Irish Steve wrote: » Looking at it in a little more detail, I think the 500 Ft VFR level dates back to the days of the OP/OE marker system, where the final approach started from 1500 Ft, and traffic on the approach was brought down to that level well before the coast, so to avoid TCAS alerts, the VFR traffic was not allowed above 500 Ft to ensure the separation from IFR traffic, which at times could well have been in cloud and not visible to the lower level VFR traffic. The old markers have gone from the approach charts, though they are still listed as radio aids, and the Final Approach Fix and level is now 2500 Ft, so in theory, VFR traffic could operate up to 1500 Ft without a loss of separation, but the practicality of that is the prevailing cloud base over water, which quite often will be above 500 Ft, but not 1500 Ft, which would prevent the higher altitude being usable for VFR operations.
TomOnBoard wrote: » There's a fundamental tenet in a multi-threaded logical analysis, ie if one thread shows an absence of evidence that something exists, it cannot be presented as evidence that it does not exist. When all threads have been considered, and there is still an absence of evidence that the something exists, then a reasonable inference that it does not exist can be made. (Jaysus my head hurts after that!!) At this early stage of the investigation, Absence of evidence (of mech. failure) is not Evidence that such failure did not occur.
Means Of Escape wrote: » Eastern Airlines Flight 401
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Sea conditions much better this morning. An Gearóidín is already in position and the three other vessels nearby.
BoatMad wrote: » True , but Occam's razor applies nonetheless , it is reasonable to assume , given the information released , that the helicopter was not brought down by a mechanical failure per se. That's not to say such an assumption could be proven to be wrong, but the working assumption remains at this time , still valid
smurfjed wrote: » I hate the term Pilot Error.
jackboy wrote: » Assumptions have no place in an investigation. It's all about building facts until the cause is proven or not. Unfortunately sometimes the cause is never found.
smurfjed wrote: » <SNIP> Inappropriate armchair speculation I hate the term Pilot Error.
smurfjed wrote: » <SNIP> Inappropriate armchair speculation
elastico wrote: » As speculation is not allowed am I right in saying all of the below is pretty much factual. 1/ Shortly after leaving tracking Dublin R116 proceeded pretty much in a straight line all the way to blackrock lighthouse and helipad 2/ Tracking does not show it at any point in its journey proceeding in straight line towards blacksod lighthouse and helipad 3/ At 0035 approx. crew told ATC they were beginning decent into blacksod and had gone through 4000ft. Despite telling ATC they were proceeding into blacksod tracking shows the helicopter continued on its path toward blackrock, as it had been since Dublin 4/ At approx. 00.46 it overflew blackrock lighthouse and proceeded to do a uturn. 5/ In an around this time its altitude was approx. 220 ft 6/ Its last tracked speed was 9knts just before colliding with blackrock lighthouse / island 7/ The tail section ended up in the vicinity of the island and the rest of the craft in the water. 8/ AAIU reported "no mechanical anomalies"
...And Justice wrote: » Yep, but look at how ridiculous AF447 was, really simple stuff and night flying caused an A330 to plough into the water.
human behaviour, navigational equipment and procedural issues, in an effort to identify they exact reasons why Rescue 116 crashed.
Irish Steve wrote: » I am not going to speculate on the nature of the event that resulted in the end of the flight 116 into water, and also resulted in only one member of the crew being found at this stage, other than to say that anyone that is implying that it was as a result of actions by the crew has very little understanding of the way that Search and rescue operates, and a lack of understanding of how disciplined and experienced the operating crews of SAR helicopters are
elastico wrote: » Do you still stand by this?
ScrewYou wrote: » Can't find a previous post by him (maybe deleted now?), in which he stated categorically in bold that there was no way it was CFIT due to the training and experience of Coast Guard pilots and they're must've been some type of mechanical failure. He was pulled up at the time for such a ridiculous statement. Alas.....
ScrewYou wrote: » Can't find a previous post by him (maybe deleted now?), in which he stated categorically in bold that there was no way it was CFIT due to the training and experience of Coast Guard pilots and there must've been some type of mechanical failure. He was pulled up at the time for such a ridiculous statement. Alas.....