Helicopter Crash Central London
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously, has anyone here used lights while flying professionally for collision avoidance?
"Seriously, has anyone here used lights while flying professionally,during daylight hours, for collision avoidance?"
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would stobes and lights have helped? From an aviation life from the age of five, I don't remember anyone telling me about the time they avoided an obstruction because they saw a light. Has anyone here?
because a pilot doesn't yank the yoke hard into his chest, yelling 'yeehaw! missed that one!' doesn't mean he isn't responding to visual cues
by your postulation then regulatory authorities the world over are wrong with regulatory practises, which have evolved of the years by way of learning through past incidents and tombstone progress, that require obstructions to flight be marked with high intensity lights and you are right.
FAR-AIM Section 2 Air Navigation and Obstruction Lighting.
-2-3. Obstruction Lights
a. Obstructions are marked/lighted to warn airmen of their presence during daytime and nighttime conditions. They may be marked/lighted in any of the following combinations:
1. Aviation Red Obstruction Lights. Flashing aviation red beacons (20 to 40 flashes per minute) and steady burning aviation red lights during nighttime operation. Aviation orange and white paint is used for daytime marking.
2. Medium Intensity Flashing White Obstruction Lights. Medium intensity flashing white obstruction lights may be used during daytime and twilight with automatically selected reduced intensity for nighttime operation. When this system is used on structures 500 feet (153m) AGL or less in height, other methods of marking and lighting the structure may be omitted. Aviation orange and white paint is always required for daytime marking on structures exceeding 500 feet (153m) AGL. This system is not normally installed on structures less than 200 feet (61m) AGL.
3. High Intensity White Obstruction Lights.Flashing high intensity white lights during daytime with reduced intensity for twilight and nighttime operation. When this type system is used, the marking of structures with red obstruction lights and aviation orange and white paint may be omitted.
4. Dual Lighting. A combination of flashing aviation red beacons and steady burning aviation red lights for nighttime operation and flashing high intensity white lights for daytime operation. Aviation orange and white paint may be omitted.
5. Catenary Lighting. Lighted markers are available for increased night conspicuity of high-voltage (69KV or higher) transmission line catenary wires. Lighted markers provide conspicuity both day and night.
b. Medium intensity omnidirectional flashing white lighting system provides conspicuity both day and night on catenary support structures. The unique sequential/simultaneous flashing light system alerts pilots of the associated catenary wires.
c. High intensity flashing white lights are being used to identify some supporting structures of overhead transmission lines located across rivers, chasms, gorges, etc. These lights flash in a middle, top, lower light sequence at approximately 60 flashes per minute. The top light is normally installed near the top of the supporting structure, while the lower light indicates the approximate lower portion of the wire span. The lights are beamed towards the companion structure and identify the area of the wire span.
d. High intensity flashing white lights are also employed to identify tall structures, such as chimneys and towers, as obstructions to air navigation. The lights provide a 360 degree coverage about the structure at 40 flashes per minute and consist of from one to seven levels of lights depending upon the height of the structure. Where more than one level is used the vertical banks flash simultaneously.
-2-3. Obstruction Lights
a. Obstructions are marked/lighted to warn airmen of their presence during daytime and nighttime conditions. They may be marked/lighted in any of the following combinations:
1. Aviation Red Obstruction Lights. Flashing aviation red beacons (20 to 40 flashes per minute) and steady burning aviation red lights during nighttime operation. Aviation orange and white paint is used for daytime marking.
2. Medium Intensity Flashing White Obstruction Lights. Medium intensity flashing white obstruction lights may be used during daytime and twilight with automatically selected reduced intensity for nighttime operation. When this system is used on structures 500 feet (153m) AGL or less in height, other methods of marking and lighting the structure may be omitted. Aviation orange and white paint is always required for daytime marking on structures exceeding 500 feet (153m) AGL. This system is not normally installed on structures less than 200 feet (61m) AGL.
