Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Helicopter Crash Central London

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Helicopter Crash Central London

Old 17th Jan 2013, 15:57
  #201 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/505...ne-london.html post#6
BOAC is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 16:06
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NW UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1012 it was then , Many thanks BOAC
uksatcomuk is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 16:38
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
just a question, what is the relevance of the pressure at the time it could be 1030 0r 1000 which is irrelevant, more relevant is what pressure setting was the pilot flying on.
What is a "working light" my car has working lights. The light has to be an "obstruction light" as defined by the CAA.
ILS 119.5 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 16:39
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,116
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
So if we are saying the crane is a material factor and the descrepancy being argued about is circa 100ft are we saying it's cool to fly 100ft off the top of buildings??
Pittsextra is online now  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 16:43
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NW UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
more relevant is what pressure setting was the pilot flying on.
I agree , I was just trying to confirm the mode S data
uksatcomuk is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 17:05
  #206 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,561
Received 402 Likes on 210 Posts
The question was asked earlier in the thread , but AFAIK was never answered...do 109s carry flight data recorders?
Thanks
No, there is no legal requirement. I'm not certain if one is available for the A109 Power, I think not.

The pilot would have had the London QNH set. The maximum altitudes along the heli-routes are always based on that setting (as is flight under the London TMA). Whilst under a service from Heathrow Special or Farnborough Radar) it would have been given to the pilot and read back as set, in this case before entering controlled airspace. His actual altitude would have been visible to ATC via the Mode C readout of his encoding altimeter.

He would have been given a maximum altitude to fly, not a minimum, which is the pilot's responsibility. The 1,000 foot rule would not be applicable, but the pilot still needs to comply with the 500 foot rule unless taking off or landing.

Twin engined helicopters do not necessarily have to fly along the river Thames and ATC may direct or clear the pilot to fly another route. The London heli-routes are mandatory routes for single engined but not for twins.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 17:06
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,631
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by ILS 119.5
Regarding whether or not the crane driver slept in ...... I can see falling to sleep whilst being on duty a factor but not being late for work.
Of course, if the crane driver had reported for duty on time and lowered the jib from the overnight parked vertical position to the normal working angle then we might not be discussing this.
WHBM is online now  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 17:11
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Greenwich
Age: 35
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It matters not where the crane was positioned at close of business on Tuesday.

As has been said a number of times already, these jibs are designed to weathervane and as such, could feasibly move up to 180 degrees from its original position depending on windspeed, direction and time.
Correct. The descision to leave it at the most upright position would be so as not to strike anything should the crane be slewed due to wind. If they are locked into position the wind can topple a crane quite easily. Therefore leaving them unlocked allows the wind to rotate/slew them albeit very slowly in comparison with the speed of the wind hitting it. And this alleviates the potential of the wind effectively hitting a solid object and the risk of it blowing it over

Any damage to the trolley,top of the crane
this type of crane does not have a trolley (luffing crane). The cranes jib is raised or lowered to bring the lifting hook closer or move further away

Of course, if the crane driver had reported for duty on time and lowered the jib from the overnight parked vertical position to the normal working angle then we might not be discussing this.
This is an interesting point. According to people who have worked with this guy for years. He's never been late for work. Yet the day that something happens is the day he was late. A little too coincidental. A theory of mine as I have worked on building sites (as a lifting engineer, which at the time was involved in lifting operations for cranes) Is that maybe the fog had suspended crane ops for an hour to allow the fog to clear. Although they use radios to guide loads in and out. It's possible the site manager or the operator deemed it too risky to begin ops that morning. Also maybe taking into account the fact he was by a heliport and if he were to slew round in the fog he might make contact with anything flying low?

A little optimistic perhaps. But would be interesting to hear from the building site itself to see if all we are hearing is true.

Last edited by 757hopeful; 17th Jan 2013 at 17:24.
757hopeful is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 17:15
  #209 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WHBM
the overnight parked vertical position
- can you elaborate on this 'vertical' position?
BOAC is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 17:17
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Greenwich
Age: 35
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
can you elaborate on this 'vertical' position
I refer you sir to my 1st point in the post above yours
757hopeful is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 17:27
  #211 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You said 'vertical' - do you mean that?
BOAC is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 17:31
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry.. I should have written an 'operational obstruction light'...

