Helicopter Crash Central London
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and might save a life.
...and the lives of our Members of Parliament who could be subject to terrorist suicide attack by helicopter now the weakness in security defences has been exposed.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you ain't familiar with the expression save a life.
Maybe they don't use it your side of the pond. It means EVEN one life.
So the bad guys didn't know before?
Get real.
Maybe they don't use it your side of the pond. It means EVEN one life.
So the bad guys didn't know before?
Get real.
Last edited by Bronx; 26th Jan 2013 at 21:34.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bronx is correct.
Agar Spurious was out of line with his comments on another tragic helicopter accident. He seems to enjoy making pronouncements on incidents, with the benefit of almost total ignorance.
I can imagine this investigation will take a long time to conclude. Only when that is published will we be any closer to understanding what happened here. IF it proves to be human error, and people like Agar want to hang the guy out to dry, then fill your boots. You make me sick.
Until that time, any professionals will know better than to add to ignorant speculation.
Agar Spurious was out of line with his comments on another tragic helicopter accident. He seems to enjoy making pronouncements on incidents, with the benefit of almost total ignorance.
I can imagine this investigation will take a long time to conclude. Only when that is published will we be any closer to understanding what happened here. IF it proves to be human error, and people like Agar want to hang the guy out to dry, then fill your boots. You make me sick.
Until that time, any professionals will know better than to add to ignorant speculation.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mike-wsm
That's just the sort of uninformed alarmist nonsense that distracts from sensible discussion on an aviation website.
Route H4 of the London Helicopter Routes follows the Thames through central London and passes immediately adjacent to the Houses of Parliament.
Charts of the routes are readily available on the internet and elsewhere.
Helicopter flights over London are widely advertised, usually accompanied by promotional pictures of the famous buildings which will be seen.
Do you really believe that, if suicidal terrorists wished to attack the HoP from the air, they didn't know before this tragic accident that the helicopter routes exist - or would care in the slightest whether there is a legally approved route to their final destination?
Edited to add pic.
...and the lives of our Members of Parliament who could be subject to terrorist suicide attack by helicopter now the weakness in security defences has been exposed.
Route H4 of the London Helicopter Routes follows the Thames through central London and passes immediately adjacent to the Houses of Parliament.
Charts of the routes are readily available on the internet and elsewhere.
Helicopter flights over London are widely advertised, usually accompanied by promotional pictures of the famous buildings which will be seen.
Do you really believe that, if suicidal terrorists wished to attack the HoP from the air, they didn't know before this tragic accident that the helicopter routes exist - or would care in the slightest whether there is a legally approved route to their final destination?
Edited to add pic.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 27th Jan 2013 at 00:13.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) They cannot be seen in IMC. D'uh oh!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was flying into LCY that morning at approx 0930.
Cloud tops at about 1200ft, beautiful blue sky above. Thick dense cloud / fog reported at 1200m vis with a reported overcast at 200ft... we performed a missed approach as no visual cues on 09 at LCY. We held for a bit and had another go and got in with an improvement as the morning developed.
We couldn't see a set of high intensity runway lights on our first approach at minima... this crane lighting argument is superfluous as one light or a set of lights wouldn't have been enough in those conditions I witnessed first hand (as low flying a/c would be flying illegally).
This incident is a case of a bad decision, bad judgement and from my interpretation of the rules, highly illegal.
No single individual is greater than the rules that are in place to protect the public.. the rules didn't fail us on this occasion, the individual did.
Cloud tops at about 1200ft, beautiful blue sky above. Thick dense cloud / fog reported at 1200m vis with a reported overcast at 200ft... we performed a missed approach as no visual cues on 09 at LCY. We held for a bit and had another go and got in with an improvement as the morning developed.
We couldn't see a set of high intensity runway lights on our first approach at minima... this crane lighting argument is superfluous as one light or a set of lights wouldn't have been enough in those conditions I witnessed first hand (as low flying a/c would be flying illegally).
This incident is a case of a bad decision, bad judgement and from my interpretation of the rules, highly illegal.
No single individual is greater than the rules that are in place to protect the public.. the rules didn't fail us on this occasion, the individual did.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for asking, but there has been mention elsewhere of certain procedural anomalies.
Was this a bona fide Charter Flight, or was it Self Fly Hire with a 'friend' going along for the ride?
Was this a bona fide Charter Flight, or was it Self Fly Hire with a 'friend' going along for the ride?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Machaca
The beautiful photograph you posted has been digitally enhanced.
The glass curtain wall has been attached to some more floors since this picture was taken last year but it shows what the tower looks like in real life.
TRC
Offices are usually brightly lit, and London office buildings are frequently lit as you describe.
However, the St George Tower is not an office building but a partially constructed residential block.
