Helicopter Crash Central London [Archive] - Page 2

SLFandProud

18th Jan 2013, 12:40

High intensity strobes are now common on aircraft for anti-collision purposes but ground obstructions, both permanent and temporary, are still lit only by steady (and low intensity) red lights. That may be okay in a dark countryside but in a built-up area with lots of light pollution something more is needed so that obstacles like this crane really stand out. I know that this would only add to the light pollution but I see no other alternative.
The problem with this in my view, and with active transponders bolted to cranes and any similar suggestion, is this: they don't fail safe.

So what happens when the extra hole in the cheese lines up, and the battery fails, or the xenon tube blows, or the wind takes the antenna off the transponder, or whatever?

Result: The accident still happens.

All you have actually done is provide a way to absolve the pilot of blame (which I accept for many on PPRuNE is the desired goal of all accident investigations) but you've not necessarily done much to improve aviation safety.

Any safety feature you design needs to answer a fundamental question: what happens when it breaks? Take as an example three-aspect railway signals:

If the Green signal fails, the signal head automatically reverts to Yellow (a safer aspect.)
If the Yellow signal fails, the signal head automatically reverts to Red (a safer aspect)
If the Red signal fails, the signal in the rear automatically reverts to Red. Also, the standing instruction to drivers is also to treat any unlit signal head as a Red.
When the signal is anything but green, or ought to be, the Automatic Warning System reset electromagnet is de-energised, causing the permanent magnet just next to it to alert the driver to a restrictive signal (and will stop the train if he doesn't confirm it) - so even an unlit signal head will sound a horn.
If the Automatic Warning System electromagnet/electronics fails, the permanent magnet alerts the driver to a restrictive signal (whether it is or not) - the safest outcome.
If the permanent magnet fails, the laws of physics have evidently changed and all bets are off.

That is a good example of safety critical systems design. When a component fails, it fails to a safer outcome (albeit less efficient to railway operations - people who whine about the amount of disruption caused by signal failures and the like ought to remember that that's because their safety is being prioritised, but that's a different moan.)

Now consider what happens with your proposed solution:

If the flashing light/transponder fails: Pilots who have been told that flashing lights/transponders will be bolted onto everything assume the lack of said light/transponder means no obstacle, and chances of collision are increased.

This is a bad example of safety critical systems design...

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 12:58

Just a random thought I wonder whether anyone has thought of installing a transponder (or similar device) in cranes over a certain height. I'm not sure if this would be useful in the TCAS environment.

TCAS 1, the type fitted to helicopters, is a very useful aid to safety. However, it still requires the pilot to visually aquire the transponder, or rather whatever it is fastened to, and avoid it. In this case it would be of no practical use. This accident involved a known object but the pilot appears not to have visually aquired it.

Speaking as someone regularly flying rotary in the London airspace, often to and from Battersea, using this very route, and often in the same type of aircraft as the unfortunate deceased pilot, I'd say high intensity strobe or LED lighting on the crane, so that it could have been recognised as such, would have been of far more practical use. The usual "obstruction light" is a single red light. These lights do not stand out.

A classic example is the full-width arch over Wembley Stadium. This is an open structure, very similar to a crane. You can fly very close to it but not see the red light (in fact I think there are two) because they are not bright enough against the background. However, occasionally, the whole structure of the arch is lit by a series of bright white lights. It can then be (and is) used as a navigational feature for miles around.

mixture

18th Jan 2013, 13:25

, I'd say high intensity strobe or LED lighting on the crane, so that it could have been recognised as such, would have been of far more practical use.

ShyTorque

Yes but.... what good is a strobe/light in the fog/cloud ?

As I said earlier, the diffused light will do nothing to help an already disorientated pilot.

Pace

18th Jan 2013, 13:25

Mixture

So are helicopter rotors, mountains, skyscrapers, electricity pylons, TV masts, wet runways, cigarettes, alcohol.... where do you draw the line ?

Do you think everything in high-vis jackets, flashing lights and warning notices is going to solve the world's problems ?

Are you actually a pilot? If your argument holds true why bother with high intensity lighting on top of buildings like Canary Wharf far easier to see than a pencil thin crane towering into the clouds above it?

Yes but.... what good is a strobe/light in the fog/cloud ?

As I said earlier, the diffused light will do nothing to help an already disorientated pilot.

A strobe is visible in cloud remember visibility in in cloud varies from around 50 meters to 200 meters and sight of a strobe in such a situation would mean the pilot pulling instantly away.

mixture

18th Jan 2013, 13:30

If your argument holds true why bother with high intensity lighting on top of buildings like Canary Wharf far easier to see than a pencil thin crane towering into the clouds above it?

1) See what SLFandProud said above ....
So what happens when the extra hole in the cheese lines up, and the battery fails, or the xenon tube blows, or the wind takes the antenna off the transponder, or whatever? Accident still happens.

2) We're potentially talking about a scud-running scenario here..... what good are flashing lights during scud-running where cloud/fog cover is ever changing and you've basically already put yourself (accidentally or otherwise) into a situation where there's no obvious route out because the weather has trapped you in.

Surely the safest thing to do in that context, particularly if you are in a helicopter is just to stop and put it down in the nearest safest spot...... isn't that one of the main benefits of a heli ?

Pace

18th Jan 2013, 13:37

mixture

18th Jan 2013, 13:39

A strobe is visible in cloud remember visibility in in cloud varies from around 50 meters to 200 meters and sight of a strobe in such a situation would mean the pilot pulling instantly away.

What does an A190 bimble along at ?

If we call it 100knots, thats 50 metres per second .... not much time for an already disorientated and stressed out pilot to figure out what's going on and pull away in a safe manner.

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 13:42

Surely the safest thing to do in that context, particularly if you are in a helicopter is just to stop and put it down in the nearest safest spot...... isn't that one of the main benefits of a heli ?Can't disagree. So which would have been the "nearest safe spot"? I don't suppose he deliberately flew into the crane. It must have been unintentional. Would stobes and lights have helped? From an aviation life from the age of five, I don't remember anyone telling me about the time they avoided an obstruction because they saw a light. Has anyone here?

mixture

18th Jan 2013, 13:45

So which would have been the "nearest safe spot"?

Lots of green park areas around and leading up to the Vauxhall area.

Failing that.... a very, very,very slow descent onto one of the bridges ? (very much less than ideal, I know.... but better than meeting a crane in the mist !)

Oh, and there's also the Oval cricket ground !

green granite

18th Jan 2013, 13:57

If you're flying along a known helicopter route and you suddenly, in the clag, see a strobe in front of and slightly above you, wouldn't you're first reaction be "Christ it's another helicopter and dive?"

Pace

18th Jan 2013, 14:00

From an aviation life from the age of five, I don't remember anyone telling me about the time they avoided an obstruction because they saw a light. Has anyone here?

Lemain

I am sure the CAA after reading your pearls of wisdom will change the regs and have all lighting removed off tall buildings like Canary Wharf???

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 14:03

Lots of green park areas around and leading up to the Vauxhall area.

Failing that.... a very, very,very slow descent onto one of the bridges ? (very much less than ideal, I know.... but better than meeting a crane in the mist !)

Oh, and there's also the Oval cricket ground !

yeah of course.. any heli can just land at will in a park in built up area like inner city london, have a smoke and wait for the weather to clear up.

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 14:04

I firmly believe we may never know what happened. Two things will be known already - track and estimated speed at impact from the wreckage trail. There is a good possibility that altitude (but not height and track) could be established over the flight. Without reliable witnesses as to position and heading at any time, the rest will be conjecture

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 14:06

I firmly believe we may never know what happened.

well we know that on a bad weather divert, the craft impacted a high temporary structure, which it seems was only lit at night.

mixture

18th Jan 2013, 14:08

yeah of course.. any heli can just land at will in a park in inner city london, have a smoke and wait for the weather to clear up.

And its attitudes like that are contributing factors towards accidents....the red-mist, press-on effect !

You made a bad call on the weather. Its closed in around you. You know you're about to hit an area of London that you would rather not be in under cover of cloud and potential ice.

Assuming you have exhausted all other viable options, don't press-on, put the damn thing down ..... I'm sure the CAA would much rather see you do that than end up hitting a crane.

Infact, didn't someone link to a AIC pink on the subject ? You might want to read it..... P146/2012 issued 20 December 2012.

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 14:13

any heli can just land at will in a park - I was not going to respond to your posts, but I will ask you what you would do in a helo then if you had insufficient weather conditions to continue safe flight?

aterpster

18th Jan 2013, 14:15

BOAC:

I firmly believe we may never know what happened. Two things will be known already - track and estimated speed at impact from the wreckage trail. There is a good possibility that altitude (but not height and track) could be established over the flight. Without reliable witnesses as to position and heading at any time, the rest will be conjecture

We know with certainty that he was too low for that location. What we don't know is whether the contractor was in compliance with whatever structure lighting requirements your aviation authority mandates.

Lighting of "temporary structures" in the U.S. is all over the map, no pun intended. If a building is being constructed in Manhattan where the crane would be lower than surrounding buildings the lighting requirement would likely be less than if the building was higher than the surrounding buildings. But, in the FAA at least, these decisions are left to indifferent clerks.

The contractor, if he was really smart, would have required strobes, if that is possible during the day when the crane is in operation. Then again, if the crane can be lowered when not in operation, that would also seem to be a prudent action.

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 14:15

And its attitudes like that are contributing factors towards accidents....the red-mist, press-on effect !

err no. you're reaching and making assumptions based your confirmation bias.

you have never to my knowledge flown with me, nor i with you. so it would be best not to make conjecture of my decision making in the cockpit, nor will I with you.

further to that, i never flew with Peter Barnes, did you ?

on that basis I would not make any assumptions on the late Mr Barnes decision making in the cockpit, and would suggest you do not either.

you were not there, nor were I, neither you nor I am aware of the circumstances that could have led Mr Barnes into a 'box canyon' situation.

you are making speculation of Mr Barnes flight skills having not been there, and i would hazard, not having flown with him.

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 14:17

What we don't know is whether the contractor was in compliance with whatever structure lighting requirements your aviation authority mandates. - I was referring to the flying bits, not the regulations for cranes. However, I think from other comments there was no requirement for obstruction lights after nautical twilight.

horsebadorties

18th Jan 2013, 14:18

GPS memory card?

mixture

18th Jan 2013, 14:21

further to that, i never flew with Peter Barnes, did you ?

on that basis I would not make any assumptions on the late Mr Barnes decision making in the cockpit, and would suggest you do not either.

You are missing the point.

I'm not making assumptions.

I was merely astonished as to your attitude that putting a helo down in a precautionary landing seemed to be something you would never contemplate.

I came to that conclusion based on your wording of your earlier statement. How else was I meant to interpret the following phrase

yeah of course.. any heli can just land at will in a park in inner city london, have a smoke and wait for the weather to clear up.

overthewing

18th Jan 2013, 14:22

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 14:23

- I was not going to respond to your posts, but I will ask you what you would do in a helo then if you had insufficient weather conditions to continue safe flight?

well then dont.

landing in an open space not cleared for heli operations in a built up area carries a signficant risk of errm. contact with structures, which are unlit and possibly very difficult to see.

Peter Barnes was an experienced EMS Heli pilot so i'm sure had more expereince of anyone on these boards in putting a heli down in such an area.

what would i do in his situation ? well i cant comment on that, because I, like non of us, know the full situational circumstances of the incident.

blind pew

18th Jan 2013, 14:32

Great Idea.
Took the French gliding clubs making it obligatory in the Alps before the Brits started adopting it.
The Montpellier club pooh poohed it until a foolish instructor had a mid air a couple of years ago. £120,000 plus damage all for the sake of saving £500 per machine.

Arkroyal

18th Jan 2013, 14:35

The crane was there, it was known to be there by anyone who'd read the NOTAM.

It was required to be lit at night. It was hit by a helicopter in daylight .

The helicopter was flying in weather below the limits set for SVFR in the London Control Zone .

Why the helicopter got into a position to collide with the crane is known to only one person, who is sadly no longer with us, and unable to tell us why.

Shades of the Mull of Kintyre June 1994?

Just as then, the helo carries no FDR or CVR, so we will probably never find out exactly why this happened.

at least Capt Barnes doesn't have two vindictive bosses about to place all the blame squarely on him .

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 14:36

Pace,

I am sure the CAA after reading your pearls of wisdom will change the regs and have all lighting removed off tall buildings like Canary Wharf???I think I am saying that...though it sounds extreme initially. Can anyone on this board confirm that they or some reliable third party witness had taken evasive action on seeing lights on a tall structure? Out in the sticks where there are gliders and low-hours PLLs in dodgy VMC or night - radio masts, etc., then lights must be sensible. Near Canary Wharf? In any case it's hard to make out the statutory lights from the decorative lights. Seriously, has anyone here used lights while flying professionally for collision avoidance?

Sygyzy

18th Jan 2013, 14:39

A good point I'm sure but a little too cryptic for me.

Could we have it again please with some more flesh on it.;)

mixture

18th Jan 2013, 14:41

Seriously, has anyone here used lights while flying professionally for collision avoidance?

lemain, I've tweaked your question slightly to fit the scenario in question ....:cool:

"Seriously, has anyone here used lights while flying professionally,during daylight hours, for collision avoidance?"

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 14:54

GPS memory card - yes, hadn't thought of that - let's hope it survived and can be read.

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 15:20

Would stobes and lights have helped? From an aviation life from the age of five, I don't remember anyone telling me about the time they avoided an obstruction because they saw a light. Has anyone here?

they do all the time. Particularly when obstructions are in low density population areas, they provide a visual cue as to the obstruction.

because a pilot doesn't yank the yoke hard into his chest, yelling 'yeehaw! missed that one!' doesn't mean he isn't responding to visual cues

by your postulation then regulatory authorities the world over are wrong with regulatory practises, which have evolved of the years by way of learning through past incidents and tombstone progress, that require obstructions to flight be marked with high intensity lights and you are right.

FAR-AIM Section 2 Air Navigation and Obstruction Lighting.

-2-3. Obstruction Lights
a. Obstructions are marked/lighted to warn airmen of their presence during daytime and nighttime conditions. They may be marked/lighted in any of the following combinations:
1. Aviation Red Obstruction Lights. Flashing aviation red beacons (20 to 40 flashes per minute) and steady burning aviation red lights during nighttime operation. Aviation orange and white paint is used for daytime marking.
2. Medium Intensity Flashing White Obstruction Lights. Medium intensity flashing white obstruction lights may be used during daytime and twilight with automatically selected reduced intensity for nighttime operation. When this system is used on structures 500 feet (153m) AGL or less in height, other methods of marking and lighting the structure may be omitted. Aviation orange and white paint is always required for daytime marking on structures exceeding 500 feet (153m) AGL. This system is not normally installed on structures less than 200 feet (61m) AGL.
3. High Intensity White Obstruction Lights.Flashing high intensity white lights during daytime with reduced intensity for twilight and nighttime operation. When this type system is used, the marking of structures with red obstruction lights and aviation orange and white paint may be omitted.
4. Dual Lighting. A combination of flashing aviation red beacons and steady burning aviation red lights for nighttime operation and flashing high intensity white lights for daytime operation. Aviation orange and white paint may be omitted.
5. Catenary Lighting. Lighted markers are available for increased night conspicuity of high-voltage (69KV or higher) transmission line catenary wires. Lighted markers provide conspicuity both day and night.
b. Medium intensity omnidirectional flashing white lighting system provides conspicuity both day and night on catenary support structures. The unique sequential/simultaneous flashing light system alerts pilots of the associated catenary wires.
c. High intensity flashing white lights are being used to identify some supporting structures of overhead transmission lines located across rivers, chasms, gorges, etc. These lights flash in a middle, top, lower light sequence at approximately 60 flashes per minute. The top light is normally installed near the top of the supporting structure, while the lower light indicates the approximate lower portion of the wire span. The lights are beamed towards the companion structure and identify the area of the wire span.
d. High intensity flashing white lights are also employed to identify tall structures, such as chimneys and towers, as obstructions to air navigation. The lights provide a 360 degree coverage about the structure at 40 flashes per minute and consist of from one to seven levels of lights depending upon the height of the structure. Where more than one level is used the vertical banks flash simultaneously.

and perhaps rewind to 2-2-1

2-2-1. Aeronautical Light Beacons
a. An aeronautical light beacon is a visual NAVAID displaying flashes of white and/or colored light to indicate the location of an airport, a heliport, a landmark, a certain point of a Federal airway in mountainous terrain, or an obstruction. The light used may be a rotating beacon or one or more flashing lights. The flashing lights may be supplemented by steady burning lights of lesser intensity.
b. The color or color combination displayed by a particular beacon and/or its auxiliary lights tell whether the beacon is indicating a landing place, landmark, point of the Federal airways, or an obstruction. Coded flashes of the auxiliary lights, if employed, further identify the beacon site.

In you quest educate the world, on your view and opinions regardless of historical incidents, feel free to address your progress plan in the removal of obstruction lights with the CAA, the FAA as well as ICAO and perhaps any other national aviation authority that you feel is wrong. heck, you could even go in with a carbon footprint plan.

would lighting in use on the crane at the time of the incident, prevented the impact ? maybe, maybe not. but the cost of a couple hundred quid light on couple hundred thousand pound crane would be prudent in preventative measures and it's onle less hole in the swiss cheese.

Pace

18th Jan 2013, 15:39

"Seriously, has anyone here used lights while flying professionally,during daylight hours, for collision avoidance?"

Mixture

For collision with what ?? We use lights for collision purposes all the time!
Flying in any low visibility high intensity lights are a must!
Coming out of cloud on minimum RVR high intensity lights are a must have!
Every time I get a clearance to enter and line up on go the strobes!
Lights in poor visibility not just night are a way of alerting the pilot to a Hazard in all the gloom even buildings or structures which are in our airspace!
Hence why the authorities regulate for their use!
When you are struggling to see in the gloom especially with the thin arm of a Crane painted grey blending into the gloomy grey background intensity lighting will leap out and warn you!
Sadly this poor pilot saw nothing until the bang and the seconds he had to realize that as the ground hurtled up at him.
Whether PB had a mechanical problem or made a tiny error he paid a high price which could have been avoided had that arm been fitted with intensity lighting.

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 15:55

ShyTorque

Yes but.... what good is a strobe/light in the fog/cloud ?

As I said earlier, the diffused light will do nothing to help an already disorientated pilot.

How do you know? Have you ever encountered such a situation?
Certain masts, tall pylons etc on the continent use strobe attention getters for aviators and very well they work. Couple with steady lighting they can be seen in very poor weather conditions.

For what it's worth, I comment from the point of view of at least some relevant rotary wing experience. I was quite well acquainted with the sadly deceased PB and I have been doing the same job, albeit for a decade longer than himself. Within two hours of the accident I had received a number of phone calls from people within the business, checking it wasn't myself involved. I'd been in touch with a number of others, to confirm same. It was that close to home.

AtomKraft

18th Jan 2013, 16:06

I would of thought that Thames Radar (or whoever he was working) might have seen him on radar close to the obstacle- and warned him.

I'm not sayingthat they are responsible for doing that, but they are very sharp and I doubt there was much else going on especially as nothing landed at LCY until late morning due to the grotty wx.

DaveReidUK

18th Jan 2013, 16:14

Two things will be known already - track and estimated speed at impact from the wreckage trail. There is a good possibility that altitude (but not height and track) could be established over the flight.Given that he was higher than (almost) all the buildings, it's quite possible that recordings from the Heathrow 10cm radar will provide at least some information on his track in the peroid before the collision. Certainly that will be one area the AAIB are investigating.

