I'm kind of surprised nobody has posted here on this yet. This past Wednesday, in London, a helicopter hit a tower crane, killing the pilot and one person on the ground, injuring a dozen more. It really made quite a mess of the crane, and only freakish good luck saved the crane operator. He was late for work for the first time in 20 years. I've been following the discussion on one of the aviation forums, but those guys bring a slightly different perspective to the discussion than we would. Here are a couple of the news articles: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263250/Helicopter-crash-Vauxhall-London-Eyewitness-accounts-flower-market-worker-hit-falling-gear-box.html http://www.demotix.com/news/1738970/recovery-crane-assembled-vauxhall-following-helicopter-crash#media-1738953
Wow, what do you even say about that. The whole thing is just insane.
I watch BBC World News quite a lot and it was headline news for a couple of days. Lots of comments about the need for aircraft warning lights on top of tall cranes like this one where the boom point is actually higher than the structure on which it's working, but apparently the warning devices were all in place and working, it's just that the fog was so thick at that altitude that it I imagine the light would have been impossible to see. Anyone who lives close to a river will tell you about winter fog on a cold morning. Apparently the helicopter was on a planned flight from an airfield south of London to another one north of the city and had requested permission to divert to the Central London Heliport (CLH) at the side of the River Thames because of visibility issues at his destination. It was after receiving permission to divert to CLH that the crash happened, air traffic control at CLH had not even established radio contact with the pilot for final approach when he went into the crane. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21040410 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21143273 Interesting that Ainscough's had a crane on site within 48 hours to start recovery of the damaged tower crane. I'd be interested to see photos of how they get it down but I guess that won't be as newsworthy as the crash itself.
Looks like the passenger the helicopter was scheduled to collect had concerns about the weather also .......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21163428
Indeed, even if the tower indicators were there, the pilot would have needed some type of local information briefing that would alert them to 'tower in the area of' and such. A little bad communication and a lot of bad weather, RIP
According to one report I saw on BBC the GPS co-ordinates of every "high" structure in the City of London, whether it be temporary like a tower crane or permanent like a high building, is indicated in the "Notices to Airmen" that are published by Air Traffic Control. Apparently updated literally daily - so it would appear that information was available that the crane was there - and as an aside looking at the state of the building which appears to be almost complete one would imagine it had been there a couple of years or so. Whether the pilot could actually see it in the early moring fog is another matter.
Well the inquest is taking place and there are witnesses giving evidence stating the helicopter pilot felt he was under pressure to fly to pick up this VIP. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34923875
Well, hmm, they sure do take a while, curious as to the outcome.
"those guys bring a slightly different perspective to the discussion than we would." Well you know these stupid construction workers are always getting in the way, he probably swung the crane around aiming for that brave pilot. Sorry about that. I looked it up on google maps, and that site is 19 miles away from the heliport he took off from, 2.5 miles from the London heliport he diverted to, there is no excuse for being that close to the ground that far from your destination.
Update .... pilot was in a resrticted area. Although with the fog as thick as it was I'm not sure how he could figure out where he was. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34964962
Yeah, if he wasn't on GPS he was on instruments and maybe radar guidance from local control. I've never wanted to fly in clouds, there's rocks and stuff in there.
Caveat: I know nothing of the rules for flying in Her Majesty's airspace, and have been away from rotary-wing stuff or any other aviation for over 20 years. In the U.S., weather reporting of existing and forecast weather conditions for pilots, other than en route reports and radar which can report rain, hurricanes and thunderstorms, is mostly done at airports. A pilot flying in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC; a.k.a. "in the clouds or "in the soup") according to Federal Aviation Authority instrument flight rules (IFR) is not too concerned about en route visibility, for he's assuming that he'll be "in the soup" until he completes his instrument approach at his destination or at his alternate if weather conditions restrict him from landing at his destination. But what for pilots operating under VFR (visual flight rules), which in the US requires certain horizontal visibility minimums and cloud clearances (see the FAA table at https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/25/185/VFR Weather Minimums.pdf ) When the weather is less than clear-and-visibility- unlimited (CAVU), it’s necessary to for VFR pilots to remember that cloud and fog bottoms, when not extending to the ground, can be somewhat like an upside-down topographic map, without apparent rhyme or reason, although all weather operates on the rules of physics. But weather moves (changes), and it’s too easy for VFR pilots to have the weather close in behind, leaving no visible route; that’s often called a “sucker hole:” It looked great, but turned out to be a bad decision, and like in heavy equipment, can too easily be fatal. My guess is that the subject pilot was under personal- and/or corporate-induced pressure to “get the job done,” and in trying to do so, the pilot overshot his professional limitations and probably violated a lot of company and the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority’s rules in the process. Sometimes we get so good at something that we think that we’re better than we are.
Accidental Death the final verdict ......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35073689
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.
Nige, Thanks for posting a link to the final outcome of the accident investigation. Here in the US findings like that would tell a lot about the aviation company. Stopped trading: Bankrupt because of legal actions against them plus fines levied by the FAA. Pilot felt pressured: Pilot with low hours or poor work history flying under a threat of loosing the job. Adds up to a company trying to operate on a shoe string that hires anyone who can legal fly commercially regardless of work history. If you dig deeper the company will generally be cutting corners on maintenance too. I know a few people besides a commercial pilot who fly often. Couple of them are self important jerks. I don't know any of them who would get mad at an aviation company that would call them and say "hey, look, it's just not safe to fly in these conditions". For some od reason they have an aversion to dying. So about the only reason the company would tell a pilot that they have to fly and the pilot would do so is because the company is desperate for money and the pilot is in fear of being fired. Rick