The strip lights to which you refer can be seen in the pictures above and below.
Neon Circuits
I don't doubt what you encountered - some miles away, and 1½ hours after the crash - but the cloud/fog level when I drove past the north side of Vauxhall Bridge exactly 15 minutes after the crash was certainly not 200 ft.
Supposing, for the purpose of this exchange, that the pilot was not flying in accordance with the relevant law, that does not change the (IMHO very real) possibility that if the crane (incl the jib) had been better lit he might have seen the raised jib in time to avoid it. He was flying an easily manoeuvrable helicopter, not an airliner.
At that life or death moment, whether the pilot should or should not have been there is irrelevant.
mike-wsm
It was a bona fide charter flight.
There was no passenger on board.
Even if the pilot had done so, it is not illegal to take someone along for the ride.
The beautiful photograph you posted has been digitally enhanced.
The glass curtain wall has been attached to some more floors since this picture was taken last year but it shows what the tower looks like in real life.
TRC
just about every other floor was lit internally by what looked like strip lights - as is just about every office building in London, 24 hours a day
However, the St George Tower is not an office building but a partially constructed residential block.
The strip lights to which you refer can be seen in the pictures above and below.
Neon Circuits
I don't doubt what you encountered - some miles away, and 1½ hours after the crash - but the cloud/fog level when I drove past the north side of Vauxhall Bridge exactly 15 minutes after the crash was certainly not 200 ft.
Supposing, for the purpose of this exchange, that the pilot was not flying in accordance with the relevant law, that does not change the (IMHO very real) possibility that if the crane (incl the jib) had been better lit he might have seen the raised jib in time to avoid it. He was flying an easily manoeuvrable helicopter, not an airliner.
At that life or death moment, whether the pilot should or should not have been there is irrelevant.
mike-wsm
Was this a bona fide Charter Flight, or was it Self Fly Hire with a 'friend' going along for the ride?
There was no passenger on board.
Even if the pilot had done so, it is not illegal to take someone along for the ride.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offices are usually brightly lit, and London office buildings are frequently brightly lit as you describe.
However, the St George Tower is not an office building but a partially constructed residential block.
The strip lights to which you refer can be seen in the pictures above and below.
However, the St George Tower is not an office building but a partially constructed residential block.
The strip lights to which you refer can be seen in the pictures above and below.
Last edited by TRC; 27th Jan 2013 at 10:12. Reason: trypingeror as always
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a bona fide charter flight.
There was no passenger on board.
Even if the pilot had done so, it is not illegal to take someone along for the ride.
There was no passenger on board.
Even if the pilot had done so, it is not illegal to take someone along for the ride.
It has been stated that the intention was to pick up a passenger.
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
How can you instantly be so certain?
As opposed to certain people, who know less, saying more.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
m-wsm
Because, in addition to other sources which I have no reason to divulge to you, I have read the AAIB SB.
Extract from the SB Heading: "Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (Passenger)"
It has indeed.
Extract from the SB findings: "The pilot of G-CRST arrived at Redhill Aerodrome at approximately 0630 hrs in preparation for a flight to Elstree Aerodrome. He intended to collect a client to take him and another passenger to the north of England."
FL
How can you instantly be so certain?
Extract from the SB Heading: "Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (Passenger)"
It has been stated that the intention was to pick up a passenger.
Extract from the SB findings: "The pilot of G-CRST arrived at Redhill Aerodrome at approximately 0630 hrs in preparation for a flight to Elstree Aerodrome. He intended to collect a client to take him and another passenger to the north of England."
FL
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 54
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
How can you instantly be so certain?
A cursory examination of the reporting of the facts makes this clear, not to mention the interim AAIB report. Saves the embarassment of looking like an ill informed troll.
How can you instantly be so certain?
A cursory examination of the reporting of the facts makes this clear, not to mention the interim AAIB report. Saves the embarassment of looking like an ill informed troll.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bronx. One of the less endearing habits on this forum is a prurient refusal to accept that ant pilot can make a mistake, a refusal that seems to become even more adamant when the pilot s dead. This is not rational or sensible, it is frankly a rather silly mawkish affectation.
Tandemrotor. No one, least of all me, is "hanging him out to dry", that statement indicates your over emotional state of mind. In both this case and the other one you mentioned an sit craft was flown into a fixed obstruction in poor vis and low cloud. I'd be fascinated to hear any theories you may have that might explain this better than what it almost certainly is, CFIT. Of course there may be the tiniest chance that it was something else, but do p,ease make a feasible suggestion to back yourself up. Nobody flies into things they can see, or very very seldom, people frequently fly into things they don't/can't see. As this occurred in v poor vis which do you propose is the most likely case? Anyone can make such a mistake, most if us probably nearly have. Every now and then someone is unfortunate enough to actually do it. That's not criticism, it's not stuffing ones head in the sand and pretending that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is in fact a piece of Ming china...all I'm saying s that it probably is a duck.
