Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By seanjd
Dave W wrote:
seanjd wrote:I (incorrectly it appears) read it as class D, so was anticipating having to call MCR for zone entry :!:

It is Class D, but it's a special case (hence TDM's 10:21 comment).

Entry into the LLR not above 1300' Machester QNH (so you must set that) is OK without speaking to them, but the different minima apply than in Class G.

See para 7 of the EGCC AIP entry.

Also, don't expect traffic separation.

Silly me for not spotting that :!:

:thumleft: DaveW
Dave W wrote:It is Class D, but it's a special case

...a 'special case' of somebody wanting it both ways. By not providing any Class D air traffic control services within it, it is effectively being dis-owned, in which case it might just as well be Class G airspace, because there is no Class D airspace protection within it. You couldn't 'make it up'... whatever next, people will be insisting on air traffic control within Class G next, perish the thought...
seanjd, skydriller, T67M liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
Class G for the LLR was discussed in the 2011 ACP Consultation Report I linked just above, but was evidently all too difficult at the time!

ACP Report para 1.1.5 wrote:Regarding raising the maximum altitude of the Low Level Route and
reclassifying the airspace to Class G, given the nature of the comments
received, the matter warrants further consideration. Therefore, apart from
raising the upper limit in accordance with CAA DAP requirements to 1300
feet amsl, it has been decided that the LLR element will be removed from
the Change Process.

Pragmatically, I'm glad we have the facility it affords - even if it is an anomaly.
seanjd liked this
User avatar
By Dusty_B
It's not pointless Class D at all. Without the airspace classification and the special provisions afforded within it, you wouldn't be able to get past Warrington. If you don't understand why, you shouldn't be using it!
User avatar
By PaulB
Dave W wrote:See para 7 of the EGCC AIP entry.

Because of the silly way that links to the AIP are formed they expire rendering them useless. This may or may not expire! ... d=148.html

The aforementioned para 7 makes no mention of transponders. The next para, para 8 mentions the listening squawk, but not related specifically to the LLR

I'll ask the thick question..... Why, if the LLR is full of (potentially) non-transponding VFR traffic that is talking to no-one (but that might[1] be listening to Manchester, is it still Class D? To all intents and purposes it's Class G and is similar (except for the requirement to listen in) to the 1500' class G stubs close to other airports (eg Birmingham,Luton, East Mids). Why could it not be class G?

[1] edited "should" to "might" following TDM's comment below.
Last edited by PaulB on Sun May 08, 2016 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By PaulB
Absolutely true.... I'll edit (My excuse? It was early!)

So if you don't even need to listen or squawk, why is it still Class D?
User avatar
By rikur_
PaulB wrote:Absolutely true.... I'll edit (My excuse? It was early!)

So if you don't even need to listen or squawk, why is it still Class D?

It's VFR only and 'remain clear of cloud and in sight of the ground' and minimum flight visibility: 4 km
For the purposes of SERA.3105 Minimum Heights, an aircraft flying within the Manchester Control Zone Special Low Level Route is permitted to fly below 1000 ft above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft....

So a bit more restrictive than class G on one hand, and a bit less on the other.

I guess the logic was:
1) We need a north - south route through the Liverpool/Manchester area - otherwise you'd be out over the sea or east of the Pennines.
2) The maximum altitude available without impacting on Liverpool/Manchester procedures is 1,300ft.
3) 1,300ft wouldn't normally be possible because of SERA.3105 Minimum Heights and the transmitter near Warrington
4) Give a derogation to the SERA.3105 Minimum Heights, but require specific minima given the reduced margins and the inevitable higher density of traffic through the narrow corridor.
Irv Lee wrote:the only time using it was with Paul S to hold my hand.

That was the time we were overtaken by the BBMF DC-3 doing the same thing wasn't it?

For the pictorial guide, do you mean this, Irv? Ah no, I see you already have links to that on the OnTrack site.

seanjd wrote:Anyone know why the top is set at 1300ft :?: Could it not be set higher

Give it another 10 years and it might go up to 1350ft, but I think the 50ft thing confuses pilots so maybe not.
seanjd liked this
User avatar
By Irv Lee
Yes dc3 was on our tail.
I do have the Barton insert, but what went missing was the multi page document written by pilot/controllers at mcr.
(Ps "flyontrack"not "ontrack", I had a Bournemouth school refusing to show students my site as they thought it was part of a rival school in the Midlands!)
By Lefty
I think the LLC is a slightly unsafe solution to the problem of having Manchester and Liverpool airports so close t o each other.

I was once flying the LLC when my P2 commented "where did all those flies on the windshield come from?

Those flies started getting bigger and we found ourselves head to head with about 30 micro lights coming the other way, stretched out across almost the full width of the corridor and at all levels between 500ft and 1250 ft. There was no where to go!

I've long thought that it would be better to have a separate northbound - and southbound corridor.

These days with so many people using GPS, I think that it would be relatively easy to create and publish 2-3 waypoints to provide separate north and south corridors - and thus create horizontal separation between north and south bound traffic.
seanjd, FlightDek, Danny liked this