Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Elstree to the London Eye goes through the London CTR and R157 - the Eye is inside R157. A clearance into the London CTR cannot be VFR, it can only be SVFR or IFR. And the report says "At 0755 hrs, G-CRST was put under radar control as it entered the London CTR." So there is surely a question of what kind of clearance was offered and how that might have affected the conduct of the flight.
The track shown in Figure 1 looks as if it skirts the edge of the class A London CTR where it meets the class D London City CTR. You'd need more detail to see if he were 200 yards to one side of the boundary or the other. The Eye is right at the boundary, and is used as a landmark for N-S transits passing through the western edge of the City CTR.
Thus for the original clearance, "VFR IF YOU CAN OR SPECIAL VFR" is pragmatic and reasonable, and if VFR then flying it "VMC on top" of low fog is also reasonable. It is rare in such circumstances not to have the surface in sight at all (even though it might not be a useful bit of the surface) so it probably met the letter of the SVFR conditions, if not the spirit.
The consequences of the difference between SVFR and VFR are twofold: the separation requirements are not pertinent here -- there was no other aircraft that was relevant. Thus it's only the 1000 ft congested area rule that applies to VFR and not SVFR. Since the collision itself requires a breach of the 500 ft rule anyway, it doesn't really matter if the 1000 ft rule applied or not.
He was talking to "Thames Radar", which controls the City CTR, though it was on the same "Heathrow Radar" frequency that controls the London CTR. When the pilot requested the diversion to Battersea, both parties probably had more important things to do than consider whether the clearance was VFR or SVFR. Either way, the responsibility lay squarely with the pilot for assessing if the weather conditions permitted avoiding obstacles visually.
I'd rather have ATC concentrating on providing a service than worrying about the niceties of the peculiar classification of the London CTR, wouldn't you?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was my understanding of the rules that the only flights within R157 that are permitted are along (i.e. overhead) the Thames, i.e. H4 (excluding helimed, police and flights for which exemption has been obtained from the Diplomatic & Protection section of the police Special Branch). Or am I mistaken?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the right seat
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL(H) warning before I get a battering.
Fascinating reading different opinions. I have a question about weather diverts and pan calls. I assume that when Battersea took the call from Thames, the ATCO at Battersea has to get permission to accept an unscheduled aircraft, maybe for insurance reasons, or simply because the few spaces available are booked up (though probably unlikely to be used that morning?). One post discussed ILS into LCY or LHR. Financially (as commercial reasoning is being discussed a lot here), what are the costs of doing this? Would LCY only accept a heli for a Pan call? Looking at the track, would immediate clearance into Battersea (if, as suggested, he wasn't unsure of which bridge he was over) have potentially have save this incident? It wasn't a pan call as there was no issue as far as we know, but should some allowance be made for weather diverts - land now, discuss later at Battersea?
I think there was an event a couple of years ago where a heli diverted into Luton and got stung for a lot of money. Safer than picking a field outside the boundary, but financially penalised for making the right decision about the weather.
To reply to one post, I see the client as thinking he can drive to Battersea for his flight (if it was open). Comparing the costs of a landing fee there to the extra costs of returning to Redhill doesn't matter - who would want to drive from Elstree to Redhill at 0800 on a weekday? Be quicker to drive to the intended destination.
Fascinating reading different opinions. I have a question about weather diverts and pan calls. I assume that when Battersea took the call from Thames, the ATCO at Battersea has to get permission to accept an unscheduled aircraft, maybe for insurance reasons, or simply because the few spaces available are booked up (though probably unlikely to be used that morning?). One post discussed ILS into LCY or LHR. Financially (as commercial reasoning is being discussed a lot here), what are the costs of doing this? Would LCY only accept a heli for a Pan call? Looking at the track, would immediate clearance into Battersea (if, as suggested, he wasn't unsure of which bridge he was over) have potentially have save this incident? It wasn't a pan call as there was no issue as far as we know, but should some allowance be made for weather diverts - land now, discuss later at Battersea?
I think there was an event a couple of years ago where a heli diverted into Luton and got stung for a lot of money. Safer than picking a field outside the boundary, but financially penalised for making the right decision about the weather.