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 16:21

Not quite sure who posted the snip below....

How do you know? Have you ever encountered such a situation?
Certain masts, tall pylons etc on the continent use strobe attention getters for aviators and very well they work. Couple with steady lighting they can be seen in very poor weather conditions.We need to challenge old customs and practices from time to time to see if they are still appropriate. I'm not saying that we should not light structures, or, come to that, that we should. In the marine world vast numbers of buoys and lights have gone. They were becoming a hazard as so many drifted off or went u/s and a mark that 'disappears' is more of a danger than a help.

Suppose we discovered aviation today, in 2013, with our present nav tech, would we stick lamps on all tall things? What, where, by whom, why? This problem of information overload bothers me. When lights of the kind we have today were first proscribed we had limited panels and if we were lucky a radio. Today we have something that makes an X-Box look like a toy.

I don't suppose I'd challenge runway lights, VASIs or specific oddball markers but do we really need lamps all over the place? We certainly don't need them for nav (at least, not in professional aviation) and the Garmin has replaced the eyeball for much private/light aviation. If we removed 99% of the lights then what's left would stand out as something to note, not just yet another lamp.

Maybe it depends on the region; in high density highly-developed regions it's one story, over rural, or desert it's another. And then if you have different rules for different circumstances, how does the pilot know what to look for? Dunno, I just put the question on the table to chew over.

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 16:28

Strikes me - and I may be very naive - that the nice thing about flying a helicopter is that you can 'stop' and hang around in one place for a bit while you contact ATC / wait thirty seconds for mist to clear / check a map. Or is there a fuel penalty for hovering? Increased workload when holding station? Is it just not done to hover in a lane?

I'm still puzzled as to why the a/c seems to have been approaching from the east -when the original flightpath must surely have taken it well to the west of London - and why the pilot did not contact Battersea control. If he didn't have time to communicate, suggests he was too busy aviating?

Your understanding of how helicopters are operated is flawed, in a number of ways, I'm afraid.

The relevant part about your first statement about "stopping". Hovering at altitude (outside ground effect) needs good visual references, full concentration with both hands on the controls, and considerably more power than slow flight. It's seldom done in good weather, let alone poor visibility, if flying from A to B. Police or other observation aircraft excepted, they need to stay in one place for over-riding reasons of the task in hand.

From the evidence already in the public domain, it appears that PB was flying a commonly used entry route to Battersea. He would have been directed to use that route because he would have been under radar control until he reported his position at, or in sight of, Vauxhall Bridge, a compulsory reporting point.

On reaching Vauxhall Bridge, he would have been required to turn almost 90 degrees right to fly westbound along the Thames, i.e. along helicopter route H4, to reach Battersea Heliport.

At that point, the normal thing is to be directed to change frequency to Battersea Tower because that is the eastern boundary of their ATZ and they control that airspace. It's not unusual to be given a maximum altitude of 1000 feet QNH at that point, because of other traffic above, descending onto the ILS at City Airport.

Just south of that point is the 770 foot high (slightly less now) building/ crane.

It seems to me there was nothing unusual about the circumstances leading up to the accident, apart from the deteriorating weather conditions.

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 16:31

Maybe it depends on the region; in high density highly-developed regions it's one story, over rural, or desert it's another. And then if you have different rules for different circumstances, how does the pilot know what to look for? Dunno, I just put the question on the table to chew over.

and in cities with a whole range of lights at different levels, different tints, colours and intensity ditinginguising one object from another can prove difficult also, hence why High intensity lights are used to provide visual cues to obstructions.

this isn't rocket surgery.. over decades and incidents and accidents, and like i said tombstone progression, shoving a light on an obstruction provides an additional layer of safety margin.

we don need to re-invent the wheen, look at GPS mapping programming and updates, big cost solutions which can be resolved by a simple process.

obstruction tough to see; shove a light on it.

a tower crane costs i should think upwards of of a couple of hundred thousand pounds.. a couple of hundred quid in lighting isn't going flatline the economy.

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 16:35

The relevant part about your first statement about "stopping". Hovering at altitude (outside ground effect) needs good visual references, full concentration with both hands on the controls, and considerably more power than slow flight. It's seldom done in good weather, let alone poor visibility, if flying from A to B. Police or other observation aircraft excepted, they need to stay in one place for over-riding reasons of the task in hand.

now, i'm no rotor wing pilot shy torque and your input is valauble

i would hazard a guess, from my knowledge in fixed wing, that an airmass in which a heli is in hover can also be moving.. so while 'stationary' in the air it can be moving relative to the ground. hence the need for visual cues relative to the surrounding area.

Cornish Jack

18th Jan 2013, 16:43

BOAC #256
Sounds moderately exciting, CJ - I think I might have dropped off at the nearest open space and called for a bowser.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif. 400 yds from a mast with guy wires.....hmm!!
One great mind and my lesser one obviously think alike! That is exactly what I insisted on. Found a big, open, flat, uninhabited sports field on an island in the Zuider Zee and a nice man in a white coat came out and pointed out on the map where we were. All's well then ... not quite:uhoh:. When we taxied in at Valkenburg, we were told to report to Ops immediately. There we were informed that our chosen en-route 'stop' was the Dutch Foot and Mouth Research Establishment!!:ooh: UK Min of Ag and Fish (as it then was) were 'interested' but NOT in a caring way!! Next day, things got worse:{ - yes, really.
Lessons learned? - of course.

M609

18th Jan 2013, 16:51

Maybe this might work: Obstacle Collision Avoidance System (http://ocas-as.no/?module=Articles&action=Article.publicOpen&id=202)

It is used on large power lines in Norway, at the long valley/fjord crossings.
The system works, but they originally intended to broadcast the audio warning on the VHF carrier wave somehow, in order to reach all aircraft no matter what freq they are on.

No wonder, it got sh**canned by the Norwegian CAA, interference issues.

But the biggest issue: If the notams are anything to go by, they go U/S a LOT!

alfaman

18th Jan 2013, 16:52

I would of thought that Thames Radar (or whoever he was working) might have seen him on radar close to the obstacle- and warned him.
I doubt a crane would show on radar; if it did, the suppressors would do their job & remove it anyway. The point of a NOTAM is to warn any pilot in the vicinity.

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 16:55

obstruction tough to see; shove a light on it.

a tower crane costs i should think upwards of of a couple of hundred thousand pounds.. a couple of hundred quid in lighting isn't going flatline the economy.To be frank, I think that's counter-productive. What does one do presented with a light one wasn't expecting to see? Commonsense tells us we've not 'planned' or 'expected' to fly into a crane or a building! My reaction, and I'd guess, the instant reaction of an unexpected light is WTF!? If you check the rules, an instant response of up, down left or right isn't clear to the pilot. The marine cardinal system is better (but don't let's go there!) but still takes huge concentration to interpret from a pilot who is only in this pickle because something(s) else went wrong earlier.

Sir Humphrey Appleby would agree with you..."shove a light on it". Job, and jobs for lots of boys. But would it improve aviation safety?

I really don't know. It's a discussion but a discussion that needs a lot of thought and considered debate from experience people. At this stage I don't think we ought to 'shove' anything anywhere other than preconceptions and ancient rules in the melting pot.

TRC

18th Jan 2013, 16:57

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

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 17:12

Lemain,

To answer your question about lighting (if you read the post in full you should see it was me who posted your quote).

Do we need structures to be well lit? A resounding YES!

Not for navigation but for collision avoidance purposes. We also need to be able to comply with the 500 foot rule, so objects like crane jibs should be better lit than they presently seem to be in London. Maybe the ones over 500 feet high (or less, where helicopters are required to operate at below 1,000 feet) should be given special consideration with regard to being made more visible, for the safety of everyone.

Helicopters operating in the LHR and or City zones, in order to operate to and from London Heliport (Battersea), a VFR only location are required to be flown under SVFR / VFR as appropriate. This involves the principle of see and avoid. If you can't see, it's possible you won't avoid, irrespective of how good your navigation kit is.

757hopeful

18th Jan 2013, 17:20

Perhaps a totally irrelevant question. But having gone through and indeed commented several times. I don't see the following question asked. By all accounts the heli did not declare an emergency, so considering he heliport is perhaps a 1/4 mile away? The controller would have seen both visually and by looking at the metar that the weather was not suitable. Do they bear any 'responsibility' for accepting the inbound as opposed to advising heathrow there were perhaps better alternatives due to deteriorating weather?

By responsibility I am not portioning blame at all. I mean are they obliged to relay weather info with a known inbound and bad weather? Again I understand that it is down to the pilot to choose (a divert won't be 'given' to him) but surely battersea heliport would have known or at least seen the weather.

Strikes me as odd that heathrow passed him to battersea but he never made contact. No reports of battersea trying to make that contact either. If you know of a heli diverting to your field because of conditions not suitable for flight along his current route, And you can also see your weather is not great in the atz you control. Would you not make the effort to establish the contact? And make sure all is ok?

Again not putting the onus on anyone. Just an observation

SLFandProud

18th Jan 2013, 17:25

Helicopters operating in the LHR and or City zones, in order to operate to and from London Heliport (Battersea), a VFR only location are required to be flown under SVFR / VFR as appropriate. This involves the principle of see and avoid. If you can't see, it's possible you won't avoid, irrespective of how good your navigation kit is.
Isn't that rather the point?

If the only things that can penetrate the gloom are high intensity beacons, then you cannot 'see' by any practical definition of the word, and you shouldn't be up there.

John R81

18th Jan 2013, 17:27

We do not know that Battersea did not try to or even actually make contact with PB. We know that he did not make contact with Battersea. The AAIB report will say if Battersea made any transmissions, and (hopefully) what radio frequency PB had selected.

Typically, though, on being passed to another frequency I have to change my set and make the opening call. The new handler will wait for me, else how does he know I have changed my frequency?

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 17:31

What does one do presented with a light one wasn't expecting to see? Commonsense tells us we've not 'planned' or 'expected' to fly into a crane or a building! My reaction, and I'd guess, the instant reaction of an unexpected light is WTF!? If you check the rules, an instant response of up, down left or right isn't clear to the pilot.

Lemain, Are you not familiar with the rules of the air? I ask because you seem to be trying to put this in context of shipping.

The relevant rule says that where two aircraft are approaching head on, each turns right to avoid the other. Most pilots would instinctively turn to avoid anything ahead, especially if already at low level.

The rules also state that pilots needing to avoid should not pass directly below, or above another aircraft.

In PB's case, he would have been given a maximum altitude to fly, probably 1,000 feet QNH.

TRC

18th Jan 2013, 17:38

..... so considering he heliport is perhaps a 1/4 mile away....

According to Google Earth, a straight line distance from the crane in question to Battersea Heliport is about 2.1nm. - and out of sight from the control tower I expect, due to buildings in the way.

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 17:39

ShyTorque (if you read the post in full you should see it was me who posted your quote).Sorry about that. I didn't mean to be discourteous, but there was a system problem - my pc or pprune or my fingers or whatever. Sure, I hear your pov. I meant this as a general discussion...I'm sure there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. It's a balance. :ok:

Cows getting bigger

18th Jan 2013, 17:42

The real question should be about how an AOC positioning flight ended-up launching in such conditions whilst the rest of us had a quick look at Carol the weather girl on BBC Breakfast, rolled over and hit the snooze button on our alarm clocks. The cloud was on/close to the deck, the forecasts were bad, the A109 does not have an icing clearance and it was rather cold.

All the other stuff about frequencies, procedures, controllers, lack of obstruction lights etc is noise and only contributes some rather thin layers of the proverbial Swiss cheese.

Of course, I may be completely wrong.

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 17:44

757 hopeful, 1/4 of a mile? Please check your navigation!

Battersea heliport is slightly more than 2nm from Vauxhall Bridge, the reporting point. Hence the requirement for the frequency change at that point; it's on the edge of the ATZ.

Due to topography, the Battersea controller would not have line of sight with an aircraft at Vauxhall.

Pace

18th Jan 2013, 17:48

757Hopeful

Do not forget an airport can only give weather conditions at their airport. They have no clue other than other aircraft reports what conditions are away from the airport.
Especially around a water situation with concrete or brick buildings alongside side the river and varying temperature changes conditions can change dramatically over the space of a few hundred yards ie on one side of the river you could have perfect VFR on the other side standing fog or low cloud.

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 17:48

ShyTorque -- Lemain, Are you not familiar with the rules of the air? I ask because you seem to be trying to put this in context of shipping.

The relevant rule says that where two aircraft are approaching head on, each turns right to avoid the other. Most pilots would instinctively turn to avoid anything ahead, especially if already at low level.

The rules also state that pilots needing to avoid should not pass directly below, or above another aircraft.Hmmmm...Maybe I see it a bit differently as I also do marine (ocean). I do cars trains and buses as well. And bicycles. Just for the purpose of this reply, suppose I am flying directly towards you, you are on my nose. We are talking visual only. I see your white, your green and your red. And hopefully vice versa. How do I 'notice' you? I mean, what draws your presence to my attention?...

757hopeful

18th Jan 2013, 17:54

According to Google Earth, a straight line distance from the crane in question to Battersea Heliport is about 2.1nm. - and out of sight from the control tower I expect, due to buildings in the way.
757 hopeful, 1/4 of a mile? Please check your navigation!

Battersea heliport is slightly more than 2nm from Vauxhall Bridge, the reporting point. Hence the requirement for the frequency change at that point; it's on the edge of the ATZ.

Due to topography, the Battersea controller would not have line of sight with an aircraft at Vauxhall.
757Hopeful

Do not forget an airport can only give weather conditions at their airport. They have no clue other than other aircraft reports what conditions are away from the airport.
Especially around a water situation with concrete or brick buildings alongside side the river and varying temperature changes conditions can change dramatically over the space of a few hundred yards ie on one side of the river you could have perfect VFR on the other side standing fog or low cloud.

Pace

My apologies chaps. Seems a lot closer when I'm driving :ugh:

Satcop

18th Jan 2013, 18:04

By all accounts the heli did not declare an emergency, so considering he heliport is perhaps a 1/4 mile away? The controller would have seen both visually and by looking at the metar that the weather was not suitable.
As has been posted by others the view from the VCR at Battersea is less than ideal in certain directions and you do not be come visual with traffic landing on 21 until they are quite close, you certainly cannot see traffic at Vauxhall.

With regards to the weather; if it is below the prescribed minima the heliport is closed.It's that simple. There are plenty of visibility points and a cloudbase recorder to assist he ATCO in doing the met obs.

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 18:12

pilot and apprentice

18th Jan 2013, 18:54

Lemain:
Seriously, has anyone here used lights while flying professionally for collision avoidance?

Used them? Not deliberately, but they have certainly helped me. No way to know for sure if the extra second(s) was the difference but I'm glad I had it!

Mixture:
Quote:
yeah of course.. any heli can just land at will in a park in inner city london, have a smoke and wait for the weather to clear up.
And its attitudes like that are contributing factors towards accidents....the red-mist, press-on effect !

You made a bad call on the weather. Its closed in around you. You know you're about to hit an area of London that you would rather not be in under cover of cloud and potential ice.

Assuming you have exhausted all other viable options, don't press-on, put the damn thing down ..... I'm sure the CAA would much rather see you do that than end up hitting a crane.

Infact, didn't someone link to a AIC pink on the subject ? You might want to read it..... P146/2012 issued 20 December 2012.

The reality is that, if one were to just "put it down" in downtown London, their @ss would be (the proverbial) grass.

Lets use our risk matrix:

1. precautionary landing: consequences significant (job in jeopardy, CAA action, adverse media coverage, blow to ego) and likelihood 100%. Worse if the a/c was damaged in the landing, a pedestrian was struck by debris, or a looky-loo driver had an accident!

2. press on: consequences dire (accident? or less) but likelihood very (extremely) low (been here before, know the area, got a plan)

Most pilots, who got where they are by being confident in themselves, would see less risk in #2. All the hindsight in the world on here won't change that.

I highlighted one line from above: does anyone really think that after a precautionary in the downtown the result would be positive???? Give me a break!

Usually the situation 'feels' controllable until very near the end, that is why it is so hard to call it off. Once the decision to launch is made, options begin to fade away. That first early go/no go is the big safety gate!

That said, when I first looked at the weather posted on pprune (can't locate it now) it looked like just another marginal VFR day, except maybe for the freezing fog. Without local area knowledge I might hesitate. For him, I expect it was just another day.

There are many issues that MIGHT have had an impact. Too many posters on here pick one and then spend endless effort trying to prove why theirs is the best, if not the only, explanation. It becomes a question of WHO is right, not WHAT is right. Hmmmm, what regular training that most pilots get covers this??

I expect the AAIB will find a very complex chain with simple causes, no earth-shattering conclusions or revelations.

For me: the flight was marginal but considered doable with a back-up plan/diversion (he was considered skilled, professional, experienced). Encountered the bad wx but client and boss would be happy that he tried (my suspicion of motivation, not malicious). A SPIFR ship in marginal wx so was likely coupled and flying faster than would have been if hand-flying (been there done that). Distracted at a critical time by radio (freq change, call, pos'n report, gps check) and hit an object that was difficult to see in the circumstances.

None of us is infallible. We are all diminished by the loss.

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 18:54

Lemain, if another aircraft was coming directly towards me, you wouldn't normally see a white navigation light because that would be the tail light.

If you fly, you should know this - it's part of basic air law, which all pilots, irrespective of the type of licence, are required to pass an exam in. Normally before first solo.

Whatever I saw directly ahead, in normal circumstances I would turn right.Great, I have your attention. What drew your attention to the light(s)? Suppose there seemed to be flashing lights associated with the group? What might you consider 'normal circumstances' or what would be 'abnormal circumstances' and would you react differently in 'normal' and 'abnormal' circumstances? With a closing speed of a couple of hundred knots in a Cessna, you haven't got a lot of time to ponder.... I suppose you could hover in a helicopter and ponder. But you don't.

If you feel it'd be OK to debate without being so confrontational then it'd be more enjoyable but if not, I'm cool with that too.

sAx_R54

18th Jan 2013, 19:08

Good point(s) by air police (post #249). This vid is also interesting, if rather long! High points 'buzzing' 027L at Heathrow around 6 - 7mins in, then the ride down the meander of the Thames ~12/13mins in. Main point being, along routing of the river, well away from tall buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZXhe0vLEs8

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 19:13

pilot apprentice --

Used them? Not deliberately, but they have certainly helped me. No way to know for sure if the extra second(s) was the difference but I'm glad I had it!Yup, I can relate to that but hand on heart, were you somewhere where you shouldn't have been? Off track for any reason, 'excusable' or just plain 'error' - we ALL make errors imo and the biggest risk is to be in denial of that to ourselves. Presumably someone didn't build a tower block between your takeoff and your near-miss? :) You planned your route and using whatever nav system - visual or electronic - you gave yourself an appropriate margin left and right, and terrain clearance. So the very fact you were presented with those lights is a wake up call. You didn't plan it right, your instruments were wrong, you lost attention, the charts were wrong.... and so on. Which is not a personal criticism, if you're human we're in the same tribe :ok:

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 19:19

Lemain,

it's pretty clear that you are taking marine contexts into aviation, and to some degree i can understand your percetions.

as a couple of points you mention as follows:

To be frank, I think that's counter-productive. What does one do presented with a light one wasn't expecting to see? Commonsense tells us we've not 'planned' or 'expected' to fly into a crane or a building! My reaction, and I'd guess, the instant reaction of an unexpected light is WTF!? If you check the rules, an instant response of up, down left or right isn't clear to the pilot. The marine cardinal system is better

Maybe I see it a bit differently as I also do marine (ocean). I do cars trains and buses as well. And bicycles. Just for the purpose of this reply, suppose I am flying directly towards you, you are on my nose. We are talking visual only. I see your white, your green and your red. And hopefully vice versa. How do I 'notice' you? I mean, what draws your presence to my attention?...

