Helicopter Crash Central London
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am really wondering if we are not just overcomplicating this tragic crash a case of not seeing the wood for the trees?
Had this occurred into a Crane in a deserted part of Scotland on top of a mountain it would have seen some press and attention and put down as yet another CFIT accident operating low level in mist cloud and fog!
This has Grabbed all the attention because it happened in the Capital city and opened the publics concern at a helicopter coming down in a worse area where 10s or 100s could have been killed.
Regulations are a framework to work with they cannot stop a pilot getting into a mess.
Weather maybe one thing at a reporting aerodrome yet a completely different picture in isolated areas close by so regulations or weather it will always be up to the pilot not to get into dangerous or threatening situations where a small mistake can have awful consequences and this shows that even the best are not immune.
Had this occurred into a Crane in a deserted part of Scotland on top of a mountain it would have seen some press and attention and put down as yet another CFIT accident operating low level in mist cloud and fog!
This has Grabbed all the attention because it happened in the Capital city and opened the publics concern at a helicopter coming down in a worse area where 10s or 100s could have been killed.
Regulations are a framework to work with they cannot stop a pilot getting into a mess.
Weather maybe one thing at a reporting aerodrome yet a completely different picture in isolated areas close by so regulations or weather it will always be up to the pilot not to get into dangerous or threatening situations where a small mistake can have awful consequences and this shows that even the best are not immune.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About seeing the wood for the trees, a lot of stuff here about finer points of rules and regs, but hardly anything about the text messaging.
What was it - ten messages in twenty minutes?
Was he really giving enough attention to actually flying?
What was it - ten messages in twenty minutes?
Was he really giving enough attention to actually flying?
To answer your question, Pozi, the evidence suggests that he was paying plenty of attention to his flying based on the last recorded text being about 4 minutes before this accident. The discussion about this among professional pilots has to do with weather, disorientation, visibility and mission requirements that set up various decision making options.
Piots multi-task as part of their profession. Pilots use multiple radios and navaids as part of their profession. Unlike folk who drive cars, and who have never been formally trained to do as pilots do, pilots are taught and tend to follow a cardinal rule:
Aviate
Navigate
Communicate
I will argue that using a text as a second comms channel in this case was abandoned as the imperative noted became more pressing to the top of the list, Aviate, over the bottom of the list, and his last series of comms were on the radio with a controlling agency. My analysis? Text had BFA to do with this.
You will find, in this thread and in the thread covering this accident in the Rotorheads forum, AMPLE discussion of the use of text as an adjunct to radio comms, and in particular the argument about that in re this accident.
Please READ THE ENTIRE THREAD before you sound off.
Piots multi-task as part of their profession. Pilots use multiple radios and navaids as part of their profession. Unlike folk who drive cars, and who have never been formally trained to do as pilots do, pilots are taught and tend to follow a cardinal rule:
Aviate
Navigate
Communicate
I will argue that using a text as a second comms channel in this case was abandoned as the imperative noted became more pressing to the top of the list, Aviate, over the bottom of the list, and his last series of comms were on the radio with a controlling agency. My analysis? Text had BFA to do with this.
You will find, in this thread and in the thread covering this accident in the Rotorheads forum, AMPLE discussion of the use of text as an adjunct to radio comms, and in particular the argument about that in re this accident.
Please READ THE ENTIRE THREAD before you sound off.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 11th Feb 2013 at 13:41.
the evidence suggests that he was paying plenty of attention to his flying based on the last recorded text being about 4 minutes before this accident
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
DaveReidUK
Interesting question.
iMessage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't know what phones were in use, but 'the network' would surely have a record of what was going on at the time. According to the SB, there was a message received but 'not read'. Thats not to say that it wasn't seen.
Out of interest, would the network register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent, at the time of the collision with the crane ?
iMessage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Messages, a user can see if the other iMessage user is typing a message. A pale gray ellipsis appears in the text bubble of the other user when a reply is started.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB was a highly respected and much loved aviator. This for me is an example how a small mistake if the cards are stacked against you can have such awful results.
Very much the case of there for the sake of God go I fixed wing or Rotary.
I am sure there are not many of us who fly commercially OCAS or even for that matter in CAS who cannot look back and say we are so perfect that we never made a mistake where thankfully lady luck was on our side.
Very much the case of there for the sake of God go I fixed wing or Rotary.
I am sure there are not many of us who fly commercially OCAS or even for that matter in CAS who cannot look back and say we are so perfect that we never made a mistake where thankfully lady luck was on our side.
Don't know what phones were in use, but 'the network' would surely have a record of what was going on at the time.
I'm not implying that's what happened, simply that it's a possible scenario.
According to the SB, there was a message received but 'not read'. Thats not to say that it wasn't seen.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Q - "Out of interest, would the network register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent, at the time of the collision with the crane ?"
A - Yes. Although the message itself hasn't yet been sent, there will be traffic on the network to inform imessage on the 'receiving phone' that a reply is being composed.
