Helicopter - v - crane LONDON [Archive]

Aucky

16th Jan 2013, 09:44

Next question - is there a type of GPS that can show relevant NOTAMS like temporary control zones or obstructions or is there a website pilots can go to where all relevant NOTAMS are shown on a map covering the area they are interested in?

As mentioned a few posts up, SkyDemon and AWARE both have ipad apps and self contained units that graphically represent notams and provide warnings, amongst many other bells and whistles.

And another question - if there was a low flying helicopter coming into the London heliport in bad weather would the control tower at the heliport be required to mention the NOTAM or are they not required to say anything to pilots?

They might choose to as a reminder but are not required to. It is the pilots responsibility to check and observe notams.

chopperchappie

16th Jan 2013, 09:46

Terrible tragedy and it's bound to have implications on many levels.

HeliStudent - Yes - Cranes are NOTAMd and displayed on SkyDemon etc., but if the Crane is NOTAMd or not seems not to be the point if there's a substantial building right next to it.

When you look at the display of Skydemon (and other GPS) you wouldn't be able to use it to stay centrally over the Thames at 90Kt. as the resolution is too low.

I'm sure there's loads of speculation about the cause (it may not be related to the visibility or location of the crane) but IF the flight was being conducted SVFR then conditions should have been appropriate to see buildings - and I'm not speculating if it was or wasnt, unlike Sky and everyone else !

HeliStudent

16th Jan 2013, 09:51

Aucky and chopperchappie thank you very much.

But can I ask you, if you were a control tower officer on duty with light traffic and you had a helicopter coming into your heliport in bad weather and if you didn't have much else to do because of low traffic levels, would you remind the pilot of the obstruction?

And finally, does the heliport have a radar, what I am asking is would they have been able to see the AW109 tracking towards the crane?

helihub

16th Jan 2013, 09:52

Hummingfrog - it _was_ there in #8, but has been edited out. Thank you for adding the full NOTAM text to the thread too

EESDL

16th Jan 2013, 09:52

Wish BBC would stop banging on about the effing nav lights!
Now they are asking residents about helicopter procedures........tv now off.
Never thought I'd say this but going to rely on pprune for factual information!!

Pittsextra

16th Jan 2013, 09:52

Looks very much like this was on the extended circuit at Battersea?

101BOY

16th Jan 2013, 09:55

Sky now speculating that maybe crane swayed into path of helicopter - where do they get these guys?!

Anthony Supplebottom

16th Jan 2013, 09:58

Sky now speculating that maybe crane swayed into path of helicopter - where do they get these guys?!

Are you telling me you've never seen a walking talking tower crane? You see them in children's cartoons all the time and that's where they're getting these guys from!

But can I ask you, if you were a control tower officer on duty with light traffic and you had a helicopter coming into your heliport in bad weather and if you didn't have much else to do because of low traffic levels, would you remind the pilot of the obstruction?

If it was me personally yes I would. Anything - and I mean anything - to assist the pilot.

HeliStudent

16th Jan 2013, 10:01

That is what I would do but I also wanted to know if the heliport has radar and could see the AW109 approaching the crane?

Since I joined pprune I have never ever seen so many visitors to Rotorheads, more than 1,700 this morning!

101BOY

16th Jan 2013, 10:02

No radar at Battersea, just a visual room.

Flaxton Flyer

16th Jan 2013, 10:02

Sky now speculating that maybe crane swayed into path of helicopter -

They also said that the crane operator was very lucky not to be involved as he was late for work this morning, so the crane must have started work without him.

Ernest Lanc's

16th Jan 2013, 10:04

Two people have been killed and nine injured when a helicopter crashed into a crane in central London in misty conditions.
Police said it appeared the helicopter had hit the crane on top of The Tower, One St George Wharf at about 08:00 GMT.
Sixty firefighters are at the scene near Wandsworth Road in South Lambeth. Doctors said one of the dead was in the helicopter and the other on the ground.
Burning wreckage lay in the road but the fire is now under control.
A man was rescued from a burning car by firefighters.
Four people, one of them critically ill, were taken to hospital. Five others were treated at the scene.

The helicopter hit a crane, and according to the news..In misty conditions..

This is sad, with 2 dead and 9 injured..This will be bound to add fuel to the debate over the 3rd runway at Heathrow..

This helicopter was capable of carrying 5 or 5 passengers, depending on the configuration..One or two pilots.

Terrorism is all but ruled out.

BBC News - London helicopter crash: Two die in Vauxhall crane accident (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21040410)

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

16th Jan 2013, 10:04

From another forum:

NATS STATEMENT

Just before 8am today a helicopter crashed in central London close to Vauxhall Bridge.

Earlier in the helicopter’s journey the pilot had been receiving an air traffic control service from NATS, although was not receiving a service at the time of the crash.

The incident will be subject to an investigation by the Air Accident Investigation Branch and NATS will assist any inquiry. Any further information should be from the AAIB or the emergency services.

Max Shutterspeed

16th Jan 2013, 10:07

Jason Hawkes posted an image on Twitter of the area shot in good visibility, shows the crane and the building:

https://twitter.com/jasonhawkesphot/status/291486939704610817/photo/1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAuR08pCUAArGSj.jpg

HeliStudent

16th Jan 2013, 10:08

My last question for now because I know I am intruding on the hallowed ground of professionals but roughly how much would a radar cost the heliport and could it help pilots in the future like coming into the heliport at night or in bad weather?

I was told that some oil rigs are sometimes fitted with radar?

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

16th Jan 2013, 10:09

All you need to know about helicopter procedures for Battersea, including weather minima, is here:

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-9BBC713BE22755B8EA8E3B596E06EDD2/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/AD/EG_AD_3_EGLW_en_2013-01-10.pdf

paco

16th Jan 2013, 10:10

From involved people I understand that the machine had already tried to get to Elstree from Redhill, had turned back due to bad weather and was reduced in height while returning to base for ATC reasons (we all know what that's like - aircraft on approach etc). There may not even have been any communication with Battersea.

More if I hear it.

Basher577

16th Jan 2013, 10:13

Battersea as far as I'm aware does not have a radar, and whilst they are very professional I do not think they are trained to the highest standard of say an airport radar controller.

And do you know how many obstructions there are in London TMA, NOTAM'd or otherwise?

All this aside this is all conjecture until the facts are known, we don't know where he was going what he was doing or the state of the aircraft before it hit anything.

So whilst all the arm-chair budding AIB investigators dig out weather reports etc, just calm down take your hands of the mouse button and wait till Jeremy Vine and his cronies sort the facts out but most of all have some respect!

chopperchappie

16th Jan 2013, 10:15

HeliStudent

You'd have to ask an ATC what they can see on radar but in my experience within the zone you'd normally be talking to Heathrow zone (and receiving a ATC SVFR radar service) the ATC require/ask opposing aircraft to be visual and/or talk to Battersea to co-ordinate with inbound/outbound Battersea aircraft.

Apparently it's now being reported that NATS say the aircraft was eastbound and had been receiving a NATS service but wasn't at the time of the incident.

Again in my humble experience - on that route heading for Isle of Dogs - I would expect to remain in contact with Heathrow zone and receive a basic service. I would also expect advice about other traffic in the vicinity BUT I have never received NOTAM data whilst flying over London from ATC.

As the end of the zone is very very close to the site of the incident (from what I know based on reports where the building is - it's just inside the zone) it seems also somewhat academic - although technically correct - IF the aircraft was coming into Battersea and again I dont want to speculate and pre-empt AAIB, but having heard that the aircraft had requested a divert to Battersea it's normal that NATS would have handed the aircraft to Battersea - therefore the aircraft should have been in receipt of an ATC/AG service albeit possibly not from NATS - some might say that statement was a bit incomplete!

What is clear is that the sensationalism of the media is what fuels irrational and knee-jerk reactions and speculation prior to an AAIB report is always premature !

Grenville Fortescue

16th Jan 2013, 10:16

Following Basher's advice:

By the look of the photo from Max Shutterspeed one might suppose that the aircraft was below the height of the top of the crane in order for the rotor to make contact.

So one assumes that the cloud base was about that height?

Eyewitness report: "The helicopter sliced through the crane as if it was made out of paper".

John R81

16th Jan 2013, 10:22

London Ambulance confirm 1 POB - Pilot deceased. The other deceased was "in the vicinity of the aircraft".

Reported as a "Scheduled flight" from Redhill to Elstree, diverted. Reporters asked if it was trying to land at Battersea, but not confirmed at this time by Police.

Then cut to Jim Ferguson "aviation expert" who did not know whether these aircraft have a black box. He also thought that the river was the appropriate route, and thought it raised a question of whether we allow helicopters over London. He finished off by noting that the safety record for helicotpers into / out of London was very good.

Battersea owners later confirmed that a request to divert to them due to weather had been received. Helicopter was inbound at the time of crash

101BOY

16th Jan 2013, 10:42

Ken Livingstone now calling for private heli's to be banned given the good transport links in London. Bandwagon here we go.

terminus mos

16th Jan 2013, 10:42

Heli Student

One of our semi submersible offshore facilities (soon to be installed) will have radar but it is weather radar combined with doppler to show approaching storms which can be very bad in the tropics.

Helicopter crews will be able to interrogate it before they depart for offshore, but it is not designed to "paint" a helicopter neither is there anyone qualified to provide any kind of air traffic advice. Pilots are responsible for their own obstacle clearance when in the vicinity of the field.

mickjoebill

16th Jan 2013, 10:45

timprice

16th Jan 2013, 10:52

Pitty Ken Livingstone doesn't think about how many people have been saved by air Ambulance!

Grenville Fortescue

16th Jan 2013, 11:00

From this image it appears as if the boom which normally sticks up at a tangent (see bottom photo) has been severed near the jib end and the supporting stay/cabling holding the boom horizontal has failed or been cut. With the stay gone, this has resulted in the boom swinging down, it being retained at the cab end.

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8453386.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/REUTERs-helicopter-crane-crash.jpg

"IF" the point of contact is where the jib is severed in the photo above this would mean that the helicopter "PROBABLY" stuck the crane somewhere in the region contained within the black box in the photo below.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s1vZBcyDQss/UPaffdmrIOI/AAAAAAAALdc/iodWAC04mOw/s720/8378198936_acfbd6ee65_k.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8055/8378198936_acfbd6ee65_k.jpg

Indications that the pilot's name may be released soon.

.

Pittsextra

16th Jan 2013, 11:06

This from Bloomberg:-

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- The helicopter that crashed in
central London this morning is understood to have diverted from
its flight path due to poor weather, according to controllers at
Redhill Aerodrome, from where the flight departed.
The aircraft involved was an AW109 built by the
AgustaWestland unit of Italy’s Finmeccanica SpA, Phil Wright,
senior air traffic controller at Redhill, south of London, said
in a telephone interview.
Redhill is a base for AW109 operator Rotormotion, which is
preparing a joint comment with the aerodrome, Wright said.
Today’s flight was due to have operated to Elstree, west of
London.

Nubian

16th Jan 2013, 11:20

Grenville,

I don't think so. The helicopter would most likely have cut the support cables holding the derrick(boom) up, and the remains of it has then swung down to the positon it has now, on your picture.

Flaxton Flyer

16th Jan 2013, 11:25

"The boom arm of a tower crane is usually left to weather vane when not manned"

Quite true. But the Metar was only giving wind as VRB002kt ish.

jumpseater

16th Jan 2013, 11:46

But can I ask you, if you were a control tower officer on duty with light traffic and you had a helicopter coming into your heliport in bad weather and if you didn't have much else to do because of low traffic levels, would you remind the pilot of the obstruction?

Yes if possible. However, the information would be in the form of 'caution crane 2 miles north west of airfield operating to a height of 400ft' or similar phrase to that. Whilst that is good generic data theres no gaurantee that the information would be sufficient for a pilot to readily see the obstruction, particularly in poor visibilty or at night. As it was a 'see through' crane jib that would have made the pilots job even harder.

Not only are my thoughts with the relatives and friends of the deceased and injured, but with ATC at EGLW, it'll be a tough time for them too.

ShyTorque

16th Jan 2013, 11:55

Speaking as someone who flies this route quite regularly, the Battersea area has cranes all around and ATC there are good at warning pilots about new ones.

