Brassemup.
This post started on another forum and was moved into rotorheads. That was the only reason I noticed it.

It is perfectly obvious that most in this forum disagree with my stance. But the original post asked for reaction to a proposal, so I think it perfectly reasonable that he/she should know that the idea will meet strong opposition.

Interesting to look at E London Pax comments. He probably reflects most landlubbers in that he doesn't give a s**t who flies over his house at 2240 or whatever - he wants to lash out at someone and "put a stop to it". If it is flying over London at night (out of Battersea's normal operating hours) it is a 95% probability to be the Met or one of the other police ASUs. Most of the other 5% will be catered for by Air Ambulance or SAR operating in a similar role. They will all be (rightly) protected, but the emotions that are generated by those who are anti will have a go at an easier target, that is essentially nothing to do with night helicopter flying over London.

It is a shame that the Met chose a noisy "new" helicopter fleet, but that is water under the bridge now.

Those of us concerned to see commercial helicopter flying continue and prosper in and around London need to make sure that the fact that noise from hele night flying over London is not due to commercial traffic is understood and appreciated.

I'm going to bite on a couple of these if you don't mind:

Brilliant Stuff:
Of course it can, I would much rather train at a civilised hour than at 0130 in the morning, but when there are only one or two aircraft serviceable, then you take the training at whatever time you can get.

WHBM

They may not be on an anti-terrorist op (then again they might), but they may be training for one. They may have been in E Anglia, 16 AA Brigade at Colchester are a favorite user, If you draw a straight line between Colchester and Odiham, you will find a large town in the way. They may have been able to go round, but maybe they went round the previous night, 2 nights, 5 nights, every night for a fortnight etc, and thought they would give those people living there a rest, or perhaps they were running out of crew hours, or aircraft hours, or the aircraft was needed for a real anti-terrorist op and needed to go back in as straight a line as possible, who knows? To insinuate that they were only going there because "you think" it is "interesting" is to insult all of us.

WHBM:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4478124.stm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yapP2BA_ARw or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR1PmSlBS5Y

Looks fairly 'major city'-ish to me. Baghdad to be precise. Ok so they're during the day, but they do this at night too. Can you imagine doing that at night without any training? Training you can't do in case WHBM gets woken up?

To get realistic training to do that, we would need to low fly routinely, by day and night, over major urban areas (Baghdad is roughly the size of Birmingham). We don't though, because we do actually understand that there is a balance to be struck. So we take the training that we can get, and if that happens to be near your house at an uncivilised hour, then so be it.

Crab and Pastcicabdriver

there is always more than meets the eye isn't it? That is why communication is so important. I apologise for living in my little perfect world. I am glad I made the comments I made because this way I learned something again. It teaches me again not to make rash opinions about things I don't know enough about.

We must keep communicating or else we end up as billy no mates.

It's a shame that so many selfish people have so much power over the vast number of selfless people.

OK, I didn't just think it. I was told.

If Crab and PlasticcabDriver had claimed that they had to practice flying the London Heli-routes by day and night for purposes of access in times of alert, their operations within the London Zone would be understandable and justifiable. To claim that they have to fly routinely by day and night over urban areas to keep up their precious skills is, quite frankly, laughable. The attitude " if that is what it takes, so be it" is sadly typical of the RAF outlook on airspace sharing as typified by the ongoing fast jet versus helicopter confliction at low level.
Might I suggest that regular users of the heli-lanes monitor closely use by the military and make a point of recording non adherence to routes and altitudes and submit them to the BHAB for comment.

As one of the regular civvy user of the helilanes might I suggest this phrase be re-arranged: mate bike On yer.

Reading this thread was such a scream!

It's so quiet at night here that we can hear the badgers snoring. Helicopter noise is the only disturbance but we know what's going on and believe that the pilots are careful NOT to disturb unless necessary.

We happily sleep :zzz: through RN Sea King and Lynx training, the AA on its way north or east and even the occasional AW night flight test.

Can't sleep in London though :bored: ...

... and put a Chinook in the same county ... :{

Never a less appropriate handle
NIMBY

in 1985 a consortium tried to do exactly what you are proposing & had planning permission refused,(i was living in a flat by Southwark bridge where it was going to be based at the time)Today it is ten times more likely planning perm would be refused,especially with the current mayor of London,so don't waste your time.

Errr - well today I saw an R22 today fly between Vauxhall Bridge and the Isle of Dogs (on the river) at 700ft, when cleared "standard operating altitudes" (and it is up to 2000ft there) I can agree.

