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

TomOnBoard

"The AAIU Investigation into the accident involving the loss of R116 and its four crew members at Blackrock, Co. Mayo on 14 March 2017 is still in the process of gathering factual and background information and is making steady progress. The AAIU again extends its condolences to the families and friends of those who lost their lives in this accident. International Convention, and associated National and European legislation, require that, if a final report cannot be made publicly available within 12 months of the date of the accident, an interim statement detailing the progress of the investigation and any safety issues raised, will be made publicly available.

The AAIU wishes to advise that due to the depth and breadth of this Investigation, it will not be possible to issue a final report within 12 months of the date of the accident and therefore an interim statement will be published. The Investigation is endeavouring to issue this interim statement before the anniversary; however, it is not possible to say at this time when the interim statement will be published. "

So, the reason for not being able to deliver the Report is 'due to the depth and breadth of this Investigation". But surely all such aircraft accident investigations would have envisaged such breadth and depth, yet report within the year? Does this statement imply that this Investigation is wider and deeper than would have been expected?

Negative_G

I appreciate that there was significant difficulty regarding the recovery of the crew and some of the wreckage but one would imagine that given the high profile nature of this accident and the media fallout that it is undesirable that it is going to take over twelve months to publish a report.

The cynic in me thinks that this particular case requires very careful selection of the facts as there will be a substantial amount of financial compensation to be paid as a result. The thing is, who will foot the bill, and the while the purpose of the accident report is not to attribute blame to one party, it will unfortunately from a legal perspective.

faoiarvok

TomOnBoard wrote: »

So, the reason for not being able to deliver the Report is 'due to the depth and breadth of this Investigation". But surely all such aircraft accident investigations would have envisaged such breadth and depth, yet report within the year? Does this statement imply that this Investigation is wider and deeper than would have been expected?

The majority of incident/accident investigations do not involve the total loss of an aircraft and its occupants, and have a lot more readily accessible evidence.

Take a look at Aviation Safety Network's database of 2016 incidents. Some of these incidents (up to a year or more before R116) involving fatalities or total hull loss of an aircraft still have not had a final report issued. Of those that have, there are plenty that were not released within a year. It's really not that unusual.

The Rape of Lucretia

TomOnBoard wrote: »

So, the reason for not being able to deliver the Report is 'due to the depth and breadth of this Investigation". But surely all such aircraft accident investigations would have envisaged such breadth and depth, yet report within the year? Does this statement imply that this Investigation is wider and deeper than would have been expected?

Or is it just PR wafflese speak for 'the report will be late'.

cml387

It can't be "late" as the AAIU never gave a deadline for issuing a report.

ironclaw

I remember reading the report into the crash of Concorde AF 4590. It crashed on the 25th of July 2000. The preliminary report was released on the 31st of August 2000 and another one in December of that year. The final report wasn't until the 16th of January 2002. Any report I've studied has been at least 18 months to 2 years after the incident.

Stovepipe

The AAIU is a small unit, nor more than about 12 people all told, which is tiny for any Govt department, considering the level of work involved. All of the people involved are flat out, dealing with R116 and other accidents and given the amount of political and media coverage of the event, they were right to put out the statement.

smurfjed

It can't be "late" as the AAIU never gave a deadline for issuing a report.

The aviation investigation process defined by ICAO gives deadlines, that was probably the reason the statement was issued.

Stovepipe

that's why all of the international AAIUs publish interim reports; if there are fatalities, then it brings a load of different agencies into the mix, then any investigation just grows from being a simple investigation into a much bigger deal, involving private and public sensitivities and Government, the military, the police, the fire services, health services and so on. Most AAIUs deal with small-scale stuff as their daily lot but now and then big ones come along that demand more of their time and resources.

EchoIndia

Negative_G wrote: »

The cynic in me thinks that this particular case requires very careful selection of the facts as there will be a substantial amount of financial compensation to be paid as a result. The thing is, who will foot the bill, and the while the purpose of the accident report is not to attribute blame to one party, it will unfortunately from a legal perspective.

It's easy to be cynical and go for the "conspiracy" theory. Where is the evidence that the AAIU does or would operate in the manner suggested?

