Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
they are responsible, amongst other things, for the enforcement of the regulations imposed by EASA
Last edited by SASless; 1st Feb 2013 at 15:35.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless;
JimL is right, much as it hurts me to agree with my ex boss. He knows his way through the system very well as the ex-head of policy for both the CAA and JAR. As chief Pilot here I know it is the responsibility of the operator in the shape of ops, CP and Accountable Manager to ensure that their procedures, as laid down in their operations manual are adhered to. and that in the event of an accident it is our nuts on the block along with those of the pilot concerned. And knowing how ops manuals look for similar operators I know that the procedures he listed ARE laid down in company paperwork. As the Ops Manual is prescribed in law it effectively becomes the legislation the operator must run to.
It sounds daft, but it is a very historic CAA procedure, and has worked until now.
SND
JimL is right, much as it hurts me to agree with my ex boss. He knows his way through the system very well as the ex-head of policy for both the CAA and JAR. As chief Pilot here I know it is the responsibility of the operator in the shape of ops, CP and Accountable Manager to ensure that their procedures, as laid down in their operations manual are adhered to. and that in the event of an accident it is our nuts on the block along with those of the pilot concerned. And knowing how ops manuals look for similar operators I know that the procedures he listed ARE laid down in company paperwork. As the Ops Manual is prescribed in law it effectively becomes the legislation the operator must run to.
It sounds daft, but it is a very historic CAA procedure, and has worked until now.
SND
I have no problem with the concept that the Operator, Pilot, Engineer, Dispatcher, etc....are held to account for what they do or don't do. That is not my point.
My point is the CAA is the "Authority" and is the organization that is charged with "Enforcing" the compliance of Operators et al.
From their web site:
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is a public corporation, was established by Parliament in 1972 as an independent specialist aviation regulator and provider of air traffic services.
The UK Government requires that the CAA’s costs are met entirely from its charges on those whom it regulates. Unlike many other countries, there is no direct Government funding of the CAA’s work.
What we do:
Which means to me they do hold a responsibility no matter how they want to squirm and wiggle. As they are the Oversight Organization....they have a requirement to effectively perform those actions.
I do not hold Jim or anyone at the CAA personally responsible beyond the extent of judging whether the CAA auditing/inspection of Operators has allowed for slack compliance with the Regulations over time and perhaps to that extent....the CAA does hold some responsibility for part of the chain of events that led to this particular accident.
I will bet you Donuts to Dog Droppings and you can hold the stakes in your mouth.....the Operator in this Accident shall be given very close scrutiny by the CAA after the accident.
The question I pose is did the CAA effectively monitor the Operator and other Operators in the same business before this accident.
We on this side of the Atlantic saw just that situation in the Helicopter EMS Industry until the Media and NTSB roasted the FAA for their failure to prevent the gross failure of the Operators in complying with PART 135 OpSpecs and Part 135 FAR's re Operational Control.
Government wants to be smack dab in the middle of things....demand we pay for them to be there....and when things go wrong....they drop a shoulder and deny any responsibility. When I hear that said.....my neck hairs go up.
Final question: Can we say there was no deficiency in the CAA's oversight, inspection/audit of this Operator that may have been part of the accident chain that led to this Accident?
My point is the CAA is the "Authority" and is the organization that is charged with "Enforcing" the compliance of Operators et al.
From their web site:
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is a public corporation, was established by Parliament in 1972 as an independent specialist aviation regulator and provider of air traffic services.
The UK Government requires that the CAA’s costs are met entirely from its charges on those whom it regulates. Unlike many other countries, there is no direct Government funding of the CAA’s work.
What we do:
Strategic Objectives:
Our work is focussed on:
Enhancing aviation safety performance by pursuing targeted and continuous improvements in systems, culture, processes and capability.
Improving choice and value for aviation consumers now and in the future by promoting competitive markets, contributing to consumers' ability to make informed decisions and protecting them where appropriate.
Improving environmental performance through more efficient use of airspace and make an efficient contribution to reducing the aviation industry's environmental impacts.
Ensuring that the CAA is an efficient and effective organisation which meets Better Regulation principles
Our work is focussed on:
Enhancing aviation safety performance by pursuing targeted and continuous improvements in systems, culture, processes and capability.
