AAIB Report A109E accident at Vauxhall, and Inquest Verdict
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB report - comments included in the newsletter of a London firm of lawyers. They concentrate on the recommendations of AAIB.
new email1
I find the recommendations to the DOT most interesting:
* Implement a mechanism, compliant with Regulation (EU) 73/2010 and UK law, for the formal reporting and management of obstacle data, including a reporting requirement for newly permitted developments;
* Implement measures that enable the CAA to assess, before planning permission is granted, the potential implications of new obstacles for airspace arrangements and procedures; and,
* Remind the relevant authorities to notify the CAA: (i) where planning permission for developments which include obstacles is granted; (ii) about obstacles not previously notified; and, (iii) about obstacles previously notified that no longer exist.
* (A similar recommendation applies to the Scottish Government reminding the relevant Scottish planning bodies)
The second of these addresses something that I did find rather odd - current law requires CAA to consider only the approach / departure LHR and LCY when considering planning applications for tall buildings in that area, not the Battersea Heliport or H4.
new email1
I find the recommendations to the DOT most interesting:
* Implement a mechanism, compliant with Regulation (EU) 73/2010 and UK law, for the formal reporting and management of obstacle data, including a reporting requirement for newly permitted developments;
* Implement measures that enable the CAA to assess, before planning permission is granted, the potential implications of new obstacles for airspace arrangements and procedures; and,
* Remind the relevant authorities to notify the CAA: (i) where planning permission for developments which include obstacles is granted; (ii) about obstacles not previously notified; and, (iii) about obstacles previously notified that no longer exist.
* (A similar recommendation applies to the Scottish Government reminding the relevant Scottish planning bodies)
The second of these addresses something that I did find rather odd - current law requires CAA to consider only the approach / departure LHR and LCY when considering planning applications for tall buildings in that area, not the Battersea Heliport or H4.
Alouette 3: Beautifully said. Absolutely spot on.
Piltdown man: You aren't listening. I did NOT say he was a rotten apple, or a bad pilot. He was in fact an unassuming, considerate, very professional guy.
BUT - on that day and at that time, he dropped his guard. Please try to understand this. Using your comparisons: driving: Formula 1 drivers are the best of the bunch - you don't get better, yet they make mistakes and they are catastrophic. It has nothing to do with subliminal psychoanalytical, interdevelopmental breakdown or any other human factor gobbledy gook. The bloke messed up for 0.025 of a second and it cost him his life. Sh*t happens - we are not automatons. Get used to it and move onto something useful elsewhere in the industry where you can improve on.
RiP and all that.................
.
Piltdown man: You aren't listening. I did NOT say he was a rotten apple, or a bad pilot. He was in fact an unassuming, considerate, very professional guy.
BUT - on that day and at that time, he dropped his guard. Please try to understand this. Using your comparisons: driving: Formula 1 drivers are the best of the bunch - you don't get better, yet they make mistakes and they are catastrophic. It has nothing to do with subliminal psychoanalytical, interdevelopmental breakdown or any other human factor gobbledy gook. The bloke messed up for 0.025 of a second and it cost him his life. Sh*t happens - we are not automatons. Get used to it and move onto something useful elsewhere in the industry where you can improve on.
RiP and all that.................
.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John R81
A firm of Lawyers who don't seem to know what AAIB stands for.
I've not bothered reading beyond that point.
The Aviation Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) released a report on Tuesday, following a fatal helicopter incident near Vauxhall Bridge, London, in January of last year.
I've not bothered reading beyond that point.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, there have been a lot of generalisations made about the flight and pilot, most of which do not actually help identify exactly why Pete Barnes hit the crane. And as with all accidents, the exact, ultimate cause is important and often not focussed on enough, I feel.
Ironically I think he hit the crane because (at this point) he was trying to comply with the rules - or at least to the greatest extent he could. The pilot had made a fairly tight right hand turn over Chelsea Bridge, hand flown, at a fairly steady altitude, so was almost certainly visual here. He then descended quickly to 570ft as he was proceeding east, again almost certainly to maintain VMC with a lowering cloud base as he went east. At this point, given clearance to turn west for Battersea Heliport, I'd guess that he knew turning right over the river at 500ft, whilst perfectly safe, would put him blatantly and obviously in breach of Rule 5, so he chose to climb as high as he could whilst being able to see the ground, which he surely could, given the images showing the silhouette of the aircraft from the base of the tower. Tragically in so doing the very reduced forward visibility meant he did not see the crane boom - which frankly was hard to see against the background in good visibility.
