Helicopter Crash Central London

[horsebadorties]

Would a safer option have been to get the helicopter to hold in the circuit for the heliport? The ATC clearance sent him back towards the tower with an extension round the bend of the river as far as London Bridge, where the Shard is located.

[Heathrow Harry]

the real problem is that at Vuaxhall the river is only 500 ft wide

All well & good if you are flying in a straight line in decent visibilty but a very different matter if you are manouvering in poor visibility

any normal turn was likely to take him over the river bank and, as we know, there are a lot of tall builings there

maybe if he'd slowed almost to a hover he could have made a turn in that space but at normal speeds.............

[alphaalpha]

Horsebadorties:

No. Thames could not have cleared him into the Battersea circuit without prior agreement from the ADC.

[DownIn3Green]

Flying Lawyer...Well, no, VERY Well said! I've followed your posts for what seems like forever, and have never found you to speak in a frivolus manner...

You know of which you speak and it seems a little strange to me that people want to know your ":qualifications"...

In fact, if you're like me, you probably lost your "member since" date back in the 90's when Danny had the problem with the server...

I for one thank you for your wisdom and I'm sorry for "hijacking" this post, but some people should get cited for "PUI"...(posting under the influence)...:ugh:

[AtomKraft]

For goodness sake peeps.

He was trying to do a VMC task when it wasn't VMC.

He tried to compensate for the poor weather by using his experience- both of the area and the aircraft.

Got unlucky.

Anything to add?

[Richard J.]

the real problem is that at Vuaxhall the river is only 500 ft wide

And the St George Wharf tower appears to be less than 100 ft from the river bank, so that would mean that helicopter route H4, which I assume runs along the middle of the river, would be less than 350 ft from the tower. Pilots often can't climb above the tower because of a 1000 ft ceiling due to Heathrow traffic.

Actually the river width at that point looks nearer to 800 ft from the satellite view, but even so, that still means that H4 is less than 500 ft from the tower, and of course a smaller distance from the crane jib. And H4 is a route that the CAA say must be flown "precisely".

So it seems that you can't keep to the "not within 500 ft of anything" rule and keep to the precise route of H4. Or am I missing something?

[aterpster]

This reminds me somewhat of the midair of a Piper and tour helicopter over the compressed airspace beneath the joint New York Class B over the Hudson River. Couple of years ago?

[RatherBeFlying]

2006 New York City plane crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_New_York_City_plane_crash)

[brittleware]

I don't think that lights positioned only on the top of cranes - or buildings - are adequate. I'd like a requirement for lights to be positioned at several (say three) heights 100/150 ft apart.

[TRC]

I'd like a requirement for lights to be positioned at several (say three) heights 100/150 ft apart.
I went past the building in question at 22.30 the night before last.

There were obstruction lights about halfway up, and again three quarters of the way up. I expect there were lights on the top but I couldn't see them from ground level.
Additionally, just about every other floor was lit internally by what looked like strip lights - as is just about every office building in London, 24 hours a day (so much for being green).

I'm not saying that all or any of these lights were or weren't on at the time of the accident, just that they were on during the night before last.

The recovery crane was also showing a red at the top of the jib.

From the Directorate of Airspace Policy:


"Article 219 expresses the requirements for “en-route” structures (ie those away from the vicinity of a licensed aerodrome) and dictates a statutory requirement to provide aviation warning lights for structures of a height of 150 meters or more. The Article 219 specification requires that medium intensity (2000 candela) steady red lights be mounted as close as possible to the top of the structure and at intermediate levels not exceeding 52 metres. Such lighting should be displayed at night and be visible from all directions."

[John R81]

Richard J Or am I missing something?

H4 has a 1500 ft height restriction at that point and so helicopters usually do fly above 1,000 ft as they pass this building. Typically I will be at 1450 ft. At 1300 ft and beyond we can pass directly over the top of the building without breaching the 500 ft rule, though typically we do not, heading towards the centre of the river. Therefore the separation from the building increases - it is 500 ft clear, not 500 ft above.

When landing into Battersea we need to come down from this height - as PB was doing on this occasion. Once we are in that stage of flight the 500 ft rule does not apply and so passing within 500 ft of an person, vessel vehicle or structure is not prohibited.

[Richard J.]

When landing into Battersea we need to come down from this height - as PB was doing on this occasion.

Well, he was preparing to land, but had been at 800 to 1000 ft while awaiting clearance. Anyway, thanks for the reply, John.

[757hopeful]

The report makes for an interesting read. If I remember correctly there was 7 seconds between pb being told he was ok to head for battersea and the time of impact.

I would speculate that perhaps once he had heard he was ok to head that way. He may have begun pre landing checks and preparations. And was a tad occupied. Twinned with the very poor visibility (which I can attest as I drove down the very road around 2 hours before the incident), a set of very unfortunate circumstances ensued.

Again, my two pennysworth. Looks like the AAIB have recovered quite a lot of information in the bulletin. So with any luck the final report will be quite in depth.

From this we may be able to draw a few points which we can all learn from and keep us all safe when we're up there. From every accident something is learnt and aviation is made safer. It's just a shame there has to be an accident before the dangers are spotted.

I was quite interested in the parts of the report where it gave an estimate as to what height the collision happened


As a side note though. There is a lot of opinions and mud slinging happening in this thread which to be honest is of no relevance. Have the arguments via PM's chaps!

[TRC]

Well, he was preparing to land..

The aircraft was 2.5 miles from Battersea - no-one (I hope) starts their descent into the Heliport that far out, surely. We aren't talking 747's into Heathrow here.

[Richard Westnot]

Maybe if you consider the weather and only 2.5 miles from Battersea, I see no reason whatsoever why a decent should not have been taking place. (clearance had already been given)

"IF" the machine was travelling at 60kts, he was only 2 1/2 mins from touchdown.

[TRC]

Let's wait and see what the regular visitors to Battersea have to say.

In any case no clearance to land at Battersea is evident in the AAIB Special Bulletin. They were not 2-way with the 109.

[STS]

It's been a long time since I posted here - and I wasn't regularly doing so anyway - and no doubt the server reset my join date a while back. This thread has drifted into a CVs-at-dawn territory which I can't play. My legal knowledge, although I have some, isn't comparable to that of Flying Lawyer. I, like many others here, am aware who he his and defer to his professional knowledge. I don't have a PPL and the extent of my flying knowledge is a student job at UA to pay my way through college. I suppose I could count a bit of pratting about on the South Downs paragliding. The point is my technical knowledge is certainly not on a par with many professionals here and I'm not going to comment of any aspects of flying in this area. However, I live by Vauxhall and I see the tower when I step out of my front door - and I hope I can comment of the area I live in without being shouted down.

