I think it's a miracle that this accident resulted in only two deaths.
Does anyone know of any other cases of helicopter crashes in a city?
Printable View
I think it's a miracle that this accident resulted in only two deaths.
Does anyone know of any other cases of helicopter crashes in a city?
yeah;
Quote:
2003-05-08 Aurora, CO KMGH-TV
A Bell 206-L4 helicopter crashed after losing power during a simulated emergency landing at the Aurora Reservoir.
"Inadequate inflight planning/decision by the flight crew and the check pilot's failure to initiate remedial action in a timely manner".
Air Crash - Helicopter In NY - Video
Quote:
Atlanta (CNN) -- It started as a helicopter search for a missing 9-year old boy. About two hours later,
the police chopper lay in pieces on a city street, two officers were dead, and hundreds of northwest Atlanta residents had no power.
The helicopter with two officers on board crashed late Saturday night, just miles from downtown. It was flying low to enable the officers
to conduct a more thorough search, according to Atlanta Police Chief George Turner.
Both officers died on impact.
Atlanta police helicopter crashes on city street
There was one in Baltimore a few years ago also. I don't remember the details but, if I recall correctly, no one on the ground was hurt. Generally speaking. with a helicopter, unless you lose a rotor or hit something, you don't come down in a dead fall. You'll still hit the ground pretty hard, but not as hard as if you'd just dropped straight down.
Edit: Just checked and it was in July 2010 and it crashed in a park.
It was only about a quarter of a mile from our London offices. :s hock:
No but I have a strange feeling whenever one overflies my home.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
So long as you follow correct procedures for what's called autorotation, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I’m no pilot but I understand that autorotation requires a minimum length of a “glide slope” to set down. It’s not possible to set down directly vertically.
This helicopter didn't fall straight down either, the crash site was a little way away from the crane.
Since the helicopter was flying at the time, momentum would have carried it a ways before it hit the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
There were two for New York Airways back when they served buildings around New York City from the airport. And one for Chicago Helicopter Airways in 1960 when they used to provide service between Chicago's two airports.
Makes you realize how, for the passenger's experience, air travel's been going backwards for the last 40 years.
A tragedy that is true but I am not about to get all girlie and cower in fear every time a chopper passes overhead.
I have always wanted to get a Helo License. Then make a boat load of money and buy one of these
Kaman Helicopters | KMAX Aerial Truck
http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/7932_8542_ZOM.jpg
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../5/0628504.jpg
It must be said that inter-city, or cross-city, helicopter services have generally been a commercial blind alley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
Terrible accident. The crane driver was held up by his children and was about 10 minutes late for work and apparantly had just started climbing the crane when it was hit. How Lucky was he.
It was terribly foggy yesterday wasn't it, so a suprise he was flying maybe, but it must have been bad up there, because I believe they are meant to follow the rivers course, but he must have drifted slightly.
A splendid machine. And available in a remotely-piloted version as well, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Kaman's achievements have been remarkable, yet often unsung.
As it was a twin-engined helicopter, it didn't actually have to follow the designated London helicopter routes.Quote:
Originally Posted by aki13
Interesting, pardon my ignorance of Helicopters but why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Extra safety margin conferred by having two engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by aki13
Thanks for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
It'd get between Midway and O'Hare ten times faster than any option that's existed since. 'Commercial viability' such as it is is what's been stagnating the industry for forty years. Concorde was the only attempt to break the mold and no one's bothered to follow up or improve. When Boeing decided on the 787 their other option was a small, fast plane. They played it safe to just make a lot of refinements to the existing paradigm. Jamb yourself into a shoebox for $350, get a little extra legroom for $1350, or for $13,500 get the equivalent of a 19th century Pullman compartment.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
And the alternative to that is what, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
Commerical single engine operation is forbidden in the EU for both fixed wing and helicopters in IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) conditions known as IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions), as opposed to VFR (Visual Flight Rules)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The majority of London is classified as Class A restricted airspace, which can only be entered with a clearance from one of the relevant Air Traffic Service Units (ATSU), and while under the direction of the ATSU, a pilot may be instructed to follow vectors which could take him into IMC conditions. Therefore to enter class A airspace, it is a requisite that the pilot has the relevant IMC qualifications, or enters the Class A airspace under a Special VFR clearance.
