tomscott.com - @tomscott - Helicopters in London have a simple rule that means they're safer for everyone in the city. I stand on something a bit too high in order to explain it.
Just a small correction, single engine helicopters are restricted to flying over the thames. Dual engine helicopters (Which are used by Police, Air Ambulance, and other operators) are not restricted to this route as they are able to fly on the remaining engine (with reduced performance).
+AeroMad91 he basically said that he said that emergency/police etc helicopters and fly elsewhere but a camera/filming helicopter would need to ask months in advance
@@vwertix1662 Filming helicopters often have two engines as well. If I'm not mistaken, you are generally not allowed to cross cities in most European countries with only one engine.
@mike A Yes... you can. I work at a helicopter tour operator and I used to fly out of an airfield very close to London. We have what are called the Heli-Lanes. These are set paths that helicopters can go. A single engined helicopter must stay within Autorotation distance of the River Thames. A multi-engine has alot more leeway. Our twin squirrel often took a shortcut over a few london boroughs at the end of a tour!
I remember being told by a helicopter pilot that you can't actually fly a single-engine helicopter over the main part of a city (for obvious reasons), but you can fly a twin-engine one, as if one engine fails, the other can keep the helicopter flying.
+Leannyly well, the only problem with having only one powered rotor left is that you can no longer control jaw and will therefor spin out of controll pretty quickly. (If your surviving engine for some reason powers at least two rotors you should be fine)
Setririon The engines of a multi engine helicopter all supply power via the same gearbox. Engines are connected to the gearbox via a sprag clutch (or similar) so the remaining engines can still power the gearbox which, in turn, is connected to both rotors. This applies whether the aircraft has a tail rotor or 2 main rotors.
I live near between a small airport, an raf Base and another small runway, and there are reasonably heavy restrictions on single wing aircraft in the area, particularly low flying ones such as microlights
I have no idea what Setririon's thinking was there... I think he must assume a twin-engine helicopter has a dedicated engine for the tail rotor and you are ok if that is the one that fails or if he thinks the only helicopters allowed near cities are Chinooks.. 0_O
1:42 As someone who jumps in and out of the back of a truck for a living, I must advise that you lower you center of mass as much as possible before jumping down. Makes the landing softer since you build up less momentum.
+Keg While this is indeed a 747, the A380 and 747 are by no means the only commonly flown airliners in the skies today that have four engines. The A340 does too, and there are still loads of those around. Not that you'd mistake an A340 for a 747 or A380 of course, because the extremely long and comparatively narrow body of an A340 makes it rather easy to spot.
Just spent a few days in London, and wow, never seen so many helicopters in so little time. And as you say, all of them following the riven, even a huge one! I still don't know what it was for, probably military (it was very huge, at least like a bus) Edit: Did my research, it was a Merlin helicopter, RAF
Note: This only applies to single-engine helicopters. Dual-Engine Helicopters are allowed to deviate from the river, but they still have to fly in so called "Heli lanes".
Exactly a decade later, Tom, having conquered his fear of heights (and roller coasters) would publish another video involving a helicopter, and an even longer way down...
Gary McWilliams actually the cause of that crash was fuel mismanagement. The engines only failed due to lack of fuel, which they had plenty of just wrongly managed by the pilot.
The building is on land so wasn't in the flight path of the helicopter which should've been over the river. There was fog that morning so the reason for the crash was that the pilot flew under pressure from his client & couldn't see the river accurately enough.
Wikipedia says the opposite "Before the pilot had taken off, Caring [the client] called him twice on his mobile phone to suggest either delaying or cancelling the flight."
You're missing something very important: London only has one heliport, so there are really very few helicopters in London to begin with. How many have had to ditch into the Thames?
Water ditching is part of training, a tourist died in a crash in New York a couple of years back because they didn't know how to get out of their harness.
@@Zerbey Water ditching is a big part of the survival training for work in the North Sea (and most other offshore oil locations), but people still die in ditchings.
Thank you for putting your life on the line to tell us this. I do wonder why I haven't seen more helicopters flying up and down the Thames, though. Also, wouldn't they fly into each other quite often?
