London Chopper Access - #inthedarkages
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
The problem is that these people have moved to accomodation built next to a heliport that has been operating since 1959.
At the time it opened it was an industrial area. Now planners have allowed massive, high rise housing development far too close to it, the only thing that the operator can do to alleviate noise is to cease operations. I don't see how the owners should be banned from running their business; it is perfectly legal for them to do so. Maybe the complainers could move somewhere quieter, such as near LHR's third runway.
At the time it opened it was an industrial area. Now planners have allowed massive, high rise housing development far too close to it, the only thing that the operator can do to alleviate noise is to cease operations. I don't see how the owners should be banned from running their business; it is perfectly legal for them to do so. Maybe the complainers could move somewhere quieter, such as near LHR's third runway.
Very true, but the other point is the false news. Last night's BBC news went on about how it was a service for rich footballers etc etc
In fact this is not a research paper at all - never been peer reviewed nor published. Wandsworth Council paid the commercial arm of London South Bank University to measure some sound levels. One author specialises in classical music sound and the other is an ex Dyson designer who is interested in the underground.
They used only 5 sites, and AFAIK they were on the river bank. Although they reported on average levels, they eliminated readings taken when the heliport was closed. At the Wandworth site the noise level was low to medium. At both sites in Hammersmith and Fulham the risk to health was negligible (although there were 'technical difficulties' so some readings were not reported.....). In Kensington and Chelsea, the noise was thought to be excessive not from helicopters but road traffic.
If I have misread the report, I humbly apologise and invite the authors to correct me, but there is no evidence the heliport is breeching its license, no evidence of harm even to those directly in the flight path. and this from a commissioned paper. So why, if I can find this data in ten minutes cant the heliport put up a robust defense against what some might call fake news before the other side gains momentum. the BBC even suggested the helilanes should be closed. surely we should be banning road traffic, at least in Kensington and Chelsea
In fact this is not a research paper at all - never been peer reviewed nor published. Wandsworth Council paid the commercial arm of London South Bank University to measure some sound levels. One author specialises in classical music sound and the other is an ex Dyson designer who is interested in the underground.
They used only 5 sites, and AFAIK they were on the river bank. Although they reported on average levels, they eliminated readings taken when the heliport was closed. At the Wandworth site the noise level was low to medium. At both sites in Hammersmith and Fulham the risk to health was negligible (although there were 'technical difficulties' so some readings were not reported.....). In Kensington and Chelsea, the noise was thought to be excessive not from helicopters but road traffic.
If I have misread the report, I humbly apologise and invite the authors to correct me, but there is no evidence the heliport is breeching its license, no evidence of harm even to those directly in the flight path. and this from a commissioned paper. So why, if I can find this data in ten minutes cant the heliport put up a robust defense against what some might call fake news before the other side gains momentum. the BBC even suggested the helilanes should be closed. surely we should be banning road traffic, at least in Kensington and Chelsea
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise levels were probably measured during tour flights which sadly are accounting for a lot of movements and are amongst the noisiest of types are the heliport. Sorry to have to say it. Those that fly helipad PC1 profiles gain height quicker. But there’ll always be complainers and moaners. Same everywhere. The majority don’t hear it or notice it. The streets are far noisier. Go figure. Anything about the heliport being part of London’s emergency action plan? Pretty sure it is.
I really think this is the wrong way to respond Hedski. Where are the complainers and moaners? Why are you shooting yourself in the foot suggesting tour flights are a problem, and by inference should be banned. There isnt a problem. Wandsworth council paid for a report and I suspect were disappointed it didnt find much of a problem. They are now shroud waving and trying to bluster support. They need to be countered with the facts or we may end up with no heliport and no helilanes.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly into Vanguard regularly and never considered it to be in a congested area or have any other problems getting in and out !!!! I was unaware that some “ expert” had no decreed it to be different.
i agree AnFi .... as I have said hundreds of times before ..... we have the rules and the rule makers we deserve because the industry is totally fragmented and run by spineless people . That’s why I dumped my UK license and do all my flying FAA . The CAA and all the AOC bollocks will soon strangle the last bit of breath out of the industry and that is why most flights are “ private “ .
i agree AnFi .... as I have said hundreds of times before ..... we have the rules and the rule makers we deserve because the industry is totally fragmented and run by spineless people . That’s why I dumped my UK license and do all my flying FAA . The CAA and all the AOC bollocks will soon strangle the last bit of breath out of the industry and that is why most flights are “ private “ .
I used to go there twice a week, in a 15+kt south easterly the windshear over the buildings can be "interesting" at night in a South Westerly I went for hover OGE weights and a sideways on approach, turning into wind over the pad. I flew our CAA Check F flight in there a number of years ago and the CAA were happy with how I did it, but asked a lot of questions and went through my calculations very thoroughly.
