New London Heliport

[SIMNLLOYD]

I have just set up a company to research the oppertunities for a new heliport in London. From my research so far it seems most locations are dropped due to local resident resistance.
We are working on a proposal to aquire a decommisioned LPD 4 Austin class amphibious transport dock ship. I have the investors in place and hope to locate the vessel in the Thames near the docklands as a heleport. It will also double as a cheep hotel and has port facilities below, to be used as a fast boat service and an area that can also be made available to police and medical services.
I would like to know what PPRuNe members views are on this before we move to the next stage.

[LTN ATCO]

Know how to spell Heliport before writing to anyone important??

[WHBM]

1. Why would anyone able to afford to travel by helicopter to a world financial centre be in need of only a 'cheap' hotel ?

2. Do you not think London City, whose airspace is pretty maxed-out at peak times, would have a view on things ?

3. The police and medical already have quite sufficient facilities of their own on the river. They have been here for a couple of hundred years.

4. It is not just heliport mis-spelt. I count four words in a brief note. You will not be taken seriously.

5. If you were taken seriously, those of use who live in Docklands will see such a proposal off. As most waterfront areas in Docklands are now high-density residential this should be no surprise.

[Toxic Thrust]

Well there are plenty of folks with money that are using helicopters to pick them up from Farnborough, Luton and other points to drop them in London and vice versa. Current options are pretty much limited to Battersea.

In my experience most of the passengers are heading for the West End and therefore far West of London Bridge. That said LCY has never and will never open for rotary wing traffic so there is some demand in the Docklands area. I'm sure some heli operators will be abale to give some input on this for you. London is a very poorly served City with regard helipads for general use.

You are correct about the noise lobby against helicopters.

I do seem to remember some sort of project like this before.

[SIMNLLOYD]

this is great keep it comming - sorry for the dislexia - born with it

[AlanM]

Well, Battersea get restricted when LCY is on runway 10 as it is (as traffic has to be at 2000ft downwind and on base leg....)

The ATC and City Airport issues will be the hardest thing that I can see. Also, I am sure to do enough movements to make money will mean Air Traffic Controllers needed.

London definitely needs a heliport that is better placed etc. Around the London Eye would be best placed geographically.... but locals and noise and Red Ken are massive obstacles....

Good luck

[Avalon]

SimnLloyd - good luck to you. You will need it; along with incredibly deep pockets plus a huge amount of patience and perseverance .:ugh:
There have been several attempts by all sorts of people and organisations before - including one I remember in the late 80's which the City of London itself was closely involved along with all the London heli operators, Norman Foster Associates, MPs etc etc. Without doubt the big issues are noise/environment, secondly ATC and SVFR/IFR Ops and thirdly, most people eventually decided it just wasn't commercially viable because of horrendous restrictions imposed on any operation. Additionally, helicopter use is so cyclical (pun?) and susceptible to the health of the economy - so now isn't the best time for your launch. It probably is a good time to be planning for a 2012 launch??
I have always thought the River Thames could be used a lot more to solve London's transport gridlock. So my advice would be to concentrate on the fast boat services...... or maybe float planes???

[ELondonPax]

I trust you have read up on "Thames Heliport v. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (1995)".

Helicopters noise is a real pain for those of us living near the Thames. It is far more intrusive than noise from fixed wing aircraft.

Expect plenty of opposition.

[ppheli]

Just for reference... previous floating London heliports were

City Heliport - This was on the North Bank right by where the Millennium (aka bendy) pedestrian bridge is, and had a licence until the City of London School was built. One big barge with three pads with accommodation below. Cannot remember who ran it though - sure someone here will remember..
Star Aviation Heliport - On the South Bank not far west of Southwark Bridge. operated by Star Aviation, boss of which was Tommy Collins - (last known flying for Wales Air Ambulance?). This was two smaller barges with two pads each and AFAIK only used by Star, who at that time had three 206s. Office accommodation below


Being ignorant what an LPD-4 was, I found these...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lpd-4-Blackhawk.JPG

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lpd-9-970624-N-3149V-002.jpg

http://navysite.de/ships/lpd6_2.jpg

And Wikipedia tells me (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_class_amphibious_transport_dock)) it was a US military ship, with 12 built - one now in Japan, five on US east coast and six on US west coast.

My suggestions thus...

Given the size of it, I suggest you find somewhere to moor it - there can't be too many permanent places for a 171m ship. Probably worth talking to the PLA in this regard
As others have said, LCY have got to be high on the list of contacts. Their plans are to expand more and more on the fixed wing side. They HAVE taken helicopter movements in the past - I think the police and/or London ambulance a couple of times, plus Dennis Kenyon has done his show there twice for the airport open days! (Press release for 2007 event here (http://www.londoncityairport.com/index.php?page=fundayairshow)) But that's about it.
Think of other uses for your ship eg. floating museum - so long as you can segregate the masses (museum visitors) from the heliport users. This may help defray your likely enormous costs.


Usual adage rings true once more. Question "How do you make a small fortune in the helicopter industry?" Answer "Start off with a big fortune"

[niknak]

Concur with ELondonPax, although I don't live in London, having stayed with friends on a regular basis, who live near various heliports, the noise pollution is unbelievably intrusive.
Unless you've experienced 3 or 4 days of it, you probably wouldn't appreciate that its far worse than the approaches and departures to and from City Airport, or to a lesser extent, Heathrow.

I'm usually the first to baulk against NIMBYs and I also fully appreciate the business need for the flexibility of helicopter travel to and from the Capital, but in this instance I would be fully against any expansion of current facilities or the implimentation of new heliports.

[WHBM]

Part of the problem is abuse of the existing helicopter routes across London. For example the RAF recently sent a formation of two Chinooks down H4 (the route along the Thames) at 23.00 hours, whose thundering pulse nicely woke everybody along the route up. Now we at PPRuNe know different, but to the general public a helicopter is a helicopter.

