Helicopter - v - crane LONDON

[SilsoeSid]

So what do they look like from the altitude he was flying at?

...the same perhaps!

If it's getting down to bridge and surroundings recognition, surely flying over the Houses of Parliament or even the direction of the river, might have helped with the positional awareness!

[SASless]

The second Vauxhall Bridge Photo holds a lot of interest to me.

The Jib is sticking up in the approximate position it was the day of the collision.

Approaching from the River...it would have been very hard to see in the general weather conditions prevailing that Morning.

The Chelsea bridges (road and rail) make them easy to ID as compared to the single Vauxhall Bridge, Add in the direction the river runs at each of them and again they should be easy to pick out from one another IF one is really familiar with the area or is using some sort of Map, Chart, GPS in with a Map Scale that clearly depicts the River and its bends and turns.....and one has the visibility and time to compare the Map/Chart/GPS to what is seen outside.

As Rule One is Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.....we know the flying part was being done, and to some degree the navigating was being done....but with evidence that there might have been a bit of confusion as to exactly where the aircraft was....and the communication was going on though with some delay as approval for entering the Battersea Control Zone was being negotiated.

I fall back to asking myself....why was the aircraft so low before asking for clearance to Battersea....when loitering on top would have been so much easier and safer.

[24Carrot]

So what do they look like from the altitude he was flying at?

Not a great pic, (sorry about the headset), but here is Chelsea Bridge and the Railway bridge, with Vauxhall Bridge in the distance.

[SilsoeSid]

So what do they look like from the altitude he was flying at?

Something like...



Starting from the top of the picture, the order of the bridges following the Thames downstream is;

Chelsea
Chelsea Rail
Vauxhall
Lambeth
Westminster
Hungerford Rail
Waterloo

Now then, which of those bridges looks most like;

[ShyTorque]

There are many bridges across the Thames and speaking for myself, I don't hold a "bridge recognition library" in my head.

I rely more on the Helicopter Routes chart and the lie of the land around the bridges (or whatever) to identify the reporting points. At ground level, of course it's relatively easy, but from "standard operating altitudes" it becomes far less so, especially if the visibility is marginal. If you are not able to see the lie of the land, identifying a bridge in isolation through a gap in the mist or cloud could be very difficult.

[John R81]

SSS - what height was your top picture taken from? I ask because it looks to me to be a little higher than the 800 - 1500ft range that PB might have been in.

[chopperchappie]

Given the circumstances, I think it would be very easy to call one bridge another if you only got a glimpse through poor weather.

When you fly London in clear visibility there are so many other features that make the bridges more obvious (like the Houses of Parlaiment, the Eye etc).

There are the obvious bloopers, like many people thing that Tower Bridge is London Bridge 'cos it sounds more logical that the fancy bridge would be called London Bridge. I also often use an iPad with AirNavPro and Sky Demon as ANP with the helichart loaded serves a good reference point.

But I probably couldn't be flown down down the river by someone else with my eyes closed and open them on command for one second and know which bridge I was looking at if I couldn't see the lay of the land around.


Someone asked about training, well there is a video by NATS/CAA that is downloadable from the flight safety page that shows and actually flies the different routes.

Having said all of that - I would not do anything tricky and complicated for the first time without doing it with someone else who was more experienced and lest we forget there are both PPLs that have flown through London tens/hundreds of times and high hour FI/CPLs that have never done it because they don't like the thought of it.

The ticket and number of hours a pilot has, may give a huge amount of experience to draw on but doesn't necessarily help in all circumstances.

[SilsoeSid]

JohnR81, I've no idea of the height, however it gives a good picture of where everything is.

One question it must raise is, given the sequence of events...

At 0757 hrs, G-CRST was abeam the London Eye at 1,500 ft and the pilot said: “ROCKET 2, I CAN ACTUALLY SEE VAUXHALL, IF I COULD MAYBE HEAD DOWN TO H3… H4 SORRY” ... The ATC controller replied: “ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.