Improving choice and value for aviation consumers now and in the future by promoting competitive markets, contributing to consumers' ability to make informed decisions and protecting them where appropriate.
Improving environmental performance through more efficient use of airspace and make an efficient contribution to reducing the aviation industry's environmental impacts.
Ensuring that the CAA is an efficient and effective organisation which meets Better Regulation principles
I do not hold Jim or anyone at the CAA personally responsible beyond the extent of judging whether the CAA auditing/inspection of Operators has allowed for slack compliance with the Regulations over time and perhaps to that extent....the CAA does hold some responsibility for part of the chain of events that led to this particular accident.
I will bet you Donuts to Dog Droppings and you can hold the stakes in your mouth.....the Operator in this Accident shall be given very close scrutiny by the CAA after the accident.
The question I pose is did the CAA effectively monitor the Operator and other Operators in the same business before this accident.
We on this side of the Atlantic saw just that situation in the Helicopter EMS Industry until the Media and NTSB roasted the FAA for their failure to prevent the gross failure of the Operators in complying with PART 135 OpSpecs and Part 135 FAR's re Operational Control.
Government wants to be smack dab in the middle of things....demand we pay for them to be there....and when things go wrong....they drop a shoulder and deny any responsibility. When I hear that said.....my neck hairs go up.
Final question: Can we say there was no deficiency in the CAA's oversight, inspection/audit of this Operator that may have been part of the accident chain that led to this Accident?
Last edited by SASless; 1st Feb 2013 at 17:01.
Who evaluates the CAA for performance?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
But irrespective of any regulations, policy or ops inspection, sometimes the actions of an individual in the cockpit on the day allow an accident to "slip through the safety net".
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS,
I once had cause to speak to a Flight Ops Inspector from the CAA Safety Regulation Group about a issue causing concern. His reply was, and I quote, "my job is to observe not to enforce".
This was a few years ago, but I don't think the SRG attitude has changed much!
bondu
I once had cause to speak to a Flight Ops Inspector from the CAA Safety Regulation Group about a issue causing concern. His reply was, and I quote, "my job is to observe not to enforce".
This was a few years ago, but I don't think the SRG attitude has changed much!
bondu
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
SAS - if you really believe that the CAA are responsible for this accident then you are more naive than I thought you were!!
The rules and procedures described in European Legislation and the Operators Operations Manual do not provide for flight in IMC when there is a remote possibility that you might bump into something.
Do you really think the CAA allows people to manouvre in between buildings in London when they are actually in clouds???
I do not want to second guess the AAIB but in reality, the responsibility for bumping into an obstacle rests only with one person!!!! Its a shame but there it is.
DB
The rules and procedures described in European Legislation and the Operators Operations Manual do not provide for flight in IMC when there is a remote possibility that you might bump into something.
Do you really think the CAA allows people to manouvre in between buildings in London when they are actually in clouds???
I do not want to second guess the AAIB but in reality, the responsibility for bumping into an obstacle rests only with one person!!!! Its a shame but there it is.
DB
I'm with DB on this one . Other than having a CAA enforcer on each flight these things can still happen regardless of rules or even monitoring . Sadly sometimes things go very wrong even the very first time you break a rule , so there may well have been no sign of misdemeanours in the past . I don't think there is any way to get around the fact that the pilot is paid to use his judgement and abide by the rules and the buck will , and SHOULD stop with him . That is after all what we have all been trained for at great expense .
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: chester uk
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with SAS on the fact that the CAA are responsible for ensuring that operators are following the rules.
Had the operator in this case previewed the flight in question before its commencement, would they have agreed to it, knowing that if an incident occurred, they would be the "second signature" that approved it?
Although actions by pilots are not the responsibility of the operator, they are human after all, some responsibility should lie with an operator as to the go/no go of flights. thereby absolving some of the responsibility of the pilot and potentially relieving them of any possible commercial pressure.
just my two penneth worth
RIP PB
Chester
Had the operator in this case previewed the flight in question before its commencement, would they have agreed to it, knowing that if an incident occurred, they would be the "second signature" that approved it?
Although actions by pilots are not the responsibility of the operator, they are human after all, some responsibility should lie with an operator as to the go/no go of flights. thereby absolving some of the responsibility of the pilot and potentially relieving them of any possible commercial pressure.
just my two penneth worth
RIP PB
Chester
if you really believe that the CAA are responsible for this accident then you are more naive than I thought you were!!
