Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’d be interested in informed opinions concerning some points I’ve been pondering since this accident.
Given the number of high rise buildings erected close to the River in recent years, there are some places where compliance with both the 500’ rule and the maximum permitted height is borderline at least. It's probably going to get more difficult. According to the press, at least 12 buildings more than 500 feet high are under construction/approved for construction in the next six years.
I don’t know if NATS is consulted/invited to make representations before planning permission is granted. Does anyone know?
In particular, I wonder if NATS was consulted before planning permission was granted for the Vauxhall Tower which is very close to the River and, when completed, will be 594 feet high.
One solution might be to allow helicopters to fly higher over London than currently permitted, particularly those using H4 through central London.
On my very rough calculation, aircraft inbound to Heathrow are at about 3200 over the centre of London. (Correction welcomed.) If that calculation is roughly correct, there seems to be scope for allowing helicopters to fly higher over central London – particularly when using H4, the area where most of the very tall buildings are or will be situated - and still maintain adequate separation.
What do professional pilots (aeroplane or helicopter) think?
We are permitted to temporarily deviate to the right of the route if necessary in order to obtain sufficient lateral separation from opposite direction traffic but there are places where that isn’t practical because of tall buildings.
This might lead to being asked more often to hold at one of the bridges until opposite direction traffic has passed or to accept reduced traffic separation.
That wouldn’t be necessary as often if helicopters on H4 were allowed to fly higher over central London.
Disclaimer: Just random thoughts for consideration. Not fully thought through.
FL
Given the number of high rise buildings erected close to the River in recent years, there are some places where compliance with both the 500’ rule and the maximum permitted height is borderline at least. It's probably going to get more difficult. According to the press, at least 12 buildings more than 500 feet high are under construction/approved for construction in the next six years.
I don’t know if NATS is consulted/invited to make representations before planning permission is granted. Does anyone know?
In particular, I wonder if NATS was consulted before planning permission was granted for the Vauxhall Tower which is very close to the River and, when completed, will be 594 feet high.
One solution might be to allow helicopters to fly higher over London than currently permitted, particularly those using H4 through central London.
On my very rough calculation, aircraft inbound to Heathrow are at about 3200 over the centre of London. (Correction welcomed.) If that calculation is roughly correct, there seems to be scope for allowing helicopters to fly higher over central London – particularly when using H4, the area where most of the very tall buildings are or will be situated - and still maintain adequate separation.
What do professional pilots (aeroplane or helicopter) think?
We are permitted to temporarily deviate to the right of the route if necessary in order to obtain sufficient lateral separation from opposite direction traffic but there are places where that isn’t practical because of tall buildings.
This might lead to being asked more often to hold at one of the bridges until opposite direction traffic has passed or to accept reduced traffic separation.
That wouldn’t be necessary as often if helicopters on H4 were allowed to fly higher over central London.
Disclaimer: Just random thoughts for consideration. Not fully thought through.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 5th Feb 2013 at 21:07.
FL,
Does your post mean you considered my suggestion about re-thinking the Heli-Lanes structure and procedures?
I did do that about a week ago and since have drawn some flak from Bronx and some others as I they think I should not offer up comments about the Lanes and things in Europe and the UK and should leave it those who run the lanes frequently.
That post.....
Does your post mean you considered my suggestion about re-thinking the Heli-Lanes structure and procedures?
I did do that about a week ago and since have drawn some flak from Bronx and some others as I they think I should not offer up comments about the Lanes and things in Europe and the UK and should leave it those who run the lanes frequently.
That post.....
I would suggest the Heli-Routes control could probably be eased by adopting a single ATC function similar to Approach Control. Define the Airspace by track and max/min height, define a few reporting points, perhaps even make some of the tracks one direction only. The trick would be to facilitate departures and arrivals at Landing sites that underlay or very closely adjojn the Heli-Routes.
If one had to file a flight plan prior to entering the Controlled Airspace with that ATC unit...avoided the restricted Altitudes until in radio contact with the ATC unit...it would be a lot easier for all concerned (IMHO).
Actually that is far more restrictive than most high activity Offshore Oil Field Operations as we usually did not have an ATC service except for Flight Following and the odd Traffic Advisory.
