Those cranes grow on a weekly basis, what's the date of the notam?

heli regulation
 

from UK CAA regulation for héli in EGLL CTR:
" ...pilots navigate by visual reference to ground features with only limited ATC Radar assistance...."

Reported to be Diverting to Battersea.

St. George's Wharf Tower (according to Wikipedia) is supposed to be 594ft when complete, which suggests the crane jib (which seems to have been hit not far inboard of its far end) was vertical or inclined at the time. The photo on the Wikipedia page shows it in the vertical position where it clearly exceeds the height of the building by some distance.

I do not fly Helicopters but know from flying aircraft visually how disorientating mist and fog can be especially as that fog and mist can change quickly in the course of hundreds of meters rather than miles.

I also wonder whether the notam system is best designed as giving an in a rush pilot reams of notams to read through does not always happen.

Possible altimeter error ??

With the temp around -3, unless corrected, there would have been an error of approx 10% to their altitude.
ie If your altimeter reading was 800ft....you would actually be 80ft lower in reality.

Heathrow radar is accurate enough to tell you that you are 100m off the route. Trust me, they told me!

From CAA document

"All helicopters flying in the zone are subject to an ATC clearance and in particular visibility minima."

What is that minima; and is the ATC clearance subject to that minima?

Yes, but missing a notam advising of a crane erected near an airport which doesn't effect approach minima is one thing, flying in amongst sky-scrapers at low level in mist and not having a clear idea of cranes is quite another. Not that I'm criticising these poor pilots, I'm just responding to Pace's post.

Illia

that type of crane can't get the jib vertical. It's the angle of the crane relative to the photographer which makes it look so.

60 degrees would be about the normal working angle.

By definition a crane jib will always have to be higher than the building onto which it is lifting stuff

"Heathrow radar is accurate enough to tell you that you are 100m off the route. Trust me, they told me!"

Given that the crane's about 50m from the river that's not accurate enough to keep out of trouble here. Actually, on a wider point, given that helicopter route H4 (east of Battersea) is presumably bi-directional, how do you ensure separation of incoming and outgoing traffic? Is there a convention that you fly on the left hand side of the river? If so, you're even closer to the crane.

@ Parabatix - "diverting to Battersea".

Why? Weather? Technical problem?

Where did this information come from?

Notam is dated from 7/1/2013 - 15/3/2013
However, I understand that the crane has been there for a long time (although it may well have grown as the building grew).

currently 11 confirmed casualties, one critically ill, and two confirmed fatalities.

Heliport at Battersea have got the RNLI looking for a helicopter they've lost contact with in the Thames. I presume this is normal procedure kicking in.

An RA(T) has been activated at the site.

Mike

If you take a mass of water like the thames surround that with frozen buildings and nil wind that is condusive to sporadic fog and low mist conditions.

The aviation expert quoted freezing fog and icing effecting helicopters yes if the aircraft is flying in that fog ie IFR and in IMC but I presume that very low level the pilot will be staying visual albeit at times with minimal visual reference and maybe pushed down in trying to maintain visual reference.
Very easy to miss an unlighted crane or one concealed in mist and low cloud.

I can not see how the pilot could have been legally VFR in those conditions of freezing fog with such poor visibility. You have to be VFR to fly in or around Battersea Heliport, unless the helicopter is twin engined, IFR equipped, with the pilot IFR qualified and flying above the minimum safe altitude. Battersea Heliport would not have an IFR approach for the pilot to descend below the MSA.

My god! Do you take everything so literally? What I am saying is that those people mentioning radar performance at those levels are wrong, it works just fine. Problem is, the controller isnt there to tell you to avoid towers, he is there to help aeroplanes land at heathrow. That means if you start to stray near his approach paths you will be told. That photo shows the crane to be VERY near the river. Under high workload (you are when single pilot at night in the lanes), it wouldnt take much to stray a little for ANY of us here, no matter how experienced.
PS. 32sqn and many many others fly 109

Helicopter pilot interviewed by the BBC: BBC News - 'Every helicopter pilot's nightmare'

I'm going to say it - scud running. (PPRuNe rumour rules applied)

The trouble is there's nowhere VFR to go once you're in there, without going up and IFR. What's the ceiling on the H corridor before Heathrow get interested?

