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

faoiarvok · 23-04-2017 08:02PM

Cloudio9 wrote: »

So on point it would appear that a helicopter is best suited to the job despite what the self-appointed chairman of this thread was saying earlier.

It's a bit of a balancing act. Though a fixed wing aircraft cannot pick up casualties in the event of an emergency, they can get to the scene quicker (usually ahead of the helicopter) and get in touch with the vessel to prepare them for the heli's arrival, and brief the heli crew on hazards etc. before their arrival.

Fixed wing can also stay on station longer. Where a vessel/casualty's location is not known, an airplane can locate them before the heli arrives, reducing the chance of the helicopter using up all its on-scene fuel in the search for a casualty, and in the event of ditching, can keep an eye on casualties until another heli can get out, and can also drop liferafts to survivors.

Prior to the CASAs coming in to service with the AC, this job was traditionally done by RAF Nimrods.

From what we know of the sequence of events leading to R116's tasking, it seems fixed wing remains the preferred form of top cover.

TomOnBoard · 23-04-2017 08:50PM

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0423/869693-search--island/

Really sad about this.

Coil Kilcrea · 23-04-2017 09:00PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0423/869693-search--island/

Really sad about this.

Yes, a tremendous effort by all concerned and a terrible pity they didn't find the lads. Like many, I had really hoped a thorough search in this area would have yielded a result.

Coil Kilcrea · 23-04-2017 09:04PM

Cloudio9 wrote: »

So on point it would appear that a helicopter is best suited to the job despite what the self-appointed chairman of this thread was saying earlier.

Not necessarily so. To my knowledges most SAR services use fixed wing for Top Cover and have that capability within their own dedicated fleet.

faoiarvok · 23-04-2017 09:23PM

Coil Kilcrea wrote: »

Not necessarily so. To my knowledges most SAR services use fixed wing for Top Cover and have that capability within their own dedicated fleet.

Having a dedicated fixed wing asset for Ireland seems a bit OTT to me. Would possibly be more sensible to have a service level agreement with the Air Corps or some other operator for availability of one of their aircraft.

According to Wikipedia HM Coastguard contract 3 fixed wing aircraft separate to their helicopter contract for various roles including pollution spraying and surveillance as well as SAR

TomOnBoard · 23-04-2017 09:33PM

faoiarvok wrote: »

Having a dedicated fixed wing asset for Ireland seems a bit OTT to me. Would possibly be more sensible to have a service level agreement with the Air Corps or some other operator for availability of one of their aircraft.

The SAR Framework, dated 2010, contains a high level SLA covering just what you say (see image) The framework itself is available at http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/publications/maritime/english/irish-national-maritime-search-and-rescue-sar-framework/sar-framework.pdf

smurfjed · 23-04-2017 09:43PM

To my knowledges most SAR services use fixed wing for Top Cover and have that capability within their own dedicated fleet

Does that apply to commercial operators ? If so, what aircraft types do they use?

ectoraige · 23-04-2017 11:12PM

Cloudio9 wrote: »

So on point it would appear that a helicopter is best suited to the job despite what the self-appointed chairman of this thread was saying earlier.

Ideally fixed-wing top cover can drop life rafts to survivors and then stay on scene while organising rescue by other units.

Coil Kilcrea · 23-04-2017 11:56PM

smurfjed wrote: »

Does that apply to commercial operators ? If so, what aircraft types do they use?

No, I don't know of any commercial operators using fixed wing assets.

Coil Kilcrea · 24-04-2017 12:00AM

faoiarvok wrote: »

Having a dedicated fixed wing asset for Ireland seems a bit OTT to me. Would possibly be more sensible to have a service level agreement with the Air Corps or some other operator for availability of one of their aircraft.

According to Wikipedia HM Coastguard contract 3 fixed wing aircraft separate to their helicopter contract for various roles including pollution spraying and surveillance as well as SAR

Agreed. I think the Air Corps should be contracted to provide this service.

