Helicopter Crash Central London
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please understand that cranes do not need Flarm for Flarm to warn about them. As I said in my post above:
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)”
Or do you simply not believe me?
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)”
Or do you simply not believe me?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having FLARM installed would only be as fail safe as the database update. Perhaps a few police (and) other pilots on here would like to comment on the 'database update valid date' displayed during start up of their Garmin 430 displays. Certainly the units installed in the aircraft I flew rarely had in date databases, and thats police aircraft!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strangely I have taken three black Cabs in London and all three discussed the Helicopter crash.
All three commented on inadequate lighting on the Cranes so that seems to be the sentiment with non aviation people in London.
I took an extra interest in the Skyline and noted some of the Cranes fitted above the skyscrapers.
As an example one had a lower arm which displayed a Red Light on the lower arm but NO light at all on the much higher other arm?
Missing? Broken?u
Some of these high building Cranes had no illumination whatsoever some partial a few good illumination!
What a mess!!! Somehow I do not think these cranes meet regulations and that is a serious observation!!! and the observations at dusk!
Maybe the media should examine some of these structures and make their own judgement??? as to me many do not appear to meet the safety standards!
All three commented on inadequate lighting on the Cranes so that seems to be the sentiment with non aviation people in London.
I took an extra interest in the Skyline and noted some of the Cranes fitted above the skyscrapers.
As an example one had a lower arm which displayed a Red Light on the lower arm but NO light at all on the much higher other arm?
Missing? Broken?u
Some of these high building Cranes had no illumination whatsoever some partial a few good illumination!
What a mess!!! Somehow I do not think these cranes meet regulations and that is a serious observation!!! and the observations at dusk!
Maybe the media should examine some of these structures and make their own judgement??? as to me many do not appear to meet the safety standards!
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Jan 2013 at 02:57.
You are missing the point - the equipment needs installing on every crane above say 500 ft. Job done. No data base needed and would cost less than a grand per crane. Chicken feed.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll remember from your Air Law that the ANO is already clear on what needs lighting, and how to light it. The cost of installing and maintaining warning lights will be much more than a grand.
Pace, it may be that some lights don't show from your observation point on the ground.
Pace, it may be that some lights don't show from your observation point on the ground.
Last edited by eltonioni; 23rd Jan 2013 at 06:21.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eltonioni
The professionals here don't need a PPL to tell them that there are legal requirements. The discussion is about whether the requirements should be made more stringent in order to improve flight safety.
Blind Pew was referring to the cost of FLARM not warning lights.
In any event, "much more than a grand" to instal and maintain warning lights is peanuts in relation to the Łmulti-million cost of constructing high rise buildings and, if lives are saved, worth every penny.
Pace
That is a widely held view in London, and not only amongst non aviation people.
I don't know if this applies to the Vauxhall crane but I'm told that some lights on some cranes are solar powered.
I wonder how efficient/effective solar powered lights are in UK conditions, especially in the winter months.
You'll remember from your Air Law that the ANO is already clear on what needs lighting, and how to light it.
The cost of installing and maintaining warning lights will be much more than a grand.
In any event, "much more than a grand" to instal and maintain warning lights is peanuts in relation to the Łmulti-million cost of constructing high rise buildings and, if lives are saved, worth every penny.
Pace
All three commented on inadequate lighting on the Cranes so that seems to be the sentiment with non aviation people in London.
I don't know if this applies to the Vauxhall crane but I'm told that some lights on some cranes are solar powered.
I wonder how efficient/effective solar powered lights are in UK conditions, especially in the winter months.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eltonioni
I will quite happily photograph the one culprit this evening and place it here as long as the crane arms are not in the clouds!
This one highlights what I believe are illegal Cranes.
The one arm is short and has one bright red light which shows up well at dusk
The other goes high into the sky probably 100 feet more than the shorter arm and has no light or a defective light.
It was not the angle I was looking from.
As stated these are Cranes which can exceed the hight of buildings which require permanent fixed lighting by a couple of hundred feet.
I will quite happily photograph the one culprit this evening and place it here as long as the crane arms are not in the clouds!
This one highlights what I believe are illegal Cranes.
The one arm is short and has one bright red light which shows up well at dusk
The other goes high into the sky probably 100 feet more than the shorter arm and has no light or a defective light.
It was not the angle I was looking from.
As stated these are Cranes which can exceed the hight of buildings which require permanent fixed lighting by a couple of hundred feet.
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Jan 2013 at 08:13.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL makes the exact points that I was banned for.
As a simple analogy; like when we see in a supermarket one of those yellow plastic signs warning of a slip hazard it does not prevent a slip, it alerts passing traffic to the hazard.