The current state of play is this: there are red lights approx every 15 floors. They're hardly Batman lights. There is one red light on the top of the crane. It's not visible from ground level, but it is from the elevated platforms of the train station and from the other side of Vauxhall Bridge. Whether that means it's visible to helicopter pilots - that is for you to assess based on the conditions you know in the air. The building has all the internal lights on every time I see it and has had as long as it's been there. It is not uncommon for the top to be totally obscured by fog or cloud. There have been times I haven't seen the top, and that includes at night when there are lights on. However, I could say the same about the Shard. Oddly enough, all these buildings seem clearer from a distance than close up. Again, I make no judgment but I will say that as someone who lives close to these developments, anything that can be done to improve safety in general is most welcome. None of the lighting that is currently there seems any different/an improvement on what was there before the accident. If it is, it's not noticeable on the ground.

The local community is irritated by the noise of helicopters - right or wrong, there is a perception that the number of flights is increasing. Personally, they don't bother me but I suspect this is something that will be talked about here as this, and other, developments continue to spring up next to the river. Keep in mind there are people who don't want the US Embassy here and don't want the flats being built - they will use anything they can to bolster their argument. That whole Nine Elms area is due to have work continue until 2024, and there is already a new crane up on a different development at Vauxhall Station, although it's much smaller and most definitely has lights on.

A poster mentioned the distance of the tower to the river - it's right next to it. The only space is what will be the Thames Path. That seems to be the case along the south bank.

I asked a friend who was at Vauxhall station that morning about the conditions. She couldn't see the top of the building because it was very foggy.

Regarding property development - whether £1.25m for a 5th floor 2 bedroom flat in that tower is worth it...again that's not for me to say.

[Machaca]

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/LONhelo00.jpg

[Agaricus bisporus]

Can we please get over this irrelevant red herring of obstruction lights. They have little if anything to do with this case. They are there to indicate the presence of an obstruction that can be seen. ie in VMC. They are NOT there to indicate anything in IMC for two very good reasons.

1) They cannot be seen in IMC. D'uh oh!

2) No one should be flying in IMC anywhere near them so there is no requirement for this to be a function.

It is abundantly clear that this accident was caused by flying in marginal VMC or in IMC whether intentionally or not, far too low and bumping into something that wasn't seen due to the met conditions. Simply put, the poor fellow got himself somewhere where he just shouldn't have been in such weather and got unlucky.

Changing rules and regulations on the basis of this accident would be unnecessary and counterproductive, it certainly wouldn't/couldn't prevent a future accident if the same sort. Only an individual pilots judgement/awareness is capable of doing that, and I think this unfortunate accident has done plenty to raise awareness of the inadvisability of grubbing around in poor vis below obstructions with their tops hidden in cloud instead of diverting somewhere more suitable.

[Bronx]

AgaricusCan we please get over this irrelevant red herring of obstruction lights. = Can we please discuss what I want to discuss.

BTW, a lot of professionals in Rotorheads who regularly use the London helicopter routes don't think it's a red herring.

They have little if anything to do with this case. Little is good enough for me if something can be done for low cost and might save a life.
That includes the life of someone who made a bad call as you think this guy did.

It is abundantly clear That's the simplistic attitude you took on the Mull of Kintire crash thread and why it got up people's noses there.

[mike-wsm]

and might save a life.

The only aceptable solution is one that saves all lives - like that of the poor man who was burned to death whilst walking to work, and all those good people who live in The Tower and adjacent blocks of flats...

...and the lives of our Members of Parliament who could be subject to terrorist suicide attack by helicopter now the weakness in security defences has been exposed.

[Bronx]

I guess you ain't familiar with the expression save a life.
Maybe they don't use it your side of the pond. It means EVEN one life.

So the bad guys didn't know before?
Get real. :rolleyes:

[Tandemrotor]

Bronx is correct.

Agar Spurious was out of line with his comments on another tragic helicopter accident. He seems to enjoy making pronouncements on incidents, with the benefit of almost total ignorance.

I can imagine this investigation will take a long time to conclude. Only when that is published will we be any closer to understanding what happened here. IF it proves to be human error, and people like Agar want to hang the guy out to dry, then fill your boots. You make me sick.

Until that time, any professionals will know better than to add to ignorant speculation.

[Flying Lawyer]

mike-wsm...and the lives of our Members of Parliament who could be subject to terrorist suicide attack by helicopter now the weakness in security defences has been exposed.
That's just the sort of uninformed alarmist nonsense that distracts from sensible discussion on an aviation website.

Route H4 of the London Helicopter Routes follows the Thames through central London and passes immediately adjacent to the Houses of Parliament.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02116/houses-of-parliame_2116438b.jpg

Charts of the routes are readily available on the internet and elsewhere.
Helicopter flights over London are widely advertised, usually accompanied by promotional pictures of the famous buildings which will be seen.

Do you really believe that, if suicidal terrorists wished to attack the HoP from the air, they didn't know before this tragic accident that the helicopter routes exist - or would care in the slightest whether there is a legally approved route to their final destination?


Edited to add pic.

[parabellum]

1) They cannot be seen in IMC. D'uh oh!

Utter nonsense. Were your statement true then few Cat3 landings or take-offs would ever happen. It is a pre-requisite in many aircraft, (not all), that the pilots see a minimum number of lights, even in dense fog, when carrying out Cat 3 operations, this is achieved because the lights are of a certain candle power and can be seen in IMC. A white or red flashing strobe, of considerably more candle power than a runway light, could well be seen for some distance in dense fog.

[Neon Circuits]

I was flying into LCY that morning at approx 0930.

Cloud tops at about 1200ft, beautiful blue sky above. Thick dense cloud / fog reported at 1200m vis with a reported overcast at 200ft... we performed a missed approach as no visual cues on 09 at LCY. We held for a bit and had another go and got in with an improvement as the morning developed.

We couldn't see a set of high intensity runway lights on our first approach at minima... this crane lighting argument is superfluous as one light or a set of lights wouldn't have been enough in those conditions I witnessed first hand (as low flying a/c would be flying illegally).

