PDA

View Full Version : Helicopter Crash Central London


Pages : [1] 2 3

ORAC
16th Jan 2013, 07:21
BBC reporting a helicopter hit a crane on top of a building near Vauxhall/Waterloo. Went down in streets. Emergency services blocking off area.

atplfunda
16th Jan 2013, 07:23
Sky News have just reported a helicopter crash in the Vauxhall district of London. Lets hope there are no serious injuries or worse. The pictures show flames and black smoke, so it looks like a serious incident with cars involved as well.

cats_five
16th Jan 2013, 07:30
BBC News - Helicopter 'crashes into crane' in London (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21040410)

I imagine it will get updated as the story unfolds.

Dont Hang Up
16th Jan 2013, 07:33
Low(ish) viz in freezing fog reported at London City
METAR: EGLC 160820Z 34003KT 0700 R09/0800 R27/0750 FZFG BKN001 M03/M03 Q1012

cats_five
16th Jan 2013, 07:35
Fog has gone, photos on TV show blue sky, buildings in background, smoke and flames.

61 Lafite
16th Jan 2013, 07:36
Sky News reporting one person on board, A109.

757hopeful
16th Jan 2013, 07:37
Quite foggy even at ground level when I passed through there about 6 this morning. Just heard on the radio the chopped seems to have struck the arm of the tower crane which is on the building site across from MI5. Landed on a 7 seater car which caught fire with people in it according to a witness

Crane is now leaning over by all accounts

orion1210
16th Jan 2013, 07:37
One t w i t t e r witness states it hit a crane.

Does not look good, hope they got out.

eltonioni
16th Jan 2013, 07:37
Twitter feed from somebody on the scene. There are a couple of photos but be warned, it's not pretty and it's only 25 minutes old https://twitter.com/craiglet

Viz looks low on the crane pic but that might be a trick of the image. It's uncomfortably close to MI5 HQ.

Another feed with images: https://twitter.com/bottle_bohemia

DeepC
16th Jan 2013, 07:44
It is foggy in south London. It certainly was just before 0800 when this happened. I am looking towards the scene albeit 2 or 3 miles away and the fog has only just cleared the tower cranes between me and the scene.

ORAC
16th Jan 2013, 07:48
St George's Wharf Tower and crane (old photo)

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/94/72/2947216_aeea2f0c.jpg

eltonioni
16th Jan 2013, 07:52
This NOTAM?

HIGH RISE JIB CRANE (LIT AT NIGHT) OPR WI 1NM 5129N 00007W, HGT 770FT AMSL (VAUXHALL, CENTRAL LONDON), OPS CTC 12-10-0429/AS 2.

Pilot.Lyons
16th Jan 2013, 07:54
Surprised they were flying in it to be honest

Hope all goes well but it does look bad

:(

Beech_Boy
16th Jan 2013, 07:57
Any idea who the operator is???

Icare9
16th Jan 2013, 08:00
Presumably the most likely to be involved would be a legitimate flight, such as air ambulance, police or traffic?
Doesn't look good for those aboard and possibly 3 or more vehicles hit by falling debris/wreckage.
Although it's close to the MI5 building, don't see any reason to big it up into anything more than a tragic accident due to poor visibility.

ORAC
16th Jan 2013, 08:01
Another set of photographs (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=97300100) of the tower and crane.

mixture
16th Jan 2013, 08:03
Although it's close to the MI5 building

Its MI6 not MI5 ! MI5 is on the north side of the river !

And if you've ever driven around that part of the world, you'll find the MI6 building is nestled between some of those ghastly residential new developments and some old buildings on the other side.... so its not exactly exposed.

There was some construction work going on to build yet another ghastly residential development..... so let's stop the MI6 conspiracy theories shall we ! Seems like the thing hit the construction crane, nothing more.

61 Lafite
16th Jan 2013, 08:04
I'm just down the river in Greenwich, have been looking out of the window since before 8am. From my position 15 floors up (150ft?) Viz is and has been well below one mile, and the tops of 4 building cranes which are under 200ft high nearby are in the mist.

It may well be variable elsewhere on the river, but the tops of cranes here are certainly invisible from about 200m away.

:(

757hopeful
16th Jan 2013, 08:05
Icare9, With battersea helipad around 1/2 a mile from the incident area it could have been any type of traffic. No one is suggesting there is any link with the MI5 building. Merely using it as a reference point for the location of the building to which the crane is erected on

mixture
16th Jan 2013, 08:08
Merely using it as a reference point for the location of the building to which the crane is erected on

The crane has been there so long it's on Google streetview.... :cool:

Plus the location of the crane is no doubt in a NOTAM... seems like a good point of reference to me !

Jonty
16th Jan 2013, 08:08
OK I know absolutely nothing about helicopters. Are they allowed to fly in this stuff? I know they can do IFR, but 200m?

Illia
16th Jan 2013, 08:09
"Presumably the most likely to be involved would be a legitimate flight, such as air ambulance, police or traffic?"

The Met Police and air ambulance Twitter feeds have already said they aren't involved except professionally.

The aircraft appears to have been dark blue. The crane isn't that far south of the river, at 51.484869,-0.128156 while the crash site is 51.482574,-0.127299 so the post-impact descent would have been almost due south, about 250m away. The wreckage path seems to lie on a N-S axis along the road with the bulk of the wreckage ending up near the railway bridge. Some wreckage is on the buildings on the south side of Wandsworth Road, so it evidently hit them as well before falling into the road outside.

tiger9999187
16th Jan 2013, 08:10
This shows the aftermath at ground zero pretty well, can't see any wreckage though
Helicopter crash at Wandsworth Road, Vauxhall - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRBogaUCSUM&feature=youtu.be)

757hopeful
16th Jan 2013, 08:11
Helicopter crash at Wandsworth Road, Vauxhall - YouTube


Ground level

24Carrot
16th Jan 2013, 08:19
OK I know absolutely nothing about helicopters. Are they allowed to fly in this stuff? I know they can do IFR, but 200m?

I've only been there once, as pax, and it wasn't IMC, but from memory London Specials like you to be at 800ft, over the river i.e. on the Heli Route.

It is very controlled airspace.

Empty Boxes
16th Jan 2013, 08:29
From the London Heliport flight procedures (http://www.londonheliport.co.uk/londonheliport_pilotinformation.html), "Special helicopter procedures within the London CTR - refer to the UK AIP AD 2.22 (EGLL) for details."

Bizarrely, Google only finds a copy on a Russian web site,
http://va-transaero.ru/files/charts/EGLL.pdf

Story live on UK satellite Sky TY channel 503

wrecker
16th Jan 2013, 08:33
Don't 32 Sqdn Fly A109?

Illia
16th Jan 2013, 08:33
"from memory London Specials like you to be at 800ft, over the river i.e. on the Heli Route."

The crane is reportedly 770ft and is only about 50m south of the river just where it bends from north-south to east-west. If, to conjecture, you're approaching from the north along the river and miss the bend in the fog you haven't got a lot of room left even at 800ft.

757hopeful
16th Jan 2013, 08:34
Have just spoken to a friend. He said the cranes jib(long arm) is visibly hanging beside the shaft of the tower. Reports also suggesting 2 fatalities

silverelise
16th Jan 2013, 08:35
Police have confirmed 2 dead. :sad:

Thaihawk
16th Jan 2013, 08:35
BBC quoting police statement that 2 persons killed in this crash.

32 Sqn operate 2 A109E of the 3 initially delivered in 2006.

757hopeful
16th Jan 2013, 08:36
Pic of crane https://mobile.twitter.com/stanchers/status/291474181504249856/photos

Fzz
16th Jan 2013, 08:42
The crane is reportedly 770ft and is only about 50m south of the river just where it bends from north-south to east-west. If, to conjecture, you're approaching from the north along the river and miss the bend in the fog you haven't got a lot of room left even at 800ft. From the pictures, the flames on the ground are in Wandsworth Road, about 200m due south of the crane. So this does sound plausible.

RTM Boy
16th Jan 2013, 08:43
Yes, the jib of the crane (previously rising at about 45 degrees) was hit and now hangs vertically down with part of it missing. Very precarious.

The helicopter appears to have be travelling south at some rate and after hitting the crane, which is right on the south bank of the Thames, continued southwards losing altitude over Nine Elms Lane (where some debris from the crane fell to the ground), whilst losing height narrowly missing Market Towers, finally hitting the ground immediately outside Wendle Court on the Wandsworth Road, falling just short of the railway bridge carrying all Waterloo mainline trains.

direct ortac
16th Jan 2013, 08:48
Sky News aviation expert (clue) stated all Heli's in London are under Radar control. I thought Heli flying in the CTR via the approved routes was VFR with base and vis limits. can anyone confirm?

turbine100
16th Jan 2013, 08:49
If under radar control, perhaps the radar controllers cannot see that low or paint the crane on their displays with the returns. Very sad.

Do 109 pilots have a IR as part of the type rating? Understand not many helicopter pilots have IR's, other than North Sea as training is expensive etc.

Chopper Doc
16th Jan 2013, 08:53
You can fly a 109 without an IR as long as you only fly VFR. From the reports it looks like this aircraft was not flying IFR or VFR. Well not VFR within the regulations anyway.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
16th Jan 2013, 09:03
Helicopters on standard routes are NOT usually under radar control such that navigation is being conducted from the ground. Occasionally separation may be applied by radar but if it was just one helicopter involved ATC would simply monitor the situation.

sky9
16th Jan 2013, 09:03
CAA Rules

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/EIS%2006.pdf

stuckgear
16th Jan 2013, 09:03
The crane is reportedly 770ft and is only about 50m south of the river just where it bends from north-south to east-west. If, to conjecture, you're approaching from the north along the river and miss the bend in the fog you haven't got a lot of room left even at 800ft.


indeed.. and 1mb off on the atlimeter setting and there's no room left.

sky9
16th Jan 2013, 09:08
Those cranes grow on a weekly basis, what's the date of the notam?

A7700
16th Jan 2013, 09:13
from UK CAA regulation for héli in EGLL CTR:
" ...pilots navigate by visual reference to ground features with only limited ATC Radar assistance...."

parabatix
16th Jan 2013, 09:13
Reported to be Diverting to Battersea.

Illia
16th Jan 2013, 09:15
St. George's Wharf Tower (according to Wikipedia) is supposed to be 594ft when complete, which suggests the crane jib (which seems to have been hit not far inboard of its far end) was vertical or inclined at the time. The photo on the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George_Wharf_Tower) shows it in the vertical position where it clearly exceeds the height of the building by some distance.

Pace
16th Jan 2013, 09:16
Those cranes grow on a weekly basis, what's the date of the notam?

I do not fly Helicopters but know from flying aircraft visually how disorientating mist and fog can be especially as that fog and mist can change quickly in the course of hundreds of meters rather than miles.

I also wonder whether the notam system is best designed as giving an in a rush pilot reams of notams to read through does not always happen.

Bam Thwok
16th Jan 2013, 09:19
Possible altimeter error ??

With the temp around -3, unless corrected, there would have been an error of approx 10% to their altitude.
ie If your altimeter reading was 800ft....you would actually be 80ft lower in reality.

jayteeto
16th Jan 2013, 09:21
Heathrow radar is accurate enough to tell you that you are 100m off the route. Trust me, they told me!

sky9
16th Jan 2013, 09:21
From CAA document

"All helicopters flying in the zone are subject to an ATC clearance and in particular visibility minima."

What is that minima; and is the ATC clearance subject to that minima?

Mikehotel152
16th Jan 2013, 09:22
Yes, but missing a notam advising of a crane erected near an airport which doesn't effect approach minima is one thing, flying in amongst sky-scrapers at low level in mist and not having a clear idea of cranes is quite another. Not that I'm criticising these poor pilots, I'm just responding to Pace's post.

astir 8
16th Jan 2013, 09:28
Illia

that type of crane can't get the jib vertical. It's the angle of the crane relative to the photographer which makes it look so.

60 degrees would be about the normal working angle.

By definition a crane jib will always have to be higher than the building onto which it is lifting stuff

Illia
16th Jan 2013, 09:30
"Heathrow radar is accurate enough to tell you that you are 100m off the route. Trust me, they told me!"

Given that the crane's about 50m from the river that's not accurate enough to keep out of trouble here. Actually, on a wider point, given that helicopter route H4 (east of Battersea) is presumably bi-directional, how do you ensure separation of incoming and outgoing traffic? Is there a convention that you fly on the left hand side of the river? If so, you're even closer to the crane.

FiveGirlKit
16th Jan 2013, 09:31
@ Parabatix - "diverting to Battersea".

Why? Weather? Technical problem?

Where did this information come from?

riverrock83
16th Jan 2013, 09:31
Those cranes grow on a weekly basis, what's the date of the notam?
Notam is dated from 7/1/2013 - 15/3/2013
However, I understand that the crane has been there for a long time (although it may well have grown as the building grew).

currently 11 confirmed casualties, one critically ill, and two confirmed fatalities.

