Helicopter Crash Central London

[Northern Listener]

@mixture. Aah, the 'official' t w a t t e r, now it makes sense. Thank you.

@zz9.

But I would imagine that their criteria is different to most traffic. Seeing the ground is what they do, so they may well have grounded themselves far sooner than called for for purely safety reasons.

Kind of my point, whether they patrol or respond they need good vis to do their job, not necessarily to fly. So their operational needs, and possibly SOPs will be different to that of other 'civil' operators.

In short a poor comparison.

[ORAC]

A freely given comment which will comfort the family - from the Torygraph.

Noel Edmonds, the Deal Or No Deal presenter, also paid tribute to the pilot.

The 64 year-old said: "I have flown with 'Barnsy' many times over many years both in the UK and across the continent. I have never experienced a more conscientious, skilled and professional pilot ever. Yes, like so many of us drawn to these versatile aircraft he was a real character. We had wonderful times enjoying the freedom of flight but Pete was always mindful of safety and responsibility to others."

He added: "My heart goes out to his family and all of those affected by this tragic accident "And when the investigations are complete I am sure it will be found to have been just that – a tragic accident. We should all be proud of the safety of flight in the UK and particularly in the crowded skies over London."

He continued: "Please never forget that thanks to pilots like Pete Barnes the helicopter is still the only method of transport devised by man that has saved more lives than it has taken. Thanks for the happy times Pete and the lives you saved when flying the Air Ambulance."....

[Lemain]

Noel Edmonds, the Deal Or No Deal presenter, also paid tribute to the pilot.

Just something doesn't sit comfortably on me, about this stuff.... would people make a public statement about their local taxi driver, bus driver,.... I don't quite know how to express it. Are these tributes as a 'friend' or a 'professional'. I've probably said something that's not expressed as I mean it, and I honestly can't find the right words. Maybe someone on my wavelength can venture in.

[Lemain]

I am suggesting the accident happened before the crane was struck.

I certainly don't disagree with you. Probably the accident happened hours or even days before 'impact'. Sometimes it's even years and air accident history is littered with such examples.

[keel beam]

Worker at the towers saying that crane driver was late this morning for the first time in years. Picked the right day to be late!

He must be due a disciplinary for being late.

The question of lighting is right to be highlighted, even if in the end it was not a contributory factor. In many countries high intensity strobe lighting is used on high buildings and so can be seen more readily (the flashing being an attention getter) And whilst some of you might argue that you might not need the distraction of an attention getter if the chips are down, they would certainly make the pilot more aware rather than sub-conciously aware after consulting charts/NOTAMs

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by BOAC

- can you elaborate on this 'vertical' position?

This (from The Shard) is a comparable crane to the one on St Georges Tower which was struck

The London Shard inches closer to completion | urban75 blog

The Jib is the main extension piece, in these photos the highest part of the crane. Hopefully it has a red light on top. It is pulled up or down from the pivot point by the cables which can just be seen. This operation is known in the crane world as Luffing. Swinging the whole crane round is known as Slewing. In this case, when parked overnight the Jib had been Luffed upwards to its maximum vertical extent. If you are into mechanics/weight & balance you will understand that as you Luff downwards the maximum allowable load reduces but you can reach further outwards from the central point.

As St Georges Tower, like many high structures, is somewhat tapered, given the need to reach materials on the ground standing some distance from the base of the structure, and also the need to avoid the materials being lifted, which will always swing somewhat, striking the structure, you Luff downwards towards the horizontal during most operations.

I am going to stick my neck out here, that crane is not new, it has been there for ages.

Not so. It has been progressively going upwards during the construction. I understand it is not on any chart.

I recall going in and out of a US GA field when a nearby construction crane was always mentioned on the ATIS and always mentioned on first contact. It seemed like an overkill at the time as it wasn't really on the centreline. Now I'm thinking again.

[RatherBeFlying]

FLARM

In Europe, gliders and general aviation including helos often use FLARM.

