Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just asking.
I know the heliport has been there forever but London City Airport is a safer way to operate and surely a better diversion. Wrong side of town and all that I know, but we can't move Heathrow either.
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.
I know the heliport has been there forever but London City Airport is a safer way to operate and surely a better diversion. Wrong side of town and all that I know, but we can't move Heathrow either.
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.
Indeed - what's not in question here is that being able to see something is generally going to be much safer than not being able to see it.
I have had a situation where I've flown down the river in clear blue skies and on the way back 10 minutes later been forced down from 1500 ft to 1200 ft to remain below cloud. Not an issue in my case as I was approaching a step down towards Barnes/Kew anyway and it was clear below.
Bearing in mind it is over a river near an estuary so cloudbase and particularly mist/fog can change fairly quickly.
I have had a situation where I've flown down the river in clear blue skies and on the way back 10 minutes later been forced down from 1500 ft to 1200 ft to remain below cloud. Not an issue in my case as I was approaching a step down towards Barnes/Kew anyway and it was clear below.
Bearing in mind it is over a river near an estuary so cloudbase and particularly mist/fog can change fairly quickly.
"It does raise the question of whether Vauxhall bridge should continue to be a designated holding point."
Runways have different holding points for different wx conditions - it could be possible to not use Vauxhall in poor viz - but as it's at the edge of the Battersea and London Zone I would expect it would stay.
I would also expect that if I was flying H4 west > east under the control of NATS and I was experiencing poor weather conditions that the controller would advise me of a large building / crane on the edge of the zone, particularly if it had been NOTAMd and even more particularly if it was a new obstacle not shown on charts.
I don't know the circumstances and I am not suggesting anyone at NATS did anything wrong in fact I have always had excellent professional service, very few holds and common sense approach to routing multiple aircraft in limited space and making them aware of each other but I just don't think that the technical difference between being inside the zone or outside the zone by 100 yards changes the landscape completely - whats that at 90Kts plus, one or two seconds?
What is suggested by reports (and we know these can be wrong) is that NATS stated the aircraft was previously receivibg a service and had't spoken to Battersea.
Maybe it's because it wasn't relevent at 1500 ft with CAVOK but I have not been advised of St Georges Wharf (nor as I said before) felt that it intruded into my flight space.
Runways have different holding points for different wx conditions - it could be possible to not use Vauxhall in poor viz - but as it's at the edge of the Battersea and London Zone I would expect it would stay.
I would also expect that if I was flying H4 west > east under the control of NATS and I was experiencing poor weather conditions that the controller would advise me of a large building / crane on the edge of the zone, particularly if it had been NOTAMd and even more particularly if it was a new obstacle not shown on charts.
I don't know the circumstances and I am not suggesting anyone at NATS did anything wrong in fact I have always had excellent professional service, very few holds and common sense approach to routing multiple aircraft in limited space and making them aware of each other but I just don't think that the technical difference between being inside the zone or outside the zone by 100 yards changes the landscape completely - whats that at 90Kts plus, one or two seconds?
What is suggested by reports (and we know these can be wrong) is that NATS stated the aircraft was previously receivibg a service and had't spoken to Battersea.
Maybe it's because it wasn't relevent at 1500 ft with CAVOK but I have not been advised of St Georges Wharf (nor as I said before) felt that it intruded into my flight space.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone explain why people are posting about 'the route' and 'heli-lanes' H this and that when they were not applicable and also why '1500ft' over Heathrow is mentioned when I understand the clearance was SVFR in foggy conditions with possible no icing clearance - and while I'm at it, Airpolice - have you looked at the EGLC Metar?
I'm just talking about my experience and my expectations.
I already said I'm not in receipt of all the facts so (trying to) not making any judgements and/or conclusions before AAIB.
As I use the helilanes I am interested to learn any lessons and be consulted on any changes.
Otherwise - I'll get my coat !
I already said I'm not in receipt of all the facts so (trying to) not making any judgements and/or conclusions before AAIB.
As I use the helilanes I am interested to learn any lessons and be consulted on any changes.
Otherwise - I'll get my coat !
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot who died when his helicopter crashed into a crane in central London may have been distracted trying to change the frequency on his radio, an aviation expert said. Pete Barnes, a veteran pilot with more than 25 years' experience, could have veered off route and missed a turning on the River Thames as he tried to radio Battersea heliport to say he wanted to make an unscheduled landing because of the fog. Aviation lawyer and qualified pilot James Healy-Pratt told the Daily Telegraph: 'It could have taken 10 to 15 seconds to make the change of radio frequency, in which time the helicopter could have flown up to half a mile.'
Air accident investigators are likely to focus on trying to account for a 'missing minute', during which Mr Barnes was out of contact with flight controllers.
David Learmount, from aviation website Flightglobal, told the Independent that a small change in weather conditions, which are thought to have worsened at about the time of the accident, could have been enough to 'trap' Mr Barnes.
Today Daily Mail diarist Richard Kay revealed how Mr Barnes was on his way to pick up restaurant and clubs tycoon Richard Caring when he crashed. The 62-year-old entrepreneur was waiting at Elstree airport in Hertfordshire, unaware that the aircraft had diverted to Battersea heliport because of fog.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Anyone explain why people are posting about 'the route' and 'heli-lanes' H this and that when they were not applicable>>
Is it known that he was operating off route then? Twin helicopters frequently fly the standard routes.
