Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
If the moderators can find a qualified person to go through this thread and remove all the inaccuracies, I think we'd do our industry a big favour. Because it is plain that not many people know the complex rules of flying through London.
And, incidentally, please ignore anything written or quoted by James Healy-Pratt. He recently filed a complaint against a helicopter he saw flying near his office in the City. This wasted 3 months of CAA & NATS time, 47 pages of radar printout, and gave a pilot nightmares for 3 months.
Result - no fault found. Pilot cleared.
But of course, I bow to JH-P as a member of the legal profession.
And, incidentally, please ignore anything written or quoted by James Healy-Pratt. He recently filed a complaint against a helicopter he saw flying near his office in the City. This wasted 3 months of CAA & NATS time, 47 pages of radar printout, and gave a pilot nightmares for 3 months.
Result - no fault found. Pilot cleared.
But of course, I bow to JH-P as a member of the legal profession.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,582
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Jim, as someone employed in exactly this profession, I'm trying to correct some of the "expert opinions" who have quite obviously never flown the heli lanes (or a helicopter) in their lives.
It could take some time!
It could take some time!
I bow to JH-P as a member of the legal profession.
Only as you hold his head under water I hope!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,582
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by heli14
I thought that all helicopter traffic over London had to be VFR under the current rules (or SVFR) - remaining clear of cloud and in sight of the surface?
It's SVFR as in ENR 1.2-2
But can be VFR in Class D, such as London City's airspace, e.g. Vauxhall Bridge.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
You (and a few others) are doing an excellent job correcting the uninformed drivel on this thread and the one in R&N. 
Your patience is impressive. I only hope you don't become exasperated and give up.
JimBall
I know you don't mean that - thank goodness.
FL
as someone employed in exactly this profession, I'm trying to correct some of the "expert opinions" who have quite obviously never flown the heli lanes (or a helicopter) in their lives.
Your patience is impressive. I only hope you don't become exasperated and give up.
JimBall
I bow to JH-P as a member of the legal profession.
FL
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shy Torque
BOAC, you have made a number of false suppositions in post #200.
Under SVFR (class A airspace) or under VFR (class D) you are under radar control and are given a particular route to follow.
Others have said there is no radar coverage at 500' - how then radar control? ATC control, yes.
The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace, but a maximum one often is; this may be lower than the normal maximum allowed on that route (i.e. the ones on the Helilanes chart), due to other traffic above.
"The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace" - never mentioned in #200. Is min height not by definition 500' from etc etc? Please correct me where I am wrong? It is a bit beyond me to work that out as altitude along the route.
However, it remains the pilot's personal responsibility to comply with the minimum height rules. You will be able to recall what these are.
As you see, I do, even if .............. Don't forget it is 500' height not altitude, will you - or you will probably upset a lot of Londoners?
Under SVFR (class A airspace) or under VFR (class D) you are under radar control and are given a particular route to follow.
Others have said there is no radar coverage at 500' - how then radar control? ATC control, yes.
The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace, but a maximum one often is; this may be lower than the normal maximum allowed on that route (i.e. the ones on the Helilanes chart), due to other traffic above.
"The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace" - never mentioned in #200. Is min height not by definition 500' from etc etc? Please correct me where I am wrong? It is a bit beyond me to work that out as altitude along the route.
However, it remains the pilot's personal responsibility to comply with the minimum height rules. You will be able to recall what these are.
As you see, I do, even if .............. Don't forget it is 500' height not altitude, will you - or you will probably upset a lot of Londoners?
Originally Posted by helinut
What makes you think any clearance would be SVFR?
Does the 500 foot rule apply to lateral distance as well as height such as if the buildings are higher than 500 feet AGL....and one is flying down the middle of the River at 500 feet plus whatever height of the boats/barges/Tugs/Ships/Bridges one is passing over?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy;
You and I fly this area and PB's route day in day out, the media have been desperately trawling for someone to go on a tv programme about this accident, as far as I am aware there have been no takers if you hear of anyone saying yes please persuade them otherwise. God help our industry if some of the experts on here were to say yes. In the meantime my hat is off to you for your patience, as I said earlier in this thread we work in one of the safest and most strictly regulated sections of aviation in the world, we do not need silly knee jerk reactions feeding the likes of J H-P, Kate Hoey et al now.