One of the genuinely useful aspects of FLARM is that it has obstacle databases for Austria, Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany (UK where are you?) which has reduced the incidence of aircraft striking cableways in the Alps.

FLARMs are cheap -- about 500 GBP. Had a FLARM been on the crane and the helo, it would have received a timely warning.

Flarm - Homepage

Here in Canada, PowerFlarm has come out. So far I've found it quite handy detecting gliders hiding directly underneath me in the same thermal.

[BossEyed]

Transponders/Flarm on fixed structures? Really?

This was a tragic accident, the reasons for which may or may not be horribly straightforward. But if even we, in the industry, cannot keep a sense of proportion (as seen in some entries in this thread), then it's little surprise if those with an agenda make headway.

I have to say that rather than "something must be done", my reaction to this unhappy event is that despite it being rush-hour, close to the centre of one of the most populated cities in the Western world, the really rather low resultant casualties and disruption suggest that the regulators and responders probably have it about right. Chance played a part, of course, but that can work both ways.

And before anyone starts, no - I am not making light of the tragedies for the families of Capt Barnes, Mr Wood, the critically injured person and the other casualties. Far from it.

[M.Mouse]

Just something doesn't sit comfortably on me, about this stuff.... would people make a public statement about their local taxi driver, bus driver,.... I don't quite know how to express it. Are these tributes as a 'friend' or a 'professional'.

I have absolutely no doubt that Peter Barnes was a skilled and experienced pilot. What Noel Edmonds expressed publicly was what anybody who knew him (I didn't) would doubtless express privately to friends and friends and family of the deceased if that is what they felt.

I suspect in Noel Edmonds case an enterprising reporter telephoned him for comment knowing that he flies helicopters and any comments would make good copy. If that was the case Noel Edmonds would have little choice but to say what he did knowing whatever he said would be published, imagine if he had said 'no comment'!

It is now common place to express, often hollow, emotion in public which I personally find quite nauseating e.g. people posting condolences to the family, etc. when they don't know them nor actually feel any genuinely deep sense of loss. They seem to have some urge to write such things in some misguided sense that it is the right thing to do.

If they really do feel they need to express their condolences then write to the next of kin a short and sincere note, that will mean far more than some 30 second post on an internet forum but then that would take effort and sincerity.

I rarely comment on air accidents believing that speculation does far more harm than good but I find the talk about the obstacle being lit a bit of a red herring. Even with the crane boom in the horizontal how far from the building would it extend? The boom was not horizontal but at quite a high angle from the horizontal so was probably extended what distance from the building? 100' maybe? How close to obstacles do you intentionally fly in marginal conditions? Whatever the reason the helicopter was too close to an obstruction with fatal consequences but we will have to wait for the AAIB to tell us why this tragic event happened.

[Justone_moreperson]

M.Mouse
It is good to see an extremely well thought out post.

[fdr]

But if you already had a catastrophic failure and you had no chance to avoid said cathedral, then the cathedral is just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am suggesting the accident happened before the crane was struck.

COLDRIVIERE

Coldy, in your travels have you ever come across the concept of parsimony, lex parsimoniae as otherwise embodied in Occam's Razor? Alternatively, what would be the basis of the assumption that an IFLOC or other mechanical failure precipitated the event? Just curious. The low level task in adverse weather is quite demanding, and the conditions limit the reaction/recovery time available.

I am sensing an utterly absurd undercurrent here that the problem that needs to be solved is development in London providing an obstacle to general aviation. That carthorse you see over there? It's not going to work that way round.

SLF&P

Amen.

Generally power gives way to sail... and other jibs. Almost invariably power gives way to granite and other fixed structures/edifice.

Don't imply any criticism of this particular operation; humbly contend that the operating environment is high demand and adverse outcomes can occur with the best of operators. The society balances the risk vs the rewards of the utility provided by the operation. The deceased and injured on the ground would probably consider the tradeoff to be unreasonable, accident victims using the HEMS systems, and Captains of the Universe attaining more free time would have a different view.

[RatherBeFlying]

Transponders/Flarm on fixed structures? Really?