The raised jib is normal; raise to its highest possible position to reduce the oversail of the public domain...i.e foot paths and road below when not in use. This also reduces the moment arm the wind can generate at the tip, permitting slightly higher wind speed to be tolerated before the auto weathervaning operates. This will operate regardless of the crane being manned or not, with the human operator having only a little allowance to block it...
mfaff is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 17:39
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
that the crane jib should have been lowered as it was not lit albeing the actual crane itself was. I would hope that the crane was not positioned in any way to encroach on any of the std helicopter routes.
The crane operator did their job by following protocol and issuing a message saying "crane here, stay the away" (otherwise known as a NOTAM).

The helicopter infringed (for whatever reason the AAIB find) the NOTAM and suffered the consequences accordingly.

Calling for no cranes, lowering of cranes or all sorts of other stuff is about as helpful as the knee-jerk reaction from one of the MPs to reduce / eliminate helicopter flights over London.

Aviation and obstacles have peacefully co-existed for years with relatively few incidents, sure lessons will be learnt from this event, but I don't think we need to start placing some extravagant new measures on either the obstacle creators or the aviation community.

Last edited by mixture; 17th Jan 2013 at 17:44.
mixture is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 17:51
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Dulwich
Age: 52
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the weather we had it could have been locked.It operates all day with much more stress on it.It's just the done thing to let it slew.Either way,if you can't see it.It's dangerous.Time will tell if the experts deem it was safe.
Ditter is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 19:29
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Malvern, UK
Posts: 425
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Flap5
There's a lot of nonsense being talked about the crane. It's orientation and whether it was lit or not is frankly irrelevant. The pilot would have been SVFR which requires him to be clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. That means you stay over the river, avoiding buildings and bridges. I can only think that something distracted the pilot, like changing frequency, to cause him to lose his references.
That sums it up very well for me, based upon what we already know. There is no mystery or fault in any VFR (or SVFR) flight being below the height of nearby obstructions. But when VMC go bad...
...Single pilot operation can get very intense in bad weather, even for experienced pilots.
.
The investigation will take its own good time, but I strongly suspect the conclusions will not venture far from that point.
Dont Hang Up is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 20:20
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am going to stick my neck out here, that crane is not new, it has been there for ages. Pete has been going in and out of Battersea countless times. I for one would not be surprised if the accident had nothing to do with the crane and the craft was in trouble long before the crane came in the picture, either due to a mechanical or catastrophic failure.

The crane may well be a contributing factor, but I don't see it being the cause of this mishap.

Time will tell.
cldrvr is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 20:43
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The crane may well be a contributing factor, but I don't see it being the cause of this mishap.
Maybe, but consider: One nice spring morning I rent PA28 for a couple of hours fun time. Well, if you call time in a PA28 'fun' but that's subjective For whatever reason, and sadly I can't tell you why because I've deceased, I crash bang into the middle of Salisbury cathedral. I'm killed and a few worshippers also, sadly. Are we agreed that Salisbury cathedral is a 'contributing factor' in this tragedy? If we are so agreed, what shall we do about it? Sue the Church of England? Put HM the Queen in the dock for putting one of her structures in front of an aircraft, without adequate lighting?

Surely the onus is on us as aviators not to fly into things? We don't need a gaggle of advisors and lawyers to tell us the bleeding obvious. We need maps and navaids that work, and our own judgement as pilots. If we don't trust the maps and the navaids then we take care. Crikes! Why are we having this discussion???
Lemain is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 20:43
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Bucuresti
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the weather we had it could have been locked.It operates all day with much more stress on it.It's just the done thing to let it slew.Either way,if you can't see it.It's dangerous.Time will tell if the experts deem it was safe.
I am sensing an utterly absurd undercurrent here that the problem that needs to be solved is development in London providing an obstacle to general aviation.

That carthorse you see over there? It's not going to work that way round.



In the world you envisage in which London is preserved in aspic for the convenience of aviators, the demand for aviation of any kind is going to drop to zero.


There are doubtless many lessons to be learned from this awful incident; "we should ban cranes [and by extension development] in London" is not one of them.
SLFandProud is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 20:57
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

sadly I can't tell you why because I've deceased, I crash bang into the
middle of Salisbury cathedral.
But if you already had a catastrophic failure and you had no chance to avoid said cathedral, then the cathedral is just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am suggesting the accident happened before the crane was struck.
cldrvr is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2013, 20:58
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
of course not, and neither shoul heli flights be banned, battersea or any other heliport be closed down either.

ther has to some degree been a bit if a battle over heli activity from the anti-aviation brigade, complaining about noise, pollution, safety etc and the site at batterseas for one has been coveted for its 'development potential' more than once.

be rest assured, this incident will be used to maximum effect by those with an agenda, which IMHO is shadenfreude over the grave of Peter Barnes and Matthew Wood.
stuckgear is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.