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

TomOnBoard · 16-04-2017 09:30PM

For a Preliminary report, it seems from what I have read about its contents that the AAIU has produced a good report. In particular, it has made two recommendations that must be taken on board immediately.

There are clearly many questions that it has not answered, and some of those questions may not even fall within its remit. For the questions that it will ultimately be able to answer, it could be 1 to 2 years before a final report is produced. For the questions that fall outside its remit, it is unlikely to make any comment at all.

While the investigation is ongoing into the accident itself, there are still a range of issues/matters that have to be looked at now, to do with how the Coast Guard service is provided in Ireland. Within that, a range of issues need to be assessed such as:

- the need for Top Cover and the manner in which it should be employed;
- the role of the Aer Corps in the provision of Top Cover;
- the role of contractors such as CHC in the provision of a resilient, integrated service to a maritime nation whose oceanic remit in enormous;
- the extension/use of a privatised service contract for additional duties like HEMS/Medevac/Transplant transport in addition to Search and Rescue;
- the protocols for tasking scarce and expensive resources in response to a call from a trawler out in the Atlantic;
- a fuller review of what constitutes our duty as a civilized nation versus what has grown up through iterations of development is needed in tandem. Ask if we were starting right now, what type of service would we provide, how would we organize and run it, how much would we spend on it, how would we pay for it etc.
- any other issue that is considered appropriate.

These questions need to be asked and answered independently of the ongoing investigation and cannot await its finalization. Call it a root and branch review if you like; no matter what its called, it must be done.

Reati · 16-04-2017 09:38PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

- the protocols for tasking scarce and expensive resources in response to a call from a trawler out in the Atlantic;.

What it sounds like you are trying to say is some emergencies are not financially worth doing as it's expense to run a SAR service. This is not how SAR works and shouldn't be. It's about saving lives not counting the pennies.

The crews of the SAR teams have on numerous times said they'd rather be called out and not be needed then needed and not called.

Beersmith · 16-04-2017 09:42PM

If r116 had indeed not crashed but avoided the incident by a few meters can anyone say what would have happened, would they have flied a report and would there have been an investigation and recommendations? Unfortunately it seems like the loss of life is often the cause of changes.

Negative_G · 16-04-2017 09:46PM

Beersmith wrote: »

If r116 had indeed not crashed but avoided the incident by a few meters can anyone say what would have happened, would they have flied a report and would there have been an investigation and recommendations? Unfortunately it seems like the loss of life is often the cause of changes.

I think it is safe to assume that like many commercial operators they would have their own in house reporting system to record such events.

Given how many air crew they have I have no doubt that their would be a senior CHC member who is responsible for flight safety. It would be their job to investigate and report but it would be kept in house.

Beersmith · 16-04-2017 09:51PM

It seems from commercial aircraft that breaching minimums triggers investigation but SAR must be a different ballgame. Keeping so many things in house sounds like a terrible outcome.

Steve · 16-04-2017 09:55PM

Beersmith wrote: »

It seems from commercial aircraft that breaching minimums triggers investigation but SAR must be a different ballgame. Keeping so many things in house sounds like a terrible outcome.

It would have been investigated by AAIU as a 'serious incident'.

Flight crews don't cover up thing like this.

Negative_G · 16-04-2017 09:58PM

Beersmith wrote: »

It seems from commercial aircraft that breaching minimums triggers investigation but SAR must be a different ballgame. Keeping so many things in house sounds like a terrible outcome.

There was an AAIU report published not too long ago after an investigation where a young girl fell from the harness while being winched to one of the helicopters. I think it was R117 from Waterford.

There is no reason to publish every report? They are not obliged too, much like Ryanair and Aer Lingus who have their own in house reporting systems.

If something is deemed serious enough or if an incident occured, it is reported and investigated by the AAIU.

It is my understanding that CHC would be audited by the IAA on a routine basis also. Open to correction on this.

What warrants reporting and what warrants automatic reporting are two separate things and would be clearly defined in the company ops manual.

Oscar Bravo · 16-04-2017 10:29PM

Absolutely nothing to do with R116 but just some perspective as to how fast things can go wrong, here is an S92 hitting an antenna on approach to an oil rig earlier today

Gadgetman496 · 16-04-2017 10:49PM

Oscar Bravo wrote: »

Absolutely nothing to do with R116 but just some perspective as to how fast things can go wrong, here is an S92 hitting an antenna on approach to an oil rig earlier today

Why would that approach not have been from the other direction where there was little or no obstructions?

Irish Steve · 16-04-2017 11:22PM

Oscar Bravo wrote: »

Absolutely nothing to do with R116 but just some perspective as to how fast things can go wrong, here is an S92 hitting an antenna on approach to an oil rig earlier today

And for anyone that's wondering, that's the reason you don't try to get into a pad from a vertical hover without visual contact with the pad. This incident was very close to being a lot more serious, and it happened in clear visibility, the potential for things to go very bad very rapidly in poor visibility is now hopefully very clear.

