Transit London/City CTR (again)
 

I've just heard three light singles (PA28 for example) transit the City zone. Two were at 2400' and one was cleared at 2000'.

I've read lots of threads about this and looked at the maps pretty closely. I am interested in the legality of this, NOT the sense nor the merit (routing round taking very little extra time, possibly none at all if you have to orbit before entering the zone).

In an effort to get a really good handle on this, this is what I'd like to know, in decreasing order of importance:

1) There is a theory that if the CAA disagreed with this process they'd have done something about it by now, given they know that it happens, but they've not. This seems kind of reasonable - does anybody know of some concrete examples of other ANO related items where this has or has not happened?

2) Has anybody ever tried to get a ruling from the CAA about it? I am guessing that they would just cite the various rules and regulations that we already know, which isn't very helpful.

3) The argument of "there are places to glide and land clear" seems to be based on using some questionable landing sites. (i) Given the need for prior approval to land at City airport does it constitutde a valid candidate for landing clear of the built up area? (ii) The Thames and the Lea Valley lakes/reservoir are also cited as landing possibilities - is there any concrete documentation or anecdotal evidence that ditching is valid as a land clear possibility?

4) Given that wind can make a big difference, am I right in assuming that the rules mean that one must be able to land clear at that particular moment when the flight is being made? In other words, being at a particular point over a built-up area might be legal one day but not the next, on the basis of the wind?

5) Just because you can glide to an area, is that enough? i.e. Is the LEGAL requirement to be able to land, albeit maybe roughly, fast, etc. or are you "allowed" to just smash it in to the ground, in an open space? Obviously this question is more academic than anything else, though it applies to anywhere, not just the City zone. What I'm thinking of is that it is one thing to be able to glide a particular distance, but one requires additional height to prepare a proper landing.

Just my understaning of the rules, but here goes. Like you said, I'm only going to discuss the rules, not the sense.

1) What can they do? Neither ATC nor the CAA know the details of your aircraft's gliding performance. If you ask for a clearance, you will get it if possible. It's up to you to establish whether it's legal or not.

2) As above. The rules clearly state that you must be able to land clear of a built up area. The CAA can not tell you whether a specific route is legal or not, because they don't know your aircraft.

3) In the UK, the rules are that you must be able to glide "clear of the built up area." I interpret that to mean that I must be able to glide to somewhere that is outside the built up area, and that landing in a field in the middle of the built up area is not acceptable. (I understand that the rules in the USA are different - the requirement there is to be able to land safely. The rules for helicoptors in the UK are also to be able to land safely.) I have often thought about whether City airport, the Thames or the Lee Valley would be valid, and I can't make up my mind.

4) In theory, yes. In practice, no. There will be a point, slighly before half way across the built up area in still wind, where it will be safer to continue than to turn back. With a tail-wind, this point would move further forward. With a head-wind, it would move backwards. It would only make a difference to the legality of the flight in a cross-wind (which is effectively a head-wind whichever direction you fly in, if you bother to do the maths) but the numbers would be so small as to be negligable.

5) I don't think there's any legal requirement to be able to land "properly", but I can't see a situation where you can reach a field but not land in it. On the other hand, if the built up area were surrounded by trees it is conceivable you could glide clear from the built up area, but would be forced to crash into some tress. I don't think this is illegal. (I did say I wouldn't comment on whether it was sensible.)

Now, let's see how many people disagree with my interpretation!

FFF
-------------

I work on Thames and SVFR.

My personal view...

AS I said on another thread recently (see VFR Flights @ LCY) going around the zone doesn't take much extra time - especially if held before onward clearance outside the zone for a few minutes. OK - it isn't so picturesque, but it is a bit easier.

It depends where you cross the zone. For example - I never clear a single fixed wing West of Canary Wharf. I try and use the Lea Valley as it is "clearer" than the congested area North of the airpot. Legally, I could clear you as far West as Vauxhall Bridge VFR not above 2000' (due LHR inbounds!) The Specified Area only applies to single engined helicopters. Despite this, I fell that giving a fixed wing single such a clearance is Unsafe.(I would clear a twin though) In personal terms, I don't want to be held to question in a court of law if there was an incident (ie crashing and killing people on the ground) for issuing an unsafe clearance (no - there is no real definition).

