nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

sparrowcar

Contact lost just before 0100 off the west coast of Achill island on a rescue mission.
Search in progress including all available ships and Rescue 115.

Hopefully a positive outcome to this.

Please keep replies civil, and respectful of the crew and their families.

Please do not speculate as to any cause unless you have a factual basis to do so (and can back it up with information released to the public).

There will be zero tolerance for troublemakers or those that choose to ignore these guidelines.

There are other moderator messages in the thread, as a result of issues that have arisen, and we will be less forgiving going forward, due to the ongoing sensitivity of this incident

As per normal boards guidance, any comments on moderation are off topic and should be addressed directly to mods or cmods by PM. Any part of posts which are off topic in such a manner may be edited or removed, with possible sanction. Non news posts will be moved to the parallel R116 Non news and discussion thread

Should any new reports, updates or news stories come out, posts which can be boiled down to "I Told You So" or other triumphalism about previous commentary will result in significant punishment.

Any threadbans will carry over to any replacement thread should this approach 10,000 posts

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

The nation is not that short of cash.

WE sent these people out to do a job and WE have an obligation to try and bring them back to their families.

Steve

A point was made that given the timescale of the ongoing search, the time has elapsed where the natural process of decomposition will be at a stage where bacterial gasses will have progressed and therefore the remains of the missing crew members may naturally float to the surface.

This is a well documented fact and is also well known to the search teams and they will be expecting it and will adjust their search methods accordingly.

It is however, a little bit insensitive to discuss it, I have removed the small discussion that occurred of foot of people reporting the posts, so lets just leave it at this post and hope the search comes to fruition soon.

ironclaw

ectoraige wrote: »

What is meant by 9 second exposure in this context?

I believe it refers to landing / take off procedures especially relating to emergency landings / safe ditching. Thats the extent of my knowledge though.

Edit:

PC2: A helicopter with performance such that, in case of critical power-unit failure, it is able to safely continue flight, except when the failure occurs prior to a defined point after takeoff or after a defined point before landing, in which case a forced landing may be required

Can I ask, can someone 'explain like I'm 5' what we currently know about the accident? I'm purely asking for the known facts as I'm somewhat confused with the conversation and differences between Blacksod and Black Rock. Were they intending to land on one? Which one?

limericklad87

Blacksod and blackrock are two different places. In a nutshell the reasoning behind why Rescue 116 was in such close proximity to Blackrock is unknown.

Cianmcliam

limericklad87 wrote: »

Blacksod and blackrock are two different places. In a nutshell the reasoning behind why Rescue 116 was in such close proximity to Blackrock is unknown.

I would think they have accessed the combined FDR and CVR by now, so it may be known but not made public.

limericklad87

Its absolutely known to those involved in the investigation and obviously those qualified to form an opinion based on data gathered. Not known to Joe soap on an internet discussion forum.

[Deleted User]

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I would think they have accessed the combined FDR and CVR by now, so it may be known but not made public.

Agreed, it would have been read by now and the initial finding given. Unless the chips were badly damaged, which is unlikely as it was undamaged.

If the cause was mechanical we will soon hear the results, otherwise...

irishgeo

Tow wrote: »

Agreed, it would have been read by now and the initial finding given. Unless the chips were badly damaged, which is unlikely as it was undamaged.

If the cause was mechanical we will soon hear the results, otherwise...

one report had said water had got in to the recorder.

mickdw

irishgeo wrote: »

one report had said water had got in to the recorder.

I don't think that is a major issue. They typically transport these immersed in water to prevent any further damage.

LiamaDelta

It was reported that there was some corrosion but they didn't expect it to be a problem. Also they were expecting it to be the end of the week (this week) before it would be downloaded.

elastico

limericklad87 wrote: »

Blacksod and blackrock are two different places. In a nutshell the reasoning behind why Rescue 116 was in such close proximity to Blackrock is unknown.

I'd say there are a lot on here who have a fair idea at this stage what happened and why, as there is a lot of factual data about the accident in the public domain, but analysing the data is not allowed here.

Mod edit: Personal insult removed.

limericklad87

For the sake of not speculating I thought it would be best to say unknown. As you said analyzing this data is not allowed therefore on this forum all we can say is unknown.

Everyone has their own opinions, theories and hypothesis to what happened and as you say some more than others. Just because I didn't feel the need to verbalize mine doesn't mean I haven't a clue.

Back on topic I had heard alright that it was transported in water. Can't remember where

Sterling Archer

This is actually a fairly standard thing to do with electronics that have been submerged: They are placed in water (ideally fresh, clean water) to both delay the onset of corrosion and dilute any salts or other chemicals that they came in contact with while submerged.