Desperate times = desperate measures..... you could always ditch into the thames (or onto a bridge ?).

But in all seriousness... I would think London IMC is not the place to be for an eggbeater, no matter the gadgets on board or the experience of the crew.

I would think that's a rather moot point. If you need an accurate altimeter reading in order to avoid impacting buildings then you have no business flying VFR there in the first place. :=

Sky reporting that NATS state that the aircraft had been receiving a service earlier, but was not receiving a service at the time of the accident.

Whatever rules he was trying to fly to, he was indisputably in IMC. Probably the one indisputable fact we have right now.

Highly likely he was flying with a GPS. GPS glitches and deliberate jamming/corruption is well known and documented. But that is just conjecture.

Pictures of the helicopter involved from the Castle Air site:
http://www.castleair.co.uk/1997-agus...er-g-crst.html

Statements like these are really conjecture at the moment, and highly likely to be deliberately interpreted by the media to improve their sales, creating the usual scare stories.

Lets have the Experts find out what happened first, before authorities start re-writing the rules which have served us well for so long.

Knee jerk reactions are to be avoided (i hope) until the report, and its findings, are published.

Worker at the towers saying that crane driver was late this morning for the first time in years. Picked the right day to be late!

Don't expect to get on there any time soon... Alternative pics:

Photo Search Results | Airliners.net

I don't think it's wise to post information about an aircraft as the authorities haven't confirmed names of the casualties.

Re-writing what rules ? I thought helis had to be VFR over London ?

But then I'm not a heli pilot, so if one cares to correct me, I'll bow to their wisdom !

Good set of photos from the Telegraph:

Helicopter crash in pictures: aircraft hits crane in Vauxhall, south London - Telegraph

Check out the name of this forum and remember that it's full of pilots who are perfectly capable of expertly conjecturing.

Unlike the "aviation expert" just on Radio 5 who seems to think that an appropriately configured a/c should be OK in those conditions, and after all the police helicopter can fly in any conditions, so maybe the pilot was just caught out. THAT is silly conjecture, and not very expert to boot.

According to BBC News 24 the RNLI have stopped searching.

I would give the pilot the benefit of the doubt. He's unlikely to been in IMC, you have to assume he stayed below the cloud base to the extent you can and of course horizontal visibility was probably not ideal.

He was probably perfectly aware of the building in his path and the crane. But perhaps the jib wasn't visible until it was too late and he just clipped it.

No doubt all will be clear when the radar track is examined and possibly the onboard GPS data if it survived.

It's far too soon to be condemming the pilot or suggesting he was scud running.

My own speculative version is that he was transitting normally albeit in less than ideal conditions, was lower than ideal but clear of the buildings. The jib was mostly in cloud and he either forgot about it or was closer than he believed. I'd say the investigation will reveal he hit the very tip of the jib.

Pictures 14 & 16 show the visibility quite clearly to be low

There is also a picture of what appears to be the wreckage. Very sad indeed

Press conference reports flight was from Redhill to Elstree and had one pilot on board and no passengers.

Yes they do - But this also depends on the time the photo's were taken, compared to the visibility at the time of the accident.

Helicopter could have been flying VFR.

Rules for helicopters operating below 3000ft allow VFR flight so long as they stay clear of cloud and have the surface in sight

Good point. Although I'd say pic 14 wouldn't have been too long afterward it clearly shows the jib has been hit. I only speculate this as a friend was driving over lambeth bridge and sent me a photo around 9:15 and it was still quite hazy. picture 16 could have been anytime though i will concede

VFR = clear of cloud and in sight of the surface? Box ticked then?

Do commercial helicopters carry cvr and black box recorders?