Helicopter - v - crane LONDON

[nigelh]

With the greatest of respect , other than praise for two of our finest and slagging off everyone else , I find your post very little different to most of the others .
It may feel good to put yourself above the other posters but at the end of the day if we all had your attitude there would be no pprune . However much it may offend you this IS a rumour network and the posters here are just wanting to help make some sense of this ....and learn from it .

[tropeognathus]

I find your post very little different to most of the others .
It may feel good to put yourself above the other posters but at the end of the day if we all had your attitude there would be no pprune . However much it may offend you this IS a rumour network and the posters here are just wanting to help make some sense of this ....and learn from it .

If I have singled out a couple of individuals whose posts seem of particular relevance, it is because they are people who I knew or whose opinions I personally respect and whose opinions I believe (personal opinion only) would be taken as expert evidence in any legal proceedings.

I don't put myself anywhere in regard to any of the posters, nor do I feel good about any of this. I believe that there are rules in place already which provide adequate safeguards if followed. It does offend me that so many ignorants post opinion as fact. Rumour is a mix of truth and untruth passed around (verbally in days of yore) electronically and by other means. However, it seems to have escaped your notice, that another of the letters in the title of the forum is PROFESSIONAL - and there has been too little of that in evidence here in too many posts :suspect:. I believe a true professional would post opinions or rumours on matters on which he had at least a little factual knowledge, not just opinions gleaned for the most part from Wikipedia or Google. I have a fixed wing ATPL, but only on DH6 and HS125 and wouldn't dream of posting on a thread involving an accident in an A320 in Amsterdam, for example. I do have considerable experience of flights in the London CTR in days long gone by, but have not passed my opinion on ay individual post no matter how outlandish it seems to me. My observations are generalisations and I have not pointed the finger at any one individual. If the cap fits, wear it, seems adequate to me.

BTW, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I've read many of your posts and most of them seem to me to be well balanced. I flew more than 28,000 hours for 46 years (with one self-induced training accident and 3 others due to mechanical failure) and although too old to still be involved in CAT in Euroland, I am still actively involved in aviation

[deefer dog]

We have had it all on this thread;

A suggestion from on poster that pilots should receive training on the workings and recognition of cranes, a tour of Thames bridges courtesy of Google Street View, and to cap it all a lecture from an American (who has never even flown in the London heli routes) on how best they should be controlled.

The dots amount to low cloud, poor visibility, diverting and bumped into an obstacle that was attached to the surface. For goodness sake guys, how difficult are they to join up?

[tropeognathus]

deefer dog

We have had it all on this thread;

A suggestion from on poster that pilots should receive training on the workings and recognition of cranes, a tour of Thames bridges courtesy of Google Street View, and to cap it all a lecture from an American (who has never even flown in the London heli routes) on how best they should be controlled.

The dots amount to low cloud, poor visibility, diverting and bumped into an obstacle that was attached to the surface. For goodness sake guys, how difficult are they to join up?
2nd Feb 2013 22:06

Common sense :ok:

[nigelh]

Ok , fair point . I too agree that all the safeguards are already there within the existing rules and hope there will be no knee jerk reaction ......I think it would be good if ones licence(s) and maybe hrs were mandatory against your pprune name ....then you at least have an idea of what their experience is .
There does seem to be a number of non pro pilots , and even just non pilots posting views which just Muddies up the water maybe ??

[SilsoeSid]

In post 704 I said, "If it's getting down to bridge and surroundings recognition, surely flying over the Houses of Parliament or even the direction of the river, might have helped with the positional awareness!"

In 715, ttb says,
"Vauxhall bridge is blindingly conspicuous to anyone familiar with H10/H4 - it's bright red and can be seen from miles away in CAVOK. Even in poor viz, once eyeballed, it's obvious which one it is. PB would have had no problem recognising it IMO after even the briefest of glimpses through the clouds (it also has the rather imposing MI6 building towering over it...).

Apart from the railway bridge immediately adjacent (and the fact that it's not bright red!), Chelsea Bridge has pylons/suspension cables and white arches - not to mention Battersea Power station a stone's throw away.

There's no way the two could have been confused."


Since then it seems to have fallen on deaf ears that I'm not comparing Chelsea Bridge and Vauxhall, but The rail bridge (Grosvenor) with Vauxhall. Pics prove the similarity. I think that the pictures posted, regardless from which level, show that given the right, or wrong conditions, be two can actually be confused.


Toptobottom, please shut me up and answer my 'bizarre theory' question from earlier;
If you are so confident that he saw Vauxhall, I'd love to know why you think he physically turned away from Vauxhall after being told to hold between it and Westminster/London and headed off towards Chelsea rail, enter the zone without clearance and then turn back eastwards on reaching the rail bridge, despite no further instructions from ATC ....as if once he got to Chelsea rail, he realised that it wasn't Vauxhall after all.



Oh, and sorry, I didn't realise we all had to verify ourselves to you, but as it happens, I have flown the routes, quite a few times, along with quite a few trips into Battersea Heliport & Chelsea Bks, but my favourites were going into the Naval College and landing in front of the statue of George II.

I look forward to your answer and to seeing your photographs.
:ok:

[SilsoeSid]

My favourite post here so far;

nigelh

......I think it would be good if ones licence(s) and maybe hrs were mandatory against your PPRuNe name ....then you at least have an idea of what their experience is .
There does seem to be a number of non pro pilots , and even just non pilots posting views which just Muddies up the water maybe ??

..whose details given are;

nigelh
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: yorkshire uk
Posts: 813

:D

[nomorehelosforme]

I went past the building/crane today, in bright sunshine, then was totally aware of many cranes along the Thames and around Battersea, more concerning is the now approved redevelopment of BatterseaPower Station how many cranes will that involve within a very short distance of the landing zone. In addition current developments adjacent to Battersea have not yet erected their cranes?

[SASless]

Gentlemen....pray Silence, Please!

The beauty of forums such as Rotorheads is the exchange of views, ideas, opinions combined with respectful debate and even out right argument.

Just as I always held a mindset that I could learn from every single person I ever flew with.....I carry that same view across to Rotorheads.

Every time we have a fatal accident, we eventually get around to having to ponder, however briefly sometimes, inputs by others that we do not agree with or think make much sense in our own view. Commonsense is not limited to the level of license achieved or the number of hours obtained....and thus there should be consideration given to comments made here.

Granted, some have been of the kind that required not a lot of consideration but some have been well worth pondering.

As the most important rule of the Forum is to play the ball....not the player....perhaps we now and then should refresh our attention to that in order to keep this Forum as enjoyable and productive as it is.

If we all agreed....as if any two helicopter pilots can agree on anything...it would be a very dull place. In flight, I like dull. In the Tea Room....not dull is far more fun.

What some folks sometimes miss is a provocative statement is meant to be just that....provocative and perhaps works to move the conversation along. I am guilty of that at times....usually on purpose....although not always.

For a lot of reasons....a great deal is "Not Said" for any number of reasons....legal, courtesy, and general good grace....so this is not a perfect place.

We may have our differences in outlook, background, experience, and evaluation of the issues under discussion....but that is as it should be....as we all bring different life experiences to the playground.

There are a great many here I look forward to hearing from....on the public forum and by PM....as I have a great deal of respect for them as I know them personally and some by reputation alone.

[nigelh]

Sid .. Why not save being a smart arse for a less sensitive thread ? It was just an idea due to a number of complaints about uneducated posts . I think it is right that this thread should be , mainly , written by professional pilots who know the heliroutes and read by the rest . Just my opinion . Over and out .