Sometimes taking a big step back and thinking about how it "could be done" might work better than trying to figure out how to modify and existing system.
But....knowing the Bureaucracy.....that ain't gonna happen.
An example....require traffic to hold to a 1,000 feet one direction, and 1500 feet (or say....700 feet and 1200 feet) the other and that would grant traffic separation by height and still leave some room for landing and departing traffic while ensuring a 500 foot Rule margin under VFR conditions.
If the Weather goes below VFR....then ATC turns it into a positive control zone for all traffic and issues SVFR clearances.
Just a thought....what you think?
If one had to file a flight plan prior to entering the Controlled Airspace with that ATC unit...avoided the restricted Altitudes until in radio contact with the ATC unit...it would be a lot easier for all concerned (IMHO).
Actually that is far more restrictive than most high activity Offshore Oil Field Operations as we usually did not have an ATC service except for Flight Following and the odd Traffic Advisory.
Sometimes taking a big step back and thinking about how it "could be done" might work better than trying to figure out how to modify and existing system.
But....knowing the Bureaucracy.....that ain't gonna happen.
An example....require traffic to hold to a 1,000 feet one direction, and 1500 feet (or say....700 feet and 1200 feet) the other and that would grant traffic separation by height and still leave some room for landing and departing traffic while ensuring a 500 foot Rule margin under VFR conditions.
If the Weather goes below VFR....then ATC turns it into a positive control zone for all traffic and issues SVFR clearances.
Just a thought....what you think?
Last edited by SASless; 5th Feb 2013 at 21:14.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
FL, This ties in precisely with my earlier post about the idea of a minimum altitude being introduced for that section along the river. I was shot down in flames by a number of posters who didn't want to see any more regulations.
I think you were the one who advised "be careful what you wish for"
A higher altitude would be of some use but obviously not if the cloud were low on the day. Also, as we know, twin engined helicopters don't have to stay on the river.
I think you were the one who advised "be careful what you wish for"
A higher altitude would be of some use but obviously not if the cloud were low on the day. Also, as we know, twin engined helicopters don't have to stay on the river.
FL
The river is approximately 600ft wide so adhering to the 500ft rule should be viable by flying on the opposite bank and employing lateral separation if necessary. Unless of course 2 high-rise buildings are erected at opposite sides of the river. (I don't know if such a development is planned or not). Even if they were, flying centre-river you'd only need to be 400ft above any adjacent high-rise. (using simple 3-4-5 triangle geometry). If 600ft high developments are planned on the river bank, this would still permit flight at 1000ft so no height increase in the heli-lanes should be necessary. Or is my view overly simplistic?
JJ
The river is approximately 600ft wide so adhering to the 500ft rule should be viable by flying on the opposite bank and employing lateral separation if necessary. Unless of course 2 high-rise buildings are erected at opposite sides of the river. (I don't know if such a development is planned or not). Even if they were, flying centre-river you'd only need to be 400ft above any adjacent high-rise. (using simple 3-4-5 triangle geometry). If 600ft high developments are planned on the river bank, this would still permit flight at 1000ft so no height increase in the heli-lanes should be necessary. Or is my view overly simplistic?
JJ
Oh...this is beginning to look like a fun discussion.
I can just see some CAA surveyors with their transits and chains doing a survey and trying to calculate the exact flight path and altitudes that are required to comply with the 500 foot rule.
I can just see some CAA surveyors with their transits and chains doing a survey and trying to calculate the exact flight path and altitudes that are required to comply with the 500 foot rule.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
The river is approximately 600ft wide so adhering to the 500ft rule should be viable by flying on the opposite bank and employing lateral separation if necessary.
If you fly to the bare bones limits of the 500 foot rule in a low cloud situation in and around these new and extremely tall high rise buildings and cranes, you are getting yourself into a blind alley.
Also, pilots are sometimes given a clearance, or given an amended clearance, which includes the words "remain south side" or "remain north side". You may also be asked to accept visual separation on the route (from other traffic). If you are on the "wrong" bank, then what?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
I know your long and wide experience of different ops in different countries so I'm always interested in your opinions and respect them even when, on rare occasions, I disagree. Some topics are way beyond my knowledge and/or experience so I just read what you and the other professional pilots say and take the opportunity to learn.