What drew your attention to the light(s)? Suppose there seemed to be flashing lights associated with the group? What might you consider 'normal circumstances' or what would be 'abnormal circumstances' and would you react differently in 'normal' and 'abnormal' circumstances? With a closing speed of a couple of hundred knots in a Cessna, you haven't got a lot of time to ponder.... I suppose you could hover in a helicopter and ponder

ok as i had posted previously, and i'll repost here:

FAR-AIM Section 2 Air Navigation and Obstruction Lighting.

-2-3. Obstruction Lights
a. Obstructions are marked/lighted to warn airmen of their presence during daytime and nighttime conditions. They may be marked/lighted in any of the following combinations:
1. Aviation Red Obstruction Lights. Flashing aviation red beacons (20 to 40 flashes per minute) and steady burning aviation red lights during nighttime operation. Aviation orange and white paint is used for daytime marking.
2. Medium Intensity Flashing White Obstruction Lights. Medium intensity flashing white obstruction lights may be used during daytime and twilight with automatically selected reduced intensity for nighttime operation. When this system is used on structures 500 feet (153m) AGL or less in height, other methods of marking and lighting the structure may be omitted. Aviation orange and white paint is always required for daytime marking on structures exceeding 500 feet (153m) AGL. This system is not normally installed on structures less than 200 feet (61m) AGL.
3. High Intensity White Obstruction Lights.Flashing high intensity white lights during daytime with reduced intensity for twilight and nighttime operation. When this type system is used, the marking of structures with red obstruction lights and aviation orange and white paint may be omitted.
4. Dual Lighting. A combination of flashing aviation red beacons and steady burning aviation red lights for nighttime operation and flashing high intensity white lights for daytime operation. Aviation orange and white paint may be omitted.
5. Catenary Lighting. Lighted markers are available for increased night conspicuity of high-voltage (69KV or higher) transmission line catenary wires. Lighted markers provide conspicuity both day and night.
b. Medium intensity omnidirectional flashing white lighting system provides conspicuity both day and night on catenary support structures. The unique sequential/simultaneous flashing light system alerts pilots of the associated catenary wires.
c. High intensity flashing white lights are being used to identify some supporting structures of overhead transmission lines located across rivers, chasms, gorges, etc. These lights flash in a middle, top, lower light sequence at approximately 60 flashes per minute. The top light is normally installed near the top of the supporting structure, while the lower light indicates the approximate lower portion of the wire span. The lights are beamed towards the companion structure and identify the area of the wire span.
d. High intensity flashing white lights are also employed to identify tall structures, such as chimneys and towers, as obstructions to air navigation. The lights provide a 360 degree coverage about the structure at 40 flashes per minute and consist of from one to seven levels of lights depending upon the height of the structure. Where more than one level is used the vertical banks flash simultaneously.

so yes ligting of an obstruction is beneficial, seeing the light obstruction, the piolt would interpret that as appropriate and corrective action.

lighting on an obstruction is not counter productive, it's very productive. no, an aircraft should not be so close to a structure as to cause immenent threat, but thats where lighting fits in, it provides an additional layer safety to a potential circumstance that could result in a catstrophic event.

a heli cannot, as shy torque, a heli pilot himself has addressed merely stop, hang around and do something else, further to that the specific airmass the pilot is in is moving also which could further make the situation more critical.

in your shipping context, a ship cannot merely stop and decide which way its going to go around a reef, the mass of water it is in is moving also which under lack of power control could cause the very situation attempting to be avoided.

further to that, yes ships have GPS and many other systems, but harbour entrances still lit bouys going into harbour entrances, they do not absolve the situation of catastrophic outcomes, but they provide another layer of safety to prevent such.

like i posted, a tower crane costs upwards of a couple of hundred thousand, probably way more, way way more. a couple of hundred on lighting provides a very effective and cheap safety margin.

Pace

18th Jan 2013, 19:34

Lemain

To be honest I have not got a clue what point you are trying to make?
Can you put your argument in a few clear words?

mary meagher

18th Jan 2013, 19:36

Thank you again, stuckgear, for posting the FAR regs for Air Nav and Obstruction Lighting. It says it all, really. Point 3, Flashing high intensity white lights during daytime, yes please. Which is why in low viz I alway turn on my strobes, extra precaution cost very little. To quibble about light pollution over London is absurd.

757 hopeful raised a few points. He wonders if Battersea would be trying to contact the A109; but any attempts to do so would have to be limited, so as not to obstruct the frequency. Also Battersea can only report visual conditions at the airport. And can they really close it down if conditions are bad? that might be just when a refuge is badly needed.

Satcop says that Battersea has a cloudbase recorder to assist with met observations; I wonder how on earth that could work in rising or drifting fog?
At our gliding club, which takes a keen interest in cloudbase, we normally have to send an instructor up the wire first to see at what height the glider vanishes...

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 19:40

Lemain,

"Great, I have your attention"

A lecturer of mine from forty years ago used to use a phrase like that when he had been caught out himself. From a few things you've written, it appeared that you know little about basic aviation law.

Let's assume instead you were trying to catch me out with a scenario that could not happen. The answer lies in the knowledge of the rules.

There has been a tragic loss of life. This thread (and the one on Rotorheads) has produced a whole lot of false information from armchair "Aviation experts" to the point of nonsense (I thought I'd never say Jim Ferguson isn't so bad after all...but..).

I've tried to post a few facts, from my own directly relevant and current knowledge of the profession; hopefully giving a little balance.

As I already posted, in the one you didn't fully read, I wrote that this accident was very close to home in my particular case. I will await the AAIB report with interest because the fallout from it (and there will be some, I'm sure) is very pertinent to all of us who fly in this sometimes extremely demanding role.

I do have my own theory about what could have happened; my colleagues in the same part of the profession will also have theirs.

I politely suggest you start another thread if you want to debate aircraft lighting; I have no desire to do so here. Thanks.

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 19:43

Stuckgear -- That's a big long post with lots of re-posting. I'm happy to come back to any point you want to discuss but may I please focus, just now, on how 'you', the oncoming pilot, will notice my existence? Or the existence of a crane or a building?

For me it tends to be flashing or occulting lights. Solids are good for orientation and identification but they are very easy to miss, especially in the air. Less so at sea, oddly.

So what do you think about flashing lights? And the rules? And do you immediately turn right?

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 19:50

Pace -- Yup, has become a bit convoluted, sorry if my contribution hasn't helped. :)

Lemain

To be honest I have not got a clue what point you are trying to make?
Can you put your argument in a few clear words?

PaceI don't think that lighting or the lack of it was in any way a factor in this tragedy. I don't think that adding more lighting in urban areas will improve safety, I think it'll do the opposite.

Pace

18th Jan 2013, 19:53

Lemain

Again I ask you to put in plain English your point in this discussion regarding a terrible accident with a Helicopter Hitting an extension off a Crane which was invisible to him.
All this talk about lights on aircraft flying towards you is absolute nonsense

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 19:56

Pace --

Again I ask you to put in plain English your point in this discussion regarding a terrible accident with a Helicopter Hitting an extension off a Crane which was invisible to him.
All this talk about lights on aircraft flying towards you is absolute nonsenseDid that cross-post with mine above, timed 2050?

sAx_R54

18th Jan 2013, 19:57

@ShyTorque

From the evidence already in the public domain, it appears that PB was flying a commonly used entry route to Battersea. He would have been directed to use that route because he would have been under radar control until he reported his position at, or in sight of, Vauxhall Bridge, a compulsory reporting point.

On reaching Vauxhall Bridge, he would have been required to turn almost 90 degrees right to fly westbound along the Thames, i.e. along helicopter route H4, to reach Battersea Heliport.

Thanks, quite possibly how the accident was instigated.

Pace

18th Jan 2013, 20:02

Lemain

The only thing we know for sure is that the lack of lighting did not work as the poor pilot hit a Crane extension which he did not see!
Forget distant lighting see a high intensity light at close quarters and you will Damn well know its not floating in the air but attached to something hard!

Yes it did cross post!

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 20:08

Stuckgear -- That's a big long post with lots of re-posting.

1. Please, feel free to read it at leisure.

2. I reposted it because it's clear you didnt read it the first time, and you've come back again with a question which makes it clear you didn't read it the second time either.

I'm happy to come back to any point you want to discuss but may I please focus, just now, on how 'you', the oncoming pilot, will notice my existence? Or the existence of a crane or a building?

3. see post we are referencing.

For me it tends to be flashing or occulting lights. Solids are good for orientation and identification but they are very easy to miss, especially in the air. Less so at sea, oddly.

4. see point 3.

So what do you think about flashing lights?

5. see point 4

And the rules?

6. see point 5.

And do you immediately turn right?

7. see point 2

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 20:16

Pace --

The only thing we know for sure is that the lack of lighting did not work as the poor pilot hit a Crane extension which he did not see!
Forget distant lighting see a high intensity light at close quarters and you will Damn well know its not floating in the air but attached to something hard!I am sure that we both share the wish to avoid such a thing happening again, as well as making sure that we don't end up in a similar situation ourselves. We share the same interests. The longer I fly and sail (and drive, come to that) the more I feel that lights should be reduced - not increased. I don't mean 'no lights', I mean fewer lights and lights where lights should be.

Disagreement and debate are healthy and it's good to listen to conflicting opinions.

I doubt whether lighting of any kind on a jib in fog or low cloud would have prevented this tragedy. The aircraft was moving. The crane was fixed and NOTAM'd. The aircraft was in the wrong place, not the crane. If the crane was in fog no lighting would have helped.

A310bcal

18th Jan 2013, 20:17

Having spent a lot of time reading all that has been written on this very sad event, something that keeps "bugging" me is a question which has only partly been answered on the subject of helicopter flight in icing conditions. It seemed to me from reading all the reports and also METARs that with temperatures of minus 3 all around and PLENTY of visible moisture, that rotor and airframe icing would be a relevant and possible hazard? Am I wrong in assuming this, certainly in all my years of fixed wing ops, we would consider such conditions as very conducive to all types of icing (powerplant and airframe )?

Speculating as to why the heli was diverting ( due weather i believe ), perhaps the prolonged flight to Elstree ,which as the crow flies is barely 30 miles from Redhill , could have started ice accretion; "land at nearest suitable airfield" springs to mind...get the thing on the ground asap...very high workload....Many query the fact that Capt Barnes was VERY experienced and thus unlikely to be careless in his operation...so....incapacitation as the workload reached very high levels in the final stages of the diversion?
Yes, I know that the AAIB will produce a comprehensive report, but as in the sad case of Flt Lt Egging ( Red 4 ) the final report really never came up with a reason , just what MIGHT have happened

As some have already hinted, the real truth may prove highly elusive.

Lemain

18th Jan 2013, 20:32

Forget distant lighting see a high intensity light at close quarters and you will Damn well know its not floating in the air but attached to something hard!Thankfully I've never been that close in the air, in bad viz or night. I have at sea, many times. An unexpected 'out of the blue' light is a "What the f*....?" moment. It is heart-stopping. Your jaw drops while your brain engages....with nothing but a light you don't know what you have on your hands. It's easy enough in an exam...red/green... but life isn't always like that. Until you get a bearing and assess the relative motion a light means nothing other than shock and horror.

Suppose he had seen the jib, lit, in the gloom, what colour would the light have *appeared* to be? The pilot obviously didn't expect it to be a crane - obviously or he wouldn't have been there!. Do you turn right, left, climb,...?

The AAIB will go through all this...but discussion is what forums are about, so we discuss...

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 20:36

I doubt whether lighting of any kind on a jib in fog or low cloud would have prevented this tragedy. The aircraft was moving. The crane was fixed and NOTAM'd. The aircraft was in the wrong place, not the crane. If the crane was in fog no lighting would have helped.

ICAO Annex 14 Chaper 6

CHAPTER 6. VISUAL AIDS FOR DENOTING OBSTACLES
6.1 Objects to be marked and/or lighted
Note.C The marking and/or lighting of obstacles is intended to reduce hazards to aircraft by indicating the presence
of the obstacles. It does not necessarily reduce operating limitations which may be imposed by an obstacle.

6.2 Marking of objects
General
6.2.1 All fixed objects to be marked shall, whenever practicable, be coloured, but if this is not practicable, markers
or flags shall be displayed on or above them, except that objects that are sufficiently conspicuous by their shape, size or colour
need not be otherwise marked.
6.2.2 All mobile objects to be marked shall be coloured or display flags.
Use of colours
6.2.3 An object shall be coloured to show a chequered pattern if it has essentially unbroken surfaces and its
projection on any vertical plane equals or exceeds 4.5 m in both dimensions. The pattern shall consist of rectangles of not less
than 1.5 m and not more than 3 m on a side, the corners being of the darker colour. The colours of the pattern shall contrast
each with the other and with the background against which they will be seen. Orange and white or alternatively red and white
shall be used, except where such colours merge with the background.

6.3 Lighting of objects
Use of obstacle lights
6.3.1 The presence of objects which must be lighted, as specified in 6.1, shall be indicated by low-, medium- or
high-intensity obstacle lights, or a combination of such lights.
Note.C High-intensity obstacle lights are intended for day use as well as night use. Care is needed to ensure that
these lights do not create disconcerting dazzle. Guidance on the design, location and operation of high-intensity obstacle.

6.3.8 High-intensity obstacle lights, Type A, shall be used to indicate the presence of an object if its height above
the level of the surrounding ground exceeds 150 m and an aeronautical study indicates such lights to be essential for the
recognition of the object by day.
6.3.9 High-intensity obstacle lights, Type B, shall be used to indicate the presence of a tower supporting overhead
wires, cables, etc., where:
a) an aeronautical study indicates such lights to be essential for the recognition of the presence of wires,
cables, etc.; or
b) it has not been found practicable to install markers on the wires, cables, etc.
6.3.10 Where, in the opinion of the CAA, the use of high-intensity obstacle lights, Type A or B, or
medium-intensity obstacle lights, Type A, at night may dazzle pilots in the vicinity of an aerodrome (within approximately
10 000 m radius) or cause significant environmental concerns, a dual obstacle lighting system shall be provided. This system
shall be composed of high-intensity obstacle lights, Type A or B, or medium- intensity obstacle lights, Type A, as appropriate,
for daytime and twilight use and medium-intensity obstacle lights, Type B or C, for night-time use.

6.3.11 One or more low-, medium- or high-intensity obstacle lights shall be located as close as practicable to the top
of the object. The top lights shall be so arranged as to at least indicate the points or edges of the object highest in relation to the
obstacle limitation surface.
6.3.12 In the case of chimney or other structure of like function, the top lights shall be placed sufficiently below
the top so as to minimize contamination by smoke etc.

6.3.13 In the case of a tower or antenna structure indicated by high-intensity obstacle lights by day with an
appurtenance, such as a rod or an antenna, greater than 12 m where it is not practicable to locate a high-intensity obstacle light
on the top of the appurtenance, such a light shall be located at the highest practicable point and, if practicable, a
medium-intensity obstacle light, Type A, mounted on the top.
6.3.14 In the case of an extensive object or of a group of closely spaced objects, top lights shall be displayed at least
on the points or edges of the objects highest in relation to the obstacle limitation surface, so as to indicate the general definition
and the extent of the objects. If two or more edges are of the same height, the edge nearest the landing area shall be marked.
Where low-intensity lights are used, they shall be spaced at longitudinal intervals not exceeding 45 m. Where medium-intensity
lights are used, they shall be spaced at longitudinal intervals not exceeding 900 m.

and so on and so one descripting various light usage in intensity etc etc.

Pace

18th Jan 2013, 21:07

Mixture

I would not disagree with what you have written other than one point !
I do not believe PB would have felt he was in a situation which required a precautionary landing and hence never attempted one ?
He probably felt all was ok until a building / Crane appeared in his vision! He would have taken evasive action not realising that off the main Crane structure was another structure hidden in cloud !

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 21:08

I would be curious to know how many multi-thousand hour heli pilots would seriously be willing to do a precautionary landing due to the weather closing in around them making it somewhat precarious to press on further due to impending obstacles.

I suspect many would probably only do a precautionary if forced to do so by mechanical failure and would much rather use their "experience" to do some scud-running of a questionable nature on the basis that "you've flown round these parts a million times before and know them like the back of your hand".

well, no. you are mixing and matching to suit an argument.

there is a world of difference between dumping a heli down in Hyde Park, because the weather is a tad dicky and a forced landing due to engine failure.

heli's dont have much in their aerodynamic structer that leaves marging for error, damaged main rotor blade? the thing is going to came apart very quickly and the souls on board are passengers.

lose a tail and the souls on baord on are just passengers lose a rblade off the tail rotor, the souls on board are just passengers.

in terms of engine falure, that is *why* single and and twin engine are differentiated in operational ability.

in terms of the precautionary due weather.. well a single perhaps a stream of cirrus to one pilot may be cause for a precautionary to another, not.

you are throwing away a great safety asset that helicopters hold over fixed wings.

wrong. heli's operational assets are the abilities to be used in locations where runway provisions are not possible, like urban areas, or offshore installations. certain helis have the capacity for a considerable range allowing city pairs or longer sectors between offshore installations to be undertaken.

I might be wrong, but the problem is that its only human nature that with experience comes confidence, and its only human nature that people tend to err on the side of over-confidence and are unwilling to accept what might be seen as defeat.

and again as before,this is what i take issue with. you do not seem to be a commercially rated pilot, yet you lay at the Late Peter Barnes feet that he was overconfident due to his experience.

you are not a pilot, you were not there, you do not know the situations or circumstances that resulted in the accident, so stop making conjecture against someone who is not here to defend himself when cause and circumstance has not even been established by AAIB.

Pelikal

18th Jan 2013, 21:08

Please forgive this intrusion but what was the purpose of his flight?

overthewing

18th Jan 2013, 21:10

Your understanding of how helicopters are operated is flawed, in a number of ways, I'm afraid.

Hovering at altitude (outside ground effect) needs good visual references, full concentration with both hands on the controls, and considerably more power than slow flight....l.

On reaching Vauxhall Bridge, he would have been required to turn almost 90 degrees right to fly westbound along the Thames, i.e. along helicopter route H4, to reach Battersea Heliport.....

At that point, the normal thing is to be directed to change frequency to Battersea Tower because that is the eastern boundary of their ATZ and they control that airspace. It's not unusual to be given a maximum altitude of 1000 feet QNH at that point, because of other traffic above, descending onto the ILS at City Airport.....

It seems to me there was nothing unusual about the circumstances leading up to the accident, apart from the deteriorating weather conditions.

Thanks very much for this clarification, ShyTorque. It explains a lot about which I was clueless.

It does suggest that central London should not be used by helicopter traffic unless there's good visibility?