Negative_G

EchoIndia wrote: »

It's easy to be cynical and go for the "conspiracy" theory. Where is the evidence that the AAIU does or would operate in the manner suggested?

Given the information that's been made available to date, both officially and through Prime Time etc, it is glaringly obvious that there will be singificant legal implications for one or several parties.

It was an observation, I couldn't care less how long it takes them to publish but it is entirely reasonable to deduct that the legal implications will impact every aspect of it.

In other news, have CHC solved the FTL issues that attracted the attention of the IAA?

TomOnBoard

Hard to believe it's a year!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rescue-116-it-s-been-a-tough-year-very-tough-1.3420207

Oscar Bravo

Interim statement published

http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/files/report-attachments/Interim%20Statement_2.pdf

TomOnBoard

A quick summary here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rescue-116-aaiu-seeks-review-of-search-and-rescue-operations-1.3429563?mode=amp

Means Of Escape

Landing gear was down 9 miles out .

prunudo

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Landing gear was down 9 miles out .

Nothing unusual about that. Always see them flying with gear down around here in Wicklow. It would be more unusual to see them with gear up. Not sure why as they aren't coming into land, must be operational reason or to do with lower speed flight.

jetfiremuck

jvan wrote: »

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Landing gear was down 9 miles out .

Nothing unusual about that. Always see them flying with gear down around here in Wicklow. It would be more unusual to see them with gear up. Not sure why as they aren't coming into land, must be operational reason or to do with lower speed flight.

Or they weren't where they thought they were. There are let down procedure checklists re landing gear, lights,fuel pumps etc that are part of the aircraft operating system that must be adhered to.

faoiarvok

jvan wrote: »

Nothing unusual about that. Always see them flying with gear down around here in Wicklow. It would be more unusual to see them with gear up. Not sure why as they aren't coming into land, must be operational reason or to do with lower speed flight.

I remember seeing a question about it on a photo one of the crews posted on Facebook, they answered that they always have them down below (I think) 1000ft, as the aircraft gives a constant warning if they aren’t.

Carawaystick

Does "Oversight of National SAR aviation operations in Ireland" mean looking into why the Aer Corps fixed wing top cover wasn't used?

Negative_G

Carawaystick wrote: »

Does "Oversight of National SAR aviation operations in Ireland" mean looking into why the Aer Corps fixed wing top cover wasn't used?

The HR issues within the Air Corps regarding pilots and ATC were well documented at the time and it doesnt appear to be getting better.

The SLA regarding SAR top cover states the Air Corps provider top cover on an "as available" basis. Hence the reason there was no top cover immediately available on that night.

CHC, it would appear, were happy to use a rotary aircraft for top cover. Not ideal if you are 150 miles off shore. Perhaps CHC might propose a seperate fixed wing asset when the tender opens again.

roadmaster

if i remember correctly there was an article in the Irish times from last September ish that the air corps where able again to provide 24hr cover for both top cover and inter hospital transfers but in saying that the British times had an article the other day saying the air corps are in serious trouble as a senior pilots have given in there notice including casa training pilots so they are down again

smurfjed

The Irish Times summary was quite interesting, but I am still wondering if a lot of these items are within the scope of a ICAO Annex 14 report.

ED E

Negative_G wrote: »

Perhaps CHC might propose a seperate fixed wing asset when the tender opens again.

Isn't CHCs business entirely rotary at the minute (UK/EU included)?

TomOnBoard

Carawaystick wrote: »

Does "Oversight of National SAR aviation operations in Ireland" mean looking into why the Aer Corps fixed wing top cover wasn't used?

Previous reports clearly stated that Aer Corps fixed wing top cover wasn't used because it wasn't available. The fact that it was not available and the reasons why have been exhaustively chronicled and debated. The circumstances around the non- availability have previously suggested that a) night cover was not available (for whatever reason but possibly due to non- availability of qualified crews) and b) only one Casa was available on the night of the crash as the maintenance schedule had taken the other one out of service. In addition, although not connected, the one that was available was due to go out of service some days later, meaning that within days of the R116 tragedy, there were NO CASA resources available to the Aer Corps for some weeks into months.

