Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
Which is the standard clearance to remain outside of Heathrow's Class A airspace until appropriate permissions are obtained. The controller also widens it for the aircraft to extend east to London Bridge if needed, which is very normal, although the weather was worse, I believe, to the east.
What is curious is that the controller does not comment on the fact that the aircraft appears to adopt a hold within Heathrow airspace, prior to being given the clearance to head to Battersea, and it is in the act of turning back to the East, having been given the freq change that the routing goes awry. The aircraft avoids Vauxhall bridge entirely south west bound, and even avoids overflying Millbank house (just south of Thames House - MI5), but then turns back to the east moments before Chelsea Bridge, at about the time of the clearance to go to Battersea.
The controller's phrase of Cleared to Battersea is also an interesting one, in that it doesn't specify a zone entry clearance into the London CTR (Class A), as the rest of the routing (back from Elstree) is via the City CTR (which I think was closed at that time, and therefore called the London CTR as well, confusingly).
It is, as can be seen happens to the best of us, a tragic chain of events that lead to this result.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Quote:
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.
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.
He wasn't though. The clearance according to the AAIB bulletin, as given in that bulletin is:
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
Which is the standard clearance to remain outside of Heathrow's Class A airspace until appropriate permissions are obtained. The controller also widens it for the aircraft to extend east to London Bridge if needed, which is very normal, although the weather was worse, I believe, to the east.
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
Which is the standard clearance to remain outside of Heathrow's Class A airspace until appropriate permissions are obtained. The controller also widens it for the aircraft to extend east to London Bridge if needed, which is very normal, although the weather was worse, I believe, to the east.
http://va-transaero.ru/files/charts/EGLL.pdf
Page 24
EGLL AD 2.22 – FLIGHT PROCEDURES
10 Helicopter Routes in the London Control Zone and London/City Control Zone
Looking at the heli lanes map on page 42, Vauxhall is a compulsory reporting point, because its triangle doesn't have an 'H' in it, it is fair to say that it is a point at which you wouldn't normally expect to be asked to hold.
Page 25 confirms this;
Note 1: There are no Holding Points on H4 east of London Heliport. The nearest Holding Point is at Greenwich Marshes, outside the 'Specified Area'.
Note 4: No helicopters to hold on that portion of H4 that lies between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridges. This does not apply to traffic operating under flight priority Category A or B.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
lonewolf 50:
Indeed. But finding ways to improve compliance with the existing rules may well be.
NS
If all rules were NOT followed, then changing a rule may not be a suitable response to such a mishap
NS
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Anyone else spot this;
Page 25;
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
Page 25;
Note 4: No helicopters to hold on that portion of H4 that lies between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridges. This does not apply to traffic operating under flight priority Category A or B.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Exo, are you saying that it is a 'standard clearance' to hold between Vauxhall and Westminster, when the AIP says helicopters are not to hold between Vauxhall and Westminster?.....and that pilots comply?
Do pilots given that hold ever question it?
Do pilots given that hold ever question it?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Starting again with you
I have a lot of multi engine piston time over many places but a lot in Northern, Southern Ireland and Scotland.Some was IFR some was IFR OCAS, Some was into airports with approaches some not.
Now I fly totally jets IFR so a very regulated environment and I have to say the safest environment.
I have also flown some ferry work but never singles as I am not that brave
As to Helicopters sadly not and in this case not a situation a fixed wing pilot cannot contribute too.
But touch wood I am still here while several of my friends are not so I have a good guardian Angel or have done something right in the past or been plain lucky.
I discussed flying OCAS or even SVFR and what some pilots do to get the job done.
For that I am accused of being some sort of cowboy or minima buster by 757 driver and yourself.
Had PB flown to the SVFR limits and been visual at all times this accident would not have occurred.
Witnesses stated he popped out of the clouds and veered away from the building.
I acknowledge witnesses can get things wrong and popping out of the clouds could be something very different.
Putting that aside we do know the arm off the crane was hidden in cloud.
He did not see it and placed the Helicopter partially into that cloud enough to collide with the Crane Arm.
So for that fact alone he entered cloud on a SVFR clearance.
SVFR are limits that you can legally operate to in that airspace.
