Helicopters

[D-Type]

I think it's a miracle that this accident (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263250/Helicopter-crash-Vauxhall-London-Eyewitness-accounts-flower-market-worker-hit-falling-gear-box.html) resulted in only two deaths.

Does anyone know of any other cases of helicopter crashes in a city?

[BleAivano]

yeah;

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 (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/727292/air_crash_helicopter_in_ny/)




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 (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/03/atlanta-police-helicopter-crashes/)

[Starter]

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.

[Nem14]

CBS 13 Coverage of the Phoenix News Helicopter Crash - YouTube (http://youtu.be/NjWTgg1PV4A)

News Helicopter Crashes In New York City - YouTube (http://youtu.be/sbGOBgtdfHI)

Dramatic new footage of helicopter crash - YouTube (http://youtu.be/IhRrIXPD1t8)

2 Dead After Helicopter Crash - YouTube (http://youtu.be/UGb8Kz8cCIM)

Helicopters Collide in Pasadena - YouTube (http://youtu.be/wrMt96JBKjQ)

Medical helicopters have also crashed in cities.

[Mark]

It was only about a quarter of a mile from our London offices. :s hock:

[gadjo_dilo]

Does anyone know of any other cases of helicopter crashes in a city?

No but I have a strange feeling whenever one overflies my home.

[BDunnell]

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.

So long as you follow correct procedures for what's called autorotation, of course.

[schmenke]

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.

[Mark]

This helicopter didn't fall straight down either, the crash site was a little way away from the crane.

[Starter]

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.

[Gregor-y]

There were two for New York Airways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Airways) back when they served buildings around New York City from the airport. And one for Chicago Helicopter Airways (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23065916@N04/6020701997/) 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.

[anthonyvop]

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.kaman.com/aerospace/helicopters/products-services/k-max/)

http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/7932_8542_ZOM.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/0/5/0628504.jpg

[BDunnell]

There were two for New York Airways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Airways) back when they served buildings around New York City from the airport. And one for Chicago Helicopter Airways (http://www.flickr.com/photos/23065916@N04/6020701997/) 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.

It must be said that inter-city, or cross-city, helicopter services have generally been a commercial blind alley.

[steveaki13]

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.

[BDunnell]

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.kaman.com/aerospace/helicopters/products-services/k-max/)

http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/7932_8542_ZOM.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/0/5/0628504.jpg

A splendid machine. And available in a remotely-piloted version as well, of course.

Kaman's achievements have been remarkable, yet often unsung.

[BDunnell]

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.

As it was a twin-engined helicopter, it didn't actually have to follow the designated London helicopter routes.

[steveaki13]

As it was a twin-engined helicopter, it didn't actually have to follow the designated London helicopter routes.

Interesting, pardon my ignorance of Helicopters but why is that?

[BDunnell]

Interesting, pardon my ignorance of Helicopters but why is that?

Extra safety margin conferred by having two engines.

[steveaki13]

Extra safety margin conferred by having two engines.

Thanks for the info.

[Gregor-y]

It must be said that inter-city, or cross-city, helicopter services have generally been a commercial blind alley.

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.

[BDunnell]

'Commercial viability' such as it is is what's been stagnating the industry for forty years.

And the alternative to that is what, exactly?

[Kneeslider]

Extra safety margin conferred by having two engines.

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)

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!

[gtimad73]

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.

[BDunnell]

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)

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!

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.

[Kneeslider]

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.

Fair point.

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.

[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.

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.



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).

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?

[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.

[BDunnell]

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.

My apologies — I thought you were including SVFR in your previous comments.

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?

[airshifter]

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.

[BDunnell]

Interim — must stress that word — report now published.

Air Accidents Investigation: S1/2013 - Agusta A109E, G-CRST (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s1_2013___agusta_a109e__g_crst.cfm)

Very interesting reading, even without any conclusions being reached at this early stage.

[Mark]

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.

[BDunnell]

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.

[D-Type]

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.

[Kneeslider]

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.

[BleAivano]

Now it have happened again.

Two Berlin Police helicopters crash during an exercise:


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.



BBC News - Double helicopter crash in Berlin (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21875157)
Hubschrauber-Absturz Berlin: Pilot Tot! Polizei-Hubschrauber über Olympiastadion abgestürzt - Berlin - Bild.de (http://www.bild.de/regional/berlin/hubschrauberabsturz/hubschrauber-absturz-berlin-olympiastadion-pilot-tot-29603836.bild.html)

[BDunnell]

Now it have happened again.