In our bible, the Manual of Air Traffic Services Pt One - it states on Chapter 1, Page 1, Para 1...."Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in a particular instance".

Also, the Safety Regulation Group of the CAA have inspectors who visit annually on week long audits. They also visit about 8 times a year for validation boards. No-one has ever commented on the practice. (Though that isn't an endorsement of course).

You need to remember that ATCO's are not policemen. We have a duty to report certain events, but it is not for me to say that you flying at 1000' over the Lea Valley breaks any part of Rule 5. Yes, we are regularly asked to give legal statements for CAA prosecutions - mainly for unauthorised zone infringers at LHR and LCY. Normally, the radar/RT recordings which have been impunded suffice!!! You as the aircraft commander are responsible for flying in the terms of your licence (including weather criteria).

So - say if you feel you cannot accept a clearance. You have right to refuse it (but we always give the highest/"best" routeing we can.

If you have any more questions (regarding the City/Heathrow zones), PM me or mail from my WWW link.

Alan

AlanM, your comments are quite interesting, particularly that the CAA has clearly seen you give certain clearances and hasn't seen fit to complain about them. That to me is a pretty big endorsement, though I realise, of course, that you are not personally (as ATC) endorsing anything. I have read your comments on the other thread

I know what kind of clearances people tend to get (singles less far west) and I realise it isn't your job to police. I also completely understand that it is the captain's decision to accept or decline your clearance. What I am trying to do is put together enough information to make that decision. Look at it this way - how can I know if there are places to land if I can't fly over it and have a look?! Maybe I need to rent a twin with good single engine performance for a one off trip.

FFF, I'm not too sure about your first point. No, ATC don't know the glide performance of my plane, but I bet the CAA would take the trouble to find it out if they want to prosecute me for breaking the ANO.

If your comment in 3 (not just a clear bit of the built up area but actually outside it) then surely the Thames and the reservoir are out? In which case the whole thing is out. In which case, how come the CAA have not done anything about it when they audit AlanM?

drauk

please don't feel that I was having a go at you or the question!!

I kind-of agree with what you are syaing - how do you know if you can glide clear!? It's a toughie for sure. One thing is for certain, the CAA would look at EVERY aspect of an incident - esp if lives are lost in these litigious times.

The glide clear argument is so subjective. Hard to prove either way!

I think that by inference that you are EXPECTED to use the Thames on Helicopter Route 4 (From Battersea along the Thames to the Isle of Dogs if ditching means it would be acceptable to use if needed. As I said in the other thread, Rule 5 does mention.....person, vehicle or VESSEL! So hitting a vessel would probably be unacceptable and not within the remit of gliding clear!!!! (on a serious note - events such as the Thames Power boat racing would be hard to avoid.)

As you are probably aware, we have a "local rule book" called the Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 2 at all ATC units. Written internally, it is endorsed completely by the CAA SRG. However, it doesn't include EVERY possibilty in ATC of course. ATCO's are paid to use their judgement and apply a set of rules.

I bought the Book published by GetMapping with photos of the whole of the UK - interestingly the Lea Valley shows some fairly green expanses - but I have never been there so don't know what it actually is like! If you go to www.multimap.com - zoom in to the Lea Valley area and then you can overlay a low quality image of the map - have a look up the Lea Valley and see what you think!

As you say - how do you know you what it is like until you have seen it!? In a court of law your map - which probably shows a solid built up area around LCY - it would be argued that you knew the area was built up and no landing sites available!!!

AlanM, no offence taken, whatsoever. Your comments have been very interesting - I just didn't want you to think that I missed any of the black and white stuff, it's the tricky grey area that I'm curious about.

I've looked at both the 1/4mil CAA chart and an OS map and from that, if you exclude the reservoir and the river, I don't think the average SEP can do it. I have that GetMapping photo book already actually, so I'll take a look at that.

