The aircraft was 2.5 miles from Battersea - no-one (I hope) starts their descent into the Heliport that far out, surely. We aren't talking 747's into Heathrow here.

Maybe if you consider the weather and only 2.5 miles from Battersea, I see no reason whatsoever why a decent should not have been taking place. (clearance had already been given)

"IF" the machine was travelling at 60kts, he was only 2 1/2 mins from touchdown.

Let's wait and see what the regular visitors to Battersea have to say.

In any case no clearance to land at Battersea is evident in the AAIB Special Bulletin. They were not 2-way with the 109.

It's been a long time since I posted here - and I wasn't regularly doing so anyway - and no doubt the server reset my join date a while back. This thread has drifted into a CVs-at-dawn territory which I can't play. My legal knowledge, although I have some, isn't comparable to that of Flying Lawyer. I, like many others here, am aware who he his and defer to his professional knowledge. I don't have a PPL and the extent of my flying knowledge is a student job at UA to pay my way through college. I suppose I could count a bit of pratting about on the South Downs paragliding. The point is my technical knowledge is certainly not on a par with many professionals here and I'm not going to comment of any aspects of flying in this area. However, I live by Vauxhall and I see the tower when I step out of my front door - and I hope I can comment of the area I live in without being shouted down.

The current state of play is this: there are red lights approx every 15 floors. They're hardly Batman lights. There is one red light on the top of the crane. It's not visible from ground level, but it is from the elevated platforms of the train station and from the other side of Vauxhall Bridge. Whether that means it's visible to helicopter pilots - that is for you to assess based on the conditions you know in the air. The building has all the internal lights on every time I see it and has had as long as it's been there. It is not uncommon for the top to be totally obscured by fog or cloud. There have been times I haven't seen the top, and that includes at night when there are lights on. However, I could say the same about the Shard. Oddly enough, all these buildings seem clearer from a distance than close up. Again, I make no judgment but I will say that as someone who lives close to these developments, anything that can be done to improve safety in general is most welcome. None of the lighting that is currently there seems any different/an improvement on what was there before the accident. If it is, it's not noticeable on the ground.

The local community is irritated by the noise of helicopters - right or wrong, there is a perception that the number of flights is increasing. Personally, they don't bother me but I suspect this is something that will be talked about here as this, and other, developments continue to spring up next to the river. Keep in mind there are people who don't want the US Embassy here and don't want the flats being built - they will use anything they can to bolster their argument. That whole Nine Elms area is due to have work continue until 2024, and there is already a new crane up on a different development at Vauxhall Station, although it's much smaller and most definitely has lights on.

A poster mentioned the distance of the tower to the river - it's right next to it. The only space is what will be the Thames Path. That seems to be the case along the south bank.

I asked a friend who was at Vauxhall station that morning about the conditions. She couldn't see the top of the building because it was very foggy.

Regarding property development - whether £1.25m for a 5th floor 2 bedroom flat in that tower is worth it...again that's not for me to say.

Can we please get over this irrelevant red herring of obstruction lights. They have little if anything to do with this case. They are there to indicate the presence of an obstruction that can be seen. ie in VMC. They are NOT there to indicate anything in IMC for two very good reasons.

1) They cannot be seen in IMC. D'uh oh!

2) No one should be flying in IMC anywhere near them so there is no requirement for this to be a function.

It is abundantly clear that this accident was caused by flying in marginal VMC or in IMC whether intentionally or not, far too low and bumping into something that wasn't seen due to the met conditions. Simply put, the poor fellow got himself somewhere where he just shouldn't have been in such weather and got unlucky.

Changing rules and regulations on the basis of this accident would be unnecessary and counterproductive, it certainly wouldn't/couldn't prevent a future accident if the same sort. Only an individual pilots judgement/awareness is capable of doing that, and I think this unfortunate accident has done plenty to raise awareness of the inadvisability of grubbing around in poor vis below obstructions with their tops hidden in cloud instead of diverting somewhere more suitable.

Agaricus = Can we please discuss what I want to discuss.

BTW, a lot of professionals in Rotorheads who regularly use the London helicopter routes don't think it's a red herring.

Little is good enough for me if something can be done for low cost and might save a life.
That includes the life of someone who made a bad call as you think this guy did.

That's the simplistic attitude you took on the Mull of Kintire crash thread and why it got up people's noses there.

The only aceptable solution is one that saves all lives - like that of the poor man who was burned to death whilst walking to work, and all those good people who live in The Tower and adjacent blocks of flats...

...and the lives of our Members of Parliament who could be subject to terrorist suicide attack by helicopter now the weakness in security defences has been exposed.