Heliport at Battersea have got the RNLI looking for a helicopter they've lost contact with in the Thames. I presume this is normal procedure kicking in.

An RA(T) has been activated at the site.

Pace
16th Jan 2013, 09:33
Mike

If you take a mass of water like the thames surround that with frozen buildings and nil wind that is condusive to sporadic fog and low mist conditions.

The aviation expert quoted freezing fog and icing effecting helicopters yes if the aircraft is flying in that fog ie IFR and in IMC but I presume that very low level the pilot will be staying visual albeit at times with minimal visual reference and maybe pushed down in trying to maintain visual reference.
Very easy to miss an unlighted crane or one concealed in mist and low cloud.

Flap 5
16th Jan 2013, 09:34
I can not see how the pilot could have been legally VFR in those conditions of freezing fog with such poor visibility. You have to be VFR to fly in or around Battersea Heliport, unless the helicopter is twin engined, IFR equipped, with the pilot IFR qualified and flying above the minimum safe altitude. Battersea Heliport would not have an IFR approach for the pilot to descend below the MSA.

jayteeto
16th Jan 2013, 09:39
My god! Do you take everything so literally? What I am saying is that those people mentioning radar performance at those levels are wrong, it works just fine. Problem is, the controller isnt there to tell you to avoid towers, he is there to help aeroplanes land at heathrow. That means if you start to stray near his approach paths you will be told. That photo shows the crane to be VERY near the river. Under high workload (you are when single pilot at night in the lanes), it wouldnt take much to stray a little for ANY of us here, no matter how experienced.
PS. 32sqn and many many others fly 109

cpaterson
16th Jan 2013, 09:42
Helicopter pilot interviewed by the BBC: BBC News - 'Every helicopter pilot's nightmare' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21039770)

eltonioni
16th Jan 2013, 09:42
I'm going to say it - scud running. (PPRuNe rumour rules applied)

The trouble is there's nowhere VFR to go once you're in there, without going up and IFR. What's the ceiling on the H corridor before Heathrow get interested?

mixture
16th Jan 2013, 09:48
The trouble is there's nowhere VFR to go once you're in there, without going up and IFR.

Desperate times = desperate measures..... you could always ditch into the thames (or onto a bridge ?).

But in all seriousness... I would think London IMC is not the place to be for an eggbeater, no matter the gadgets on board or the experience of the crew.

Dg800
16th Jan 2013, 09:51
Possible altimeter error ??

I would think that's a rather moot point. If you need an accurate altimeter reading in order to avoid impacting buildings then you have no business flying VFR there in the first place. :=

ORAC
16th Jan 2013, 09:52
Sky reporting that NATS state that the aircraft had been receiving a service earlier, but was not receiving a service at the time of the accident.

Lemain
16th Jan 2013, 09:58
Whatever rules he was trying to fly to, he was indisputably in IMC. Probably the one indisputable fact we have right now.

Highly likely he was flying with a GPS. GPS glitches and deliberate jamming/corruption is well known and documented. But that is just conjecture.

KTF
16th Jan 2013, 09:58
Pictures of the helicopter involved from the Castle Air site:
http://www.castleair.co.uk/1997-agusta-109e-power-g-crst.html

eman_resu
16th Jan 2013, 09:59
But in all seriousness... I would think London IMC is not the place to be for an eggbeater, no matter the gadgets on board or the experience of the crew.

Whatever rules he was trying to fly to, he was indisputably in IMC. Probably the one indisputable fact we have right now.

Highly likely he was flying with a GPS.

Statements like these are really conjecture at the moment, and highly likely to be deliberately interpreted by the media to improve their sales, creating the usual scare stories.

Lets have the Experts find out what happened first, before authorities start re-writing the rules which have served us well for so long.

Knee jerk reactions are to be avoided (i hope) until the report, and its findings, are published.

Right Way Up
16th Jan 2013, 10:01
Worker at the towers saying that crane driver was late this morning for the first time in years. Picked the right day to be late!

Trevor Hannant
16th Jan 2013, 10:04
Pictures of the helicopter involved from the Castle Air site:
http://www.castleair.co.uk/1997-agus...er-g-crst.html (http://www.castleair.co.uk/1997-agusta-109e-power-g-crst.html)

Don't expect to get on there any time soon... Alternative pics:

Photo Search Results | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=G-CRST)

AeroMad
16th Jan 2013, 10:05
I don't think it's wise to post information about an aircraft as the authorities haven't confirmed names of the casualties.

mixture
16th Jan 2013, 10:08
re-writing the rules which have served us well for so long.

Re-writing what rules ? I thought helis had to be VFR over London ?

But then I'm not a heli pilot, so if one cares to correct me, I'll bow to their wisdom !

green granite
16th Jan 2013, 10:08
Good set of photos from the Telegraph:

Helicopter crash in pictures: aircraft hits crane in Vauxhall, south London - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/9805211/Helicopter-crash-in-pictures-aircraft-hits-crane-in-Vauxhall-south-London.html?frame=2453001)

eltonioni
16th Jan 2013, 10:12
Statements like these are really conjecture at the moment, and highly likely to be deliberately interpreted by the media to improve their sales, creating the usual scare stories.

Lets have the Experts find out what happened first, before authorities start re-writing the rules which have served us well for so long.

Knee jerk reactions are to be avoided (i hope) until the report, and its findings, are published.

Check out the name of this forum and remember that it's full of pilots who are perfectly capable of expertly conjecturing.

Unlike the "aviation expert" just on Radio 5 who seems to think that an appropriately configured a/c should be OK in those conditions, and after all the police helicopter can fly in any conditions, so maybe the pilot was just caught out. THAT is silly conjecture, and not very expert to boot.

cats_five
16th Jan 2013, 10:15
According to BBC News 24 the RNLI have stopped searching.

bluecode
16th Jan 2013, 10:15
I would give the pilot the benefit of the doubt. He's unlikely to been in IMC, you have to assume he stayed below the cloud base to the extent you can and of course horizontal visibility was probably not ideal.

He was probably perfectly aware of the building in his path and the crane. But perhaps the jib wasn't visible until it was too late and he just clipped it.

No doubt all will be clear when the radar track is examined and possibly the onboard GPS data if it survived.

It's far too soon to be condemming the pilot or suggesting he was scud running.

My own speculative version is that he was transitting normally albeit in less than ideal conditions, was lower than ideal but clear of the buildings. The jib was mostly in cloud and he either forgot about it or was closer than he believed. I'd say the investigation will reveal he hit the very tip of the jib.

757hopeful
16th Jan 2013, 10:19
Pictures 14 & 16 show the visibility quite clearly to be low

There is also a picture of what appears to be the wreckage. Very sad indeed

giggitygiggity
16th Jan 2013, 10:22
Press conference reports flight was from Redhill to Elstree and had one pilot on board and no passengers.

eman_resu
16th Jan 2013, 10:26
Pictures 14 & 16 show the visibility quite clearly to be low

Yes they do - But this also depends on the time the photo's were taken, compared to the visibility at the time of the accident.

whitelighter
16th Jan 2013, 10:30
Helicopter could have been flying VFR.

Rules for helicopters operating below 3000ft allow VFR flight so long as they stay clear of cloud and have the surface in sight

757hopeful
16th Jan 2013, 10:34
Yes they do - But this also depends on the time the photo's were taken, compared to the visibility at the time of the accident

Good point. Although I'd say pic 14 wouldn't have been too long afterward it clearly shows the jib has been hit. I only speculate this as a friend was driving over lambeth bridge and sent me a photo around 9:15 and it was still quite hazy. picture 16 could have been anytime though i will concede

manges_frites
16th Jan 2013, 10:35
VFR = clear of cloud and in sight of the surface? Box ticked then?

Slow Progress
16th Jan 2013, 10:40
Do commercial helicopters carry cvr and black box recorders?

Lemain
16th Jan 2013, 10:47
eman_resu

Lets have the Experts find out what happened first, before authorities start re-writing the rules which have served us well for so long.Fair comment, but this is an Internet forum. People like to chat, talk, chew-over and speculate. They'll be a whole mix from the supremely well qualified to comment down to the muck-stirrers and even media muck-stirrers no doubt. In between they'll be all the shades twixt black and white. So maybe, let's just stop commenting and speculating until the official report comes out. Reminds me of the pre-1990 days... Still, subject to taking anything on any Internet forum with liberal NaCl, steer your way though the mud and delight when you find the occasional pearl, or diamond :) And enjoy the freedom that the Internet in general and this forum in particular grants - freedom of speech and freedom to speculate.

BTW: As I'm sure you know, there is a difference between VFR and VMC, and a difference between IFR and IMC. For the media listening in, I can also reveal that it's possible to be IFR in VMC. All very confusing, innit? ;)

ORAC
16th Jan 2013, 10:51
Sky reporting that it was a weather diversion requested through Heathrow who asked Battersea on pilot's behalf. Service terminated by Heathrow but no radio contact made with Battersea before the crash.

RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike
16th Jan 2013, 10:53
Helicopter crash in pictures: aircraft hits crane in Vauxhall, south London - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/9805211/Helicopter-crash-in-pictures-aircraft-hits-crane-in-Vauxhall-south-London.html?frame=2453001#?frame=2453024)
Pictures 14 & 16 show the visibility quite clearly to be low
Indeed. From my vantage point just east of Tower Bridge, about half-an-hour after the accident, I would estimate that the visibility on the surface (say up to the top of Tower Bridge) was reasonable, about 2km, but rapidly deteriorated above that -- certainly most of the Shard was completely invisible due fog, and I've no reason to suppose the tower wasn't, either. Very sad :(

I see that Kate Hoey, the local MP, is already starting to have a go at helicopters being able to fly around central London -- how about stopping developers from building ego-boosting tall buildings instead... :*

FlyGooseFly!
16th Jan 2013, 10:57
He was probably perfectly aware of the building in his path and the crane. But perhaps the jib wasn't visible until it was too late and he just clipped it.

Whereas I know very little of helos beyond training in R22 - I do know quite a bit about mast head cranes and big buildings - the witness damage to the jib broken in two about half way long its length tells me that it suffered one hell of a knock - this together with the luffing supports sheared off allowing the rest of the jib to hang vertically down confirms this. I reckon the machine hit just about as square on as could be possible at a fair rate of knots.

A very sad business together - there by the grace.

eman_resu
16th Jan 2013, 11:03
Lemain,

Good points..

Before I migrated I flew the London heli lanes on a number of occasions and I'd hate to see that opportunity removed due to a single, very unfortunate accident.

Some of the comments I am reading, to the media and lay person, and politicians (re RTFM comments re Kate Hoey) would purport banning all rotor craft over london (except Police helicopters of course, ala radio 5 expert they are apparently invincible)

757H
Although I'd say pic 14 wouldn't have been too long afterward it clearly shows the jib has been hit

Yes, apologies, missed the bleeding obvious when I first looked at the photo.

Lemain
16th Jan 2013, 11:05
RTFM --

I see that Kate Hoey, the local MP, is already starting to have a go at helicopters being able to fly around central London -- how about stopping developers from building ego-boosting tall buildings instead... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gifIdiots like that are just making noise for the publicity. If you restrict GA both fixed and rotary you'll degrade London as a hub for the sake of a bit of green-eye. This accident will have a cause, and it will be a series of events not just one 'failure' - 99% of accidents are. Unless this is a type issue (seems unlikely) then it isn't going to happen again other than by bizarre fluke (which sadly does happen) until the AAIB comes out.

Pure speculation on my part and no evidence related to this tragedy, I fear over-reliance on GPS particularly running on evolving platforms with evolving software. But I don't know it that's a factor here.

LondonPax
16th Jan 2013, 11:09
This from the BBC website re Kate Hoey comments:


1154: Kate Hoey, MP for Vauxhall, tells the BBC there should be an "inquiry into the increasing numbers of helicopters flying around London" among so many new high-rise buildings.
She says: "The river is a kind of motorway for helicopters, but the noise of course is horrendous sometimes, when we get a lot of helicopters hovering. Maybe we've come to take it almost for granted that people have the right to take their helicopter over London at any time and I think we may have to look at that."



I'm no expert but I think the only helicopters that hover over central London are police and air ambulance.

green granite
16th Jan 2013, 11:10
Question, with the 500' rule in mind and the need to fly along the edge of a linear feature to avoid hitting something doing the same in the opposite direction, does that not mean that the minimum height for that part of the river is the 600' of the building + 500' which = 1100'. If that is true how did he hit the crane, or have I got the interpretation of the rules wrong?

riverrock83
16th Jan 2013, 11:13
Report from fire brigade says tail landed on roof of St George's Wharf Tower.

Question marks from lots of people about the lights on the crane - can't find any pics online showing lights on it. Sunrise was officially 07.57 with the incident reported at 08.00.

I believe Vauxhall Bridge is a mandatory reporting point on that Heli route.

