The Lea Valley
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Lea Valley
This topic came up in another thread and seemed worthy of some discussion in its own right.
I use to fly this route quite regularly in a single after it was introduced to me by a BA skipper and RAF fast jet pilot.
More recently I still fly the route in a twin, but hesitate to do so in a single, after reading comment that the CAA might want the tea no biccies type interview.
I keeping meaning to write to them to see what their "official" view is.
Perhaps I will following any discussion that hopefully follows.
Now for those of you with Google earth, and to refresh my own memory, it is worth turning up the Lea Valley imagining you were making a north south tranist.
I always looked for the reservoirs beyond Waltham Abbey which are easy to spot from the air. There are indeed ample fields around and to the east of Waltham Abbey as shown on Google Earth. The "transit" then follows the reservoirs through I would agree a reasonably well built up area. However, as long as you are prepared to get wet, should the unthinkable happen, the reservoirs present ample opportunities to ditch all the way down to Leyton.
Around Leyton there are some large playingfields and parks - and they are large, leaving only a very few miles from West Ham to the Thames and LCY. I have not calculated the distances but I would guess from West Ham to the Thames you are never out of glide distance should the donkey stop at the most unhelpful of moments.
Continuing south bound there is once again a short distance of high density housing from Woolwich to Welling - but also once again the distance involved is very short, and I doubt out of glide distance from either the Thames, LCY or the open country side beyond Welling.
I fully appreciate that Thames may have reason to "hold" you short of crossing the overhead of LCY. However, in my experience the "clearance" is down the Lea Valley. Therefore if for any reason they ask you to hold, it is quite reasonable that you would take up an orbit over one of the reservoirs, and no reason at all why you should depart from the corridor. You have not therefore compromised your ability to make a forced landing in this event.
I would be interested to know, from those who have flown the Lea Valley, and those that have not, whether it is you perception that the route would fail to comply with the ANO, or not.
I suggest it is well worth following the route on Google Earth which gives a very detailed pilot's eye view given the excellent topographical detail around London.
I also wonder if it is view that the route does not comply with the ANO, whether your view would change if the aircraft was fitted with a ballistic chute?
I use to fly this route quite regularly in a single after it was introduced to me by a BA skipper and RAF fast jet pilot.
More recently I still fly the route in a twin, but hesitate to do so in a single, after reading comment that the CAA might want the tea no biccies type interview.
I keeping meaning to write to them to see what their "official" view is.
Perhaps I will following any discussion that hopefully follows.
Now for those of you with Google earth, and to refresh my own memory, it is worth turning up the Lea Valley imagining you were making a north south tranist.
I always looked for the reservoirs beyond Waltham Abbey which are easy to spot from the air. There are indeed ample fields around and to the east of Waltham Abbey as shown on Google Earth. The "transit" then follows the reservoirs through I would agree a reasonably well built up area. However, as long as you are prepared to get wet, should the unthinkable happen, the reservoirs present ample opportunities to ditch all the way down to Leyton.
Around Leyton there are some large playingfields and parks - and they are large, leaving only a very few miles from West Ham to the Thames and LCY. I have not calculated the distances but I would guess from West Ham to the Thames you are never out of glide distance should the donkey stop at the most unhelpful of moments.
Continuing south bound there is once again a short distance of high density housing from Woolwich to Welling - but also once again the distance involved is very short, and I doubt out of glide distance from either the Thames, LCY or the open country side beyond Welling.
I fully appreciate that Thames may have reason to "hold" you short of crossing the overhead of LCY. However, in my experience the "clearance" is down the Lea Valley. Therefore if for any reason they ask you to hold, it is quite reasonable that you would take up an orbit over one of the reservoirs, and no reason at all why you should depart from the corridor. You have not therefore compromised your ability to make a forced landing in this event.
I would be interested to know, from those who have flown the Lea Valley, and those that have not, whether it is you perception that the route would fail to comply with the ANO, or not.
I suggest it is well worth following the route on Google Earth which gives a very detailed pilot's eye view given the excellent topographical detail around London.
I also wonder if it is view that the route does not comply with the ANO, whether your view would change if the aircraft was fitted with a ballistic chute?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EGSX
Age: 56
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can tell, the only landing areas would be William Girling and King George V reservoirs, the reservoir complex at Tottenham, Walthamstow marshes (where Mr A V Roe used to crash !!!) and Hackney marshes.
Hackney marsh is the only realistic area, but it does have the disadvantage of being totally covered in football pitches which are in regular use.
I live in NE London and quite often walk along the Lee Navigation, so I know the area very well from the ground (admittedly not from the air) and I honestly can't see how this route could be said to meet the land-clear rules.
Hackney marsh is the only realistic area, but it does have the disadvantage of being totally covered in football pitches which are in regular use.
I live in NE London and quite often walk along the Lee Navigation, so I know the area very well from the ground (admittedly not from the air) and I honestly can't see how this route could be said to meet the land-clear rules.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bexleyheath
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji Abound,
You dont say what altitude you normally fly this route at (which will alter the "land clear" guesstimates). You mention
but being a local and having flown over the area I believe the nearest open countryside would not start before south of Bromley or east of Dartford. However there are some Parks and school playing fields in the area which could be used in an emergency. I thought Thames Radar liked to keep OH Bexleyheath/ Welling clear so that they can vector Aircraft onto the ILS for Biggin Hill. I normally route South - North just East of Dartford and up towards Stapleford etc. so any tips on using the route you describe would be appreciated.