And before anyone asks, us mere controllers do not report anyone for this alone!

but do you know how to spell opportunities and Cheap?
If so why no advice on those neccessary corrections?

In response to ShyTorque, it may have escaped your notice that the whole question of operating helicopters over London is under close scrutiny and, more worryingly, great is the interest of the environmental lobby and politicians anxious to collect votes. It will only take a few more instances of Chinooks at 500 feet all the way down H4 and H3 to raise awareness of the noise problem. I, for one, would like to safeguard my livelihood for a little while longer.

To PlasticCabDriver I would merely say that of course civilian crews transgress but there is in place machinery to record and discipline where necessary - the Battersea ATCO`s are particularly adept at filing MOR`s when they feel that a regulation has been threatened. The only course of action regarding a specific incident involving an RAF machine from Odiham has been to refer the matter to Wing Commander Ops. This results, not surprisingly, in a deafening silence.

Not strictly true. I have personally been to RAF Odiham to bore 150+ crew at the station flight safety day with a London Heli Lane presentation that I wrote. I played them some incidents of RAF SH having "navigational difficulties" and it was taken VERY seriously by the Instructors and the Stn Execs.

There was also a case in which the UK Airprox Board sat and reported on a Puma that went AWOL on H10 past Kew on the River Thames, leading to a loss of separation against 27R at LHR.

Finally, as the lanes are within the TVAA (Thames Valley Avoidance Area) does entry still have to be booked as per the UKLFS? If it does, I guess that the numbers are avaible?

"today I saw an R22 today fly between Vauxhall Bridge and the Isle of Dogs (on the river) at 700ft, when cleared "standard operating altitudes" (and it is up to 2000ft there)"

But could ELondonPax hear it?

SB

True. Very nearly got filed against once (not the incident AlanM mentions though!). Failed to make the descent in time from 1500' to 1000' at Battersea (if that's not right it's my memory failing me again) one night to due map marking feckwittery writing over the change in height point. A very terse "call me when you land" from Battersea. Conversation went like this (roughly):

PCD: "Hello, my name is xxx xxx, Vortex XXX, may I speak with controller who was on at 2100 please".

Battersea Controller (BC): "speaking".

PCD: "F8cked up didn't I?"

BC: "Yes".

PCD: "No excuse really, should have known better, totally unprofessional. If you need to file against me, go ahead, I have absolutely no leg to stand on etc etc"

BC: " In that case, I won't, if you had rung up all arrogant and snotty I would have filed, but at least you realise you were wrong and are happy to admit it, so we'll leave it there".

(very relieved) PCD: "You're a very nice man etc etc".

As I have no wish to ever repeat that conversation, I have been extra doubly careful with the altitudes ever since.

Unfortunately, I probably have to agree with you. If you feel it was that serious and you get no joy at Station level, you of course have the option of taking it to the MoD direct.

AlanM, yes, it is booked the same way, so numbers should be available.

No, it hasn't escaped my notice one little bit, thanks. However, sorry to say that I have absolutely no desire to be an airborne traffic policeman for yourself, the BHAB, or anyone else in order to "trap" military pilots. :)

As far as I'm concerned, our military crews are putting their lives on a daily basis in the middle east and I'm not. If they make a little more noise to train up for it then let them 'fill their boots'. Now you mention it; why shouldn't the public be reminded of it once in a while?

It is not my intention to start a hate campaign against military pilots, merely to highlight frequent and blatant infringements of the routes and altitudes agreed for the London Zone in order to minimise the opportunities for criticism by outside agencies. Once the routes have been lost there will be absolutely no chance of resurrecting them in today`s climate.

It is in everyone`s best interests to ensure compliance with current procedures in order to safeguard the status quo. Quite clearly this is beyond the understanding of ShyTorque judging by his gung-ho rant but perhaps someone could lead him to a quiet corner and spell it out in words of one syllable.

Snarlie - I think we have already seen that there are not frequent and blatant infringements of the routes and altitudes. Aircraft are cleared to operate UP TO a maximum altitude and monitored quite closely by radar to ensure they stay on the routes without deviation.

You just want to have a moan about military helicopter noise which frankly seems rather pathetic. Suddenly you have changed Alan's 700' chinook flights into 500' and started bleating that military helicopter noise will be wholly responsible for losing all helicopter access to London.

As for your livelihood - is the phrase 'I'm all right Jack' tattooed along your forearm?

Oh well look on the bright side......

... Royal Netherlands Navy Lynx today went past Battersea on H4 showing 100ft on the radar..... and estimated to be 200ft by Battersea Tower.....

Bet the British Army get that complaint!