OK, I’ve tried to resist but I can’t.
There’s so much wrong with this implementation, not least of which of the 14000000 in the greater metropolitan area, a huge proportion had no vote in the Mayoral elections and yet they are having Khan’s will imposed on them.
Then there’s the whole flawed consultation process where almost nobody was aware it existed and of those that did and proffered their views the majority said they objected to it.
Next we have the doubt that has been cast over the veracity of the data that TFL have used to draw their conclusions.
Then there’s the immoral notion that whilst it’s terrible to be “killing children” with pollution, if you pay us £12.50 we’ll pretend it’s not happening.
Oh, and not forgetting that the term “most polluting vehicles” that is often used completely overlooks the fact that the actual emissions of cars are not being used to provide a data point; rather TFL are relying on the DVLA to provide such data which they often don’t have. If they don’t have it, which is no fault of the vehicle owner, then that owner must pay the ULEZ charge irrespective of whether their car is actually polluting or not.
Moving on, we have the apparent inability to get mot stations provided with the necessary equipment to actually measure Nox and determine whether a vehicle should incur such charge or not.
Let’s not forget the thousands of businesses in and around the outer parts of London who might own “non compliant” vehicles or whose customers that drive “non-compliant vehicles” might choose to find a different place to spend their money rather thasn have to pay £12.50 to go to a business inside the zone.
There’s so much more…..
It’s true that I’d feel safer flying down the Thames than over the sea to Orkney. It would involve the equivalent of overflying the White House, the Capitol and Langley so I’m somewhat surprised to find that it seems to be allowed in single-engine helicopters (but not fixed wing).
I’ll take a photo next time I transit the local VFR corridor, directly over the skyscrapers, through Bravo airspace without radio contact 
The landing area of choice should you need one, as demonstrated not too long by a local banner tow pilot, is into an adjacent body of water dodging boats to do it.
I’m planning to a fly a visiting German pilot through there the week after next, it’s good for sightseeing.
We’ve had this debate before. There’s little comparison between towns that are either built over squiggly medieval layouts or inspired by them, and North American city blocks with their wide, paved roads. At least when it comes to flying over them and potentially landing on them.
@Qalupalik, In the context of this thread and discussion I think (b) is more interesting than (a), which is focused on low flying anywhere.
(b) is about flying over congested urban areas specifically, the subject of this thread, and makes it clear that flying over them at 1000 ft is perfectly legal in any plane. That means that the intent of (a) is that the pilot needs not to ‘glide clear’ of any area (and accordingly that phrase is not used) but to land within the potentially urban area “without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface”. Undue hazard does not mean no hazard. And indeed that is exactly how it is (not) enforced for every flight I make from my base and for every one of the forced landings in urban areas that occur every year locally. There is no way I could ever ‘glide clear’ of the urban area, and it would kill the utility of US GA if the rule were falsely interpreted in that way. Instead we aim for an open spot, road, whatever from 1000 ft agl or higher. There are no fields in the congested areas addressed by (b).
Along those lines, it occurs to me that when I go flying I drive from my home in relatively sparely populated area to the airport, which is located in an urban environment and bases hundreds of single engine planes including two banner tow companies.
If it was about low emissions and people’s lives matter, the vehicles will be banned. When I looked at the data, the drop in non-compliant vehicles was minimal. People still paid the charge. What does that solve?
Labour knows that people will pay for it, it funds their rubbish and egos. Just look at Croydon, only god knows how that dump is still on the map after they squandered half a billion up the wall.
If I was mayor, those vehicles would be banned and only HGVs/Deliveries at night. If a city like Amsterdam can manage, then why not London? Also, trams like Croydon in the late 90s solved their big jumbo bus problem, why not Central London?
Silvaire wrote:
given the wacky UK ‘glide clear’ regulation that applies to flying over urban areas
That’s not the same whacky regulation as 14 CFR 91.119(a)?
—
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an
emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the
surface.
Administrator v. del Rio, NTSB Order No. EA-3617 (adopted 1 Jul 1992) (pdf), footnote 6:
[Footnote] 6
See Administrator v. Michelson, 3 NTSB 3111 (1980), Aff’d,
Michelson v. N.T.S.B, 679 F.2d 900 (9th Cir. 1982), a case
involving a low helicopter pass over a resort. We stated that
“`[U]ndue hazard’ [as found in FAR section 91.79(a),]… embraces
a situation in which a pilot’s cruising altitude would not likely
permit the aircraft to land without striking, or passing
dangerously close to, people or property on the surface. … To
prove a violation of section 91.79(a), the Administrator did not
have to show that it would have been impossible for respondent to
have made an emergency landing without injury or damage to
persons on the surface in the event his engine had failed at some
point along his low pass over the resort. The Administrator had
to show only that an emergency landing from the altitude
respondent passed through presented an unreasonable risk of such
harm.” Id. at 3113-14. See also Administrator v. Colvig, 4 NTSB
202 (1982).
14 CFR 91.79(a) has been moved to 14 CFR 91.119(a).
Post plagiarised from here.
Nothing in 91.119 prevents banner towing over cities, nor my single engined operation over cities every time I fly.
Obviously there is no FAA prohibition intended for single engined aircraft operation over cities at 1000 ft agl, or lower when operating from an urban airport. The intent is that you land on any available street, park, golf course etc, minimizing hazard to those on the ground just as you when parking a car that breaks in a city. Not that you get harassed and fined.
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft
arj1 wrote:
And again, you miss a limited mobility issue.
Driving and life in general would be far easier for people of limited mobility if perfectly able bodied people didn’t clog up the road with their cars, especially on trivially short journeys which can easily be done on foot or by bike. Every motorist who decides to leave the car at home and walk or bike is not competing for parking space with people of limited mobility.
Silvaire wrote:
given the wacky UK ‘glide clear’ regulation that applies to flying over urban areas?
The US has the same wacky rule. See 14 CFR 91.119 (a): it’s just rather more vigorously enforced in the UK.
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
I think a better solution is to say to people “if you want cleaner air, go and live somewhere else”. Over-population is the issue that no politician wants to touch.
Absolutely, and meanwhile in my area the government encourages building permits for high density housing specifically, actually requiring it in most development scenarios, while collecting annual property tax from every new house and apartment built. That is a disease, not a plan.
The common ground with that and the thread is that the ‘solution’ to any problem finds favor with government if it removes people’s money and gives it to…. government. If that causes other problems and doesn’t address the real problem (population density), that’s OK.
Lots of banner towing here BTW, and it’s fun to watch. Wouldn’t you need a twin engined tow plane (or helicopter?) to be be legal for the OP’s purpose, given the wacky UK ‘glide clear’ regulation that applies to flying over urban areas?