So I suspect that (ultimately) pressure to comply with the rules contributed to this accident. Though admittedly he would probably not have been in that situation if he'd fully complied with the rules from the outset.
Ironically I think he hit the crane because (at this point) he was trying to comply with the rules - or at least to the greatest extent he could. The pilot had made a fairly tight right hand turn over Chelsea Bridge, hand flown, at a fairly steady altitude, so was almost certainly visual here. He then descended quickly to 570ft as he was proceeding east, again almost certainly to maintain VMC with a lowering cloud base as he went east. At this point, given clearance to turn west for Battersea Heliport, I'd guess that he knew turning right over the river at 500ft, whilst perfectly safe, would put him blatantly and obviously in breach of Rule 5, so he chose to climb as high as he could whilst being able to see the ground, which he surely could, given the images showing the silhouette of the aircraft from the base of the tower. Tragically in so doing the very reduced forward visibility meant he did not see the crane boom - which frankly was hard to see against the background in good visibility.
So I suspect that (ultimately) pressure to comply with the rules contributed to this accident. Though admittedly he would probably not have been in that situation if he'd fully complied with the rules from the outset.
Rotorspeed - haven't you been listening?
Look - 'most' pilots scud run especially if they operate within the confines of flying lanes as Peter did and especially if they know that the weather limits are borderline. Most clouds you penetrate during scud running are full of air! One or two are NOT. Guess what -
There was NO pressure to comply with the rules, he had already decided to press on AFTER his principal had told him not to bother. He continued because he was complacent with his performance.
Please try to understand this. He was pushing his luck cloud hopping and ran out of it.
Look - 'most' pilots scud run especially if they operate within the confines of flying lanes as Peter did and especially if they know that the weather limits are borderline. Most clouds you penetrate during scud running are full of air! One or two are NOT. Guess what -
There was NO pressure to comply with the rules, he had already decided to press on AFTER his principal had told him not to bother. He continued because he was complacent with his performance.
Please try to understand this. He was pushing his luck cloud hopping and ran out of it.
To be fair, if he hadn't been IMC while under SVFR/ VFR, he probably would have seen the crane and hopefully avoided it.
He sounds like a nice guy from what I've read but he broke rules and it killed him. The rules exist as a result of many accidents over the years. They get refined when things happen. For me, there are no extra take aways from someone breaking the rules which were put in place to help him. He broke them, he died. Sad yes but true.
Marking cranes would not have helped this crash as he was supposed to be VFR anyway (key point being 'visual'). What can the CAA realistically do, approve cranes during housing development? Lets be clear here, over London, people should expect cranes, tall buildings and other aircraft, this isn't remote northern Scotland, it's the capital.
He sounds like a nice guy from what I've read but he broke rules and it killed him. The rules exist as a result of many accidents over the years. They get refined when things happen. For me, there are no extra take aways from someone breaking the rules which were put in place to help him. He broke them, he died. Sad yes but true.
Marking cranes would not have helped this crash as he was supposed to be VFR anyway (key point being 'visual'). What can the CAA realistically do, approve cranes during housing development? Lets be clear here, over London, people should expect cranes, tall buildings and other aircraft, this isn't remote northern Scotland, it's the capital.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC - actually I have been listening and I agree with much of what you say. However you please listen and understand why I am saying - and that's that people, as you are here - tend to generalise and not look at the exact cause of an accident. I stand by my comments. Why do you think he hit that crane? Do you agree with my analysis? If not, where is it flawed? Or do you really think he was just randomly in and out of cloud and could have hit various buildings at odd times?
Don't think that I am trying to say Pete wasn't to blame. He was. But looking at detail is interesting. If he had not hit that crane he would have almost certainly landed at Battersea with no problem and the flight would have attracted no attention.
Don't think that I am trying to say Pete wasn't to blame. He was. But looking at detail is interesting. If he had not hit that crane he would have almost certainly landed at Battersea with no problem and the flight would have attracted no attention.
