Helicopter - v - crane LONDON
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Oxford
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Heliport received a request from Heathrow air traffic control asking it to accept Mr Barnes’s helicopter - after he asked to be diverted because of bad weather - but was not able to make contact with the chopper itself.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As per SND's comment above, all should calm down and appreciate that the UK CAA already imposes quite considerable controls, constraints and regulations which have protected London extremely well for many decades.
This is the first ever incident of this nature (in central London) whilst helicopter activity through London has been in gradual decline already.
This is the first ever incident of this nature (in central London) whilst helicopter activity through London has been in gradual decline already.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This very sad accident has brought memories flooding back to those of us working in aviation up her in Scotland....another sad day but thankfully so rare.
Helicopter crash that killed policeman remembered ahead of anniversary | Magazine | Glasgow | STV
Helicopter crash that killed policeman remembered ahead of anniversary | Magazine | Glasgow | STV
I just saw the quote from deputy prime minister Nick Clegg...
I must have flown past the tower and the Shard and Canary Wharf and London Eye in good weather multiple times following the Thames H4, without really noticing the tower as a specific "dangerous" obstacle.
So that leads me to beleive that flying at "standard operating altitudes(heights)" of the max permissable in the centre of the Thames normally offers sufficient clearance by a long chalk.
I still question the sanity of building a tall building 2Nm from a heliport but I'm led to beleive it was something backed by the former deputy prime minister JP against the local objections - ironic that in a tragic way !
I must have flown past the tower and the Shard and Canary Wharf and London Eye in good weather multiple times following the Thames H4, without really noticing the tower as a specific "dangerous" obstacle.
So that leads me to beleive that flying at "standard operating altitudes(heights)" of the max permissable in the centre of the Thames normally offers sufficient clearance by a long chalk.
I still question the sanity of building a tall building 2Nm from a heliport but I'm led to beleive it was something backed by the former deputy prime minister JP against the local objections - ironic that in a tragic way !
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just cannot understand all this angst about tall buildings etc 'near a heliport'. It would not matter if the heliport was at the end of a steep-sided 1000yd-wide ravine - SVFR is what you need. Haven't got it, don't go there?
Short of levelling London completely you cannot eliminate all risk - even them someone might fly into a rubble tip. As said, the 'record' for helis over London, including Battersea and especially twins is good.
Short of levelling London completely you cannot eliminate all risk - even them someone might fly into a rubble tip. As said, the 'record' for helis over London, including Battersea and especially twins is good.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Head in the sky
Age: 70
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
recognition
Hover Bovver,
The helicopter involved in the accident was definitely A109E, G-CRST, metalic blue, see Heli-hub article.
The 109 that features on the BBC's programme intro's is a 109A, G-PBEK, black.
The helicopter involved in the accident was definitely A109E, G-CRST, metalic blue, see Heli-hub article.
The 109 that features on the BBC's programme intro's is a 109A, G-PBEK, black.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: cornwall
Age: 78
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: I just cannot understand all this angst about tall buildings etc 'near a heliport'. It would not matter if the heliport was at the end of a steep-sided 1000yd-wide ravine - SVFR is what you need. Haven't got it, don't go there?
As said by BOAC above, I couldn't agree more, as if I'm not mistaken, helicopters used to ( and may still do so ) land on top of the PanAm building in New York....the problem is not the high rise buildings, but actually being able to see them !!
As said by BOAC above, I couldn't agree more, as if I'm not mistaken, helicopters used to ( and may still do so ) land on top of the PanAm building in New York....the problem is not the high rise buildings, but actually being able to see them !!
.. if I'm not mistaken, helicopters used to ( and may still do so ) land on top of the PanAm building in New York.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1helicopterppl,
Thougt that was what I had said, as someone had suggested the accident aircraft was black - Couldn't remember if it was Tely or not on the BBC ads though .
Sorry for any confusion
Thougt that was what I had said, as someone had suggested the accident aircraft was black - Couldn't remember if it was Tely or not on the BBC ads though .
Sorry for any confusion
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
I find this accident deeply troubling. While none of us know what the conditions on the flight were actually like - and nor will the AAIB when they report - I do hope that the AAIB asks what seems to me to be one of the central questions - given the available METARs and TAFs, who was the client that made it so vital to make that flight to Elstree to pick them up?
For Clarity (only)
I really meant (exceptionally) tall building (compared to the others nearby)
But as others have commented - that particular building is practically in the river.
I did look previously at the general width of the river and figure there wasn't enough horizontal space for 2x helis to pass each other and be 500 ft away from both banks and each other (1500 ft).
So if it was 500 ft plus from the bank I wouldn't expect any special consideration and I agree the key is seeing it.
I actually posted that I thought that the NOTAM was a bit of a red herring if flight is SVFR it should be possible to see the building, but that was also before I knew we were talking about a SPIFR certified AW109! Which is why trying to guess is always flawed!!!
But as others have commented - that particular building is practically in the river.
I did look previously at the general width of the river and figure there wasn't enough horizontal space for 2x helis to pass each other and be 500 ft away from both banks and each other (1500 ft).
So if it was 500 ft plus from the bank I wouldn't expect any special consideration and I agree the key is seeing it.
I actually posted that I thought that the NOTAM was a bit of a red herring if flight is SVFR it should be possible to see the building, but that was also before I knew we were talking about a SPIFR certified AW109! Which is why trying to guess is always flawed!!!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Leeds, Yorkshire, UK
Age: 65
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A+B+C+D = crash!
