Helicopter Crash Central London
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah fair enough I can't expect responses to my posed question.
A good balanced reply FL and i respect you for your fair comments. I think we have both put our two penneth in. As ever, I'm sure we'll all learn from this incident however the discussion will continue.
We are a funny bunch us aviators, willing to help each other when we are flying but willing to judge each other when we are not. I'm guilty of both like all of us but of course with the latter point, we don't know the full picture and I can only comment of my experiences. To coin the over used phrase, "hindsight, of course is a wonderful thing".
I think the moral is that this wake up call reinforces the rules that are in place for good reason. We can't prepare for all eventualities of course but we can stay within the rules and keep in mind what the first 'P' stands for in pprune.
Stay safe y'all..
A good balanced reply FL and i respect you for your fair comments. I think we have both put our two penneth in. As ever, I'm sure we'll all learn from this incident however the discussion will continue.
We are a funny bunch us aviators, willing to help each other when we are flying but willing to judge each other when we are not. I'm guilty of both like all of us but of course with the latter point, we don't know the full picture and I can only comment of my experiences. To coin the over used phrase, "hindsight, of course is a wonderful thing".
I think the moral is that this wake up call reinforces the rules that are in place for good reason. We can't prepare for all eventualities of course but we can stay within the rules and keep in mind what the first 'P' stands for in pprune.
Stay safe y'all..
Last edited by Neon Circuits; 27th Jan 2013 at 17:32.
Do SVFR rules state must be in sight of the surface? I don't fly a rotary craft or fly under these rules so can't quote them verbatim.
UK VFR guide/regs outlined here
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/VFR_Guide_2011.pdf
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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: Feb 2011
Location: cornwall
Age: 78
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a thought.
I'm sure that everyone on this thread has tried to fathom out what happened and I have to admit to my fair share of speculating. OK, so I'll get shot down again for speculating but have a possible idea of what might have happened....
On PB's way south, abeam the London Eye, the following exchange was made with ATC.
At 0757 hrs, G-CRST was abeam the London Eye at 1,500 ft and the pilot said:
“ROCKET 2, I CAN ACTUALLY SEE VAUXHALL, IF I COULD MAYBE HEAD DOWN TO H3... H43 SORRY”
The ATC controller replied:
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
My point now is that the clearance was for a hold "between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridge", and yet PB didn't go anywhere ( relatively ) near that designated hold. In fact the hold that he started flying , (it looks VERY much like the extended hold for Battersea, which is between Battersea Bridge and Chelsea Bridge ), was between Chelsea Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge.
IF, and it's a very big IF, he had mind shifted his position ( or mis-identified a bridge ) to the hold on the UK AIP H4 extended hold , then the right turn he immediately made on receipt of onward clearance would have been into clear unobstructed airspace.
The fact that the ATC controller had earlier offered him the option of flying up the Thames as far as the London Eye for an "extended hold", might have been a hint to him that he was further South West than his original clearance.
In marginal conditions , whilst in sight of the surface, but only just , it could be relatively easy to mistake one bridge for another I imagine ?
His flight path in those last few minutes look like text book stuff , for that Extended holding pattern, but just a half mile too far East.
On PB's way south, abeam the London Eye, the following exchange was made with ATC.
At 0757 hrs, G-CRST was abeam the London Eye at 1,500 ft and the pilot said:
“ROCKET 2, I CAN ACTUALLY SEE VAUXHALL, IF I COULD MAYBE HEAD DOWN TO H3... H43 SORRY”
The ATC controller replied:
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
My point now is that the clearance was for a hold "between Vauxhall and Westminster Bridge", and yet PB didn't go anywhere ( relatively ) near that designated hold. In fact the hold that he started flying , (it looks VERY much like the extended hold for Battersea, which is between Battersea Bridge and Chelsea Bridge ), was between Chelsea Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge.
IF, and it's a very big IF, he had mind shifted his position ( or mis-identified a bridge ) to the hold on the UK AIP H4 extended hold , then the right turn he immediately made on receipt of onward clearance would have been into clear unobstructed airspace.
The fact that the ATC controller had earlier offered him the option of flying up the Thames as far as the London Eye for an "extended hold", might have been a hint to him that he was further South West than his original clearance.
In marginal conditions , whilst in sight of the surface, but only just , it could be relatively easy to mistake one bridge for another I imagine ?