Where you can come unstuck with the congested area rule is that some places look uncongested, but in terms of the letter of the law they are, and it doesnt matter what your license or registration says, in EASA land the rule applies, whether you're CAT, NCC, NCO, PVT, SPO, British registered, American registered or Albanian registered.
ANO Schedule 1 Article 2, page 125 applies:"Congested area" in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, commercial, industrial or recreational purposes."
And Rule 5 states:Landing and taking off within congested areas and near open-air assemblies 5.—(1)An aircraft must not take off or land within a congested area of any city, town or settlement except— (a) at an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA; or (b) at a landing site which is not an aerodrome in accordance with the permission of the CAA. (2) An aircraft must not land or take-off within 1,000 metres of an open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons except— (a) at an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA; or (b) at a landing site which is not an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA and with the written permission of the organiser of the assembly.
There seems to be a popular misconception that rule 5.1 only applies to CAT, NCC etc, it covers everyone, but CAT operators have a permission as part of the AOC to self authorise congested area flying, subject to keeping logs of use, surveying sites, and various other details which aren't onerous. therefore "self-authorising" for Vanguard and other London landing sites is not difficult and applying for permissions for privateers is made as easy as possible to encourage safe and legal use.
Roughly 30% of my annual flying is in and out of congested areas, all legally covered and as safe as possible. But taking Rule 5 into account, how many people are in the public areas near Vanguard at lunch time, or commuting time? the river is used for commerce and leisure, the Cutty Sark and the leisure areas around her are 1000m away.
A number of years ago ShyTorque and I brought up the subject of a landing at Leicester Racecourse, take a look at it on Google Earth, it is a classic case of a congested area, but I still land there regularly and find the odd R44 or 206, privately run, where the pilot believes the Congested Area Rule doesn't apply to him because he's private. Well it does apply, and in the event of an incident, he may well do a good job and not hurt anyone, but he's horribly exposed because he's actually operating illegally in the first place, when a permission is easy to get. The CAA do help the privateer, with such permissions, they bend over backwards sometimes to help, but there seems to be an impression in this country that we are very restrictive, when in fact we're not, try working on a heli-surface permit in France, or wizzing in and out of private sites in Germany, Denmark or the Netherlands. I know the US is a nirvanah for all forms of GA, but in the UK most operations are easier than the rest of Europe.
SND (awaiting incoming)
The CAA do help the privateer, with such permissions, they bend over backwards sometimes to help, but there seems to be an impression in this country that we are very restrictive, when in fact we're not, try working on a heli-surface permit in France, or wizzing in and out of private sites in Germany, Denmark or the Netherlands. I know the US is a nirvanah for all forms of GA, but in the UK most operations are easier than the rest of Europe.
SND (awaiting incoming)
SND (awaiting incoming)
Amen to that, Germany is a real PITA when it comes to helicopters.
In the past some cities in earthquake zones such as LA and Tokyo put helipads on skyscrapers for emergency evacuation, but not for regular commuting. I think LA at least has given that up, because helicopter evacuation was shown not to be useful in real life emergency scenarios, notwithstanding that famous photo of Air America on a rooftop during the fall of Saigon.
Even without the noise problem, the potential for things to go pear-shaped when operating into and out of a skyscraper helipad in a crowded city centre would put off most responsible authorities and, I would think, most responsible pilots. AFAIR back in the 70s Pan Am used to run choppers from JFK to their downtown Manhattan skyscraper, but gave up after a S-61 fell over on the helipad with rotor turning: people were killed not only on the helipad but by debris falling into the street far below.
Not a capital city - but Sao Paulo has a lot of rooftop pads.
Somewhere near 400 they say.
Not too much investment from there tho I would imagine.
You can Uber a chopper there though!
https://www.voom.flights/en
Somewhere near 400 they say.
Not too much investment from there tho I would imagine.
You can Uber a chopper there though!
https://www.voom.flights/en
Sao Paulo has rooftop pads for a reason - try doing stuff at street level. Especially if it involves moving cash!
Oldlurker
Regardless of reasons why rooftops are used - the perceived risk varies with frequency of use. I suggest that if the correct structure and policies were instigated in the early years then we would not have blinked an eyelid with using rooftops. The reasons for the PanAm building crash had nothing to do with operating to rooftops.
Although this latest anti-Battersea report lacks legal clout and credibility - rather than audible noise; it will serve to create additional unwelcome white noise.
Regardless of reasons why rooftops are used - the perceived risk varies with frequency of use. I suggest that if the correct structure and policies were instigated in the early years then we would not have blinked an eyelid with using rooftops. The reasons for the PanAm building crash had nothing to do with operating to rooftops.
Although this latest anti-Battersea report lacks legal clout and credibility - rather than audible noise; it will serve to create additional unwelcome white noise.