I guess you ain't familiar with the expression save a life.
Maybe they don't use it your side of the pond. It means EVEN one life.

So the bad guys didn't know before?
Get real. :rolleyes:

Bronx is correct.

Agar Spurious was out of line with his comments on another tragic helicopter accident. He seems to enjoy making pronouncements on incidents, with the benefit of almost total ignorance.

I can imagine this investigation will take a long time to conclude. Only when that is published will we be any closer to understanding what happened here. IF it proves to be human error, and people like Agar want to hang the guy out to dry, then fill your boots. You make me sick.

Until that time, any professionals will know better than to add to ignorant speculation.

mike-wsmThat's just the sort of uninformed alarmist nonsense that distracts from sensible discussion on an aviation website.

Route H4 of the London Helicopter Routes follows the Thames through central London and passes immediately adjacent to the Houses of Parliament.


Charts of the routes are readily available on the internet and elsewhere.
Helicopter flights over London are widely advertised, usually accompanied by promotional pictures of the famous buildings which will be seen.

Do you really believe that, if suicidal terrorists wished to attack the HoP from the air, they didn't know before this tragic accident that the helicopter routes exist - or would care in the slightest whether there is a legally approved route to their final destination?


Edited to add pic.

Utter nonsense. Were your statement true then few Cat3 landings or take-offs would ever happen. It is a pre-requisite in many aircraft, (not all), that the pilots see a minimum number of lights, even in dense fog, when carrying out Cat 3 operations, this is achieved because the lights are of a certain candle power and can be seen in IMC. A white or red flashing strobe, of considerably more candle power than a runway light, could well be seen for some distance in dense fog.

I was flying into LCY that morning at approx 0930.

Cloud tops at about 1200ft, beautiful blue sky above. Thick dense cloud / fog reported at 1200m vis with a reported overcast at 200ft... we performed a missed approach as no visual cues on 09 at LCY. We held for a bit and had another go and got in with an improvement as the morning developed.

We couldn't see a set of high intensity runway lights on our first approach at minima... this crane lighting argument is superfluous as one light or a set of lights wouldn't have been enough in those conditions I witnessed first hand (as low flying a/c would be flying illegally).

This incident is a case of a bad decision, bad judgement and from my interpretation of the rules, highly illegal.

No single individual is greater than the rules that are in place to protect the public.. the rules didn't fail us on this occasion, the individual did.

Apologies for asking, but there has been mention elsewhere of certain procedural anomalies.

Was this a bona fide Charter Flight, or was it Self Fly Hire with a 'friend' going along for the ride?

Machaca

The beautiful photograph you posted has been digitally enhanced.
The glass curtain wall has been attached to some more floors since this picture was taken last year but it shows what the tower looks like in real life.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...r_May_2012.jpg


TRC
Offices are usually brightly lit, and London office buildings are frequently lit as you describe.
However, the St George Tower is not an office building but a partially constructed residential block.
The strip lights to which you refer can be seen in the pictures above and below.

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slides...89742_free.jpg


Neon Circuits
I don't doubt what you encountered - some miles away, and 1½ hours after the crash - but the cloud/fog level when I drove past the north side of Vauxhall Bridge exactly 15 minutes after the crash was certainly not 200 ft.

Supposing, for the purpose of this exchange, that the pilot was not flying in accordance with the relevant law, that does not change the (IMHO very real) possibility that if the crane (incl the jib) had been better lit he might have seen the raised jib in time to avoid it. He was flying an easily manoeuvrable helicopter, not an airliner.
At that life or death moment, whether the pilot should or should not have been there is irrelevant.

mike-wsm It was a bona fide charter flight.
There was no passenger on board.
Even if the pilot had done so, it is not illegal to take someone along for the ride.

My post to which you refer was in answer to a previous poster who suggested that obstacles should be lit at intervals rather than just at the top. My mention of the internal lighting was simply an aside.

How can you instantly be so certain?

It has been stated that the intention was to pick up a passenger.

Let's consider the idea that certain people, who know more, are saying less.

As opposed to certain people, who know less, saying more.

m-wsm Because, in addition to other sources which I have no reason to divulge to you, I have read the AAIB SB.
Extract from the SB Heading: "Type of Flight: Commercial Air Transport (Passenger)"

It has indeed.
Extract from the SB findings: "The pilot of G-CRST arrived at Redhill Aerodrome at approximately 0630 hrs in preparation for a flight to Elstree Aerodrome. He intended to collect a client to take him and another passenger to the north of England."


FL

Quote:
How can you instantly be so certain?

A cursory examination of the reporting of the facts makes this clear, not to mention the interim AAIB report. Saves the embarassment of looking like an ill informed troll.