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

21-03-2017 01:51PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I haven posted here for a while, but I have to reply to the above.

This is utter nonsense. Your implication is that if this was CFIT, the professionalism of this crew is called into question. And by extension that every accident where CFIT is the cause, calls the professionalism of crew into question. Regardless of the cause of this accident nothing changes the fact that this crew was professional and competent. We all make mistakes. Even highly trained and experienced crews. Daily. Pretending we don't achieves nothing except exposing us to danger.

It's well meant though PP, I'd imagine he means it'll end up in a torrent of posts and criticism from non Aviation types who will immediately have a pop at the pilots. We've all seen it before, first hint of pilots doing something wrong and the backlash starts.

There's a reason why those involved in sexual offence cases don't get their names published, it's because the stigma related to such a case can never be gotten rid of even if fully exonerated. Lives and memories can be utterly destroyed.

A lot can change between now and the report being published and a reputation tarnished can never be fully returned even if a positive report is released.

Coil Kilcrea · 21-03-2017 01:59PM

greenspurs wrote: »

What is the weather like there today ?

Improving but sea state still lumpy. LE Eithne appears to be at Black Rock LH.

Irish Steve · 21-03-2017 02:00PM

Given the equipment fitted on the S92, the approach to Blacksod would have been very simple, even in poor weather, in that the on board systems would have been managing both the vertical and horizontal profile of the descent, from 3000 Ft, a standard 3 degree descent would have brought them to their minimum descent point with at least 2 miles remaining before the coast, and with the reported cloudbase at the time, the transition to visual flight would have been standard, and straight forward.

21-03-2017 02:01PM

Coil Kilcrea wrote: »

Improving but sea state still lumpy. LE Eithne appears to be at Black Rock LH.

Indeed very close in to the rock. Maybe assessing actual sea conditions.

air · 21-03-2017 02:02PM

Everyone is currently speculating in an information vacuum.
All we know now is the flight path and that wreckage was found on and around blackrock.
Blackrock is around 400m long, which would take approx 10 seconds max to traverse at 90kts.
It wasn't part of the flight plan so has no special significance over and above any other section of land or sea that 116 traversed between Dublin and Blacksod. The total flight tim was about an hour.
The odds that 116 encountered a random mechanical fault and wreckage just happend to land on and around Blackrock are about 1 in 360.
Ergo CFIT at present is the most likely hypothesis.

homerjay2005 · 21-03-2017 02:06PM

skallywag wrote: »

Is it in no way currently clear whether a collision with the island was the cause of the accident or whether this was the effect of a prior failure.

you are talking about two seperate things. what we do know and what we are talking about here, is that the craft had a collision with the island.

nobody yet is talking about the cause of why this happened, as nobody knows officially ( or at least theres people who may know and are not allowed post here).

duskyjoe · 21-03-2017 02:08PM

Agree. Sooner black box out the better. Poor families awaiting retrieval of their loved ones.

Reati · 21-03-2017 02:09PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

3000 Ft

I was trying to find this earlier. Is it a fact they were at 3000ft when they were near Blackrock?

tricky D · 21-03-2017 02:12PM

Folks can we please knock off the whinging about moderation off this thread. It just keeps on derailing an already difficult thread which under the circumstances is impossible to moderate to everyone's satisfaction. Cheers.

homerjay2005 · 21-03-2017 02:15PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

The AAIU have now stated that there was debis found on Blackrock Island. While not officially in the public domain, that information was circulating in some areas last Wednesday, and was a factor in some of the way that this thread was managed at that time.

I have stated before in this thread, and will say it again now, to suggest that this was CFIT disrespects the memory and professionalism of a crew that were operating at the peak of skill levels and experience, in that they would have known exactly where they were, and of the presence of Blackrock. Yes, CFIT is an outside possibility, but there are other possibilities that for me, rank as being higher on the probability scale, but now is not the time to discuss them

the ironic and hypocritical thing here is that the majority of associating the concept of a collision with the professionalism of a crew, is actually coming from you.

For me and Im pretty sure almsot everybody else here, the professionalism of the crew shouldn't even be an issue no matter what happened yet you constantly are bringing it up and in my opinion, are the main culprit of being disrespectful to them in this thread.

beanian · 21-03-2017 02:17PM

Reati wrote: »

I was trying to find this earlier. Is it a fact they were at 3000ft when they were near Blackrock?

