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

gctest50 · 13-04-2017 10:56PM

The Rear Crew saw it :

Rear Crew channel :

20.02:46.767:

"K....looking at an island just in, directly ahead of us now guys, you want to come right [ Commanders Name]

Rear crew channel :

2.02:52.035:

twenty degrees right
yeah

2.02:59 ALTITUDE

Mebuntu · 13-04-2017 10:58PM

I found that chilling reading as the accident unfolded.

RonanFarrell wrote: »

How come previous landings didn't raise the issue or risk of the missing/incorrect data?

A very good question.

It would be interesting to know for sure if the databases on R118 were different and included Black Rock but I get the impression that were was one database compilation for all.

R116's previous landings at Blacksod (a long time ago, it appears) might have been in daylight so their approach route could have been from an entirely different point and they might never have been aware on the night that Black Rock was going to be an item which might explain the non-reference to it in discussions on the CVR.

scuby · 13-04-2017 10:58PM

elastico wrote:

The one that showed them at 9Knots?

The screen shot I have is 90

robyntmorton · 13-04-2017 10:59PM

From my reading of the report, we have the how of the accident:

* The aircraft crossed Ireland in a high altitude cruise.
* The aircraft transitioned from cruise to low level flight, stopping at 2,400 ft.
* The SAR APP1 mode was selected, which brings the aircraft to low level operations as per a standard process (to 200ft/80kt)
* We do not know what mode the EGPWS was in, but its low altitude switch was set to ON. This affects warnings issued, to avoid having the alarm sound while in the middle of the job.
* The aircraft was on approach to Blacksod as per a company SOP approach. We do not know whether this is machine flown, or manual via the autopilot systems
* The two pilots had not flown an approach to Blacksod recently
* There were weather issues in the area (mist/drizzle - visibility 2-3km)
* The Health and Usage Monitoring System HUMS recorded no technical anomalies.
* There was no mention of Blackrock in the approach briefing
* At impact -13 seconds the rear seat crew queried the presence of an island ahead, recommending a right turn for avoidance
* The pilot flying requested confirmation of turn
* Rear crew recommended a 20 degree right turn
* This was selected on the autopilot heading dial
* At the same time the rear crew started urgently repeating "come right"
* The aircraft struck the rock in a nose high attitude, and departed from controlled flight

All that tells us is what happened - that it was CIFT. It does not tell us WHY it happened. We do not know whether the crew mis positioned the aircraft at the start of the approach, if there was a slight position error provided to the flight management systems, or a number of factors which contributed to it.

I can only commend the crew, those involved in the rescue effort, and the AAIU for being so thorough in their preliminary report and work so far. We have been given a lot of detail tonight, which will of course require a lot more for the final report.

Bussywussy · 13-04-2017 10:59PM

kona wrote: »

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..

They navigation database and terrain database are completely different,the terrain database is on a card inserted into the EGPWS computer,the Terrain is shown on the navigation display if selected, it gets its position from the GPS and inertial navigation system.the navigation database is in the flight management system that contains way points, radio navigation aids etc etc

TallGlass · 13-04-2017 11:00PM

ectoraige wrote: »

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.

I am no expert, someone asked earlier basically 'why it was never noticed before', I assume this along with the starting point. Tragic that a crew lost there lives.

Out of interest, why is Google maps not used?

elastico · 13-04-2017 11:02PM

scuby wrote: »

The screen shot I have is 90

There is also a 9 knot version. You will have to read the relevant pages, covered way back, and draw your own conclusions.

kona · 13-04-2017 11:02PM

Bussywussy wrote: »

They navigation database and terrain database are completely different,the terrain database is on a card inserted into the EGPWS computer,the Terrain is shown on the navigation display if selected, it gets its position from the GPS and inertial navigation system.the navigation database is in the flight management system that contains way points, radio navigation aids etc etc

Well whatever database he had was wrong.

Junkyard Tom · 13-04-2017 11:03PM

Was lighthouse light was switched off too?

gctest50 · 13-04-2017 11:03PM

robyntmorton wrote: »

* Rear crew recommended a 20 degree right turn
.......

.

Are "Rear Crew" navigators ?

TallGlass · 13-04-2017 11:03PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Was lighthouse light was switched off too?

From the report, it was operational at the time.

Lighthouse Light on Light off
Eagle Island 13/03/2017 18.32:06 14/03/2017 06.59:06
Blacksod 13/03/2017 18.11:47 14/03/2017 07.05:01
Black Rock Mayo 13/03/2017 18.39:22 14/03/2017 06.45:07
Achillbeg 13/03/2017 18.33:09 14/03/2017 07.06:09

scuby · 13-04-2017 11:05PM

elastico wrote:

There is also a 9 knot version. You will have to read the relevant pages, covered way back, and draw your own conclusions.

I have read every single page from the start. ( not in the mood for a fight on this )

Alkers · 13-04-2017 11:05PM

Is there such thing as a voice procedure for the rear crew to report a sighting, hazard, obstacle etc to the pilot i.e. immediately attaching urgency to the report as it seems the slight delay in processing the report of the island could have had significant consequences.