Well, not exactly. There's been another helicopter accident, yes, but one in completely different circumstances.

[driveace]

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 .

[Daniel]

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*



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/-/news/9636130/next-moment-i-was-on-the-ceiling-then-the-floor/) http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/12470761/payout-for-man-hurt-in-flight-plunge/ Thoroughly reasonable and likeable guy was Malcolm, I almost feel bad for falling asleep in his lectures a couple of times now!

[D-Type]

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 .
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.

[BDunnell]

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.

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.

[Sprocket]

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.

There have been several cases of reports by recognised authorities being flawed in the past and too quick to blame pilots, though they are very professional people much does depend on the evidence available. I have seen crash sites with nothing larger than the size of a cigarette packet left of the aircraft or the occupants. So piecing together from that how in particular a light aircraft met its fate is no easy task. It is fair to say that in absence of conflicting evidence what else does one conclude? Unless a proven mechanical or on more modern aircraft software failure occurs, what is left but pilot error or the weather? As pilot in command not hitting things is ones own responsibility, so doing so is a form of pilot error (whatever the weather conditions), unless for some reason the aircraft is uncontrollable, such as due to a mechanical/software failure or pilot incapacitation.

As stated above though these things are not usually due to one single error, it is often a whole chain of mistakes or poor decisions. I think personally there may be issues of rapidly changing visibility and overwhelming pilot workload but this ought to have been picked up in the planning stage of the flight (which would include studying likely weather conditions over the estimated duration of the flight at suitable diversion airfields/heliport etc).

What surprises me more about the whole thing is the amazing knee jerk reaction from the public. Two people died which is tragic. How many people died on the roads in London on the same day or during the same week I wonder, without a word being said?

[BDunnell]

There have been several cases of reports by recognised authorities being flawed in the past and too quick to blame pilots, though they are very professional people much does depend on the evidence available.

Well, there have, but I was (and really should have qualified this) referring to the UK, where I'm struggling to think of a report that has subsequently been made out to be badly flawed.



What surprises me more about the whole thing is the amazing knee jerk reaction from the public.

I don't think there has been. Sections of the press and certain politicians tried to whip up a bit of outrage, but nothing more.

[Sprocket]

Well, there have, but I was (and really should have qualified this) referring to the UK, where I'm struggling to think of a report that has subsequently been made out to be badly flawed.


I don't think there has been. Sections of the press and certain politicians tried to whip up a bit of outrage, but nothing more.

Well as it is not the objective of the AAIB to apportion blame, lets just say it depends how close to an accident one is to how one reads between the lines, so I might differ on your first point. There are a couple of reports I can think of in the past 5 years that have drawn an awful lot of comments from the aviation community who knew the pilots involved.

I used to work quite near the crash site, but now live out in the sticks, so can't really judge local reaction, certainly though the press seemed to be making as much of it as possible at the time and this included quotes/interviews with several outraged locals. I was rather thinking also how it appears on many unrelated forums too, it seems to be something a lot of people of talking about, whereas road accidents with multiple deaths rarely make the national news.

[BDunnell]

Well as it is not the objective of the AAIB to apportion blame, lets just say it depends how close to an accident one is to how one reads between the lines, so I might differ on your first point. There are a couple of reports I can think of in the past 5 years that have drawn an awful lot of comments from the aviation community who knew the pilots involved.

I can think of one where I'm aware of similar discord. In these cases, though, I do wish sometimes that pilots, rather than muttering about the deficiencies of a report in private, would take their concerns back to the AAIB if they feel so strongly about them.

[Sprocket]

I can think of one where I'm aware of similar discord. In these cases, though, I do wish sometimes that pilots, rather than muttering about the deficiencies of a report in private, would take their concerns back to the AAIB if they feel so strongly about them.

Oh we do, trust me, either directly or through organisations such as AOPA

[BDunnell]

Oh we do, trust me, either directly or through organisations such as AOPA

I'm sure you do, but in the instance I mentioned no-one, as far as I know, did.

[Sprocket]

I'm sure you do, but in the instance I mentioned no-one, as far as I know, did.

Which was that I'm intrigued!

[BDunnell]

Which was that I'm intrigued!

Would rather not discuss on a public forum.