BOAC

18th Jan 2013, 21:11

Next day, things got worsehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif - yes, really - sorry - just seen your post. What happened - you got F&M?:)

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 21:14

stuckgear -- You've posted the rules. What point are you making either regarding this tragedy or the more general discussion? Are you saying that the obstruction was not marked in the proscribed manner? Are you saying that marking and lighting was or might have been a contributory factor? I don't really know which point on the rules you are asking me to comment on (yes, I see you've highlighted in red but I am still missing the point). Let me know and I'll get back to you http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Lemain, i am not asking you to comment on anything, you have postulated that lighting of obstructions to air traffic is null and void.

im pointing out to you and others, that aviation authorities, the world over, disagree and stipulate lighting of structures and obstructions as they do cause hazard to air traffic.

they are simply not doing it for $hits and giggles, they do it becuase lighting structures and obstructions to air traffic prevents accidents, provides an additional level of safety margin and is the result of painful lessons learned in the past.

if you want to take on existential theologies into aircraft impact of objects then pop on down to JB.

But was the structure 'really' there?

yes it was, the heli hit it, it was unlit at the time.

AAKEE

18th Jan 2013, 21:19

High intensity lighting is very visible in fog !
Fog is just cloud or visible moisture! As you know when you drive in fog the visibility in bad fog is probably 50 to 200 meters! Would you drive in fog towards cars with no lights on ?

Ever flown formation in clouds/fog ? Or looked at the wing on a commersial jet inside a cloud ?
When you drive the car 'under' the fog you could have 200m of 'RVR' visibility. Inside it could go way below.
There would be needed to have a lot of lights to cover a single crane, they would need to sit very close. Even then, most people doesnt flyies IMC below a safe speed for the heli or fixed wing(= at least 60knots). There will be no time to react and avoid hitting when you see the light.

We had ceiling about 200' yesterday. It covered only the top (5-10meters) of the nearest GSM/3G mast to my house. Still couldnt se the red light, about 500m from my home. When I drove by the mast I looked up for the light, it was there(lit) but I barely saw it from about 150m distance. Notice that this wasn't 150m through clouds but line of sight was about 130m below clouds and perhaps 20m diagonally through the cloud. Noticed this due to the fact that the mast was all covered with ice and frost and was almost impossible to se even below the ceiling. That's where I fly for most of the days when its below zero in the clouds.

Rail Engineer

18th Jan 2013, 21:21

Please forgive this intrusion but what was the purpose of his flight?A private charter by Sir David Tang

pilot and apprentice

18th Jan 2013, 21:37

Mixture:
Quote:
The reality is that, if one were to just "put it down" in downtown London, their @ss would be (the proverbial) grass.
Ok, putting the geographical context of London aside for a minute because that's a topic that could be debated in its own right until the cows come home....

(Just to stress before continuing, the following is not aiming to draw any parallels with the late Mr Barnes.... I'm going to sit patiently for the AAIB report. I am strictly talking in a general tone here, and not looking to draw any parallels with recent events).

I would be curious to know how many multi-thousand hour heli pilots would seriously be willing to do a precautionary landing due to the weather closing in around them making it somewhat precarious to press on further due to impending obstacles.

I suspect many would probably only do a precautionary if forced to do so by mechanical failure and would much rather use their "experience" to do some scud-running of a questionable nature on the basis that "you've flown round these parts a million times before and know them like the back of your hand".

It seems to me that by refusing to contemplate a precautionary, you are throwing away a great safety asset that helicopters hold over fixed wings. That is the relative ease at which you can set them down on a small footprint.

I might be wrong, but the problem is that its only human nature that with experience comes confidence, and its only human nature that people tend to err on the side of over-confidence and are unwilling to accept what might be seen as defeat.

Actually, my reply directly related to this context.

The context affects the decision to "divert to landing". To ignore context is to engineer a problem to fit the desired solution.

The general tone of my post was directed toward the (in my opinion uninformed) general concensus in this thread that a landing in London would be no big deal and hence an 'easy' decision. It is anything but!

"...scud-running of a questionable nature..." for a PPL-H may very well be just another day at the office for an experienced CPL/ATPL-H. Again, context and preconceived judgement.

I believe the opposite is true, most well experienced rotary pilots consider the 'divert to land' often and when it works out noone hears about it. What the layman often does not realize is that there are a myriad of consequences to making that decision, depending on the context, and many cannot be accepted lightly.

And, as you said, we are no longer talking about the incident at hand in any way.

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 21:55

A private charter by Sir David Tang

was one report and another..

Helicopter crash: pilot was picking up owner of Ivy restaurant - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/9810258/Helicopter-crash-pilot-was-picking-up-owner-of-Ivy-restaurant.html)

Tycoon Richard Caring, 62, was waiting at Elstree airport in Hertfordshire and was said to be completely unaware that the aircraft had diverted to Battersea heliport because of the bad weather.

Mr Caring told the Daily Mail that he has been left devastated by the death of Mr Barnes, who he described as a “very dear friend”.

The millionaire businessman, who owns Wentworth golf course, The Ivy restaurant and Annabel's nightclub, regularly uses helicopters to fly him from London to his Exmoor shooting estate and on working trips.

He is reported to have flown with Mr Barnes many times and was waiting for him to take him to Yorkshire on business on the day of the accident.
Father-of-two Mr Caring, of Hampstead Heath, London, said: “I flew with Pete Barnes for many years. He was a very dear friend and a very accomplished pilot. My thoughts and prayers are with his family during this awful time. I am devastated for their loss.”
He had arrived at Elstree in good time and despite the bad weather he had no idea that Mr Barnes, who he had spoken to earlier in the day, had decided to change his route, it is reported.
Friends of the businessman claimed that he was struggling to come to terms with the tragedy.

SLFandProud

18th Jan 2013, 21:55

im pointing out to you and others, that aviation authorities, the world over, disagree and stipulate lighting of structures and obstructions as they do cause hazard to air traffic.

they are simply not doing it for $hits and giggles, they do it becuase lighting structures and obstructions to air traffic prevents accidents, provides an additional level of safety margin and is the result of painful lessons learned in the past.

I'm not sure the quotes you've posted actually make that point.

For one, they specify in great detail what lights should look like. They're rather vague on what should be lit.

Lighting a small number of structures in particularly high profile areas (e.g. the vicinity of airfields, on major flightpaths,) makes sense, but that's a long way from mandating lights on every building in London.

(I note, incidentally, that ICAO Annex 14 Chapter 6 is entitled Aerodrome Standards - not Major Conurbation Standards.)

More important though is this - none of your quotes actually details why obstacles should be lit.

I would contend this: The aviation authorities do not envisage lighting obstacles as reasonable mitigation to permit VFR in IMC.

Lighting obstacles seems of dubious merit in fog at best. At night, or during the day, the light may usefully draw attention to an object that you can then focus on and determine the appropriate response to.

In fog, on the other hand, all it does is provide a point source.

Suppose the jib of the crane is at -45˚ to the vertical (pointing at 10 o'clock effectively.) A point-source light is placed at the tip of it.

It may in fact, be perfectly safe to fly to the left of the point source. Indeed, perversely enough you can get away with going under it too. Fly to the right, on the other hand, and you're toast. (This of course assumes the pilot's spatial orientation is completely in tact as well...)

A point source in fog is not enough to make a rational decision. It may enable you to complete the phrase "oh ****" before you hit the obstacle, but that's about it.

Now you're going to say if you just plaster another dozen lights all over it that problem is solved. The fact that none of the regulations you've posted so far recommends this I consider prima facie evidence that the intent of the regulations you've posted is not to enable visual flight in fog.

Not that I have a problem with putting lights on things, within reason. Knock yourself out. But as a safety feature to enable VFR in fog, it's insanity. And from a safety perspective generally, mandating things that are very difficult to control (installations on third party equipment completely outside the remit of the aviation authorities, that don't even fail safe) are as a general point less good policy than mandating things that are within the control of the aviation authorities - such as required pilot actions or required on-board equipment.

It's a tragic accident; hell, why not stick lights on cranes, it's not going to do much harm. But that's not the cause of the accident, and concentrating on it to the exclusion of all else is just the usual pprune syndrome - when things go well, all aviators are gods of the skies with responsibilities no mortal could possible comprehend, when things go wrong absolutely anything and everything other than the pilot has responsibility - it's either the lighting or the sidesticks or the confusing runway layout or the passengers, whichever idea pops into somebody's head first becomes the go-to thing to fixate on to the exclusion of all else.

sAx_R54

18th Jan 2013, 22:07

Thanks very much for this clarification, ShyTorque. It explains a lot about which I was clueless. It does suggest that central London should not be used by helicopter traffic unless there's good visibility?

Think it also suggests that making a right-hand turn in low vis conditions across the Thames at Vauxhall Bridge, makes it extremely difficult to maintain 500ft separation from obstacles that the pilot has little chance of seeing.

stuckgear

18th Jan 2013, 22:24

SLF..

Obstructions, Lighting and Marking

5.1 The treatment of land-based obstacles to air navigation is covered by existing legislation. Obstacles located close to licensed aerodromes are covered under Section 47 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Government aerodromes are similarly covered under the Town & Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development)
Order 2000. Article 219 of the ANO (2009) details the requirement for the lighting of land-based tall structures located outside of the safeguarded areas of licensed and government aerodromes.

5.2 Onshore Obstacle Lighting Requirement ICAO regulations (Annex 14 Chapter 6) and Article 219 require that structures away from the immediate vicinity of an aerodrome, which have a height of 150 m or more Above Ground Level (AGL) are:
a) fitted with medium intensity steady red lights2, positioned as close as possible to the top of the obstacle3, and also equally spaced at intermediate levels, so far as practicable, between the top lights and ground level with an interval not exceeding
52 m;

2. 'Medium intensity steady red light' means a light that complies with the characteristics described for a medium intensity type C light as specified in Volume 1 (Aerodrome Design and Operations) of Annex 14 (Third edition November 1999) to the Chicago Convention.

or, to put it another way:

"The law stipulates that buildings of a specific height and as well
as factory chimneys, towers, masts etc. must be equipped with obstruction lights.
This special lighting makes obstacles visible for pilots in the dark or when visibility is poor. Obstruction lighting is one of the in the vicinity of airports most important aspects of flight safety.

The method of marking obstacles to air traffic is laid down by recommendations. These regulations have a clearly defined sphere of influence and are internationally interlinked.
The is a special organisation within the United Nations created to establish and develop universal regulations for safety, continuity and economic efficiency in international air traffic. The recommendations of the ICAO are not directly binding in the member states, but must be transformed by them into the appropriate national legal regulations.

The ICAO regulations regarding the methods of marking and lighting aviation obstacles can be found in ICAO Annex 14."

More important though is this - none of your quotes actually details why obstacles should be lit.

bleedin' obvious springs to mind.. if it's lit, its errr more visible.

ShyTorque

18th Jan 2013, 23:06

But that's not the cause of the accident, and concentrating on it to the exclusion of all else is just the usual PPRuNe syndrome - when things go well, all aviators are gods of the skies with responsibilities no mortal could possible comprehend, when things go wrong absolutely anything and everything other than the pilot has responsibility - it's either the lighting or the sidesticks or the confusing runway layout or the passengers, whichever idea pops into somebody's head first becomes the go-to thing to fixate on to the exclusion of all else.

In fact, when it all goes wrong, I think you will find that the pilot is almost always held to blame in some way or other. So let's make their job as difficult as possible, eh?

It's nice to know we have experts at hand to tell us how perfect things would be if only they could be a pilot.

Flying Lawyer

19th Jan 2013, 00:47

SLFandProud the usual PPRuNe syndrome - when things go well, all aviators are gods of the skies with responsibilities no mortal could possible comprehend, when things go wrong absolutely anything and everything other than the pilot has responsibility

Interesting.
Over the 12+ years I've been reading this forum I've frequently thought pilots are far too quick to suggest pilot error when something has gone wrong.

.

Pace

19th Jan 2013, 06:48

FlyingLawyer

Sadly the vast majority of aircraft crashes are pilot error either incorrectly handling a fault on the aircraft or a situation or a combination of both!
It is very rare even to get an accident which is NOT pilot error!
yes it is possible that the pilot experienced a catastrophic failure which caused the aircraft to be where it was and to hit an invisible Crane Arm.

SLF
Wow so you are now suggesting that the aviation authorities regulate on lighting so a VFR pilot can fly below VFR conditions :ugh:
Regulations concerning the type of lighting on structures over a certain height are governed by the aviation authority not at the whim of a contractor!
Lighting is used to guide or to make hazards more visible in dark or poor light and visibility situations.
That maybe to alert a pilot that he is where he should not be ! in a perfect world pilots would always be where they should be and in conditions that' they are supposed to be in ! Sadly that is not the case and hence why HIGH INTENSITY lights are fitted to structures which are deemed to be a hazard to aircraft!
:ugh:

mfaff

19th Jan 2013, 07:37

Shy and Stuck...

The end of the jib was equipped with the mandated obstruction light.
It was functional.. I saw it illuminated, admittedly at night, again as required and there are images avaliable that illustrate this.

The NOTAM states the max height of the jib.

What is not clear is if the obstruction light was illuminated at the time of the accident.

Also the CAA had the opportunity to comment on the planning application; any proposal over 150m is referred to them; and they would have provided a formal written response.

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 08:10

The end of the jib was equipped with the mandated obstruction light.
It was functional.. I saw it illuminated, admittedly at night, again as required and there are images avaliable that illustrate this.

no dispute there.

The NOTAM states the max height of the jib.

no dispute there

Also the CAA had the opportunity to comment on the planning application any proposal over 150m is referred to them; and they would have provided a formal written response.

i cannot comment on the communications of the CAA.

mary meagher

19th Jan 2013, 08:23

fireflybob

19th Jan 2013, 08:25

"Pilot error" is IMHO old fashioned terminology which focuses on one piece of the jigsaw.

A better description would be "System error"

eltonioni

19th Jan 2013, 08:28

Pilots can't be rebooted.

I agree with what your saying to have Cranes sticking so high and unlighted is ridiculous.
The main body of the Crane would have been visible the even thinner arm would not.

The crane was attached to a ruddy great building with lights on inside!

Calling for daytime red lights on a crane a hundred feet higher than that ruddy great building is derogating our responsibility as pilots not to smack straight into known structures, or the ground, or whatever else lurks in the murk in places where we shouldn't be.

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 08:33

AAKEE posts from Sweden that the mast only 500 m. from his home was hard to see despite the red light on top. He also says the mast itself was hard to see because it was COVERED WITH ICE AND FROST.

Would any safety lighting installed on prominent objects to improve flight safety be warm enough to melt any covering of ice and frost...

with all due respect mary, Peter Barnes was not flying past AAKEE's house two days ago when the accident occurred.

weather, as we know, changes from place to place and time to time.

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 08:36

The crane was attached to a ruddy great building with lights on inside!

the building was/is under construction. any lights in use by workmen inside the building at the time are not high intensity lights, illuminating a stucture projecting from the building in very close proximity to a published route used by air traffic.

Calling for daytime red lights on a crane a hundred feet higher than that ruddy great building is derogating our responsibility as pilots not to smack straight into known structures, or the ground, or whatever else lurks in the murk in places where we shouldn't be.

hardly! it is providing an additional level of safety to air traffic for marginal cost.

your postulation is spurious.

see previous posts regarding intl. applications of lighting. lighting does dont abrogate any responsibility from the pilot it provides another level of safety.

eltonioni

19th Jan 2013, 08:38

the building was/is under construction. any lights in use by workmen inside the building at the time are not high intensity lights, illuminating a stucture projecting from the building in very close proximity to a published route used by air traffic.
It's still a ruddy great building (that's NOTAM'd).

Which bit of SVFR suggests you need aids to avoid ruddy great buildings with NOTAMs?

Pace

19th Jan 2013, 08:46

Mary

AAKEE May not have seen the little red light on top of the mast neither would I see a light I Pick off a Christmas tree :ok:
There are lights and there are LIGHTS

High intensity lighting is something Else.

No a red light bulb on the end of a Crane extension arm may not be sufficient either and maybe this is something the CAA need to re examine on high structures in heavily built up and populated areas near flight paths?

Pace

19th Jan 2013, 09:04

Eltonioni

There is an old saying " there are those who choose to do and those who have to do".
The PPL pulls back the curtain on a Sunday morning takes one look and goes back to Sleep.
That is a bit different to some of us who have to be up in say Inverness at 8am one cold, dark and wet winters day.
Ideal is to take off in a high performance fully deiced aircraft into CAS under radar and land off an ILS.
Sadly for some flights you operate out of CAS and in the case of Helicopters probably nearer the ground and more VFR flying.
Sadly again CFIT accidents still happen a lot in the private pilot world too.
Armchair pilots can sit in the comfort of their homes and take an accident to pieces pontificating over why the pilot did this instead of that.
Very Very Different to being alone in **** weather and missing something because you are distracted or because there are not two sets of eyes.
I wish we were all perfect but sadly we are not!
I am sure he did see the bloody big building and banked away. I am pretty sure he probably saw the main shaft of the Crane reaching into the clouds.
I am sure he did not see a 45 degree boom blending in the mist sprouting out of the main shaft. Maybe he did not even connect with the fact that there would be a 45 degree boom stretching out from the main Crane shaft?
I am pretty sure the first thing he knew was a large bang.
Finally I am pretty sure he was not where he thought he was maybe cloud chopping thinking he had clear air under the aircraft? But then maybe he had some mechanical problem which forced him in that area??? Who knows probably no one and no one will AAIB included

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 09:10

No a red light bulb on the end of a Crane extension arm may not be sufficient either and maybe this is something the CAA need to re examine on high structures in heavily built up and populated areas near flight paths?

can't disagree with that pace and the cost to bring an extra level of safety; marginal.

providing benefit when weather is marginal.

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 09:16

Very Very Different to being alone in **** weather and missing something because you are distracted or because there are not two sets of eyes.

and when destination, en-route and diversion weather has deteriorated, further increasing the workload.

John R81

19th Jan 2013, 09:33

And relevant points finally resurface on this thread.

PB did not intend to be at that point in airspace at that time in that weather.

On setting out, Wx sufficient to route to Elstree.
On route, Wx deteriorated, and Elstree was not an option - decision point....RTB; turn executed
On route back to Redhill, Wx deterioration overtaking him - decision point .... divert to Battersea.
On diversion, Wx deterioration overtook him whilst trying to get in to Battersea.

A pilot with immense skills, doing his very best to get the machine down out of closing weather.

mary meagher

19th Jan 2013, 09:34

Stuckgear and Pace, thank you for your comments.

It is just possible that AAKEE may have drawn our attention to a point that could possibly have escaped the attention of those engineers who design the hazard lighting on various pinnacles.

Just as Boeing designers may have overlooked certain problems with batteries in Dreamliners (see Tech thread!)

When the duly installed hazaard light has been installed on the tip of the Christmas Tree, or crane, does the possibility exist that it may be covered under certain weather conditions with frost......in the exact conditions that it really needs to be seen.
I am neither an electrical engineer nor a helicopter pilot. Just a pilot who noticing a potential hazard feels duty bound to call it to attention, at the risk of upsetting people. The only time I failed in this duty, to call hazardous flying conditions to the attention of an experienced fellow gliding instructor, on the very next flight the accident happened...fortunatly only the glider was damaged.

Sorry if this upsets you, but....have the electrical engineers considered AAKEE's observations? It is not a dumb question.

eltonioni

19th Jan 2013, 09:44

Pace, there's not a hairs breadth between us and I do understand the pressure to work, even if from afar with only the benefit of an IMC ticket.

I can't speak for you on the outcome, but for me I'm expecting that this will turn out to be one of those tragic "**** happens" accidents. The issue that got me was discussion that building lighting might somehow stop this happening, when the truth is much more complicated, and far more to do with human factors than buildings.