[ppheli]

ELondonPax (and Niknak's friend - PaddiWak, perhaps?) - were you living there before helicopters started using the route along the Thames c1955? If not, don't you think it's a bit rich to critise something that was there before you and the noise was a known issue?

Moderator - this thread may be better served by moving it to the Rotorheads forum? Lots of relevant people there

[Brilliant Stuff]

A couple of months or so ago I was cruising round Heathrow at 1 or 2 in the morning and I heard a couple of Pumas of the RAF or ARMY (I don't know much about the armed forces so please accept my apologies) on the frequency going round some of the hospitals in London doing training landings. I have to say i felt a bit guilty on behalf of the pumas. I understand the need for doing training landing sat the hospitals but does it have to be at 0130hrs in the morning?

I am aware we have to be neighbourly and I do try my very best, but then again this is London the financial center of the European universe the creme dela creme it should be able to cope with some helicopters.

Open up London City and Northolt plus bolt a pad to the top of canary wharf. Well that is what I think anyway.

[[email protected]]

Glad to see so much support for the military flying effort here:ugh:

Are you not watching TV to see what these guys are training to go out and do?

Oh dear, some people got woken up by a helicopter once, how bloo8y tragic. They don't seem to mind the incessant traffic noise or constant wail of sirens but a helicopter flying overhead is an instant red card and letters to the mayor!

[Brilliant Stuff]

People have no control over the car traffic and the sirens, but they can voice their opinions on helicopter noise and they are being listened to.

[WHBM]

Oh dear, some people got woken up by a helicopter once, how bloo8y tragic.
Glad to see those from the industry shooting themselves in the foot regarding support for the proposal being discussed here, with attitudes like this one. Keep them coming !

Are you not watching TV to see what these guys are training to go out and do?Yes we do watch TV, and no, we don't see the slightest relevance of how sending formations of transport helicopters transiting over your own major cities in the middle of the night contributes to any training.

[SIMNLLOYD]

1. Why would anyone able to afford to travel by helicopter to a world financial centre be in need of only a 'cheap' hotel ?

Business men today are not allowed to sped money onnexpences like before. When I say cheap hotel - It will still be of a business class standard and I bet it will be full all the time like all the ther budget hotels are now in the city.

2. Do you not think London City, whose airspace is pretty maxed-out at peak times, would have a view on things ?

Helicopter traffic does not need to affect fixed wing. We are not busy conpared with NY

3. The police and medical already have quite sufficient facilities of their own on the river. They have been here for a couple of hundred years.
At wapping their facities look quite dated and open air. Zzzzzzthey have no cover duing winter


5. If you were taken seriously, those of use who live in Docklands will see such a proposal off. As most waterfront areas in Docklands are now high-density residential this should be no surprise.

Have you been near city airport. they are still building next to an airport and people ar still buying. There are plenty of places along the thames to place this vessel
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/forums/report.php?p=3680595)

[[email protected]]

WHBM - I am not in the industry, I am in the military. The crews have to be trained in all sorts of disciplines, not just the ones you (who clearly has little idea of what is involved) approve of or see the relevance of.

The support for the military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan by many sections of the British public is deplorable - the poor buggers don't want to be there but they are putting their lives on the line for their country - are you prepared to do that? If not then accept a negligible noise discomfort for very short periods and let those who are not wrapped up in their comfortable little worlds get on with their jobs.

[WHBM]

I can only suggest that the lack of support described in the second paragraph is unfortunately more than a little brought about by the arrogance and do-what-we-like attitude evidenced in the first paragraph.

I'll see you in Whitehall on Nov 11th.

[scooter boy]

Without doubt London is sadly lacking in reasonably priced, convenient helicopter access both centrally and peripherally.
Battersea is out for most of us small operators since the price hike and there is no London HLS within walking distance of public transport links.
This is shameful for such a great capital and a real opportunity exists here to improve the situation and hopefully start a financially viable business.

IMHO there are 2 options.

1.The plan you outlined above - central would be nice for pilots and pax but as you can see above even those involved in aviation don't want it around them all the time.(They can often be the most vociferous complainers!)

2.Find a site directly adjacent (walking distance) to a good fast (less than 30mins) rail/tube link into central London. This does not exist at present - taxis between landing site and train should not be necessary and spoil the flow of the trip in and out as well as adding cost. This could even be a grass field with a windsock (no need to buy a ship and pay through the nose for maintenance / mooring) plus you end up with an appreciating investment rather than a deprecaiting hulk in the Thames with a huge noise lobby against you.
You find the site and I'll go halves with you!

SB

[Bravo73]

SIMNLLOYD,

Check your PMs. :ok:

[K48]

Crab, to be fair, the issue of training over London was not anti-military. The issue was noise, e.g had it been a civvy operation practicing over the area at night they would have got the same stick I am sure.:)
(BTW you can bring your military helis over my house any time... but then I am biased!)
Back on thread.
I agree with this direction:
Open up London City and Northolt plus bolt a pad to the top of canary wharf.
Helipads on high buildings surely would be a good noise abatement option.
Or perhaps use more derelict areas. E.g the land fill tip NE of City...? (Vips oops... :E)
To the original poster.. If a serious application is going to be made a strong push on the fact that helis are now quieter would help over recent attempts. Would strongly suggest researching where previous attempts failed and pre-empt those issues... 2012 is a big opportunity to set something up temporarily - with an eye to longterm once foot is in door so to speak.....
ON the fast boat issue.. There may be a market for commuters along the SE north coast for a fast boat transport service into the center from say Whitstable harbour. The train costs a fortune.. £20-£35 at peak. it could be viable. The boats that work the windfarm out of there could be good vessels... there is a tidal issue until the council move on the marina idea...a hovercraft is currently ideal. But obviously a heli commute would be even better - from the ready made pad on the harbour west quay....:}
Feel free to Pm me for contacts if you ever come to including such an idea in your proposal application.
Scooter Boy... what about Ashford International? Fast train runs straight in and they need to build more transport infrastructure to guarantee survival.... the residents aren't going to complain... they are all worried that the station is going to close just as they have all bought houses in the area.. a heliport would be a boon. The question is who would use it:rolleyes: Thinking aloud...Foreign Pax arriving from Manston/Lydd for London.. or Pax from Gatwick/Heathrow..passing through to the continent.? Or South coast cities..Newhaven/Dover/Folkestone/Calais/Ramsgate/Deal Rye/Hastings/Bexhill?
Ferry connections....? Portsmouth, Dover, Ramsgate...
just ideas for the melting pot...