[SilsoeSid]

nigelh Sid .. Why not save being a smart arse for a less sensitive thread ? It was just an idea due to a number of complaints about uneducated posts . I think it is right that this thread should be , mainly , written by professional pilots who know the heliroutes and read by the rest . Just my opinion . Over and out .


Nigel, well sorry. I just found it strange that you want everyone to show their details, yet don't do it yourself! Besides, is the problem in this incident the heliroutes themselves or is it something that affects the whole industry?

I think this has more to do with the human factor side of this flight from start to tragic end, than the procedures already in place to operate the London Heliroutes.

I'm still struggling to see how people like you think there is a problem with the heliroutes and that only those that regularly fly them can comment on. Please bear in mind that on this particular morning PB wasn't actually on the route system itself.

[terminus mos]

We have had all kinds of pontification on this thread so far:

Mechanical failure just happening to occur at a critical time resulting in the flight path terminating in a location coincident with the a crane obscured by cloud (nonsense)

Icing which just happened to alter the flight characteristics of the aircraft resulting in the flight path terminating in a location coincident with a crane obscured by cloud (nonsense)

Bright lights required to show up the cranes to pilots flying close to them in cloud. Anyone who has flown as a passenger in a jet in cloud knows that you can hardly see the strobe at end of the wing. The concept of flight path deviation as a result of a light on a crane is a farce.

A "mobile crane" familarisation course required for pilots flying the heli-lanes (pathetic)

Bridge recognition advice from lots of "experienced" pilots and suggestions of looking for cars or trains on the bridge to distinguish between them (more nonsense)

Essentially, the pilot lost situational awareness in low cloud and poor visibility during a period of high cockpit workload. The decision at apparent short notice to divert to Battersea (still closed at the time) rather than back to Redhill, the pre occupation with maintaining VMC under VFR or SVFR and telephone communication by voice and text to client and operating base contributed to the high workload.

There are other factors including an apparent lack of operational control and the unexplained decision of the pilot to depart against the client's wishes.

[Mushroom_2]

We have had all kinds of pontification on this thread so far:

Mechanical failure just happening to occur at a critical time resulting in the flight path terminating in a location coincident with the a crane obscured by cloud (nonsense)

Icing which just happened to alter the flight characteristics of the aircraft resulting in the flight path terminating in a location coincident with a crane obscured by cloud (nonsense)

Bright lights required to show up the cranes to pilots flying close to them in cloud. Anyone who has flown as a passenger in a jet in cloud knows that you can hardly see the strobe at end of the wing. The concept of flight path deviation as a result of a light on a crane is a farce.

A "mobile crane" familarisation course required for pilots flying the heli-lanes (pathetic)

Bridge recognition advice from lots of "experienced" pilots and suggestions of looking for cars or trains on the bridge to distinguish between them (more nonsense)

Essentially, the pilot lost situational awareness in low cloud and poor visibility during a period of high cockpit workload. The decision at apparent short notice to divert to Battersea (still closed at the time) rather than back to Redhill, the pre occupation with maintaining VMC under VFR or SVFR and telephone communication by voice and text to client and operating base contributed to the high workload.

There are other factors including an apparent lack of operational control and the unexplained decision of the pilot to depart against the client's wishes.

A pretty good summing up of 39 pages of speculation.

[Heliport]

terminus mos
We have had all kinds of pontification on this thread so far..... etc etc etc etcThat clearly hasn't deterred you from pontificating.

Battersea (still closed at the time)
According to the AAIB, the pilot was holding while ATC phoned Battersea to see if they were open.
They were.
ATC told him they were open and to contact them direct.
He acknowledged at 0759:18 hrs and began turning towards Battersea.
7 seconds later, at 0759:25 hrs, he was dead.

telephone communication by voice and text to client and operating base contributed to the high workload.The AAIB information is that he was VMC on top for most of the flight.
The last text was 4 minutes before the crash.
The last phone call was earlier than that.


H.

[sarboy w****r]

Terminus mos:

There are other factors including an apparent lack of operational control and the unexplained decision of the pilot to depart against the client's wishes.

Re-read my post 742.

[industry insider]

Heliport

Continuing the pontification....

According to the AAIB, the pilot was holding while ATC phoned Battersea to see if they were open.
They were.

But the pilot did not know for sure and he asked ATC "is Battersea open?" A sign of an unplanned last minute decision and a high workload. If not, and he had time and resources, why didn't he contact them direct?

The AAIB information is that he was VFR on top for most of the flight.
The last text was 4 minutes before the crash.
The last phone call was earlier than that.

Being VFR or VMC on top over London at 1500' is no fun place on a crappy weather day, especially when trying to make sure that all the "holes" haven't closed up, and that there is still somewhere to go. Even at reduced speed, its amazing how quickly one covers the ground over London. Its easy to get behind the aircraft.

We only had 2 radios and a map to manage and even in a fully coupled S-76, when single pilot IFR, one was busy, even at 120 knots or less with ATC, frequency changes, aircraft configuration for landing etc. The added distraction of having a phone and text messages would only add to the workload, regardless of when the texts finished.

[toptobottom]

I've always tried to afford my fellow rotorheads the same level of respect I would liketo receive myself. There are several posters on here whose arrogance sometimes manifests itself in aggressive and churlish rhetoric which is neither helpful nor collegial. There are some posters whose contribution is incredibly speculative, which I find distracting at best and downright damaging at worst - particularly for those who absorb all they read as gospel (many of whom are either inexperienced or worse, not pilots at all... :suspect:). Then there are those with relevant experience who promote intelligent debate from which we can ALL learn. If you're in this camp, then great. If you're not, then with the greatest respect, please don't dilute the value of PPRuNe with ignorant fantasy.

Ironically I couldn't do H10/H4 last Friday morning due poor Wx, however I'm expecting to do it again at the back end of this week, so I will try and get some representative piccies to prove the point that PB simply would not have muddled up the bridges, regardless of alleged workload/poor viz.

In the meantime, here's my ha'peth.

Icing had nothing to do with it.
Phone/texts had nothing to do with it.
Mechanical failure, counting cars on bridges, changing frequency, lack of crane spotting training, lack of lights, etc. had nothing to do with it.
CRM may have had something to do with it.
A combination of NOTAM awareness and IIMC (or even deliberate IMC) had everything to do with it.

There is no need to change any of the rules wrt flying through London.

[sarboy w****r]

I'd love to spell it out better but I cannot. Read post 742 as to why.

How does one prove that something actually took place? You need an independent witness(es) or some form of independent corroboration.

For the sake of argument, let's define independent as meaning free from self-interest and being completely unconnected with and unconcerned by the outcome of the attempted proof.

For example, weather? Yep, corroborated by independent METARs, photographic evidence, multiple witnesses at the scene. (I suppose, philosophically speaking, we cannot state categorically exactly what the weather was at the exact time of the incident at the exact spot where the impact occurred [in 3D space] but we can get pretty damn close).

What other elements of the AAIB initial report are being taken in this thread to be statements of incontrovertible fact when in fact they are not?

[sarboy w****r]

TTB:

I couldn't agree more with your post, apart from the placement of 2 words:

Mechanical failure, counting cars on bridges, changing frequency, lack of crane spotting training, lack of lights, etc. had nothing to do with it.
CRM may have had something to do with it.
A combination of NOTAM awareness and IIMC (or even deliberate IMC) had everything to do with it.



Personally, I would put the changing of the frequency in the same sentence as CRM, as it may have contributed to IIMC.

[SilsoeSid]

Wouldn't such an experienced heli-routist, as we keep being told, know that at that time of the morning, Battersea would have been open anyway?

