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

Negative_G

plodder wrote: »

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.

Degrades is probably the wrong word for it. The system still works as it should but it will restrict the amount of aural warnings based on the fact that they were planning to operate at low level.

Im not sure why prime time went to the bother of putting in an FOI. I realise that CHC are contracted to provide the service but they are a private entity and not a state body. It was my understanding that FOI's can only be sought directly from state bodies.

tretorn

Who supplied the iPads that werent approved for navigation purposes.

Are other helicopter pilots using these ipads.

Charmeleon

iPads are unsuitable for night navigation anyway, the minimum selectable brightness is still going to reduce your night vision.

TomOnBoard

Charmeleon wrote: »

iPads are unsuitable for night navigation anyway, the minimum selectable brightness is still going to reduce your night vision.

While the native iPad brightness level might be too bright, would properly-designed apps tailored for pilots/night flying not have internal app- controls/features that would overcome this issue, using low-light optimised colour schemes etc.? Otherwise, how could such apps be marketed as usable?

In any event, the usage of the mini iPad was reported as being in a testing phase (during which issues such as brightness, readability, usability etc. would be assessed) as distinct from in fully-live operation. Perhaps after testing, they would have been abandoned or app(s) amended or ultimately brought into full use. So, I'm unclear on what point Prime Time was making other than telling us something was being assessed, which implies that while it is being assessed, those resources, maps, and other technologies/ resources that have previously been used would still be available / in place / being used in tandem with the tech. that was in testing mode. Or were they saying that undue reliance was placed on a device that was still in testing/assessment mode?

Like others here, I'm a bit dubious of the information value that PT brought to the table with the programme. Most if not all was previously reported. However, the fact that questions had been raised by crews within CHC many times and responses appeared to have lacked urgency may be the most telling issue that was raised, and this impacts ongoing operations as well as having a possible effect in the circumstances of the fatal crash. These questions and pace of responses would also appear to be part of the HSA/Gardai investigation reported in the Irish Times.

Negative_G

Charmeleon wrote: »

iPads are unsuitable for night navigation anyway, the minimum selectable brightness is still going to reduce your night vision.

There are various apps designed for aviation use that have specific night modes which will in no way degrade night vision.

Where there may be an issue is with the use of NVG but CHC arent approved to use them in Ireland.

dog_pig

Nekarsulm wrote: »

But equally, sometimes they run a program that pushes a particular leftist liberal agenda

What makes you feel the need to shoehorn Americanisms into a discussion about Irish society?

ectoraige

Negative_G wrote: »

Where there may be an issue is with the use of NVG but CHC arent approved to use them in Ireland.

Just wondering, who would have to licence them, the IAA?

Charmeleon

Negative_G wrote: »

There are various apps designed for aviation use that have specific night modes which will in no way degrade night vision.

Where there may be an issue is with the use of NVG but CHC arent approved to use them in Ireland.

I use a few astronomy apps that use full black on the display and red text and I had to hack my iPad to be able to lower the brightness below stock.

Negative_G

ectoraige wrote: »

Just wondering, who would have to licence them, the IAA?

Yes, they would require authorisation from the IAA in order to operate with NVG.

smurfjed

For the purpose of discussion only, this is a screen print of the JeppFD application for aircraft navigation, the APP has its own night screen and independent screen darkening. Its very easy to use in a glass cockpit at nighttime.

Brennus335

smurfjed wrote: »

For the purpose of discussion only, this is a screen print of the JeppFD application for aircraft navigation, the APP has its own night screen and independent screen darkening. Its very easy to use in a glass cockpit at nighttime.

We use LIDO on a Surface tablet. Brightness is a major issue. Even in night mode with brightness at 0%, it's still too bright in a dark flight deck. Very distracting, so much so that sometimes I have to turn it off.

smurfjed

I thought that the surface had a 12 inch screen, isn't that kinda big?

Brennus335

smurfjed wrote: »

I thought that the surface had a 12 inch screen, isn't that kinda big?

It's a 10.8 inch screen.

Growler!!!

Was that not sorted in one of the updates recently? The brightness settings are "Darkest, Dark, Suggested, Bright and Brightest" and then in the Lido app the charts can be shown in Day and Night mode.

