Eltonioni

Going up is an option and one if I have taken in piston twins in situations where I was unhappy!

The problem here is I do not think he had got to a stage of being unhappy!

Sadly I drove past the building today! It is tall and very close to the river! I can well see how he got where he did! It is also very close to Battersea.
Looking at the building and situation I am even more convinced that serious lighting needs to be attached to that structure it's an accident waiting to happen with its proximity to busy helipad.

I felt really sorry for the pilot as I do not reckon the poor guy made much of a mistake.

The authorities maybe yes as that building should not be so minimally protected!

But going back to your point ! I do not believe he felt anything was wrong and probably had the shock of his life seeing the building as he flew out of mist.

He probably had fractions to pull away and didn't see the Crane arm!
So I doubt he was ever in a position to contemplate climbing as in his situation nothing was wrong. That building is wrong though.
Would lighting have saved him? Maybe in my opinion but we will never know.
I too do not expect much from the AAIB report as we did not get anything conclusive from the Citation Biggin Crash! Recommendations?? The CAA have already stated that they are looking at the lighting.

How do you mix VFR and IFR in this situation? Maybe VMC and IMC?
This pilot was highly respected and in no way could he be classified as a Cowboy! I agree with Red Lights being insufficient in the day but high intensity are a must on this particular building being so close to aircraft routes into a busy Heliport.

A couple of times I have asked the open question to the Rotor Head fraternity about the Agustas capability in icing conditions.....would anyone care to tell me what their opinions are?

An earlier comment was about chain of events and choices/decisions.
Fly to Elstree,weather deteriorates, divert back to base, weather deteriorates, divert enroute to Battersea.
Plenty to cope with and if you throw in icing which is an issue I suspect, a few folks have suggested going up, but NO, there is cloud above and its conducive to icing....
If conditions deteriorate to preclude useful SVFR, my gut feelings would be resort to CRM, not try and solve just on my own....who can you use? Heathrow Approach for sure. A Pan call to them would allow if necessary a diversion to them (yes I know it would cost money and loads of hassle, even a few go-arounds for the big boys) , but far better than struggling into Battersea with VERY marginal conditions. Any port in a storm !!

Hindsight perhaps, but I wonder if single crew helicopter pilots , are perhaps more inclined to solve problems on their own without wanting to resort to outside help when in a sticky situation?

Bcal

I think it depends on the environment you are used to operating in! I did a lot of Twin Fixed wing flying where you were often operating OCAS and into small out of the way places in Scotland, Northern and Southern Ireland.
So you tend to be more "On the Hoof" and creative than when as now my flying is CAS operations in private jets.

I do miss the piston twins and that sort of OCAS flying which was a mix of IFR IMC as well as VMC flying and quite a kick from the challenge of it.

I am not a Helicopter pilot but imagine that they even more so are used to flying in minimal VMC conditions.
As such there must be a reluctance to declare a problem, climb, drag all the charts and plates out and change to IFR especially in Helicopters.

On top of that you have a customer waiting at one airfield while you land at another with the extra delay that an IFR approach demands ???

Helicopters do not do well in icing conditions unless they have rotor blade heating. Ice accretion on rotor blades is damaging to lift in much smaller quantities than ice on a fixed wing.

Therefore helicopter pilots try very hard not take machines into actual, known or forcast icing conditions unless they have anti-ice systems.

I am not aware that the A109 has an option for anti-ice, this is normally seen on larger machines such as the A139. You could search through the Agusta Westland webste to check, if you are keen.

@ AtomKraft (1 page back)

Well said.

If you read the post by Sir George Cayley a guy worth listening too I do not think a climb or icing was a problem more trying to get into Battersea ?

Pace - I think that you are right in most of what you have said BUT the level of lighting which you suggest I do not think would have helped in those conditions.

That machine is capable of 160kts. My guess is that it was probably nearer 80 - 100kts on that day. The time he would have seen any lights would have been far to late.

That building did not go up overnight. Most of the professional heli guys knows that it is there. They have probably watched the construction progress.

The pilot in this dreadful accident was a very experienced professional, no question about that. My guess from reading everything is that something must have happened before the crane was hit.

The building is here. Click on the movies icon and then down to the construction progress for your info.

The Tower, One St George Wharf
The Tower, One St George Wharf - The Tower - One, St George Wharf

For all the seized wing guys asking about ice and helicopters, a personal experience from decades past, a "learned about flying from that":

Was flying a Bell 412 on top to a destination with forecast and actuals of clear (CAVU) but darkness was approaching. Locally we were above an undercast layer of undetermined depth. OAT was approx -25C, we were cruising at 10,000' and felt that we could expect minimal ice accumulation in cloud so elected to start a slow descent down through and avoid a steeper arrival over destination. We also expected to reach clear air shortly.

Less than a minute after starting our descent into cloud(less than 500' from the tops), the icing rapidly increased from nil to light to moderate. We tried to climb back on top but Vbroc and Max Q only gave us a ROD of around 100 fpm.