To reply to one post, I see the client as thinking he can drive to Battersea for his flight (if it was open). Comparing the costs of a landing fee there to the extra costs of returning to Redhill doesn't matter - who would want to drive from Elstree to Redhill at 0800 on a weekday? Be quicker to drive to the intended destination.
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm wondering about the change in heading that happened before crossing the north river bank. Heading is pretty much directly towards Vauxhall Bridge but then there is a shallow S-turn which results in crossing the bank significantly west of Vauxhall Bridge and then reversing course back towards the bridge after a right turn.
What would be the reason for the S-turn? Avoiding sensitive areas, Houses of Parliament etc., or something else?
What would be the reason for the S-turn? Avoiding sensitive areas, Houses of Parliament etc., or something else?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm wondering about the change in heading that happened before crossing the north river bank. Heading is pretty much directly towards Vauxhall Bridge but then there is a shallow S-turn which results in crossing the bank significantly west of Vauxhall Bridge and then reversing course back towards the bridge after a right turn.
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE
MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER
BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER
BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chobham
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See the last AIP plate for Heliport (18 October 2012) identifies St. Georges tower at 322 ft, not actual 594 ft today.
Appreciate there are NOTAMs updating figures, nevertheless, that tower has grown a lot since October. AIP details often take say three or more months to be updated.
Whose responsibility is it to monitor rising building heights and feed data through CAA system such that they appear correctly in AIP (and swiftly)? Who would give CAA the update on current building height?
See below:
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/pamsl..._3_EGLW_4-1_en
Appreciate there are NOTAMs updating figures, nevertheless, that tower has grown a lot since October. AIP details often take say three or more months to be updated.
Whose responsibility is it to monitor rising building heights and feed data through CAA system such that they appear correctly in AIP (and swiftly)? Who would give CAA the update on current building height?
See below:
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/pamsl..._3_EGLW_4-1_en
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Holding waiting for Battersea to open."
But the S-turn took place before he reached the river, and was followed by a right turn onto the river centreline towards Grosvenor Bridge followed by a right turn to fly back east towards Vauxhall Bridge. London Bridge (the "quite a wide hold" point) is a couple of miles to the east of Vauxhall Bridge.
I was wondering why he would deviate from his direct to Vauxhall Bridge initial heading. And a hold between Vauxhall and London bridges would have required a left turn onto the river centreline.
Just trying to understand his position relative to Vauxhall Bridge...
[edit] Just noticed Sioux4D's post about just this positional anomaly, we both seem to have picked up on it at a similar time.
But the S-turn took place before he reached the river, and was followed by a right turn onto the river centreline towards Grosvenor Bridge followed by a right turn to fly back east towards Vauxhall Bridge. London Bridge (the "quite a wide hold" point) is a couple of miles to the east of Vauxhall Bridge.
I was wondering why he would deviate from his direct to Vauxhall Bridge initial heading. And a hold between Vauxhall and London bridges would have required a left turn onto the river centreline.
Just trying to understand his position relative to Vauxhall Bridge...
[edit] Just noticed Sioux4D's post about just this positional anomaly, we both seem to have picked up on it at a similar time.
Last edited by Feathers McGraw; 24th Jan 2013 at 17:37.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chobham
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are developers obliged to give SRG/CAA regular updates on heights of buildings under construction, or the local authority perhaps? There must be some obligation/procedure on the part of some body or organisation to feed the information to the CAA.
In this instance, who told the CAA what height the building was or would be at any point in time? The developer (Berkeley Group?), construction company, architechs, Lambeth Council (if that's the right one?). Where's the legislation dictating who must inform whom of increasing building heights and timescales?
In this instance, who told the CAA what height the building was or would be at any point in time? The developer (Berkeley Group?), construction company, architechs, Lambeth Council (if that's the right one?). Where's the legislation dictating who must inform whom of increasing building heights and timescales?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE
MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER
BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER
BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
Terrain Alerts
I used to fly G-CRST extensively a few years ago just after it had been fitted with updated avionics including a Garmin 430 GPS/Nav/Com and TAS. One really irritating 'helpful' feature of the 430 was that the GPS Screen would go yellow and give a terrain alert within 500ft of anything in its database.
