Helicopter Crash Central London

[Lemain]

Pace -- Yup, has become a bit convoluted, sorry if my contribution hasn't helped.

Lemain

To be honest I have not got a clue what point you are trying to make?
Can you put your argument in a few clear words?

Pace

I don't think that lighting or the lack of it was in any way a factor in this tragedy. I don't think that adding more lighting in urban areas will improve safety, I think it'll do the opposite.

[Pace]

Lemain

Again I ask you to put in plain English your point in this discussion regarding a terrible accident with a Helicopter Hitting an extension off a Crane which was invisible to him.
All this talk about lights on aircraft flying towards you is absolute nonsense

[Lemain]

Pace --

Again I ask you to put in plain English your point in this discussion regarding a terrible accident with a Helicopter Hitting an extension off a Crane which was invisible to him.
All this talk about lights on aircraft flying towards you is absolute nonsense

Did that cross-post with mine above, timed 2050?

[sAx_R54]

@ShyTorque

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.

Thanks, quite possibly how the accident was instigated.

[Pace]

Lemain

The only thing we know for sure is that the lack of lighting did not work as the poor pilot hit a Crane extension which he did not see!
Forget distant lighting see a high intensity light at close quarters and you will Damn well know its not floating in the air but attached to something hard!

Yes it did cross post!

[stuckgear]

Stuckgear -- That's a big long post with lots of re-posting.

1. Please, feel free to read it at leisure.

2. I reposted it because it's clear you didnt read it the first time, and you've come back again with a question which makes it clear you didn't read it the second time either.

I'm happy to come back to any point you want to discuss but may I please focus, just now, on how 'you', the oncoming pilot, will notice my existence? Or the existence of a crane or a building?

3. see post we are referencing.

For me it tends to be flashing or occulting lights. Solids are good for orientation and identification but they are very easy to miss, especially in the air. Less so at sea, oddly.

4. see point 3.

So what do you think about flashing lights?

5. see point 4

And the rules?

6. see point 5.

And do you immediately turn right?

7. see point 2

[Lemain]

Pace --

The only thing we know for sure is that the lack of lighting did not work as the poor pilot hit a Crane extension which he did not see!
Forget distant lighting see a high intensity light at close quarters and you will Damn well know its not floating in the air but attached to something hard!

I am sure that we both share the wish to avoid such a thing happening again, as well as making sure that we don't end up in a similar situation ourselves. We share the same interests. The longer I fly and sail (and drive, come to that) the more I feel that lights should be reduced - not increased. I don't mean 'no lights', I mean fewer lights and lights where lights should be.

Disagreement and debate are healthy and it's good to listen to conflicting opinions.

I doubt whether lighting of any kind on a jib in fog or low cloud would have prevented this tragedy. The aircraft was moving. The crane was fixed and NOTAM'd. The aircraft was in the wrong place, not the crane. If the crane was in fog no lighting would have helped.

[A310bcal]

Having spent a lot of time reading all that has been written on this very sad event, something that keeps "bugging" me is a question which has only partly been answered on the subject of helicopter flight in icing conditions. It seemed to me from reading all the reports and also METARs that with temperatures of minus 3 all around and PLENTY of visible moisture, that rotor and airframe icing would be a relevant and possible hazard? Am I wrong in assuming this, certainly in all my years of fixed wing ops, we would consider such conditions as very conducive to all types of icing (powerplant and airframe )?

Speculating as to why the heli was diverting ( due weather i believe ), perhaps the prolonged flight to Elstree ,which as the crow flies is barely 30 miles from Redhill , could have started ice accretion; "land at nearest suitable airfield" springs to mind...get the thing on the ground asap...very high workload....Many query the fact that Capt Barnes was VERY experienced and thus unlikely to be careless in his operation...so....incapacitation as the workload reached very high levels in the final stages of the diversion?
Yes, I know that the AAIB will produce a comprehensive report, but as in the sad case of Flt Lt Egging ( Red 4 ) the final report really never came up with a reason , just what MIGHT have happened

As some have already hinted, the real truth may prove highly elusive.

[Lemain]

Forget distant lighting see a high intensity light at close quarters and you will Damn well know its not floating in the air but attached to something hard!