By all means, leave lights on permanently, bright flashy ones if the CAA deems it necessary, but for whatever series of reasons, beginning with the decision to fly, the pilot shouldn't have been where he was, and no amount of lighting a temporary crane attached to a permanent building will change that, or most likely, the outcome.

We'll see, but it's classic Swiss cheese so far.

eltonioni

19th Jan 2013, 09:48

p.s. my instrument instructor once said something to me while I was struggling with an NDB hold in especially crappy weather. It's stuck with me ever since:

"it's better to go up for a think than down for a look.

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 09:55

The issue that got me was discussion that building lighting might somehow stop this happening

not from me it has not. i have been very careful and specific in this thread

to not apportion *blame*

and;

to state any specific action would have prevented the accident.

i have been clear that i have not stated that the lack of lighting caused the accident or that lighting would have prevented the accident but that it provides an additional level of safety at low cost and the aviation authrorities the world over recognise that lighting of obstructions of hazards to flight provides this.

nathanroberts2K8

19th Jan 2013, 09:57

Ironically enough, I am from Manchester, but on wednesday when this happened I was about 4 miles away and heading towards the city of london shortly afterwards.

RIP to the pilot and the person passing by whom also lost his life. With constricting buildings, low visibility in fog and air traffic restrictions to deal with, I would hazard a geuss that it would put any chopper pilot under much pressure.

I know my following journey which started at 8:50 am to travel 4 miles
into the centre of london in the car took me nearly 2 hours, with the average walking speed being around 3-4 miles an hour it probably would have been quicker for me to walk.

mfaff

19th Jan 2013, 10:13

The obstruction lighting is a pretty standard product...and CAA validated.
To deviate from it is a real challenge.

There is no de-ice function and it may/ may not be helpful.. these lamps do generate heat which is normally considered sufficient, UK climate only...

Just to be clear.. The obstruction light was on the end of the jib, whose max possible height was NOTAM'd. So if the jib was unlit (obstruction light failure) this was a hole in the cheese which aligned with another one.. pilot placing aircraft at height below NOTAM'd height at that location...

Normal crane operation recommend jib raised to max heights (min reach) for overnight conditions to reduce the moment arm associated with weather vaning.

So if we assume that the job was lit according to the regulations then those may or may not be deemed sufficient.

Shy/ Stuck one quick question re flight over London... would a pilot deem it prudent to reduce airspeed as WX deteriorates.. on is in a helo after all and airspeeds of 30/40 knots are possible as opposed to say a 100kts AS.. From my infrequent flights down H4 to Battersea as a pax I know airspeeds are kept 'reasonable' (in a Jetbox) to expedite arrival time, these however were in clear weather predominantly rather than marginal...

FlyGooseFly!

19th Jan 2013, 10:30

We'll see, but it's classic Swiss cheese so far.

Sadly yes, and ..... the first thing he knew was a very big bang...

Quite and I don't think this will be any kind of instance in which "superior" pilots could have avoided - especially the armchair variety.

But you can't blame people for spectulating over an accident like this - a helicopter about 2mts wide plus the disc hitting a crane jib about 1.2mts wide - in all that air! However, in many tragedies the collision seems to be brought about by an almost unavoidable train of events - a few microseconds in this one would have made all safe.

As for better lighting - I worked on the Canary Wharf Tower from its bed plates to lifting on the pyramidion - I've also seen it's strobes - ( yes, plural as there is one on each corner about half way up aswell as the one on the top ) from an R22 at Elstree Aerodrome even in daylight but not from underneath it at street level in fog on foot.

I can't remember a single installation of aviation lamps that could be turned off by simple switching - they were all hard wired permanently on. Further to that I think that this one in question has two systems - one solar powered on all the time.

The luffing boom of this crane was over 100ft long and was hit about half way along when parked at 85 degrees or so - given that the only time that this kind of crane lowers the boom further than 45 is in it's fitting stage - no position would have avoided this accident - it was caused by BOTH machines not one or more of one than the other.

BOAC

19th Jan 2013, 10:38

"it's better to go up for a think than down for a look. - good basic advice, but not applicable to all situations, and I think you will find not to this one.

eltonioni

19th Jan 2013, 11:01

Why's that?

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 11:13

Why's that?

weather.. airspace restrictions.

if along the bottom of a cloud base, going up into the cloud is going to do what exactly ?

if there's airspace above busting an airspace restriction is going to cause all kinds of problems.. not really the best situation with a high workload.

or are you suggesting that climb through it and pop out on top . sure, that's going to welcomed by many. not.

eltonioni

19th Jan 2013, 11:17

You'll have to do better than that. ;)

BOAC

19th Jan 2013, 11:17

...and add an unspecified icing restriction on the 109 with 'icing conditions' 'up'

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 11:17

Shy/ Stuck one quick question re flight over London... would a pilot deem it prudent to reduce airspeed as WX deteriorates.. on is in a helo after all and airspeeds of 30/40 knots are possible as opposed to say a 100kts AS.. From my infrequent flights down H4 to Battersea as a pax I know airspeeds are kept 'reasonable' (in a Jetbox) to expedite arrival time, these however were in clear weather predominantly rather than marginal...

are you implying that Peter Barnes was at an airspeed 'too fast' for the conditions?

what airspeed was he progressing at ? what were the condtions he was experiencing at the time ? what would you feel was an appropriate speed less than the craft was progressing at and in relation to the actual condition he was expereincing [airspeed] -10, -15, -20, -25?

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 11:19

You'll have to do better than that. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

tough. take it up with NATS.

BOAC,
and add an unspecified icing restriction on the 109 with 'icing conditions' 'up'

aww you spoilt my ploy !

eltonioni

19th Jan 2013, 11:23

tough. take it up with NATS.

The controller would be a better bet to begin with. Something like: "Hello, I've got problems, yea, call it a pan if it helps, request climb... blah"

Or you could to take it up with St Peter if opening your gob and asking for help is too scary.

mark one eyeball

19th Jan 2013, 11:28

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 11:30

The controller would be a better bet to begin with. Something like: "Hello, I've got problems, yea, call it a pan if it helps, request climb... blah"

so.. you would say that while in sight of the surface and on approach into a waether diversion alternate, it would be prefereable to climb into cloud, loose sight of the surface and visual reference into strictly controlled, high density airspace.. to do what exactly.. hang around for a few days till the weatehr clears ?

Or you could to take it up with St Peter
and airframe icing will certainly ensure that.

if opening your gob and asking for help is too scary.

and he was recieving help. funnily enough, controllers don't have a 'magic hand button' to pluck an aircraft out of the sky and place it neatly in a desired location.

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 11:31

It seems to me that the guy was caught out with the weather
Elected to try Battersea in conditions that were not suitable for VFR flying
it wasnt a safe option at that time of the day in those conditions

Doing a mix of VFR/IFR in this case was very stupid and caused the death of 2 people, one innocent pedestrian who had a very unfortunate end

The lighting of the crane wont be a factor as in daytime these red lights in mist are not effective, maybe powerful white strobes better

Lets keep the skies above London safe no cowboy activity

well that's that then.. someone call the AAIB.. job done.. cause and circumstance the pilot was stupid!

eltonioni

19th Jan 2013, 11:39

Look, I appreciate that you really want to be right, but you're just dead.

mfaff

19th Jan 2013, 11:43

Not at all..
I have no idea what his speed might have been..

Asking if reducing one's airspeed is something a helo pilot may consider in such conditions.

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 11:45

Not at all..
I have no idea what his speed might have been..

Asking if reducing one's airspeed is something a helo pilot may consider in such conditions.

i'm sure that's not a ground breaking concept

BOAC

19th Jan 2013, 11:55

are you implying that Peter Barnes was at an airspeed 'too fast' for the conditions? - re your unattributed quote (mfaff perhaps- who strikes me as 'electrically qualified' rather than flying?) - I believe the poster was asking a genuine question for information - not as you appear to imply to 'accuse' the pilot in this accident, which none of us can.

For mfaff - any speed from heli 'max' down to nil for a precautionary landing via hover taxi at around 5-10kts would be options for flight in visual contact with features.

mfaff

19th Jan 2013, 11:55

Thanks..
So is the PIC is relatively free. subject to 'fly neighbourly' considerations to chose his/ her own airspeed over London?

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 11:57

Thanks..
So is the PIC is relatively free. subject to 'fly neighbourly' considerations to chose his/ her own airspeed over London?

speed and height restrictions apply.

stuckgear

19th Jan 2013, 11:59

Look, I appreciate that you really want to be right, but you're just dead.

you're not an ATPL/CPL holder are you ?

[rhetorical question]

Heliport

19th Jan 2013, 12:48

eltonioni

Is it reasonable to assume that you are a fixed-wing PPL and have never been a helicopter pilot?

H.

John R81

19th Jan 2013, 13:07

Speed

Could he slow? Yes. 30 - 40 knots is possible but is it advisable and therefore what a pilot would chose to do if he thought at that time he had options?

Helicopter discs are less efficient in the hover as airflow moves from above the disk to below. With forward motion the airflow changes, entering the disc from in front and being deflected down / rearward. This increases disc efficiency and therefore we have the same lift at lower power setting, and we are safer.

Increasing speed also increases parasitic drag of the airframe, hence there is a trade-off leading to an optimal speed. This is usually between 60 to 80 knots but it is individual to particular helicopter design. However, 30 or 40 knots is definitely on the back side of the power curve.

Slowing below this optimal speed means increase power usage, flying the back-side of the curve. So personally I would not chose to slow down below that without very good cause.

We don't know what speed PB was flying but with half the height normally used then even 70 knots would look fast from the viewpoint of a member of the public. The AAIB report will have this data.

AtomKraft

19th Jan 2013, 13:50

I'm sure if there was a computer up there in Heaven, the pilot would be posting us a note to say he'd :mad: ed up. As there isn't, I thought I'd do it for him!

Everyone :mad: s up from time to time- I'm not casting aspersions here.

Why did I hit the crane? - because I didn't see it in time.

Why didn't I see it? The weather was crap!

Why was I pressing on VFR when it was clearly IFR conditions? There's no IFR letdown for where I was going.

Why was I there when the wx was so poor? Well, it seemed a good idea at the time! Not so much from up here though.

I know- we should wait for the AAIB report, but frankly, I wonder what they'll be able to add with no CVR or FDR.

VFR into IMC has killed more pilots and passengers than just about anything else. We've all done it when we shouldn't (Well, I have anyway).

Old pilots do it, bold pilots, good pilots, not so good pilots have all done it. Military, Civil, PPLs and even the best and most experienced have all had a dabble. Mostly, they get away with it. Chopper pilots are much more exposed to this sort of flying though than yer 100% IFR guys.

There but for the Grace of God go all of us. :sad:

eltonioni

19th Jan 2013, 14:06

you're not an ATPL/CPL holder are you ?

[rhetorical question]

what's that got to do with the price of fish?

[rhetorical question]

Seriously, the only point under disagreement here seems to be that I think it's better to go up for a think than down for a look, and you disagree, which suggest that you think going down for a look is a good idea.

If that's because of the potential for airframe icing, it's a fair point under normal circumstances, but since this thread is about a helicopter that hit a structure for some reason, your point is more than a bit moot regardless of what your qualifications are or how big your heli-dick is.

Perhaps a little mutual decorum might be wise hereinafter? I'm game if you are.

LookingUpInHope

19th Jan 2013, 14:17

'Up for a think' is generally a good idea, but in this specific circumstance it wasn't.

Between restricted airspace and cloud (in below freezing conditions on an aircraft that really doesn't do well with ice), 'up for a think' simply wasn't much of an option.

If Pete had thought it was the best option available, he would have taken it. He didn't, and he was the one who had the experience and the judgement - and was in the position - to know.

Deep and fast

19th Jan 2013, 14:52

WELL SAID Atomcraft!

Those that do, run the risk of :mad: up.

Those that don't, quite frankly don't.

All companies expect their pilots to operate to the limit of the weather and the aircraft to provide a commercial operation. And that puts pilots in situation where they have to make judgement calls. This guy will have made thousands of such judgement calls in his career, but its normally the last one was your worst. Look at the Moscow crash, I bet they wish they could have froze the sim and hard another go!

It is human nature to make mistakes, but the really important thing is how we as pilots and your company/training dept implement the best strategies to protect you and provide a robust and defensive flying mentality during training.

I have done single pilot ops in piston twins and wouldn't again given the choice.

I'd miss someone looking over my shoulder when the weather starts to deteriorate, fuel quantities looking worse and passengers barking about not landing where their cars are!

Mistakes? Yep, been there, got the Tee shirt and planning not to revisit the experience.

CREAMER

19th Jan 2013, 15:07

Most experienced pilots will have had near misses involving poor visibility and solid objects and got lucky. Hopefully most will have learned from the experience.

It's possible that the final outcome of this investigation will involve distraction / loss of spatial awareness. It occurred to me as well that the pilot in this case may have been misled by certain visual cues.

Most of us ( me anyway) would expect a construction crane to have a vertical support and a horizontal gib just above the building under construction. This one appears to have had a gib which extended upwards at an angle. The pilot may have seen the bulk of the building and the vertical support and assumed it safe to fly above them, not seeing the gib in the poor visibility. It probably wouldn't matter if the gib was lit as it wouldn't be seen in the cloud anyway. He probably thought that he was safe as he could still see the ground albeit from the cloud base.

I remember an experience from years ago flying along the Tyne. As a crew we were quite alarmed to see a large wire suspended on two quite large towers ahead of us directly on our flight path (in good visibility). This is with at least two of us checking the map! Human nature will get you every time. A single pilot in poor conditions, probably under a bit of pressure is in bad shape in these circumstances.

Very sad.

Sir George Cayley

19th Jan 2013, 15:49

My first post on the subject and yes I have read through the most recent pages. The issue of a climb seems to be contentious but without any detailed info as to the practicalities of such a maneuver.

I've used this from the CAA as part basis for the following.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/EIS%2006.pdf

If I may, here are some statements -

The helicopter was equipped with a modern 'glass' cockpit.
The pilot was rated on the a/c and highly experienced.
He had been in contact with an Air Traffic Unit who had identified a squawk.
He had been cleared to operate in the area of the crash.
He had permission to penetrate R157 and R160.
Traffic being radar controlled on approach to LHR are not lower than 1500' QFE in this vicinity.
A request to climb from the route towards the SW (say) would more than likely be approved.
The met at the time indicated a temp inversion with FZFG 750m BKN 100
Pictures from another helicopter airborne after the crash showed clear blue sky above a defined cloud/fog top.
A full rate climb from adjacent the crash site to clear air would have taken a few seconds.

I've tried to play the bat straight with no aspersions cast towards posters and invite constructive criticism to further our debate.

757hopeful

19th Jan 2013, 15:52

Most of us ( me anyway) would expect a construction crane to have a vertical support and a horizontal gib just above the building under construction. This one appears to have had a gib which extended upwards at an angle. The pilot may have seen the bulk of the building and the vertical support and assumed it safe to fly above them, not seeing the gib in the poor visibility. It probably wouldn't matter if the gib was lit as it wouldn't be seen in the cloud anyway. He probably thought that he was safe as he could still see the ground albeit from the cloud base.

You raise a valid point. The NOTAM doesn't state the type of crane. Merely that there is one there. Although the NOTAM by all accounts does state the maximum height of any obstruction in that area. So theoretically it was still noted that there was an object of maximum height xxxft in a xx nm radius of xxxx

Which ideally would have been the height of the jib raised to its maximum vertical position

Pace

19th Jan 2013, 15:54

Eltonioni

Going up is an option and one if I have taken in piston twins in situations where I was unhappy!

The problem here is I do not think he had got to a stage of being unhappy!

Sadly I drove past the building today! It is tall and very close to the river! I can well see how he got where he did! It is also very close to Battersea.
Looking at the building and situation I am even more convinced that serious lighting needs to be attached to that structure it's an accident waiting to happen with its proximity to busy helipad.

I felt really sorry for the pilot as I do not reckon the poor guy made much of a mistake.

The authorities maybe yes as that building should not be so minimally protected!

But going back to your point ! I do not believe he felt anything was wrong and probably had the shock of his life seeing the building as he flew out of mist.

He probably had fractions to pull away and didn't see the Crane arm!
So I doubt he was ever in a position to contemplate climbing as in his situation nothing was wrong. That building is wrong though.
Would lighting have saved him? Maybe in my opinion but we will never know.
I too do not expect much from the AAIB report as we did not get anything conclusive from the Citation Biggin Crash! Recommendations?? The CAA have already stated that they are looking at the lighting.

Pace

19th Jan 2013, 16:57

It seems to me that the guy was caught out with the weather
Elected to try Battersea in conditions that were not suitable for VFR flying
it wasnt a safe option at that time of the day in those conditions
Doing a mix of VFR/IFR in this case was very stupid and caused the death of 2 people, one innocent pedestrian who had a very unfortunate end
The lighting of the crane wont be a factor as in daytime these red lights in mist are not effective, maybe powerful white strobes better
Lets keep the skies above London safe no cowboy activity

How do you mix VFR and IFR in this situation? Maybe VMC and IMC?
This pilot was highly respected and in no way could he be classified as a Cowboy! I agree with Red Lights being insufficient in the day but high intensity are a must on this particular building being so close to aircraft routes into a busy Heliport.

A310bcal

19th Jan 2013, 17:12

A couple of times I have asked the open question to the Rotor Head fraternity about the Agustas capability in icing conditions.....would anyone care to tell me what their opinions are?

An earlier comment was about chain of events and choices/decisions.
Fly to Elstree,weather deteriorates, divert back to base, weather deteriorates, divert enroute to Battersea.
Plenty to cope with and if you throw in icing which is an issue I suspect, a few folks have suggested going up, but NO, there is cloud above and its conducive to icing....
If conditions deteriorate to preclude useful SVFR, my gut feelings would be resort to CRM, not try and solve just on my own....who can you use? Heathrow Approach for sure. A Pan call to them would allow if necessary a diversion to them (yes I know it would cost money and loads of hassle, even a few go-arounds for the big boys) , but far better than struggling into Battersea with VERY marginal conditions. Any port in a storm !!

Hindsight perhaps, but I wonder if single crew helicopter pilots , are perhaps more inclined to solve problems on their own without wanting to resort to outside help when in a sticky situation?

Pace

19th Jan 2013, 17:29

Bcal

I think it depends on the environment you are used to operating in! I did a lot of Twin Fixed wing flying where you were often operating OCAS and into small out of the way places in Scotland, Northern and Southern Ireland.
So you tend to be more "On the Hoof" and creative than when as now my flying is CAS operations in private jets.

I do miss the piston twins and that sort of OCAS flying which was a mix of IFR IMC as well as VMC flying and quite a kick from the challenge of it.

I am not a Helicopter pilot but imagine that they even more so are used to flying in minimal VMC conditions.
As such there must be a reluctance to declare a problem, climb, drag all the charts and plates out and change to IFR especially in Helicopters.

On top of that you have a customer waiting at one airfield while you land at another with the extra delay that an IFR approach demands ???

John R81

19th Jan 2013, 18:14

Helicopters do not do well in icing conditions unless they have rotor blade heating. Ice accretion on rotor blades is damaging to lift in much smaller quantities than ice on a fixed wing.

Therefore helicopter pilots try very hard not take machines into actual, known or forcast icing conditions unless they have anti-ice systems.

