Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will not post in the other thread but this one is OK.
I do not know if complacency is the right word? Overconfidence in his abilities to handle all that was thrown at him? (maybe)
But at the end of the day he was unlucky a small mistake leading to Catastrophic results!
Sadly two very close friends of mine were killed recently flying in a Navajo fixed wing twin! One an ex Easy Jet Captain the other a very cautious and experienced multi thousand hour pilot.
They dipped a wing into cloud tops which concealed a tree! Tree! Crane??? When turning base to a landing. Both Killed!
When the cards do not fall right ??
I have examined many of the Cranes in London. Many have minimal lighting, some solar powered! Some not working all inadequate.
As our Legal friend hints at! the lighting regulations need tightening up on these temporary structures which tower very high and blend into the grey skies! High intensity lighting has to be a must!
Even the ordinary guy in the street points out the mass of Cranes littering the skyline and casts doubt on inadequate lighting.
The aircraft I fly has to have TAWS fitted because pilots are not perfect beasts and we need protecting from our own mistakes.
Would proper lighting have alerted him? We will never know but inadequate turned off lighting did not help him one iota.
These Skyscrapers cost £billions proper lighting is a fraction of cost to incur and they should be on equally on poor weather grey days as at night!Please not those pathetic light bulb red things.
It is too easy to try and make the poor pilot a scapegoat for all ills
Pace
I do not know if complacency is the right word? Overconfidence in his abilities to handle all that was thrown at him? (maybe)
But at the end of the day he was unlucky a small mistake leading to Catastrophic results!
Sadly two very close friends of mine were killed recently flying in a Navajo fixed wing twin! One an ex Easy Jet Captain the other a very cautious and experienced multi thousand hour pilot.
They dipped a wing into cloud tops which concealed a tree! Tree! Crane??? When turning base to a landing. Both Killed!
When the cards do not fall right ??
I have examined many of the Cranes in London. Many have minimal lighting, some solar powered! Some not working all inadequate.
As our Legal friend hints at! the lighting regulations need tightening up on these temporary structures which tower very high and blend into the grey skies! High intensity lighting has to be a must!
Even the ordinary guy in the street points out the mass of Cranes littering the skyline and casts doubt on inadequate lighting.
The aircraft I fly has to have TAWS fitted because pilots are not perfect beasts and we need protecting from our own mistakes.
Would proper lighting have alerted him? We will never know but inadequate turned off lighting did not help him one iota.
These Skyscrapers cost £billions proper lighting is a fraction of cost to incur and they should be on equally on poor weather grey days as at night!Please not those pathetic light bulb red things.
It is too easy to try and make the poor pilot a scapegoat for all ills
Pace
"They dipped a wing into a cloud that contained a tree"???
WTF???!
That's why we have altimeters, maps, GPS, moving maps, Radalts and common sense for God's sake!
WTF???!
That's why we have altimeters, maps, GPS, moving maps, Radalts and common sense for God's sake!
The aircraft I used to fly had TAWS fitted and it threw up so many distracting false alarms I usually turned it off.....that might have been because it was an aeroplane TAWS unit fitted in an IFR Helicopter, dedicated HTAWS units are probably better. My other memory of TAWS is one day I did fly past a bloody big hill in bad weather and it was only through visual reference that I avoided flying into the hill. TAWS Terrain warning gave me no prior indication what-so-ever. In that instance it was only visual reference and looking outside and not relying on TAWS that protected me from making a mistake. In the low level environment you MUST be able to see where you are going with or without TAWS, and that of course means no scud running in clouds!
"They dipped a wing into a cloud that contained a tree"???
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your accident report link shows a remarkable similarity in the sense that in both cases it involved a collision with an obscured object in cloud and both with highly experienced and regarded pilots and shows that even the best can get it wrong with tragic results.
But then why bother even marking high buildings with lights in the first place? Or for that matter making Jets like I fly carry expensive TAWS?
The facts are that CFIT accidents still feature highly in accident stats and the argument that he should not have been such a silly boy is not enough.
Maybe compulsory fitting of high intensity lighting on Cranes which tower above high buildings, in densely populated areas near aircraft routes should be an extra safeguard.
They may not have saved this pilot we will never know but maybe they would have. Not having any lights at all certainly did not and having the lights mandated at night only is crazy!!
One stupid little static light bulb like red light is not good enough!!!
Pace
That's why we have altimeters, maps, GPS, moving maps, Radalts and common sense for God's sake!
