Can someone explain how this is legal?

[eglnyt]

Originally Posted by MrAverage

The CAA, if someone could manage to get them to comment, would say; "The rules are quite clear, one needs to be able to land clear of the built up area". In other words, not somewhere inside the built up area..................

The rules don't actually say that though. A while ago the CAA prosecuted somebody on that basis and lost when the defence barrister pointed out the difference between being able to land safely without endangering others and landing clear of the congested area. As far as I'm aware there's been no change to that part of the rules since.
Those of us without the deep pockets to hire good defence barristers might need to be more cautious but there is often a difference between what people think is illegal, what ought to be illegal and what actually is.

[PPRuNeUser469990]

Well it might be legal, but it's pretty stupid to fly a single 1,200' over a built up area with no forced landings areas you can reach (and public parks, with people in, are not suitable)

[MrAverage]

I'd say landing clear is by far preferable to being in court, however deep the pockets are.

[eglnyt]

Originally Posted by MrAverage

I'd say landing clear is by far preferable to being in court, however deep the pockets are.

I wouldn't disagree but the question was about legality not whether it was sensible. Different people have different attitudes to risk, mine would put me much further West.

[Abrahn]

This is an aerial photo of one of those green spaces that was on track. Two sides are out because of the church and tower blocks, so you'd have to come in from the remaining side over the 4 storey houses/flats and trees, hope the wind is right and touch down and stop inside the length of a football pitch whilst hoping nobody is playing cricket or sunbathing.

[Pilot DAR]

This is an aerial photo of one of those green spaces that was on track

Yeah... the longest practical surface distance there is 900 feet, and if you exceed that by 300 feet either way, you're probably hitting someone. Were I to be the authority, I would be very skeptical that most recreational pilots flying an Arrow could tuck it into 900 feet over several storey buildings without hitting something. And that presumes that you were at just the right place along your route when it quit to set up into there. A pilot thinking that meets the requirement for a safe spot in an emergency is really hoping a lot! I certainly would never consider that a safe flight for me to fly.

[ShyTorque]

It’s usual to be given a crossing clearance in the Heathrow CTR (in a twin engined helicopter) not above 1300’ London QNH. Single engined helicopters have to stick to the published heli routes so I doubt that clearance would have been given to a helicopter. I don’t think it’s in any way normal for a single engined fixed wing to fly that route.

[Flyingmac]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

I don’t think it’s in any way normal for a single engined fixed wing to fly that route.

It was a one-off, and statistics suggest that the chances of it developing into a major incident were miniscule. Move on FFS.

[MrAverage]

Sorry to say it's far from a one off, it happens with monotonous regularity down these parts.

[PPRuNeUser469990]

It's not a "one off". I regularly see single engine aircraft flying over Greater London built-up areas, who would have no chance of reaching a field if the engine stopped.

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by Flyingmac

It was a one-off, and statistics suggest that the chances of it developing into a major incident were miniscule. Move on FFS.

Why should I move on? I’m simply taking part in a discussion, which you appear to have a personal sensitivity about.

Until very recently I’ve regularly transitted the London Control Zone for decades, but I don’t recall seeing a SEP fly that particular route.

[eglnyt]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

Why should I move on? I’m simply taking part in a discussion, which you appear to have a personal sensitivity about.

Until very recently I’ve regularly transitted the London Control Zone for decades, but I don’t recall seeing a SEP fly that particular route.

There have only been 2 occasions in those decades when that route would have been possible and the previous occasion there was doubt about whether anything should be flying at all.
There are however, as stated above, many other places where you can see light aircraft often lower than that over "congested" areas which don't have the ATC restrictions normally associated with that part of London.

[PPRuNeUser469990]

Just because a route is "possible", with ATC clearance, it doesn't make it legal or sensible. In fact, I would go as far to say that flying a single engine aicraft such as this, at 1,200 feet over London is pretty reckless. This is not like passing over a small town, there are NO forced landing areas in Greater London, apart from farmers fields on the very outskirts (which this particular aircraft would not have been able to glide to)

Yes, we can all "move on", but when a Piper Arrow tries a forced landing in the local park and ends up wiping out your family/ending up embedded in your house, when it could easily have taken a longer route, you may think different.

(See Airmanship/Threat and Error Management)

[Flyingmac]

Originally Posted by hargreaves99

(See Airmanship/Threat and Error Management)

Why do you assume it was a man?

[John Kasuku]

Originally Posted by Flyingmac

Why do you assume it was a man?

Very good. But you'd have to assume a woman would be more cautious!

[639]

How many forced landings by piston singles in greater London have their been in the last...oh lets say 30 years?
How many Fatalities?

[Speedbard]

Originally Posted by Gargleblaster

Necessity i guess is the word. I have once flown around 30NM over water at around 700 feet in a SEPL.

Right, but that's your choice and it hurts no one (maybe a few fish). Land clear rule is there to protect others...

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by 639

How many forced landings by piston singles in greater London have their been in the last...oh lets say 30 years?
How many Fatalities?

As far as I know, the answer is none. Obviously, if those aircraft aren’t allowed to overfly an area, then they’re unlikely to force land within it.

[Manwell]

Perhaps the best answer to the question about legality, is a quote from Douglas "Tin Legs" Bader. "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men." In simple terms, if they managed to do it without causing any trouble, they must have been wise enough.

[UV]

Originally Posted by Manwell

In simple terms, if they managed to do it without causing any trouble, they must have been wise enough.

I am very familiar with this event. I don’t think that was the case.

They rang me before take off and asked the closing time at our airfield. I confirmed the time and said they were unlikely to make it.

The pilot then said he would cross directly over London to make it. I did question this at the time.

So it was done to get somewhere before it closed…safe?