Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sarboy w****r
It hasn't been discounted by everyone.
Some people think the customer's message completely removed commercial pressure.
H.
Why has commercial pressure been discounted?
Some people think the customer's message completely removed commercial pressure.
H.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hurray!!!! Someone is actually reading what I have written.
Now, please would you mind reading my posts 742 and 771? Go on, please humour me.
Having done that, please answer the question posed in 771 (it's highly relevant and important):
Some people think the customer's message completely removed commercial pressure.
Having done that, please answer the question posed in 771 (it's highly relevant and important):
I'd love to spell it out better but I cannot. Read post 742 as to why.
How does one prove that something actually took place? You need an independent witness(es) or some form of independent corroboration.
For the sake of argument, let's define independent as meaning free from self-interest and being completely unconnected with and unconcerned by the outcome of the attempted proof.
For example, weather? Yep, corroborated by independent METARs, photographic evidence, multiple witnesses at the scene. (I suppose, philosophically speaking, we cannot state categorically exactly what the weather was at the exact time of the incident at the exact spot where the impact occurred [in 3D space] but we can get pretty damn close).
What other elements of the AAIB initial report are being taken in this thread to be statements of incontrovertible fact when in fact they are not?
How does one prove that something actually took place? You need an independent witness(es) or some form of independent corroboration.
For the sake of argument, let's define independent as meaning free from self-interest and being completely unconnected with and unconcerned by the outcome of the attempted proof.
For example, weather? Yep, corroborated by independent METARs, photographic evidence, multiple witnesses at the scene. (I suppose, philosophically speaking, we cannot state categorically exactly what the weather was at the exact time of the incident at the exact spot where the impact occurred [in 3D space] but we can get pretty damn close).
What other elements of the AAIB initial report are being taken in this thread to be statements of incontrovertible fact when in fact they are not?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sarboy w****r
You will have noticed I didn't say I think the customer's message completely removed commercial pressure.
I don't.
And we don't know (and may never know) everything that was said by the customer at the various stages of their communications. The AAIB only have the texts.
That's a fair definition.
Your point isn't lost on me.
H.
You will have noticed I didn't say I think the customer's message completely removed commercial pressure.
I don't.
And we don't know (and may never know) everything that was said by the customer at the various stages of their communications. The AAIB only have the texts.
For the sake of argument, let's define independent as meaning free from self-interest and being completely unconnected with and unconcerned by the outcome of the attempted proof.
Your point isn't lost on me.
H.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're getting there.
Heliport:
In which case, you can read between the lines.
My post 742:
Heliport:
Your point isn't lost on me.
My post 742:
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.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Heliport, didn't mean to impugn your ability to read in between the lines, the "we" referred to the readers of this thread in general and in particular was aimed at those contributors who have been spouting off nonsense theories.
Not strictly true:
The AAIB only have the texts.
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?
Sarboy,
How can Heliport attest to the contents of a Letter to which he has no knowledge or the import of the information contained in that letter....even assuming that letter actually exists?
Heliport is a pretty sharp fellow but I doubt Clairvoyance is one of his many and formidable skills and talents.
How can Heliport attest to the contents of a Letter to which he has no knowledge or the import of the information contained in that letter....even assuming that letter actually exists?
Heliport is a pretty sharp fellow but I doubt Clairvoyance is one of his many and formidable skills and talents.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course there was commercial pressure. The pilot was a freelance, no fly no pay. It is also unlikely that the client would have paid anything, especially as the client realised the weather was bad and wanted to cancel.
Someone was going to have to pay the pilot's wage, the flight hours and the landing and nav charges as a minimum.
Do charter operators indemnify pilots for all costs in the event of the job not being carried out? Maybe, in the event of additional costs due weather en route but unlikely if the client hasn't even been picked up.
The commercial part of the CRM equation would have been quite high, if potentially self induced to some degree.
Someone was going to have to pay the pilot's wage, the flight hours and the landing and nav charges as a minimum.
Do charter operators indemnify pilots for all costs in the event of the job not being carried out? Maybe, in the event of additional costs due weather en route but unlikely if the client hasn't even been picked up.
The commercial part of the CRM equation would have been quite high, if potentially self induced to some degree.
Post 742: 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?
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?
Post 771: I'd love to spell it out better but I cannot. Read post 742 as to why.
How does one prove that something actually took place? You need an independent witness(es) or some form of independent corroboration.
For the sake of argument, let's define independent as meaning free from self-interest and being completely unconnected with and unconcerned by the outcome of the attempted proof.
