Rescue 116 Crash at Blackrock, Co Mayo(Mod note in post 1)

pm1977x

On Primetime they stated something along the lines of: "two crew members in the back spotted the obstacle on their camera but the pilots didn't have time to take evasive action."

Has that been established as fact or is this narrative simply more palatable for the mainstream media than the perhaps less tidy, more complex reality that pilot error was a factor?

qhe0i9zvfgdou8

Any news on todays search ?

Steve

pm1977x wrote: »

On Primetime they stated something along the lines of: "two crew members in the back spotted the obstacle on their camera but the pilots didn't have time to take evasive action."

Has that been established as fact or is this narrative simply more palatable for the mainstream media than the perhaps less tidy, more complex reality that pilot error was a factor?

Read the published interim report, it's all there.

It was established from the CVR that rear seat crew raised an alert about an imminent terrain obstacle. Whether there was time to avoid is still open, maybe there was. The weight placed on the alert versus the information available to the PF reading instruments and EGPWS in not so friendly meteorological conditions will be the key factor in the final findings.

Steve

Estelle Gifted University wrote: »

Any news on todays search ?

Postponed till Monday due to bad weather.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0715/890426-mayo-search/

Brennus335

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/helmet-and-lifejacket-belonging-to-missing-rescue-116-crewman-wash-up-on-shore-36185664.html

Helmet and life jacket washed up in Mayo.

Gaoth Laidir

Brennus335 wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/helmet-and-lifejacket-belonging-to-missing-rescue-116-crewman-wash-up-on-shore-36185664.html

Helmet and life jacket washed up in Mayo.

On the same day a man's body was washed up on one of the Aran Islands. I wonder...

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0930/908757-body-aran-islands/

Cloudio9

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

On the same day a man's body was washed up on one of the Aran Islands. I wonder...

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0930/908757-body-aran-islands/

Think it’s clear from the link that it’s not connected with R116.

Irish Steve

To avoid any confusion, I've just deleted a somewhat insensitive and inappropriate post, and the subsequent responses to it.

Oscar Bravo

The replacement for EI-ICR is currently on finals for Shannon. G-CKII , has routed from Aberdeen (via Norway). Safe travels for all crews who operate it.

knucklehead6

Oscar Bravo wrote: »

The replacement for EI-ICR is currently on finals for Shannon. G-CKII , has routed from Aberdeen (via Norway). Safe travels for all crews who operate it.

Godspeed

faoiarvok

Oscar Bravo wrote: »

The replacement for EI-ICR is currently on finals for Shannon. G-CKII , has routed from Aberdeen (via Norway). Safe travels for all crews who operate it.

Well wear

JCX BXC

http://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/1026/915302-rescue-116/

Got a news bulletin from RTE this morning.

youtheman

Very misleading article.  The problem is not with the lifejacket per se, it is with the EPIRB as it is installed in the lifejacket.  Somebody reading the headline might think there is a risk of the jacket not inflating or inadvertently inflating, or a problem with the compressed air breathing system in the jacket (which is the primary function of the kit).

ED E

http://pca.st/b91W


EDIT; This is a link to a Morning Ireland podcast about the loss of R116.

Means Of Escape

Smokescreen before thereport comes out
Deflecting from the cause of the accident

Flying too low

ectoraige

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Smokescreen before thereport comes out
Deflecting from the cause of the accident

Flying too low

Smokescreen? How is implying the company failed to deal with safety concerns a smokescreen when CFIT might have been avoided had other specific safety concerns been addressed?

Means Of Escape

ectoraige wrote: »

Smokescreen? How is implying the company failed to deal with safety systems a smokescreen when CFIT might have been avoided had those specific concerns been addressed?

No the CFIT resulted from flying too low which was against recommendations when solely using instruments under the cover of darkness .
Lifejacket/ locator failings are irrelevant in this case and had the approach been 1000 feet rather than 200 feet we wouldn't be discussing the navigation systems in a public forum .
The helicopter will be found to be in perfect working order .

Irish Steve

The arguments have started before the Prime Time broadcast has even been aired.

At the time of the crash, this thread became very heated, and caused a lot of problems, despite clear guidance about what was, or was not acceptable.

It is already clear from the interim report that there are a number of problematic issues, and it would seem that RTE may be adding more fuel to that fire this evening, but speculating about it before the event is not helpful, and may cause offence.

On that basis, I am going to close this thread until after the programme has been broadcast this evening, and after that time, it will be reopened to allow informed discussion to continue.