This incident is a case of a bad decision, bad judgement and from my interpretation of the rules, highly illegal.

No single individual is greater than the rules that are in place to protect the public.. the rules didn't fail us on this occasion, the individual did.

[mike-wsm]

Apologies for asking, but there has been mention elsewhere of certain procedural anomalies.

Was this a bona fide Charter Flight, or was it Self Fly Hire with a 'friend' going along for the ride?

[Flying Lawyer]

Machaca

The beautiful photograph you posted has been digitally enhanced.
The glass curtain wall has been attached to some more floors since this picture was taken last year but it shows what the tower looks like in real life.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/St_Georges_Wharf_Tower_May_2012.jpg/360px-St_Georges_Wharf_Tower_May_2012.jpg


TRC
just about every other floor was lit internally by what looked like strip lights - as is just about every office building in London, 24 hours a day Offices are usually brightly lit, and London office buildings are frequently lit as you describe.
However, the St George Tower is not an office building but a partially constructed residential block.
The strip lights to which you refer can be seen in the pictures above and below.

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/275010/slide_275010_1989742_free.jpg


Neon Circuits
I don't doubt what you encountered - some miles away, and 1½ hours after the crash - but the cloud/fog level when I drove past the north side of Vauxhall Bridge exactly 15 minutes after the crash was certainly not 200 ft.

Supposing, for the purpose of this exchange, that the pilot was not flying in accordance with the relevant law, that does not change the (IMHO very real) possibility that if the crane (incl the jib) had been better lit he might have seen the raised jib in time to avoid it. He was flying an easily manoeuvrable helicopter, not an airliner.
At that life or death moment, whether the pilot should or should not have been there is irrelevant.

mike-wsm Was this a bona fide Charter Flight, or was it Self Fly Hire with a 'friend' going along for the ride?It was a bona fide charter flight.
There was no passenger on board.
Even if the pilot had done so, it is not illegal to take someone along for the ride.

[TRC]

Offices are usually brightly lit, and London office buildings are frequently brightly lit as you describe.
However, the St George Tower is not an office building but a partially constructed residential block.
The strip lights to which you refer can be seen in the pictures above and below.



My post to which you refer was in answer to a previous poster who suggested that obstacles should be lit at intervals rather than just at the top. My mention of the internal lighting was simply an aside.

[mike-wsm]

It was a bona fide charter flight.
There was no passenger on board.
Even if the pilot had done so, it is not illegal to take someone along for the ride.

How can you instantly be so certain?

It has been stated that the intention was to pick up a passenger.

[ShyTorque]

How can you instantly be so certain?

Let's consider the idea that certain people, who know more, are saying less.

As opposed to certain people, who know less, saying more.

[Flying Lawyer]

m-wsm How can you instantly be so certain?

Because, in addition to other sources which I have no reason to divulge to you, I have read the AAIB SB.
Extract from the SB Heading: "Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (Passenger)"

It has been stated that the intention was to pick up a passenger. It has indeed.
Extract from the SB findings: "The pilot of G-CRST arrived at Redhill Aerodrome at approximately 0630 hrs in preparation for a flight to Elstree Aerodrome. He intended to collect a client to take him and another passenger to the north of England."


FL

[tu154]

Quote:
How can you instantly be so certain?

A cursory examination of the reporting of the facts makes this clear, not to mention the interim AAIB report. Saves the embarassment of looking like an ill informed troll.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Bronx. One of the less endearing habits on this forum is a prurient refusal to accept that ant pilot can make a mistake, a refusal that seems to become even more adamant when the pilot s dead. This is not rational or sensible, it is frankly a rather silly mawkish affectation.
Tandemrotor. No one, least of all me, is "hanging him out to dry", that statement indicates your over emotional state of mind. In both this case and the other one you mentioned an sit craft was flown into a fixed obstruction in poor vis and low cloud. I'd be fascinated to hear any theories you may have that might explain this better than what it almost certainly is, CFIT. Of course there may be the tiniest chance that it was something else, but do p,ease make a feasible suggestion to back yourself up. Nobody flies into things they can see, or very very seldom, people frequently fly into things they don't/can't see. As this occurred in v poor vis which do you propose is the most likely case? Anyone can make such a mistake, most if us probably nearly have. Every now and then someone is unfortunate enough to actually do it. That's not criticism, it's not stuffing ones head in the sand and pretending that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is in fact a piece of Ming china...all I'm saying s that it probably is a duck.

It does no one any good thrashing around the most unlikely scenarios and hazarding all sorts of regulatory interventions when there is almost certainly a very simple and logical explanation.

What have highly directional high power focused beam approach light systems to do with the low power 360' glims put on obstructions? Youre not comparing like with anything like. As I said, red herring. They are not designed to be seen in cloud because no one is supposed to flying in cloud in that environment.

[Neon Circuits]

FL thanks for encouraging a balanced discussion.

Having shared my perspective of the day.. on another note, we were slotted prior to departure on that day due fog and cloud base. Having monitored the weather from 0600, it was certainly worse early on clearly invoking a reduced flow rate into London airports. The trend was pretty static until late morning.

At the level that helicopter was transiting, I do very much doubt that even if the crane was made out of Fluorescent tubing, it would have made little or no difference to its visability in those conditions especially as moderate icing was also a factor in that layer.

The fact remains that the main reason for lighting on these structures is for visibility at night, not for illumination in IMC as SVFR rules are in place to protect aircraft from such an event. The law was ignored and as a consequence, this tragedy happened.

[mike-wsm]

tu153 et al

Many thanks. Alas I have tried many times to download the interim AAIB report but without success.

Can you forward me a copy, please? Thanks!

[email protected]

[Bronx]

Agaricus Bronx. One of the less endearing habits on this forum is a prurient refusal to accept that ant pilot can make a mistake, Prurient? Having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters, especially the sexual activity of others? :confused:
I'm surprised some guys here haven't strayed into that area in their uninformed criticism of the pilot but it ain't just your use of the word prurient I disagree with.

Some of us think a balanced discussion is useful. Your attitude is that its all cut and dried and doesn't need discussing. Fine. Don't waste your valuable time discussing it.

[Flying Lawyer]

NC

Thanks. That's all I and a some others (ShyTorque et al) have been trying to achieve. ShyT is a very experienced professional who uses the helicopter routes regularly so his opinions/contributions are worth far more than mine.

