Rescue 116 Non news and discussion Thread

Barry Badrinath

OK, let's see how this works out, in order to keep the original thread as the prime source of up to date news, I am going to open this thread, and move some peripheral discussion messages into it as appropriate.

Speculation about the cause of the accident is not yet appropriate, that's not my decision, it's come from a long way further up the food chain, and while I can't find it at the moment, there is a very heartfelt message in our reported posts section from a non family member that asks us to not allow speculation at present, which presents a very compelling argument, given the very unusual circumstances of this accident. I will try and find it, but the number of reported posts on this thread is massive, and the search engine in that area is not exactly helpful

I am taking a risk here, partly to keep the original thread cleaner, and partly to try and reassure the members here that we're not operating a censorship or power trip exercise.



With the highest of respect Irish Steve.

No amount of bold text can take away from the contradiction in your post.

By your own admission, this thread is open for discussion of the accident but at the same time categorically excludes any discussion of potential causes i.e Speculation.

In my humble and unqualified opinion, these two go hand in hand.

This has been a clusterfcuk of a thread for many reasons, posters and Mods alike. The constant closing and reopening is a farce.

There are many people posting and lurking here (myself included) who have no aviation background but are gripped by the sad events and are coming to A&A for updates and to learn.

As a result, the thread has been a magnet for the illinformed (of whom I am among) that have asked innocent questions and put forward some scenarios which could have factored in the incident. These various factors have been quashed by more knowledgable posters or action by Mods....but mainly posts were classed as broad speculation and then deleted. It would have been better for a Mod to explain WHY the poster was wrong instead of deleting the posts, so we all can learn....as this is the A&A thread, you guys are the subject matter experts. Maybe its not suited to this forum if all you do with questions is lock the thread.

I see no reason why scenarios cannot be played out without issuing blame, defaming character or being disrespectful to the crew, families or colleagues. The accident happenned and everyone wants to know or wargame the why.

Putting it plainly, why is this topic open for discussion again?

If no proper discussion of all avenues are to be had, its just an RIP thread.

Irish Steve

For now, yes, in line with the very specific guidelines that I have to work within, this thread is effectively a news thread, and very much an RIP and memorial thread, and that is NOT my decision, I am just the voice reflecting the very clear guidelines that have been posted in response to a request for clarity.

There is nothing to stop people starting and posting in new threads to ask specific questions, and in some cases, I have replied to specific questions in this thread by PM where it was appropriate.

We are very much in a news vacuum at the moment, and I am aware of the desire to analyse the what and why of this event, but now is not the time, there are families out there who are still waiting for news of the recovery of the remains of their loved ones, and speculation about the actions of the crew members, however well intentioned, is not appropriate in this thread at this time.

Barry Badrinath

I respectfully dont agree.

Im sure family members are not hitting F5 for updates from this site.

Social media and open source media are spouting a lot more than Boards. The only difference is, posters here are subject matter experts.

Thank you for the reply and not issuing me a card. I will bow out of this thread as there is more information on the media sites.

Thanks

duskyjoe

Agree to the above.

Damien360

Would a rename of this thread as memorial thread for 116 be more in line with your post Steve ?

Split the thread into speculation and memorial.

Don't let it go to after hours. There is expertise in this forum that would be a shame to loose in AH.

On a personal note, I read your post that had the 120+ thanks and it came across as circling the wagons. You have to allow speculation somewhere, otherwise you run the risk of looking in very bad light as a profession. For example, it would not be possible for the crew to make a mistake due to experience. It may be true but it is speculation.