I haven't in all fairness, but its only got a 5000ft runway. My Aircraft recognition isn't great, but it looks like a 747 to me. A 747 won't be landing on 5000ft runway...I believe there are only a handful of small 4 eng aircraft such as the 146 that land there.
Pablo NoEsEspañol I have, In fact I go spotting there. There’s a video on my channel where I video those planes and I can tell you a 747 has no place at EGLC.
The plane at 0:35 ISN'T headed for London City Airport. The only four-engine aircraft allowed to land at London City Airport is the BAe 146, and that in the video looks much too big to be a 146. (Also, much too much wing sweep. Could be a A340, A380 or 747 - hard to tell without careful study. But no way a 146).
Oh, I see a number of people already mentioned that. The perils of jumping in and commenting before reading all the other comments. But the error was just so obvious...
Cadde Let me clarify. What I wanted to do was show how extremist and ridiculous that law is, like forbiding road traffic to reduce car accidents. I can see how it can be misinterpreted
Huesudo, how can you reduce a number that does not exist? There had never been an accident before that law came in to action. And they never forbade flight, they just restricted it to follow the river, in the same way cars are restricted to following roads (or else they would hit treees, cows, farmers and other obstacles) You made absolutely no point there other than to prove how stupid you are. That's why I chose to reply to a three year old comment, that's how astounding your comment is.
Helicopter landing on a water might be pretty dangerous. The helicopters have a huge weight on the top of it so there is a big chance that the helicopter will turn upside down when it hits water. I can see it's still safer than landing into traffic though. So best choise is perhaps to hope that your helicopter doesn't crash.
and what exactly is the issue with flipping upside down? you can still get out of your helicopter and swim to shore. also, flipping over due to a top heavy weight makes the assumption it was trying to float on the water, rather than just sink.
Tom Scott videos are really good at presenting interesting information that is also visually entertaining. There's not too many others doing videos like this.
I'd say, not most, but all pilots are required to be able to do that. Apart from that, brilliant video, I was long intrigued how these massive number of helicopters fit "underneath" the huge plane traffic.
I don’t think this is true. The Thames runs west to east across the city and Helicopters will generally want to cross between north and south. Only following the river would put them in conflict with London city and Heathrow airport. The reason helicopters don’t fly into buildings is because the pilot looks out the window, if it’s foggy, they shouldn’t fly.
Ah so that's why in the London editions of Treasure Hunt Keith always dropped Annie on pontoons on the river and she had to make her way to the actual places by foot, bike or passing car.........
São Paulo is one of the cities with the heaviest helicopter traffic in the world. Yet, accidents there are rare and fatal accidents even rarer. And no restrictions about flying over the main city
The police chopper that was over Nag's Head from 3.00 to 3.30 am on Wednesday morning was nowhere near the river. It just woke up thousands of people instead.
A bit wet but fine? My friend and her partner died when their helicopter crashed in the hudson.. so I would say the statement is optimistic... Drowning and hypothermia are real risks.. but having said that it is the lesser evil compared to crashing into a building..
Helicopters have no business flying in London unless they are being used for essential emergency service functions or similar. They are noisy, polluting and potentially dangerous and should not be used as short-cuts by the super-rich.
@@apache1234657 No because the runway is way too short for that to be possible. And the angle of descent too steep. I don't even know if the 747 would fit onto the runway when stationary.
I don't remember the exact details, but it could be a multitude of reasons. Attitude controls stopped working, too close to the ground, pilot error, wind buffeting... just to name a few. Go check out the official accident report details, it should say in there exactly why it crashed where it did.
Jamie McEwan i think he said "unless you're an emergency services helicopter" They wouldn't have to apply for a permit because, by definition, they're responding to a time sensitive emergency
"safely, they can do something called an autorotation". Which is very tricky to pull off. My god they are tricky, but once you nail it, you can pull them off all the time. Scaring your instructor is fun :)
If you are in a helicopter landing in the water is a terrible idea, slowly drowning to death while strapped into a helicopter is a terrible way to go. Just look at what happened in NYC recently
There's an alternate timeline not too far from ours where Tom fell off the ledge and we don't have regular TYMNK episodes. I pity those who stuck in the darkest timeline.