However, these days there are many tall cranes all over London. To try to warn pilots about all of them over the radio is impractical. The position of this one is outside the Battersea ATZ.

chopperchappie

16th Jan 2013, 12:21

SKY-NEWS

After just asking guests if helicopters should be banned in/around London - now showing LIVE pictures of the scene from the SKY-HD Helicopter - doh!

Not to mention the police, air-ambulance, queen, MPs that might use them!

John R81

16th Jan 2013, 12:43

Chris Yates "expert", on BBC -

1 Good question whether helicopter should have been flying at all this morning. Pilot had asked to divert to Battersea - were all obstructions notified to him when he asked for that diversion?

2 Nav lights on the crane should have been visible 24H (interesting that NOTAM says "lit at night") so question of whether correctly illuminated?

3 On the question of safety of A109- very safe; helicopter travel overall is relatively safe.

4 He thinks KH has a point about looking into what and who can fly helicopters over London.

Pilot DAR

16th Jan 2013, 12:43

Very sad.

Perhaps the media should speculate less on how many helicopters fly over London, and consider the apparently (considering Grenville's fine photo) that London is encroaching upward into the helicopter's airspace!

When I used to fly along the Frazer river near Vancouver, there is a span of wires to be crossed. As you near them, your comm, no matter what frequency tuned, will receive with increasing intensity as you near: "wires....wires...wires...wires..." It is a very effective reminder. If you cannot confirm visually that you are going over them, you slow down and turn around. I presume that there is a transmitter right there, which transmits on a wide range of comm frequencies.

Perhaps tall cranes could have a similar "crane...crane..."

BOAC

16th Jan 2013, 12:45

Two questions for users of the heli-lanes

Does a twin engine machine have to stay 'over the river' on that route?

In 'Grenvilles' (first) picture, does that suggest the jib was sticking out towards the river?

John R81

16th Jan 2013, 12:54

Twins are not restricted to heliroutes - singles are.

ShyTorque

16th Jan 2013, 12:55

Does a twin engine machine have to stay 'over the river' on that route?

BOAC,

No. But final approaches into the heliport, from either direction (03 or 21) are offset and must be flown over the centre of the river.

SASless

16th Jan 2013, 13:00

This tragedy should work to remind us all of the increase in risk that flying in marginal weather creates.

From a few posts it appears the Pilot involved is very well thought of...is considered to very Professional and quite capable. That is how I would like to talked about should something like this happen to me.

As any accident, this event must be examined to determine the chain of events that led to the crash. If it can happen to someone as Professional and capable as it did....then all of us are vulnerable.

My Condolences to the Next of Kin, the friends, and colleagues of the people lost in this sad tragedy.

BOAC

16th Jan 2013, 13:04

In 'Grenvilles' (first) picture, does that suggest the jib was sticking out towards the river? - anyone to comment?

Rotors

16th Jan 2013, 13:06

SASless

Agree all your comments.

Single crew marginal VFR (assumption) = very high workload.

helmet fire

16th Jan 2013, 13:07

I am an outsider here, however:
Vale 109 pilot and the other victim, there but for the grace go I.

From the outside, I am disturbed by the focus on NOTAMS. It is as if posting a NOTAM absolves everyone else of any blame at all. Just post the NOTAM and it is suddenly 100% the pilot who "should have known"

As an EMS pilot, the area I have to brief myself on each day often has upward of 80 NOTAMs. Can I really take that on? Almost 99% of them are completely irrelevant but require detailed reading to determine that. By that stage my brain is so overloaded, what are the chances of finding, then remembering the one that counts??? Bugger all.

Then try and remember a NOTAM that applied to somewhere you were not even headed - a diversion in flight: common, but how to imagine retaining all the relevant NOTAMs for every possible iteration? it is just simply beyond human limitations to retain all possible destination NOTAMS all the time, just in case you have to go there.

But no one cares - the pilot is always at fault because The NOTAM was put up.

Why is it that I have to put a complicated costly work method and risk management statement in every time I want to do an operation in built up areas (non EMS)? I have to consider everything - why dont cranes?
Why are cranes of that height -clearly and predictably in the helicopter environment, not required by legislation to fit a transponder and high intensity strobing?
Let's read their risk management strategy and work method statement. Why did they not have a transponder?

This is also a cultural question - pilots have a great job therefore they should be responsible. Crane operators don't, therefore as long as they write a note to add to the other 400 they are sweet. But it is also one of human limitations - the most appropriate question should be how we can better design a system so overwhelmed by arse covering as to make it ineffectual? NOTAMs need a review.

Lets try and apply aviation safety requirements to cranes. There is a start, and good luck - I doubt any other industry would tolerate what aviation has to go through, certainly not one that wants to make money.

skadi

16th Jan 2013, 13:16

Quote:
In 'Grenvilles' (first) picture, does that suggest the jib was sticking out towards the river?
- anyone to comment?

On all pics from the past the jib was almost vertical. Go on google street view and you can see that crane.

G-OAT

16th Jan 2013, 13:16

I have to agree that the Pilot involved was one of the nicest, most knowledgeable/professional blokes I have ever come across in the industry and it was always a pleasure to have worked with him, to the point I looked forward to his company. one for us all to look up to.... A Vary sad day for aviation as one of the true good guys have left us.

The question is could this been prevented? was the boom was lit ? NOTAM only says crane lit at night ? should it of been lit in bad Viz?

I can imagine looking at the conditions that numerous factors have all contributed & as always the media have no idea. But still there are questions to be asked.

SASless

16th Jan 2013, 13:26

As an EMS Pilot you have a requirement to read the Notams each time you come to work....every time. If you cannot remember all of the important ones that affect your area of operation....you make notes, or copy the notams and high light them by marking them by direction of flight or find some way to retain and use the pertinent information. That is part of your job....like it or not. Cranes, Advertising Balloons and other Temporary Obstacles are a part of Life....and you certainly are not going to change anything except the way you approach your Job and the Duties it requires.

Do you mark your map with known temporary obstacles and assign a Minimum Safe Height for those hazards? Do you maintain a list of known obstacles at your base....do you have preplanned routes to all of the places you go regularly that include minimum safe heights, Do you have a Map posted at your base showing all of the Obstacles in your area....have you amended the MSA data on the maps to incorporate the Obstacles....and do you fly at or above those Amended MSA's?

If you fly at the Minimum Safe Heights prescribed by your OpSpec's using the Obstacle Clearance requirements they require....there should not be a problem to begin with.

If you cannot maintain your Minimum enroute height, along the route you planned while considering all of the obstacles along your route....then you should abort the flight or find another route that meets all your requirements.

When it comes to running into Cranes....or Cranes running into us (as has happened offshore more than few times)....Cranes always win.

John R81

16th Jan 2013, 13:28

Telegraph has named pilot

Helicopter Crash: Pilot named as highly experienced aviator - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/9806095/Helicopter-Crash-Pilot-named-as-highly-experienced-aviator.html)

Grenville Fortescue

16th Jan 2013, 13:32

This tragedy should work to remind us all of the increase in risk that flying in marginal weather creates.

Do we really need another reminder?

Everyone should know by now that helicopters and marginal weather simply don't work - unless you're flying like a fixed-wing, airport to airport as an IFR category flight.

one of the nicest, most knowledgeable/professional blokes I have ever come across in the industry

That's about the fifth such similar comment - and the truth is they almost always are. Very sad. :sad:

Another expert:

A former mercenary and army officer saw the helicopter moments before it crashed, Simon Mann said:

"I’m a member of a gym in Battersea and was walking there as usual this morning. I checked into the gym at 7.37 – I know it was that time exactly because the electronic card system we use tells us.

Shortly before then I was walking along, minding my own business. As I got close to the gym this morning I saw an extraordinary sight that very much stuck with me.

I spent decades in the military, around both helicopters and airlines, and indeed am a qualified instrument pilot who has been on some very hairy flights.

What I saw this morning was not good: a helicopter flying at about 500ft eastbound along the Thames helicopter route. As it was just passing over Chelsea Bridge I saw it disappear into the cloud, and definitely into what we call IMC - Instrument Meteorological Conditions. In other words, very poor conditions for flying.

Visibility must have been zero or close to it.

I expected the flight to disappear behind a block of flats I could see in front of me. But instead it did a really bizarre thing: the helicopter flew straight into dense fog. I immediately thought about how risky it looked. After all, the good thing about a helicopter is that you can stop, hover, and quickly turn around - all things you can't do in a "fixed wing" (i.e. an aeroplane). This struck me as very peculiar, to put it mildly.

I checked into the gym, changed into my running gear, and stepped onto the treadmill. The next thing I know the news screens were covered with breaking news of a helicopter crash in Vauxhall.

Naturally it’s far, far too soon to speculate on the causes of this morning’s tragic accident. But what I remember - that helicopter flying into dense fog – will stay with me forever."

Simon Mann is the author of Cry Havoc, an account of his experience as a mercenary and prisoner in Africa after an attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea.

'Visibility must have been zero, or close to it... The helicopter flew straight into dense fog. As a former pilot, this struck me as peculiar, to put it mildly' - Comment - Voices - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/visibility-must-have-been-zero-or-close-to-it-the-helicopter-flew-straight-into-dense-fog-as-a-former-pilot-this-struck-me-as-peculiar-to-put-it-mildly-8453872.html)

HeliStudent

16th Jan 2013, 13:37

Nice to see the Telegraph quoting from the Rotorheads forum.

chopperchappie

16th Jan 2013, 13:44

SASless

"If you fly at the Minimum Safe Heights prescribed by your OpSpec's using the Obstacle Clearance requirements they require....there should not be a problem to begin with."

Granted - but the heliport the aircraft was diverting to (possibly because of low cloud/bad weather) is obviously on the ground (well on the river actually) - so with the combination of being somewhere you don't exactly expect to be and conditions not being brilliant I could imagine it's not quite that straight forward.

That given - one has to (also) question the grant of building planning permission of a very tall building quite close to a heliport !

Rotor Nut

16th Jan 2013, 13:57

Given that the river is the designated helicopter route it seems quite bizarre to allow a building of that size to be built on the river bank, and as just said, in vicinity of a heliport!

I'm sad that a fellow pilot has been lost but you only have to see the earlier TV pictures to realise that the weather conditions were not suitable for helicopter flying in that area. It's likely the flight wasn't that essential so sadly all this was preventable.

I've been in low vis, most of us have I'm sure, and I've got out of it damned quick and counted myself lucky. The workload is too high, it's unsafe and we shouldn't do it! NOTAMs are useless if you can't see.

Grenville Fortescue

16th Jan 2013, 14:03

The issue of poor representation to the media by experts who are not has been going on for about 20+ years or more by my count.

If the industry is serious about wanting proper representation it needs to get together and appoint and handful of spokespersons for the various sectors such as offshore, EMS, Police, general charter/VIP etc.

These spokespersons then need to be introduced to the media as the UK industry's recommended helicopter commentators possibility through some existing organisation like GAPAN, RAeS, etc.

It could do a lot for the industry if managed properly.

Spudley

16th Jan 2013, 14:11

I suppose that if we were allowed to use City Airport as a diversion it might prevent us having to choose the least bad of some very poor options!!
As much as we like getting the job done, we are mostly taking folk to work!
If they are a bit late then never mind there is always tomorrow!

chopperchappie

16th Jan 2013, 14:21

Georgina Hunter-Jones just made a good point on Sky

These things are always precluded by the presumption that regulations weren't tight enough or something needs to be banned but all considerations need to be considered by AAIB/CAA - including things like would the option to land somewhere else be safer (e.g. a park in London - which is currently prohibited).

Nevertheless it is very unfortunate that something so tragic has happened to such an experienced pilot.

misterbonkers

16th Jan 2013, 14:27

Spudley - you can divert into London City if its an emergency and a few of us have both night and day.

It's a very sad day today.

Alloa Akbar

16th Jan 2013, 14:29

Grenville,

I think responsibility for identifying a qualifying sources for the media, actually rests with the media. For example, I do in part agree with you, however as the "Spokesperson" in an incident such as today, you as a responsible aviation professional would decline to comment until facts are established.. Like the AAIB do. That would not satisfy media demand for immediate sensational news, and comment to fill broadcasts, so muppets like Ferguson will always get airtime.

Catch 22 sadly.

Grenville Fortescue

16th Jan 2013, 14:32

I fear you are right.