3. High Intensity White Obstruction Lights.Flashing high intensity white lights during daytime with reduced intensity for twilight and nighttime operation. When this type system is used, the marking of structures with red obstruction lights and aviation orange and white paint may be omitted.
4. Dual Lighting. A combination of flashing aviation red beacons and steady burning aviation red lights for nighttime operation and flashing high intensity white lights for daytime operation. Aviation orange and white paint may be omitted.
5. Catenary Lighting. Lighted markers are available for increased night conspicuity of high-voltage (69KV or higher) transmission line catenary wires. Lighted markers provide conspicuity both day and night.
b. Medium intensity omnidirectional flashing white lighting system provides conspicuity both day and night on catenary support structures. The unique sequential/simultaneous flashing light system alerts pilots of the associated catenary wires.
c. High intensity flashing white lights are being used to identify some supporting structures of overhead transmission lines located across rivers, chasms, gorges, etc. These lights flash in a middle, top, lower light sequence at approximately 60 flashes per minute. The top light is normally installed near the top of the supporting structure, while the lower light indicates the approximate lower portion of the wire span. The lights are beamed towards the companion structure and identify the area of the wire span.
d. High intensity flashing white lights are also employed to identify tall structures, such as chimneys and towers, as obstructions to air navigation. The lights provide a 360 degree coverage about the structure at 40 flashes per minute and consist of from one to seven levels of lights depending upon the height of the structure. Where more than one level is used the vertical banks flash simultaneously.
2-2-1. Aeronautical Light Beacons
a. An aeronautical light beacon is a visual NAVAID displaying flashes of white and/or colored light to indicate the location of an airport, a heliport, a landmark, a certain point of a Federal airway in mountainous terrain, or an obstruction. The light used may be a rotating beacon or one or more flashing lights. The flashing lights may be supplemented by steady burning lights of lesser intensity. b. The color or color combination displayed by a particular beacon and/or its auxiliary lights tell whether the beacon is indicating a landing place, landmark, point of the Federal airways, or an obstruction. Coded flashes of the auxiliary lights, if employed, further identify the beacon site.
would lighting in use on the crane at the time of the incident, prevented the impact ? maybe, maybe not. but the cost of a couple hundred quid light on couple hundred thousand pound crane would be prudent in preventative measures and it's onle less hole in the swiss cheese.
Last edited by stuckgear; 18th Jan 2013 at 15:30.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Seriously, has anyone here used lights while flying professionally,during daylight hours, for collision avoidance?"
For collision with what ?? We use lights for collision purposes all the time!
Flying in any low visibility high intensity lights are a must!
Coming out of cloud on minimum RVR high intensity lights are a must have!
Every time I get a clearance to enter and line up on go the strobes!
Lights in poor visibility not just night are a way of alerting the pilot to a Hazard in all the gloom even buildings or structures which are in our airspace!
Hence why the authorities regulate for their use!
When you are struggling to see in the gloom especially with the thin arm of a Crane painted grey blending into the gloomy grey background intensity lighting will leap out and warn you!
Sadly this poor pilot saw nothing until the bang and the seconds he had to realize that as the ground hurtled up at him.
Whether PB had a mechanical problem or made a tiny error he paid a high price which could have been avoided had that arm been fitted with intensity lighting.
Last edited by Pace; 18th Jan 2013 at 16:15.
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
ShyTorque
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.
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.
Certain masts, tall pylons etc on the continent use strobe attention getters for aviators and very well they work. Couple with steady lighting they can be seen in very poor weather conditions.
For what it's worth, I comment from the point of view of at least some relevant rotary wing experience. I was quite well acquainted with the sadly deceased PB and I have been doing the same job, albeit for a decade longer than himself. Within two hours of the accident I had received a number of phone calls from people within the business, checking it wasn't myself involved. I'd been in touch with a number of others, to confirm same. It was that close to home.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 18th Jan 2013 at 15:59.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would of thought that Thames Radar (or whoever he was working) might have seen him on radar close to the obstacle- and warned him.
