Transit London/City CTR (again)
Alan
I didn't make my point very clearly. If you have a traffic-related reason for refusing a clearance, of course you must. That's your job.
But you've described refusing a clearance in circumstances when there is no traffic-related reason for doing so, but rather because you think the pilot might be breaking the law by accepting the clearance. Presumably you think you're doing the pilot a favour and making his flight safer, but there may be reasons (which I was trying to describe in the previous post) why the act of refusing the clearance actually makes the flight less safe. Not unsafe, but less safe. It's not just a matter of convenience. If traffic permits, making the decision as to whether it is safer to take a particular route across the zone, or to take an alternative route, is not your job as a controller -- it cannot be because you do not have the information required to make it. All you can see is the traffic, and your decision to grant or refuse a clearance should be based on the traffic situation, and your workload, nothing else.
I know you work hard to get transiting traffic across the zone -- I witness it every time I call, and I'm most grateful.
I didn't make my point very clearly. If you have a traffic-related reason for refusing a clearance, of course you must. That's your job.
But you've described refusing a clearance in circumstances when there is no traffic-related reason for doing so, but rather because you think the pilot might be breaking the law by accepting the clearance. Presumably you think you're doing the pilot a favour and making his flight safer, but there may be reasons (which I was trying to describe in the previous post) why the act of refusing the clearance actually makes the flight less safe. Not unsafe, but less safe. It's not just a matter of convenience. If traffic permits, making the decision as to whether it is safer to take a particular route across the zone, or to take an alternative route, is not your job as a controller -- it cannot be because you do not have the information required to make it. All you can see is the traffic, and your decision to grant or refuse a clearance should be based on the traffic situation, and your workload, nothing else.
I know you work hard to get transiting traffic across the zone -- I witness it every time I call, and I'm most grateful.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm..
Sorry old boy, but with respect I disagree. As I keep saying, transiting WEST of Canary Wharf in a single is in my opinion dangerous. Simple as that. Whether anyone likes it or not I can and will refuse that route. As much as a pilot may bitch and whinge about the unfairness of that you will still not be allowed to do it! Yes, you can redress me and report it to the CAA but I feel fairly confident that SRG would be on my side. WE are not power crazy meglomaniacs - but I would use my authority to refuse it and face the consequences should there be any. I would be arguing for safety and duty of care of persons on the ground, your argument is to save some miles and time.
Yes, it may be less safe to fly towards bad weather to the East or towards a dozen 7000 squawks, but not to such a degree as to risk the lives of those on the ground in a built up area.
Anyway, this is hypothetical as I would offer the Lea Valley if I could anyway!!
You could alway come and visit us to discuss further. Or I could come flying with you and you could convince me otherwise!
drauk
I don't think anyone can give you an answer I am afraid. It really is a judegeent call by the a/c commander based on skill/ability/experience/perofmance etc.
If traffic permits, making the decision as to whether it is safer to take a particular route across the zone, or to take an alternative route, is not your job as a controller -- it cannot be because you do not have the information required to make it. All you can see is the traffic, and your decision to grant or refuse a clearance should be based on the traffic situation, and your workload, nothing else.
Yes, it may be less safe to fly towards bad weather to the East or towards a dozen 7000 squawks, but not to such a degree as to risk the lives of those on the ground in a built up area.
Anyway, this is hypothetical as I would offer the Lea Valley if I could anyway!!
You could alway come and visit us to discuss further. Or I could come flying with you and you could convince me otherwise!
drauk
I don't think anyone can give you an answer I am afraid. It really is a judegeent call by the a/c commander based on skill/ability/experience/perofmance etc.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rustle,
No probs - PM me and I will look out for you!
Best times are Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning when LCY is closed. Other times to avoid are the morning rush between 0730-1000, lunchtime 1230-1400 and the teatime traffic 1630-1930. These are the times you can be expected to hold - but you may be in a lucky break of traffic!
No probs - PM me and I will look out for you!
Best times are Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning when LCY is closed. Other times to avoid are the morning rush between 0730-1000, lunchtime 1230-1400 and the teatime traffic 1630-1930. These are the times you can be expected to hold - but you may be in a lucky break of traffic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see what other research I can do on the subject. I'm going to try it and see how it looks. If I can find a willing cameraman I'll take my camcorder and may be able to use it in future to settle any debates!
AlanM, I'll send you a PM when I know when it'll be. It'll be a few days yet since my plane is in maintenance.