I'm not persuaded significant changes are necessary; the current system has worked well and safely for decades. I was just wondering if, given London's (quite rapidly) changing skyline, increasing maximum permitted altitude would be beneficial.
What do I think of your proposals?
I'm hesitant to answer because there are professionals here who use the routes regularly so they are in a position to give informed opinions but, FWIW my immediate reaction:
It's not difficult to change ATC when instructed; not always, but usually, it comes when expected. I don't see the necessity for a single ATC function. (I assume you aren't suggesting that the single ATC unit would also control movements at the Battersea.)
The routes are already defined. Max altitude is already defined. Minimum isn't, except in one small section which must be flown at a precise height so is therefore min as well as max. Reporting points are already defined.
There are very few landing sites closely adjoining the routes in/near central London.
I'm not convinced having to file a (written) flight plan is either necessary or would improve the existing system.
I agree starting afresh is often better than modifying an existing system but I'm far from persuaded that there's any for necessity to make extensive changes - except perhaps max altitude.
I can see the argument for different altitudes in different directions but I'd have to look at the terrain much more closely before offering an opinion about whether it would work.
I'm not sure about 'below VFR (VMC?) / positive control zone for all traffic etc' would work. It's a very big area and weather/vis is often very different in different parts.
Overall, I remain of the view that the tried and tested existing system works well and doesn't need significant changes. As Americans say: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
FL
I see some pros have already responded.
I should have waited.
ShyTorque
I can see the argument for minimum altitude along the River. You are in a far better position than me to assess whether it's necessary.
Re my 'Be careful what you wish for.'
I can't remember now but I think I was responding to calls for more extensive changes which I still don't think are necessary.
One issue I think will need to be addressed:
Opposite direction traffic is deemed to be separated when routing west along the north bank and east along the south bank. However, the increasing number of very tall buildings being constructed close to the river will make it very difficult (impossible in some instances?) to route along the river bank and comply with Rule 5. eg Even now, the St George Tower at Vauxhall effectively prevents two-way traffic on H4 when London City is using 09 or when the cloud base is below 1200 ft.
jellycopter
You are a professional, and I assume you know the routes well, so I'm interested in your view - and reluctant to express an opinion about whether it is over simplistic, or not.
I'll be very interested to see if the AAIB say anything about high rise buildings being erected so near the River.
And whether NATS is consulted before planning permission is granted.
Of one thing I'm confident, their approach will be very different from the IMHO over simplistic approach taken by some people in the course of this thread.
.
I know your long and wide experience of different ops in different countries so I'm always interested in your opinions and respect them even when, on rare occasions, I disagree. Some topics are way beyond my knowledge and/or experience so I just read what you and the other professional pilots say and take the opportunity to learn.
I'm not persuaded significant changes are necessary; the current system has worked well and safely for decades. I was just wondering if, given London's (quite rapidly) changing skyline, increasing maximum permitted altitude would be beneficial.
What do I think of your proposals?
I'm hesitant to answer because there are professionals here who use the routes regularly so they are in a position to give informed opinions but, FWIW my immediate reaction:
It's not difficult to change ATC when instructed; not always, but usually, it comes when expected. I don't see the necessity for a single ATC function. (I assume you aren't suggesting that the single ATC unit would also control movements at the Battersea.)
The routes are already defined. Max altitude is already defined. Minimum isn't, except in one small section which must be flown at a precise height so is therefore min as well as max. Reporting points are already defined.
There are very few landing sites closely adjoining the routes in/near central London.
I'm not convinced having to file a (written) flight plan is either necessary or would improve the existing system.
I agree starting afresh is often better than modifying an existing system but I'm far from persuaded that there's any for necessity to make extensive changes - except perhaps max altitude.
I can see the argument for different altitudes in different directions but I'd have to look at the terrain much more closely before offering an opinion about whether it would work.
I'm not sure about 'below VFR (VMC?) / positive control zone for all traffic etc' would work. It's a very big area and weather/vis is often very different in different parts.
