Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Puntosaurus, Helinut.
Just having read Punto's edited post above mine, I may have misunderstood where the confusion lay.
My understanding is that on H4 you are deemed to be exempt the 1,000 foot rule.
There is a reference (note 3) under the route info in the AIP for H4 that refers to the London Eye and it reminds pilots of rule 5(3)(b) but 5(3)(c) isn't mentioned.
Just having read Punto's edited post above mine, I may have misunderstood where the confusion lay.
My understanding is that on H4 you are deemed to be exempt the 1,000 foot rule.
There is a reference (note 3) under the route info in the AIP for H4 that refers to the London Eye and it reminds pilots of rule 5(3)(b) but 5(3)(c) isn't mentioned.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puntosaurus and ST,
Homework now completed. Buried in the depths of the AIP sections on the heliroutes there is a quite specific footnote:
"Note 2: The sector of Route H4, Isle-of-Dogs— Vauxhall Bridge, is established and notified for the purposes of Rule 6(c)(i) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2007."
So traffic on H4 between those points is exempt the 1,000ft rule.
Thanks punto for making me dig!
ST,
I don't think you and I disagree about any of what you posted in your last (except the results of my homework (thanks to ps), which are that the 1,000 ft rule does not apply to traffic on H4 from IoD to Vauxhall ).
Homework now completed. Buried in the depths of the AIP sections on the heliroutes there is a quite specific footnote:
"Note 2: The sector of Route H4, Isle-of-Dogs— Vauxhall Bridge, is established and notified for the purposes of Rule 6(c)(i) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2007."
So traffic on H4 between those points is exempt the 1,000ft rule.
Thanks punto for making me dig!
ST,
I don't think you and I disagree about any of what you posted in your last (except the results of my homework (thanks to ps), which are that the 1,000 ft rule does not apply to traffic on H4 from IoD to Vauxhall ).
If you are making an approach to land or departing from a licensed aerodrome (which term includes heliport), you are exempt the 500 ft Rule, the 1000 ft (ie Congested Area) Rule, and the Land Clear Rule (although probably not this one if you are flying for CAT purpose, but that's another set of rules).
RoAR 2007 Rule 6(a)(i)(aa) applies.
London Heliport is Licensed.
RoAR 2007 Rule 6(a)(i)(aa) applies.
London Heliport is Licensed.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That maybe open to interpretation. I don't think the rules of the air stipulate 'making an approach',
I s'pose my point is that someone may wish to clarify 'normal aviation practice', whatever that means....... 
Landing and taking off
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the low flying prohibitions in so far as it is
flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of:
(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or
(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,
a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the low flying prohibitions in so far as it is
flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of:
(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or
(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,
a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Helinut, I don't think we disagree at all. I've always understood that if you're on the route itself (including the eastern portion of H4), you're under SVFR.
What I'd hoped to put across was that if you fly off H4 (inside the LCY zone under VFR), the 1,000 foot rule does then apply.
But if under SVFR, it doesn't.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, if indeed there was.
What I'd hoped to put across was that if you fly off H4 (inside the LCY zone under VFR), the 1,000 foot rule does then apply.
But if under SVFR, it doesn't.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, if indeed there was.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
I s'pose my point is that someone may wish to clarify 'normal aviation practice', whatever that means.......
Puntosaurus, you are correct. The reality is that if you operate on H4 through City's Class D (east of VB), you are exempt from the 1000ft rule. However, going off-route, you aren't.
Trying to go off-river OPPOSITE The Shard (let alone on the same bank) means ensuring that you are at 2000ft as soon as you cross the riverbank to "landside". As I stated here way back - The Shard has created a pilot trap on both banks. 600m horizontal is a long way into London.
In Class D, more of those are inevitable.
Trying to go off-river OPPOSITE The Shard (let alone on the same bank) means ensuring that you are at 2000ft as soon as you cross the riverbank to "landside". As I stated here way back - The Shard has created a pilot trap on both banks. 600m horizontal is a long way into London.
In Class D, more of those are inevitable.
Last edited by JimBall; 6th Feb 2013 at 14:58.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Oxford
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been reluctant to post in this thread since I've not yet got my PPL.
