Flying Down the Thames

[ShyTorque]

I believe the general consensus is that in a small plane there is a roughly 50% chance of surviving a ditching unscathed(short term, long term depends a lot on circumstances such as Thames vs. North Sea etc.), which for me means that it can never be the primary option in case of forced landing.

I wouldn't want to do it, either. If you fly along the Thames along the official heli-routes, you are deemed to have accepted the requirement to ditch between the high and low water marks, in the unfortunate event. If the tide's in at the time of your forced landing, tough luck. I see no reason for any other forced landing place being deemed acceptable by the CAA, especially because it's a fixed wing.

IIRC, the entire Heathrow CTR has fairly recently been deemed a congested area for the purposes of the "Glide clear" rule for single engined fixed wing. So the CAA are onto the case, as it were, even though you wouldn't be entering that airspace, by the sound of it.

[soaringhigh650]

A question that gets asked every year

For EGLC:
If you approach from the QE II bridge, and remain East of the airport you will be OK. You hit the water in the rare event of an engine failure.

For EGLL:
As long as you remain west of the airport you will be OK.

[bookworm]

IIRC, the entire Heathrow CTR has fairly recently been deemed a congested area for the purposes of the "Glide clear" rule for single engined fixed wing.

Deemed by whom? It seems unlikely, as it's not for the CAA to interpret the law in that way. Any chance you're confusing it with the "specified area" for single-engine heli ops?

[ShyTorque]

No, I think it was an AIC and not specifically for helicopters. I'll have a search around the bazaars for it.

[MrAverage]

Somewhat simplified, it was a permanent NOTAM that forbids single engine fixed wing inside the controlled airspace between North South lines over Heathrow and City.........

[Talkdownman]

See UK IAIP ENR 1-1-4-2 Para 1.7

1.7 Single-Engine Fixed Wing Aircraft Over Central London

1.7.1 With the exception of the Northolt RMA (including for Runway 07 the portion of the London Control Zone north of the offset centre-line) (see AD 2-EGWU AD 2.17) and the Local Flying Areas at Denham and Brooklands (see AD 2-EGLL AD 2.22), NSF or ENSF permissions will not be granted to single-engine fixed wing aircraft requesting to operate within those parts of the London and London City Control Zones between a North-South line extending through the LON VOR and a North-South line extending through the LCY NDB. In accordance with a directive from the CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy, applications which fall within the above criteria will be refused upon application to the NSF Co-ordinator due to the inability of such aircraft, in the view of the CAA, to be able to comply with the ANO Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 - Low Flying (Rule 5d).

[chevvron]

Yeah but from what I've heard recently in strictest confidence, something may be happening which will mean the rule above may have to go.
Sorry I can't say any more (but i'd like to).

[ShyTorque]

Talkdownman, thanks, I knew it was out there somewhere - that's the one.

My memory on the location of the order was hazy because I don't fly SEFW and so it doesn't apply to my type of operations.

[RTN11]

The thing to do would be looking up low flying prosecutions for some case examples. Most of these come after a pilot on the ground reports an aircraft low flying since non pilots have no knowledge of the rules, or how low something actually looks. The last one I read I seem to remember was low flying over a football stadium, possibly Manchester. In the court case the expectation was on the pilot to provide evidence of which field he would of actually used had an engine failure occurred, and football pitches and playing fields were not acceptable. They even had photos in the report of the field the pilot elected, which was then deemed not to have been suitable and the pilot was fined by my memory.

Not sure how they would view using the river itself, not sure there is any case law on this.

The caa only seem to push for prosecution if they know they will win, looking at the prosecution lists each year it is rarely just low flying, but also compounded with no medical or insurance, and they just get them to plead guilty to one of them.

[Fuji Abound]

I thought the entry in the aip only applied to non standard flights?

[soaringhigh650]

And my flights are of a good standard.

[ShyTorque]

I thought the entry in the aip only applied to non standard flights?

The definition of "non standard flight" is quite wide ranging and may include sightseeing/pleasure flying.

[mad_jock]

Why would you want to fly down the thames in a single anyway?

Its like poking a lion with a stick.

[ShyTorque]

That's no way to describe those nice London Air Traffickers....

[bookworm]

"Non-standard flights" for the purpose of that paragraph are clearly those seeking to use controlled airspace in a non-standard way:

1.1 A NSF in Controlled Airspace is considered to be an aerial task which does not follow published routes or notified procedures; a formation flight of civil aircraft, other than for VFR transit of CTA/CTR/TMA; ...

No NSF application is required for a simple sightseeing flight which adheres to normal procedures (i.e. talks to Heathrow on 125.62 and gets a S/VFR clearance on an ad hoc basis). The reluctance of the CAA to permit an NSF approval does not in itself mean that a single within that lateral area would breach rule 5(d). It's a pretty clear indication of the CAA view though!

It's worth noting that SERA is on its way, with an interesting change in wording.

UK RotAR 2007 5(d) says:

An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city, town or settlement shall not fly
below such height as would permit the aircraft to land clear of the congested area
in the event of a power unit failure.

Part-SERA says in its corresponding section:
3.1.2.1 Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the
competent authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities,
towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height
as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without
undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

The Part-SERA provision is considerably less restrictive, as it would in principle permit an emergency landing in a safe place within the congested area (and it might be argued that a ditching in the Thames would not present undue hazard).

[Sam Rutherford]

You and your passengers have an 88% chance of surviving (even uninjured) a deliberate ditching.

A further 38% then die because of the time taken before help arrives.

I think, then, your chances of surviving a Thames ditching are actually very high - just don't hit any bridges!

Fly safe, Sam.


PS Safety Sense leaflet 21.