Flying over London: Heli-lanes etc
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To give them their due they are selling it as a Helipad and not a Heliport. Differences on a postcard to.....
Pat, would you pay £875 to land in a muddy field next to the Thames after a lengthy hold whilst ATC land the rush hour at City, (I am assuming AlanM as you know about these things that the heliPAD will not be getting the priority!).
If the price was considerably cheaper in view of their facilities being offered then it may be looked at, but charging just a fraction under what Battersea charge and offering evenless than battersea (if possible) I think they are more hopeful than expectant.
Is it not about time City looked at getting helicopters in there? After all they have jets in and out ow which wasn't on the planning permission... Just a thought.
Pat, would you pay £875 to land in a muddy field next to the Thames after a lengthy hold whilst ATC land the rush hour at City, (I am assuming AlanM as you know about these things that the heliPAD will not be getting the priority!).
If the price was considerably cheaper in view of their facilities being offered then it may be looked at, but charging just a fraction under what Battersea charge and offering evenless than battersea (if possible) I think they are more hopeful than expectant.
Is it not about time City looked at getting helicopters in there? After all they have jets in and out ow which wasn't on the planning permission... Just a thought.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually getting aircraft in and out low level in the daytime wouldn't be too much of a problem - from the Eastern zone boundary.... in the daylight (VFRvIFR - Traffic Info)
When SVFR (night/IMC) could be trickier - but not impossible as 7nm spacing is standard on runway 28 (unless no departure in the gaps then we use 3nm/vortex spacing)
As for priority...??
It clearly says in CAP493 (Manual of Air Traffic Services part one) that VFR and SVFR flights are not to hinder IFR flights.
we shall see......
When SVFR (night/IMC) could be trickier - but not impossible as 7nm spacing is standard on runway 28 (unless no departure in the gaps then we use 3nm/vortex spacing)
As for priority...??
It clearly says in CAP493 (Manual of Air Traffic Services part one) that VFR and SVFR flights are not to hinder IFR flights.
we shall see......
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: To close for comfort
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the "story" from the Desk-Flyers.
The Secretary of State deemed it necessary to have some form of control over low flying aircraft over the seat of government etc.
Historically, Thames where constantly being pestered by security organisations over the identity and task of helicopters flying around London.
So, in order to provide a "Known traffic environment", the restricted areas were established. The security services would then have a mechanism whereby they would already expect said flight before it happens - therefore reducing the "trigger happy" response to a potential threat.
Originally the restricted areas covered the majority of London, but were cut down to manageble sizes. Also, they started off with a vertical limit of some 3000ft! That too was chopped down to reflect general traffic operations. Those responsible for the introduction of these areas carried out a full consultation with NATS on how best to manage this requirement. Many meetings were held between parties to identify a logical way forward.
Operators were fully briefed on the requirements within these restricted areas. They were also made aware, at the outset, that blanket exemptions were available. CAPITAL, LNX, etc etc have all applied for said blanket exemptions (these are renewed yearly). All the operators have to do is make 2 phonecalls (instead of 1) to inform the security services and ATC of their request. Job done.
No backtracking, no changes of mind. Simply a pragmatic approach to instigating the requirements as set out by the Secretary of State.
Although nothing can stop an unauthorised penetration of these areas, we now have mechanism to allow those on the ground with the "hardware" to identify "Friend or Foe". Action can then be taken immediately on any percieved threat.
The Secretary of State deemed it necessary to have some form of control over low flying aircraft over the seat of government etc.
Historically, Thames where constantly being pestered by security organisations over the identity and task of helicopters flying around London.
So, in order to provide a "Known traffic environment", the restricted areas were established. The security services would then have a mechanism whereby they would already expect said flight before it happens - therefore reducing the "trigger happy" response to a potential threat.
Originally the restricted areas covered the majority of London, but were cut down to manageble sizes. Also, they started off with a vertical limit of some 3000ft! That too was chopped down to reflect general traffic operations. Those responsible for the introduction of these areas carried out a full consultation with NATS on how best to manage this requirement. Many meetings were held between parties to identify a logical way forward.
Operators were fully briefed on the requirements within these restricted areas. They were also made aware, at the outset, that blanket exemptions were available. CAPITAL, LNX, etc etc have all applied for said blanket exemptions (these are renewed yearly). All the operators have to do is make 2 phonecalls (instead of 1) to inform the security services and ATC of their request. Job done.
No backtracking, no changes of mind. Simply a pragmatic approach to instigating the requirements as set out by the Secretary of State.