Report that 'copter was on a weather divert into Battersea heliport, after trying to go from Redhill in Surrey to Elstree in Hertfordshire. It had just left a radio service (doesn't say what kind) from Heathrow, but hadn't yet contacted Battersea.

fireflybob
16th Jan 2013, 11:13
Question, with the 500' rule in mind and the need to fly along the edge of a linear feature to avoid hitting something doing the same in the opposite direction, does that not mean that the minimum height for that part of the river is the 600' of the building + 500' which = 1100'. If that is true how did he hit the crane, or have I got the interpretation of the rules wrong?

I believe the legislation says "within 500 ft of" so (legally subject to the rule to alight clear in event of engine failure) so long as you are not within 500 ft of the obstruction you are in compliance.

mixture
16th Jan 2013, 11:17
I believe the legislation says "within 500 ft of" so (legally subject to the rule to alight clear in event of engine failure)

The 500 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

captainkt
16th Jan 2013, 11:26
500ft except when landing or taking off. Landing at Battersea and twin engine so height not an issue more of no assistance from Heathrow about crane. Maybe pilots might get more assistance in future.

fireflybob
16th Jan 2013, 11:26
The 500 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

mixture, thanks for the clarification - so you could actually be flying below 500 ft and be in compliance (although I doubt this applies in this case)

captainkt
16th Jan 2013, 11:29
Yes as Battersea only short distance away

mixture
16th Jan 2013, 11:32
fireflybob,

Well, you have to land sometime.... :E

Don't think I'm suitably qualified to comment in this context because the London Heli route is a little bit special in some respects, and there are things you can / cannot do there that can / cannot be done elsewhere.

Also, if we're talking 500ft altitude then there are additional rules that apply over built up areas (1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft) ... but again, London Heli may change things.

Someone will doubtless be along shortly to fill in the gaps I've left !

ORAC
16th Jan 2013, 11:33
Tail reported to be on the roof of the tower; the transmission landed outside a loading bay in New Covent Garden Flower Market and the engines with the rest in Wandsworth Road.

So the impact seems to have been severe enough to break up the entire airframe rather than just a blade strike.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/panels/13/jan/vauxhall_helicopter/img/graphic_1358331975.jpg

EdVFX
16th Jan 2013, 11:33
'Question marks from lots of people about the lights on the crane'

I commute past the site daily, and am pretty certain the crane jib was lit, as is the tower.

I was on a train stopped at signals on the bridge over Wandsworth Road adjacent to the crash site , half an hour after the incident, and visibility was very poor, the top of what remains of the crane almost enveloped in cloud.

Smouldering helicopter wreckage was a sobering sight. My sympathies are with the families of those who died, and those injured.

Kitbag
16th Jan 2013, 11:46
Isn't it possible the crane/jib got lost in glare from the rising sun? or have I lost the orientation of the incident?

Groundloop
16th Jan 2013, 11:51
Isn't it possible the crane/jib got lost in glare from the rising sun? or have I lost the orientation of the incident?

There was no "rising sun" this morning. I passed the site on the train about ten minutes afterwards and there was VERY low cloud cover. Many taller building tops were obscured.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
16th Jan 2013, 11:52
<<more of no assistance from Heathrow about crane.>>

"Heathrow" (actually at Swanwick) almost certainly knew nothing about the crane. In the 31 years I worked in Heathrow ATC I do not recall ever seeing a NOTAM referring to obstructions away from Heathrow.

Pace
16th Jan 2013, 11:54
Going off the press reports the crane Jib came out at an angle and was obscured by the building.

Again the press reports indicate that the crane was only lighted when out of use at night but not in the day.

The pilot was diverting due to the weather and more than likely in very poor viz had his full attention on the building.

Again it has been reported on the BBC that concerns were made about the Crane lighting a few months ago.
A building is a solid visible structure a Crane is not!!!

As in most incidents its easy to blame the pilot but maybe such high Cranes also take the blame and regulations regarding lighting such temporary high and invisible structures should be re looked at with far better and more visible lighting attached to them???

Golf-Mike-Mike
16th Jan 2013, 12:25
An earlier post said the tower would be 500ft high (ie AGL) when completed then speculated about the height of the crane on top. An earlier post said the NOTAM had the obstacle (building + crane + jib) at 770ft AMSL, ie above sea level (so more or less Thames level). By some of the early news coverage the fog was up and down at the time but definitely capable of obscuring the crane and even the top of the tower according to eye-witnesses. The 500ft rule allowed the pilot to come down to land for his diversion to Battersea but horizontal viz would have been poor and on a divert he may not have had that particular NOTAM to hand and he hadn't yet made radio contact with Battersea it seems who may have been able to warn him. Very unfortunate circumstances.

lurker999
16th Jan 2013, 12:33
Viewing Single Post - NeoGAF (http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=46504217)

Eyewitness account from vauxhall station. Says top of crane not visible to him from the station.

stuckgear
16th Jan 2013, 12:34
GMM,

looks like all the holes lined up this time.

:(

fireflybob
16th Jan 2013, 12:38
The 500ft rule allowed the pilot to come down to land for his diversion to Battersea but horizontal viz would have been poor and on a divert he may not have had that particular NOTAM to hand

Golf-Mike-Mike, I understand your sentiments but there is a statutory requirement to cover "any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned" although I agree in the case of an unscheduled diversion this might be somewhat challenging.

(Note am not saying Commander in this case did not comply with this requirement)

Quote from UK ANO:-

A commander must, before taking off on a private flight, an aerial work flight or a public transport flight, take all reasonable steps so as to be satisfied of the matters specified in paragraph (3).
(3) The matters referred to in paragraph (2) are that:
(a) the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned;

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
16th Jan 2013, 12:42
<<Remind us what the "Floor"altitude is for the London Terminal Manoveuring area.>>

The airspace around the site is Class A - the London Control Zone - extending upwards from ground level to meet the TMA.

riverrock83
16th Jan 2013, 12:46
The Battersea AIP (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-9BBC713BE22755B8EA8E3B596E06EDD2/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_3_EGLW_4-1_en_2012-10-18.pdf) has the tower at 332 feet (updated October 2012). Yet I believe it's roof height is 594 feet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George_Wharf_Tower).

Without the NOTAM - if he was map crawling he would have thought he was safe.

ShyTorque
16th Jan 2013, 12:47
Wrong obstruction. It's not yet in the AIP.

col ective
16th Jan 2013, 12:55
This is very sad. I am a bit confused about the location though. If the helicopter was going from Redhill to Elstree I'd have expected him to route Banstead to Barnes and then try to go north. In that area he'd be talking to Heathrow but it is to the west of Battersea and Vauxhall is to the east, beyond the heliport. Given that the crash site is south of the impact with the crane I wonder whether he'd decided to divert and turned right along the river, realised he'd missed the heliport and done a turnback across the river - all the while being to busy to change frequency to Battersea.

As already mentioned the Heathrow trace is very acuurate (I have also been reminded of my ever so slight divergence from the approved route) so they will no doubt be able to provide something. As an aside, the maximum permitted altitude on the London QNH along the river to the west of Battersea Heliport is 1000', to the east as far as Chelsea Bridge it's 1500', as near as damn it agl heights. The helilanes rules state that helicopters must not fly below 500' separation and I think it's a 1km minimum visibility, but pilots must endeavor to fly at the maximum altitude for the sector.

jayteeto
16th Jan 2013, 12:57
500' clear could be horizontal, think of it as a bubble. This DOES NOT apply for t/o and ldg. He may have started his approach.
Has anyone considered that if he was diverting and had been handed over by heathrow, he would have to retune his radio and be heads in for a few moments. How long between handover and impact? I stated earlier, when all is going to plan it is high workload in the lanes, something unexpected is tough to deal with, even in good weather. Battersea is not the easiest to spot at night if you are not familiar, lookout could be concentrated down and not ahead. So there are a few scenarios, all speculation.
God bless those who died, only the pilot himself will really know what happened, we can only guess.

riverrock83
16th Jan 2013, 12:58
Wrong obstruction. It's not yet in the AIP.
OK - so he would have needed the NOTAM to know about the building if he was map crawling.

ShyTorque
16th Jan 2013, 13:02
I think it's already been published that he was diverting from Elstree into Battersea.

BOAC
16th Jan 2013, 13:06
I think it's already been published that he was diverting from Elstree into Battersea. - to me that is mis0information - he was in the wrong place for Batterea, was he not? Other reports suggest returning to Redhill.

ShyTorque
16th Jan 2013, 13:10
OK - so he would have needed the NOTAM to know about the building if he was map crawling.

Yes, however it's quite unlikely that he would have been map-crawling at that stage of the flight.

ShyTorque
16th Jan 2013, 13:11
BOAC, no he was on a perfectly normal routing to Battersea, if travelling from Elstree.

BrummyGit
16th Jan 2013, 13:22
ITN just posted the following:

"The pilot who died today after the helicopter he was flying crashed in London has been named by sources as Pete Barnes."

Also being reported by Sky News

Swiss Cheese
16th Jan 2013, 13:26
Battersea (London Heliport) closed today out of respect. They said:
STATEMENT FROM LONDON HELIPORT ON VAUXHALL HELICOPTER CRASH
Just before 8am today a helicopter crashed in central London close to Vauxhall Bridge.
The helicopter involved in the accident was not destined in to the London Heliport.
However, we received a request from Heathrow air traffic control to accept the helicopter, which requested to be diverted due to bad weather.
Earlier in the helicopter's journey the pilot had been receiving an air traffic control service from NATS. The heliport never gained contact with the helicopter.
The Heliport will be closed for the rest of the day

My question, as only a PPL H on an EC120, is was he cleared in to land at Battersea, and if so, should he not have been at circuit height, as even the extended circuit was to the west of the helicopter?

Lemain
16th Jan 2013, 13:59
If the helicopter was going from Redhill to Elstree I'd have expected him to route Banstead to Barnes and then try to go north.My instinctive alternate would have been Fairoaks. Away from the urban stuff, good services, and very close. Wonder who suggested Battersea. 20/20 is easy after the event; no doubt the pilot had good reasons, RIP.

Flap 5
16th Jan 2013, 14:06
With the facts that are now coming out and as an ex helicopter pilot myself I find the sequence of events leading to the accident very strange. Clearly there is more than we currently know for an experienced helicopter pilot to do what he did.

On the face of it flying from Redhill to Elstree to decide to divert to Battersea in these weather conditions was a strange decision. An ILS approach into Heathrow would be the safe option after climbing to a safe altitude. Then the cost of landing at Heathrow could be a factor. But to fly down the Thames to land at Battersea in freezing fog? Odd. Maybe icing was becoming a factor and he did not want to climb? It's all a bit strange at present.

BOAC
16th Jan 2013, 14:06
BOAC, no he was on a perfectly normal routing to Battersea, if travelling from Elstree. - heading east past Vauxhall??

vincehomer
16th Jan 2013, 14:16
Acknowledging all the concerns about speculation etc but, this is what Pprune is here for.

If one lines up the crash site on google maps with the tower crane, then extend it northwards, it lines up perfectly with a route that takes you down the RHS of the River Thames (if flying south) past the Houses of Parliament inbound to Battersea. This would undoubtedly be an appropriate point to contact the heliport, so eyes down onto the radio (single crew operation) to change frequency, whilst in and out of the mist and very easy, with the River quite narrow, to miss the right turn, especially in reduced visibility. It would only takes seconds to cover those hundred or so yards.

Swerve550
16th Jan 2013, 14:18
BOAC, Vauxhall Bridge is east of Battersea Heliport, so I assume he was flying west toward Battersea?

BOAC
16th Jan 2013, 14:32
Swerve - I know where Vauxhall is and the heliport.

Read this?
"What I saw this morning was not good: a helicopter flying at about 500ft eastbound along the Thames helicopter route. As it was just passing over Chelsea Bridge" from
Visibility must have been zero, or close to it... The helicopter flew straight into dense fog. As a former pilot, this struck me as peculiar, to put it mildly' - Comment - Voices - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/visibility-must-have-been-zero-or-close-to-it-the-helicopter-flew-straight-into-dense-fog-as-a-former-pilot-this-struck-me-as-peculiar-to-put-it-mildly-8453872.html)

Swerve550
16th Jan 2013, 14:44
BOAC, I see your point re this chap's statement. What I don't understand therefore is why the heli is flying in the opposite direction from the standard route I see the helis flying on every day from across the water. Landing either from the west or east but always along the axis of the Thames.

Dont Hang Up
16th Jan 2013, 14:49
Read this?
"What I saw this morning was not good: a helicopter flying at about 500ft eastbound along the Thames helicopter route. As it was just passing over Chelsea Bridge" from
Visibility must have been zero, or close to it... The helicopter flew straight into dense fog. As a former pilot, this struck me as peculiar, to put it mildly' - Comment - Voices - The Independent

Actually the times do not tally. The witness has a precise time of 7:37 logging into his gym. The flight left Redhill at 7:35. The BBC quote the crash at around 08:00.