When you remove electronics from water and let them dry out they begin to form corrosion on all the little exposed bits of metal

After being sunk in water, especially salt water, the devices are more susceptible to corrosion when removed from the water. In order to better ensure a successful recovery of the data contained within, the investigators keep them immersed in water until they can be properly cleaned and dried in a laboratory. If they were to be simply removed into the air, corrosion would begin immediately, increasing the odds of data loss.

ectoraige

The data recorders are (obviously) designed to be battered and damaged, and yet remain readable. There are two main parts, the data interface, and the Crash-Survivable Memory Unit (CSMU). The aircraft's sensor system feeds the data interface which stores the information on the CSMU. There is often also the capability for ground crew to connect to it to download flight information for engineering/maintenance purposes.

The CSMU is highly robust and, as well as being engineered to withstand extreme forces, pressures, and temperatures, must also be able to survive immersion in a range of fluids including fresh and salt water, as well as jet fuel and lubricants. The CSMU is the only part of the data recorder that needs to survive. The entire data interface can be, and often is, destroyed during a crash. The data recovery teams just plug a new one into the CSMU in order to read from it. Before doing this though, they will disassemble the CSMU, clean and dry the components, and reassemble it. This is painstakingly done, hence the time taken to gather the data. It is usual for the data recorders to be transported to the lab in whatever condition they are found, so if in seawater, they will be kept in seawater.

Gadgetman496

In this case the unit contains both the data and voice recorders I think?

Sterling Archer

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

In this case the unit contains both the data and voice recorders I think?

The S-92 FDR/CVR is one box called a Multi-Purpose Flight Recorder, commonly referred to as a "combi-unit", typically manufactured by Penny and Giles in the United Kingdom. AFAIK

coillsaille

I see the LE James Joyce has arrived in Blacksod, must be taking over from the Beckett.

Means Of Escape

Steve wrote: »

A point was made that given the timescale of the ongoing search, the time has elapsed where the natural process of decomposition will be at a stage where bacterial gasses will have progressed and therefore the remains of the missing crew members may naturally float to the surface.

This is a well documented fact and is also well known to the search teams and they will be expecting it and will adjust their search methods accordingly.

It is however, a little bit insensitive to discuss it, I have removed the small discussion that occurred of foot of people reporting the posts, so lets just leave it at this post and hope the search comes to fruition soon.

I am sure that the families of the lost crewmen are very aware that sometimes the sea does not give back what it takes and that is doubly so as days pass by .

Cloudio9

The way bodies behave in the sea was actually discussed in the R117 documentary when the crew was searching the sea.

jimmycrackcorm

Shane_ef wrote: »

The S-92 FDR/CVR is one box called a Multi-Purpose Flight Recorder, commonly referred to as a "combi-unit", typically manufactured by Penny and Giles in the United Kingdom. AFAIK

I found an interesting teardown of a Penny & Giles Solid State recorder on youtube

Around 14 minutes he opens up the protective cylinder for the memory unit using an angle grinder! It's almost like a mini-nuclear bunker. I just thought it was fascinating the lengths these are designed to protect data compared to your average storage unit

Reati

jasonb wrote: »

I'm not even going to link to it, but I see the Mirror has another sensational headline with lots of 'may have', 'could have', 'a source claims' etc. etc. in it. I really don't know how they can feel comfortable fabricating such 'news', but I suppose the real issue is that people buy the papers, so it works...

J.

Looks like it annoyed someone else too.

<snip>

Hmm...

Gamebred

Goes without saying the crew are irreplaceable in all aspects to their family and professionally, but with respect is there plans in place to replace the chopper any time soon to relieve stress on the service?

Tenger

Gamebred wrote: »

Goes without saying the crew are irreplaceable in all aspects to their family and professionally, but with respect is there plans in place to replace the chopper any time soon to relieve stress on the service?

This has been brought up a couple of times already. The sense is that CHC has a contract for 4 SAR choppers with a 5th as a reserve. Multiple crews to operate each airframe. So currently there are still 4 in the fleet. The contract will no doubt have a clause about maintaining cover after an incident like this.
The issue that was raised previously was, as SAR S-92s are so specialised in terms of equipment/fit out a new build is probably easier/cheaper than acquiring and upgrading an inservice airframe.

ted1

Tenger wrote: »

This has been brought up a couple of times already. The sense is that CHC has a contract for 4 SAR choppers with a 5th as a reserve. Multiple crews to operate each airframe. So currently there are still 4 in the fleet. The contract will no doubt have a clause about maintaining cover after an incident like this.
The issue that was raised previously was, as SAR S-92s are so specialised in terms of equipment/fit out a new build is probably easier/cheaper than acquiring and upgrading an inservice airframe.

