Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By marioair
#1872331
AlanM wrote:
marioair wrote:So either ATC messed up and permitted the flight incorrectly or the pilot had a valid reason.


How have ATC messed up?


By permtting a transit of the Zone D without a valid NSF or ENSF permission
By AlanM
#1872341
marioair wrote:
AlanM wrote:
How have ATC messed up?


By permtting a transit of the Zone D without a valid NSF or ENSF permission


Ok….. I will bite….

1. What is an ENSF or NSF?
2. What type of flight was the one you plastered over the internet?

You really are explaining why I say that trial by “amateurs” is unhelpful.
Stampe liked this
By pullup
#1872343
ATC are not there to regulate the legality of flights. They are there to issue clearances. The legality of the flight is down to the PIC.

Speculation:
The pilot called for a clearance, not knowing the rules, and when asked his type replied Beech A23. Had he replied Tiger Moth, Cherokee or a similar well known type the clearance would probably have been refused.

Remember Controllers are no longer given PPL training and probably not instantly familiar with rare types. How many of you would immediately recognise the type as a single?

Note that his later flight went around the London Zone.
AlanM, Dave W, Stampe and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By marioair
#1872346
AlanM wrote:
marioair wrote:
AlanM wrote:
How have ATC messed up?


By permtting a transit of the Zone D without a valid NSF or ENSF permission


Ok….. I will bite….

1. What is an ENSF or NSF?
2. What type of flight was the one you plastered over the internet?


You really are explaining why I say that trial by “amateurs” is unhelpful.


1) non standard flight

2)
I don’t know if the flight did or did not have permission. If we knew then there’d be nothing to debate and we could shut down the internet.

Notwithstanding that, can anyone suggest a reason that such a type would be allowed to transit at 1500ft? I’d understand if it was a memorial flight or similar. Just genuinely interested what the basis of such a flight would be.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1872347
I think my flights are pretty standard. Sometimes even at an enhanced standard. :D
marioair liked this
By AlanM
#1872349
marioair wrote:1) non standard flight

2) I don’t know if the flight did or did not have permission. If we knew then there’d be nothing to debate and we could shut down the internet.

Notwithstanding that, can anyone suggest a reason that such a type would be allowed to transit at 1500ft? I’d understand if it was a memorial flight or similar. Just genuinely interested what the basis of such a flight would be.


I suggest the pilot asked to transit south to north between Vauxhall Bridge and Isle of Dogs.

I suggest the pilot was cleared as requested not above 2000ft VFR.

PS I know what a NSF/ENSF is. I know what they look like, what is needed in processing the application, where they are kept in TC and how the system works.

The history here is longstanding and controllers have asked many times for the CAA to give a ruling on this. Ultimately, we all complain when airspace is grabbed, over controlled or people denied access.

If there is no ATC reason why a controller would refuse a clearance, why would they?

Ultimately, vigilante style trials by committees is really not cool. You seem to have a crusade given your self labelled rant.
Last edited by AlanM on Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By Ibra
#1872351
pullup wrote:ATC are not there to regulate the legality of flights. They are there to issue clearances. The legality of the flight is down to the PIC.


That is certainly the case for VFR but I doubt the same thing can be said for controlled IFR?
Maybe depends if you are on own navigation, on vectors, on directs, on official route

How does that work for IFR in LTMA where you are given vectors instructions to follow IMMEDIATELY (I understand it’s not a clearance with no option for PIC to refuse or wait or amend), can you refuse those headings as there are no land clear landing sites ahead? (assuming you are in VMC with ground in-sight) or refuse them in IMC because someone in internet forums thinks SE can’t legally overfly London? (in case the PIC forgets about his priorities and put land clear on imagined engine failure before avoiding real traffic airprox in clouds :eye: )

Nothing UK specific here, France has “big/congested area flying rules” (twins >6kft agl, singles > 4kft agl, again these have no legal basis as they are superseded by SERA unless there is a restricted/prohibited area to legally enforce it), for VFR transits in MEP you may get reminded that twins have to be at 5kft agl to stay legal, while under IFR you get vectored in MEP or cleared on published cruising routes at 3kft right above residential blocks…

What we should call a PIC who go over London ask for transit, do it at 10ft and blame it on ATC :lol:
User avatar
By marioair
#1872355
@AlanM i mainly responding because of your view rather than having any specific axe to grind.

[quote] I suggest the pilot asked to transit south to north between Vauxhall Bridge and Isle of Dogs.