BIT

16th Jan 2013, 14:33

Dont normally post here but the biased sensationalist TV coverage of this tragedy by organisations that use helicopters has driven me to comment.

I too have also complained to the BBC about Mr Ferguson's comments.

There are so many knowledgeable real industry experts that the BBC could have drawn on, why not use them?

awqward

16th Jan 2013, 14:33

I am a low hour fixed-wing (private) pilot and have never flown a helicopter or in the London LFA....however if you are flying (a helicopter) in the London CTR and are unable to maintain sight of the surface or the required 1,000m in-flight visibility, would the correct course of action be to immediately declare an emergency and climb to a safe altitude (MSA albeit in IMC)? Or if you were in sight of the surface (and presumably a suitable landing location), would you not try to put it down - even landing on the water if necessary?

Looking at the television footage the ceiling (at the location of the crane at least) looks about 400-500ft (not the 600ft required for helicopters inbound to LGLW) - of course I realize things can happen very quickly and hind-sight is 20-20!

Anthony Supplebottom

16th Jan 2013, 14:43

..however if you are flying (a helicopter) in the London CTR and are unable to maintain sight of the surface or the required 1,000m in-flight visibility, would the correct course of action be to immediately declare an emergency and climb to a safe altitude (MSA albeit in IMC)?

Eastbound along the Thames, LHR would have a fit in case you conflicted with approach traffic.

Or if you were in sight of the surface (and presumably a suitable landing location), would you not try to put it down - even landing on the water if necessary?

Yes this would be the thing to do in an extreme situation.

jumpseater

16th Jan 2013, 14:50

Re obstruction lighting, it seems the accident occured around 0800, which would be about the time for 'official day' so its possible the obstruction lights were only recently turned off (assuming they were serviceable and only lit at night).

I'd like to think that in poor daylight weather there'd be a procedure to have these lights illuminated, and at what definition is used for 'night'.

SASless

16th Jan 2013, 14:50

Chopperchappie.....my comment was directed at an American EMS pilot who complained about the numbers of NOTAMs he had to read at the start of each shift when he began work at his US Based EMS base.

Don't try to apply that exchange to the UK or this morning's tragedy please.

10W

16th Jan 2013, 14:56

Please use this dedicated thread (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/505412-pete-barnes-condolences-thread.html#post7636109) to record any condolence messages or tributes to Pete Barnes.

Thank you in advance.

tjef2808

16th Jan 2013, 15:17

Not sure what kind of lighting the crane had but there is no substitute for a good white strobe like the Canary Wharf building has albeit on a smaller scale.

Once all the sensationalism and waste of time eye-witness reports quieten down then the AAIB will quietly get on and draw their conclusions in the months ahead. They do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances.

From all accounts this crane was an accident waiting to happen given its proximity to the heliport and the nearby river.

As professionals within this industry I think we know which way this will go and common sense will prevail but sadly too late for Pete.

Lon More

16th Jan 2013, 15:25

John R81 posted Jim Ferguson "aviation expert" who did not know whether these aircraft have a black box. He also thought that the river was the appropriate route
I believe he said he did not know if that particular aircraft had a black box
THe H4 routes along the river so why is that inappropriate? I know that as a twin the route was not compulsory, but with this morning's cloudbase it might have been the only option.

Grenville Fortescue

16th Jan 2013, 15:38

RotorMotion can confirm the identity of the pilot who was killed in this morning's tragic accident in London.

Captain Peter Barnes, aged 50 from the Reading area, has been flying with RotorMotion since it was established over 15 yeas ago. He was a very highly skilled pilot, one of the most experienced in the UK, with over 12,000 flying hours.

We are devastated by the loss of a highly valued colleague and very dear friend.

Our thoughts and condolences are with Peter's wife and children.

Captain Philip Amadeus
Chief Pilot and Managing Director
RotorMotion

.....................

500guy

16th Jan 2013, 15:39

The support cables on the back of a crane that size would be at least 20mm steel cable. I dont see the helicopter "cutting them". That lattice structure on the other hand is only designed to take forces straight down. It would make more sense that he contacted the area on the black box on the photos.

In the US white lights are supposed to be used in rural areas on towers over 500' but red lights are used in urban areas due to "light pollution" concerns. Is it the same in the UK?

John R81

16th Jan 2013, 16:02

Lon More

I believe that he said that he did not know. I agree. Hopefully an "expert" would know that they do not.

The machine was not using the helirouts. Hopefully an "expert" (as some others did) would note that the Thames is a designated route for singles but as this was a twin they are not relevant. Anything else, you have the "expert" adding to confusion.

BOAC

16th Jan 2013, 16:40

Apart from the 'obvious answer', could any experienced heli drivers tell me how they would route in a twin, Redhill-Elstree in those conditions? A23-A5?

jeepys

16th Jan 2013, 16:44

Not always possible to climb to MSA or safe altitude because of icing levels. Not saying this is the case here but like most helicopters the 109 does not have an icing clearance and therefore staying VFR is the option if icing is likely to exist above.

Flying in this county during this time of year icing is often a consideration.

Tequilaboy

16th Jan 2013, 16:46

Was that statement true? If so I know where my next email is headed having held off through their 'journalism' throughout the day.

I think an open letter from people (members of the industry and indeed this site) that actually know what they are doing/talking about needs to be sent to news outlets to stop sensationalist stories and comment being made. I have seen some experienced voice on the airwaves talking sense then being drowned by 'experts' - We all know who they are.

Its like driving on a motorway and passing an accident then all of a sudden because you drive or have experience peripheral of driving you are suddenly an accident investigation inspector. Too soon and not fair and doesn't make things any clearer for anyone let alone the persons affected desperately dealing with things and answers.

I am not a rotary operator however have operated jets in to the likes of swiss airfields that require total commitment, knowledge and awareness, all of the facets that Pete would have had. Something went wrong, tragically in this case and I think people who know and operate in this industry and know the man will realise. We are all bound by the nature of this business by rules, strict and enforced for a reason and I am not beyond being subjective I don't feel by stating that. I am not saying that anyone personally is beyond a mistake however this is for the AIB to determine based on what they discover through doing their job.

I dont think it is beyond the pale to suggest that journalists do their job either but deliver a balanced, INFORMED view on matters within their knowledge instead of sending wannabe's hurtling around Vauxhall questioning the risk of carbon fibre danger to the public. Look at their sources and the so called experts they employ, a majority of which are not respected amongst a very close knit, informed community with expertise in their everyday job.

All this reporting does is damage a well run, well regulated industry whom dont have an outlet to show the good and benefit they deliver through a platform such as channel number **** BUT most importantly it doesn't reflect the pain, loss and suffering to the families involved in this tragic accident and that has to be held paramount in this circumstance.

Whilst I have met Pete numerous times in one way or another and have his number I never had the opportunity to meet the family behind the man which I can only imagine were a testament to whom he was and for them I feel totally gutted and empty for.

Sky News, BBC and whomever manifests off these feeds now spare a thought for the 2 people that wont be walking through their front doors tonight to their family or the people visited in hospital. For the so called 'experts' put your feet up on another day of being as useful as the steam off my p1ss to the industry and the public tonight. You know who you are and the people that despise you.

ika

16th Jan 2013, 17:17

The media and journalists will always say something for a story and there is nothing one can do to stop what is a sad fact of life. Some will be responsible and find someone who actually knows what they are talking about but anyone who does will say very little at this point and as it won't be "newsworthy" speculation, most journalists will be under time or other pressure to find someone who will say something. With twitter now routinely quoted as a news source (why?!) this will only ever get worse. I say this as someone who has been quoted in the media in my own day job and seen utter rubbish said by other supposed experts. As a non professional pilot with a helicopter, I have had several people ask me if I knew anything about this (why would I, just because I happen to have a helicopter?) and I have said in a measured way no but it's unfortunate and it would be good if people didn't rush to want to say something, resisting the temptation myself to make my own comments about vis or NOTAMS or twin engine IMC etc in case that is somehow taken as authoritative and passed on as "well a pilot said...".

So the point of what I'm saying is something tragic happened to someone who by all accounts was a good man, lots of people will publish stuff that will wind you up (I was pleased to see not a lot said here fell into that category (yet?)) and the best those who care can do is not rise! Having a professional spokesman for the industry might help a bit, but you can't force media looking for a sensational story to talk to someone who won't give them one.

fairflyer

16th Jan 2013, 18:04

How much has that tower grown in recent months and what is the process by which the ever-increasing height is relayed to the aviation community, how often and in what documentation?

bolkow

16th Jan 2013, 18:13

John R81, If more mp's caught the bus I presume that would reduce number of helicopters over london, as if the number was the issue

Winniebago

16th Jan 2013, 19:06

Some lady MP cited earlier the 'ever increasing helicopter flights across London' - facts are there has been a significant fall in activity since 2007.

BHA, BBGA, CAA, NATS etc. need to work together and get some real facts out there - never been any fatal helicopter accident in central London until now for example.

chopperchappie

16th Jan 2013, 19:29

fairflyer

I had a similar thought as I couldn't specifically remember flying past it (but I guess I must have)!

St Georges Wharf - according to a picture on wikipedia - was showing a similar level of completeness (e.g. above the surrounding) in Feb 2012 (even the crane), you'd therefore reasonably expect it to be shown on a 09/2012 London Heliroutes map and probably on the Battersea plates if the appropriate procedures have all been followed.

I'm sure AAIB will look into all that though

Lon More

16th Jan 2013, 19:37

BBC London news reported that a "black box" had been recovered.

As usual, the locals up in arms have probably moved into the area in the last few years, certainly since the heliport opened in 1959.

fairflyer

16th Jan 2013, 19:47

From a year and a bit ago - St. Georges Warf Tower has grown a lot in the last year:

LONDON | St. George Wharf Tower | 181m | 50 fl | T/O - Page 10 - SkyscraperCity (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=471721&page=10)

Andrewgr2

16th Jan 2013, 20:16

The 332 foot obstruction shown on the London Heliport chart in the AIP dated 18 Oct 12 has grown to 594 feet on the current SkyDemon chart. Presumably this is the tower with the crane that was hit. I think I saw a Garmin GPS on the panel of the Agusta in one of the pictures that has been posted / linked. Has anyone looked to see the height of the obstruction in the current Garmin database? If this was in use and up to date, it might have provided an obstruction warning.

Grenville Fortescue

16th Jan 2013, 20:24

New Press Release on RotorMotion's Home Page (http://rotormotion.com/)

It is with great sadness that RotorMotion announces the death of Captain Pete Barnes as a result of the helicopter accident in London today, 16th January 2013.

RotorMotion is a small and tightly knit team and we are united in expressing our sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of those who were tragically killed and injured at Vauxhall.

While we of course understand the considerable interest in the accident, it is far too early for us to comment on the cause and we are unable to release any further information at this stage other than to say that the helicopter involved was an Agusta A-109E, occupied solely by its pilot.

As soon as we are able to verify the full details, we will release a further statement.

In the meantime, we wish to assure everyone that we will be continuing to give our full cooperation to the Air Accident Investigation Branch and other authorities currently on site, as we have been during the course of the day.

Our immediate priority is to assist those who have been left injured or bereaved by the accident and we are seeking to take proactive steps in liaison with the emergency services.

We fully echo the sentiments of the Prime Minister in expressing gratitude for the superb professionalism of the Metropolitan Police, The Fire Service and the London Ambulance Service who have excelled in very trying circumstances. We extend our gratitude and praise to them.

We would like to reiterate that our thoughts are with all those who have been affected by this accident.

We have no further comments to make at this stage and hope that you will understand that we are not in a position to answer any questions.

For further press and media enquiries please contact Paul Blezard of BrightRedCoat on [email protected]

ShyTorque

16th Jan 2013, 20:33

Surely the caption below the last photo could have been better. :(

chopperchappie

16th Jan 2013, 20:51

Andrewgr2

I just looked at an old 2008 heliroutes map and the same 332 ft obstacle is in the same place, so I would have thought that would be the building next to the St George Wharf Tower which wasn't started in 2008 - the NOTAMS issued for the crane say 770ft

nimby

16th Jan 2013, 21:20

The tail section pic on the roof looked black. This isn't the same A109 which the BBC used to use for their programme links is it?

