Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By russp
#1872499
The most interesting thing about this whole thread is the continued reference to 'glide clear' when there is no requirement in the ANO or SERA that requires a pilot to be able to glide clear of a built up area. While it may be a good rule of thumb it's simply not a legal requirement. The legal requirement is as pointed out earlier "such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface".
By SteveX
#1872500
Isnt that ^^^^^^ what glide clear is all about, just another phrase?

Whilst we are on about SERA, err wasnt that all history in May and we can now fly at 10ft over the lakes and sea (provided 167m away from a building/person)?

Or is it illegal to fly lower than 500ft anywhere apart from during landing?
User avatar
By marioair
#1872501
Topic title says land clear not glide clear.
@russp do tell - from the location shown so you believe that aircraft could perform a “ landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface”
By Ibra
#1872509
russp wrote:The most interesting thing about this whole thread is the continued reference to 'glide clear' when there is no requirement in the ANO or SERA that requires a pilot to be able to glide clear of a built up area. While it may be a good rule of thumb it's simply not a legal requirement. The legal requirement is as pointed out earlier "such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface".


Thanks for pointing that, yes “land clear” does not yet have any legal basis but both ANO/SERA have “reckless & undue hazard” clauses, which could means anything and mostly refer to flight execution

Here is a better rule: “don’t crash or hurt 3rd party” :lol:

As far as legality of flight planning is concerned, SERA lists out legal minimal altitudes to fly while AirOps Part-NCO does not have legal provisions that require PIC to account for engines failures in the flight path or performance calculations during planning, so an “average private flyer” is legally entitled to plan his flight assuming his single engine never fails (talking legality not what is wise or safe)

This is unlike operations under Part-CAT (read Public Transport in ANO or some commercial operations), for these engine failures has to be accounted during planning of takeoff, cruise, landing…commercial single engine operations will get add to “NSF list” or other long lists of “SE operation ban or maybe?” ($$$ using SE in IMC, Night, London, AoC in SEP)
User avatar
By skydriller
#1872521
russp wrote:The legal requirement is as pointed out earlier "such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface".


Well to me thats easy... there is a curvey blue bit in there. Or fly a Cirrus :wink:

If @Ibra is right (and I have no idea if he is) then that means a PPL is OK in his Cessna, but the various operators of historic aircraft might be on dodgy ground??
User avatar
By Flying_john
#1872534
Is this different now - post B R E X * T

AIP ENR 1.1 para. 4.1.7


4.1.7 Single-Engine Fixed Wing Aircraft Over Central London
4.1.7.1 With the exception of the Northolt RMA (see AD 2.EGWU AD 2.17) and the Local Flying Areas at Denham and Brooklands (see AD 2.EGLL AD 2.22), NSF or ENSF permissions will not be granted to single-engine fixed wing aircraft requesting to operate within those parts of the London and London City Control Zones between a North-South line extending through the LON VOR and a North-South line extending through the LCY NDB. In accordance with a directive from the CAA Safety and Airspace Regulation Group (SARG), applications which fall within the above criteria will be refused upon application to the NSF Coordinator due to the inability of such aircraft, in the view of the CAA, to be able to comply with SERA.3105 Minimum Heights.
By Ibra
#1872624
It has been renamed “UK SERA” since end of July, it’s just a name change, like NOTAMS are now called “notice to aviation”, see cap1430, page 4

AFAIK, the content of “UK SERA” with regards to weather & flying minima has not changed (except for low VMC minima in Class D which is now a rule rather than exemption)

However, going further CAA can legislate for higher height minima on VFR for UK SERA over London (part of ANO rules of the air), under old SERA you can only exempt from height minima, like 1ft agl flying being allowed in empty places, but you can’t legally raise height minima, well not without introducing airspace changes or restricted zones…

Who knows we may revert it to the old way pre-SERA/NCO? reclassify Heathrow & City zones as Class A with +10km visibility for SVFR (unless you hold an IR) even better restrict it’s access to AOC operators under “public transport” (you know those who can cope with “glide clear” or “engine failures” in singles or twins, they are usually found using licensed runways that are very long and balanced to cover engine failures on takeoff, they are also known to have higher maintenance standards and load of insurance cover)
By pullup
#1872658
Ibra wrote:.... AOC operators under “public transport” (you know those who can cope with “glide clear” or “engine failures” in singles or twins, they are usually found using licensed runways that are very long and balanced to cover engine failures on takeoff


Balanced field lengths do not apply to singles or some light twins. It’s a Performance A consideration.