Sadly SVFR limits are defined weather is not so it is perfectly feasible to find yourself below those limits and to have to extricate yourself by either turning back! (which does not always work) Or to declare a problem, ask for a climb and as you put it an IFR clearance.
PB was a very respected experienced pilot! The reason I talk about cloud punching etc is not to condone it but to realize that it does go on and probably did so in this case with tragic consequences.
It is all to easy to say you shouldnt do this or that or regulation xyz says bla bla bla the fact is that pilots do do this or that some intentionally some not and in this case with awful and sad consequences.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Jan 2013 at 12:28.
Slightly shocked by the sudden rush of NOTAMs for high obstacles and cranes in London, released yesterday. Someone get the WD40 for the stable door hinges......
One is an "unverified" for a crane in Leadenhall. "Unverified". After what happened less than 2 weeks ago?
And the one for the crane at St George's - which must be the crane they have in to repair the damage - is NOTAMed as "unlit".
One is an "unverified" for a crane in Leadenhall. "Unverified". After what happened less than 2 weeks ago?
And the one for the crane at St George's - which must be the crane they have in to repair the damage - is NOTAMed as "unlit".
Will the CAA now review every "new" NOTAM re Cranes to see how long the Cranes were present BEFORE being reported to determine if a reporting Violation has occurred?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASLess
This was one of the major reasons I got involved in the other thread!
I live in London not far from Vauxhall Bridge and fairly close to Tower Bridge.
I was frankly horrified at the Skyline of Cranes.
After the accident I was more horrified examining them at dusk! Some correctly lit! Some totally unlit, some with one structure lit while an even longer arm unlit!
The public feeling on the ground was that inadequate lighting was partially to blame for this accident.
I am not surprised in the slightest that now there is a scurry of activity in Notams (pretty useless if no Notam existed)
I am not surprised that there is a scurry of activity fixing defective or missing lights on the Cranes.
Are the regulations sufficient regarding how these structures which exceed the tower block buildings are lit? I have no doubts the answer is NO!
Pilots even the best are not perfect and all it takes is one minor error or distraction to have disasterous consequences.
No a pilot should be visual at all times but situations arise where for one reason or another they get in a mess.
They either know they are in a mess or are totally oblivious to that fact until too late as in this case.
High intensity lighting up these structures and not only on the top MAY have alerted the pilot to his mistake.
I stress MAY but that is better than no lighting which most certainly did not alert him.
Are there illegal compliances with the cranes I have little doubt over that!
Regulations alone are not sufficient! You should not do this so you will not!
I believe the average motorist breaks 32 regulations on the road a day?
Regulations are fixed weather is not
Pace
This was one of the major reasons I got involved in the other thread!
I live in London not far from Vauxhall Bridge and fairly close to Tower Bridge.
I was frankly horrified at the Skyline of Cranes.
After the accident I was more horrified examining them at dusk! Some correctly lit! Some totally unlit, some with one structure lit while an even longer arm unlit!
The public feeling on the ground was that inadequate lighting was partially to blame for this accident.
I am not surprised in the slightest that now there is a scurry of activity in Notams (pretty useless if no Notam existed)
I am not surprised that there is a scurry of activity fixing defective or missing lights on the Cranes.
Are the regulations sufficient regarding how these structures which exceed the tower block buildings are lit? I have no doubts the answer is NO!
Pilots even the best are not perfect and all it takes is one minor error or distraction to have disasterous consequences.
No a pilot should be visual at all times but situations arise where for one reason or another they get in a mess.
They either know they are in a mess or are totally oblivious to that fact until too late as in this case.
High intensity lighting up these structures and not only on the top MAY have alerted the pilot to his mistake.
I stress MAY but that is better than no lighting which most certainly did not alert him.
Are there illegal compliances with the cranes I have little doubt over that!
Regulations alone are not sufficient! You should not do this so you will not!
I believe the average motorist breaks 32 regulations on the road a day?
Regulations are fixed weather is not
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Jan 2013 at 13:53.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Ref my last,
It would seem that Vauxhall along with Chelsea changed from being solely a 'compulsory reporting point', to a reporting point 'where holding may be required' sometime last year;
12 Jan '12 chart
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2012-01-12.pdf
18 Oct '12 chart
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2012-10-18.pdf
However, in reference to the lastest amendments to the AIP, why was PB told to "..HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES.."