Andrewgr2

16th Jan 2013, 21:43

chopperchappie
Agreed that the 332 foot obstruction was probably the building next door - also shown on the October 2012 heliport plate in the AIP. The up to date SkyDemon chart shows a 594 foot obstruction in the same place noted as 'number in group - 3' so perhaps this includes the new building with the old. It is near the centre of the 1 nm circle on the chart marking the crane NOTAM area.
nimby
The 'rumours and news' thread quotes the aircraft involved as G-CRST with the link 1997 Agusta 109E Power (G-CRST) (http://www.castleair.co.uk/1997-agusta-109e-power-g-crst.html). This shows a blue helicopter apparently for sale at $2.5m and includes a picture of the panel and a spec including a Garmin 430.

jeepys

16th Jan 2013, 21:48

Don't think so.

That was a 109A I think however this incident was a later 109.

Maybe wrong. Would not be the first time.

Hover Bovver

16th Jan 2013, 21:50

No not the aircraft, it was dark blue - aircraft on BBC links probably G TELY, and a MK2 not a power.

mickjoebill

16th Jan 2013, 22:20

Quote:
In 'Grenvilles' (first) picture, does that suggest the jib was sticking out towards the river?

Jibs must be left in a position so that they do not contact the building when they weather vane.

ika

16th Jan 2013, 23:27

Minor thing but in my post I commented that it is a sad thing that twatter is quoted as a news source but this has translated into saying sad thing that pprune is quoted as a news source, which completely changes meaning. When I tried to edit to see if sthg had been mistyped it says twatter (with an i) in source but appears as pprune. Someone who runs this might want to remove this auto edit feature.

A30yoyo

17th Jan 2013, 00:46

To a Londoner who doesn't go back there much the amount of recent development on the South Bank opposite Victoria, Chelsea and Fulham is very noticeable.
There are some photos of the construction of the Tower at St Georges Wharf on the link below which show its size
One St George Wharf (The Tower) | Lambeth | 181m | 49 fl | T/O - Page 119 - SkyscraperCity (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=221585&page=119)
If you 'walk' across Vauxhall Bridge in Google Earth Streetview the new tower and crane pop in and out of existence in the sequential views....Battersea power station which is much closer to the Heliport (and pre-dates it) can be seen in the background

fairflyer

17th Jan 2013, 06:43

I think the notable difference with St Georges tower to other tall buildings in the vicinity is it very proximity to the river - there's nothing else of that height so close to the river, above which many helicopters will be travelling. A year ago, there would not have been anyting above 500ft immediately beside the river and now there is.

torquewrench

17th Jan 2013, 07:14

An eyewitness account from the ground describes the helo as "spinning" even before initial impact with the crane. Tail rotor failure?

mary meagher

17th Jan 2013, 07:33

Helicopter pilots often fly with a bone dome; does this restrict your lookout at all?

col ective

17th Jan 2013, 08:03

"Helicopter pilots often fly with a bone dome; does this restrict your lookout at all?"

I have spent 30 years flying helicopters all of the time wearing a bone dome and the answer is no - provided the visor is clean and unscratched or up!

A.Agincourt

17th Jan 2013, 08:04

mary meagher; Helicopter pilots often fly with a bone dome; does this restrict your lookout at all? You mean like a horse being blinkered? Or perhaps if it is on 'back to front'?

The answer is; that when correctly fitted and serviced - NO
Why you would consider that any pilot might deliberately choose restriction of vision - perhaps you have never worn a helmet of any sort? :ugh::ugh:

Best Wishes

Ye Olde Pilot

17th Jan 2013, 08:38

Spatial disorientation or blade icing?

London City airport reported a cloudbase of 100ft (30.5 metres) at the time of the crash.

Witness's saidInitially the helicopter was flying fine. Then all of a sudden it started shaking and rocking from side to side and making a strange sound. It veered to the left and then smashed into the main boom of the crane.

One witness said the 15-year-old Agusta A109 appeared to be “spinning out of control” seconds before it hit the crane’s jib

Controllers at Battersea said that “at no point in time were we able to establish contact” with him, raising the possibility that he suffered a catastrophic equipment failure.

A.Agincourt

17th Jan 2013, 08:43

Engine surge

fairflyer

17th Jan 2013, 09:15

Lighting requirements for crane were to fit medium intensity red obstacle lights - 2000 candela

Old Age Pilot

17th Jan 2013, 09:19

An eyewitness account from the ground describes the helo as "spinning" even before initial impact with the crane. Tail rotor failure?

Brilliant! That'll be appearing in the press quoted as official news from the Professional prune

Really

Grenville Fortescue

17th Jan 2013, 09:27

Trying to understand what happened -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/16/article-2263213-16F87736000005DC-730_964x690.jpg

Eyewitnesses say that the aircraft was travelling eastbound away from Battersea? Does this mean he never intended to land there?

If he was travelling eastbound then in relation to the above photo he should have hit the crane coming from somewhere to the left side of the building. If that was so then I don't understand the position of the crash site because even if the aircraft was rotating (quite probable if the rotor had disintegrated) wouldn't the velocity of the aircraft have meant that the fuselage would keep going in roughly the same direction? Unless he was at low speed or -

If the aircraft was westbound into Battersea as the illustration below suggests, then the crash site makes more sense - then why the eyewitness reports saying he was eastbound?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/16/article-2263632-16FB92F5000005DC-489_964x642.jpg

Rotorhead and parts on the road -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/16/article-2263213-16FAB3F2000005DC-824_964x550.jpg

P6 Driver

17th Jan 2013, 09:39

Highly predictable, but dissapointing to my mind is the quality of some of the speculation on this site which reflects little credit on the posters IMHO.

Should anyone want to further quote alleged "eye witnesses", bear in mind that one of them said on a radio interview yesterday that the rotor blades "evaporated" when the impact occured.

You could just wait for the facts to emerge...

A.Agincourt

17th Jan 2013, 09:48

P6 Driver; Highly predictable, but dissapointing to my mind is the quality of some of the speculation on this site which reflects little credit on the posters IMHO.
Agreed, look at the 'names' and the number of posts etc...........:mad:

Ye Olde Pilot

17th Jan 2013, 09:53

Every time an incident occurs we have the same old crowd saying wait for the AAIB bulletin.

I thought this was a rumour network where we discussed events prior to the report.

Grenville Fortescue

17th Jan 2013, 09:59

You are right Ye Olde Pilot but Agincourt's vast number of posts and superior name clearly qualifies him to judge me and others I dare say.

I've been reading PPRuNe long before I joined and the trend is there - people bleating away "wait until the report is out" and so on, why then have a thread at all?

Curiosity and inquisitiveness are natural and so is wanting to try and figure out what happened, or maybe I am alone in this?

Ye Olde Pilot

17th Jan 2013, 10:03

Not at all Grenville. We can all learn from good discussion on boards like pprune.
There is a similar group who would like to ban all news of aviation incidents from the media.

KNIEVEL77

17th Jan 2013, 10:08

I agree, some of the reporting has been disgraceful but something I picked up on was an official quote from Julian Firth of the AAIB who said during a statement shown on the BBC TV News Channel that the helicopter was 'holding', this totally threw the next 'expert' who said that this was the first time anyone had mentioned the helicopter could have been 'holding'.

Satcop

17th Jan 2013, 10:09

This may help to explain the eastbound/westbound confusion.

The helicopter left Redhill for Elstree where it was unable to land and it was planning to return to Redhill. For some reason whilst returning a request was made to divert to Battersea. So it could have been flying in a southeasterly direction and then turned west towards the heliport.

ShyTorque

17th Jan 2013, 10:13

A few observations from points raised above:

It's most likely the pilot would not have been using a bone dome. Corporate pilots in the A109 do not wear them, at least I've never seen one doing so.

TCAS may have been fitted (many A109s have it), but it is probably irrelevant to the accident investigation because it is only of use for indicating other aircraft fitted with a transponder, not against ground based obstructions.

I would think it unlikely that the aircraft had a serious icing problem that would cause it to lose altitude. However, the plastic windscreens of A109s are not normally of the directly heated type, although electrically heated glass screens are an option on some marks, so they rely on the main aircraft cabin/cockpit heater to keep them clear. Therefore, misting or light icing on the screens, causing a reduction in the view of the pilot can't be totally ruled out.

Regarding the route being flown, i.e. inbound to Battersea heliport via Vauxhall Bridge. The accident occurred right at the place where the pilot is normally directed to change frequency to Battersea, i.e. joining H4 on the river and about to enter the Battersea ATZ. The Battersea controller does not have radar and would probably not be able to see an aircraft joining the river at Vauxhall bridge, even in CAVOK conditions, due to line of sight limitations.

An aircraft heading south, down the east side of the LHR CTR (as often occurs, to keep it out of Class A airspace, and inside London City zone), would be heading almost straight for the tower and the pilot would need to turn almost 90 degrees right to join heliroute H4 on reaching the river. The river is about 250 metres wide. The tower lies just inland of the south bank.

Some folks continue to think he would have been flying east at this stage. Unless the pilot was completed disorientated, or turning east to avoid deteriorating weather, it's unlikely. Battersea Heliport lies to the west of that point.

I did hear a TV "eye witness" report of a helicopter flying east, but the times don't add up and the witness said that was at 07:37. It's possible that another helicopter flew the route eastbound prior to the arrival of the one in question.

The AAIB will consider all these factors and because it occurred in controlled airspace it will be very well documented, probably far more comprehensively so than many aircraft accidents.

Finally and unfortunately, the UK building planning process/regulation doesn't seem to take into account the possible effect on helicopters that have to fly near them on long established routes.

Grenville Fortescue

17th Jan 2013, 10:16

Right you are Satcop plus, if what Knievel is saying is true, that he was put on hold this may also have caused sightings of the helicopter facing in different directions.

Given his location can anyone categorically state which control he was under because earlier it was mentioned that he was not in contact with Battersea? Who then would issue a holding requirement and why?

Helinut

17th Jan 2013, 10:21

On the basis of past experience, I would imagine the N-S transit would be towards the W edge of the City zone, with a clearance from City Radar. If he then asked for a diversion to Battersea, City would be likely to get him to change either to Batt Twr or to Heathrow Special (either handedover or freecall). He would need to get a clearance from one of these before entering the London Zone/Batt Zone. So a hold is not impossible, since he never apparently got 2-way with Batt Twr.

The Vauxhall Bridge VRP is a mandatory reporting point and marks the boundary between the Class D City and Class A London Zones.

ShyTorque

17th Jan 2013, 10:27

Heathrow "Special" (Radar) is now the normal controlling agency for aircraft crossing the London City Zone (this changed some time ago).

nigelh

17th Jan 2013, 10:29

Shy... Flying in my 109 ( not a Power so may not be relevant ) it can sometimes be hard to see to the left if the screen mists up , as you can only reach the part of it directly in front of you to wipe clean . Having said that it should only happen during the early part of a flight if the heater is working . I also think if you had poor viz you would drop down and fly slow down the middle of the river . I have had icing and it certainly didn't happen quickly and a pilot of his experience would deal with it . Also it was fog which I don't think forms ice too quickly .
Question . Why do they not put transponders on top of such structures . V easy to do . V cheap to do .

KNIEVEL77

17th Jan 2013, 10:39

GF,
On hearing that the helicopter may have been holding, the 'expert' was asked why this may have been the case to which his answer was that perhaps the pilot had called Heathrow asking for a divert and was waiting for confirmation back for permission to land at the heliport.

airpolice

17th Jan 2013, 10:56

I'm just asking......

Why would 700 feet be appropriate at that point?

Regardless of vis, destination or intentions, is it not a bit low, even for a twin, over the river?

ShyTorque

17th Jan 2013, 11:11

City were reportedly on the easterly runway. Aircraft landing there in that circumstance are routinely vectored from the south onto a base leg/closing heading for the ILS "over the top" of the heliroutes. To maintain aircraft separation, the altitude clearance normally given to helicopters routing southbound to Vauxhall bridge is "not above 1000 feet".

There were fog patches and some low cloud, possibly some at 1,000 feet. The pilot would be reluctant to climb above it because he must have been VFR /SVFR and was therefore required to remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

chopjock

17th Jan 2013, 11:13

Why would 700 feet be appropriate at that point?

Regardless of vis, destination or intentions, is it not a bit low, even for a twin, over the river

Icing conditions higher up

chopperchappie

17th Jan 2013, 11:20

"Why would 700 feet be appropriate at that point?"

