Hi all, just toying with the idea to fly into EGLC with a DA42, refueling and, ahem, stretch our legs somewhere half way.
Anyone out there that have done it an such a small plane? I can see in the AIP they do allow for GA but will I need to remortgage my house in order to pay for the landing fee?
I know I can look it up, but being a lazy one, I thought I ask here first and as I said, only toying with the idea since I bet there are other much better options in the vicinity of London that are more accessible and does not cost an arm and a leg in landing fees.
Gee, looking at what I have just written, I pretty much have answered the questions... :-) but since I wrote it anyway, what the heck... Anyone feel like give some input much appreciated!
Best regards / Mats (ESSP)
I cant answer much of this as I only have a SEP, otherwise I would have probably have tried it myself, but I also noted that single pilot operations are not permitted. I'd be interested in the costs though if you do go for it. Biggin Hilll and Blackbushe are a few of the other airfields scattered around the edge of the London TMA, though the views are not so great I guess....
As far as I know, London City bans single engine aircraft.
There is a separate "story" about SE transits via LCY. These used to be common (I did one; you get a great view of London) but in recent years the CAA has stated that it does not regard the surrounding area as compliant with the glide-clear rule, which makes it illegal to transit SE. Many people don't agree with that, since there are plenty of lakes in the area. However, a ban on transits does not automatically mean a ban on landings because the glide clear rule does not apply to taking off or landing (obviously).
the CAA has stated that it does not regard the surrounding area as compliant with the glide-clear rule
Is this another exotic UK-only rule? Here it's 2000ft AGL over congested areas but the only glide-clear requirement I know is when flying over water without life vests/raft.
Is this another exotic UK-only rule?
I think so in that they have declared the River Thames explicitly as suitable for the glide clear rule. I flew in the area once (with ATC approval as it is class D) and I must say the views were very nice :-) I'd like to do it again as I have a better camera now, but now I know what I do, it would be rather pushing my luck to do it again. I am sure some years ago, London City used to have an annual 'open day' (on a Sunday I think) of some kind, especially for GA aircraft.
Hi, so a DA42, being mulitengine, would not be banned then? Even so, landing fee would be teeth-grinding, eye-watering enough to effectively kill this idea anyway I guess. I'll investigate the Biggin Hill option further. Thanks for your input all!
I can’t recall having had a London City EGLC transit refused. I had 1 refused at gatwick.
This is the closest I got (when flying myself)
Couple other random ones:
What I have never tried / researched was to ask for the possibility to do an approach there. The other day I had a glance through the window of the liner I was in, turning on final, and I find it pretty impressive. I’ve done Lugano which I believe is the steepest, but it would still be pretty cool.
Peter wrote:
There is a separate “story” about SE transits via LCY. These used to be common (I did one; you get a great view of London) but in recent years the CAA has stated that it does not regard the surrounding area as compliant with the glide-clear rule, which makes it illegal to transit SE. Many people don’t agree with that, since there are plenty of lakes in the area. However, a ban on transits does not automatically mean a ban on landings because the glide clear rule does not apply to taking off or landing (obviously).
When you say “in recent years”, do you mean post-SERA? The RotAR 2007 included in Rule 5
3) The low flying prohibitions are as follows—
(c)The 1,000 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft.
(d)The land clear rule
An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city, town or settlement shall not fly below such height as would permit the aircraft to land clear of the congested area in the event of a power unit failure.
Part-SERA uses different words:
SERA.3105 Minimum heights
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at 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.
The argument used to be that the Thames or a lake met the definition of a “congested area”. I think it would be more difficult to show that such an emergency landing would cause “undue hazard to persons or property on the surface”.
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not suggesting that SE flight over London is wise — I certainly wouldn’t do it — I’m just making a legal point.