From memory, it was possible to turn off the alerts at the start of the flight but not possible to inhibit them completely (at least that's all I could get it to do). Every time the unit was turned on, it would default to terrain alerts on. What this meant was that every time the aircraft descended below 500ft on approach, or maybe to dodge a cloud, the bloody screen would go yellow losing the GPS map (and traffic alert screen). This tended to distract me from flying whilst the I cycled through the menus to turn the alert off. I found it a complete pain in the arse.
I've no idea of knowing whether the alert was switched off for the accident flight, but if it wasn't, it would have probably been ignored anyway as this was probably 'conditioned' into the pilot of G-CRST. It reminds me of one of Aesop's Fables about the little boy that cried wolf.
It's sad to think that this peice of technology, correctly managed, could have saved the day. There were similar parallels in AJ's crash in Ireland where the EGPWS has been disabled.
Has the on-shore charter/free-lance industry got anything to learn from this?
From memory, it was possible to turn off the alerts at the start of the flight but not possible to inhibit them completely (at least that's all I could get it to do). Every time the unit was turned on, it would default to terrain alerts on. What this meant was that every time the aircraft descended below 500ft on approach, or maybe to dodge a cloud, the bloody screen would go yellow losing the GPS map (and traffic alert screen). This tended to distract me from flying whilst the I cycled through the menus to turn the alert off. I found it a complete pain in the arse.
I've no idea of knowing whether the alert was switched off for the accident flight, but if it wasn't, it would have probably been ignored anyway as this was probably 'conditioned' into the pilot of G-CRST. It reminds me of one of Aesop's Fables about the little boy that cried wolf.
It's sad to think that this peice of technology, correctly managed, could have saved the day. There were similar parallels in AJ's crash in Ireland where the EGPWS has been disabled.
Has the on-shore charter/free-lance industry got anything to learn from this?
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jelly, not being funny but you might just want to send off a short email to the AAIB repeating what you've just posted.
You never know, they could find it useful. To be honest, the more information they have the better.
[email protected]
You never know, they could find it useful. To be honest, the more information they have the better.
[email protected]
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 15 DME
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jellycopter - a very interesting post and valid point/s.
I suggest that this type of distraction far outways a quick glance at any text message. (5 mins earlier)
I think that it is also true to say that the Rocket2 was preparing for a landing and that is why perhaps a decent was in progress under svfr.
I suggest that this type of distraction far outways a quick glance at any text message. (5 mins earlier)
I think that it is also true to say that the Rocket2 was preparing for a landing and that is why perhaps a decent was in progress under svfr.
Quote; fairflyer
See the last AIP plate for Heliport (18 October 2012) identifies St. Georges tower at 322 ft, not actual 594 ft today.
Appreciate there are NOTAMs updating figures, nevertheless, that tower has grown a lot since October. AIP details often take say three or more months to be updated.
The building(s) showing 332 (322) were there on Ed 13 2008 Heliroute chart, so it appears that represents next door not St George Wharf Tower!
It was photographed as being substantially taller than (the 332') next door in Feb 2012 (source Wikipedia)
Quote; jellycopter
Terrain Alerts
I used to fly G-CRST extensively a few years ago just after it had been fitted with updated avionics including a Garmin 430 GPS/Nav/Com and TAS. One really irritating 'helpful' feature of the 430 was that the GPS Screen would go yellow and give a terrain alert within 500ft of anything in its database.
But presumably not if they haven't been put on the official charts yet!
As far as I can tell even sky demon that downloads from the internet real-time superimposes the NOTAM and pops up a warning would be fairly useless as an avoidance tool in London as the vertical and lateral limits you'd look for outside such a built up area would just have pop up after pop up - therefore if you were flying 6-700 ft above you wouldn't want an alert (it is tuneable but I don't think people are going to reconfigure alerting settings before each flight)
See the last AIP plate for Heliport (18 October 2012) identifies St. Georges tower at 322 ft, not actual 594 ft today.
Appreciate there are NOTAMs updating figures, nevertheless, that tower has grown a lot since October. AIP details often take say three or more months to be updated.
The building(s) showing 332 (322) were there on Ed 13 2008 Heliroute chart, so it appears that represents next door not St George Wharf Tower!