From what you're saying it sounds like the CAA have, through not complaining about the practice, said it is acceptable, at least until someone crashes. As per my original question, I wonder if there are any other cases where the CAA has let something happen, with their knowledge, only to turn around later a prosecute? In law there is the idea that anything done regularly enough with the knowledge of both parties can override or at least extend an expired contract (can't think what this is called, I'm not a lawyer, obviously) - I wonder if that would hold up as a defence, along the lines of "You've watched us do it a thousand times, you know we do it, you said nothing at the time, therefore you've implicitly said it's okay to do it"?

I wonder. You do find that in ATC a lot of rules/procedures/best practices come about from an incident or two!

AS for the CAA - well - don't know if they would agree! Arguably, unit management, through unit Assessors/Local Competency Examiners (who give us annual practical/theory exams) should highlight an unsafe practice.

Interestingly, thoughts such as "Freedom of Flight" become involved. It could be argued by some that refusing a transit if no traffic prevented it, would be unfairly restrictive!

The bottom line with it, is that it will depend on the pilot, his understanding of "alight clear" and ability. Oh yes, and opinions!!! Many factors would be taken into consideration in an incident so we will see.

Hopefully - it would never need to be tested.

Probably as much of a mention in the BUR-ASCOT route in the LCTR not above 1000' - even at night!

Anyone flown that at day or night and found it "interesting"?

Funnily enough, an ATCO from LHR had a rough running engine just North of Ascot last year in daytime. Managed to put the aircraft (a C152) down on the polo pitch. Fortunately the horses and riders cleared off in time!!! Aren't there any suitable sports pitches in the Lea Valley???

I used to think it was a stupid thing to do. Then one day last year I was a passenger on a single-engine flight out of Elstree and I discovered after t/o that we were routing 2400' down the Lea Valley, over LCY then direct Lydd. Being a bit apprehensive about this I kept a good eye out for potential landing areas in case the donkey did go bang. At no point were we out of gliding distance from at least two or three good forced landing options.

Now I usually route to the east, but if I'm taking a passenger who'll appreciate the view then I'll happily ask to transit the zone.

A thought about the CAA and their 'effectively condoning' the practice.
The auditors that Alan sees are air traffic people that are checking that ATC is done according to the rules. Despite the caution that Alan uses when issuing SVFR clearances (which seems eminently sensible), it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that he or she complies with Rule 5 and anything else that might be relevant. I think the CAA has different auditors to look at whether the pilots are doing their bit correctly. Just because ATC gets a tick in the box for being done correctly doesn't give any indication as to whether pilots are doing their bit correctly or not.

Interesting.

I guess an analogy could be that of a motorist driving at 10 mph over the 70mph limit. If that's all he/she is doing plod may not chase, stop, and book them. But if he/she is also on the 'phone, or not wearing a seatbelt, they may get booked for both offences... (Even though the speeding appeared to be "condoned" through inaction)

In the area we're discussing (LCY zone) you're going to be painted by quite a few radar I should imagine, so should the desire or need arise I suspect the CAA could very quickly ascertain that, for at least part of your transit, you were in breach of Rule5/land-clear.

2000'AMSL and the engine stops, you're going to be at 1900' before you've cleaned-up, achieved best glide etc.

Glide ratio of most spam-cans is what, say, 10:1? So you've got a 3nm window to put it down (at best).

I think if you gave them (CAA) reason to look, they'd probably find the answer they wanted ;)

That reason may be a MOR for busting (laterally) the LHR/CTR, or it may be because of a forced landing, or it may be because the CAA just happened to be monitoring that day. (LFAT IFR arrivals spring to mind :eek: )

No good saying ATC cleared you through - the buck stops here, in the left hand seat.

Spitoon, I know that it is the pilot's responsibility (and Rustle, that the buck stops here), but how am I as the pilot supposed to know in this case what is okay? I suppose in some ways the answer is if you can't be sure then you shouldn't do it, but the very first time I got in a plane I wasn't sure I could get it to take off by going to full throttle and pulling back on the stick when I hit 60knts, but the instructor sitting next to me had told me that I can so I did it and he was right, it worked.

Rustle, good point about the police condoning speeding. They have to give you 10% I believe, due to inaccuracies of your speedo (or is this an urban myth). Certainly I'd drive past a police car quite happily at 80 in good weather and light traffic. But then you can go too far with this stuff - could they bust you for saying "three" instead of "tree", despite it being common practise and not generally taken up on?