When the AD 2.EGLL-28 UNITED KINGDOM AIP 10 Jan 2013 clearly states;
It would seem that Vauxhall along with Chelsea changed from being solely a 'compulsory reporting point', to a reporting point 'where holding may be required' sometime last year;
12 Jan '12 chart
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2012-01-12.pdf
18 Oct '12 chart
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2012-10-18.pdf
However, in reference to the lastest amendments to the AIP, why was PB told to "..HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES.."
When the AD 2.EGLL-28 UNITED KINGDOM AIP 10 Jan 2013 clearly states;
Page 27
9 Non-IFR Helicopter Flights in the London CTR
(e) Holding
(i) Non-IFR helicopters, particularly those using London Heathrow or the routes close to it, may be required to hold at
any of the locations on the route, shown in column 1 at paragraph 11 and on the illustration at AD 2-EGLL-3-2 except
on that portion of H4 that lies between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridge.
Page 31;
UNITED KINGDOM AIP AD 2.EGLL-31 10 Jan 2013
Note 4: No helicopters to hold on that portion of H4 that lies between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridges. This does not apply to
traffic operating under flight priority Category A or B.
9 Non-IFR Helicopter Flights in the London CTR
(e) Holding
(i) Non-IFR helicopters, particularly those using London Heathrow or the routes close to it, may be required to hold at
any of the locations on the route, shown in column 1 at paragraph 11 and on the illustration at AD 2-EGLL-3-2 except
on that portion of H4 that lies between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridge.
Page 31;
UNITED KINGDOM AIP AD 2.EGLL-31 10 Jan 2013
Note 4: No helicopters to hold on that portion of H4 that lies between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridges. This does not apply to
traffic operating under flight priority Category A or B.
"Just a pilot"
I don't recall it being mentioned anywhere in this thread, so I'll bring it up: Pilots (airplane and helicopter both) hit towers in CAVU conditions fairly frequently. Pilots hit obstacles they are familiar with in CAVU conditions. It happens to pilots of all experience levels.
If aircraft fly into pylons in the most advantageous situation imaginable, the adding poor obstacle marking/lighting, a complicated visual field that overwhelms with signal, a high workload planning constant changes in restrictive air space, weather issues, the risk becomes significant that "all the holes in the swiss cheese could line up" fatally.
Whatever else I take from this discussion, it's a reminder that accidents happen to better pilots than I am.
If aircraft fly into pylons in the most advantageous situation imaginable, the adding poor obstacle marking/lighting, a complicated visual field that overwhelms with signal, a high workload planning constant changes in restrictive air space, weather issues, the risk becomes significant that "all the holes in the swiss cheese could line up" fatally.
Whatever else I take from this discussion, it's a reminder that accidents happen to better pilots than I am.
Last edited by Devil 49; 29th Jan 2013 at 14:26. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silsoe,
When we're routing westbound along the river from City CTR into the London CTR, we are often given a clearance limit of Vauxhall Bridge as it sits on the boundary between Class D and A. Most of the time, however, the clearance is lifted by the time we arrive at Vauxhall to provide our onward routing.
You're absolutely right about the textual data for EGLL though (EGLL Textual Data) and the fact that it specifies holds will not be given between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridges.
But whether City is active or not, I'll often receive a "Clearance Limit of Vauxhall Bridge" - typically after receiving London Bridge as a Clearance limit (which is standard for travelling eastbound as well when City is in use, particularly on 09).
Interesting find, and in answer to your final question, in my experience, no, is the simple answer. I have never heard a pilot question a hold at Vauxhall. Nor a hold when travelling eastbound, in which due to a longer delay, or multiple helicopters on the route (have had five before holding west of London Bridge), that adds in the allowance to hold between Vauxhall and London Bridge.
When we're routing westbound along the river from City CTR into the London CTR, we are often given a clearance limit of Vauxhall Bridge as it sits on the boundary between Class D and A. Most of the time, however, the clearance is lifted by the time we arrive at Vauxhall to provide our onward routing.
You're absolutely right about the textual data for EGLL though (EGLL Textual Data) and the fact that it specifies holds will not be given between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridges.
But whether City is active or not, I'll often receive a "Clearance Limit of Vauxhall Bridge" - typically after receiving London Bridge as a Clearance limit (which is standard for travelling eastbound as well when City is in use, particularly on 09).