The facts are that CFIT accidents still feature highly in accident stats and the argument that he should not have been such a silly boy is not enough.
Maybe compulsory fitting of high intensity lighting on Cranes which tower above high buildings, in densely populated areas near aircraft routes should be an extra safeguard.
They may not have saved this pilot we will never know but maybe they would have. Not having any lights at all certainly did not and having the lights mandated at night only is crazy!!
One stupid little static light bulb like red light is not good enough!!!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 25th Jan 2013 at 03:58.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Maybe compulsory fitting of high intensity lighting on Cranes which tower above high buildings, in densely populated areas near aircraft routes should be an extra safeguard
NS
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North and South,
I'm also 'out' of the other thread and wont post as it seems it was intent on a blame game and making unsubstantiated accusations as to the late Peter Barnes character. That has no place, even in the gutter press.
i lost a couple of freinds in a fixed wing incident on a respositioning flight on a corporate jet; in imc on ifr they turned for RTB with an engine issue and drilled into the ground near vertical. it would seem that in imc dealing with an issue the aircraft got away from them and were unable to recover at the height they were at.
accidents, as we have seen, can happen to the best of us, even in the most routine of circumstances.
the point that Pace, and I have been making is that of course there is no guarantee that lighing of hazards would prevented the accident, visibly marking hazards to flight can only serve a benefit, i can think of no realistic detrimental result of lighting hazards to flight.
you rotor guys, i sincerely tip my hat to you all. you conduct operations often at low altitude with threats and hazards in closer proximity than fixed wing commercial ops.
as we've seen, the section of the river is narrow and with hazards abutting the flight route, manouvering space is limited. could the crane being lit have prevented the accident ? we dont know. could it have helped in preventing it ? possibly.
is there any detriment to crane and jib marker lighting ?
I'm also 'out' of the other thread and wont post as it seems it was intent on a blame game and making unsubstantiated accusations as to the late Peter Barnes character. That has no place, even in the gutter press.
i lost a couple of freinds in a fixed wing incident on a respositioning flight on a corporate jet; in imc on ifr they turned for RTB with an engine issue and drilled into the ground near vertical. it would seem that in imc dealing with an issue the aircraft got away from them and were unable to recover at the height they were at.
accidents, as we have seen, can happen to the best of us, even in the most routine of circumstances.
the point that Pace, and I have been making is that of course there is no guarantee that lighing of hazards would prevented the accident, visibly marking hazards to flight can only serve a benefit, i can think of no realistic detrimental result of lighting hazards to flight.
you rotor guys, i sincerely tip my hat to you all. you conduct operations often at low altitude with threats and hazards in closer proximity than fixed wing commercial ops.
as we've seen, the section of the river is narrow and with hazards abutting the flight route, manouvering space is limited. could the crane being lit have prevented the accident ? we dont know. could it have helped in preventing it ? possibly.
is there any detriment to crane and jib marker lighting ?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf:
Re b:
Restricted area 157 (R157) extends to 1400' AMSL. You are permitted to fly through it at less than this, provided that you are following H4 (overhead the Thames). I'm happy to be corrected if someone knows differently. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the trace clearly shows the aircraft well and truly inside R157 - a very long way to the north/west of Vauxhall bridge (the aircraft was half-way to Victoria station, nearly 1km inside R157 according to my map).
Why would you do this?
Unless perhaps there is cloud over the Thames and the hole you are following down is slightly to the north of the river and there is cloud over the Thames itself. Get down to height for an approach near Westminster Bridge, cut the corner of the Thames because of low cloud ahead but a clear area to the right (at Lambeth Bridge) and continue the descent, S-turn between Chelsea Bridge/railway bridge and Vauxhall whilst holding then turn inbound towards the river whilst scud running and... don't see what's hidden by the cloud/fog by the south bank. (And whilst possibly being distracted by radios or misted screens etc). The early photos of the scene show the level of the fog/cloud, and I went past near there that morning just before the time of the crash and saw the weather. The cloud/fog was obscuring the tops of buildings.
Interesting take. I have an idea that the AAIB may be looking into two separate concerns. (As Mr B was not on an IFR flight plan ...)
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?
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?
Restricted area 157 (R157) extends to 1400' AMSL. You are permitted to fly through it at less than this, provided that you are following H4 (overhead the Thames). I'm happy to be corrected if someone knows differently. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the trace clearly shows the aircraft well and truly inside R157 - a very long way to the north/west of Vauxhall bridge (the aircraft was half-way to Victoria station, nearly 1km inside R157 according to my map).