I looked in the GetMapping book and it does look like there are places either side of the reservoirs which would make suitable landing spots. South of that though the river looks like the only option to me, though it is hard to tell.

Also, unless I've misunderstood, I think AlanM and the guys issue a VFR clearance, not an SVFR one.

Let me preface this by saying that I've always had superbly helpful service from Thames every time, and we're talking theory and principle here. This is not a complaint about practice.

AlanM wrote:

I find it difficult to square these two paragraphs with each other. In the first you seem to be describing powers of policing, in the second you seem to be disclaiming the responsibility that goes with it.

I can understand that you would never suggest a route west of Canary Warf, but if I asked specifically for BPK to Crystal Palace in a single, would you refuse it for other than traffic reasons? (I've never done so in a single, I have many times in a twin, and virtually without exception I've been cleared as requested. Thank you :))

drauk

Yes, unless of course it is "IMC" or night, it would be a VFR clearance. As you know apart from seperating you from other traffic, the big difference with SVFR and VFR is that you don't have to obey the 1500' rule of course.

With regard to the paragraphs quoted.....

The point I was making is that I don't believe it is safe to issue a clearance to a fixed wing single west of Canary Wharf. Simple as that. Despite what I said about the Lea Valley, as far as I am concerned there are places to alight clear (lakes, sports pitches etc) and it is safe. I base that decision on the number of aircraft regularly asking for that route. I have only been asked one or two times for a single fixed wing to cross west of Can Whf. It all comes down to the individual and discretion and opinions and in my opinion it is not safe west of Can Whf.

The first paragraph is not really policing you as a pilot, more about me protecting myself in an incident and not issuing what may be construed as an unsafe clearance! See above about "...controllers using their discretion.." In terms of the second paragraph, who's to say that if you are at 1000' over the Lea Valley you are breaking any part of Rule 5 or the alight clear rules. You could consider that you are within the realms of your licence and the law.

So - yes Bookworm, I would refuse you that clearance!! In a twin - no probs!!!!:O

Rustle - I see the anology and I guess it is kinda true. But like almost anything, it is when things go wrong and you get caught that they throw the book at you! As an ATCO I will issue clearances that will keep the prosecution team off my butt if it goes wrong!

Going back to the MATS pt 1, in the chapter of VFR in Class D, it says:

3.6 When issuing instructions to VFR flights, controllers should be aware of the over-riding requirements for the pilots to remain in VMC, to avoid obstacles and to remain within the privileges of his licence. This may result in the pilot reqeuesting an alternative clearance, particularly in marginal weather conditions.

As I said earlier, if you can't accept ANY part of the clearance then say.

drauk - the question of how a newly qualified pilot knows what is safe and not is down to the training, is it not? Unfortunately, the buck stops with the aircraft commander.

When I did my PPL I asked my instructor about it. He said that he'd done it, but that at certain points compliance with the land clear rule was questionable. Not out of the question, but questionable.

I am starting to think that I'm going to do it once so that I can draw my own conclusion...

PM when you are planning it - I will try and make sure we can accomodate it.

Maybe we should have a poll on here.......... "Lea Valley transits - safe in a single?"

Anyone else flown it and have an opinion?

Have fun

The problem with your "protecting" yourself in this way is that it narrows the range of options available to the pilot. As a controller, you may have a picture of the traffic situation, but not of the other hazards that may affect the flight. Only the aircraft commander is in a position to make proper risk management decisions about the conduct of the flight. By refusing a clearance, you may be forcing the pilot into a more hazardous situation: for example, in refusing a clearance across the City CTR you may be bringing the aircraft into more marginal weather conditions, or you may bring it into closer proximity to traffic at Stapleford or Biggin. You certainly increase workload by making navigation more difficult.

Your quote from MATS Pt 1 talks of licence privileges, and is intended to be about visibility requirements, not Rules of the Air. The "discretion" cited in the introduction has its limits: if you personally regarded a particular airline as unsafe, would you refuse its aircraft clearance inbound to City?

