Helicopter Crash Central London
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes ShyTorque but we don't know where he was when he aborted his planed route to divert do we? We also know the cloud base at the impact point was around 600' since the witnesses said the top of the building was shrouded in mist so would he have not chosen to use the most easily navigable route? But as you say the AAIB will know his exact route.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
I am not a Helicopter pilot familiar with these routes but you are! Given low cloud even if localized and a certain amount of scud running which we have all done ( There for the Grace?) What do you think happened I stress think? as we still do not know whether there was some other problem that caused him to be where he was!
I too have examined the building and was horrified at how tall it was and how close to the river and Battersea it was giving minimal margin for error.
Especially if the pilot hit a patch of cloud and thought he was over water.
The dreaded Cumulus Granitus which we all know but in this case Towering Cumulus? But not Tower in the met sense?
I am not a Helicopter pilot familiar with these routes but you are! Given low cloud even if localized and a certain amount of scud running which we have all done ( There for the Grace?) What do you think happened I stress think? as we still do not know whether there was some other problem that caused him to be where he was!
I too have examined the building and was horrified at how tall it was and how close to the river and Battersea it was giving minimal margin for error.
Especially if the pilot hit a patch of cloud and thought he was over water.
The dreaded Cumulus Granitus which we all know but in this case Towering Cumulus? But not Tower in the met sense?
Last edited by Pace; 21st Jan 2013 at 17:13.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When following this route, aircraft arrive at 90 degrees to the river Thames at Vauxhall Bridge, which is a compulsory VRP. The river is less than 300 metres or so in width at that point so a very sharp turn to starboard is needed to join heli-route H4 there, unless you fly a little bit further east and put a radius on the turn.
Last edited by TRC; 21st Jan 2013 at 17:48. Reason: Added a couple of words to make more sense
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
Yes ShyTorque but we don't know where he was when he aborted his planed route to divert do we? We also know the cloud base at the impact point was around 600' since the witnesses said the top of the building was shrouded in mist so would he have not chosen to use the most easily navigable route? But as you say the AAIB will know his exact route.
I'll highlight this again...
A commonly given clearance when routing to Battersea Heliport from the north (e.g. from Elstree!) is to fly in a straight line from Alexandra Palace to Vauxhall Bridge, not above 1,000 feet London QNH, VFR.
When following this route, aircraft arrive at 90 degrees to the river Thames at Vauxhall Bridge, which is a compulsory VRP.
A commonly given clearance when routing to Battersea Heliport from the north (e.g. from Elstree!) is to fly in a straight line from Alexandra Palace to Vauxhall Bridge, not above 1,000 feet London QNH, VFR.
When following this route, aircraft arrive at 90 degrees to the river Thames at Vauxhall Bridge, which is a compulsory VRP.
Heading directly from Alexandra Palace to Vauxhall Bridge wouldn't you already have intercepted the Thames somewhere further North (e.g. near Waterloo Bridge?).
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
Pace, I hope you'll understand that I'd rather not say. I'm just trying clarify general points about the use of the airspace.
I don't know what route was taken, the prevailing in flight met conditions or what clearance was given. I think it's better to wait for the formal reports to be issued.
Thanks.
I don't know what route was taken, the prevailing in flight met conditions or what clearance was given. I think it's better to wait for the formal reports to be issued.
Thanks.
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
Stagger, Yes, a southbound track does converge with the river just to the north of Vauxhall and the pilot would have the river converging on his left. However, unless a 90 degree right turn is made immediately at the VRP, the aircraft will cross the river because of the bend just to the south of it's location. Obviously, any aircraft has a turning radius commensurate with speed and a delay of only a few seconds would make a difference to crossing the river or not.
Don't know if you've seen one, but it's obvious on the CAA London helicopter routes chart. Immediately south of Vauxhall bridge VRP, almost on the south bank, lies the crane in question.
A helicopter already established on the river, having joined H4 further east, would be slightly better placed with regard to making the turn, but not by much.
Don't know if you've seen one, but it's obvious on the CAA London helicopter routes chart. Immediately south of Vauxhall bridge VRP, almost on the south bank, lies the crane in question.
