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

TomOnBoard wrote: »

But they're showing 90 knots, not the 9 knots that was being referred to earlier.

Exactly. Their data / system cannot be trusted.

Don't forget, as I posted earlier, MT is an amateur network of volunteer receivers and corruption of a NMEA packet or corruption of one of their server entries is conceivable. It is also open to intentional abuse.
In 99.99% of cases where it is following ships in the ocean, it probably doesn't matter when this happens.

MT specificially have a disclaimer here:

MarineTraffic does not guarantee the correctness, validity or scientific accuracy of the information contained on the Website, provided in any possible form, such as images, video, text, graphics etc. The information provided should under no circumstances be regarded as advise, suggestion or incitement for a certain act. Any actions undertaken by users based on the information provided on the Website do not create any liability of the Provider.

The provided information on vessels position and identity, in particular, originate directly from the vessels, which transmit this information through public radiofrequencies, according to the 'Automatic Identification System' (AIS). The information collected and published may contain errors, due to the intrinsic limitations of radio communications (e.g. limited coverage, interference, attenuation, special weather conditions etc), due to erroneous configuration of the AIS devices on board, due to negligent data entry by vessel’s crew, due to erroneous position received by the vessel’s GPS and due to other factors beyond the control of the Provider. Furthermore, vessel positions may be up to one hour old or incomplete. Data is provided for informational reasons only and is not related by any means to the safety of navigation.

Consequently, the Provider, the administrators of MarineTraffic Services and their partners cannot provide any type of guarantee neither are responsible for the correctness, validity, thoroughness and accuracy of that information published, nor for the suitability of their usage for purposes other than informational only.

Due to the nature and to the extent of information provided through the Internet, under any circumstances, negligence included, the Provider will not be held liable for any kind of damages you may suffer from the use or visit of the Website, services, choices and content of MarineTraffic. You visit the above content and services at your own initiative and risk.

Steve wrote: »

Which is kind of what I said only paraphrased for journalistic impact.

I read that as "they have looked at the most obvious data and not found anything, they will now look at CVR as the next priority, if they find nothing there then they will go back to deeper FDR analysis"

Bear in mind the investigators know a lot more than us. There is no way they would mention operational issues being their focus unless they are pretty damn sure that's what it was.

Steve wrote: »

Exactly. Their data / system cannot be trusted.

Don't forget, as I posted earlier, MT is an amateur network of volunteer receivers and corruption of a NMEA packet or corruption of one of their server entries is conceivable. It is also open to intentional abuse.
In 99.99% of cases where it is following ships in the ocean, it probably doesn't matter when this happens.

MT specificially have a disclaimer here:

Ok. I get that.

What I don't get is how 2 different people, interrogating the last updated information today would get such wildly different results.

nuac

Congrats to the mods and to most of the posters here on the respectful and helpful contributions. Appropriate to the circumstances

Over at politics.ie moderation if any seems to be light.

Some very hurtful and stupid posts are still up there despite protests from some posters.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Ok. I get that.

What I don't get is how 2 different people, interrogating the last updated information today would get such wildly different results.

One of us used a laptop and the other one used an iPad. Beyond that I don't know.

elastico wrote: »

Bear in mind the investigators know a lot more than us. There is no way they would mention operational issues being their focus unless they are pretty damn sure that's what it was.

Again, I disagree.
They have said that is their current focus.

They know what they are doing and are focusing and prioritising their resources in a methodical pattern that starts with the obvious and digs ever deeper until they eventually find the cause.
Nothing has been ruled out yet I can assure you.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Ok. I get that.

What I don't get is how 2 different people, interrogating the last updated information today would get such wildly different results.

I don't get that either.

We should all agree that the data can't be trusted and stop attempting to draw conclusions from it.

Steve wrote: »

Again, I disagree.
They have said that is their current focus.

They know what they are doing and are focusing and prioritising their resources in a methodical pattern that starts with the obvious and digs ever deeper until they eventually find the cause.
Nothing has been ruled out yet I can assure you.

Time will tell but for me it's as simple as somebody sticking blackrock into the satnav instead of blacksod thus setting in place a chain of events that ended in disaster.

Perhaps I am wrong to even think such a slight oversight could happen at all and could have such terrible consequences but we shall have to wait and see.

elastico wrote: »

One of us used a laptop and the other one used an iPad. Beyond that I don't know.

Ok, I get that as wel. You each used a different application to access the same underlying data from a database that was updated almost 3 weeks ago. And yet, you got two completely different results.

I fully understand that the collection of AIS relies on all the receivers that are in the hands of enthusiasts etc. I also understand that packets of data that are collected by this network of receivers can get corrupted. However, once collected and transmitted to and stored by the MarineTraffic database, the packets of data don't change, and whether one uses a laptop, an iPad or an intelligent washing machine to retrieve the data and present it to a user, the same results should be presented.

elastico wrote: »

Time will tell but for me it's as simple as somebody sticking blackrock into the satnav instead of blacksod thus setting in place a chain of events that ended in disaster.

Perhaps I am wrong to even think such a slight oversight could happen at all and could have such terrible consequences but we shall have to wait and see.

That would be drifting back into speculation though and we're not going there till there is some evidence of it.

One of the questions I asked earlier in the thread was if Black Rock exists in the current AIRAC cycle, I don't believe it was answered.

Steve wrote: »

I don't get that either.

We should all agree that the data can't be trusted and stop attempting to draw conclusions from it.

In which case, probably half the commentary on this thread was based on meaningless drivel...

:eek::eek::eek:

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Ok, I get that as wel. You each used a different application to access the same underlying data from a database that was updated almost 3 weeks ago. And yet, you got two completely different results.

