Helicopter Crash Central London
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sticking my nose in here and I am not a pilot.
Since GPS is said to be less than stellar in such circumstances (?) would even a series of radio nodes or something like Loran help, as if you can get a much closer, accurate radio fix, you could perhaps then program a warning if you go too near something, like GPWRS but for things in the air?
Since GPS is said to be less than stellar in such circumstances (?) would even a series of radio nodes or something like Loran help, as if you can get a much closer, accurate radio fix, you could perhaps then program a warning if you go too near something, like GPWRS but for things in the air?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
The problem is that the people round here pointing the finger at the crane are (probably) barking up the wrong tree. Sure the crane was a factor, but it wasn't the cause...... the crane was what finished the job ... my money's on there being more to this sad event than just crane meets helicopter.
There is an excellent post on the other thread, number #180 by airpolice who makes some well thought out observations that don't just go blaming the crane ..... I hope he doesn't mind me reproducing it here for the benefit of those who don't fraternise in that corner of PPRuNe ....
Without wanting to speculate on the specifics of the crash, Redhill to Elstree is crossing some busy airspace and I'd prefer to use H9 as passing overhead LHR at 1,800 foot, even IFR has to be simpler than staying under the inbound traffic in variable VFR conditions.
If wx precludes H9, then maybe we just aren't going there today. It's hard to see how scud running over the city centre is a better bet than turning around and running away, or setting down, before you get shut in.
In a 109, of all aircraft, this should have been a straightforward tasking.
The VFR bit of it escapes me, why, with low cloud and freezing conditions, would you head into that airpsace, but not over the water?
The 109 is certified for spifr but that will not make it immune to icing, so a climb is no guarantee of escape from anything except high buildings. Climbing out from a low level transit, even with LHR to keep you clear of other traffic, may not be great when it exposes you to the ice.
So.... ifr is ruled out by ice and vfr ruled out by low cloud, the great advantage of a rotary is the ability to stop (I know it's not simple as it sounds) or go at walking pace where you can see.
Lots of holes will have lined up for this crash to happen, but some of them may well have been a good bit to the south of Vauxhall Bridge.
The AAIB will be best placed to determine why this happened, but how many of you, really, would set off tomorrow to take that route in that weather?
Let's hope that when we get to read the report, we can all identify the point at which we would have turned back.
If wx precludes H9, then maybe we just aren't going there today. It's hard to see how scud running over the city centre is a better bet than turning around and running away, or setting down, before you get shut in.
In a 109, of all aircraft, this should have been a straightforward tasking.
The VFR bit of it escapes me, why, with low cloud and freezing conditions, would you head into that airpsace, but not over the water?
The 109 is certified for spifr but that will not make it immune to icing, so a climb is no guarantee of escape from anything except high buildings. Climbing out from a low level transit, even with LHR to keep you clear of other traffic, may not be great when it exposes you to the ice.
So.... ifr is ruled out by ice and vfr ruled out by low cloud, the great advantage of a rotary is the ability to stop (I know it's not simple as it sounds) or go at walking pace where you can see.
Lots of holes will have lined up for this crash to happen, but some of them may well have been a good bit to the south of Vauxhall Bridge.
The AAIB will be best placed to determine why this happened, but how many of you, really, would set off tomorrow to take that route in that weather?
Let's hope that when we get to read the report, we can all identify the point at which we would have turned back.
Last edited by mixture; 18th Jan 2013 at 10:13.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pace
but could do so also to a stricken aircraft taking off from Airports close into the City.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with transponders and even lights is that if every obstruction was kitted-out the data would overload the pilot. The pilot is multi-tasking and in the event of equipment problems (or even marital or kid problems) he can't devote 100% of his brain to terrain clearance. If he did, the a/c would fall out of the sky.
Nothing about this tragedy that we've heard so far suggests to me that the present arrangements are unsafe or should be altered. Yes, there is always room for improvement, an evolution, but we don't need to worry the travelling public by suggesting that something is 'broke'. If is aint broke don't fix it.
Nothing about this tragedy that we've heard so far suggests to me that the present arrangements are unsafe or should be altered. Yes, there is always room for improvement, an evolution, but we don't need to worry the travelling public by suggesting that something is 'broke'. If is aint broke don't fix it.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When all the information has been collected and considered, it still comes down to holes in the cheese, with the choice to make the flight in that weather a factor.
IFR with all the bells and whistles and the jet flying itself down to decision height is the only safe flying available in lifting fog with iceing a possibility.
Some have suggested a possible mechanical problem. The A109 was first certified in 1996, and nearly a thousand have been manufactured by the Italian company; military variants, worldwide civilian use by police and ambulance services. 250 are listed for sale at the present time, you can buy your own A109E manufactured in 2006 for only $3,400,000. If it was, like the Dreamliner, the first flying example of its type, glitches would be expected, but a twin engine state of the art highly developed helicopter is unlikely to suddenly fail.
