Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think that SND makes the point well..
I'm not just saying that as confirmation of my own viewpoint but the facts did not bear the situation out.. there was no attempt to land a field made, a landing at Elstree could not be attempted so it was canned for RTB.
Would the client have been picked up in a random field ? Most likely not. Dumping a car in a random field for x length of time or having a driver traipse around the vicinity looking for a particular field isn't going to cut it.
There's too much accusation and stock being placed in a jocular off the cuff comment.
I'm not just saying that as confirmation of my own viewpoint but the facts did not bear the situation out.. there was no attempt to land a field made, a landing at Elstree could not be attempted so it was canned for RTB.
Would the client have been picked up in a random field ? Most likely not. Dumping a car in a random field for x length of time or having a driver traipse around the vicinity looking for a particular field isn't going to cut it.
There's too much accusation and stock being placed in a jocular off the cuff comment.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sid
Knowing PB's personality and jocular manner, as I did, I entirely agree with SND's analysis of that exchange.
You really are scraping the barrel now.
The reference to 'H3' was clearly a slip of the tongue which he corrected immediately.
Perhaps you never make such a slip, but most of us mere mortals do from time to time.
H.
Knowing PB's personality and jocular manner, as I did, I entirely agree with SND's analysis of that exchange.
Wouldn't knowing which route you are on also be a routine and mandatory requirement?
The reference to 'H3' was clearly a slip of the tongue which he corrected immediately.
Perhaps you never make such a slip, but most of us mere mortals do from time to time.
H.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Readgeoff:
Yes, it's a sobering thought. What's also worth bearing in mind is the Shard (slightly < 1100'?). We now have 2 extremely tall obstacles on the south side of the river and which lie in the direct path of a typical north/south routing across London/City CTR to/from Alexander Palace. We need to have these in the forefront of our minds when the next typical London winter day (or night, worse still) appears.
I flew down the lanes through London for the first time since the accident today and considered again the routes and heights as I was flying it. One thing that really struck me was just how low 770ft is in relation to that part of town. I am usually 1500+ through that section and even that is not far away from a number of the taller buildings dotted around. The thought of hitting that crane sent a cold chill through me as I considered it from above.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@sarboy
Thanks for updating the conventional approach inbound to Battersea. A further curiosity I had was if the inbound track was to be via London-eye, why an approach was flown a fair-degree south west of this point? It may well be that a temperature inversion over the Thames basin forced the change and may have been what preceded the elliptical manoeuvre to get back on track.
Quite simply because the flight profile depicted from Lambeth Bridge is completely at odds with any normal flight profile I have seen or flown. Heathrow ATC normally get very upset if you stray off the helilanes, even slightly. And that's in the rest of the CTR, not when your track is taking you through a restricted area into which you are not allowed to fly.
Why did the aircraft fly that route? Why did it not fly along the Thames like it was supposed to? What possible reason could there be for not continuing along the Thames from Lambeth Bridge (i.e. following H4)? Why did it veer away from the route along the Thames (the change in direction is about 45 degrees)?
The pilot reports no technical problems. The pilot continues to respond normally to radio calls beyond Lambeth Bridge. There was clearly some other reason as to why the pilot did not go into that bend in the river. If it's not weather, what other possible reasons could there be?
Why did the aircraft fly that route? Why did it not fly along the Thames like it was supposed to? What possible reason could there be for not continuing along the Thames from Lambeth Bridge (i.e. following H4)? Why did it veer away from the route along the Thames (the change in direction is about 45 degrees)?
The pilot reports no technical problems. The pilot continues to respond normally to radio calls beyond Lambeth Bridge. There was clearly some other reason as to why the pilot did not go into that bend in the river. If it's not weather, what other possible reasons could there be?
Last edited by sAx_R54; 27th Jan 2013 at 11:15.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Stuck gear;
Facts - "G-CRST climbed to 1,500 ft on track to Elstree and cleared the northern boundary of the London CTR at 0746 hrs, when it began a descent. It passed Elstree Aerodrome at 0748 hrs in a descent through 1,200 ft before reaching a minimum altitude of 1,000 ft. At 0749 hrs, G-CRST was 2 nm north-west of Elstree Aerodrome when it climbed and turned right onto a south-easterly track towards central London."