Flarm works quite nicely at spotting Flarm equipped aircraft on the ground, even when stationary; so why not on a crane?

Towers and other fixed obstacles end up on the database, but crane deployments can't be expected to conform to the update cycle.

[pattern_is_full]

Indeed the aircraft could suffer a significant deflection from its original track on collision with something that substantial.

30 degrees easily.
60 degrees possibly.
90 degrees? I suspect that it would disintegrate completely on collision rather than "bounce off" in that way.

Glad someone noted that direction of travel after the collision could be very different from the direction before.

At least one picture purports to show the tail of the helicopter separated on a building roof. If true, a helicopter that has lost its tail rotor will be spinning like a top, and can veer off in any direction.

It isn't really a "bounce" - it is a complete loss of directional control from what may have been a "moderate" collision (n.b. the thin tail boom and long thin tailrotor driveshaft are far more fragile than the cockpit area - helo tails have failed with no collision at all). If you do physically lose tail structure (weight), you go nose down as the c.g. shifts forward and the residual thrust in the main rotor can shove you off in whatever direction you happen to be pointed in the spin - even 180 degrees to your original heading.

The path of a helo with a failed or missing tail rotor effectively becomes a "random walk."

I hestitate to link to Youtube since the embedding is now automatic, and not everyone wants to see the video. But search "helicopter loses tail rotor" there to see the real dynamics of what can happen.

[Pace]

There's a lot of nonsense being talked about the crane. It's orientation and whether it was lit or not is frankly irrelevant.

Flap 5

Whether a high object and a long and spindly one at that needs lighting is very relevant.
Yes in an ideal world pilots will only fly in the conditions stipulated by the rules they are flying too.
It is an imperfect world! I wish motorists would not crash in cars but they do hence manufacturers go to extremes to protect the occupants in the event of a crash.

This Helicopter was brought down by a Crane end of story!!!! For whatever reason the pilot did not see that Crane but may have done had it had high intensity lighting fitted.

The Wrekin light was reinstated partly because of of a tragic crash of a Mooney which hit a rock face within 20 feet of its summit.

These lights are visible in cloud where visibility can range fromn 50 meters to 200 meters enough to alert a pilot to pull clear.

Look at the London Skyline and as posted earlier the Cranes tower well above the Skyscraper building like Octopus Tentacles waiting to catch their prey.
I was horrified in clear weather seeing these contraptions and the amount of them exposed in the clear skies and towering way above the high buildings.

If anything needs to be learnt from this tragedy it is to legally make these temporary structures carry suitable lighting at all times night and day as the cowboy way they are controlled is not acceptable.

[Madbob]

Pace I agree with all you say. I first experienced high intensity strobe lighting when flying into Alconbury many moons ago. The approach had a "running rabbit" which penetrated the murk much better than anything I'd seen before. (The RAF then had centre line and 5 bar lighting with PAPI's / VASI's which were nowhere near as good as the USAF approach lighting.)

High intensity strobes are now common on aircraft for anti-collision purposes but ground obstructions, both permanent and temporary, are still lit only by steady (and low intensity) red lights. That may be okay in a dark countryside but in a built-up area with lots of light pollution something more is needed so that obstacles like this crane really stand out. I know that this would only add to the light pollution but I see no other alternative.

[stuckgear]

M.Mouse
It is good to see an extremely well thought out post.

i disagree, and over point:

Even with the crane boom in the horizontal how far from the building would it extend? The boom was not horizontal but at quite a high angle from the horizontal so was probably extended what distance from the building? 100' maybe? How close to obstacles do you intentionally fly in marginal conditions? Whatever the reason the helicopter was too close to an obstruction with fatal consequences

The inference is that the heli was flown intentionally close to the obstacle in marginal weather, the point about lighting which Pace has made is valid. space in area is limited and obstructions made visible by any and all means possible

safety margins is the key.