Water John

I've seen enough speculation around the place. What is the point of it?
I have no problem waiting for the truth.
If this site updates the details of the search on a factual basis eg ships, aircraft on site and their skillset, it's enough for me.

donvito99

All the speculation was vacuous and voyeuristic IMO, all to indulge a kind of selfishness in some posters. There has been little to no actual development to this story recently. Three are still missing. Whether it's informed or not, the speculation got way out of hand and naturally led to animosity that wasn't appropriate. Steve (and other mods) right to let everyone recollect their thoughts.

jmayo

gctest50 wrote: »

There's an app for dat

Sikorsky developed the iPad-based application "iFly," which replicates common performance calculations outlined in the S-92 and S-76D rotorcraft flight manuals and eliminates the need for paper charts

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/innovations/062816-webt-sikorsky-helicopter-smart-technology.html

Skydemon provides a flight planning software, navigation charts and some sort of GPS tracking.
But as far as I am aware it is only for VFR.
And flying VFR in the area in question should mean you spot a bloody big rock shooting out of the Atlantic with a lighthosue on it.
If you can't spot it Cwhen VFR then you have bigger issues.

AFAIK that Sikorsky ipad based app is to allow quicker calculations for performance, weight and balance, etc.
It is not the same as using ipad for navigation.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Being aware that an island exists and knowing where you are in relation to it right now are two very different things. I already acknowledged that it is highly unlikely that they don't have it on their navigation suite, I was just highlighting that Skydemon, which is legally valid for flight, doesn't have it. I'm not sure why that scares you.

But isn't it VFR flight only ?
Anyway we are getting sidetracked and taking thread off in unnecessary tangent.

coastwatch wrote: »

The article by Loran Siggins in the IT today also has a photo of Blackrock with text,
Blackrock lighthouse, where Rescue 116 had been due to land. Wreckage was later spotted about 2.5km southeast of the lighthouse.

IT article

I thinks it's just the general confusion between Blackrock and Blacksod since the incident.

The media usually are morons especially when it comes to technical details in such areas.
The act that they made such an erroneous claim and never fact checked or proof read says it all about the quality of that publication of late.

Someone claimed one media outlet showed pic of Mil MI-26 the other day so they can't be trusted for accurracy or indeed truth.

Also the type of questions being asked by RTE interviewers of Coast Guard, AAIU, CHC personnel has been leading and almost accussatory in nature.

Gaoth Laidir

Skydemon is VFR and IFR.

Storm 10

Just a thought here guys would a Royal Navy Merlin that carry equipment to locate a submarine that they lower into the sea be any use in Blacksod , it would not be weather dependent as they could hover around the Island with the device lowered into the sea, any thoughts on this, I'm sure the British would be more than willing to help in the search for Rescue 116

This issue is fine in the original thread, and I've left it there, as it is directly related to the search and recovery activities

zuutroy

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Skydemon is VFR and IFR.

Not according to the screen that pops up every single time you open it!

Gaoth Laidir

Now I'm completely confused. We have a second thread on the accident, with a very similar title. I can tell you know that it will become a mess with people posting in the wrong thread. Whatever mod work there was before will be doubled now.

And we're not allowed to discuss individual questions, theories, etc. on these two threads but ARE allowed to set up more individual threads for them?

I think I'll steer clear of all of them just to be on the safe side. Best of luck to the rec9very crew. I hope they get conditions suitable for recovery of the crew and black box.

Gaoth Laidir

zuutroy wrote: »

Not according to the screen that pops up every single time you open it!

It does have IFR charts though.

Irish Steve

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Now I'm completely confused. We have a second thread on the accident, with a very similar title. I can tell you know that it will become a mess with people posting in the wrong thread. Whatever mod work there was before will be doubled now.

And we're not allowed to discuss individual questions, theories, etc. on these two threads but ARE allowed to set up more individual threads for them?

I think I'll steer clear of all of them just to be on the safe side. Best of luck to the rec9very crew. I hope they get conditions suitable for recovery of the crew and black box.

Like it or not, there are posts going into the main 116 thread that are not directly related to the search for 116. On that basis, and yes, it's more work for us, I've created this thread that we can move "marginal" posts to, in order to keep the focus of the main thread as tight as possible on "news", and related discussion. This is a no win scenario for us right now, if we edit or delete from the main thread we get criticised for doing so, this thread is an attempt that may well backfire to not delete posts while keeping the main thread on topic.

squonk

I feel such speculation should be allowed. I wouldn't read AH for speculation given that it'd be uninformed and possibly sensationalist. The point of the Aviation forum is that it's populated by industry professionals. I know nobody here can factually state what caused this horrible accident but I am very nterested in opinions and possible causes.