Helicopters visiting the Battersea heliport are often fitted with emergency flotation systems which are deployed in case of an emergency water landing.
I was going to say, you do get some helicopters flying in London, like for Dr Who, or Tom Cruise's film, Life Die Repeat? Day Before Yesterday? I dunno. Which really pee'd me off! I wanted to go to the national gallery, and i never really made it. They took too long filming. I found the lure of Caravaggio and Holbein more exciting than seeing a tiny Scientologist jumping from a helicopter a mile away...
Umm, not sure this is entirely correct. Helicopters frequently fly near to my home in North West London (NW2). I'm told there are a limited number of flight paths for helicopters crossing London. So maybe the more correct statement is that they cannot fully over CENTRAL London, or something like that???
Huh. Makes sense. I've had a flying lesson, but it was for fixed wing aircraft, and we were well outside controlled airspace though. Seems as though, Except for the area immediately surrounding the airfield, you could largely do whatever you felt like. (Within reason, obviously, you still had to watch for other aircraft, and I'm sure buzzing a city at low altitude would't go down very well, nor would reckless flying generally.)
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? [โกงไหมครับ ep.88 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
you made a video in praise of safety standards while standing on a dangerous ledge...
The irony :)
@@asbestosfibers1325 Well it was perfectly safe to follow the river until someone put a random Tom in the way, it's an accident waiting to happen!
*palpatine*
Ironic.
relatable username
3 meter drop is not dangerous...
After you started losing your balance, all I did the rest of the video was wonder why you would stand up there.
Me too, I had to rewatch the last half because I realised I hadn't even registered anything he said after that xD
I was hoping he'd fall and demonstration an autorotation. :P
CarpRunner because he is stupid
to be able to get a shot with him and the building
To get a good shot
Just a small correction, single engine helicopters are restricted to flying over the thames. Dual engine helicopters (Which are used by Police, Air Ambulance, and other operators) are not restricted to this route as they are able to fly on the remaining engine (with reduced performance).
+AeroMad91 he basically said that he said that emergency/police etc helicopters and fly elsewhere but a camera/filming helicopter would need to ask months in advance
@@vwertix1662 Filming helicopters often have two engines as well. If I'm not mistaken, you are generally not allowed to cross cities in most European countries with only one engine.
@@Fukitol_Forte 4 years ago
@mike A Yes... you can. I work at a helicopter tour operator and I used to fly out of an airfield very close to London. We have what are called the Heli-Lanes. These are set paths that helicopters can go. A single engined helicopter must stay within Autorotation distance of the River Thames. A multi-engine has alot more leeway. Our twin squirrel often took a shortcut over a few london boroughs at the end of a tour!
@Muckin 4on Only during actual emergencies', and even then the legal position is sketchy.
I remember being told by a helicopter pilot that you can't actually fly a single-engine helicopter over the main part of a city (for obvious reasons), but you can fly a twin-engine one, as if one engine fails, the other can keep the helicopter flying.
+Leannyly well, the only problem with having only one powered rotor left is that you can no longer control jaw and will therefor spin out of controll pretty quickly. (If your surviving engine for some reason powers at least two rotors you should be fine)
Setririon The engines of a multi engine helicopter all supply power via the same gearbox. Engines are connected to the gearbox via a sprag clutch (or similar) so the remaining engines can still power the gearbox which, in turn, is connected to both rotors. This applies whether the aircraft has a tail rotor or 2 main rotors.
+theweekthatis I flew a single engine helicopter over London ...
I live near between a small airport, an raf Base and another small runway, and there are reasonably heavy restrictions on single wing aircraft in the area, particularly low flying ones such as microlights
I have no idea what Setririon's thinking was there... I think he must assume a twin-engine helicopter has a dedicated engine for the tail rotor and you are ok if that is the one that fails or if he thinks the only helicopters allowed near cities are Chinooks.. 0_O
1:42 As someone who jumps in and out of the back of a truck for a living, I must advise that you lower you center of mass as much as possible before jumping down. Makes the landing softer since you build up less momentum.