Although nothing can stop an unauthorised penetration of these areas, we now have mechanism to allow those on the ground with the "hardware" to identify "Friend or Foe". Action can then be taken immediately on any percieved threat.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TO,
Thanks for your explanation of things from a desk. I don't think it was your desk that was being criticised. It is clear that ATC and those that represent ATC have done a great job, on behalf of aviators and helicopters in particular, in negotiating a system that is workable (for most cases). I think we appreciate that and are grateful.
I believe the weakness in the overall argument lies in your last sentence: How long does it take a helicopter to descend from 1,400 ft to ground level - less than 1 minute? How much response is there going to be in that 1 minute? None.
It may make someone feel good with the illusion that they are doing something, but the real risk reduction is effectively zero.[But then the risk from a light helicopter is pretty trivial anyway].
Can I take this opportunity to thank you and all your ATC colleagues for all their hard work in helping us to get to our destinations safely
Merry Christmas (unless you are working?!
) and
a Happy New Year
Thanks for your explanation of things from a desk. I don't think it was your desk that was being criticised. It is clear that ATC and those that represent ATC have done a great job, on behalf of aviators and helicopters in particular, in negotiating a system that is workable (for most cases). I think we appreciate that and are grateful.
I believe the weakness in the overall argument lies in your last sentence: How long does it take a helicopter to descend from 1,400 ft to ground level - less than 1 minute? How much response is there going to be in that 1 minute? None.
It may make someone feel good with the illusion that they are doing something, but the real risk reduction is effectively zero.[But then the risk from a light helicopter is pretty trivial anyway].
Can I take this opportunity to thank you and all your ATC colleagues for all their hard work in helping us to get to our destinations safely
Merry Christmas (unless you are working?!
) anda Happy New Year
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SE England
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London heliroutes - VFR / SVFR..?
London heliroutes - VFR / SVFR..?
This question arises out of a discussion I had this afternoon prior to taking the R22 for a play in the nice weather. It happened to the guy flying prior to me on a jaunt up H4 from the Isle of Dogs to Vauxhall and back. Arguably, it could be posted on the ATC forum, but I know some of you nice Thames Radar guys pop in here, so here goes...
Prior to entering City's zone (class D) he made the usual position report and request for Special VFR. Having squawked the assigned code, he was cleared to enter, and read back, "cleared to enter the City Zone, Special VFR (etc.)" The reply was, "negative, you are cleared VFR ." He confirmed this and carried on with his flight.
His question to me was, how can he be cleared into the zone VFR as opposed to SVFR, and in any case what would the difference be? He is aware of the visibility limitations of the clearance, and the vis was fine today. In addition, he had already phoned Thames prior to departure to let them know his intentions. All I was able to do was scratch my head - we went through Pooley's to double check and are none the wiser.
Over to you guys and gals - can you be cleared VFR as opposed to SVFR in these circumstances, and if so what would the difference be?
Thanks in anticipation...
DBChopper
This question arises out of a discussion I had this afternoon prior to taking the R22 for a play in the nice weather. It happened to the guy flying prior to me on a jaunt up H4 from the Isle of Dogs to Vauxhall and back. Arguably, it could be posted on the ATC forum, but I know some of you nice Thames Radar guys pop in here, so here goes...
Prior to entering City's zone (class D) he made the usual position report and request for Special VFR. Having squawked the assigned code, he was cleared to enter, and read back, "cleared to enter the City Zone, Special VFR (etc.)" The reply was, "negative, you are cleared VFR ." He confirmed this and carried on with his flight.
His question to me was, how can he be cleared into the zone VFR as opposed to SVFR, and in any case what would the difference be? He is aware of the visibility limitations of the clearance, and the vis was fine today. In addition, he had already phoned Thames prior to departure to let them know his intentions. All I was able to do was scratch my head - we went through Pooley's to double check and are none the wiser.
Over to you guys and gals - can you be cleared VFR as opposed to SVFR in these circumstances, and if so what would the difference be?
Thanks in anticipation...
DBChopper
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB: Special VFR only applies in Class A airspace - in other classes it would apply in IMC or night.
See: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=2151
Here's the relevant bit. Great day wasn't it ?
6.3 Special VFR Flight
6.3.1 A Special VFR flight is a flight made in a Control Zone under circumstances which would normally require
the flight to be made under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) but is made under special conditions and with the
permission of ATC instead of under the full IFR.
6.3.2 The circumstances referred to in paragraph 6.3.1 are:
(i) At any time in a Class A Control Zone;
(ii) in IMC or at night in any other Control Zone.
6.3.3 The following conditions are applicable to all Special VFR flights:
(i) The pilot must obtain an ATC clearance and comply with ATC instructions;
(ii) the pilot must at all times remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface;
(iii) the pilot must at all times remain in flight conditions which enable him to determine his flight path
and keep clear of obstacles;
See: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=2151
Here's the relevant bit. Great day wasn't it ?