[Bravo73]

<snip> plus bolt a pad to the top of canary wharf.


Helipads on high buildings surely would be a good noise abatement option.



Although it sounds ideal, helipads on 'high buildings' is not really a viable option in the UK.

The CAA get very, very, very nervous about 'elevated helipads'. (This is probably due to the risk of flying into the side of the building in the event of an engine failure. Although, I must add that, this is IMHO only.)

[K48]

If the building is higher than 500ft then there's an escape route.. no different to a normal flight.. those roof tops are quite big...! Maybe introduce a specific high rise landing licence/rating with recency requirements, CAA initiate.. and London can get off the ground and - perhaps - in line with other cities.....?. what do other cities in the world do.. anyone?

[Brilliant Stuff]

Thanks K48.
Bravo I know the elevated pad would be good but I also know that it would be to difficult in the current environment plus you will need to be checked out on landing them even if you have 7000 landings on rigs.

Well that just made my post obsolete.

[Bravo73]

Maybe introduce a specific high rise landing licence/rating with recency requirements, CAA initiate..

There already is one. It's just that the requirements are very, very stringent. Certainly too much for an occasional public transport flight.

As Brilliant Stuff has outlined, even considerable previous experience isn't taken into account.

[WHBM]

To move on, the idea that those arriving by helicopter might think of continuing to Central London by rail service is a non-starter.

The numbers would be far too small to justify a frequent service. If not frequent it defeats the object.

Look at the Jet Centre at London City, which has a Docklands Light Railway station next to it direct to Bank. Just what is being suggested here. Same sort of market. But how many pax arriving by business aircraft there continue by public transport each day ? I would guess none. The airport didn't even attempt to provide a footpath between Centre and station.

[WHBM]

Business men today are not allowed to spend money on expenses like before. When I say cheap hotel - It will still be of a business class standard and I bet it will be full all the time like all the ther budget hotels are now in the city.Anyone concerned about their expenses will drop helicopter travel long before they reduce their accommodation down to budget level. By the way, we weren't profligate with our expenses "before", either.

Helicopter traffic does not need to affect fixed wingThat's not my experience of Thames Radar and City Tower.

Have you been near City airport. they are still building next to an airport and people are still buying.Yes, we live within sound of the City runway and I am a frequent user of it. There is no development directly under its flightpath but some nearby opposition in eg Britannia Village is starting to build up as movements increase.

Also at our house we can get north-south low level heli traffic, which likes to transit overhead LCY, holding awaiting a clearance across the airport. I can assure you a heli holding overhead your house at low level is indeed a nuisance.

[Agaricus bisporus]

No doubt London desperately needs a heliport to the E of the City, but I find this proposal nothing short of whimsical.

SIM, have you any idea of the cost of converting a large military transport into a civvy registered vessel, complying with all modern safety regs? (Its certainly full of asbestos for a start) They can't even scrap the dam things up in the NE...

Or the additional expense of converting military compartments into something acceptable for civvies - no en-suite there. The plumbing alone would cost millions.

Or the cost of merely keeping such a large vessel painted, let alone controlling corrosion. Clearly Uncle Sam can't stomach it any more.

Or what Commie Ken would rip you off for mooring fees? A 10m mooring on the Solent costs £6000per year. OK, this is the Thames, but go figure.

I doubt that deck would be acceptable to the CAA - unless you parked her arse-out into the river for cross-deck ops - and that would block the river. Not much parking space, is there space to taxi past parked helos?

No, dreamland, I'm afraid. Pie in the sky.

You need simple decked over dumb barges with a walkway to shore and a dock for waterbuses. Forget hovercraft too, they make as much noise as helicopters and won't be popular.

If you want a hotel then build one where there's a need for it. Heliport pax are rushing in or rushing out. They are not going to stop at the heliport even in a luxury hotel, let alone a cheap one.

The correct answer, of course, is to open LCY. I'd guess that has more chance than converting this thing.

[[email protected]]

WHBM - I don't remember saying we could do what we liked - the aircraft described were operating to the rules stipulated by ATC, it was just the fact they were at night that drew criticism. I have generated noise complaints delivering critically ill patients to HLSs in the middle of the night in London and frankly I couldn't care less that someone was woken up when someone else's life (not just a sleep pattern) was at risk.

If you view my frustration at lack of support as arrogance then I view your lack of understanding as ignorance.

I will be in uniform working on 11 Nov so won't make Whitehall, sorry.

[AlanM]

2. Do you not think London City, whose airspace is pretty maxed-out at peak times, would have a view on things ?

Helicopter traffic does not need to affect fixed wing. We are not busy compared with NY

WTF has this to do with NY???

Errr brilliant response to a question about procedures....... You should take this to The Dragon's Den mate.

"I'm Out"

[AlanM]

As for real estate at LCY......

....planes hold now on an almost daily basis, or additional spacing on the inbounds is required (same difference really) due to lack of stand capacity.

So apart from getting past the strong NIMBY voices where would the helicopters land??

[Brilliant Stuff]

Sorry Crab but I find your opinion a tad narrow. Training can be done at a civilised hour which is still in the dark. Patients can operate any time of the night. But when the Nimbys pipe up one needs respond to them and point out that their precious sleep was disrupted because the helicopter was actually saving a life or making the neighbourhood safe.

The thing with the NIMBYs is they shout loudly they don't like the noise but who answers them and therefore points out to them how big a fool they are making of themselves? They want the helicopter rather sharpish when they themselves are in need. You get my drift in a long winded sort of way?