I'm not sayingthat they are responsible for doing that, but they are very sharp and I doubt there was much else going on especially as nothing landed at LCY until late morning due to the grotty wx.
I'm not sayingthat they are responsible for doing that, but they are very sharp and I doubt there was much else going on especially as nothing landed at LCY until late morning due to the grotty wx.
Two things will be known already - track and estimated speed at impact from the wreckage trail. There is a good possibility that altitude (but not height and track) could be established over the flight.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite sure who posted the snip below....
We need to challenge old customs and practices from time to time to see if they are still appropriate. I'm not saying that we should not light structures, or, come to that, that we should. In the marine world vast numbers of buoys and lights have gone. They were becoming a hazard as so many drifted off or went u/s and a mark that 'disappears' is more of a danger than a help.
Suppose we discovered aviation today, in 2013, with our present nav tech, would we stick lamps on all tall things? What, where, by whom, why? This problem of information overload bothers me. When lights of the kind we have today were first proscribed we had limited panels and if we were lucky a radio. Today we have something that makes an X-Box look like a toy.
I don't suppose I'd challenge runway lights, VASIs or specific oddball markers but do we really need lamps all over the place? We certainly don't need them for nav (at least, not in professional aviation) and the Garmin has replaced the eyeball for much private/light aviation. If we removed 99% of the lights then what's left would stand out as something to note, not just yet another lamp.
Maybe it depends on the region; in high density highly-developed regions it's one story, over rural, or desert it's another. And then if you have different rules for different circumstances, how does the pilot know what to look for? Dunno, I just put the question on the table to chew over.
How do you know? Have you ever encountered such a situation?
Certain masts, tall pylons etc on the continent use strobe attention getters for aviators and very well they work. Couple with steady lighting they can be seen in very poor weather conditions.
Certain masts, tall pylons etc on the continent use strobe attention getters for aviators and very well they work. Couple with steady lighting they can be seen in very poor weather conditions.
Suppose we discovered aviation today, in 2013, with our present nav tech, would we stick lamps on all tall things? What, where, by whom, why? This problem of information overload bothers me. When lights of the kind we have today were first proscribed we had limited panels and if we were lucky a radio. Today we have something that makes an X-Box look like a toy.
I don't suppose I'd challenge runway lights, VASIs or specific oddball markers but do we really need lamps all over the place? We certainly don't need them for nav (at least, not in professional aviation) and the Garmin has replaced the eyeball for much private/light aviation. If we removed 99% of the lights then what's left would stand out as something to note, not just yet another lamp.
Maybe it depends on the region; in high density highly-developed regions it's one story, over rural, or desert it's another. And then if you have different rules for different circumstances, how does the pilot know what to look for? Dunno, I just put the question on the table to chew over.
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
Strikes me - and I may be very naive - that the nice thing about flying a helicopter is that you can 'stop' and hang around in one place for a bit while you contact ATC / wait thirty seconds for mist to clear / check a map. Or is there a fuel penalty for hovering? Increased workload when holding station? Is it just not done to hover in a lane?
I'm still puzzled as to why the a/c seems to have been approaching from the east -when the original flightpath must surely have taken it well to the west of London - and why the pilot did not contact Battersea control. If he didn't have time to communicate, suggests he was too busy aviating?
I'm still puzzled as to why the a/c seems to have been approaching from the east -when the original flightpath must surely have taken it well to the west of London - and why the pilot did not contact Battersea control. If he didn't have time to communicate, suggests he was too busy aviating?
The relevant part about your first statement about "stopping". Hovering at altitude (outside ground effect) needs good visual references, full concentration with both hands on the controls, and considerably more power than slow flight. It's seldom done in good weather, let alone poor visibility, if flying from A to B. Police or other observation aircraft excepted, they need to stay in one place for over-riding reasons of the task in hand.
From the evidence already in the public domain, it appears that PB was flying a commonly used entry route to Battersea. He would have been directed to use that route because he would have been under radar control until he reported his position at, or in sight of, Vauxhall Bridge, a compulsory reporting point.