Overall, I remain of the view that the tried and tested existing system works well and doesn't need significant changes. As Americans say: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
FL
I see some pros have already responded.
I should have waited.
ShyTorque
FL, This ties in precisely with my earlier post about the idea of a minimum altitude being introduced for that section along the river ...........
I think you were the one who advised "be careful what you wish for"
I think you were the one who advised "be careful what you wish for"
Re my 'Be careful what you wish for.'
I can't remember now but I think I was responding to calls for more extensive changes which I still don't think are necessary.
One issue I think will need to be addressed:
Opposite direction traffic is deemed to be separated when routing west along the north bank and east along the south bank. However, the increasing number of very tall buildings being constructed close to the river will make it very difficult (impossible in some instances?) to route along the river bank and comply with Rule 5. eg Even now, the St George Tower at Vauxhall effectively prevents two-way traffic on H4 when London City is using 09 or when the cloud base is below 1200 ft.
jellycopter
You are a professional, and I assume you know the routes well, so I'm interested in your view - and reluctant to express an opinion about whether it is over simplistic, or not.
I'll be very interested to see if the AAIB say anything about high rise buildings being erected so near the River.
And whether NATS is consulted before planning permission is granted.
Of one thing I'm confident, their approach will be very different from the IMHO over simplistic approach taken by some people in the course of this thread.
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 5th Feb 2013 at 23:00.
Shyt
What are the high and low watermarks if they're not the river banks? Semantics?
If you fly to the bare bones limits of the 500 foot rule in a low cloud situation in and around these new and extremely tall high rise buildings and cranes, you are getting yourself into a blind alley.
Agreed. I've never been to Battersea with 600ft and 1000m viz. I've always thought that was barking mad.
Also, pilots are sometimes given a clearance, or given an amended clearance, which includes the words "remain south side" or "remain north side". You may also be asked to accept visual separation on the route (from other traffic). If you are on the "wrong" bank, then what?
As with any other clearance, if the pilot cannot comply, he cannot accept the clearance. I wouldn't accept a climb if it meant going into icing conditions. Likewise, i wouldn't accept a clearance if it meant busting the 500 ft rule, or any other rule for that matter.
Your minimum altitude idea has merits, but I worry it could limit access along H4 to Battersea when there is no other traffic.
JJ
What are the high and low watermarks if they're not the river banks? Semantics?
If you fly to the bare bones limits of the 500 foot rule in a low cloud situation in and around these new and extremely tall high rise buildings and cranes, you are getting yourself into a blind alley.
Agreed. I've never been to Battersea with 600ft and 1000m viz. I've always thought that was barking mad.
Also, pilots are sometimes given a clearance, or given an amended clearance, which includes the words "remain south side" or "remain north side". You may also be asked to accept visual separation on the route (from other traffic). If you are on the "wrong" bank, then what?
As with any other clearance, if the pilot cannot comply, he cannot accept the clearance. I wouldn't accept a climb if it meant going into icing conditions. Likewise, i wouldn't accept a clearance if it meant busting the 500 ft rule, or any other rule for that matter.
Your minimum altitude idea has merits, but I worry it could limit access along H4 to Battersea when there is no other traffic.
JJ
As FL has stated, be careful what you wish for...
First,one ATC. With international airports at both E & W ends of the heli route structure, one ATC will never happen.
Nothing, in my humble view, needs to change - other than the below. The current system has worked perfectly for decades and the "system" would not appear to have caused this lone accident. In fact, the system rules may not have been followed...but that's for the AAIB.
The ONLY areas for changing are the R157, 158 & 159. These are political knee-jerks to 9/11. They serve no real anti-terrorist purpose. The one over the Isle of Dogs is a particular nuisance for ops around City and could be taken away.
For Royal and Parliamentary peace, the ones around Westminster & the Palaces should alter from 1400ft to 1000ft. And MI6 get no protection from their extension - get rid of anything that crosses the river. Clarity, not confusion is what we need.
First,one ATC. With international airports at both E & W ends of the heli route structure, one ATC will never happen.