Would lighting have prevented the accident? We dont know. We'll never know. We can't know; that is asking for proof of an event that did not happen.
The point is, is to improve safety margins; and at marginal costs. These cranes are re-used many times.
No one is suggesting banning rotor flights over cities or banning cranes from cities, the circumstances are that a 770ft crane was placed not just within 200ft of a heli route (H4) and a compulsory reporting point. That does not leave much margin for error, if any.
As per the notam, the crane was only lit at night. was it illegal ? no, probably not, but it was damn fool thing to do.
As a simple analogy; like when we see in a supermarket one of those yellow plastic signs warning of a slip hazard it does not prevent a slip, it alerts passing traffic to the hazard.
Would lighting have prevented the accident? We dont know. We'll never know. We can't know; that is asking for proof of an event that did not happen.
The point is, is to improve safety margins; and at marginal costs. These cranes are re-used many times.
No one is suggesting banning rotor flights over cities or banning cranes from cities, the circumstances are that a 770ft crane was placed not just within 200ft of a heli route (H4) and a compulsory reporting point. That does not leave much margin for error, if any.
As per the notam, the crane was only lit at night. was it illegal ? no, probably not, but it was damn fool thing to do.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As per the notam, the crane was only lit at night. was it illegal ? no, probably not, but it was damn fool thing to do
They are harder to see than solid buildings with lit up rooms.
Their spindly structures tower way above the skyscraper type buildings often in colors which blend in with grey skies and mist.
Yet all they require is one measly red light many which appear to be either not working or not bothered with.
The regulators need to look at spaced lighting up the arms and some sort of strobe device on the top! Whether Flarm could play a part I do not know.
The regulators also need to have these lights on temporary structures lit at all times! They are as much need in gloomy cloudy days as at night.
Remember it was such a Crane which brought an aircraft down because the pilot did not see one arm angling off it.
The building developers make ŁBillions out of these tall buildings proper public safety with the Cranes is a drop in the river Thames in cost.
Would it have saved this pilot we will never know but MAYBE?? Having them as they are certainly did not!
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Jan 2013 at 09:13.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Anything that helps the conspicuity of a hazard to aviation, as tall cranes obviously are, is worth considering. The number of cranes springing up all over London is quite alarming. A good sign for the building trade and economy no doubt, but not good for helicopter pilots who have to cope with them on a daily basis.
However, FLARM, TCAS and other such devices are only designed to alert pilots to the fact that there is something relevant in the vicinity and he should look out. The avoidance has to be done visually. Lighting that actually stands out is the only way when the aircraft has to be flown in close proximity to an otherwise difficult to see obstruction.
However, FLARM, TCAS and other such devices are only designed to alert pilots to the fact that there is something relevant in the vicinity and he should look out. The avoidance has to be done visually. Lighting that actually stands out is the only way when the aircraft has to be flown in close proximity to an otherwise difficult to see obstruction.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
- it does not use an aeronautical frequency but instead a frequency reserved for automatic door openers and key fobs (!!). This is enough to rule out any aeronautical certification, as the frequency is not reserved for such purposes and is not protected from interference.
- it uses a proprietary protocol which the manufacturer refuses to make public, and transmissions are also encrypted, once again with the manufacturer refusing to divulge the encryption key. The reason for this is that they want to maintain a monopoly and only allow third parties to manufacture compatible gear after paying a license fee. Yes, it's 2013 and the Swiss still think that monopolies are the cat's meow, whereas the rest of the Western world does everything in their power to squash them whenever they are formed.
This again rules out certification as the certifying authority won't be able to verify the protocol, not to mention Brussels surely having something to say about EASA actually enforcing a monopoly. 
A certifiable unit will have use an aeronautical frequency, just like transponders, and an open, certifiable protocol, such as ADS-B. We already have collision avoidance equipment based on such standards, the problem is they cost at the very least ten times as much as a FLARM, monopoly notwithstanding.
Mandatory FLARM as a collision and obstacle avoidance system is just a chimera: either it's not mandated or it's not FLARM anymore.
P.S. Just for the record, I have FLARM equipment on my glider. I'm not suicidal, just a realist through and through.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are missing the point - the equipment needs installing on every crane above say 500 ft. Job done.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that is where the regulators need to re look at these temporary structures.
They are harder to see than solid buildings with lit up rooms.
Their spindly structures tower way above the skyscraper type buildings often in colors which blend in with grey skies and mist.
They are harder to see than solid buildings with lit up rooms.
