News Helicopter crashes in London

[garyw]

A bit more from ATC and the weather centre:

The BBC weather centre said weather observations at the time of the crash showed very low cloud but not thick fog. The nearest observation site was London City Airport which at 08:00 reported 700m visibility with broken cloud at a height of 100ft.

Fire brigade station manager Bruce Grain said crews arrived at the scene in four minutes.

He said the helicopter fell into Wandsworth Road, hitting various vehicles and bursting into flames and there were also fires in nearby buildings.

NATS, which runs air traffic control across the UK, said the pilot had been receiving assistance earlier in the flight but not at the time of the crash.

The incident will be investigated by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch.

An RNLI lifeboat was initially sent to search the Thames near the crash scene following a request from London Heliport after it lost contact with the aircraft, which is understood to be an AgustaWestland AW109, a lightweight, twin-engine helicopter with eight seats.

It all suggests to me that the pilot was task saturated, got disorientated in low cloud/flog and hit the crane. Pilot error.

One other bit of info from http://www.londonheliport.co.uk/londonheliport_pilotinformation.html

Maintain circuit height (1000ft a.m.s.l.) until final approach. After departure, climb to circuit height as soon as possible

the crane was at 594ft.

 

[C3PO]

It gets the strong taste of human error. The question is just who did the error, pilot or air traffic control or both.

+1

A combination of 1-man crew + marginal VFR + route diversion does start to eat into the margins. A 2'nd crewmember would lighten the workload, not to mention a 2'nd pair of eyeballs. But it also adds an extra salary. But IMHO a 2-man crew requirement wouldn't be too steep considering the population density of the city.

Now we have to wait for the accident report.

 

[garyw]

But IMHO a 2-man crew requirement wouldn't be too steep considering the population density of the city.

True but it's up to the helicopter companies. In this case, Castle Air are an independent air charter company so it's their money, their choice.

Now we have to wait for the accident report.

Indeed. It'll be interesting to see what the AAIB find and compare it to our thoughts here.

 

[C3PO]

True but it's up to the helicopter companies. In this case, Castle Air are an independent air charter company so it's their money, their choice.

I was just saying that a 2-man crew requirement could be added to the SVFR for the city area. London has quite good public transport, and if a private person needs helicopter transport there, the extra cost wouldn't be too much to ask for. No-one's time is more important than the lives underneath the flight route.
There's a requirement for at least 2 engines if you fly over land, so why not 2 crewmembers? IMHO the failure rate of humans is at least as high as of engines.

But it's still early days.

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------

Another thing I noticed is the reports on poor visibility. The media is mostly talking about fog, but the pictures show low clouds. There is a difference. Fog tends to build up over time, and you can usually see it coming. Low clouds can form much quicker as the local conditions hit the saturation point.

 

[FADEC]

That's why I don't really like helicopters. You only need to slightly touch a thin line for example and that's it. Even if you lose the tail rotor the game is most likely over.

Nah. I stay with airplanes.

 

[Dickie]

+1

A combination of 1-man crew + marginal VFR + route diversion does start to eat into the margins. A 2'nd crewmember would lighten the workload, not to mention a 2'nd pair of eyeballs. But it also adds an extra salary. But IMHO a 2-man crew requirement wouldn't be too steep considering the population density of the city.

Indeed - low level visual nav in poor vis with a 3 man crew, radar and a decent IN/GPS along a pre-planned route is bad enough and that type of lattice structure is difficult to see at the best of times.

Read earlier today that the helo had already diverted from it's destination which makes me wonder what the fuel situation was and if that was a factor in trying to get into Battersea? As well as icing at this time of year there's issues in London with punching up to a safe height and flying IFR in such busy airspace which otherwise could have been another option. Either way sounds like the pilot was trying to make the best of a bad situation which even the best pilot would struggle with by themselves or a crew.

As previously stated a requirement for a second pilot in marginal weather would not be a bad call IMO, certainly military helos fly with a second pilot/navigator when low level. However IIRC, the manning requirement for civil helos is defined by the manufacturer rather than the CAA or operator.

 

[Codz]

True but it's up to the helicopter companies. In this case, Castle Air are an independent air charter company so it's their money, their choice.

Not if their choice threatens people in the air and on the ground in order to save money.

 

[Notebook]

Loosing the tail rotor could be an ambigous term. I was taught to fly if one or other cables to the tail rotor pitch controls failed, ( power on, power off) also autoration was always an option. Flying into a crane isn't.

N.

 

[Dickie]

That's why I don't really like helicopters. You only need to slightly touch a thin line for example and that's it. Even if you lose the tail rotor the game is most likely over.

Nah. I stay with airplanes.

Helicopters are more robust than you give them credit for - in Vietnam Huey pilots were reported to have used the rotor blades to cut through foliage in order to reach landing sites, and I know of at least one Lynx which survived an impact with wires on a low level sortie. Helos of all kinds in Afghanistan come back having survived various "bumps and grinds". Even tail rotor issues aren't a definite end - I have a good friend who lost tail rotor authority and still managed to make it back for a landing at the airfield.

If far from a prepared landing site or spare deck out over the sea I think you'd be far more likely to survive some kind of emergency in something designed to land anywhere at a slow speed with no runway - even to make a forced landing in a fixed wing you'd have to be above stall speed which still means a pretty rapid impact with the ground/sea.

In this case, I wonder how a fixed wing would have come off vs a 500ft crane?

 

[Notebook]

The Civil Aviation Authority said a warning about the crane involved in the crash had been issued to pilots in October and again on 7 January.