A helicopter already established on the river, having joined H4 further east, would be slightly better placed with regard to making the turn, but not by much.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: cornwall
Age: 78
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque.
I think you are doing an admirable job acting as an unbiased spokesman for the rotary world. I suspect that you and all your fellow UK based rotary colleagues have got some well informed opinions as to what happened.
For sure the AAIB will have seen the flight path and transponder readouts , not to mention ATC transcripts of the ill-fated flight already.
Doubtless , Heathrow ATC will have a very good idea of what happened too, though I puzzle slightly at the break in R/T transmission after leaving LHR Approach. We can all hazard guesses as to why that happened, but again will probably never know.
Keep up the good work!
I think you are doing an admirable job acting as an unbiased spokesman for the rotary world. I suspect that you and all your fellow UK based rotary colleagues have got some well informed opinions as to what happened.
For sure the AAIB will have seen the flight path and transponder readouts , not to mention ATC transcripts of the ill-fated flight already.
Doubtless , Heathrow ATC will have a very good idea of what happened too, though I puzzle slightly at the break in R/T transmission after leaving LHR Approach. We can all hazard guesses as to why that happened, but again will probably never know.
Keep up the good work!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chobham
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypothetical question:
Assuming at a moment in time one is momentarily blind due to mist/cloud/fog patches and choose to zoom onto the highest resolution of the Garmin 430 moving map, if trying to follow the centreline of the Thames around the bends between Vauxhaul bridge and the London Heliport (2 miles?), how accurately is that map going to stick you in the middle of the river throughout?
Subject to speed and height, what margin of error would there be, solely relying on that Garmin alone to take you accurately down the river centreline around those bends?
Assuming at a moment in time one is momentarily blind due to mist/cloud/fog patches and choose to zoom onto the highest resolution of the Garmin 430 moving map, if trying to follow the centreline of the Thames around the bends between Vauxhaul bridge and the London Heliport (2 miles?), how accurately is that map going to stick you in the middle of the river throughout?
Subject to speed and height, what margin of error would there be, solely relying on that Garmin alone to take you accurately down the river centreline around those bends?
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
The Garmin 430 displays a very much simplified representation of the river, it's certainly not accurate enough and in no way designed to be used in that much detail.
e.g. check out the display here:
Garmin 430 Online Training - Buttonology
On that screen, under the range 5.0nm, the word "overzoom" appears. In practical terms, this means it is pointless zooming in further because the "map" has no more detail to show.
e.g. check out the display here:
Garmin 430 Online Training - Buttonology
On that screen, under the range 5.0nm, the word "overzoom" appears. In practical terms, this means it is pointless zooming in further because the "map" has no more detail to show.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 21st Jan 2013 at 23:01. Reason: link added
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of posts say he should not have flown in those conditions and hence such buildings should not have to be made more conspicuous!
I say absolute rubbish to that argument!
Aircraft are forced to carry all manner of equipment to protect pilots passengers and people on the ground from mistakes that can be made!
If you follow that argument then remove ground
Proximity warnings, remove high intensity lighting off high buildings etc because these perfect pilots flying strictly to the rules will never need such expensive devices?
I passed The building in question and without doubt it is a hazard to aircraft.
It is very close to the river, very tall, very close to Battersea and stupidly close to a Helicopter route!
To top that it had a temporary structure in the form of a crane towering above it!
It's all very well making the pilot a scapegoat but responsibility for this accident lies elsewhere too
nearly every accident is pilot error of one kind or another hence why the industry and regulators go to a lot if time and expense to stop those errors becoming tragic disasters.
Flight safety should be about plugging known safety holes! That building and Cranes which tower above the towers are a threat!
I say absolute rubbish to that argument!
Aircraft are forced to carry all manner of equipment to protect pilots passengers and people on the ground from mistakes that can be made!
If you follow that argument then remove ground
Proximity warnings, remove high intensity lighting off high buildings etc because these perfect pilots flying strictly to the rules will never need such expensive devices?