So why the question;

"At 0755 hrs, G-CRST was put under radar control as it entered the London CTR. One minute later, the pilot asked:"
“ROCKET 2, IS BATTERSEA OPEN DO YOU KNOW?”


The London Heliport :: Welcome to London Heliport (http://www.londonheliport.co.uk/)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/21a174e4f08c870eccd878f856228261_zps83cf23c4.jpg

[Heliport]

puntosaurus

Like you, I assumed helicopter pilots here, especially the professionals, would understand that.

Sadly, and surprisingly, my assumption was obviously wrong. :rolleyes:

H.

[SilsoeSid]

puntosaurus
Oh FFS. There's open as in front door open, and open as in receiving helicopters. Which one do you think he was interested in ? I can deal with unknown handles posting rubbish, but when it comes from experienced contributors I really despair.

I'm sorry, which part of...

"Operating hours for arrivals and departures Monday - Friday 0730-19:30"

...is so confusing?

[SilsoeSid]

Heliport
puntosaurus

Like you, I assumed helicopter pilots here, especially the professionals, would understand that.

Sadly, and surprisingly, my assumption was obviously wrong. :rolleyes:

H.

..and I would have assumed that those posting in reference to a particular post, would have the common decency to read the post that they are commenting on.

[puntosaurus]

Fair enough. Apologies.

[Heliport]

Sid I would have assumed that those posting in reference to a particular post, would have the common decency to read the post that they are commenting on.

I did read your post, and I've now read it again just in case I misread it originally.
I stand by my earlier comment.

Yes, of course the "experienced heli-routist, as we keep being told" would have known Battersea's standard 'Operating hours for arrivals and departures Monday - Friday 0730-19:30'.

Given the inclement conditions that morning, he clearly wanted to know if it was actually open for an arrival at that time.


H.

[SASless]

Well now....after nearly a month....we are finally getting down to the nitty gritty.

Why don't we sum up the cause of this accident in a few very short concise paragraphs and wait to see who is the most accurate when the AAIB issue their finding shall we?

I say the flight departed Redhill knowing weather at the Destination was below VFR minimums, was not forecast to be at or above VFR Minimums at ETA. The flight was conducted VFR on Top over a solid or nearly solid undercast of either Fog, Low Cloud or a combination of both. The Pilot departed despite being told by the Client not to do so. Upon arrival at the destination and determining the weather prevented landing, the Pilot elected to return to the Departure Point. Enroute the Pilot elected make an unplanned Diversion to Battersea based upon input by the Client, despite not having any official weather reporting for that location. The Pilot for some unexplained reason descended to an altitude that placed him into a very confined airspace over an urban area filled with tall buildings, cranes, and other obstructions and did so in weather conditions that created poor uncertain visibility and uneven low cloud.

Due to the unplanned Diversion decision, the Pilot had to wait for clearance before entering the Battersea Control Zone. After a short hold given by ATC, he was told he would be cleared into the Zone and to contact Battersea ATC. The aircraft turned towards the Heliport and before contacting ATC....struck an up raised Crane Jib Boom.

The Pilot failed to maintain adequate visual references as required by Regulation.

That's my polite version folks....whats yours?

[gulliBell]

Why is it that I always seem to end up agreeing with SASless :\ his summary as set out above is pretty much my reading of the situation as well. What I don't even begin to understand are the human factors that were at play here that ultimately lead to the accident. That aspect in particular is what I'm hoping the AAIB final report will shed some light on.

[toptobottom]

Sarboy: Personally, I would put the changing of the frequency in the same sentence as CRM, as it may have contributed to IIMC.
You're quite right. Whether he was looking in and fiddling with the radio or squinting through a white screen, the fact is he didn't see the crane which was 6 seconds away. I believe he knew exactly where he was; he simply didn't know the crane was there as well.

SAS: The Pilot failed to maintain adequate visual references as required by Regulation
That, very sadly, will be the last line in the AAIB report.

[sarboy w****r]

The completely random input from SS about opening times has very neatly diverted attention away from my question, posed in post 771.

The crash happened because the aircraft flew into a crane. The pilot either did not see or could not see the crane in time to be able to avoid it.

A rhetorical question for you: what might have caused the pilot to take off, or to attempt to make an approach into Battersea?

Why has commercial pressure been discounted?

[ShyTorque]

Wouldn't such an experienced heli-routist, as we keep being told, know that at that time of the morning, Battersea would have been open anyway?

Because he would have been aware, as regular users are, that Battersea heliport will be closed to traffic if the cloud base is less than 600 feet.

[Heliport]

sarboy w****r Why has commercial pressure been discounted?

It hasn't been discounted by everyone.

Some people think the customer's message completely removed commercial pressure.


H.

[sarboy w****r]

Hurray!!!! Someone is actually reading what I have written.

Some people think the customer's message completely removed commercial pressure.

Now, please would you mind reading my posts 742 and 771? Go on, please humour me.

Having done that, please answer the question posed in 771 (it's highly relevant and important):

I'd love to spell it out better but I cannot. Read post 742 as to why.

How does one prove that something actually took place? You need an independent witness(es) or some form of independent corroboration.

For the sake of argument, let's define independent as meaning free from self-interest and being completely unconnected with and unconcerned by the outcome of the attempted proof.

For example, weather? Yep, corroborated by independent METARs, photographic evidence, multiple witnesses at the scene. (I suppose, philosophically speaking, we cannot state categorically exactly what the weather was at the exact time of the incident at the exact spot where the impact occurred [in 3D space] but we can get pretty damn close).

What other elements of the AAIB initial report are being taken in this thread to be statements of incontrovertible fact when in fact they are not?

[Heliport]

sarboy w****r

You will have noticed I didn't say I think the customer's message completely removed commercial pressure.
I don't.

And we don't know (and may never know) everything that was said by the customer at the various stages of their communications. The AAIB only have the texts.

For the sake of argument, let's define independent as meaning free from self-interest and being completely unconnected with and unconcerned by the outcome of the attempted proof.That's a fair definition.
Your point isn't lost on me. ;)

H.

[sarboy w****r]

We're getting there.

Heliport:

Your point isn't lost on me.

In which case, you can read between the lines.

My post 742:

Now ask yourselves why a signed statement has been submitted to the AAIB from someone (a professional pilot) who spoke to the pilot that morning about that specific flight (not Witness A) but is not mentioned in the AAIB report or subsequently? This post is highly likely to be removed by the Mods because of potential libel difficulties if this post elaborates any further.

[Heliport]

We're getting there. I was always there. ;)

[sarboy w****r]

Sorry Heliport, didn't mean to impugn your ability to read in between the lines, the "we" referred to the readers of this thread in general and in particular was aimed at those contributors who have been spouting off nonsense theories.

The AAIB only have the texts.

Not strictly true:

Now ask yourselves why a signed statement has been submitted to the AAIB from someone (a professional pilot) who spoke to the pilot that morning about that specific flight (not Witness A) but is not mentioned in the AAIB report or subsequently?

[SASless]

Sarboy,

How can Heliport attest to the contents of a Letter to which he has no knowledge or the import of the information contained in that letter....even assuming that letter actually exists?

Heliport is a pretty sharp fellow but I doubt Clairvoyance is one of his many and formidable skills and talents.

[terminus mos]

Of course there was commercial pressure. The pilot was a freelance, no fly no pay. It is also unlikely that the client would have paid anything, especially as the client realised the weather was bad and wanted to cancel.

Someone was going to have to pay the pilot's wage, the flight hours and the landing and nav charges as a minimum.