Thankfully I've never been that close in the air, in bad viz or night. I have at sea, many times. An unexpected 'out of the blue' light is a "What the f*....?" moment. It is heart-stopping. Your jaw drops while your brain engages....with nothing but a light you don't know what you have on your hands. It's easy enough in an exam...red/green... but life isn't always like that. Until you get a bearing and assess the relative motion a light means nothing other than shock and horror.

Suppose he had seen the jib, lit, in the gloom, what colour would the light have *appeared* to be? The pilot obviously didn't expect it to be a crane - obviously or he wouldn't have been there!. Do you turn right, left, climb,...?

The AAIB will go through all this...but discussion is what forums are about, so we discuss...

[stuckgear]

I doubt whether lighting of any kind on a jib in fog or low cloud would have prevented this tragedy. The aircraft was moving. The crane was fixed and NOTAM'd. The aircraft was in the wrong place, not the crane. If the crane was in fog no lighting would have helped.

ICAO Annex 14 Chaper 6

CHAPTER 6. VISUAL AIDS FOR DENOTING OBSTACLES
6.1 Objects to be marked and/or lighted
Note.C The marking and/or lighting of obstacles is intended to reduce hazards to aircraft by indicating the presence
of the obstacles. It does not necessarily reduce operating limitations which may be imposed by an obstacle.

6.2 Marking of objects
General
6.2.1 All fixed objects to be marked shall, whenever practicable, be coloured, but if this is not practicable, markers
or flags shall be displayed on or above them, except that objects that are sufficiently conspicuous by their shape, size or colour
need not be otherwise marked.
6.2.2 All mobile objects to be marked shall be coloured or display flags.
Use of colours
6.2.3 An object shall be coloured to show a chequered pattern if it has essentially unbroken surfaces and its
projection on any vertical plane equals or exceeds 4.5 m in both dimensions. The pattern shall consist of rectangles of not less

than 1.5 m and not more than 3 m on a side, the corners being of the darker colour. The colours of the pattern shall contrast

each with the other and with the background against which they will be seen. Orange and white or alternatively red and white

shall be used, except where such colours merge with the background.

6.3 Lighting of objects
Use of obstacle lights
6.3.1 The presence of objects which must be lighted, as specified in 6.1, shall be indicated by low-, medium- or
high-intensity obstacle lights, or a combination of such lights.
Note.C High-intensity obstacle lights are intended for day use as well as night use. Care is needed to ensure that

these lights do not create disconcerting dazzle. Guidance on the design, location and operation of high-intensity obstacle.

6.3.8 High-intensity obstacle lights, Type A, shall be used to indicate the presence of an object if its height above
the level of the surrounding ground exceeds 150 m and an aeronautical study indicates such lights to be essential for the
recognition of the object by day.
6.3.9 High-intensity obstacle lights, Type B, shall be used to indicate the presence of a tower supporting overhead
wires, cables, etc., where:
a) an aeronautical study indicates such lights to be essential for the recognition of the presence of wires,
cables, etc.; or
b) it has not been found practicable to install markers on the wires, cables, etc.
6.3.10 Where, in the opinion of the CAA, the use of high-intensity obstacle lights, Type A or B, or
medium-intensity obstacle lights, Type A, at night may dazzle pilots in the vicinity of an aerodrome (within approximately
10 000 m radius) or cause significant environmental concerns, a dual obstacle lighting system shall be provided. This system
shall be composed of high-intensity obstacle lights, Type A or B, or medium- intensity obstacle lights, Type A, as appropriate,

for daytime and twilight use and medium-intensity obstacle lights, Type B or C, for night-time use.

6.3.11 One or more low-, medium- or high-intensity obstacle lights shall be located as close as practicable to the top
of the object. The top lights shall be so arranged as to at least indicate the points or edges of the object highest in relation to the
obstacle limitation surface.
6.3.12 In the case of chimney or other structure of like function, the top lights shall be placed sufficiently below

the top so as to minimize contamination by smoke etc.

6.3.13 In the case of a tower or antenna structure indicated by high-intensity obstacle lights by day with an
appurtenance, such as a rod or an antenna, greater than 12 m where it is not practicable to locate a high-intensity obstacle light
on the top of the appurtenance, such a light shall be located at the highest practicable point and, if practicable, a
medium-intensity obstacle light, Type A, mounted on the top.
6.3.14 In the case of an extensive object or of a group of closely spaced objects, top lights shall be displayed at least
on the points or edges of the objects highest in relation to the obstacle limitation surface, so as to indicate the general definition
and the extent of the objects. If two or more edges are of the same height, the edge nearest the landing area shall be marked.
Where low-intensity lights are used, they shall be spaced at longitudinal intervals not exceeding 45 m. Where medium-intensity

lights are used, they shall be spaced at longitudinal intervals not exceeding 900 m.

and so on and so one descripting various light usage in intensity etc etc.