I've never had an issue with the "EPOS" as it's called but I do still tend to use the Toughbook as it's mostly indestructible.

Bren, are you on the "Twin"?

tretorn

Is there any reason why they were flying so low over the sea.

Would you not stay up as high as possible until coming into land.

How is the ground warning system so important when they were no where near ground, they were out over the ocean.

None of this makes sense to me.

Surely also if you knew there was a problem with the maps and a problem with the beacons and lifejackets you would make sure you knew where you were going.

Does anyone consult paper maps anymore.

Gaoth Laidir

tretorn wrote: »

Is there any reason why they were flying so low over the sea.

Would you not stay up as high as possible until coming into land.

How is the ground warning system so important when they were no where near ground, they were out over the ocean.

None of this makes sense to me.

Surely also if you knew there was a problem with the maps and a problem with the beacons and lifejackets you would make sure you knew where you were going.

Does anyone consult paper maps anymore.

I'd suggest you go back and have a read of the 3676 posts before yours.

TomOnBoard

Katie Hannon hosted the "Saturday With..." programme today and fleshed out some of the issues that she had experienced over the past few month in putting together her report for Thursday's Prime Time. She was very critical of official (Govt. Department) responses to many questions that she asked around "Who is actually in charge of/ responsible for the regulation and safety of our Search & Rescue services". Regina Doherty was on and frankly she could not give straight answers to questions Katie told her panel that she had raised with various Depts and for which she did not get answers.

Katie's difficulties in getting answers from Government did not come across to me on Thursday night, but I found it troubling that she could not get clear answers around the whole regulation of the CHC contract.

When asked why maps that had been issued in the Summer contained further dangerous inaccuracies, Regina hid behind the 'can't comment due to ongoing investigation' argument. However, Katie left her in no doubt that ducking and diving like that wouldn't wash, because maps issuing in the Summer wouldn't form any part of the 'ongoing investigation' into the loss of R116. Issues around those recently- issued maps need answers now as they contain dangerous inaccuracies.

Only the final report can tell us whether these questions and issues have any relevance to the actual loss of R116 and its crew. However, it is deeply troubling that so much 'fog' appears to exist around officialdom's ownership of the service and an apparent lack of taking responsibility for it on an ongoing basis.

The segment of the programme dealing with R116 is towards the end IIRC

https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=b9%5F21261685%5F11988%5F28%2D10%2D2017%5F

Gaoth Laidir

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Katie Hannon hosted the "Saturday With..." programme today and fleshed out some of the issues that she had experienced over the past few month in putting together her report for Thursday's Prime Time. She was very critical of official (Govt. Department) responses to many questions that she asked around "Who is actually in charge of/ responsible for the regulation and safety of our Search & Rescue services". Regina Doherty was on and frankly she could not give straight answers to questions Katie told her panel that she had raised with various Depts and for which she did not get answers.

Katie's difficulties in getting answers from Government did not come across to me on Thursday night, but I found it troubling that she could not get clear answers around the whole regulation of the CHC contract.

When asked why maps that had been issued in the Summer contained further dangerous inaccuracies, Regina hid behind the 'can't comment due to ongoing investigation' argument. However, Katie left her in no doubt that ducking and diving like that wouldn't wash, because maps issuing in the Summer wouldn't form any part of the 'ongoing investigation' into the loss of R116. Issues around those recently- issued maps need answers now as they contain dangerous inaccuracies.

Only the final report can tell us whether these questions and issues have any relevance to the actual loss of R116 and its crew. However, it is deeply troubling that so much 'fog' appears to exist around officialdom's ownership of the service and an apparent lack of taking responsibility for it on an ongoing basis.

The segment of the programme dealing with R116 is towards the end IIRC

https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=b9%5F21261685%5F11988%5F28%2D10%2D2017%5F

To be fair, last I checked, Katie Hannon doesn't work for the AAIU. RTE have no devign right to carry out their own investigation. If the Daily Mail was asking the same questions would people be still up in arms?

TomOnBoard

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

To be fair, last I checked, Katie Hannon doesn't work for the AAIU. RTE have no devign right to carry out their own investigation. If the Daily Mail was asking the same questions would people be still up in arms?

