Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Shepperton
Age: 52
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regard to the "land in the field if I have to" I said that Sir Niall raised a good point that it COULD be just something that someone has said in jest but never actually intended to do. I didnt know PB personally and hadnt considered this could be something he would say in jest when i first read the report - it was just another red flag amongst many. Thus Sir Niall who DID KNOW PB made a valid point. You would need to have known PB and his previous actions (did he ever previously pick up from a field when primary site was not available etc) to make a judgement.
For me though, other than possibly indicating a particular attitude to risk, that comment is not that relevent to the actual crash.
My view is that the accident sequence started when PB made a decision to try and get into Battersea from his safe position on top of the fog. From everything I have seen and read in the AAIB report and on this forum including in particular the descent path and the routing through R157 I can only deduce he was decending through cloud with maybe patches of viz here and there. The descent doesnt suggest a drop through a "hole". He was in an IFR machine and presumably held an Instrument licence (does an ATPL included Insrument or is instrument additional?) so may have felt perfectly able to "safely" decend through the muck. Again I would want to know if this sort of thing had been done before by PB before drawing conclusions.
The question then was asked Why did he hit the Crane? For me there is a much bigger question. Why did he fly JUST OVER a BLOODY GREAT BUILDING. If he knew the building was there flying over it would have been a clear 500ft violation. I can only deduce that he didnt know the building was there and the clear inference from that is because he had limited or no vizibility and maybe also wasnt completely sure of his exact location (his hold was not where his clearance to hold had been given and he had passed through R157).
The discussion about the Cranes overnight position, how it was lit etc etc all are relevent in maybe having provided PB a get out of jail free card but they are not the cause of this accident in my view.
For me though, other than possibly indicating a particular attitude to risk, that comment is not that relevent to the actual crash.
My view is that the accident sequence started when PB made a decision to try and get into Battersea from his safe position on top of the fog. From everything I have seen and read in the AAIB report and on this forum including in particular the descent path and the routing through R157 I can only deduce he was decending through cloud with maybe patches of viz here and there. The descent doesnt suggest a drop through a "hole". He was in an IFR machine and presumably held an Instrument licence (does an ATPL included Insrument or is instrument additional?) so may have felt perfectly able to "safely" decend through the muck. Again I would want to know if this sort of thing had been done before by PB before drawing conclusions.
The question then was asked Why did he hit the Crane? For me there is a much bigger question. Why did he fly JUST OVER a BLOODY GREAT BUILDING. If he knew the building was there flying over it would have been a clear 500ft violation. I can only deduce that he didnt know the building was there and the clear inference from that is because he had limited or no vizibility and maybe also wasnt completely sure of his exact location (his hold was not where his clearance to hold had been given and he had passed through R157).
The discussion about the Cranes overnight position, how it was lit etc etc all are relevent in maybe having provided PB a get out of jail free card but they are not the cause of this accident in my view.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorspeed, you describe a scenario many of us will have experienced over the years. The London airspace and the ever taller 'encroachment of' buildings leave little room for error or malfunction in the reported weather conditions. Terms such as poor VMC, good VMC, VMC on top, decending through holes in cloud layers, are the unwritten lines in the regulations that corporate VFR helicopter pilots deal with most days in the UK to provide a viable service..
A lot of assuming going on.
Basic question for me remains the same....the Pilot did not see the Crane or did not see it in time....to avoid the Collision.
His Clearance was either VFR or SVFR....either or both which require he maintain adequate visual contact with the Surface or External References to be able to control the aircraft and avoid other Traffic, Obstacles, or terrain.
Altitude by itself is not an issue contingent to being able to see ahead.
Course by itself is not an issue contingent to being able to see ahead.
Speed....becomes an issue with the decrease in distance one can see ahead.
Rules...by and of themselves really do not matter if you can see and avoid terrain and obstacles. They may play a role later when one has a very sterile chat with the CAA fellas... but not as a casual factor.
Questioning how he got to the height to hit the Crane is an issue.
Questioning how his track took him to the Crane is an issue.
Questioning why he did not see the Crane is an issue.
There has been some very good thinking and rational analysis of all that.
Key Question...."How do we figure out what he was thinking and doing that led him to that exact point in space and he not be able to see that Crane?"
I am not sure we shall ever know.
What I do know....there is ample information for the rest of us to draw some pretty accurate conclusions on what not to do if we are ever confronted with similar circumstances.
That is the value of discussions such as we are having here.