Fact - Elstree elevation is 332' so the descent took him down to 668' aal (below normal cabair circuit height) 2nm north-west of the field.
Fact - "Helicopter arrivals to position to the northern grass at 500 ft QFE."
http://www.londonelstreeaerodrome.co...2010-12-16.pdf
Airport Information
Supposition;
Perhaps no further descent was made because he knew of the multiple pylons in the area, especially to the north-west ....or maybe the lowest height of this part of the flight just so happened to be in the sector around Elstree where the open land and fields seem to be. Is the Golf club...a known site?
IMHO, the facts indicate, contrary to your post, that something was indeed attempted.
I'm not just saying that as confirmation of my own viewpoint but the facts did not bear the situation out.. there was no attempt to land a field made, a landing at Elstree could not be attempted so it was canned for RTB.
Fact - Elstree elevation is 332' so the descent took him down to 668' aal (below normal cabair circuit height) 2nm north-west of the field.
Fact - "Helicopter arrivals to position to the northern grass at 500 ft QFE."
http://www.londonelstreeaerodrome.co...2010-12-16.pdf
Airport Information
Supposition;
Perhaps no further descent was made because he knew of the multiple pylons in the area, especially to the north-west ....or maybe the lowest height of this part of the flight just so happened to be in the sector around Elstree where the open land and fields seem to be. Is the Golf club...a known site?
IMHO, the facts indicate, contrary to your post, that something was indeed attempted.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
You really are scraping the barrel now.
The reference to 'H3' was clearly a slip of the tongue which he corrected immediately.
Perhaps you never make such a slip, but most of us mere mortals do from time to time.
The reference to 'H3' was clearly a slip of the tongue which he corrected immediately.
Perhaps you never make such a slip, but most of us mere mortals do from time to time.
Me..., sometimes I double flip, don't flip enough or end up calling Tower, either Radar, Approach or Director having talked to all 3 within the last dynamic 5 mins, while trying to anticipate, by half-earing the other handful of radios or other crew members, wether we do or don't need to go through the centreline at the half mile final point with Ryanair, Emirates and Baby inbound.. and where we will be going after that.
On the other hand on a nice quiet day I might call Halfpenny Green, Wellesbourne.
My point was that some here are saying the radio change is not to be considered a distracting factor. The point is H3/H4 may well be a slip of the tongue, or could it be the only thing that is indicating an increasing workload.
H3/H4 could well be a slip, as much as dialling up 122.4 instead of 122.9, a slip which might have been in the process of being corrected when told to change freq.
SG
Would the client have been picked up in a random field ? Most likely not. Dumping a car in a random field for x length of time or having a driver traipse around the vicinity looking for a particular field isn't going to cut it.
Would the client have been picked up in a random field ? Most likely not. Dumping a car in a random field for x length of time or having a driver traipse around the vicinity looking for a particular field isn't going to cut it.
Flippant yes, in seriousness, I'd doubt it even without knowing the pilot.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Might that explain the continuation of the flight to the north-west of Elstree, the little kink just to the south of the golf club, flying directly overhead the golf club before commencing the right turn back to London?
With jumpseaters post in mind and of course the client not being too happy with a field pick up, possibly the golf club was being considered as an option?
With jumpseaters post in mind and of course the client not being too happy with a field pick up, possibly the golf club was being considered as an option?
It seems the discussion has been round the houses and still the answer to the only questions that matter remains unanswered/unresolved.
Why did the aircraft collide with the Crane?
Was the crane visible to the Pilot?
If so....why did he fly into it?
If it wasn't....why did he fly into it?
Why did the aircraft collide with the Crane?
Was the crane visible to the Pilot?
If so....why did he fly into it?
If it wasn't....why did he fly into it?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
You're quite right SASless, however the answer to the first question, possible mechanical or medical issues aside, is that the pilot flew it into it; which leaves just the one question.
'Why did he fly into it?'
The answer to which, IMHO will be found more through a look at possible CRM issues than lights, heights and numbers of flights. Was this really, as it seems some here seem to think, an accident waiting to happen?