Why are you jumping in and out of trucks?
@@eternallybuffering6003 because its fun
Okay
@@eternallybuffering6003 Garbage collectors and the sorts do that.
@@Ziirf And thieves... :)
Another Thing You Might Not Know: in the background you can see the MI6 building that exploded in Skyfall ;)
some things aren't supposed to be known
Well thats just the mi6 building
It is a secret agent base irl as well
I remember when the IRA shot a missile at it.
Well look at that!
That Boeing 747 you cut the film to was certainly not bound for London City haha
That's an A380.
***** OK, I was comparing a picture of a 747, with that of an A380 when I said that. But after looking at it a bit more, I now see that it's a 747.
+Keg While this is indeed a 747, the A380 and 747 are by no means the only commonly flown airliners in the skies today that have four engines. The A340 does too, and there are still loads of those around. Not that you'd mistake an A340 for a 747 or A380 of course, because the extremely long and comparatively narrow body of an A340 makes it rather easy to spot.
its a spitifire
It's a tie-fighter
"Most qualified pilots..."???
If you have your rotorcraft license you bloody well had to demonstrate your autorotation to landing skills.
lohphat shut up pussy
Chief_Baklava, Oh look, a cretin! How's your life under government support going?
rgtrooper13 I don’t have a mum👏
@@foolanhi8183 even better!
@Heads Mess If you use your other hand it feels like somebody else is flying.
"Every 60 seconds that passes, a helicopter doesn't crash in London. Together we can change this!" -- Tom Scott, 2014.
"London city airport"
747
Oh god, I really want to watch this.
Nerd3 my friend, he's done it all. 😌
Swiss001 entered the chat
Avgeeks punching the air (me included)
0:35 - Emm Tom, a 747 cannot land at London city airport...
It's not the landing, it's the stopping afterwards that's the issue.
Within normal operating limits...
@@tompw3141 I mean, landing an aircraft isn't too difficult. Its just you know, getting the people out safely.
It can if its COMPLETELY empty inside and has barely any fuel left. if thats the case it CAN not only land but take off too. just the weight
Tom, you are quite literally one of the best video producers on TH-cam. Thanks for all the awesome work you put into your content.
I agree
tom is super!
Have you seen Jay Foreman's stuff? It's the same nerdy stuff as this, but better researched and more entertaining
@@plebjames I like both?
@@Robbnlinzi ?
0:35 That's actually a 747-400 going to Heathrow. For once, Tom gets his facts wrong!
Well. It’s still a plane.
@@superslimanoniem4712 But not going to London City.
How can you tell it’s not a 747-800?
You can tell by the shape of the wings, and that it's in British Airways livery. There is also no such thing as a 747-800. It is actually the 747-8.
It was probably B-roll of a completely different plane.
tomorrow is its 10th year anniversery of this video
time is a projection by aliens to keep us trapped in our dreams
Just spent a few days in London, and wow, never seen so many helicopters in so little time. And as you say, all of them following the riven, even a huge one! I still don't know what it was for, probably military (it was very huge, at least like a bus)
Edit: Did my research, it was a Merlin helicopter, RAF
All helecopter pilot must know autorotation before they get there lincence
The title gives heavy "you can help by expanding this list" vibes to me
Edit: typo
Tom Scott Does Parkour, there.
Note: This only applies to single-engine helicopters. Dual-Engine Helicopters are allowed to deviate from the river, but they still have to fly in so called "Heli lanes".
"I can see a plane coming in now"....points camera to a 747. I'd love to see a 747 attempt the 9 degree glide slope into London city and then land.
'SINK RATE, SINK RATE'
They would stop but it would be about as smooth as a Ryan air landing
Just tell the ground crew to install one of those snag cables they have on AC Carriers and they'll be fine
5.5 degrees :)
Exactly a decade later, Tom, having conquered his fear of heights (and roller coasters) would publish another video involving a helicopter, and an even longer way down...
