Helicopter Crash Central London

[Pittsextra]

Flying lawyer - any comment on the telephone/text traffic as reported by the AAIB??

[Pace]

Eltonioni

Joe Bloggs PPL will pull back the curtains and go back to sleep!

There are those who choose too and those who have to

It is the commercial very experienced guys who will be up in not so ideal weather.

[stuckgear]

The aircraft created the hazard by not avoiding the building.

wrong.

the hazard was the crane, that's why the aircraft hit it. the accident was caused by the aircraft impacting the hazard.

as you, yourself state: "Mistakes" have consequences!


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.

I believe that had the pilot survived, he may have been charged with Manslaughter for the death of Matthew Wood.

really? the legal expert are you know as well as judge, jury and executioner?


pittsextra

i dont think FL is out of line at all. the operation was a commercial operation and part of requirements into gaining a professional licence demands, by regulation study and understanding of the applicable regualtions pertaining to. the PPL does not.

[eltonioni]

Remind us of the legal position of mobile phoning and texting while flying.

[Dg800]

a 770ft crane was placed not just within 200ft of a heli route

So was the building it was used to, well, build. The helicopter just happened to hit the smallest of the two obstructions. Are you suggesting the building shouldn't have been put there in the first place because it encroached on a heli route? Fat chance of that ever happening.

[stuckgear]

So was the building it was used to, well, build. The helicopter just happened to hit the smallest of the two obstructions. Are you suggesting the building shouldn't have been put there in the first place because it encroached on a heli route? Fat chance of that ever happening.

err no, you are assuming that conclusion yourself.

the tower and the crane..



crane in excess of of the height of the building..

from the AAIB special report:

At the time of the accident the building had reached its full height; the crane tower had reached a height of 572 ft agl. On top of the crane tower was a cab unit, a counterjib ‘A’ frame and counter weight platform attached to the crane tower by a bearing ring, which allowed the jib to rotate (slew) in the horizontal plane. The crane had a ‘luffing’ jib, which meant the full length of the jib pivoted in the vertical plane from a point a further 11.5 ft above the height of the tower section.
During out-of-service periods, such as overnight, the jib was parked in the ‘minimum jib’ position, at a 65° angle above the horizontal. At the time of the accident this gave a total height from the ground to the tip of the jib of 719 ft

And:

The crane was lit at night with red lights, both on its tower and jib. The tower lighting consisted of mains powered steady red lights at approximately 50 m intervals. The jib lighting was provided by solar powered lights. The Air Navigation Order requires the lighting to be of medium intensity (2,000 candela) and that the obstacle be lit at night only.

[aterpster]

Pace:

Why do Jet owners go to vast expense fitting TAWS etc to protect pilots from mistakes they may make?

Because an American Airlines crew managed to really muck it up on descent into Cali, Colombia in 1995 resulting in the esteemed inventor of GPWS proceeding to the next step, a terrain database EGPWS. In turn, the FAA (and I presume other state regulators) mandated it be installed in air carrier airplanes over the objections and whining of some airline managers.

At the time a large percentage of the fleet that did have LNAV did not have GPS. So, the vendor offered a GPS receiver for the EGPWS for $1,500 to make the EGPWS positioning independent of all-too-often unreliable DME/DME determination of ship's position. But, in the U.S. at least, the FAA did not mandate the GPS receiver option, so one major airline refused to buy the GPS option at a measly $1,500 per airplane.

I'll let you reach your own conclusion about that. I long ago reached mine.

[stuckgear]

Remind us of the legal position of mobile phoning and texting while flying.

why dont you ?

there's no point in trying to correlate what is done behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and what is done in the cockpit. the police i would expect to take dim view of me writing stuff down in poor weather while cruising along the motorway, however, writing down a clearance while flying an aircraft would be typical.


know what CPDLC is ?


CPDLC - Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications. Direct communications between air traffic control and an aircraft pilot via data link text messages .

pilots as i am sure you are aware have a very high workload, while maintaining control of an aircraft they are talking, changing freq., squawks etc etc.

the aviation industry has very high levels of safety and regulations that are detailed and extensive further, they are co-ordinated internationally.

so your comments comapring aircraft safety regulation to PPE (hi viz vest, hard boots, hat and gloves) and stating that it is a mess, frankly shows your lack of comprehension of aviation regulations. As of course a PPL and not being commercially licenced.

[Dg800]

@stuckgear

Well, as the picture clearly shows the crane in action but we already know that at the time of the accident it was in the "parked for the night" position, hence it looks like there might have been only a very small difference in height between building and crane height. I'm guessing maybe 20-30 feet?

So what's your point, the crane was an hazard and shouldn't have been there (where else then if not where it was actually needed) whereas a slightly lower, but obviously much bulkier, skyscraper is fine and does not present any hazard to the same helicopter traffic?

[cldrvr]

not a happy read for rotary pros.

the pros won't take any notice of the amateur drivel you post. Your contribution here is for entertainment purposes only.

[Lonewolf_50]

So why can't aviation have similarly strict attitudes towards safety?

I found that aviation has an attitude toward safety that most other endeavours should emulate. Hmmm. You assume the answer in your question, which appears to be asked in ignorance of how professional aviation works.

Is it because professional pilots quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) fancy themselves as skygods who will launch when all others fear to draw back the curtains?

Huh? Professional pilots tend not to have that attitude.

Yes, sometimes **** happens (I've been there in IMC but I lived to tell the tale) but why can't an industry avoid trying to get into it in the first place as it's SOP?