'Why did he fly into it?'
The answer to which, IMHO will be found more through a look at possible CRM issues than lights, heights and numbers of flights. Was this really, as it seems some here seem to think, an accident waiting to happen?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low Flier
If the answers to the questions were so clear, one of the most widely experienced helicopter pilots in this forum wouldn't be asking them.
The answer's in your question, SASless.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In which document is the width of H4 defined? It seems to be accepted practice to veer slightly outside the Thames river banks on occasion.
One place where the width of H4 is precisely defined now is alongside the St Georges Wharf Tower ('The Vauxhall Narrows'?) and when the cloudbase drops to less than the Notam height plus 500ft the width is halved by my reckoning.
If it is accepted that H4 is now narrower at Vauxhall should there not be some simple 'Highway Code' rules in place relating to passing oncoming traffic on the right and performing 'U-turns'?And it might be wise to move the boundary of the Heliport Control Zone so there is no loop-hole to allow the 500ft rule to be ignored 'in a descent to the heliport'.
As noted in an earlier post two more tall towers have planning permission at Vauxhall, slightly further from the river than the St Georges Wharf Tower but slightly higher. Presumably this doesn't have any further impact on H4 flying?
One place where the width of H4 is precisely defined now is alongside the St Georges Wharf Tower ('The Vauxhall Narrows'?) and when the cloudbase drops to less than the Notam height plus 500ft the width is halved by my reckoning.
If it is accepted that H4 is now narrower at Vauxhall should there not be some simple 'Highway Code' rules in place relating to passing oncoming traffic on the right and performing 'U-turns'?And it might be wise to move the boundary of the Heliport Control Zone so there is no loop-hole to allow the 500ft rule to be ignored 'in a descent to the heliport'.
As noted in an earlier post two more tall towers have planning permission at Vauxhall, slightly further from the river than the St Georges Wharf Tower but slightly higher. Presumably this doesn't have any further impact on H4 flying?
Last edited by A30yoyo; 27th Jan 2013 at 14:13.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I've had my thrupence worth with my opinion of the CRM side of things, so that's me out.
However, here's one that must have a definitive answer;
If a client calls to suggest that a pilot doesn't take off until there is a clearer observation of the weather at the pick up point, but the pilot replies that he's going to lift anyway, to which the client repeats his suggestion that the pilot shouldn't take off..but the pilot takes off anyway...gets overhead the intended pick up point, and then ends up having to rtb because of the bad weather...
...if the pilot is freelance, flying an aircraft loaned from a different company than the pilot is flying for....who pays for that flight?
However, here's one that must have a definitive answer;
If a client calls to suggest that a pilot doesn't take off until there is a clearer observation of the weather at the pick up point, but the pilot replies that he's going to lift anyway, to which the client repeats his suggestion that the pilot shouldn't take off..but the pilot takes off anyway...gets overhead the intended pick up point, and then ends up having to rtb because of the bad weather...
...if the pilot is freelance, flying an aircraft loaned from a different company than the pilot is flying for....who pays for that flight?
A30yoyo: In which document is the width of H4 defined? It seems to be accepted practice to veer slightly outside the Thames river banks on occasion.
The exact definition of H4 is between the high water marks on either bank - CAA source.
The exact definition of H4 is between the high water marks on either bank - CAA source.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A30yoyo
JimB has already given you the defined width of H4.
The width of the river at Vauxhall Bridge is about 900 feet.
The length of the bridge, clear of the abutments, is 860 feet.
MacRS
That may be so but the pilot wasn't going to Redhill. He intended to follow the river (along Route H4) to Battersea Heliport and had asked for permission to do so. (AAIB report.)
JimB has already given you the defined width of H4.
The width of the river at Vauxhall Bridge is about 900 feet.
The length of the bridge, clear of the abutments, is 860 feet.
MacRS
That may be so but the pilot wasn't going to Redhill. He intended to follow the river (along Route H4) to Battersea Heliport and had asked for permission to do so. (AAIB report.)
What was the likely visibility for the turn at London Eye and trip down Thames?
Could some of Londons taller landmarks have been visible? Could it have been flown primarily using GPS for navigation?