Do charter operators indemnify pilots for all costs in the event of the job not being carried out? Maybe, in the event of additional costs due weather en route but unlikely if the client hasn't even been picked up.

The commercial part of the CRM equation would have been quite high, if potentially self induced to some degree.

[toptobottom]

Post 742: And as for why the pilot may have elected to go to Battersea rather than return to Redhill, or even take off at all in the first place, ask yourselves what information that is in the preliminary AAIB report can be independently verified by them and proven to be true? What information cannot be independently proven to be true? What has been merely assumed to be accurate?

Now ask yourselves why a signed statement has been submitted to the AAIB from someone (a professional pilot) who spoke to the pilot that morning about that specific flight (not Witness A) but is not mentioned in the AAIB report or subsequently? This post is highly likely to be removed by the Mods because of potential libel difficulties if this post elaborates any further.

What is the overriding contributory factor of HEMS accidents in the USA?
Post 771: I'd love to spell it out better but I cannot. Read post 742 as to why.

How does one prove that something actually took place? You need an independent witness(es) or some form of independent corroboration.

For the sake of argument, let's define independent as meaning free from self-interest and being completely unconnected with and unconcerned by the outcome of the attempted proof.

For example, weather? Yep, corroborated by independent METARs, photographic evidence, multiple witnesses at the scene. (I suppose, philosophically speaking, we cannot state categorically exactly what the weather was at the exact time of the incident at the exact spot where the impact occurred [in 3D space] but we can get pretty damn close).

What other elements of the AAIB initial report are being taken in this thread to be statements of incontrovertible fact when in fact they are not?

OK, I'm barking - not sure if it's up the right tree though... :O




I wouldn't want to speculate on any allegedly unpublished telephone conversations and I share your concern re libel, etc. but If PB was under pressure to proceed with the flight, it would have surely come from only one or more of three sources:
The client
The operator
Himself
We don't know what was said during any other alleged phone calls, but I don't see any particular pressure being put on the pilot in the texts. I did wonder why he would elect to divert to a murky Batts when that's hardly convenient for the client and there's clear blue sky 10 mins down the road at Redhill... However, if he had been pressurised into completing the job by 1) or 2), it was still PB's sole responsibility as PIC to say NO, regardless of the commercial consequences. Would he really have put himself in that situation to try and save his flight to the north of England? Possibly.

What is this alleged mystery letter and what elucidating information is it alleged to contain? :confused:

[SilsoeSid]

SASless, I'd also agree with your summary earlier, but referring to the sentence that says,

"Due to the unplanned Diversion decision, the Pilot had to wait for clearance before entering the Battersea Control Zone."

Didn't he enter the control zone before getting clearance?
Clearance to Battersea was eventually given as he was leaving the zone, east bound along the river approaching Vauxhall bridge from the West.
(Ref the pic in post 687)

[Bronx]

Give it (and us) a rest Sid.

You give the impression of having too much free time on your hands.


B.

[SilsoeSid]

Sorry Bronx, you're saying that he didn't fly into the Battersea zone without clearance?

[SASless]

Sid,

Bronx being from New York City may not completely understand the different Control Zones and ATC coverage for the Heli-Lanes and the various Heliports in their vicinity. Just how far into the Battersea Control Zone did he get? If he was already there....how far was he from the Heliport....is it a three mile radius or something or smaller than that?

If he under control of London ATC....and they had given him a clearance....and he was complying with that Clearance....what does it matter?

Instead of snippy back and forth....lay out your case for us.

[SilsoeSid]

Lay out your case for us.

The clearance given was to hold between Vauxhall Bridge and Westminster Bridge, this was soon amended to a wider hold from Vauxhall to London Bridge.

The radar track as seen in Fig 3 of the SB shows that after this clearance was given, the ac turned right, away from Vauxhall and the river, and continue down as far as Grosvenor Bridge (Chelsea Rail).

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/52cdb90b69bb1e93871a6516b3e96e85_zpsbb95b9c5.jpg

With the latest UKAIP AIRAC 01/2013 Disc, effective date 10 Jan 2013, in front of me, I can read, 'London Heliport ATZ A circle, 2 Nm radius centred at 512812N 0001046W, Upper limit 2000ft Lower limit SFC, Airspace class A.

The chart for EGLW;

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/1f0691bc1b1c7f888bb5352470adffd8_zps303c4860.jpg

As you can see, at a point very close to the first 870ft indicator, the zone was entered and once the turn to the East was complete, the zone wasn't left until around the 570ft indicator. Just after the zone was left, clearance was then given to Battersea and a change of frequency, followed shortly afterwards by an acknowledgement and the right turn. (I thought my 'picture paints a thousand words' post 687 on page 35 made this clear enough.)

To me all this would appear to indicate not only an uncertainty of position in relation to the London Heliport Zone and river orientation, but also to the various bridges and their identification. After all, we keep getting told how well he knew the routes and bridges, in which case it would be known that Westminster and London Bridges were North of Vauxhall, not to the Southwest which is the direction flown after being given the hold parameters.

Perhaps it wasn't until the power station was seen, that the true position was realised.

[Bronx]

SASless Bronx being from New York City may not completely understand the different Control Zones and ATC coverage for the Heli-Lanes and the various Heliports in their vicinity.If that was the test for being allowed to post on this thread most of the guys spouting theories wouldn't be posting them and the debate would be whole lot better.

I don't know if you've realized but most of the British pros who are regulars in the Heli-Lanes and undertand the different Control Zones and ATC coverage have just about given up trying to answer theories and speculation by guys like Sid.
Your happy to go on and on swapping theories and speculating with Sid but when JimL who going by his posts in this forum for many years knows his stuff and Sarboy who obviously knows more than he can say tried to steer the debate in what could have been an interesting and maybe more useful direction you;re not interested.
the various Heliports in their vicinityThat's a new one.
Where are the various Heliports in their vicinity?
I thought there was only one.:confused:

Sid Sorry Bronx, you're saying that he didn't fly into the Battersea zone without clearance?Sorry Sid, where did I say that?


B.

[SilsoeSid]

So, you agree that he did then?

[Senior Pilot]

Give it (and us) a rest Sid.

This thread is too important to be hijacked by Rotorheads who seem unable or unwilling to listen to the wisdom of those with experience of the area and give their time to enlighten those who are not fully familiar with procedures,.

The repetitious nature of the posts of Sid and others are beginning to grate: have a day off, Sid, and come back prepared to listen rather than pontificate.

[212man]

The pilot was a freelance, no fly no pay

Where does this idea keep coming from? I understood he was the training post holder for the company - I find it hard to reconcile that with being a freelancer!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Its quite a long time since I flew in the Heli-lanes. I think 21 years ago. In a Police BO-105 heading North.

Sometimes good people make bad mistakes. I think in the latter stages of the flight Pete just ran out of sky!!

When the swiss cheese holes start to line up you need a stroke of luck or a determined about face to halt the fickle finger of fate.

From what I remember the London Heli-lanes are very well regulated with crystal clear rules and routes to follow. I think this is more a "Rules of the Air" problem than any route procedures!!

Much is made of experience on this thread. The experience of starting to run out of sky is not a nice one and somewhat a "Rite of Passage". If we can learn anything from Pete's demise it should be to consider just what we will accept/deny/reason when the sky starts to come down to the ground.

I am very lucky that I have spent much of the last 21 years out over the ocean in a very capable helicopter. Even out here some people have managed to bump into the sea and thats flat (some of the time).

For those of you not so lucky I would take a few extra moments before you fly to make sure all your escape routes are viable, identifiable and most of all, compliant with the Rules of the Air.