I accept, of course, what you encountered. Although much of the area was prone to widespread low cloud and poor visibility at the relevant time, conditions appear to have been worse to the east of London than elsewhere. eg At 0751 hrs, Thames Radar broadcast LCY ATIS which reported visibility 700 m, RVR 900 m, freezing fog and broken cloud with a base of 100 ft above the airport.

BTW, I'm please you pointed out in your previous post that it was beautiful blue sky above about 1200 ft because some contributors appear to believe that the pilot was in cloud throughout. It's clear from the AAIB SB that he wasn't.
At 0747 hrs he was VFR on top at 1500 feet.
At 0757 hrs, after asking Thames Radar if he could head to Battersea Heliport, he told the controller "I can actually see Vauxhall." At that time he was abeam the London Eye at 1500 ft.


I agree with you about the main reason, under current legislation, for lighting these tall structures. We can agree to differ re whether the lighting legislation should be changed.
I don't suggest that any other significant changes are necessary.

[Neon Circuits]

Again, a good balanced discussion.

Do SVFR rules state must be in sight of the surface? I believe so however I don't fly a rotary craft or fly under these rules so can't quote them verbatim.

Thanks for the agree to differ on the lighting rules. The only reason you would want to significantly increase the lighting on tall buildings would be if helicopters were allowed in IMC at the level this particular one was transitioning which would mean a rewrite of all the VFR and SVFR rules that have governed us for xx amount of years. And not withstanding the light pollution local residents would object to.

I'm sure those who fly the heli routes can comment better than both of us, but those who fly these routes, can I ask would you have put yourself, your craft and the public in this position?

Again written to stimulate a heathly and balanced discussion. I'm sure FL would support me in saying that what either of us are saying is neither right nor wrong.

[Flying Lawyer]

NC The only reason you would want to significantly increase the lighting on tall buildings etc etc

That is not my reason. Nor do I advocate any of the changes you mention. I have already given my reason so won't repeat it.

I have flown the heli routes many times but I fly for pleasure not work and don't fly daily so I've always been a self-imposed strictly very 'fair weather only' pilot when flying a helicopter and therefore not in a position to answer your question in any useful way.
The professional helicopter pilot community in the UK is relatively small and many people know, or have a shrewd idea, of the identities behind usernames so I don't think you can reasonably expect your enquiry to be fruitful.
You clearly think this pilot, who was very experienced, made some poor judgments that day. You could always try asking other pilots if they've ever done so?
I doubt if there many pilots, rotary or aeroplane, who have not. (Just like those of us in other professions.)

[Neon Circuits]

Yeah fair enough I can't expect responses to my posed question.

A good balanced reply FL and i respect you for your fair comments. I think we have both put our two penneth in. As ever, I'm sure we'll all learn from this incident however the discussion will continue.

We are a funny bunch us aviators, willing to help each other when we are flying but willing to judge each other when we are not. I'm guilty of both like all of us but of course with the latter point, we don't know the full picture and I can only comment of my experiences. To coin the over used phrase, "hindsight, of course is a wonderful thing".

I think the moral is that this wake up call reinforces the rules that are in place for good reason. We can't prepare for all eventualities of course but we can stay within the rules and keep in mind what the first 'P' stands for in pprune.

Stay safe y'all..

[jumpseater]

Do SVFR rules state must be in sight of the surface? I don't fly a rotary craft or fly under these rules so can't quote them verbatim.

I use an easy aide memoir 'clockface' clear of cloud, in sight of surface


UK VFR guide/regs outlined here

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/VFR_Guide_2011.pdf

[parabellum]

What have highly directional high power focused beam approach light systems
to do with the low power 360' glims put on obstructions? Youre not comparing
like with anything like. As I said, red herring. They are not designed to be
seen in cloud because no one is supposed to flying in cloud in that
environment.


Cast your eyes around Ag b. Tall obstructions frequently have high candle powered, omni directional, strobe lights, red and/or white, not '360 degree glims'.

[A310bcal]

I'm sure that everyone on this thread has tried to fathom out what happened and I have to admit to my fair share of speculating. OK, so I'll get shot down again for speculating but have a possible idea of what might have happened....

On PB's way south, abeam the London Eye, the following exchange was made with ATC.

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”.

My point now is that the clearance was for a hold "between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridge", and yet PB didn't go anywhere ( relatively ) near that designated hold. In fact the hold that he started flying , (it looks VERY much like the extended hold for Battersea, which is between Battersea Bridge and Chelsea Bridge ), was between Chelsea Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge.

IF, and it's a very big IF, he had mind shifted his position ( or mis-identified a bridge ) to the hold on the UK AIP H4 extended hold , then the right turn he immediately made on receipt of onward clearance would have been into clear unobstructed airspace.

The fact that the ATC controller had earlier offered him the option of flying up the Thames as far as the London Eye for an "extended hold", might have been a hint to him that he was further South West than his original clearance.

In marginal conditions , whilst in sight of the surface, but only just , it could be relatively easy to mistake one bridge for another I imagine ?

His flight path in those last few minutes look like text book stuff , for that Extended holding pattern, but just a half mile too far East.:sad:

[Heathrow Harry]

Chelsea Bridge is pretty hard to mis-identify as it has the railway bridge to Victoria immediately to the east but the others are much of muchness

he'd have to a long way out to not know where he was approximately

more likely he just got wide on the turn in low cloud/mist - only had a few metres to play with really

[Lonewolf_50]

Neon:
Do SVFR rules state must be in sight of the surface? I believe so however I don't fly a rotary craft or fly under these rules so can't quote them verbatim.
From the 34th page (pdf file) of Jumpseater's link.
A Special VFR Flight (SVFR) is a flight made at any time in a control zone which is Class A airspace, or in any other control zone in IMC or at night, in respect of which the appropriate air traffic control unit has given permission for the flight to be made in accordance with special instructions given by that unit instead of in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules and in the course of which flight the aircraft complies with any instructions given by that unit and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface
Jumpseater, thank you for the link. :ok:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Elsewhere in the same document it says:

The following conditions are applicable to all Special VFR flights:
(a) The pilot must obtain an ATC clearance and comply with ATC instructions;
(b) The pilot must at all times remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface;

[A310bcal]

Reading Heathrow Directors post above regarding compliance with ATC instructions, and from the AAIB report ,

quote ; 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”.

There seems to be a degree of non compliance with the route then flown, or am I getting it all wrong again?