No one can expect a fool proof system even one created by the self announced World's finest Aviation Authority (quoting them folks.....right off their web site).
Yes...Pilots and Engineers can do some stupid things....some more often than others....as we are all Humans.
I am well familiar with horror stories about lax inspection standards which vary by time, place, and folks involved....though I am sure there are few here would come forth and recount them for us out of fear of repercussions from those who would take exception to that.
I await JimL's response to my question about the Audit of Flight Documentation that I asked. I know load manifests have to be retained for a period of time, that Pilot Log books are subject to audit, and that perhaps if a real Audit of an Operator was done similar to the NASIP procedure I mentioned....some Eyes would be opened really wide open at what they found.
Anyone here ever departed over the allowed MAUW for Temp and Alititude? You reckon a comparison of the Load Manifest and Passenger Manifest might show a discrepancy?
You think a check of Metars and TAFs....and Flight Records might show some inconvenient information?
If you knew the friendly CAA might very well come calling and do such an Audit....you might play a bit closer to the Rules?
The Rub is when most do play by the Rules and the Few do not....and thus get an unfair advantage over the Operators that are trying to run a completely legitimate business.
Nope....I will wait for someone to prove me wrong before I give the CAA a complete pass on this. I can be convinced....but it will take more than a simple shrug of a shoulder and a "Nothing to do with us Mate!"
No matter a Pilot or Engineer do something stupid.....the Operator is still liable for their actions while they are in his employ.
Last edited by SASless; 1st Feb 2013 at 21:13.
Very fair post . But would this flight have NOT got the go ahead if operating to the rules ??? I don't see that it was an inherently dangerous one .... It was operated in clear skies with an intent to land at Elstree ... Nothing wrong there .
I have , on numerous occasions set off to point B knowing it is ' currently ' at below my minimums .... But I have taken an educated guess that the wx will have improved by the time I get there . ( with fog and clear sky above this can happen in minutes ) . More often than not I get to point B and the problem has gone . If not I land short and wait or return . My point is that the decision to depart was not in itself dangerous ( as it happens it was the wrong call but that is the percentage game we all play ) . I believe it only went wrong when he diverted from the plan . He was led to believe Battersea was open and operating as normal and probably thought the pax was en route to there for a pick up . If he had stuck to the plan and returned to base we would never have heard of this flight . In this scenario no amount of ticking boxes before would help . Does this therefore mean that an AOC flight cannot change en route and stay legal ....or in future will not be allowed to ???
If that happens the non AOC boys will have a field day ...because the one thing you want to be able to do when spanking thousands on charter is to be flexible ....
Ps. It wasn't me who made the quote you highlighted SAS , it was DB ...
I have , on numerous occasions set off to point B knowing it is ' currently ' at below my minimums .... But I have taken an educated guess that the wx will have improved by the time I get there . ( with fog and clear sky above this can happen in minutes ) . More often than not I get to point B and the problem has gone . If not I land short and wait or return . My point is that the decision to depart was not in itself dangerous ( as it happens it was the wrong call but that is the percentage game we all play ) . I believe it only went wrong when he diverted from the plan . He was led to believe Battersea was open and operating as normal and probably thought the pax was en route to there for a pick up . If he had stuck to the plan and returned to base we would never have heard of this flight . In this scenario no amount of ticking boxes before would help . Does this therefore mean that an AOC flight cannot change en route and stay legal ....or in future will not be allowed to ???
If that happens the non AOC boys will have a field day ...because the one thing you want to be able to do when spanking thousands on charter is to be flexible ....
Ps. It wasn't me who made the quote you highlighted SAS , it was DB ...
Last edited by nigelh; 1st Feb 2013 at 21:37.
Sorry Nigel.....it was DB to whom I should have replied.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Toptobottom
Actually, according to the SB, he called visual with Vauxhall at 1,500ft.
So, how blindingly conspicuous is Vauxhall on a murky morning, let alone through a hole in the fog?
Here are some pics taken from Millbank Tower, a couple of hundred metres away. LondonSE1 on Flickr
Mmm, perhaps only on a really bright sunny day! Besides, I've never said there has been any confusion between Vauxhall and Chelsea , it's Vauxhall and the rail bridge that I think are easily confusable.