It does no one any good thrashing around the most unlikely scenarios and hazarding all sorts of regulatory interventions when there is almost certainly a very simple and logical explanation.
What have highly directional high power focused beam approach light systems to do with the low power 360' glims put on obstructions? Youre not comparing like with anything like. As I said, red herring. They are not designed to be seen in cloud because no one is supposed to flying in cloud in that environment.
Tandemrotor. No one, least of all me, is "hanging him out to dry", that statement indicates your over emotional state of mind. In both this case and the other one you mentioned an sit craft was flown into a fixed obstruction in poor vis and low cloud. I'd be fascinated to hear any theories you may have that might explain this better than what it almost certainly is, CFIT. Of course there may be the tiniest chance that it was something else, but do p,ease make a feasible suggestion to back yourself up. Nobody flies into things they can see, or very very seldom, people frequently fly into things they don't/can't see. As this occurred in v poor vis which do you propose is the most likely case? Anyone can make such a mistake, most if us probably nearly have. Every now and then someone is unfortunate enough to actually do it. That's not criticism, it's not stuffing ones head in the sand and pretending that something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is in fact a piece of Ming china...all I'm saying s that it probably is a duck.
It does no one any good thrashing around the most unlikely scenarios and hazarding all sorts of regulatory interventions when there is almost certainly a very simple and logical explanation.
What have highly directional high power focused beam approach light systems to do with the low power 360' glims put on obstructions? Youre not comparing like with anything like. As I said, red herring. They are not designed to be seen in cloud because no one is supposed to flying in cloud in that environment.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL thanks for encouraging a balanced discussion.
Having shared my perspective of the day.. on another note, we were slotted prior to departure on that day due fog and cloud base. Having monitored the weather from 0600, it was certainly worse early on clearly invoking a reduced flow rate into London airports. The trend was pretty static until late morning.
At the level that helicopter was transiting, I do very much doubt that even if the crane was made out of Fluorescent tubing, it would have made little or no difference to its visability in those conditions especially as moderate icing was also a factor in that layer.
The fact remains that the main reason for lighting on these structures is for visibility at night, not for illumination in IMC as SVFR rules are in place to protect aircraft from such an event. The law was ignored and as a consequence, this tragedy happened.
Having shared my perspective of the day.. on another note, we were slotted prior to departure on that day due fog and cloud base. Having monitored the weather from 0600, it was certainly worse early on clearly invoking a reduced flow rate into London airports. The trend was pretty static until late morning.
At the level that helicopter was transiting, I do very much doubt that even if the crane was made out of Fluorescent tubing, it would have made little or no difference to its visability in those conditions especially as moderate icing was also a factor in that layer.
The fact remains that the main reason for lighting on these structures is for visibility at night, not for illumination in IMC as SVFR rules are in place to protect aircraft from such an event. The law was ignored and as a consequence, this tragedy happened.
Last edited by Neon Circuits; 27th Jan 2013 at 14:04.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tu153 et al
Many thanks. Alas I have tried many times to download the interim AAIB report but without success.
Can you forward me a copy, please? Thanks!
[email protected]
Many thanks. Alas I have tried many times to download the interim AAIB report but without success.
Can you forward me a copy, please? Thanks!
[email protected]
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agaricus
Prurient? Having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters, especially the sexual activity of others? 
I'm surprised some guys here haven't strayed into that area in their uninformed criticism of the pilot but it ain't just your use of the word prurient I disagree with.
Some of us think a balanced discussion is useful. Your attitude is that its all cut and dried and doesn't need discussing. Fine. Don't waste your valuable time discussing it.
Bronx. One of the less endearing habits on this forum is a prurient refusal to accept that ant pilot can make a mistake,
I'm surprised some guys here haven't strayed into that area in their uninformed criticism of the pilot but it ain't just your use of the word prurient I disagree with.
Some of us think a balanced discussion is useful. Your attitude is that its all cut and dried and doesn't need discussing. Fine. Don't waste your valuable time discussing it.
Last edited by Bronx; 27th Jan 2013 at 12:34.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC
Thanks. That's all I and a some others (ShyTorque et al) have been trying to achieve. ShyT is a very experienced professional who uses the helicopter routes regularly so his opinions/contributions are worth far more than mine.
I accept, of course, what you encountered. Although much of the area was prone to widespread low cloud and poor visibility at the relevant time, conditions appear to have been worse to the east of London than elsewhere. eg At 0751 hrs, Thames Radar broadcast LCY ATIS which reported visibility 700 m, RVR 900 m, freezing fog and broken cloud with a base of 100 ft above the airport.