[Comewhirlwithme]

But surely, if they try and ban helicopters over London, how would 'they' and the gentry get to work???
Interesting theory with the blackbox on a 109. We have one where I fly out of. I'll ask when I'm next in. Won't be until next week now, the weather just isn't helping!
On a NOTAM point. There is never an excuse to NOT read them, but he was diverting! We all know the cockpit workload in that weather and under those conditions! It's not easy to remember that one line! However, he wouldn't have taken the decision to divert to Battersea lightly! Isn't it about £1000 landing fee?!?!?!

[A310bcal]

Comewhirlwithme.

this is from Rotormotions home page.

Quote :Landings are currently £550 +VAT. Also do be prompt. After 15 minutes on the ground, the helicopter has a £300 parking charge levied on it, which we will have to pass on. As we are only 10 minutes away at Redhill, it may be better for us to wait there and you to phone us when on the way.

Notwithstanding the costs, I think the last sentence there has the most significance regarding this very sad accident.

[mickjoebill]

Chelsea Bridge is pretty hard to mis-identify as it has the railway bridge to Victoria immediately to the east but the others are much of muchness

he'd have to a long way out to not know where he was approximately
Give it was unlikely that the Shard or any other landmark within 10k was visible above the cloud, so do we assume that the precise turn at London Eye was made via instruments or could there have been breaks in the cloud to make the turn visually?
The track toward Battersea was not over the river, which is a far easier feature to navigate VFR so do we assume this leg was commenced on instruments?
The track is not direct and deviates apparently to avoid overflying Palace?
If so the pilot at that point, had a good understanding of where he was.



Mickjoebill

[iceman50]

Somewhat confused by some of the comments on here that seem to be suggesting that there is no problem of descending through cloud / fog, below MSA, having been VMC "ontop". Special VFR requires you to be clear of cloud and insight of the surface. So how can you descend in a built up area IMC without radar coverage to be special VFR whilst flying at a forward speed of even 60 kts and be legal. However, if he had landmarks in sight then why not hover and descend slowly using your visual landmark reference until clear and able to be special VFR below. Then transition at low speed to your heliport or stay VMC ontop and return to your departure airport / land in a field - park whatever! If he had done that, a smack on the hand from the CAA, but not an appointment with his maker. This was a helicopter not a fixed wing aircraft.

Done the hover and descend part whilst in the military, ship in the Haar with only the TACAN aerial sticking out of the fog and the hover taxying up the wake. Being able to do the unusual was what I liked about my six years of flying rotary.

[John R81]

Simply because he did not need to. Above the cloud, hole over Vauxhall, descend through the cloud with enough speed to keep at the peek of the power curve (minimum power). That is much safer than hovering down, which has risks such as entering vortex ring state (at low level you might not get out of that before running out of height).

PB had no problem with the flight - that I can discern from the facts we have so far and from what I know - until he was below the lower cloud layer, and making the final turn.

[iceman50]

John

I still do not see how it was legal to descend through this hole, there would not have been enough separation horizontally nor did it prove big enough to give the visibility required.

I am sure if this man would have been able to descend in the hover without encountering vortex ring, the rate of descent would have had to be extreme.

[RatherBeFlying]

Assuming the pilot was over a layer with ceiling and top below the top of the building and crane, it's likely the building commanded his attention, less likely the vertical portion of the crane, and still less likely the boom -- the least substantial of the objects before him.

How much the boom contrasted with the background in the conditions -- clouds, other buildings, urban backdrop -- may be a subject of the investigation.

[John R81]

VFR for helicopter is clear of cloud, in sight of surface. So dropping through a hole to clear of cloud below is OK.

This flight went wrong after the descent through the hole to the narrowing clear layer below. The descent itself and the first minute or so below cloud looks OK, then possibly he entered cloud - witness on the ground does not have the same view PB would have - or maybe not. AAIB will tell us the answers.

[NigelOnDraft]

AAIB will tell us the answers. I would not be so sure the AAIB will provide all the answers in terms of cloud layers, VMC v IMC, in / out of cloud / fog, what he could see of building and/or crane, or even where he was v where he thought he was.

Firstly, they will not have all the data required. They will have numerous eyewitness reports (from Ground level), and probably GPS data over and above the radar data published. Also CCTV from largely ground level. How these can be used to construct the "view" from the cockpit must be limited?

But mainly because their remit is not to diagnose exactly what happened. Their aim is to prevent a recurrence. If basically the (S)VFR rules were clearly not being followed, either as a one-off or industry "practice", or the Heli-Lane rules v Wx minima v 500' rule etc. left loopholes then they will make recommendations to close / clear them up.

Furthermore, and very "IMHO", the AAIB tread carefully in stating "what" happened without strong evidence. They (again IMHO) do not want to feed the lawsuits more than necessary, especially where this strays outside the main aim (see above).

[fireflybob]

From the AIB website:-

The purpose of the AAIB is:

To improve aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents and making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence
...It is not to apportion blame or liability.

Keith Conradi, Chief Inspector

AIB (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm)

[John R81]

Sorry, included in my "AAIB will tell us" I was assuming that "we just don't know the answer to that" was a possible answer.

[ShyTorque]

It would not have sufficient separation SVFR, but it would be legal VFR. VFR for helicopter is clear of cloud, in sight of surface. So dropping through a hole to clear of cloud below is OK.

JohnR81,

SVFR is the less restrictive, not VFR.

SVFR in the London airspace requires a visibility of 1,000 metres. VFR requires 1500 metres.

[Sir George Cayley]

With modern CGI a pilots eye view should be able to be recreated. NTSB use this to good effect bringing a lot of data together in a visual way.

Though not something I would want to watch I'm sure it would answer many questions.

[TRC]

With modern CGI a pilots eye view should be able to be recreated

Maybe - but trying to decide the decisions made in this case would be pure speculation.

[Pace]

I am really wondering if we are not just overcomplicating this tragic crash a case of not seeing the wood for the trees?
Had this occurred into a Crane in a deserted part of Scotland on top of a mountain it would have seen some press and attention and put down as yet another CFIT accident operating low level in mist cloud and fog!
This has Grabbed all the attention because it happened in the Capital city and opened the publics concern at a helicopter coming down in a worse area where 10s or 100s could have been killed.
Regulations are a framework to work with they cannot stop a pilot getting into a mess.
Weather maybe one thing at a reporting aerodrome yet a completely different picture in isolated areas close by so regulations or weather it will always be up to the pilot not to get into dangerous or threatening situations where a small mistake can have awful consequences and this shows that even the best are not immune.