For those lessons to utilized...we not only have to spell them out...but we have to make them know to the industry and then implement them in our every day operations.
I see the answer as being very simple but determining the actual cause is going to be nearly impossible.
Either his vision was blocked by Cloud or Fog, Mist on the Windscreen, or some other external cause. Or, he was distracted and looking inside at a critical moment while flying in limited visibility thus preventing him from taking avoiding action having allowed his altitude control to be affected by the weather and altitude limitations in the area he was flying in. He must have found it more expedient to fly lower rather than higher.
Which one of those were the cause.....I make no choice.....I just see them as the more logical choices of many.
Basic question for me remains the same....the Pilot did not see the Crane or did not see it in time....to avoid the Collision.
His Clearance was either VFR or SVFR....either or both which require he maintain adequate visual contact with the Surface or External References to be able to control the aircraft and avoid other Traffic, Obstacles, or terrain.
Altitude by itself is not an issue contingent to being able to see ahead.
Course by itself is not an issue contingent to being able to see ahead.
Speed....becomes an issue with the decrease in distance one can see ahead.
Rules...by and of themselves really do not matter if you can see and avoid terrain and obstacles. They may play a role later when one has a very sterile chat with the CAA fellas... but not as a casual factor.
Questioning how he got to the height to hit the Crane is an issue.
Questioning how his track took him to the Crane is an issue.
Questioning why he did not see the Crane is an issue.
There has been some very good thinking and rational analysis of all that.
Key Question...."How do we figure out what he was thinking and doing that led him to that exact point in space and he not be able to see that Crane?"
I am not sure we shall ever know.
What I do know....there is ample information for the rest of us to draw some pretty accurate conclusions on what not to do if we are ever confronted with similar circumstances.
That is the value of discussions such as we are having here.
For those lessons to utilized...we not only have to spell them out...but we have to make them know to the industry and then implement them in our every day operations.
I see the answer as being very simple but determining the actual cause is going to be nearly impossible.
Either his vision was blocked by Cloud or Fog, Mist on the Windscreen, or some other external cause. Or, he was distracted and looking inside at a critical moment while flying in limited visibility thus preventing him from taking avoiding action having allowed his altitude control to be affected by the weather and altitude limitations in the area he was flying in. He must have found it more expedient to fly lower rather than higher.
Which one of those were the cause.....I make no choice.....I just see them as the more logical choices of many.
Last edited by SASless; 27th Jan 2013 at 18:39.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
RG;
Perhaps given the circumstances, flying over what you know to be the biggest building around was considered a good choice. Ok, so it may well have been 'violating the 500', but flying over the highest object ensures that other objects are below you and may be a good thing to hang a hat on. The jib possibly simply wasn't seen or maybe even being looked for.
Unfortunately...
From the SB;
As I said, flying over the biggest building in the area, given the circumstances, might have been intentional. As it happened, unfortunately the jib was still raised in its overnight position and 125ft above the building, because the operator was late for work.
The top of the building is 594ft and looking at the raised height of the jib and the impact point of about half way along be jib (counting the structure boxes), he flew around 65ft above the top of the building. Ok violating 500ft, but if the operator had been in work that hour earlier...on time, the jib height would have been that 125ft lower than it was. In that case, the incident wouldn't have happened.
One big thing to take away from this, is if the impact didn't occur, in all probability we wouldn't have heard how close it was.
The question then was asked Why did he hit the Crane? For me there is a much bigger question. Why did he fly JUST OVER a BLOODY GREAT BUILDING. If he knew the building was there flying over it would have been a clear 500ft violation. I can only deduce that he didnt know the building was there and the clear inference from that is because he had limited or no vizibility and maybe also wasnt completely sure of his exact location (his hold was not where his clearance to hold had been given and he had passed through R157).
Unfortunately...
From the SB;
During out-of-service periods, such as overnight, the jib was parked in the minimum jib position, at a 65° angle above the horizontal. At the time of the accident this gave a total height from the ground to the tip of the jib of 719 ft.
The top of the building is 594ft and looking at the raised height of the jib and the impact point of about half way along be jib (counting the structure boxes), he flew around 65ft above the top of the building. Ok violating 500ft, but if the operator had been in work that hour earlier...on time, the jib height would have been that 125ft lower than it was. In that case, the incident wouldn't have happened.
One big thing to take away from this, is if the impact didn't occur, in all probability we wouldn't have heard how close it was.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Shepperton
Age: 52
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'What I do know....there is ample information for the rest of us to draw some pretty accurate conclusions on what not to do if we are ever confronted with similar circumstances.'