I have great sympathy with your discomfort in the current climate of "duty of care", but you have to draw the line between a pilot's responsibility and a controller's. Rule 5 compliance is squarely on the pilot's side of that line.

bookworm

not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that if the weather is bad around the East of the Field I should feel more obliged to get you across the zone? I think I hear what you are saying but quite frankly, if I refuse you clearance and you go inadvertant IMC outside the zone it is you who is to blame. You flying near to SG/KB is not really my concern - they have ATZ's and you know the rules! Such is life in the see and be seen world outside CAS!

It also says in the ATC bible that VFR/SVFR are not to hinder IFR flights. Any transit down the Lea Valley is subject City airport movements. Believe me, getting aircraft across the zone can be hard work for a controller and a distraction from their primary task.

In our local bible, the MATS Pt2, a list of "priorities" is awarded to all types of flights. In the list of paras (a) to (f) guess who is at the bottom. As we are NOT a LARS unit, we don't HAVE to talk to anyone outside the zone! As it is, it says only within the M25 - but as you may know we give further coverage than that when time permits. We get paid by LCY and BIG to provide an Approach Service.

If you re-read the quote it doesn't only talk about VMC - it talks about avoiding obstacles and flying within the privileges of your licence. All of which is your call. The statement merely highlights that YOU may not be able to accept a clearance I issue. How you deal with it is your call. Luckily, in the South East there are plenty of airfields to dive into. There should be no need for anyone to fly in marginal conditions. Alternatively check the weather before you leave and stay safely on the ground!!:ok:

How can refusing a clearance "...bringing the aircraft into more marginal weather conditions, or you may bring it into closer proximity to traffic at Stapleford or Biggin. You certainly increase workload by making navigation more difficult" possibly be true?

Surely you PLAN to route outside the zone? I am positive you don't base the whole flight on crossing the zone. Crossing is a bonus not a privilege. Some of us work hard to get you across, as do LCY tower. It all needs co-ordination and traffic information to IFR traffic if applicable. It is far easier for me to say remain outside I can assure you. Something I am perfectly entitled to do.

I have flown it many times, and would also not go west of Canary Wharf in a single.

It all comes down to your interpretation of 'alight clear'.

From 2000-2400 ft there are plenty of places to which you can glide to a reasonable chance of a successful landing in the average light single (especially with a westerly wind). One of these is indeed LCY. Whether or not singles are accepted usually, I would argue that in an emergency you can go wherever is best, and a concrete runway seems a better option than some waste ground. I seem to remember a Rockwell Commander ran out of fuel a few years ago and put it down near LCY. Didn't he get 'done' for his lack of fuel planning but not for flying over there in a single? (The same aircraft crashed last year killing all on board).

If you mean: 'Alight clear of the whole conurbation' then you are talking 6000ft plus, but then the same is true of many places we fly. The 1500ft rule over a congested area does not of course relieve us from the need to 'alight clear' but how many people can honestly say they have ALWAYS been able to alight completely clear of Milton Keynes, Bournemouth or any other reasonably large conurbation they have encountered on route?

If it's OK for single engined helicopters to be able to use the Thames in the case of emergency, why can't fixed wing also choose to dump in there 'in extremis'?

To summarise, therefore, it is my opinion that provided you are sensible and fly as high as the clearance or cloud allows, then you have a good chance of putting it down without endangering others than yourself.

A few years ago the pilot of a single engine aircraft crossed the city heading to Biggin Hill. He ran out of fuel and attempted to Land an London City. He did not make the airport, but did a perfect forced landing in a small green patch with very little damage to the aircraft.

The pilot was charged with a number of offences including endangerment of persons on the ground Art 64, and of the aircraft Art 63. After some trading, the endangermeant charges were dropped,on condition that the pilot pleaded guilty to an offence under Art 43. Either way he was prosecuted.

Whilst you might not be taken to task for crossing the zone, if it goes wrong, you may well be prosecuted.

StrateandLevel, do you have any more details that might help me to find a reference to this?

I'm not sure about "either way he was prosecuted" in this instance. That is to say, if they couldn't make the endagerment charges stick that makes a big difference. Presumably the charge under Art 43 was because of the lack of fuel. If I had enough fuel, could I successfully be prosecuted? That's the big question and I suppose this case, whilst very interesting and relevant, doesn't answer it.