BoatMad · 24-04-2017 12:39PM

Coil Kilcrea wrote: »

Agreed. I think the Air Corps should be contracted to provide this service.

They were asked in this case , they are not in a position to provide 24 hour 7 days a week Casa cover. its essentially a 9-5 operation at present

BoatMad · 24-04-2017 12:43PM

Cloudio9 wrote: »

So on point it would appear that a helicopter is best suited to the job despite what the self-appointed chairman of this thread was saying earlier.

The primary aspect of top cover is not to provide rescue, but to aid in a long distance SAR operation, often primarily to provide VHF communications relay ability.

A helicopter is not the goto asset for top cover, IN the case of Rescue 118 , the Aer Corp was asked to provide fixed wing top cover, but it was unable to comply.

Given that its impractical to stage to helicopters together , using a slow helicopter to try and catch up to a helicopter that has already left for the rescue is plainly very unsatisfactory, as was seen in the recent tragedy not a good idea. Rescue 118 was already on the way back by the time 116 arrived on the west coast

BoatMad · 24-04-2017 12:45PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Interesting story I'm sure, but totally irrelevant to the discussion. I'm now as confused as Tom on what you are trying to say.

That the decision to deploy assets in often not necessarily . as far as the general public, understandable by the the same public, the decisions are the responsibility of the MMRC and may be seen by many as " over the top "

Negative_G · 24-04-2017 12:51PM

Coil Kilcrea wrote: »

Agreed. I think the Air Corps should be contracted to provide this service.

How do you contract an organisation that is critically understaffed, under resourced and with only two aging airframes.

The primary function of the CASA's is to conduct maritime surveillance and fishery patrols. This role should not be compromised in order to facilitate providing top cover for a civilian company.

Either the state invests the funds to acquire the people and aircraft to do it properly in addition or let CHC provide it themselves.

Negative_G · 24-04-2017 12:55PM

BoatMad wrote: »

They were asked in this case , they are not in a position to provide 24 hour 7 days a week Casa cover. its essentially a 9-5 operation at present

The SLA states that they provide cover on a "as available" basis.

As you correctly say though, for the time being at least they are effectively 9-5 which of course is the reason they could not provide top cover in the first instance and R116 was subsequently tasked.

BoatMad · 24-04-2017 12:56PM

Negative_G wrote: »

How do you contract an organisation that is critically understaffed, under resourced and with only two aging airframes.

The primary function of the CASA's is to conduct maritime surveillance and fishery patrols. This role should not be compromised in order to facilitate providing top cover for a civilian company.

Either the state invests the funds to acquire the people and aircraft to do it properly in addition or let CHC provide it themselves.

I see no advantage in the state " owning " SAR assets , A private company of the size of CHC has far better resources/finances then the state and is not subject to political pressure on those finances

Negative_G · 24-04-2017 01:00PM

BoatMad wrote: »

I see no advantage in the state " owning " SAR assets , A private company of the size of CHC has far better resources/finances then the state and is not subject to political pressure on those finances

But that's the thing. The state doesn't just own a "SAR asset" it potentially owns a multi role aircraft which can be used in a multiude of roles in support of the State.

There is perfect sense in the state owning such assets but there needs to be sufficient numbers of aircraft and crew in order to provide a reliable service and to meet any SLA obligations it may have.

Quite simply, two aircraft, both of which have the highest airframe hours of any CASA 235's in the world, is not sufficient.

BoatMad · 24-04-2017 01:16PM

Negative_G wrote: »

But that's the thing. The state doesn't just own a "SAR asset" it potentially owns a multi role aircraft which can be used in a multiude of roles in support of the State.

There is perfect sense in the state owning such assets but there needs to be sufficient numbers of aircraft and crew in order to provide a reliable service and to meet any SLA obligations it may have.

Quite simply, two aircraft, both of which have the highest airframe hours of any CASA 235's in the world, is not sufficient.

