Manchester Low Level Route
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Low Level Route
Hi. Just planning some XC's and need to use the above. I know you're supposed to listen to Manc without transmitting, but is there not a frequency you can transmit on while listening to Manc approach? Surely it must be safer by being able to transmit your position and listen out for movements of others in such congested airspace?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: north of the south
Age: 55
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current procedure is to maintain a listening watch on 118:575 and squawk 7366 , they then know you are listening out and can if the need arises contact you with traffic info.
I have had them contact me once in aabout a million transits , there is nothing to stop you asking for a basic service if you wish , but you are just making a busy atc service busier when you dont need too.
I have had them contact me once in aabout a million transits , there is nothing to stop you asking for a basic service if you wish , but you are just making a busy atc service busier when you dont need too.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm aware of the procedure and don't want to transmit on a busy frequency - but you reinforce my point. If you've only been contacted once in your million transits, I can't believe you haven't come close to other traffic in that time with potential for a collision - is this really the safest way?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but you are just making a busy atc service busier when you dont need too.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are worried about other traffic get a Zaon MRX Collision Avoidance System. Should cost you about £400, they are very good and you will be astounded just how busy it is up there.
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SlipSlider - it is Class D. See, for example, the CAA's guidance document :
Edited to say that there is a proposal to release portions - e.g. the LLR - of the current Class D to Class G, but there has been no announcement yet.
What sort of ATC service can I expect?
Flight Information Service.(sic) Because you are operating within Class D airspace and below minimum safe altitude for IFR flight the RIS & RAS (sic) are not available within the route. The level of service you will receive depends on the level of traffic for the controller. If it is quiet you may be passed Radar derived traffic information but do remember, even if allocated a squawk you will NOT be receiving a formal radar service. There may, in fact almost certainly will be, traffic using the lane that is not communicating with Manchester.
Flight Information Service.(sic) Because you are operating within Class D airspace and below minimum safe altitude for IFR flight the RIS & RAS (sic) are not available within the route. The level of service you will receive depends on the level of traffic for the controller. If it is quiet you may be passed Radar derived traffic information but do remember, even if allocated a squawk you will NOT be receiving a formal radar service. There may, in fact almost certainly will be, traffic using the lane that is not communicating with Manchester.
Originally Posted by CAA
UPDATE 01 June
The consultation closed on 31st January 2009. A Consultation Feedback Report will be available in due course and NATS Manchester continues to negotiate with the CAA over the detail of a formal ACP application. Any changes as a result of a proposal are unlikely to be introduced before October 2009 at the earliest.
The consultation closed on 31st January 2009. A Consultation Feedback Report will be available in due course and NATS Manchester continues to negotiate with the CAA over the detail of a formal ACP application. Any changes as a result of a proposal are unlikely to be introduced before October 2009 at the earliest.
Last edited by DaveW; 30th Jul 2009 at 10:43.
Good Afternoon all.
Well. I wrote the route brief that is quoted above but, as I've retired now I'm a bit surprised the 'new' owner with responsibility for the updates hasn't done so.
Here we go....The LLR is currently class D but it's a very unusual, in fact unique, piece of class D airspace. If you read the brief you'll see that there are a number of very specific rules relating to the LLR regarding in-flight visibility and the fact that it is not neccessary to obtain a clearance, or listen out on the appropriate frequency. (I won't list them all because they're on the brief). The original intention of the LLR when it was established was to allow access to the Manchester CTR for aircraft operating without a radio both during night and day. I'm not sure exactly when it was established but it was definately before 1970 as I was working at Liverpool at this time and it was well established then. At this time the Manchester CTR was 'rule 21' airspace which is pretty much the equivalent of the current class A. Procedures for Liverpool and Manchester airports were written to seperate from the LLR. Unfortunately the changes made in latter years have resulted in something of an anomoly regarding the rules. The procedures and provision of a basic service within what is currently class D airspace result from a decision made by the CAA right back at the original introduction of the route, (although of course it was then a FIS), which of course makes the LLR unique. It has to be said though that when consideration was made to make the proposed changes to the airspace no one could find any documentary evidence of this but then it was eons ago!
Getting back to the original thread query......Your options are.
1. Transit non-radio
2. Transit monitoring 118.575 with 7366 selected.
3. Call for a basic service on 118.575
Whichever of these options you select you will never know all the traffic within the low-level route as all these options are available to all the other users. Many aircraft appear to choose option 1, probably because they have limited RTF battery life and/or no transponder anyway.
These anomalies were intended to be addressed by the airspace changes to the CTR which would make the LLR revert back to class G airspace amongst cropping various parts of the Class D zone. I'm afraid I have no knowledge as to the current state of the revisions but it was hoped they would be completed late this year.
I'll just add that the current release of class D airspace going through the revision process was entirely the work of flying ATCOs at Manchester Airport who have worked hard in their own time to get it to the stage it is now. If anyone thinks I'm blowing my own trumpet I'll just say that I was only involved in a very minor way but to those of you who know John Rhodes around the NW flying scene, if it goes through then buy him a drink!
Well. I wrote the route brief that is quoted above but, as I've retired now I'm a bit surprised the 'new' owner with responsibility for the updates hasn't done so.