When "Oversight of National SAR aviation operations in Ireland" is reviewed in due course, I would expect that ALL aspects will be considered, including the current and future role of the Aer Corps (and its assets) within a service that has been basically contracted out from the Aer Corps to a non- National, Privately operated entity as a result of Government policy.

Within any such review, I would hope that a zero- based review will take place into what SAR service is likely to be required for the next quarter century or so (and perhaps longer). This should identify:

• WHAT will be needed, followed by

• HOW the need should be serviced (including consideration of National Security/Asset considerations vs RaW Econonomic ones).

In conjuction with the HOW would be consideration of the question of WHO should provide the service, INCLUDING whether the WHO should be a single entity or a partnership between a number of entities, each with clearly delineated roles, responsibilities and funding commitments.

Consideration of the HOW will need to address your question by dealing with the basic fact that, if Aer Corps assets are required to be part of the service then adequate investment will need to be made to ensure that such assets are available when required. If such investment has already been/is being made then it is perfectly valid to question why the fixed wing top cover was not used in the sortie that ended in the tragic loss of R116. If such investment has not been /is not being made, then equally there should be no future expectation that the Aer Corps will be able to provide a service if the current funding levels continue. (Clearly the reality of being able to retain Aer Corps crews within a Public Service pay structure that may not compete with the Private Sector will be a factor in any review.)

Equally however, a review ought to consider the current implied reliance on a rotary wing SAR service that has no fixed wing capability to provide safe Top Cover from within its own resources, while operating on the edge of one of the wildest seas on Earth. As Climate Change continues to increase the severity of storms etc. in our region, this matter will become ever more relevant and more troubling to address. A key additional consideration here will be the extent to which pre- existing sharing of responsibilities have been operating on a 'gentleman's agreement' between Ireland and the U.K. and the very real possibility that such agreements that have existed for decades into centuries will be eroded and/or nullified by fallout from the UK's withdrawal from the EU Resulting from Brexit! This latter consideration is currently un-quantifiable, but should not be minimised in our thinking.

Too often we fail to fund a service and then go ballistic when that service cannot/doesn't provide when the siht hits the fan. Hopefully this 'Irishism' will be dealt with (as well as countless others) in the proposed review.

EchoIndia

It's "Air Corps", by the way.

Gadgetman496

Inquests into Rescue 116 crew deaths opens:

https://www.rte.ie/news/connacht/2018/0412/953999-rescue-116-inquest/

J Mysterio

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Inquests into Rescue 116 crew deaths opens:

https://www.rte.ie/news/connacht/2018/0412/953999-rescue-116-inquest/

Inquest adjourned according to that link, so will be some time yet.

Means Of Escape

Given that the helicopter was perfect as established within a month of the crash and the weather conditions not unduly poor it can only unfortunately point to pilot error .
The AAIU and Mr Whyte can take 30 years and inquests can pussy foot around the elephant in the room but the "armchair investigators " (who dared point this out early on)they were called on this forum were probably correct but until the final report emerges we won't know .
Added other factors i.e. maps made it more difficult to make a safe passage .
It is not about blame it's about learning from an accident and putting protocols in place to improve safety

J Mysterio

I think it will be a little more nuanced than that. I think they might mention gaps in their charts, which did not identify significant land masses. They may also look at how the crew followed some other 'normal protocols' or routines - such as the low flightpath - that when combined with organisational failures such as gaps in charts, ultimately proved fatal. There seemed to be poor communication between the responding teams too. Where R116 the best option for an incident on the West Coast?

I'm not saying there wasnt pilot error involved, but it seems that the systems the crew relied on may not have been sound in the first instance, which is obviously highly problematic.

Means Of Escape

J Mysterio wrote: »

I think it will be a little more nuanced than that. I think they might mention gaps in their charts, which did not identify significant land masses. They may also look at how the crew followed some other 'normal protocols' or routines - such as the low flightpath - that when combined with organisational failures such as gaps in charts, ultimately proved fatal. There seemed to be poor communication between the responding teams too. Where R116 the best option for an incident on the West Coast?

I'm not saying there wasnt pilot error involved, but it seems that the systems the crew relied on may not have been sound in the first instance, which is obviously highly problematic.

Agreed and I would expect that a minimum approach altitude for night flights will be recommended and made compulsory shortly afterwards