His flight path in those last few minutes look like text book stuff , for that Extended holding pattern, but just a half mile too far East.
Last edited by A310bcal; 28th Jan 2013 at 16:32.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chelsea Bridge is pretty hard to mis-identify as it has the railway bridge to Victoria immediately to the east but the others are much of muchness
he'd have to a long way out to not know where he was approximately
more likely he just got wide on the turn in low cloud/mist - only had a few metres to play with really
he'd have to a long way out to not know where he was approximately
more likely he just got wide on the turn in low cloud/mist - only had a few metres to play with really
Neon:
From the 34th page (pdf file) of Jumpseater's link.
Jumpseater, thank you for the link.
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.
From the 34th page (pdf file) of Jumpseater's link.
A Special VFR Flight (SVFR) is a flight made at any time in a control zone which is Class A airspace, or in any other control zone in IMC or at night, in respect of which the appropriate air traffic control unit has given permission for the flight to be made in accordance with special instructions given by that unit instead of in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules and in the course of which flight the aircraft complies with any instructions given by that unit and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface
Jumpseater, thank you for the link.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elsewhere in the same document it says:
The following conditions are applicable to all Special VFR flights:
(a) The pilot must obtain an ATC clearance and comply with ATC instructions;
(b) The pilot must at all times remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface;
The following conditions are applicable to all Special VFR flights:
(a) The pilot must obtain an ATC clearance and comply with ATC instructions;
(b) The pilot must at all times remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface;
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: cornwall
Age: 78
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading Heathrow Directors post above regarding compliance with ATC instructions, and from the AAIB report ,
quote ; The ATC controller replied:
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
There seems to be a degree of non compliance with the route then flown, or am I getting it all wrong again?
quote ; The ATC controller replied:
“ROCKET 2, YOU CAN HOLD ON THE RIVER FOR THE MINUTE BETWEEN VAUXHALL AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGES AND I’LL CALL YOU BACK”.
There seems to be a degree of non compliance with the route then flown, or am I getting it all wrong again?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Somerset
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But surely, if they try and ban helicopters over London, how would 'they' and the gentry get to work???
Interesting theory with the blackbox on a 109. We have one where I fly out of. I'll ask when I'm next in. Won't be until next week now, the weather just isn't helping!
On a NOTAM point. There is never an excuse to NOT read them, but he was diverting! We all know the cockpit workload in that weather and under those conditions! It's not easy to remember that one line! However, he wouldn't have taken the decision to divert to Battersea lightly! Isn't it about Ł1000 landing fee?!?!?!
Interesting theory with the blackbox on a 109. We have one where I fly out of. I'll ask when I'm next in. Won't be until next week now, the weather just isn't helping!
On a NOTAM point. There is never an excuse to NOT read them, but he was diverting! We all know the cockpit workload in that weather and under those conditions! It's not easy to remember that one line! However, he wouldn't have taken the decision to divert to Battersea lightly! Isn't it about Ł1000 landing fee?!?!?!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: cornwall
Age: 78
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comewhirlwithme.
this is from Rotormotions home page.
Quote :Landings are currently Ł550 +VAT. Also do be prompt. After 15 minutes on the ground, the helicopter has a Ł300 parking charge levied on it, which we will have to pass on. As we are only 10 minutes away at Redhill, it may be better for us to wait there and you to phone us when on the way.
Notwithstanding the costs, I think the last sentence there has the most significance regarding this very sad accident.
this is from Rotormotions home page.
Quote :Landings are currently Ł550 +VAT. Also do be prompt. After 15 minutes on the ground, the helicopter has a Ł300 parking charge levied on it, which we will have to pass on. As we are only 10 minutes away at Redhill, it may be better for us to wait there and you to phone us when on the way.
Notwithstanding the costs, I think the last sentence there has the most significance regarding this very sad accident.
Chelsea Bridge is pretty hard to mis-identify as it has the railway bridge to Victoria immediately to the east but the others are much of muchness
he'd have to a long way out to not know where he was approximately
he'd have to a long way out to not know where he was approximately
The track toward Battersea was not over the river, which is a far easier feature to navigate VFR so do we assume this leg was commenced on instruments?
The track is not direct and deviates apparently to avoid overflying Palace?
If so the pilot at that point, had a good understanding of where he was.