The crash site is more consistent with the aircraft heading south, possibly following the river, and possibly missing the sharp bend to the West due to loss of loss of visibility. (Last points pure conjecture obviously)

BOAC
16th Jan 2013, 14:52
why the heli is flying in the opposite direction from the standard route I see the helis flying on every day from across the water. Landing either from the west or east but always along the axis of the Thames. - I'm not sure what a 'standard route' is on a two way route? To me, flying east on the 'south bank' would be the correct path unless the Rules of The Air are changed in the Heliroutes?

Since the Heliport says London was suggesting a div to them and another report said he was returning to Redhill, the situation is unclear.

jayteeto
16th Jan 2013, 14:52
opposite to the STANDARD route. you said it, a divert is not STANDARD. If you clear it with atc you can do non standard, no problem.

Richard J.
16th Jan 2013, 14:53
BOAC, that report in the Independent quotes the observer of the eastbound helicopter as saying he saw it before he clocked into the gym ot 07:37. The crash happened "shortly before 8 a.m." (I haven't seen a more accurate time.)

That suggests to me that the one he saw may have been a different one.

10W
16th Jan 2013, 14:57
Please use this dedicated thread (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/505412-pete-barnes-condolences-thread.html#post7636109) to record any condolence messages or tributes to Pete Barnes.

Thank you in advance.

BOAC
16th Jan 2013, 15:01
DHU and RJ - good points. Missed that!

green granite
16th Jan 2013, 15:28
If it's any help, using the Telegraph photos and google street view this is the view looking North from the impact position, ie. the large area of fire in photo 1

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/orangeherald/Capture_zps3d48466c.png

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
16th Jan 2013, 16:15
<<So ATC knew that Elstree was u/s, probably knew the police helicopter wasn't flying, but still directed him to Battersea ? Euh >>

Which "ATC" was supposed to know that Elstree was not available? ATC could not "direct him to Battersea". ATC cannot order the diversion of an aircraft; that is wholly the pilot's responsibility.

Pace
16th Jan 2013, 16:22
I hope that Pete Barnes is not made into a scapegoat? The weather closed in around him making it very hard to maintain visual references.
Peter Barnes was a highly experienced Helicopter pilot involved in some of the James Bond Helicopter sequences.

A couple of months ago concerns were made over the lihting on the Crane structure amd night only as shown by this tragic accident is NOT good enough for such slender invisible structures in very poor visibility conditions.
I hope the authorities learn from this and have these very high cranes properly lit at all times!

Lemain
16th Jan 2013, 16:30
Rhetorical, right now, I guess...

Which "ATC" was supposed to know that Elstree was not available? ATC could not "direct him to Battersea". ATC cannot order the diversion of an aircraft; that is wholly the pilot's responsibility. We'll all be interested to learn whether the pilot had declared an emergency, or asked for urgent assistance from the ground. If not, either the pilot was unaware of any imminent danger, or deemed it impracticable for ground to assist; a pilot of his experience might justifiably decide that's the best if he does not have a copilot to assist and the immediate problem needs 100% flying concentration not RT conversation. Or chose not to.

I rather suspect that by now we'd have been told had the pilot declared a mechanical or other problem and those with many years experience will be forming ideas.

Lemain
16th Jan 2013, 16:35
I hope the authorities learn from this and have these very high cranes properly lit at all times!In cloud/fog? I don't remember ever having used structure lights other than for visual nav - and then usually on foot/car/boat.

BOAC
16th Jan 2013, 16:35
gg- assuming that is is accurate, it would look as if he might have come down the A5 and missed the 'hang a right'?

Pace - I'm not sure lighting it in daylight would help a chopper in those conditions?

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
16th Jan 2013, 16:38
Lemain. As he should have been operating under SVFR and Battersea has no radar it would be difficult to know how ATC could assist, short of alerting the emergency services. To obtain radar assistance he would have to go back to Heathrow.

Pittsextra
16th Jan 2013, 16:39
Which "ATC" was supposed to know that Elstree was not available? ATC could not "direct him to Battersea". ATC cannot order the diversion of an aircraft; that is wholly the pilot's responsibility.

Given the short flight time between Redhill and Elstree I'm surprised neither he or the operator hadn't just called them up and just asked the question "whats the weather like where you are".

Given he lifted at 0735hrs out of Redhill, crashed at 0800hrs in London having found he couldn't get into Elstree -did the weather fundementally change in the time?

ShyTorque
16th Jan 2013, 16:45
- I'm not sure what a 'standard route' is on a two way route? To me, flying east on the 'south bank' would be the correct path unless the Rules of The Air are changed in the Heliroutes?

The heliroutes have their own specific rules. Helicopters are normally to be flown over the centre of the river where it forms part of the route, unless told by Heathrow Special to fly "northside" or "southside", in the event of opposing traffic needing to pass.

Here's a link to a CAA page which shows some relevant information and a basic chart of the routes: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/EIS%2006.pdf

John R81
16th Jan 2013, 16:50
Lemain

Not sure from your profile if you are a helicopter pilot.

I read through this thread start to finish. Much better information / speculation on the Rotorheads thread, though there is some "tosh" there also. Some of the speculation here is not relevant to helicopter operation, or to helicopters in the London Zone, or to a twin helicopter (not a single) in that environment.

To sumerize, the flight was from Redhill to Elstree 1 POB. Working Heathrow Special, entered the zone. Being a twin, helirouts are not mandatory. Elstree was not possible due to deteriorating weather so RTB requested, as Redhill remained clear. On the way back, asked HRS for a divert to Battersea - (speculation) weather closed in on him? Diversion cleared with Battersea by HRS and given. No radio contact made with Battersea and the rest is on the news.

BOAC
16th Jan 2013, 16:52
Ta, ST - I note that ref does not specify 'middle of the river' per se.

NB This is more for my interest than in relation to this accident, as it was a twin.

ShyTorque
16th Jan 2013, 17:29
Actually, BOAC, to be perfectly correct, I should have written "between the high and low water marks", rather than the centre of the river. However, that is a distance of a few yards.

WHBM
16th Jan 2013, 17:45
Here we have an approach to Heathrow which takes up everything down to 3,000 feet. Under that is the easterly approach to London City, which was indeed on easterlies this morning (although, being down there at the time, most of these ended up as missed approaches periodically audible in the fog up above). Squeezed under all this is H4, a standard helicopter routing which follows the river, maximum altitude 1,000 feet, and even for those not following this track, is the routing into London's principal heliport, which is riverside.

Then a developer proposes and builds a huge high rise (higher than the BT Tower), in isolation from the groups in The City and Canary Wharf, and which now dominates the skyline (when Cavok) in inner south-west London, 600 feet (181m) high, and right on the river (and the aforementioned helicopter route), and with a crane alongside which reaches well above this maximum.

And then we say we take risk assessments seriously ...... but somehow the tower is hit before it is even completed.

I wonder who the developer thinks they are going to let/sell the upper floors to now.

parabatix
16th Jan 2013, 18:05
@Lemain
Thank God a voice of reason.
I'd also be inclined to take in very good faith the statement from Battersea Heliport. It says what it says.

mixture
16th Jan 2013, 18:39
I wonder who the developer thinks they are going to let/sell the upper floors to now.

Aah... but you don't understand the business model of these hideous London monstrosities that keep on popping up around the place.

All the prime stuff in the developments (i.e. "penthouse suites" at the top of the building etc.) are sold off-plan on day one to gullible foreigners (or even before day one at international tradeshows). Most of whom have probably not even visited the "marketing suites" which are the first thing the developers build on the plot.

So the question is not who the developer is going to let/sell to.... but rather who the poor sod who bought the thing is going to let/sell to.

Northern Listener
16th Jan 2013, 19:29
I see / hear a lot of media reference to the Police helo 'electing' not to fly.
Is this a fact that was officially & publicly acknowledged anywhere?

It seems to me that the 'media' seems to making this some sort of benchmark, as if METPOL helo's are some form of air gods and if they don't fly no one else should.
My general but limited knowledge of police helo work is generally in response to operational needs i.e. chasing the bad guys, and if vis is low and operating in a more 'random' fashion across built up areas as opposed to flying heli routes would make their decision making process very different from normal commercial ops wouldn't it?
And if the vis is low it renders the helo as an aerial observation platform rather useless as even the FLIR suffers from reduced vis doesn't it?

vulcanised
16th Jan 2013, 19:38
the poor sod who bought the thing is going to let/sell to.


Talking about poor sods, what about the unlucky one who was walking underneath at the time?

Pittsextra
16th Jan 2013, 19:59
Ref: the innocent victim, couldn't agree more. I think whilst natural that here the majority might moan about the media trying to blow this up in the end given the events it's hardly a surprise.

fireflybob
16th Jan 2013, 20:05
Ref: the innocent victim, couldn't agree more. I think whilst natural that here the majority might moan about the media trying to blow this up in the end given the events it's hardly a surprise.

It's not surprising in the sense that all most of the media are interested in are audience ratings rather than any altruism for reporting the "facts".

Given that probably a handful of people will be killed on Britain's roads today then why don't they give those "innocents" similar coverage?

Don't misunderstand me I regard the loss of any life in this type of event as a tragedy but I have to say I despise the media and some of the reporting I have heard about makes me feel angry to say the least.

mixture
16th Jan 2013, 20:05
I see / hear a lot of media reference to the Police helo 'electing' not to fly.
Is this a fact that was officially & publicly acknowledged anywhere?

It was a t-w-a-t post on a different day (22 october 2012)

The flying boys in blue were grounded, and so whilst bored twiddling their thumbs they allegedly emitted a t-w-a-t that allegedly read as follows :

"Good afternoon. Well, as London's fog is keeping us on the ground at present, we thought we'd be here to answer any Qs you have about ASU..."

The reason it is in the meeeejaaaa is because, someone allegedly did ask a question....

"@MPSinthesky Funny you should ask. Cranes have red light so aircraft can see, yes ? Crane atop new tower at Vauxhall had none y'day. Problem ? "

To which answer came there none, hence the meeeja are wetting their pants at the prospect the light might have been broken since October !

Pittsextra
16th Jan 2013, 20:20
It's not surprising in the sense that all most of the media are interested in are audience ratings rather than any altruism for reporting the "facts".

Given that probably a handful of people will be killed on Britain's roads today then why don't they give those "innocents" similar coverage?

I'm not so sure that they don't get covered, like this from last month for example:-

M1 Crash: The '140mph death race' that killed two | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242139/M1-Crash-The-140mph-death-race-killed-two.html)

Given some of the other utter guff published in newspapers a helicopter crashing from the sky in central London was always going to grab attention.

That said I'm not all that sure what is in the media that gets people steamed up. Maybe there are some elements of detail that are not relevant but look someone died on the pavement doing nothing more than going about their daily business 25 mins after a pilot lifted and then called for a weather divert. How much do you think that family cares about the minutiae of aviation procedures?

mixture
16th Jan 2013, 20:26
That said I'm not all that sure what is in the media that gets people steamed up.

You're not sure are you ?

Have you watched any of the major news channels ? Have you read the major papers ?

The way they cover aviation events is despicable, complete sensationalism, nothing else.

I mean, just look at some of the headlines from today :

Horror and chaos follow London chopper crash
A 'miracle' deadly chopper crash wasn't worse
Witnesses had to run for their lives as debris and flames rained down
Fiery chopper crash near British spy agency
Woman witnesses London 'copter crash horror
Copter inferno after pilot hits high-rise crane
2 die as chopper falls into crane on tower

And that's just the headlines from a few of the articles ! The articles themselves are strewn full of un-necessary padding to make the whole thing sound like it was the apocalypse.

Meanwhile, the TV meeja were doing the usual waste of time and resources "rabbit in headlight" tricks .... plus calling in 'experts' that were anything but !

TRC
16th Jan 2013, 20:28
.....as if METPOL helo's are some form of air gods and if they don't fly no one else should


Would you fly in this?
LONDON/CITY EGLC 160820Z 34003KT 0700 R09/0800 R27/0750 FZFG BKN001 M03/M03 Q1012

Pittsextra
16th Jan 2013, 20:29
Mixture, has it been reported any differently from anything else?

Actually those headlines you post none of them are untrue are they. People did run for their lives and given the time and place it is a miracle more people didn't get caught up in it.

fireflybob
16th Jan 2013, 20:36
Would you fly in this?
LONDON/CITY EGLC 160820Z 34003KT 0700 R09/0800 R27/0750 FZFG BKN001 M03/M03 Q1012

It depends. Presumably a twin engined helicopter would have no trouble flying on top of this type of weather (am assuming radiation fog which isn't too thick) whilst enroute?

mixture
16th Jan 2013, 20:36
The Oxford dictionary defines "news" as :

newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events


As far as I'm concerned, any manner of presenting news that involves words such as horror, chaos,miracle or inferno does not count as news. Its a pure attempt to increase audience/readership figures by purporting to have a more exciting story to tell.... because that is what it is.... telling a story .... not relaying the news.

TRC
16th Jan 2013, 20:39
It depends. Presumably a twin engined helicopter would have no trouble flying on top of this type of weather (am assuming radiation fog which isn't too thick) whilst enroute?