[Heathrow Harry]

well said Pace

[Pozidrive]

About seeing the wood for the trees, a lot of stuff here about finer points of rules and regs, but hardly anything about the text messaging.

What was it - ten messages in twenty minutes?

Was he really giving enough attention to actually flying?

[Lonewolf_50]

To answer your question, Pozi, the evidence suggests that he was paying plenty of attention to his flying based on the last recorded text being about 4 minutes before this accident. The discussion about this among professional pilots has to do with weather, disorientation, visibility and mission requirements that set up various decision making options.

Piots multi-task as part of their profession. Pilots use multiple radios and navaids as part of their profession. Unlike folk who drive cars, and who have never been formally trained to do as pilots do, pilots are taught and tend to follow a cardinal rule:

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

I will argue that using a text as a second comms channel in this case was abandoned as the imperative noted became more pressing to the top of the list, Aviate, over the bottom of the list, and his last series of comms were on the radio with a controlling agency. My analysis? Text had BFA to do with this.

You will find, in this thread and in the thread covering this accident in the Rotorheads forum, AMPLE discussion of the use of text as an adjunct to radio comms, and in particular the argument about that in re this accident.

Please READ THE ENTIRE THREAD before you sound off. :ugh:

[DaveReidUK]

the evidence suggests that he was paying plenty of attention to his flying based on the last recorded text being about 4 minutes before this accidentOut of interest, would the network register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent, at the time of the collision with the crane ?

[SilsoeSid]

DaveReidUKOut of interest, would the network register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent, at the time of the collision with the crane ?

Interesting question.

iMessage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMessage)
In Messages, a user can see if the other iMessage user is typing a message. A pale gray ellipsis appears in the text bubble of the other user when a reply is started.

Don't know what phones were in use, but 'the network' would surely have a record of what was going on at the time. According to the SB, there was a message received but 'not read'. Thats not to say that it wasn't seen.

[Pace]

PB was a highly respected and much loved aviator. This for me is an example how a small mistake if the cards are stacked against you can have such awful results.

Very much the case of there for the sake of God go I fixed wing or Rotary.
I am sure there are not many of us who fly commercially OCAS or even for that matter in CAS who cannot look back and say we are so perfect that we never made a mistake where thankfully lady luck was on our side.

[DaveReidUK]

Don't know what phones were in use, but 'the network' would surely have a record of what was going on at the time.That's my point - I don't think it would. If you are composing a text on your mobile, the network knows nothing about it while it's a draft, only after you have hit Send.

I'm not implying that's what happened, simply that it's a possible scenario.

According to the SB, there was a message received but 'not read'. Thats not to say that it wasn't seen. Actually, I think that's exactly what it does imply.

[SilsoeSid]

Q - "Out of interest, would the network register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent, at the time of the collision with the crane ?"

A - Yes. Although the message itself hasn't yet been sent, there will be traffic on the network to inform imessage on the 'receiving phone' that a reply is being composed.

SSAccording to the SB, there was a message received but 'not read'. Thats not to say that it wasn't seenDave
Actually, I think that's exactly what it does imply.

Seen, but not 'read';
With a smartphone, when you are sent a message, part of that message (or all of the msg if it is short) can be seen on the home screen without opening the conversation, simply by looking at the display. Until the phone/message app is 'opened', the message will be shown as 'unread'.

(however, we don't know what phones were in use!)

[DaveReidUK]

With a smartphone, when you are sent a message, part of that message (or all of the msg if it is short) can be seen on the home screen without opening the conversation, simply by looking at the display. Until the phone/message app is 'opened', the message will be shown as 'unread'.

(however, we don't know what phones were in use!) OK, I stand corrected on that, same on my BlackBerry come to that, provided the message is short.

Having said that, the AAIB report only identified the last received text ("Yes it’s fine still here") as not having been read, unlike all the prior ones, including a couple that simply said "OK" and would therefore not have needed to be opened if a smartphone was being used, but were.

Although the message itself hasn't yet been sent, there will be traffic on the network to inform imessage on the 'receiving phone' that a reply is being composed.Again, I think that's dependent on the phone, and maybe the network, and/or whether the AAIB were actually referring to IMs when they talked about texts. My BB certainly doesn't talk to the network when I'm typing an SMS reply, so I still don't think that scenario can positively be ruled out just because the network didn't record it.

[SilsoeSid]

My BB certainly doesn't talk to the network when I'm typing an SMS reply,

Oh really!

About BlackBerry Messenger
With BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), you can chat and share in real-time with your BlackBerry contacts. For example, you can see when someone has read your message and when the person is typing a reply.
http://docs.blackberry.com/en (http://docs.blackberry.com/en/smartphone_users/deliverables/47561/laf1341332857336.jsp)


Having said that, the AAIB report only identified the last received text ("Yes it’s fine still here") as not having been read, unlike all the prior ones, including a couple that simply said "OK" and would therefore not have needed to be opened if a smartphone was being used, but were.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/AAIB%20S1-2013%20G-CRST.pdf

The first OK was from Witness A to pilot.
In order to reply to that message, which was the next text in the sequence, that OK msg would have been opened as it was part of the conversation.

The second Ok, also from Witness A to pilot, ended that particular conversation as an acknowledgment, so would not necessarily, as you say, have needed to be opened to do just that. However looking at the timeline, a couple of texts were sent and read in that minute. Perhaps there was going to be a reply to that Ok and so it was opened, indicating a read, however the reply msg to the client took priority. Or perhaps while the reply to the client was being typed, the ok msg came through and was quickly looked at during the reply to the client. After all, when typing a msg and another msg comes in, the indication would only be that a new message has arrived and not a shortened text version.

(I wonder if the final msg from the Client - 'Battersea is open', could have been interpreted as a suggestion?)



Anyway, as much as an understanding of text messaging, SMS, messaging, Blackberry messenger etc etc can explain a possible course of events here, I'm sure that the AAIB will have the 'authority' to get whatever information is needed to interrogate the different pings and pongs and timelines from the various networks and devices.

[DaveReidUK]

About BlackBerry Messenger
With BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), you can chat and share in real-time with your BlackBerry contacts. For example, you can see when someone has read your message and when the person is typing a reply.I suggest that you research the difference between text messaging (SMS) and IM (e.g. BlackBerry Messenger) before making pronouncements like that. There is no suggestion in the AAIB report that IM was being used, nor any reason why it should have been.