...with Vauxhall in sight and descending overhead Westminster Palace, why deviate to the right and continue to a point further down the river than cleared, rather than maintain the heading towards Vauxhall and establish the cleared hold between Vauxhall and Westminster?

When the right turn was commenced, the track line was only 200m at most from the river. This means to me that although Vauxhall Bridge was in sight, the part of the river running back towards Westminster only 200m away wasn't...!

[SASless]

Why the descent to begin with....why not linger on top and wait for the clearance to proceed?

“ROCKET 2, I CAN ACTUALLY SEE VAUXHALL.....,

Which means to me there was other landmarks he could not see.

Clearance into the Zone where he intended to land would give him access to the entire Zone and once over/very near the Landing Site he could have looked for visual contact with the Heliport/Environs then do a descent.

Was there some reason he could not stay at 1500 feet that caused him to elect to descend where he did?

[A310bcal]

I have read and re-read the posts and prelim AAIB report regarding this tragic accident and after the past few days of comments am hesitant to offer my thoughts amongst the helicopter fraternity for fear of offending anyone.
But , without prejudice, I offer my idea of a possible reason for the flight ending up where it did.
When passing abeam the London Eye, and looking up ahead, PB seeing a gap up ahead,mis-identified the Chelsea Railway Bridge for Vauxhall. Having been cleared to hold between Vauxhall and Westminster, he headed straight down towards Chelsea R/Bridge thinking he was on track for Vauxhall. As he reached the river he went straight into the holding pattern which he would presumably fly visually with reference to the river, routing back towards the next bridge up the river which he would think would be Lambeth Bridge, but in reality was Vauxhall. .
I agree this is only speculation, but just do not think that someone as experienced as PB obviously was,would make that right turn unless HE was certain he knew where he was..... and with the hostile conditions prevailing , it seems like it could have been a very easy mistake to make.
The flaw in my theory is that I presume his GPS would be showing something different for the desired track to Vauxhall , but this is the only idea I can see for his actions.
Mmm , I know...wait for the AAIB report!

[ShyTorque]

He might have seen Chelsea bridge (in isolation) and mistaken it for Vauxhall bridge and begun his descent prematurely, thinking he was going to be allowed straight into the Battersea ATZ to land.

If you are going to Battersea in normal circumstances (i.e. not as in this case, via a very short notice diversion request), the Heathrow/Thames controller will normally pass on the inbound aircraft details in advance and you will be expected by Battersea ATC. This is due to the pre-booked landing slot requirement. So normally there is no delay in getting permission to enter the Battersea ATZ from Vauxhall.

[toptobottom]

SS - Street view shows a totally different perspective compared with PB's view from 800'. Vauxhall bridge is blindingly conspicuous to anyone familiar with H10/H4 - it's bright red and can be seen from miles away in CAVOK. Even in poor viz, once eyeballed, it's obvious which one it is. PB would have had no problem recognising it IMO after even the briefest of glimpses through the clouds (it also has the rather imposing MI6 building towering over it...).

Apart from the railway bridge immediately adjacent (and the fact that it's not bright red!), Chelsea Bridge has pylons/suspension cables and white arches - not to mention Battersea Power station a stone's throw away.

There's no way the two could have been confused.

I'm flying H10/H4 tomorrow, so will try and get some more representative piccies...

[John R81]

SASless - when there is a hole in the right place it must be tempting to go through it and loiter below. Loiter on top, and there might not be another useable hole.


Speculation:
I am inclined to think that PB knew where he was on the run of H4. I wonder if he appreciated that he was as close to the South bank as he was when he started his final turn to run-in to Battersea.

[SilsoeSid]

Ttb,

I'm not saying Chelsea and Vauxhall are alike, I'm saying the Rail bridge to the East of Chelsea looks very much like Vauxhall. Vauxhall may well be red, but given the conditions, I woud say not bright enough.

