No fly zone around Windsor Castle, London
 

Proposal by a "security review" to have a No Fly zone at 1,500ft/1.5nm around Windsor Castle

Windsor Castle no-fly zone application after security breach - BBC News

Presumably this will then close down Heathrow whenever they are on easterlies, where landing aircraft would cut this zone. Or do they expect some desperately curved, stable last second, approach ?

A more ludicrous "must be seen to be doing something" response to the intruder who was found climbing over the hedge there is hard to imagine. Isn't it all Class A airspace there anyway ?

It brings to mind charming and generally very busy Lantana airport in Florida, at which all flying would be completely stopped whenever the former US President was at his nearby Florida residence. Owners would hope for enough notice to get their planes out to another airport, before their airplanes became unusable for days or weeks at a time. The maintenance shop I visited there managed it better, is it gave them more time to work on the planes!

I recall this being talked about before the recent security issue. I think the press are linking the two when a direct connection does not exist.

It's all class D there (no class A down low around London any more) so no-one should be in there without clearance from "Special" anyway so a restricted area does seem a bit pointless.

When I recall it being spoken about before the IFR arrival and departure routes to LHR were to be exempted.

Bit of a non-story methinks.

Yes, it's a non-story.

The Regulation specifically does not apply to Heathrow movements.

If you’re landing on 09L and that close to Windsor Castle then something has seriously gone wrong!

My suspicion is that anyone flying with evil intent wouldn't bother getting an ATC clearance anyway. Just a thought?

On the contrary, the 09L approach passes 0.4 nm south of the Castle at about 4.5 DME, well within the 1.25 nm no-fly zone radius.

That's why there's an exemption for LHR movements.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....bbb33205da.jpg

It is well known that Prince Philip had things to say about aircraft noise as the Firm had Windsor at one end and Buck House at the other of the Heathrow approach procedures.

I'll tell the story (again...) about an approach to 10L, and that dates it, flying in a BA jet from the North one perfect summers evening. No other traffic so Director (or was it approach in those days?) gave us a nice tight vector to visual left base. I noted that we were over Windsor so I complimented the controller on his expeditious approach for us, and said, "...Right over the castle"

Quick as a flash he came back with, "Oops, that's the Tower for me. And the tower for you now, 118.2"

and here is the proof...
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4b08e288cb.jpg

It seems to be more than a proposal - its already listed in the next AIRAC cycle.

Yes, the legislation was published in October, to take effect in a couple of weeks' time:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ae62da2773.jpg

As mentioned already, this no-fly zone was promulgated long before the December incident. The statutory instrument (formal legislation) is here and the NATS circular is here. As mentioned already, ATC-controlled Heathrow (and Northolt) movements are exempted.

As also mentioned already, the area is class D airspace which requires ATC clearance. But the royals are often targeted by fantasists, 'activists', pranksters, etc. Mostly the incidents don't get wide publicity. There were at least two earlier in 2021, besides the knife-wielder at Christmas. I don't think anyone would be surprised if some idiots decided to try flying an aircraft – manned or unmanned, big or small – around Windsor to try to make some point or other. They certainly wouldn't be deterred by regulations. I don't know, but I'd guess that the reason for creating a no-fly zone is to give the authorities more flexibility in dealing with these people. Maybe a breach of a no-fly zone can be dealt with more expeditiously than mere unauthorised flying in class D airspace.

Some years ago, I was seated next to a pleasant young Canadian man on a flight into Heathrow from Montreal. On seeing Windsor Castle down to the left while on the approach he asked me why the castle had been built so close to the airport as it must be so noisy for the Queen. He then had difficulty accepting the explanation that the castle predated air travel by some 900 years.

One of our learned colleagues here reminded me while I visited: "This is England, where we think 100 miles is far, you're from Canada, where you think 100 years is old."

Yes, will absolutely use that.

If traffic to Heathrow is exempt, and others require ATC clearance right down to the ground anyway, rarely given because of Heathrow conflicts and generally (in my experience) given a routing well away, just what does this new measure achieve additionally ?

About 15 years ago, a friend took me and SWMBO on a very posh helicopter from Denham to Farnboro and back. With some er, interesting "pretend" landings at Farnboro. His clearance to fly thru the notional no-go area around LHR flightpaths was granted in about 5 seconds by the ATCO. I guess they are used to the Royalty flying in to and around Windsor.

As if any measure like this achieves anything, it’s pointless window dressing designed as an ass covering exercise. It’s frankly laughable to think the planning of any terrorist atrocity or murder involves the “is this legal?” questions at any stage. I dont think Atta and co were very concerned on the morning of 9/11 over their lack of a 767 type rating and I dont believe they were particularly concerned over airspace restrictions/classification or no fly zones either, the Pentagon attack being a good example of the latter.

Well 1.25 miles at 120 mph = 37.5 seconds............... not a great reaction time

I suspect the "security considerations" referred to in the ANR and AIC have at least as much to do with the privacy of HM as they have to do with any potential terrorist threat.