BTW, I'm please you pointed out in your previous post that it was beautiful blue sky above about 1200 ft because some contributors appear to believe that the pilot was in cloud throughout. It's clear from the AAIB SB that he wasn't.
At 0747 hrs he was VFR on top at 1500 feet.
At 0757 hrs, after asking Thames Radar if he could head to Battersea Heliport, he told the controller "I can actually see Vauxhall." At that time he was abeam the London Eye at 1500 ft.
I agree with you about the main reason, under current legislation, for lighting these tall structures. We can agree to differ re whether the lighting legislation should be changed.
I don't suggest that any other significant changes are necessary.
Thanks. That's all I and a some others (ShyTorque et al) have been trying to achieve. ShyT is a very experienced professional who uses the helicopter routes regularly so his opinions/contributions are worth far more than mine.
I accept, of course, what you encountered. Although much of the area was prone to widespread low cloud and poor visibility at the relevant time, conditions appear to have been worse to the east of London than elsewhere. eg At 0751 hrs, Thames Radar broadcast LCY ATIS which reported visibility 700 m, RVR 900 m, freezing fog and broken cloud with a base of 100 ft above the airport.
BTW, I'm please you pointed out in your previous post that it was beautiful blue sky above about 1200 ft because some contributors appear to believe that the pilot was in cloud throughout. It's clear from the AAIB SB that he wasn't.
At 0747 hrs he was VFR on top at 1500 feet.
At 0757 hrs, after asking Thames Radar if he could head to Battersea Heliport, he told the controller "I can actually see Vauxhall." At that time he was abeam the London Eye at 1500 ft.
I agree with you about the main reason, under current legislation, for lighting these tall structures. We can agree to differ re whether the lighting legislation should be changed.
I don't suggest that any other significant changes are necessary.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 27th Jan 2013 at 15:42.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, a good balanced discussion.
Do SVFR rules state must be in sight of the surface? I believe so however I don't fly a rotary craft or fly under these rules so can't quote them verbatim.
Thanks for the agree to differ on the lighting rules. The only reason you would want to significantly increase the lighting on tall buildings would be if helicopters were allowed in IMC at the level this particular one was transitioning which would mean a rewrite of all the VFR and SVFR rules that have governed us for xx amount of years. And not withstanding the light pollution local residents would object to.
I'm sure those who fly the heli routes can comment better than both of us, but those who fly these routes, can I ask would you have put yourself, your craft and the public in this position?
Again written to stimulate a heathly and balanced discussion. I'm sure FL would support me in saying that what either of us are saying is neither right nor wrong.
Do SVFR rules state must be in sight of the surface? I believe so however I don't fly a rotary craft or fly under these rules so can't quote them verbatim.
Thanks for the agree to differ on the lighting rules. The only reason you would want to significantly increase the lighting on tall buildings would be if helicopters were allowed in IMC at the level this particular one was transitioning which would mean a rewrite of all the VFR and SVFR rules that have governed us for xx amount of years. And not withstanding the light pollution local residents would object to.
I'm sure those who fly the heli routes can comment better than both of us, but those who fly these routes, can I ask would you have put yourself, your craft and the public in this position?
Again written to stimulate a heathly and balanced discussion. I'm sure FL would support me in saying that what either of us are saying is neither right nor wrong.
Last edited by Neon Circuits; 27th Jan 2013 at 18:59.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC
That is not my reason. Nor do I advocate any of the changes you mention. I have already given my reason so won't repeat it.
I have flown the heli routes many times but I fly for pleasure not work and don't fly daily so I've always been a self-imposed strictly very 'fair weather only' pilot when flying a helicopter and therefore not in a position to answer your question in any useful way.
The professional helicopter pilot community in the UK is relatively small and many people know, or have a shrewd idea, of the identities behind usernames so I don't think you can reasonably expect your enquiry to be fruitful.
You clearly think this pilot, who was very experienced, made some poor judgments that day. You could always try asking other pilots if they've ever done so?
I doubt if there many pilots, rotary or aeroplane, who have not. (Just like those of us in other professions.)
The only reason you would want to significantly increase the lighting on tall buildings etc etc
I have flown the heli routes many times but I fly for pleasure not work and don't fly daily so I've always been a self-imposed strictly very 'fair weather only' pilot when flying a helicopter and therefore not in a position to answer your question in any useful way.
The professional helicopter pilot community in the UK is relatively small and many people know, or have a shrewd idea, of the identities behind usernames so I don't think you can reasonably expect your enquiry to be fruitful.
You clearly think this pilot, who was very experienced, made some poor judgments that day. You could always try asking other pilots if they've ever done so?
I doubt if there many pilots, rotary or aeroplane, who have not. (Just like those of us in other professions.)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 27th Jan 2013 at 17:20.