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

ectoraige · 13-04-2017 10:33PM

Feeling both sad and angry right now. Like so many accidents, this flight could so easily have had a different outcome. When it was first mooted that Blackrock island and its lighthouse - a navigational aid - may not have been on their terrain charts, it just seemed inconceivable. Yet there it is in the report, missing from both the obstacle and terrain databases.

It's disappointing the crew appear to have missed the altitude of black rock in the route guide, especially having identified their unfamiliarity with the approach. One can only presume that the moving map display also happened to be in a mode that omitted blackrock since the commander had made reference to a 'small little island'. I'm hope there'll be more clarity on that in the final report.

I'm just so sad for their families, but furious that this happened the way it did. I hope by chance the remaining crew wash up somewhere so their families can have some closure.

ectoraige · 13-04-2017 10:35PM

cabledude wrote: »

Did they mistake Blackrock for Blacksod?

No, we can finally put that one to bed.

elastico · 13-04-2017 10:35PM

mickdw wrote: »

Prime time report was on the money early days noting the lack of the rock within the database abd even referring the winch guys in the back having night vision which we now know they were using but only saw the rock with 10 seconds to spare.
I guess at least the crew can be cleared if they diligently flew an approved approach.

I disagree.

I think not being on a database is a red herring, and is being turned into a scapegoat at this stage.

10-12k from destination, they should not have been anywhere near 200ft.

In my opinion they wrongly set blackrock as destination and tried to land there, they realised it too late.

coolhandspan · 13-04-2017 10:38PM

Hi elastico, i value your opinion also, but why not at 200ft?? they were on a run in to balacksod according to extracts?

cabledude · 13-04-2017 10:38PM

Reati wrote: »

No, I don't believe so. They were flying the company approach and didn't seem to know the Blackrock was in front of them till it was too late.

Ok. So, if they were using an island as a way point, why fly at 170 ft. Why not stay at 300 ft or higher to avoid any risk of the island they were using as a waypoint.

Trying to figure this out. Not very well versed in navigation.

elastico · 13-04-2017 10:40PM

ectoraige wrote: »

No, we can finally put that one to bed.

How so? Can you explain why they were at 200ft 10-12K from destination?

ectoraige · 13-04-2017 10:40PM

P.lane78 wrote: »

Is 200 feet the company approach

With a cloud base of 300-400ft, flying at 200 feet seems reasonable. The second page of the route guide wasn't published but it may be that minimums weren't clearly highlighted.

Irish Steve · 13-04-2017 10:40PM

The interim report from AAIU makes harrowing reading, and has raised a number of challenging issues that will have to be addressed.

We do not have the full details of the company approach, which means we are very much in a vacuum for now, I doubt we will see any more details about that aspect until the final report. I find the request by AAIU for a review of CHC procedures to be "challenging", they clearly have access to more information which has enabled them to make a more specific analysis, but that detail is not published for now.

The media comments about 116 being in Blacksod in recent weeks prior to the accident may be correct, but if it was, a different crew were flying it, based on the reported discussion about the elapsed time since the last visit to Blacksod by both pilots, and there is clearly some hesitancy about their exact location over the ground in relation to observed locations.

I also find it interesting that the database suppliers name has been redacted out of the report, and that it is mentioned that there are discrepancies between map data depending on which source is used, which merits "further investigation".

As we do not have the full details of the CHC approach procedure, we cannot say that the crew of 116 were or were not flying that procedure correctly, but there is nothing in the interim report to indicate that they were not, and it is clear from the information given that there was no confusion between Blackrock and Blacksod. It is also clear that they carried out a briefing on the procedure.

Very sad reading. A very capable, competent and experienced crew have been lost in circumstances that are not yet fully explained. There is no implication or suggestion that they were doing anything outside of the company procedures. We can only hope that the eventual final report will be able to clarify the anomalies that are highlighted so far, and hope that the remains of the missing 2 crew members will be found, so that their families can indeed get the closure they deserve.

kona · 13-04-2017 10:41PM

Seems alot of small issues came together and caused the crash.