Additionally, Rule 5 of the rules of the air states that pilots need to remain a minimum of 500ft clear of any person, vehicle, vessel or structure. They must also ensure not to fly so low that in the event of an engine faliure, they cannot glide clear.
Those are the basic outlines, and there's more too it than that.
So that should explain why the river is a favoured route, and that single engine helicopters would be able to ditch in an emergency in the river, where the twins would still manage to fly on one engine.
So, you can see from the above that wandering through London's airspace in a single engine light aircraft with no radio would break a lot of the above rules, and those you do see flying in that area are usually highly quailified and experienced.
I have once flown through the VFR corridor in a Beech Musketeer to the north of the London Class A airspace, and south of Luton's zone, and it gets very busy!
you couldnt do it vertically as you couldnt bleed off your speed at the end. thats why you follow a slop so you can flare the aircraft to stop at the end.
Indeed. It must be noted that the helicopter involved in the accident was operating either VFR or Special VFR — exactly which will no doubt be confirmed in the report. So too, I'm sure, will be the nature of the flight which required it to be made in what would seem to have been decidedly marginal weather en route.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneeslider
Fair point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
There can be no VFR flight inside class A airspace, that is the principle defining characteristic of this type of airspace compared to the 'normal' class D zones which exist around most of the UK's commercial airports. Regardless of the meteorological conditions (IMC, or VMC) you cannot fly VFR (visual flight rules) within a class A airspace.
The Helicopter in question a Bell Agusta 109 is a twin engine design, and would be equipped for full IFR flight.
The NOTAM (NOtice To AirMen) for the crane which it hit is here:-
Q) EGTT/QOBCE/IV/M/AE/000/008/5129N00008W001
B) FROM: 13/01/16 15:30C) TO: 13/01/24 09:00 EST
E) HIGH RISE JIB CRANE (NOT LIT) OPER WI 1NM 512903N 0000745W HGT 770FT
AMSL (VAUXHALL, CENTRAL LONDON). OPS CTC 02078203151. 12-10-0429/AS 2
Notice that it is notified that it is not lit (though this was after the accident).
It wil be interesting to look in the Air Accident Investigation Report which will be issued in a few months.
Helicopters may operate within the London control zone under SVFR conditions. I am very much under the impression that this was the case regarding the accident flight. I would imagine that this provision will be one focus of the investigation, given the conditions then prevailing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneeslider
Would a light of any colour have been much use given that the top of the crane appeared, at least in images taken shortly after the accident, to have been in cloud?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneeslider
Sorry, bit of a misunderstanding...
SVFR isn't VFR from a legal standpoint... The two are seperate things. SVFR is what allows people with no IMC qualification into class A airspace.
Complicated, isn't it?
You are right, I would expect the helicopter to be operating SVFR and to have lost sight of the crane in cloud, and having to fly low to maintain visual contact with the ground, which is a requisite for SVFR operation.
I doubt that any sort of lighting on the crane would have done any good.
The only answer would have been to fly the whole flight IFR which would require a flight plan, and then the ATSU would have been able to give a clearance to ascend vertically to a point where the helicopter would have been visible on radar, then in IMC, and under direction from the ATSU to maintain seperation from other aircraft and obstacles.
I'm not IFR or IMC qualified, the person to ask here about such things is Daniel aka Gannex, he used to be an instructor supervising transition between military and civil roles in the US.
My apologies — I thought you were including SVFR in your previous comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneeslider
Without wishing to speculate unduly, would you question the manner in which — hypothetically, and as a general point — a pilot operating under SVFR could find themselves in a situation where they're fairly low over a built-up area in such weather conditions as would appear to have been prevailing at the time of the accident?
While in the military I was involved in a helicopter incident, and it was the first time I had every been in a helicopter. We witnessed another incident where a gunship and a UH-1 struck rotors slightly when helocasting. Scary stuff.