Although this has attracted unrivaled media attention, the surprising thing is how few were the casualties. A previous post mentions that on Jan. 24, l990, a single engine Bell Jetranger with 4 on board came down on a suburban area of Glasgow during a snow shower. One on board was killed, the pilot was badly injured, and the two passengers walked away, no one on the ground was hurt.
Most air accidents hurt only those on the aircraft. Relatively few on the ground. So how much should be spent on prevention?
I can't imagine that a couple of strobes on a crane would be a major item in a developer's spreadsheet.
IFR with all the bells and whistles and the jet flying itself down to decision height is the only safe flying available in lifting fog with iceing a possibility.
Some have suggested a possible mechanical problem. The A109 was first certified in 1996, and nearly a thousand have been manufactured by the Italian company; military variants, worldwide civilian use by police and ambulance services. 250 are listed for sale at the present time, you can buy your own A109E manufactured in 2006 for only $3,400,000. If it was, like the Dreamliner, the first flying example of its type, glitches would be expected, but a twin engine state of the art highly developed helicopter is unlikely to suddenly fail.
Although this has attracted unrivaled media attention, the surprising thing is how few were the casualties. A previous post mentions that on Jan. 24, l990, a single engine Bell Jetranger with 4 on board came down on a suburban area of Glasgow during a snow shower. One on board was killed, the pilot was badly injured, and the two passengers walked away, no one on the ground was hurt.
Most air accidents hurt only those on the aircraft. Relatively few on the ground. So how much should be spent on prevention?
I can't imagine that a couple of strobes on a crane would be a major item in a developer's spreadsheet.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long time ago - '70s but 'get-home-itis' was in control and decision making is not necessarily of the best in crap weather. Relevant? - not necessarily, but 'professionalism' is no GUARANTEE of anything.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds moderately exciting, CJ - I think I might have dropped off at the nearest open space and called for a bowser.
. 400 yds from a mast with guy wires.....hmm!! Nice bit of route planning.
. 400 yds from a mast with guy wires.....hmm!! Nice bit of route planning.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly superior skills are no guarantee! having lost two friends one an ex Easy Jet Captain and the other a very high hours and very cautious professional pilot last year In a Navajo accident!
It makes you realize that it only takes one small mistake at the wrong time and in the wrong place to have a disaster! Sadly none of us are perfect even the best.
But having said that the more reason why we spend a fortune with high technology in aircraft to help protect us why that rule applies to just the aircraft?
Those Cranes are a hazard
It makes you realize that it only takes one small mistake at the wrong time and in the wrong place to have a disaster! Sadly none of us are perfect even the best.
But having said that the more reason why we spend a fortune with high technology in aircraft to help protect us why that rule applies to just the aircraft?
Those Cranes are a hazard
Last edited by Pace; 18th Jan 2013 at 12:01.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those Cranes are a hazard
Do you think everything in high-vis jackets, flashing lights and warning notices is going to solve the world's problems ?
Last edited by mixture; 18th Jan 2013 at 12:25.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 54
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sensing a little crane bashing going on.
Just how much communication and education is there between the aviation industry and the crane operators, and/or their representative bodies?
I would guess that the owners/operators of these cranes don't want things hitting them, down time costs money, repairs cost money. Not to mention the human cost we've seen here.
Adding & changing lighting shouldn't be a huge issue nor a major cost and relatively easy to achieve, could it be the operators have been believing that the odd low intensity light is sufficient as that is what they have been told (by regulators).
At what height point do temporary structures (i.e. cranes) start to be illuminated?
As in at what height on a structure do the lights start to be placed, not the height at which defines the requirement?
Just how much communication and education is there between the aviation industry and the crane operators, and/or their representative bodies?
I would guess that the owners/operators of these cranes don't want things hitting them, down time costs money, repairs cost money. Not to mention the human cost we've seen here.
Adding & changing lighting shouldn't be a huge issue nor a major cost and relatively easy to achieve, could it be the operators have been believing that the odd low intensity light is sufficient as that is what they have been told (by regulators).
At what height point do temporary structures (i.e. cranes) start to be illuminated?
As in at what height on a structure do the lights start to be placed, not the height at which defines the requirement?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a random thought I wonder whether anyone has thought of installing a transponder (or similar device) in cranes over a certain height. I'm not sure if this would be useful in the TCAS environment.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Bucuresti
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
So what happens when the extra hole in the cheese lines up, and the battery fails, or the xenon tube blows, or the wind takes the antenna off the transponder, or whatever?
Result: The accident still happens.
All you have actually done is provide a way to absolve the pilot of blame (which I accept for many on PPRuNE is the desired goal of all accident investigations) but you've not necessarily done much to improve aviation safety.
Any safety feature you design needs to answer a fundamental question: what happens when it breaks? Take as an example three-aspect railway signals:
If the Green signal fails, the signal head automatically reverts to Yellow (a safer aspect.)
