Helicopter - v - crane LONDON

[Pace]

Totally agree and totally opposed to scud running as it is a very risky practise but reality is that some do and one witness stated the Helicopter appeared exiting cloud mist! Any other reason why a pilot of his experience would be so near a building ? If not by accident

Pace

[sarboy w****r]

Pace,

Any other reason why a pilot of his experience would be so near a building ? If not by accident

I suggest that you look on a map at where the building is. Having done that, now look at where helicopter route H4 runs.

[Grenville Fortescue]

It is a fair to say then that a clearance to route via H4 under SVFR is something to be avoided by Thames Radar in the future? If that is what happened.

[[email protected]]

Pace, why do you think high intensity strobe lighting would have saved the day? Firstly he was in cloud, secondly he did not hit either the top of the building nor the top end of the crane jib (the 2 places where a strobe might have been located) - he hit the jib about a 1/4 of the way up.

Staying clear of cloud and in sight of the surface would have prevented this sad accident, littering the tops of obstacles with lights would not.

[Pace]

I am a realist and what you should do and what people do can be separate!
Imagine pilot A on a SVFR clearance to Jersey over the sea? He is VFR and VMC at 2000 feet 25 miles out! The weather at Jersey is 3000 overcast with viz within SVFR limits
He sees an isolated patch of cloud across his path descending to 800 feet over the sea
Will he descend to 700 feet or decide to punch it For 3 minutes maintaining 2000 feet ?
My guess is some would descend while others would loose sight of the sea for a few minutes!
Why would he get so close to the building if he was visual with it?
As for seeing strobe lighting ? It is visual in cloud and can be seen in some conditions out of cloud!
I am
Not for one minute suggesting that the Crane arm would have been avoided if it had been properly lit but there is a chance it may have been seen!
A chance is better than NO chance

Pace

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Strobe lighting, even the most powerful, can easily be rendered ineffective during daylight especially in low-lying sun and conditions of glare. Daytime fog can also EASILY conceal hazard lights. Strobes in fog refract among the moisture-laden fog particles creating a weak short range luminescence which is normally only visible from any distance at night.

As Crab has said, obstruction lights tend to be at the summit of an obstacle although for buildings and obstacles above a certain height additional lights are required at intervals along the length of the obstruction.

Either way the spacing would not have been sufficient to warn the pilot of the crane jib where he hit it and the field of luminescence from a strobe surrounded by fog would only have been visible a few feet away from the obstruction during daylight hours.

To support Crab and others who have said the same, this is NOT an issue about lighting especially given that it was a daytime accident.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<It is a fair to say then that a clearance to route via H4 under SVFR is something to be avoided by Thames Radar in the future? >>

What would you suggest then? Close H4?

[SASless]

Any thought there might be another Dumb Ass coming the opposite direction doing the same stupid thing?

What part of staying out of Cloud when flying VFR escapes you Pace?


Crab,

Can there be too many, too bright, lights on Obstacles? Current rules do not always specify Strobe lights....but oft times rely upon standard white or red lights at varying powers of brightness. Which is more visible....Strobes or Steady Incandescent lights?

On a day with decent vis...but some Haze....Strobes can be seen a fair ways off....so long as there is not a brighter or more conspicuous light behind them when viewed from the Aircraft.

[Grenville Fortescue]

Originally Posted by HEATHROW DIRECTOR
What would you suggest then? Close H4?

How about making it VFR only, ie. no provision for SVFR.

[JimBall]

Pace: I do think Notams are irrelevant in this situation as the pilot was very experienced and familiar with the area!

I do think you are going too far with your assumptions. You should wait for the evidence to emerge. It doesn't matter how experienced a pilot is or how often he may have flown that route. The obstacle was fundamentally changed by a NOTAM issued Jan 7.

Questions :
Had PB flown that route in the period Jan 7-Jan 15?
Was he NOTAM aware?"

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Which is more visible....Strobes or Steady Incandescent lights?

There are numerous variables. Omnidirectional strobes (normally xenon filament) are generally brighter than omnidirectional incandescent lights (usually halogen) but this depends on the strobe capacitor and amperage. Omnidirectional lights are typically used at the summit of an obstruction.

Unidirectional lighting (brighter through the use of focussed beam shaft and base reflectors) again tend to be brighter in daylight with the use of high amperage strobes although similar lighting intensity can be achieved with halogen lamps but they are generally not used at the brightest power levels as they burn out too quickly.

Strobes therefore are generally better for both omni and unidirectional lighting (during daylight hours) but incandescent lighting is better at night in both roles because it is less distracting. High amperage strobes at night are a distraction and those which are used for this purpose are generally lower power or possess a photoelectric cell which switches the power source through a different (lower amperage) capacitor.

On a day with decent vis...but some Haze....Strobes can be seen a fair ways off....so long as there is not a brighter or more conspicuous light behind them when viewed from the Aircraft.

This again depends on the type of strobe used (Crystal Palace has the high intensity [high amperage] type) but, far more importantly on the fog/cloud density. If there is partial fog yes, they can penetrate over some considerable distance as with low density cloud/fog. If the fog is dense then you will get the luminescent cloud I mentioned and which dissipates within a few metres.

[rotorspeed]

Grenville - H4 runs through Class A airspace.