It was photographed as being substantially taller than (the 332') next door in Feb 2012 (source Wikipedia)
Quote; jellycopter
Terrain Alerts
I used to fly G-CRST extensively a few years ago just after it had been fitted with updated avionics including a Garmin 430 GPS/Nav/Com and TAS. One really irritating 'helpful' feature of the 430 was that the GPS Screen would go yellow and give a terrain alert within 500ft of anything in its database.
But presumably not if they haven't been put on the official charts yet!
As far as I can tell even sky demon that downloads from the internet real-time superimposes the NOTAM and pops up a warning would be fairly useless as an avoidance tool in London as the vertical and lateral limits you'd look for outside such a built up area would just have pop up after pop up - therefore if you were flying 6-700 ft above you wouldn't want an alert (it is tuneable but I don't think people are going to reconfigure alerting settings before each flight)
I'm sorry guys but there are only two ways to safely avoid a building like that, either look out of the front window or fly 1000' above it. All the technology in the World is just a comfort blanket after that.
TeeS
TeeS
Last edited by TeeS; 24th Jan 2013 at 20:44. Reason: That's two ways!
Just wondering as there's quite a big dip to 500-odd feet (which could always be an isolated dodgy reading) but that's a short period of time to drop and rise again (is it) which made me think the interval could be more than 1 sec, based on assumption rather than fact though.
Wow! Must be one of the most actively mined threads in pprune for years. Even Heliport and Flying Lawyer have come out of the closet 
Good to hear from you guys. Other credible contributions from less known posters (industry insider/grenville et al - fascinating and enlightening reading).
But - for me after reading this whole sorry saga from beginning to end I am now wondering whether complacency was the real cause for the untimely ending to this guys life.
For me, the scene has been set as I run through the scenario in my head as if it were me flying on that fateful day:
"..weather's worse than I'd expected/been told. I've had enough of this - going to divert till it clears. [Clipping the top of the weather - in and out of light wispy cloud for a few seconds at a time]. I'll clear it with ATC. Battersea it is, they want me to hold till they get the all clear from them. [Cab slows and establishes a lazy S pattern between the bridges].
OK let's clean up before I start the descent....radios done ( look in)...make a quick call to the client...done (look in) . All done. Bring it round and descend about now....final look in for landing checks and.........................
I don't agree with some when they say we should refrain from denigrating our own on a public forum. I certainly don't wish to denigrate PB. This forum is littered with exceptional and very experienced aviators from all walks of life. One can only walk away from having read threads like this - a little wiser I would suggest. Don't knock the ethos therefore, that is Pprune.
PB's background suggests he was what most of the rest of us aspire to. BUT for me, complacency is what killed him that fateful day. It crosses all boundaries and pilots must continue to guard against it.
I know that as I was clocking up the hours it was getting harder to maintain that "edge" because one thinks one has been it and done it all. There surely can't be any further "great" surprises. I must not have succumbed therefore, to that dark unforgiving shadow that is complacency because I made it to retirement in one piece after 30 years of mil/public/private helo flying. But I do remember courting complacency on those rare occasions.
I hope that those still immersed in the profession (regardless of experience) will read this thread atleast once and understand that you can never drop your guard...not for one second - not when you're in the driver's seat.
Perhaps I am way off the mark, but a lot of the nearly 500 posts to date suggest PB was distracted in time and space and his SA desserted him when he most needed it. Blink and you're gone. RIP.
Good to hear from you guys. Other credible contributions from less known posters (industry insider/grenville et al - fascinating and enlightening reading).But - for me after reading this whole sorry saga from beginning to end I am now wondering whether complacency was the real cause for the untimely ending to this guys life.
For me, the scene has been set as I run through the scenario in my head as if it were me flying on that fateful day:
"..weather's worse than I'd expected/been told. I've had enough of this - going to divert till it clears. [Clipping the top of the weather - in and out of light wispy cloud for a few seconds at a time]. I'll clear it with ATC. Battersea it is, they want me to hold till they get the all clear from them. [Cab slows and establishes a lazy S pattern between the bridges].
OK let's clean up before I start the descent....radios done ( look in)...make a quick call to the client...done (look in) . All done. Bring it round and descend about now....final look in for landing checks and.........................
I don't agree with some when they say we should refrain from denigrating our own on a public forum. I certainly don't wish to denigrate PB. This forum is littered with exceptional and very experienced aviators from all walks of life. One can only walk away from having read threads like this - a little wiser I would suggest. Don't knock the ethos therefore, that is Pprune.
