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

CJhaughey

On the other hand if a person was exiting the military and wanted a similar job in Civvie street where would they go to utilise their skills?
And would they be willing to antagonise a company the size of CHC given they have so much pull in the SAR sector?

MoeJay

What this demonstrates is the very odd position that Irish legislation leaves accident reporting in. Why would anyone else get involved following this development?

The individual who resigned clearly felt that despite whatever cover the legislation gave them in being involved was not enough to protect them; witness that many of the AAIU investigators have worked in the operators they investigate, never mind that they know and worked with some of the individuals who may the subject of AAIU reports (especially management). The cover given to them deals with potential conflicts of interest - these "reviews" clearly do not enjoy the same.

So now what happens should nobody else come forward to be involved? If the review cannot be completed does it preclude the report being published? This aspect of the law really needs to be amended, air safety is the loser in all this.

irishgeo

Can't we get the US coast guard involved?

TheChizler

MoeJay wrote: »

The individual who resigned clearly felt that despite whatever cover the legislation gave them in being involved was not enough to protect them

That's a big assumption.

MoeJay

TheChizler wrote: »

That's a big assumption.

You might call it that, I would say it is the conclusion I drew after reading the RTÉ report alongside the fact that many people in the AAIU are comfortable to do their work despite having connections similar to that in the news report. I am open to hear your thoughts?

faoiarvok

MoeJay wrote: »

You might call it that, I would say it is the conclusion I drew after reading the RTÉ report alongside the fact that many people in the AAIU are comfortable to do their work despite having connections similar to that in the news report. I am open to hear your thoughts?

That wasn’t my reading at all. I thought the article suggested it was due to an objection from the families:

Representatives of the families of some of the deceased crew are understood to have objected to Mr Hanson being on the review board once he disclosed his personal connection to the CHC manager.

MoeJay

Indeed, and my point was that given that this “review” is not part of an accident investigation as per Annex 13, it creates difficulties that otherwise would not exist, hence this development.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/investigation-reveals-error-led-rescue-13329452

I missed seeing this edition of Prime Time special which refers to prior knowledge of missing data from EGPWS.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/investigation-reveals-error-led-rescue-13329452

I missed seeing this edition of Prime Time special which refers to prior knowledge of missing data from EGPWS.

Very interesting. I can’t find the Prime Time special online but did find this from the journal

arccosh

cml387 wrote: »

Is there a case for an expert from a military SAR, e.g. the RAF?

I think CHC would reject a military expert from certain countries (alot in fact) who have CHC or Bond helicopters in place or are actively bidding for SAR contracts in said countries, claiming from a commercially damaging perspective.


I saw US Coastguard mentioned above, I was thinking the same, but CHC could counter as they provide an SAR service in the oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico (similar to what is in place in the North Sea, but I think Bond heli has that) which could be construde that the USCG have an interest in providing a service for, if they wanted to dodge away from it..... similar to above discounts the likes of the RAF etc...



Only thing that comes to mind would be USAF Combat SAR based in Mildenhall in the UK.... they are a completly seperate entity who have no commercial interest in anything to do with what CHC provide. They were recently used to recover the body of the downed F-15 pilot who crashed in the North Sea a couple of months back.

Could be career limiting for anyone who does testify, and would like to fly civvie helos after the military though.



That said CHC could easily counter that as trying to compare apples with oranges in the way of setup, procedures, and way of working.


As mentioned already, anything to do with offshore work, SAR, and helo support, it will be very very hard to find someone completely independent from CHC...



My heart goes out to the families in this situation... everyone knows the reason, but thanks to corporate arse covering, it may never be legally shown.

arccosh

arccosh wrote: »

I think CHC would reject a military expert from certain countries (alot in fact) who have CHC or Bond helicopters in place or are actively bidding for SAR contracts in said countries, claiming from a commercially damaging perspective.


I saw US Coastguard mentioned above, I was thinking the same, but CHC could counter as they provide an SAR service in the oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico (similar to what is in place in the North Sea, but I think Bond heli has that) which could be construde that the USCG have an interest in providing a service for, if they wanted to dodge away from it..... similar to above discounts the likes of the RAF etc...



Only thing that comes to mind would be USAF Combat SAR based in Mildenhall in the UK.... they are a completly seperate entity who have no commercial interest in anything to do with what CHC provide. They were recently used to recover the body of the downed F-15 pilot who crashed in the North Sea a couple of months back.

