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

Tenger · 04-04-2017 12:03PM

Vicwatson merely expressed his (?) personal feelings on the matter.
2 replies have been given. That might be enough feedback on that.
As posted above, whatever comforts the family is what matters.

ted1 · 04-04-2017 01:50PM

vicwatson wrote: »

Steve wrote: »

Touching post from rescue 115 here:

https://www.facebook.com/SAR115/posts/1829883597261835

All a bit too deep religious for me. God and prayers won't find these heroes. I hope they are returned soon to their families.

Crisis and times of need tend to bring out the religion in people.

04-04-2017 02:02PM

vicwatson wrote: »

All a bit too deep religious for me. God and prayers won't find these heroes. I hope they are returned soon to their families.

In fairness losing someone close to you can lead to you having a more religious slant on things than before, I'm not normally religious but the the concept brough some comfort when it was needed.

Henry Ford III · 04-04-2017 02:24PM

Nothing factually has changed here. The helicopter crashed and 2 bodies have been found, and 2 others are still missing. It's a terribly sad situation.

I find the fact that people, with anonymity, post wholly speculative theories on what happened to the aircraft and it's crew inappropriate, disrespectful, and distasteful.

What possible good could come of such posts?

I hope the remaining crew are found and that their families and colleagues can begin to find peace with what's happened.

BoatMad · 04-04-2017 02:58PM

I find the fact that people, with anonymity, post wholly speculative theories on what happened to the aircraft and it's crew inappropriate, disrespectful, and distasteful.

just how is it disrespectful or distasteful. The accident was caused by something, we are spiralling in based on information to date on what that is. Is there something that we shouldn't say, like did the crew make a mistake ( maybe they did and maybe they didnt ) People are human, they are not robots , a Mistake is not blame for example ( speaking hypothetically)

Assigning blame is distasteful , a sober and respectful analysis of known facts, and as much informed speculation and even logical extension, is and cannot be regarded as distasteful. The reasons why this crash occurred are far more important that the crash itself

the alternative is a thread full of platitudes

elastico · 04-04-2017 03:04PM

BoatMad wrote: »

just how is it disrespectful or distasteful. The accident was caused by something, we are spiralling in based on information to date on what that is. Is there something that we shouldn't say, like did the crew make a mistake ( maybe they did and maybe they didnt )

Assigning blame is distasteful , a sober and respectful analysis of known facts, and as much informed speculation and even logical extension, is and cannot be regarded as distasteful. The reasons why this crash occurred are far more important that the crash itself

the alternative is a thread full of platitudes

Well said,

This is a discussion forum.

And factually a lot has changed, nobody is genuinely disputing it's a CFIT now.

And that's based on Juergen whytes expert analysis.

Gaoth Laidir · 04-04-2017 03:05PM

I don't know but I've learned a hell of a lot from the discussion on this thread. A lot of stuff that will hopefully make me a safer pilot in the future. Yes a lot of it is stuff way above the level that I will ever need as a mere fixed-wing PPL but it does reinforce the fact that any pilot of any level must always be prepared and trying to be one step ahead at all times.

So for that, I'm glad that some sort of discussion is still allowed, however limited.

Gaoth Laidir · 04-04-2017 03:22PM

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Yes the accident was caused by something. We don't know by what exactly yet. 2 crew members are still missing.

Wouldn't it therefore be better to hold your council until such time as the facts are known out of respect for those missing or lost?

We're discussing based on what we know so far. Please point out some quotes of what has been distasteful and speculative.

TomOnBoard · 04-04-2017 03:27PM

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

We're discussing based on what we know so far. Please point out some quotes of what has been distasteful and speculative.

Specifically on your question as to what has been speculative, almost everything has been, other than the facts that a helicopter flew from Dublin and 'crashed' at or near Blackrock Island with resulting consequences.

TomOnBoard · 04-04-2017 03:34PM

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

We're discussing based on what we know so far. Please point out some quotes of what has been distasteful and speculative.

As to what has been distasteful, that is a very different to matter, as a judgement of what is distasteful or otherwise is entirely subjective and as such can vary widely from person to person.

BoatMad · 04-04-2017 03:50PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Specifically on your question as to what has been speculative, almost everything has been, other than the facts that a helicopter flew from Dublin and 'crashed' at or near Blackrock Island with resulting consequences.

