DaveReidUK, agreed.

NAROBS,

(a) No doubt a commercial operation such as the one operating the heli yesterday already uses some form of planning software. Its unlikely the commander writes up PLOGS by hand using a whizzwheel. :E

(b) The more gadgets, the more scope for bugs, software crashes and GIGO (Garbage In .... Garbage Out).

(c) The decision of the PIC on a flight is final and can overrule whatever the electronics are telling him/her if he/she feels something is up. Has always been, and will always be.

(d) Look up a video on ewe-toob called "Children of the magenta line"

TCAS..... Traffic Collison Avoidance System ..... hmmm... let me see.... that would have avoided yesterday's incident how exactly ?

The point about yesterday's incident is you're supposed to be visual over London in the heliroutes for good reason .... speculation suggests that the weather closed in around this poor chap and he struggled and subsequently failed to extricate himself safely. However I think its best we wait for the results of the investigation before jumping to conclusions as to whether or not he should have made the decision to depart in the first place..... there may well have been other contributing factors we don't yet know about.

Cap Peacock

Icing in the majority of cases is only a problem if your flying in cloud/Fog not on top of it or hitting the occasional lump of it!
IE if he was flying IFR in IMC then yes cloud could create an icing problem.
As the pilot was flying VFR and visual it is more likely he was scud running.

I can remember 15 years ago moving a very basic C150 to another airport for a friend.
No nav kit only a radio.
I set off in light rain and 1000 foot cloudbase and elected to follow a river which I knew would stop me running into high ground. The River past within a couple of hundred meters of the destination airfield some 80 miles away.
Before I knew it I was down at 600 feet staying visual over the river. The rain had intensified and visibility was down to 2k.
Things got worse and I was now down at 400 feet with 1000 meter viz.
I waited to break out into better conditions but now at 400 feet was chopping in and out of scud cloud and cloud was appearing below as well.
That was it I pulled up into the clouds still over the river climbed to 2500 feet in solid IMC with the intention of calling a military unit who could offer me a PAR to land. As it was 10 miles further on I exited the front into clear blue skies.
It sounds more than likely that this pilot was slightly off from where he thought he was hit some cloud and was met by a building. Turning away he probably did not see the Crane arm.
But this is only a guess as we do not know what other problems he may or may not have had.
I still feel that such structures near aircraft routes should be well marked with high intensity lighting as unlike a building they are hard or near impossible to see in such conditions.

With it being mentioned earlier that he HAD been receiving a service from NATS but had not yet contacted the Heliport, could this be a case of a frequency change distracting the pilot at just the wrong time?

I disagree. In the old days when accurate nav was impossible - particularly for the solo pilot - there was a good case for lighting but these days we, aviators and the industry, should stay clear of high objects. Yes, huge chimneys, radio masts, etc. in the middle of practically nowhere need special care and they get it. High intensity lighting is expensive, wasteful of energy, unsightly and pollutes the night sky.

I'm still baffled why the pilot chose to fly into an urban area with that clag when there are so many alternates with minimal terrain clearance issues all with brilliant rail/road and air links to wherever, and excellent ground/engineering services. If you're anywhere near Battersea you are literally spoilt for choice and there are are excellent visual routes out (trunk roads) that can be followed in an emergency. Based only on the high praise the deceased pilot has been receiving from the industry it makes me think that he had some emergency other than weather to contend with. Ill health, airframe or engine problems, instrumentation,...might even have been fuel, of course. Despite the prima facie evidence that there was considerable fuel on board, it doesn't follow that it was reaching the engines or maybe the pilot's instrumentation indicated a fuel problem. More probable than an experienced pilot flying into a crane :(

Presuming that he was meaning a TAWS or GPWS rather than TCAS, they rely on a database of heights of obstacles / terrain. Since this building isn't on any maps yet they wouldn't be any use in this scenario. They aren't going to react to NOTAMs.

Although they are available for helicopters, I'd be very surprised if one was fitted. Flying through London I suspect there would be many false positives - to such an extent a pilot may well turn it off anyway.

We may not know his heading before striking the crane, but he headed due south after he hit it...

- and at some speed so I think 'holding' is spurious.

Many, if not most, modern corporate helicopters do have TCAS, or similar fitted. I'm not sure what you consider a "false positive". I can assure you that professional helicopter pilots flying in CAS do not turn it off, and certainly not over London.