Notwithstanding the NOTAM which declaredthe crane as 770ft

Given the highest obstruction shown on the charts is 332 ft + 500ft = 832 ft and a 1Hpa being 30ft and a pilot's operating capability being 25-50 ft (in bad weather probably less), if you knock 80-100 ft off 832 ft it wouldn't be difficult to think you were 500 ft clear of anything in the vicinity and actually be about 750ft AGL

By my calculations - but I never was good at maths !

Pittsextra

17th Jan 2013, 11:22

I'm not experienced enough to know the issues he would have faced with flying in the area or in that weather, but for sure weather was a factor if for no other reason than in a flight lasting less than 30 mins he was diverting to Battersea heliport (and from some accounts this may have even been the 2nd divert).

Given these strange circumstances and the usual operator/contract pilot arrangement would making the operator more liable for the authorisation of flights would be a good thing?

wilyflier

17th Jan 2013, 11:23

Im just asking too(
Freezing level 1000 to 1500,+ airspace limits,cant climb out
picking up ice?
only just daylight Patchy fog worse ahead ?
Rotor vibration? diversion?turning over river back to Battersea? darent climb?
Can't you just stop and hover down onto the river?
Probably not, ouch

HeliStudent

17th Jan 2013, 11:24

What is this minimum height that a helicopter is allowed to fly along the Thames?

nigelh

17th Jan 2013, 11:29

The flight is svfr There is no MSA . Also the metar shows that icing could be encountered even at 100ft . This was only ever going to be vfr I believe.

A310bcal

17th Jan 2013, 11:35

There were fog patches and some low cloud, possibly some at 1,000 feet. The pilot would be reluctant to climb above it because he must have been VFR /SVFR and was therefore required to remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

I see a number of references to icing conditions and some one posted the 08.20Z weather for City Airport giving scattered at 100' , temp and dew point -3'C.....and I wonder about icing conditions and whether the Agusta is cleared for flight in what I would describe as "hostile " weather for any one contemplating single crew ops in congested airspace ?

From Vauxhall reporting point to Battersea Heliport, I guess the crash site was almost on that direct track ? As some one has suggested, a time to change frequency, high workload....... ?

Maintaining SVFR, not above a 1000', obstacle up to 770'....not a lot of room for error.....? Crane shrouded in low cloud.....?

I'd just not want to be in that sort of scenario, no matter how good I was.

Losing a fellow pilot is always a tragedy, and worse when others die too, as a result. A sad day for heli aviation. :sad:

Pittsextra

17th Jan 2013, 11:36

The flight is svfr There is no MSA . Also the metar shows that icing could be encountered even at 100ft . This was only ever going to be vfr I believe.

So:- would making the operator more liable for the authorisation of flights would be a good thing?

mixture

17th Jan 2013, 11:43

So:- would making the operator more liable for the authorisation of flights would be a good thing?

I think its a well established principle that the buck stops at the commander of the aircraft.

The commander is the one at the pointy end of the aircraft... the operator can authorise all they want .... but in the end, the commander is the one who gets to pick up the s*it after it hits the fan a few thousand feet up in the air.

Ye Olde Pilot

17th Jan 2013, 11:44

Between a rock and a hard place and single pilot so quite a workload.:(

melmothtw

17th Jan 2013, 11:50

Reminds me of the time the private jet crashed after take off at Biggen Hill a couple of years ago, it was either the same day or the day after I sat dumfounded as I listened to Jeremy Vine on radio 2 asking an eye witness if he could see peoples faces in the windows of the jet before the crash. Lowest of the low does not come even come close.
I will bet he's on today gearing up to spew his puerile jurno crap.

The aircraft that came down in Farnbrough Basher? If so, I remember eye witnesses saying they had seen the passengers through the windows and Jeremy Vine was trying to clarify what exactly it was they were saying.

I know it's SOP for Pprune to bash the media at every opportinuty, but would be advisable to get the facts straight first.

SASless

17th Jan 2013, 11:58

As it was an Air Taxi Operation...does not the AOC holder have a responsibility re Dispatch of Aircraft and a requirement to track the flight and if the aircraft does not arrive....to then initiate SAR procedures?

Pittsextra

17th Jan 2013, 12:09

I think its a well established principle that the buck stops at the commander of the aircraft.

The commander is the one at the pointy end of the aircraft... the operator can authorise all they want .... but in the end, the commander is the one who gets to pick up the s*it after it hits the fan a few thousand feet up in the air.

Sure agree, my point being that there are a great number of operators with contract pilots on a day rate, which means that there is a great burden for the pilot to bow to commercial pressure.

If the operator had equal liability, especially with regard to the flight plan, when faced with poor weather perhaps some might think twice?

Edited to add :- I don't just mean a corporate body (such as XYZ air charter Ltd) who then off load it to their insurers. I mean make directors criminally responsible.

Grenville Fortescue

17th Jan 2013, 13:56

A small change in weather conditions could have 'trapped' the experienced helicopter pilot who crashed in the capital, killing himself and a pedestrian below, an aviation expert claimed today.

David Learmount spoke after the helicopter clipped a tower in Vauxhall, central London, at 8am yesterday and plunged 700ft to the ground, killing pilot Pete Barnes, 50, and Matthew Wood, 39.

The conditions near The Tower St George Wharf may have become very tough, stopping the pilot from landing where he wanted, the operations and safety editor of Flight International magazine said.

Mr Learmount told BBC London: ‘Weather will turn out to be the key issue. When you fly in marginal conditions it only needs a little dip in what you were expecting and you're pretty much trapped.’
He added: 'He probably did not see the crane until it was too late. Sometimes even bright lights are difficult to see in foggy conditions.'

David Learmount

Paul Beaver, a defence and military equipment expert, said: 'The weather conditions were extremely challenging this morning. We have rules and there are procedures in place for helicopter flight.

'The River Thames is a safe place to fly through because aircraft can land in the water,' he told Sky News. 'It’s much more challenging in reduced visibility. It’s very much up to the pilot to fly the right route and do the right things.'

Paul Bever

Aviation expert Simon Mitchell, a friend of Mr Barnes, said he had doubts over reports claiming the helicopter was out of control before striking the crane and plunging onto the busy street below.

‘I feel it may be a perception thing,’ Dr Mitchell told ITV’s Daybreak today. ‘This is depending on their viewpoint, they may have not appreciated the distance of the jib from the building itself.
‘As soon as it made contact with that structure, it would have deviated from its flight path.’

Simon Mitchell

Ap Rees, editor of Helicopter International, said it was a ‘one in a million’ accident that was ‘almost unique’, adding that ‘the pilot, from what I can gather so far, was doing all the right things’. He added: ‘He was a very experienced pilot - the weather should not have been a problem. There are occasions when you start off with clear weather and soon find it is deteriorating. ‘In impractical circumstances, the right thing to do is rather than pushing into the bad weather is divert and land as quick as possible. It is not hugely common for helicopters to be affected by bad weather.’

Elfan Ap Rees

'It would be sensible to ask some basic questions about whether the rules that exist, that were designed for a different skyline, are right for the skyline of today and tomorrow.'

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg

'We'll want to look at the way we illuminate tall buildings, the way cranes are illuminated, to make sure nothing went wrong in this case and make sure nothing goes wrong in the future,' Mr Johnson said.

'There are all sorts of questions that people are asking now about tall buildings, about lighting, about the fog, about the usage of Battersea Heliport - and those are very understandable.'

Boris Johnson

Battersea Heliport reopened today following yesterday’s fatal helicopter crash.

A staff member said the first arrival was expected about 11am, followed by several more during the day. Another staff member at the heliport confirmed he knew pilot Pete Barnes, who perished yesterday when his helicopter crashed into a crane in nearby Vauxhall amid thick fog.

The Heliport received a request from Heathrow air traffic control asking it to accept Mr Barnes’s helicopter - after he asked to be diverted because of bad weather - but was not able to make contact with the chopper itself.

Opened in 1959, the Battersea Heliport is now the only Civil Aviation Authority licensed heliport serving Britain after the closure of the City of London floating helipad at Trigg Lane in 1985.

..........................

Ditter

17th Jan 2013, 13:56

I'm new here,and very saddened by yesterday's events.
Having seen a picture posted by Grenville that shows the rotor head.Are there any closer pictures of the scissor link in that picture available Grenville?.And has anyone got pictures of an uncovered power rotor head.Been searching and searching.As for the crane,they are left to slew/unlocked.Unless near other objects.This luffing jib can withstand higher winds,so may have been locked.Any damage from the very top down would cut the cable supporting it.It would then be able to snap under it's own weight falling(tear from it's mounting). I doubt that in that visibility and at 100mph,he stood much of a chance.This particular building juts out so abruptly from the line of the river most would follow visually.But I still find it hard to believe,considering how good this guy was.

FairWeatherFlyer

17th Jan 2013, 14:07

Rhetorical straw poll for rotary pilots, go look at those METARs/TAFs again, would you go for a non-IFR flight at that departure time?? "extremely challenging" and "marginal" just sound like euphemisms to me, kind ones maybe.

Ye Olde Pilot

17th Jan 2013, 14:22

Given the change in the London skyline maybe time to move the city heliport
elsewhere and perhaps restrict non public service ops to the route over the Thames?

Sir Niall Dementia

17th Jan 2013, 14:36

Or maybe since this is the first major accident in 53-54 years in the zone everyone should just get on with the high level of regulation and safety the helicopter industry in the UK already works to.

Flap 5

17th Jan 2013, 14:51

Or maybe since this is the first major accident in 53-54 years in the zone everyone should just get on with the high level of regulation and safety the helicopter industry in the UK already works to.

SND

Indeed. This accident was a very odd one for such an experienced pilot. Maybe the particular circumstances leading up to the accident should be studied and any lessons learnt.

mdovey

17th Jan 2013, 14:53

The Heliport received a request from Heathrow air traffic control asking it to accept Mr Barnes’s helicopter - after he asked to be diverted because of bad weather - but was not able to make contact with the chopper itself.

Did they really say that they had not been able to make contact implying radio problems, or just that they had not made contact, which would be the case if JB had not reached an appropriate point to switch from Heathrow ATC.

Pittsextra

17th Jan 2013, 14:58

as in I believe they were asked to accept the aircraft but it never made contact

Romaro

17th Jan 2013, 15:35

As per SND's comment above, all should calm down and appreciate that the UK CAA already imposes quite considerable controls, constraints and regulations which have protected London extremely well for many decades.

This is the first ever incident of this nature (in central London) whilst helicopter activity through London has been in gradual decline already.

fisbangwollop

17th Jan 2013, 15:46

This very sad accident has brought memories flooding back to those of us working in aviation up her in Scotland....another sad day but thankfully so rare.
Helicopter crash that killed policeman remembered ahead of anniversary | Magazine | Glasgow | STV (http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/magazine/210051-helicopter-crash-that-killed-policeman-remembered-ahead-of-anniversary/)

chopperchappie

17th Jan 2013, 16:20

I just saw the quote from deputy prime minister Nick Clegg...

I must have flown past the tower and the Shard and Canary Wharf and London Eye in good weather multiple times following the Thames H4, without really noticing the tower as a specific "dangerous" obstacle.

So that leads me to beleive that flying at "standard operating altitudes(heights)" of the max permissable in the centre of the Thames normally offers sufficient clearance by a long chalk.

I still question the sanity of building a tall building 2Nm from a heliport but I'm led to beleive it was something backed by the former deputy prime minister JP against the local objections - ironic that in a tragic way !

BOAC

17th Jan 2013, 16:44

I just cannot understand all this angst about tall buildings etc 'near a heliport'. It would not matter if the heliport was at the end of a steep-sided 1000yd-wide ravine - SVFR is what you need. Haven't got it, don't go there?

Short of levelling London completely you cannot eliminate all risk - even them someone might fly into a rubble tip. As said, the 'record' for helis over London, including Battersea and especially twins is good.

1helicopterppl

17th Jan 2013, 16:56

Hover Bovver,

The helicopter involved in the accident was definitely A109E, G-CRST, metalic blue, see Heli-hub article.
The 109 that features on the BBC's programme intro's is a 109A, G-PBEK, black.

A310bcal

17th Jan 2013, 17:05

Quote: I just cannot understand all this angst about tall buildings etc 'near a heliport'. It would not matter if the heliport was at the end of a steep-sided 1000yd-wide ravine - SVFR is what you need. Haven't got it, don't go there?

