Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
I just awoke from a nice Kip.....did I oversleep by a year or two?
My recollection of the posts in this thread have not suggested he did violate any rules. The comments by level headed professionals familiar with the business of flying around London in helicopters have been very careful to discuss the tragedy without passing judgement whatsoever on Captain Barnes.
Whether he broke any rules shall be a very hard thing to ascertain for a number of very good reasons. Whether he did or not is a very low priority in the scheme of things.
Finding the causes of the crash is what is important and when the AAIB issues its final report, and other investigations by the CAA and other UK agencies shall shed a lot of light on the entire situation extant at the time of the aircraft's collision with the Crane.
We are very likely to see some Rules being changed, more strict enforcement of some Rules, and perhaps....maybe....some of those changes and increased enforcement might involve the "flying" Rules but I shall bet a great many of them shall involve "Non-Flying" interests.
One thing is for sure. Our Industry lost a good Man who remains in good standing with those who knew him, flew with him, and have benefitted from his actions flying Helicopters in many kinds of roles.
The general consensus is that the accident happened because he didn't keep to the rules.
Whether he broke any rules shall be a very hard thing to ascertain for a number of very good reasons. Whether he did or not is a very low priority in the scheme of things.
Finding the causes of the crash is what is important and when the AAIB issues its final report, and other investigations by the CAA and other UK agencies shall shed a lot of light on the entire situation extant at the time of the aircraft's collision with the Crane.
We are very likely to see some Rules being changed, more strict enforcement of some Rules, and perhaps....maybe....some of those changes and increased enforcement might involve the "flying" Rules but I shall bet a great many of them shall involve "Non-Flying" interests.
One thing is for sure. Our Industry lost a good Man who remains in good standing with those who knew him, flew with him, and have benefitted from his actions flying Helicopters in many kinds of roles.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
I stand corrected. Written in haste. I should have said 'some people' instead of consensus.
True. And I respect them for it.
As you'll recall, I have also flown a few hours with you and I regard it as a great privilege to have done so.
I stand corrected. Written in haste. I should have said 'some people' instead of consensus.
The comments by level headed professionals familiar with the business of flying around London in helicopters have been very careful to discuss the tragedy without passing judgement whatsoever on Captain Barnes.
As you'll recall, I have also flown a few hours with you and I regard it as a great privilege to have done so.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 25th Jan 2013 at 23:14.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 15 DME
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer - Thank you for your well reasoned and balanced posts. It is a breath of fresh air from somebody of your ilk and stature that is able to frequent this forum and not be shy in assisting and speaking very positively of a fellow pilot/s.
I did not know PB personally, but from what I have read, he sounded like a really nice guy.
I have been truly amazed at some of the adverse comments made.
I have always found fellow pilots to be helpful when needed and likewise, I have always gone to their assistance if required. We share one passion whether it is fixed wing / rotary wing or both. It is such a shame that a few personalities change when they are behind a keyboard.
Mechanical failures/ accidents etc can happen to any one of us.
None of us are infallible.
I did not know PB personally, but from what I have read, he sounded like a really nice guy.
I have been truly amazed at some of the adverse comments made.
I have always found fellow pilots to be helpful when needed and likewise, I have always gone to their assistance if required. We share one passion whether it is fixed wing / rotary wing or both. It is such a shame that a few personalities change when they are behind a keyboard.
Mechanical failures/ accidents etc can happen to any one of us.
None of us are infallible.
Last edited by Richard Westnot; 26th Jan 2013 at 00:29.
FL....that wonderful flight and day....was my last ever helicopter flight. Done in a wonderful old Huey with a true Gentleman in the cockpit with me. We had a very good day for sure....and of course for me a most memorable last day behind a Cyclic Stick.
Well now Sarboy....lay out your case for why there might have been a Rule broken.
Do be specific and lay out your evidence....not your opinion please.
Do be specific and lay out your evidence....not your opinion please.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@JR81
It is dangerous to assume in this particular case for sure. However, the suggestion (yours and post #372) would imply that there was a programmable device that had voice recognition software, such that calls and text could be made without the use of the hand.
Noting the following transmission:
Abbreviation suggests voice recognition of particular sophistication.
Before assuming that his hands / thumbs were busy, also note that some phones can text for you based on speech alone (mine certainly can) so I can text here in the UK legally whilst driving a car. The driving prohibition relates to touching / handling your phone so hands-free speech or text is legal.