I'm sure that the AAIB will have the 'authority' to get whatever information is needed to interrogate the different pings and pongs and timelines from the various networks and devices.Of course they do. But you have yet to demonstrate that there would be any record of an SMS that was being composed (hypothetically), but had not yet been sent, at the time of the collision, other than on the phone itself, and there is no reference in the AAIB report to the device having survived the impact and/or the post-crash fire.

[Speed of Sound]

Out of interest, would the network register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent, at the time of the collision with the crane ?

No, but a text may remain as a 'draft' in the phone itself if the phone survived the crash and subsequent fire.

[SilsoeSid]

Ok, to explain the pinging, ponging, SMS (Short Message Service) and Smartphone 'Messaging' goings on, lets have a scenario or 3.

We have;
Person A, iPhone with iMessage
Person B, iPhone with iMessage
Person C, Blackberry with BMM
Person D, Nokia C1 (basic mobile phone)

Scene 1;
Person A wants to text person B.
When person A wants to text Person B, A will open the message app and pick B out of their contact list. When iMessage senses this, it pings B's phone to see if that phone is connected to the internet (3G or wireless). If it is connected (and is running iMessage), B's phone will pong back and say it is connected to the internet and running iMessage, and the msg will go by iMessage, if not it will go by SMS.
A sends B the message. If this is by iMessage, A will get a notification that it has been delivered, ping pong. When B reads the message by opening the 'message app', B's phone pings A's phone and tells it that the text has been read. When B starts to reply to A's msg, B's phone pings A's phone to confirm the delivery method (iMessage or SMS) which also informs A's phone that B is replying.
B then sends the msg and A's phone pings back, which tells B's phone the msg has been delivered. Not until the conversation is opened, does A's phone ping B's to tell it that the message has been read...however, as earlier discussed, the text of the msg can still be read without opening the app and in turn not activating the 'msg read ping'.

Scene 2;
Person A wants to text person C.
When person A wants to text Person C, A will open the message app and pick C out of their contact list. When iMessage senses this, it pings C's phone to see if that phone is connected to the internet (3G or wireless) and running iMessage. C's phone is running BMM and as it is not compatable with iMessage, A's phone will not get a pong back and the msg will be sent by SMS.
On receipt of the message, C's phone will try to send the delivered ping to A's phone, but because the 2 messaging programmes aren't compatible, no delivered or read pings are sent, (which would have happened if A had a Blackberry as per the 2 iPhones scene)
C begins to compose a reply, C's Blackberry sends a method check/writing ping but it isnt registered on A's phone as the systems are different. C replies to A's msg by SMS.

Scene 3;
Persons A,B or C want to text person D and/or D wants to text A, B or C.
Because D's phone isn't 'smart', all messaging is carried out using SMS. D's phone does not ping or pong, however when A,B or C reply to D's msg, their phone will send a ping to see if the msg can be sent by their messaging system.
However, despite not being smart, D's phone can still show a message's text, without opening the 'text app'.


The various networks will not only have copies of all messages sent over the last up to 7 years from that persons contract/number, but also a record of all the various method of delivery, reply, delivered or read pings.

[DaveReidUK]

No, but a text may remain as a 'draft' in the phone itself if the phone survived the crash and subsequent fire.Yes, that's exactly my point, the only place an unsent SMS resides is in the composer's phone. The survival of the pilot's phone amid the almost complete destruction of the airframe in this instance would have been a very big "if" indeed.

[SilsoeSid]

Speed of Sound;
No, but a text may remain as a 'draft' in the phone itself if the phone survived the crash and subsequent fire.
DaveReidUK;
Yes, that's exactly my point, the only place an unsent SMS resides is in the composer's phone. The survival of the pilot's phone amid the almost complete destruction of the airframe in this instance would have been a very big "if" indeed.

That issue about the content of an unsent text msg being available outside of the phone unit has never been asked.

The original question, which I expect could have been phrased better to get the answer you are after, was, "Out of interest, would the network register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent, at the time of the collision with the crane ? "

The answer to which is; 'Yes, the network would register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent.'...

...however, if you want to know if the message being composed is pre-sent during the composition... the answer is No.

I hope that clears that one up :8

p.s.
There is no suggestion in the AAIB report that IM was being used, nor any reason why it should have been.
Didn't you wonder how the AAIB know that the last message wasn't read? ;)

[DaveReidUK]

Didn't you wonder how the AAIB know that the last message wasn't read?No, it never occurred to me to wonder that, I'm happy to accept that the network knows when any sent text has been opened by the recipient, and advised the AAIB accordingly.

That, of course, applies only to SMS/texts and not to IM/Instant Messaging. In the latter case there is no practical distinction between a message being received and opened - the clue is in the name, Instant. :O

[SilsoeSid]

That, of course, applies only to SMS/texts and not to IM/Instant Messaging. In the latter case there is no practical distinction between a message being received and opened - the clue is in the name, Instant. :O

I think the distinction would be that on the senders phone, it will say either delivered or read. A message could be delivered and seen/read on the home screen of the receiving phone without opening the app thereby sending off the pong that tells the sender it has been read.

The instant part of instant messaging means that imessages are going over the internet (3G, 4G, Wireless) and not the normal phone networks. Normal networks can delay messages depending on the networks capacity/workload. This can be demonstrated for example at busy periods such as New Years Eve etc. The internet has a vastly greater bandwidth than the normal mobile phone network, so messges pass more freely, or to re-phrase that more instantly.

[green granite]

for a live view along the river from Chelsea to the tower block this webcam (http://www.thechelseatile.com/chelsea-river-thames-london-webcam.html) is excellent, but it does scan quite a lot from East to West.

The building is to the right of the river and to the left of the suspension bridge tower.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/orangeherald/chelseareachwebcam_zps65417b85.png

[Pozidrive]

Lots of interesting stuff here about how mobile phones work, but all misses the point whether its a good idea to be using the things while flying, in :mad: weather, over a city.

[mickjoebill]

For reference.

A view of London, just released, taken in 2012, using 49,000 images stitched together, taken from BT tower at the 29th floor level
The largest "Pano" ever made.

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

Gives a good idea of London's skyline.
The BT Tower (http://btlondon2012.co.uk/pano.html)

As a guide to the height of the 29th floor, the 36 and 37th floors are at 176 meters .

