Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If the light is not on, try phoning 101 and telling the police.


Alternatively try the civil aviation authority. They control helicopter routing and could be expected to care whether cranes are lit or not


The Battersea crash is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_helicopter_crash


Two people died

Helicopters aren't allowed to fly lower than 150m near structures. Also in the time I've lived near jarvis road/Melbourne Grove, helicopters don't fly this close to the ground. Even with the establishment of the heliport at King, helicopters don't fly that low or use that flight path. Secondly the reference to battersea is obsolete as you are talking about a crane in excess of 60 floors vs the four floors at the building site

paulu1973 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Helicopters aren't allowed to fly lower than 150m

> near structures. Also in the time I've lived near

> jarvis road/Melbourne Grove, helicopters don't fly

> this close to the ground. Even with the

> establishment of the heliport at King, helicopters

> don't fly that low or use that flight path.

> Secondly the reference to battersea is obsolete as

> you are talking about a crane in excess of 60

> floors vs the four floors at the building site


With respect, I think you're somewhat missing the point; lighting isn't just there for when everyone's following regulations, it's there for when mistakes are made. Had the Vauxhall pilot not made a catastrophic error, he wouldn't have flown into the building. I don't know the height of the King's helipad but given that it's atop a nine storey block I'd guess no more than fifty or sixty metres, so at some point the pilots are going to be dropping well below 150m and I've certainly seen the police helicopter flying below that deck - in bad weather, with instrument failure or pilot error, lights on surrounding structures could be vital for preventing a tragedy. In the final analysis, if it's unnecessary to have a light on the crane in question why was one put there in the first place? I feel residents have every right to raise their concerns.


ETA Just for interest [sic!] just looked up the regulations and "the 500 foot rule does not apply to police helicopters."

If the whole thing is less than 150m in height and more than 6km from an aerodrome or airfield it doesn't seem to require any light as a matter of regulation. The single red light is a CAA recommendation of what they think is judicious for a crane up to 90m tall, https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201096%20In%20Focus%20-%20Crane%20Ops.pdf, and Kier and the crane suppliers seem to concur. If the thing's less than 300 feet in height - which is quite possible, given that the jib length seems to be 45m - it doesn't even have to be reported to the CAA to be included in a Notice To Airmen. The Vauxhall crane had a tower that was 563 feet tall, and the jib was raised to a total height of 723 feet at the time of the accident, according to the AAIB accident report. https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aar-3-2014-g-crst-16-january-2013


The following is from the Lambeth approval of the planning application for the helipad:


"10.5 Helicopters would approach and depart from the hospital in a westerly and easterly

direction on the same flight paths that existing helicopters take to/from Ruskin Park.

...

The CAA will have the final ?sign off? prior to the helipad becoming operational.

Ruskin Wing is on the existing flight path helicopters use to land in Ruskin Park and

the applicant has confirmed that the flight paths would not change only the landing

zone. Therefore the helicopter route is already identified and operational"

https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s61618/


Don't the signs in East Dulwich Road have a contact phone number? With whom, I'm not sure.

Anyway, it seems to be on again tonight.

A newsletter? Interesting .... don't recall having seen one of those before, but well done bels123 for taking action. It was the mains power before wasn't it? Don't they have a night watchman on site who's keeping an eye on this sort of thing to make sure it doesn't happen, or that appropriate action is taken when it does?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...