Is it still glide clear? In Ireland it's sufficient altitude to allow a safe landing to be made in the event of an engine failure. If that safe landing can be made inside the congested area then there is no need to glide clear. With EASA changing the rules, I'd assumed that the UK had become similar to this, but could be wrong.
That's the right question, dublinpilot.
See pages 15+16 of the proposed RotA 2014 in which the old glide clear rule will appear in addition to the SERA rule. Somehow, I doubt the Commission will like that. Would you like a ringside seat? ;)
No such rule in Germany.
§ 6 German Luft VO states that over cities, other densely populated areas etc the minimum safe altitude is such that in case of an emergency landing no undue endangering of persons or property is to be expected. At least 1000ft. But of course more if the gliding distance requires more...
"I believe the last possible SERA implementation date is December 2013."
SERA will apply in the UK (and many other countries) from December 2014, according to here
(sorry, still have not figured out how to put links in posts in a decent way)
[Link fixed up - see Posting Tips - Peter]
Could it be that it's safe in the LA valley because you have an equivalent rule which is more broadly applicable? ;)
Obviously there's no way you could land in a park or anything similar in any number of US cities where heavy SE GA traffic operates overhead. We're taught from day one to aim for and use roads, as I mentioned. We fly at 1000 ft agl or above over densely populated cities with no legal issue whatsoever. Let's hope for the sake of European GA that a similar real world interpretation is applied there, not the archaic UK version, otherwise GA loses its utility at city to city transport.
As an aside, one of the most effective places to locate a GA airport to limit noise complaints in right in the city, not on the outskirts. I learned how to fly at an airport like that.
Obviously there's no way you could land in a park or anything similar in any number of US cities where heavy SE GA traffic operates overhead. We're taught from day one to aim for and use roads, as I mentioned.
My experience of the US is limited to a few conference trips to Ft. Lauderdale and Sarasota. I caught the plane to Orlando and saw a bit of that city as well. You've travelled in Europe a lot - and must be aware that the geography here is very different.
I very nearly missed my plane back. After discussion with the motel owner and consulting a city plan of Orlando, I worked out that I could take just 2 buses to get to Airport Boulevard. I had nothing else to do, so luckily I figured I'd go early and watch the planes take off. Not only did I discover that airport boulevard was on the far side of the airport from the entrance and have to walk for 90 minutes round the perimeter down residential streets with no pavements. I also found that it was 50 miles (not obvious without a scale) and that the conurbation was a similar size. It took me a whole morning to get there. In my naivety it had never occurred to me that 1) the only bus going to the airport, didn't go to the airport and 2) a relatively small city could cover such a huge area.
For comparison, Greater Orlando has a population of about 2 million; Greater London 8 million. Yet they're geographically of comparable size. Looking up on Wikipedia, Oakland also has about half the population density of Greater London.
Roads in the UK are generally less straight (not built to a city 'block' plan). They are narrower. In the UK I've never seen any 8 lane roads of the type I used to cross in Florida, nor any of the vast parking lots. Traffic density is also generally higher because the population density is higher. There's less room between junctions, so it's harder to predict whether there will be traffic on a given stretch of road when you meet it.
I'm aware that the US is much more diverse than my experience indicates, but I think it's probably true to say that assuming you will be able to find a suitable road to land on within (or even out of) a city is a much dicier prospect in Europe than in the States.
As an aside, one of the most effective places to locate a GA airport to limit noise complaints in right in the city, not on the outskirts. I learned how to fly at an airport like that.
Have any airports in the UK ever been located within a city, other than perhaps London City airport which is closed to light aircraft? Again, the idea of locating an airport within a city is one that I suspect makes more sense in the US than the UK.
I think there is another factor in play in the USA: most airports have FAA protection and public funding.
Here in the UK, if you build an airport (not used by airlines so by definition "built for rich playboys") anywhere south of approximately Scotland, and it has a full planning permission for airport ops and some commercial property, it will immediately be worth of the order of 100M to shut it down and build houses on it.