Not just TV commentators
 

We had an equally ridiculous comment on the local radio last night; the reporter was interviewing a chap from an aircraft operator and asked him;

"So you've flown in a helicopter; did it seem risky?" :ugh:

Where on earth do they get these so called experts from and why give these idiots a platform to spout their rubbish?
We had the awful tragedy of the collision and sinking of the Marchioness with the awful loss of life that involved.
We have had tube disasters with equally bad loss of life yet aircraft???
I am in London today! Crisp and clear. Looking at the amount of construction going on around the river the sky is dotted by cranes towering way above these skyscrapers like Octopus tentacles waiting for their prey.
It was one of these almost invisible high level cranes which brought this Helicopter down lets not forget that. No Crane no incident!

Indeed the aircraft could suffer a significant deflection from its original track on collision with something that substantial.

30 degrees easily.
60 degrees possibly.
90 degrees? I suspect that it would disintegrate completely on collision rather than "bounce off" in that way.

:ugh:

Every year, thousands of obstacles are listed in NOTAMs. How many of these bring down aircraft ?

Yes, the heli hit the crane..... but the real question is what lead the helicoper to occupy the same airspace as the crane in the first place.

With a pilot with as much experience as this one was purported to have, I would hope there is more to this story than meets the eye !

My guess is that he was approaching on a SW heading, ie for Battersea since the wreckage is SW of the building. I'd put his incident heading within 30 deg of that track.

I also think that he might not have been in control. He strikes me as the sort of consumate aviation professional who would not deliberatley put himself below a safe altitude in IMC.

It's a valid pov and you're entitled to it. {joking} Should we try to bulldoze the Alps, Himalayas and the Andes to make it easier for us to route? Or put lights on top of them? {/joking} OK, I exaggerate to make the point and cranes aren't permanent but aircraft have to fly in and around cities with these clearance problems in mind. SSA. Around towns and cities we should regard air-routes to be a privilege, not an entitlement. Designated clear areas are in place and there is seldom a legitimate excuse for a nav error, imho, other than an error as a consequence of some other problem or mishap. The MkI eyeball is a poor navigator's tool. It's an incredibly valuable aid, not to be believed alone, but nowhere near as good as most avionic navaids.

The only system available today that's suitable and safe for poor viz descent and landing near to or in cities is ILS. If ILS isn't available for any reason, get out of the city or fly well above it. Flying in reduced viz near to a city demands greater skills, and greater instrumentation (ground and a/c).

Nearly all accidents are as a result of a chain of events, seldom just one thing even though one thing might be the trigger and be found as "The Cause of The Accident". Seldom is, though, is it?

What worries me is that rotary wing per se, or even GA as a group, will be restricted as a consequence. That would be very damaging to the industry and those who work in the industry, as well as the public at large who (though they don't realise it) benefit from the improved performance of industry able to move key people around quickly and safely.

While we wait for the report, and the inevitable kite-flying leaks, we should resist knee jerk responses. These a/c are safe. The pilots are safe. The present airports and heliports are safe. Accident and incident levels are very acceptably low. From all we've heard no changes are needed.

That's my suspicion, unless the tributes are, understandably, exaggerated. Not 'being in control', of course, could include many things from medical, equipment to weather.

The pilot would certainly be flying svfr for entrance into class a airspace or vfr outside. TCAS has no relevance at all as it replies on other TCAS equipped aircraft for avoidance which a crane would not have. Earlier points have mentioned IFR/IMC VFR/VMC, let me clarify as a qualified aviation expert, IFR/VFR are the rules that the a/c is flying under, IMC/VMC are the conditions that the a/c is flying in. The reason why an a/c clan fly under IFR in VMC is easy, for example consider an a/c flying into LHR on a clear day in VMC as it is in class a airspace he must fly IFR. There are different rules for helicopters than fixed wing owing to the diffferencies between the flying characteristics. I won't talk about SVFR as it's a bag of worms really and after 25 years in the business can still cause long discussions. I haven't really had time to look closely into the incident but my first impressions are 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 500' rule does not apply to an a/c taking off and landing. Hope this helps, Rgds ILS

So you're saying that the jib should have been lowered? We have it as a matter of public record that the crane operators overslept for the first (cough cough) time in twenty years so are we suggesting that the safety of GA fixed and rotary in this area depends on the crane operators? :eek:

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.

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. Single pilot operation can get very intense in bad weather, even for experienced pilots.