Valley Hawks in Northolt
Sorry to bring us back to thread, but I don't have any stories half as good as the Leeming one...
This issue of SE aircraft going into Northolt compares favourably with the management of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, who have for some years near-enough banned helicopters (ie SAR and Air Amb) from using their helipad to prevent a crash. The occasional helicopter is still allowed in, if the casualty is really up the creek, but otherwise the cas/patient has to be dropped at the airport for a 20-min road trip. Many a time has an 'discussion' ensued while the aircraft is airborne, cas on board, as the crew tries to persuade the authorities that the cas really needs to go direct to the hospital...
I accept that the chances of a helicopter crash have been reduced by this measure, but if the Fates decide that sh!t is going to happen, it still can happen even with fewer movements. The LS at the ARI is one of the biggest at a UK hospital, and we're constantly reminded how scarce road ambulances are...it just seems perverse that this hospital has unilaterally decided, in the absence of any helo-related mishaps at hospitals in the UK, to effectively close their very fine helipad!
This issue of SE aircraft going into Northolt compares favourably with the management of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, who have for some years near-enough banned helicopters (ie SAR and Air Amb) from using their helipad to prevent a crash. The occasional helicopter is still allowed in, if the casualty is really up the creek, but otherwise the cas/patient has to be dropped at the airport for a 20-min road trip. Many a time has an 'discussion' ensued while the aircraft is airborne, cas on board, as the crew tries to persuade the authorities that the cas really needs to go direct to the hospital...
I accept that the chances of a helicopter crash have been reduced by this measure, but if the Fates decide that sh!t is going to happen, it still can happen even with fewer movements. The LS at the ARI is one of the biggest at a UK hospital, and we're constantly reminded how scarce road ambulances are...it just seems perverse that this hospital has unilaterally decided, in the absence of any helo-related mishaps at hospitals in the UK, to effectively close their very fine helipad!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that the Northolt Radar Manouevring Area bit which allows RAF Northolt controllers and military aircraft to apply a completely different set of criteria? I'm thinking 500ft vertical separation between IFR traffic, visual separation between SVFR traffic on heliroutes, etc etc
Regardless, from the exemptions bit of Rule 5:
So, you can either apply the blanket 'Rule 5 doesn't apply to military aircraft' bit or just take the exemption above which applies to all aircraft.
Regardless, from the exemptions bit of Rule 5:
3 (c) Special VFR flight and notified routes
Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1000 feet rule when flying on a special VFR flight, or when operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route being flown; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption landings may not be made other than at a licensed or Government aerodrome, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained.
Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1000 feet rule when flying on a special VFR flight, or when operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route being flown; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption landings may not be made other than at a licensed or Government aerodrome, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London FIR
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NRMA is there only to enable northolt radar controllers to get aircraft in and out without getting in the way of LHR Int Dir N & Fin Dir. the 500' Reduced Vertical Sep is to enable Northolt traffic to get in and out whilst maintaining seperation against (for example) Battersea/Brent Traffic.
Interesting to note that the Civil controllers at Terminal Control, give Northolt controllers traffic so that we can use the 500' rule to keep the aircraft moving.
As for the visual seperation on the helilanes.... as i understood it the SVFR controllers can also do that.
Interesting to note that the Civil controllers at Terminal Control, give Northolt controllers traffic so that we can use the 500' rule to keep the aircraft moving.
As for the visual seperation on the helilanes.... as i understood it the SVFR controllers can also do that.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the Dog and Duck
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Lurking, you're right; the NRMA does allow NHT to provide certain "dispensations" from normal class A rules, the 500ft rule being one of them ( subject to criteria). However, any Mil zone "assumes the classification of airspace within which it lies". As for rule 5, my point is that the aircraft captain is responsible for the "land clear" element...If you're saying that Mil pilots are exempt Rule 5, I would suggest that he would have a hard time arguing it in a court of law in the event of an incident.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magp1e, I had two points. Firstly, Rule 5 in itself doesn't apply to military aircraft (the JSP550 series does). I wouldn't disagree with you about the amount of muck that would be thrown if the military weren't able to glide clear, but that isn't the point.
Secondly, your comment about the LCTR Class A is completely misleading. The airspace classification has no bearing in this scenario.
Secondly, your comment about the LCTR Class A is completely misleading. The airspace classification has no bearing in this scenario.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the Dog and Duck
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurking,
I'm afraid that the bit about "LCTR Class A" is not misleading. There are certain dispensations NHT can apply as granted by Air Cmd eg 500ft separation, but NHT controllers are bound by agreement to apply the rules relating to LCTR and class A airspace, as laid out in MATS pt2, the NRMA is not exempt.
I'm suprised that Mil ac are not required to observe the Rules of the Air. If rule 5 does not apply, how would that balance against ANO (Article 74) that states that a person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property?.....
p.s. Visual separation on the heli routes is a SVFR rule used by both civ/mil in accordance with MATS pt2
Is that the Northolt Radar Manoeuvring Area bit which allows RAF Northolt controllers and military aircraft to apply a completely different set of criteria?
I'm suprised that Mil ac are not required to observe the Rules of the Air. If rule 5 does not apply, how would that balance against ANO (Article 74) that states that a person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property?.....
p.s. Visual separation on the heli routes is a SVFR rule used by both civ/mil in accordance with MATS pt2
I thought that the military was only allowed to operate outside the ANO where JSP550 makes specific provisions:
(3) It shall be lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(3) It shall be lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;
(b) for complying with the law of any country other than the United Kingdom within which the aircraft then is; or
(c) for complying with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 550) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State in relation to an aircraft of which the commander is acting as such in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.