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhat confused by some of the comments on here that seem to be suggesting that there is no problem of descending through cloud / fog, below MSA, having been VMC "ontop". Special VFR requires you to be clear of cloud and insight of the surface. So how can you descend in a built up area IMC without radar coverage to be special VFR whilst flying at a forward speed of even 60 kts and be legal. However, if he had landmarks in sight then why not hover and descend slowly using your visual landmark reference until clear and able to be special VFR below. Then transition at low speed to your heliport or stay VMC ontop and return to your departure airport / land in a field - park whatever! If he had done that, a smack on the hand from the CAA, but not an appointment with his maker. This was a helicopter not a fixed wing aircraft.
Done the hover and descend part whilst in the military, ship in the Haar with only the TACAN aerial sticking out of the fog and the hover taxying up the wake. Being able to do the unusual was what I liked about my six years of flying rotary.
Done the hover and descend part whilst in the military, ship in the Haar with only the TACAN aerial sticking out of the fog and the hover taxying up the wake. Being able to do the unusual was what I liked about my six years of flying rotary.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply because he did not need to. Above the cloud, hole over Vauxhall, descend through the cloud with enough speed to keep at the peek of the power curve (minimum power). That is much safer than hovering down, which has risks such as entering vortex ring state (at low level you might not get out of that before running out of height).
PB had no problem with the flight - that I can discern from the facts we have so far and from what I know - until he was below the lower cloud layer, and making the final turn.
PB had no problem with the flight - that I can discern from the facts we have so far and from what I know - until he was below the lower cloud layer, and making the final turn.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John
I still do not see how it was legal to descend through this hole, there would not have been enough separation horizontally nor did it prove big enough to give the visibility required.
I am sure if this man would have been able to descend in the hover without encountering vortex ring, the rate of descent would have had to be extreme.
I still do not see how it was legal to descend through this hole, there would not have been enough separation horizontally nor did it prove big enough to give the visibility required.
I am sure if this man would have been able to descend in the hover without encountering vortex ring, the rate of descent would have had to be extreme.
Perceptual
Assuming the pilot was over a layer with ceiling and top below the top of the building and crane, it's likely the building commanded his attention, less likely the vertical portion of the crane, and still less likely the boom -- the least substantial of the objects before him.
How much the boom contrasted with the background in the conditions -- clouds, other buildings, urban backdrop -- may be a subject of the investigation.
How much the boom contrasted with the background in the conditions -- clouds, other buildings, urban backdrop -- may be a subject of the investigation.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR for helicopter is clear of cloud, in sight of surface. So dropping through a hole to clear of cloud below is OK.
This flight went wrong after the descent through the hole to the narrowing clear layer below. The descent itself and the first minute or so below cloud looks OK, then possibly he entered cloud - witness on the ground does not have the same view PB would have - or maybe not. AAIB will tell us the answers.
This flight went wrong after the descent through the hole to the narrowing clear layer below. The descent itself and the first minute or so below cloud looks OK, then possibly he entered cloud - witness on the ground does not have the same view PB would have - or maybe not. AAIB will tell us the answers.
Last edited by John R81; 3rd Feb 2013 at 15:05. Reason: Confused message simplified
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB will tell us the answers.
Firstly, they will not have all the data required. They will have numerous eyewitness reports (from Ground level), and probably GPS data over and above the radar data published. Also CCTV from largely ground level. How these can be used to construct the "view" from the cockpit must be limited?
But mainly because their remit is not to diagnose exactly what happened. Their aim is to prevent a recurrence. If basically the (S)VFR rules were clearly not being followed, either as a one-off or industry "practice", or the Heli-Lane rules v Wx minima v 500' rule etc. left loopholes then they will make recommendations to close / clear them up.
Furthermore, and very "IMHO", the AAIB tread carefully in stating "what" happened without strong evidence. They (again IMHO) do not want to feed the lawsuits more than necessary, especially where this strays outside the main aim (see above).
From the AIB website:-
AIB
The purpose of the AAIB is:
To improve aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents and making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence
...It is not to apportion blame or liability.
Keith Conradi, Chief Inspector
To improve aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents and making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence
...It is not to apportion blame or liability.
Keith Conradi, Chief Inspector
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
It would not have sufficient separation SVFR, but it would be legal VFR. VFR for helicopter is clear of cloud, in sight of surface. So dropping through a hole to clear of cloud below is OK.
SVFR is the less restrictive, not VFR.
SVFR in the London airspace requires a visibility of 1,000 metres. VFR requires 1500 metres.