Irish Steve

Prime Time have reported on the ongoing investigation into R116, and highlighted some of the issues that were already mentioned in the interim report, and added extra detail to what is known.

What has become very clear is that a long time before R116 crashed, CHC were formally made aware of a number of issues with both the jackets and the beacon equipment used on them, and were also made aware of significant errors and deficiencies in the mapping systems that were in use.

In addition, (possibly new information), it was revealed that tests were being carried out with an Ipad based knee mount map system, and that there were different and significant data errors in that system relating specifically to the elevation of Black Rock.

CHC have declined to comment formally, citing the ongoing investigation, and the same is also true of Beaufort, the manufacturers of the life jackets that have been criticised by the interim report.

Specific details were given about the CHC internal reporting system, SQUID, and it became clear that CHC were aware of issues with mapping and the safety equipment, nearly 100 reports were mentioned, but there was no sense of urgency or significance in the response from management, and in some cases, the management have still to respond.

CHC were made aware by crew reports that another SAR operator (Bristows) were using a different mapping system that was much clearer and more reliable in relation to accuracy.

With the possible exception of the Ipad mapping system, all of the other points are not new, what has however become clear is that CHC were formally made aware of the issues by the pilots and crews a long time before the R116 crash. THey declined a freedom of information request for the SQUID reports, citing the ongoing AAIU investigation and report.

In addition, CHC have issued a note to crews that they should not speak with the media about the CHC operation, so none of the reports could be attributed to any current CHC crew members. Some specific reports by the crew of R116 were however specifically mentioned.

In relation to the Irish Aviation Authority, despite a statement that there were no issues with their charts, there were also reports of significant anomalies in the accuracy of heights, contours and locations of specific features, making the charts unreliable and unsafe for use in the specialised Search and Rescue operation.

The IAA have commented that their charts are designed for use in VFR conditions, where it is a requirement for the pilot to be able to see the terrain, so the inaccuracies do not affect the ability of the pilot to continue to operate.

Prime Time have also restated the concerns that the oversight and monitoring of SAR operations is not being carried out, with one of the reasons being that it is not legally clear which bodies are formally responsible for SAR operations.

ICAO made comments about this in an audit a number of years ago, and it remains unclear if the issues have been properly and adequately addressed by IAA, Government or CHC.

Please do not use this report as an excuse to reopen the accusations of what the crew of R116 did or did not do wrong, resulting in the crash.

There are clearly some very significant issues about the manner in which SAR operation are being managed and supported that need to be addressed by the AAIU, and until they have completed that report, it would be unfair to try and prejudge what AAIU will finally report, and unfair to the memory of 4 very dedicated crew members to criticise their operation on the night of the crash.

TomOnBoard

Another element (Investigation/ involvement of the Health & Safety Authority) being reported by the Irish Times...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rescue-116-hsa-investigation-opens-possibility-of-prosecutions-1.3270581

Irish Steve

The new information is about the involvement of the HSA and Gardai in an additional workplace safety investigation, and given the restrictions on the AAIU, and the apparent lack of adequate response from CHC to repeated reports of issues with several areas outlined earlier , that could well be a significant game changer.

The rest of the article is very much a summary in line with my comments above.

TomOnBoard

Irish Steve wrote: »

The new information is about the involvement of the HSE and Gardai in an additional workplace safety investigation, and given the restrictions on the AAIU, and the apparent lack of adequate response from CHC to repeated reports of issues with several areas outlined earlier , that could well be a significant game changer.

The rest of the article is very much a summary in line with my comments above.

HSA not HSE.

Irish Steve

TomOnBoard wrote: »

HSA not HSE.

edited to correct, sorry, spent too much of the last 3 days interacting with the HSE, momentary brain fade.

ED E

Irish Steve wrote: »

The IAA have commented that their charts are designed for use in VFR conditions, where it is a requirement for the pilot to be able to see the terrain, so the inaccuracies do not affect the ability of the pilot to continue to operate.

Do pilots agree with this? Is it not the same as saying you're flying VFR, you can see the ground, so forget installing your altimeter you dont need it?


My (minor) experience is with GIS not aviation but the charts produced seem on the face of it to be pretty poor.

Roger_007

I watched the Prime Time programme and the Mod's summing up is accurate.
I really fail to understand why RTE are airing this topic at this time. Would it not be better to wait until the final report of the AAIU is published.