"Why do you think he hit that crane?"
Because the crane, like him, was in cloud and he didn't see it.
The crane was entitled to be there in the cloud - he wasn't.
Because the crane, like him, was in cloud and he didn't see it.
The crane was entitled to be there in the cloud - he wasn't.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he had not hit that crane he would have almost certainly landed at Battersea with no problem and the flight would have attracted no attention.
Are you suggesting that except for Fate sticking a Thumb in his Eye it would have been acceptable for him to have done as he did?
TC,
I have a very huge problem with your comment:
"Look - 'most' pilots scud run especially if they operate within the confines of flying lanes as Peter did and especially if they know that the weather limits are borderline. Most clouds you penetrate during scud running are full of air! One or two are NOT. Guess what - "
As a very experienced Rudscunner.....One NEVER punches into Cloud....NEVER! The beauty of the helicopter is that it can fly very slowly....and is very agile especially at slow speeds. One maintains visual contact with the Ground at all times and One maintains forward Visibility and flies at a Speed that allows you to avoid obstacles and terrain AT ALL TIMES. One varies Speed based upon the distance and clarity of Visibility you have. Otherwise, you are going to spear that Mountain Goat with your Pitot Tube one day. One does not EVER Scud Run at Night....if one wishes to live long enough to make other mistakes in life.
All you Youngsters out there reading this. You can "Scud Run" but you have to do it in a "Safe" manner. Finding a way to do it both "Safe" and "Legal" is the hard part. Which should tell you that "Scud Running" is not an approved practice. Not being "Approved" connotes it should not be done to begin with.
Last edited by Boudreaux Bob; 12th Sep 2014 at 12:16.
If he had not hit that crane he would have almost certainly landed at Battersea with no problem and the flight would have attracted no attention.
1.17.7 The Operator’s Operations Manual
Part A of the Operator’s Operations Manual detailed the responsibilities
and duties of the Chief Pilot (who was also the Flight Safety Officer), the
duty Operations Manager and the pilots operating flights. There was no
flight‑by‑flight requirement for the various post holders to engage with pilots in the decision whether or not to operate a flight and there was no formal pre-flight risk assessment process. However, it was expected that pilots would liaise with duty personnel or the Chief Pilot as required in fulfilling their responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the helicopter.
Part A of the Operator’s Operations Manual detailed the responsibilities
and duties of the Chief Pilot (who was also the Flight Safety Officer), the
duty Operations Manager and the pilots operating flights. There was no
flight‑by‑flight requirement for the various post holders to engage with pilots in the decision whether or not to operate a flight and there was no formal pre-flight risk assessment process. However, it was expected that pilots would liaise with duty personnel or the Chief Pilot as required in fulfilling their responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the helicopter.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: between sun and sand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
even if there wouldn't be any cranes, or high rise buildings, penetrating clouds in a tight airspace above a populated area, all under VFR rules, is nothing but gross negligence.
if this penetrating thru clouds is a tolerated way of operating, one day there might be an other aircraft in just the same cloud doing just the same mistake
Get f***ing real!
What is the overall sum of this insurance case going to be? Is this in any relation to the need of operation as conducted?
We are all paying for it, and some people not only with money but a lot more.
if this penetrating thru clouds is a tolerated way of operating, one day there might be an other aircraft in just the same cloud doing just the same mistake
Get f***ing real!
What is the overall sum of this insurance case going to be? Is this in any relation to the need of operation as conducted?
We are all paying for it, and some people not only with money but a lot more.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC - my own view is that you're not right on that, but I accept you could be. You however (I assume) don't think my theory could possibly be true - I generally agree with your posts but that seems a bit arrogant to me.
Don't get out of hand folks, I'm in no way condoning the pilot's actions here, but just trying to consider what actually caused him to hit the crane, as a technical point. Clearly whatever he was doing he shouldn't have been doing it, but I don't think he was being quite as reckless as some here would have.
Don't get out of hand folks, I'm in no way condoning the pilot's actions here, but just trying to consider what actually caused him to hit the crane, as a technical point. Clearly whatever he was doing he shouldn't have been doing it, but I don't think he was being quite as reckless as some here would have.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorspeed,
If you were to omit the part about "trying to comply with the Rules" part of your post....you have offered the most logical explanation of why this happened. I would bet consideration of complying with any Rule was the last thing in Barnes' mind at the time. He was concentrating on getting into the heliport despite some very bad weather conditions.