On reaching Vauxhall Bridge, he would have been required to turn almost 90 degrees right to fly westbound along the Thames, i.e. along helicopter route H4, to reach Battersea Heliport.
At that point, the normal thing is to be directed to change frequency to Battersea Tower because that is the eastern boundary of their ATZ and they control that airspace. It's not unusual to be given a maximum altitude of 1000 feet QNH at that point, because of other traffic above, descending onto the ILS at City Airport.
Just south of that point is the 770 foot high (slightly less now) building/ crane.
It seems to me there was nothing unusual about the circumstances leading up to the accident, apart from the deteriorating weather conditions.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 18th Jan 2013 at 16:30. Reason: typo
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe it depends on the region; in high density highly-developed regions it's one story, over rural, or desert it's another. And then if you have different rules for different circumstances, how does the pilot know what to look for? Dunno, I just put the question on the table to chew over.
this isn't rocket surgery.. over decades and incidents and accidents, and like i said tombstone progression, shoving a light on an obstruction provides an additional layer of safety margin.
we don need to re-invent the wheen, look at GPS mapping programming and updates, big cost solutions which can be resolved by a simple process.
obstruction tough to see; shove a light on it.
a tower crane costs i should think upwards of of a couple of hundred thousand pounds.. a couple of hundred quid in lighting isn't going flatline the economy.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The relevant part about your first statement about "stopping". Hovering at altitude (outside ground effect) needs good visual references, full concentration with both hands on the controls, and considerably more power than slow flight. It's seldom done in good weather, let alone poor visibility, if flying from A to B. Police or other observation aircraft excepted, they need to stay in one place for over-riding reasons of the task in hand.
i would hazard a guess, from my knowledge in fixed wing, that an airmass in which a heli is in hover can also be moving.. so while 'stationary' in the air it can be moving relative to the ground. hence the need for visual cues relative to the surrounding area.
BOAC #256
One great mind and my lesser one obviously think alike! That is exactly what I insisted on. Found a big, open, flat, uninhabited sports field on an island in the Zuider Zee and a nice man in a white coat came out and pointed out on the map where we were. All's well then ... not quite
. When we taxied in at Valkenburg, we were told to report to Ops immediately. There we were informed that our chosen en-route 'stop' was the Dutch Foot and Mouth Research Establishment!!
UK Min of Ag and Fish (as it then was) were 'interested' but NOT in a caring way!! Next day, things got worse
- yes, really.
Lessons learned? - of course.
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!!
. 400 yds from a mast with guy wires.....hmm!!
. When we taxied in at Valkenburg, we were told to report to Ops immediately. There we were informed that our chosen en-route 'stop' was the Dutch Foot and Mouth Research Establishment!! UK Min of Ag and Fish (as it then was) were 'interested' but NOT in a caring way!! Next day, things got worse - yes, really.Lessons learned? - of course.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe this might work: Obstacle Collision Avoidance System
It is used on large power lines in Norway, at the long valley/fjord crossings.
The system works, but they originally intended to broadcast the audio warning on the VHF carrier wave somehow, in order to reach all aircraft no matter what freq they are on.
No wonder, it got sh**canned by the Norwegian CAA, interference issues.
But the biggest issue: If the notams are anything to go by, they go U/S a LOT!
It is used on large power lines in Norway, at the long valley/fjord crossings.
The system works, but they originally intended to broadcast the audio warning on the VHF carrier wave somehow, in order to reach all aircraft no matter what freq they are on.
No wonder, it got sh**canned by the Norwegian CAA, interference issues.
But the biggest issue: If the notams are anything to go by, they go U/S a LOT!
I would of thought that Thames Radar (or whoever he was working) might have seen him on radar close to the obstacle- and warned him.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
obstruction tough to see; shove a light on it.
a tower crane costs i should think upwards of of a couple of hundred thousand pounds.. a couple of hundred quid in lighting isn't going flatline the economy.
a tower crane costs i should think upwards of of a couple of hundred thousand pounds.. a couple of hundred quid in lighting isn't going flatline the economy.