Also it must have been harrowing for the other chopper crews searching around black rock and realising the island didn't feature on the gpws.

elastico · 13-04-2017 11:05PM

robyntmorton wrote: »

From my reading of the report, we have the how of the accident:

* The aircraft crossed Ireland in a high altitude cruise.
* The aircraft transitioned from cruise to low level flight, stopping at 2,400 ft.
* The SAR APP1 mode was selected, which brings the aircraft to low level operations as per a standard process (to 200ft/80kt)
* We do not know what mode the EGPWS was in, but its low altitude switch was set to ON. This affects warnings issued, to avoid having the alarm sound while in the middle of the job.
* The aircraft was on approach to Blacksod as per a company SOP approach. We do not know whether this is machine flown, or manual via the autopilot systems
* The two pilots had not flown an approach to Blacksod recently
* There were weather issues in the area (mist/drizzle - visibility 2-3km)
* The Health and Usage Monitoring System HUMS recorded no technical anomalies.
* There was no mention of Blackrock in the approach briefing
* At impact -13 seconds the rear seat crew queried the presence of an island ahead, recommending a right turn for avoidance
* The pilot flying requested confirmation of turn
* Rear crew recommended a 20 degree right turn
* This was selected on the autopilot heading dial
* At the same time the rear crew started urgently repeating "come right"
* The aircraft struck the rock in a nose high attitude, and departed from controlled flight

All that tells us is what happened - that it was CIFT. It does not tell us WHY it happened. We do not know whether the crew mis positioned the aircraft at the start of the approach, if there was a slight position error provided to the flight management systems, or a number of factors which contributed to it.

I can only commend the crew, those involved in the rescue effort, and the AAIU for being so thorough in their preliminary report and work so far. We have been given a lot of detail tonight, which will of course require a lot more for the final report.

If it was, this crash would have happened years ago surely?

Bussywussy · 13-04-2017 11:05PM

kona wrote: »

Well whatever database he had was wrong.

Not really,they used the latest up to date version available to them,it simply didn't contain Blackrock unfortunately
I think the recommendation is there from the AAIU

uck51js9zml2yt · 13-04-2017 11:06PM

Vincent Brown discussing it now. Seems Blackrock wasnt on the map.

Steve · 13-04-2017 11:06PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Was lighthouse light was switched off too?

Lighthouse was confirmed as operational in the report.

Comhrá · 13-04-2017 11:06PM

Being discussed now on Vincent Browne TV3.

elastico · 13-04-2017 11:07PM

scuby wrote: »

I have read every single page from the start. ( not in the mood for a fight on this )

Not looking for a fight either, but its well covered.

Alkers · 13-04-2017 11:07PM

Junkyard Tom wrote:

Was lighthouse light was switched off too?

All lights on the area confirmed to be working normally. Bare in mind the light is above 300feet and they were at 200feet, they may not have seen it and also i think it was at intervals of 12s

ectoraige · 13-04-2017 11:07PM

elastico, I think you're missing the fact that a waypoint is nothing more than a point on the map, sometimes it corresponds with a feature, sometimes not. BLKMO was the waypoint set, which does in this case correspond with Blackrock, but it was chosen because their route guide said to go to BLKMO to get to Blacksod.

If you asked for directions to a pub and I told you to turn left at a church would that mean you wanted to go to mass?

kona · 13-04-2017 11:08PM

Bussywussy wrote: »

Not really,they used the latest up to date version available to them,it simply didn't contain Blackrock unfortunately
I think the recommendation is there from the AAIU

Yes really, the software was incorrect, it guided them into a rock.

robyntmorton · 13-04-2017 11:08PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Are "Rear Crew" navigators ?

The rear crew consist of the winch operator and winchman. The winch operators station is fed with footage from the onboard Electro-Optic Infrared system, which can also be fed to cockpit screens if required. While not necessarily navigators, it can of course be beneficial for an extra pair of eyes to use the technology available.

Steve · 13-04-2017 11:08PM

elastico wrote: »

If it was, this crash would have happened years ago surely?

You are adding nothing to this discussion other than to get peoples backs up.

1 week ban.

arubex · 13-04-2017 11:10PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

11 seconds from "island ahead" to impact. surely thats enough time for evasive action?

At 75 kts ( ignoring tailwind for now ) they were covering ~40 metres per second. By the time the first exchange concluded with the rear crewman and the pilots dialed-in a heading change they'd already deducted nine seconds and 320 metres. Then there was the lag time of the autopilot actually executing the physical change of course on a 12-tonne helicopter and ___

Too late.

robyntmorton · 13-04-2017 11:12PM

elastico wrote: »

If it was, this crash would have happened years ago surely?

This is where it gets interesting, and we must ask what was different about THIS approach, on this day, that led to it all going wrong. We, at this time, do not know, but the AAIU have already recommended that this, and all standard approaches used by CHC for ICG roles be reviewed and updated as required. It is not that they are inherently unsafe (we do not know that one way or another) but can they be made safer, by improving the information available to crews, or by varying the routes used.

scuby · 13-04-2017 11:13PM

elastico wrote:

Not looking for a fight either, but its well covered.

Well covered....... which is right? Have you proof that it was 90 or 9 ? Either way, the speed was not the best ultimate cause !

TomOnBoard · 13-04-2017 11:13PM

scuby wrote: »

The screen shot I have is 90

Oh, noooo!!! Not the 90 versus 9 debate again!!

I despair!

The report published this evening deals with this...:(

Steve · 13-04-2017 11:15PM

Anyone else that mentions the 90kts vs 9kts AIS report again does do at risk of a week off as well. That has been well put to bed.

kona · 13-04-2017 11:16PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Oh, noooo!!! Not the 90 versus 9 debate again!!

I despair!

The report published this evening deals with this...:(

Anybody who mentions that again should be banned. It's infuriating.
The only figures that matter are in the report.

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

Comments