Interesting stuff on UK CAA policy on London City overflight by SE aircraft

Interesting. I have been in a light aircaft in this area, via the river, and got clearance into the Class D airspace at the upper limits. The pilot phoned up ATC first to make sure we werent going to get told to go away once airborne because we werent sure if it was allowed. We did the flight on a Saturday or Sunday when the airport is generally closed for airline traffic. At the time we thought the river (Thames) would be sufficient to negate the 'glide clear' rule, however I later read on another forum this wasnt the case (this can demomstrate the power of forums for discussion in areas of much ambiguity)

At the time, it wasnt clear that what has been defined as a 'congested area'. How does one find 'congested areas' - is there a website or something?

ISTR the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight have strict instructions to ditch in the event of an engine failure, but are allowed to overfly London on that basis. Would it get convoluted if they decided that they had to lay down the law for private flights, but not for the BBMF?

Quite a lot of us fly considerable distances where an engine failure would mean ditching, whether over the sea or over inhospitable parts of Scotland and Wales. Ditching in the Thames seems to me not an unreasonable proposition.

On a related note, I know that 'land clear' does not include landing on parks or sports fields within a conurbation, yet I've heard a number of cases of people landing on empty sports fields after an engine failure and wonder whether any of them have ever been penalised. i.e. if you have the choice of landing on a rough field or an empty playing field, do you have to choose the rough field that made it legal for you to fly there in the first place?

How does one find 'congested areas' - is there a website or something?

Having read the document it would appear a subjective matter of opinion by the CAA but they can do nothing to legislate it. It was easiest for them to make some changes in MATS Part 2.

I fly between the QE2 bridge, London City and Lea Valley in my Single Engine plane from time to time. My own opinion is that the area is not congested. If I had engine problems then I can hit water, or land at London City.

I was in the docklands last weekend and saw a microlight whizzing away around LCY and thought what a wonderful flight that would be... Oddly enough I did think about emergency and noticed how quiet LCY is on a Saturday... Looking at a "simulation" on Skydemon I reckon you could glide clear in most Flying Club stuff (C172/PA28), or into LCY so not sure what the issue is... I just think you need to have some lines in your head (or marked on the map) around LCY and if your within the box dive it into LCY or out of the box head for the countryside.

If I had engine problems then I can hit water, or land at London City

I reckon you could glide clear in most Flying Club stuff (C172/PA28), or into LCY

I thought it was because LCY doesnt accept any GA traffic at all. Their plate says "Use of the airport by helicopters, single engine aircrat...is not permitted". Unlike Luton which will happily accept you for £800 or something.

Therefore I dont think accepting the water or LCY is valid is a backup for an engine failure, or running out of fuel in the vicinity - like the guy the CAA were after. I think they want us well clear, and if were gonna have an engine failure or something else, then they would prefer we divert and land elsewhere.

Thats my take on it. Its a shame because I quite enjoyed it, and I have a shiny new Canon DSLR so I would quite like to go back and take some better pictures :-)

Their plate says "Use of the airport by helicopters, single engine aircrat...is not permitted"

I thought this airport is licensed for public use? If I have an emergency, I'll have to decide whether to hit this runway or the water or a building.

Thankfully such emergencys are rare if the plane and pilot are certified and maintained to good standard.

I wonder if the people in the CAA are really that sad and miserable. I can't believe they come up with such rules on banning planes over the Thames and lakes and airports, etc. Do any of them ever fly a plane?

Just look at the USA where you only need to be at least 1,000ft over a congested area. So many planes fly over the Hudson. And you don't need a twin to do that.

I think the issue of a clearance that might cause the pilot to break a rule is a bit of a red herring. After all, every single clearance issued to a pilot has that potential - every time you're cleared for take off for example, if you don't have a licence, a medical etc. In this case the controller isn't instructing the pilot to do something, only saying "you can if you want to". If you're in a motorised glider then you can probably glide clear pretty comfortably so it's a reasonable request and it's reasonable to be granted it.

Mind you, if the CAA were happy to deal with the ramifications of the above you'd think they would have prosecuted someone by now which they've not.

It does seem to be all a bit of a grey area. We should get 100 pilots to fly from Stapleford to Biggin via the Lea Vallery and publicise it widely in advance. The first EuroGA fly out!

they have never prosecuted anybody for it because ATC has been freely offering the clearance overhead LCY, through the Class D airspace.

I believe they have, it was one of a number of charges that were combined as part of a plea bargain i.e. I'll plead guilty to one charge if you drop the others. I was a witness in the case.