If you are so confident that he saw Vauxhall, I'd love to know why you think he physically turned away from Vauxhall after being told to hold between it and Westminster/London and headed off towards Chelsea rail, enter the zone without clearance and then turn back eastwards on reaching the rail bridge, despite no further instructions from ATC ....as if once he got to Chelsea rail, he realised that it wasn't Vauxhall after all.
Rather than keep going round in circles on this one ttb, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one
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.
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.
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,
“ROCKET 2, I CAN ACTUALLY SEE VAUXHALL,
Here are some pics taken from Millbank Tower, a couple of hundred metres away. LondonSE1 on Flickr
"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."
If you are so confident that he saw Vauxhall, I'd love to know why you think he physically turned away from Vauxhall after being told to hold between it and Westminster/London and headed off towards Chelsea rail, enter the zone without clearance and then turn back eastwards on reaching the rail bridge, despite no further instructions from ATC ....as if once he got to Chelsea rail, he realised that it wasn't Vauxhall after all.
Rather than keep going round in circles on this one ttb, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
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...
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.
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.
Bear in mind also that on a southwesterly heading the power station would be in the murk, on the far side of the river.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
This was the middle of the London rush hour.
The railway bridge would most likely have had trains on it.
Vauxhall Bridge would certainly have had queuing cars on it.
The railway bridge would most likely have had trains on it.
Vauxhall Bridge would certainly have had queuing cars on it.
a. Rush hour - wouldn't all the car bridges have cars on them?
b. Trains can be red and stationary.
c. Queuing cars may not be readily noticeable as there is no movement!
In HD on a 27" screen at about 5 seconds, you can see the glint of cars going over Chelsea bridge, which would appear at that angle to be above the rail bridge, possibly with a red train on it, giving the illusion of cars on a red bridge.
Given the weather of the morning I suggest the video is watched at the 240p setting.
The bright glint at 10 secs is just about where the 'Vauxhall in sight' call was made at 1500', Imho, making Vauxhall and that part of the river there less obvious, and the river near Chelsea appear to open up more.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are allegedly professional pilots really discussing whether other professional pilots identify bridges from 1500ft inside busy London airspace on the basis of the colour of the arches when viewed from the side?
Seriously?
Vauxhall Bridge is Vauxhall Bridge because it is at the apex of a bend in the river, it is the only bridge in that bend in the river and because it has a bloody big MI6 building on one side of the southern edge and a bloody big set of flats in the same colour on the other side of the southern edge of the bridge. That is how one identifies Vauxhall Bridge.
And as for why the pilot may have elected to go to Battersea rather than return to Redhill, or even take off at all in the first place, ask yourselves what information that is in the preliminary AAIB report can be independently verified by them and proven to be true? What information cannot be independently proven to be true? What has been merely assumed to be accurate?
Now ask yourselves why a signed statement has been submitted to the AAIB from someone (a professional pilot) who spoke to the pilot that morning about that specific flight (not Witness A) but is not mentioned in the AAIB report or subsequently? This post is highly likely to be removed by the Mods because of potential libel difficulties if this post elaborates any further.
What is the overriding contributory factor of HEMS accidents in the USA?
Seriously?
Vauxhall Bridge is Vauxhall Bridge because it is at the apex of a bend in the river, it is the only bridge in that bend in the river and because it has a bloody big MI6 building on one side of the southern edge and a bloody big set of flats in the same colour on the other side of the southern edge of the bridge. That is how one identifies Vauxhall Bridge.
And as for why the pilot may have elected to go to Battersea rather than return to Redhill, or even take off at all in the first place, ask yourselves what information that is in the preliminary AAIB report can be independently verified by them and proven to be true? What information cannot be independently proven to be true? What has been merely assumed to be accurate?
Now ask yourselves why a signed statement has been submitted to the AAIB from someone (a professional pilot) who spoke to the pilot that morning about that specific flight (not Witness A) but is not mentioned in the AAIB report or subsequently? This post is highly likely to be removed by the Mods because of potential libel difficulties if this post elaborates any further.
What is the overriding contributory factor of HEMS accidents in the USA?
Last edited by sarboy w****r; 2nd Feb 2013 at 12:29.
I CAN ACTUALLY SEE VAUXHALL,