IM sorry , but we know much more then that we know as basic fact or a reasonable deduction

(a) The route flown ,as shown by AIS , was not to blacksod, a refuelling base at or near sea level but to blackrock, which is not a refuelling base, has a landing pad that is not designed to take a S-92 and is 300 feet above sea level, we also know ( from comments on other sites by pilots who have accessed blacksod, that a typical SOP , involves a turn and an approached from west as the lighthouse is on the eastern edge of the helipad)

(b) we know that the radio traffic minutes before indicated the crew intended to land at Blacksod ( air traffic conversation is on the net )

( c) we know the aircraft struck the western side of the island and crashed into the sea on the eastern side

(d) er know that the reported speeds of the aircraft via AIS is disputed as either 9 knots or 70 knots, both of which are " curious "

(d) we know that no mechanical abnormalities were reported by the FDR upto the accident

(d) we know the equipment levels in the Irish S92 , and the crew tasks

Thats a lot more then " helo crashes at blackrock "

TomOnBoard · 04-04-2017 03:53PM

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I don't know but I've learned a hell of a lot from the discussion on this thread. A lot of stuff that will hopefully make me a safer pilot in the future. Yes a lot of it is stuff way above the level that I will ever need as a mere fixed-wing PPL but it does reinforce the fact that any pilot of any level must always be prepared and trying to be one step ahead at all times.

So for that, I'm glad that some sort of discussion is still allowed, however limited.

I too have learned a lot from this thread, although what I have learned has been more useful as a reminder to self to be even more careful about trusting stuff that is presented as fact, when in reality it is unproven. (This applies not just here but throughout so called fact based reporting in these times when the Leader of the Free World tweeting lies on a weekly basis.) Specifcally, so many theories and 'facts' were presented here based on the unreliable datum of last reported speed of R116 that, were they all to be removed, the thread would probably present only information relating to recovery efforts and platitudes.

That said, I don't hold with any view that nothing should be said out of 'respect for the dead'. Having been professionals, those dead would have wanted every effort to be made to find out what went wrong to ensure such an accident, however caused, would not recur. Granted, also as professionals, they would have wanted no rush to conclusion in that process, would have abhorred any rush to judgement, and would have decried some of the appalling postings in another chat room not far from here.

BoatMad · 04-04-2017 04:05PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I too have learned a lot from this thread, although what I have learned has been more useful as a reminder to self to be even more careful about trusting stuff that is presented as fact, when in reality it is unproven. (This applies not just here but throughout so called fact based reporting in these times when the Leader of the Free World tweeting lies on a weekly basis.) Specifcally, so many theories and 'facts' were presented here based on the unreliable datum of last reported speed of R116 that, were they all to be removed, the thread would probably present only information relating to recovery efforts and platitudes.

That said, I don't hold with any view that nothing should be said out of 'respect for the dead'. Having been professionals, those dead would have wanted every effort to be made to find out what went wrong to ensure such an accident, however caused, would not recur. Granted, also as professionals, they would have wanted no rush to conclusion in that process, would have abhorred any rush to judgement, and would have decried some of the appalling postings in another chat room not far from here.

just one issue, There is disagreement over the final speed as recorded by AIS. There is no disagreement about the course taken ( and the reciprocal turn ) and the peculiar situation of a helicopter arriving in the vicinity of blackrock , when a few moments before the radio operator alerted shannon that they intended to land at blacksod. ( we dont know what the ICG SOP is here , ICG obviously know but they are keeping stum)

As you mentioned , the leader of the fee world. the issue here is that a lot of fake news, is people telling you that real facts ( or well informed speculation ) are intact false and fake , just as much as purely invented news is also fake,

TomOnBoard · 04-04-2017 04:21PM

BoatMad wrote: »

IM sorry , but we know much more then that we know as basic fact or a reasonable deduction

(d) er know that the reported speeds of the aircraft via AIS is disputed as either 9 knots or 70 knots, both of which are " curious "

The last reported speed was variously used as 90 or 9 Kts. Each of these have been used in their turn to speculate on what happened, such speculation became the basis for more speculation etc.

And now, just as we are discussing the issue, you've just introduced another final speed of 70!!!

BoatMad · 04-04-2017 04:24PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The last reported speed was variously used as 90 or 9 Kts. Each of these have been used in their turn to speculate on what happened, such speculation became the basis for more speculation etc.

And now, just as we are discussing the issue, you've just introduced another final speed of 70!!!

sorry just a typo, I specifically mentioned speed differences to highlight that this information is not reliable ( AIS reported speed is notorious for being delayed/wrong anyway )

TomOnBoard · 04-04-2017 04:25PM

BoatMad wrote: »

As you mentioned , the leader of the fee world. the issue here is that a lot of fake news, is people telling you that real facts ( or well informed speculation ) are intact false and fake , just as much as purely invented news is also fake,

Agree fully

de biz · 04-04-2017 05:07PM

EI-ICD has taken up the Rescue 116 callsign at the Dublin base.

adam88 · 04-04-2017 05:15PM

de biz wrote: »

EI-ICD has taken up the Rescue 116 callsign at the Dublin base.

Would have been a nice gesture if they had retired that call sign

BoatMad · 04-04-2017 05:20PM

adam88 wrote: »

Would have been a nice gesture if they had retired that call sign

i feel the opposite , The use of the call sign shows the continuity of the service

Cessna_Pilot · 04-04-2017 05:32PM

de biz wrote: »

EI-ICD has taken up the Rescue 116 callsign at the Dublin base.