AlanM, I'll send you a PM when I know when it'll be. It'll be a few days yet since my plane is in maintenance.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drauk,
Very interesting thread. Here is my 2p for what it is worth....
I learned to fly at Redhill and one of the flying schools there used to take their a/c (C172) across the LCY for servicing at Denham (if memory serves). I used to chat up the istructors and ask if I could accompany them on the ferry flight and they agreed.
I flew across the zone quite a few times in this manner with the instructor as PIC. When I finished my PPL training and then started to learn how to fly
I reaslised that there was a potential problem as has been discussed.
I looked at my half-mill and quarter-mill and various other sources of information as many as could get my hands on if fact. I then looked at the glide performance of my aircraft in the POH/FM then I went out to Kent a couple of times and PFL'd from 2400ft. After this research I concluded that I would be able to land clear in certain sites from that height BUT no lower.
On the way back from the PPRuNe fly-in in Duxford last month I flew across the LCY again to take another PPL and her husband to see the view. I would do it again, but if I just want to get across without any flightseeing I will go around the Dartford x-ing. If a passenger specifically asked then I will attempt a clearence but will not accept unless it I can fly at 2400ft.
I think your research and the advice of others on the thread who are very qualified in these matters constitutes some "Due Dilligence" on your part insofar as you have made it your business to investigate the issue using all available and validated sources of information. Due Dilligence might help with the ANO but not with the law of gravity though
I would fly across the LCY again, keeping as far East as I am allowed but would not make a habit of it. In fact as I climb out of Biggin I always have plan B Dartford x-ing on my kneeboard just in case for any reason I feel as PIC that I cannot keep within the terms of Rule 5.
Somewhere in the thread above SVFR was mentioned but I think this is not such a good strategy, My concern is not so much prosecution under the ANO as not being able to make a landing in an area away from other innocent folk. I choose to fly so if I get killed that's my problem, but those who live in houses below me don't choose for me to fly over them, so I would want to be as sure as I can that I don't land in their loft......unlike the pilot who was looping the loop over my home town at <2400ft yesterday 
Also one last point is that I am a low-hours PPL so I try to take that into consideration when deciding my options. Rustle mentioned loosing 100ft after the engine quits as a realistic time to get gliding....well at the start of my trials over Kent it was more than
Andy
Edited 'cos Barney doesn't remember the Rules of the Air
.....the cad should be grounded I say 
Very interesting thread. Here is my 2p for what it is worth....
I learned to fly at Redhill and one of the flying schools there used to take their a/c (C172) across the LCY for servicing at Denham (if memory serves). I used to chat up the istructors and ask if I could accompany them on the ferry flight and they agreed.
I flew across the zone quite a few times in this manner with the instructor as PIC. When I finished my PPL training and then started to learn how to fly
I reaslised that there was a potential problem as has been discussed.I looked at my half-mill and quarter-mill and various other sources of information as many as could get my hands on if fact. I then looked at the glide performance of my aircraft in the POH/FM then I went out to Kent a couple of times and PFL'd from 2400ft. After this research I concluded that I would be able to land clear in certain sites from that height BUT no lower.
On the way back from the PPRuNe fly-in in Duxford last month I flew across the LCY again to take another PPL and her husband to see the view. I would do it again, but if I just want to get across without any flightseeing I will go around the Dartford x-ing. If a passenger specifically asked then I will attempt a clearence but will not accept unless it I can fly at 2400ft.
I think your research and the advice of others on the thread who are very qualified in these matters constitutes some "Due Dilligence" on your part insofar as you have made it your business to investigate the issue using all available and validated sources of information. Due Dilligence might help with the ANO but not with the law of gravity though
I would fly across the LCY again, keeping as far East as I am allowed but would not make a habit of it. In fact as I climb out of Biggin I always have plan B Dartford x-ing on my kneeboard just in case for any reason I feel as PIC that I cannot keep within the terms of Rule 5.
Somewhere in the thread above SVFR was mentioned but I think this is not such a good strategy, My concern is not so much prosecution under the ANO as not being able to make a landing in an area away from other innocent folk. I choose to fly so if I get killed that's my problem, but those who live in houses below me don't choose for me to fly over them, so I would want to be as sure as I can that I don't land in their loft
......unlike the pilot who was looping the loop over my home town at <2400ft yesterday Also one last point is that I am a low-hours PPL so I try to take that into consideration when deciding my options. Rustle mentioned loosing 100ft after the engine quits as a realistic time to get gliding....well at the start of my trials over Kent it was more than
Andy
Edited 'cos Barney doesn't remember the Rules of the Air
.....the cad should be grounded I say
Last edited by Barney_Gumble; 13th May 2003 at 03:31.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barney - interesting stuff. That is how I understood it.
