Helicopter - v - crane LONDON

[FC80]

Originally Posted by Pace

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

What have familiarity with an area or experience got to do with NOTAMS?

"Ah well, won't bother reading any NOTAMS today! I do have 20,000 hours after all, plus I've been here before."

One of the daftest statements on this thread, and that's going some, especially from someone who claims to be a professional pilot.

[SilsoeSid]

GF; That is already in place.

SASless; I'm not saying wether the ac was in cloud or not, I am replying to Paces comment; "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?"

I think you understand that I am saying that just because someone on the ground saw the ac in cloud, because of the perspective, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was.

[SASless]

Sid,

I fully agree with everything you have said.

It is Pace that I find making some statements that I find to be quite wrong.

Unless i am mistaken....he is a Corporate Jet Pilot and unless I misread his public profile....is not a licensed helicopter pilot.

If my perceptions re his Licenses and background are incorrect I am sure he will respond and tell me where I erred.

[Bronx]

GF

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.

No, it is not fair to say that. It's a ridiculous over reaction.
Just because something went badly wrong on one occasion doesn't mean the system needs changing.

I guess it's not as ridiculous your theory about what the guy was doing that you posted a few hours ago and got removed by the Mods.

B.

[Pace]

SilsoSid

I must admit I considered the same as you that what may appear to be an aircraft coming out of cloud could be one appearing over the top of a thin layer etc.

But that still does not answer his proximity to the building and turning away into the cloud containing a Crane Arm? I still think He was not where he expected to be?

Sticking blindly to SVFR limits means the collision with the Crane by dipping the Helicopter blades or the Helicopter itself into cloud dense enough to conceal a Crane was itself against the SVFR rules. The Remaining clear of clouds bit!

Pace

[fairflyer]

Video showing tower top obscured by cloud just after accident:



Of course heat from fire below may have caused some 'fog' post accident. There's bound to be CCTV footage elsewhere that may have pointed in that direction at 7:59 that morning?

[Grenville Fortescue]

Originally Posted by fairflyer
There's bound to be CCTV footage elsewhere that may have pointed in that direction at 7:59 that morning?

And that is when we shall have evidence as to whether he was in IMC. If he was then the question which has been asked over an again is - why?

From your video it is clear that he would not have seen the crane's tower which appears to be concealed behind the building in relation to his direction of approach.

Visibility beneath the cloud is however flyable (at reduced speed) even if outside the minimum height rules.

[Pace]

Looking at the conditions video it pretty obvious what occurred but ??? draw your own conclusions

From your video it is clear that he would not have seen the crane's tower which appears to be concealed behind the building in relation to his direction of approach.

But not the Arm extending up into the clouds the main Crane body Yes



Pace

[SilsoeSid]

Looks to me that the Vid was taken from Lambeth bridge.
So vis at Lambeth at least 1000m and the cloud base, looking at the tower, around 500ft at Vauxhall.

[ShyTorque]

Unfortunately, if the London helicopter routes were made VFR, rather than SVFR, they would be closed for much of the time.

However, as I said before, but got "shot down" by others, the introduction of a minimum altitude along that stretch would "nudge" pilots to make an early decision to turn around and try something else. i.e. fly no lower than the minimum altitude for the sector because you're likely to bust the 500 foot rule if you do.

I'm quite surprised that no-one else has noticed that this helicopter was directed to hold on the one stretch of the Thames specifically outlined in the regulations for the helicopter routes where helicopters pilots are not to expect to be held.

[Pace]

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

SASless

You are putting words into my mouth! Where have I suggested thats its ok to scud run! or fly in cloud on a SVFR clearance?

Yes I fly corporate jets and no I do not fly Helicopters although would love to! Yes there is a similarity between both operations fixed wing and Helicopters which allows one to make comments about the other!

If you go back a couple of pages you will find a link to the AAIB accident investigation on the tragic Navajo Crash at Welshpool!
Both very experienced and careful pilots one an Ex EasyJet Captain and one a very experienced and cautious multi thousand hour pilot!
Both were very good friends of mine ! Yet there is a strong similarity between the two crashes.
Any pilot SEP in the UK with an IMCR can only fly IMC OCAS and many do albeit to the quadrantle rule in the cruise but not in the climb descent in cloud.

Even IFR today into somewhere like LondonDerry you are flying OCAS without radar control after leaving airways and approaches are procedural and that includes 737s so you are not correct in your assumptions.

FC80

My reference to NOTAMS being little relevance to this incident is that I am sure the pilot was well aware of the tower and cranes from numerous flights and did not need a notam to tell him that!
That fact further reinforces the fact that I do not think he knew exactly where he was and hence notams would not have helped him.
If that makes me ridiculous or unprofessional so be it
Are you suggesting that if he had read the notams which he may very well have done he would have been aware of a tower and crane he had passed many times and avoided it?

Pace

[Grenville Fortescue]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque
I'm quite surprised that no-one else has noticed that this helicopter was directed to hold on the one stretch of the Thames specifically outlined in the regulations for the helicopter routes where helicopters pilots are not to expect to be held.