As for not respecting the Armed Forces and the folk who are the Armed Forces, I assume you are pointing your finger at me with your post, you have no idea what my viewpoint is on that, therefore please don't assume anything until we have met face to face. :ok:

hug

[FairWeatherFlyer]

BTW, last time this came up, i conducted an extensive survey of one colleague who lives on top floor overlooking the river in the rotherhithe area on their experience of H4 related noise. They replied, "the big ones". That turned out to be a reference to chinooks. These are also the only ones i've ever heard from inside a modern office block in canary wharf!

On the subject of rivers, if you could get a zippy boat to the Savoy that would be pretty cool.

[[email protected]]

Brilliant stuff - my remarks re Armed Forces were aimed squarely at WHBM who assumed I was arrogant for making the point that training needs to be done, sometimes to the detriment of joe public.

We are hamstrung by many layers of rules and regulations designed to prevent us p8ssing off the general public in the wee small hours but sometimes we have to get the job done.

With so many aircraft out of the country, the ones that are left are often unserviceable so any training plan has to be flexible, even if that means working antisocial hours.

Flights through the helilanes are usually a means to an end - getting the helicopter to the training area as quickly as possible - we don't just transit there for fun.

The aircraft that were complained about may well have been on anti-terrorist ops - does anyone mind if they get woken up by a helicopter if it is protecting them.

We do try to address low flying and noise complaints promptly and to explain why the aircraft was where it was but a lot of civilian folk kick the a8se out of the MoD complaints and compensation system, pretending they were harrassed by military low flying in order to make a claim.

The NIMBY attitude towards the military was demonstrated recently in the Headley Court dispute over planning permission and only goes to show how many self-serving, selfish people there are out there who might buy a poppy once a year but don't actually want to put up with some small discomfort to help those who are fighting (and dying) overseas.

[WHBM]

I think the nighttime Chinook formation that WHBM was complaining about were not on any anti-terrorist operations at all (which is always the gut reaction to any complaint nowadays it seems) but were on a return from East Anglia back to Odiham and it seemed like an "interesting" Navex to route low level over Central London through the night.

[[email protected]]

We do not fly low level over London at any time - read my post re the layers of rules.

Ring Odiham if you want to complain and they will deal with it.

[JimBall]

Crab - come into the real world. I live under the heli routes. Chinooks, Merlins and Pumas have such a bad noise profile that even at 1500ft they can rattle letterboxes from several miles away.

How in hell's name can these machines be used for stealth mil ops ?

I remember all too well the military rep response to the complaints when questioned by our industry. "Complain all you like - but we don't have to comply with any of your regulations."

That attitude is endemic and unnecessary.

[[email protected]]

Jim - come into the real world yourself - that is not low flying. All helicopters comply with the standard helilanes routes and heights, including military ones. If you don't like the ATC procedures then write to the CAA or your MP.

Who said they were on stealth ops? Do you have any idea how much those boys and girls are getting shot at on a daily basis?

The attitude comes from constantly being criticised for doing a dangerous and unpleasant job during which we occasionally inconvenience (and that is all it is) members of the public.

We don't have to comply with the ANO but we do so out of respect for the impact that military training could have on the public if we did it the way some other Armed Forces in the world might.

[AlanM]

All helicopters comply with the standard helilanes routes and heights, including military ones. If you don't like the ATC procedures then write to the CAA or your MP.

Crab,

As a former crab and 230/18 opsie, I do recognise and see the need for low level trg. Also, I believe that most of the nation do support the troops in the OOA ops.
BUT - with regard to your statement, I can hoenstly say that I am amazed when I see Chinooks at 700ft along the river between Vauxhall Bridge and the lsle of Dogs. This happens a lot, including night (and I mean past 2100hrs). Also, we try and route you the quickest way (ie as you are twins, to save you holding at London Bridge against London City traffic we can take you off the routers east of Battersea) It is very rare for crews to accept this re-route which would mean no delay.
Not saying that other things are wrong, but when you can be at 2000ft and you choose to hold at 700ft in the late evening you have to question it. (He says after sitting on the ramp of a wokka once doing exactly that!)

[Flying Lawyer]

Although SIMNLLOYD’s particular idea strikes me as a non-starter, I think it’s ludicrous that London, as a major international city, doesn’t have a helipad near the City.

Unfortunately, the noise of those who object to something ususally carries an inordinate amount of weight – because the majority hold no strong views either way and are simply the silent majority. Combine that with the policies (and personality) of the current Mayor of London and it seems highly unlikely we’ll see a heliport in the foreseeable future.

IMHO, as someone who’s lived near the River (in Putney, Fulham and Chelsea) for 29 years, and worked immediately adjacent to it for 33 years (Temple, until a couple of weeks ago), claims/complaints about helicopter noise in London are grossly exaggerated. My local authority (Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea) has, for some reason, taken up the fight against the 'problem' of helicopter noise. There is no justification for such a stance; there isn't a problem. They claim helicopter noise along the River is a problem. Utter nonsense. It’s impossible to hear helicopters along the River from most parts of the Borough and, where it can be heard, it’s not intrusive except in the immediate vicinity of the River.

Is there a problem with the noise of mil helicopters over London?
If there is, I haven't noticed.
I live half a mile away from Chelsea Barracks and the sound of Chinooks and other heavy helicopters going in and out isn’t to everyone’s taste, but it’s so rare that it can't reasonably be described as a problem and, as the Barracks has been sold, any perceived ‘problem’ will come to an end permanently.

As for noise near the City airport, I’ve got no sympathy with people who choose to live near an airport and then complain about noise - or who object to expansion and/or an increase in movements. If noise is an issue, don't live near an airport.

IMHO, people who regard peace and quiet as a priority should live in the countryside (or at least in the suburbs), not in a big city.
That said, many of them would probably be the sort who buy weekend cottages in the country and then complain about church bells on a Sunday morning.

[JimBall]

Crab: We don't have to comply with the ANO but we do so out of respect for the impact that military training could have on the public if we did it the way some other Armed Forces in the world might.