I am unaware of any aviation policy that condones flying into IMC deliberately when one intends to fly VMC. Are you able to cite such a policy from anyone in the industry?

Where did you come up with this question?

[cldrvr]

The text messages stopped 4 minutes before the crane was hit and have nothing to do with the actual accident.

[stuckgear]

Well, as the picture clearly shows the crane in action but at the time of the accident it was in the "parked for the night" position, it looks like there was at worst a very small difference in height between building and crane height. I'm guessing maybe 20-30 feet?

as i previously posted:
At the time of the accident the building had reached its full height; the crane tower had reached a height of 572 ft agl. On top of the crane tower was a cab unit, a counterjib ‘A’ frame and counter weight platform attached to the crane tower by a bearing ring, which allowed the jib to rotate (slew) in the horizontal plane. The crane had a ‘luffing’ jib, which meant the full length of the jib pivoted in the vertical plane from a point a further 11.5 ft above the height of the tower section.
During out-of-service periods, such as overnight, the jib was parked in the ‘minimum jib’ position, at a 65° angle above the horizontal. At the time of the accident this gave a total height from the ground to the tip of the jib of 719 ft

not quite 20-30ft.

So what's your point, the crane was an hazard and shouldn't have been there (where else then if not where it was actually needed) whereas a slightly lower, but obviously much bulkier, skyscraper is fine and does not present any hazard to the same helicopter traffic?

no.. go back and read my posts. you obviously havnt read what's been posted previously (see above)

[stuckgear]

cldvr,

the pros won't take any notice of the amateur drivel you post. Your contribution here is for entertainment purposes only.

The text messages stopped 4 minutes before the crane was hit and have nothing to do with the actual accident.

indeed from initial analysis it would appear that PB pretty much turned into the crane on the track reversal for approach into london heliport.

[stuckgear]

What do you reckon the chances of a big stink and consequences for the industry are?

significant when uninformed, uneducated and unknowledgeable people speculate on matters they have little understanding about.

glad you lived to tell the tale from your one time venture in IMC. some of us, many of us, venture into imc on a regular basis.. get this.. and rated the aviation authority to do so.. shocking eh!

There were MP's and others already calling for ops to be stopped over London. When they hear that pilots fly around sending text messages all hell is likely to break loose.

shocking! you obviously missed my post on CPDLC ... and to think pilots also use a paper and pencil too ! you should write to the daily mail.. or better still become their staff writer on aviation matters.. then again maybe not.

[Hovermonkey]

The pilot replied:
“TWO TWO NINE, THANKS A LOT”.
This exchange ended at 0759:18 hrs when G-CRST was approximately 150 m south-west of Vauxhall Bridge.
Immediately afterwards the helicopter began to turn right. At 0759:25 hrs it struck a crane on the south side of the river 275 m from the south-west end of Vauxhall Bridge.

Surely it would be more logical to suggest the pilot was making a freq change at the time of impact.

[cldrvr]

's quite possible. from the radar returns it seems the craft turned into the
crane. high workload, weak viz unnoticed obstruction/flight hazard...

And here we have come full circle to what Pace has been saying for pages, the crane was not mandated to be lit during the day. The top of the building could well have been visible while the crane itself was obscured.

[stuckgear]

And here we have come full circle to what Pace has been saying for pages, the crane was not mandated to be lit during the day. The top of the building could well have been visible while the crane itself was obscured.

i agree with and have likewise stated the same.

[SLFandProud]

Pace wrote,

Joe Bloggs PPL will pull back the curtains and go back to sleep!

There are those who choose too and those who have to

Hmm. Reading from the AAIB...

At 0731 hrs, having noticed how poor the weather was during his journey, the client called the pilot to suggest that he did not take off until he (the client) had reached Elstree and observed the weather. The pilot replied that he was already starting the engines. The client stated that he repeated his suggestion that the pilot should not take off.

and, damningly...

@ 0729 from Pilot to Client: I’m coming anyway will land in a field if I have to

It would seem you need to adjust your motto somewhat. "There are those who choose to, those who have to, and those who don't have to but say '**** it, I'll land in a field if necessary' and set off when others would choose not to."

It is the commercial very experienced guys who will be up in not so ideal weather.

Which is a worry. I thought there was training for commercial pilots on recognising hazardous attitudes - invulnerability, macho attitude etc. - and neutralising them. One would expect the commercial very experienced guys to have better judgement than PPL holders, not worse.

[stuckgear]

Hmm. Reading from the AAIB...


Quote:
At 0731 hrs, having noticed how poor the weather was during his journey, the client called the pilot to suggest that he did not take off until he (the client) had reached Elstree and observed the weather. The pilot replied that he was already starting the engines. The client stated that he repeated his suggestion that the pilot should not take off.
and, damningly...

Quote:
@ 0729 from Pilot to Client: I’m coming anyway will land in a field if I have to
It would seem you need to adjust your motto somewhat. "There are those who choose to, those who have to, and those who don't have to but say '**** it, I'll land in a field if necessary' and set off when others would choose not to."

1. the client was not providing a meteorological report, only his assessment of the weather as how he interpreted it.

2. don't take a comment that was more likely made in humour with the client.
a. it was also noted that PB replied 'chat in 10' rather than a formal dialogue.

b. we know he didn't land in a field becuase err he didn't; he was in the process of RTB when the diversion occured.


again, this reverts back to spurious asessments of PB which are implied not fact based..