We declared a MAYDAY, got ATC assistance, and eventually broke out in a very high rate descent. Enough ice was (luckily) shed before hitting the trees that we were able to get to destination.

We had been lulled over previous years of flying the 212 in northern, winter conditions to feeling comfortable with minimal (trace/light) ice exposure and the 212's ability to get back out if we encountered something we didn't like. As we learned, the newer rotor designs are horribly unforgiving.

My point: very few helicopter pilots will risk any icing conditions unless there is absolutely no other choice.

The auto transponsder units, mentioned early on for an installation of wires across a valley (Canada?) and for other obstacles - where are they made? As anyone else experience of hearing their auto TX msg?

Comfort zone
 

Having followed all of this from the accident day I feel that whatever the reason for this tragedy the pilot felt he was well within his capabilities with regard to the weather conditions prevailing.

As others have said this is the nature of the beast. Helicopters fly into places that the fixed wing can't reach. Very seldom do they slide down an ILS to destination. From my (ground based) observations they're often aloft in marginal VMC weather. He wisely aborted his first destination and was probably still thinking of the closest diversion to Elstree so as to inconvenience his passengers the least. This was after all, a commercial operation.

He wasn't even close to throwing all away in a life/death situation and landing in a park (for chrissakes). That really would be a career terminator. This was a weather diversion well within the remit of a professional. With his experience he would've aborted that diversion/destination too if he thought the weather beyond his capabilities which we must presume he didn't. For reasons yet to be determined his judgement was in error and he flew into a girt big crane perched atop a girt big building bloody close to his track. Cut the guy some slack, we've all nearly been there.

Did you mean Obstacle Collision Avoidance System (OCAS)?

If so, Norway (invented here, but bought by some wind turbine company, might have moved it), and yes I have. "Test flight" of well known span (to the pilot)

Info on the system from the AIP: https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/curre...ENR_4_5_en.pdf

scud
 

When the weather turns sour, no matter how well you know the area and how many times you have flown over the area, it all looks different. I think he was just trying to stay out of the clouds, looking at the GPS in relation to his destination and hit a crane that was hidden by mist/fog. Sad situation.

I can just see how a guys professionalism would make him vulnerable in such a situation.
Saving been forced into a diversion in low cloud and vis you'd be doing all you could to stay as high as poss to avoid both obstructions and excessive noise. It is almost a reflex response to fly as high as you can in such a situation. And pinching it at cloud base is just where you lose forward vis while keeping ground contact, so if there's a crane jib lurking in the cloud that's just where you don't want to be. I wouldn't be surprised that if he'd been a couple of hundred feet lower he'd have had sufficient vis to see and avoid. We just don't think of obstructions growing out of cloud when you can't see an obvious base.

IMHO this talk of enhanced lighting is a red herring and would achieve little or nothing if this event was rerun. Lighting is fine in VMC but pointless if shrouded in cloud.

Sadly it looks like an unfortunate operational accident and rushing into legislatative changes is almost certainly going to be a waste of time.

Questions will doubtless be asked re the wisdom of using battersea as a diversion in such conditions given the atrocious conditions at LCY, and even that of setting off from to elstree in the first place, but that's AAIB territory.

We all know the picture when grubbing along in low cloud/vis, and with obstructions close alongside the route extending up into the clag one is in a vulnerable position.

Very sad.

Object avoidance
 

I'm pretty certain that static installation of FLARM style devices on potentially dangerous buildings or antennas would add to general safety in any type of airspace where GA and helicopters ply their trade.

Avoidance avionics

Except that in routing he would have been overwhelmed by FLARM responses - a distraction, or "turn the darned thing off".

FLARM is not going to be any use v moving traffic if it gives you a response only when you are (say) 750 ft away. The combined speed would mean the time between alarm and impact would be of no use. Reports at (say) 2000 ft would mean one in my cab would be beeping constantly, as I am often 1,000 to 1,500 ft AGL.

Helicopters are designed to operate in that kind of environment. It would take the design of a purpose-built system.

Then, in this case, he knew he was low because he was intending to land, so he would expect the FLARM warning. So what use?

Ag Bi post is on the nail here.

Flarm uses closing speed, distance and relative altitude to decide on issuing alerts and alarms.

It also includes a display that shows relative altitude, distance and azimuth of other Flarms. It also shows whether other traffic is climbing, level or descending.

Speaking as an onlooker: I understand that an OCAS/FLARM system may not have been suitable in this particularly difficult situation but should we be telling the CAA to get their act together and compel their usage by the folks making millions out of such buildings?

I do not want to be part of the politicians 'do something/do anything but make it look like you're concerned' brigade. Yet the systems are already proven/available and may help some other flyers in other circumstances?

To those saying he should not have been there, bear in mind that Vauxhall Bridge is a VRP and is on the long-established heli-route H4 which lies inside controlled airspace. He would have been under ATC control at the time. Why he went there remains to be seen.

So those suggesting OCAS / FLARM are you suggesting installing the devices on every mountain as well? Many more CFITs due to mountains than due to buildings!