Thanks & Regards,
cpl4hire
You dont say what altitude you normally fly this route at (which will alter the "land clear" guesstimates). You mention
the open country side beyond Welling
Thanks & Regards,
cpl4hire
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EGSX
Age: 56
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify - this is the definition taken from ANO Article 155
'Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;
To me that covers the Lea Valley, and obviously any parks, school fields etc that may be available.
'Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;
To me that covers the Lea Valley, and obviously any parks, school fields etc that may be available.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tractor Boy
The definition does not seem to encompass reservoirs (unless they are used for recreation). Are any of the reservoirs used for sailing or other pursuits?
I agree (and I didnt know they were the Hackney Marshes) these are used extensively for recreation and a forced landing there would not be a good idea other than perhaps on a week day when they always seem pretty much deserted.
I have found a useful measurement tool in Google Earth. the distance from the last reservoir to the Thames is about 2.5 nm and I reckon it is a similiar distance from the Thames to be well clear to the south. At 2,000 feet (the minimium altitude usually on offer) you would expect to make the reservoir the Thames or open ground assuming total engine failure at the worst possible moment, although things might get a little interesting! However the engine would have to totally and unexpectedly quit on you at exactly the mid point - indeed very bad luck. The zone boundary is 2,500 ft.
If the reservoirs work I wonder how many of us have been within the boundary of a conjested area by 2.5 miles at 2,000 or 3,000 feet?
The definition does not seem to encompass reservoirs (unless they are used for recreation). Are any of the reservoirs used for sailing or other pursuits?
I agree (and I didnt know they were the Hackney Marshes) these are used extensively for recreation and a forced landing there would not be a good idea other than perhaps on a week day when they always seem pretty much deserted.
I have found a useful measurement tool in Google Earth. the distance from the last reservoir to the Thames is about 2.5 nm and I reckon it is a similiar distance from the Thames to be well clear to the south. At 2,000 feet (the minimium altitude usually on offer) you would expect to make the reservoir the Thames or open ground assuming total engine failure at the worst possible moment, although things might get a little interesting! However the engine would have to totally and unexpectedly quit on you at exactly the mid point - indeed very bad luck. The zone boundary is 2,500 ft.
If the reservoirs work I wonder how many of us have been within the boundary of a conjested area by 2.5 miles at 2,000 or 3,000 feet?
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 31st Oct 2008 at 16:42.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;
I think the issue here is the definition of 'substantially'. I know the area quite well from the ground (never flown the corridor), but it's a completely different ballgame - quite literally! - on the weekends. The marshes are totally deserted during the week and crowded on the w/e.
I think it's one of the instances where the rulemaking body leaves itself wiggle room on purpose. Interestingly, it's exactly the same in the US - the FAA stubbornly refuses to clarify the meaning of 'congested area'.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EGSX
Age: 56
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The King George 5th is an SSI and there is a sailing club based there. The William Girling is also an SSI.
The Walthamstow (or Tottenham) Reservoirs are again SSIs and are popular with birdwatchers, and anglers.
If you ever walk the Lee Navigation, try and find the railway arch on the bridge over Walthamstow Marsh - it's where A V Roe first set up shop. Apparently he used to crash quite a lot into the marshes.
The Walthamstow (or Tottenham) Reservoirs are again SSIs and are popular with birdwatchers, and anglers.
If you ever walk the Lee Navigation, try and find the railway arch on the bridge over Walthamstow Marsh - it's where A V Roe first set up shop. Apparently he used to crash quite a lot into the marshes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes thank you, you are of course correct - I have actually raced Fireballs once on King George V and should have remembered. Again almost always a weekend pursuit of course.
You should never put others on the ground at risk. It begs the question whether ditching on a resevoir or in the Thames is unreasonably putting others at risk. Landing on occupied playing fields clearly is and must be avoided at all cost, and nor should the pilot put himself in a situation where he has no alternative.
There are numerous approaches and departures I can think of where an engine failure at a critical time would almost inevitably leave the aircraft and occupants in the houses unless they were very lucky, and although I know some would argue this is not so, the evidence would not seem to support the case.
You should never put others on the ground at risk. It begs the question whether ditching on a resevoir or in the Thames is unreasonably putting others at risk. Landing on occupied playing fields clearly is and must be avoided at all cost, and nor should the pilot put himself in a situation where he has no alternative.
There are numerous approaches and departures I can think of where an engine failure at a critical time would almost inevitably leave the aircraft and occupants in the houses unless they were very lucky, and although I know some would argue this is not so, the evidence would not seem to support the case.
In summer 2004 I saw a couple of biplanes (one Tiger Moth, one another type that I won't say as there are only one or two in the country) fly up the Thames past the Isle of Dogs (legal?) as far as Tower Bridge, then turn north and continue out of sight, presumably following the Lea Valley. I cannot understand how the bit of flight north from Tower Bridge was legal! Certainly brave...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I keeping meaning to write to them to see what their "official" view is.
What's definitive is what the courts say.
The Inland Revenue, to be fair, can be quite open about this. If you ask them "if I were to do X, what would be the implications" they will sometimes say, not in so many words but it's clear what they mean, "not telling you mate, try it and see what happens, at the end of the day it's down to the judge".