Could be career limiting for anyone who does testify, and would like to fly civvie helos after the military though.



That said CHC could easily counter that as trying to compare apples with oranges in the way of setup, procedures, and way of working.


As mentioned already, anything to do with offshore work, SAR, and helo support, it will be very very hard to find someone completely independent from CHC...



My heart goes out to the families in this situation... everyone knows the reason, but thanks to corporate arse covering, it may never be legally shown.

Hopefully the Minister will receive the according advice.

The overall tragedy of all this is that there are potentially any number of future such tragedies awaiting to happen if this is not resolved,; this makes me very saddened.

arccosh

There is also the elephant in the room of Honeywell.

If they manage to get around the CHC issue, Honeywell are another company who you will find it very hard not to find them present in a lot of aircraft avionic suites. Anyone who testifies, unless retired, could find pressure coming down via supply chain, aquisition, or legal elements of their organisation if they use Honeywell....

It would be interesting to see if Bond helicopters have gotten avionic upgrades since the crash and who with. It would be a good indicator of what is happening in the background, and glean some information that you wouldn't necessarily get from CHC as they'll be tigh lipped about anything like that as it could be taken as an admission of fault.

I think whoever reviews, it will have to be, maybe, a retired person who has no business left to conduct with any companies, and who has not had any influential ties with them recently or for most of their career.

Stovepipe

Plenty of other options for qualified heli pilots other than CHC. Agusta and other manufacturers took a lot of rotary pilots who left the AC and I know a few who joined the airlines and fly fixed-wing,so the notion that CHC might put a stopper on someone's career is simply wrong.

ForestFire

At this stage why not just publish the report and deal with any followup litigation, if someone really think they have a case and not just blocking its release to have it suppressed.

This puts the onus on them to provide the independant evidence to back up their claim?? (which seems to be impossible to find)

Just because the process allows for a review stage, doses not mean in exceptional circumstances you cannot deviate? They could maybe sue on not follow due process rather than the contents itself I guess? But does peoples safety and lives eventually overrule due process, where every avenue has been persued?

If needed, sure just get some politician to release it in the dial under specical privileges, or whatever its called...

Dwarf.Shortage

ForestFire wrote: »

At this stage why not just publish the report and deal with any followup litigation, if someone really think they have a case and not just blocking its release to have it suppressed.

This puts the onus on them to provide the independant evidence to back up their claim?? (which seems to be impossible to find)

Just because the process allows for a review stage, doses not mean in exceptional circumstances you cannot deviate? They could maybe sue on not follow due process rather than the contents itself I guess? But does peoples safety and lives eventually overrule due process, where every avenue has been persued?

If needed, sure just get some politician to release it in the dial under specical privileges, or whatever its called...

Because that's the absolute opposite of good practice

ForestFire

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

Because that's the absolute opposite of good practice

In normal circumstances yes I agree, but if (As per the rest of my post) the review proves to be impossible, is good practice to abandon the report completely?

Not saying we at at this stage yet, but if and when we are, what happens then, how long do we wait to see if the impasse can be overcome?

I'm guessing RTÉ Investigates may do an update special on the current state of affairs to bring to the attention of the wider public the reasons behind the prolonged delay in publishing a final report. Within the bounds of the law, of course.

Part IV of ICAO Annex 13, the Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation , deals with Reporting.

1.4 CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT FINAL REPORT

1.4.1 In accordance with Annex 13, the State conducting the investigation shall send a copy of the draft Final Report to the State which instituted the investigation and to all States that participated in the investigation, inviting their significant and substantiated comments on the report. The State conducting the investigation should also send copies of the draft Final Report to the operator and the organizations responsible for type design and final assembly of the aircraft, through the State of the Operator, the State of Design and the State of Manufacture, respectively, in order to enable the operator and such organizations to submit comments on the draft Final Report.

1.4.3 If the State conducting the investigation receives comments within sixty days of the date of the transmittal letter, it shall either amend the draft Final Report to include the substance of the comments received or, if desired by the State that provided the comments, append the comments to the Final Report. Usually, comments to be appended to the Final Report are restricted to non-editorial, specific technical aspects of the Final Report upon which no agreement could be reached.