That's what happened in Glasgow the heli was over the city engine failed and they tried to get it in the river but were short and hit the pub
Gary McWilliams actually the cause of that crash was fuel mismanagement. The engines only failed due to lack of fuel, which they had plenty of just wrongly managed by the pilot.
If I had just crashed in a helicopter in Glasgow, I'd hit the pub as well. I imagine it'd take a few pints to get over...
@@esbenandersen5706 Prick.
oi not the fookin pub
Whew, I would not be standing there.
The building is on land so wasn't in the flight path of the helicopter which should've been over the river. There was fog that morning so the reason for the crash was that the pilot flew under pressure from his client & couldn't see the river accurately enough.
Wikipedia says the opposite "Before the pilot had taken off, Caring [the client] called him twice on his mobile phone to suggest either delaying or cancelling the flight."
Tom mentioned that; "unless there's a building in the way and its foggy"
You're missing something very important: London only has one heliport, so there are really very few helicopters in London to begin with. How many have had to ditch into the Thames?
Dammit. I didn't know there should be more helicopter crashes in London.
I can think of a couple reasons why you still might have more trouble than just being wet after landing on the river with a helicopter
Water ditching is part of training, a tourist died in a crash in New York a couple of years back because they didn't know how to get out of their harness.
@@Zerbey Water ditching is a big part of the survival training for work in the North Sea (and most other offshore oil locations), but people still die in ditchings.
How do you enforce this, without causing bigger accidents ?
Quite easy to enforce. You track violators on radar and when they land you tear up their licence to fly.
There's a parallel universe where Tom dies right at 0:48
Probably the turnpike-filled alternate universe with zeppelins from the video I just watched.
I’m a plane nerd, and the only thing you got wrong was that the plane that flew over you is too big to land at London City.
Thank you for putting your life on the line to tell us this. I do wonder why I haven't seen more helicopters flying up and down the Thames, though. Also, wouldn't they fly into each other quite often?
I was pondering over that question my entire life glad that someone finally answered it
They can see each other from miles off
Oh my god, a blue sky in London!
I don't think the aircraft pictured is going into London city, given its size, it is most probably leaving Heathrow.
bladze Have you been to LCY anytime recently?
I haven't in all fairness, but its only got a 5000ft runway. My Aircraft recognition isn't great, but it looks like a 747 to me. A 747 won't be landing on 5000ft runway...I believe there are only a handful of small 4 eng aircraft such as the 146 that land there.
Pablo NoEsEspañol I have, In fact I go spotting there. There’s a video on my channel where I video those planes and I can tell you a 747 has no place at EGLC.
It is probably heading to Gatwick as they have much more 747 services
Unknown Person ... no..?
The plane at 0:35 ISN'T headed for London City Airport. The only four-engine aircraft allowed to land at London City Airport is the BAe 146, and that in the video looks much too big to be a 146. (Also, much too much wing sweep. Could be a A340, A380 or 747 - hard to tell without careful study. But no way a 146).
Oh, I see a number of people already mentioned that. The perils of jumping in and commenting before reading all the other comments. But the error was just so obvious...
anyone getting this recommended now?
Why was this recommended to me 6 years later and how
me today!
'in fact I can see a plane coming in now'
The 747 pilot: 'its time to test the brakes!'
These have been a great start to what I hope will be a long series :)
Keep 'em coming, and greetings from Sweden!
Tom, why risk your neck like that? Especially on such a windy day??
Govt wants to reduce helicopter accidents.
FORBIDS HELICOPTER FLIGHT.
Government logic ftw...
Cadde Let me clarify. What I wanted to do was show how extremist and ridiculous that law is, like forbiding road traffic to reduce car accidents. I can see how it can be misinterpreted
_FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!_
Huesudo, how can you reduce a number that does not exist? There had never been an accident before that law came in to action. And they never forbade flight, they just restricted it to follow the river, in the same way cars are restricted to following roads (or else they would hit treees, cows, farmers and other obstacles)
You made absolutely no point there other than to prove how stupid you are. That's why I chose to reply to a three year old comment, that's how astounding your comment is.