EESDL
You're quite right, the reasons for the PanAm building crash had nothing to do with operating to rooftops. The point is not why it happened, but where it happened. Incidents may have different outcomes depending on where they occur. The 777 that landed short of Heathrow runway 27L in 2008 made it onto the grass and there were no fatalities (G-YMMM, 17 January 2008). They might easily have ended up on the busy road just outside the fence. Same cause (fuel starvation), very different potential outcome.
A recent helicopter example: a S-92 lost yaw control while landing at a North Sea platform (G-WNSR, 28 December 2016). The crew very skilfully managed to put it down on the edge of the helideck, with a few feet to spare (look at the photo in the report) – no damage, everyone walked away, but the pilots seem to have been understandably discomposed (report section 1.5.3). The cause of that accident also had nothing to do with where it occurred. But now let's do a thought experiment: imagine a similar mechanical failure occurring in various surroundings, and suppose that it was such that despite their skill the pilots were unable to put the aircraft down where they did, but ended up those few feet farther out:
(1) an airport or similar open space: they land outside the landing area, but very likely safely and with minimal damage, depending of course how far away they were from the H;
(2) the helideck where the accident occurred: they fall off the edge into the sea, or if they're farther out, maybe they manage a more or less controlled ditching; either way, a safety boat is on hand and nobody outside the helicopter is endangered;
(3) a rooftop helipad on a tower in a city centre: they fall off into the street below, with the consequences you can imagine.
I think scenario (3) is what worries people. Of course helicopters have operated to city centre tower helipads surrounded by streets and other buildings, probably thousands of times. Helicopters have certainly operated thousands of times to offshore platform helidecks. I don't know how many accidents have occurred during those helipad / helideck landings and takeoffs (helicopters have of course crashed with serious loss of life in other phases of offshore operations), but let's suppose that there haven't been any serious outcomes apart from that PanAm crash. Even so, people see that helicopters do crash from time to time during landing or takeoff, and of course worry about what would happen if such incidents did occur in a city centre rather than somewhere else.
I'm referring here to the OP's question "How come none of these high-rise buildings have an HLS on them?" Battersea and similar sites are IMHO a different issue.
You're quite right, the reasons for the PanAm building crash had nothing to do with operating to rooftops. The point is not why it happened, but where it happened. Incidents may have different outcomes depending on where they occur. The 777 that landed short of Heathrow runway 27L in 2008 made it onto the grass and there were no fatalities (G-YMMM, 17 January 2008). They might easily have ended up on the busy road just outside the fence. Same cause (fuel starvation), very different potential outcome.
A recent helicopter example: a S-92 lost yaw control while landing at a North Sea platform (G-WNSR, 28 December 2016). The crew very skilfully managed to put it down on the edge of the helideck, with a few feet to spare (look at the photo in the report) – no damage, everyone walked away, but the pilots seem to have been understandably discomposed (report section 1.5.3). The cause of that accident also had nothing to do with where it occurred. But now let's do a thought experiment: imagine a similar mechanical failure occurring in various surroundings, and suppose that it was such that despite their skill the pilots were unable to put the aircraft down where they did, but ended up those few feet farther out:
(1) an airport or similar open space: they land outside the landing area, but very likely safely and with minimal damage, depending of course how far away they were from the H;
(2) the helideck where the accident occurred: they fall off the edge into the sea, or if they're farther out, maybe they manage a more or less controlled ditching; either way, a safety boat is on hand and nobody outside the helicopter is endangered;
(3) a rooftop helipad on a tower in a city centre: they fall off into the street below, with the consequences you can imagine.
I think scenario (3) is what worries people. Of course helicopters have operated to city centre tower helipads surrounded by streets and other buildings, probably thousands of times. Helicopters have certainly operated thousands of times to offshore platform helidecks. I don't know how many accidents have occurred during those helipad / helideck landings and takeoffs (helicopters have of course crashed with serious loss of life in other phases of offshore operations), but let's suppose that there haven't been any serious outcomes apart from that PanAm crash. Even so, people see that helicopters do crash from time to time during landing or takeoff, and of course worry about what would happen if such incidents did occur in a city centre rather than somewhere else.
I'm referring here to the OP's question "How come none of these high-rise buildings have an HLS on them?" Battersea and similar sites are IMHO a different issue.
Last edited by OldLurker; 11th Aug 2018 at 10:38.
Waterloo Heliport
Old Lurker -To be fair to the industry, safety levels and rooftop helipad design have improved significantly with the introduction of credible OEI machines etc.
There could be an argument for keeping such movements to 'Commercial' operations or at least pilots whom are well rehearsed (inc sim) in such practices.
I guess it will be up to the heliport operator to 'up the ante' re training/licence requirements rather than the NAA to show local planners that the issue is not open to abuse?
City architects whom I have spoken to are under the impression that roof-top sites are only for HEMS - but they couldn't tell me why they had come to such a conclusion - just lore.....