Seen, but not 'read';
With a smartphone, when you are sent a message, part of that message (or all of the msg if it is short) can be seen on the home screen without opening the conversation, simply by looking at the display. Until the phone/message app is 'opened', the message will be shown as 'unread'.
(however, we don't know what phones were in use!)
A - Yes. Although the message itself hasn't yet been sent, there will be traffic on the network to inform imessage on the 'receiving phone' that a reply is being composed.
SS
Dave
According to the SB, there was a message received but 'not read'. Thats not to say that it wasn't seen
Actually, I think that's exactly what it does imply.
With a smartphone, when you are sent a message, part of that message (or all of the msg if it is short) can be seen on the home screen without opening the conversation, simply by looking at the display. Until the phone/message app is 'opened', the message will be shown as 'unread'.
(however, we don't know what phones were in use!)
With a smartphone, when you are sent a message, part of that message (or all of the msg if it is short) can be seen on the home screen without opening the conversation, simply by looking at the display. Until the phone/message app is 'opened', the message will be shown as 'unread'.
(however, we don't know what phones were in use!)
(however, we don't know what phones were in use!)
Having said that, the AAIB report only identified the last received text ("Yes it’s fine still here") as not having been read, unlike all the prior ones, including a couple that simply said "OK" and would therefore not have needed to be opened if a smartphone was being used, but were.
Although the message itself hasn't yet been sent, there will be traffic on the network to inform imessage on the 'receiving phone' that a reply is being composed.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
My BB certainly doesn't talk to the network when I'm typing an SMS reply,
About BlackBerry Messenger
With BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), you can chat and share in real-time with your BlackBerry contacts. For example, you can see when someone has read your message and when the person is typing a reply.
With BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), you can chat and share in real-time with your BlackBerry contacts. For example, you can see when someone has read your message and when the person is typing a reply.
Having said that, the AAIB report only identified the last received text ("Yes it’s fine still here") as not having been read, unlike all the prior ones, including a couple that simply said "OK" and would therefore not have needed to be opened if a smartphone was being used, but were.
The first OK was from Witness A to pilot.
In order to reply to that message, which was the next text in the sequence, that OK msg would have been opened as it was part of the conversation.
The second Ok, also from Witness A to pilot, ended that particular conversation as an acknowledgment, so would not necessarily, as you say, have needed to be opened to do just that. However looking at the timeline, a couple of texts were sent and read in that minute. Perhaps there was going to be a reply to that Ok and so it was opened, indicating a read, however the reply msg to the client took priority. Or perhaps while the reply to the client was being typed, the ok msg came through and was quickly looked at during the reply to the client. After all, when typing a msg and another msg comes in, the indication would only be that a new message has arrived and not a shortened text version.
(I wonder if the final msg from the Client - 'Battersea is open', could have been interpreted as a suggestion?)
Anyway, as much as an understanding of text messaging, SMS, messaging, Blackberry messenger etc etc can explain a possible course of events here, I'm sure that the AAIB will have the 'authority' to get whatever information is needed to interrogate the different pings and pongs and timelines from the various networks and devices.
About BlackBerry Messenger
With BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), you can chat and share in real-time with your BlackBerry contacts. For example, you can see when someone has read your message and when the person is typing a reply.
With BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), you can chat and share in real-time with your BlackBerry contacts. For example, you can see when someone has read your message and when the person is typing a reply.
I'm sure that the AAIB will have the 'authority' to get whatever information is needed to interrogate the different pings and pongs and timelines from the various networks and devices.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest, would the network register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent, at the time of the collision with the crane ?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Ok, to explain the pinging, ponging, SMS (Short Message Service) and Smartphone 'Messaging' goings on, lets have a scenario or 3.
We have;
Person A, iPhone with iMessage
Person B, iPhone with iMessage
Person C, Blackberry with BMM
Person D, Nokia C1 (basic mobile phone)
Scene 1;
Person A wants to text person B.
When person A wants to text Person B, A will open the message app and pick B out of their contact list. When iMessage senses this, it pings B's phone to see if that phone is connected to the internet (3G or wireless). If it is connected (and is running iMessage), B's phone will pong back and say it is connected to the internet and running iMessage, and the msg will go by iMessage, if not it will go by SMS.
A sends B the message. If this is by iMessage, A will get a notification that it has been delivered, ping pong. When B reads the message by opening the 'message app', B's phone pings A's phone and tells it that the text has been read. When B starts to reply to A's msg, B's phone pings A's phone to confirm the delivery method (iMessage or SMS) which also informs A's phone that B is replying.
B then sends the msg and A's phone pings back, which tells B's phone the msg has been delivered. Not until the conversation is opened, does A's phone ping B's to tell it that the message has been read...however, as earlier discussed, the text of the msg can still be read without opening the app and in turn not activating the 'msg read ping'.
Scene 2;
Person A wants to text person C.
When person A wants to text Person C, A will open the message app and pick C out of their contact list. When iMessage senses this, it pings C's phone to see if that phone is connected to the internet (3G or wireless) and running iMessage. C's phone is running BMM and as it is not compatable with iMessage, A's phone will not get a pong back and the msg will be sent by SMS.