I'm with chopperchappie...
Given that there should be a 500 foot bubble of space around a heli routing the Thames at less than 1000 feet you would think there's some onus on the planning authority to consider the sense of allowing a 700 foot building at practically zero feet from the river!
Yes we question the wisdom of the flight in the first place but the investigators always say that accidents are the result of a number of circumstances conspiring together. Seems we are gathering a number of them already!
Given that there should be a 500 foot bubble of space around a heli routing the Thames at less than 1000 feet you would think there's some onus on the planning authority to consider the sense of allowing a 700 foot building at practically zero feet from the river!
Yes we question the wisdom of the flight in the first place but the investigators always say that accidents are the result of a number of circumstances conspiring together. Seems we are gathering a number of them already!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: here and there
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Divine intervention
a. Judging by the pictures, he wouldn't have been 'wiped out', as we can clearly see that the cab was untouched.
Maybe no divine intervention however Cab is totally trashed 1st pic in link
London helicopter crash: Work begins to recover badly damaged crane dangling 500ft in the air | Mail Online
Maybe no divine intervention however Cab is totally trashed 1st pic in link
London helicopter crash: Work begins to recover badly damaged crane dangling 500ft in the air | Mail Online
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chopperchappie, are you suggesting that the requirements of a few rotary movements should dictate planning restrictions in the capital?
NATS need to look at how they deal with the inevitable construction, not simply prevent it.
NATS need to look at how they deal with the inevitable construction, not simply prevent it.
"what's the ceiling on this route"
It's not clear which route we are talking about but
IF flying H10/H4 west London to east London (Kew to Isle of Dogs) the ceiling is stepped from 750ft at Kew to 2000ft at Isle of Dogs, more specifically to the west of Battersea heliport 1000fteto the East of Battersea 1500ft.
The main restrictions are related to aircraft overhead coming into Heathrow and City airports BUT depending on the circumstances, it may be possible for ATC to authorise a different route and/or height.
Kew is on the final for a 27 approach to LHR so obviously as commercial airliners are coming in helis need to be low.
It's not clear which route we are talking about but
IF flying H10/H4 west London to east London (Kew to Isle of Dogs) the ceiling is stepped from 750ft at Kew to 2000ft at Isle of Dogs, more specifically to the west of Battersea heliport 1000fteto the East of Battersea 1500ft.
The main restrictions are related to aircraft overhead coming into Heathrow and City airports BUT depending on the circumstances, it may be possible for ATC to authorise a different route and/or height.
Kew is on the final for a 27 approach to LHR so obviously as commercial airliners are coming in helis need to be low.
Airpolice
I'm suggesting that (in this world we live in with consultation and H&S risk assessments) I certainly would expect it to be a consideration but not to dictate planning policy.
In fact I would be gobsmacked to find it wasn't a consideration.
Edit - And to be even more specific, I would be particularly interested to see how much weighting was given to the possibility of an issue compared to the lobbying of the interested parties.
BUT I absolutely agree with the principle that NATS/CAA/LGOV etc all need to be joined up and working for the common good - if that means less tall buildings or less helicopters (or both or neither) then as long as it hasn't been bullied through by someone's personal agenda, and it's been well considered I'm fairly happy with that. (end Edit)
When you look at the approach plate for Battersea the extended circuit has a 180 degree turn very very close to the building location and depending on aircraft weight and pilot/aircraft capability conducting a 180 turn without going into HOGE (which may or may not be an option) would be a challenge, as mentioned before staying 500ft clear of both banks not always an option.
The london zone starts less than a sparrowsfart away from Vauhall bridge, so its entirely possible to be asked to hold at Vauxhall bridge, again, potentially circling at that point or hovering if coming FROM the East.
Are you supporting that it shouldn't be a consideration or just asking?
I'm suggesting that (in this world we live in with consultation and H&S risk assessments) I certainly would expect it to be a consideration but not to dictate planning policy.
In fact I would be gobsmacked to find it wasn't a consideration.
Edit - And to be even more specific, I would be particularly interested to see how much weighting was given to the possibility of an issue compared to the lobbying of the interested parties.
BUT I absolutely agree with the principle that NATS/CAA/LGOV etc all need to be joined up and working for the common good - if that means less tall buildings or less helicopters (or both or neither) then as long as it hasn't been bullied through by someone's personal agenda, and it's been well considered I'm fairly happy with that. (end Edit)
When you look at the approach plate for Battersea the extended circuit has a 180 degree turn very very close to the building location and depending on aircraft weight and pilot/aircraft capability conducting a 180 turn without going into HOGE (which may or may not be an option) would be a challenge, as mentioned before staying 500ft clear of both banks not always an option.
The london zone starts less than a sparrowsfart away from Vauhall bridge, so its entirely possible to be asked to hold at Vauxhall bridge, again, potentially circling at that point or hovering if coming FROM the East.
Are you supporting that it shouldn't be a consideration or just asking?
Last edited by chopperchappie; 18th Jan 2013 at 08:27.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Shepperton
Age: 51
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does raise the question of whether Vauxhall bridge should continue to be a designated holding point. Its fine if weather is allowing 1400-1500ft holds but if its down at 1200ft or less there is no room to keep 500ft away without holding well north of the bridge (heading south/west) or well west (heading east).