Would you really say that on a grey overcast morning looking through a gap in the fog, that Vauxhall looks totally different than the rail bridge?

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...hallBridge.png
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g1...helseaRail.png

Not really wanting to start a discussion on colour and its properties in low light conditions, but I would say that the curves on the arches on the rail bridge would easily lead to it being confused with Vauxhall.

I feel some of those optical illusion pix coming on


If you could get some from off river, as in more like the route PB took over the HoP, that would be better than from actually over the river. Looking at my high photo, I suspect that from abeam the eye, Vauxhall would be obscured by the RBS building.

[JimL]

This is an interesting thread with - in my view - too much concentration on trying to second guess what occurred in the last seconds of the flight.

Diving through a funk-hole is not part of professional operations - especially when there are other more responsible courses of action available to the pilot.

If we are to prevent another such accident - which has many similarities with HEMS accidents in the US - it might be by concentrating on other causal links in this chain.

Specifically:

• was operational control exercised (by the operator) over the decision to launch under conditions where the conduct of the whole flight under VFR might be questionable (i.e. the call from the client at Elstree);
  
  
• what was the dispatch criteria of the operator for a VFR flight and was it fulfilled; and
  
  
• what was the operator's procedure for a pilot who finds himself VMC above cloud.

All of these questions will be asked by the AAIB and/or the CAA. However, it should be clear to all the readers of this thread that we should avoid being at the point where we are relying on the toss of the dice - under circumstances where the dice may be loaded against us.

Most of the precursors to this accident occurred (weeks or even months) before the decision to let down through cloud over central London. Dealing with some of these issues might be more rewarding in the long run.

Jim

[sAx_R54]

Someone asked about training, well there is a video by NATS/CAA that is downloadable from the flight safety page that shows and actually flies the different routes.

CAA VFR - Video Guides

[SASless]

JimL,

On the 16th and 17th....I said the investigation should look at the chain of events that led up to this accident and asked what responsibility the AOC holder had re Operational Control, Dispatch, Flight Following, and SAR should an aircraft become overdue or be reported down.

I fully agree with the issues you raise but you are a bit late to the Party.

The CAA is sure late to the Party.

Now a few comments about the CAA's failures in this.

I guess those issues you noted are a complete damn surprise to the CAA and have gone hidden all these years?

I would suggest, that just as the FAA one day got hit by Lightning in a NTSB Report, suddenly discovered the US Helicopter EMS Operators were quite plainly ignoring the very same issues and had been forever. That was despite all of the FAA Inspections and Oversight by their POI's over the years.

The CAA is going to get hit by that very same Lightning in the AAIB Report I would bet.....if the AAIB does as good a job as I suspect they will.

All I can say to the Operators is bend over and hang on.....there is a new wave of Inspections and Rules and Regulations coming....as the CAA is going to imitate the FAA and get into Ass Covering Mode.

The end result will be an increase in Safety but at a lot of cost and some cumbersome procedures. It shall absolutely require Operators to start Dispatching and Following Flights, ensuring Weather and NOTAMs are checked, and someone in Management shall have to sign off on a Flight Release of some sort to certify the Flight can be done in compliance with the Law, Rules, and Regulations.

For those interested....do a bit of research on what transpired after the NTSB criticized the industry AND the FAA for the lack of Operational Control of EMS Flights by the Operators.

It will make for interesting reading and when the AAIB files its final report....to see how the CAA pretty much imitates the FAA in its reaction.

I would not be surprised to see the end of the "Free Lance" Pilot relationship as it exists now. That would be something in and of itself....would enhance Safety as it would firmly place the Pilot into a "Employee" status and thus gain some protection under Law re "Unjust Dismissal" and other issues.

Perhaps this Accident will be the Catalyst for the CAA and the Industry to improve how things are done and serve to benefit everyone involved as regard to Safety.