Nothing, in my humble view, needs to change - other than the below. The current system has worked perfectly for decades and the "system" would not appear to have caused this lone accident. In fact, the system rules may not have been followed...but that's for the AAIB.
The ONLY areas for changing are the R157, 158 & 159. These are political knee-jerks to 9/11. They serve no real anti-terrorist purpose. The one over the Isle of Dogs is a particular nuisance for ops around City and could be taken away.
For Royal and Parliamentary peace, the ones around Westminster & the Palaces should alter from 1400ft to 1000ft. And MI6 get no protection from their extension - get rid of anything that crosses the river. Clarity, not confusion is what we need.
I would think the last place I would ever want to be in low uneven ceilings and/or limited Vis is downtown London. There is too little room to maneuver, the route is too skinny, there are way too many things to run into and way too many rules to violate....and damn few places to land if it all goes really ugly on you and if you go IIMC....popping up into airspace used by Heathrow Traffic could get real sporty in a hurry.
Perhaps....a re-think on weather minima for using the Lanes is worth thinking about too.
Perhaps....a re-think on weather minima for using the Lanes is worth thinking about too.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sas
I think that is exactly the type of knee-jerk reaction that most of us would try to avoid. The weather limits work fine, they have done for the past 40 years. Why try to fix something that isn't broken.
Tam
Tam
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
As I posted earlier, It's a long time since I used the Heli lanes. I agree with TAM, the WX minima for VMC in controlled airspace is well defined and when adhered to, provides the required safety. It does not need changing. However, the more people flout the limits, the greater the chance of precisely this happening. The CAA are compelled by ICAO to manage affairs in their own backyard.
The CAA and ATC do not have much vertical room above the city that would enable a workable change to the s/VFR minima. But they will not tolerate rule busting as a culture. They will respond and it may be the only option is a cessation of this kind of transit.
Like children, if you do not follow the rules you will not be allowed out to play.
Safety comes at a price and relies on mutual trust between the regulator and the operator. Culture can and will cause change.
If you want viable debate lets talk about the real elephant in the room (cockpit). It's not the cranes, the buildings or the rules that are at fault. It's flying too low, in ****ty conditions, that severely erode the safe margins for continued flight that ARE available WHEN we stick to the rules.
This accident is a CFIT in conditions not commensurate with flight under the VFR.
DB
The CAA and ATC do not have much vertical room above the city that would enable a workable change to the s/VFR minima. But they will not tolerate rule busting as a culture. They will respond and it may be the only option is a cessation of this kind of transit.
Like children, if you do not follow the rules you will not be allowed out to play.
Safety comes at a price and relies on mutual trust between the regulator and the operator. Culture can and will cause change.
If you want viable debate lets talk about the real elephant in the room (cockpit). It's not the cranes, the buildings or the rules that are at fault. It's flying too low, in ****ty conditions, that severely erode the safe margins for continued flight that ARE available WHEN we stick to the rules.
This accident is a CFIT in conditions not commensurate with flight under the VFR.
DB
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The existing situation is somewhat worse than FL suggests, in post 803, at least with respect to the City Zone. I believe the situation is as follows.
In the City Zone (Class D) most helicopter clearances will be VFR (only being SVFR at night or in VERY poor vis) So under VFR, we need to comply with both the 500ft and 1,000ft rules. For example, for a 700 ft obstacle that means min alt of 1,700ft (approx) when within 600m horizontally of it.
The IFR traffic above helicopters is provided mainly by LHR but also the City. When everyone is on easterlies, City arrivals traffic seems to get vectored onto mainly a right hand circuit within the City Zone. Whether R or L, IFR vectored "base leg to finals" occurs at pretty much the Vauxhall VRP overhead. I believe at this point arrivals are at 2000ft alt. Normal ATC/IFR separation standards require a 1,000ft vertical separation, so heles get a clearance with a max alt of 1,000ft.
In the City Zone (Class D) most helicopter clearances will be VFR (only being SVFR at night or in VERY poor vis) So under VFR, we need to comply with both the 500ft and 1,000ft rules. For example, for a 700 ft obstacle that means min alt of 1,700ft (approx) when within 600m horizontally of it.