Not saying that's what he did, or what he did was right. Just that we don't know the potential importance of this behaviour to the accident sequence yet.
Not saying that's what he did, or what he did was right. Just that we don't know the potential importance of this behaviour to the accident sequence yet.
Noting the following transmission:
Code:
No hole hdg back to red
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Anyone who is familiar with the A109 cockpit noise levels knows that speaking on a mobile phone / voice recognition to text is totally out of the question.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be considered irresponsible not to have used a text device - since it provided powerful and up to date information - in accordance with the principles of good single crew CRM - it is clear that it had no negative bearing on the safety of the flight (accident 4' after last text exchange) - the VHF freq change was the most probable 'distraction' perhaps.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Distraction? I doubt it. The frequency change at that point, i.e. just before entering the EGLW ATZ, is a totally routine and mandatory requirement.
Nonetheless there are numerous headsets which allow a Bluetooth phone connection which would allow either a phone call or speech to text, or are those not allowed in the UK either?
The freq change would have involved a flick of a chinese hat and maybe a quick glance at the display to check the pre-entered frequency was then active.
Re mobiles/texts, ANR headsets like the A20 allow clear conversations and speech input via bluetooth to a handset, but only after manually activating the feature on the handset. As someone said, the language used in the text exchange wasn't the product of a 'speech to text' feature e.g. "hdg"
Re mobiles/texts, ANR headsets like the A20 allow clear conversations and speech input via bluetooth to a handset, but only after manually activating the feature on the handset. As someone said, the language used in the text exchange wasn't the product of a 'speech to text' feature e.g. "hdg"
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
John, I haven't seen any AAIB evidence that this was the case, but bearing in mind that PB was flying a leased aircraft as a freelance pilot and may have used his own headset, I don't know. The A109 that I fly doesn't have the facility and I've not seen an option for that type of equipment in the RFM Supplements. My "E" model RFM is no longer amended so it is possible that something has been produced for that variant and not others, in the last couple of years.
Apart from that (conjecture) if I were inclined to snd txts in the air (and I do not do this, it's difficult enough on the ground), I wud send abbrev msgs.
Apart from that (conjecture) if I were inclined to snd txts in the air (and I do not do this, it's difficult enough on the ground), I wud send abbrev msgs.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
ttb,
Chinese hat? That's not how to change frequency on a GNS430, if that's what he was using, which it appears he was.
However, it's obviously a perfectly normal thing to change ATC frequency and hardly a major distraction. I normally dial up new frequencies by counting the number of clicks needed to go from the one already set in the lower window, so I can continue looking out, look in to check it's correct, then use the "flip/flop" changeover button adjacent to the frequency change knobs to select it.
The freq change would have involved a flick of a chinese hat and maybe a quick glance at the display to check the pre-entered frequency was then active.
However, it's obviously a perfectly normal thing to change ATC frequency and hardly a major distraction. I normally dial up new frequencies by counting the number of clicks needed to go from the one already set in the lower window, so I can continue looking out, look in to check it's correct, then use the "flip/flop" changeover button adjacent to the frequency change knobs to select it.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
In which case, it's possible this was the scenario here. Hopefully the AAIB will be able to find the correct answer.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sasless:
I'm genuinely not trying to be antagonistic Sasless, as I generally agree with the majority of what you post, but you are not allowed to fly through restricted areas unless you comply with the restrictions that are laid down for that restricted area.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/EIS%2006.pdf
Quoting from this doc:
I can't see why the aircraft took the route that it did between Lambeth Bridge until it turned eastbound at Chelsea Bridge. This took it well and truly inside R157. It needed, at the altitudes it was flying (considerably < 1400'), to fly along the line of the Thames. The elephant in the room is why this wasn't done? In my opinion, the texting issue is irrelevant - at the time these texts took place, the aircraft was VMC on top of cloud, a long way from the scene of the accident and almost certainly with the flight director plugged in.
The last 3 paras from post 504/Jim Ball are relevant. I suggest, supported by the pictures immediately after the incident and from personally seeing the cloudbase on the south side of the river near to the accident scene shortly before the crash, that there was an area of low cloud/fog on that bend by Vauxhall Bridge. One possible reason for the height loss (~200' in a very short space of time) immediately north of New Covent Garden is that the aircraft was attempting to remain clear of the cloudbase there, and the subsequent climb was an attempt to abide by the 500' rule. This put the aircraft too close to the cloudbase to achieve sufficient visibility in the direction of the crane/building for it to be seen in time and avoided.