Interesting find, and in answer to your final question, in my experience, no, is the simple answer. I have never heard a pilot question a hold at Vauxhall. Nor a hold when travelling eastbound, in which due to a longer delay, or multiple helicopters on the route (have had five before holding west of London Bridge), that adds in the allowance to hold between Vauxhall and London Bridge.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Abeam the eye @ 1500', Vauxhall bridge was called 'in sight' and the hold between Vauxhall and Westminster reply from ATC was made.
In fig 3 of the SB you can see that abeam Lambeth bridge, a turn away from the river was made direct to Chelsea. Once on the river a 270 was made to route down the river towards Vauxhall where a right turn was made.
Is it possible that PB thought that Chelsea bridge was Vauxhall and was holding between Chelsea and Vauxhall instead of Vauxhall and Westminster?
In fig 3 of the SB you can see that abeam Lambeth bridge, a turn away from the river was made direct to Chelsea. Once on the river a 270 was made to route down the river towards Vauxhall where a right turn was made.
Is it possible that PB thought that Chelsea bridge was Vauxhall and was holding between Chelsea and Vauxhall instead of Vauxhall and Westminster?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Sid, re your post#674,
That's the information I referred to in my post #475 at 17:24 on Jan 24th.
And again #653 at 17:47 on 28th Jan.
I'm glad to see at least one other contributor is awake, actually looking to find pertinent facts and not just speculating out of ignorance or misconception. Well done!
That's the information I referred to in my post #475 at 17:24 on Jan 24th.
And again #653 at 17:47 on 28th Jan.
I'm glad to see at least one other contributor is awake, actually looking to find pertinent facts and not just speculating out of ignorance or misconception. Well done!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Exo,
I said: 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.
You replied:
He wasn't though. The clearance according to the AAIB bulletin, as given in that bulletin is:
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
Which is the standard clearance to remain outside of Heathrow's Class A airspace until appropriate permissions are obtained.
Not according to the rules in the AIP for Route H4.
I said: 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.
You replied:
He wasn't though. The clearance according to the AAIB bulletin, as given in that bulletin is:
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
Which is the standard clearance to remain outside of Heathrow's Class A airspace until appropriate permissions are obtained.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True Shy, but from an experience point of view, it is a standard hold expectation.
Whether as a result of the amendment due to Battersea's LFA (see Sid's link with the applicable Hold points identified, including London Bridge), or because it is what controllers are used to giving despite the AIP guidance; it is what I am used to hearing on H4 westbound toward Battersea.
Which was more the point I was making, albeit without clarifying the fact I was using my experience of the routes.
Whether as a result of the amendment due to Battersea's LFA (see Sid's link with the applicable Hold points identified, including London Bridge), or because it is what controllers are used to giving despite the AIP guidance; it is what I am used to hearing on H4 westbound toward Battersea.
Which was more the point I was making, albeit without clarifying the fact I was using my experience of the routes.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
True Shy, but from an experience point of view, it is a standard hold expectation.
This argument about rules, holds, and clearances is fine.
Can we connect all that is being said to what happened the day of the collision with the crane?
Are we dealing with trivia or does it all have a actual role to play in what happened?
How easy is it to identify the various bridges....are they unique enough in design, location to buildings, or in any other way, that there is no confusing them?
Is there a required bit of training before being allowed to use the Heli-Lanes?
Should there be?
Can we connect all that is being said to what happened the day of the collision with the crane?
Are we dealing with trivia or does it all have a actual role to play in what happened?
How easy is it to identify the various bridges....are they unique enough in design, location to buildings, or in any other way, that there is no confusing them?
Is there a required bit of training before being allowed to use the Heli-Lanes?
Should there be?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a required bit of training before being allowed to use the Heli-Lanes?
One familiar with the Cranes a few points !
There is certain training which would be beneficial!
Diagrams of the various Cranes and designs in use as well as their operations, heights and lighting as well as location would be of use.
Maybe a good VFR familiarisation of the route and landmarks which could be done on video!
PB was very familiar with the route and no training could teach you to operate in minimal VFR conditions maybe a better understanding and awareness of the Crane construction may have helped him in being aware of the long arm off the main Crane construction ?
Pace