Would've CHC have a resource else would make up the 5th? They may have one in service that would suit better to bring a spare then a main ?

Irish Steve

Given the very specialist nature of the work they do, and the absolute requirement to avoid any confusion, the airframes in use need to be identical in terms of their instrument fit, and performance, for all sorts of operational and safety reasons, if you have to operate at the edge of the envelope, it's essential that there is no way that a crew might be confused about how an instrument operates, or other critical performance issues, so the only way to prevent that is to have everything common across the fleet, which may well mean that Sikorsky will be asked to produce a "new" machine that does not have the standard instrument fit that would now be standard with a new machine, to ensure that when it is introduced into the fleet, the introduction is seamless.

I don't know if they have any identical SAR S92 airframes in use in other places, if they have, then it's possible they may have an aircraft that can be redeployed here to act as reserve, but I suspect that such a process will take some time to iron out the specific issues I've highlighted.

skallywag

Irish Steve wrote: »

Given the very specialist nature of the work they do, and the absolute requirement to avoid any confusion, the airframes in use need to be identical in terms of their instrument fit, and performance, for all sorts of operational and safety reasons, if you have to operate at the edge of the envelope, it's essential that there is no way that a crew might be confused about how an instrument operates, or other critical performance issues, so the only way to prevent that is to have everything common across the fleet, which may well mean that Sikorsky will be asked to produce a "new" machine that does not have the standard instrument fit that would now be standard with a new machine, to ensure that when it is introduced into the fleet, the introduction is seamless.

This was certainly not the case when I worked with SAR machines at IHL, i.e. the 2 S61s (EI-BLY and EI-BHO) had distinctive differences in terms of instrumentation.

Has there been a new directive issued since which now mandates that this can no longer be the case?

ectoraige

skallywag wrote: »

This was certainly not the case when I worked with SAR machines at IHL, i.e. the 2 S61s (EI-BLY and EI-BHO) had distinctive differences in terms of instrumentation.

Has there been a new directive issued since which now mandates that this can no longer be the case?

A coast guard spokesperson said as much when asked about a replacement, he indicated it would take time as the replacement would have to match instrumentation and systems with the existing fleet. It may be CHC policy, or even part of the contract, or just now deemed best practice.

skallywag

ectoraige wrote: »

A coast guard spokesperson said as much when asked about a replacement, he indicated it would take time as the replacement would have to match instrumentation and systems with the existing fleet. It may be CHC policy, or even part of the contract, or just now deemed best practice.

I can certainly see the sense in that, and considering the commercial value of the SAR contract these days it can be viable I guess. We are of course in a much better place these days concerning SAR coverage. When IHL had the contract there was just no way that the two machines could be kitted out identically as it would not have been economically viable, the dept of the Marine basically got what they were willing to pay for! It was also the case that only one of the two machines was operating at any one time.

Irish Steve

No formal requirement that I'm aware of, other than the concept that human factors and researchers have found the dangers of differences, it wasn't with SAR, but in other areas, I did a lot of work nearly 20 years ago where the relevant companies were looking at these areas, the reports made "interesting" reading, but unfortunately, they are not available on the web, so I can't link them.

A lot of research was triggered by the British Midland accident at Kegworth, where (among other reasons) due to differences between versions of the 737, the crew shut down the wrong engine after a failure. That one accident was a massive game changer for many areas of the industry, there were many changes in training, and underlying operating concepts as a result of that one accident.

When we first started, the relevant researchers hadn't realised that there were risks in their research, until it was pointed out to them that if the device they were using for the testing didn't replicate the real thing that the crews were used to, their testing could be invalidated if the crews could not perform "memory drills" automatically, and when they modified their testing, to look at it, they did indeed find that there was the potential for errors if there were differences, and the same situation has been seen in recent times with some aircraft accidents, there was a fatal accident not that long ago where there was a subtle difference in operating technique between 2 different versions of a Yak aircraft, but a common type rating.

I would like to hope that the relevant people who specify these things have learnt from the information that's now out there, I know I would be very uncomfortable with the concept of having significant differences across a fleet, and the major airlines also have the same attitude, there is a "standard" fit for the flight deck for the type that they use to try and ensure that the potential for confusion has been "managed" out of the system.

smurfjed

Not exactly correct, we operate A318/319/320/321 aircraft that are different to each other, That's why we have "differences" training. Same happened when we operated the 747-SP/100/200/300.