Well now Sarboy....lay out your case for why there might have been a Rule broken.
Do be specific and lay out your evidence....not your opinion please.
Do be specific and lay out your evidence....not your opinion please.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/EIS%2006.pdf
Quoting from this doc:
Restricted Areas
There are a number of Restricted Areas that lie within both the London and London City CTR’s; the boundaries of which are clearly displayed on the London Helicopter chart overleaf. A restricted area is an area of defined dimensions within which the flight of aircraft is restricted in accordance with certain specified conditions. The following offers a brief summary of the Restricted Areas and the conditions attached to them:
EG R157 (Hyde Park), EG R158 (City of London) and EG R159 (Isle of Dogs) are all established from surface level up to 1,400 feet. Flights are permitted within each of these restricted areas providing they are in the service of the Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police District, are flying in accordance with a Special Flight Notification (SFN) issued by the appropriate ATC unit, are flying along Helicopter Route H4, or are flying in accordance with an Enhanced Non-Standard Flight (ENSF) clearance issued by the appropriate ATC unit.
SFN’s can be applied to a variety of special aerial tasks, which may take place throughout an extended period of time. The most common are Police Authority Air Support Unit (ASU) and Air Operations Unit (AOU) flights, Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) flights and HM Government-sponsored flights (including Ministry of Defence and other flights). The nature of SFN flights is such that they will often require to be afforded priority over most other flights.
ENSF’s are subject to security considerations by the Metropolitan Police and may be refused on public interest grounds. There are a number of helicopter operators that have an annual ENSF clearance due to the numerous tasks that they are required to undertake within the restricted areas, for example, those operators responsible for conducting aerial filming on behalf of the major TV News channels. On any occasion that such operators wish to manoeuvre within any of the restricted areas, they are required to obtain a permission number from the Diplomatic Protection Group (DPG), which validates their flight within it.
There are a number of Restricted Areas that lie within both the London and London City CTR’s; the boundaries of which are clearly displayed on the London Helicopter chart overleaf. A restricted area is an area of defined dimensions within which the flight of aircraft is restricted in accordance with certain specified conditions. The following offers a brief summary of the Restricted Areas and the conditions attached to them:
EG R157 (Hyde Park), EG R158 (City of London) and EG R159 (Isle of Dogs) are all established from surface level up to 1,400 feet. Flights are permitted within each of these restricted areas providing they are in the service of the Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police District, are flying in accordance with a Special Flight Notification (SFN) issued by the appropriate ATC unit, are flying along Helicopter Route H4, or are flying in accordance with an Enhanced Non-Standard Flight (ENSF) clearance issued by the appropriate ATC unit.
SFN’s can be applied to a variety of special aerial tasks, which may take place throughout an extended period of time. The most common are Police Authority Air Support Unit (ASU) and Air Operations Unit (AOU) flights, Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) flights and HM Government-sponsored flights (including Ministry of Defence and other flights). The nature of SFN flights is such that they will often require to be afforded priority over most other flights.
ENSF’s are subject to security considerations by the Metropolitan Police and may be refused on public interest grounds. There are a number of helicopter operators that have an annual ENSF clearance due to the numerous tasks that they are required to undertake within the restricted areas, for example, those operators responsible for conducting aerial filming on behalf of the major TV News channels. On any occasion that such operators wish to manoeuvre within any of the restricted areas, they are required to obtain a permission number from the Diplomatic Protection Group (DPG), which validates their flight within it.
The last 3 paras from post 504/Jim Ball are relevant. I suggest, supported by the pictures immediately after the incident and from personally seeing the cloudbase on the south side of the river near to the accident scene shortly before the crash, that there was an area of low cloud/fog on that bend by Vauxhall Bridge. One possible reason for the height loss (~200' in a very short space of time) immediately north of New Covent Garden is that the aircraft was attempting to remain clear of the cloudbase there, and the subsequent climb was an attempt to abide by the 500' rule. This put the aircraft too close to the cloudbase to achieve sufficient visibility in the direction of the crane/building for it to be seen in time and avoided.