On receipt of the message, C's phone will try to send the delivered ping to A's phone, but because the 2 messaging programmes aren't compatible, no delivered or read pings are sent, (which would have happened if A had a Blackberry as per the 2 iPhones scene)
C begins to compose a reply, C's Blackberry sends a method check/writing ping but it isnt registered on A's phone as the systems are different. C replies to A's msg by SMS.
Scene 3;
Persons A,B or C want to text person D and/or D wants to text A, B or C.
Because D's phone isn't 'smart', all messaging is carried out using SMS. D's phone does not ping or pong, however when A,B or C reply to D's msg, their phone will send a ping to see if the msg can be sent by their messaging system.
However, despite not being smart, D's phone can still show a message's text, without opening the 'text app'.
The various networks will not only have copies of all messages sent over the last up to 7 years from that persons contract/number, but also a record of all the various method of delivery, reply, delivered or read pings.
We have;
Person A, iPhone with iMessage
Person B, iPhone with iMessage
Person C, Blackberry with BMM
Person D, Nokia C1 (basic mobile phone)
Scene 1;
Person A wants to text person B.
When person A wants to text Person B, A will open the message app and pick B out of their contact list. When iMessage senses this, it pings B's phone to see if that phone is connected to the internet (3G or wireless). If it is connected (and is running iMessage), B's phone will pong back and say it is connected to the internet and running iMessage, and the msg will go by iMessage, if not it will go by SMS.
A sends B the message. If this is by iMessage, A will get a notification that it has been delivered, ping pong. When B reads the message by opening the 'message app', B's phone pings A's phone and tells it that the text has been read. When B starts to reply to A's msg, B's phone pings A's phone to confirm the delivery method (iMessage or SMS) which also informs A's phone that B is replying.
B then sends the msg and A's phone pings back, which tells B's phone the msg has been delivered. Not until the conversation is opened, does A's phone ping B's to tell it that the message has been read...however, as earlier discussed, the text of the msg can still be read without opening the app and in turn not activating the 'msg read ping'.
Scene 2;
Person A wants to text person C.
When person A wants to text Person C, A will open the message app and pick C out of their contact list. When iMessage senses this, it pings C's phone to see if that phone is connected to the internet (3G or wireless) and running iMessage. C's phone is running BMM and as it is not compatable with iMessage, A's phone will not get a pong back and the msg will be sent by SMS.
On receipt of the message, C's phone will try to send the delivered ping to A's phone, but because the 2 messaging programmes aren't compatible, no delivered or read pings are sent, (which would have happened if A had a Blackberry as per the 2 iPhones scene)
C begins to compose a reply, C's Blackberry sends a method check/writing ping but it isnt registered on A's phone as the systems are different. C replies to A's msg by SMS.
Scene 3;
Persons A,B or C want to text person D and/or D wants to text A, B or C.
Because D's phone isn't 'smart', all messaging is carried out using SMS. D's phone does not ping or pong, however when A,B or C reply to D's msg, their phone will send a ping to see if the msg can be sent by their messaging system.
However, despite not being smart, D's phone can still show a message's text, without opening the 'text app'.
The various networks will not only have copies of all messages sent over the last up to 7 years from that persons contract/number, but also a record of all the various method of delivery, reply, delivered or read pings.
No, but a text may remain as a 'draft' in the phone itself if the phone survived the crash and subsequent fire.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Speed of Sound;
No, but a text may remain as a 'draft' in the phone itself if the phone survived the crash and subsequent fire.
No, but a text may remain as a 'draft' in the phone itself if the phone survived the crash and subsequent fire.
Yes, that's exactly my point, the only place an unsent SMS resides is in the composer's phone. The survival of the pilot's phone amid the almost complete destruction of the airframe in this instance would have been a very big "if" indeed.
The original question, which I expect could have been phrased better to get the answer you are after, was, "Out of interest, would the network register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent, at the time of the collision with the crane ? "
The answer to which is; 'Yes, the network would register a text that was being composed, but not yet sent.'...
...however, if you want to know if the message being composed is pre-sent during the composition... the answer is No.
I hope that clears that one up
p.s.
There is no suggestion in the AAIB report that IM was being used, nor any reason why it should have been.
Didn't you wonder how the AAIB know that the last message wasn't read?
That, of course, applies only to SMS/texts and not to IM/Instant Messaging. In the latter case there is no practical distinction between a message being received and opened - the clue is in the name, Instant.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
That, of course, applies only to SMS/texts and not to IM/Instant Messaging. In the latter case there is no practical distinction between a message being received and opened - the clue is in the name, Instant.
The instant part of instant messaging means that imessages are going over the internet (3G, 4G, Wireless) and not the normal phone networks. Normal networks can delay messages depending on the networks capacity/workload. This can be demonstrated for example at busy periods such as New Years Eve etc. The internet has a vastly greater bandwidth than the normal mobile phone network, so messges pass more freely, or to re-phrase that more instantly.