I am not aware that the A109 has an option for anti-ice, this is normally seen on larger machines such as the A139. You could search through the Agusta Westland webste to check, if you are keen.

lynx-effect

19th Jan 2013, 18:36

@ AtomKraft (http://www.pprune.org/members/400982-atomkraft) (1 page back)

Well said.

Pace

19th Jan 2013, 18:53

If you read the post by Sir George Cayley a guy worth listening too I do not think a climb or icing was a problem more trying to get into Battersea ?

Richard Westnot

19th Jan 2013, 19:09

Pace - I think that you are right in most of what you have said BUT the level of lighting which you suggest I do not think would have helped in those conditions.

That machine is capable of 160kts. My guess is that it was probably nearer 80 - 100kts on that day. The time he would have seen any lights would have been far to late.

That building did not go up overnight. Most of the professional heli guys knows that it is there. They have probably watched the construction progress.

The pilot in this dreadful accident was a very experienced professional, no question about that. My guess from reading everything is that something must have happened before the crane was hit.

The building is here. Click on the movies icon and then down to the construction progress for your info.

The Tower, One St George Wharf
The Tower, One St George Wharf - The Tower - One, St George Wharf (http://www.thetower-onestgeorgewharf.co.uk/)

pilot and apprentice

19th Jan 2013, 19:14

For all the seized wing guys asking about ice and helicopters, a personal experience from decades past, a "learned about flying from that":

Was flying a Bell 412 on top to a destination with forecast and actuals of clear (CAVU) but darkness was approaching. Locally we were above an undercast layer of undetermined depth. OAT was approx -25C, we were cruising at 10,000' and felt that we could expect minimal ice accumulation in cloud so elected to start a slow descent down through and avoid a steeper arrival over destination. We also expected to reach clear air shortly.

Less than a minute after starting our descent into cloud(less than 500' from the tops), the icing rapidly increased from nil to light to moderate. We tried to climb back on top but Vbroc and Max Q only gave us a ROD of around 100 fpm.

We declared a MAYDAY, got ATC assistance, and eventually broke out in a very high rate descent. Enough ice was (luckily) shed before hitting the trees that we were able to get to destination.

We had been lulled over previous years of flying the 212 in northern, winter conditions to feeling comfortable with minimal (trace/light) ice exposure and the 212's ability to get back out if we encountered something we didn't like. As we learned, the newer rotor designs are horribly unforgiving.

My point: very few helicopter pilots will risk any icing conditions unless there is absolutely no other choice.

PAXboy

19th Jan 2013, 19:57

Sygyzy

19th Jan 2013, 20:13

Having followed all of this from the accident day I feel that whatever the reason for this tragedy the pilot felt he was well within his capabilities with regard to the weather conditions prevailing.

As others have said this is the nature of the beast. Helicopters fly into places that the fixed wing can't reach. Very seldom do they slide down an ILS to destination. From my (ground based) observations they're often aloft in marginal VMC weather. He wisely aborted his first destination and was probably still thinking of the closest diversion to Elstree so as to inconvenience his passengers the least. This was after all, a commercial operation.

He wasn't even close to throwing all away in a life/death situation and landing in a park (for chrissakes). That really would be a career terminator. This was a weather diversion well within the remit of a professional. With his experience he would've aborted that diversion/destination too if he thought the weather beyond his capabilities which we must presume he didn't. For reasons yet to be determined his judgement was in error and he flew into a girt big crane perched atop a girt big building bloody close to his track. Cut the guy some slack, we've all nearly been there.

M609

19th Jan 2013, 21:44

The auto transponsder units, mentioned early on for an installation of wires across a valley (Canada?) and for other obstacles - where are they made? As anyone else experience of hearing their auto TX msg?

Did you mean Obstacle Collision Avoidance System (OCAS)?

If so, Norway (invented here, but bought by some wind turbine company, might have moved it), and yes I have. "Test flight" of well known span (to the pilot)

Info on the system from the AIP: https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/current/AIP/EN_ENR_4_5_en.pdf

rotorguy

19th Jan 2013, 22:33

When the weather turns sour, no matter how well you know the area and how many times you have flown over the area, it all looks different. I think he was just trying to stay out of the clouds, looking at the GPS in relation to his destination and hit a crane that was hidden by mist/fog. Sad situation.

Agaricus bisporus

20th Jan 2013, 01:48

I can just see how a guys professionalism would make him vulnerable in such a situation.
Saving been forced into a diversion in low cloud and vis you'd be doing all you could to stay as high as poss to avoid both obstructions and excessive noise. It is almost a reflex response to fly as high as you can in such a situation. And pinching it at cloud base is just where you lose forward vis while keeping ground contact, so if there's a crane jib lurking in the cloud that's just where you don't want to be. I wouldn't be surprised that if he'd been a couple of hundred feet lower he'd have had sufficient vis to see and avoid. We just don't think of obstructions growing out of cloud when you can't see an obvious base.

IMHO this talk of enhanced lighting is a red herring and would achieve little or nothing if this event was rerun. Lighting is fine in VMC but pointless if shrouded in cloud.

Sadly it looks like an unfortunate operational accident and rushing into legislatative changes is almost certainly going to be a waste of time.

Questions will doubtless be asked re the wisdom of using battersea as a diversion in such conditions given the atrocious conditions at LCY, and even that of setting off from to elstree in the first place, but that's AAIB territory.

We all know the picture when grubbing along in low cloud/vis, and with obstructions close alongside the route extending up into the clag one is in a vulnerable position.

Very sad.

Rabina

20th Jan 2013, 06:54

I'm pretty certain that static installation of FLARM style devices on potentially dangerous buildings or antennas would add to general safety in any type of airspace where GA and helicopters ply their trade.

Avoidance avionics (http://www.flarm.com)

John R81

20th Jan 2013, 08:26

Except that in routing he would have been overwhelmed by FLARM responses - a distraction, or "turn the darned thing off".

FLARM is not going to be any use v moving traffic if it gives you a response only when you are (say) 750 ft away. The combined speed would mean the time between alarm and impact would be of no use. Reports at (say) 2000 ft would mean one in my cab would be beeping constantly, as I am often 1,000 to 1,500 ft AGL.

Helicopters are designed to operate in that kind of environment. It would take the design of a purpose-built system.

Then, in this case, he knew he was low because he was intending to land, so he would expect the FLARM warning. So what use?

Ag Bi post is on the nail here.

RatherBeFlying

20th Jan 2013, 17:51

Flarm uses closing speed, distance and relative altitude to decide on issuing alerts and alarms.

It also includes a display that shows relative altitude, distance and azimuth of other Flarms. It also shows whether other traffic is climbing, level or descending.

PAXboy

20th Jan 2013, 21:45

Speaking as an onlooker: I understand that an OCAS/FLARM system may not have been suitable in this particularly difficult situation but should we be telling the CAA to get their act together and compel their usage by the folks making millions out of such buildings?

I do not want to be part of the politicians 'do something/do anything but make it look like you're concerned' brigade. Yet the systems are already proven/available and may help some other flyers in other circumstances?

ShyTorque

20th Jan 2013, 22:13

To those saying he should not have been there, bear in mind that Vauxhall Bridge is a VRP and is on the long-established heli-route H4 which lies inside controlled airspace. He would have been under ATC control at the time. Why he went there remains to be seen.

riverrock83

21st Jan 2013, 10:52

So those suggesting OCAS / FLARM are you suggesting installing the devices on every mountain as well? Many more CFITs due to mountains than due to buildings!

Speed of Sound

21st Jan 2013, 11:28

I don't think anyone is suggesting that he shouldn't have been there, just that he shouldn't have been there in those conditions.

fdr

21st Jan 2013, 11:29

crossing into the surreal...

Safety devices such as FLARM need to be justified on a cost/benefit analysis. While it may be a wonderful thing for glider competitions, I cannot see how or why every object above the size of a garden gnome would ever end up with a transponder to assist flight crew avoid what should normally be avoided by the general flight rules. The rules occasionally don't catch all situations, however what do the proponents of a vast active transponder system fitted to inanimate objects propose to do in the case of a single transponde failure occurring in the morass of object d'art covered in electronics, presumably paid for by, well no one I can think of. I would probably object to having to install additional electronics on the outside of Big Ben, to accomodate an aerial service which has issues on occasions. My GPS's on the Navajo, mixmaster and my helicopter have obstacle data bases, rather more simple system than installing active electronics on every building above the London underground. Heck, go buy a Garmin Aera, and add your obstacles into the DB at your leisure.... it would be as reliable at managing 10,000 or more obstacles in the greater London area as that many fixed transponders. Out of interest, what is the max target density for FLARM before it collapses? I recall looking at that for the TCAS implementation in the 80's, don't suspect the situation is much different, unless the frequency is in radar ranges. If you are only proposing transponders on a small number of specific obstacles, then the granularity is probably not different to the GPS obstacle data base.

It's hard enough getting TCAS and EGPWS or GPWS to be followed due to the persistence of crew inertia to warnings with any level of false events; I barely get above 300AGL in much operation around some cities (legal for the state...) and the map is normally all red anyway with terrain & obstacles... Operating around the city in normal conditions would result in continuous alerts (as of course does the TDB on the GPS systems). The operator becomes inured to continuous alerts and warnings, and additional procedural training has to be conducted to ensure that an alert that is ignored in some cases is reacted to in others. Oddly enough the same outcome can be obtained in general by knowing what your LSALT is and popping up above LSALT when inadvertent IMC, presuming that the aircraft and the piot is IFR qualified. On helicopters, that is not all that common of course. Transitioning to IMC in a helicopter is far more fun than in a fixed wing, and icing is a factor to be considered before hard IMC in cool climates.

ShyTorque

21st Jan 2013, 11:40

Shy Torque
I don't think anyone is suggesting that he shouldn't have been there, just that he shouldn't have been there in those conditions.

Agreed (hence my last sentence).

M609

21st Jan 2013, 14:48

So those suggesting OCAS / FLARM are you suggesting installing the devices on every mountain as well? Many more CFITs due to mountains than due to buildings!

I think most people that support technical approaches to the problem, want to use it on obstacles that are hard to see, masts, wind turbines, powerlines, etc, that is things that break away from the terrain features in the area.

I have not seen anyone advocating use of such systems for avoidance of terrain/obstacles for IFR/IMC. For that there are better things available, such as EGPWS and TAWS.

When I fly in my plank (sorry ;) ) VFR along a valley at say 800ft AGL, I might be several thounsand feet below safe IFR altitudes, but it might be great to get a last chance warning about the new spindly tv mast of the digital ground net some fool has placed half way up the valley side. (Terrain backdrop, and a b*tch to spot even in good light conditions)
I find the terrain features in my 695 a bit lacking with those kind of obstacles.

deefer dog

21st Jan 2013, 15:40

This may be a dumb question/observation, but assuming the probability that he was "scud running" towards a diversion, would he not have followed the Thames (that is one/the heli route, I believe)?

Forgive my ignorance of heli ops, but as far as I am aware there are no protruding obstacles emanating from directly above the Thames, other than bridges, had he remained above the centre of the river.

Or maybe the approach into the landing spot caused him to leave the security of such a routing?

green granite

21st Jan 2013, 16:18

I suspect he probably was following the river as it would have led him to Battersea heli-port, but that building is right on the edge of the river right on the apex of a bend, so it is quite possible that just before the bend he suddenly found himself IMC and missed the bend.

ShyTorque

21st Jan 2013, 16:44

I'll highlight this again...

A commonly given clearance when routing to Battersea Heliport from the north (e.g. from Elstree!) is to fly in a straight line from Alexandra Palace to Vauxhall Bridge, not above 1,000 feet London QNH, VFR.

When following this route, aircraft arrive at 90 degrees to the river Thames at Vauxhall Bridge, which is a compulsory VRP. The river is less than 300 metres or so in width at that point so a very sharp turn to starboard is needed to join heli-route H4 there, unless you fly a little bit further east and put a radius on the turn.

On reaching the river and reporting at Vauxhall, pilots are told to call Battersea Tower for onward clearance because it's the boundary of their ATZ.

The AAIB will of course already know which route the aircraft was flying on the day and what clearance was given.

deefer dog

21st Jan 2013, 16:58

thanks for the explanation ST......message received and understood.

green granite

21st Jan 2013, 17:04

Pace

21st Jan 2013, 17:08

ShyTorque

I am not a Helicopter pilot familiar with these routes but you are! Given low cloud even if localized and a certain amount of scud running which we have all done ( There for the Grace?) What do you think happened I stress think? as we still do not know whether there was some other problem that caused him to be where he was!
I too have examined the building and was horrified at how tall it was and how close to the river and Battersea it was giving minimal margin for error.
Especially if the pilot hit a patch of cloud and thought he was over water.

The dreaded Cumulus Granitus which we all know but in this case Towering Cumulus? But not Tower in the met sense?

TRC

21st Jan 2013, 17:44

When following this route, aircraft arrive at 90 degrees to the river Thames at Vauxhall Bridge, which is a compulsory VRP. The river is less than 300 metres or so in width at that point so a very sharp turn to starboard is needed to join heli-route H4 there, unless you fly a little bit further east and put a radius on the turn.

If that is the route this aircraft took, it would be possible that there was an overshoot over the opposite bank of the river in the turn. It'll be interesting to see if this is the route it took, and what the speed was.

ShyTorque

21st Jan 2013, 17:57

Yes ShyTorque but we don't know where he was when he aborted his planed route to divert do we? We also know the cloud base at the impact point was around 600' since the witnesses said the top of the building was shrouded in mist so would he have not chosen to use the most easily navigable route? But as you say the AAIB will know his exact route.

Chosen the route? No, because that's not always how things work. Entry to the airspace is requested by the pilot (and in this case, the destination), and ATC give a clearance, which includes the route and altitude to be flown.

stagger

21st Jan 2013, 18:00

I'll highlight this again...

A commonly given clearance when routing to Battersea Heliport from the north (e.g. from Elstree!) is to fly in a straight line from Alexandra Palace to Vauxhall Bridge, not above 1,000 feet London QNH, VFR.

When following this route, aircraft arrive at 90 degrees to the river Thames at Vauxhall Bridge, which is a compulsory VRP.

Not sure I quite understand this - forgive me if I'm missing something - but Alexandra Palace is pretty much due north of Vauxhall Bridge. The Thames heads approximately NNE from Vauxhall Bridge. So how do aircraft arrive at 90 degrees to the river at Vauxhall Bridge?

Heading directly from Alexandra Palace to Vauxhall Bridge wouldn't you already have intercepted the Thames somewhere further North (e.g. near Waterloo Bridge?).

ShyTorque

21st Jan 2013, 18:17

Pace, I hope you'll understand that I'd rather not say. I'm just trying clarify general points about the use of the airspace.

I don't know what route was taken, the prevailing in flight met conditions or what clearance was given. I think it's better to wait for the formal reports to be issued.

Thanks.

ShyTorque

21st Jan 2013, 18:42

Stagger, Yes, a southbound track does converge with the river just to the north of Vauxhall and the pilot would have the river converging on his left. However, unless a 90 degree right turn is made immediately at the VRP, the aircraft will cross the river because of the bend just to the south of it's location. Obviously, any aircraft has a turning radius commensurate with speed and a delay of only a few seconds would make a difference to crossing the river or not.

Don't know if you've seen one, but it's obvious on the CAA London helicopter routes chart. Immediately south of Vauxhall bridge VRP, almost on the south bank, lies the crane in question.

A helicopter already established on the river, having joined H4 further east, would be slightly better placed with regard to making the turn, but not by much.

A310bcal

21st Jan 2013, 20:32

ShyTorque.

I think you are doing an admirable job acting as an unbiased spokesman for the rotary world. I suspect that you and all your fellow UK based rotary colleagues have got some well informed opinions as to what happened.

For sure the AAIB will have seen the flight path and transponder readouts , not to mention ATC transcripts of the ill-fated flight already.

Doubtless , Heathrow ATC will have a very good idea of what happened too, though I puzzle slightly at the break in R/T transmission after leaving LHR Approach. We can all hazard guesses as to why that happened, but again will probably never know.

Keep up the good work!

fairflyer

21st Jan 2013, 21:21

Hypothetical question:

Assuming at a moment in time one is momentarily blind due to mist/cloud/fog patches and choose to zoom onto the highest resolution of the Garmin 430 moving map, if trying to follow the centreline of the Thames around the bends between Vauxhaul bridge and the London Heliport (2 miles?), how accurately is that map going to stick you in the middle of the river throughout?

Subject to speed and height, what margin of error would there be, solely relying on that Garmin alone to take you accurately down the river centreline around those bends?

ShyTorque

21st Jan 2013, 22:46

The Garmin 430 displays a very much simplified representation of the river, it's certainly not accurate enough and in no way designed to be used in that much detail.

e.g. check out the display here:

Garmin 430 Online Training - Buttonology (http://www.gps430.com/buttonology.htm)

On that screen, under the range 5.0nm, the word "overzoom" appears. In practical terms, this means it is pointless zooming in further because the "map" has no more detail to show.

Pace

22nd Jan 2013, 00:30

A lot of posts say he should not have flown in those conditions and hence such buildings should not have to be made more conspicuous!
I say absolute rubbish to that argument!
Aircraft are forced to carry all manner of equipment to protect pilots passengers and people on the ground from mistakes that can be made!
If you follow that argument then remove ground
Proximity warnings, remove high intensity lighting off high buildings etc because these perfect pilots flying strictly to the rules will never need such expensive devices?
I passed The building in question and without doubt it is a hazard to aircraft.
It is very close to the river, very tall, very close to Battersea and stupidly close to a Helicopter route!
To top that it had a temporary structure in the form of a crane towering above it!
It's all very well making the pilot a scapegoat but responsibility for this accident lies elsewhere too
nearly every accident is pilot error of one kind or another hence why the industry and regulators go to a lot if time and expense to stop those errors becoming tragic disasters.
Flight safety should be about plugging known safety holes! That building and Cranes which tower above the towers are a threat!

chrisN

22nd Jan 2013, 05:03

Just catching up – to add a bit about Flarm.

It would not be necessary to install Flarm on fixed obstacles. It has the capability of a database of obstacles which give alerts to an airborne unit, which has the database stored, when getting too close.

Flarm is used on the continent – certainly in Switzerland and I think in other Alpine areas – by helicopters among others, for obstacle warnings. I think the database started with cables close to mountains and crossing valleys that were hazards, and there had been too many fatal accidents. When Flarm was developed for gliders, the heli and other operators realised its benefits and also adopted it, so it is now (almost?) universal in those areas. The technology is available here and now. A UK obstacle database would need to be developed, but it could be done, at a cost – or even by an individual or operation for an area important to him/her/them.

If anyone is seriously interested, I suggest looking at the Flarm website for information. Flarm - Homepage (http://www.flarm.com) :

“shows nearby traffic, warns visually and acoustically of approaching other aircraft or fixed obstacles

“embedded database covers Italian, Swiss, Austrian, French and German obstacles, with updates (functionality at cost)”

Maybe the Flarm people would post something on here.

Bronx

22nd Jan 2013, 06:59

A310bcal ShyTorque.

I think you are doing an admirable job acting as an unbiased spokesman for the rotary world. He certainly is. :ok: I suspect that you and all your fellow UK based rotary colleagues have got some well informed opinions as to what happened. There's a good discussion by uk helo pilots on this thread.
There's armchair experts posting there as well just like this one but it's easy to spot them and move on.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/505368-helicopter-v-crane-london.html

Pace

22nd Jan 2013, 09:08

Bronx

Much of the discussion revolves around icing! I personally having seen another pilots report do not consider this was an issue.
2000 feet and you were in the blue that day so we are talking about early morning lifting fog and mist! Probably isolated by river versus cold building syndrome.