Personally for Redhill-Elstree-Redhill I too would have routed Vauxhall Bridge Ally Pally in a twin (I once had the pleasure of flying Talk Down Man around London in a 355 and asking him to spot Ally Pally, he may remember it, I've had to change ID since then, but I can vouch for his huge knowledge of SVFR and VFR ops in the LHR and LCY zones)
You and I fly this area and PB's route day in day out, the media have been desperately trawling for someone to go on a tv programme about this accident, as far as I am aware there have been no takers if you hear of anyone saying yes please persuade them otherwise. God help our industry if some of the experts on here were to say yes. In the meantime my hat is off to you for your patience, as I said earlier in this thread we work in one of the safest and most strictly regulated sections of aviation in the world, we do not need silly knee jerk reactions feeding the likes of J H-P, Kate Hoey et al now.
Personally for Redhill-Elstree-Redhill I too would have routed Vauxhall Bridge Ally Pally in a twin (I once had the pleasure of flying Talk Down Man around London in a 355 and asking him to spot Ally Pally, he may remember it, I've had to change ID since then, but I can vouch for his huge knowledge of SVFR and VFR ops in the LHR and LCY zones)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
I don't really want to post on this thread as the whole subject is really really sad. I did not know Peter all that well having met him first at the start of his career up in Northumbria. He was a cheeky monkey then, full of life and a little ray of sunshine wherever he went. Much later I did some work for him as he set up Helivision. Always straight and a delight to talk to no matter what the pressure.
It's a damn shame that prune threads like this invariably end up in a ****ty bun fight between those who know, those who think they know and the rest of us. I guess that is what the prune is all about.
Reading how well thought of Peter was by his peers maybe we should just ease springs and let him rest until the AAIB finish their sad work.
It's a damn shame that prune threads like this invariably end up in a ****ty bun fight between those who know, those who think they know and the rest of us. I guess that is what the prune is all about.
Reading how well thought of Peter was by his peers maybe we should just ease springs and let him rest until the AAIB finish their sad work.
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
Does the 500 foot rule apply to lateral distance as well as height
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,582
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
BOAC, to answer the points you made, I have numbered your answers in bold, to make it clear which I'm answering:
Under SVFR (class A airspace) or under VFR (class D) you are under radar control and are given a particular route to follow.
1: Others have said there is no radar coverage at 500' - how then radar control? ATC control, yes.
The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace, but a maximum one often is; this may be lower than the normal maximum allowed on that route (i.e. the ones on the Helilanes chart), due to other traffic above.
2:"The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace" - never mentioned in #200. Is min height not by definition 500' from etc etc? Please correct me where I am wrong? It is a bit beyond me to work that out as altitude along the route.
However, it remains the pilot's personal responsibility to comply with the minimum height rules. You will be able to recall what these are.
3:As you see, I do, even if .............. Don't forget it is 500' height not altitude, will you - or you will probably upset a lot of Londoners?
1: Not so, as you enter the Class A or Class D, you are told "Radar Control". Unless on a heli-route you will usually be given two features and are expected to fly on a direct straight track between them. Heathrow Radar is extremely accurate. No-one should fly at a height of 500 feet or below unless taking off or landing; for obvious reasons.
2: Comply with the 500 foot rule you must, but a minimum altitude is not routinely given as part of the clearance. You have to work it out for yourself to stay legal in this increasingly difficult airspace.
3: After 34 years in the job, I think I fully understand that. I've not had a low flying complaint yet, but there's always a first time, I suppose. Thankyou anyway.
Under SVFR (class A airspace) or under VFR (class D) you are under radar control and are given a particular route to follow.
1: Others have said there is no radar coverage at 500' - how then radar control? ATC control, yes.
The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace, but a maximum one often is; this may be lower than the normal maximum allowed on that route (i.e. the ones on the Helilanes chart), due to other traffic above.
2:"The minimum altitude is not normally given in this airspace" - never mentioned in #200. Is min height not by definition 500' from etc etc? Please correct me where I am wrong? It is a bit beyond me to work that out as altitude along the route.