The implication of which is what?

[ShyTorque]

Make your own implications, if you will.

I simply made an observation based on knowledge of the facts, i.e. the regulations.

[SASless]

Pace,

Here is what you said......

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!

If you had pointed out the fact that to "punch it for three minutes maintaining 2000 feet" would be illegal....then I would not see you advocating doing that.

As you give equal weight to both options....we have to assume you see nothing wrong with the one despite it being improper to enter cloud.

To follow your example.....what if the guy punches in....and the weather deteriorates as he trundles towards Jersey? Now you have a situation where the Pilot has violated his clearance for if he is on a SVFR Clearance as you state.....he is now IMC but flying SVFR which we all know is wrong.

So when you had a chance to support proper techniques and rule following.....you did not.

Thus, I still say you are putting out bum poop without regard to the fact we have fledgling aviators who read what is posted here and we experienced folk have a moral obligation to advocate for safe, legal techniques and procedures whenever we post.

As you seem to have drawn some flack over your post about NOTAMS usage....perhaps you might want to go back and review what you have said and see if there are any changes you might wish to make.

It does not matter what license or experience one has when it comes to posting here....all are welcome. We just need to remember what we say here can have an influence over what others think might be useful in their flying....and make sure we pass on solidly safe correct information.

As to NOTAMS....one as PIC....has an absolute requirement to check all current NOTAMS that might relate to the flight one is about to undertake. I don't care if you got there ten times a day, seven days a week. If your flight takes place after new NOTAMS are issued....you have to check them again to make sure nothing has changed since you last read them.

That is being a Professional Pilot....and that is why you earn the big bucks.

[Pace]

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

SASless

You are being grossly unfair in your assumptions! Where have I said its fine to punch in and out of cloud I am simply stating things I know happen and have from the past.
99% of my flying today is in private jets in CAS the last SVFR clearance I took was ages ago.
So please do not be so arrogant rude and presumptious in your posts!!!

As you seem to have drawn some flack over your post about NOTAMS usage....perhaps you might want to go back and review what you have said and see if there are any changes you might wish to make.

Again where have I suggested that you should not check the Notams before a flight please direct me?
If you have evidence that he missed a Notam which contributed to this accident state it!

You are Making insinuations which are absolute Bollox

So he obeyed all the rules was not flying in cloud was vmc per regulations so he must have seen the crane arm which was not in cloud and which he did not enter with any part of the Helicopter and the accident never happened in your perfect world!!!
Great fantastic contribution!!Get real



Pace

[ShyTorque]

Looks like a number of new NOTAMs for London airspace have been posted w.e.f today, referring to cranes.

[pilot and apprentice]

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?

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this. I can't count the number of times someone on the ground has been adamant that they knew what my vis from the cockpit was, and better than I did! Sometimes better, sometimes worse.

SAS: I have a lot of respect but:

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.

Like Canada? Both offshore and in the north it happens all the time. We talk to each other.

At this point no one KNOWS if the helicopter was "IN" cloud.

Yes, but many are stating unequivocally that it was. You have sounded like you were headed that way yourself.

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.

Quadrantals aren't governing at that level and the SVFR clearance is ATC involvement. There is nothing inherently flawed with SVFR. The opposite traffic would be on freq if ATC was willing to clear it.

Pace: I'll just address this one quote amongst the many.

So he obeyed all the rules was not flying in cloud was vmc per regulations so he must have seen the crane arm which was not in cloud and which he did not enter with any part of the Helicopter and the accident never happened in your perfect world!!!

In the cluttered low-level environment that helicopters are forced to play in, the crane does not need to be in cloud to be missed. Non-contrasting colours, poor depth perception in reducing vis, expectation: all can contribute to an 'obvious' hazard being missed. Even something as simple as the difficulty focusing on an object in the foreground (not the resting focal point). We've all learned about this stuff in the basic PPL/CPL/ATPL theory.

In busy airspace the regulators generally seperate fixed and rotary traffic by pushing the rotary lower. It is absolutely a different environment than 90% of fixed-wing work, I'd say closer to 100% of airline/corporate. We are accustomed to departing, arriving, landing and operating in cluttered environments

It is painfully easy to miss the manmade objects in an urban environment (towers, cranes, etc) which is why I always appreciate flying with a second set of eyes and prefer to stay well above it. I have had days where the vis was great, our reporting/turn point was the tower, and we still couldn't pick it out of the ground clutter until the last minute. Better lights? Maybe, I certainly don't know for sure.

If I look at the whole incident from the outside, the only time I am unsure I would have done the same was at the very beginning. But then, I don't know the client, the job he was on, or the area well enough to judge the decision to go.

[AnFI]

SASless speaks great sense esp thread 593 regarding staying visual at the expense of other 'niceties' ...