The IFR traffic above helicopters is provided mainly by LHR but also the City. When everyone is on easterlies, City arrivals traffic seems to get vectored onto mainly a right hand circuit within the City Zone. Whether R or L, IFR vectored "base leg to finals" occurs at pretty much the Vauxhall VRP overhead. I believe at this point arrivals are at 2000ft alt. Normal ATC/IFR separation standards require a 1,000ft vertical separation, so heles get a clearance with a max alt of 1,000ft.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Jellycopter,
As far as semantics go, the term "between high and low water marks" mean you should fly over the river. The banks are the dry bit, where the high rise obstructions are being built. If you're stretching the 500' rule to its lateral limit, as you seemed to propose (and as you must if passing alongside some of the higher buildings, rather than over them), I'd consider important to be precise.
I'm totally against a complete overhaul of the rules, let me be quite clear about that.
SAS proposed flight plans (I presume he means written ones to be submitted): No thanks, we already do submit a flight plan, as per the requirements for SVFR; it's done on the radio on initial contact with ATC. Written plans in our part of the industry are totally impractical and over-restrictive and serve no real purpose.
Regarding altitude limits, I think a maximum altitude of 2,000 ft on the eastern end of H4 is already sufficient and unlikely to be increased for ATC reasons.
However, trying to judge distance/height and fly i.a.w. the 500 ft rule further west towards Vauxhall Bridge is no longer as straightforward as it was in years gone by, due to the ever increasing number of very tall obstructions being erected close to the river. From personal experience, I certainly wouldn't want to fly at the published wx limits along that stretch now.
If a minimum altitude (for example 1,000 feet London QNH) were mandated for that particular stretch it would clarify to a pilot attempting to use that route what the practical weather limits are.
As far as restricting access to Battersea heliport is concerned, there are other routes to gain entry (e.g. H7 for singles, maximum altitude 1,000 feet QNH). Access has also been made slightly more straightforward than it was, at least for twin engined helicopters, due to the recent rule changes regarding the introduction of the Battersea local flying area.
As far as semantics go, the term "between high and low water marks" mean you should fly over the river. The banks are the dry bit, where the high rise obstructions are being built. If you're stretching the 500' rule to its lateral limit, as you seemed to propose (and as you must if passing alongside some of the higher buildings, rather than over them), I'd consider important to be precise.
I'm totally against a complete overhaul of the rules, let me be quite clear about that.
SAS proposed flight plans (I presume he means written ones to be submitted): No thanks, we already do submit a flight plan, as per the requirements for SVFR; it's done on the radio on initial contact with ATC. Written plans in our part of the industry are totally impractical and over-restrictive and serve no real purpose.
Regarding altitude limits, I think a maximum altitude of 2,000 ft on the eastern end of H4 is already sufficient and unlikely to be increased for ATC reasons.
However, trying to judge distance/height and fly i.a.w. the 500 ft rule further west towards Vauxhall Bridge is no longer as straightforward as it was in years gone by, due to the ever increasing number of very tall obstructions being erected close to the river. From personal experience, I certainly wouldn't want to fly at the published wx limits along that stretch now.
If a minimum altitude (for example 1,000 feet London QNH) were mandated for that particular stretch it would clarify to a pilot attempting to use that route what the practical weather limits are.
As far as restricting access to Battersea heliport is concerned, there are other routes to gain entry (e.g. H7 for singles, maximum altitude 1,000 feet QNH). Access has also been made slightly more straightforward than it was, at least for twin engined helicopters, due to the recent rule changes regarding the introduction of the Battersea local flying area.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Helinut, I've seen several posts which have drawn the distinction between VFR and SVFR when it comes to exemption from the 1000ft rule. The full text of the exemption is as follows (my bold):
So I read this to mean that if you're on the route eg. H4 in the city zone VFR, and you've been given a clearance of 'standard operating altitudes' which I believe means at or below the published altitude, then I think you're still exempt the 1000ft rule on the 'notified route' grounds.
(c) Special VFR clearance and notified routes
Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1000 feet rule when flying on a special VFR flight, or when operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route being flown; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption landings may not be made at other than a licensed or Government aerodrome, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained.
Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1000 feet rule when flying on a special VFR flight, or when operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route being flown; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption landings may not be made at other than a licensed or Government aerodrome, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained.
Hihover,
Helinut seems to differ with you.
Suggesting a re-think about how things are done currently is certainly not a "knee jerk" reaction. Changing the Rules without good reason would be just that however.
As changes do take place over time as noted by ShyTorque....perhaps your reaction to some of us saying reconsidering the current situation is the true "Knee Jerk".
Helinut seems to differ with you.
Suggesting a re-think about how things are done currently is certainly not a "knee jerk" reaction. Changing the Rules without good reason would be just that however.
As changes do take place over time as noted by ShyTorque....perhaps your reaction to some of us saying reconsidering the current situation is the true "Knee Jerk".
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
puntosaurus,
Thanks for reminding me/drawing my attention to that. I have 2 initial thoughts:
1. Even if the exemption did work as you suggest, it would not apply to heles off the routes (such as twins given direct clearances e.g.to join the route at Vauxhall or wherever).
2. I will need to do some homework, but I recall (vaguely) that "notification" may be a specific legal process rather than just a more general "published in the AIP". For example, I recall that the low-level routes under the Stansted/Essex Radar stub were formally "notified", when the 1,000ft rule was previously the 1,500ft rule.
It would certainly help, if your interpretation was correct for route followers, if not for the others.
Thanks for reminding me/drawing my attention to that. I have 2 initial thoughts:
1. Even if the exemption did work as you suggest, it would not apply to heles off the routes (such as twins given direct clearances e.g.to join the route at Vauxhall or wherever).
2. I will need to do some homework, but I recall (vaguely) that "notification" may be a specific legal process rather than just a more general "published in the AIP". For example, I recall that the low-level routes under the Stansted/Essex Radar stub were formally "notified", when the 1,000ft rule was previously the 1,500ft rule.
It would certainly help, if your interpretation was correct for route followers, if not for the others.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd be interested to know for sure, because that's always been my assumption. I've often been restricted West to East on H4 not above 1000ft due City inbounds I presume, and I don't think you could accept that clearance past the Eye, let alone the Shard, unless you were exempt the 1000ft rule.
Actually a little research later and I think my assumption has to be true, because the Shard is listed at 1023ft high and the maximum altitude for H4 at that point is 2000ft, and the tip of the Shard to the north bank is around 450m. So even hugging the North bank at 2000ft you'd be breaking the 1000ft rule on the route if it applied.
Actually a little research later and I think my assumption has to be true, because the Shard is listed at 1023ft high and the maximum altitude for H4 at that point is 2000ft, and the tip of the Shard to the north bank is around 450m. So even hugging the North bank at 2000ft you'd be breaking the 1000ft rule on the route if it applied.
Last edited by puntosaurus; 6th Feb 2013 at 12:40. Reason: Added information
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Helinut, there is possibly some scope for uncertainty because of the differences in classification between LHR and LCY airspace.
Inside the London CTR you cannot ever be VFR because by definition it's Class A airspace. So irrespective of whether flying on a helicopter route or not, you are given a clearance under SVFR. The 1000 foot rule (in transit) no longer applies. However, if you want to land "off route" in London, away from one of the recognised airfields/heliport, you still need a written permission from the CAA, wrt Rule 5 (3) (c), which will come with some conditions/restrictions for your £113.
Inside the LCY airspace you can be given either VFR or SVFR when flying off H4 because it's Class D airspace. If flying under VFR then the 1,000 foot rule still applies.
Inside the London CTR you cannot ever be VFR because by definition it's Class A airspace. So irrespective of whether flying on a helicopter route or not, you are given a clearance under SVFR. The 1000 foot rule (in transit) no longer applies. However, if you want to land "off route" in London, away from one of the recognised airfields/heliport, you still need a written permission from the CAA, wrt Rule 5 (3) (c), which will come with some conditions/restrictions for your £113.
Inside the LCY airspace you can be given either VFR or SVFR when flying off H4 because it's Class D airspace. If flying under VFR then the 1,000 foot rule still applies.