Why would you do this?
Unless perhaps there is cloud over the Thames and the hole you are following down is slightly to the north of the river and there is cloud over the Thames itself. Get down to height for an approach near Westminster Bridge, cut the corner of the Thames because of low cloud ahead but a clear area to the right (at Lambeth Bridge) and continue the descent, S-turn between Chelsea Bridge/railway bridge and Vauxhall whilst holding then turn inbound towards the river whilst scud running and... don't see what's hidden by the cloud/fog by the south bank. (And whilst possibly being distracted by radios or misted screens etc). The early photos of the scene show the level of the fog/cloud, and I went past near there that morning just before the time of the crash and saw the weather. The cloud/fog was obscuring the tops of buildings.
Maybe. Or imposing ATC-defined weather minima on ops in such areas, as is the case for Class D zones. To answer those that say this places too much burden/power on ATCOs who can't account for local variation in e.g. cloudbase, it could be backed up with more weather recording stations transmitting data to the relevant ATC unit e.g. ceilometers/transmissometers on the roofs of key buildings?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
The "ATC-defined" minima in class D are applicable to arrivals and departures only, not transits, for good reason. The "ATC-defined" weather is observed at the airport, not over the whole of the zone.
NS
NorthSouth - no I think the real issue is that there are those who insist on kicking the backside out of the 'clear of cloud in sight of the ground' definition and push on when they are neither.
Corporate charter relies on getting the job done - so much so that there will always be those who 'go the extra mile' to satisfy the client and often it goes wrong.
When it doesn't go wrong, someone pats themselves on the back for a job well done and no lessons are learned.
At the Grayrigg train crash in Feb 07 where several SAR assets were working in poor conditions (low cloud in the dark) suddenly out of nowhere appeared a civilian helicopter bringing a Railtrack executive to the scene. Self-positioning GPS letdown through cloud in poor weather into a live TDA with SAROps on, at night with no NVG. Some pilot thought that was an acceptable risk to get the job done - had he speared in he would have been villified on these pages (and rightly so) - I hope he learned his lesson, but I doubt it.
Quite how you legislate or educate to prevent such stupidity I just don't know.
Corporate charter relies on getting the job done - so much so that there will always be those who 'go the extra mile' to satisfy the client and often it goes wrong.
When it doesn't go wrong, someone pats themselves on the back for a job well done and no lessons are learned.
At the Grayrigg train crash in Feb 07 where several SAR assets were working in poor conditions (low cloud in the dark) suddenly out of nowhere appeared a civilian helicopter bringing a Railtrack executive to the scene. Self-positioning GPS letdown through cloud in poor weather into a live TDA with SAROps on, at night with no NVG. Some pilot thought that was an acceptable risk to get the job done - had he speared in he would have been villified on these pages (and rightly so) - I hope he learned his lesson, but I doubt it.
Quite how you legislate or educate to prevent such stupidity I just don't know.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Corporate charter relies on getting the job done - so much so that there will always be those who 'go the extra mile' to satisfy the client and often it goes wrong.
When it doesn't go wrong, someone pats themselves on the back for a job well done and no lessons are learned.
Corporate charter relies on getting the job done - so much so that there will always be those who 'go the extra mile' to satisfy the client and often it goes wrong.
When it doesn't go wrong, someone pats themselves on the back for a job well done and no lessons are learned.
Edited to add: I do however see how PB got into this fix. It was not as if he was flying into storm cells and freezing rain, in fact his VFR on top status may have provided a certain level of comfort in his mind. Indeed he knew that this low lying stratus would eventually lift (from the very reports he received prior to take off).
By all counts (if I read it right) he was on his way back to Redhill and had said "at least we tried" when the suggestion apparently came through from Richard Caring saying "Battersea is open".
We all want to be angry ABOUT this crash (not at PB) but the truth is there is no single element which is exclusively to blame for this tragedy. It is, as it almost always is, a combination of factors uppermost of which are weather and pilot attitude.
Last edited by Grenville Fortescue; 25th Jan 2013 at 12:15.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I think someone mentioned the ac being fitted with Garmin 430 - If the next frequency isn't selected, it takes approx 6 secs to change the frequency and flip it across. I guess unless they are completely burnt out, the dialled up and selected frequencies can be examined.