We are talking about Central London here.

John R81
16th Jan 2013, 20:40
That METAR is later than the crash. Weather was worsening. It would be more relevant to cite one contemporaneous with the decision to fly - 07:30

Vortex what...ouch!
16th Jan 2013, 20:43
Smoke, flames and death with video footage. It was always going to be sensationalised by the press. ****, unfortunately, happens to some of us. Getting upset about it is pointless. He had his nightmare day, and one day we will know why. :oh:

Pittsextra
16th Jan 2013, 20:44
It depends. Presumably a twin engined helicopter would have no trouble flying on top of this type of weather (am assuming radiation fog which isn't too thick) whilst enroute?

The opportunity of "flying on top" when in central London is probably pretty limited, whilst the weather was bad enough that weather was a cause of a divert. In fact its a pity that posts keep getting deleted because someone posted here that actually initially the request was to return to Redhill but that seemed not possible and so Battersea was 2nd choice.

Did the weather degrade hugely in those 25 mins?

John R81
16th Jan 2013, 20:53
Weather changed dramatically in London this morning. Cloud base descended whilst this flight progressed, continued to worsen until the tower / crane were lost fro sight, and by 10:00 CAVOK.

Going up? Cloud, temperature, aircraft performance in known icing conditions?

uniformtango
16th Jan 2013, 21:53
...had been notamed since last October.

mary meagher
16th Jan 2013, 22:01
Certain things are becoming clear about this accident. The pilot was highly skilled and experienced and regarded by other helicopter pilots as one of the best in the UK. The helicopter was twin engined and state of the art. As a twin engine copter can maintain altitude if one engine goes U/S, they are permitted to fly over London without following the river as is required for single engine helicopters. Because Heathrow controls most of the airspace over central London, any aircraft that needed to climb into such airspace to achieve a safety altitude would need permission to do so.

Freezing fog can be treacherous, with two weather systems colliding the cold air will push under the warm air, which can cause the fog which might have been lurking at one level to surprise anyone who had relied on a weather observation of only a short time before.

But to turn off the warning lights at daybreak on a spindly crane would render it just about as easy to see as power cables strung across a valley; that is, invisible until too late. It must be possible to require these structures to be made more conspicuous at any time of day. Large orange plastic balls are strung on wires to make them easier to see. Strobe lighting is used on aircraft to call attention to their approach. Anything that sticks up that high over London and is inadequately lighted in our gloomy winter weather, is asking for trouble.

golfyankeesierra
16th Jan 2013, 22:08
..had been notamed since last October.
Come on, when you've finished the last one, you've forgotten about the first one. Especially enroute notams, they are written so just that nobody will ever remember them. Let's be practical...

Tankertrashnav
16th Jan 2013, 22:20
I can add nothing of any value to the discussion about the crash, but the comment about the subsequent difficulty in selling or letting property in this building caught my eye.

I rather doubt the the owners of the Empire State Building ever had any difficulty in shifting apartments/offices, in spite of the fact that a B25 embedded itself in the 79th Floor in 1945!

zz9
16th Jan 2013, 23:02
It seems to me that the 'media' seems to making this some sort of benchmark, as if METPOL helo's are some form of air gods and if they don't fly no one else should.
My general but limited knowledge of police helo work is generally in response to operational needs i.e. chasing the bad guys, and if vis is low and operating in a more 'random' fashion across built up areas as opposed to flying heli routes would make their decision making process very different from normal commercial ops wouldn't it?

The MET are AFAIK the only Police helicopter unit that patrols, that is they take off and loiter waiting to be called, or listen to the ground radio traffic and offer to assist in situations where they think they could help.

I flew with them one evening, back when they still had the 222s, and we took off and spent the first twenty minutes bimbling around waiting for something to happen.

But I would imagine that their criteria is different to most traffic. Seeing the ground is what they do, so they may well have grounded themselves far sooner than called for for purely safety reasons.

Pace
16th Jan 2013, 23:22
Mary

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 argument that you cannot see lighting in the day is ridiculous. Land at any airport early morning with RVR minima and cloud bases without high intensity approach and runway :ugh:lights and then claim lighting is a waste of time in the day! that is what some here are claiming.

Strobe type lighting is very visible even in mist.

Yet the politicians will no doubt blame the pilot and put ever more restrictions on where aircraft can go. While I will heap a large portion of blame on the Crane and its lack of visibility to a Visual pilot trying to remain visual in minimal conditions.

RatherBeFlying
17th Jan 2013, 04:19
I listened to As It Happens on the CBC as they interviewed a landscape contractor working on site.

He said that pieces were coming out of the clouds.

Fitter2
17th Jan 2013, 06:30
He said that pieces were coming out of the clouds.

While another eye-witnes described seeing the 109 hit the jib, and then the operator's cab.

Eye witnesses are known to 'see' what they thought they saw.

fdr
17th Jan 2013, 06:38
Operation over/around a city has inherent risk. As a society we accept this risk for the convenience and utility that the capability provides; HEMS/NGS/SAR/CHTR/FIRE/POLAIR etc. The competency of the crews and the design and equipment of the aircraft are evident in the low level of adverse events that occur, even in the eyebrow raising US HEMS incident rate at present. Overall, society benefits from the utility offered. Occasionally, even with evidently well experienced, well trained and well equipped aircraft, operating in these conditions ends badly, as in this case. Adverse weather operation in the low level environment with obstructions (lit or otherwise...) is demanding; workload and weather variation can transpire to make minor deviations critical.

This case highlights the fact that the task of the helicopter pilot at low level is one that is uncompromising. If viewed as a ARMS SIRA event, the potential risk in this case is much higher than has eventuated, and as an industry the operation around metro areas should have additional crew training for reinforcement of risk reduction strategies for the operation. Not suggesting additional regulation, awareness and decision making reinforcement in the management of the operation. Regulation or prohibitions adversely affect the utility that is afforded.

This accident will result in an interesting report, it is obviously a high profile and confronting event. A comparison of accident rates and severities of police/ambulance/fire vehicles in the metro area over a representative period would make for an interesting comparison before the city takes any action to restrict rotary operations. Logically, a limitation of such operations would make the case for closing the city airport, and heathrow for exactly the same rationales. Politics will demand a review being called for by the elected officials, hope they look seriously at the issues.

Flenit
17th Jan 2013, 06:54
Would it be possible to use a transponder on obstacles like the crane ? Would appear like a traffic on the screen.

fireflybob
17th Jan 2013, 07:21
Am interested in the exact time of the accident. Sunrise at London City was 0755 and the classic time for after dawn thickening is 30 mins after sunrise. I suggest this as a factor wrt weather. Also flying east into low rising run and ramifications for inflight visibility and seeing obstructions.

DaveReidUK
17th Jan 2013, 07:40
flying east into low rising run and ramifications for inflight visibility and seeing obstructions

I don't think we know for sure that when he hit the crane he was on an easterly heading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/panels/13/jan/vauxhall_helicopter/img/graphic_1358331975.jpg

Capt H Peacock
17th Jan 2013, 07:40
I'm not a helicopter pilot and not familiar with the 109.

Would anyone care to enlighten us as to the effect of icing on the 109's engines and rotors of the rapid ice accretion likely to be encountered in FZFG.

A thorough check of the fan blades and warm air de-icing is normal for those of us fixed wing aviators after FZFG encounters.

Might he have had problems maintaining altitude, were he to have been so affected?

fireflybob
17th Jan 2013, 08:24
I don't think we know for sure that when he hit the crane he was on an easterly heading:

DaveReidUK, agreed.

mixture
17th Jan 2013, 08:47
NAROBS,

Would making use of this type of facility compulsory in the Flight Planning process have avoided yesterday's tragedy:-

JeppView Electronic Charting - Jeppesen Aviation Supplies

(a) No doubt a commercial operation such as the one operating the heli yesterday already uses some form of planning software. Its unlikely the commander writes up PLOGS by hand using a whizzwheel. :E

(b) The more gadgets, the more scope for bugs, software crashes and GIGO (Garbage In .... Garbage Out).

(c) The decision of the PIC on a flight is final and can overrule whatever the electronics are telling him/her if he/she feels something is up. Has always been, and will always be.

(d) Look up a video on ewe-toob called "Children of the magenta line"

Also, is TCAS available to helicopters ? And, if so, why isn't it made a compulsory fitting, especially on carriers operating over centres of population.

TCAS..... Traffic Collison Avoidance System ..... hmmm... let me see.... that would have avoided yesterday's incident how exactly ?

The point about yesterday's incident is you're supposed to be visual over London in the heliroutes for good reason .... speculation suggests that the weather closed in around this poor chap and he struggled and subsequently failed to extricate himself safely. However I think its best we wait for the results of the investigation before jumping to conclusions as to whether or not he should have made the decision to depart in the first place..... there may well have been other contributing factors we don't yet know about.

Pace
17th Jan 2013, 09:10
Cap Peacock

Icing in the majority of cases is only a problem if your flying in cloud/Fog not on top of it or hitting the occasional lump of it!
IE if he was flying IFR in IMC then yes cloud could create an icing problem.
As the pilot was flying VFR and visual it is more likely he was scud running.

I can remember 15 years ago moving a very basic C150 to another airport for a friend.
No nav kit only a radio.
I set off in light rain and 1000 foot cloudbase and elected to follow a river which I knew would stop me running into high ground. The River past within a couple of hundred meters of the destination airfield some 80 miles away.
Before I knew it I was down at 600 feet staying visual over the river. The rain had intensified and visibility was down to 2k.
Things got worse and I was now down at 400 feet with 1000 meter viz.
I waited to break out into better conditions but now at 400 feet was chopping in and out of scud cloud and cloud was appearing below as well.
That was it I pulled up into the clouds still over the river climbed to 2500 feet in solid IMC with the intention of calling a military unit who could offer me a PAR to land. As it was 10 miles further on I exited the front into clear blue skies.
It sounds more than likely that this pilot was slightly off from where he thought he was hit some cloud and was met by a building. Turning away he probably did not see the Crane arm.
But this is only a guess as we do not know what other problems he may or may not have had.
I still feel that such structures near aircraft routes should be well marked with high intensity lighting as unlike a building they are hard or near impossible to see in such conditions.

Glamdring
17th Jan 2013, 09:21
With it being mentioned earlier that he HAD been receiving a service from NATS but had not yet contacted the Heliport, could this be a case of a frequency change distracting the pilot at just the wrong time?

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 09:39
I still feel that such structures near aircraft routes should be well marked with high intensity lighting as unlike a building they are hard or near impossible to see in such conditions.I disagree. In the old days when accurate nav was impossible - particularly for the solo pilot - there was a good case for lighting but these days we, aviators and the industry, should stay clear of high objects. Yes, huge chimneys, radio masts, etc. in the middle of practically nowhere need special care and they get it. High intensity lighting is expensive, wasteful of energy, unsightly and pollutes the night sky.

I'm still baffled why the pilot chose to fly into an urban area with that clag when there are so many alternates with minimal terrain clearance issues all with brilliant rail/road and air links to wherever, and excellent ground/engineering services. If you're anywhere near Battersea you are literally spoilt for choice and there are are excellent visual routes out (trunk roads) that can be followed in an emergency. Based only on the high praise the deceased pilot has been receiving from the industry it makes me think that he had some emergency other than weather to contend with. Ill health, airframe or engine problems, instrumentation,...might even have been fuel, of course. Despite the prima facie evidence that there was considerable fuel on board, it doesn't follow that it was reaching the engines or maybe the pilot's instrumentation indicated a fuel problem. More probable than an experienced pilot flying into a crane :(

riverrock83
17th Jan 2013, 09:50
Presuming that he was meaning a TAWS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_and_warning_system) or GPWS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPWS) rather than TCAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCAS), they rely on a database of heights of obstacles / terrain. Since this building isn't on any maps yet they wouldn't be any use in this scenario. They aren't going to react to NOTAMs.

Although they are available for helicopters, I'd be very surprised if one was fitted. Flying through London I suspect there would be many false positives - to such an extent a pilot may well turn it off anyway.

RTM Boy
17th Jan 2013, 10:52
We may not know his heading before striking the crane, but he headed due south after he hit it...

BOAC
17th Jan 2013, 11:27
We may not know his heading before striking the crane, but he headed due south after he hit it... - and at some speed so I think 'holding' is spurious.

ShyTorque
17th Jan 2013, 11:36
Although they are available for helicopters, I'd be very surprised if one was fitted. Flying through London I suspect there would be many false positives - to such an extent a pilot may well turn it off anyway.

Many, if not most, modern corporate helicopters do have TCAS, or similar fitted. I'm not sure what you consider a "false positive". I can assure you that professional helicopter pilots flying in CAS do not turn it off, and certainly not over London.