One thing though - if you were SVFR you still need to glide clear do you not? It is just the 1500 foot rule you become exempted from.
One thing though - if you were SVFR you still need to glide clear do you not? It is just the 1500 foot rule you become exempted from.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Barney. As you say, nobody could accuse me of not having done some research. My argument at this point is I've done all I can to figure it out, now I'll try it once and see what I think. I've flown the M25 route many times, so I'm not worried about being declined the transit on any particular trip. As AlanM mentioned though, SVFR doesn't absolve you of the need to land clear.
As for rustle's 100' - he is certainly more experienced than I am and likely much more skilled, but there are other factors that make me think this is reasonable. For a start I cruise at 130 and glide at 70, so I'd gain quite a few feet during slowing down - and if my engine has failed I'd say to hell with the LTMA and climb from 2400 to whatever I could reach. Also, my understanding is that engine failures are rarely instantaenous if you're managing things properly, so this too would give you some time to prepare (and quite possibly fly clear of the questionable areas).
As for rustle's 100' - he is certainly more experienced than I am and likely much more skilled, but there are other factors that make me think this is reasonable. For a start I cruise at 130 and glide at 70, so I'd gain quite a few feet during slowing down - and if my engine has failed I'd say to hell with the LTMA and climb from 2400 to whatever I could reach. Also, my understanding is that engine failures are rarely instantaenous if you're managing things properly, so this too would give you some time to prepare (and quite possibly fly clear of the questionable areas).
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent thread. Interesting posts from professionals and customers alike.
A great case study for a student like me pondering how far I can come flightseeing from KB and remain safe & legal (as I look out over the Wharf wishing I was up there). Shame I can't include this transit in my qxc - make it interesting!
Btw, I've always wondered how close the a/c actually are when they approach past Canary W tower. Doesn't look more than 500', spect its more.
Cheers
A great case study for a student like me pondering how far I can come flightseeing from KB and remain safe & legal (as I look out over the Wharf wishing I was up there). Shame I can't include this transit in my qxc - make it interesting!
Btw, I've always wondered how close the a/c actually are when they approach past Canary W tower. Doesn't look more than 500', spect its more.
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
As others have said, interesting thread.
Also interesting is that some of the younger atcos coming in to the job now don't have much knowledge of the lighter end of the aviation spectrum.
I wonder, if someone calls up asking for a routeing west of Canary Warf and giving their a/c type as say a "Beech C23", assuming there is no traffic reason why a clearance should be refused is the atco expected to go back and ask whether the a/c is a single or twin before issueing a clearance?
I tend to fall on the side of Bookworm with this, the pilot is (or at least should be) in the best position to judge whether or not he/she is able to accept a clearance and should only request clearances that are appropriate to the type of a/c they are flying.
It is opening a much wider grey area if we (ATC) start issueing or refusing clearances based on our own opinions of what we think is an acceptable practice and what is not.
Otherwise I wouldn't issue clearances to any single going anywhere after it got dark
WF.
Also interesting is that some of the younger atcos coming in to the job now don't have much knowledge of the lighter end of the aviation spectrum.
I wonder, if someone calls up asking for a routeing west of Canary Warf and giving their a/c type as say a "Beech C23", assuming there is no traffic reason why a clearance should be refused is the atco expected to go back and ask whether the a/c is a single or twin before issueing a clearance?
I tend to fall on the side of Bookworm with this, the pilot is (or at least should be) in the best position to judge whether or not he/she is able to accept a clearance and should only request clearances that are appropriate to the type of a/c they are flying.
It is opening a much wider grey area if we (ATC) start issueing or refusing clearances based on our own opinions of what we think is an acceptable practice and what is not.
Otherwise I wouldn't issue clearances to any single going anywhere after it got dark
WF.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drauk
your comment
I understand in an emergency you will do whatever is needed to survive and quite rightly so , however the ATCOs at Heathrow are descending aircraft to the lowest level they can there and to collide with a B747 will give you know hope whatsoever of surviving
your comment
to hell with the LTMA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flower, I'm not sure what point your making here.