However, for what it is worth, my tuppence:
i) a single accident does not represent a trend - as such it is very difficult to draw any conclusions as to rule/regulation changes unless there is some blatantly obvious one (which we don't have from the preliminary report)
ii) risk mitigation is precisely that - risk mitigation not risk elimination. Ultimately you will hit the point of diminishing returns.
iii) the idea of fitting cranes etc with a transponder or other collision warning device, is, I think, worth considering, however it may very well fall beyond the point of diminishing returns
iv) whilst not a crane identification course! encouraging anyone who flies in the heli-lanes to regularly attend a heli-lane hazards awaress course/refresher may be beneficial. This would clearly be useful for those who do not frequently fly the heli-lanes, but I suspect would also be useful for those who do fly them frequently - over familiarity can breed over-confidence and over-confidence can be as dangerous as inexperience.
v) the CAA should be invited to comment on planning applications for tall buildings in London, alongside the other parties who are invited to comment on planning applications - with no more or less weight than such parties (if this isn't the case already).
vi) the London skyline today is very different from how it looked 40 years ago, and it is likely the London skyline in 40 years time will look very different from that today. As such whilst the current heli-lanes may be fit for purpose today, they may not be in 40 years time. They should be periodically reviewed (every 5-10 years?) if they aren't already. However, it would be perfectly permissible for a review to conclude no change - unlike politicians, the reviewers shouldn't feel the need to make changes to justify their existence.
vii) ultimately the decision to fly or not to fly is a judgement call, and unfortunately all of us not blessed with perfect hindsight can and eventually will make a wrong call.
However, for what it is worth, my tuppence:
i) a single accident does not represent a trend - as such it is very difficult to draw any conclusions as to rule/regulation changes unless there is some blatantly obvious one (which we don't have from the preliminary report)
ii) risk mitigation is precisely that - risk mitigation not risk elimination. Ultimately you will hit the point of diminishing returns.
iii) the idea of fitting cranes etc with a transponder or other collision warning device, is, I think, worth considering, however it may very well fall beyond the point of diminishing returns
iv) whilst not a crane identification course! encouraging anyone who flies in the heli-lanes to regularly attend a heli-lane hazards awaress course/refresher may be beneficial. This would clearly be useful for those who do not frequently fly the heli-lanes, but I suspect would also be useful for those who do fly them frequently - over familiarity can breed over-confidence and over-confidence can be as dangerous as inexperience.
v) the CAA should be invited to comment on planning applications for tall buildings in London, alongside the other parties who are invited to comment on planning applications - with no more or less weight than such parties (if this isn't the case already).
vi) the London skyline today is very different from how it looked 40 years ago, and it is likely the London skyline in 40 years time will look very different from that today. As such whilst the current heli-lanes may be fit for purpose today, they may not be in 40 years time. They should be periodically reviewed (every 5-10 years?) if they aren't already. However, it would be perfectly permissible for a review to conclude no change - unlike politicians, the reviewers shouldn't feel the need to make changes to justify their existence.
vii) ultimately the decision to fly or not to fly is a judgement call, and unfortunately all of us not blessed with perfect hindsight can and eventually will make a wrong call.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some way back in this thread there was discussion of the aaib interim report, which some of us were unable to download.
I have received a response from aaib saying that the difficulty is compatibility with some browsers. They recommend use of Opera browser.
Hope this is helpful.
I have received a response from aaib saying that the difficulty is compatibility with some browsers. They recommend use of Opera browser.
Hope this is helpful.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter flights through fog, which may have caused a fatal crash in London last month, should become less hazardous following development of a helmet that projects information regarding the terrain ahead onto its visor.
Helmets featuring so-called head-up displays, developed by Israel’s Elbit Systems Ltd. to help fighter pilots shoot down enemy planes, are being evaluated for use in civil helicopters by the German Aerospace Center or DLR. The system can project digital maps featuring obstacles and relief, as well as speed and altitude, and could be adapted to show live radar images.
“Helmet-mounted displays open the helicopter pilot’s eyes even in the worst weather conditions,” Helmut Toebben, business manager at the center’s institute of flight guidance, said in a telephone interview. “In particular, the technology opens up the possibility of landing safely in limited visibility.”
Flight tests employing the DLR’s own EC135, a civil chopper built by the Eurocopter unit of European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., have demonstrated the technology’s effectiveness in poor weather, Toebben said. Mist or cloud was probably a factor in the London crash on Jan. 16, in which the pilot and one man on the ground were killed when an AW101 helicopter built by Finmeccanica SpA’s AgustaWestland unit collided with a crane at the luxury St George Wharf development near the River Thames.