Nopax,thanx
17th Jan 2013, 11:40
We had an equally ridiculous comment on the local radio last night; the reporter was interviewing a chap from an aircraft operator and asked him;

"So you've flown in a helicopter; did it seem risky?" :ugh:

Pace
17th Jan 2013, 11:49
Where on earth do they get these so called experts from and why give these idiots a platform to spout their rubbish?
We had the awful tragedy of the collision and sinking of the Marchioness with the awful loss of life that involved.
We have had tube disasters with equally bad loss of life yet aircraft???
I am in London today! Crisp and clear. Looking at the amount of construction going on around the river the sky is dotted by cranes towering way above these skyscrapers like Octopus tentacles waiting for their prey.
It was one of these almost invisible high level cranes which brought this Helicopter down lets not forget that. No Crane no incident!

Dont Hang Up
17th Jan 2013, 11:56
We may not know his heading before striking the crane, but he headed due south after he hit it...

Indeed the aircraft could suffer a significant deflection from its original track on collision with something that substantial.

30 degrees easily.
60 degrees possibly.
90 degrees? I suspect that it would disintegrate completely on collision rather than "bounce off" in that way.

mixture
17th Jan 2013, 11:58
No Crane no incident!

:ugh:

Every year, thousands of obstacles are listed in NOTAMs. How many of these bring down aircraft ?

Yes, the heli hit the crane..... but the real question is what lead the helicoper to occupy the same airspace as the crane in the first place.

With a pilot with as much experience as this one was purported to have, I would hope there is more to this story than meets the eye !

Mick Stability
17th Jan 2013, 12:19
My guess is that he was approaching on a SW heading, ie for Battersea since the wreckage is SW of the building. I'd put his incident heading within 30 deg of that track.

I also think that he might not have been in control. He strikes me as the sort of consumate aviation professional who would not deliberatley put himself below a safe altitude in IMC.

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 12:31
It was one of these almost invisible high level cranes which brought this Helicopter down lets not forget that. No Crane no incident!It's a valid pov and you're entitled to it. {joking} Should we try to bulldoze the Alps, Himalayas and the Andes to make it easier for us to route? Or put lights on top of them? {/joking} OK, I exaggerate to make the point and cranes aren't permanent but aircraft have to fly in and around cities with these clearance problems in mind. SSA. Around towns and cities we should regard air-routes to be a privilege, not an entitlement. Designated clear areas are in place and there is seldom a legitimate excuse for a nav error, imho, other than an error as a consequence of some other problem or mishap. The MkI eyeball is a poor navigator's tool. It's an incredibly valuable aid, not to be believed alone, but nowhere near as good as most avionic navaids.

The only system available today that's suitable and safe for poor viz descent and landing near to or in cities is ILS. If ILS isn't available for any reason, get out of the city or fly well above it. Flying in reduced viz near to a city demands greater skills, and greater instrumentation (ground and a/c).

Nearly all accidents are as a result of a chain of events, seldom just one thing even though one thing might be the trigger and be found as "The Cause of The Accident". Seldom is, though, is it?

What worries me is that rotary wing per se, or even GA as a group, will be restricted as a consequence. That would be very damaging to the industry and those who work in the industry, as well as the public at large who (though they don't realise it) benefit from the improved performance of industry able to move key people around quickly and safely.

While we wait for the report, and the inevitable kite-flying leaks, we should resist knee jerk responses. These a/c are safe. The pilots are safe. The present airports and heliports are safe. Accident and incident levels are very acceptably low. From all we've heard no changes are needed.

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 12:37
I also think that he might not have been in control. He strikes me as the sort of consumate aviation professional who would not deliberatley put himself below a safe altitude in IMC. That's my suspicion, unless the tributes are, understandably, exaggerated. Not 'being in control', of course, could include many things from medical, equipment to weather.

ILS 119.5
17th Jan 2013, 12:46
The pilot would certainly be flying svfr for entrance into class a airspace or vfr outside. TCAS has no relevance at all as it replies on other TCAS equipped aircraft for avoidance which a crane would not have. Earlier points have mentioned IFR/IMC VFR/VMC, let me clarify as a qualified aviation expert, IFR/VFR are the rules that the a/c is flying under, IMC/VMC are the conditions that the a/c is flying in. The reason why an a/c clan fly under IFR in VMC is easy, for example consider an a/c flying into LHR on a clear day in VMC as it is in class a airspace he must fly IFR. There are different rules for helicopters than fixed wing owing to the diffferencies between the flying characteristics. I won't talk about SVFR as it's a bag of worms really and after 25 years in the business can still cause long discussions. I haven't really had time to look closely into the incident but my first impressions are that the crane jib should have been lowered as it was not lit albeing the actual crane itself was. I would hope that the crane was not positioned in any way to encroach on any of the std helicopter routes. The 500' rule does not apply to an a/c taking off and landing. Hope this helps, Rgds ILS

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 12:58
I haven't really had time to look closely into the incident but my first impressions are that the crane jib should have been lowered as it was not lit albeing the actual crane itself was. I would hope that the crane was not positioned in any way to encroach on any of the std helicopter routes. The 500' rule does not apply to an a/c taking off and landing. Hope this helps, Rgds ILSSo you're saying that the jib should have been lowered? We have it as a matter of public record that the crane operators overslept for the first (cough cough) time in twenty years so are we suggesting that the safety of GA fixed and rotary in this area depends on the crane operators? :eek:

Speed of Sound
17th Jan 2013, 14:21
I would hope that the crane was not positioned in any way to encroach on any of the std helicopter routes.

It matters not where the crane was positioned at close of business on Tuesday.

As has been said a number of times already, these jibs are designed to weathervane and as such, could feasibly move up to 180 degrees from its original position depending on windspeed, direction and time.

Flap 5
17th Jan 2013, 14:47
There's a lot of nonsense being talked about the crane. It's orientation and whether it was lit or not is frankly irrelevant. The pilot would have been SVFR which requires him to be clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. That means you stay over the river, avoiding buildings and bridges. I can only think that something distracted the pilot, like changing frequency, to cause him to lose his references. Single pilot operation can get very intense in bad weather, even for experienced pilots.

ILS 119.5
17th Jan 2013, 14:47
Weathervaning is not the issue, the issue is the height of the crane which, correct me if I'm wrong, which was notamed and also the top of it lit at night. To me the height of the jib should be notamed as the true height and lit from the top of the jib if it is to remain extended.
Regarding whether or not the crane driver slept in or not is irreverent as he/she would probably not have gone up to the cab due weather. I can see falling to sleep whilst being on duty a factor but not being late for work. Rgds.

Ditter
17th Jan 2013, 14:49
These cranes aren't always unlocked(left to slew,weather vane).Even fixed jib(not rising/lowering,luffing)cranes are always left unlocked.It is down to the operator to decide.Mainly dependent on the weather and surroundings.This crane would slew over a public footpath.Not ideal unless in bad wind conditions.Any damage to the trolley,top of the crane.Would cause a catastrophic failure of the jib.As it is supported by the counterweights through the cable connected to the trolley.The jib alone weighs over 4 tons.And if you know about fall factors,you'll know the result.Had it been hit whilst locked and positioned over the site,it would not have landed on the highway.

stuckgear
17th Jan 2013, 15:09
spreadsheet of helicopter movements in london 2007 -2012

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFlEdG9ZZ1FkdTJRcl8zMURnTWxCaFE#gid=0

number of fatal incidents in that period ?

Edit to add: Rhetorical question above.

cldrvr
17th Jan 2013, 15:12
number of fatal incidents in that period ?


Zero, this was the first one.

mfaff
17th Jan 2013, 15:20
Top of building is 181m...(593ft)
NOTAM'd height was 770 ft =234m...

Difference is pretty much height of jib when raised and end of jib was (at least at some point recently) equiped with a working light.
Cab is broadly same height as TOB...

Height difference is about 16 floors of building so a just under a third higher.

uksatcomuk
17th Jan 2013, 15:35
The question was asked earlier in the thread , but AFAIK was never answered...do 109s carry flight data recorders?

Thanks

uksatcomuk
17th Jan 2013, 15:52
.....and a follow up to the above , anyone know what the local pressure setting was at the time ?

Thanks

BOAC
17th Jan 2013, 15:57
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/505368-helicopter-v-crane-london.html post#6

uksatcomuk
17th Jan 2013, 16:06
1012 it was then , Many thanks BOAC

ILS 119.5
17th Jan 2013, 16:38
just a question, what is the relevance of the pressure at the time it could be 1030 0r 1000 which is irrelevant, more relevant is what pressure setting was the pilot flying on.
What is a "working light" my car has working lights. The light has to be an "obstruction light" as defined by the CAA.

Pittsextra
17th Jan 2013, 16:39
So if we are saying the crane is a material factor and the descrepancy being argued about is circa 100ft are we saying it's cool to fly 100ft off the top of buildings??

uksatcomuk
17th Jan 2013, 16:43
more relevant is what pressure setting was the pilot flying on.



I agree , I was just trying to confirm the mode S data

ShyTorque
17th Jan 2013, 17:05
The question was asked earlier in the thread , but AFAIK was never answered...do 109s carry flight data recorders?
Thanks

No, there is no legal requirement. I'm not certain if one is available for the A109 Power, I think not.

The pilot would have had the London QNH set. The maximum altitudes along the heli-routes are always based on that setting (as is flight under the London TMA). Whilst under a service from Heathrow Special or Farnborough Radar) it would have been given to the pilot and read back as set, in this case before entering controlled airspace. His actual altitude would have been visible to ATC via the Mode C readout of his encoding altimeter.

He would have been given a maximum altitude to fly, not a minimum, which is the pilot's responsibility. The 1,000 foot rule would not be applicable, but the pilot still needs to comply with the 500 foot rule unless taking off or landing.

Twin engined helicopters do not necessarily have to fly along the river Thames and ATC may direct or clear the pilot to fly another route. The London heli-routes are mandatory routes for single engined but not for twins.

WHBM
17th Jan 2013, 17:06
Regarding whether or not the crane driver slept in ...... I can see falling to sleep whilst being on duty a factor but not being late for work.

Of course, if the crane driver had reported for duty on time and lowered the jib from the overnight parked vertical position to the normal working angle then we might not be discussing this.

757hopeful
17th Jan 2013, 17:11
It matters not where the crane was positioned at close of business on Tuesday.

As has been said a number of times already, these jibs are designed to weathervane and as such, could feasibly move up to 180 degrees from its original position depending on windspeed, direction and time.

Correct. The descision to leave it at the most upright position would be so as not to strike anything should the crane be slewed due to wind. If they are locked into position the wind can topple a crane quite easily. Therefore leaving them unlocked allows the wind to rotate/slew them albeit very slowly in comparison with the speed of the wind hitting it. And this alleviates the potential of the wind effectively hitting a solid object and the risk of it blowing it over

Any damage to the trolley,top of the crane this type of crane does not have a trolley (luffing crane). The cranes jib is raised or lowered to bring the lifting hook closer or move further away

Of course, if the crane driver had reported for duty on time and lowered the jib from the overnight parked vertical position to the normal working angle then we might not be discussing this.

This is an interesting point. According to people who have worked with this guy for years. He's never been late for work. Yet the day that something happens is the day he was late. A little too coincidental. A theory of mine as I have worked on building sites (as a lifting engineer, which at the time was involved in lifting operations for cranes) Is that maybe the fog had suspended crane ops for an hour to allow the fog to clear. Although they use radios to guide loads in and out. It's possible the site manager or the operator deemed it too risky to begin ops that morning. Also maybe taking into account the fact he was by a heliport and if he were to slew round in the fog he might make contact with anything flying low?

A little optimistic perhaps. But would be interesting to hear from the building site itself to see if all we are hearing is true.

BOAC
17th Jan 2013, 17:15
the overnight parked vertical position - can you elaborate on this 'vertical' position?

757hopeful
17th Jan 2013, 17:17
can you elaborate on this 'vertical' position

I refer you sir to my 1st point in the post above yours

BOAC
17th Jan 2013, 17:27
You said 'vertical' - do you mean that?

mfaff
17th Jan 2013, 17:31
Sorry.. I should have written an 'operational obstruction light'...

The raised jib is normal; raise to its highest possible position to reduce the oversail of the public domain...i.e foot paths and road below when not in use. This also reduces the moment arm the wind can generate at the tip, permitting slightly higher wind speed to be tolerated before the auto weathervaning operates. This will operate regardless of the crane being manned or not, with the human operator having only a little allowance to block it...

mixture
17th Jan 2013, 17:39
that the crane jib should have been lowered as it was not lit albeing the actual crane itself was. I would hope that the crane was not positioned in any way to encroach on any of the std helicopter routes.

The crane operator did their job by following protocol and issuing a message saying "crane here, stay the :mad: away" (otherwise known as a NOTAM).

The helicopter infringed (for whatever reason the AAIB find) the NOTAM and suffered the consequences accordingly.

Calling for no cranes, lowering of cranes or all sorts of other stuff is about as helpful as the knee-jerk reaction from one of the MPs to reduce / eliminate helicopter flights over London.