[green granite]

That's a good find mickjoebill. To orientate people, swing the picture round until you're looking South, zoom in a bit and the tower is on the left of the screen.

[FASRP]

I don't much of what is said about how the messenger works on a phone is correct.

Someone said the network can tell when you start to compose an SMS message. I say they can't using regular SMS and if someone thinks they can, they better be able to prove it by citing a credible source. SMS uses the old GSM protocols for cellular broadcast systems. It simply doesn't send anything until you press the send button.

Now a phone manufacturer can put additional software into the phone so that it can detect log this and send it (e.g. via the internet connection) but if they did this it would be similar to the CarrierIQ privacy scandal and it would be all over the tech news (again).

Now IM (instant messaging) is of course a different kettle of fish and you'd expect the IM service to know when you start typing. However again there's no reason the phone provider would know unless they were one and the same, and in many cases they aren't.

In the case of blackberry messenger to blackberry messenger, sure blackberry have their software on the phone and on the server, they would be able to know IF they had appropriate logging systems on their servers (which they almost certainly do) but that's not an SMS message.

[DaveReidUK]

Someone said the network can tell when you start to compose an SMS message. I say they can't using regular SMS and if someone thinks they can, they better be able to prove it by citing a credible source. SMS uses the old GSM protocols for cellular broadcast systems. It simply doesn't send anything until you press the send button.

Now a phone manufacturer can put additional software into the phone so that it can detect log this and send it (e.g. via the internet connection) but if they did this it would be similar to the CarrierIQ privacy scandal and it would be all over the tech news (again).

Now IM (instant messaging) is of course a different kettle of fish and you'd expect the IM service to know when you start typing. However again there's no reason the phone provider would know unless they were one and the same, and in many cases they aren't.Thanks for clarifying that.

So, in summary:

a) there is no reference in what has been published to date (i.e. the AAIB's Special Bulletin) to anything other than regular SMS/text communication was being used

b) the network would have no knowledge of any SMS/text that had been composed by the pilot, in full or part, but not yet sent, in the period between the last text sent and the collision

[SilsoeSid]

Those last 2 posts nearly had quite a substantial reply, however I think I can sum most of it in a question;

Do you really believe that the billionaire owner of the Ivy Restaurant, the Operator of Britain’s favourite boutique helicopter charter business, 'A.N. Other modern day pilot' and someone of Pete Barnes' calibre were sporting Nokia 3310's?

[DaveReidUK]

Do you really believe that the billionaire owner of the Ivy Restaurant, the Operator of Britain’s favourite boutique helicopter charter business, 'A.N. Other modern day pilot' and someone of Pete Barnes' calibre were sporting Nokia 3310's? I haven't a clue what sort of phone was being carried by the pilot nor, if it's at all relevant, the other above-mentioned individuals. Neither do you.

What's your point ?

[SilsoeSid]

For the sake of brevity, it would absolutely be relevant, in particular to your point 'b' in post #594.

However, because the SB mentioned that a message hadn't been 'read', I suspect that because there was no mention of there being an 'unsent msg', the text trail stops after the 0755 msg's.

Oh, and yes I do have a clue which make of phone PB used.

[DaveReidUK]

Oh, and yes I do have a clue which make of phone PB used.That's good. Be sure to inform the AAIB, if you haven't already.

Then, assuming that they consider it to be remotely relevant, we can all learn about it when they publish the accident investigation report.

I suggest we postpone any further discussion until then.

[SilsoeSid]

Dave,

You started the phones/network issue with a question in post #575, which was answered in the very next post, which if course you then disagreed with. Perhaps it is you that has the problem with its relevancy. If the AAIB find it relevant, of course will be in the final report.

I'm still puzzled as to what FASRP clarified for you earlier, and I wish he had referred to relevant posts because I cant see anywhere where someone has said what he claims was said, especially after post #584 made it quite clear how it all works.

I am happy to leave the phone/network discussion go, as table 1 in the SB tells us all we need to know for now and the only other thing that can be added is wether or not there was any further intended messaging happening after 07:55. This, we will only find out from the final report.

[parabellum]

Quite surprised that 'phones were being used at all, I would have thought, in this day and age, CPDLC would have been the order of the day?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

parabellum.. but you can't use CPDLC to talk to your friends/customers and is CPDLC used on single-crew helicopters? I don't think CPDLC is used in busy Control zones?

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

The various networks will not only have copies of all messages sent over the last up to 7 years from that persons contract/number, but also a record of all the various method of delivery, reply, delivered or read pings.
No, they won't.

You make colossal assumptions to arrive at your "conclusions", and while *some* of the scenarios you describe _may_ match the reality of what occurred, most are fantasy and supposition, requiring an highly arbitrary set of circumstances to pertain.


They may in the future, under various UK Govt and EU proposals, but that is another matter...

[SilsoeSid]

RTFM,

I believe you are confusing the information the networks are already 'archiving', with the information they may in future will be legislated to 'archive' :ok:

You seem to also be confused as to the purpose of 'the scenarios'. They are to describe how text messaging systems work, not what may or may not have happened that morning :ugh:

[wiggy]

HD

I don't think CPDLC is used in busy Control zones?

Agreed.

Where I work (two crew fixed wing ops) CPDLC is used in the Upper Airspace only, and whilst there is a text option it is rarely used, CPDLC is usually only used for send/receive pre-formatted messages to/from ATC.

[steamchicken]

1) SMS or MMS; no notification of text entry, nothing happens until you press "send". The system is store-and-forward, not instant.

You can request notification of delivery, usually deep in a configuration menu on your phone. This is a network service, so the operator would know, as would you. But hardly anyone uses this.

2) BBM; is a private, IP-based instant messaging system. Messaging is online, and some features like notification of entry are available. The owner of the BES (BlackBerry Enterprise Server) will know; the owner of a BIS (BB Internet Server, the hosted version) may know depending on the terms of agreement between them and RIM.

3) Apple iMessage, WhatsApp, etc: IP-based, usually XMPP messaging. Online and feature-rich. The operator wouldn't know but the owner of the XMPP server might.

Confusion may arise because iMessage provides an integrated view of the SMS and iMessage inboxes, choosing to use iMessage to anyone whose iMessage or other XMPP IM address it knows.

[beamender99]

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

A fatal helicopter crash in central London might have been avoided if safety concerns raised in a 2005 report had been heeded, some experts warn.