Manchester Low Level Route
Hello All.
Thanks for the response. I was out flying today, passed through the LLR twice, and am just enjoying a post aviation Gin & Tonic.
Re the points raised.....The Low level Route is class D airspace to allow it to be 'a route notified for the purposes of Rule 5 (2) (a) (i)'. In english this means you are absolved from the '1500ft' rule but must. 'Operate at such a height as to enable the aircraft to alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit'. This is very necessary as it was impossible to raise the maximum altitude above 1250ft QNH without causing problems for both Manchester, and specifically Liverpool ILS traffic. I should add that, of course, this doesn't absolve you from the 500ft rule.
When the LLR was initially established alot more aircraft operated without radio than today. To allow them to transit what was then class A airspace the rules where written to allow transit without a specific clearance and no need for carriage of radio.
Now this is the problem. If, and I mean If, such a dedicated non intervention frequency were to be introduced. It would have to allow non-radio aircraft to use the LLR and you would then have to fall back on 'see and be seen' for them. If you didn't allow them to transit the LLR they would have to make a huge detour to avoid the Manchester/Liverpool CTR complex. Personally I don't see non-radio transits as a major problem as I would agree that very few non-radio aircraft are flying these days. Can you make it compulsory for people to select a conspicuity code and transmit their position on a specific frequency if they're radio equipped? Well, it would seem that the British GA community always has an aversion to any form of compulsion, and anyway, how could you make pilots comply with the need to make the reports?
The thing everyone who uses any of these choke points or rat runs should be aware of is that while receiving a Flight Information Service you are very very unlikely to recieve information on ALL aircraft. Here's a quote from The Manual of Air Traffic Services Pt1....'controllers will, subject to workload, provide pilots with information concerning collision hazards'..... The point being, if he's busy with IFR traffic, the quality of the FIS will be reduced and you won't get the complete picture from him.
If I interpret SSD's response correctly, he would not wish to make position reports. Personally I'd be more than willing and I suspect most people would, but I stand to be corrected.
Phew! I've written enough so over to you for any thoughts.
Spiney
SSD.
I apologise in advance. Having read your post again I see you're actually refering to the freedom for non-radio aircraft to operate in the LLR. I blame Mr Gordon's brain modifier!
Spiney
Thanks for the response. I was out flying today, passed through the LLR twice, and am just enjoying a post aviation Gin & Tonic.
Re the points raised.....The Low level Route is class D airspace to allow it to be 'a route notified for the purposes of Rule 5 (2) (a) (i)'. In english this means you are absolved from the '1500ft' rule but must. 'Operate at such a height as to enable the aircraft to alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit'. This is very necessary as it was impossible to raise the maximum altitude above 1250ft QNH without causing problems for both Manchester, and specifically Liverpool ILS traffic. I should add that, of course, this doesn't absolve you from the 500ft rule.
When the LLR was initially established alot more aircraft operated without radio than today. To allow them to transit what was then class A airspace the rules where written to allow transit without a specific clearance and no need for carriage of radio.
Now this is the problem. If, and I mean If, such a dedicated non intervention frequency were to be introduced. It would have to allow non-radio aircraft to use the LLR and you would then have to fall back on 'see and be seen' for them. If you didn't allow them to transit the LLR they would have to make a huge detour to avoid the Manchester/Liverpool CTR complex. Personally I don't see non-radio transits as a major problem as I would agree that very few non-radio aircraft are flying these days. Can you make it compulsory for people to select a conspicuity code and transmit their position on a specific frequency if they're radio equipped? Well, it would seem that the British GA community always has an aversion to any form of compulsion, and anyway, how could you make pilots comply with the need to make the reports?
The thing everyone who uses any of these choke points or rat runs should be aware of is that while receiving a Flight Information Service you are very very unlikely to recieve information on ALL aircraft. Here's a quote from The Manual of Air Traffic Services Pt1....'controllers will, subject to workload, provide pilots with information concerning collision hazards'..... The point being, if he's busy with IFR traffic, the quality of the FIS will be reduced and you won't get the complete picture from him.
If I interpret SSD's response correctly, he would not wish to make position reports. Personally I'd be more than willing and I suspect most people would, but I stand to be corrected.