No this is entirely speculation :rolleyes:

Irish Steve · 21-03-2017 02:17PM

Reati wrote: »

I was trying to find this earlier. Is it a fact they were at 3000ft when they were near Blackrock?

There were some indications that they were at 4000 Ft on the outbound from the coast, which would tie in with things like sector safe altitude, so while I can't be categoric, on the basis of the length of the teardrop, and wanting to have time before the coast to become fully established, I would anticipate they'd have started descent after the return turn, which is where I'm arriving at a guestimate of 3000 Ft over Blackrock

billie1b · 21-03-2017 02:19PM

air wrote: »

Everyone is currently speculating in an information vacuum.
All we know now is the flight path and that wreckage was found on and around blackrock.
Blackrock is around 400m long, which would take approx 10 seconds max to traverse at 90kts.
It wasn't part of the flight plan so has no special significance over and above any other section of land or sea that 116 traversed between Dublin and Blacksod. The total flight tim was about an hour.
The odds that 116 encountered a random mechanical fault and wreckage just happend to land on and around Blackrock are about 1 in 360.
Ergo CFIT at present is the most likely hypothesis.

Oh, expect an infraction or ban for that!

Mr Velo · 21-03-2017 02:21PM

Granuaile is now on it's way out of blacksod bay as well, probably heading out to Blackrock.

CardinalJ · 21-03-2017 02:23PM

homerjay2005 wrote:

you are talking about two seperate things. what we do know and what we are talking about here, is that the craft had a collision with the island.

We know a part of the craft did. We dont know if it was attached, if something had happened prior to this to detach it, or anything else.

We know very little.

livedadream · 21-03-2017 02:25PM

billie1b wrote: »

air wrote: »

Everyone is currently speculating in an information vacuum.
All we know now is the flight path and that wreckage was found on and around blackrock.
Blackrock is around 400m long, which would take approx 10 seconds max to traverse at 90kts.
It wasn't part of the flight plan so has no special significance over and above any other section of land or sea that 116 traversed between Dublin and Blacksod. The total flight tim was about an hour.
The odds that 116 encountered a random mechanical fault and wreckage just happend to land on and around Blackrock are about 1 in 360.
Ergo CFIT at present is the most likely hypothesis.

Oh, expect an infraction or ban for that!

you realise you are ruining this thread for people who are reading along and trying to see what happened right?
go to AH if you want to complain about mods come on give the rest of us a break.

Reati · 21-03-2017 02:29PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

There were some indications that they were at 4000 Ft on the outbound from the coast, which would tie in with things like sector safe altitude, so while I can't be categoric, on the basis of the length of the teardrop, and wanting to have time before the coast to become fully established, I would anticipate they'd have started descent after the return turn, which is where I'm arriving at a guestimate of 3000 Ft over Blackrock

ok thanks. This is the one aspect which why CFIT doesn't make sense to me. Why would they drop from 4000ish down to the height of Blackrock in such a short space when they were a good bit out from Blacksod. The FDR will be very interesting to help understand what the train of thought was at the time.

billie1b · 21-03-2017 02:34PM

livedadream wrote: »

you realise you are ruining this thread for people who are reading along and trying to see what happened right?
go to AH if you want to complain about mods come on give the rest of us a break.

You could say the exact same about your post. You're not understanding here, the feedback forum was closed to shut us up because we we're moaning about the mods/modding of the forum. Nobody is taking heed of it, so this is the only way to get it noticed. One mod in particular has started handing out bans and infractions to people for no reason, quoting posts from months ago to try justify their behaviour. Thats how pety they have gotten!

Gaoth Laidir · 21-03-2017 02:35PM

I've asked it before but it still remains unanswered. Is anyone familiar with this approach for Blacksod? Flying 10 NM out to see seems excessive and I'd like to know why that would be the procedure, if indeed it is. I know officials have said that a westerly excursion is standard for Blacksod, but why 10 NM? It's like the S92 flying eastbound past DUB and out past Howth Head before turning back.

I guess the main question now is at whether they were overflying Blackrock low enough to hit it or the if they were much higher up and something happened. A lot of answers lie in that black box.