To be equally fair, no-one ever suggested that Katie Hannon works for the AAIU. While some of her questions may result from the R116 tragedy, others appear to be highly relevant to ongoing operations. Are you saying that RTE, Daily Mail or whomever doesn't have the right to ask "who is in charge" and to receive a truthful answer that is not wrapped up in defensive obfuscation? I truly hope that the 'national broadcaster' does have that right to ask such a question on behalf of Joe and Mary Public who will never get the opportunity!

plodder

Negative_G wrote: »

Degrades is probably the wrong word for it. The system still works as it should but it will restrict the amount of aural warnings based on the fact that they were planning to operate at low level.

I wouldn't get hung up on the word. The interim report spells out exactly what the limitations are in that mode and I'd say the final report will have a lot to say about that whole question.

Gaoth Laidir

TomOnBoard wrote: »

To be equally fair, no-one ever suggested that Katie Hannon works for the AAIU. While some of her questions may result from the R116 tragedy, others appear to be highly relevant to ongoing operations. Are you saying that RTE, Daily Mail or whomever doesn't have the right to ask "who is in charge" and to receive a truthful answer that is not wrapped up in defensive obfuscation? I truly hope that the 'national broadcaster' does have that right to ask such a question on behalf of Joe and Mary Public who will never get the opportunity!

I'm pretty sure all her answers will come out in the final report. If not, then is the time to ask them. No one will be able to hide behind the "still under investigation" shield then.

Roger_007

I'm still trying to figure out why RTE decided to throw in their tuppenceworth in advance of the AAIU final report being published. The issues raised had already been flagged in the preliminary report and will no doubt be fleshed out in the final report. Are they, as a previous poster suggested, trying to throw up a smokescreen in the public mind. If they are, they are doing everyone a disservice. The most important thing is to establish the cause(s) of the accident so that something similar doesn't happen again.

rustynutz

Roger_007 wrote: »

I'm still trying to figure out why RTE decided to throw in their tuppenceworth in advance of the AAIU final report being published. The issues raised had already been flagged in the preliminary report and will no doubt be fleshed out in the final report. Are they, as a previous poster suggested, trying to throw up a smokescreen in the public mind. If they are, they are doing everyone a disservice. The most important thing is to establish the cause(s) of the accident so that something similar doesn't happen again.

Id say the reason someone within the SAR went to RTE because SAR crews appear to still be at risk because of the unreliable maps. Not much point waiting 12 months for a report if another crew is lost in the meantime

qhe0i9zvfgdou8

Roger_007 wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why RTE decided to throw in their tuppenceworth in advance of the AAIU final report being published. The issues raised had already been flagged in the preliminary report and will no doubt be fleshed out in the final report.

Maybe because nothing has changed since the preliminary report was published. Surely when the issues with the maps and life jackets were flagged something should have been done immediately. Instead we have crews flying every day with the same maps and life jackets. If I was one of those crew members I'd want something done now.

Negative_G

plodder wrote: »

I wouldn't get hung up on the word. The interim report spells out exactly what the limitations are in that mode and I'd say the final report will have a lot to say about that whole question.

I'm not getting hung up no the word.

I just think it is important for those reading that may not be familiar with EGPWS modes that the mode selection made is routinely used.

The EGPWS still functions absolutely perfectly. All that happens is that certain warnings are inhibited to prevent spurious and distracting warnings.

TomOnBoard

Estelle Gifted University wrote: »

Maybe because nothing has changed since the preliminary report was published. Surely when the issues with the maps and life jackets were flagged something should have been done immediately. Instead we have crews flying every day with the same maps and life jackets. If I was one of those crew members I'd want something done now.

I understood that the lifejackets being worn by winch crews were found to be OK, but that the ones worn by pilots were not. These pilot-worn lifejackets were withdrawn from service by CHC 'immediately' according to the report. (See: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rescue-116-crash-concerns-raised-about-coast-guard-life-jackets-in-2011-report-36263357.html)

However, the testing that established this was not conducted until some 8 weeks after the crash, and only as a result of insistence by staff that such testing should be done.