For example, weather? Yep, corroborated by independent METARs, photographic evidence, multiple witnesses at the scene. (I suppose, philosophically speaking, we cannot state categorically exactly what the weather was at the exact time of the incident at the exact spot where the impact occurred [in 3D space] but we can get pretty damn close).
What other elements of the AAIB initial report are being taken in this thread to be statements of incontrovertible fact when in fact they are not?
How does one prove that something actually took place? You need an independent witness(es) or some form of independent corroboration.
For the sake of argument, let's define independent as meaning free from self-interest and being completely unconnected with and unconcerned by the outcome of the attempted proof.
For example, weather? Yep, corroborated by independent METARs, photographic evidence, multiple witnesses at the scene. (I suppose, philosophically speaking, we cannot state categorically exactly what the weather was at the exact time of the incident at the exact spot where the impact occurred [in 3D space] but we can get pretty damn close).
What other elements of the AAIB initial report are being taken in this thread to be statements of incontrovertible fact when in fact they are not?
I wouldn't want to speculate on any allegedly unpublished telephone conversations and I share your concern re libel, etc. but If PB was under pressure to proceed with the flight, it would have surely come from only one or more of three sources:
- The client
- The operator
- Himself
What is this alleged mystery letter and what elucidating information is it alleged to contain?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
SASless, I'd also agree with your summary earlier, but referring to the sentence that says,
"Due to the unplanned Diversion decision, the Pilot had to wait for clearance before entering the Battersea Control Zone."
Didn't he enter the control zone before getting clearance?
Clearance to Battersea was eventually given as he was leaving the zone, east bound along the river approaching Vauxhall bridge from the West.
(Ref the pic in post 687)
"Due to the unplanned Diversion decision, the Pilot had to wait for clearance before entering the Battersea Control Zone."
Didn't he enter the control zone before getting clearance?
Clearance to Battersea was eventually given as he was leaving the zone, east bound along the river approaching Vauxhall bridge from the West.
(Ref the pic in post 687)
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Sorry Bronx, you're saying that he didn't fly into the Battersea zone without clearance?
Sid,
Bronx being from New York City may not completely understand the different Control Zones and ATC coverage for the Heli-Lanes and the various Heliports in their vicinity. Just how far into the Battersea Control Zone did he get? If he was already there....how far was he from the Heliport....is it a three mile radius or something or smaller than that?
If he under control of London ATC....and they had given him a clearance....and he was complying with that Clearance....what does it matter?
Instead of snippy back and forth....lay out your case for us.
Bronx being from New York City may not completely understand the different Control Zones and ATC coverage for the Heli-Lanes and the various Heliports in their vicinity. Just how far into the Battersea Control Zone did he get? If he was already there....how far was he from the Heliport....is it a three mile radius or something or smaller than that?
If he under control of London ATC....and they had given him a clearance....and he was complying with that Clearance....what does it matter?
Instead of snippy back and forth....lay out your case for us.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Lay out your case for us.
The radar track as seen in Fig 3 of the SB shows that after this clearance was given, the ac turned right, away from Vauxhall and the river, and continue down as far as Grosvenor Bridge (Chelsea Rail).
With the latest UKAIP AIRAC 01/2013 Disc, effective date 10 Jan 2013, in front of me, I can read, 'London Heliport ATZ A circle, 2 Nm radius centred at 512812N 0001046W, Upper limit 2000ft Lower limit SFC, Airspace class A.
The chart for EGLW;
As you can see, at a point very close to the first 870ft indicator, the zone was entered and once the turn to the East was complete, the zone wasn't left until around the 570ft indicator. Just after the zone was left, clearance was then given to Battersea and a change of frequency, followed shortly afterwards by an acknowledgement and the right turn. (I thought my 'picture paints a thousand words' post 687 on page 35 made this clear enough.)
To me all this would appear to indicate not only an uncertainty of position in relation to the London Heliport Zone and river orientation, but also to the various bridges and their identification. After all, we keep getting told how well he knew the routes and bridges, in which case it would be known that Westminster and London Bridges were North of Vauxhall, not to the Southwest which is the direction flown after being given the hold parameters.
Perhaps it wasn't until the power station was seen, that the true position was realised.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
If that was the test for being allowed to post on this thread most of the guys spouting theories wouldn't be posting them and the debate would be whole lot better.