Here we go....The LLR is currently class D but it's a very unusual, in fact unique, piece of class D airspace. If you read the brief you'll see that there are a number of very specific rules relating to the LLR regarding in-flight visibility and the fact that it is not neccessary to obtain a clearance, or listen out on the appropriate frequency. (I won't list them all because they're on the brief). The original intention of the LLR when it was established was to allow access to the Manchester CTR for aircraft operating without a radio both during night and day. I'm not sure exactly when it was established but it was definately before 1970 as I was working at Liverpool at this time and it was well established then. At this time the Manchester CTR was 'rule 21' airspace which is pretty much the equivalent of the current class A. Procedures for Liverpool and Manchester airports were written to seperate from the LLR. Unfortunately the changes made in latter years have resulted in something of an anomoly regarding the rules. The procedures and provision of a basic service within what is currently class D airspace result from a decision made by the CAA right back at the original introduction of the route, (although of course it was then a FIS), which of course makes the LLR unique. It has to be said though that when consideration was made to make the proposed changes to the airspace no one could find any documentary evidence of this but then it was eons ago!
Getting back to the original thread query......Your options are.
1. Transit non-radio
2. Transit monitoring 118.575 with 7366 selected.
3. Call for a basic service on 118.575
Whichever of these options you select you will never know all the traffic within the low-level route as all these options are available to all the other users. Many aircraft appear to choose option 1, probably because they have limited RTF battery life and/or no transponder anyway.
These anomalies were intended to be addressed by the airspace changes to the CTR which would make the LLR revert back to class G airspace amongst cropping various parts of the Class D zone. I'm afraid I have no knowledge as to the current state of the revisions but it was hoped they would be completed late this year.
I'll just add that the current release of class D airspace going through the revision process was entirely the work of flying ATCOs at Manchester Airport who have worked hard in their own time to get it to the stage it is now. If anyone thinks I'm blowing my own trumpet I'll just say that I was only involved in a very minor way but to those of you who know John Rhodes around the NW flying scene, if it goes through then buy him a drink!
flybymike.
I think you must have posted whilst I was writing my possibly rambling entry above. The answer to your point is the CAA wanted the route to be class D as it then had the option for it to be notiifed for the purposes of rule 5 thereby allowing a transit of the Warrington built up area 'at such a height as would enable an aircraft to alight clear of the congested area' instead of what was then the 1500ft rule. As the cap on the LLR is/was 1250ft QNH this would have made a transit very much a grey area legally! When the rules changed to make the '1500ft rule' the '1000ft rule' this problem solved itself to some extent and the possibility of a revision of airspace classification to class G for the LLR became possible. As you have pointed out, the contradictory nature of the current general rules for class D airspace and the LLR are very difficult for most of us to come to terms with but they are, (currently), as they are I'm afraid. Hopefully though, not for much longer.
I think you must have posted whilst I was writing my possibly rambling entry above. The answer to your point is the CAA wanted the route to be class D as it then had the option for it to be notiifed for the purposes of rule 5 thereby allowing a transit of the Warrington built up area 'at such a height as would enable an aircraft to alight clear of the congested area' instead of what was then the 1500ft rule. As the cap on the LLR is/was 1250ft QNH this would have made a transit very much a grey area legally! When the rules changed to make the '1500ft rule' the '1000ft rule' this problem solved itself to some extent and the possibility of a revision of airspace classification to class G for the LLR became possible. As you have pointed out, the contradictory nature of the current general rules for class D airspace and the LLR are very difficult for most of us to come to terms with but they are, (currently), as they are I'm afraid. Hopefully though, not for much longer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Thanks Spiney - appreciate your time and effort. I guess all will be well though can't help feeling the current arrangement makes it a bit like russian roulette!! Will keep a very keen eye out!.
Okavango.
No problem! I am an LAA aircraft owner and transit the Low-Level route regularly so I'm not just looking at this with an ATCO hat on. Although it may seem intimidating at first it's really not so bad. As I say at the end of the briefing document....'First transit completed and, lets face it, it was a piece of cake really!'
No problem! I am an LAA aircraft owner and transit the Low-Level route regularly so I'm not just looking at this with an ATCO hat on. Although it may seem intimidating at first it's really not so bad. As I say at the end of the briefing document....'First transit completed and, lets face it, it was a piece of cake really!'
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Leaving aside my googly above re provision of Basic Service in Class D, I should place on record that my experience of the service from Manch controllers while transiting the LLR is that they are absolutely excellent, have no trouble juggling vectoring IFR inbounds with passing radar-derived traffic info to LLR traffic, and seem to be capable of being pleasant and cheery even when busy.
Because of that, when using the LLR I always call Manch because apart from that leading to (at least the potential for) better traffic info for me, it also means better traffic info for everyone else too. Plus it gives the controllers the option of (1) ignoring me if they're too busy, (2) leaving me as unidentified but giving general traffic info, or (3) identifying me and giving more specific traffic info if able.
NS
Because of that, when using the LLR I always call Manch because apart from that leading to (at least the potential for) better traffic info for me, it also means better traffic info for everyone else too. Plus it gives the controllers the option of (1) ignoring me if they're too busy, (2) leaving me as unidentified but giving general traffic info, or (3) identifying me and giving more specific traffic info if able.
NS
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all. Did the LLR this evening. Must say I was surprised how quiet Manc were. Not sure where the ref to GPS came from in the last message, but I was just about to actually suggest it to anyone low experienced transitting the first time or so. Though I'd made myself familiar with landmarks it was nice to have a GPS reference for back-up.