Sir Humphrey Appleby would agree with you..."shove a light on it". Job, and jobs for lots of boys. But would it improve aviation safety?
I really don't know. It's a discussion but a discussion that needs a lot of thought and considered debate from experience people. At this stage I don't think we ought to 'shove' anything anywhere other than preconceptions and ancient rules in the melting pot.
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
Lemain,
To answer your question about lighting (if you read the post in full you should see it was me who posted your quote).
Do we need structures to be well lit? A resounding YES!
Not for navigation but for collision avoidance purposes. We also need to be able to comply with the 500 foot rule, so objects like crane jibs should be better lit than they presently seem to be in London. Maybe the ones over 500 feet high (or less, where helicopters are required to operate at below 1,000 feet) should be given special consideration with regard to being made more visible, for the safety of everyone.
Helicopters operating in the LHR and or City zones, in order to operate to and from London Heliport (Battersea), a VFR only location are required to be flown under SVFR / VFR as appropriate. This involves the principle of see and avoid. If you can't see, it's possible you won't avoid, irrespective of how good your navigation kit is.
To answer your question about lighting (if you read the post in full you should see it was me who posted your quote).
Do we need structures to be well lit? A resounding YES!
Not for navigation but for collision avoidance purposes. We also need to be able to comply with the 500 foot rule, so objects like crane jibs should be better lit than they presently seem to be in London. Maybe the ones over 500 feet high (or less, where helicopters are required to operate at below 1,000 feet) should be given special consideration with regard to being made more visible, for the safety of everyone.
Helicopters operating in the LHR and or City zones, in order to operate to and from London Heliport (Battersea), a VFR only location are required to be flown under SVFR / VFR as appropriate. This involves the principle of see and avoid. If you can't see, it's possible you won't avoid, irrespective of how good your navigation kit is.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Greenwich
Age: 35
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a totally irrelevant question. But having gone through and indeed commented several times. I don't see the following question asked. By all accounts the heli did not declare an emergency, so considering he heliport is perhaps a 1/4 mile away? The controller would have seen both visually and by looking at the metar that the weather was not suitable. Do they bear any 'responsibility' for accepting the inbound as opposed to advising heathrow there were perhaps better alternatives due to deteriorating weather?
By responsibility I am not portioning blame at all. I mean are they obliged to relay weather info with a known inbound and bad weather? Again I understand that it is down to the pilot to choose (a divert won't be 'given' to him) but surely battersea heliport would have known or at least seen the weather.
Strikes me as odd that heathrow passed him to battersea but he never made contact. No reports of battersea trying to make that contact either. If you know of a heli diverting to your field because of conditions not suitable for flight along his current route, And you can also see your weather is not great in the atz you control. Would you not make the effort to establish the contact? And make sure all is ok?
Again not putting the onus on anyone. Just an observation
By responsibility I am not portioning blame at all. I mean are they obliged to relay weather info with a known inbound and bad weather? Again I understand that it is down to the pilot to choose (a divert won't be 'given' to him) but surely battersea heliport would have known or at least seen the weather.
Strikes me as odd that heathrow passed him to battersea but he never made contact. No reports of battersea trying to make that contact either. If you know of a heli diverting to your field because of conditions not suitable for flight along his current route, And you can also see your weather is not great in the atz you control. Would you not make the effort to establish the contact? And make sure all is ok?
Again not putting the onus on anyone. Just an observation
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Bucuresti
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopters operating in the LHR and or City zones, in order to operate to and from London Heliport (Battersea), a VFR only location are required to be flown under SVFR / VFR as appropriate. This involves the principle of see and avoid. If you can't see, it's possible you won't avoid, irrespective of how good your navigation kit is.
If the only things that can penetrate the gloom are high intensity beacons, then you cannot 'see' by any practical definition of the word, and you shouldn't be up there.