If you were to omit the part about "trying to comply with the Rules" part of your post....you have offered the most logical explanation of why this happened. I would bet consideration of complying with any Rule was the last thing in Barnes' mind at the time. He was concentrating on getting into the heliport despite some very bad weather conditions.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me that facts that led to him dropping down through the sucker-hole are interesting in that they led to that decision. Part of the investigation and something to learn from for sure, but separate from what happened down below cloud.
Once through the cloud layer to go into Battersea there are probably three competing pressures; at this point I discount the pressures (self-imposed?) from above the cloud to do the best job he could for the client. Once heading down through the cloud-hole he was concentrating on putting the machine down at Battersea.
The first pressure he faced when he popped-out VFR below is noise abatement. Weather so bad, why not hover over the river and get cleared in? Not ideal from a power point of view, but solo in that machine? No problem! There is a circuit pattern at Battersea designed in part for noise abatement and hovering over the river whilst waiting for clearance would be legal (rules of flight) but generate complaints for Battersea. Safe, but very unpopular. Did it even come into his mind? Perhaps a low-hour pilot would think this way, but then a low-hour would not have been there.
So he flew the circuit
After that, as said already, he has pressures to remain +500ft from anything and to stay VFR. My guess is he was trying to do both which led to a climb and ..... he broke the 500ft rule.
Once through the cloud layer to go into Battersea there are probably three competing pressures; at this point I discount the pressures (self-imposed?) from above the cloud to do the best job he could for the client. Once heading down through the cloud-hole he was concentrating on putting the machine down at Battersea.
The first pressure he faced when he popped-out VFR below is noise abatement. Weather so bad, why not hover over the river and get cleared in? Not ideal from a power point of view, but solo in that machine? No problem! There is a circuit pattern at Battersea designed in part for noise abatement and hovering over the river whilst waiting for clearance would be legal (rules of flight) but generate complaints for Battersea. Safe, but very unpopular. Did it even come into his mind? Perhaps a low-hour pilot would think this way, but then a low-hour would not have been there.
So he flew the circuit
After that, as said already, he has pressures to remain +500ft from anything and to stay VFR. My guess is he was trying to do both which led to a climb and ..... he broke the 500ft rule.
Whilst the crane is getting a lot of attention, the core question is what led him to fly within 105 feet of a prominant building?
Was it solely down to poor vis?
Police and HEMS helicopters aside, how often do helicopters fly within 100ft of buildings over London?
Would any action or report have been taken or made if he had not hit the crane?
Mickjoebill
Was it solely down to poor vis?
Police and HEMS helicopters aside, how often do helicopters fly within 100ft of buildings over London?
Would any action or report have been taken or made if he had not hit the crane?
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 12th Sep 2014 at 14:39. Reason: Clarity, the question speaks to corner cutting and if you can get away with it
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Lol
My post was on for 20 seconds, I realised my mistake and deleted it.
Do you have notifications every time a post is made?
My post was on for 20 seconds, I realised my mistake and deleted it.
Do you have notifications every time a post is made?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB - what suggestions would have as to why he climbed 200ft before starting his right 180 if it wasn't to try and comply with the rules and be less obvious? If he simply wanted to widen the turn I think he would have done this over lower buildings to the north of the river.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotor,
I have no suggestions on what he did or why he did it as my Crystal Ball is in for routine maintenance.
All I can do is consider what happened.
He hit a Crane in Cloud. Everything after that is pretty much ordinary supposition beyond the information noted by the AAIB Report.
There is an old Greek Saying that fits your question.
"I should smell my hand and know what he was thinking?"
Barnes did not record his thoughts for consideration by the rest of us.
I have no suggestions on what he did or why he did it as my Crystal Ball is in for routine maintenance.
All I can do is consider what happened.
He hit a Crane in Cloud. Everything after that is pretty much ordinary supposition beyond the information noted by the AAIB Report.
There is an old Greek Saying that fits your question.
"I should smell my hand and know what he was thinking?"
Barnes did not record his thoughts for consideration by the rest of us.