0:35 Yes, that Boeing 747-400 would’ve definitely been landing at London City Airport.
George_ W_O I went looking through the comments to see if someone mentioned that 😂
Interesting point would have been: how many emergency landings on the river have happened so far. That would bei a thing I certainly didnt know.
That British Airways B747 was not inbound for LCY (London City Airport), I was actually outbound from LHR (London Heathrow Airport)
Helicopter landing on a water might be pretty dangerous. The helicopters have a huge weight on the top of it so there is a big chance that the helicopter will turn upside down when it hits water.
I can see it's still safer than landing into traffic though. So best choise is perhaps to hope that your helicopter doesn't crash.
Emergency landings anywhere aren't exactly safe, I think the real aim here is to put the risk of harm upon the user rather than passers-by.
and what exactly is the issue with flipping upside down? you can still get out of your helicopter and swim to shore. also, flipping over due to a top heavy weight makes the assumption it was trying to float on the water, rather than just sink.
What was the point of standing on that wall anyway?
+soberhippie The better to have a view of the water and the tower, possibly?
+soberhippie It's all about getting the best shot!
Tom Scott videos are really good at presenting interesting information that is also visually entertaining. There's not too many others doing videos like this.
What's the point of doing anything?
A question that is often on my mind.
747? London City Airport? you sure Tom?
I'd say, not most, but all pilots are required to be able to do that. Apart from that, brilliant video, I was long intrigued how these massive number of helicopters fit "underneath" the huge plane traffic.
I thought you were just exagerating the height. Looks like a bloody nasty drop!
I don’t think this is true. The Thames runs west to east across the city and Helicopters will generally want to cross between north and south. Only following the river would put them in conflict with London city and Heathrow airport. The reason helicopters don’t fly into buildings is because the pilot looks out the window, if it’s foggy, they shouldn’t fly.
Ah so that's why in the London editions of Treasure Hunt Keith always dropped Annie on pontoons on the river and she had to make her way to the actual places by foot, bike or passing car.........
Woah that building was always one of my favourite ones in London,it kinda looks like a lighthouse and the lighting at night looks awesome.
That British Airways B747 was not inbound for LCY (London City Airport), it would have been outbound from LHR (London Heathrow Airport)
That British Airways B747 was not unbound for LCY (London City Airport), I was actually outbound from LHR (London Heathrow Airport)
You should do a video on the DCA approach into DC in the U.S.
The River Visual is awesome
that's a great point, I think we need to do something about that
"That's really a long way down!"
8 years later: Parkour!
How many helicopters have actually made emergency landings in the river?
None so far I think.
São Paulo is one of the cities with the heaviest helicopter traffic in the world. Yet, accidents there are rare and fatal accidents even rarer. And no restrictions about flying over the main city
@@caracaes How is the situation when it comes to ground traffic?
The police chopper that was over Nag's Head from 3.00 to 3.30 am on Wednesday morning was nowhere near the river. It just woke up thousands of people instead.
A bit wet but fine? My friend and her partner died when their helicopter crashed in the hudson.. so I would say the statement is optimistic... Drowning and hypothermia are real risks.. but having said that it is the lesser evil compared to crashing into a building..
Helicopters have no business flying in London unless they are being used for essential emergency service functions or similar. They are noisy, polluting and potentially dangerous and should not be used as short-cuts by the super-rich.
That's a B747. Definitely not going to London City.
A BA747 into LCY? Wow :-D
That plane will be going to/from LHR not LCY
0:35 is not an LCY flight: It's a BA 747 on its way to or from Heathrow. About 5x bigger than the largest LCY-cleared jets.
it could land at london city though
@@apache1234657 No because the runway is way too short for that to be possible. And the angle of descent too steep. I don't even know if the 747 would fit onto the runway when stationary.
@@peterkelford im gonna give that a go haha
In an alternate universe, Tom falls off that concrete and dies. Luckily, we don't live in that universe.
So why did the police helicopter in Glasgow not land in the river when its engines failed, instead crashing into a pub roof?
cant always control your decent , you need skill and a working helicoper(to some extent)
because police is a government monopoly, so why would they care about doing well?