Pressure of regulation may have led to making less than optimal flight decisions 400ft would have been easy (and obviously legal in the USA, legal in UK with 'rule interpretation measures')

From the photos the local vis is clearly in excess of 3-4km (perhaps 7km) but the cloud is blotchy, blue sky in places and some lower cloud - to stay in good/easy visual conditions would have required being ruder with height and he may have felt undue pressure not to break too many eggs for his omelet.

When you are trying to compromise between the rules and safety it is sometimes easy to put too much effort into rule obeyance. This was a polite and respectful guy being too polite and respectful - not wanting to dissapoint the punter trying to do his best for everyone - not wanting to abort Batt having got it agreed (not wanting to mess them all about). A great guy trying his best to do his best - 1 frequency change away from pleasing nearly everyone.

You can tell he was trying not to be too 'rude' because he didn't land at the (other) HeliPad which he passed laterally 400ft from at only about 800ft as he joined the river.

His head might have been 75% full of rule mitigation.

I recon the top of the building would have been visible (perhaps just in but visible) and being avoided (adequately) with a very hard to spot, spindly little jib pointing, most unfeasibly, at you with it's mast obscured by the building with no flashing light and very little relative motion with the background town, painted in camouflage black against black streets. (of course a flashing light is visible through 50m vis cloud, if it is turned on)

People talk nonsense about the flight being difficult - it was in beautiful blue sky from Red to Elstree - with a 'look' at Elstree establishing non-viability and an intended return in the blue sky to Red (the unread txt that Red was clear was good and useful info) - the dip into Batt was suggested by a txt from the "Client", declaring Batt as "OPEN" which can be interpreted as open in all respects inc wx.

Knee jerk re-action is politically demanded - although the CAA know that is unlikely to be appropriate, great pressure to 'do something'... ban private pilots I suppose?

[SASless]

PA,

I have posed a couple of questions along the line of in cloud or not....and listed a couple of options that would explain the collision. What I have not done is suggest I know what happened. I did suggest I was leaning a particular way but that is all I meant....as I firmly believe we shall never know what actually happened.

I would not call Canada a Third World Country....but as you say....out in the middle of nowhere, the kinds of places helicopters do most of their work....we have to rely upon ourselves quite often to organize our flying to ensure we don't run into one another.

When addressing Pace's Jersey SVFR example....I was pointing out his suggestion that some might just punch into Cloud assuming it will be for just a minute or two....or that the weather will facilitate a return to visual flight at some point was not a wise idea. The issue is not the SVFR Clearance....but the going IMC that is the issue. Accepting a SVFR clearance requires you to maintain cloud separation and visibility and to not do so is improper. If one cannot maintain the required vis and cloud separation....then requesting an IFR Clearance is the correct step.

[Lonewolf_50]

In Re SASless:

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.

That's a piece of SVFR wisdom that kept me out of a few jams. SVFR usually meant to me to slow down a little, or even a lot, else I'd outrun my visibility and be reacting/behind the aircraft, rather than trying to say ahead of it.
FL

Off the top of my head I'd estimate from spending five years doing these investigations, day in day out, that 90% of all height estimates were out by a minimum of 1,000ft. It's not only the lay public that can't accurately guess altitude from the ground, its professionals as well, though in general terms they were often more 'realistic'.

I have had numerous occasions to tell ignorant members of the public that "he's flying too low" observations were utter horseapples. On more than one occasion, I returned with VFR sectionals and OPS charts to show them what I meant, in once case my Father in Law.

Fairflyer, thanks for that video link.

Shy Torque, thanks for pointing this out.

I'm quite surprised that no-one else has noticed that this helicopter was directed to hold on the one stretch of the Thames specifically outlined in the regulations for the helicopter routes where helicopters pilots are not to expect to be held.

Putting on an accident investigation hat:
if Mr Barnes was familiar with the area and typical ops in this part of London, such a hold may have been yet another "not quite right" element of his flight, adding to his mental task load for the mission.
An FI:

how fast we he going as he made that last turn?

That's a critical question in trying to answer SAS's core questions about "did he see/not see, and why/why not?" back a few pages.

I suspect the AAIB, from radar track and perhaps other data, will be able to reconstruct that. The implication (for our non-SVFR helicopter flying colleagues on this board) of that data point is related to SASless' point on SVFR at the top of this post.

There is bountiful learning to do in this thread.

As to "something must be done" considerations:

If all rules were followed, and a mishap still occurred, mayhap a rule revision would be called for. (** caveat)

If all rules were NOT followed, then changing a rule may not be a suitable response to such a mishap.

caveat = ** The lighting of obstructions, however, is a fair point to ponder. Do the rules on that requirement suffice?

Questions for the AAIB to hopefully answer:

1. Had the crane operator been to work on time, would there have been different lighting already set? (Guessing no, but I have no idea).

2. Are most lighting rules (for urban buildings and cranes and such) aimed at "day/night" interface? (Lights in fog can "blossom" on you a bit ... )

It's been years since I flew a river route in a major city.
More years since I did so SVFR.

RIP, Mr Barnes.