Very well put SASless.
Very well put SASless.
Last edited by readgeoff; 27th Jan 2013 at 18:59.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASLess
the problem with flying within VFR/SVFR Legal limits is its all great on paper but may not be reality in the field.
You could have 10 K vis in one area and 700 meters half a mile away.
You could have 2000 feet cloudbase in one area and 500 feet half a mile away.
Then we have the dreaded scud running, punching in and out of bits of mist cloud and getting quick glimpses of the ground or river.
At that point the river is very narrow so room for error is tiny ie a glance at a chart and the aircraft can easily not be on course.
Hit a patch of cloud/mist still thinking you are over clear air below the aircraft and its a rude awakening whn you are confronted with a building in front.
Instant reaction to turn away maybe seeing the main stem of a Crane but missing a thinner long arm unlighted conceiled by cloud mist.
My guess is that is what happened and the first the poor pilot realized turning away was a load crash as he hit the concealed arm.
Pace
the problem with flying within VFR/SVFR Legal limits is its all great on paper but may not be reality in the field.
You could have 10 K vis in one area and 700 meters half a mile away.
You could have 2000 feet cloudbase in one area and 500 feet half a mile away.
Then we have the dreaded scud running, punching in and out of bits of mist cloud and getting quick glimpses of the ground or river.
At that point the river is very narrow so room for error is tiny ie a glance at a chart and the aircraft can easily not be on course.
Hit a patch of cloud/mist still thinking you are over clear air below the aircraft and its a rude awakening whn you are confronted with a building in front.
Instant reaction to turn away maybe seeing the main stem of a Crane but missing a thinner long arm unlighted conceiled by cloud mist.
My guess is that is what happened and the first the poor pilot realized turning away was a load crash as he hit the concealed arm.
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Shepperton
Age: 52
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@SilsoeSid. There is of course logic in your suggestion. I am just a PPL(h) so wouldn't like to comment on the likelihood of this. I have been taught to fly over pilons to keep away from wires so maybe the pros do the same with buildings when everything else is going bad?
Your point "One big thing to take away from this, is if the impact didn't occur, in all probability we wouldn't have heard how close it was" is very valid. How can we learn lessons from near misses when they aren't reported? Or even investigated?
Your point "One big thing to take away from this, is if the impact didn't occur, in all probability we wouldn't have heard how close it was" is very valid. How can we learn lessons from near misses when they aren't reported? Or even investigated?
Am I being silly....but flying over the Tallest Obstacle in bad weather is the last thing I would do. I look for the lowest obstacles and avoid the higher ones because I want to be able to stay out of the murk and see as much as possible.
At the risk of sounding like a Cowboy....given a choice of good vis at street level or next to no Vis at a higher Altitude....this old Goat goes low and accepts the fact Second Guessers might take fault with me.
That gets me back to my concept of "Ass. Tin, Ticket!".
In flying helicopters "Visibility" is King. You don't run into what you see.
If I find max vis....even if I violate the Sacred 500 Foot Rule....make it home safely without putting a dent into the Helicopter....then (if) required....I will offer up my pitiful tale of woe and hope it is accepted. One also has to remember it is far easier to get Forgiveness than Permission sometimes. You just have to remember not to wear your Welcome out in certain Houses with certain people.
Read....you were taught that technique because Pylons are easier to see than Wires....and the Wires will be no higher than the Pylons (for the set of wires that run across the pylons you are looking at.)
Let's talk "Scud Running" here......bluntly put....if you punch into a "Cloud" even for only a few seconds and thus lose your forward visibility.....you are not "Scud Running"....you are attempting Suicide. If that wee wispy thing in front of you hides a solid wall....what then? You have just done yourself into an IIMC event....something that KILLS Helicopter Pilots.
I am a Veteran "Rud Scunner"....anyone who works for a living flying helicopters in certain parts of the World have to be in order to accomplish the job and earn a living. Sadly....that is the Real World of Utility helicopter flying.
I learned over the years that one Rule applies to such dangerous activity.....never lose sight of the ground....and always maximize your forward visibility and fly as slowly as you must to be able to STOP, HOVER, REVERSE COURSE, and AVOID OBSTACLES and HAZARDS.
I do not avocate Rud Scunning....but if you must do it....do it as safely as you can....and only over ground you know like the back of your hand.