For the most part he was flying VFR albeit minimal VMC conditions and his main exposure to visible moisture would have been scud running the odd patch of lower cloud.
Hardly an icing situation! A declared problem and request for IFR would have had him in clear air on top in minutes.

Hence I do not think he even thought he had a problem until the impact with the Crane arm.

I do not know a lot about Flarm but from more knowing posters here maybe there could be an application developed to identify threats in City situations and even an insistence for Helicopters flying these routes to be equipt.

Flarm appears to be relatively cheap and nowadays we are forced to carry very expensive equipment to save us from ourselves.

Fitter2

22nd Jan 2013, 09:33

FLARM has both traffic warnings (but onlly against other FLARM equipped aircraft*) and obstacle warnings. The obstacle warning facility was developed for mountain flying gliders to warn agains the cables in the Alps that are often umnmarked, but potentially deadly.

The only problem is developing and updating the database.

The systems can be 'portable' and escape some of the installation costs of approved devices. I understand that EASA approval of PowerFLARM (se below) is contemplated but ther's still the minor mod paperwork issues to contend with.

* PowerFLARM from the same development team also warns against Transponder equipped traffic that is repsonding to outside interrogations.

Dg800

22nd Jan 2013, 13:43

Flarm appears to be relatively cheap and nowadays we are forced to carry very expensive equipment to save us from ourselves.

One of the reasons why said equipment is so expensive is because it is certified equipment, and certification costs an arm and a leg. FLARM is not certified and as such the regulator only considers it a nice toy, they will never be allowed to mandate its usage unless it were to become certified (which it can't be, for several reasons).

Pace

22nd Jan 2013, 15:53

DG800

I as posted do not know a lot about Flarm other than it was suggested some time back for Gliders cloud flying.
I take your point re certification but if the application is good for locating potential collision Hazards then it would be worth the manufacturers developing such a unit.
We have GPWS in aircraft just incase a pilot gets it wrong why not this for Cranes towering above city lines?

caveokay

22nd Jan 2013, 16:19

Pace
I think Dg800 properly answered your question : the flarm is not certified and as such neither won't meet EASA AMC for spotting or warning cranes nor will be given mandatory status as crane equipment
moreover, I can imagine endless talks about which cranes would be eligible, how and where to position the flarm and so on...;)

Pace

22nd Jan 2013, 17:25

The manufacturers would have to get the unit properly developed and certificated. I did understand the post re lack of certification ;)

As for which Cranes should be fitted with such devices? Any temporary cranes working on buildings which themselves are high enough to warrant anti collision lighting within X miles of an airport or low level aircraft routing to that airfield.
The day after the accident was a deep blue sky day! Very clear you could see the mass of these Cranes which are numerous towering way above the Skyscrapers at heights which for permanent structures would require fixed lighting.
This accident was lucky as apart from the pilot only one was killed! Had the aircraft gone down in a different direction there may have been many.

chrisN

22nd Jan 2013, 18:14

Please understand that cranes do not need Flarm for Flarm to warn about them. As I said in my post above:

It would not be necessary to install Flarm on fixed obstacles. It has the capability of a database of obstacles which give alerts to an airborne unit, which has the database stored, when getting too close.

Flarm is used on the continent – certainly in Switzerland and I think in other Alpine areas – by helicopters among others, for obstacle warnings. I think the database started with cables close to mountains and crossing valleys that were hazards, and there had been too many fatal accidents. When Flarm was developed for gliders, the heli and other operators realised its benefits and also adopted it, so it is now (almost?) universal in those areas. The technology is available here and now. A UK obstacle database would need to be developed, but it could be done, at a cost – or even by an individual or operation for an area important to him/her/them.

If anyone is seriously interested, I suggest looking at the Flarm website for information. Flarm - Homepage :

“shows nearby traffic, warns visually and acoustically of approaching other aircraft or fixed obstacles

“embedded database covers Italian, Swiss, Austrian, French and German obstacles, with updates (functionality at cost)”

Or do you simply not believe me?

Art of flight

22nd Jan 2013, 20:32

Having FLARM installed would only be as fail safe as the database update. Perhaps a few police (and) other pilots on here would like to comment on the 'database update valid date' displayed during start up of their Garmin 430 displays. Certainly the units installed in the aircraft I flew rarely had in date databases, and thats police aircraft!

Pace

22nd Jan 2013, 21:05

Strangely I have taken three black Cabs in London and all three discussed the Helicopter crash.

All three commented on inadequate lighting on the Cranes so that seems to be the sentiment with non aviation people in London.

I took an extra interest in the Skyline and noted some of the Cranes fitted above the skyscrapers.

As an example one had a lower arm which displayed a Red Light on the lower arm but NO light at all on the much higher other arm?

Missing? Broken?u

Some of these high building Cranes had no illumination whatsoever some partial a few good illumination!

What a mess!!! Somehow I do not think these cranes meet regulations and that is a serious observation!!! and the observations at dusk!

Maybe the media should examine some of these structures and make their own judgement??? as to me many do not appear to meet the safety standards!

blind pew

22nd Jan 2013, 21:08

You are missing the point - the equipment needs installing on every crane above say 500 ft. Job done. No data base needed and would cost less than a grand per crane. Chicken feed.

eltonioni

23rd Jan 2013, 06:19

You'll remember from your Air Law that the ANO is already clear on what needs lighting, and how to light it. The cost of installing and maintaining warning lights will be much more than a grand.

Pace, it may be that some lights don't show from your observation point on the ground.

Flying Lawyer

23rd Jan 2013, 07:18

eltonioni You'll remember from your Air Law that the ANO is already clear on what needs lighting, and how to light it. The professionals here don't need a PPL to tell them that there are legal requirements. The discussion is about whether the requirements should be made more stringent in order to improve flight safety.

The cost of installing and maintaining warning lights will be much more than a grand.Blind Pew was referring to the cost of FLARM not warning lights.
In any event, "much more than a grand" to instal and maintain warning lights is peanuts in relation to the £multi-million cost of constructing high rise buildings and, if lives are saved, worth every penny.

Pace All three commented on inadequate lighting on the Cranes so that seems to be the sentiment with non aviation people in London.
That is a widely held view in London, and not only amongst non aviation people.

I don't know if this applies to the Vauxhall crane but I'm told that some lights on some cranes are solar powered.
I wonder how efficient/effective solar powered lights are in UK conditions, especially in the winter months.

Pace

23rd Jan 2013, 08:06

Eltonioni

I will quite happily photograph the one culprit this evening and place it here as long as the crane arms are not in the clouds!

This one highlights what I believe are illegal Cranes.

The one arm is short and has one bright red light which shows up well at dusk
The other goes high into the sky probably 100 feet more than the shorter arm and has no light or a defective light.
It was not the angle I was looking from.
As stated these are Cranes which can exceed the hight of buildings which require permanent fixed lighting by a couple of hundred feet.

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 08:42

FL makes the exact points that I was banned for.

As a simple analogy; like when we see in a supermarket one of those yellow plastic signs warning of a slip hazard it does not prevent a slip, it alerts passing traffic to the hazard.

Would lighting have prevented the accident? We dont know. We'll never know. We can't know; that is asking for proof of an event that did not happen.

The point is, is to improve safety margins; and at marginal costs. These cranes are re-used many times.

No one is suggesting banning rotor flights over cities or banning cranes from cities, the circumstances are that a 770ft crane was placed not just within 200ft of a heli route (H4) and a compulsory reporting point. That does not leave much margin for error, if any.

As per the notam, the crane was only lit at night. was it illegal ? no, probably not, but it was damn fool thing to do.

Pace

23rd Jan 2013, 09:08

As per the notam, the crane was only lit at night. was it illegal ? no, probably not, but it was damn fool thing to do

But that is where the regulators need to re look at these temporary structures.
They are harder to see than solid buildings with lit up rooms.

Their spindly structures tower way above the skyscraper type buildings often in colors which blend in with grey skies and mist.

Yet all they require is one measly red light many which appear to be either not working or not bothered with.

The regulators need to look at spaced lighting up the arms and some sort of strobe device on the top! Whether Flarm could play a part I do not know.

The regulators also need to have these lights on temporary structures lit at all times! They are as much need in gloomy cloudy days as at night.

Remember it was such a Crane which brought an aircraft down because the pilot did not see one arm angling off it.

The building developers make £Billions out of these tall buildings proper public safety with the Cranes is a drop in the river Thames in cost.
Would it have saved this pilot we will never know but MAYBE?? Having them as they are certainly did not!

ShyTorque

23rd Jan 2013, 09:26

Anything that helps the conspicuity of a hazard to aviation, as tall cranes obviously are, is worth considering. The number of cranes springing up all over London is quite alarming. A good sign for the building trade and economy no doubt, but not good for helicopter pilots who have to cope with them on a daily basis.

However, FLARM, TCAS and other such devices are only designed to alert pilots to the fact that there is something relevant in the vicinity and he should look out. The avoidance has to be done visually. Lighting that actually stands out is the only way when the aircraft has to be flown in close proximity to an otherwise difficult to see obstruction.

Dg800

23rd Jan 2013, 09:36

I take your point re certification but if the application is good for locating potential collision Hazards then it would be worth the manufacturers developing such a unit.

The problem with such a unit is that it wouldn't be a FLARM unit any more and it would cost at least ten times more. Here is a couple of points, off the top of my head, why FLARM cannot be certified without switching to a completely different technology:

- it does not use an aeronautical frequency but instead a frequency reserved for automatic door openers and key fobs (!!). This is enough to rule out any aeronautical certification, as the frequency is not reserved for such purposes and is not protected from interference.
- it uses a proprietary protocol which the manufacturer refuses to make public, and transmissions are also encrypted, once again with the manufacturer refusing to divulge the encryption key. The reason for this is that they want to maintain a monopoly and only allow third parties to manufacture compatible gear after paying a license fee. Yes, it's 2013 and the Swiss still think that monopolies are the cat's meow, whereas the rest of the Western world does everything in their power to squash them whenever they are formed. :ugh:This again rules out certification as the certifying authority won't be able to verify the protocol, not to mention Brussels surely having something to say about EASA actually enforcing a monopoly. :=

A certifiable unit will have use an aeronautical frequency, just like transponders, and an open, certifiable protocol, such as ADS-B. We already have collision avoidance equipment based on such standards, the problem is they cost at the very least ten times as much as a FLARM, monopoly notwithstanding. ;)

Mandatory FLARM as a collision and obstacle avoidance system is just a chimera: either it's not mandated or it's not FLARM anymore. :}

P.S. Just for the record, I have FLARM equipment on my glider. I'm not suicidal, just a realist through and through. :ok:

Dg800

23rd Jan 2013, 09:38

You are missing the point - the equipment needs installing on every crane above say 500 ft. Job done.

You're the one who's actually missing the point. The equipment will never be made mandatory and nobody will install it spontaneously because of possible liability issues. :=

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 10:04

But that is where the regulators need to re look at these temporary structures.
They are harder to see than solid buildings with lit up rooms.

Their spindly structures tower way above the skyscraper type buildings often in colors which blend in with grey skies and mist.

oh i agree with you pace.

not just in grey skies and mist, depending on the surrounding environment and viewing angle, they can be extremely difficult to see in good viz too.

regulations are always subject to evolution and this is one such matter which would dictate that perhaps evolution is in order. I really fail to see the resistance to adding obstruction lighting to a potential hazard, in terms of cost to the industry.. probably nothing. in terms of the cost to a multi-million pound development, negligible if anything, to the crane owner operator.. negligible.

40KTSOFFOG

23rd Jan 2013, 10:09

AAIB Special report S1/2013 just published.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/AAIB%20S1-2013%20G-CRST.pdf

eltonioni

23rd Jan 2013, 10:37

The professionals here don't need a PPL to tell them that there are legal requirements.
I don't need a lawyer to tell me about putting stuff on buildings because I happen to be a property development professional with a PPL - how about you?

Now that we're back on even terms, transferring a large measure of responsibility for pilots (with any qualification) to see and avoid in VFR / SVFR is, in my mind, a retrograde move. Various contributions above mention the issues about yet another alarm in the cabin to ignore, and that building /crane / bridge / the ground isn't in a different position to where is was the last time.

Better weather forecasting, safer company SOP's, and heck, even license and movement restrictions according to weather minima would be much more useful in many more cases. This incident may turn out to be one of them.

This particular accident is so incredibly rare as to be statistically insignificant. Incredibly tragic, but statistically insignificant none the less.

eltonioni

23rd Jan 2013, 10:54

Pace, cheers for the offer to get photos. You'll understand the point that I was making. Crane operators and contractors are perfectly aware of their legal requirements and should certainly be taken to task if found lacking.

Maybe pilots can start filling in MOR's if they see such failures? Has anyone ever done one for such a thing?

Pace

23rd Jan 2013, 11:03

Eltonioni

I cannot agree LESS with your comments of sticking the onus on pilots to be at the right place in the right conditions.

In a perfect world, with perfect pilots, regulations drawn up in a perfect office do not always work out in the field hence why more and more technology is insisted on to protect the pilot, passengers and aircraft from mistakes.

Why do Jet owners go to vast expense fitting TAWS etc to protect pilots from mistakes they may make?

CFIT has always been a major killer and always will be hence why we turn to technology to help diminish CFIT accident stats.

I noted some of the lighting on the Crane was solar powered which in my book is insufficient for major structures so close to aircraft routes.
The authorities need to rethink lighting requirements on such structures as at present they are inadequate.

Its too easy to make the pilot a scapegoat for glaring safety holes in the present regs.
In an area which is highly built up and densely populated all the more reason to use every possibility to avoid a high loss of life from an accident such as this one!

heli-cal

23rd Jan 2013, 11:07

I felt really sorry for the pilot as I do not reckon the poor guy made much of a mistake.

Other than flying into a known, notified structure, destroying it and the aircraft, killing himself, immolating a pedestrian, injuring others, and causing millions of pounds in damage, clean up, repairs and investigations, as well as major transport, travel, construction and social disruption, not much of a mistake at all!

"Mistakes" have consequences!

I passed The building in question and without doubt it is a hazard to aircraft.

The aircraft created the hazard by not avoiding the building.

Remember it was such a Crane which brought an aircraft down because the pilot did not see one arm angling off it.

The Crane did not strike the aircraft, the aircraft struck the Crane, as such I believe that had the pilot survived, he may have been charged with Manslaughter for the death of Matthew Wood.

Pace

23rd Jan 2013, 11:11

The Crane did not strike the aircraft, the aircraft struck the Crane, as such I believe that had the pilot survived, he may have been charged with Manslaughter for the death of Matthew Wood.

I am not so sure a good lawyer defending him would not cast blame in other directions?

Yes a tiny mistake can have catastrophic consequences!!!

The Crane did not strike the aircraft, the aircraft struck the Crane,

Wow what an observation! the aircraft that hit a hill being too low on approach was not struck by the hill :D TAWS why bother with it expensive unneeded equipment ???

Pittsextra

23rd Jan 2013, 11:12

The professionals here don't need a PPL to tell them that there are legal requirements. The discussion is about whether the requirements should be made more stringent in order to improve flight safety.

FL - what a quite stupid and arrogant thing to say.

Perhaps the discussion around more stringent lighting and its effect on the improvement on flight safety might come after the discussion on the effects of flying in well flagged sh1tty weather.

Pittsextra

23rd Jan 2013, 11:24

Flying lawyer - any comment on the telephone/text traffic as reported by the AAIB??

Pace

23rd Jan 2013, 11:50

Eltonioni

Joe Bloggs PPL will pull back the curtains and go back to sleep!

There are those who choose too and those who have to

It is the commercial very experienced guys who will be up in not so ideal weather.

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 12:20

The aircraft created the hazard by not avoiding the building.

wrong.

the hazard was the crane, that's why the aircraft hit it. the accident was caused by the aircraft impacting the hazard.

as you, yourself state: "Mistakes" have consequences!

a 770ft crane was placed not just within 200ft of a heli route (H4) and a compulsory reporting point. That does not leave much margin for error, if any.

I believe that had the pilot survived, he may have been charged with Manslaughter for the death of Matthew Wood.

really? the legal expert are you know as well as judge, jury and executioner?

pittsextra

i dont think FL is out of line at all. the operation was a commercial operation and part of requirements into gaining a professional licence demands, by regulation study and understanding of the applicable regualtions pertaining to. the PPL does not.

eltonioni

23rd Jan 2013, 12:26

Remind us of the legal position of mobile phoning and texting while flying.

Dg800

23rd Jan 2013, 12:28

a 770ft crane was placed not just within 200ft of a heli route

So was the building it was used to, well, build. The helicopter just happened to hit the smallest of the two obstructions. Are you suggesting the building shouldn't have been put there in the first place because it encroached on a heli route? Fat chance of that ever happening. :=

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 12:48

So was the building it was used to, well, build. The helicopter just happened to hit the smallest of the two obstructions. Are you suggesting the building shouldn't have been put there in the first place because it encroached on a heli route? Fat chance of that ever happening. :=

err no, you are assuming that conclusion yourself.

the tower and the crane..

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/16/article-2263250-16F87670000005DC-887_634x798.jpg

crane in excess of of the height of the building..

from the AAIB special report:

At the time of the accident the building had reached its full height; the crane tower had reached a height of 572 ft agl. On top of the crane tower was a cab unit, a counterjib ‘A’ frame and counter weight platform attached to the crane tower by a bearing ring, which allowed the jib to rotate (slew) in the horizontal plane. The crane had a ‘luffing’ jib, which meant the full length of the jib pivoted in the vertical plane from a point a further 11.5 ft above the height of the tower section.
During out-of-service periods, such as overnight, the jib was parked in the ‘minimum jib’ position, at a 65° angle above the horizontal. At the time of the accident this gave a total height from the ground to the tip of the jib of 719 ft

And:

The crane was lit at night with red lights, both on its tower and jib. The tower lighting consisted of mains powered steady red lights at approximately 50 m intervals. The jib lighting was provided by solar powered lights. The Air Navigation Order requires the lighting to be of medium intensity (2,000 candela) and that the obstacle be lit at night only.

aterpster

23rd Jan 2013, 12:49

Pace:

Why do Jet owners go to vast expense fitting TAWS etc to protect pilots from mistakes they may make?

Because an American Airlines crew managed to really muck it up on descent into Cali, Colombia in 1995 resulting in the esteemed inventor of GPWS proceeding to the next step, a terrain database EGPWS. In turn, the FAA (and I presume other state regulators) mandated it be installed in air carrier airplanes over the objections and whining of some airline managers.

At the time a large percentage of the fleet that did have LNAV did not have GPS. So, the vendor offered a GPS receiver for the EGPWS for $1,500 to make the EGPWS positioning independent of all-too-often unreliable DME/DME determination of ship's position. But, in the U.S. at least, the FAA did not mandate the GPS receiver option, so one major airline refused to buy the GPS option at a measly $1,500 per airplane.

I'll let you reach your own conclusion about that. I long ago reached mine.

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 12:59

Remind us of the legal position of mobile phoning and texting while flying.

why dont you ?

there's no point in trying to correlate what is done behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and what is done in the cockpit. the police i would expect to take dim view of me writing stuff down in poor weather while cruising along the motorway, however, writing down a clearance while flying an aircraft would be typical.

know what CPDLC is ?