No professional pilot on a commercial op. would engage in reckless endangerment by intentionally placing their craft close to an obstruction in marginal weather and the sentence implies the opposite.

as posted before, there are many that will use this incident to further an agenda detrimental to heli ops in the London (and possibly other cities). we also know media and other sources use this forum for references, so please think about your post and how it can be construed and also misrepresented.

As posted previously there are details a few pages back of the number of heli ops in London from 2012 back to 2007, and the number of incidents and fatalities is about as minimal as it could be.

BossEyed makes the valid point:

rather than "something must be done", my reaction to this unhappy event is that despite it being rush-hour, close to the centre of one of the most populated cities in the Western world, the really rather low resultant casualties and disruption suggest that the regulators and responders probably have it about right. Chance played a part, of course, but that can work both ways.

And before anyone starts, no - I am not making light of the tragedies for the families of Capt Barnes, Mr Wood, the critically injured person and the other casualties. Far from it.

From all sources, it would be apparent that Peter Barnes was a highly experienced and professional pilot with expertise in his field.

[Piltdown Man]

Strobe illumination

For many years I flew into and out of LCY. One of the things that was easy to to miss was Canary Wharf, purely because of the high intensity strobe. When in cloud you made sure that you were on track because knew you were near the building. But would this be of any help now? There are now so many tall buildings and structures in London that putting standard strobes on them all might make it more rather than less confusing. Maybe flash and colour coding like lighthouses may help?

[sky9]

The problem that we have with cranes is that there appears that very little thought has been given to the interrelationship of cranes and helicopters. In parts of Europe there is a similar problem of overhead wires and helicopters.
Possibly some thought needs to be given to painting the boom in a high visibility colour together with the use of decent lighting at night and in reduced visibility. The effectiveness and efficiency of LED's has been staggering over the last couple of years. Could they be used to provide a better obstruction identification?

I must admit to wondering if rime ice had anything to do with the accident. I have seen it build up at an alarming rate on unheated parts of aircraft flying in similar conditions.

[mixture]

This Helicopter was brought down by a Crane end of story!!!! For whatever reason the pilot did not see that Crane but may have done had it had high intensity lighting fitted.

Many cranes feature on NOTAMs worldwide, remind me, how many cause incidents ? Also, pray tell, what good would strobes and lights do on a foggy/cloudy day ..... the diffusion of the light in cloud wouldn't help an already disorientated pilot much !

The fact remains, the crane has been there many months, it has been in the NOTAMs for as many months, the pilot was, by all accounts, a highly experienced pilot and a regular visitor to the airspace over London.

He infringed the obstacle NOTAM and suffered the consequences, that is a fact. Taken on its own, there is very little excuse for missing that crane if you are an experienced pilot and a regular visitor to London.

But we can't take that fact on its own, what is yet to be uncovered by the AAIB is the why, and the guesses round here are that something else was going on and that the NOTAM infringement was just the icing on the cake. Not the cause.

[Pace]

Piltdown

We still do not know whether a mechanical problem brought Peter Barnes into that situation or whether it was a small error!
There are a mass of so called experts and politicians with their own agendas calling for changes but directing their fire at Aviation.
I wish I had had my Camera in London yesterday to photograph the skyline.
It was all to apparent at the haphazard way these high level cranes were dotted all over the place.
They do without doubt form a hazard not just to helicopters but could do so also to a stricken aircraft taking off from Airports close into the City.
While I am sure after the investigation has taken place recommendations will be made in light of those investigations.
Please to not make aviation the Scapegoat or for that matter the pilot who like the rest of us is human.
A large portion of attention needs to be directed at the structure that brought this Helicopter down ie the Cranes and how better to control these temporary structures and make them safer.

Some of these tall buildings cost hundreds of £millions if not £billions and make huge profits for their developers. It is not too much to ask that adequate high tech technology and lighting is fitted to the Cranes to protect others who are in that sky on purpose or accidently

Many cranes feature on NOTAMs worldwide, remind me, how many cause incidents ?

Yes one a few days ago which had the Helicopter gone off in a different direction after impact could have caused a much higher loss of life! How many do you want??