Phew! I've written enough so over to you for any thoughts.
Spiney
SSD.
I apologise in advance. Having read your post again I see you're actually refering to the freedom for non-radio aircraft to operate in the LLR. I blame Mr Gordon's brain modifier!
Spiney
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be happy to make position reports, and I'm sure a fair number of other people would. So at least some of us would know where some other people are, which is better than how it is now. Again, this is the same as helicopter traffic in LA, who aren't compelled to report where they are, but usually do, for safely. The only time I didn't was when I was lost! 
Guest
Posts: n/a
Manchester LLC
Speaking as a Southern Shandy Sipper, I regularly fly through the choke points around London, and a few times a year through the Manchester LL route.
IMHO if one is not receiving a radar service, one is far better employed scanning outside the cockpit at these choke points than worrying about position reports, where the reference points are, if the other pilots are actually where they say they are etc. etc.
There is enough to do looking out and navigating accurately.
It is usually not the aircraft you know about that's the threat .....
IMHO if one is not receiving a radar service, one is far better employed scanning outside the cockpit at these choke points than worrying about position reports, where the reference points are, if the other pilots are actually where they say they are etc. etc.
There is enough to do looking out and navigating accurately.
It is usually not the aircraft you know about that's the threat .....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LLR
Flew it for the first time on Sat - up then down from Barton.
First thoughts were that really it was a pice of ease. I did have a service from Man but on future occassions would probably not bother.
It is a "corridor" with quite a low ceiling (1250' on Man QNH) - so you know that the propensity to be near othertraffic is high.
MAN warned me of 5 contacts - 3 opposing, 2 same direction. I has seen 4 out of the 5 before I'd received the call - the fifth I saw before it became an issue. I'm pretty sure that I would have seen it anyway, although because it was lower than me it did take longer to acquire.
The same direction traffic was quickly overhauled and I made sure that I was seen as I passed them.
All in all, a useful facility I think.
Stik
First thoughts were that really it was a pice of ease. I did have a service from Man but on future occassions would probably not bother.
It is a "corridor" with quite a low ceiling (1250' on Man QNH) - so you know that the propensity to be near othertraffic is high.
MAN warned me of 5 contacts - 3 opposing, 2 same direction. I has seen 4 out of the 5 before I'd received the call - the fifth I saw before it became an issue. I'm pretty sure that I would have seen it anyway, although because it was lower than me it did take longer to acquire.
The same direction traffic was quickly overhauled and I made sure that I was seen as I passed them.
All in all, a useful facility I think.
Stik
Stiknruda.
Glad you found the LLR a breeze. Speaking with my pilot hat firmly on, I agree entirely with you and I never call Manchester, just select the frequency for the QNH and navigate through keeping a good look out. Now, putting my ATCO hat on the problem is the need to consider the views of those in the flying community who find the LLR intimidating as a busy choke point. When my boss asked me to look at it I have tried to think about a method of operation that would address their concerns but would not be compulsory. It's very likely the LLR will continue just as it is but we are looking at it's operation. Unfortunately, making it bigger or having a higher ceiling is not on the cards I'm afraid. I've been involved in consulting as much of the local aviation comunity as I can, and I've had some very useful feedback since the original posts on this thread were made. One thing is for certain...It certainly won't be closed and if I have anything to do with it there'll be no change that doesn't make it better!
Spiney.
Glad you found the LLR a breeze. Speaking with my pilot hat firmly on, I agree entirely with you and I never call Manchester, just select the frequency for the QNH and navigate through keeping a good look out. Now, putting my ATCO hat on the problem is the need to consider the views of those in the flying community who find the LLR intimidating as a busy choke point. When my boss asked me to look at it I have tried to think about a method of operation that would address their concerns but would not be compulsory. It's very likely the LLR will continue just as it is but we are looking at it's operation. Unfortunately, making it bigger or having a higher ceiling is not on the cards I'm afraid. I've been involved in consulting as much of the local aviation comunity as I can, and I've had some very useful feedback since the original posts on this thread were made. One thing is for certain...It certainly won't be closed and if I have anything to do with it there'll be no change that doesn't make it better!
Spiney.