I suggest the pilot was cleared as requested not above 2000ft VFR.[/qoute]

1) I’m unclear what your assertion is. If the flight has an approved NSF, ENSF application, I’m genuinely interested to understand the basis for that make/model.

2) If there was no approval and the pilot simply asked for transit then do you not agree that
A) they’ve not followed the U.K. AIP
B) they are unable to land clear. Yes I know in the whole that is the PICs decision, but in this case it would mean the PIC “knows better” than the CAA and most other SEP(A/Land) pilots.

I say say again- I’m not saying I know if this pilot did or did not have an NSF approval - I’m querying per the above.
By AlanM
#1872360
@marioair I also have no axe to grind.

I think the ENSF/NSF mention is a red herring. It is highly unlikely that this was one. It simply would not meet the accepted criteria. I never suggested it was a non-standard flight.

So the question really, as you say, is can they glide clear? I don’t fly a Beech A23 so, as a controller I don’t have to answer that question. Having worked that sector and given many clearances through that airspace mot above 2000ft I have never withheld a clearance unless it was unavailable for traffic reasons.

Recently, I gave a jet an ILS below Cat 1 RVR minima because the pilot insisted that he could make an approach with EVS. I had no reason to deny him that attempt. He landed and was then investigated and found to be wrong in his calculations. That is not my concern.

Finally and sorry to labour this, your opening post is more of an issue to me (for all the reasons I have already given).
Last edited by AlanM on Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By JonathanB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1872362
With Alan M on this. ATC are not the police.

@Ibra if you cannot accept a clearance (and an instruction to take up a heading is still a clearance) for whatever reason then your first response should be “Unable” with a reason. The PIC is the one ultimately responsible for ensuring safe and legal flight.
Ibra, Dave W liked this
By Big Dex
#1872365
marioair wrote:Very enlightened. If you need help extracting your head from your x don’t call your peers.


A well thought-through counterpoint, and this thread is an interesting window into how you choose to help your peers.

Should anyone else wish to remove their registration details from FR24 and the like, this is the place to do so: https://ladd.faa.gov/
AlanM, Chilli Monster liked this
User avatar
By marioair
#1872368
I agree it’s not ATCs position to deny transit in the scenario we assume.

However I do find find it an odd line of argument …. My original post was asking, with a given location and aircraft type, whether we, as a community, feel the land clear rule could been complied with.

The counter arguments have been
A) land clear isn’t a legal requirement: I didn’t state it was
B) let’s not debate data that is publicly available:
C) let’s hide the data so we can’t question other people’s decision making.

I don’t feel any argument holds merit.
By Ibra
#1872370
JonathanB wrote:With Alan M on this. ATC are not the police.

@Ibra if you cannot accept a clearance (and an instruction to take up a heading is still a clearance) for whatever reason then your first response should be “Unable” with a reason. The PIC is the one ultimately responsible for ensuring safe and legal flight.


I agree it’s not for ATC to police things, even 100% worse to blame them for approving a pilot initiated request !

PS: I still took vectors over London in SEP once, I think it’s legal to fly SE over London (well until CAA puts a RA for SE fixed wings) but there is a huge liability risk and I will make sure to get a routing away next time, however, I would never ask to overfly Piccadilly (or anywhere between Canary Wharf & Vauxhall Bridge) on SEP VFR bimble even if it’s approved by ATC or encouraged by CAA: I can’t afford to live there and the important & rich people who live there have 7 digits lawyers, 8 digits homes and 9 digits lives, if sh*t happens I don’t think my 10m insurance will cover it :lol:
Stampe liked this
User avatar
By alexbrett2
#1872409
I've two personal experiences that are relevant here - the first was on a flight to Halfpenny Green, I got a transit through the Birmingham CTA, and after passing over the runway threshold was cleared to route direct to Halfpenny Green. I replied unable, as it would take me straight over the centre of Birmingham city, and with the altitude restriction there was no way I'd be able to glide clear. No fuss from ATC, was cleared to the reservoirs that was my original intention and all good.

The second was on a flight when solo flying was first allowed again after lockdown, I decided to try and fly around London and try and get transits through all the major airfields CTAs (as they were all basically idle). Heathrow gave me a transit to the East of the airfield, and I didn't really twig until I got there that actually glide clear became rather questionable. At the point I realised this it was safest just to continue, but should I be offered such a clearance again I wouldn't accept it.
marioair liked this
User avatar
By Sir Morley Steven
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1872463
Someone needs to look up the meaning of “redacted”.
At the same time the CAA needs to stop gold plating rules and trying to make their opinions valid.
marioair, AlanM liked this