I passed The building in question and without doubt it is a hazard to aircraft.
It is very close to the river, very tall, very close to Battersea and stupidly close to a Helicopter route!
To top that it had a temporary structure in the form of a crane towering above it!
It's all very well making the pilot a scapegoat but responsibility for this accident lies elsewhere too
nearly every accident is pilot error of one kind or another hence why the industry and regulators go to a lot if time and expense to stop those errors becoming tragic disasters.
Flight safety should be about plugging known safety holes! That building and Cranes which tower above the towers are a threat!
Last edited by Pace; 22nd Jan 2013 at 00:41.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just catching up – to add a bit about Flarm.
It would not be necessary to install Flarm on fixed obstacles. It has the capability of a database of obstacles which give alerts to an airborne unit, which has the database stored, when getting too close.
Flarm is used on the continent – certainly in Switzerland and I think in other Alpine areas – by helicopters among others, for obstacle warnings. I think the database started with cables close to mountains and crossing valleys that were hazards, and there had been too many fatal accidents. When Flarm was developed for gliders, the heli and other operators realised its benefits and also adopted it, so it is now (almost?) universal in those areas. The technology is available here and now. A UK obstacle database would need to be developed, but it could be done, at a cost – or even by an individual or operation for an area important to him/her/them.
If anyone is seriously interested, I suggest looking at the Flarm website for information. Flarm - Homepage :
“shows nearby traffic, warns visually and acoustically of approaching other aircraft or fixed obstacles
“embedded database covers Italian, Swiss, Austrian, French and German obstacles, with updates (functionality at cost)”
Maybe the Flarm people would post something on here.
It would not be necessary to install Flarm on fixed obstacles. It has the capability of a database of obstacles which give alerts to an airborne unit, which has the database stored, when getting too close.
Flarm is used on the continent – certainly in Switzerland and I think in other Alpine areas – by helicopters among others, for obstacle warnings. I think the database started with cables close to mountains and crossing valleys that were hazards, and there had been too many fatal accidents. When Flarm was developed for gliders, the heli and other operators realised its benefits and also adopted it, so it is now (almost?) universal in those areas. The technology is available here and now. A UK obstacle database would need to be developed, but it could be done, at a cost – or even by an individual or operation for an area important to him/her/them.
If anyone is seriously interested, I suggest looking at the Flarm website for information. Flarm - Homepage :
“shows nearby traffic, warns visually and acoustically of approaching other aircraft or fixed obstacles
“embedded database covers Italian, Swiss, Austrian, French and German obstacles, with updates (functionality at cost)”
Maybe the Flarm people would post something on here.
Last edited by chrisN; 22nd Jan 2013 at 05:03.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A310bcal
He certainly is. 
There's a good discussion by uk helo pilots on this thread.
There's armchair experts posting there as well just like this one but it's easy to spot them and move on.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/505...ne-london.html
ShyTorque.
I think you are doing an admirable job acting as an unbiased spokesman for the rotary world.
I think you are doing an admirable job acting as an unbiased spokesman for the rotary world.
I suspect that you and all your fellow UK based rotary colleagues have got some well informed opinions as to what happened.
There's armchair experts posting there as well just like this one but it's easy to spot them and move on.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/505...ne-london.html
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bronx
Much of the discussion revolves around icing! I personally having seen another pilots report do not consider this was an issue.
2000 feet and you were in the blue that day so we are talking about early morning lifting fog and mist! Probably isolated by river versus cold building syndrome.
For the most part he was flying VFR albeit minimal VMC conditions and his main exposure to visible moisture would have been scud running the odd patch of lower cloud.
Hardly an icing situation! A declared problem and request for IFR would have had him in clear air on top in minutes.
Hence I do not think he even thought he had a problem until the impact with the Crane arm.
I do not know a lot about Flarm but from more knowing posters here maybe there could be an application developed to identify threats in City situations and even an insistence for Helicopters flying these routes to be equipt.
Flarm appears to be relatively cheap and nowadays we are forced to carry very expensive equipment to save us from ourselves.