As said by BOAC above, I couldn't agree more, as if I'm not mistaken, helicopters used to ( and may still do so ) land on top of the PanAm building in New York....the problem is not the high rise buildings, but actually being able to see them !!

Savoia

17th Jan 2013, 17:29

.. if I'm not mistaken, helicopters used to ( and may still do so ) land on top of the PanAm building in New York.

Helicopter operations to the Pan Am (now Met Life) building ceased on 16th May 1977 when a New York Airways S-61L (N619PA) suffered a landing gear failure with resulting catastrophic consequences.

Hover Bovver

17th Jan 2013, 17:35

1helicopterppl,
Thougt that was what I had said, as someone had suggested the accident aircraft was black - Couldn't remember if it was Tely or not on the BBC ads though .
Sorry for any confusion

NorthSouth

17th Jan 2013, 17:43

I find this accident deeply troubling. While none of us know what the conditions on the flight were actually like - and nor will the AAIB when they report - I do hope that the AAIB asks what seems to me to be one of the central questions - given the available METARs and TAFs, who was the client that made it so vital to make that flight to Elstree to pick them up?

chopperchappie

17th Jan 2013, 18:52

I really meant (exceptionally) tall building (compared to the others nearby)

But as others have commented - that particular building is practically in the river.

I did look previously at the general width of the river and figure there wasn't enough horizontal space for 2x helis to pass each other and be 500 ft away from both banks and each other (1500 ft).

So if it was 500 ft plus from the bank I wouldn't expect any special consideration and I agree the key is seeing it.

I actually posted that I thought that the NOTAM was a bit of a red herring if flight is SVFR it should be possible to see the building, but that was also before I knew we were talking about a SPIFR certified AW109! Which is why trying to guess is always flawed!!!

Rotor Nut

17th Jan 2013, 20:57

I'm with chopperchappie...

Given that there should be a 500 foot bubble of space around a heli routing the Thames at less than 1000 feet you would think there's some onus on the planning authority to consider the sense of allowing a 700 foot building at practically zero feet from the river!

Yes we question the wisdom of the flight in the first place but the investigators always say that accidents are the result of a number of circumstances conspiring together. Seems we are gathering a number of them already!

chuteless

17th Jan 2013, 21:40

a. Judging by the pictures, he wouldn't have been 'wiped out', as we can clearly see that the cab was untouched.

Maybe no divine intervention however Cab is totally trashed 1st pic in link

London helicopter crash: Work begins to recover badly damaged crane dangling 500ft in the air | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263868/London-helicopter-crash-Work-begins-recover-badly-damaged-crane-dangling-500ft-air.html)

effortless

18th Jan 2013, 06:59

What's the ceiling on this route?

airpolice

18th Jan 2013, 07:16

Chopperchappie, are you suggesting that the requirements of a few rotary movements should dictate planning restrictions in the capital?

NATS need to look at how they deal with the inevitable construction, not simply prevent it.

chopperchappie

18th Jan 2013, 07:20

"what's the ceiling on this route"

It's not clear which route we are talking about but

IF flying H10/H4 west London to east London (Kew to Isle of Dogs) the ceiling is stepped from 750ft at Kew to 2000ft at Isle of Dogs, more specifically to the west of Battersea heliport 1000fteto the East of Battersea 1500ft.

The main restrictions are related to aircraft overhead coming into Heathrow and City airports BUT depending on the circumstances, it may be possible for ATC to authorise a different route and/or height.

Kew is on the final for a 27 approach to LHR so obviously as commercial airliners are coming in helis need to be low.

Helinut

18th Jan 2013, 07:23

BOAC,

What makes you think any clearance would be SVFR?

chopperchappie

18th Jan 2013, 07:37

Airpolice

I'm suggesting that (in this world we live in with consultation and H&S risk assessments) I certainly would expect it to be a consideration but not to dictate planning policy.

In fact I would be gobsmacked to find it wasn't a consideration.

Edit - And to be even more specific, I would be particularly interested to see how much weighting was given to the possibility of an issue compared to the lobbying of the interested parties.

BUT I absolutely agree with the principle that NATS/CAA/LGOV etc all need to be joined up and working for the common good - if that means less tall buildings or less helicopters (or both or neither) then as long as it hasn't been bullied through by someone's personal agenda, and it's been well considered I'm fairly happy with that. (end Edit)

When you look at the approach plate for Battersea the extended circuit has a 180 degree turn very very close to the building location and depending on aircraft weight and pilot/aircraft capability conducting a 180 turn without going into HOGE (which may or may not be an option) would be a challenge, as mentioned before staying 500ft clear of both banks not always an option.

The london zone starts less than a sparrowsfart away from Vauhall bridge, so its entirely possible to be asked to hold at Vauxhall bridge, again, potentially circling at that point or hovering if coming FROM the East.

Are you supporting that it shouldn't be a consideration or just asking?

readgeoff

18th Jan 2013, 08:12

It does raise the question of whether Vauxhall bridge should continue to be a designated holding point. Its fine if weather is allowing 1400-1500ft holds but if its down at 1200ft or less there is no room to keep 500ft away without holding well north of the bridge (heading south/west) or well west (heading east).

airpolice

18th Jan 2013, 08:30

Just asking.

I know the heliport has been there forever but London City Airport is a safer way to operate and surely a better diversion. Wrong side of town and all that I know, but we can't move Heathrow either.

Without wanting to speculate on the specifics of the crash, Redhill to Elstree is crossing some busy airspace and I'd prefer to use H9 as passing overhead LHR at 1,800 foot, even IFR has to be simpler than staying under the inbound traffic in variable VFR conditions.

If wx precludes H9, then maybe we just aren't going there today. It's hard to see how scud running over the city centre is a better bet than turning around and running away, or setting down, before you get shut in.

In a 109, of all aircraft, this should have been a straightforward tasking.

The VFR bit of it escapes me, why, with low cloud and freezing conditions, would you head into that airpsace, but not over the water?

The 109 is certified for spifr but that will not make it immune to icing, so a climb is no guarantee of escape from anything except high buildings. Climbing out from a low level transit, even with LHR to keep you clear of other traffic, may not be great when it exposes you to the ice.

So.... ifr is ruled out by ice and vfr ruled out by low cloud, the great advantage of a rotary is the ability to stop (I know it's not simple as it sounds) or go at walking pace where you can see.

Lots of holes will have lined up for this crash to happen, but some of them may well have been a good bit to the south of Vauxhall Bridge.

The AAIB will be best placed to determine why this happened, but how many of you, really, would set off tomorrow to take that route in that weather?

Let's hope that when we get to read the report, we can all identify the point at which we would have turned back.

chopperchappie

18th Jan 2013, 08:43

Indeed - what's not in question here is that being able to see something is generally going to be much safer than not being able to see it.

I have had a situation where I've flown down the river in clear blue skies and on the way back 10 minutes later been forced down from 1500 ft to 1200 ft to remain below cloud. Not an issue in my case as I was approaching a step down towards Barnes/Kew anyway and it was clear below.

Bearing in mind it is over a river near an estuary so cloudbase and particularly mist/fog can change fairly quickly.

chopperchappie

18th Jan 2013, 09:02

"It does raise the question of whether Vauxhall bridge should continue to be a designated holding point."

Runways have different holding points for different wx conditions - it could be possible to not use Vauxhall in poor viz - but as it's at the edge of the Battersea and London Zone I would expect it would stay.

I would also expect that if I was flying H4 west > east under the control of NATS and I was experiencing poor weather conditions that the controller would advise me of a large building / crane on the edge of the zone, particularly if it had been NOTAMd and even more particularly if it was a new obstacle not shown on charts.

I don't know the circumstances and I am not suggesting anyone at NATS did anything wrong in fact I have always had excellent professional service, very few holds and common sense approach to routing multiple aircraft in limited space and making them aware of each other but I just don't think that the technical difference between being inside the zone or outside the zone by 100 yards changes the landscape completely - whats that at 90Kts plus, one or two seconds?

What is suggested by reports (and we know these can be wrong) is that NATS stated the aircraft was previously receivibg a service and had't spoken to Battersea.

Maybe it's because it wasn't relevent at 1500 ft with CAVOK but I have not been advised of St Georges Wharf (nor as I said before) felt that it intruded into my flight space.

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 09:21

Anyone explain why people are posting about 'the route' and 'heli-lanes' H this and that when they were not applicable and also why '1500ft' over Heathrow is mentioned when I understand the clearance was SVFR in foggy conditions with possible no icing clearance - and while I'm at it, Airpolice - have you looked at the EGLC Metar?

chopperchappie

18th Jan 2013, 09:31

I'm just talking about my experience and my expectations.

I already said I'm not in receipt of all the facts so (trying to) not making any judgements and/or conclusions before AAIB.

As I use the helilanes I am interested to learn any lessons and be consulted on any changes.

Otherwise - I'll get my coat !

Grenville Fortescue

18th Jan 2013, 09:42

The pilot who died when his helicopter crashed into a crane in central London may have been distracted trying to change the frequency on his radio, an aviation expert said. Pete Barnes, a veteran pilot with more than 25 years' experience, could have veered off route and missed a turning on the River Thames as he tried to radio Battersea heliport to say he wanted to make an unscheduled landing because of the fog. Aviation lawyer and qualified pilot James Healy-Pratt told the Daily Telegraph: 'It could have taken 10 to 15 seconds to make the change of radio frequency, in which time the helicopter could have flown up to half a mile.'

Air accident investigators are likely to focus on trying to account for a 'missing minute', during which Mr Barnes was out of contact with flight controllers.

David Learmount, from aviation website Flightglobal, told the Independent that a small change in weather conditions, which are thought to have worsened at about the time of the accident, could have been enough to 'trap' Mr Barnes.

Today Daily Mail diarist Richard Kay revealed how Mr Barnes was on his way to pick up restaurant and clubs tycoon Richard Caring when he crashed. The 62-year-old entrepreneur was waiting at Elstree airport in Hertfordshire, unaware that the aircraft had diverted to Battersea heliport because of fog.

......................

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

18th Jan 2013, 11:08

<<Anyone explain why people are posting about 'the route' and 'heli-lanes' H this and that when they were not applicable>>

Is it known that he was operating off route then? Twin helicopters frequently fly the standard routes.

10W

18th Jan 2013, 11:30

NATS need to look at how they deal with the inevitable construction, not simply prevent it.

Policy will have to come through the Government, by way of the CAA.

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 11:30

Redhill- Elstree??

A109

18th Jan 2013, 11:32

"Is it known that he was operating off route then? Twin helicopters frequently fly the standard routes"

Best point on the thread Director. Like a bucket of cold water on a pack of squabbling, opinionated dogs.

Get a life boys and girls, wait for the facts.

Meanwhile please make it clear that, despite your prurient interest in Mr Barnes' last moments, we who are or were the UK helicopter industry, send our deepest sympathy and support to his wife and children.

Brom

18th Jan 2013, 11:58

A109

'prurient'?

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 12:10

.not forgetting Mr Wood, eh, 109?

Grenville Fortescue

18th Jan 2013, 12:54

On consideration I suppose it is just one of the many possibilities that if -

*under stress from the lowering cloud base

*having been asked to contact Battersea

*being momentarily distracted by changing frequency

*and if the accident site was at the very point where transfer to Battersea normally occurs

that these factors MAY have led him towards the protruding crane rising up from the tower.

If he had the Battersea frequency pre-programmed the frequency change should only have taken 1-2 seconds but if he had to dial it up then this would, as they are saying, have taken a little longer.

Can anyone identify the frequency he would have been on and the frequency he would have needed to select to speak with Battersea?

.

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 12:55

Back to your question, HD. Pilots generally prefer to fly in straight lines. Draw a line between Redhill and Elstree and tell us which H route you think you would follow.

DOUBLE BOGEY

18th Jan 2013, 13:10

Grenville! Your incredible skills of deduction are evident. Do you work at the AAIB? Or are you Sherlock Holmes?

SASless

18th Jan 2013, 13:25

GF,

Let's not try to pick a likely scenario and then cherry pick our data to support that shall we. Instead....let's wait for the AAIB to do its job. They gather the data then seek plausible explanations as they should.....and as we should.

For us Data point 1.....is the AAIB Report.