At the risk of sounding like a Cowboy....given a choice of good vis at street level or next to no Vis at a higher Altitude....this old Goat goes low and accepts the fact Second Guessers might take fault with me.
That gets me back to my concept of "Ass. Tin, Ticket!".
In flying helicopters "Visibility" is King. You don't run into what you see.
If I find max vis....even if I violate the Sacred 500 Foot Rule....make it home safely without putting a dent into the Helicopter....then (if) required....I will offer up my pitiful tale of woe and hope it is accepted. One also has to remember it is far easier to get Forgiveness than Permission sometimes. You just have to remember not to wear your Welcome out in certain Houses with certain people.
Read....you were taught that technique because Pylons are easier to see than Wires....and the Wires will be no higher than the Pylons (for the set of wires that run across the pylons you are looking at.)
Let's talk "Scud Running" here......bluntly put....if you punch into a "Cloud" even for only a few seconds and thus lose your forward visibility.....you are not "Scud Running"....you are attempting Suicide. If that wee wispy thing in front of you hides a solid wall....what then? You have just done yourself into an IIMC event....something that KILLS Helicopter Pilots.
I am a Veteran "Rud Scunner"....anyone who works for a living flying helicopters in certain parts of the World have to be in order to accomplish the job and earn a living. Sadly....that is the Real World of Utility helicopter flying.
I learned over the years that one Rule applies to such dangerous activity.....never lose sight of the ground....and always maximize your forward visibility and fly as slowly as you must to be able to STOP, HOVER, REVERSE COURSE, and AVOID OBSTACLES and HAZARDS.
I do not avocate Rud Scunning....but if you must do it....do it as safely as you can....and only over ground you know like the back of your hand.
Last edited by SASless; 27th Jan 2013 at 19:20.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who suggests PB was overloaded or struggling to cope with the situation, either doesn't know him or what he has done - Does anyone remember the conditions that PB had to cope with when the scissor link broke all those years ago, and the outcome ?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cornwall UK
Age: 79
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'lumberjack' on the skyscrapercity forum continues to post interesting photos e.g view along H4 in #2611 on
One St George Wharf (The Tower) | Lambeth | 181m | 49 fl | T/O - Page 131 - SkyscraperCity
One St George Wharf (The Tower) | Lambeth | 181m | 49 fl | T/O - Page 131 - SkyscraperCity
Just a thought.....anyone have access to photos taken very close to the time of the Accident?
It would be interesting to see what the Vis/Cloud was at the time.
It would be interesting to see what the Vis/Cloud was at the time.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Shepperton
Age: 52
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@sasless post #593 is an excellent post and clearly extremely sound advice. I for one really appreciate these sorts of posts and the learning that comes from them.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
readgeoff
Or even investigated?
I can assure you that the CAA Aviation Regulation and Enforcement Department thoroughly investigates alleged low flying and if, in its opinion, there is sufficient evidence to take action (incl prosecution) the CAA does so.
The last thing that should be encouraged is more reporting.
Bear in mind that estimating height is notoriously difficult, and most allegations of low flying and so-called 'near misses' are made by members of the public who are unable to judge distance accurately and, on occasions, greatly exaggerate.
Innocent pilots notified that a complaint has been received then go through months of worry before knowing whether any action is to be taken against them and, if they are prosecuted, incur expense defending false allegations and more months of worry until the case is heard and the matter finally resolved.
That would be worrying enough for us as PPLs, but it is much more worrying for professional pilots whose livelihood depends upon their licence and their good reputation.
Hover Bovver
Yes, I do. And, regrettably, there was a very long delay between the incident and the true reason for it being discovered.
FL
How can we learn lessons from near misses when they aren't reported? Or even investigated?
I can assure you that the CAA Aviation Regulation and Enforcement Department thoroughly investigates alleged low flying and if, in its opinion, there is sufficient evidence to take action (incl prosecution) the CAA does so.
The last thing that should be encouraged is more reporting.
Bear in mind that estimating height is notoriously difficult, and most allegations of low flying and so-called 'near misses' are made by members of the public who are unable to judge distance accurately and, on occasions, greatly exaggerate.
Innocent pilots notified that a complaint has been received then go through months of worry before knowing whether any action is to be taken against them and, if they are prosecuted, incur expense defending false allegations and more months of worry until the case is heard and the matter finally resolved.
That would be worrying enough for us as PPLs, but it is much more worrying for professional pilots whose livelihood depends upon their licence and their good reputation.
