[Neil MacG]

On the VFR charts there are from time to time HIRTA areas that seem to be placed exactly on the line that I would like to fly. Some of these are up to 10000ft. Sometimes deviations that would take me away from these are likely to take me much closer to gliding/hang gliding areas and based on personal experience I'd vote to avoid them like the plague.

For someone who's going to be pottering around in a minimally (radio/electric) equiped aircaft in VFR, what are the real risks (if any) of wanderng into one of these HIRTA areas. Is the risk to me or is it to specific types of aviation equipment? Correct me if I am wrong but unless they are also marked as Danger or Restricted areas, I believe I am not required to avoid them.

The only time I came involved with one of these while I was training, my FI said that the one in question at the time didn't really matter and I never followed it up.

Neil

[sandy771]

The risk may not just be to you or the a/c but you blundeing about inside one of them may screw up whatever is being done at that site - be it miliary research or whatever.

They are marked for a reason so I don't go in them.

[harry remmington]

Rather like the use of a mobile phone or living next to its transmitter the jury seems to still be debating the dangers.
Might destroy a neuron or two or make you sterile or maybe not, one assumes that by making you aware they are absolved from litigation now and in the future.

[Neil MacG]

The risk may not just be to you or the a/c but you blundeing about inside one of them may screw up whatever is being done at that site - be it miliary research or whatever.

They are marked for a reason so I don't go in them.

In which case wouldn't/shouldn't they be marked as danger/restricted areas?

Neil

[flying4fun]

Do what you have been taught.

Avoid em

Alan

[Neil MacG]

Do what you have been taught.

Avoid em

Alan

But that in some respect was the point. The only HIRTA area I encountered in my Training was one where the FI said it didn't matter if I went through it.

Maybe he was aware that it was inactive or had other knowledge about that particular area that gave him that view (or maybe not)

I agree that if there is something on the chart it's there (generally) for a good reason. Gliding sites are a case in point and I fully understand the need for caution around them.

I dislike accepting an argument that says I shouldn't go somewhere "just in case" (but restricted/danger areas I understand). I like to understand the risk and in the event that I enter the area (deliberately or accidentally) what parts of me or my aircraft systems are likely to be compromised.

Neil

[Pete L]

Your pizza gets too hot and drips cheese on your leg?

[vintage ATCO]

ENR 1-1-5-4 says what the risks are. Most HIRTA are less than 1nm radius (with a few notable exceptions). Is it really arduous to go round?

[dublinpilot]

Having done very little flying in the UK, I havn't had much reason to examine them. But I have seen them on the chart, and had assumed the danger would be loss of radio contact.....r/t rnav or gps.

I can't imagine the danger being physical, or it would surely be marked as a danger area, and anyone on the ground, living in the area, would surely be subject to excessive risk.

Though I too would like to know what the real purpose of showing them on the chart is.

dp

VA.....thanks for the reference.....heres the relevant bit

3.2 High Intensity Radio Transmission Area (HIRTA) - Airspace of defined dimensions within which there is radio energy of
an intensity which may cause interference with and on rare occasions damage to communications and navigation equipment.
3.2.1 Areas within which there is radio energy of an intensity which could cause interference with and on rare occasions, cause
damage to, communications and navigation equipment such as Radio Altimeter, VOR, ILS and Doppler are listed at ENR 5.3. The
intensity may be sufficient to detonate electrically initiated explosive devices carried or fitted in aircraft.
3.2.2 Only the most significant sources are listed and in some of these areas the intensity of the radio energy may be such that it
would be injurious to remain for more than one minute in the immediate vicinity of the energy source. This is especially relevant to
helicopter operations and the list contains appropriate warnings; however it would be prudent for helicopter pilots to avoid lingering
closer than 100 m to any radar aerial. Pilots approaching oil production platforms on which dish aerials can be observed should,
wherever possible, approach from a direction out of the general line-of-shoot of such aerials.
3.2.3 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft operate within United Kingdom airspace and due to possible radiation hazards, all
aircraft should maintain a minimum separation of 1000 m lateral and 1000 ft vertical from such aircraft. AEW aircraft can be identified
as follows:
(a) RAF/NATO/USAF E-3 - a Boeing 707 with a large rotodome mounted on the upper fuselage (E-3 Orbit Areas are listed at
ENR 5.3);
(b) USN E-2C - a medium size twin turboprop with a four-finned cantilever tail and a large rotodome mounted on the upper fuselage.

[Neil MacG]

Thanks VA and dp for posting that extract.

Looks like probably not wise to hang around in these areas, and I'm not intending to do so, but it's always useful to know what risks there are even if they are small.

Neil

[DRJADewar]

1nm radius and 10000' !!!

Have a look at the Fylingdales HIRTA on the Northern Charts - presumably, then, that's for the protection of their activities from us?

(However, I wouldn't be surprised if some Teesside traffic goes through it: perhaps they're not there for more than a minute, though.)

[Neil MacG]

1nm radius and 10000' !!!

Have a look at the Fylingdales HIRTA on the Northern Charts - presumably, then, that's for the protection of their activities from us?

But in that case, if it's that important to them - it should be made a Restricted or Danger area. It only makes sense as it is, if it is us that they are trying to protect (or limit liability claims as mentioned earlier)

Neil

[harry remmington]

In your metal spamcam you are effectively screened from any radiation.
Struggling at 5kts over the site against a headwind in a microlight might be a different story.

[Neil MacG]

In your metal spamcam you are effectively screened from any radiation.
Struggling at 5kts over the site against a headwind in a microlight might be a different story.

With a stalling speed of around 35mph (in landing config), it's theoretically possible to go backwards in my Auster if it's sufficiently blowy at altitude. It's mostly canvas as well so maybe I would be wise to be cautious.

Still - I've already got as many kids as I want

Neil