Weathervaning is not the issue, the issue is the height of the crane which, correct me if I'm wrong, which was notamed and also the top of it lit at night. To me the height of the jib should be notamed as the true height and lit from the top of the jib if it is to remain extended.
Regarding whether or not the crane driver slept in or not is irreverent as he/she would probably not have gone up to the cab due weather. I can see falling to sleep whilst being on duty a factor but not being late for work. Rgds.

Weather vane.
 

These cranes aren't always unlocked(left to slew,weather vane).Even fixed jib(not rising/lowering,luffing)cranes are always left unlocked.It is down to the operator to decide.Mainly dependent on the weather and surroundings.This crane would slew over a public footpath.Not ideal unless in bad wind conditions.Any damage to the trolley,top of the crane.Would cause a catastrophic failure of the jib.As it is supported by the counterweights through the cable connected to the trolley.The jib alone weighs over 4 tons.And if you know about fall factors,you'll know the result.Had it been hit whilst locked and positioned over the site,it would not have landed on the highway.

spreadsheet of helicopter movements in london 2007 -2012

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...nTWxCaFE#gid=0

number of fatal incidents in that period ?

Edit to add: Rhetorical question above.

Zero, this was the first one.

Top of building is 181m...(593ft)
NOTAM'd height was 770 ft =234m...

Difference is pretty much height of jib when raised and end of jib was (at least at some point recently) equiped with a working light.
Cab is broadly same height as TOB...

Height difference is about 16 floors of building so a just under a third higher.

The question was asked earlier in the thread , but AFAIK was never answered...do 109s carry flight data recorders?

Thanks

.....and a follow up to the above , anyone know what the local pressure setting was at the time ?

Thanks

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/505...ne-london.html post#6

1012 it was then , Many thanks BOAC

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.

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??

I agree , I was just trying to confirm the mode S data

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.

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.

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

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

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.

- can you elaborate on this 'vertical' position?

I refer you sir to my 1st point in the post above yours

You said 'vertical' - do you mean that?

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...

The crane operator did their job by following protocol and issuing a message saying "crane here, stay the :mad: 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.