HEMS aircraft seem to be busy using various rooftops up and down the UK without incident.
The publicity of the recent 169 tragedy has not helped but is not relevant in the cold light of day. That was a private operation not carrying out a vertical rooftop helipad profile (ie, does not expose the aircraft to such degree) blah blah
However, I agree that there is some significant PR work to be done but not sure whom is actually doing it........
Does anyone else form a wry smile when they see attention-grabbing headlines by OEMs and 'innovators/visionaries' extolling the virtues of eVTOL 'aircraft' and the benefits of having our skies filled with them?
Old Lurker -To be fair to the industry, safety levels and rooftop helipad design have improved significantly with the introduction of credible OEI machines etc.
There could be an argument for keeping such movements to 'Commercial' operations or at least pilots whom are well rehearsed (inc sim) in such practices.
I guess it will be up to the heliport operator to 'up the ante' re training/licence requirements rather than the NAA to show local planners that the issue is not open to abuse?
City architects whom I have spoken to are under the impression that roof-top sites are only for HEMS - but they couldn't tell me why they had come to such a conclusion - just lore.....
HEMS aircraft seem to be busy using various rooftops up and down the UK without incident.
The publicity of the recent 169 tragedy has not helped but is not relevant in the cold light of day. That was a private operation not carrying out a vertical rooftop helipad profile (ie, does not expose the aircraft to such degree) blah blah
However, I agree that there is some significant PR work to be done but not sure whom is actually doing it........
Does anyone else form a wry smile when they see attention-grabbing headlines by OEMs and 'innovators/visionaries' extolling the virtues of eVTOL 'aircraft' and the benefits of having our skies filled with them?
Last edited by EESDL; 13th Feb 2019 at 16:07.
Why not amend your Fire Safety Codes to REQUIRE Helicopter Landing Pads on High Rise Buildings?
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-with-helipad/
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-with-helipad/
Tightgit
I suppose all this is true. However I guess the people who live in London (not me) would say that it seems to be doing pretty fine without there being dozens of helipads all over the place.
What would it matter to most of them if there were helipads on every high rise building and they were being used for Commercial Operations?
I suppose if you cannot drive your private car in the center of the City....that would also limit your use of your personal helicopter too.
But then Heli-Taxi's could beat the traffic jams and delays experienced on the ground too.
I suppose if you cannot drive your private car in the center of the City....that would also limit your use of your personal helicopter too.
But then Heli-Taxi's could beat the traffic jams and delays experienced on the ground too.
Back in the early 90s, we were applying to put a commercial heliport in Parramatta, a sub-city of Sydney, and about 11nm from the main airport, clear of controlled airspace.
The site was unused empty space next to a trotting track and the Parramatta Speedway. Members of the Labor Party (at the time fighting to get a heliport in Darling Harbour shut down - which they did) were associated with the trotters and didn't want the heliport, so they convinced the local (Labor) council to require stringent noise tests, pollution tests, and all sorts of chicanery to keep us out. The noise tests were done by an expensive independent specialist, and the council specified where the microphones had to be placed. So we did.
The tests showed that the noise output from the gravel crusher on the north side, the M4 motorway on the south side, and James Ruse Drive on the west side blotted out the sound of the helicopters taking off, landing, and overflying. The pollution test (all those nasty jet fumes drifting around) found that the local Duck Creek was so polluted from the speedway and gravel crusher runoff, that if anything was still alive in it, they would relish the arrival of a helicopter.
The council had to approve the heliport, but insisted that the whole area be grassed, and no dust was to be permitted to escape. Conveniently ignoring the red-gravel speedway next door, which sent masses of red dust over all areas and the noise pollution was horrendous. But we did it. And nobody has complained about it since 1996 when it was finished.
The site was unused empty space next to a trotting track and the Parramatta Speedway. Members of the Labor Party (at the time fighting to get a heliport in Darling Harbour shut down - which they did) were associated with the trotters and didn't want the heliport, so they convinced the local (Labor) council to require stringent noise tests, pollution tests, and all sorts of chicanery to keep us out. The noise tests were done by an expensive independent specialist, and the council specified where the microphones had to be placed. So we did.
The tests showed that the noise output from the gravel crusher on the north side, the M4 motorway on the south side, and James Ruse Drive on the west side blotted out the sound of the helicopters taking off, landing, and overflying. The pollution test (all those nasty jet fumes drifting around) found that the local Duck Creek was so polluted from the speedway and gravel crusher runoff, that if anything was still alive in it, they would relish the arrival of a helicopter.
The council had to approve the heliport, but insisted that the whole area be grassed, and no dust was to be permitted to escape. Conveniently ignoring the red-gravel speedway next door, which sent masses of red dust over all areas and the noise pollution was horrendous. But we did it. And nobody has complained about it since 1996 when it was finished.