Rules are there to make us safe!!! We need to make an effort to follow them.

DB (pontificating)

[Art of flight]

This might be the pause needed in this thread to take an early lesson from such circumstances as seem to contribute to this tragedy. Wether it's US EMS CFIT, ex world motorcycle champions CFIT, wealthy quarry owner CFIT, ex military CFIT or professional commercial Heli pilots hitting solid objects...............beware pushing the limits in poor weather. Don't get into a position where luck has to play a part. Inevitably 24 hours later the weather will be better and people will speculate as to why you didn't just can it before it got too bad.

Fly safe.

[deefer dog]

Double Bogey:

One of the most sensible posts to date on this hamster wheel of a thread!

[Flying Lawyer]

I’d be interested in informed opinions concerning some points I’ve been pondering since this accident.

Given the number of high rise buildings erected close to the River in recent years, there are some places where compliance with both the 500’ rule and the maximum permitted height is borderline at least. It's probably going to get more difficult. According to the press, at least 12 buildings more than 500 feet high are under construction/approved for construction in the next six years.
I don’t know if NATS is consulted/invited to make representations before planning permission is granted. Does anyone know?
In particular, I wonder if NATS was consulted before planning permission was granted for the Vauxhall Tower which is very close to the River and, when completed, will be 594 feet high.

One solution might be to allow helicopters to fly higher over London than currently permitted, particularly those using H4 through central London.
On my very rough calculation, aircraft inbound to Heathrow are at about 3200 over the centre of London. (Correction welcomed.) If that calculation is roughly correct, there seems to be scope for allowing helicopters to fly higher over central London – particularly when using H4, the area where most of the very tall buildings are or will be situated - and still maintain adequate separation.
What do professional pilots (aeroplane or helicopter) think?

We are permitted to temporarily deviate to the right of the route if necessary in order to obtain sufficient lateral separation from opposite direction traffic but there are places where that isn’t practical because of tall buildings.
This might lead to being asked more often to hold at one of the bridges until opposite direction traffic has passed or to accept reduced traffic separation.
That wouldn’t be necessary as often if helicopters on H4 were allowed to fly higher over central London.

Disclaimer: Just random thoughts for consideration. Not fully thought through.


FL

[SASless]

FL,

Does your post mean you considered my suggestion about re-thinking the Heli-Lanes structure and procedures?

I did do that about a week ago and since have drawn some flak from Bronx and some others as I they think I should not offer up comments about the Lanes and things in Europe and the UK and should leave it those who run the lanes frequently.


That post.....

I would suggest the Heli-Routes control could probably be eased by adopting a single ATC function similar to Approach Control. Define the Airspace by track and max/min height, define a few reporting points, perhaps even make some of the tracks one direction only. The trick would be to facilitate departures and arrivals at Landing sites that underlay or very closely adjojn the Heli-Routes.

If one had to file a flight plan prior to entering the Controlled Airspace with that ATC unit...avoided the restricted Altitudes until in radio contact with the ATC unit...it would be a lot easier for all concerned (IMHO).

Actually that is far more restrictive than most high activity Offshore Oil Field Operations as we usually did not have an ATC service except for Flight Following and the odd Traffic Advisory.

Sometimes taking a big step back and thinking about how it "could be done" might work better than trying to figure out how to modify and existing system.

But....knowing the Bureaucracy.....that ain't gonna happen.

An example....require traffic to hold to a 1,000 feet one direction, and 1500 feet (or say....700 feet and 1200 feet) the other and that would grant traffic separation by height and still leave some room for landing and departing traffic while ensuring a 500 foot Rule margin under VFR conditions.

If the Weather goes below VFR....then ATC turns it into a positive control zone for all traffic and issues SVFR clearances.

Just a thought....what you think?

[ShyTorque]

FL, This ties in precisely with my earlier post about the idea of a minimum altitude being introduced for that section along the river. I was shot down in flames by a number of posters who didn't want to see any more regulations.

I think you were the one who advised "be careful what you wish for" ;)

A higher altitude would be of some use but obviously not if the cloud were low on the day. Also, as we know, twin engined helicopters don't have to stay on the river.

[jellycopter]

FL

The river is approximately 600ft wide so adhering to the 500ft rule should be viable by flying on the opposite bank and employing lateral separation if necessary. Unless of course 2 high-rise buildings are erected at opposite sides of the river. (I don't know if such a development is planned or not). Even if they were, flying centre-river you'd only need to be 400ft above any adjacent high-rise. (using simple 3-4-5 triangle geometry). If 600ft high developments are planned on the river bank, this would still permit flight at 1000ft so no height increase in the heli-lanes should be necessary. Or is my view overly simplistic?

JJ

[SASless]

Oh...this is beginning to look like a fun discussion.

I can just see some CAA surveyors with their transits and chains doing a survey and trying to calculate the exact flight path and altitudes that are required to comply with the 500 foot rule.

[ShyTorque]

The river is approximately 600ft wide so adhering to the 500ft rule should be viable by flying on the opposite bank and employing lateral separation if necessary.

You shouldn't fly on the bank, the rules say you should fly between the high and low water marks.

If you fly to the bare bones limits of the 500 foot rule in a low cloud situation in and around these new and extremely tall high rise buildings and cranes, you are getting yourself into a blind alley.

Also, pilots are sometimes given a clearance, or given an amended clearance, which includes the words "remain south side" or "remain north side". You may also be asked to accept visual separation on the route (from other traffic). If you are on the "wrong" bank, then what?

[Flying Lawyer]

SASless

I know your long and wide experience of different ops in different countries so I'm always interested in your opinions and respect them even when, on rare occasions, I disagree. Some topics are way beyond my knowledge and/or experience so I just read what you and the other professional pilots say and take the opportunity to learn.

I'm not persuaded significant changes are necessary; the current system has worked well and safely for decades. I was just wondering if, given London's (quite rapidly) changing skyline, increasing maximum permitted altitude would be beneficial.

What do I think of your proposals?
I'm hesitant to answer because there are professionals here who use the routes regularly so they are in a position to give informed opinions but, FWIW my immediate reaction:

It's not difficult to change ATC when instructed; not always, but usually, it comes when expected. I don't see the necessity for a single ATC function. (I assume you aren't suggesting that the single ATC unit would also control movements at the Battersea.)
The routes are already defined. Max altitude is already defined. Minimum isn't, except in one small section which must be flown at a precise height so is therefore min as well as max. Reporting points are already defined.
There are very few landing sites closely adjoining the routes in/near central London.
I'm not convinced having to file a (written) flight plan is either necessary or would improve the existing system.
I agree starting afresh is often better than modifying an existing system but I'm far from persuaded that there's any for necessity to make extensive changes - except perhaps max altitude.
I can see the argument for different altitudes in different directions but I'd have to look at the terrain much more closely before offering an opinion about whether it would work.
I'm not sure about 'below VFR (VMC?) / positive control zone for all traffic etc' would work. It's a very big area and weather/vis is often very different in different parts.
Overall, I remain of the view that the tried and tested existing system works well and doesn't need significant changes. As Americans say: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

FL


I see some pros have already responded.
I should have waited. ;)

ShyTorque FL, This ties in precisely with my earlier post about the idea of a minimum altitude being introduced for that section along the river ...........
I think you were the one who advised "be careful what you wish for"
I can see the argument for minimum altitude along the River. You are in a far better position than me to assess whether it's necessary.

