRL; 15th Oct 2003 at 06:15.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
take a view on who's "responsibility" it is to report infringements
bose-x said:
When I was granted my PPL I was under the understanding that I was responsible for my own actions and the fact that I had demonstrated both academically and physically my understanding of the rules and skills that I was capable of making my own flight safety decisions
Love and hugs (lest we let this thread get over heated as another nearby thread has recently done!)
Andy