Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: All over UK awaiting the dream.
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mary meagher; Helicopter pilots often fly with a bone dome; does this restrict your lookout at all?
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?
Best Wishes
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spatial disorientation or blade icing?
London City airport reported a cloudbase of 100ft (30.5 metres) at the time of the crash.
Witness's said
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.
London City airport reported a cloudbase of 100ft (30.5 metres) at the time of the crash.
Witness's said
Initially 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.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An eyewitness account from the ground describes the helo as "spinning" even before initial impact with the crane. Tail rotor failure?
Really
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to understand what happened -
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?
Rotorhead and parts on the road -
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?
Rotorhead and parts on the road -
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: All over UK awaiting the dream.
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I thought this was a rumour network where we discussed events prior to the report.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
There is a similar group who would like to ban all news of aviation incidents from the media.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'.
Last edited by KNIEVEL77; 17th Jan 2013 at 10:09.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,584
Received 442 Likes
on
234 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The Vauxhall Bridge VRP is a mandatory reporting point and marks the boundary between the Class D City and Class A London Zones.
Last edited by Helinut; 17th Jan 2013 at 10:26. Reason: Add second para
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,584
Received 442 Likes
on
234 Posts
Heathrow "Special" (Radar) is now the normal controlling agency for aircraft crossing the London City Zone (this changed some time ago).
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 .
Question . Why do they not put transponders on top of such structures . V easy to do . V cheap to do .
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Here.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?