Helicopter Pilots Minimize Crash Risk With
Helmets featuring so-called head-up displays, developed by Israel’s Elbit Systems Ltd. to help fighter pilots shoot down enemy planes, are being evaluated for use in civil helicopters by the German Aerospace Center or DLR. The system can project digital maps featuring obstacles and relief, as well as speed and altitude, and could be adapted to show live radar images.
“Helmet-mounted displays open the helicopter pilot’s eyes even in the worst weather conditions,” Helmut Toebben, business manager at the center’s institute of flight guidance, said in a telephone interview. “In particular, the technology opens up the possibility of landing safely in limited visibility.”
Flight tests employing the DLR’s own EC135, a civil chopper built by the Eurocopter unit of European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., have demonstrated the technology’s effectiveness in poor weather, Toebben said. Mist or cloud was probably a factor in the London crash on Jan. 16, in which the pilot and one man on the ground were killed when an AW101 helicopter built by Finmeccanica SpA’s AgustaWestland unit collided with a crane at the luxury St George Wharf development near the River Thames.
Helicopter Pilots Minimize Crash Risk With
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
So, all we have to do is to convince the passengers that their pilot is only wearing a helmet so he can see where he's going in fog, not because he intends to hit something.
Trouble is, they'll all want a helmet, too.
Trouble is, they'll all want a helmet, too.
A bit of a non-story - it only talks about displaying digital mapping and flight info - that doesn't make it Jedi or Jedeye enough for IMC flight since it takes just one obstruction that hasn't been updated in your database to cause you a big problem.
Or it talks about having a live radar feed - expensive for onshore ops and millimetric radar would be required for real clarity to include wires and the like.
They didn't mention FLIR which has been touted as the saviour for poor weather ops before - but that can't see through cloud and fog.
So, all in all nothing new but a opportunist article to plug someone's product.
Or it talks about having a live radar feed - expensive for onshore ops and millimetric radar would be required for real clarity to include wires and the like.
They didn't mention FLIR which has been touted as the saviour for poor weather ops before - but that can't see through cloud and fog.
So, all in all nothing new but a opportunist article to plug someone's product.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
that doesn't make it Jedi or Jedeye enough for IMC flight since it takes just one obstruction that hasn't been updated in your database to cause you a big problem.
360 degree view of London from BT tower
For reference.
A view of London, just released, taken in 2012, using 45000 images stitched together, taken from BT tower.
The largest "Pano" ever made.
The building in question is in the frame, I think at the same height as at time of crash.
Gives a good idea of London's skyline.
The BT Tower
Mickjoebill
A view of London, just released, taken in 2012, using 45000 images stitched together, taken from BT tower.
The largest "Pano" ever made.
The building in question is in the frame, I think at the same height as at time of crash.
Gives a good idea of London's skyline.
The BT Tower
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vauxhall helicopter crash was preventable
BBC knows best!
BBC News - Vauxhall helicopter crash 'was preventable'
BBC knows best!
BBC News - Vauxhall helicopter crash 'was preventable'
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
From that report:
I wonder who these people were? The rules are clear enough. 
The BBC spoke to two experienced pilots and one helicopter safety consultant, all of whom were unaware the 1km visibility rule applied in certain scenarios.
Wasn't me on any of those counts. Was asked to comment at the time of the accident but declined, as I had insufficient knowledge of the facts.
Still awaiting final AAIB to have (perhaps...) 'sufficient knowledge'.
Still awaiting final AAIB to have (perhaps...) 'sufficient knowledge'.
Last edited by idle stop; 4th Mar 2013 at 20:46. Reason: Syntax
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Helicopter Association CEO Peter Norton has said that the January 16 accident in which an AgustaWestland A109E crashed in central London had “severely damaged” the reputation of the industry, which now needs to restore public confidence.
Norton said that pilots can easily find themselves under financial pressure to proceed with a flight in challenging conditions and that there is anecdotal evidence of over-confidence among some flight crew. “It is now time to review ad hoc charter operations to ensure safety without additional regulation because over-regulation might result in an increase in illegal public-transport operations.”
Norton said that pilots can easily find themselves under financial pressure to proceed with a flight in challenging conditions and that there is anecdotal evidence of over-confidence among some flight crew. “It is now time to review ad hoc charter operations to ensure safety without additional regulation because over-regulation might result in an increase in illegal public-transport operations.”
BHA CEO comments on January 16th Helicopter Crash