eman_resu

Fair comment, but this is an Internet forum. People like to chat, talk, chew-over and speculate. They'll be a whole mix from the supremely well qualified to comment down to the muck-stirrers and even media muck-stirrers no doubt. In between they'll be all the shades twixt black and white. So maybe, let's just stop commenting and speculating until the official report comes out. Reminds me of the pre-1990 days... Still, subject to taking anything on any Internet forum with liberal NaCl, steer your way though the mud and delight when you find the occasional pearl, or diamond :) And enjoy the freedom that the Internet in general and this forum in particular grants - freedom of speech and freedom to speculate.

BTW: As I'm sure you know, there is a difference between VFR and VMC, and a difference between IFR and IMC. For the media listening in, I can also reveal that it's possible to be IFR in VMC. All very confusing, innit? ;)

Sky reporting that it was a weather diversion requested through Heathrow who asked Battersea on pilot's behalf. Service terminated by Heathrow but no radio contact made with Battersea before the crash.

Helicopter crash in pictures: aircraft hits crane in Vauxhall, south London - Telegraph
Indeed. From my vantage point just east of Tower Bridge, about half-an-hour after the accident, I would estimate that the visibility on the surface (say up to the top of Tower Bridge) was reasonable, about 2km, but rapidly deteriorated above that -- certainly most of the Shard was completely invisible due fog, and I've no reason to suppose the tower wasn't, either. Very sad :(

I see that Kate Hoey, the local MP, is already starting to have a go at helicopters being able to fly around central London -- how about stopping developers from building ego-boosting tall buildings instead... :*

Whereas I know very little of helos beyond training in R22 - I do know quite a bit about mast head cranes and big buildings - the witness damage to the jib broken in two about half way long its length tells me that it suffered one hell of a knock - this together with the luffing supports sheared off allowing the rest of the jib to hang vertically down confirms this. I reckon the machine hit just about as square on as could be possible at a fair rate of knots.

A very sad business together - there by the grace.

Lemain,

Good points..

Before I migrated I flew the London heli lanes on a number of occasions and I'd hate to see that opportunity removed due to a single, very unfortunate accident.

Some of the comments I am reading, to the media and lay person, and politicians (re RTFM comments re Kate Hoey) would purport banning all rotor craft over london (except Police helicopters of course, ala radio 5 expert they are apparently invincible)

757H
Yes, apologies, missed the bleeding obvious when I first looked at the photo.

RTFM --

Idiots like that are just making noise for the publicity. If you restrict GA both fixed and rotary you'll degrade London as a hub for the sake of a bit of green-eye. This accident will have a cause, and it will be a series of events not just one 'failure' - 99% of accidents are. Unless this is a type issue (seems unlikely) then it isn't going to happen again other than by bizarre fluke (which sadly does happen) until the AAIB comes out.

Pure speculation on my part and no evidence related to this tragedy, I fear over-reliance on GPS particularly running on evolving platforms with evolving software. But I don't know it that's a factor here.

This from the BBC website re Kate Hoey comments:

I'm no expert but I think the only helicopters that hover over central London are police and air ambulance.

Question, with the 500' rule in mind and the need to fly along the edge of a linear feature to avoid hitting something doing the same in the opposite direction, does that not mean that the minimum height for that part of the river is the 600' of the building + 500' which = 1100'. If that is true how did he hit the crane, or have I got the interpretation of the rules wrong?

Report from fire brigade says tail landed on roof of St George's Wharf Tower.

Question marks from lots of people about the lights on the crane - can't find any pics online showing lights on it. Sunrise was officially 07.57 with the incident reported at 08.00.

I believe Vauxhall Bridge is a mandatory reporting point on that Heli route.

Report that 'copter was on a weather divert into Battersea heliport, after trying to go from Redhill in Surrey to Elstree in Hertfordshire. It had just left a radio service (doesn't say what kind) from Heathrow, but hadn't yet contacted Battersea.

I believe the legislation says "within 500 ft of" so (legally subject to the rule to alight clear in event of engine failure) so long as you are not within 500 ft of the obstruction you are in compliance.

500ft except when landing or taking off. Landing at Battersea and twin engine so height not an issue more of no assistance from Heathrow about crane. Maybe pilots might get more assistance in future.

mixture, thanks for the clarification - so you could actually be flying below 500 ft and be in compliance (although I doubt this applies in this case)

Yes as Battersea only short distance away

fireflybob,

Well, you have to land sometime.... :E

Don't think I'm suitably qualified to comment in this context because the London Heli route is a little bit special in some respects, and there are things you can / cannot do there that can / cannot be done elsewhere.

Also, if we're talking 500ft altitude then there are additional rules that apply over built up areas (1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft) ... but again, London Heli may change things.

Someone will doubtless be along shortly to fill in the gaps I've left !

Tail reported to be on the roof of the tower; the transmission landed outside a loading bay in New Covent Garden Flower Market and the engines with the rest in Wandsworth Road.

So the impact seems to have been severe enough to break up the entire airframe rather than just a blade strike.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/pa...1358331975.jpg

'Question marks from lots of people about the lights on the crane'

I commute past the site daily, and am pretty certain the crane jib was lit, as is the tower.

I was on a train stopped at signals on the bridge over Wandsworth Road adjacent to the crash site , half an hour after the incident, and visibility was very poor, the top of what remains of the crane almost enveloped in cloud.

Smouldering helicopter wreckage was a sobering sight. My sympathies are with the families of those who died, and those injured.

Isn't it possible the crane/jib got lost in glare from the rising sun? or have I lost the orientation of the incident?