Is it known that he was operating off route then? Twin helicopters frequently fly the standard routes.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS need to look at how they deal with the inevitable construction, not simply prevent it.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Marlow
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is it known that he was operating off route then? Twin helicopters frequently fly the standard routes"
Best point on the thread Director. Like a bucket of cold water on a pack of squabbling, opinionated dogs.
Get a life boys and girls, wait for the facts.
Meanwhile please make it clear that, despite your prurient interest in Mr Barnes' last moments, we who are or were the UK helicopter industry, send our deepest sympathy and support to his wife and children.
Best point on the thread Director. Like a bucket of cold water on a pack of squabbling, opinionated dogs.
Get a life boys and girls, wait for the facts.
Meanwhile please make it clear that, despite your prurient interest in Mr Barnes' last moments, we who are or were the UK helicopter industry, send our deepest sympathy and support to his wife and children.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On consideration I suppose it is just one of the many possibilities that if -
*under stress from the lowering cloud base
*having been asked to contact Battersea
*being momentarily distracted by changing frequency
*and if the accident site was at the very point where transfer to Battersea normally occurs
that these factors MAY have led him towards the protruding crane rising up from the tower.
If he had the Battersea frequency pre-programmed the frequency change should only have taken 1-2 seconds but if he had to dial it up then this would, as they are saying, have taken a little longer.
Can anyone identify the frequency he would have been on and the frequency he would have needed to select to speak with Battersea?
.
*under stress from the lowering cloud base
*having been asked to contact Battersea
*being momentarily distracted by changing frequency
*and if the accident site was at the very point where transfer to Battersea normally occurs
that these factors MAY have led him towards the protruding crane rising up from the tower.
If he had the Battersea frequency pre-programmed the frequency change should only have taken 1-2 seconds but if he had to dial it up then this would, as they are saying, have taken a little longer.
Can anyone identify the frequency he would have been on and the frequency he would have needed to select to speak with Battersea?
.
Last edited by Grenville Fortescue; 18th Jan 2013 at 12:59.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to your question, HD. Pilots generally prefer to fly in straight lines. Draw a line between Redhill and Elstree and tell us which H route you think you would follow.
GF,
Let's not try to pick a likely scenario and then cherry pick our data to support that shall we. Instead....let's wait for the AAIB to do its job. They gather the data then seek plausible explanations as they should.....and as we should.
For us Data point 1.....is the AAIB Report.
BOAC.....we may prefer to fly in straight direct paths.....but more than often there are very good reasons we cannot....and should not. Helicopters are the bastard step children of aviation when it comes to such things like routing and heights/altitudes/flight levels.
Let's not try to pick a likely scenario and then cherry pick our data to support that shall we. Instead....let's wait for the AAIB to do its job. They gather the data then seek plausible explanations as they should.....and as we should.
For us Data point 1.....is the AAIB Report.
BOAC.....we may prefer to fly in straight direct paths.....but more than often there are very good reasons we cannot....and should not. Helicopters are the bastard step children of aviation when it comes to such things like routing and heights/altitudes/flight levels.
Last edited by SASless; 18th Jan 2013 at 13:28.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone identify the frequency he would have been on and the frequency he would have needed to select to speak with Battersea?
I couldn't see it on the previous pages but does anyone know what the METAR for EGTR was when the heli departed EKGR (07:30)?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
BOAC.....we may prefer to fly in straight direct paths.....but more than often there are very good reasons we cannot....and should not. Helicopters are the bastard step children of aviation when it comes to such things like routing and heights/altitudes/flight levels.
things like routing and heights/altitudes/flight levels
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
does anyone know what the METAR for EGTR was when the heli departed EKGR
EGWU is the nearest METAR reporting station.
METAR EGWU 160650Z 05003KT 3500 BR OVC002 M03/M03 Q1011 AMB TEMPO 2000 BKN001 RED=
TAF EGWU 160440Z 1606/1624 08004KT 2000 BR BKN003 TEMPO 1606/1609 0700 FZFG BKN001 BECMG 1609/1611 4000 HZ BKN004 BECMG 1611/1613 8000 FEW015=
I'm as intrigued by this accident as anyone, but when I hear "if this and if this and if this and if this happened... then maybe...", it's obvious that the poster doesn't really know what they're on about.
As for
What utter tosh. This pilot flew with all likely 'next use' frequencies already punched in, so it would have taken a split secong to change frequency, probably without even looking at the radio. He certainly wouldn't be fiddling with the frequency knob for 15 seconds, especially in that weather...
Rumour and speculation is one thing, but creating obscure and complicated scenarios to support a particular theory is just clutching at straws and is a waste of time.
As for
Aviation lawyer and qualified pilot James Healy-Pratt told the Daily Telegraph: 'It could have taken 10 to 15 seconds to make the change of radio frequency, in which time the helicopter could have flown up to half a mile
Rumour and speculation is one thing, but creating obscure and complicated scenarios to support a particular theory is just clutching at straws and is a waste of time.
Last edited by toptobottom; 18th Jan 2013 at 14:57. Reason: typo