(Are other systems much different?)
(Are other systems much different?)
Fair point. But perhaps the current responsibility on helicopter pilots on SVFR clearances through the London CTR to maintain 1km vis, clear of cloud and in sight of surface could be beefed up with better weather info. It may also be necessary to give ATC the power to refuse clearance if the data available to them indicates that those minima cannot be met.
That works when making an Instrument Approach and you arrive at DH/DA....but to allow Pilots to make the determination of weather minima for a certain parcel of Airspace....how would that work if you have several Aircraft in different parts of the Airspace, each with different weather?
Example.....a small airport in Washington State is renown for the Fog hanging over the Terminal/FBO area where the AWOS is located while the other 4,000 plus feet of Runway can be Clear, Blue, and 22....thus the Control Zone is IFR and requires either an IFR or SVFR Clearance for any operation. VFR is not an option in that situation.
There has to be a set Weather Minima to trigger IFR/VFR operations....and a single source to make that determination. It isn't a perfect world...but you have to start somewhere.
Example.....a small airport in Washington State is renown for the Fog hanging over the Terminal/FBO area where the AWOS is located while the other 4,000 plus feet of Runway can be Clear, Blue, and 22....thus the Control Zone is IFR and requires either an IFR or SVFR Clearance for any operation. VFR is not an option in that situation.
There has to be a set Weather Minima to trigger IFR/VFR operations....and a single source to make that determination. It isn't a perfect world...but you have to start somewhere.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I think the answer is to re-write the rules to include a mandatory minimum altitude, as well as a maximum, on certain sections of the heli-routes. This one in particular, and for ATC to include that in the route clearance.
ST: I think the answer is to re-write the rules to include a mandatory minimum altitude, as well as a maximum, on certain sections of the heli-routes. This one in particular, and for ATC to include that in the route clearance.
Sorry but no. The Thames. 40 mile tidal estuary. Sunrise on a calm winter's day after a cold night. As the sun's rays go almost horizontal through the atmosphere, and as London "wakes up" with energy producing lots of heat - you get the most incredible fast-forming mists. I live by the Thames in London - and I've seen the mist grow in seconds from a clear morning.
London airspace is a cage. Once you're in there, you have to cope because there are few escape routes once the mists start moving around. So - don't go there when the wx seems likely to become your enemy.
There ARE minimum alts. G-CRST broke several of them and flew through restricted airspace - all because he seems to have been trying in vain to stay visual. Look at the track from Lambeth Bridge over Victoria on the "north" bank. Class D, Off-route, 1000ft above nearest highest object within 600m??? And well inside R157. He then went into the Class A and took full advantage of his exemption from the 1000ft rule - and even the 500ft rule as he became ready to land in accordance with "normal aviation practice".
This was a pilot beaten by the wx. The AAIB may tell us why. But I think we all know.
Sorry but no. The Thames. 40 mile tidal estuary. Sunrise on a calm winter's day after a cold night. As the sun's rays go almost horizontal through the atmosphere, and as London "wakes up" with energy producing lots of heat - you get the most incredible fast-forming mists. I live by the Thames in London - and I've seen the mist grow in seconds from a clear morning.
London airspace is a cage. Once you're in there, you have to cope because there are few escape routes once the mists start moving around. So - don't go there when the wx seems likely to become your enemy.
There ARE minimum alts. G-CRST broke several of them and flew through restricted airspace - all because he seems to have been trying in vain to stay visual. Look at the track from Lambeth Bridge over Victoria on the "north" bank. Class D, Off-route, 1000ft above nearest highest object within 600m??? And well inside R157. He then went into the Class A and took full advantage of his exemption from the 1000ft rule - and even the 500ft rule as he became ready to land in accordance with "normal aviation practice".
This was a pilot beaten by the wx. The AAIB may tell us why. But I think we all know.
Last edited by JimBall; 25th Jan 2013 at 15:38.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Edge
I have to say that this is one of the best bits of advice I have read anywhere in the last few years. This advice applies to fixed wing as well as helicopters.
Some of the best in motorsport and business have been killed by "The Edge".
Thanks to Rotorhead/Thomas Coupling for the following.....
Some of the best in motorsport and business have been killed by "The Edge".
Thanks to Rotorhead/Thomas Coupling for the following.....
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.
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.
Last edited by Ye Olde Pilot; 25th Jan 2013 at 15:57.