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

NASlad wrote: »

out of curiosity: is there a helicopter at all in dublin now? I would have presumed there was always 2 sikorskies in each base with a rotating roster/crews.

or is dublin without a chopper for the time being?

I assume the spare one that was based in Shannon is covering for it?

The_Wanderer wrote: »

Speculation is part of human nature. Plus this new information is rather revealing which will probably be confirmed, once the blackbox is found and analysed.

Indeed it is, so is knowing when to hold your tongue out of respect.

Whenever facts are made known we can discuss them till the cows come home, till then they remain bovine shadows on the far off hill and their milk will elude our lips.

(Please, for flip sake don't anyone make me repeat that in bold... )

Storm 10 wrote: »

Did any of you take a look at the huge number of foreign trawlers currently fishing off the West Coast, there have been three long range medevac's to this huge fleet in the past few weeks and that is where Rescue 118 went to last Monday night. Given the number of large Trawlers/Factory ships out there you can bet there will be more long range tasking's.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-13/centery:54/zoom:8[/quote

It's most likely going to need a significant investment in SAR equipment and resources with the numbers on our West coast only going to increase. The trawlers/factory ships are bigger and stay out in monstrous weather. If they get in trouble, we're they're best chance of help.

TallGlass wrote: »

Just hope the guys get a break down there and can recover the crew mainly for the family's sake, the aircraft and recording equipment to give them the answers to these awful events.

As do I.

---

Can I please remind everyone to continue to remain respectful and not to speculate until facts are released.
We owe them that at least.

Steve wrote: »

Nobody can know or even speculate on that without full facts. That is why we must wait for the AAIU findings.

so far, the "speculation" of alot of posters here, has proven to actually be factual.

I hadn't read any articles from the angle of the fisherman having a minor injury, but i find it just as distasteful and pointless as the stories about the air corp not being able to take the call. ..

I think the circumstances of why they were out there are besides the point and detract from the tragedy and what we should be reflecting on, loss of the crew and celebration of their work, dedication to and bravery in helping others.

From what I hear from talking to those in the emergency services, and listening to interviews, they would rather be called and not needed than needed and not called. I like to think that's how the crew felt as well, and from watching the various interviews with Cpt Fitzpatrick, it certainly seems that way.

I hope no one is ever discouraged from calling the emergency services when they feel like they need them because of this, especially not any member of the crew on that trawler.

I hope everyone reflects on the lost crew, their families, their colleagues and what can be done to make sure our other SAR crews are safe to prevent another accident rather than if the crew hadn't been called to do their job they loved in the aim of helping someone in need this never would have happened.

Parapara2017 wrote: »

From what I hear from talking to those in the emergency services, and listening to interviews, they would rather be called and not needed than needed and not called. I like to think that's how the crew felt as well, and from watching the various interviews with Cpt Fitzpatrick, it certainly seems that way.

I hope no one is ever discouraged from calling the emergency services when they feel like they need them because of this, especially not any member of the crew on that trawler.

^^^this is what the papers should be printing.
Having spoken to some of the crew myself this is exactly what they'll tell you. Their words were "to never ever hesitate to call us.... Then laughing saying it won't cost me anything lol".

wotswattage wrote: »

The chopper has one installed on its exterior which is designed to transmit if it becomes immersed in water. It's also designed to detach and float off in an impact.

I understand the liferafts on board also have beacons which I would assume begin transmitting only once the raft is deployed by a member of the crew.

Finally the crew themselves all have beacons which apparently require manual activation in the case of coast guard crew.

Nothing on board R116 was activated either automatically or manually (bar the black box underwater pinger).

In accidents where there has been an extreme impact or catastrophic failure it is known for none of the automatic or manual beacons to be operable. Only time can tell us what happened R116...

It takes 52 seconds after activation before they begin to transmit, this is to give people time to deactivate them in the event they've been accidentally triggered. If the helicopter sank before this time elapsed then it would have been underwater before any location signals were transmitted.

In general, from what altitude do these choppers relay comms messages? 

VHF transmissions are generally "line of sight" and works out to be something like 1.23 sq rt (diff height of transmitter and receiver). The Lufthansa flight that was asked for assistance would have transmitted from 3x,000 feet so would have range of about 120 nms, the range of the transmission from Shannon would be a lot less as they transmit from close to sea level.
The relay helicopter or aircraft would therefore have to be high enough to obtain the required range.

They need Iridium / sat. comms on them for a bit of backup

smurfjed wrote: »

Regarding the comment about Flight 91, in that case the aircraft a loss of gearbox oil, the design called for the aircraft to be capable of flying for 30 minutes without that oil, however it only lasted for 10 minutes. This resulted in a number of civil suits against Sikorsky and a redesign of the system to allow for a full 30 minutes. Flight 91 also had sufficient time to make a mayday call.
..................

smurfjed wrote: »

......and a redesign of the system to allow for a full 30 minutes.

It can have 30 mins run-dry or have the chances of failure be deemed to be extremely remote

Seems they went for the latter, and decided the oil-cooler and associated pipework was the main chance of failure

So they put a bypass valve in it, oil cooler leaks - valve bypasses the cooler and saves too much oil being lost

“The Sikorsky S92A came to be certified without a 30-minute run-dry time. The studs have changed, but the gearbox has not changed and in the event of catastrophic oil loss, the S92A would still crash in 11 minutes.”

– Mike Clitsome, Transportation Safety Board spokesman

(1) Category A. Unless such failures are extremely remote, it must be shown by test that any failure which results in loss of lubricant in any normal use lubrication system will not prevent continued safe operation, although not necessarily without damage, at a torque and rotational speed prescribed by the applicant for continued flight, for at least 30 minutes after perception by the flightcrew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant.

.

Odelay wrote: »

And the professionals that are dealing with this year in year out will investigate all possibilities. They will know of possibilities that you or I could never imagine.
They will not offer a speculation on a public disucssion site, and that is what is going on here.

And some "speculation" from "armchair" investigators has been very accurate from early on despite having zero inside knowledge.

Means Of Escape wrote: »

And some "speculation" from "armchair" investigators has been very accurate from early on despite having zero inside knowledge.

Accurate how? Reports of wreckage on the rock came out on day one. All we know is that the aircraft came into contact with the rock.

The wild speculation about why that happened is no more "accurate" today than it was yesterday.