ProfessorPlum · 21-03-2017 02:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's well meant though PP, I'd imagine he means it'll end up in a torrent of posts and criticism from non Aviation types who will immediately have a pop at the pilots. We've all seen it before, first hint of pilots doing something wrong and the backlash starts.

There's a reason why those involved in sexual offence cases don't get their names published, it's because the stigma related to such a case can never be gotten rid of even if fully exonerated. Lives and memories can be utterly destroyed.

A lot can change between now and the report being published and a reputation tarnished can never be fully returned even if a positive report is released.

Well meant? Probably. Misguided? Definitely. And this is more of it though - read what you've written again GVHOT. You're implying that if the report is 'negative' reputations will be forever tarnished. Juxtaposing sexual offenders with pilots who make mistakes. Seriously? This isn't a dig at you. But this isn't a tabloid or even a broadsheet where implications of unprofessionalism or incompetence go unanswered. This is an aviation forum. Populated by people who know a thing or two about aviation, and people who would like to know a bit more. So instead of taking in hushed tones about mistakes being very bad things, only committed by incompetents, and never by highly skilled professionals, we should be disavowing those that come here of that notion. Discussing openly what may have happened in an environment where blame isn't the overriding motive.
Nothing that is said in any report will tarnish this crews reputation. They've proved themselves over and over in situations that most aviators will never find them selves in. That's the message that should be coming from this thread. Not the current one where we can't even envisage that a mistake may have been made because that would be just too terrible.

21-03-2017 02:37PM

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I've asked it before but it still remains unanswered. Is anyone familiar with this approach for Blacksod? Flying 10 NM out to see seems excessive and I'd like to know why that would be the procedure, if indeed it is. I know officials have said that a westerly excursion is standard for Blacksod, but why 10 NM? It's like the S92 flying eastbound past DUB and out past Howth Head before turning back.

I guess the main question now is at whether they were overflying Blackrock low enough to hit it or the if they were much higher up and something happened. A lot of answers lie in that black box.

When they do VOR/ILS to 16 at dublin self positioning they go at times 15 nms north of the airfield before turning back. It's obviously something they do in the company, whatever procedure they use.

Mr Velo · 21-03-2017 02:41PM

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I've asked it before but it still remains unanswered. Is anyone familiar with this approach for Blacksod? Flying 10 NM out to see seems excessive and I'd like to know why that would be the procedure, if indeed it is. I know officials have said that a westerly excursion is standard for Blacksod, but why 10 NM? It's like the S92 flying eastbound past DUB and out past Howth Head before turning back.

I guess the main question now is at whether they were overflying Blackrock low enough to hit it or the if they were much higher up and something happened. A lot of answers lie in that black box.

Got this from another forum (Professional Pilots Rumour Network)

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida, "lucida grande", arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Many of you are asking why they did an approach to BlackRock when in fact they wanted to take fuel at BlackSod. I think because of the weather, the ceiling was to low to do any kind of approach at Blacksod, therefore the crew elected to do an approach similar to a NDB ARA at BlackRock, and then proceed VFR/NVG to Blacksod. The reason they didn't do the similar approach at Blacksod is normally a NDB ARA have to be at a certain distance from shore to comply with obstacles clearance (between 10 n.m. and 14n.m.). For me it show that way the crew knew exactly what they were doing.[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida, "lucida grande", arial, helvetica, sans-serif]My two cents.[/font]

Gaoth Laidir · 21-03-2017 02:45PM

Mr Velo wrote: »

Got this from another forum (Professional Pilots Rumour Network)

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida, "lucida grande", arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Many of you are asking why they did an approach to BlackRock when in fact they wanted to take fuel at BlackSod. I think because of the weather, the ceiling was to low to do any kind of approach at Blacksod, therefore the crew elected to do an approach similar to a NDB ARA at BlackRock, and then proceed VFR/NVG to Blacksod. The reason they didn't do the similar approach at Blacksod is normally a NDB ARA have to be at a certain distance from shore to comply with obstacles clearance (between 10 n.m. and 14n.m.). For me it show that way the crew knew exactly what they were doing.[/font]

[font=verdana, geneva, lucida, "lucida grande", arial, helvetica, sans-serif]My two cents.[/font]

Thanks, but it throws up more questions than answers. Why would they use a lighthouse for navigation? What altitude would this procedure be done at?

smurfjed · 21-03-2017 02:54PM

What exactly is an NDB ARA approach ?