Aviation and obstacles have peacefully co-existed for years with relatively few incidents, sure lessons will be learnt from this event, but I don't think we need to start placing some extravagant new measures on either the obstacle creators or the aviation community.

Ditter
17th Jan 2013, 17:51
In the weather we had it could have been locked.It operates all day with much more stress on it.It's just the done thing to let it slew.Either way,if you can't see it.It's dangerous.Time will tell if the experts deem it was safe.

Dont Hang Up
17th Jan 2013, 19:29
Flap5
There's a lot of nonsense being talked about the crane. It's orientation and whether it was lit or not is frankly irrelevant. The pilot would have been SVFR which requires him to be clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. That means you stay over the river, avoiding buildings and bridges. I can only think that something distracted the pilot, like changing frequency, to cause him to lose his references.

That sums it up very well for me, based upon what we already know. There is no mystery or fault in any VFR (or SVFR) flight being below the height of nearby obstructions. But when VMC go bad... ...Single pilot operation can get very intense in bad weather, even for experienced pilots..
The investigation will take its own good time, but I strongly suspect the conclusions will not venture far from that point.

cldrvr
17th Jan 2013, 20:20
I am going to stick my neck out here, that crane is not new, it has been there for ages. Pete has been going in and out of Battersea countless times. I for one would not be surprised if the accident had nothing to do with the crane and the craft was in trouble long before the crane came in the picture, either due to a mechanical or catastrophic failure.

The crane may well be a contributing factor, but I don't see it being the cause of this mishap.

Time will tell.

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 20:43
The crane may well be a contributing factor, but I don't see it being the cause of this mishap.Maybe, but consider: One nice spring morning I rent PA28 for a couple of hours fun time. Well, if you call time in a PA28 'fun' but that's subjective ;) For whatever reason, and sadly I can't tell you why because I've deceased, I crash bang into the middle of Salisbury cathedral. I'm killed and a few worshippers also, sadly. Are we agreed that Salisbury cathedral is a 'contributing factor' in this tragedy? If we are so agreed, what shall we do about it? Sue the Church of England? Put HM the Queen in the dock for putting one of her structures in front of an aircraft, without adequate lighting?

Surely the onus is on us as aviators not to fly into things? We don't need a gaggle of advisors and lawyers to tell us the bleeding obvious. We need maps and navaids that work, and our own judgement as pilots. If we don't trust the maps and the navaids then we take care. Crikes! Why are we having this discussion???

SLFandProud
17th Jan 2013, 20:43
In the weather we had it could have been locked.It operates all day with much more stress on it.It's just the done thing to let it slew.Either way,if you can't see it.It's dangerous.Time will tell if the experts deem it was safe.

I am sensing an utterly absurd undercurrent here that the problem that needs to be solved is development in London providing an obstacle to general aviation.

That carthorse you see over there? It's not going to work that way round.



In the world you envisage in which London is preserved in aspic for the convenience of aviators, the demand for aviation of any kind is going to drop to zero.


There are doubtless many lessons to be learned from this awful incident; "we should ban cranes [and by extension development] in London" is not one of them.

cldrvr
17th Jan 2013, 20:57
sadly I can't tell you why because I've deceased, I crash bang into the
middle of Salisbury cathedral.


But if you already had a catastrophic failure and you had no chance to avoid said cathedral, then the cathedral is just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am suggesting the accident happened before the crane was struck.

stuckgear
17th Jan 2013, 20:58
of course not, and neither shoul heli flights be banned, battersea or any other heliport be closed down either.

ther has to some degree been a bit if a battle over heli activity from the anti-aviation brigade, complaining about noise, pollution, safety etc and the site at batterseas for one has been coveted for its 'development potential' more than once.

be rest assured, this incident will be used to maximum effect by those with an agenda, which IMHO is shadenfreude over the grave of Peter Barnes and Matthew Wood.

Northern Listener
17th Jan 2013, 20:58
@mixture. Aah, the 'official' t w a t t e r, now it makes sense. Thank you.

@zz9.
But I would imagine that their criteria is different to most traffic. Seeing the ground is what they do, so they may well have grounded themselves far sooner than called for for purely safety reasons. Kind of my point, whether they patrol or respond they need good vis to do their job, not necessarily to fly. So their operational needs, and possibly SOPs will be different to that of other 'civil' operators.

In short a poor comparison.

ORAC
17th Jan 2013, 21:01
A freely given comment which will comfort the family - from the Torygraph.

Noel Edmonds, the Deal Or No Deal presenter, also paid tribute to the pilot.

The 64 year-old said: "I have flown with 'Barnsy' many times over many years both in the UK and across the continent. I have never experienced a more conscientious, skilled and professional pilot ever. Yes, like so many of us drawn to these versatile aircraft he was a real character. We had wonderful times enjoying the freedom of flight but Pete was always mindful of safety and responsibility to others."

He added: "My heart goes out to his family and all of those affected by this tragic accident "And when the investigations are complete I am sure it will be found to have been just that – a tragic accident. We should all be proud of the safety of flight in the UK and particularly in the crowded skies over London."

He continued: "Please never forget that thanks to pilots like Pete Barnes the helicopter is still the only method of transport devised by man that has saved more lives than it has taken. Thanks for the happy times Pete and the lives you saved when flying the Air Ambulance."....

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 21:08
Noel Edmonds, the Deal Or No Deal presenter, also paid tribute to the pilot.Just something doesn't sit comfortably on me, about this stuff.... would people make a public statement about their local taxi driver, bus driver,.... I don't quite know how to express it. Are these tributes as a 'friend' or a 'professional'. I've probably said something that's not expressed as I mean it, and I honestly can't find the right words. Maybe someone on my wavelength can venture in.

Lemain
17th Jan 2013, 21:13
I am suggesting the accident happened before the crane was struck.I certainly don't disagree with you. Probably the accident happened hours or even days before 'impact'. Sometimes it's even years and air accident history is littered with such examples.

keel beam
17th Jan 2013, 21:20
Worker at the towers saying that crane driver was late this morning for the first time in years. Picked the right day to be late!

He must be due a disciplinary for being late.

The question of lighting is right to be highlighted, even if in the end it was not a contributory factor. In many countries high intensity strobe lighting is used on high buildings and so can be seen more readily (the flashing being an attention getter) And whilst some of you might argue that you might not need the distraction of an attention getter if the chips are down, they would certainly make the pilot more aware rather than sub-conciously aware after consulting charts/NOTAMs

WHBM
17th Jan 2013, 21:48
- can you elaborate on this 'vertical' position?
This (from The Shard) is a comparable crane to the one on St Georges Tower which was struck

The London Shard inches closer to completion | urban75 blog (http://www.urban75.org/blog/the-london-shard-inches-closer-to-completion/)

The Jib is the main extension piece, in these photos the highest part of the crane. Hopefully it has a red light on top. It is pulled up or down from the pivot point by the cables which can just be seen. This operation is known in the crane world as Luffing. Swinging the whole crane round is known as Slewing. In this case, when parked overnight the Jib had been Luffed upwards to its maximum vertical extent. If you are into mechanics/weight & balance you will understand that as you Luff downwards the maximum allowable load reduces but you can reach further outwards from the central point.

As St Georges Tower, like many high structures, is somewhat tapered, given the need to reach materials on the ground standing some distance from the base of the structure, and also the need to avoid the materials being lifted, which will always swing somewhat, striking the structure, you Luff downwards towards the horizontal during most operations.

I am going to stick my neck out here, that crane is not new, it has been there for ages.Not so. It has been progressively going upwards during the construction. I understand it is not on any chart.

I recall going in and out of a US GA field when a nearby construction crane was always mentioned on the ATIS and always mentioned on first contact. It seemed like an overkill at the time as it wasn't really on the centreline. Now I'm thinking again.

RatherBeFlying
17th Jan 2013, 21:50
In Europe, gliders and general aviation including helos often use FLARM.

One of the genuinely useful aspects of FLARM is that it has obstacle databases for Austria, Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany (UK where are you?) which has reduced the incidence of aircraft striking cableways in the Alps.

FLARMs are cheap -- about 500 GBP. Had a FLARM been on the crane and the helo, it would have received a timely warning.

Flarm - Homepage (http://www.flarm.com/)

Here in Canada, PowerFlarm has come out. So far I've found it quite handy detecting gliders hiding directly underneath me in the same thermal.

BossEyed
17th Jan 2013, 22:42
Transponders/Flarm on fixed structures? Really?

This was a tragic accident, the reasons for which may or may not be horribly straightforward. But if even we, in the industry, cannot keep a sense of proportion (as seen in some entries in this thread), then it's little surprise if those with an agenda make headway. :(

I have to say that rather than "something must be done", my reaction to this unhappy event is that despite it being rush-hour, close to the centre of one of the most populated cities in the Western world, the really rather low resultant casualties and disruption suggest that the regulators and responders probably have it about right. Chance played a part, of course, but that can work both ways.

And before anyone starts, no - I am not making light of the tragedies for the families of Capt Barnes, Mr Wood, the critically injured person and the other casualties. Far from it.

M.Mouse
17th Jan 2013, 23:27
Just something doesn't sit comfortably on me, about this stuff.... would people make a public statement about their local taxi driver, bus driver,.... I don't quite know how to express it. Are these tributes as a 'friend' or a 'professional'.

I have absolutely no doubt that Peter Barnes was a skilled and experienced pilot. What Noel Edmonds expressed publicly was what anybody who knew him (I didn't) would doubtless express privately to friends and friends and family of the deceased if that is what they felt.

I suspect in Noel Edmonds case an enterprising reporter telephoned him for comment knowing that he flies helicopters and any comments would make good copy. If that was the case Noel Edmonds would have little choice but to say what he did knowing whatever he said would be published, imagine if he had said 'no comment'!

It is now common place to express, often hollow, emotion in public which I personally find quite nauseating e.g. people posting condolences to the family, etc. when they don't know them nor actually feel any genuinely deep sense of loss. They seem to have some urge to write such things in some misguided sense that it is the right thing to do.

If they really do feel they need to express their condolences then write to the next of kin a short and sincere note, that will mean far more than some 30 second post on an internet forum but then that would take effort and sincerity.

I rarely comment on air accidents believing that speculation does far more harm than good but I find the talk about the obstacle being lit a bit of a red herring. Even with the crane boom in the horizontal how far from the building would it extend? The boom was not horizontal but at quite a high angle from the horizontal so was probably extended what distance from the building? 100' maybe? How close to obstacles do you intentionally fly in marginal conditions? Whatever the reason the helicopter was too close to an obstruction with fatal consequences but we will have to wait for the AAIB to tell us why this tragic event happened.

Justone_moreperson
18th Jan 2013, 01:14
M.Mouse
It is good to see an extremely well thought out post.

fdr
18th Jan 2013, 02:35
But if you already had a catastrophic failure and you had no chance to avoid said cathedral, then the cathedral is just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am suggesting the accident happened before the crane was struck.
COLDRIVIERE

Coldy, in your travels have you ever come across the concept of parsimony, lex parsimoniae as otherwise embodied in Occam's Razor? Alternatively, what would be the basis of the assumption that an IFLOC or other mechanical failure precipitated the event? Just curious. The low level task in adverse weather is quite demanding, and the conditions limit the reaction/recovery time available.

I am sensing an utterly absurd undercurrent here that the problem that needs to be solved is development in London providing an obstacle to general aviation. That carthorse you see over there? It's not going to work that way round. SLF&P

Amen.

Generally power gives way to sail... and other jibs. Almost invariably power gives way to granite and other fixed structures/edifice.

Don't imply any criticism of this particular operation; humbly contend that the operating environment is high demand and adverse outcomes can occur with the best of operators. The society balances the risk vs the rewards of the utility provided by the operation. The deceased and injured on the ground would probably consider the tradeoff to be unreasonable, accident victims using the HEMS systems, and Captains of the Universe attaining more free time would have a different view.

RatherBeFlying
18th Jan 2013, 04:49
Transponders/Flarm on fixed structures? Really?Flarm works quite nicely at spotting Flarm equipped aircraft on the ground, even when stationary; so why not on a crane?

Towers and other fixed obstacles end up on the database, but crane deployments can't be expected to conform to the update cycle.

pattern_is_full
18th Jan 2013, 05:03
Indeed the aircraft could suffer a significant deflection from its original track on collision with something that substantial.

30 degrees easily.
60 degrees possibly.
90 degrees? I suspect that it would disintegrate completely on collision rather than "bounce off" in that way.

Glad someone noted that direction of travel after the collision could be very different from the direction before.

At least one picture purports to show the tail of the helicopter separated on a building roof. If true, a helicopter that has lost its tail rotor will be spinning like a top, and can veer off in any direction.

It isn't really a "bounce" - it is a complete loss of directional control from what may have been a "moderate" collision (n.b. the thin tail boom and long thin tailrotor driveshaft are far more fragile than the cockpit area - helo tails have failed with no collision at all). If you do physically lose tail structure (weight), you go nose down as the c.g. shifts forward and the residual thrust in the main rotor can shove you off in whatever direction you happen to be pointed in the spin - even 180 degrees to your original heading.