Veloce · 17-04-2017 07:39AM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Why would that approach not have been from the other direction where there was little or no obstructions?

Possibly due to the wind direction? They have to land facing into it.

Buffman · 17-04-2017 08:32AM

Oscar Bravo wrote: »

Absolutely nothing to do with R116

BHS is CHCs Brazilian subsidiary, so we'll probably see some tabloids try to connect the two with their usual sensationalism.

Oscar Bravo wrote: »

but just some perspective as to how fast things can go wrong, here is an S92 hitting an antenna on approach to an oil rig earlier today

Ye, the bigger picture shows how close that was to a total loss if they'd gone off that helipad. I counted at least 19 people getting off in that video, very lucky guys.

Looks like significant damage to the fuselage, undercarriage and rotors, possible write off.

EchoIndia · 17-04-2017 09:13AM

Today's Irish Times carries this article, which seems to be put together from a trawling of discussion sites such as this one and/or PPrune. I find it rather surprising that a newspaper of record would run this without telling the readership the source of the material. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rescue-116-report-is-exceptionally-thorough-pilots-say-1.3051063

kippy · 17-04-2017 09:20AM

Buffman wrote: »

BHS is CHCs Brazilian subsidiary, so we'll probably see some tabloids try to connect the two with their usual sensationalism.

Ye, the bigger picture shows how close that was to a total loss if they'd gone off that helipad. I counted at least 19 people getting off in that video, very lucky guys.

Looks like significant damage to the fuselage, undercarriage and rotors, possible right off.

Recovery of that chopper is going to be interesting and costly - let alone the damage itself.

Cloudio9 · 17-04-2017 09:39AM

EchoIndia wrote: »

Today's Irish Times carries this article, which seems to be put together from a trawling of discussion sites such as this one and/or PPrune. I find it rather surprising that a newspaper of record would run this without telling the readership the source of the material. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rescue-116-report-is-exceptionally-thorough-pilots-say-1.3051063

No the journalist says in the article he spoke to a number of pilots who spoke on the condition of anonymity. It's Peter Murtagh, not a transition year student working in the Journal.

Also he has another article in the Irish Times today spending a day on call with the air corps emergency helicopter service.

EchoIndia · 17-04-2017 09:51AM

Cloudio9 wrote: »

No the journalist says in the article he spoke to a number of pilots who spoke on the condition of anonymity. It's Peter Murtagh, not a transition year student working in the Journal.

Also he has another article in the Irish Times today spending a day on call with the air corps emergency helicopter service.

I stand corrected if he has made that clear. The online version doesn't say anything explicit about the journalist having spoken directly to pilots. I do know Peter Murtagh's reputation and standing, which is why I was surprised at the way the article was couched.

Cloudio9 · 17-04-2017 10:02AM

EchoIndia wrote: »

I stand corrected if he has made that clear. The online version doesn't say anything explicit about the journalist having spoken directly to pilots. I do know Peter Murtagh's reputation and standing, which is why I was surprised at the way the article was couched.

"It is tragic that it wasn't in the [R116s] database but the crew obviously lost situation awareness as to where they were, said the pilot, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity."

deandean · 17-04-2017 01:16PM

That oil rig incident reminds me "any landing you walk away from, is a good one".

TomOnBoard · 17-04-2017 01:40PM

Reati wrote: »

What it sounds like you are trying to say

You're working hard at interpreting me, then putting your words in my mouth, then proceeding with your own argument based on using my mouth to make it. If you have something to say yourself, can you please use your own mouth and not mine to say it.

I wish people would read words that are written or said and consider those in the context in which they've been used and not something they wish or think had been written.

What I said (I thought reasonably clearly but I must be wrong if you needed to work so hard to interpret it ) was that, while the accident investigation itself is ongoing, there is a range of questions/ issues ( that have arisen here, and in other discussion fora) as a result of the post- accident scrutiny. This scrutiny has ranged across all the circumstances surrounding the night itself and has, in my opinion, surfaced so many questions that seem to have enough validity as to require examination and or assessment, including but not limited to a question around protocols for dealing with emergencies at sea.

These questions are probably outside the remit of the AAIU investigation and are sufficiently troubling as to require more urgent consideration than would be afforded by awaiting a final report. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would have a problem with that!

Reati · 17-04-2017 02:14PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

You're working hard at interpreting me, then putting your words in my mouth, then proceeding with your own argument based on using my mouth to make it. If you have something to say yourself, can you please use your own mouth and not mine to say it.

I wish people would read words that are written or said and consider those in the context in which they've been used and not something they wish or think had been written.