"To hell with the LTMA" is not something I say lightly. As you say, you'll do what you can to try to survive and an extra (say) 200' could make plenty of difference. With radar, their TCAS, my eyes, etc. I'll take my chances and take the extra altitude. And if they were really going to be at 2600' isn't that pretty dangerous anyway, if I've been given 2400'?
On a related point, I've never understood the logic of allowing IFR traffic to go right to the edge of a controlled space (either laterally or vertically) given that you could end up with very few feets separation - can anybody enlighten me?
"To hell with the LTMA" is not something I say lightly. As you say, you'll do what you can to try to survive and an extra (say) 200' could make plenty of difference. With radar, their TCAS, my eyes, etc. I'll take my chances and take the extra altitude. And if they were really going to be at 2600' isn't that pretty dangerous anyway, if I've been given 2400'?
On a related point, I've never understood the logic of allowing IFR traffic to go right to the edge of a controlled space (either laterally or vertically) given that you could end up with very few feets separation - can anybody enlighten me?
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interesting thread.
I'm with Warped Factor and bookworm on this. The pilot is responsible to only accept a clearance if he can legally comply with it. For ATC to issue a clearance based on a perception, even one strongly based, is opening a proverbial can. Where will it end?
I don't think a single turning right off Luton's 26 is terribly clever, but we 'clear' it, and why would ANYONE want to fly in a single at night??
Er, searching grey cells. . . . . Something in the back of my mind tells me that Brum wouldn't issue certain clearances to singles NW of the airport, over the city. Is this still the case? Think I was told this a long time ago.
And drauk, if you are going for a excursion into the TMA when your engine goes bang, make sure you've got mode C on, then the heavy metal may avoid you. 7700 with mode C would be good.
VA
IFR aircraft should be kept 3nm laterally and 500ft vertically from the boundaries of controlled airspace but this can erode if aircraft are avoidng weather.
VA
I'm with Warped Factor and bookworm on this. The pilot is responsible to only accept a clearance if he can legally comply with it. For ATC to issue a clearance based on a perception, even one strongly based, is opening a proverbial can. Where will it end?
I don't think a single turning right off Luton's 26 is terribly clever, but we 'clear' it, and why would ANYONE want to fly in a single at night??
Er, searching grey cells. . . . . Something in the back of my mind tells me that Brum wouldn't issue certain clearances to singles NW of the airport, over the city. Is this still the case? Think I was told this a long time ago.
And drauk, if you are going for a excursion into the TMA when your engine goes bang, make sure you've got mode C on, then the heavy metal may avoid you. 7700 with mode C would be good.
VA
IFR aircraft should be kept 3nm laterally and 500ft vertically from the boundaries of controlled airspace but this can erode if aircraft are avoidng weather.
VA
Guest
Posts: n/a
drauk,
We routinely descend the IFR stuff to the base of CAS plus 500ft. For example to 3,000ft when vectoring to 09L where the TMA base is 2,500ft just to the west of White Waltham. Also in many other places.
Lateraly, aircraft operating inside CAS are also deemed to be separated from those outside the CAS, though we should try not to get the IFR stuff closer than 2nm from the edge if possible.
WF.
p.s VA, check your Pt 1, it's only necessary to stay 2nm inside
On a related point, I've never understood the logic of allowing IFR traffic to go right to the edge of a controlled space (either laterally or vertically) given that you could end up with very few feets separation - can anybody enlighten me?
Lateraly, aircraft operating inside CAS are also deemed to be separated from those outside the CAS, though we should try not to get the IFR stuff closer than 2nm from the edge if possible.
WF.
p.s VA, check your Pt 1, it's only necessary to stay 2nm inside
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
p.s VA, check your Pt 1, it's only necessary to stay 2nm inside
I read it once, I think.Sure it was 3nm in my day, maybe radar has got more accurate?
VA
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick point that no-one has made yet. Surely ATCOs cannot be expected to know the glide performance of different S/E aircraft. For example, one of the aircraft I fly is really a motorglider, but on paper in this country its a group A aircraft. However, it will glide several times as far as a Cessna, even without thermals. I wouldn't expect any ATCO to know this.
By the way, I am one of those people who is very happy to fly at night or in IMC in a single. I do however do lots of sums before flying over water.
By the way, I am one of those people who is very happy to fly at night or in IMC in a single. I do however do lots of sums before flying over water.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drauk,
I think my point is plainly obvious, don't climb into the TMA.
If you have mode C on and are sqwauking 7700 you may well alert controllers operating at a different unit not aware of you. However I imagine especially if operating single handed you will have little time to change the code and many light singles do not have mode C and from personal experience as an ATCO will have enough difficulty getting a Mayday call out without advising that you are climbing.