Last edited by sarboy w****r; 26th Jan 2013 at 12:01.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/20100316LondonHeliChart.pdf
The Link takes you to a map of the London Helicopter Lanes.
As I know naught of the Lanes....I have to leave it to others in the know...to correct me if I am wrong here.
H-4 on the map appears to run through the Southeastern corner of R-157.
R-157 shows a minimum height of 1400 feet MSL.
The Agusta 109 is a Twin Engined Helicopter thus is not limited to just the Helicopter Lanes if under a Clearance from ATC.
The subject aircraft was under such a clearance from ATC and could have been on a SVFR Clearance which I am led to believe removes the Altitude limitation.
Considering the flight path as depicted by the Radar Trace provided by the CAA in their SB, the ATC Clearance and instructions given the Aircraft by ATC, and the Reported Altitudes given by the Radar Trace data.....was there a Violation of the Rules governing Restricted Area 157 as Sarboy is suggesting.
That Sarboy is the kind of evidence I would like to examine before passing judgement or voicing an assumption about R-157.
Lets compare the Rules, the Clearance, the Aircraft's track and height, then limit ourselves to just that in our decision. None of us are clairvoyant and cannot say what the Pilot did, what he saw, whether he was in or out of cloud, what made him fly the track and height he did. That requres us to make assumptions and that is not something I am prepared to do or accept.
So....the ball is back into your court. Lay out your case.
The Link takes you to a map of the London Helicopter Lanes.
As I know naught of the Lanes....I have to leave it to others in the know...to correct me if I am wrong here.
H-4 on the map appears to run through the Southeastern corner of R-157.
R-157 shows a minimum height of 1400 feet MSL.
The Agusta 109 is a Twin Engined Helicopter thus is not limited to just the Helicopter Lanes if under a Clearance from ATC.
The subject aircraft was under such a clearance from ATC and could have been on a SVFR Clearance which I am led to believe removes the Altitude limitation.
Considering the flight path as depicted by the Radar Trace provided by the CAA in their SB, the ATC Clearance and instructions given the Aircraft by ATC, and the Reported Altitudes given by the Radar Trace data.....was there a Violation of the Rules governing Restricted Area 157 as Sarboy is suggesting.
That Sarboy is the kind of evidence I would like to examine before passing judgement or voicing an assumption about R-157.
Lets compare the Rules, the Clearance, the Aircraft's track and height, then limit ourselves to just that in our decision. None of us are clairvoyant and cannot say what the Pilot did, what he saw, whether he was in or out of cloud, what made him fly the track and height he did. That requres us to make assumptions and that is not something I am prepared to do or accept.
So....the ball is back into your court. Lay out your case.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely, H4 does run through R157. You may fly through R157 if you follow H4. I have flown G-CRST, I fly the helilanes professionally, I do know a little of which I speak. You need one or more of the following conditions to legally fly through R157:
1. In the service of the Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police District.
2. Flying in accordance with a Special Flight Notification (SFN) issued by the appropriate ATC unit.
3. Flying along Helicopter Route H4.
4. Flying in accordance with an Enhanced Non-Standard Flight (ENSF) clearance issued by the appropriate ATC unit.
Other than these exceptions, you are not allowed. R157 covers the Houses of Paliament, Buckingham Palace etc, and this is why R157 exists. Unfortunately in this instance, it is that simple and clearcut.
The clearance was into London CTR, not R157. This is clear from the transcript. The SVFR clearance doesn't do anything about the R157 restriction of 1400', it simply means that the "not below 1000 feet" restriction inside the CTR is removed.
1. In the service of the Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police District.
2. Flying in accordance with a Special Flight Notification (SFN) issued by the appropriate ATC unit.
3. Flying along Helicopter Route H4.
4. Flying in accordance with an Enhanced Non-Standard Flight (ENSF) clearance issued by the appropriate ATC unit.
Other than these exceptions, you are not allowed. R157 covers the Houses of Paliament, Buckingham Palace etc, and this is why R157 exists. Unfortunately in this instance, it is that simple and clearcut.
The subject aircraft was under such a clearance from ATC and could have been on a SVFR Clearance which I am led to believe removes the Altitude limitation.
Last edited by sarboy w****r; 26th Jan 2013 at 12:47.
What does all this have to do with the collision with the Crane?