I don't remember the exact details, but it could be a multitude of reasons. Attitude controls stopped working, too close to the ground, pilot error, wind buffeting... just to name a few. Go check out the official accident report details, it should say in there exactly why it crashed where it did.
Because after that sort of scary experience, they _really_ needed a drink.
Jamie McEwan i think he said "unless you're an emergency services helicopter" They wouldn't have to apply for a permit because, by definition, they're responding to a time sensitive emergency
"safely, they can do something called an autorotation". Which is very tricky to pull off. My god they are tricky, but once you nail it, you can pull them off all the time. Scaring your instructor is fun :)
London City Airport... 747??
This series is awesome! I'm really enjoying it! :)
2014, helicopters can have a controlled crash. 2021, helicopters have parachutes.
If you are in a helicopter landing in the water is a terrible idea, slowly drowning to death while strapped into a helicopter is a terrible way to go. Just look at what happened in NYC recently
I didn't think planes that big land at city airport. Don't ruse me ;_;
I think CGP grey made a similar video to this but it was New York
Hate to be picky, that plane at 0:38 is too big to go to fit, it’s probably going Heathrow .
There's an alternate timeline not too far from ours where Tom fell off the ledge and we don't have regular TYMNK episodes. I pity those who stuck in the darkest timeline.
Wind has entered the chat
Helicopters visiting the Battersea heliport are often fitted with emergency flotation systems which are deployed in case of an emergency water landing.
How many have landed in the river then?
Police helicopters assisting in a vehicle pursuit? Air ambulance picking up a potentially critically injured patient?
See "special permission".
I was going to say, you do get some helicopters flying in London, like for Dr Who, or Tom Cruise's film, Life Die Repeat? Day Before Yesterday? I dunno. Which really pee'd me off! I wanted to go to the national gallery, and i never really made it. They took too long filming. I found the lure of Caravaggio and Holbein more exciting than seeing a tiny Scientologist jumping from a helicopter a mile away...
Umm, not sure this is entirely correct. Helicopters frequently fly near to my home in North West London (NW2). I'm told there are a limited number of flight paths for helicopters crossing London. So maybe the more correct statement is that they cannot fully over CENTRAL London, or something like that???
good lord tom be careful up there
because i havent been there yet
London city airport but then points at a 747, hmmmmmmmm.......
10 years already!
Finally a video title which truly represents a question I've constantly asked myself during my entire lifetime.
I was pondering over this question my entire life glad that someone finally answered it
What's to stop someone deliberately flying a helicopter into the Houses of Parliament from the river?
the lack of damage it would cause, while costing them their life?
a helicopter wouldn't take out that much building
September nooooo
What you say only applies to single engined helicopters. All commercial, police, air ambulance etc are twin-engined so not restricted to the river.
Unless the building catches fire and jumps in the water.
Pretty sure you'd move if a helicopter was about to hit you
Interesting! That's a really good concept.
What's up with the bridge in the background?
0:32 A Boeing 747 is never going to land at London City Airport without crashing off the end of the runway.
thats what i said
That 747 was headed to London Heathrow, not to London city. London city could never hold a plane that large.
Great video though
747 landing at London City?
Great to be over the river but if you are within the "Deadmans Curve", you won't be autorotating to a safe landing!!
Can you tell me something that I may not know about Sheffield ( chances are what ever you choose I won’t know )
Huh. Makes sense. I've had a flying lesson, but it was for fixed wing aircraft, and we were well outside controlled airspace though. Seems as though, Except for the area immediately surrounding the airfield, you could largely do whatever you felt like. (Within reason, obviously, you still had to watch for other aircraft, and I'm sure buzzing a city at low altitude would't go down very well, nor would reckless flying generally.)
But what about other cities? Places like Boston or New York have plenty of helipads on buildings,
I don't think helipads would do much help to helicopters on their way to crash
I ruined your 69 subscriber count
Anyways why are getting so much hate in the discussion?
Lovley guy! I'm so happy he's taking his WELL DESERVED break