In other words, there is no such thing as the 'ANO doesn't apply to the military' idea. That is true only where there is specific provision for the activity within JSP550. So, if there is nothing in JSP550 saying that you can ignore the 'glide clear' element of Rule 5, then unless there is provision for specific authorisation in the JSP, you shall observe the ANO.
(b) for complying with the law of any country other than the United Kingdom within which the aircraft then is; or
(c) for complying with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 550) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State in relation to an aircraft of which the commander is acting as such in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if this seems a bit "anorackish" but as an outsider the reason single engine aircraft can't fly in certain areas (Northolt/over London/anywhere you like) is to do with risk. The people who make these rules dont seem to understand risk much, and it looks like the rules were put in place years ago when it could be argued the risk was much higher than today.
We can keep a few civil servants busy for a month or so collating how many flights are undertaken by single engine military aircraft per year. (Bound to be lots) Then how many of these have engine failures (not many I think) then work out the percentage risk of this happening (very small) Now even if an engine failure happens, how many result in crashes (i.e if you can dead stick it in somewhere, or do you jump out) this again reduces the figures. Even in the worst case, when an aircraft is abandoned and crashes, how often will this result in injury/loss of life to those below? When you add this all up I rather think you get a risk factor which is so small it is insignificant. So whats all the fuss about?? When you boil it all down, you will find that some senior bod somewhere thinks his career is on the line should it ever happen that somebody gets an aircraft through their roof. In fact the chances of this actually happening are so small you can ignore them. All part of risk management.- Ah yes but what if it does happen ???
We can keep a few civil servants busy for a month or so collating how many flights are undertaken by single engine military aircraft per year. (Bound to be lots) Then how many of these have engine failures (not many I think) then work out the percentage risk of this happening (very small) Now even if an engine failure happens, how many result in crashes (i.e if you can dead stick it in somewhere, or do you jump out) this again reduces the figures. Even in the worst case, when an aircraft is abandoned and crashes, how often will this result in injury/loss of life to those below? When you add this all up I rather think you get a risk factor which is so small it is insignificant. So whats all the fuss about?? When you boil it all down, you will find that some senior bod somewhere thinks his career is on the line should it ever happen that somebody gets an aircraft through their roof. In fact the chances of this actually happening are so small you can ignore them. All part of risk management.- Ah yes but what if it does happen ???
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trouble is that if you look at Def-Stan-00-56
Defence Standard 0056
then you will see that as an aircraft crashing in London is likely to cause more than 1 death, it would be classified as "Catastrophic".
That alone means that it must be signed off by the "Project Safety review Committee". They must ensure that the risk as been reduced to "As low As Reasonably Practicable".
Barring single engine flights (except where essentia etc) where they could not glide-out would certainly reduce the risk. It costs nothing and the impact on operational performance is....?
Unless there is something I am missing I would find it hard to justify to the safety committee. I think the person who made the decision was entirely correct within the current defence policies. Whether the policies are right I will leave to people cleverer than me
Defence Standard 0056
then you will see that as an aircraft crashing in London is likely to cause more than 1 death, it would be classified as "Catastrophic".
That alone means that it must be signed off by the "Project Safety review Committee". They must ensure that the risk as been reduced to "As low As Reasonably Practicable".
Barring single engine flights (except where essentia etc) where they could not glide-out would certainly reduce the risk. It costs nothing and the impact on operational performance is....?
Unless there is something I am missing I would find it hard to justify to the safety committee. I think the person who made the decision was entirely correct within the current defence policies. Whether the policies are right I will leave to people cleverer than me
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Reasonably practicable" is the term used by the H&S fraternity to allow a job to be done as safely as possible. Looking at the RAF approach, it seems that the best way to avoid the problem is not to allow single engine aircraft in the area. That in fact prevents the job being done in the first place. Now if you dont need to fly over London, there is no problem, but the chances of a single engine aircraft crashing elsewhere are the same no matter where you are, but it still dosen't seem to happen. If the air marshals choose not to let aircraft with one engine fly over built up areas, thats fine and dandy, but it is not a logical decision based on risk, it is a reaction based on likely consequence.
If the moon fell out of orbit and hit the earth it would kill all life on the planet (consequence) However is it ever going to happen? (risk). Well it might I suppose.
If the moon fell out of orbit and hit the earth it would kill all life on the planet (consequence) However is it ever going to happen? (risk). Well it might I suppose.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risk Management
Adjutant
No wish to patronise or teach egg sucking - you may have experience in this area. Most common simple approach to risk management is a matrix which looks at both likelihood and consequence, since consequence is just as relevant. Top right hand corner - high chance / catastrophic impact - don't do it. Bottom left - low chance / low consequence - fill your boots.
The squares of the matrix are coloured red, amber, green according to risk which is a combination of likelihood and consequence. The challenge of course is the ambers - generally some degree of high/low combination, which is where judgement comes in. Your example re the moon - negligible chance / catastrophic consequence - still negligible risk - ignore. Hawk over London - probably green to amber combination. Down to judgement - common sense says if you don't need to, why would you?
No wish to patronise or teach egg sucking - you may have experience in this area. Most common simple approach to risk management is a matrix which looks at both likelihood and consequence, since consequence is just as relevant. Top right hand corner - high chance / catastrophic impact - don't do it. Bottom left - low chance / low consequence - fill your boots.
The squares of the matrix are coloured red, amber, green according to risk which is a combination of likelihood and consequence. The challenge of course is the ambers - generally some degree of high/low combination, which is where judgement comes in. Your example re the moon - negligible chance / catastrophic consequence - still negligible risk - ignore. Hawk over London - probably green to amber combination. Down to judgement - common sense says if you don't need to, why would you?