Unless of course it’s all changed!
By Ibra
#1872661
pullup wrote:
Ibra wrote:.... AOC operators under “public transport” (you know those who can cope with “glide clear” or “engine failures” in singles or twins, they are usually found using licensed runways that are very long and balanced to cover engine failures on takeoff


Balanced field lengths do not apply to singles or some light twins. It’s a Performance A consideration.

Unless of course it’s all changed!


I agree single & light twins are exempt from that certification (we assume engines never fails on light aircrafts :lol: ), just pointing if we start pushing for “engine failure wisdom” then we better cover the whole lot from takeoff, cruise to landing not just “the bit in London CTR”, starting with operating in long runways and flying serious heavy machines in routes that keeps one in glide range of big airports…
User avatar
By kanga
#1872796
Flying_john wrote:..

AIP ENR 1.1 para. 4.1.7


4.1.7 Single-Engine Fixed Wing Aircraft Over Central London
4.1.7.1 .., NSF or ENSF permissions will not be granted to single-engine fixed wing aircraft requesting to operate within those parts of the London and London City Control Zones..


<mischief ? :wink: > .. does that mean that SE autogyros have the same exemptions as SE helicopters ? </>

[In 1971 - with a newly qualified BCPL/AFI who said it was 'fine because I have an IMC Rating' - I received SVFR clearances from some 'London' ATC facility to fly a C172 from Fairoaks to Cambridge and later back as long as I complied with explicit Radar vectors while in the 'Heathrow Zone'. IIRC clearances were 'not above 1200' QNH' (I do not recall whether we had a transponder). They took me East to Westminster then North to the PO Tower, and later back on the almost exact reverse track. The spotting of potential emergency landing area in the event of engine failure was clearly a matter for me not the ATCO. I was constantly and anxiously trying to have one always in sight; AFI was, or appeared, nonchalant]
By pullup
#1872926
Yes things were a lot more lax 50 years ago!
I too remember crossing Houses of Parliament at 1500 feet in a single.
They were wise to put a stop to it!
User avatar
By SteakAndAle
#1872949
I am based near & live in London. I have transited twice so far, but not nearly as centrally as the track posted by OP (I go via Lea Valley/LCY)

The first time was with my instructor during PPL initial, where he advised me not to shout about it or post photos for fear of incurring the wrath of armchair lawyers.

The second time I thought seriously about whether I could feasibly land clear given the typical not above 2000' clearance on my planned route. I also decided not to do it often for fear of angry letters appearing in my syndicate's post box...

Heathrow Radar are very friendly though :)
By pullup
#1872977
SteakAndAle wrote:I am based near & live in London. I have transited twice so far, but not nearly as centrally as the track posted by OP (I go via Lea Valley/LCY)

The first time was with my instructor during PPL initial, where he advised me not to shout about it or post photos for fear of incurring the wrath of armchair lawyers.


Perfectly legal. See previous posts and references.

Not sure what your instructor was concerned about?
User avatar
By kanga
#1873035
SteakAndAle wrote:.. I have transited twice so far, but not nearly as centrally as the track posted by OP (I go via Lea Valley/LCY)

The first time was with my instructor during PPL initial, ..
The second time I thought seriously about whether I could feasibly land clear given the typical not above 2000' clearance on my planned route...


That was the route of one leg of my QXC, done with an instructor then solo (busy Biggin Hill - 10/6* landing fee, ouch! :? - back to sleepy Stansted base). But it was a while ago, long before LCY existed, and I gather it's a bit more built up, too ..

[*for youngsters: 521/2p :) ]
Ibra liked this