I also fail to understand why so much emphasis is being attached to the mapping deficiencies in the EGPWS database. The preliminary report said that the manual for this system stated: “The MK XXII is a Situational Awareness tool, and an alerting and warning device. It is not to be used for navigation of the aircraft.”
The AAIU preliminary report also stated that neither the commander or co-pilot were using the EGPWS on their visual displays at the time of the accident. The Prime Time report also told us that the EGPWS mapping deficiencies were raised at meetings at which at least two of the crew of R116 were present, so they would have been aware of those issues.

It is important to establish the cause of this accident, with all contributory factors, so that such an occurrence can be prevented in future. It does not help if programmes such as Prime Time try to preempt the results of the AAIU investigation.

irishgeo

Roger_007 wrote: »

I watched the Prime Time programme and the Mod's summing up is accurate.
I really fail to understand why RTE are airing this topic at this time. Would it not be better to wait until the final report of the AAIU is published.

I also fail to understand why so much emphasis is being attached to the mapping deficiencies in the EGPWS database. The preliminary report said that the manual for this system stated: “The MK XXII is a Situational Awareness tool, and an alerting and warning device. It is not to be used for navigation of the aircraft.”
The AAIU preliminary report also stated that neither the commander or co-pilot were using the EGPWS on their visual displays at the time of the accident. The Prime Time report also told us that the EGPWS mapping deficiencies were raised at meetings at which at least two of the crew of R116 were present, so they would have been aware of those issues.

It is important to establish the cause of this accident, with all contributory factors, so that such an occurrence can be prevented in future. It does not help if programmes such as Prime Time try to preempt the results of the AAIU investigation.

They could have been using the iPad map which means they weren't using EGPWS.

Charmeleon

Roger_007 wrote: »

I watched the Prime Time programme and the Mod's summing up is accurate.
I really fail to understand why RTE are airing this topic at this time. Would it not be better to wait until the final report of the AAIU is published.

I also fail to understand why so much emphasis is being attached to the mapping deficiencies in the EGPWS database. The preliminary report said that the manual for this system stated: “The MK XXII is a Situational Awareness tool, and an alerting and warning device. It is not to be used for navigation of the aircraft.”
The AAIU preliminary report also stated that neither the commander or co-pilot were using the EGPWS on their visual displays at the time of the accident. The Prime Time report also told us that the EGPWS mapping deficiencies were raised at meetings at which at least two of the crew of R116 were present, so they would have been aware of those issues.

It is important to establish the cause of this accident, with all contributory factors, so that such an occurrence can be prevented in future. It does not help if programmes such as Prime Time try to preempt the results of the AAIU investigation.

I only got part of it, it seemed like they had an actor playing the part of a CHC staff member who was concerned about how long some of these issues were known.
Waiting for the AAIU Report before doing anything is easy to say when you aren’t relying on poor maps and an EGPWS that might not save you if they are wrong.

lintdrummer

Roger_007 wrote: »

The AAIU preliminary report also stated that neither the commander or co-pilot were using the EGPWS on their visual displays at the time of the accident.

irishgeo wrote: »

They could have been using the iPad map which means they weren't using EGPWS.

EGPWS is not normally used for navigation by pilots. As the name suggests it is a 'warning system'. If at any given moment the system detects a closure rate with terrain in it's database it will give an aural and visual warning to the crew. It can't/wouldn't be switched off.
I'm not familiar with the Sikorsky so I can only speak from an Airbus perespective here. For us there is an option to display terrain on the ND for increased crew awareness. This imagery is generated from a database of terrain, not by a radar. I assume this is what the AAIU were referring to in Roger's quote above. However, in this case it would not have displayed any terrain because Blackrock was not in the database.

Nekarsulm

Prime Time is a curious beast at the best of times.
They consider themselves "Ireland's flagship investigative program" and sometimes they are.
But equally, sometimes they run a program that pushes a particular leftist liberal agenda, and have studio guests suited to their chosen predetermined findings.
Often you wouldn't know the difference unless you had particular knowledge of the subject, and this undermines their credibility on all subjects.

plodder

lintdrummer wrote: »

EGPWS is not normally used for navigation by pilots. As the name suggests it is a 'warning system'. If at any given moment the system detects a closure rate with terrain in it's database it will give an aural and visual warning to the crew. It can't/wouldn't be switched off.

There is a "low altitude" switch which was on, and that degrades the capabilities of the system, presumably to avoid a lot of false warnings when at low altitude.