BOAC.....we may prefer to fly in straight direct paths.....but more than often there are very good reasons we cannot....and should not. Helicopters are the bastard step children of aviation when it comes to such things like routing and heights/altitudes/flight levels.

Anthony Supplebottom

18th Jan 2013, 13:27

Can anyone identify the frequency he would have been on and the frequency he would have needed to select to speak with Battersea?

If he was on City Radar then 128.025. Battersea is on 122.9

I couldn't see it on the previous pages but does anyone know what the METAR for EGTR was when the heli departed EKGR (07:30)?

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 13:59

BOAC.....we may prefer to fly in straight direct paths.....but more than often there are very good reasons we cannot....and should not. Helicopters are the bastard step children of aviation when it comes to such things like routing and heights/altitudes/flight levels. - firstly 'I' am in the 'we'. The 'straight direct paths' (not my words) was to try and get HD to understand that joining a basically east-west route in order to fly south to north is not likely.things like routing and heights/altitudes/flight levels- I cannot see an issue in this case - SVFR, min and max height specified, virtually free routing and operating height within those limits. Weather apart, surely you just go?

NorthSouth

18th Jan 2013, 14:51

does anyone know what the METAR for EGTR was when the heli departed EKGRThere are no METARs for EGTR, and there's unlikely to have been anyone at Elstree to answer the phone prior to the heli's 0730 departure from Redhill.
EGWU is the nearest METAR reporting station.
METAR EGWU 160650Z 05003KT 3500 BR OVC002 M03/M03 Q1011 AMB TEMPO 2000 BKN001 RED=
TAF EGWU 160440Z 1606/1624 08004KT 2000 BR BKN003 TEMPO 1606/1609 0700 FZFG BKN001 BECMG 1609/1611 4000 HZ BKN004 BECMG 1611/1613 8000 FEW015=

toptobottom

18th Jan 2013, 14:55

I'm as intrigued by this accident as anyone, but when I hear "if this and if this and if this and if this happened... then maybe...", it's obvious that the poster doesn't really know what they're on about.

As for Aviation lawyer and qualified pilot James Healy-Pratt told the Daily Telegraph: 'It could have taken 10 to 15 seconds to make the change of radio frequency, in which time the helicopter could have flown up to half a mile
What utter tosh. This pilot flew with all likely 'next use' frequencies already punched in, so it would have taken a split secong to change frequency, probably without even looking at the radio. He certainly wouldn't be fiddling with the frequency knob for 15 seconds, especially in that weather...

Rumour and speculation is one thing, but creating obscure and complicated scenarios to support a particular theory is just clutching at straws and is a waste of time.

TRC

18th Jan 2013, 17:01

I've asked this in the other thread in R&N, but with two threads running I'll ask it here too..

Has the distance from the point of impact on the crane jib to the actual building been established yet?

Heliport

18th Jan 2013, 17:11

".......... an aviation expert said."

As ttb's post makes very clear, James Healy-Pratt is not (as the Telegraph absurdly describes him) an "aviation expert."
He's a PPL and aviation lawyer.

He is, beyond doubt, an expert in marketing.

H.

John R81

18th Jan 2013, 17:17

TRC

Back on the R&N thread post 135# has a photograph taken from very close to the point of impact looking up at the tower. Post 178# has a map annotated with tower and impact site.

Not a "meters" measurement, but you will see that it is not far.

TRC

18th Jan 2013, 17:44

Not a "meters" measurement, but you will see that it is not far

So, irrespective of being unable to see the crane due to bad vis/no obstruction lights, the aircraft almost hit the building anyway..

John R81

18th Jan 2013, 17:48

Here we go....

BBC London News (BBC1 right now) reporting on the crash and linking it to "other" dangerous incidents over London.

1. Rising calls for review of number of helicopter flights over London.
2. 12 serious incidents involving helicopters over the last 20 years. 2 involved engine failure and 1 was actually at Battersea! [This seems to be a trawl of AAIB records and pulling anything that relates to London area]
3. Residents worried about the increase in the number of helicopter flights [they actually fell in 2012!]. Chap interviewed lives next to Battersea Heliport [Which I suspect might have been there for quite a few years before he bought the flat]
4. Industry says Helicopters are strictly controlled, very safe, and there has been only 1 event that has led to fatalities.

jayteeto

18th Jan 2013, 17:48

good radios that can hold so many frequencies. Our 135 Can only hold 4.

John R81

18th Jan 2013, 17:51

If this is a competition, I have Comm 1, 2, 3 so easily can have 6 available instantly

airpolice

18th Jan 2013, 17:53

Four?! Luxury, wen ah were learnin, we 'ad to change manually, none of this girly, pre-set, flip flop stuff.

You tell that to the kids of today and they won't belive you!

John R81

18th Jan 2013, 17:54

TRC = define "almost". Helicopter hit the raised gib of the crane, when the gib is lowered to working position it stands above the roof.

Afterthought - anyway, you asked for the distance between hitting the crane and hitting the ground, which is what I gave you. The "not meters" meant I don't give you a distance in meters from the crane to the crash site on the ground. Please don't read my comment any other way.

Ye Olde Pilot

18th Jan 2013, 17:56

In pure risk assessment terms the helicopter should never have been there in the first place.

It was a miracle that only two people died.
Can I suggest that apart from public service helicopters all traffic must now be confined to the VFR route and only permitted VFR to the heliport.

A rich persons convenience is not worth the lives of people on the ground.

John R81

18th Jan 2013, 17:58

How would that help?

TRC

18th Jan 2013, 18:01

you asked for the distance between hitting the crane and hitting the ground

No, I was asking if anyone knew how far from the impact on the jib to the building to which the crane is attached.

TRC = define "almost"

OK - nearly.

John R81

18th Jan 2013, 18:01

TRC - then I misread your post and you shoud ignore my replies

jumpseater

18th Jan 2013, 18:03

BOAC, Redhill - Elstree

NB following is guesswork, I'm not an expert.
Fastest route likely to be H9, however if EGLL were in LVP's (don't know if they were), they may restrict and delay an aircraft routing EGLL overhead via H9 (perhaps HD could comment on effect of LVPS at EGLL on these routes), therefore the other option could be H7 H10 H9 to remain clear of EGLL, or H7 H4 with the intention to turn left at EGLC and follow the Lea Valley northbound (which is pretty clearly defined), then turn west abeam Elstree or track up to M25 and follow that linking via A1 or M1 to Elstree.

If taking the EGLC route 0820z metar indicates poor weather, prior to that metar an early turnback along H4 was made due to deteriorating weather ahead.

TRC

18th Jan 2013, 18:06

OK John, no probs.

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 18:34

BOAC, you have made a number of false suppositions in post #200.

Under SVFR (class A airspace) or under VFR (class D) you are under radar control and are given a particular route to follow.

The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace, but a maximum one often is; this may be lower than the normal maximum allowed on that route (i.e. the ones on the Helilanes chart), due to other traffic above.

However, it remains the pilot's personal responsibility to comply with the minimum height rules. You will be able to recall what these are.

heli14

18th Jan 2013, 18:37

Can I suggest that apart from public service helicopters all traffic must now be confined to the VFR route and only permitted VFR to the heliport.

A rich persons convenience is not worth the lives of people on the ground.

I thought that all helicopter traffic over London had to be VFR under the current rules (or SVFR) - remaining clear of cloud and in sight of the surface? - no IFR heliroutes over London as far as I know (and no IFR flight off the heliroutes to my knowledge). Also no instrument approach to Battersea Heliport.

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 18:42

Heli 14.

Correct!

John R81

18th Jan 2013, 18:55

Hence my "how does that help" question.

Then we can do away with all commercial Big Tin flights - after all, they do occasionally fall on people on the ground, and the convenience of someone rich enough to take a foreign holiday should not take precedence over the safety of those on the ground!

Whilst we are at it, just how many "innocent" people have been killed by motor cars? Ban them too!

And horses have killed quite a few! Off to Tesco, all of you!
Cricket balls are not entirely blameless either, so...

I'll get my coat:rolleyes:

Talkdownman

18th Jan 2013, 19:00

I thought that all helicopter traffic over London had to be VFR under the current rules (or SVFR) - remaining clear of cloud and in sight of the surface?
It's SVFR as in ENR 1.2-2 (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-5B07CD2A9DFB9437A07EA3012D6EFBB7/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/ENR/EG_ENR_1_2_en_2012-12-13.pdf)

Grenville Fortescue

18th Jan 2013, 19:01

So, irrespective of being unable to see the crane due to bad vis/no obstruction lights, the aircraft almost hit the building anyway..

Obviously.

JimBall

18th Jan 2013, 19:23

If the moderators can find a qualified person to go through this thread and remove all the inaccuracies, I think we'd do our industry a big favour. Because it is plain that not many people know the complex rules of flying through London.

And, incidentally, please ignore anything written or quoted by James Healy-Pratt. He recently filed a complaint against a helicopter he saw flying near his office in the City. This wasted 3 months of CAA & NATS time, 47 pages of radar printout, and gave a pilot nightmares for 3 months.

Result - no fault found. Pilot cleared.

But of course, I bow to JH-P as a member of the legal profession.

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 19:47

Jim, as someone employed in exactly this profession, I'm trying to correct some of the "expert opinions" who have quite obviously never flown the heli lanes (or a helicopter) in their lives.

It could take some time! ;)

SASless

18th Jan 2013, 19:50

I bow to JH-P as a member of the legal profession.

Only as you hold his head under water I hope!;)

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 19:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by heli14
I thought that all helicopter traffic over London had to be VFR under the current rules (or SVFR) - remaining clear of cloud and in sight of the surface?

It's SVFR as in ENR 1.2-2

SVFR in LHR's Class A.

But can be VFR in Class D, such as London City's airspace, e.g. Vauxhall Bridge.

Flying Lawyer

18th Jan 2013, 20:12

ShyTorqueas someone employed in exactly this profession, I'm trying to correct some of the "expert opinions" who have quite obviously never flown the heli lanes (or a helicopter) in their lives.

You (and a few others) are doing an excellent job correcting the uninformed drivel on this thread and the one in R&N. :ok:
Your patience is impressive. I only hope you don't become exasperated and give up.

JimBallI bow to JH-P as a member of the legal profession.
I know you don't mean that - thank goodness.

FL

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 20:31

BOAC, you have made a number of false suppositions in post #200.

Under SVFR (class A airspace) or under VFR (class D) you are under radar control and are given a particular route to follow.

Others have said there is no radar coverage at 500' - how then radar control? ATC control, yes.

The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace, but a maximum one often is; this may be lower than the normal maximum allowed on that route (i.e. the ones on the Helilanes chart), due to other traffic above.

"The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace" - never mentioned in #200. Is min height not by definition 500' from etc etc? Please correct me where I am wrong? It is a bit beyond me to work that out as altitude along the route.

However, it remains the pilot's personal responsibility to comply with the minimum height rules. You will be able to recall what these are.

As you see, I do, even if .............. Don't forget it is 500' height not altitude, will you - or you will probably upset a lot of Londoners?

jumpsater - none of those routes appear to have any relevance to this accident, do they? If you look at a/borne time to crash......................?? Who would route via City in that weather V/SVFR anyway?

What makes you think any clearance would be SVFR? . We will find out when we know where he went, I guess.

SASless

18th Jan 2013, 20:42

Does the 500 foot rule apply to lateral distance as well as height such as if the buildings are higher than 500 feet AGL....and one is flying down the middle of the River at 500 feet plus whatever height of the boats/barges/Tugs/Ships/Bridges one is passing over?

Sir Niall Dementia

18th Jan 2013, 20:49

Shy;

You and I fly this area and PB's route day in day out, the media have been desperately trawling for someone to go on a tv programme about this accident, as far as I am aware there have been no takers if you hear of anyone saying yes please persuade them otherwise. God help our industry if some of the experts on here were to say yes. In the meantime my hat is off to you for your patience, as I said earlier in this thread we work in one of the safest and most strictly regulated sections of aviation in the world, we do not need silly knee jerk reactions feeding the likes of J H-P, Kate Hoey et al now.