Gadgetman496 · 21-03-2017 02:55PM

Reati wrote: »

ok thanks. This is the one aspect which why CFIT doesn't make sense to me. Why would they drop from 4000ish down to the height of Blackrock in such a short space when they were a good bit out from Blacksod.

It' a possibility the sudden decent was due to something they were unable to control.

Gaoth Laidir · 21-03-2017 02:55PM

NDB Airborne Radar Approach. So would that mean they would be using Blackrock as a guide on their radar?

smurfjed · 21-03-2017 02:58PM

Is there an NDB at Blackrock ?

smurfjed · 21-03-2017 03:03PM

@ GVHOT the IF for DUB RWY 16 is 12.5 nms north of the runway.

Irish Steve · 21-03-2017 03:03PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the ironic and hypocritical thing here is that the majority of associating the concept of a collision with the professionalism of a crew, is actually coming from you.

For me and Im pretty sure almost everybody else here, the professionalism of the crew shouldn't even be an issue no matter what happened yet you constantly are bringing it up and in my opinion, are the main culprit of being disrespectful to them in this thread.

I make the comment I do for a very simple reason. To people outside of the industry, they see the crew of 116 as pilots. In one respect, that is correct, but it's far from the full story,

For good and valid reasons, the aviation industry is highly regulated, and that includes things like training, and repetitive training, which all pilots are required to do.

What the vast majority of pilots do not do is go out to their aircraft and fly without a clear plan of where they are going, and how they are going to deal with the situation when they get there, which is what the SAR pilots are doing on the vast majority of missions that they undertake, and the way that they ensure that they can do this is to spend very significant amounts of time training on a daily basis (when on duty), which is completely different to the training regime experienced by any other pilot.

So, SAR pilots are regularly operating in places and weather than most other pilots do their best to avoid, and most of the time, they are having to do that without being able to spend a lot of time planning and preparing for the flight. That means that the ONLY way they can safely do the job they do is by being absolutely on top of their game in ways that are so completely different from the ways that the majority of professional pilots operate, most of us cannot begin to comprehend how they do what they do. The answer to that is that they spend hours practising the procedures they use to ensure that when they are under pressure, it's automatic to them and they function as a crew, with each member of the crew doing the things they have to, and constanly cross checking and validating what the others are doing.

CFIT is as a result of a mistake of some nature, why I am struggling with the concept of CFIT in this specific scenario is because the crew are operating at a higher level of everything when compared to "professional pilots", and this is not in any way disrespecting professional pilots, it is just recognising the very significant differences that exist in this very specialised aspect of aviation, and the massive time spent in constantly reviewing, retraining and performing the tasks that they do. That difference may not be apparent to the casual visitor to threads like this, and it's all too easy for wrong impressions to be given.

21-03-2017 03:15PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well meant? Probably. Misguided? Definitely. And this is more of it though - read what you've written again GVHOT. You're implying that if the report is 'negative' reputations will be forever tarnished. Juxtaposing sexual offenders with pilots who make mistakes. Seriously? This isn't a dig at you. But this isn't a tabloid or even a broadsheet where implications of unprofessionalism or incompetence go unanswered. This is an aviation forum. Populated by people who know a thing or two about aviation, and people who would like to know a bit more. So instead of taking in hushed tones about mistakes being very bad things, only committed by incompetents, and never by highly skilled professionals, we should be disavowing those that come here of that notion. Discussing openly what may have happened in an environment where blame isn't the overriding motive.
Nothing that is said in any report will tarnish this crews reputation. They've proved themselves over and over in situations that most aviators will never find them selves in. That's the message that should be coming from this thread. Not the current one where we can't even envisage that a mistake may have been made because that would be just too terrible.

It was a analogy PP, I take it Sully was never at any point worried about his reputation by misguided opinions, speculation and questions. I very deliberately choose it to emphasise the damage that can be done to inncocents when little or no information is known.

I don't wish to get in an argument with you PP. I agree with everything you have said thus far and reflected that by liking your posts.

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

Comments