The path of a helo with a failed or missing tail rotor effectively becomes a "random walk."

I hestitate to link to Youtube since the embedding is now automatic, and not everyone wants to see the video. But search "helicopter loses tail rotor" there to see the real dynamics of what can happen.

Pace
18th Jan 2013, 08:00
There's a lot of nonsense being talked about the crane. It's orientation and whether it was lit or not is frankly irrelevant.

Flap 5

Whether a high object and a long and spindly one at that needs lighting is very relevant.
Yes in an ideal world pilots will only fly in the conditions stipulated by the rules they are flying too.
It is an imperfect world! I wish motorists would not crash in cars but they do hence manufacturers go to extremes to protect the occupants in the event of a crash.

This Helicopter was brought down by a Crane end of story!!!! For whatever reason the pilot did not see that Crane but may have done had it had high intensity lighting fitted.

The Wrekin light was reinstated partly because of of a tragic crash of a Mooney which hit a rock face within 20 feet of its summit.

These lights are visible in cloud where visibility can range fromn 50 meters to 200 meters enough to alert a pilot to pull clear.

Look at the London Skyline and as posted earlier the Cranes tower well above the Skyscraper building like Octopus Tentacles waiting to catch their prey.
I was horrified in clear weather seeing these contraptions and the amount of them exposed in the clear skies and towering way above the high buildings.

If anything needs to be learnt from this tragedy it is to legally make these temporary structures carry suitable lighting at all times night and day as the cowboy way they are controlled is not acceptable.

Madbob
18th Jan 2013, 08:17
Pace I agree with all you say. I first experienced high intensity strobe lighting when flying into Alconbury many moons ago. The approach had a "running rabbit" which penetrated the murk much better than anything I'd seen before. (The RAF then had centre line and 5 bar lighting with PAPI's / VASI's which were nowhere near as good as the USAF approach lighting.)

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.

stuckgear
18th Jan 2013, 08:25
M.Mouse
It is good to see an extremely well thought out post.


i disagree, and over point:

Even with the crane boom in the horizontal how far from the building would it extend? The boom was not horizontal but at quite a high angle from the horizontal so was probably extended what distance from the building? 100' maybe? How close to obstacles do you intentionally fly in marginal conditions? Whatever the reason the helicopter was too close to an obstruction with fatal consequences

The inference is that the heli was flown intentionally close to the obstacle in marginal weather, the point about lighting which Pace has made is valid. space in area is limited and obstructions made visible by any and all means possible

safety margins is the key.

No professional pilot on a commercial op. would engage in reckless endangerment by intentionally placing their craft close to an obstruction in marginal weather and the sentence implies the opposite.

as posted before, there are many that will use this incident to further an agenda detrimental to heli ops in the London (and possibly other cities). we also know media and other sources use this forum for references, so please think about your post and how it can be construed and also misrepresented.

As posted previously there are details a few pages back of the number of heli ops in London from 2012 back to 2007, and the number of incidents and fatalities is about as minimal as it could be.

BossEyed makes the valid point:

rather than "something must be done", my reaction to this unhappy event is that despite it being rush-hour, close to the centre of one of the most populated cities in the Western world, the really rather low resultant casualties and disruption suggest that the regulators and responders probably have it about right. Chance played a part, of course, but that can work both ways.

And before anyone starts, no - I am not making light of the tragedies for the families of Capt Barnes, Mr Wood, the critically injured person and the other casualties. Far from it.

From all sources, it would be apparent that Peter Barnes was a highly experienced and professional pilot with expertise in his field.

Piltdown Man
18th Jan 2013, 09:14
For many years I flew into and out of LCY. One of the things that was easy to to miss was Canary Wharf, purely because of the high intensity strobe. When in cloud you made sure that you were on track because knew you were near the building. But would this be of any help now? There are now so many tall buildings and structures in London that putting standard strobes on them all might make it more rather than less confusing. Maybe flash and colour coding like lighthouses may help?

sky9
18th Jan 2013, 09:34
The problem that we have with cranes is that there appears that very little thought has been given to the interrelationship of cranes and helicopters. In parts of Europe there is a similar problem of overhead wires and helicopters.
Possibly some thought needs to be given to painting the boom in a high visibility colour together with the use of decent lighting at night and in reduced visibility. The effectiveness and efficiency of LED's has been staggering over the last couple of years. Could they be used to provide a better obstruction identification?

I must admit to wondering if rime ice had anything to do with the accident. I have seen it build up at an alarming rate on unheated parts of aircraft flying in similar conditions.

mixture
18th Jan 2013, 09:34
This Helicopter was brought down by a Crane end of story!!!! For whatever reason the pilot did not see that Crane but may have done had it had high intensity lighting fitted.

Many cranes feature on NOTAMs worldwide, remind me, how many cause incidents ? Also, pray tell, what good would strobes and lights do on a foggy/cloudy day ..... the diffusion of the light in cloud wouldn't help an already disorientated pilot much !

The fact remains, the crane has been there many months, it has been in the NOTAMs for as many months, the pilot was, by all accounts, a highly experienced pilot and a regular visitor to the airspace over London.

He infringed the obstacle NOTAM and suffered the consequences, that is a fact. Taken on its own, there is very little excuse for missing that crane if you are an experienced pilot and a regular visitor to London.

But we can't take that fact on its own, what is yet to be uncovered by the AAIB is the why, and the guesses round here are that something else was going on and that the NOTAM infringement was just the icing on the cake. Not the cause.

Pace
18th Jan 2013, 09:40
Piltdown

We still do not know whether a mechanical problem brought Peter Barnes into that situation or whether it was a small error!
There are a mass of so called experts and politicians with their own agendas calling for changes but directing their fire at Aviation.
I wish I had had my Camera in London yesterday to photograph the skyline.
It was all to apparent at the haphazard way these high level cranes were dotted all over the place.
They do without doubt form a hazard not just to helicopters but could do so also to a stricken aircraft taking off from Airports close into the City.
While I am sure after the investigation has taken place recommendations will be made in light of those investigations.
Please to not make aviation the Scapegoat or for that matter the pilot who like the rest of us is human.
A large portion of attention needs to be directed at the structure that brought this Helicopter down ie the Cranes and how better to control these temporary structures and make them safer.

Some of these tall buildings cost hundreds of £millions if not £billions and make huge profits for their developers. It is not too much to ask that adequate high tech technology and lighting is fitted to the Cranes to protect others who are in that sky on purpose or accidently

Many cranes feature on NOTAMs worldwide, remind me, how many cause incidents ?

Yes one a few days ago which had the Helicopter gone off in a different direction after impact could have caused a much higher loss of life! How many do you want??

luoto
18th Jan 2013, 09:58
Sticking my nose in here and I am not a pilot.

Since GPS is said to be less than stellar in such circumstances (?) would even a series of radio nodes or something like Loran help, as if you can get a much closer, accurate radio fix, you could perhaps then program a warning if you go too near something, like GPWRS but for things in the air?

mixture
18th Jan 2013, 10:07
Yes one a few days ago which had the Helicopter gone off in a different direction after impact could have caused a much higher loss of life! How many do you want??

Right, one. One in how many years, over how many hell flights ?

The problem is that the people round here pointing the finger at the crane are (probably) barking up the wrong tree. Sure the crane was a factor, but it wasn't the cause...... the crane was what finished the job ... my money's on there being more to this sad event than just crane meets helicopter.

There is an excellent post on the other thread, number #180 by airpolice who makes some well thought out observations that don't just go blaming the crane ..... I hope he doesn't mind me reproducing it here for the benefit of those who don't fraternise in that corner of PPRuNe ....

Without wanting to speculate on the specifics of the crash, Redhill to Elstree is crossing some busy airspace and I'd prefer to use H9 as passing overhead LHR at 1,800 foot, even IFR has to be simpler than staying under the inbound traffic in variable VFR conditions.

If wx precludes H9, then maybe we just aren't going there today. It's hard to see how scud running over the city centre is a better bet than turning around and running away, or setting down, before you get shut in.

In a 109, of all aircraft, this should have been a straightforward tasking.

The VFR bit of it escapes me, why, with low cloud and freezing conditions, would you head into that airpsace, but not over the water?

The 109 is certified for spifr but that will not make it immune to icing, so a climb is no guarantee of escape from anything except high buildings. Climbing out from a low level transit, even with LHR to keep you clear of other traffic, may not be great when it exposes you to the ice.

So.... ifr is ruled out by ice and vfr ruled out by low cloud, the great advantage of a rotary is the ability to stop (I know it's not simple as it sounds) or go at walking pace where you can see.

Lots of holes will have lined up for this crash to happen, but some of them may well have been a good bit to the south of Vauxhall Bridge.


The AAIB will be best placed to determine why this happened, but how many of you, really, would set off tomorrow to take that route in that weather?

Let's hope that when we get to read the report, we can all identify the point at which we would have turned back.

BOAC
18th Jan 2013, 10:16
but could do so also to a stricken aircraft taking off from Airports close into the City. - no. Any such crane which infringes the obstacle clearance for any runway departure would be NOTAM'd and result in a reduced take-off weight allowance for that runway or a change in routing. If you are talking about a major loss of power after take-off ('stricken'?), then you really need to demolish all the buildings too just in case.

Lemain
18th Jan 2013, 10:28
The trouble with transponders and even lights is that if every obstruction was kitted-out the data would overload the pilot. The pilot is multi-tasking and in the event of equipment problems (or even marital or kid problems) he can't devote 100% of his brain to terrain clearance. If he did, the a/c would fall out of the sky.

Nothing about this tragedy that we've heard so far suggests to me that the present arrangements are unsafe or should be altered. Yes, there is always room for improvement, an evolution, but we don't need to worry the travelling public by suggesting that something is 'broke'. If is aint broke don't fix it.

mary meagher
18th Jan 2013, 10:57
When all the information has been collected and considered, it still comes down to holes in the cheese, with the choice to make the flight in that weather a factor.

IFR with all the bells and whistles and the jet flying itself down to decision height is the only safe flying available in lifting fog with iceing a possibility.

Some have suggested a possible mechanical problem. The A109 was first certified in 1996, and nearly a thousand have been manufactured by the Italian company; military variants, worldwide civilian use by police and ambulance services. 250 are listed for sale at the present time, you can buy your own A109E manufactured in 2006 for only $3,400,000. If it was, like the Dreamliner, the first flying example of its type, glitches would be expected, but a twin engine state of the art highly developed helicopter is unlikely to suddenly fail.

Although this has attracted unrivaled media attention, the surprising thing is how few were the casualties. A previous post mentions that on Jan. 24, l990, a single engine Bell Jetranger with 4 on board came down on a suburban area of Glasgow during a snow shower. One on board was killed, the pilot was badly injured, and the two passengers walked away, no one on the ground was hurt.

Most air accidents hurt only those on the aircraft. Relatively few on the ground. So how much should be spent on prevention?

I can't imagine that a couple of strobes on a crane would be a major item in a developer's spreadsheet.

Cornish Jack
18th Jan 2013, 10:59
No professional pilot on a commercial op. would engage in reckless endangerment by intentionally placing their craft close to an obstruction in marginal weather and the sentence implies the opposite.
Hmm! How professional? Senior Helo Test Pilot professional enough? Mid December in Service twin en-route through the Low Countries, cloud base <200', short of fuel and therefore flying at max speed, routing prepared by a different crew takes us within 400 yds of a television Tx mast of 1346' (yes, I remember it!!) vis variable about 100-200 yds, flying underneath power lines, no icing clearance, so can't climb, too low to get VOR lock-on so position VERY uncertain ....... etc., etc., Long time ago - '70s but 'get-home-itis' was in control and decision making is not necessarily of the best in crap weather. Relevant? - not necessarily, but 'professionalism' is no GUARANTEE of anything.

Lemain
18th Jan 2013, 11:05
Long time ago - '70s but 'get-home-itis' was in control and decision making is not necessarily of the best in crap weather. Relevant? - not necessarily, but 'professionalism' is no GUARANTEE of anything.Been there, done that. Walked so no T shirt. Is there a pilot on this board who doesn't relate to your post?

BOAC
18th Jan 2013, 11:06
Sounds moderately exciting, CJ - I think I might have dropped off at the nearest open space and called for a bowser.:). 400 yds from a mast with guy wires.....hmm!! Nice bit of route planning.

Pace
18th Jan 2013, 11:58
Sadly superior skills are no guarantee! having lost two friends one an ex Easy Jet Captain and the other a very high hours and very cautious professional pilot last year In a Navajo accident!
It makes you realize that it only takes one small mistake at the wrong time and in the wrong place to have a disaster! Sadly none of us are perfect even the best.
But having said that the more reason why we spend a fortune with high technology in aircraft to help protect us why that rule applies to just the aircraft?
Those Cranes are a hazard

mixture
18th Jan 2013, 12:24
Those Cranes are a hazard

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 ?