Re my 'Be careful what you wish for.'
I can't remember now but I think I was responding to calls for more extensive changes which I still don't think are necessary.
One issue I think will need to be addressed:
Opposite direction traffic is deemed to be separated when routing west along the north bank and east along the south bank. However, the increasing number of very tall buildings being constructed close to the river will make it very difficult (impossible in some instances?) to route along the river bank and comply with Rule 5. eg Even now, the St George Tower at Vauxhall effectively prevents two-way traffic on H4 when London City is using 09 or when the cloud base is below 1200 ft.


jellycopter
You are a professional, and I assume you know the routes well, so I'm interested in your view - and reluctant to express an opinion about whether it is over simplistic, or not.

I'll be very interested to see if the AAIB say anything about high rise buildings being erected so near the River.
And whether NATS is consulted before planning permission is granted.
Of one thing I'm confident, their approach will be very different from the IMHO over simplistic approach taken by some people in the course of this thread.

.

[jellycopter]

Shyt

What are the high and low watermarks if they're not the river banks? Semantics?

If you fly to the bare bones limits of the 500 foot rule in a low cloud situation in and around these new and extremely tall high rise buildings and cranes, you are getting yourself into a blind alley.

Agreed. I've never been to Battersea with 600ft and 1000m viz. I've always thought that was barking mad.

Also, pilots are sometimes given a clearance, or given an amended clearance, which includes the words "remain south side" or "remain north side". You may also be asked to accept visual separation on the route (from other traffic). If you are on the "wrong" bank, then what?

As with any other clearance, if the pilot cannot comply, he cannot accept the clearance. I wouldn't accept a climb if it meant going into icing conditions. Likewise, i wouldn't accept a clearance if it meant busting the 500 ft rule, or any other rule for that matter.

Your minimum altitude idea has merits, but I worry it could limit access along H4 to Battersea when there is no other traffic.

JJ

[JimBall]

As FL has stated, be careful what you wish for...

First,one ATC. With international airports at both E & W ends of the heli route structure, one ATC will never happen.

Nothing, in my humble view, needs to change - other than the below. The current system has worked perfectly for decades and the "system" would not appear to have caused this lone accident. In fact, the system rules may not have been followed...but that's for the AAIB.

The ONLY areas for changing are the R157, 158 & 159. These are political knee-jerks to 9/11. They serve no real anti-terrorist purpose. The one over the Isle of Dogs is a particular nuisance for ops around City and could be taken away.
For Royal and Parliamentary peace, the ones around Westminster & the Palaces should alter from 1400ft to 1000ft. And MI6 get no protection from their extension - get rid of anything that crosses the river. Clarity, not confusion is what we need.

[SASless]

I would think the last place I would ever want to be in low uneven ceilings and/or limited Vis is downtown London. There is too little room to maneuver, the route is too skinny, there are way too many things to run into and way too many rules to violate....and damn few places to land if it all goes really ugly on you and if you go IIMC....popping up into airspace used by Heathrow Traffic could get real sporty in a hurry.

Perhaps....a re-think on weather minima for using the Lanes is worth thinking about too.

[hihover]

I think that is exactly the type of knee-jerk reaction that most of us would try to avoid. The weather limits work fine, they have done for the past 40 years. Why try to fix something that isn't broken.

Tam

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

As I posted earlier, It's a long time since I used the Heli lanes. I agree with TAM, the WX minima for VMC in controlled airspace is well defined and when adhered to, provides the required safety. It does not need changing. However, the more people flout the limits, the greater the chance of precisely this happening. The CAA are compelled by ICAO to manage affairs in their own backyard.

The CAA and ATC do not have much vertical room above the city that would enable a workable change to the s/VFR minima. But they will not tolerate rule busting as a culture. They will respond and it may be the only option is a cessation of this kind of transit.

Like children, if you do not follow the rules you will not be allowed out to play.

Safety comes at a price and relies on mutual trust between the regulator and the operator. Culture can and will cause change.

If you want viable debate lets talk about the real elephant in the room (cockpit). It's not the cranes, the buildings or the rules that are at fault. It's flying too low, in ****ty conditions, that severely erode the safe margins for continued flight that ARE available WHEN we stick to the rules.

This accident is a CFIT in conditions not commensurate with flight under the VFR.

DB

[Helinut]

The existing situation is somewhat worse than FL suggests, in post 803, at least with respect to the City Zone. I believe the situation is as follows.

In the City Zone (Class D) most helicopter clearances will be VFR (only being SVFR at night or in VERY poor vis) So under VFR, we need to comply with both the 500ft and 1,000ft rules. For example, for a 700 ft obstacle that means min alt of 1,700ft (approx) when within 600m horizontally of it.

The IFR traffic above helicopters is provided mainly by LHR but also the City. When everyone is on easterlies, City arrivals traffic seems to get vectored onto mainly a right hand circuit within the City Zone. Whether R or L, IFR vectored "base leg to finals" occurs at pretty much the Vauxhall VRP overhead. I believe at this point arrivals are at 2000ft alt. Normal ATC/IFR separation standards require a 1,000ft vertical separation, so heles get a clearance with a max alt of 1,000ft.

[ShyTorque]

Jellycopter,

As far as semantics go, the term "between high and low water marks" mean you should fly over the river. The banks are the dry bit, where the high rise obstructions are being built. If you're stretching the 500' rule to its lateral limit, as you seemed to propose (and as you must if passing alongside some of the higher buildings, rather than over them), I'd consider important to be precise.

I'm totally against a complete overhaul of the rules, let me be quite clear about that.

SAS proposed flight plans (I presume he means written ones to be submitted): No thanks, we already do submit a flight plan, as per the requirements for SVFR; it's done on the radio on initial contact with ATC. Written plans in our part of the industry are totally impractical and over-restrictive and serve no real purpose.

Regarding altitude limits, I think a maximum altitude of 2,000 ft on the eastern end of H4 is already sufficient and unlikely to be increased for ATC reasons.

However, trying to judge distance/height and fly i.a.w. the 500 ft rule further west towards Vauxhall Bridge is no longer as straightforward as it was in years gone by, due to the ever increasing number of very tall obstructions being erected close to the river. From personal experience, I certainly wouldn't want to fly at the published wx limits along that stretch now.

If a minimum altitude (for example 1,000 feet London QNH) were mandated for that particular stretch it would clarify to a pilot attempting to use that route what the practical weather limits are.

As far as restricting access to Battersea heliport is concerned, there are other routes to gain entry (e.g. H7 for singles, maximum altitude 1,000 feet QNH). Access has also been made slightly more straightforward than it was, at least for twin engined helicopters, due to the recent rule changes regarding the introduction of the Battersea local flying area.

[puntosaurus]

Helinut, I've seen several posts which have drawn the distinction between VFR and SVFR when it comes to exemption from the 1000ft rule. The full text of the exemption is as follows (my bold):

(c) Special VFR clearance and notified routes
Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1000 feet rule when flying on a special VFR flight, or when operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route being flown; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption landings may not be made at other than a licensed or Government aerodrome, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained.

So I read this to mean that if you're on the route eg. H4 in the city zone VFR, and you've been given a clearance of 'standard operating altitudes' which I believe means at or below the published altitude, then I think you're still exempt the 1000ft rule on the 'notified route' grounds.

[SASless]

Hihover,

Helinut seems to differ with you.

Suggesting a re-think about how things are done currently is certainly not a "knee jerk" reaction. Changing the Rules without good reason would be just that however.

As changes do take place over time as noted by ShyTorque....perhaps your reaction to some of us saying reconsidering the current situation is the true "Knee Jerk".