Flying at 200ft must be unusual around those parts, but for a nav data Base not to have the terrain loaded is pretty shocking.

Such a unfortunate crash.

Bussywussy · 13-04-2017 10:42PM

cabledude wrote: »

Ok. So, if they were using an island as a way point, why fly at 170 ft. Why not stay at 300 ft or higher to avoid any risk of the island they were using as a waypoint.

Trying to figure this out. Not very well versed in navigation.

They weren't using an island as a waypoint

elastico · 13-04-2017 10:42PM

coolhandspan wrote: »

Hi elastico, i value your opinion also, but why not at 200ft?? they were on a run in to balacksod according to extracts?

I am no expert, but blacksod and blackrock are 10-12K apart, a gradual decent would have them around 3000ft over blackrock on their way to blacksod.

allthedoyles · 13-04-2017 10:44PM

Will CHC be held accountable for insufficient software / possibility of criminal charges ?

kona · 13-04-2017 10:45PM

allthedoyles wrote: »

Will CHC be held accountable for insufficient software / possibility of criminal charges ?

No.

TomOnBoard · 13-04-2017 10:45PM

elastico wrote: »

I disagree.

I think not being on a database is a red herring, and is being turned into a scapegoat at this stage.

10-12k from destination, they should not have been anywhere near 200ft.

In my opinion they wrongly set blackrock as destination and tried to land there, they realised it too late.

The report explains the 200ft question. It was part of the Approach1 pre-programmed option to allow the aircraft change from high altitude/high speed flight to low altitude/ low speed flight. It also governs the speed to 80kts, which was then adjusted manually to 75kts to allow for tailwinds.

coolhandspan · 13-04-2017 10:45PM

http://www.dynamicflight.com/aerodynamics/autos/index2.shtml

yeah i some what agree but above link shows rates of descent vary greatly.

I think with the evidence presented so far we should give flight crew benefit of doubt.

elastico · 13-04-2017 10:45PM

cabledude wrote: »

Ok. So, if they were using an island as a way point, why fly at 170 ft. Why not stay at 300 ft or higher to avoid any risk of the island they were using as a waypoint.

Trying to figure this out. Not very well versed in navigation.

Which goes back to what I have been saying all along. They knew the landmass was there, they set it as a target, this stuff about it not being on their charts is a red herring, they knew it was there, and aimed for it.

Cianmcliam · 13-04-2017 10:47PM

I wonder why the map data provider name was redacted. Seems anyone using the same provider needs to review or compare it against others to see if any other islands are missing.

Bussywussy · 13-04-2017 10:47PM

elastico wrote: »

Which goes back to what I have been saying all along. They knew the landmass was there, they set it as a target, this stuff about it not being on their charts is a red herring, they knew it was there, and aimed for it.

Where in report does it say blackrock was set as a target?? I suggest you read it properly

cabledude · 13-04-2017 10:49PM

Steve wrote: »

BKLMO is a point of interest as a SAR waypoint for sure, whether it should be part of an approach is something the AAIU are sure to investigate in more depth.

Bussywussy wrote: »

They weren't using an island as a waypoint

Think they were.

ectoraige · 13-04-2017 10:49PM

elastico wrote: »

How so? Can you explain why they were at 200ft 10-12K from destination?

The company policy for landing at Blacksod is to begin the approach at a waypoint right at Blackrock. On the night in question the cloudbase was 300-400ft. In order to make a VFR approach they had to be below that at the start. That's why they were at 200ft. Maybe read the report?

elastico · 13-04-2017 10:50PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The report explains the 200ft question. It was part of the Approach1 pre-programmed option to allow the aircraft change from high altitude/high speed flight to low altitude/ low speed flight. It also governs the speed to 80kts, which was then adjusted manually to 75kts to allow for tailwinds.