Hover Bovver
Yes, I do. And, regrettably, there was a very long delay between the incident and the true reason for it being discovered.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 27th Jan 2013 at 20:12.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Shepperton
Age: 52
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@flying lawyer.
I don't know what actually happens in terms of enforcement of rules. Clearly if there is a complaint by the public this is investigated and as a pilot I am most certainly not advocating more of that of course.
What I do wonder is how enforcement of the rules is made outside of a complaint by the public or an accident. The AAIB have done a great job in a short time in this incident. Should there be similar random reviews of flights in known poor weather or is that just impractical/too costly? In this example would Heathrow Radar have reported the transgression into r157 or their concern about the weather during that flight "accept VFR if you can"?
Accepting earlier comments on the impracticalities of analysing localised weather and providing a commercial service in these sorts of variable conditions.
Apologies if this is ground that has been covered many times before.
I don't know what actually happens in terms of enforcement of rules. Clearly if there is a complaint by the public this is investigated and as a pilot I am most certainly not advocating more of that of course.
What I do wonder is how enforcement of the rules is made outside of a complaint by the public or an accident. The AAIB have done a great job in a short time in this incident. Should there be similar random reviews of flights in known poor weather or is that just impractical/too costly? In this example would Heathrow Radar have reported the transgression into r157 or their concern about the weather during that flight "accept VFR if you can"?
Accepting earlier comments on the impracticalities of analysing localised weather and providing a commercial service in these sorts of variable conditions.
Apologies if this is ground that has been covered many times before.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Read....you were taught that technique because Pylons are easier to see than Wires....and the Wires will be no higher than the Pylons (for the set of wires that run across the pylons you are looking at.)
Hover Bovver;
Anyone who suggests PB was overloaded or struggling to cope with the situation, either doesn't know him or what he has done.
Readgeoff: Why did he fly JUST OVER a BLOODY GREAT BUILDING. If he knew the building was there flying over it would have been a clear 500ft violation.
For the last time, helicopters are exempted from the 500 foot rule when "landing in accordance with normal aviation practice". G-CRST was inside Battersea's zone and preparing to land.
I'm sure PB would rather have known he was over the middle of the river for his approach. But it seems he didn't exactly know his position. To answer your question: because he was unaware of the building until too late, and he didn't see the crane going even higher than the building. Had he read and plotted NOTAMS?
This obstruction is inside an ATZ. As such, all approaching the ATZ should be reminded of it. (My view - but apparently not a rule) Maybe, because it's right on the edge, that reminder has to come from Heathrow before handover to Battersea?
For the last time, helicopters are exempted from the 500 foot rule when "landing in accordance with normal aviation practice". G-CRST was inside Battersea's zone and preparing to land.
I'm sure PB would rather have known he was over the middle of the river for his approach. But it seems he didn't exactly know his position. To answer your question: because he was unaware of the building until too late, and he didn't see the crane going even higher than the building. Had he read and plotted NOTAMS?
This obstruction is inside an ATZ. As such, all approaching the ATZ should be reminded of it. (My view - but apparently not a rule) Maybe, because it's right on the edge, that reminder has to come from Heathrow before handover to Battersea?
Last edited by JimBall; 27th Jan 2013 at 20:30.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Coast and Suffolk
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JimBall
This obstruction is inside an ATZ. As such, all approaching the ATZ should be reminded of it. (My view - but apparently not a rule) Maybe, because it's right on the edge, that reminder has to come from Heathrow before handover to Battersea?
You are correct that there is no rule for ATC to warn those approaching the ATZ of the obstruction, unless of course it has not been subject to NOTAM (this one was and was valid from 7th January), there is however, a rule for pilots to take all reasonable steps so as to be satisfied the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned.
Last edited by Andy Mayes; 27th Jan 2013 at 21:14.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
For the last time, helicopters are exempted from the 500 foot rule when "landing in accordance with normal aviation practice". G-CRST was inside Battersea's zone and preparing to land.
LONDON HELIPORT INBOUND/OUTBOUND FLIGHT PROCEDURES
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Coast and Suffolk
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
Isn't the tower actually outside the Battersea zone?
Is it normal aviation practice to say you are landing when you are a. outside the zone you are going to land in and b. not actually talking to the people who control that zone?
He didn't see the building or the crane or know where he was because he was in cloud - that is the elephant in the room.
He didn't see the building or the crane or know where he was because he was in cloud - that is the elephant in the room.