If the Yellow signal fails, the signal head automatically reverts to Red (a safer aspect)
If the Red signal fails, the signal in the rear automatically reverts to Red. Also, the standing instruction to drivers is also to treat any unlit signal head as a Red.
When the signal is anything but green, or ought to be, the Automatic Warning System reset electromagnet is de-energised, causing the permanent magnet just next to it to alert the driver to a restrictive signal (and will stop the train if he doesn't confirm it) - so even an unlit signal head will sound a horn.
If the Automatic Warning System electromagnet/electronics fails, the permanent magnet alerts the driver to a restrictive signal (whether it is or not) - the safest outcome.
If the permanent magnet fails, the laws of physics have evidently changed and all bets are off.
That is a good example of safety critical systems design. When a component fails, it fails to a safer outcome (albeit less efficient to railway operations - people who whine about the amount of disruption caused by signal failures and the like ought to remember that that's because their safety is being prioritised, but that's a different moan.)If the Yellow signal fails, the signal head automatically reverts to Red (a safer aspect)
If the Red signal fails, the signal in the rear automatically reverts to Red. Also, the standing instruction to drivers is also to treat any unlit signal head as a Red.
When the signal is anything but green, or ought to be, the Automatic Warning System reset electromagnet is de-energised, causing the permanent magnet just next to it to alert the driver to a restrictive signal (and will stop the train if he doesn't confirm it) - so even an unlit signal head will sound a horn.
If the Automatic Warning System electromagnet/electronics fails, the permanent magnet alerts the driver to a restrictive signal (whether it is or not) - the safest outcome.
If the permanent magnet fails, the laws of physics have evidently changed and all bets are off.
Now consider what happens with your proposed solution:
If the flashing light/transponder fails: Pilots who have been told that flashing lights/transponders will be bolted onto everything assume the lack of said light/transponder means no obstacle, and chances of collision are increased.
This is a bad example of safety critical systems design...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Just a random thought I wonder whether anyone has thought of installing a transponder (or similar device) in cranes over a certain height. I'm not sure if this would be useful in the TCAS environment.
Speaking as someone regularly flying rotary in the London airspace, often to and from Battersea, using this very route, and often in the same type of aircraft as the unfortunate deceased pilot, I'd say high intensity strobe or LED lighting on the crane, so that it could have been recognised as such, would have been of far more practical use. The usual "obstruction light" is a single red light. These lights do not stand out.
A classic example is the full-width arch over Wembley Stadium. This is an open structure, very similar to a crane. You can fly very close to it but not see the red light (in fact I think there are two) because they are not bright enough against the background. However, occasionally, the whole structure of the arch is lit by a series of bright white lights. It can then be (and is) used as a navigational feature for miles around.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 18th Jan 2013 at 13:03.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
, I'd say high intensity strobe or LED lighting on the crane, so that it could have been recognised as such, would have been of far more practical use.
Yes but.... what good is a strobe/light in the fog/cloud ?
As I said earlier, the diffused light will do nothing to help an already disorientated pilot.
Last edited by mixture; 18th Jan 2013 at 13:25.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixture
Are you actually a pilot? If your argument holds true why bother with high intensity lighting on top of buildings like Canary Wharf far easier to see than a pencil thin crane towering into the clouds above it?
A strobe is visible in cloud remember visibility in in cloud varies from around 50 meters to 200 meters and sight of a strobe in such a situation would mean the pilot pulling instantly away.
So are helicopter rotors, mountains, skyscrapers, electricity pylons, TV masts, wet runways, cigarettes, alcohol.... where do you draw the line ?
Do you think everything in high-vis jackets, flashing lights and warning notices is going to solve the world's problems ?
Do you think everything in high-vis jackets, flashing lights and warning notices is going to solve the world's problems ?
Yes but.... what good is a strobe/light in the fog/cloud ?
As I said earlier, the diffused light will do nothing to help an already disorientated pilot.
As I said earlier, the diffused light will do nothing to help an already disorientated pilot.
Last edited by Pace; 18th Jan 2013 at 13:34.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your argument holds true why bother with high intensity lighting on top of buildings like Canary Wharf far easier to see than a pencil thin crane towering into the clouds above it?
So what happens when the extra hole in the cheese lines up, and the battery fails, or the xenon tube blows, or the wind takes the antenna off the transponder, or whatever? Accident still happens.
2) We're potentially talking about a scud-running scenario here..... what good are flashing lights during scud-running where cloud/fog cover is ever changing and you've basically already put yourself (accidentally or otherwise) into a situation where there's no obvious route out because the weather has trapped you in.
Surely the safest thing to do in that context, particularly if you are in a helicopter is just to stop and put it down in the nearest safest spot...... isn't that one of the main benefits of a heli ?
Last edited by mixture; 18th Jan 2013 at 13:35.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the safest thing to do in that context, particularly if you are in a helicopter is just to stop and put it down in the nearest safest spot...... isn't that one of the main benefits of a heli ?