PB's background suggests he was what most of the rest of us aspire to. BUT for me, complacency is what killed him that fateful day. It crosses all boundaries and pilots must continue to guard against it.
I know that as I was clocking up the hours it was getting harder to maintain that "edge" because one thinks one has been it and done it all. There surely can't be any further "great" surprises. I must not have succumbed therefore, to that dark unforgiving shadow that is complacency because I made it to retirement in one piece after 30 years of mil/public/private helo flying. But I do remember courting complacency on those rare occasions.
I hope that those still immersed in the profession (regardless of experience) will read this thread atleast once and understand that you can never drop your guard...not for one second - not when you're in the driver's seat.
Perhaps I am way off the mark, but a lot of the nearly 500 posts to date suggest PB was distracted in time and space and his SA desserted him when he most needed it. Blink and you're gone. RIP.
I hope that those still immersed in the profession (regardless of experience) will read this thread atleast once and understand that you can never drop your guard...not for one second - not when you're in the driver's seat.
Perhaps I am way off the mark, but a lot of the nearly 500 posts to date suggest PB was distracted in time and space and his SA desserted him when he most needed it. Blink and you're gone. RIP.
Perhaps I am way off the mark, but a lot of the nearly 500 posts to date suggest PB was distracted in time and space and his SA desserted him when he most needed it. Blink and you're gone. RIP.
a. You can't avoid what you don't see. Per your thoughts above, if the attention was diverted inward, how does one produce the evidence to support that line of inquiry?
b. You can't avoid what you don't see. If attention was outwards, why then crane not in sight, and avoidance move not made? How does one produce the evidence to support that line of inquiry?
Tc, a well painted picture. A further thought and possible correction - I don't think a particular element of your detailed scenario:
...quite fits part of the Special Bulletin information.
The way I read it, text comms with the client was complete before the aircraft descended to the river and took up the lazy S, so quick call to the client after "radios done" seems the wrong order.
Given that impact was only 7 seconds after the final RT call acknowledging the Battersea freq, it may be that the end sequence was instead:
... radios done (look in) and...
Disclaimer - safety engineer, not RW pilot.
Originally Posted by Thomas coupling
[Cab slows and establishes a lazy S pattern between the bridges]. OK let's clean up before I start the descent....radios done ( look in)...make a quick call to the client...done (look in) . All done. Bring it round and descend about now....final look in for landing checks and.........................
The way I read it, text comms with the client was complete before the aircraft descended to the river and took up the lazy S, so quick call to the client after "radios done" seems the wrong order.
Given that impact was only 7 seconds after the final RT call acknowledging the Battersea freq, it may be that the end sequence was instead:
... radios done (look in) and...
Disclaimer - safety engineer, not RW pilot.
C-C, the radar plots may be a compilation from different radars,but generally radars turn at about 5-10 rpm ,I think,unless for GCA/Sra.
Based on the AAIB pictures, I calculate that his Radius of turn,and possible rate of turn is about 400ft,and about 18-20 deg/sec; this would calculate to a speed of about 75kts,and about 45 deg of bank.If the numbers are changed,the radius will decrease,or increase with speed changes,or bank angle,and rate of turn.(Someone cleverer will probably come up to shoot me down..)
As the aircraft had been cold-soaked for a while in flight,it may also be possible that having entered some cloud/fog ,that the windscreen may have become partially obscured,unless heated,or maybe the wipers were in use.
Likewise,as the sun was rising,a grey spindly crane `skeleton` would also be difficult to see.
Based on the AAIB pictures, I calculate that his Radius of turn,and possible rate of turn is about 400ft,and about 18-20 deg/sec; this would calculate to a speed of about 75kts,and about 45 deg of bank.If the numbers are changed,the radius will decrease,or increase with speed changes,or bank angle,and rate of turn.(Someone cleverer will probably come up to shoot me down..)
As the aircraft had been cold-soaked for a while in flight,it may also be possible that having entered some cloud/fog ,that the windscreen may have become partially obscured,unless heated,or maybe the wipers were in use.
Likewise,as the sun was rising,a grey spindly crane `skeleton` would also be difficult to see.