They just flew over the apartment here 20 odd minutes ago. Very sombering hearing and seeing them flying over. First time we've had a Rescue heli fly over since the accident night.
Could feel the hair on the back of my neck stand up!

BoatMad · 04-04-2017 05:36PM

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

They just flew over the apartment here 20 odd minutes ago. Very sombering hearing and seeing them flying over. First time we've had a Rescue heli fly over since the accident night.
Could feel the hair on the back of my neck stand up!

116 regularly few over my back garden , and Ive watched them exercise etc . I also had the privilege of meeting Dara. Ive been in the old Sikorsky as well and in my involvement with the RNLI seen them exercise many times together.

mind you I am a fan of the S62, that was a welcome sight looking up from a liferaft

de biz · 04-04-2017 05:46PM

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

They just flew over the apartment here 20 odd minutes ago. Very sombering hearing and seeing them flying over. First time we've had a Rescue heli fly over since the accident night.
Could feel the hair on the back of my neck stand up!

Indeed very poignant to hear the RESCUE 116 callsign being used today to honour the memory of lost comrades,

TomOnBoard · 04-04-2017 05:49PM

I see that Granuaile is showing stationery outside Galway port, Ocean Challenger is steaming just west of Blackrock on a track from Killybegs with Destination showing as Castletown Bere. Only the LE James Joyce is showing in its previously reported location, outside Blacksod.

Now that the remaining crew members were not recovered during the weekend lifting operation at Blackrock , have all further wreckage lifts been suspended there? In particular, no mention has been made IIRC of the cockpit wreckage having been lifted.

TomOnBoard · 04-04-2017 06:23PM

de biz wrote: »

EI-ICD has taken up the Rescue 116 callsign at the Dublin base.

Does that mean that the fleet now has no spare aircraft in service?

CardinalJ · 04-04-2017 06:29PM

de biz wrote:

Indeed very poignant to hear the RESCUE 116 callsign being used today to honour the memory of lost comrades,

"Welcome back" - so sad to hear.

Tenger · 04-04-2017 06:32PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Does that mean that the fleet now has no spare aircraft in service?

I would expect so. 4 helis, all now operating. No current 5th reserve airframe. CHC probably trying to source another airframe as we speak.

There was mention elsewhere online about SAR S92s in another nation leaving service soon. But I doubt that is a reliable source.

duskyjoe · 04-04-2017 06:34PM

I haven't said boo on this thread as I'm very uncomfortable with a huge amount of posts from all sides of the fence. I have to say my heart just sank when I hear the continuation of the call sign of rescue 116. Pure and utter tackless. As another poster mentioned and I concur, those in authority should retire the callsign rescue 116 out of respect and in memory of those who perished.

faoiarvok · 04-04-2017 06:40PM

I disagree, and concur with a previous poster that the continuation of the callsign pays respect to the lost crew, in that their colleagues continue to provide the vital and selfless service that they were committed to.

On a more pragmatic note, rescue callsigns are a matter of international agreement and are published so that other rescuers/mariners are aware who they are talking to in an emergency. Even if the callsign were to be retired, it could not happen instantly. It's not as simple as calling yourself something else.

TomOnBoard · 04-04-2017 06:46PM

Tenger wrote: »

I would expect so. 4 helis, all now operating. No current 5th reserve airframe. CHC probably trying to source another airframe as we speak.

There was mention elsewhere online about SAR S92s in another nation leaving service soon. But I doubt that is a reliable source.

While acknowledging the tragedy of the loss, 20% of the required helicopter capability is no longer in place, and the CoastGuard service needs to make a statement to update us all as to what is intended. Such an update is entirely independent of ongoing recovery efforts and should be completely divorced from the huge and understandable emotion surrounding those efforts.

Such a statement also needs to deal with the question of whether the part numbers identified in the Air Worthiness Directive from January form part of the current fleet, in which case the 16-man hour required borescope examination will be needed after every 10 hours of operation, thereby further impacting the 20% capability loss.

BoatMad · 04-04-2017 06:49PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

While acknowledging the tragedy of the loss, 20% of the required helicopter capability is no longer in place, and the CoastGuard service needs to make a statement to update us all as to what is intended. Such an update is entirely independent of ongoing recovery efforts and should be completely divorced from the huge and understandable emotion surrounding those efforts.

Such a statement also needs to deal with the question of whether the part numbers identified in the Air Worthiness Directive from January form part of the current fleet, in which case the 16-man hour required borescope examination will be needed after every 10 hours of operation, thereby further impacting the 20% capability loss.

good point, they need to get moving , but I presume CHC are contracted to supply an airframe, so I presume , given their resources, this shouldn't be two much of an issue

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

Comments