6.3 Special VFR Flight
6.3.1 A Special VFR flight is a flight made in a Control Zone under circumstances which would normally require
the flight to be made under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) but is made under special conditions and with the
permission of ATC instead of under the full IFR.
6.3.2 The circumstances referred to in paragraph 6.3.1 are:
(i) At any time in a Class A Control Zone;
(ii) in IMC or at night in any other Control Zone.
6.3.3 The following conditions are applicable to all Special VFR flights:
(i) The pilot must obtain an ATC clearance and comply with ATC instructions;
(ii) the pilot must at all times remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface;
(iii) the pilot must at all times remain in flight conditions which enable him to determine his flight path
and keep clear of obstacles;
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SE England
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headsethair,
Thanks for that - just had a good old read. Looking back, the times I have received a SVFR clearance must have related to the Class A bit, further along H4 past Battersea and into Heathrow's zone. Just goes to show it's worth actually thinking about the clearance rather than just repeating it
And yes, it was a great day - seemed like the ideal excuse to go and play over the marshy bits of North Kent - no householders to annoy and loads of blue sky
Cheers,
DBChopper
Thanks for that - just had a good old read. Looking back, the times I have received a SVFR clearance must have related to the Class A bit, further along H4 past Battersea and into Heathrow's zone. Just goes to show it's worth actually thinking about the clearance rather than just repeating it
And yes, it was a great day - seemed like the ideal excuse to go and play over the marshy bits of North Kent - no householders to annoy and loads of blue sky
Cheers,
DBChopper
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopters over london
Feel free to hoof this off to somewhere else but:
All this hoohah about whether a single engine prop can glide clear of civilisation in the event of an engine failure is interesting, but as far as I'm aware a helicopter with an engine failure will have difficulty doing anything other than plummeting.
Are helicopters that much more reliable than props that they don't need the rule?
All this hoohah about whether a single engine prop can glide clear of civilisation in the event of an engine failure is interesting, but as far as I'm aware a helicopter with an engine failure will have difficulty doing anything other than plummeting.
Are helicopters that much more reliable than props that they don't need the rule?
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to recall in my beer fuddled brain, but there are certain areas of London where only twin engined helicopters can fly direct and not on the designated helicopter routes.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave
Plummetting is not quite correct, but the 'glide' angle of an autorotating helicopter is considerably steeper than that of an aeroplane.
Conversely, the space required for a helicopter to land after an autorotative descent is much smaller than that required by an aeroplane. The helicopter pilot can flare off almost all of the forward speed before touching down.
The 'specified area' of central London has designated routes for single-engined helicopters, which keeps them over areas judged to be suitable for an autorotative landing, without overly endangering those on the ground. Practically speaking this means that helicopters flying over the very centre of London have to fly along the Thames, and in the event of an engine failure are obliged to ditch in the river.
Plummetting is not quite correct, but the 'glide' angle of an autorotating helicopter is considerably steeper than that of an aeroplane.
Conversely, the space required for a helicopter to land after an autorotative descent is much smaller than that required by an aeroplane. The helicopter pilot can flare off almost all of the forward speed before touching down.
The 'specified area' of central London has designated routes for single-engined helicopters, which keeps them over areas judged to be suitable for an autorotative landing, without overly endangering those on the ground. Practically speaking this means that helicopters flying over the very centre of London have to fly along the Thames, and in the event of an engine failure are obliged to ditch in the river.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misunderstanding persists. ALL helis have to be able to land without endangering life or property in the event of an emergency. The "glide clear" is not a requirement for helis. That's for planks.
And the majority of inflight emergencies happen to twins. See quarterly CHIRP publication by CAA.
And the majority of inflight emergencies happen to twins. See quarterly CHIRP publication by CAA.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pub User,
According to the Amendment to Rule 5, as from 1st April 2005 the Specified Area over Central London no longer exists.
Further to my last, we are seeking clarification about the Specified Area over Central London. The reference may just have been moved to the ANO (CAP 393) Section 5.
According to the Amendment to Rule 5, as from 1st April 2005 the Specified Area over Central London no longer exists.
Further to my last, we are seeking clarification about the Specified Area over Central London. The reference may just have been moved to the ANO (CAP 393) Section 5.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a rotorhead myself but when Sussex police changed their mount some years ago I was told that it was because that single engined helos were restricted to higher altitude over built up areas. Not v. effective for chav chasing.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I can confirm that the Specified Area over Central London will continue to exist in its present form. The only change is that the reference to it will move to CAP 393 (Air Navigation Order) Section 5.