Personally for Redhill-Elstree-Redhill I too would have routed Vauxhall Bridge Ally Pally in a twin (I once had the pleasure of flying Talk Down Man around London in a 355 and asking him to spot Ally Pally, he may remember it, I've had to change ID since then, but I can vouch for his huge knowledge of SVFR and VFR ops in the LHR and LCY zones)

DOUBLE BOGEY

18th Jan 2013, 20:50

I don't really want to post on this thread as the whole subject is really really sad. I did not know Peter all that well having met him first at the start of his career up in Northumbria. He was a cheeky monkey then, full of life and a little ray of sunshine wherever he went. Much later I did some work for him as he set up Helivision. Always straight and a delight to talk to no matter what the pressure.

It's a damn shame that prune threads like this invariably end up in a ****ty bun fight between those who know, those who think they know and the rest of us. I guess that is what the prune is all about.

Reading how well thought of Peter was by his peers maybe we should just ease springs and let him rest until the AAIB finish their sad work.

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 20:57

Does the 500 foot rule apply to lateral distance as well as height - yes. Sometimes one has to .................. After all, it is less than 1000ft wide further east at London Bridge I believe, which makes 'opposite direction traffic' interesting.

DOUBLE BOGEY

18th Jan 2013, 21:04

Right that's it BAOC do yourself and the rest of us a favour and read the god dammed ANO. It's just embarrassing!!

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 21:26

BOAC, to answer the points you made, I have numbered your answers in bold, to make it clear which I'm answering:

Under SVFR (class A airspace) or under VFR (class D) you are under radar control and are given a particular route to follow.

1: Others have said there is no radar coverage at 500' - how then radar control? ATC control, yes.

The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace, but a maximum one often is; this may be lower than the normal maximum allowed on that route (i.e. the ones on the Helilanes chart), due to other traffic above.

2:"The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace" - never mentioned in #200. Is min height not by definition 500' from etc etc? Please correct me where I am wrong? It is a bit beyond me to work that out as altitude along the route.

However, it remains the pilot's personal responsibility to comply with the minimum height rules. You will be able to recall what these are.

3:As you see, I do, even if .............. Don't forget it is 500' height not altitude, will you - or you will probably upset a lot of Londoners?

1: Not so, as you enter the Class A or Class D, you are told "Radar Control". Unless on a heli-route you will usually be given two features and are expected to fly on a direct straight track between them. Heathrow Radar is extremely accurate. No-one should fly at a height of 500 feet or below unless taking off or landing; for obvious reasons.

2: Comply with the 500 foot rule you must, but a minimum altitude is not routinely given as part of the clearance. You have to work it out for yourself to stay legal in this increasingly difficult airspace.

3: After 34 years in the job, I think I fully understand that. I've not had a low flying complaint yet, but there's always a first time, I suppose. Thankyou anyway. ;)

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 21:36

Double Bogey - I'm intrigued now - I take it you are saying that the heli-routes are exempt from the 500ft rule? I do know 'written permission' is required under the ANO for such exemption, as for air displays. I did not know helis were so exempt. Do you have a reference?

Just seen your post, ST - I therefore assume the AAIB will have a radar plot of PB's route?

Not sure why you keep mentioning minimum altitude?

Del Prado

18th Jan 2013, 21:51

Sorry for butting in chaps but to save further exasperation to ST, could I ask BOAC to read this line from ST's post....

2: Comply with the 500 foot rule you must, but a minimum altitude is not routinely given as part of the clearance. You have to work it out for yourself to stay legal in this increasingly difficult airspace.

Doesn't that answer your question BOAC?

pilot and apprentice

18th Jan 2013, 21:57

BOAC, not sure you are reading what ShyTorque is writing.

Most of what I was about to write already posted.

I know from your other posts that you are a pilot. How often does ATC assign a height?

Flying Lawyer

18th Jan 2013, 22:08

BOACI take it you are saying that the heli-routes are exempt from the 500ft rule?
ShyT didn't say that.

Not sure why you keep mentioning minimum altitude
altitude?
Clearances for the heli-routes include altitudes.
ShyT didn't say minimum.

it is less than 1000ft wide further east at London Bridge I believe, which makes 'opposite direction traffic' interesting.
I've never found it particularly interesting there.
You are permitted to temporarily deviate to the right of the route if necessary in order to obtain sufficient lateral separation from opposite direction traffic.

However, the increasing number of tall buildings further West is likely to make it increasingly difficult to comply with Rule 5 when VFR/Special VFR.
Also, under the current procedures, there are certain circumstances in which 2-way traffic along H4 may not be (legally) possible because of the new tower at St George Wharf.

[email protected]

19th Jan 2013, 08:02

600' cloudbase and 1000m vis IIRC

Sir Niall Dementia

19th Jan 2013, 08:03

FL;

You are right about deviating to the right of route, and sometimes SVFR will as you to hold at one of the bridges until other trafffic is past.

Also it is not unusual to accept "reduced traffic" seperation on the routes to allow 2 opposite direction aircraft to pass.

Off heli-route seperation for twins min sep is 3nm IIRC.

BOAC, go check the UKAIP (available on line) or take a look at the helicopter Procedures in the Heathrow Zone chapter in a Pooleys Glight Guide.

And for God's sake guys we fly on QNH therefore we are at an ALTITUDE, HEIGHT comes from flying on QFE. Our zone clearances include a MAXIMUM ALTITUDE eg "cleared Brent-Battersea not above 1500' to Brent and thereafter not above 1000' to Battersea avoiding R157." (All flown on London QNH)

The Heli-lanes chart shows MAX ALTITUDES which ATC expect us to treat pretty much as standard altitudes, unless we can't and then it is up to us as pilots to work out what the minimum can be.

Re-reading a lot of earlier posts the LHR/LCY zones seem to have an awful lot of rules and procedures (one reason why all new pilots to EGLW have to fly the trip with an experienced pilot and get a free landing so they can go for an ATC briefing) however the rules and procedures have grown from common sense and experience and are in fact easy to follow for any pilot with a vague modicum of common sense.

Whatever happened to Pete Barnes will come out, but in the meantime please stop feeding the antis with ill informed comments, helicopter aviation in the UK is actually astonishingly safe, and will remain so while common sense prevails.

Grenville Fortescue

19th Jan 2013, 08:22

The Agusta 109 has been taken to Farnborough, where the detailed analysis will take place ahead of the Air Accident Investigation Branch producing a preliminary report.

It is understood Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, will be briefed in detail about the accident next week.

Post mortem examinations revealed that Pete Barnes, 50, the helicopter pilot, died from multiple injuries while Matthew Wood, 39, a pedestrian suffered severe burns and a leg injury.

The two men were killed when the helicopter clipped a crane attached to St George Tower, a new residential development on the banks of the River Thames, during the morning rush hour.

Meanwhile James-Healy Pratt, an aviation lawyer and qualified helicopter pilot, said RotorMotion, the helicopter operator was likely to face damages claims running into millions of pounds following the crash.

Companies flying into the heliport at Battersea are expected to have at least £15 million insurance.

Claims are likely to be made under the 1982 Civil Aviation Act, with litigants likely to include the family of Mr Wood, those injured on the ground, the developers of St George Tower and witnesses who suffered emotional stress as a result of the crash.

Investigators start sifting through helicopter wreckage - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/9811725/Investigators-start-sifting-through-helicopter-wreckage.html)

Why o why o why is James-Healy Pratt the first one to raise the matter of American-style compensation in relation to this tragedy? Can't we be bloody well different to the Americans and not link every f**king disaster to personal compensation!

BOAC

19th Jan 2013, 08:26

[email protected] - thank you. That seems quite adequate for rotary work.

John R81

19th Jan 2013, 08:35

:D:D:D:D:D:D

For anyone with pilot qualifications in their public profile, please read the material cited above (the ANO and Pooley's) before posting - otherwise you will look just as silly and irelevent to other pilots as the anti-aviation trolls who are "making it up" as they go along.

Like SND, I have no problem with the London Zone. The system is detailed and complicated, and for the first three trips through the zone I went with an experienced pilot to help with familurisation. However, there si nothing that difficult here; to "invent" problems - like suggesting that 2 helicopters passing opposite way along H4 (which runs from Battersea in the West to the Isle of Dogs in the East and has a stepped max altitude of 1500 ft - 2000 ft) would present even a risk of breaking the 500ft is nonesense and just makes the poster look ignorant in the operation of helicopters.

Anthony Supplebottom

19th Jan 2013, 08:36

Originally Posted by Grenville Fortescue
Why o why o why is James-Healy Pratt the first one to raise the matter of American-style compensation in relation to this tragedy?

Grenville, try and keep up will you!

Aren't you aware that some years ago he was crowned the king of British aviation lawyers at a ceremony in his living room presided over by his children?

In his majesterial majestiness he is able to see things we others can't and which is how he can boldy make the libellous statement that RotorMotion is going to be sued because the only way that can happen is if they (or their staff) have been proven (in a court of law) to have displayed neglect.

Pratt already forsees the results of the accident investigation and the decision of the court - but then this is normal for a demi-god.

BOAC

19th Jan 2013, 08:41

like suggesting that 2 helicopters passing opposite way along H4 (which runs from Battersea in the West to the Isle of Dogs in the East and has a stepped max altitude of 1500 ft - 2000 ft) would present even a risk of breaking the 500ft is nonesense and just makes the poster look ignorant in the operation of helicopters. - actually, John, I had in mind a 600ft (AGL) cloudbase which appears to be more relevant to this thread than an 'altitude' of 2000ft. What did you?

Flying Lawyer

19th Jan 2013, 09:00

FL - as a lawyer I would expect you instinctively to read carefully what is in front of you.
BOAC - The we are both surprised, because I would expect you as a professional pilot to have grasped more quickly what has been explained to you by professional helicopter pilots here.

- now I need some help here. A London S/VFR heli clearance is given as a minimum altitude is what you are saying but that altitude is not an altitude but a height?
NO. I did not say minimum.
As ShyT has already explained, a minimum altitude is not routinely given as part of the clearance.
Apart from one very small section of one route, which must be flown at a precise altitude (therefore both a maximum and a minimum), clearances do not normally include a minimum.

Flying Lawyer seems to disagree with you (Del Prado) on the point although his line is somewhat muddled.
I do not disagree with Del Prado.
I realise it seems muddled to you.

FL (nickname not Flight Level)

Edit
GrenvilleWhy o why o why is James-Healy Pratt the first one to raise the matter of American-style compensation in relation to this tragedy?Why o why o why is a lawyer whose firm specialises in aviation claims the first one to raise the matter of compensation in relation to this tragedy?
I can't imagine. I'll have to think about that one. ;)

.

teeteringhead

19th Jan 2013, 09:01

Had a very enthusiastic rotary student once called Keane. We used to say:

"Keane by name and keen by nature"

James-Healy Pratt ;)

BOAC

19th Jan 2013, 09:12

FL - your line was in reply to the quote "Not sure why you keep mentioning minimum altitude". Glad you sorted that out. Yes, we are both 'surprised'. Now - going to have a go at answering SASless? Maybe not.

Again - can we all promise no-one will ever mention 'minimum altitude' again on this thread as it seems to easily confuse professional pilots, even those with significant hours spent both teaching and observing the ANO.

Grenville Fortescue

19th Jan 2013, 09:38

Flying Lawyer

It was a largely rhetorical question but can I ask, who will be there for RotorMotion? No one I suppose?

Are they solely responsible (legally) for their pilot's actions at all times?

John R81

19th Jan 2013, 09:55

BOAC - there is a difference between being somewhere intentionally and being somewhere because the weather is deteriorating rapidly and you are trying to get out of it / down. It would help if it were clear whether you are making general flight points or in relation to this accident flight.

Battersea might be "closed" due to low viz but that does not mean they would not accept an aircraft asking to divert through Wx.

At the time PB started the journey there was no problem. At Elstree conditions deteriorated more quickly than anticipated, and it closed. He reversed course. Wx continued to deteriorate, and PB elected to divert to Battersea, who accepted that. Wx continued to deteriorate and overtook him. So PB did not intend to be at that point in airspace at that time in that weather.

The 500 ft rule is mandetory for all helicopter flights, aside from take-off and landing BUT (just like and any all aircraft - even the ones you flew) may be broken if that is necessary for safety reasons. See Article 160(3) of the ANO 2009.

If deteriorating cloud - out of his control - pushed him within 500ft of any person, vehicle, vessel or structure because the alternative was to enter cloud in known icing conditions in aa Augusta A109 then rule 6 would be very much in point.