[Helinut]

puntosaurus,

Thanks for reminding me/drawing my attention to that. I have 2 initial thoughts:

1. Even if the exemption did work as you suggest, it would not apply to heles off the routes (such as twins given direct clearances e.g.to join the route at Vauxhall or wherever).

2. I will need to do some homework, but I recall (vaguely) that "notification" may be a specific legal process rather than just a more general "published in the AIP". For example, I recall that the low-level routes under the Stansted/Essex Radar stub were formally "notified", when the 1,000ft rule was previously the 1,500ft rule.

It would certainly help, if your interpretation was correct for route followers, if not for the others.

[puntosaurus]

I'd be interested to know for sure, because that's always been my assumption. I've often been restricted West to East on H4 not above 1000ft due City inbounds I presume, and I don't think you could accept that clearance past the Eye, let alone the Shard, unless you were exempt the 1000ft rule.

Actually a little research later and I think my assumption has to be true, because the Shard is listed at 1023ft high and the maximum altitude for H4 at that point is 2000ft, and the tip of the Shard to the north bank is around 450m. So even hugging the North bank at 2000ft you'd be breaking the 1000ft rule on the route if it applied.

[ShyTorque]

Helinut, there is possibly some scope for uncertainty because of the differences in classification between LHR and LCY airspace.

Inside the London CTR you cannot ever be VFR because by definition it's Class A airspace. So irrespective of whether flying on a helicopter route or not, you are given a clearance under SVFR. The 1000 foot rule (in transit) no longer applies. However, if you want to land "off route" in London, away from one of the recognised airfields/heliport, you still need a written permission from the CAA, wrt Rule 5 (3) (c), which will come with some conditions/restrictions for your £113.

Inside the LCY airspace you can be given either VFR or SVFR when flying off H4 because it's Class D airspace. If flying under VFR then the 1,000 foot rule still applies.

[ShyTorque]

Puntosaurus, Helinut.

Just having read Punto's edited post above mine, I may have misunderstood where the confusion lay.

My understanding is that on H4 you are deemed to be exempt the 1,000 foot rule.

There is a reference (note 3) under the route info in the AIP for H4 that refers to the London Eye and it reminds pilots of rule 5(3)(b) but 5(3)(c) isn't mentioned.

[Helinut]

Puntosaurus and ST,

Homework now completed. Buried in the depths of the AIP sections on the heliroutes there is a quite specific footnote:

"Note 2: The sector of Route H4, Isle-of-Dogs— Vauxhall Bridge, is established and notified for the purposes of Rule 6(c)(i) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2007."

So traffic on H4 between those points is exempt the 1,000ft rule.

Thanks punto for making me dig!

ST,
I don't think you and I disagree about any of what you posted in your last (except the results of my homework (thanks to ps), which are that the 1,000 ft rule does not apply to traffic on H4 from IoD to Vauxhall ).

[idle stop]

If you are making an approach to land or departing from a licensed aerodrome (which term includes heliport), you are exempt the 500 ft Rule, the 1000 ft (ie Congested Area) Rule, and the Land Clear Rule (although probably not this one if you are flying for CAT purpose, but that's another set of rules).
RoAR 2007 Rule 6(a)(i)(aa) applies.
London Heliport is Licensed.

[Cows getting bigger]

That maybe open to interpretation. I don't think the rules of the air stipulate 'making an approach',

Landing and taking off
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the low flying prohibitions in so far as it is
flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of:
(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or
(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,
a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.

I s'pose my point is that someone may wish to clarify 'normal aviation practice', whatever that means....... :bored:

[ShyTorque]

Helinut, I don't think we disagree at all. I've always understood that if you're on the route itself (including the eastern portion of H4), you're under SVFR.

What I'd hoped to put across was that if you fly off H4 (inside the LCY zone under VFR), the 1,000 foot rule does then apply.

But if under SVFR, it doesn't.

Sorry for any misunderstanding, if indeed there was. :)

[ShyTorque]

I s'pose my point is that someone may wish to clarify 'normal aviation practice', whatever that means.......

= no wazzing! ;)

[JimBall]

Puntosaurus, you are correct. The reality is that if you operate on H4 through City's Class D (east of VB), you are exempt from the 1000ft rule. However, going off-route, you aren't.

Trying to go off-river OPPOSITE The Shard (let alone on the same bank) means ensuring that you are at 2000ft as soon as you cross the riverbank to "landside". As I stated here way back - The Shard has created a pilot trap on both banks. 600m horizontal is a long way into London.

In Class D, more of those are inevitable.

[mdovey]

I've been reluctant to post in this thread since I've not yet got my PPL.

However, for what it is worth, my tuppence:

i) a single accident does not represent a trend - as such it is very difficult to draw any conclusions as to rule/regulation changes unless there is some blatantly obvious one (which we don't have from the preliminary report)

ii) risk mitigation is precisely that - risk mitigation not risk elimination. Ultimately you will hit the point of diminishing returns.

iii) the idea of fitting cranes etc with a transponder or other collision warning device, is, I think, worth considering, however it may very well fall beyond the point of diminishing returns

iv) whilst not a crane identification course! encouraging anyone who flies in the heli-lanes to regularly attend a heli-lane hazards awaress course/refresher may be beneficial. This would clearly be useful for those who do not frequently fly the heli-lanes, but I suspect would also be useful for those who do fly them frequently - over familiarity can breed over-confidence and over-confidence can be as dangerous as inexperience.

v) the CAA should be invited to comment on planning applications for tall buildings in London, alongside the other parties who are invited to comment on planning applications - with no more or less weight than such parties (if this isn't the case already).

vi) the London skyline today is very different from how it looked 40 years ago, and it is likely the London skyline in 40 years time will look very different from that today. As such whilst the current heli-lanes may be fit for purpose today, they may not be in 40 years time. They should be periodically reviewed (every 5-10 years?) if they aren't already. However, it would be perfectly permissible for a review to conclude no change - unlike politicians, the reviewers shouldn't feel the need to make changes to justify their existence.

vii) ultimately the decision to fly or not to fly is a judgement call, and unfortunately all of us not blessed with perfect hindsight can and eventually will make a wrong call.

[mike-wsm]

Some way back in this thread there was discussion of the aaib interim report, which some of us were unable to download.

I have received a response from aaib saying that the difficulty is compatibility with some browsers. They recommend use of Opera browser.

Hope this is helpful.

[Grenville Fortescue]

Helicopter flights through fog, which may have caused a fatal crash in London last month, should become less hazardous following development of a helmet that projects information regarding the terrain ahead onto its visor.

Helmets featuring so-called head-up displays, developed by Israel’s Elbit Systems Ltd. to help fighter pilots shoot down enemy planes, are being evaluated for use in civil helicopters by the German Aerospace Center or DLR. The system can project digital maps featuring obstacles and relief, as well as speed and altitude, and could be adapted to show live radar images.

“Helmet-mounted displays open the helicopter pilot’s eyes even in the worst weather conditions,” Helmut Toebben, business manager at the center’s institute of flight guidance, said in a telephone interview. “In particular, the technology opens up the possibility of landing safely in limited visibility.”

Flight tests employing the DLR’s own EC135, a civil chopper built by the Eurocopter unit of European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., have demonstrated the technology’s effectiveness in poor weather, Toebben said. Mist or cloud was probably a factor in the London crash on Jan. 16, in which the pilot and one man on the ground were killed when an AW101 helicopter built by Finmeccanica SpA’s AgustaWestland unit collided with a crane at the luxury St George Wharf development near the River Thames.

Helicopter Pilots Minimize Crash Risk With (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-18/helicopter-pilots-minimize-crash-risk-with-jedi-vision.html)

[ShyTorque]

So, all we have to do is to convince the passengers that their pilot is only wearing a helmet so he can see where he's going in fog, not because he intends to hit something.