[Grenville Fortescue]

Originally Posted by rotorspeed
Grenville - H4 runs through Class A airspace.

Obviously!

This does not however mean that exceptions do not exist, they do: VFR in Class-A Airspace?

I am suggesting that with "new" obstructions along H4 that consideration be given to making the route VFR or at very least under the same control provision but with prevailing VMC.



My question is this - is it not possible to make H4, with all its twists and turns and new buildings, subject to the standard VFR minima as the mandatory requirement to fly this route, especially inbound?

[Pace]

SASless

Any thought there might be another Dumb Ass coming the opposite direction doing the same stupid thing?
What part of staying out of Cloud when flying VFR escapes you Pace?

Just for your information fixed wing pilots fly for prolonged periods in cloud OCAS with no radar coverage and have done so for years and years what happens to the Dumb Ass coming the opposite direction while climbing or descending in that situation.

What escapes me?? Its what pilots do and should not do. As stated a witness witnessed the Helicopter come out of cloud what in your pretty brain do you think he was doing there coming out of cloud?
What do you thing the Pilot was doing sticking part of the Helicopter into cloud which contained a structure? Get real!!! about what you think should be the case and what was! Yes he should have stayed visual at all times and CLEAR OF CLOUD (not part of the Helicopter being in it)but obviously he did not otherwise this discussion would not be taking place.

Pace

[SilsoeSid]

Pace;

I do think Notams are irrelevant in this situation as the pilot was very experienced and familiar with the area!

Familiarity breeds contempt?

I would say that NOTAMS are only remembered in certain situations, for example;

a. When they actually make a change to your flight. (Restriction of airspace, unavailability of a service etc.)
b. When they are marked on a map, that will be referred to in flight.
c. FREDA checks when leaving the turning/ref point.
d. If you've actually seen them and noted their height/posn in relation to your normal ops.
..and I'm sure there are more

A crane that is constantly NOTAM'd, that has never been an issue in the past, that has never made a difference to a flights profile and hasn't really been given a second thought because if all the other similar structures around, will soon fall into the back of the mind.

This incident has highlighted an anomaly in the 'human part' of the NOTAM system and I can assure you that changes have taken place at at least one location, because of it.

[SilsoeSid]

Pace;
If a cloud is positioned in between an aircraft and an observer in the ground, it doesn't necessarily mean that the ac is in cloud.. although it would appear to the observer on the ground that it is.

Do you need a picture?

[Grenville Fortescue]

Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
I can assure you that changes have taken place at at least one location, because of it.

Do you mean such as pilot's having to sign-off having read all NOTAMS relevant to their flight prior to departure?

[SASless]

Sid,

You are batting a sticky wicket here....I quite agree with what you are saying. Perception is based upon perspective and what appears to be "in cloud" to someone on the ground may very well not be in reality.

At this point no one KNOWS if the helicopter was "IN" cloud. There are ASSUMPTIONS being made that may or may not be accurate re that situation the morning of the collision between the aircraft and the crane.

Pace,

Imperial Airways and Pan Am during the flying boat days did a lot of that using rudimentary flight instruments and Celestrial Nav....but then there was not a lot of air traffic.

Also bear in mind we are talking Air Taxi and Public Transport operations here....and those rules and standards apply.

I have done quite a bit of blundering around in cloud and fog OCAS in Third World Countries but we always had some sort of Traffic Separation methods even if done by the Operators alone and without benefit of Government run ATC services.

There is a heck of a difference between that kind of cloud boring than what you have been suggesting.

You have advocated or implied that you see flying non-standard altitudes and headings without any ATC traffic separation or Control and entering Cloud for short periods of time as being acceptable.

I suggest you are flat wrong if you really think that.

VFR requires (operative word.....REQUIRES) one to stay clear of Cloud and usually sets for minimums for Cloud Separation to ensure IFR aircraft passing through cloud or cloud layers while ascending/descending or enroute do not encounter other VFR aircraft at the very edges of a Cloud or Cloud layer.

Do you wish to clarify your comments if I have misunderstood the point you were trying to make?

[Grenville Fortescue]

And unless the AAIB manage to retrieve video footage of the London skyline covering the Vauxhall Bridge area at the time of impact, we may never know.

[rotorspeed]

Grenville - H4 would be impassable as VFR even if the London CTR was Class D, as the ceiling of 1500ft is too low for an aircraft to maintain 1000ft above anything within 600m of the route. Eg St George Wharf. H3 would be even more impossible with a ceiling of 1000ft. Hence the requirement for SVFR, to waive the 1000ft above requirement. What is your problem with SVFR? This accident did not occur due to any deficiency of the existing regulations.

Grenville - and anyone else believing regulations should be changed - have you ever raised the issue of London heli regulations being inadequate before the G-CRST accident? I don't recollect ever seeing any threads on Pprune saying the regulations are inadequate and need tightening up. Or Grenville, have you not had sufficient experience of London heli ops to form a view? Until now of course, after the accident.

It must be appreciated that this accident was something of a freak. Never happened before. And probably never will happen again, even assuming no regulation changes. Those that regularly fly these routes in IFR twins probably have a good enough idea of what happened to take away the lessons that should be learnt.

The only caveat is the threat of ever taller and fast growing buildings. How these are integrated with heli ops may require some consideration.