Much of the discussion revolves around icing! I personally having seen another pilots report do not consider this was an issue.
2000 feet and you were in the blue that day so we are talking about early morning lifting fog and mist! Probably isolated by river versus cold building syndrome.
For the most part he was flying VFR albeit minimal VMC conditions and his main exposure to visible moisture would have been scud running the odd patch of lower cloud.
Hardly an icing situation! A declared problem and request for IFR would have had him in clear air on top in minutes.
Hence I do not think he even thought he had a problem until the impact with the Crane arm.
I do not know a lot about Flarm but from more knowing posters here maybe there could be an application developed to identify threats in City situations and even an insistence for Helicopters flying these routes to be equipt.
Flarm appears to be relatively cheap and nowadays we are forced to carry very expensive equipment to save us from ourselves.
FLARM has both traffic warnings (but onlly against other FLARM equipped aircraft*) and obstacle warnings. The obstacle warning facility was developed for mountain flying gliders to warn agains the cables in the Alps that are often umnmarked, but potentially deadly.
The only problem is developing and updating the database.
The systems can be 'portable' and escape some of the installation costs of approved devices. I understand that EASA approval of PowerFLARM (se below) is contemplated but ther's still the minor mod paperwork issues to contend with.
* PowerFLARM from the same development team also warns against Transponder equipped traffic that is repsonding to outside interrogations.
The only problem is developing and updating the database.
The systems can be 'portable' and escape some of the installation costs of approved devices. I understand that EASA approval of PowerFLARM (se below) is contemplated but ther's still the minor mod paperwork issues to contend with.
* PowerFLARM from the same development team also warns against Transponder equipped traffic that is repsonding to outside interrogations.
Last edited by Fitter2; 22nd Jan 2013 at 09:36.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flarm appears to be relatively cheap and nowadays we are forced to carry very expensive equipment to save us from ourselves.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DG800
I as posted do not know a lot about Flarm other than it was suggested some time back for Gliders cloud flying.
I take your point re certification but if the application is good for locating potential collision Hazards then it would be worth the manufacturers developing such a unit.
We have GPWS in aircraft just incase a pilot gets it wrong why not this for Cranes towering above city lines?
I as posted do not know a lot about Flarm other than it was suggested some time back for Gliders cloud flying.
I take your point re certification but if the application is good for locating potential collision Hazards then it would be worth the manufacturers developing such a unit.
We have GPWS in aircraft just incase a pilot gets it wrong why not this for Cranes towering above city lines?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: france
Age: 63
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I think Dg800 properly answered your question : the flarm is not certified and as such neither won't meet EASA AMC for spotting or warning cranes nor will be given mandatory status as crane equipment
moreover, I can imagine endless talks about which cranes would be eligible, how and where to position the flarm and so on...
I think Dg800 properly answered your question : the flarm is not certified and as such neither won't meet EASA AMC for spotting or warning cranes nor will be given mandatory status as crane equipment
moreover, I can imagine endless talks about which cranes would be eligible, how and where to position the flarm and so on...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The manufacturers would have to get the unit properly developed and certificated. I did understand the post re lack of certification
As for which Cranes should be fitted with such devices? Any temporary cranes working on buildings which themselves are high enough to warrant anti collision lighting within X miles of an airport or low level aircraft routing to that airfield.
The day after the accident was a deep blue sky day! Very clear you could see the mass of these Cranes which are numerous towering way above the Skyscrapers at heights which for permanent structures would require fixed lighting.
This accident was lucky as apart from the pilot only one was killed! Had the aircraft gone down in a different direction there may have been many.
As for which Cranes should be fitted with such devices? Any temporary cranes working on buildings which themselves are high enough to warrant anti collision lighting within X miles of an airport or low level aircraft routing to that airfield.
The day after the accident was a deep blue sky day! Very clear you could see the mass of these Cranes which are numerous towering way above the Skyscrapers at heights which for permanent structures would require fixed lighting.
This accident was lucky as apart from the pilot only one was killed! Had the aircraft gone down in a different direction there may have been many.