smurfjed wrote: » Landing beside Beaumont Hospital this evening.
smurfjed wrote: » Yep, it never lands in the Hospital grounds.
skallywag wrote: » It's unfortunately indicative of this thread from day one, it's been a boiling pot of condescending tones, sniping, arrogance and misplaced outrage. When one considers the subject matter being discussed here I think that some folk clearly need to take a step back and have a hard look in the mirror.
Oscar Bravo wrote: » Pat McGrath on twitter "huge response from fishing community to appeal for help.more that 120 boats now thought expected to take part tomorrow". what a fantastic community response
Means Of Escape wrote: » Hold up there a miniute The problem arose when there were a number of posters who dismissed outright other posters theories as to the chain of events insisting that any opinion that may be at loggerheads with their was mere speculation and unfounded from armchair investigators depite the posts being valid ones There was an element of brow beating going on especially from self titled experts in aviation What emerged from ihe heated debates were very informative and interesting propositions that at times were suffocated by the same inidividuals by jibes and indifference . Some posters got caught up over emotionally to the initial news of the tragedy and felt it was their duty to protect the good name of the crew despite all citing that the tragedy had little to do with their ability but rather than an error that anyone could make . The sniping and berating of posters only came from a very few who could not and would not accept an alternative point of view despite more than likely having less experience in aviation than those who believed that their unthinkable and unwarranted view maybe correct and confirmed by the impending report .
Coil Kilcrea wrote: » That is magnificent....an armada of goodness.
CaptainSkidmark wrote: » Has anything concrete been released about the cause of the accident?
Steve wrote: » There is method to this push as they are in the window where the remains of the crew are expected to surface for a time. sadly this won't last and they will sink again.
TomOnBoard wrote: » I never did get a clear picture on whether the Immersion Suits worn by the winch crew had any inherent buoyancy, independent of other inflatable life jackets etc that might have deployed or not. I'm asking as, in stuff I've read, innate natural buoyancy can be severely curtailed by both water temperature and pressure at the depth to which the person initially sinks. I'm not asking for any salacious or even objective scientific discussion around this; I'm just trying to understand the chances that we are in the window to which you refer. Also, if Immersion suits are still likely to be in place (whether to a greater or lesser extent) are they of a type that they will be seen by searchers, i.e are they of the hi- vis/fluorescent type I would think they should be?
Steve wrote: » Immersion / survival suits are designed to delay hypothermia by keeping the wearer dry. They are generally bright orange and have reflective material strips to aid SAR. AFAIK they don't have in built in buoyancy.
TomOnBoard wrote: » I have an alleged Immersion Suit myself, as I fish a lot on Lough Ree... The madness of my gear is that while it is labelled as an Immersion Suit, and has gaskets at wrists and ankles, it is presented in a lovely jungle camouflage pattern, so that when wearing it, I'll be invisible to the fishes. I think it came from 300 km West of Shanghai, so perhaps 'best practice' was not involved in its design...
cram1971 wrote: » I would imagine there will be a lot of talk about tomorrow's "Armada" (fair play very apt name for it) would it be worth its own new thread?
TomOnBoard wrote: » I had written a substantive response to this point, but my F^%#*%g laptop decided to drop its internet connection after I pressed the buttonand I lost it. (In more ways than one,I must admit!!) I'll spare both myself and you a reprise. So bluntly put: You make sense. The sense you make could apply equally to many other topics within the overall context of the loss of R116. This matter is not going away: it's likely to occupy us to a greater or lesser degree for the next 2-5 years, depending on when all incidental matters will have been reported upon. When the O.P placed the initial post here, s/he could not have known the gravity of the incident and the extent to which it would subsequently invade the consciousness of so many people. The last similar event in Ireland occurred in 1999 when R111 'died' in Tramore. When similar explosions of emotion and thirst for answers occurred then, they were only capable of being satisfied by such organs existing at that time like the Indo (mostly trusted then) for information, and the bar stool for groups of 2-5 people for discussion. Nowadays, t'Internet holds sway; regrettably more of us rely on places like Boards (sad I know but that's a reality which if its not your bag, ok but don't judge it with the side- smirk of the 'truly empowered' that don't need that mechanism) People need to emote, learn, discuss, espouse, pontificate etc. etc. on this subject. In social engineering terms, sensible and balanced well- grounded mechanisms like discussion groups that are online serve a very important purpose. Perhaps they reflect the disconnectness that many people feel within society. Regardless of the 'science' behind such mechanisms, if they work by including people (if not their views) in a group of shared- interest without which they would be largely alone in their thinking, that can only be a good thing. Clearly, the families, friends and colleagues are grieving the loss of the crew of R116. Knowing that, the baseline emotion of most Irish people will be to empathise with those people and to share that grief. Whether right or wrong, many will deal with that empathy by looking for answers. No doubt some trolls get their jollies by manipulating this piece. But most people are not trolls. The search for answers is a natural piece of the empathetic grieving process. It is no longer enough to say to people that "all will be revealed" and that we all must await the investigation's report. That may well have been adequate in respect of R111's demise in 1999; it simply can't work today. In 2017, the technology environment and use of its benefits across the world require answers in minutes when days would have been OK 20 years ago, and years would have OK 200 years ago. It is not for 'the public' to lower their expectation and be patient; rather, it is for the organs of the State involved in satisfying such expectation to find a way to bring processes and procedures into play that will work today, rather than re- using approaches that were OK 20 years ago and basically expecting 'the Public' to shut up until they are ready. So, back to Admin, and not intended to be confrontational or undermining Moderation actions for example, perhaps an approach that deals with the multi- faceted nature of this matter, and the multiple capabilities and subject matter experts who have roles to play 'going forward', in a way that breaks the Elephant down into chewable pieces could be devised.
Steve wrote: » I hear you. Multiply that frustration by 10 and maybe you will begin to understand what it has been like to be a moderator of this discussion. Being at the coal face of this and having to delete speculative thoughts that may in time turn out to be true has not been easy.
