Helicopter Crash Central London
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Bucuresti
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
For one, they specify in great detail what lights should look like. They're rather vague on what should be lit.
Lighting a small number of structures in particularly high profile areas (e.g. the vicinity of airfields, on major flightpaths,) makes sense, but that's a long way from mandating lights on every building in London.
(I note, incidentally, that ICAO Annex 14 Chapter 6 is entitled Aerodrome Standards - not Major Conurbation Standards.)
More important though is this - none of your quotes actually details why obstacles should be lit.
I would contend this: The aviation authorities do not envisage lighting obstacles as reasonable mitigation to permit VFR in IMC.
Lighting obstacles seems of dubious merit in fog at best. At night, or during the day, the light may usefully draw attention to an object that you can then focus on and determine the appropriate response to.
In fog, on the other hand, all it does is provide a point source.
Suppose the jib of the crane is at -45˚ to the vertical (pointing at 10 o'clock effectively.) A point-source light is placed at the tip of it.
It may in fact, be perfectly safe to fly to the left of the point source. Indeed, perversely enough you can get away with going under it too. Fly to the right, on the other hand, and you're toast. (This of course assumes the pilot's spatial orientation is completely in tact as well...)
A point source in fog is not enough to make a rational decision. It may enable you to complete the phrase "oh ****" before you hit the obstacle, but that's about it.
Now you're going to say if you just plaster another dozen lights all over it that problem is solved. The fact that none of the regulations you've posted so far recommends this I consider prima facie evidence that the intent of the regulations you've posted is not to enable visual flight in fog.
Not that I have a problem with putting lights on things, within reason. Knock yourself out. But as a safety feature to enable VFR in fog, it's insanity. And from a safety perspective generally, mandating things that are very difficult to control (installations on third party equipment completely outside the remit of the aviation authorities, that don't even fail safe) are as a general point less good policy than mandating things that are within the control of the aviation authorities - such as required pilot actions or required on-board equipment.
It's a tragic accident; hell, why not stick lights on cranes, it's not going to do much harm. But that's not the cause of the accident, and concentrating on it to the exclusion of all else is just the usual pprune syndrome - when things go well, all aviators are gods of the skies with responsibilities no mortal could possible comprehend, when things go wrong absolutely anything and everything other than the pilot has responsibility - it's either the lighting or the sidesticks or the confusing runway layout or the passengers, whichever idea pops into somebody's head first becomes the go-to thing to fixate on to the exclusion of all else.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Last edited by sAx_R54; 18th Jan 2013 at 22:08.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF..
or, to put it another way:
Obstructions, Lighting and Marking
5.1 The treatment of land-based obstacles to air navigation is covered by existing legislation. Obstacles located close to licensed aerodromes are covered under Section 47 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Government aerodromes are similarly covered under the Town & Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development)
Order 2000. Article 219 of the ANO (2009) details the requirement for the lighting of land-based tall structures located outside of the safeguarded areas of licensed and government aerodromes.
5.2 Onshore Obstacle Lighting Requirement ICAO regulations (Annex 14 Chapter 6) and Article 219 require that structures away from the immediate vicinity of an aerodrome, which have a height of 150 m or more Above Ground Level (AGL) are:
a) fitted with medium intensity steady red lights2, positioned as close as possible to the top of the obstacle3, and also equally spaced at intermediate levels, so far as practicable, between the top lights and ground level with an interval not exceeding
52 m;
5.1 The treatment of land-based obstacles to air navigation is covered by existing legislation. Obstacles located close to licensed aerodromes are covered under Section 47 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Government aerodromes are similarly covered under the Town & Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development)
Order 2000. Article 219 of the ANO (2009) details the requirement for the lighting of land-based tall structures located outside of the safeguarded areas of licensed and government aerodromes.
5.2 Onshore Obstacle Lighting Requirement ICAO regulations (Annex 14 Chapter 6) and Article 219 require that structures away from the immediate vicinity of an aerodrome, which have a height of 150 m or more Above Ground Level (AGL) are:
a) fitted with medium intensity steady red lights2, positioned as close as possible to the top of the obstacle3, and also equally spaced at intermediate levels, so far as practicable, between the top lights and ground level with an interval not exceeding
52 m;
2. 'Medium intensity steady red light' means a light that complies with the characteristics described for a medium intensity type C light as specified in Volume 1 (Aerodrome Design and Operations) of Annex 14 (Third edition November 1999) to the Chicago Convention.
"The law stipulates that buildings of a specific height and as well
as factory chimneys, towers, masts etc. must be equipped with obstruction lights.
This special lighting makes obstacles visible for pilots in the dark or when visibility is poor. Obstruction lighting is one of the in the vicinity of airports most important aspects of flight safety.
as factory chimneys, towers, masts etc. must be equipped with obstruction lights.
