Manchester Low Level Corridor

[jaycee46]

We are hoping to use the corridor later this week - weather permitting - for a trip from Prestwick to down South. I've read the article in Fly on Track, but it is a few years old now, and I'm comfortable with the height limit. Any - to use a golf saying - local rules that we should be aware of?

[Manc]

Use the listening squawk 7366 and monitor Manchester Approach 118.575.

North of Warrington, I'd also monitor Barton Information 120.250 just to get an idea of what other traffic is about, especially as there can be a fair amount routing via Wigan going east-west just to the north of the low level.

Keep your eyes peeled!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

There are no 'local' rules', but I'd advise flying at a random level below (but not too far below) the top of the corridor.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Mind you it's not very deep - there aren't many levels available without trimming the lawn of some footballers mansion garden.

G

[Fly Through]

You could always go a few miles west and ask Liverpool for a transit, not above 1500' and a known environment.

[Talkdownman]

Funny that it's uncontrolled controlled airspace! Somebody afraid of declaring it Class G?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

No need to avoid the LLR. I've played in there for decades and never had a 'moment'. Even met the BBMF in there once!

You can actually go quite low if you want to - just avoid the built up areas. But it's a doddle at, say, 1210 feet QNH!

[phiggsbroadband]

One tip perhaps, mark it on your chart with a permanent marker pen. It is not just the southerly parallel bit, but the wide bit at the north end as well.


I approached it at 3500ft from the north, after missing Warton MATZ, and the 2452ft Radio Mast, thinking I had about 6nm to go, when I realised I was over Wigan with just one mile to go.... The old Cessna held together well in the ensuing dive....


These days it is 1300ft on the Manch QNH., and yes Liverpool (and Manchester) are most useful for class D Transits, as long as you are not crossing their Glide-Slopes.

[Thatsthewaytodoit]

Have you seen this?

This link from NATs, produced by one of our GA friends in Manchester ATC might be useful

https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/299/Manch...008NOV_CAA.pdf

TTWTDI

[jaycee46]

Thanks for the info folks. Weather permitting we'll see how it goes!

[soaringhigh650]

Any - to use a golf saying - local rules that we should be aware of?

I say avoid it unless you really have to use it. The corridor is low and narrow placing you below minimum safe altitude and at raised risk of collision with other airplanes.

It's safer to get a clearance so that you can fly higher and be informed about others.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Soaring - that's just nonsense! And it's spreading mis-information. I am a local, and flew it very regularly from 1978 to a couple of years ago.

Never experienced, or heard of, any 'incidents' let alone near-collisions in the LLR in 35 years of using it! If it's good enough for the BBMF Lanc, Spit, and Hurricane in formation it's good enough for any GA pilot.

Use it or lose it!

[Romeo Tango]

Areed SSD, I have used the LLR many times and never had a problem. Anyway the chances of a higher clearance is quite low.

[ShyTorque]

The corridor is low and narrow placing you below minimum safe altitude

The words "low level" and "route" do tend to make most pilots aware of that.

As far as "minimum safe altitude" goes, that term doesn't exist under ICAO. Minimum Sector Altitude (if that's what you actually meant to refer to), refers to IFR and this is exclusively a VFR route.

As a "notified route" the 1,000 ft rule doesn't apply either.

[Flyingmac]

Just watch out for Ashcroft at the Southern end. There's a rumour they've installed Triple A.

[soaringhigh650]

If it's good enough for the BBMF Lanc, Spit, and Hurricane in formation it's good enough for any GA pilot.

As part of the same formation maybe, but to fly formations at low level and at high speed is the very reason why I would avoid that corridor, as I would be unknown to yourselves and we will not see each other until the last few seconds.

Inside controlled airspace you receive traffic information or separation. Outside that you are on your own to see and avoid. But how to avoid if you fail to see?

The limitations of see and avoid are clear: Traffic information should be issued to allow pilots to conduct a directed search.

Why not fly a more direct route through controlled airspace instead?

In this case it is clear which I would one I would prefer any day.

I would only use that corridor if I have no real alternative.

As far as "minimum safe altitude" goes, that term doesn't exist under ICAO.

That doesn't matter. At low level: In hazy and poor VMC it's wise to obtain assistance to avoid obstacles and in good VMC conditions it's wise to obtain assistance to see and avoid other traffic.

[Flyingmac]

Soaring. Are you familiar with the LLR and why many of us who use it are glad of its existence?

[Heston]

Of course he isn't. He also talks bo66ocks like this: "In hazy and poor VMC it's wise to obtain assistance to avoid obstacles"

[soaringhigh650]

Okay that was a typo. Should have read: "In hazy and poor VMC it's wise to NOT fly below MSA. This airspace suggests getting a clearance from ATC so that you safely avoid terrain and obstacles."

and why many of us who use it are glad of its existence?

Sure - We have similar corridors over here too. In the event that clearance is not immediately available then this is a fuel saving shortcut. But it's never my preferred route for all the reasons I mentioned earlier. That's all I'm saying.

[phiggsbroadband]

Although you don't need to talk to Manchester, but just listen on their frequency, I am sure I have heard Manchester say something along the lines of.... 'Be aware there is a lot of Northbound traffic in the low-level corridor today'. Who it was addressed to, or if it was a general announcement, I just cannot recall.
Obviously do not rely upon this 'service'.