Helicopter - v - crane LONDON

[BOAC]

[email protected] - thank you. That seems quite adequate for rotary work.

[John R81]

For anyone with pilot qualifications in their public profile, please read the material cited above (the ANO and Pooley's) before posting - otherwise you will look just as silly and irelevent to other pilots as the anti-aviation trolls who are "making it up" as they go along.

Like SND, I have no problem with the London Zone. The system is detailed and complicated, and for the first three trips through the zone I went with an experienced pilot to help with familurisation. However, there si nothing that difficult here; to "invent" problems - like suggesting that 2 helicopters passing opposite way along H4 (which runs from Battersea in the West to the Isle of Dogs in the East and has a stepped max altitude of 1500 ft - 2000 ft) would present even a risk of breaking the 500ft is nonesense and just makes the poster look ignorant in the operation of helicopters.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Originally Posted by Grenville Fortescue
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?

Grenville, try and keep up will you!

Aren't you aware that some years ago he was crowned the king of British aviation lawyers at a ceremony in his living room presided over by his children?

In his majesterial majestiness he is able to see things we others can't and which is how he can boldy make the libellous statement that RotorMotion is going to be sued because the only way that can happen is if they (or their staff) have been proven (in a court of law) to have displayed neglect.

Pratt already forsees the results of the accident investigation and the decision of the court - but then this is normal for a demi-god.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by John R81

like suggesting that 2 helicopters passing opposite way along H4 (which runs from Battersea in the West to the Isle of Dogs in the East and has a stepped max altitude of 1500 ft - 2000 ft) would present even a risk of breaking the 500ft is nonesense and just makes the poster look ignorant in the operation of helicopters.

- actually, John, I had in mind a 600ft (AGL) cloudbase which appears to be more relevant to this thread than an 'altitude' of 2000ft. What did you?

[Flying Lawyer]

FL - as a lawyer I would expect you instinctively to read carefully what is in front of you.

BOAC - The we are both surprised, because I would expect you as a professional pilot to have grasped more quickly what has been explained to you by professional helicopter pilots here.

- now I need some help here. A London S/VFR heli clearance is given as a minimum altitude is what you are saying but that altitude is not an altitude but a height?

NO. I did not say minimum.
As ShyT has already explained, a minimum altitude is not routinely given as part of the clearance.
Apart from one very small section of one route, which must be flown at a precise altitude (therefore both a maximum and a minimum), clearances do not normally include a minimum.

Flying Lawyer seems to disagree with you (Del Prado) on the point although his line is somewhat muddled.

I do not disagree with Del Prado.
I realise it seems muddled to you.


FL (nickname not Flight Level)


Edit
Grenville

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?

Why o why o why is a lawyer whose firm specialises in aviation claims the first one to raise the matter of compensation in relation to this tragedy?
I can't imagine. I'll have to think about that one.

.

[teeteringhead]

Had a very enthusiastic rotary student once called Keane. We used to say:

"Keane by name and keen by nature"

James-Healy Pratt

[BOAC]

FL - your line was in reply to the quote "Not sure why you keep mentioning minimum altitude". Glad you sorted that out. Yes, we are both 'surprised'. Now - going to have a go at answering SASless? Maybe not.

Again - can we all promise no-one will ever mention 'minimum altitude' again on this thread as it seems to easily confuse professional pilots, even those with significant hours spent both teaching and observing the ANO.

[Grenville Fortescue]

Flying Lawyer

It was a largely rhetorical question but can I ask, who will be there for RotorMotion? No one I suppose?

Are they solely responsible (legally) for their pilot's actions at all times?

[John R81]

BOAC - there is a difference between being somewhere intentionally and being somewhere because the weather is deteriorating rapidly and you are trying to get out of it / down. It would help if it were clear whether you are making general flight points or in relation to this accident flight.

Battersea might be "closed" due to low viz but that does not mean they would not accept an aircraft asking to divert through Wx.

At the time PB started the journey there was no problem. At Elstree conditions deteriorated more quickly than anticipated, and it closed. He reversed course. Wx continued to deteriorate, and PB elected to divert to Battersea, who accepted that. Wx continued to deteriorate and overtook him. So PB did not intend to be at that point in airspace at that time in that weather.

The 500 ft rule is mandetory for all helicopter flights, aside from take-off and landing BUT (just like and any all aircraft - even the ones you flew) may be broken if that is necessary for safety reasons. See Article 160(3) of the ANO 2009.

If deteriorating cloud - out of his control - pushed him within 500ft of any person, vehicle, vessel or structure because the alternative was to enter cloud in known icing conditions in aa Augusta A109 then rule 6 would be very much in point.

