kona wrote: » Anybody who mentions that again should be banned. It's infuriating. The only figures that matter are in the report.
TallGlass wrote: » Out of interest, why is Google maps not used?
elastico wrote: » 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?
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.
Steve wrote: » You are adding nothing to this discussion other than to get peoples backs up. 1 week ban.
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.
kona wrote: » Yes really, the software was incorrect, it guided them into a rock.
elastico wrote: » If it was, this crash would have happened years ago surely?
ectoraige wrote: » 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?
TomOnBoard wrote: » I think that's the nub of a huge issue here. If your directions say turn left AT the church, but if I drive THROUGH the church, a very different result will occur. page 5 of the report states that "The Commander then requested a 'direct to BLKMO' selection" on the FMS, thereby inadvertently turning a waypoint into a destination. The EGPWS did not, and terrain mapping systems might not, have Blackrock data within them, thereby rendering their functionality dangerously useless as a means of warning or alerting the crew. The fact that BLKMO was even on a route as a company supplied route waypoint is astounding, given that it has a height of 282 ft, and a valid approach for that route (Approach1) had a flying height of 200 ft at a speed of 80 kts. Aghast!!!
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » I'm not sure if I'm interpreting what I'm reading correctly but was the intention to come right by inputting the direction instead of simply manual turning?
Valentina Savory Pacemaker wrote: » I think the bigger issue is the alleged voice recorder details coming into the public domain. It appears the winchmen saw Blackrock which wasnt on the map and knew they were gone!
A rear crew member identified an island, probably through the use of the EO/IR camera, approximately 13 seconds prior to the initial impact with terrain. He said “looking at an island just in, directly ahead of us now guys, you want to come right [Commander’s Name]”. In response to a query “OK, come right just confirm?” from the Commander, the rear crew member said “twenty degrees right yeah
Rear Crew 2.02:52.035: twenty degrees right yeah
Bussywussy wrote: » EGPWS isn't a navigation tool as the WS at the end indicates,the latest software avail was installed,the omission of Blackrock didn't guide them anywhere as EGPWS as I said is a warning system
kona wrote: » OK I'll explain this further. The pilot sets his auto pilot to whatever heading and speed and altitude he likes. It's dark so he's flying by his instruments. He descends to 200ft at 75 knots and is ticking away nicely. No warnings no nothing the he would expect to hear or see in the event of terrain ahead. Ticking along nicely, the Winchman sees the rock on his infrared suite and instructs the pilot to change his course 20 degrees to the right. Unfortunately he's too late. Now if the software had this information he would have heard "terrain terrain pull up". The pilot relied on his equipment which let him down because the software was wrong and inaccurate. This is what I'm saying.
Damien360 wrote: » I an a bit confused after reading the report. There is more than one mapping system but it mentions early in the report the option to add custom details. I assume this is for pylons etc for pilots to add. 116 and 118 would have flown there many times with many crews. Did nobody see the error in the maps before or was it too weird an omission to be really noticed. Very sad reading and the 2 recommendations just seem all too late.
L1011 wrote: Because its woefully inaccurate? Of the three* major commercial consumer map vendors it'd be dead last. It is not suitable for any safety critical purposes nor does it intend to be.
Dwarf.Shortage wrote: » BLKMO is not Blackrock Island, it's nearby but not the island.
UsedToWait wrote: » Excuse my ignorance, but was the helicopter being flown by autopilot when it crashed?