I don't believe this makes me somehow selfish as a poster. I'm human and I believe that one trait of human nature is to be curious. I like to learn and like to discuss topics with different informed indviduals so that I can learn more about a subject.

One thing this incident has taught me is the capabilities our nation possesses in a maritime setting. It's been an eye opener and I have learned a lot I didn't know this time last week.

I have found the main thread altogether too limited and way too touchy. I posted with what I believed to be a pertinent and credible piece of information only to have my post removed silently. With no explanation supplied, this action was censorship, not moderation.

It appears now that the inky content allowed is deserved plaudits fir the crew or recovery operation movements. I also happen to have hunk that factors leading to, or potentially causing this incident deserve an airing in an informed setting. Otherwise, what's the point of the aviation forum?

Irish Steve

Speculation will be allowed, just not yet, on the basis of specific instructions from the site administrators.

It is that simple, and fundamental, and something I cannot and will not change in the absence of a change in that instruction.

flazio

I do want to ask an operational question going forward. What is the likely plan now in relation to the lost helicopter. This isn't meant as a disrespect to the lost crew but the fact remains the seas are still operating and the Coast Guard have a job to do. Will CPC aquire a new helicopter to replace the lost aircraft? I appreciate that there is a 5th helicopter standing in for now but is that sustainable in the medium to long term?

ectoraige

flazio wrote: »

I do want to ask an operational question going forward. What is the likely plan now in relation to the lost helicopter. This isn't meant as a disrespect to the lost crew but the fact remains the seas are still operating and the Coast Guard have a job to do. Will CPC aquire a new helicopter to replace the lost aircraft? I appreciate that there is a 5th helicopter standing in for now but is that sustainable in the medium to long term?

CHC will need to acquire a 5th helicopter to ensure coverage in all four bases when maintenance work takes one out of service. They will have to acquire a S92 with same layout and equipment as the others so that crews do not have to be retrained. This may take some time but in the meantime I believe if in need they do have the capability to bring aircraft and crew from their UK operations for temporary relief.

jimbis

Is the 5th helicopter now covering the Dublin base or are the other bases still standing in for it?

.G.

They'll have more crew, it's like any other emergency service that works 24/7. They have different crews working different shifts so I'd imagine the 5th helicopter is in Dublin and being operated by the other crews.

Psychlops

jimbis wrote: »

Is the 5th helicopter now covering the Dublin base or are the other bases still standing in for it?

No heli in Dublin, AIS will show you that.

EI-ICG-Sligo
EI-ICA-Shannon
EI-ICU-Waterford (Not on Ais for a few days, possible maintenance)
EI-ICD-Waterford.

Steve

Psychlops wrote: »

No heli in Dublin, AIS will show you that.

EI-ICG-Sligo
EI-ICA-Shannon
EI-ICU-Waterford (Not on Ais for a few days, possible maintenance)
EI-ICD-Waterford.

AIS only shows when the vessel is powered up and AIS is transmitting.

Psychlops

Steve wrote: »

AIS only shows when the vessel is powered up and AIS is transmitting.

Exactly, I have the helis in the "my fleet" of Marine Traffic & there is no helicopter at Dublin. 1 at Sligo, 1 at Shannon & 2 at Waterford.

Steve

Psychlops wrote: »

Exactly, I have the helis in the "my fleet" of Marine Traffic & there is no helicopter at Dublin. 1 at Sligo, 1 at Shannon & 2 at Waterford.

I honestly can't answer that.

We will all have to wait and see I guess.

billie1b

Steve wrote: »

I honestly can't answer that.

We will all have to wait and see I guess.

No S92 aircraft in DUB, the hangar has an eerily empty feeling to it.