This special lighting makes obstacles visible for pilots in the dark or when visibility is poor. Obstruction lighting is one of the in the vicinity of airports most important aspects of flight safety.
The method of marking obstacles to air traffic is laid down by recommendations. These regulations have a clearly defined sphere of influence and are internationally interlinked.
The is a special organisation within the United Nations created to establish and develop universal regulations for safety, continuity and economic efficiency in international air traffic. The recommendations of the ICAO are not directly binding in the member states, but must be transformed by them into the appropriate national legal regulations.
The ICAO regulations regarding the methods of marking and lighting aviation obstacles can be found in ICAO Annex 14."
bleedin' obvious springs to mind.. if it's lit, its errr more visible.
The is a special organisation within the United Nations created to establish and develop universal regulations for safety, continuity and economic efficiency in international air traffic. The recommendations of the ICAO are not directly binding in the member states, but must be transformed by them into the appropriate national legal regulations.
The ICAO regulations regarding the methods of marking and lighting aviation obstacles can be found in ICAO Annex 14."
More important though is this - none of your quotes actually details why obstacles should be lit.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
But that's not the cause of the accident, and concentrating on it to the exclusion of all else is just the usual PPRuNe syndrome - when things go well, all aviators are gods of the skies with responsibilities no mortal could possible comprehend, when things go wrong absolutely anything and everything other than the pilot has responsibility - it's either the lighting or the sidesticks or the confusing runway layout or the passengers, whichever idea pops into somebody's head first becomes the go-to thing to fixate on to the exclusion of all else.
It's nice to know we have experts at hand to tell us how perfect things would be if only they could be a pilot.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLFandProud
Interesting.
Over the 12+ years I've been reading this forum I've frequently thought pilots are far too quick to suggest pilot error when something has gone wrong.
.
the usual PPRuNe syndrome - when things go well, all aviators are gods of the skies with responsibilities no mortal could possible comprehend, when things go wrong absolutely anything and everything other than the pilot has responsibility
Over the 12+ years I've been reading this forum I've frequently thought pilots are far too quick to suggest pilot error when something has gone wrong.
.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingLawyer
Sadly the vast majority of aircraft crashes are pilot error either incorrectly handling a fault on the aircraft or a situation or a combination of both!
It is very rare even to get an accident which is NOT pilot error!
yes it is possible that the pilot experienced a catastrophic failure which caused the aircraft to be where it was and to hit an invisible Crane Arm.
SLF
Wow so you are now suggesting that the aviation authorities regulate on lighting so a VFR pilot can fly below VFR conditions
Regulations concerning the type of lighting on structures over a certain height are governed by the aviation authority not at the whim of a contractor!
Lighting is used to guide or to make hazards more visible in dark or poor light and visibility situations.
That maybe to alert a pilot that he is where he should not be ! in a perfect world pilots would always be where they should be and in conditions that' they are supposed to be in ! Sadly that is not the case and hence why HIGH INTENSITY lights are fitted to structures which are deemed to be a hazard to aircraft!
Sadly the vast majority of aircraft crashes are pilot error either incorrectly handling a fault on the aircraft or a situation or a combination of both!
It is very rare even to get an accident which is NOT pilot error!
yes it is possible that the pilot experienced a catastrophic failure which caused the aircraft to be where it was and to hit an invisible Crane Arm.
SLF
Wow so you are now suggesting that the aviation authorities regulate on lighting so a VFR pilot can fly below VFR conditions
Regulations concerning the type of lighting on structures over a certain height are governed by the aviation authority not at the whim of a contractor!
Lighting is used to guide or to make hazards more visible in dark or poor light and visibility situations.
That maybe to alert a pilot that he is where he should not be ! in a perfect world pilots would always be where they should be and in conditions that' they are supposed to be in ! Sadly that is not the case and hence why HIGH INTENSITY lights are fitted to structures which are deemed to be a hazard to aircraft!
Last edited by Pace; 19th Jan 2013 at 07:16.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy and Stuck...
The end of the jib was equipped with the mandated obstruction light.
It was functional.. I saw it illuminated, admittedly at night, again as required and there are images avaliable that illustrate this.
The NOTAM states the max height of the jib.
What is not clear is if the obstruction light was illuminated at the time of the accident.
Also the CAA had the opportunity to comment on the planning application; any proposal over 150m is referred to them; and they would have provided a formal written response.
The end of the jib was equipped with the mandated obstruction light.
It was functional.. I saw it illuminated, admittedly at night, again as required and there are images avaliable that illustrate this.
The NOTAM states the max height of the jib.
What is not clear is if the obstruction light was illuminated at the time of the accident.
