Peter wrote:
Those words of mine are several years old. EuroGA is coming up to 4 years – can you believe it?
I’m sorry Peter I didn’t check the dates of the older posts. Nevertheless, it’s an interesting discussion.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Bookie i dont quite follow your argument? While the wording is different surely in both cases the pilot would need to demonstrate the thames and the reservoirs along the course of the lea valley provided enough opportunity within glide distance to land clear. In other words make the water and you have both landed clear of the conjested area and without undue hazard to persons and property.
“Congested area” in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;
The point is that the Thames and the reservoirs are considered (in the UK RotA) to be part of the “congested area”. You had to be able to land clear of those. Under Part-SERA, you can make you emergency landing in the congested area, provided it is done without undue hazard to persons and property
Bookie i dont quite follow your argument? While the wording is different surely in both cases the pilot would need to demonstrate the thames and the reservoirs along the course of the lea valley provided enough opportunity within glide distance to land clear. In other words make the water and you have both landed clear of the conjested area and without undue hazard to persons and property.
I agree and i thought the pilot also needs to have demonstrate a number of ehm steep landings. There was of course the annual bash into lcy when all well welcome although the places went quickly unless you had something exotic – is it still run? That was the only occasion i have been there, btw the sep and steep approach requirements are relaxed for the fly in day.
LC has a rule that aircraft must either be approved (if G-reg) or have NAA authorised procedures (if not) for 5.5 degree or more glidepaths.
The German 2000-feet rule is no more, since the advent of SERA.
Everybody in Germany was surprised about it. It has always been a holy grail of VFR regulations. Then it was very quietly dropped. I at least expected them to fight for it much more and even risk a clash with EASA (as France does), but nothing of that happened.
achimha wrote:
Here it’s 2000ft AGL over congested areas
Ooop? Another SERA exception apart from France?
Thanks bookworm for the info.
Those words of mine are several years old. EuroGA is coming up to 4 years – can you believe it?
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.
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.