But it confirmed that red aviation warning lights on tall structures only need to be turned on at night - and not during bad weather in daylight hours - because they are not visible in fog or low cloud.

The rules mean the period defined as night would have ended about 30 minutes before the crash.

Well, thats ok then.

N.

 

[C3PO]

However IIRC, the manning requirement for civil helos is defined by the manufacturer rather than the CAA or operator.

That's true for general aviation. but many areas have specific rules. For example you can't fly an IFR approach at EKVG down to the regular minima as a captain until you've completed 50 landings as pilot-flying.

 

[garyw]

Not if their choice threatens people in the air and on the ground in order to save money.

Sure but the CAA allow it so it's not illegal, besides, there is nothing to say that this accident wouldn't have happened even with a second pilot on board.

 

[Urwumpe]

It would have been prevented by the pilot flying in the correct altitude, so it would be good finding out, why he was 500 ft lower than permitted there in bad weather.

 

[Notebook]

From the Air Law I remember, you were never allowed to fly closer than 500' to any vessel, vehicle, structure, or, (can't remeber the other) except depature or arrival, or the safety of others?

Either way, a good old cop out if you got it wrong.

N.

 

[Sky Captain]

Would requirement to have 2 pilots really be sensible? By that logic a city buses also would need two drivers in the unlikelly event one driver may have a heart attack, step on gas and drive off the bridge with 100 people in bus. Much more potential for massive loss of life than small helicopter crash.

 

[Dickie]

Not entirely sure about civil aviation, but military regs (a lot of which are in line with civil regs) allow helos to:

a) Operate below 'safety altitude' (generally 1000ft above highest obstacle within 10nm) including in IMC if visual the surface (sounds like he might have been), in an emergency (I'd argue this was one), for takeoff and landing (which he was trying) or if in receipt of a radar service

b) Operate as VFR even if below the VMC minima provided they remain clear of cloud and in sight of surface - and fly at a speed which allows them sufficient time to avoid a collision

c) Unplanned low flying (i.e the height it sounds like he was at would count) if forced down by weather (which he was), under instruction from ATC (which he may have been), SAROPS, Terminal Approach (sounds like he was) or in an emergency (again, debatable)

So if the civil regs are similar, he was doing what he was allowed to do, admittedly using the conditions for emergencies and bad weather.

As for "It would have been prevented by the pilot flying in the correct altitude, so it would be good finding out, why he was 500 ft lower than permitted there in bad weather.", I'd say it sounds like he may well have been at a 'correct' altitude for the situation. I'm not sure if Battersea has the required nav aids for an instrument approach so he would have been required to remain visual the surface for his nav and the approach.

Having been in similar situations with fog, low cloud and dust storms, things are not always clear cut in the cockpit.

 

[Loru]

Well, thats ok then.

N.

I think it's not OK. Even faint red glow from behind fog could warn pilot and give him 2-3 seconds that could save this flight. If I have to turn lights on in my whole year they should keep them lit on cranes too - especially in bad weather.

 

[garyw]

I think it's not OK. Even faint red glow from behind fog could warn pilot and give him 2-3 seconds that could save this flight. If I have to turn lights on in my whole year they should keep them lit on cranes too - especially in bad weather.

I agree and am surprised. I'm sure the lights on Canada tower in Canary Wharf are on in fog.... I'll have to double check tomorrow as it's supposed to be very foggy.

As for "It would have been prevented by the pilot flying in the correct altitude, so it would be good finding out, why he was 500 ft lower than permitted there in bad weather.", I'd say it sounds like he may well have been at a 'correct' altitude for the situation. I'm not sure if Battersea has the required nav aids for an instrument approach so he would have been required to remain visual the surface for his nav and the approach.

Having been in similar situations with fog, low cloud and dust storms, things are not always clear cut in the cockpit.

I'd have to check the regs but on the heliport website minimum altitude is 1,000ft until final descent. 594ft over London is borderline criminal unless you are the Police or the Air Ambulance.

 

[Dickie]

Would requirement to have 2 pilots really be sensible? By that logic a city buses also would need two drivers in the unlikelly event one driver may have a heart attack, step on gas and drive off the bridge with 100 people in bus. Much more potential for massive loss of life than small helicopter crash.

Driving a bus though, is pretty much the same level of work no matter what, even rain and busy traffic won't make too much difference. Workload for handling pilot and non-handling pilot or navigator when low level, in IMC or both is high. Like I said before things aren't much better even with a 3rd crewmember with radar and nav kit backing you up. Add in busy airspace with equally busy comms with possibly being low on fuel and the potential for anybody to get maxed out is there.

Try to imagine trying to navigate with a map whilst only just visual the ground 500ft below. How sure are you of your position? You know there are high buildings etc around you but you can't see them however you know you need to stay low to be able to navigate to the landing site. You're also still trying to hand fly a helicopter whilst also conversing on a busy radio, constantly listening out for your callsign. It's not comfortable and having someone else there to share the workload is vital.

 

[C3PO]

Would requirement to have 2 pilots really be sensible? By that logic a city buses also would need two drivers in the unlikelly event one driver may have a heart attack, step on gas and drive off the bridge with 100 people in bus. Much more potential for massive loss of life than small helicopter crash.

The main reason for a 2-man crew is to lighten the workload and spotting "brain-farts". Everyone makes bad calls eventually. A 2-man crew has the option to have one crewmember concentrating on flying, while the other manages communication, navigation and whatever problem that's encountered. This reduces the risk of pilot error. And he can act as a second pair of eyes. The fact that he's a backup in a medical emergency is just a bonus compared to the other factors.