Unfortunately several years later an acquaintance of mine lost his life during an accident at sea when striking a ship and they went into the water.
Interim — must stress that word — report now published.
Air Accidents Investigation: S1/2013 - Agusta A109E, G-CRST
Very interesting reading, even without any conclusions being reached at this early stage.
tl;dr : The pilot took off into bad weather. Despite his client insisting on several occasions that the weather was too poor and that the pilot should not pick him up, he proceeded anyway.
As you say it's an interim report but it looks like pilot error.
Well, I think it was perfectly reasonable for him to take off and go and check out the weather at his intended destination. The chain of events that came to unfold, however, raises all sorts of issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I hadn't realised that he had flown to Elstree and found he couldn't land. It looks as if he chose to land at Battersea so he would be closer to Elstree when he resumed his flight after the weather had lifted.
Interesting reading the AAIB account. First thing you realise from reading it, is that the pilot was very busy in the minutes before the accident. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, in that order. Operating single crew, in marginal weather in a complex airspace environment is no doubt meat and drink to an ATPL qualified pilot, but any one aspect of this could go a little awry, and there isn't going to be much room for error.
Prescient to the accident, the meteorology reports detail that the dewpoint is the same as the air temperature, so any lowering of the air temperature would produce a significant deterioration in horizontal and vertical visibility.
The pilot stated that he was OK with SVFR clearance, and able to fly in visual meteorological conditions 'on top' of the cloud, but cleared not higher than 1000ft QFE (with the altimeter pressure setting giving the height above mean sea level). It would be easy to lose or gain a couple of hundred feet while having to cope with everything going on.
I would surmise that the pilot found himself in deteriorating conditions, and for reasons known to himself declined an IFR clearance, and decided to divert to Battersea as he probably had a hole in the cloud through which he could see Vauxhaull. He found himself low trying to maintain visual contact with the ground, and blundered into the crane which he couldn't see.
As usual, and accident occurred because of a long chain of cumulative events, and poor decision making, if any of these had gone differently, then a tradgedy would have been averted.
Now it have happened again.
Two Berlin Police helicopters crash during an exercise:
BBC News - Double helicopter crash in BerlinQuote:
Two helicopters have crashed near Berlin's Olympic Stadium, leaving several people dead or injured. The helicopters hit each other in
mid-air during a police exercise. The Bild newspaper said one of the pilots was killed and four people were injured, two of them seriously.
Hubschrauber-Absturz Berlin: Pilot Tot! Polizei-Hubschrauber über Olympiastadion abgestürzt - Berlin - Bild.de
Well, not exactly. There's been another helicopter accident, yes, but one in completely different circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by BleAivano
As I understand it from talking to a guy from Cornwall who operate a fleet of hire Helicopters, 99% of all Helicopter accidents are due to pilot error .
*sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by driveace
What about the fact that helicopters tend to operate in closer proximity to things they can hit than fixed wing aircraft? Perhaps there's also the fact that helicopters don't glide quite as nicely as fixed wing aircraft. I suspect the accident rate of fixed wing aircraft trying to land on a pitching deck of something that's not an aircraft carrier would be somewhat higher than that of helicopters doing the same thing.
With all due respect, it's sometimes best to educate yourself rather than "understanding" something because someone told you. That said, my aviation lecturer at university did tell me that helicopters only fly because they're so ugly that the earth repels them. Just googled him and seems he was in the news a year and a bit ago! -> 'Next moment I was on the ceiling, then the floor' - The West Australian http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...flight-plunge/ Thoroughly reasonable and likeable guy was Malcolm, I almost feel bad for falling asleep in his lectures a couple of times now!
It would be equally valid to say that 99% of fatal accidents are attributed to pilot error. As I understand it, this is simply a way for an owner/air traffic controller/maintenance engineer/etc to avoid admitting an error as a dead man can't defend himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by driveace
Not really. That's a bit unfair on accident investigators, who do a very good job in often difficult circumstances. If an official accident report by a recognised authority says it's down to pilot error, that's good enough for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type