Tell that to people who ride horses.

Crab - you are so far off beam on this one. You don't live in London air traffic as a controller - AlanM does and he speaks the truth. We all respect our military - but there is a limit to their bad behaviour when it is not necessary.

Batting around London beneath standard operating altitudes, hammering Chinooks through London in the dead of night - all fine if there is a real reason. But there wasn't.

London operators in the civilian world are under a lot of pressure to reduce noise - but they aren't the ones causing the problems. We have a police ASU which has chosen to operate noisy machines 24/7 often on night missions with little useful purpose. And we have a military who are choosing to ignore the ANO and the published standards.

And to refuse a direct routing offered is just plain daft if speed was the need.

[AlanM]

Jim - Not sure I said that they are badly behaved....!! They are also not subject to the ANO.]

As FL says though, it is pathetic that an important City such as London is, there are no readily available pleasure flights or landing pads for the business world.

Battersea Power Station should be the place for it......!! :)

[BRASSEMUP]

We have a police ASU which has chosen to operate noisy machines 24/7 often on night missions with little useful purpose.

:*Really i thought they were doing a great job and helping to keep us safe in our beds!

[ELondonPax]

Flying Lawyer.
I was one of the early replies in this thread. To be very clear. The concern I raised was specifically about helicopter noise. I make no complaint about City airport and it would be hypocritical if I did. I use LCY frequently – and having it almost on my doorstep is a huge asset. As to choosing to live near an airport, when I moved to this area there were still ships being unloaded in Royal Docks and no one had ever landed a Dash7 on Herons Quay.

Back to this proposal. You may be right that there isn't a helicopter noise issue in Kensington/Chelsea. There is a problem in Greenwich / Isle of Dogs. Ironically the problem may be more prominent here because this part of London is comparatively quiet during the night and at weekends.

You say that if I want some peace I should live in the suburbs. I would rather eat worms. I do not want to spend hours of my life in a packed train, hours from my work and away from the amenities of the inner city. Although I chose to live in the inner City, that doesn’t mean I accept that everyone living in zones 1 and 2 has to put up with all night noise. I agree that there are some parts of central London where noise is inevitable and part of the territory, but there are lots of residential areas across inner London where the residents have a right to some sleep.

Right on cue to this debate there was another loud helicopter last night, at 2240. I don’t pretend to know whether civil or mil but I do know that had I been looking to get an early night it would have woken me. The nuisance value of a heli passing low, a deafening whumpa whumpa, (whether that happens to be overhead at 700 or 1500 feet) is on a completely different scale from the distant hum of a late arriving long haul heavy heading into Heathrow. (And of course - there is no night noise from CIty because it has a night curfew).

And your final paragraph. I do have a house in the country. I do hear the Church bells on Sunday morning when I’m staying there. I have never complained about them. But lets stick to the issue of helicopter noise nuisance over the most densely populated area of Britain.

[212man]

All reminds me of why I chose to be an expat: what a skewed perspective on things there is these days.:confused:

btw: That said LCY has never and will never open for rotary wing traffic

Are we sure about that? Not what I heard....

[BRASSEMUP]

ELONDONPAX,

Rotorheads A haven for professional helicopter pilots to discuss the things that affect them.

This is a forum for helicopter pilots as it says on the tin, so what's your affiliation with helicopters then?

[AlanM]

Rotorheads A haven for professional helicopter pilots to discuss the things that affect them.

Oh no - do I have to go too?

:) oh go on... let me stay!

[212man]

Only if you answer my question! Some uninformed bod at helitech mentioned it......

[BRASSEMUP]

Oh no - do I have to go too?

oh go on... let me stay!

Maybe:p:E

I'm just saying this forum is supposed to be a haven to positively discuss Helicopters......not slag them and the people that fly them down etc etc:*:*:*

[AlanM]

Gee thanks matey!!. To answer yr question with reagrd to helis at LCY

Are we sure about that? Not what I heard....

Yes I am sure I have heard nothing.....!!

I refer my honourable friend to the issue of real estate and stand availability causing enough problems there. Just yersterday there was a phone call from the tower to say that they were a stand down, poor departure slots and a need to increase inbound gaps from the normal operating procedure of 8, 5 and 5miles for subsequent planes to 8nm for everything. It is that tight at LCYmost of the time.

From our POV - helis are a piece of doddle when approaching a field - esp from due north or sue south in this case. (even the Vanguard is easy). Even if you can get past the noise issue (and surely LCY would save their brownie points with red Ken for additional and lucrative Olympic type movements) where would you put them? You would probably have to approach via the threshold, such are the CAA on such matters, thus affecting the instrument traffic.

As I said, a shame really. London really needs helicopter access.
Oh and finally, the noise at "Le Isle de chiens" is largely because aircraft transitting often hold there before going north. Also single engined helicopters do not help with reagrd to EGR160. Why not a Heli route going from Battersea - Battersea Park - Clapham to Crystal Palace area... available at 1500ft to the zone boundary then 2400ft and up and away! Singles could use it then... and no holding at London Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge etc.

[Hover Bovver]

E London Pax
OK to quantify YOUR problem, how often does (nights per week please) late night transits of London occur?

[212man]

Yes I am sure I have heard nothing.....!!

Could have sworn the chap was on the other side of the BHAB stand, but maybe I was dreaming :confused:

Sorry if my use of exclamation marks caused the wrong inference to the tone intended :(

I look forward to seeing how it pans out........:ok:

[JimBall]

All I've heard (and I think it was discussed here last year) was that LCY had said they were obviously aware of the need for another heliport and that they were seeking some land outside their current boundary to see if they could build a site.

However, land (even horrible old sewage farm land) down that way is now getting £1.25m an acre.

And residential or industrial is going to generate a better return than a heliport.

[[email protected]]

If large military helos are regularly (interesting to know how often this happens) operating below 1000' over built up areas, they are breaking our rules unless following ATC instructions. In that case, report them to Odiham/Benson and you should either find out why (if there were any mitigating circumstances) or stop them doing it again.