Least I be criticised again for talking about a topic not directly involved , There is indeed a need for a serious discussion about just exactly do we need in a Air Wing in this country. I ( and others ) have argued that a low cost ( relative ) jet airwing, should be provided . Saab offered a very attractive deal some years ago

it should be remember that Ireland once had the top fighter of the day , The supermarine Spitfire , in its arsenal , now we have an operation that wouldn't befit a broken third world country.

but aside from that , SAR is not a military function and best of class experience , elsewhere suggests it needs dedicated equipment and dedicated personnel that are not expected to have any military role .

jmayo · 24-04-2017 01:19PM

Wintergirl wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/fg-queries-500m-helicopter-agreement-1.571230

I don't have the exact figures but we are tied into an expensive contract.

I never took much notice really until this accident happened, never thought what SAR involved but now know they never say NO to anything so if you have a cut finger on a trawler you can have SAR on speed dial.

I never thought either of how much its costing, does anyone do a cost benefit analysis, I mean leaving the emotions out of it and just looking how much does the cost of each call out represent.

Maybe they should have an accountant on call to do a cost benefit analysis before they leave. :rolleyes:

Wintergirl wrote: »

I mean the chances of you needing a helicopter to get you to hospital means you are probably going to die anyway or have a very poor quality of life if you live.

Shure why bother at all then, just let them die.
For someone so concerned about the healthcare of some you appear to not care much about the healthcare of others.

Wintergirl wrote: »

It is a free country isn't it, its ok to ask these questions, Im sure a lot of people think like me and we don't know who to put our questions too without sounding heartless.

I sincerely hope a lot of people don't think like you.
Otherwise fishermen, people living on islands, etc would probably be told they are on their own if something happens.

smurfjed wrote: »

Does that apply to commercial operators ? If so, what aircraft types do they use?

HM Coastguard have Reims-Cessna F406 Caravans and Cessna 404s.
Now some of them are primarily deemed pollution control aircraft, but AFAIK they are also used in SAR operations.

They used to be operated by Air Atlantique (initially as Atlantic Air Transport Ltd/Reconnaissance Ventures Ltd).

A?ronautique navale use Dassault Falcon 20/200 and Falcon 50 for Search and Rescue work.
And US coastguard at one stage used a version of Falcon 20 for search and rescue work.

Italian coastguard have Piaggio P.166, the weird looking P.180 and ATR42.

US coastguard have HC-130, EADS HC-144 (successor to Casa 235) and Alenia C-27J Spartans.

Storm 10 · 24-04-2017 01:30PM

Rescue 115 into Galway from the Aran Islands with critical patient in the past hour, Air Corps 112 came in with another critical patient from the Roscommon direction, I guess Wintergirl would just leave them where they were and not use such expensive machines to save their lifes

Coil Kilcrea · 24-04-2017 02:37PM

Negative_G wrote: »

How do you contract an organisation that is critically understaffed, under resourced and with only two aging airframes.

The primary function of the CASA's is to conduct maritime surveillance and fishery patrols. This role should not be compromised in order to facilitate providing top cover for a civilian company.

Either the state invests the funds to acquire the people and aircraft to do it properly in addition or let CHC provide it themselves.

I would very much hope that this tragic event might finally force the politicians to properly resource the Air Corps. Time and time again we've kicked this can down the road, huffed and puffed, and generally acted the eejit. SAR services undertaken by a private operator is one thing but our Air Corps should have the capability to assist, provide top cover and general back up as necessary.

It's time to finally join the dots.

BoatMad · 24-04-2017 02:50PM

Coil Kilcrea wrote: »

I would very much hope that this tragic event might finally force the politicians to properly resource the Air Corps. Time and time again we've kicked this can down the road, huffed and puffed, and generally acted the eejit. SAR services undertaken by a private operator is one thing but our Air Corps should have the capability to assist, provide top cover and general back up as necessary.

It's time to finally join the dots.