[Pace]

Mixture

I would not disagree with what you have written other than one point !
I do not believe PB would have felt he was in a situation which required a precautionary landing and hence never attempted one ?
He probably felt all was ok until a building / Crane appeared in his vision! He would have taken evasive action not realising that off the main Crane structure was another structure hidden in cloud !

[stuckgear]

I would be curious to know how many multi-thousand hour heli pilots would seriously be willing to do a precautionary landing due to the weather closing in around them making it somewhat precarious to press on further due to impending obstacles.

I suspect many would probably only do a precautionary if forced to do so by mechanical failure and would much rather use their "experience" to do some scud-running of a questionable nature on the basis that "you've flown round these parts a million times before and know them like the back of your hand".

well, no. you are mixing and matching to suit an argument.

there is a world of difference between dumping a heli down in Hyde Park, because the weather is a tad dicky and a forced landing due to engine failure.

heli's dont have much in their aerodynamic structer that leaves marging for error, damaged main rotor blade? the thing is going to came apart very quickly and the souls on board are passengers.

lose a tail and the souls on baord on are just passengers lose a rblade off the tail rotor, the souls on board are just passengers.

in terms of engine falure, that is *why* single and and twin engine are differentiated in operational ability.


in terms of the precautionary due weather.. well a single perhaps a stream of cirrus to one pilot may be cause for a precautionary to another, not.

you are throwing away a great safety asset that helicopters hold over fixed wings.

wrong. heli's operational assets are the abilities to be used in locations where runway provisions are not possible, like urban areas, or offshore installations. certain helis have the capacity for a considerable range allowing city pairs or longer sectors between offshore installations to be undertaken.

I might be wrong, but the problem is that its only human nature that with experience comes confidence, and its only human nature that people tend to err on the side of over-confidence and are unwilling to accept what might be seen as defeat.

and again as before,this is what i take issue with. you do not seem to be a commercially rated pilot, yet you lay at the Late Peter Barnes feet that he was overconfident due to his experience.

you are not a pilot, you were not there, you do not know the situations or circumstances that resulted in the accident, so stop making conjecture against someone who is not here to defend himself when cause and circumstance has not even been established by AAIB.

[Pelikal]

Please forgive this intrusion but what was the purpose of his flight?

[overthewing]

Your understanding of how helicopters are operated is flawed, in a number of ways, I'm afraid.

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....l.

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.....


It seems to me there was nothing unusual about the circumstances leading up to the accident, apart from the deteriorating weather conditions.

Thanks very much for this clarification, ShyTorque. It explains a lot about which I was clueless.

It does suggest that central London should not be used by helicopter traffic unless there's good visibility?

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by Cornish Jack

Next day, things got worse - yes, really

- sorry - just seen your post. What happened - you got F&M?

[stuckgear]

stuckgear -- You've posted the rules. What point are you making either regarding this tragedy or the more general discussion? Are you saying that the obstruction was not marked in the proscribed manner? Are you saying that marking and lighting was or might have been a contributory factor? I don't really know which point on the rules you are asking me to comment on (yes, I see you've highlighted in red but I am still missing the point). Let me know and I'll get back to you

Lemain, i am not asking you to comment on anything, you have postulated that lighting of obstructions to air traffic is null and void.

im pointing out to you and others, that aviation authorities, the world over, disagree and stipulate lighting of structures and obstructions as they do cause hazard to air traffic.

they are simply not doing it for $hits and giggles, they do it becuase lighting structures and obstructions to air traffic prevents accidents, provides an additional level of safety margin and is the result of painful lessons learned in the past.

if you want to take on existential theologies into aircraft impact of objects then pop on down to JB.

But was the structure 'really' there?

yes it was, the heli hit it, it was unlit at the time.

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by Pace

High intensity lighting is very visible in fog !
Fog is just cloud or visible moisture! As you know when you drive in fog the visibility in bad fog is probably 50 to 200 meters! Would you drive in fog towards cars with no lights on ?