There is always a temptation to sightsee but 1 o'clock in the morning really isn't appropriate - if this is what they are up to (and I suspect it is an isolated case) then I apologise for their lack of consideration and professionalism.

The Chinook may be noisy but it is an awesomely capable helicopter which is why we use it.

[AlanM]

or stop them doing it again.

How should I do that....?? I have no responsibility for ANY helicopter breaking hte ANO/JSPs. If one does it should I ban all CH47s?!?!? I am not the Rule Police!

And the helilanes are subject to differenet rules anyway (mainly they are SVFR which changes Rule 5). Otherwise how else could a route (H10 under 27L/R at LHR) be 750ft!

To my mind it is the holding that causes most of the noise. That is largely singles who are kept on the river and into confliction with LCY traffic.

[WHBM]

To my mind it is the holding that causes most of the noise. That is largely singles who are kept on the river and into confliction with LCY traffic.
Not really so, Alan, the ones we notice the most are the military ones going up/down the river. Not only are they far heavier machines but they as often as not come in formations.

At the very moment I write this a Chinook is doing a touch-and-go (apparently) at Woolwich Barracks and I can hear him from several miles away. It does seem more appropriate to do this training at 18.00 rather than late at night. It's a stormy, rainy night outside and I wish you well, chaps. Honestly.

[[email protected]]

Alan - I didn't mean that you personally had to stop them - just that if it is a regular occurrence then a phone call to the appropriate station is likely to trigger a response/bollocking to those involved.

For our purposes, rule 5 is irrelevant; however, they should try to keep within our rules (large helos should not fly below 1000 over congested areas) unless specifically cleared by ATC. They should go for the maximum route heights unless weather or ATC dictate otherwise.

[AlanM]

Mate, I here what you are saying and I applaud yr stance and your obvious dislike of rule breaking, but no ATCO will ever report any pilot for such a thing. (unless the facts are part of another need to report under the MOR scheme) It is simply NOT in our remit. Most ATCOs will not even know where the aircraft are based, let alone which Squadron. I still have links with the SH world so will be leaving that one to someone else!! :)

I have in the past given Helilane briefings to Odiham on Flight Safety Days, so am very much on your side.

Back to the topic.......... :):cool:

[poor southerner]

Refurb an old yank junker ? Pie in the sky. I was involved with a study on one of these for another purpose and it failed on ££££. The best option was to start with a fresh barge and built on it what you wanted.

As for the London heliport question. The most obvious answer to mitigate any noise, would be to combine it with the city airport. 'Simply' fill in part of the basin to the North and there you have it. Some usefull pads, more parking for all, ATC already in place, light rail link and fixed wing connections. Current city owners (forgot who bought it) would be laughing all the way to the bank (unless it's Barclays or RBS, as there the next for a run ?) what would it all cost £ 100 mil tops. Then they can re value and re finance the complete site and pocked at least that as a bonus. and I'll take a 1% commision thanks :O

[ELondonPax]

Brassemup.
This post started on another forum and was moved into rotorheads. That was the only reason I noticed it.

It is perfectly obvious that most in this forum disagree with my stance. But the original post asked for reaction to a proposal, so I think it perfectly reasonable that he/she should know that the idea will meet strong opposition.

[Helinut]

Interesting to look at E London Pax comments. He probably reflects most landlubbers in that he doesn't give a s**t who flies over his house at 2240 or whatever - he wants to lash out at someone and "put a stop to it". If it is flying over London at night (out of Battersea's normal operating hours) it is a 95% probability to be the Met or one of the other police ASUs. Most of the other 5% will be catered for by Air Ambulance or SAR operating in a similar role. They will all be (rightly) protected, but the emotions that are generated by those who are anti will have a go at an easier target, that is essentially nothing to do with night helicopter flying over London.

It is a shame that the Met chose a noisy "new" helicopter fleet, but that is water under the bridge now.

Those of us concerned to see commercial helicopter flying continue and prosper in and around London need to make sure that the fact that noise from hele night flying over London is not due to commercial traffic is understood and appreciated.

[PlasticCabDriver]

I'm going to bite on a couple of these if you don't mind:

Brilliant Stuff:

Training can be done at a civilised hour which is still in the dark. I understand the need for doing training landing sat the hospitals but does it have to be at 0130hrs in the morning?


Of course it can, I would much rather train at a civilised hour than at 0130 in the morning, but when there are only one or two aircraft serviceable, then you take the training at whatever time you can get.

WHBM

I think the nighttime Chinook formation that WHBM was complaining about were not on any anti-terrorist operations at all (which is always the gut reaction to any complaint nowadays it seems) but were on a return from East Anglia back to Odiham and it seemed like an "interesting" Navex to route low level over Central London through the night.

They may not be on an anti-terrorist op (then again they might), but they may be training for one. They may have been in E Anglia, 16 AA Brigade at Colchester are a favorite user, If you draw a straight line between Colchester and Odiham, you will find a large town in the way. They may have been able to go round, but maybe they went round the previous night, 2 nights, 5 nights, every night for a fortnight etc, and thought they would give those people living there a rest, or perhaps they were running out of crew hours, or aircraft hours, or the aircraft was needed for a real anti-terrorist op and needed to go back in as straight a line as possible, who knows? To insinuate that they were only going there because "you think" it is "interesting" is to insult all of us.

WHBM:

no, we don't see the slightest relevance of how sending formations of transport helicopters transiting over your own major cities in the middle of the night contributes to any training

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4478124.stm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yapP2BA_ARw or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR1PmSlBS5Y

Looks fairly 'major city'-ish to me. Baghdad to be precise. Ok so they're during the day, but they do this at night too. Can you imagine doing that at night without any training? Training you can't do in case WHBM gets woken up?

To get realistic training to do that, we would need to low fly routinely, by day and night, over major urban areas (Baghdad is roughly the size of Birmingham). We don't though, because we do actually understand that there is a balance to be struck. So we take the training that we can get, and if that happens to be near your house at an uncivilised hour, then so be it.