The problem arises because
there is no protection, and
the planning permission for aviation use is almost no different to one for building houses (the difference is mostly in the local govt policy and that changes from time to time)
That is why every GA airport is watched by property sharks, 24/7, waiting for the owner to die and then they make his widow an offer she can't refuse. Or better still waiting for the owner to get fed up with the constant bickering within the based pilots...
A few years ago I went to a CAA/DfT presentation where the Minister said she will (in essence) look into changing the PP regs so that an airport gets a different treatment, but it never happened.
In the south east of the UK (where most of the money is and where "everybody wants to live" - a sentiment I can fully understand since I live there myself and rather like it) the land could be worth a lot more than 100M.
It would be completely impossible to build a GA airport in a big city. It would be immediately worth c. 1BN to shut it down and build houses on it. You could stick c. 10k houses on the land and the land plot for each one would be 100k.
For comparison, Greater Orlando has a population of about 2 million; Greater London 8 million. Yet they're geographically of comparable size. Looking up on Wikipedia, Oakland also has about half the population density of Greater London.
Which is why I mentioned LA - the greater Los Angeles area is about 16.5 million people and there is next nowhere clear other than roads to land for tens of miles in every direction... There are a lot of roads though, although there are areas within the area about the same as London in population density.
There are also a lot of airports in the urban area too, and naturally those are your best option if you can reach one.
I think the best point that can be made is that regardless of where single engined aircraft fly, the number of people on the ground they are going to hurt is not worth bothering about in the grand scheme of things. They don't come down unplanned often enough, they don't have enough energy when they do, and most times the pilot can point them in a good enough direction. Its a non-issue.
Sorry... my mistake
I think the point still holds though. Greater London has a population density of 5000/Km2 whereas greater LA has 200/Km2. If I look up the LA metropolitan area, the density is 1000/Km2.
Another consequence of lower population density is that towns of the same population are going to be way bigger and a rule about not overflying them is going to be more inconvenient.
In the final analysis I think you can ask yourself how many people on the ground in a given area would be killed by SE aircraft if there were no restrictions at all on operation. I think the answer is almost none... regardless of the area. In comparison with the risks faced in walking in cities, and just about anything else, its immeasurable. The planes don't break much and pilots are pretty smart about what aircraft they use to do what.
People anywhere are not rational at risk assessment, and I think the idea of light aircraft overhead worries those that haven't had it all their life. Those that have had it all their life don't give it a thought, and as it happens they don't suffer measurably as a result. I think that's why its an 'issue' in Europe (particularly UK) but not typically thought about at all in the US.
Another consequence of lower population density is that towns of the same population are going to be way bigger and a rule about not overflying them is going to be more inconvenient.
I certainly agree that a widely spread city benefits more from centrally located airports. A common route from north to south across the LA Basin almost qualifies for cross-country time (50 nm in FAA-speak) with solid houses, businesses and concrete underneath the whole way - viewed from above, London looks like a park in comparison. Much of LA has a kind of Post-Apocalyptic feel to me - not a place I enjoy visiting greatly, regardless of whether I were dropping in intentionally or otherwise :-)
Look at it another way... How many urban areas of the UK are large enough that the glide-clear rule means that you cannot glide clear from 2000 feet? It would be nice to fly down central London with the understanding that you would ditch in the Thames if the engine stopped, but other than this I personally don't find the rule restrictive within the UK.
In the final analysis I think you can ask yourself how many people on the ground in a given area would be killed by SE aircraft if there were no restrictions at all on operation. I think the answer is almost none...
That's not quite the final analysis, in that a large part of the reason aircraft hardly ever kill bystanders, is that there are so few of them flying, and of those flying, so few of them are flying over built-up areas. Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a number of bystanders who have been killed by light aircraft in recent times (helicopter in London, twin hitting a house in East Haven, jogger on Palmetto Dunes, Cessna 172 in Myrtle Beach).
All in all, I don't find the rule restricts me from doing anything I would otherwise choose to do. Certainly compared to the busy UK airspace where there are lots of TMAs with low ceilings, I don't find it to be an issue.
