Just a random thought I wonder whether anyone has thought of installing a transponder (or similar device) in cranes over a certain height. I'm not sure if this would be useful in the TCAS environment.

The problem with this in my view, and with active transponders bolted to cranes and any similar suggestion, is this: they don't fail safe.

So what happens when the extra hole in the cheese lines up, and the battery fails, or the xenon tube blows, or the wind takes the antenna off the transponder, or whatever?

Result: The accident still happens.

All you have actually done is provide a way to absolve the pilot of blame (which I accept for many on PPRuNE is the desired goal of all accident investigations) but you've not necessarily done much to improve aviation safety.


Any safety feature you design needs to answer a fundamental question: what happens when it breaks? Take as an example three-aspect railway signals:
That is a good example of safety critical systems design. When a component fails, it fails to a safer outcome (albeit less efficient to railway operations - people who whine about the amount of disruption caused by signal failures and the like ought to remember that that's because their safety is being prioritised, but that's a different moan.)

Now consider what happens with your proposed solution:
This is a bad example of safety critical systems design...

TCAS 1, the type fitted to helicopters, is a very useful aid to safety. However, it still requires the pilot to visually aquire the transponder, or rather whatever it is fastened to, and avoid it. In this case it would be of no practical use. This accident involved a known object but the pilot appears not to have visually aquired it.

Speaking as someone regularly flying rotary in the London airspace, often to and from Battersea, using this very route, and often in the same type of aircraft as the unfortunate deceased pilot, I'd say high intensity strobe or LED lighting on the crane, so that it could have been recognised as such, would have been of far more practical use. The usual "obstruction light" is a single red light. These lights do not stand out.

A classic example is the full-width arch over Wembley Stadium. This is an open structure, very similar to a crane. You can fly very close to it but not see the red light (in fact I think there are two) because they are not bright enough against the background. However, occasionally, the whole structure of the arch is lit by a series of bright white lights. It can then be (and is) used as a navigational feature for miles around.

ShyTorque

Yes but.... what good is a strobe/light in the fog/cloud ?

As I said earlier, the diffused light will do nothing to help an already disorientated pilot.

Mixture
Are you actually a pilot? If your argument holds true why bother with high intensity lighting on top of buildings like Canary Wharf far easier to see than a pencil thin crane towering into the clouds above it?

A strobe is visible in cloud remember visibility in in cloud varies from around 50 meters to 200 meters and sight of a strobe in such a situation would mean the pilot pulling instantly away.

1) See what SLFandProud said above ....

2) We're potentially talking about a scud-running scenario here..... what good are flashing lights during scud-running where cloud/fog cover is ever changing and you've basically already put yourself (accidentally or otherwise) into a situation where there's no obvious route out because the weather has trapped you in.

Surely the safest thing to do in that context, particularly if you are in a helicopter is just to stop and put it down in the nearest safest spot...... isn't that one of the main benefits of a heli ?

Mixture I am a Biz jet pilot not a helicopter pilot but yes I agree! Hindsight is a wonderful thing

What does an A190 bimble along at ?

If we call it 100knots, thats 50 metres per second .... not much time for an already disorientated and stressed out pilot to figure out what's going on and pull away in a safe manner.

Can't disagree. So which would have been the "nearest safe spot"? I don't suppose he deliberately flew into the crane. It must have been unintentional. Would stobes and lights have helped? From an aviation life from the age of five, I don't remember anyone telling me about the time they avoided an obstruction because they saw a light. Has anyone here?

Lots of green park areas around and leading up to the Vauxhall area.

Failing that.... a very, very,very slow descent onto one of the bridges ? (very much less than ideal, I know.... but better than meeting a crane in the mist !)

Oh, and there's also the Oval cricket ground !

If you're flying along a known helicopter route and you suddenly, in the clag, see a strobe in front of and slightly above you, wouldn't you're first reaction be "Christ it's another helicopter and dive?"

Lemain

I am sure the CAA after reading your pearls of wisdom will change the regs and have all lighting removed off tall buildings like Canary Wharf???

yeah of course.. any heli can just land at will in a park in built up area like inner city london, have a smoke and wait for the weather to clear up.

I firmly believe we may never know what happened. Two things will be known already - track and estimated speed at impact from the wreckage trail. There is a good possibility that altitude (but not height and track) could be established over the flight. Without reliable witnesses as to position and heading at any time, the rest will be conjecture

well we know that on a bad weather divert, the craft impacted a high temporary structure, which it seems was only lit at night.

And its attitudes like that are contributing factors towards accidents....the red-mist, press-on effect !

You made a bad call on the weather. Its closed in around you. You know you're about to hit an area of London that you would rather not be in under cover of cloud and potential ice.

Assuming you have exhausted all other viable options, don't press-on, put the damn thing down ..... I'm sure the CAA would much rather see you do that than end up hitting a crane.

Infact, didn't someone link to a AIC pink on the subject ? You might want to read it..... P146/2012 issued 20 December 2012.

- I was not going to respond to your posts, but I will ask you what you would do in a helo then if you had insufficient weather conditions to continue safe flight?

BOAC:

We know with certainty that he was too low for that location. What we don't know is whether the contractor was in compliance with whatever structure lighting requirements your aviation authority mandates.

Lighting of "temporary structures" in the U.S. is all over the map, no pun intended. If a building is being constructed in Manhattan where the crane would be lower than surrounding buildings the lighting requirement would likely be less than if the building was higher than the surrounding buildings. But, in the FAA at least, these decisions are left to indifferent clerks.

The contractor, if he was really smart, would have required strobes, if that is possible during the day when the crane is in operation. Then again, if the crane can be lowered when not in operation, that would also seem to be a prudent action.

err no. you're reaching and making assumptions based your confirmation bias.

you have never to my knowledge flown with me, nor i with you. so it would be best not to make conjecture of my decision making in the cockpit, nor will I with you.

further to that, i never flew with Peter Barnes, did you ?

on that basis I would not make any assumptions on the late Mr Barnes decision making in the cockpit, and would suggest you do not either.

you were not there, nor were I, neither you nor I am aware of the circumstances that could have led Mr Barnes into a 'box canyon' situation.

you are making speculation of Mr Barnes flight skills having not been there, and i would hazard, not having flown with him.

- I was referring to the flying bits, not the regulations for cranes. However, I think from other comments there was no requirement for obstruction lights after nautical twilight.