[Flying Lawyer]

SND

stop feeding the antis with ill informed comments

I agree, wholeheartedly.

BOAC
SAS’s question has already been answered.

Grenville

I realised it was largely rhetorical. As I'm sure you realise, my answer was tongue in cheek.
I have no idea who will represent Rotormotion if there is a claim against them. I assume it would be one of the specialist aviation firms. (In my experience, most of them don't make comments to the press - rightly so in my opinion.)

No, they are not solely legally responsible for their pilot's actions at all times.
It depends upon several factors.


NB: We don't yet know the cause(s) of the accident.


FL

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by GF

Are they solely responsible (legally) for their pilot's actions at all times?

- not actions I'm sure. Consequences probably. Their 'Ops'/Planning/maintenance/supervision will of course be part of the AAIB investigation. Knowing Philip, I would expect that to be purely a 'routine' investigation.

[Pittsextra]

Some of this is getting painful to read. Its been posted elsewhere but this is useful reading:-

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2012-12-20.pdf

That aside short of an as yet unreported mechanical failure the weather proves once again to be uncompromising.

Whilst we wait here is a thought. Many are lashing against the media which is IMO very silly. As we have seen these people shape public opinion who in turn shape politics.

I'm not sure what % of GDP the helicopter industry yields for the UK but I think we might all agree that the vast majority of UK citizens would be indifferent if there was less of it.

To that end it would be pretty smart to either make PPRuNe a more private site so some discussions can go on in private or some more knowledgable helicopter pilots agree on some established points.

Its not a surprise that an aviation lawyer is suggesting that there might be some sort of case and actually it wouldn't be a surprise if innocent victims in this turned their attentions to the same. You can't control what they are going to do, but you can ensure the other side, the other view is communicated in an effective and intelligent manner. Very often in these pages things just turn into a huge peeing contest.

Like in other cases (EC225?), despite the professionalism, skill and knowledge of very intelligent people things can go wrong. In the coming weeks/months I guess we will see just how intelligent the decisions were that lead to the unfortunate event.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Dear God Flying Lawyer;

I've just read the Stewarts law llp web page about J H-P, do you really spend your days surrounded by such people?

If so no wonder you fly helicopters, at least we know we're perfect, we don't need out side agencies bigging us up that much!

I actually found that web page really rather scary.

[[email protected]]

BOAC - again IIRC, that 600' cloudbase is as reported at LHR not what might actually be present in the helilanes themselves. We all know that there can be significant local variations in the cloudbase, especially when the weather is worsening.

It is possible then that PB was given a SVFR clearance based on the weather at LHR but encountered worse conditions when attempting to get to Battersea. Nothing illegal or unprofessional about that - just unlucky.

[Grenville Fortescue]

FL thanks for the reply.

Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
NB: We don't yet know the cause(s) of the accident.

Try telling that to your colleague Mr Pratt!

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.

[BOAC]

Thanks for posting the link, Pitts. A well thought-out paper in my opinion. A good response to the 'gainsayers' on one of these two threads.

[SARWannabe]

For those interested, here are historical MET actuals for the entire day at Redhill/Gatwick, London City, Elstree, and Heathrow here:

Gatwick/Redhill

Elstree

London City

Heathrow

[madflyer26]

A good balanced post PE but every accident speculation thread turns out the same way. Sadly in aviation incidents the pilot is the first to be blamed and in most cases this turns out to be the case. I would never imply that Captain Barnes done anything wrong but it bears resemblance to many previous weather related incidents I have had the displeasure of reading over the years.

[Pittsextra]

BOAC - again IIRC, that 600' cloudbase is as reported at LHR not what might actually be present in the helilanes themselves. We all know that there can be significant local variations in the cloudbase, especially when the weather is worsening.

It is possible then that PB was given a SVFR clearance based on the weather at LHR but encountered worse conditions when attempting to get to Battersea. Nothing illegal or unprofessional about that - just unlucky.

Looking at the relevant METARs at the time (I think either 0650 or even 0720hrs suffice) what does "worse" weather look like?

As for unprofessional, unlucky or illegal - the AAIB won't make that call but given the noises I suspect it might be tested in the future in a court.

[Flying Lawyer]

SND

do you really spend your days surrounded by such people?

No!
Just like everyone else, lawyers' personalities and attitudes vary.


Pittsextra

To that end it would be pretty smart (if) ........some more knowledgable helicopter pilots agree on some established points.

Some very knowledgable professional helicopter pilots have already agreed on some established points.
They can't force others to accept what they say.
NB: BOAC is not a helicopter pilot.