Ever flown formation in clouds/fog ? Or looked at the wing on a commersial jet inside a cloud ?
When you drive the car 'under' the fog you could have 200m of 'RVR' visibility. Inside it could go way below.
There would be needed to have a lot of lights to cover a single crane, they would need to sit very close. Even then, most people doesnt flyies IMC below a safe speed for the heli or fixed wing(= at least 60knots). There will be no time to react and avoid hitting when you see the light.

We had ceiling about 200' yesterday. It covered only the top (5-10meters) of the nearest GSM/3G mast to my house. Still couldnt se the red light, about 500m from my home. When I drove by the mast I looked up for the light, it was there(lit) but I barely saw it from about 150m distance. Notice that this wasn't 150m through clouds but line of sight was about 130m below clouds and perhaps 20m diagonally through the cloud. Noticed this due to the fact that the mast was all covered with ice and frost and was almost impossible to se even below the ceiling. That's where I fly for most of the days when its below zero in the clouds.

[Rail Engineer]

Originally Posted by pelikal

Please forgive this intrusion but what was the purpose of his flight?

A private charter by Sir David Tang

[pilot and apprentice]

Mixture:

Quote:
The reality is that, if one were to just "put it down" in downtown London, their @ss would be (the proverbial) grass.
Ok, putting the geographical context of London aside for a minute because that's a topic that could be debated in its own right until the cows come home....

(Just to stress before continuing, the following is not aiming to draw any parallels with the late Mr Barnes.... I'm going to sit patiently for the AAIB report. I am strictly talking in a general tone here, and not looking to draw any parallels with recent events).

I would be curious to know how many multi-thousand hour heli pilots would seriously be willing to do a precautionary landing due to the weather closing in around them making it somewhat precarious to press on further due to impending obstacles.

I suspect many would probably only do a precautionary if forced to do so by mechanical failure and would much rather use their "experience" to do some scud-running of a questionable nature on the basis that "you've flown round these parts a million times before and know them like the back of your hand".

It seems to me that by refusing to contemplate a precautionary, you are throwing away a great safety asset that helicopters hold over fixed wings. That is the relative ease at which you can set them down on a small footprint.

I might be wrong, but the problem is that its only human nature that with experience comes confidence, and its only human nature that people tend to err on the side of over-confidence and are unwilling to accept what might be seen as defeat.

Actually, my reply directly related to this context.

The context affects the decision to "divert to landing". To ignore context is to engineer a problem to fit the desired solution.

The general tone of my post was directed toward the (in my opinion uninformed) general concensus in this thread that a landing in London would be no big deal and hence an 'easy' decision. It is anything but!

"...scud-running of a questionable nature..." for a PPL-H may very well be just another day at the office for an experienced CPL/ATPL-H. Again, context and preconceived judgement.

I believe the opposite is true, most well experienced rotary pilots consider the 'divert to land' often and when it works out noone hears about it. What the layman often does not realize is that there are a myriad of consequences to making that decision, depending on the context, and many cannot be accepted lightly.

And, as you said, we are no longer talking about the incident at hand in any way.

[stuckgear]

A private charter by Sir David Tang

was one report and another..

Helicopter crash: pilot was picking up owner of Ivy restaurant - Telegraph

Tycoon Richard Caring, 62, was waiting at Elstree airport in Hertfordshire and was said to be completely unaware that the aircraft had diverted to Battersea heliport because of the bad weather.

Mr Caring told the Daily Mail that he has been left devastated by the death of Mr Barnes, who he described as a “very dear friend”.

The millionaire businessman, who owns Wentworth golf course, The Ivy restaurant and Annabel's nightclub, regularly uses helicopters to fly him from London to his Exmoor shooting estate and on working trips.

He is reported to have flown with Mr Barnes many times and was waiting for him to take him to Yorkshire on business on the day of the accident.
Father-of-two Mr Caring, of Hampstead Heath, London, said: “I flew with Pete Barnes for many years. He was a very dear friend and a very accomplished pilot. My thoughts and prayers are with his family during this awful time. I am devastated for their loss.”
He had arrived at Elstree in good time and despite the bad weather he had no idea that Mr Barnes, who he had spoken to earlier in the day, had decided to change his route, it is reported.
Friends of the businessman claimed that he was struggling to come to terms with the tragedy.