200ft may make the difference yes fair enough but what if its more , you are not necessarily concentrating on the additional altitude to which you are climbing, a climb into the teeth of large aircraft is not a good idea.
I think my point is plainly obvious, don't climb into the TMA.
If you have mode C on and are sqwauking 7700 you may well alert controllers operating at a different unit not aware of you. However I imagine especially if operating single handed you will have little time to change the code and many light singles do not have mode C and from personal experience as an ATCO will have enough difficulty getting a Mayday call out without advising that you are climbing.
200ft may make the difference yes fair enough but what if its more , you are not necessarily concentrating on the additional altitude to which you are climbing, a climb into the teeth of large aircraft is not a good idea.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flower, sorry if I was being thick, but your point wasn't obvious to me. I thought you were questioning the merits of climbing in to the TMA but you also said "I understand in an emergency you will do whatever is needed to survive and quite rightly so ". I thought you were warning of a problem with doing so, but now I see that you're actually saying don't do it. I'm surprised by this. As per other advice (or even regardless of it) I'd be squawking mode C, in contact with Thames Radar. I'd like to think that I'd get the Mayday call out pretty quickly, especially given the scenario, but likely not before making that climb. If I was on my own I'd certainly probably never get around to setting the mayday transponder code, though if I was with a passenger I might, but even then, not before climbing.
I don't underestimate the outcome of hitting an airliner, but with the things I've already mentioned (radar, their TCAS and my eyes) plus the big sky theory (albeit with us in a small part of it) I'd (instictively) give myself better chances of survival with say a 500' climb from 2400' and taking that risk of a collision. What do other people think? AlanM, how much traffic am I likely to find on that crossing at 2900'?
I don't underestimate the outcome of hitting an airliner, but with the things I've already mentioned (radar, their TCAS and my eyes) plus the big sky theory (albeit with us in a small part of it) I'd (instictively) give myself better chances of survival with say a 500' climb from 2400' and taking that risk of a collision. What do other people think? AlanM, how much traffic am I likely to find on that crossing at 2900'?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course you are correct AlanM . Back to ground school I edited the post
Changing to the other side of London, but keeping to the same discussion is there not a North-South route on the West also. Can't remember the details but it involves some pretty low altitudes......1500ft springs to mind and over Ascot?
That sounds more dodgey that the LCY - Lee Valley routing although my half mill shows less yellow in this area. Anyone know the details of this or am I talking cr@p??
Barney
I edited the post Changing to the other side of London, but keeping to the same discussion is there not a North-South route on the West also. Can't remember the details but it involves some pretty low altitudes......1500ft springs to mind and over Ascot?
That sounds more dodgey that the LCY - Lee Valley routing although my half mill shows less yellow in this area. Anyone know the details of this or am I talking cr@p??
Barney
Last edited by Barney_Gumble; 13th May 2003 at 03:46.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok drauk ,
Big skies we are talking London here they don't exist over London big skies they are full.
There are a lot of aircraft flying in a small amount of airspace with minimum spacing between them. An aircraft responds to a TA and he climbs /descends into other aircraft causing chaos.
The frequency you are operating on is not the same frequency that the other aircraft are on , the controllers are not even in the same building. You declare a Mayday the controller has numerous tasks to deal with a phone call to LTMA is going to add considerably to his workload and by time phone call as got through it could be to late.
I have sadly in my career had to deal with numerous Maydays , some have become fatal accidents. In most of those which the aircraft has crashed (all light aircraft) they havent even had time to issue a Mayday.
I am not telling you how to fly your aircraft I am advising that a climb into the LTMA has very serious consequences not just to yourself .
Big skies we are talking London here they don't exist over London big skies they are full.
There are a lot of aircraft flying in a small amount of airspace with minimum spacing between them. An aircraft responds to a TA and he climbs /descends into other aircraft causing chaos.
The frequency you are operating on is not the same frequency that the other aircraft are on , the controllers are not even in the same building. You declare a Mayday the controller has numerous tasks to deal with a phone call to LTMA is going to add considerably to his workload and by time phone call as got through it could be to late.
I have sadly in my career had to deal with numerous Maydays , some have become fatal accidents. In most of those which the aircraft has crashed (all light aircraft) they havent even had time to issue a Mayday.
I am not telling you how to fly your aircraft I am advising that a climb into the LTMA has very serious consequences not just to yourself .