Their spindly structures tower way above the skyscraper type buildings often in colors which blend in with grey skies and mist.
oh i agree with you pace.
not just in grey skies and mist, depending on the surrounding environment and viewing angle, they can be extremely difficult to see in good viz too.
regulations are always subject to evolution and this is one such matter which would dictate that perhaps evolution is in order. I really fail to see the resistance to adding obstruction lighting to a potential hazard, in terms of cost to the industry.. probably nothing. in terms of the cost to a multi-million pound development, negligible if anything, to the crane owner operator.. negligible.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The professionals here don't need a PPL to tell them that there are legal requirements.
Now that we're back on even terms, transferring a large measure of responsibility for pilots (with any qualification) to see and avoid in VFR / SVFR is, in my mind, a retrograde move. Various contributions above mention the issues about yet another alarm in the cabin to ignore, and that building /crane / bridge / the ground isn't in a different position to where is was the last time.
Better weather forecasting, safer company SOP's, and heck, even license and movement restrictions according to weather minima would be much more useful in many more cases. This incident may turn out to be one of them.
This particular accident is so incredibly rare as to be statistically insignificant. Incredibly tragic, but statistically insignificant none the less.
Last edited by eltonioni; 23rd Jan 2013 at 10:48.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, cheers for the offer to get photos. You'll understand the point that I was making. Crane operators and contractors are perfectly aware of their legal requirements and should certainly be taken to task if found lacking.
Maybe pilots can start filling in MOR's if they see such failures? Has anyone ever done one for such a thing?
Maybe pilots can start filling in MOR's if they see such failures? Has anyone ever done one for such a thing?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eltonioni
I cannot agree LESS with your comments of sticking the onus on pilots to be at the right place in the right conditions.
In a perfect world, with perfect pilots, regulations drawn up in a perfect office do not always work out in the field hence why more and more technology is insisted on to protect the pilot, passengers and aircraft from mistakes.
Why do Jet owners go to vast expense fitting TAWS etc to protect pilots from mistakes they may make?
CFIT has always been a major killer and always will be hence why we turn to technology to help diminish CFIT accident stats.
I noted some of the lighting on the Crane was solar powered which in my book is insufficient for major structures so close to aircraft routes.
The authorities need to rethink lighting requirements on such structures as at present they are inadequate.
Its too easy to make the pilot a scapegoat for glaring safety holes in the present regs.
In an area which is highly built up and densely populated all the more reason to use every possibility to avoid a high loss of life from an accident such as this one!
I cannot agree LESS with your comments of sticking the onus on pilots to be at the right place in the right conditions.
In a perfect world, with perfect pilots, regulations drawn up in a perfect office do not always work out in the field hence why more and more technology is insisted on to protect the pilot, passengers and aircraft from mistakes.
Why do Jet owners go to vast expense fitting TAWS etc to protect pilots from mistakes they may make?
CFIT has always been a major killer and always will be hence why we turn to technology to help diminish CFIT accident stats.
I noted some of the lighting on the Crane was solar powered which in my book is insufficient for major structures so close to aircraft routes.
The authorities need to rethink lighting requirements on such structures as at present they are inadequate.
Its too easy to make the pilot a scapegoat for glaring safety holes in the present regs.
In an area which is highly built up and densely populated all the more reason to use every possibility to avoid a high loss of life from an accident such as this one!
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Jan 2013 at 11:09.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quotes from Pace.
I felt really sorry for the pilot as I do not reckon the poor guy made much of a mistake.
Other than flying into a known, notified structure, destroying it and the aircraft, killing himself, immolating a pedestrian, injuring others, and causing millions of pounds in damage, clean up, repairs and investigations, as well as major transport, travel, construction and social disruption, not much of a mistake at all!
"Mistakes" have consequences!
I passed The building in question and without doubt it is a hazard to aircraft.
The aircraft created the hazard by not avoiding the building.
Remember it was such a Crane which brought an aircraft down because the pilot did not see one arm angling off it.
The Crane did not strike the aircraft, the aircraft struck the Crane, as such I believe that had the pilot survived, he may have been charged with Manslaughter for the death of Matthew Wood.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Crane did not strike the aircraft, the aircraft struck the Crane, as such I believe that had the pilot survived, he may have been charged with Manslaughter for the death of Matthew Wood.
Yes a tiny mistake can have catastrophic consequences!!!
The Crane did not strike the aircraft, the aircraft struck the Crane,
TAWS why bother with it expensive unneeded equipment ???
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Jan 2013 at 11:27.
The professionals here don't need a PPL to tell them that there are legal requirements. The discussion is about whether the requirements should be made more stringent in order to improve flight safety.
Perhaps the discussion around more stringent lighting and its effect on the improvement on flight safety might come after the discussion on the effects of flying in well flagged sh1tty weather.