The main points at issue (independent of the ongoing AAIU investigation) in Katie Hannon's reports concerned:

a) the allegation that impact of the beacon location issues on the safety/usability of the pilot LJs were known for some time and had been communicated by crews up through the CHC chain of command over the past 5 years;
b) the allegation that maps issued AFTER the fatal crash, during the Summer, contained material inaccuracies;
c) the statement made by KH (on the Saturday with... programme) that, despite numerous communications with Govt Depts she could not establish who exactly in Govt is in charge of the SAR operation in Ireland and which Dept is responsible for oversight and regulation of the CHC operation.

On top of these points was the report in the Irish Times on Thursday/ Friday that, as a result of the locator beacon issue, "The Health and Safety Authority is now working with An Garda Síochána on a joint investigation that will result in a file being forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions" (See: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rescue-116-hsa-investigation-opens-possibility-of-prosecutions-1.3270581)

There is clearly a school of thought that further questioning/reporting by the Media on the Rescue116 tragedy should await the final AAIU report. Another school believes that robust questioning is required to ensure that, while the AAIU investigation proceeds, any/all safety related issues should be explored and any deficiencies that are found should be put right immediately and should not await the AAIU report. I am a member of the second school.

And I also want to know exactly which Dept in the Government hierarchy is responsible for ongoing monitoring/regulation of CHC itself, who can ask questions around the effectiveness of internal procedures whereby safety- related issues that had allegedly been raised for 5 years had apparently not been addressed.

plodder

Negative_G wrote: »

I'm not getting hung up no the word.

I just think it is important for those reading that may not be familiar with EGPWS modes that the mode selection made is routinely used.

The EGPWS still functions absolutely perfectly. All that happens is that certain warnings are inhibited to prevent spurious and distracting warnings.

Two points. On the system itself and this mode, it's not clear to me why the look-ahead warnings are inhibited. If the system is able to detect a large rock that the aircraft is heading towards at speed, then surely it is better to warn about that, than not.

On the use of the low alt mode, I would expect that it is routinely used when at low speed and actively engaged in rescue activities, but I think a big open question is about its use on approaches to landing locations at speed. That's what I'd expect the report to have a lot to say about.

Negative_G

plodder wrote: »

Two points. On the system itself and this mode, it's not clear to me why the look-ahead warnings are inhibited. If the system is able to detect a large rock that the aircraft is heading towards at speed, then surely it is better to warn about that, than not.

On the use of the low alt mode, I would expect that it is routinely used when at low speed and actively engaged in rescue activities, but I think a big open question is about its use on approaches to landing locations at speed. That's what I'd expect the report to have a lot to say about.

Without getting too technical, the low level inhibit mode is designed to be used when operating in a low level environment like you say and it serves an absolute purpose in that instance as it prevents spurious warnings.

It is generally, and maybe when we get to see CHC SOP's in the final report, not utilised when flying on instruments, low level, at night.

There are many questions. It's use and mode selection will be a big concern to the investigators.

Also, to add, from what we know so far, Blackrock Island did not exist on their database so even if the EGPWS had been working in its normal mode, it wouldn't have generated any warnings. The only other system which could have idenfied it would be a weather radar but that would have had many variables such as the radar range, the sweep angle, rate of sweep, tilt angle, how fast they were travelling and weather the WX radar was on and 'painting'.

Negative_G

TomOnBoard wrote: »

And I also want to know exactly which Dept in the Government hierarchy is responsible for ongoing monitoring/regulation of CHC itself, who can ask questions around the effectiveness of internal procedures whereby safety- related issues that had allegedly been raised for 5 years had apparently not been addressed.

One would assume that the Dept of Transport would be the government authority, although after the most recent Prime Time report there is certainly questions over lack of ownership and oversight.

That being said, the IAA stepped in and stopped CHC conducting inter-hospital transfers as they were unhappy that they were mixing SAR & HEMS crew duty periods.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/number-of-missions-by-coast-guard-helicopter-crews-to-be-reduced-1.3208414

plodder

30/01/2018: AAIU Statement, Investigation of accident involving R116, Blackrock Co. Mayo, 14 March 2017