CPDLC - Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications. Direct communications between air traffic control and an aircraft pilot via data link text messages .

pilots as i am sure you are aware have a very high workload, while maintaining control of an aircraft they are talking, changing freq., squawks etc etc.

the aviation industry has very high levels of safety and regulations that are detailed and extensive further, they are co-ordinated internationally.

so your comments comapring aircraft safety regulation to PPE (hi viz vest, hard boots, hat and gloves) and stating that it is a mess, frankly shows your lack of comprehension of aviation regulations. As of course a PPL and not being commercially licenced.

Dg800

23rd Jan 2013, 13:11

@stuckgear

Well, as the picture clearly shows the crane in action but we already know that at the time of the accident it was in the "parked for the night" position, hence it looks like there might have been only a very small difference in height between building and crane height. I'm guessing maybe 20-30 feet?

So what's your point, the crane was an hazard and shouldn't have been there (where else then if not where it was actually needed) whereas a slightly lower, but obviously much bulkier, skyscraper is fine and does not present any hazard to the same helicopter traffic?

cldrvr

23rd Jan 2013, 13:11

not a happy read for rotary pros.

the pros won't take any notice of the amateur drivel you post. Your contribution here is for entertainment purposes only.

Lonewolf_50

23rd Jan 2013, 13:14

So why can't aviation have similarly strict attitudes towards safety?
I found that aviation has an attitude toward safety that most other endeavours should emulate. Hmmm. You assume the answer in your question, which appears to be asked in ignorance of how professional aviation works.
Is it because professional pilots quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) fancy themselves as skygods who will launch when all others fear to draw back the curtains?

Huh? Professional pilots tend not to have that attitude.
Yes, sometimes **** happens (I've been there in IMC but I lived to tell the tale) but why can't an industry avoid trying to get into it in the first place as it's SOP?
I am unaware of any aviation policy that condones flying into IMC deliberately when one intends to fly VMC. Are you able to cite such a policy from anyone in the industry? :confused:

Where did you come up with this question?

cldrvr

23rd Jan 2013, 13:15

The text messages stopped 4 minutes before the crane was hit and have nothing to do with the actual accident.

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 13:16

Well, as the picture clearly shows the crane in action but at the time of the accident it was in the "parked for the night" position, it looks like there was at worst a very small difference in height between building and crane height. I'm guessing maybe 20-30 feet?

as i previously posted:
At the time of the accident the building had reached its full height; the crane tower had reached a height of 572 ft agl. On top of the crane tower was a cab unit, a counterjib ‘A’ frame and counter weight platform attached to the crane tower by a bearing ring, which allowed the jib to rotate (slew) in the horizontal plane. The crane had a ‘luffing’ jib, which meant the full length of the jib pivoted in the vertical plane from a point a further 11.5 ft above the height of the tower section.
During out-of-service periods, such as overnight, the jib was parked in the ‘minimum jib’ position, at a 65° angle above the horizontal. At the time of the accident this gave a total height from the ground to the tip of the jib of 719 ft

not quite 20-30ft.

So what's your point, the crane was an hazard and shouldn't have been there (where else then if not where it was actually needed) whereas a slightly lower, but obviously much bulkier, skyscraper is fine and does not present any hazard to the same helicopter traffic?

no.. go back and read my posts. you obviously havnt read what's been posted previously (see above)

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 13:20

cldvr,

the pros won't take any notice of the amateur drivel you post. Your contribution here is for entertainment purposes only.

:D:D:D

The text messages stopped 4 minutes before the crane was hit and have nothing to do with the actual accident.

indeed from initial analysis it would appear that PB pretty much turned into the crane on the track reversal for approach into london heliport.

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 13:26

What do you reckon the chances of a big stink and consequences for the industry are?

significant when uninformed, uneducated and unknowledgeable people speculate on matters they have little understanding about.

glad you lived to tell the tale from your one time venture in IMC. some of us, many of us, venture into imc on a regular basis.. get this.. and rated the aviation authority to do so.. shocking eh!

There were MP's and others already calling for ops to be stopped over London. When they hear that pilots fly around sending text messages all hell is likely to break loose.

shocking! you obviously missed my post on CPDLC ... and to think pilots also use a paper and pencil too ! you should write to the daily mail.. or better still become their staff writer on aviation matters.. then again maybe not.

Hovermonkey

23rd Jan 2013, 13:28

The pilot replied:
“TWO TWO NINE, THANKS A LOT”.
This exchange ended at 0759:18 hrs when G-CRST was approximately 150 m south-west of Vauxhall Bridge.
Immediately afterwards the helicopter began to turn right. At 0759:25 hrs it struck a crane on the south side of the river 275 m from the south-west end of Vauxhall Bridge.

Surely it would be more logical to suggest the pilot was making a freq change at the time of impact.

cldrvr

23rd Jan 2013, 13:36

's quite possible. from the radar returns it seems the craft turned into the
crane. high workload, weak viz unnoticed obstruction/flight hazard...

And here we have come full circle to what Pace has been saying for pages, the crane was not mandated to be lit during the day. The top of the building could well have been visible while the crane itself was obscured.

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 14:04

And here we have come full circle to what Pace has been saying for pages, the crane was not mandated to be lit during the day. The top of the building could well have been visible while the crane itself was obscured.

i agree with and have likewise stated the same.

SLFandProud

23rd Jan 2013, 15:05

Pace wrote,
Joe Bloggs PPL will pull back the curtains and go back to sleep!

There are those who choose too and those who have to

Hmm. Reading from the AAIB...

At 0731 hrs, having noticed how poor the weather was during his journey, the client called the pilot to suggest that he did not take off until he (the client) had reached Elstree and observed the weather. The pilot replied that he was already starting the engines. The client stated that he repeated his suggestion that the pilot should not take off.
and, damningly...
@ 0729 from Pilot to Client: I’m coming anyway will land in a field if I have to

It would seem you need to adjust your motto somewhat. "There are those who choose to, those who have to, and those who don't have to but say '**** it, I'll land in a field if necessary' and set off when others would choose not to."

It is the commercial very experienced guys who will be up in not so ideal weather.
Which is a worry. I thought there was training for commercial pilots on recognising hazardous attitudes - invulnerability, macho attitude etc. - and neutralising them. One would expect the commercial very experienced guys to have better judgement than PPL holders, not worse.

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 15:53

Hmm. Reading from the AAIB...

Quote:
At 0731 hrs, having noticed how poor the weather was during his journey, the client called the pilot to suggest that he did not take off until he (the client) had reached Elstree and observed the weather. The pilot replied that he was already starting the engines. The client stated that he repeated his suggestion that the pilot should not take off.
and, damningly...

Quote:
@ 0729 from Pilot to Client: I’m coming anyway will land in a field if I have to
It would seem you need to adjust your motto somewhat. "There are those who choose to, those who have to, and those who don't have to but say '**** it, I'll land in a field if necessary' and set off when others would choose not to."

1. the client was not providing a meteorological report, only his assessment of the weather as how he interpreted it.

2. don't take a comment that was more likely made in humour with the client.
a. it was also noted that PB replied 'chat in 10' rather than a formal dialogue.

b. we know he didn't land in a field becuase err he didn't; he was in the process of RTB when the diversion occured.

again, this reverts back to spurious asessments of PB which are implied not fact based..

Ambient Sheep

23rd Jan 2013, 16:12

Is there independent evidence of what the client and pilot said during their phone calls?

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 16:38

AS,

that's going to be a tough nut to crack, unless the calls were recorded.

Pace

23rd Jan 2013, 16:44

SLF and Proud

Joe Bloggs PPL will pull back the curtains and go back to sleep!
There are those who choose too and those who have to

Firstly may I ask what your experience and qualifications are in flying to express your opinions?

I stick by every word I have posted!

Firstly let me make it clear I am NOT a Helicopter Pilot I fly as a Captain on Business Jets.

Prior to that I have a lot of time on multi engine pistons.

There is a massive difference between the Private pilot who chooses to spend his hard earned cash and flies for pleasure and the Pilot who has to be in outer Mongolia at 8 am in the middle of winter.

Obviously the safest flying is what I do now! Take off, fly a SID in CAS under radar Control the whole way, get vectored onto an ILS and land and then follow controlled directions till you pick up the follow me vehicle and park!

That is the safest way by far (again a have to flight)

The other flying which I no longer do involved twin pistons to multi destinations in Northern and southern Ireland and Scotland sometimes OCAS and sometimes into places where there is no ILS.

That took a certain amount of creative flying!!! again a HAVE TO FLIGHT

HELICOPTERS!!! I would imagine that a lot is OCAS with very experienced have to pilots and a certain amount of creative flying!

The Helicopter pilot has another string to his bow in the sense that unlike the fixed wing pilot he can always find a hole in the clouds if above cloud and land in a suitable field or do the same if flying under cloud.

His other option with plenty of fuel is to go somewhere else but he too is a HAS TO PILOT!

I.e., Pace's mantra is a load of old :mad:

So I stick by every word and many will know what i am talking about. As I have been so forthcoming I would like to know your own back ground and experience especially with your polite comment above

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 16:45

The pilot did not have to fly. He chose to. I make no comment on whether or not that was a wise judgement.

and no one has to get out of bed an go to work in the morning. there's no gun to the head forcing the action (unless you are in N. Korea)

the only things that mandate a 'have to' are breathing, putting a bit of food down your gullet and some water occasionally and sleep.

Why do I suspect that if someone had heard a builder say in humour "nah, no reason to stick a light on the end of that mate, sticks out like a sore thumb"

should it be a builder on the ground's call to make a decision on aircraft safety ?

you'd be calling for heads to roll...

errrr.

you are missing the point.. neither pace, nor Shy Torque, nor FL nor i have called for 'heads to roll'.

as far as i am aware none of the above have apportioned *blame* to anyone at this time, unlike those that seem intent on apportioning *blame* to PB, no matter if the investigation has not been completed.

that is the point.

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 16:53

Barnes alone created the situation that placed him on a collision course with the Crane

and the same could be said of every single aircraft accident since kitty hawk. if he'd* stayed in bed that day he'd* still be alive.

I believe, portrays an arrogant, overconfident pilot, contemptuous of the known weather conditions and the repeatedly expressed concerns of his client, and who was recklessly negligent in his decision making and flying.

and who are you to pass charachter assessment on someone in their professional capacity that you have not met nor flown with but passing judgement on your interpretation of third hand opinions?

NB * no differentiation of male / female pilots 'he' used for brevity.

757_Driver

23rd Jan 2013, 16:56

That took a certain amount of creative flying!!! again a HAVE TO FLIGHT

If you think that is in any way an acceptable attitude to flight safety, then remind me, never EVER to get in an aircraft with you!

So now you do 'Safe' flying, but I guess with that attitude, the first time someone leans on you , you'll be happy to bust a minima, use reserve fuel, ignore airspace VMC/ IMC requirements? because obviously you HAVE to because you've got a job to do.

For gods sake grow a pair and start acting like a professional :ugh:

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 17:02

Pace's motto that it's excusable for professional pilots to fly VFR in inappropriate conditions because they "have to", is bollocks.

Pace has not said that.

what do you deem as inappropriate ?

from the special report:

At 0751 hrs, Thames Radar broadcast London City Airport ATIS2 information ‘J’ which reported a visibility of 700 m, a Runway Visual Range (RVR) of 900 m, freezing fog and broken cloud with a base 100 ft above the airport. Thirty seconds later, the pilot of G-CRST asked to route back to Redhill Aerodrome via the London Eye and received the reply:
"ROCKET 2 APPROVED VIA THE LONDON EYE NOT ABOVE ALTITUDE 1,500 FEET VFR IF YOU CAN OR SPECIAL VFR, QNH 1012".
The pilot replied:

"YEAH, WE CAN, 1012 AND NOT ABOVE 1500, VFR OR SPECIAL VFR ROCKET 2".

G-CRST climbed to 1,500 ft for the transit. At 0753 hrs, the controller asked:
"ROCKET 2 DO YOU HAVE VMC OR WOULD YOU LIKE AN IFR TRANSIT?"
The pilot replied:
"I HAVE GOOD VMC ON TOP HERE, THAT’S FINE, ROCKET 2".
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?"
After being told that London Heliport was open, the pilot said:
"IF I COULD HEAD TO BATTERSEA THAT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL".

The controller replied:
"I’LL JUST HAVE A CHAT WITH THEM, SEE WHAT THEIR CLOUD IS LOOKING LIKE"
At 0757 hrs, G-CRST was abeam the London Eye at 1,500 ft and the pilot said:
"ROCKET 2, I CAN ACTUALLY SEE VAUXHALL, IF I COULD MAYBE HEAD DOWN TO H3… H43 SORRY"
The ATC controller replied:
"ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK".

G-CRST was flying south parallel to the River Thames and, as it passed Westminster Bridge, began to descend. At 0758 hrs, G-CRST was approaching the north side of the river, 0.5 nm west of Vauxhall Bridge. The controller said:
"ROCKET 2 BATTERSEA ARE JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THEY CAN ACCEPT THE DIVERSION"

The pilot acknowledged, after which the controller continued:
"AND YOU CAN MAKE IT QUITE A WIDE HOLD, YOU CAN GO AS FAR AS LONDON BRIDGE"

The helicopter crossed the north bank of the Thames at 1,000 ft heading south-west and began a right turn through north onto a south-easterly heading which took it back over the middle of the river. It was by now level at approximately 800 ft and altered course to follow the line of the river east towards Vauxhall Bridge.
At 0759:10 hrs, the ATC controller said:
"ROCKET 2 YEAH BATTERSEA DIVERSION APPROVED YOU’RE CLEARED TO BATTERSEA".

The pilot replied:
"LOVELY THANKS ROCKET 2".

The ATC controller continued:
"ROCKET 2 CONTACT BATTERSEA ONE TWO TWO DECIMAL NINER".

The pilot replied:
"TWO TWO NINE, THANKS A LOT".

This exchange ended at 0759:18 hrs when G-CRST was approximately 150 m south-west of Vauxhall Bridge.

Immediately afterwards the helicopter began to turn right. At 0759:25 hrs it struck a crane on the south side of the river 275 m from the south-west end of Vauxhall Bridge.

Pace

23rd Jan 2013, 17:06

So now you do 'Safe' flying, but I guess with that attitude, the first time someone leans on you , you'll be happy to bust a minima, use reserve fuel, ignore airspace VMC/ IMC requirements? because obviously you HAVE to because you've got a job to do
None of those and I am still here! Oh and while we are at it sadly accidents happen across the board hence why we have various aids fitted to protect imperfect pilots from airlines to ???

757_Driver

23rd Jan 2013, 17:09

You are the only one talking bollocks from probably armchair and nil experience

I've got plenty of experience thanks, and also I've got enough courage, and enough self esteem, not to put myself and others at risk with the bull**** "have to fly" macho attitude that you and some others exhibit. There is no such thing as 'creative' flying. Thats called being illegal.
Like I said, grow a pair, and stop trying to justify piss poor decision making, and illegal flights. (I'm not making any comment on this particular incident, merely your repeated posts justifying a terrible attitude to flight safety).

Ambient Sheep

23rd Jan 2013, 17:11

...contemptuous of... ...the repeatedly expressed concerns of his client...

Although, it's been pointed out in the Rotorheads thread here (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/505368-helicopter-v-crane-london-21.html#post7651317), that it seems very likely that the pilot was headed back to Redhill when the client texted him at 7.55am to tell him that Battersea was open. One minute later, the pilot radioed to ask if that was the case, and on being told that it was, only THEN, it seems, decided to divert there instead.

Rory166

23rd Jan 2013, 17:12

Surely it is not appropriate in these sad circumstances to indulge in the name calling that has recently occurred in this thread.

Pace

23rd Jan 2013, 17:13

Stuckgear

Agreed a tragic accident which MAY have been averted if a temporary structure had adequate high intensity lighting which sadly it did not!

fireflybob

23rd Jan 2013, 17:22

Whilst the evidence we have so far is circumstantial are we not jumping the gun a bit here?

There is always the possibility of pilot incapacitation or mechanical failure to consider, probably amongst others.

Interestingly enough I had a similar conversation with a PPL holder at the local airfield today at their cafe.

He related his story of getting off track one day in (for him) marginal weather and how if it hadn't been for a radar service he might have come to grief.

As an experienced (now almost retired) professional pilot (and instructor) in several different theatres of operation (but not helo) I then attempted to politely educate him that the pilots flying helos around London were highly professional aviators and that an inflight diversion in an area they are very familiar with (and the ATC services available) would be a "walk in the park".

Yes there is always potential for human error but I think it is far too early to damn the pilot before we know all the facts.

Pace

23rd Jan 2013, 17:24

SLF whatever

You seem uninclined to reveal your experience so I presume armchair?

Had to rather than choose is figurative speech meaning a PPL has a choice to select his day for flying in comparison to a working pilot who will have more pressure to complete the job to a schedule.

He will have a lot more experience in operating in conditions the fair weather PPL will not!

That does not make him a risk taker or cowboy pilot! sadly as stated accidents happen across the board from airline pilots to the OCAS Helicopter commercial pilot!

deefer dog

23rd Jan 2013, 18:24

It seems that the professional heli pilots who regularly fly the London heli routes have ducked out of this disgrace of a thread - and it's hardly surprising!

Arguments, name calling and conspiracy theories being discussed by people who are not even heli-pilots for goodness sake!

90% of you really sound like school children - and quite what makes any of you believe you are, or possibly ever could be, professional aviators is a mystery to me.

Pace

23rd Jan 2013, 18:34

Deefer Dog

I agree with you totally and I for one am out of this ridiculous discussion

stuckgear

23rd Jan 2013, 18:55

DD,

I agree as well.

i'm done too.

Bronx

23rd Jan 2013, 19:57

Your patience lasted a long time guys. :ok:

Most of the crap is now gone but you were fighting a losing battle trying to have a sensible discussion.

RatherBeFlying

24th Jan 2013, 05:01

Note the AAIB reports the top of the building and crane were not visible from the ground. They likely have several witness statements to that effect.

Possibilities:
The turn radius took him into cloud and he maintained the turn to return to VFR.

There was a cloud layer with top below the jib, but the pilot did not see the jib in time.

Flying Lawyer

24th Jan 2013, 07:24

eltonioniI don't need a lawyer to tell me about putting stuff on buildings because I happen to be a property development professional with a PPL - how about you?

I don’t doubt you know the current lighting requirements. I pointed out that the discussion at that time was about whether they should be made more stringent in order to improve flight safety.
I agree with those who think they should be; you and others may disagree.
We'll probably never know if more effective lighting would have prevented this accident. However, I do wonder whether, if the crane (incl the jib) had been better lit, the pilot would have seen the raised jib in time to avoid it.
At that life or death moment, whether the pilot should or should not have been there is irrelevant. If he was alive, the CAA might have taken action against him; better that than the loss of two lives.

How about me?
Since you ask, and only because you ask -

PPL/A like you (and Pittsextra, the equally incessant poster on this topic) + PPL/H (Jetranger & Gazelle ratings).
I know the relevant area of London well, having flown the heli routes many times and driven along the River morning and night virtually every working day for almost 40 years. (I drove past the north side of Vauxhall Bridge about 15 minutes after the accident.)
Formerly a barrister specialising in aviation (predominantly fatal accidents) and criminal cases.
I am actively involved in the work of the Guild of Air Pilots which, for obvious reasons, takes a keen interest in all aspects of flight safety and a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
I hope that summary is sufficient for your purposes. (Whatever they are. :confused:)