[Brilliant Stuff]

Crab and Pastcicabdriver

there is always more than meets the eye isn't it? That is why communication is so important. I apologise for living in my little perfect world. I am glad I made the comments I made because this way I learned something again. It teaches me again not to make rash opinions about things I don't know enough about.

We must keep communicating or else we end up as billy no mates.

It's a shame that so many selfish people have so much power over the vast number of selfless people.

[WHBM]

To insinuate that they were only going there because "you think" it is "interesting" is to insult all of us.
OK, I didn't just think it. I was told.

[Snarlie]

If Crab and PlasticcabDriver had claimed that they had to practice flying the London Heli-routes by day and night for purposes of access in times of alert, their operations within the London Zone would be understandable and justifiable. To claim that they have to fly routinely by day and night over urban areas to keep up their precious skills is, quite frankly, laughable. The attitude " if that is what it takes, so be it" is sadly typical of the RAF outlook on airspace sharing as typified by the ongoing fast jet versus helicopter confliction at low level.
Might I suggest that regular users of the heli-lanes monitor closely use by the military and make a point of recording non adherence to routes and altitudes and submit them to the BHAB for comment.

[ShyTorque]

Might I suggest that regular users of the heli-lanes monitor closely use by the military and make a point of recording non adherence to routes and altitudes and submit them to the BHAB for comment.

As one of the regular civvy user of the helilanes might I suggest this phrase be re-arranged: mate bike On yer.

[nimby]

Reading this thread was such a scream!

It's so quiet at night here that we can hear the badgers snoring. Helicopter noise is the only disturbance but we know what's going on and believe that the pilots are careful NOT to disturb unless necessary.

We happily sleep :zzz: through RN Sea King and Lynx training, the AA on its way north or east and even the occasional AW night flight test.

Can't sleep in London though :bored: ...

... and put a Chinook in the same county ... :{

Never a less appropriate handle
NIMBY

[PlasticCabDriver]

To claim that they have to fly routinely by day and night over urban areas to keep up their precious skills is, quite frankly, laughable

How is it laughable? Did you not look at the videos? We ask our crews to fly by day and night at low level over large urban areas in hot and sandy places, but then we complain when they have the temerity to try and train for that in case we get woken up? We would like to fly routinely at night over urban areas because it provides the most realistic training, but we do not. We can do some of it in the simulator, but even the best simulators cannot fully replicate the real experience, so some has to be done in real life. There is a wide variety of HLSs in London that go someway to providing realistic training for those crews expected to land in tight HLSs in cities at night on Ops. However, it is kept to a minimum, because we do actually realise that it annoys people.

Might I suggest that regular users of the heli-lanes monitor closely use by the military and make a point of recording non adherence to routes and altitudes and submit them to the BHAB for comment.

Please do. If there is evidence of deliberate rule breaking or unprofessionalism it needs to be dealt with. Why limit it to the military though? Are civilian crews perfect in every respect in the Helilanes? Perhaps AlanM could shed some light?

[saffron]

in 1985 a consortium tried to do exactly what you are proposing & had planning permission refused,(i was living in a flat by Southwark bridge where it was going to be based at the time)Today it is ten times more likely planning perm would be refused,especially with the current mayor of London,so don't waste your time.

[AlanM]

Perhaps AlanM could shed some light?

Errr - well today I saw an R22 today fly between Vauxhall Bridge and the Isle of Dogs (on the river) at 700ft, when cleared "standard operating altitudes" (and it is up to 2000ft there) I can agree.

And before anyone asks, us mere controllers do not report anyone for this alone!

[bolkow]

but do you know how to spell opportunities and Cheap?
If so why no advice on those neccessary corrections?

[Snarlie]

In response to ShyTorque, it may have escaped your notice that the whole question of operating helicopters over London is under close scrutiny and, more worryingly, great is the interest of the environmental lobby and politicians anxious to collect votes. It will only take a few more instances of Chinooks at 500 feet all the way down H4 and H3 to raise awareness of the noise problem. I, for one, would like to safeguard my livelihood for a little while longer.

To PlasticCabDriver I would merely say that of course civilian crews transgress but there is in place machinery to record and discipline where necessary - the Battersea ATCO`s are particularly adept at filing MOR`s when they feel that a regulation has been threatened. The only course of action regarding a specific incident involving an RAF machine from Odiham has been to refer the matter to Wing Commander Ops. This results, not surprisingly, in a deafening silence.

[AlanM]

The only course of action regarding a specific incident involving an RAF machine from Odiham has been to refer the matter to Wing Commander Ops. This results, not surprisingly, in a deafening silence.

Not strictly true. I have personally been to RAF Odiham to bore 150+ crew at the station flight safety day with a London Heli Lane presentation that I wrote. I played them some incidents of RAF SH having "navigational difficulties" and it was taken VERY seriously by the Instructors and the Stn Execs.

There was also a case in which the UK Airprox Board sat and reported on a Puma that went AWOL on H10 past Kew on the River Thames, leading to a loss of separation against 27R at LHR.

Finally, as the lanes are within the TVAA (Thames Valley Avoidance Area) does entry still have to be booked as per the UKLFS? If it does, I guess that the numbers are avaible?

[scooter boy]

"today I saw an R22 today fly between Vauxhall Bridge and the Isle of Dogs (on the river) at 700ft, when cleared "standard operating altitudes" (and it is up to 2000ft there)"

But could ELondonPax hear it?

SB

[PlasticCabDriver]

the Battersea ATCO`s are particularly adept at filing MOR`s when they feel that a regulation has been threatened.

True. Very nearly got filed against once (not the incident AlanM mentions though!). Failed to make the descent in time from 1500' to 1000' at Battersea (if that's not right it's my memory failing me again) one night to due map marking feckwittery writing over the change in height point. A very terse "call me when you land" from Battersea. Conversation went like this (roughly):

PCD: "Hello, my name is xxx xxx, Vortex XXX, may I speak with controller who was on at 2100 please".