Trouble is, they'll all want a helmet, too.

[[email protected]]

A bit of a non-story - it only talks about displaying digital mapping and flight info - that doesn't make it Jedi or Jedeye enough for IMC flight since it takes just one obstruction that hasn't been updated in your database to cause you a big problem.

Or it talks about having a live radar feed - expensive for onshore ops and millimetric radar would be required for real clarity to include wires and the like.

They didn't mention FLIR which has been touted as the saviour for poor weather ops before - but that can't see through cloud and fog.

So, all in all nothing new but a opportunist article to plug someone's product.

[ShyTorque]

that doesn't make it Jedi or Jedeye enough for IMC flight since it takes just one obstruction that hasn't been updated in your database to cause you a big problem.

Something like a crane in London, perhaps....

[mickjoebill]

For reference.

A view of London, just released, taken in 2012, using 45000 images stitched together, taken from BT tower.
The largest "Pano" ever made.

The building in question is in the frame, I think at the same height as at time of crash.

Gives a good idea of London's skyline.


The BT Tower (http://btlondon2012.co.uk/pano.html)

Mickjoebill

[Grenville Fortescue]

Vauxhall helicopter crash was preventable

BBC knows best!

BBC News - Vauxhall helicopter crash 'was preventable' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21595175)

[ShyTorque]

From that report:

The BBC spoke to two experienced pilots and one helicopter safety consultant, all of whom were unaware the 1km visibility rule applied in certain scenarios.

I wonder who these people were? The rules are clear enough. :ugh:

[toptobottom]

The greater the visibility, the more time an aircraft has to spot and avoid other aircraft - or objects appearing out of fog.

Enlightening :D

[idle stop]

Wasn't me on any of those counts. Was asked to comment at the time of the accident but declined, as I had insufficient knowledge of the facts.
Still awaiting final AAIB to have (perhaps...) 'sufficient knowledge'.

[Grenville Fortescue]

It can happen, even in good VMC -

Helicopter Crashes into Crane - YouTube

[Grenville Fortescue]

British Helicopter Association CEO Peter Norton has said that the January 16 accident in which an AgustaWestland A109E crashed in central London had “severely damaged” the reputation of the industry, which now needs to restore public confidence.

Norton said that pilots can easily find themselves under financial pressure to proceed with a flight in challenging conditions and that there is anecdotal evidence of over-confidence among some flight crew. “It is now time to review ad hoc charter operations to ensure safety without additional regulation because over-regulation might result in an increase in illegal public-transport operations.”

Seems like Peter Norton has the accident fully sussed. Perhaps the AAIB report will make similar remarks?

BHA CEO comments on January 16th Helicopter Crash (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainalerts/2013-06-13/new-uk-helicopter-rules-could-hurt-struggling-industry)

[BASys]

Hi Folks


Quote:
British Helicopter Association CEO Peter Norton has said that the January 16 accident in which an AgustaWestland A109E crashed in central London had “severely damaged” the reputation of the industry, which now needs to restore public confidence.

Norton said that pilots can easily find themselves under financial pressure to proceed with a flight in challenging conditions and that there is anecdotal evidence of over-confidence among some flight crew. “It is now time to review ad hoc charter operations to ensure safety without additional regulation because over-regulation might result in an increase in illegal public-transport operations.”
Seems like Peter Norton has the accident fully sussed. Perhaps the AAIB report will make similar remarks?

BHA CEO comments on January 16th Helicopter Crash (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainalerts/2013-06-13/new-uk-helicopter-rules-could-hurt-struggling-industry)
GF -
Where did you get that quote you'd cited ?

It doesn't match the text from that link you posted,
nor what was supposedly said by whom.

[tomotomp]

check the artical again they are all in there, not all in the the same para.

[BASys]

Hi Folks

check the artical again they are all in there, not all in the the same para.
They're not currently. :)



Text the article currently contains -
Acknowledging that pilots can easily find themselves under financial pressure to proceed with a flight in challenging conditions, Norton said that there is anecdotal evidence of over-confidence among some flight crew.

What GF posted, infering the text to be a quote of the article -
Norton said that pilots can easily find themselves under financial pressure to proceed with a flight in challenging conditions and that there is anecdotal evidence of over-confidence among some flight crew.


Sorry to appear pedantic

"Acknowledging" is not the same as having "said".

Such mis-attributions can have reputationally damaging consequences.



Entirely hypothetically -
taking an extreme perspective,
a fictional conversation could run as follows -

Journalist - I've heard it said - That you are a bunch of cocky barstewards, just in it for the money, who'll fly in any conditions.

Respondent - Thats anecdotal.

Hypothetically, you could extrapolate that acknowledgement
into the text contained in the original article.



My point was
a "quote" is no longer a valid "quote"
if its been selectively edited / rewritten to match some POV. :ok:

[Grenville Fortescue]

BAsys - you really are a plonker of the very first order aren't you!

Does it require someone to take your finger and place it like a child over each sentence to help you read it through in order that you might understand??

Your aspersion (in your last post) is total tripe!

You seem unable to distinguish between the tabloid-trash-culture of taking comments out of context and that of compiling a flowing edit (such as I posted) which places the salient and connected comments together.

The article was also posted to provide the original source.

Tomo seems to have understand it well enough.

What a :mad:.

[BASys]

Hi Folks


British Helicopter Association CEO Peter Norton has urged UK authorities to abandon plans for new restrictions on rotorcraft operations over urban areas following the January 16 accident (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainalerts/2013-01-17/crash-leaves-helicopter-ops-over-london-question) in which an AgustaWestland A109 Power crashed in central London. The crash prompted British Prime Minister David Cameron to order a review of helicopter operating rules, and an Air Accidents Investigation Branch inquiry is in progress.

Norton told attendees at the Rotary Operations Conference in London yesterday that the accident “severely damaged” the reputation of the industry, which now needs to restore public confidence. But he insisted that proposed new restrictions on VFR operations are not necessary and could have a damaging effect on an industry that has been hit hard by the UK’s recession in recent years.
“We need to examine our operational and managerial conduct to convince the authorities that we are safe,” he said. On this note, Norton is pushing for more helicopter operators to register for the International Standards for Business Aircraft Operations standards.
Acknowledging that pilots can easily find themselves under financial pressure to proceed with a flight in challenging conditions, Norton said that there is anecdotal evidence of over-confidence among some flight crew. “It is now time to review ad hoc charter operations to ensure safety without additional regulation because over-regulation might result in an increase in illegal public-transport operations.”

GF -
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes,
or I'm being a little slow. :)

I can see nothing, either stated or inferred,
which'd enable me to draw a similar conclusion, or proposition,
to those which you'd made previously -

Seems like Peter Norton has the accident fully sussed. Perhaps the AAIB report will make similar remarks?



If anything,
I read the gist of the comments in the article
as being a POV proposing maintaining the status quo.

Was that what you were inferring ?

[Grenville Fortescue]

Bas - you have my sympathy in that you seem to be having such difficulty in perceiving the gist of my post but understanding my point of view is not the issue you raised.

The issue which you raised was one of how the comments reported in an article were presented and which concern has now lead to pointless additional posts about quotations and their validity, in turn creating something of a petty (and irrelevant) debate on a thread which deals with a topic of some gravity.

For me this is enough said on the matter. I'm sorry you don't get it.

[Senior Pilot]

In anticipation of the AAIB Report this thread is now closed. Any discussion of the report should be on a new thread.