Mickjoebill
Could some of Londons taller landmarks have been visible? Could it have been flown primarily using GPS for navigation?
Mickjoebill
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Is this the overnight position of the crane?
Click Link
..because if it was, the big building small crane viewpoint might be flawed
If the crane operator was not late, would the jib have been in a lower operating position?
Click Link
..because if it was, the big building small crane viewpoint might be flawed
If the crane operator was not late, would the jib have been in a lower operating position?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of us have consistently focussed on the one big question, as SASless repeated recently, which is why did G-CRST actually hit the crane? With a bit of time to look at this more carefully, I think that it may well indeed have been because PB inadvertently went into very poor VMC as he was changing frequency to Battersea.
From the radar trace in the AAIB SB, we see G-CRST descending gradually from Westminster Bridge towards Chelsea Bridge. Given this descent, and the fact that he was a bit north of track, I suspect that he was not yet in good VMC. Then 200m east of Chelsea Bridge G-CRST turns tightly to the right through 225 degrees – too tightly for any coupled turn on autopilot. Such a tight turn to the right could well have been executed because PB had found relatively good VMC conditions, at the indicated 770ft, and wanted to keep good visual contact with the ground, looking both through the screen and his door window, whilst also avoiding going too far north beyond the river. With the cloudbase possibly then lowering a bit as he tracks east, he descends to the indicated 570ft, but is probably anxious to climb, so nudges upwards as much as he can.
During the majority of this leg back east PB was talking with ATC, finally ending with a frequency change instruction when he was 150m from Vauxhall Bridge - and the crane G-CRST hit. So he would have been changing frequency whilst starting to turn for Battersea and trying to keep as high as possible in poor VMC. Even a few seconds with eyes in the cockpit now could have been enough for G-CRST to end up virtually in IMC again, so PB could not turn too tightly, nor did he have good visual references, and tragically fate intervened and his path took him into the crane that he had perhaps forgotten was so high, was spindly and hard to see with inadequate lighting.
A witness was quoted as saying that he saw the helicopter going east between Chelsea and Vauxhall, before it went into cloud, so it seems PB was in reasonable VMC at this point, so really, all the hard work should have been done. Who knows, but perhaps if PB had indeed held between Vauxhall and Westminster, he could have maintained VMC on top at up 1500ft, changed to Battersea then made his approach without distraction. But then perhaps he was concerned that the hole he had seen might disappear.
All supposition, of course.
From the radar trace in the AAIB SB, we see G-CRST descending gradually from Westminster Bridge towards Chelsea Bridge. Given this descent, and the fact that he was a bit north of track, I suspect that he was not yet in good VMC. Then 200m east of Chelsea Bridge G-CRST turns tightly to the right through 225 degrees – too tightly for any coupled turn on autopilot. Such a tight turn to the right could well have been executed because PB had found relatively good VMC conditions, at the indicated 770ft, and wanted to keep good visual contact with the ground, looking both through the screen and his door window, whilst also avoiding going too far north beyond the river. With the cloudbase possibly then lowering a bit as he tracks east, he descends to the indicated 570ft, but is probably anxious to climb, so nudges upwards as much as he can.
During the majority of this leg back east PB was talking with ATC, finally ending with a frequency change instruction when he was 150m from Vauxhall Bridge - and the crane G-CRST hit. So he would have been changing frequency whilst starting to turn for Battersea and trying to keep as high as possible in poor VMC. Even a few seconds with eyes in the cockpit now could have been enough for G-CRST to end up virtually in IMC again, so PB could not turn too tightly, nor did he have good visual references, and tragically fate intervened and his path took him into the crane that he had perhaps forgotten was so high, was spindly and hard to see with inadequate lighting.
A witness was quoted as saying that he saw the helicopter going east between Chelsea and Vauxhall, before it went into cloud, so it seems PB was in reasonable VMC at this point, so really, all the hard work should have been done. Who knows, but perhaps if PB had indeed held between Vauxhall and Westminster, he could have maintained VMC on top at up 1500ft, changed to Battersea then made his approach without distraction. But then perhaps he was concerned that the hole he had seen might disappear.
All supposition, of course.