Also the CAA had the opportunity to comment on the planning application; any proposal over 150m is referred to them; and they would have provided a formal written response.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The end of the jib was equipped with the mandated obstruction light.
It was functional.. I saw it illuminated, admittedly at night, again as required and there are images avaliable that illustrate this.
It was functional.. I saw it illuminated, admittedly at night, again as required and there are images avaliable that illustrate this.
The NOTAM states the max height of the jib.
no dispute there
Also the CAA had the opportunity to comment on the planning application any proposal over 150m is referred to them; and they would have provided a formal written response.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAKEE posts from Sweden that the mast only 500 m. from his home was hard to see despite the red light on top. He also says the mast itself was hard to see because it was COVERED WITH ICE AND FROST.
Would any safety lighting installed on prominent objects to improve flight safety be warm enough to melt any covering of ice and frost...
Would any safety lighting installed on prominent objects to improve flight safety be warm enough to melt any covering of ice and frost...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots can't be rebooted.
The crane was attached to a ruddy great building with lights on inside!
Calling for daytime red lights on a crane a hundred feet higher than that ruddy great building is derogating our responsibility as pilots not to smack straight into known structures, or the ground, or whatever else lurks in the murk in places where we shouldn't be.
I agree with what your saying to have Cranes sticking so high and unlighted is ridiculous.
The main body of the Crane would have been visible the even thinner arm would not.
The main body of the Crane would have been visible the even thinner arm would not.
Calling for daytime red lights on a crane a hundred feet higher than that ruddy great building is derogating our responsibility as pilots not to smack straight into known structures, or the ground, or whatever else lurks in the murk in places where we shouldn't be.
Last edited by eltonioni; 19th Jan 2013 at 08:33.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAKEE posts from Sweden that the mast only 500 m. from his home was hard to see despite the red light on top. He also says the mast itself was hard to see because it was COVERED WITH ICE AND FROST.
Would any safety lighting installed on prominent objects to improve flight safety be warm enough to melt any covering of ice and frost...
Would any safety lighting installed on prominent objects to improve flight safety be warm enough to melt any covering of ice and frost...
weather, as we know, changes from place to place and time to time.
Last edited by stuckgear; 19th Jan 2013 at 08:42.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crane was attached to a ruddy great building with lights on inside!
Calling for daytime red lights on a crane a hundred feet higher than that ruddy great building is derogating our responsibility as pilots not to smack straight into known structures, or the ground, or whatever else lurks in the murk in places where we shouldn't be.
your postulation is spurious.
see previous posts regarding intl. applications of lighting. lighting does dont abrogate any responsibility from the pilot it provides another level of safety.
Last edited by stuckgear; 19th Jan 2013 at 08:39.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the building was/is under construction. any lights in use by workmen inside the building at the time are not high intensity lights, illuminating a stucture projecting from the building in very close proximity to a published route used by air traffic.
Which bit of SVFR suggests you need aids to avoid ruddy great buildings with NOTAMs?
Last edited by eltonioni; 19th Jan 2013 at 08:41.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary
AAKEE May not have seen the little red light on top of the mast neither would I see a light I Pick off a Christmas tree
There are lights and there are LIGHTS
High intensity lighting is something Else.
No a red light bulb on the end of a Crane extension arm may not be sufficient either and maybe this is something the CAA need to re examine on high structures in heavily built up and populated areas near flight paths?
AAKEE May not have seen the little red light on top of the mast neither would I see a light I Pick off a Christmas tree
There are lights and there are LIGHTS
High intensity lighting is something Else.
No a red light bulb on the end of a Crane extension arm may not be sufficient either and maybe this is something the CAA need to re examine on high structures in heavily built up and populated areas near flight paths?
Last edited by Pace; 19th Jan 2013 at 08:47.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eltonioni
There is an old saying " there are those who choose to do and those who have to do".
The PPL pulls back the curtain on a Sunday morning takes one look and goes back to Sleep.
That is a bit different to some of us who have to be up in say Inverness at 8am one cold, dark and wet winters day.
Ideal is to take off in a high performance fully deiced aircraft into CAS under radar and land off an ILS.
Sadly for some flights you operate out of CAS and in the case of Helicopters probably nearer the ground and more VFR flying.
Sadly again CFIT accidents still happen a lot in the private pilot world too.
Armchair pilots can sit in the comfort of their homes and take an accident to pieces pontificating over why the pilot did this instead of that.
Very Very Different to being alone in **** weather and missing something because you are distracted or because there are not two sets of eyes.
I wish we were all perfect but sadly we are not!
I am sure he did see the bloody big building and banked away. I am pretty sure he probably saw the main shaft of the Crane reaching into the clouds.
I am sure he did not see a 45 degree boom blending in the mist sprouting out of the main shaft. Maybe he did not even connect with the fact that there would be a 45 degree boom stretching out from the main Crane shaft?