Battersea Controller (BC): "speaking".

PCD: "F8cked up didn't I?"

BC: "Yes".

PCD: "No excuse really, should have known better, totally unprofessional. If you need to file against me, go ahead, I have absolutely no leg to stand on etc etc"

BC: " In that case, I won't, if you had rung up all arrogant and snotty I would have filed, but at least you realise you were wrong and are happy to admit it, so we'll leave it there".

(very relieved) PCD: "You're a very nice man etc etc".

As I have no wish to ever repeat that conversation, I have been extra doubly careful with the altitudes ever since.

The only course of action regarding a specific incident involving an RAF machine from Odiham has been to refer the matter to Wing Commander Ops. This results, not surprisingly, in a deafening silence.

Unfortunately, I probably have to agree with you. If you feel it was that serious and you get no joy at Station level, you of course have the option of taking it to the MoD direct.

AlanM, yes, it is booked the same way, so numbers should be available.

[ShyTorque]

In response to ShyTorque, it may have escaped your notice that the whole question of operating helicopters over London is under close scrutiny and, more worryingly, great is the interest of the environmental lobby and politicians anxious to collect votes. It will only take a few more instances of Chinooks at 500 feet all the way down H4 and H3 to raise awareness of the noise problem. I, for one, would like to safeguard my livelihood for a little while longer.

No, it hasn't escaped my notice one little bit, thanks. However, sorry to say that I have absolutely no desire to be an airborne traffic policeman for yourself, the BHAB, or anyone else in order to "trap" military pilots. :)

As far as I'm concerned, our military crews are putting their lives on a daily basis in the middle east and I'm not. If they make a little more noise to train up for it then let them 'fill their boots'. Now you mention it; why shouldn't the public be reminded of it once in a while?

[Snarlie]

It is not my intention to start a hate campaign against military pilots, merely to highlight frequent and blatant infringements of the routes and altitudes agreed for the London Zone in order to minimise the opportunities for criticism by outside agencies. Once the routes have been lost there will be absolutely no chance of resurrecting them in today`s climate.

It is in everyone`s best interests to ensure compliance with current procedures in order to safeguard the status quo. Quite clearly this is beyond the understanding of ShyTorque judging by his gung-ho rant but perhaps someone could lead him to a quiet corner and spell it out in words of one syllable.

[[email protected]]

Snarlie - I think we have already seen that there are not frequent and blatant infringements of the routes and altitudes. Aircraft are cleared to operate UP TO a maximum altitude and monitored quite closely by radar to ensure they stay on the routes without deviation.

You just want to have a moan about military helicopter noise which frankly seems rather pathetic. Suddenly you have changed Alan's 700' chinook flights into 500' and started bleating that military helicopter noise will be wholly responsible for losing all helicopter access to London.

As for your livelihood - is the phrase 'I'm all right Jack' tattooed along your forearm?

[AlanM]

Oh well look on the bright side......

... Royal Netherlands Navy Lynx today went past Battersea on H4 showing 100ft on the radar..... and estimated to be 200ft by Battersea Tower.....

Bet the British Army get that complaint!

[poor southerner]

Is there a genuine debate about the prospects of a new heliport for London, or is this now just a pi$$ing contest about mil helos creating <1 % of the noise cars do every hour of the day in the great capital.:hmm:

[AlanM]

Thought we had agreed that it can't work..... for all the reasons given!!!

:)

[ShyTorque]

It is in everyone`s best interests to ensure compliance with current procedures in order to safeguard the status quo. Quite clearly this is beyond the understanding of ShyTorque judging by his gung-ho rant but perhaps someone could lead him to a quiet corner and spell it out in words of one syllable.

Snarlie, I'm not ranting by any means and certainly not gung ho either so there really is no need to resort to personal insults. I do understand the sensitivity to helicopter noise, being a very regular user of the lanes /routes and the present heliport. I just strongly disagree with the action you propose, for a number of reasons, some posted already.

You used the term "current procedures". Procedures for whom, civilian helicopters or military? Aren't you confusing the published maximum altitiudes on the routes for "minimum allowed altitude" and forgetting the differences between civilian and military flight rules?

[FairWeatherFlyer]

Errr - well today I saw an R22 today fly between Vauxhall Bridge and the Isle of Dogs (on the river) at 700ft, when cleared "standard operating altitudes" (and it is up to 2000ft there) I can agree.

Do you mean you saw it, or you saw what the mode C was reporting it as? If it's the latter then are you quoting the pressure altitude and did you confirm with the pilot whether the reading was correct? I suppose if it's reading 0 at kew you know something's amiss :hmm:

Last time i asked farnborough to check my mode C reading it was either 400 or 600ft (i forget which) out so i went back to mode A.

Do you see altitude information from mode S data?

[AlanM]

Seen on RADAR - wearing a squawk issued by LHR SVFR and in the zone so
Mode C is then verified to be within 200ft of reported altitude. And no I didn't say anything as I was not plugged in controlling at the time.

The point I make is that as an ATCO, I really don't care what level you take. (as long as you stay out of the Restricted areas when off the river)

The CAA have stipulated "Not above 2000ft" on H4. My question is why fly at 700ft when cleared up to 2000ft.... in a single! (No this is not Robbo or Single bashing!!!) Surely this is a noise issue as well as a safety issue?

As for Mode S, we get downlinked parameters from certain aircraft displayed on our screens at West Drayton. We are the only unit in the U Kwith Mode S capable radars at the moment. We see Selected Flight Level, IAS, ROC/ROD etc - but NOT your Hexidecimal unique code.... yet! (I believe it is "read" by radar but not put on our screens)

[FairWeatherFlyer]

FYI, in this weekend's financial times' magazine, the Mrs Moneypenny column covers travel by helicopter charter. Some stuff on perception of safety and also a comparison of the poor state of London heliport availability compared to other cities (New York). And, almost forgot, dogs as passengers!