I fully understand that the collection of AIS relies on all the receivers that are in the hands of enthusiasts etc. I also understand that packets of data that are collected by this network of receivers can get corrupted. However, once collected and transmitted to and stored by the MarineTraffic database, the packets of data don't change, and whether one uses a laptop, an iPad or an intelligent washing machine to retrieve the data and present it to a user, the same results should be presented.

I agree. I have no answer to that, only MT could possibly explain it

Were there any flightaware or flightradar tracks recorded for this flight?

TomOnBoard wrote: »

In which case, probably half the commentary on this thread was based on meaningless drivel...

:eek::eek::eek:

Way more than half.

Thankfully most of them were deleted.

Steve wrote: »

Way more than half.

Thankfully most of them were deleted.

So basically, we (the great unwashed) don't know what speed R116 was travelling at the time. It could be 90 or 9 or something else.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

So basically, we (the great unwashed) don't know what speed R116 was travelling at the time. It could be 90 or 9 or something else.

Basically, yes, until the FDR data is published we know squat.

Steve wrote: »

Basically, yes, until the FDR data is published we know squat.

It sounds like the prelim report is imminent, that will clarify matters substantially I expect.

Steve wrote: »

Basically, yes, until the FDR data is published we know squat.

Someone really ought to tell that to the lads over on Pprune, P.ie etc., so them lads don't have to waste any more time figuring it out....

Negative_G

For those dicsussing the CVFDR.. The flight time from Dublin to end of recording was likely in the region of 60 mins or so. The authoririties have had this data for days now.

It is safe to say that they have examined this data in detail. They would have been obliged to examine and release the information they had so as to ensure there was no fleet wide issue.

They have said that there was no mechanical issues, or words to that effect. In other words it was CFIT. There is no point beating around the bush. This is no reflection on the crew, nor should it be. This is one of the realities of aviation.

<snip>

The forum appears to be heavily populated by enthusiasts who have no real experience or appreciation for aviation (aside from a hobby), outside of what the pictures they take or what they read online. In an instance such as this, as rare as it may be, proven informed posters should be afforded the opportunity to contribute their input. This is not to say "I've had X information" etc but based on real world commercial operations.

<snip>

elastico wrote: »

It sounds like the prelim report is imminent, that will clarify matters substantially I expect.

I hope so, and I also hope it will allow debate to continue here that is based on facts.

Tenger

Pretty good article in Irish Times details the recovery operation yesterday and talks about the sadness of not finding the 2 crew during the lift of the helicopter.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/deep-disappointment-at-failure-to-find-missing-rescue-116-airmen-1.3034179?mode=amp

[Deleted User]

Steve wrote: »

I hope so, and I also hope it will allow debate to continue here that is based on facts.

Not necessarily, they can be annoyingly vague and unhelpful. I wouldn't expect anymore detail than was in their press statement about mechanical issues. It'll basically be factual information known at this stage.

Gaoth Laidir

Just on the 90 versus 9 knots issue. The image showing 9 knots was only one image posted on pprune about 2 weeks ago. I don't think anyone has accessed that information from MT now. As far as I know MT is showing 90 knots and that's it, or am I wrong? Has anyone gotten 9 knots recently?

Samaris

As someone inexperienced with helicopters who's been trying to follow this thread and understand the technotalk, seems to me it might get further without the constant falling back into the same squabble. It really is tiresome to read after three or four rounds of it. Even if CFIT is -right-, it was unproven speculation at the time, wasn't it, and speculation that could have caused hurt to family members looking for more information themselves on helicopters or procedures. Which I took as being the point. Like, an internet poster being right two weeks ago makes no difference to the investigation, really. Not like they were relying on us to tell them what happened.

Four people are dead and they died doing something heroic, the job they went out to do knowing that this could happen on any mission, even one as apparently straight-forward as that poor guy on the ship, (who's probably thoroughly traumatised over the outcome). Don't deserve to be used as a way to punch posters. If the rule is that there must be evidence released by an investigation to make a point, then..that's the rule, it's not like it's not been made clear.

Admittedly, there's also something a bit grey-area (albeit understandable) about "hoping" it's a mechanical issue, which suggests everyone else using those helicopters are also at risk and I bet gave some very bad days to the guys who worked on designing, building and maintaining the R116.

I also hope it hasn't put the guys on that ship off calling in the coastguard when it's needed. Horrible thing to happen. I lived in Tramore when the R111 went down. The monument is very familiar to me and I've read it many times. Tramore Bay is dangerous and has always been good at claiming lives. It's a tragedy that now another one will be raised with four more lives claimed by the sea and a treacherous shoreline. For a rocky little Atlantic island like ours, these guys are heroes.

(If this is off-topic, please delete, I don't want to derail a technical discussion.) Somewhat technical question though - was it true that Blackrock wasn't on the maps? It was brought up in here a few pages back and it's niggled at me since.

Cianmcliam

Black Rock is definitely on the latest edition of the paper OSI map, I think it is sheet 30. It is in an inset further towards the mainland though, not in its correct geographic position. It is present on the aeronautical maps but only as a point, there is no contour data on these maps. It is not indicated at all on the electronic version of the OSI 1:50,000 maps which gives the contour data.

It seems conceivable then that it was not in the same location if you just glanced at the latest paper OSI map, you would have to figure out its location from the co-ordinates marked around the inset. It is also conceivable that other mapping providers purchase the electronic contour data from the OSI, this seems to be the dataset on which Black Rock is missing.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Someone really ought to tell that to the lads over on Pprune, P.ie etc., so them lads don't have to waste any more time figuring it out....

Even we can't be guaranteed she arrived at 9 knots I would be slow to rule it out too.