What I said (I thought reasonably clearly but I must be wrong if you needed to work so hard to interpret it ) was that, while the accident investigation itself is ongoing, there is a range of questions/ issues ( that have arisen here, and in other discussion fora) as a result of the post- accident scrutiny. This scrutiny has ranged across all the circumstances surrounding the night itself and has, in my opinion, surfaced so many questions that seem to have enough validity as to require examination and or assessment, including but not limited to a question around protocols for dealing with emergencies at sea.

These questions are probably outside the remit of the AAIU investigation and are sufficiently troubling as to require more urgent consideration than would be afforded by awaiting a final report. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would have a problem with that!

That's a whole lot of words. I'm not going to try interpret it as I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong

The protocols regarding medievac at sea had little to do with this crash and to be honest, if it does it's in the remit of the AAIU report.

TomOnBoard · 17-04-2017 06:17PM

Reati wrote: »

The protocols regarding medievac at sea had little to do with this crash

On that basis, nor did the availability or otherwise of the Aer Corps CASA and a number of other matters that have been validly raised as relevant to what happened on the night. It would be silly to focus solely on what happened inside the helicopter and blindly ignore other issues which have come to light.

Which is why I consider that the AAIU investigation will only focus on the flight leading to the crash itself, rather than the other issues that I listed, all of which have come from my reading of other peoples' valid observations.

Reati wrote: »

and to be honest, if it does it's in the remit of the AAIU report.

My point exactly!

duskyjoe · 18-04-2017 06:47AM

As everyone keeps going around and around in circles with conjecture it certainly begs the question who approved the company "let down" procedure for this CFIT accident to happen , reference Blackrock Island or the lack of ? I find it incredulous the regulatory authority in Ireland has zero input into want looks like a de facto "make your own arrangements" let down procedure. The IT article is bordering on sensationalism and not taking everything into account. Just my 2c

Reati · 18-04-2017 11:01AM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

It would be silly to focus solely on what happened inside the helicopter and blindly ignore other issues which have come to light.

I'd be surprised and disappointed if the AAIU report is so tunnel visioned that it won't consider other factors that contributed to the crash outside of cockpit.

Reati · 18-04-2017 04:32PM

Unrelated to R116 but an interesting watch.

Not sure I'd do well in the back of that!

Coil Kilcrea · 18-04-2017 06:21PM

Reati wrote: »

Unrelated to R116 but an interesting watch.

Not sure I'd do well in the back of that!

Wow... that's very impressive.

rustynutz · 18-04-2017 06:36PM

Reati wrote: »

Unrelated to R116 but an interesting watch.

Not sure I'd do well in the back of that!

Serious skills needed there. I'm assuming in most medevac cases at sea the casualty would be winched up rather than the heli attempting to land, is that the case?

faoiarvok · 18-04-2017 07:27PM

rustynutz wrote: »

Serious skills needed there. I'm assuming in most medevac cases at sea the casualty would be winched up rather than the heli attempting to land, is that the case?

Yes.

IRCG would certainly never land on a ship (unless we count an oil rig as a ship I suppose)

Stheno · 18-04-2017 07:41PM

THe Irish Airline Pilots Union have come out with a very strong statement condemning the release of the last two minutes of conversation in the preliminary report.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/unwarranted-unacceptable-counterproductive-pilots-union-condemn-release-of-rescue-116-cockpit-transcript-35633839.html

The statement claimed the report contravened the internationally agreed principles of accident investigation confidentiality, set out in ICAO Annex 13 and EU Accident Investigation Regulation 996/2010. The statement added that it unnecessarily adds to the burden of the victims' families, and is also a breach of trust to all those involved in commercial aviation.

Evan Cullen, President of the Irish Air Line Pilots' Association (IALPA) said: "There is absolutely no justification for - or benefit from - publishing specifically the last two minutes of this flight."

The statement went on to claim that the state is not permitted to make Cockpit Voice Recorder recordings and any transcripts from such recordings available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation though the relevant EU regulation appears to allow the competent authority some discretion.

Damien360 · 18-04-2017 07:44PM

Stheno wrote: »

THe Irish Airline Pilots Union have come out with a very strong statement condemning the release of the last two minutes of conversation in the preliminary report.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/unwarranted-unacceptable-counterproductive-pilots-union-condemn-release-of-rescue-116-cockpit-transcript-35633839.html

It really just comes across as circling the wagons. Without the last 2 mins the speculation would be much worse and then the families would be more concerned.

ProfessorPlum · 18-04-2017 08:25PM

Damien360 wrote: »

It really just comes across as circling the wagons. Without the last 2 mins the speculation would be much worse and then the families would be more concerned.

'Circling the Wagons' is not something that pilots do when it comes to accident investigation. Cop on.

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

Comments