I don't know if you've realized but most of the British pros who are regulars in the Heli-Lanes and undertand the different Control Zones and ATC coverage have just about given up trying to answer theories and speculation by guys like Sid.
Your happy to go on and on swapping theories and speculating with Sid but when JimL who going by his posts in this forum for many years knows his stuff and Sarboy who obviously knows more than he can say tried to steer the debate in what could have been an interesting and maybe more useful direction you;re not interested.
That's a new one.
Where are the various Heliports in their vicinity?
I thought there was only one.
Sid
Sorry Sid, where did I say that?
B.
Bronx being from New York City may not completely understand the different Control Zones and ATC coverage for the Heli-Lanes and the various Heliports in their vicinity.
I don't know if you've realized but most of the British pros who are regulars in the Heli-Lanes and undertand the different Control Zones and ATC coverage have just about given up trying to answer theories and speculation by guys like Sid.
Your happy to go on and on swapping theories and speculating with Sid but when JimL who going by his posts in this forum for many years knows his stuff and Sarboy who obviously knows more than he can say tried to steer the debate in what could have been an interesting and maybe more useful direction you;re not interested.
the various Heliports in their vicinity
Where are the various Heliports in their vicinity?
I thought there was only one.
Sid
Sorry Bronx, you're saying that he didn't fly into the Battersea zone without clearance?
B.
Last edited by Bronx; 4th Feb 2013 at 05:23.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
So, you agree that he did then?
Chief Bottle Washer
This thread is too important to be hijacked by Rotorheads who seem unable or unwilling to listen to the wisdom of those with experience of the area and give their time to enlighten those who are not fully familiar with procedures,.
The repetitious nature of the posts of Sid and others are beginning to grate: have a day off, Sid, and come back prepared to listen rather than pontificate.
The repetitious nature of the posts of Sid and others are beginning to grate: have a day off, Sid, and come back prepared to listen rather than pontificate.
The pilot was a freelance, no fly no pay
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Its quite a long time since I flew in the Heli-lanes. I think 21 years ago. In a Police BO-105 heading North.
Sometimes good people make bad mistakes. I think in the latter stages of the flight Pete just ran out of sky!!
When the swiss cheese holes start to line up you need a stroke of luck or a determined about face to halt the fickle finger of fate.
From what I remember the London Heli-lanes are very well regulated with crystal clear rules and routes to follow. I think this is more a "Rules of the Air" problem than any route procedures!!
Much is made of experience on this thread. The experience of starting to run out of sky is not a nice one and somewhat a "Rite of Passage". If we can learn anything from Pete's demise it should be to consider just what we will accept/deny/reason when the sky starts to come down to the ground.
I am very lucky that I have spent much of the last 21 years out over the ocean in a very capable helicopter. Even out here some people have managed to bump into the sea and thats flat (some of the time).
For those of you not so lucky I would take a few extra moments before you fly to make sure all your escape routes are viable, identifiable and most of all, compliant with the Rules of the Air.
Rules are there to make us safe!!! We need to make an effort to follow them.
DB (pontificating)
Sometimes good people make bad mistakes. I think in the latter stages of the flight Pete just ran out of sky!!
When the swiss cheese holes start to line up you need a stroke of luck or a determined about face to halt the fickle finger of fate.
From what I remember the London Heli-lanes are very well regulated with crystal clear rules and routes to follow. I think this is more a "Rules of the Air" problem than any route procedures!!
Much is made of experience on this thread. The experience of starting to run out of sky is not a nice one and somewhat a "Rite of Passage". If we can learn anything from Pete's demise it should be to consider just what we will accept/deny/reason when the sky starts to come down to the ground.
I am very lucky that I have spent much of the last 21 years out over the ocean in a very capable helicopter. Even out here some people have managed to bump into the sea and thats flat (some of the time).
For those of you not so lucky I would take a few extra moments before you fly to make sure all your escape routes are viable, identifiable and most of all, compliant with the Rules of the Air.
Rules are there to make us safe!!! We need to make an effort to follow them.
DB (pontificating)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This might be the pause needed in this thread to take an early lesson from such circumstances as seem to contribute to this tragedy. Wether it's US EMS CFIT, ex world motorcycle champions CFIT, wealthy quarry owner CFIT, ex military CFIT or professional commercial Heli pilots hitting solid objects...............beware pushing the limits in poor weather. Don't get into a position where luck has to play a part. Inevitably 24 hours later the weather will be better and people will speculate as to why you didn't just can it before it got too bad.
Fly safe.
Fly safe.