I am pretty sure the first thing he knew was a large bang.
Finally I am pretty sure he was not where he thought he was maybe cloud chopping thinking he had clear air under the aircraft? But then maybe he had some mechanical problem which forced him in that area??? Who knows probably no one and no one will AAIB included
There is an old saying " there are those who choose to do and those who have to do".
The PPL pulls back the curtain on a Sunday morning takes one look and goes back to Sleep.
That is a bit different to some of us who have to be up in say Inverness at 8am one cold, dark and wet winters day.
Ideal is to take off in a high performance fully deiced aircraft into CAS under radar and land off an ILS.
Sadly for some flights you operate out of CAS and in the case of Helicopters probably nearer the ground and more VFR flying.
Sadly again CFIT accidents still happen a lot in the private pilot world too.
Armchair pilots can sit in the comfort of their homes and take an accident to pieces pontificating over why the pilot did this instead of that.
Very Very Different to being alone in **** weather and missing something because you are distracted or because there are not two sets of eyes.
I wish we were all perfect but sadly we are not!
I am sure he did see the bloody big building and banked away. I am pretty sure he probably saw the main shaft of the Crane reaching into the clouds.
I am sure he did not see a 45 degree boom blending in the mist sprouting out of the main shaft. Maybe he did not even connect with the fact that there would be a 45 degree boom stretching out from the main Crane shaft?
I am pretty sure the first thing he knew was a large bang.
Finally I am pretty sure he was not where he thought he was maybe cloud chopping thinking he had clear air under the aircraft? But then maybe he had some mechanical problem which forced him in that area??? Who knows probably no one and no one will AAIB included
Last edited by Pace; 19th Jan 2013 at 09:12.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No a red light bulb on the end of a Crane extension arm may not be sufficient either and maybe this is something the CAA need to re examine on high structures in heavily built up and populated areas near flight paths?
providing benefit when weather is marginal.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Very Different to being alone in **** weather and missing something because you are distracted or because there are not two sets of eyes.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And relevant points finally resurface on this thread.
PB did not intend to be at that point in airspace at that time in that weather.
On setting out, Wx sufficient to route to Elstree.
On route, Wx deteriorated, and Elstree was not an option - decision point....RTB; turn executed
On route back to Redhill, Wx deterioration overtaking him - decision point .... divert to Battersea.
On diversion, Wx deterioration overtook him whilst trying to get in to Battersea.
A pilot with immense skills, doing his very best to get the machine down out of closing weather.
PB did not intend to be at that point in airspace at that time in that weather.
On setting out, Wx sufficient to route to Elstree.
On route, Wx deteriorated, and Elstree was not an option - decision point....RTB; turn executed
On route back to Redhill, Wx deterioration overtaking him - decision point .... divert to Battersea.
On diversion, Wx deterioration overtook him whilst trying to get in to Battersea.
A pilot with immense skills, doing his very best to get the machine down out of closing weather.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuckgear and Pace, thank you for your comments.
It is just possible that AAKEE may have drawn our attention to a point that could possibly have escaped the attention of those engineers who design the hazard lighting on various pinnacles.
Just as Boeing designers may have overlooked certain problems with batteries in Dreamliners (see Tech thread!)
When the duly installed hazaard light has been installed on the tip of the Christmas Tree, or crane, does the possibility exist that it may be covered under certain weather conditions with frost......in the exact conditions that it really needs to be seen.
I am neither an electrical engineer nor a helicopter pilot. Just a pilot who noticing a potential hazard feels duty bound to call it to attention, at the risk of upsetting people. The only time I failed in this duty, to call hazardous flying conditions to the attention of an experienced fellow gliding instructor, on the very next flight the accident happened...fortunatly only the glider was damaged.
Sorry if this upsets you, but....have the electrical engineers considered AAKEE's observations? It is not a dumb question.
It is just possible that AAKEE may have drawn our attention to a point that could possibly have escaped the attention of those engineers who design the hazard lighting on various pinnacles.
Just as Boeing designers may have overlooked certain problems with batteries in Dreamliners (see Tech thread!)
When the duly installed hazaard light has been installed on the tip of the Christmas Tree, or crane, does the possibility exist that it may be covered under certain weather conditions with frost......in the exact conditions that it really needs to be seen.
I am neither an electrical engineer nor a helicopter pilot. Just a pilot who noticing a potential hazard feels duty bound to call it to attention, at the risk of upsetting people. The only time I failed in this duty, to call hazardous flying conditions to the attention of an experienced fellow gliding instructor, on the very next flight the accident happened...fortunatly only the glider was damaged.
Sorry if this upsets you, but....have the electrical engineers considered AAKEE's observations? It is not a dumb question.