Presumably the review is looking at the validity of comments received?

arccosh

Stovepipe wrote: »

Plenty of other options for qualified heli pilots other than CHC. Agusta and other manufacturers took a lot of rotary pilots who left the AC and I know a few who joined the airlines and fly fixed-wing,so the notion that CHC might put a stopper on someone's career is simply wrong.

Niche markets work in weird and mysterious ways.... aviation, especially helo ops is actually a small world.



Yes they would be able to get a job elsewhere, but testifying against one of the biggest commercial helicopter operations in the world, along with one of the biggest avionics suppliers would, lets say, not be exactly a career enhancing move for someone with some time left in their career.

MoeJay

Deleted User wrote: »

Part IV of ICAO Annex 13, the Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation , deals with Reporting.





Presumably the review is looking at the validity of comments received?

You will find nothing in Annex 13 that provides for a review like this. The relevant legislation is SI 460 of 2009 which is considerably broader in scope.

MoeJay

MoeJay wrote: »

You will find nothing in Annex 13 that provides for a review like this. The relevant legislation is SI 460 of 2009 which is considerably broader in scope.

Thanks for this information, most helpful.

I see that the Minister has the power to order a Public Enquiry

Holding of public inquiry

18. (1) Where it appears to the Minister that it is expedient to hold a public inquiry into an occurrence, the Minister may, whether or not any other investigation under these Regulations is taking or has taken place, by order, direct a public inquiry to be held.

(2) If the Minister directs a public inquiry to be held, any other investigation under these Regulations, or re-examination being conducted by a review board, relating to the occurrence, shall be discontinued.

However, the next para (3) is virtually a copy of the paragraph covering members/appointees of the review group, so we would end up in the same position. Given that the AAIU has a (well deserved) world-wide reputation, it doesn’t seem to me to reflect well on the current review process which is, of course, nothing to do with AAIU.

(3) Where the Minister directs a public inquiry to be held, he or she shall appoint a competent person, who shall be either a barrister or solicitor of at least 10 years standing or a person who, in the Minister’s opinion, possesses aeronautical or engineering knowledge or other special knowledge or experience of air navigation or aviation, to constitute a court of inquiry (in these Regulations referred to as a “court”) to hold the inquiry. The Minister may appoint not less than two persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, possess legal, aeronautical, engineering or other special knowledge or experience of air navigation, to act as technical assessors to assist the court in conducting the inquiry.

(4) Except to the extent to which the court is of the opinion that, in the interests of justice or in the public interest, any part of the evidence or any argument relating to the evidence should be heard in private, the public inquiry shall be open to the public and, subject to this Regulation, shall be conducted in such manner and under such conditions as the court may think most effective for ascertaining the causes and circumstances of the occurrence and enabling the court to make its report under this Regulation.

So where to now?

Stovepipe

arccosh wrote: »

Niche markets work in weird and mysterious ways.... aviation, especially helo ops is actually a small world.



Yes they would be able to get a job elsewhere, but testifying against one of the biggest commercial helicopter operations in the world, along with one of the biggest avionics suppliers would, lets say, not be exactly a career enhancing move for someone with some time left in their career.

....people have challenged the big players before. Wasn't it Honeywell that lost the case about F16 artificial horizons? I stand to be corrected but if no-one challenged them,they'd run roughshod over you, regardless of potential careers.

RadioRetro

Fourth interim statement issued by the AAIU...

http://www.aaiu.ie/node/1513

markpb

More hold music:

On 9 March 2020, the AAIU was advised by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, that a Review Board had been established and the Investigation advised all interested parties of the Departmental contact details for information relating to the re-examination.

The work of the Review Board is ongoing. The AAIU’s Final Report regarding the accident will not be published until the work of the Review Board is complete.

sparrowcar

Can't imagine a delay this long would happen or be tolerated in other developed countries. It doesn't paint the AAIU or IAA in good light at all.

Roger_007

I think it’s very unfair on the relatives of the deceased that this report is delayed for so long. I do not know who requested the review, or if more than one party requested it, but surely it is better if these kind of reports are published sooner rather than later to enable the families of the deceased to move on with their lives and put this tragic event behind them.

smurfjed

And to allow them to sue if just cause exists.

plodder

sparrowcar wrote: »

Can't imagine a delay this long would happen or be tolerated in other developed countries. It doesn't paint the AAIU or IAA in good light at all.

The review was ordered by the Minister at the time. I don't think either of those bodies have any role in it at all.