There was no "rising sun" this morning. I passed the site on the train about ten minutes afterwards and there was VERY low cloud cover. Many taller building tops were obscured.

<<more of no assistance from Heathrow about crane.>>

"Heathrow" (actually at Swanwick) almost certainly knew nothing about the crane. In the 31 years I worked in Heathrow ATC I do not recall ever seeing a NOTAM referring to obstructions away from Heathrow.

Going off the press reports the crane Jib came out at an angle and was obscured by the building.

Again the press reports indicate that the crane was only lighted when out of use at night but not in the day.

The pilot was diverting due to the weather and more than likely in very poor viz had his full attention on the building.

Again it has been reported on the BBC that concerns were made about the Crane lighting a few months ago.
A building is a solid visible structure a Crane is not!!!

As in most incidents its easy to blame the pilot but maybe such high Cranes also take the blame and regulations regarding lighting such temporary high and invisible structures should be re looked at with far better and more visible lighting attached to them???

An earlier post said the tower would be 500ft high (ie AGL) when completed then speculated about the height of the crane on top. An earlier post said the NOTAM had the obstacle (building + crane + jib) at 770ft AMSL, ie above sea level (so more or less Thames level). By some of the early news coverage the fog was up and down at the time but definitely capable of obscuring the crane and even the top of the tower according to eye-witnesses. The 500ft rule allowed the pilot to come down to land for his diversion to Battersea but horizontal viz would have been poor and on a divert he may not have had that particular NOTAM to hand and he hadn't yet made radio contact with Battersea it seems who may have been able to warn him. Very unfortunate circumstances.

Viewing Single Post - NeoGAF

Eyewitness account from vauxhall station. Says top of crane not visible to him from the station.

GMM,

looks like all the holes lined up this time.

:(

Golf-Mike-Mike, I understand your sentiments but there is a statutory requirement to cover "any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned" although I agree in the case of an unscheduled diversion this might be somewhat challenging.

(Note am not saying Commander in this case did not comply with this requirement)

Quote from UK ANO:-

A commander must, before taking off on a private flight, an aerial work flight or a public transport flight, take all reasonable steps so as to be satisfied of the matters specified in paragraph (3).
(3) The matters referred to in paragraph (2) are that:
(a) the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as planned;

<<Remind us what the "Floor"altitude is for the London Terminal Manoveuring area.>>

The airspace around the site is Class A - the London Control Zone - extending upwards from ground level to meet the TMA.

The Battersea AIP has the tower at 332 feet (updated October 2012). Yet I believe it's roof height is 594 feet.

Without the NOTAM - if he was map crawling he would have thought he was safe.

Wrong obstruction. It's not yet in the AIP.

This is very sad. I am a bit confused about the location though. If the helicopter was going from Redhill to Elstree I'd have expected him to route Banstead to Barnes and then try to go north. In that area he'd be talking to Heathrow but it is to the west of Battersea and Vauxhall is to the east, beyond the heliport. Given that the crash site is south of the impact with the crane I wonder whether he'd decided to divert and turned right along the river, realised he'd missed the heliport and done a turnback across the river - all the while being to busy to change frequency to Battersea.

As already mentioned the Heathrow trace is very acuurate (I have also been reminded of my ever so slight divergence from the approved route) so they will no doubt be able to provide something. As an aside, the maximum permitted altitude on the London QNH along the river to the west of Battersea Heliport is 1000', to the east as far as Chelsea Bridge it's 1500', as near as damn it agl heights. The helilanes rules state that helicopters must not fly below 500' separation and I think it's a 1km minimum visibility, but pilots must endeavor to fly at the maximum altitude for the sector.

500' clear could be horizontal, think of it as a bubble. This DOES NOT apply for t/o and ldg. He may have started his approach.
Has anyone considered that if he was diverting and had been handed over by heathrow, he would have to retune his radio and be heads in for a few moments. How long between handover and impact? I stated earlier, when all is going to plan it is high workload in the lanes, something unexpected is tough to deal with, even in good weather. Battersea is not the easiest to spot at night if you are not familiar, lookout could be concentrated down and not ahead. So there are a few scenarios, all speculation.
God bless those who died, only the pilot himself will really know what happened, we can only guess.

OK - so he would have needed the NOTAM to know about the building if he was map crawling.

I think it's already been published that he was diverting from Elstree into Battersea.

- to me that is mis0information - he was in the wrong place for Batterea, was he not? Other reports suggest returning to Redhill.

Yes, however it's quite unlikely that he would have been map-crawling at that stage of the flight.

BOAC, no he was on a perfectly normal routing to Battersea, if travelling from Elstree.

ITN just posted the following:

"The pilot who died today after the helicopter he was flying crashed in London has been named by sources as Pete Barnes."

Also being reported by Sky News

There but for the grace of the gods....
 

Battersea (London Heliport) closed today out of respect. They said:
STATEMENT FROM LONDON HELIPORT ON VAUXHALL HELICOPTER CRASH
Just before 8am today a helicopter crashed in central London close to Vauxhall Bridge.
The helicopter involved in the accident was not destined in to the London Heliport.
However, we received a request from Heathrow air traffic control to accept the helicopter, which requested to be diverted due to bad weather.
Earlier in the helicopter's journey the pilot had been receiving an air traffic control service from NATS. The heliport never gained contact with the helicopter.
The Heliport will be closed for the rest of the day

My question, as only a PPL H on an EC120, is was he cleared in to land at Battersea, and if so, should he not have been at circuit height, as even the extended circuit was to the west of the helicopter?