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.

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.

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.

Alan, when we do the round-London trip we'll have a look (if we can get a transit clearance ;) ) and see what's there...

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!

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.

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 :uhoh:

Andy

Edited 'cos Barney doesn't remember the Rules of the Air :O .....the cad should be grounded I say :D

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.

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).

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

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 :D

WF.

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 :uhoh:

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?

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?? :confused: :D

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

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 ;)

MATS Pt 1. . . . ? :hmm: I read it once, I think.
Sure it was 3nm in my day, maybe radar has got more accurate? :p

VA

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.

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.

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'?

Of course you are correct AlanM . Back to ground school :O I edited the post :D

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

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~derek/proon/cat.gif

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 .