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.
Steve wrote: » Touching post from rescue 115 here:https://www.facebook.com/SAR115/posts/1829883597261835
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 "
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!!!
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,
de biz wrote: » EI-ICD has taken up the Rescue 116 callsign at the Dublin base.
adam88 wrote: » Would have been a nice gesture if they had retired that call sign
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!
de biz wrote: Indeed very poignant to hear the RESCUE 116 callsign being used today to honour the memory of lost comrades,
TomOnBoard wrote: » Does that mean that the fleet now has no spare aircraft in service?
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.
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.