However, it remains the pilot's personal responsibility to comply with the minimum height rules. You will be able to recall what these are.
3:As you see, I do, even if .............. Don't forget it is 500' height not altitude, will you - or you will probably upset a lot of Londoners?
2: Comply with the 500 foot rule you must, but a minimum altitude is not routinely given as part of the clearance. You have to work it out for yourself to stay legal in this increasingly difficult airspace.
3: After 34 years in the job, I think I fully understand that. I've not had a low flying complaint yet, but there's always a first time, I suppose. Thankyou anyway.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Bogey - I'm intrigued now - I take it you are saying that the heli-routes are exempt from the 500ft rule? I do know 'written permission' is required under the ANO for such exemption, as for air displays. I did not know helis were so exempt. Do you have a reference?
Just seen your post, ST - I therefore assume the AAIB will have a radar plot of PB's route?
Not sure why you keep mentioning minimum altitude?
Just seen your post, ST - I therefore assume the AAIB will have a radar plot of PB's route?
Not sure why you keep mentioning minimum altitude?
Last edited by BOAC; 19th Jan 2013 at 07:28.
Sorry for butting in chaps but to save further exasperation to ST, could I ask BOAC to read this line from ST's post....
2: Comply with the 500 foot rule you must, but a minimum altitude is not routinely given as part of the clearance. You have to work it out for yourself to stay legal in this increasingly difficult airspace.
Doesn't that answer your question BOAC?
2: Comply with the 500 foot rule you must, but a minimum altitude is not routinely given as part of the clearance. You have to work it out for yourself to stay legal in this increasingly difficult airspace.
Doesn't that answer your question BOAC?
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 53
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC, not sure you are reading what ShyTorque is writing.
Most of what I was about to write already posted.
I know from your other posts that you are a pilot. How often does ATC assign a height?
Most of what I was about to write already posted.
I know from your other posts that you are a pilot. How often does ATC assign a height?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
ShyT didn't say that.
altitude?
Clearances for the heli-routes include altitudes.
ShyT didn't say minimum.
I've never found it particularly interesting there.
You are permitted to temporarily deviate to the right of the route if necessary in order to obtain sufficient lateral separation from opposite direction traffic.
However, the increasing number of tall buildings further West is likely to make it increasingly difficult to comply with Rule 5 when VFR/Special VFR.
Also, under the current procedures, there are certain circumstances in which 2-way traffic along H4 may not be (legally) possible because of the new tower at St George Wharf.
I take it you are saying that the heli-routes are exempt from the 500ft rule?
Not sure why you keep mentioning minimum altitude
Clearances for the heli-routes include altitudes.
ShyT didn't say minimum.
it is less than 1000ft wide further east at London Bridge I believe, which makes 'opposite direction traffic' interesting.
You are permitted to temporarily deviate to the right of the route if necessary in order to obtain sufficient lateral separation from opposite direction traffic.
However, the increasing number of tall buildings further West is likely to make it increasingly difficult to comply with Rule 5 when VFR/Special VFR.
Also, under the current procedures, there are certain circumstances in which 2-way traffic along H4 may not be (legally) possible because of the new tower at St George Wharf.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 19th Jan 2013 at 07:56.
600' cloudbase and 1000m vis IIRC
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL;
You are right about deviating to the right of route, and sometimes SVFR will as you to hold at one of the bridges until other trafffic is past.
Also it is not unusual to accept "reduced traffic" seperation on the routes to allow 2 opposite direction aircraft to pass.
Off heli-route seperation for twins min sep is 3nm IIRC.
BOAC, go check the UKAIP (available on line) or take a look at the helicopter Procedures in the Heathrow Zone chapter in a Pooleys Glight Guide.
And for God's sake guys we fly on QNH therefore we are at an ALTITUDE, HEIGHT comes from flying on QFE. Our zone clearances include a MAXIMUM ALTITUDE eg "cleared Brent-Battersea not above 1500' to Brent and thereafter not above 1000' to Battersea avoiding R157." (All flown on London QNH)
The Heli-lanes chart shows MAX ALTITUDES which ATC expect us to treat pretty much as standard altitudes, unless we can't and then it is up to us as pilots to work out what the minimum can be.