I am no expert, but I am not sure it does, makes no sense to be at 200ft ~10-12K out and knowingly set and island as a waypoint.

No sense at all.

scuby · 13-04-2017 10:51PM

elastico wrote:

Which goes back to what I have been saying all along. They knew the landmass was there, they set it as a target, this stuff about it not being on their charts is a red herring, they knew it was there, and aimed for it.

At 90knots ? Per last screen shot on marinetraffic....if not on their maps, which ties in with rear crew raising an alert, they were not aware it was there...... I'm really upset on reading the report and thinking of their last mins on what they saw before the end

Bussywussy · 13-04-2017 10:52PM

cabledude wrote: »

Think they were.

Read the report,this is not the island ffs

P.lane78 · 13-04-2017 10:52PM

ectoraige wrote: »

The company policy for landing at Blacksod is to begin the approach at a waypoint right at Blackrock. On the night in question the cloudbase was 300-400ft. In order to make a VFR approach they had to be below that at the start. That's why they were at 200ft. Maybe read the report?

The interim report recommended that CHC review there sop policies

ectoraige · 13-04-2017 10:53PM

Note by the way, there may be other prepared approaches but the preliminary report doesn't mention then, it just deals with the approach the crew were about to take.

kona · 13-04-2017 10:53PM

elastico wrote: »

Which goes back to what I have been saying all along. They knew the landmass was there, they set it as a target, this stuff about it not being on their charts is a red herring, they knew it was there, and aimed for it.

That's not the case at all. They were obviously flying by instruments. The nav data Base will provide the gpws and the nav display with the terrain.
He flew straight towards the rock because his autopilot took him.there as that's the info it was given.
The rock was spotted by the Winchman using his night vision/infrared suite and told the pilot to change the heading to the right by 20 degrees.

Obviously this was either too late or a delay happend, they knew they were in the ****, pulled up and the tails end hit the rock leaving beind it's rotors, and intermediate gearbox on the rock.

The torque of the main rotor would have cause the helicopter to spin out of control and impact the sea.

Steve · 13-04-2017 10:53PM

elastico wrote: »

I am no expert, but I am not sure it does, makes no sense to be at 200ft ~10-12K out and knowingly set and island as a waypoint.

No sense at all.

I don't think you have read and understood the report, please desist with this line of argument.

selectamatic · 13-04-2017 10:54PM

Capt. Fitzpatrick indicated that BLKMO was the little island below as they flew over carrickduff and carrickad she indicated as such in response to a rad alt automated callout of
"altitude altitude"
which was heard 26 seconds prior to impact with blackrock. To me it seems rad alt was warning of blackrock but it was unfortunately and mistakenly believed to be referring to either Carrickduff or Carrickad could be mistaken on that.

The warning issued by one of the rear crewmembers could have been enough however what seems to be a lack of awareness and any other automated warnings re: blackrock meant the evasive manoeuvre was undertaken too late as the rear crewmember was asked to confirm his initial warning.

An apparent lack of knowledge of blackrock itself, the quite frankly ridiculous standard approach to blacksod named ABPSS which brings the aircraft perilously and in this case fataly close to the only obstacle for miles around
(a 289ft obstacle at that) coupled with the map systems shortcommings appear to be the main factors of the accident in my eyes.

The bit about the GPS transmitters and the location beacons incorrect positioning in the mk44 lifejackets is the saddest finding in my view had this issue not have been present perhaps the two lads would have been found by now

Alkers · 13-04-2017 10:55PM

Why do you find it challenging? It seems pretty reasonable that CRC review all of their approaches to ensure sufficient gpws data in light of these developments. I'm confused as to your interpretation?

elastico · 13-04-2017 10:56PM

scuby wrote: »

At 90knots ? Per last screen shot on marinetraffic....if not on their maps, which ties in with rear crew raising an alert, they were not aware it was there...... I'm really upset on reading the report and thinking of their last mins on what they saw before the end

The one that showed them at 9Knots?

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

Comments