[JimL]

None of the issues I raised are hidden to anyone - they are the rules that are in place at this time. The operator is responsible for safety not the CAA. The rules of the air are known to all operators and pilots. Adequate procedures are also in place to control the use of casual pilots in commercial operations - but they have to be followed by the operator.

It would be impossible for any authority to provide oversight for every flight and it is just not their job; they are responsible mainly for ensuring that there is a system in place.

If, as you say, a more stringent oversight programme is required, it will be at a substantial cost to industry (and would result in a reintroduction of the audit of pre and post flight documentation). What might be more appropriate is for the operators to acknowledge their role and understand what is meant by operational control.

Jim

[SASless]

Jim,

Thank you for a good laugh.

The CAA is not responsible for Safety?

Do explain what you mean by that statement please. Just what function does the CAA actually serve then if they have no role in Aviation Safety? If the CAA has a role....then it has "responsibility" to the extent it is adequately meeting its remit. After all....the CAA is damned expensive Bureaucracy funded by the Aviation Industry in the UK. Surely, the CAA must have some valid role to play in ensuring Aviation Safety in the UK and thus must be held accountable for their performance in that role.

Adequate Rules are in place to control the use of Casual Pilots? Perhaps so in certain contexts. But....are "Casual Pilots" protected and well served by those "Control" measures? Are "Casual Pilots" subject to commercial pressures that full time Employees are less vulnerable to as UK Employment Law affords them avenues of redress that "Casual Pilots" are not?


I agree the CAA cannot provide Oversight for every flight. The CAA can however have a Monitoring and Inspection Process that ensures the Operators have effective and appropriate Operational Control and the CAA's Inspection and Audit system for Operators is effective in detecting failures by the Operator to comply. Merely ensuring the mechanism is in place sounds good but unless the CAA confirms the mechanisms are in place, are being used, and are effective...then I would see that as a failure of the CAA's system.

May I assume from your comment:

If, as you say, a more stringent oversight programme is required, it will be at a substantial cost to industry (and would result in a reintroduction of the audit of pre and post flight documentation).

That there used to be a formal CAA Audit Process that is no longer active?

Does the CAA do the equivalent of NASIP Inspections as done by the FAA?

Why would an Inspection System "cost" the Operator. If they are performing their duties imposed by the ANO and their AOC....all they have to do is grant access to the CAA Inspectors to their Facilities, Records, and Aircraft. Or....would the CAA insist upon being paid by the Operator for the conduct of the Inspection/Audit?

For the Not Knowing....an FAA NASIP Inspection can be summarized as being "A Day or few Days in the Life of a Helicopter Operator", where every single document, work order, fuel ticket, credit card charge, log book entry, payroll record, pilot logbook entry, Time and Duty Log.....everything to do with the Operation of the Operator is audited and compared to ensure the Operation is being run in accordance with established law, rules, orders, regulations, and business practices. It is a no notice Inspection....where a Team of FAA Inspectors show up and announce the Inspection.

The general premise is not so much as looking for violations with the intent of punitive action but to ensure adequate internal controls exist to confirm the Operator is doing business properly. If serious violations are found....then action may be taken against the Operator.

The FAA has undergone a lot of rebuke, criticism, and earned a reputation for having inadequate performance in their oversight practices over the years. Things like Valu-Jet and other Fixed Wind operations, the Helicopter EMS industry, the Helicopter Sight Seeing Industry, have all had embarrassing revelations made public. It took the NTSB and Media Attention to get the FAA to address the EMS problems.

So....Jim.....is the CAA adequately monitoring all of the Operators in the UK? Is the CAA without fault in this and other accidents or is it a perfect operation you folks have in the UK?

[misterbonkers]

Technically EASA is now responsible for safety.

EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency

The GBR CAA were before EASA. Now they are responsible, amongst other things, for the enforcement of the regulations imposed by EASA.