Re-reading a lot of earlier posts the LHR/LCY zones seem to have an awful lot of rules and procedures (one reason why all new pilots to EGLW have to fly the trip with an experienced pilot and get a free landing so they can go for an ATC briefing) however the rules and procedures have grown from common sense and experience and are in fact easy to follow for any pilot with a vague modicum of common sense.
Whatever happened to Pete Barnes will come out, but in the meantime please stop feeding the antis with ill informed comments, helicopter aviation in the UK is actually astonishingly safe, and will remain so while common sense prevails.
You are right about deviating to the right of route, and sometimes SVFR will as you to hold at one of the bridges until other trafffic is past.
Also it is not unusual to accept "reduced traffic" seperation on the routes to allow 2 opposite direction aircraft to pass.
Off heli-route seperation for twins min sep is 3nm IIRC.
BOAC, go check the UKAIP (available on line) or take a look at the helicopter Procedures in the Heathrow Zone chapter in a Pooleys Glight Guide.
And for God's sake guys we fly on QNH therefore we are at an ALTITUDE, HEIGHT comes from flying on QFE. Our zone clearances include a MAXIMUM ALTITUDE eg "cleared Brent-Battersea not above 1500' to Brent and thereafter not above 1000' to Battersea avoiding R157." (All flown on London QNH)
The Heli-lanes chart shows MAX ALTITUDES which ATC expect us to treat pretty much as standard altitudes, unless we can't and then it is up to us as pilots to work out what the minimum can be.
Re-reading a lot of earlier posts the LHR/LCY zones seem to have an awful lot of rules and procedures (one reason why all new pilots to EGLW have to fly the trip with an experienced pilot and get a free landing so they can go for an ATC briefing) however the rules and procedures have grown from common sense and experience and are in fact easy to follow for any pilot with a vague modicum of common sense.
Whatever happened to Pete Barnes will come out, but in the meantime please stop feeding the antis with ill informed comments, helicopter aviation in the UK is actually astonishingly safe, and will remain so while common sense prevails.
Last edited by Sir Niall Dementia; 19th Jan 2013 at 08:16.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Agusta 109 has been taken to Farnborough, where the detailed analysis will take place ahead of the Air Accident Investigation Branch producing a preliminary report.
It is understood Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, will be briefed in detail about the accident next week.
Post mortem examinations revealed that Pete Barnes, 50, the helicopter pilot, died from multiple injuries while Matthew Wood, 39, a pedestrian suffered severe burns and a leg injury.
The two men were killed when the helicopter clipped a crane attached to St George Tower, a new residential development on the banks of the River Thames, during the morning rush hour.
Meanwhile James-Healy Pratt, an aviation lawyer and qualified helicopter pilot, said RotorMotion, the helicopter operator was likely to face damages claims running into millions of pounds following the crash.
Companies flying into the heliport at Battersea are expected to have at least £15 million insurance.
Claims are likely to be made under the 1982 Civil Aviation Act, with litigants likely to include the family of Mr Wood, those injured on the ground, the developers of St George Tower and witnesses who suffered emotional stress as a result of the crash.
It is understood Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, will be briefed in detail about the accident next week.
Post mortem examinations revealed that Pete Barnes, 50, the helicopter pilot, died from multiple injuries while Matthew Wood, 39, a pedestrian suffered severe burns and a leg injury.
The two men were killed when the helicopter clipped a crane attached to St George Tower, a new residential development on the banks of the River Thames, during the morning rush hour.
Meanwhile James-Healy Pratt, an aviation lawyer and qualified helicopter pilot, said RotorMotion, the helicopter operator was likely to face damages claims running into millions of pounds following the crash.
Companies flying into the heliport at Battersea are expected to have at least £15 million insurance.
Claims are likely to be made under the 1982 Civil Aviation Act, with litigants likely to include the family of Mr Wood, those injured on the ground, the developers of St George Tower and witnesses who suffered emotional stress as a result of the crash.
Why o why o why is James-Healy Pratt the first one to raise the matter of American-style compensation in relation to this tragedy? Can't we be bloody well different to the Americans and not link every f**king disaster to personal compensation!