Why would a military service have anything to so with SAR. experience elsewhere has removed SAR from military facilities

secondly and I hate to go on about this . The debate over top cover etc has nothing to do with this fatality

the fact remains , a perfectly good helicopter,operating well within its capabilities and flown by professional and experienced crew , should be able to fly across the country and land at a designated fuelling facility .

In this case it wasn't able to do that. that is the kernel

Cloudio9 · 24-04-2017 04:53PM

Re: the IALPA story. I heard the interview with Dara Fitzpatricks sister on Today FM yesterday and it's clear she wanted the detail in the preliminary report. She said she did not want to get it in 2 years time when it could cause them to regress in their grief.

BoatMad · 24-04-2017 04:56PM

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Re: the IALPA story. I heard the interview with Dara Fitzpatricks sister on Today FM yesterday and it's clear she wanted the detail in the preliminary report. She said she did not want to get it in 2 years time when it could cause them to regress in their grief.

yes I think IALPA were wrong in their criticism , the feelings of pilots and their families cannot be protected from the reality of what was done and said and its in the whole industries benefit that these issues ,especially CFITs are publicised so that the benefit of hindsight is applied to all sections of the relevant industries ( SAR and beyond )

Coil Kilcrea · 24-04-2017 05:44PM

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Re: the IALPA story. I heard the interview with Dara Fitzpatricks sister on Today FM yesterday and it's clear she wanted the detail in the preliminary report. She said she did not want to get it in 2 years time when it could cause them to regress in their grief.

Well I have to admire her honesty. Much easier to stay silent. And I equally respect the right of any of the families not to comment.

Discodog · 24-04-2017 05:48PM

I watched the AC take off from Galway Hospital & the CG arrive. A northerly wind makes for a tricky take off & landing. They have to come around the side of the hospital & land sideways into wind. So a long low level hover. If the field next to hospital is an emergency landing site it's worrying that it has high goalposts around it.

BoatMad · 24-04-2017 05:51PM

Coil Kilcrea wrote: »

Correct, just like our fisherman have no voice.

well they are different, sold out to the farmers on EU accession , thats their problem

Coil Kilcrea · 24-04-2017 06:37PM

BoatMad wrote: »

well they are different, sold out to the farmers on EU accession , thats their problem

Sigh ....that's it, left to struggle on with no clout.

Irish Steve · 24-04-2017 06:44PM

This thread is supposedly about the loss of R116 at Blackrock, and for all sorts of reasons, I would like it to return to being focussed on that event.

Later this evening or tomorrow, I intend to move the recent significant discussions about the funding of the SAR service, and the discussions about the funding or activities of the Air Corps into a separate thread, (or more), so that this thread can be restored to being a discussion about the R116 loss, and directly related issues.

It may appear for a while that some posts have been deleted, but that will not be the case, it will only be as a result of the way in which we have to work while moving things around, the editing tools we have are somewhat limited, so moving a significant number of messages is not a simple or quick process.

Once that happens, and it's going to take some time to do it, please help us by posting in the appropriate thread. Going forward, we will move off topic posts into the correct thread, but if people continue to post in the wrong thread, we will issue warnings or more.

Hopefully, that will not be necessary.

BoatMad · 24-04-2017 06:49PM

to heed the mod post

I think there is not a lot to say on Rescue 116. I think one can reach a fairly reasonable conclusion from the detail of the preliminary report . No doubt certain issues some of which are ancillary to the main event will have to be examined by the full report, but I cant see anything that would change the obvious conclusions . I do not intend to outline my conclusions , given that is speculation even if I believe it has solid grounds, but I think the full report will not add much to sway to any other conclusion .

what will be interesting to see from the full report will be the issues around the use of the radar and issues like the crews ( or any crews ) familiarity with the approach to blacksod , from that westerly perspective and reasons to why the light itself wasnt seen ( or recognised ). The issue with the EGPWS is in effect resolved in that regard

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

Comments