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

10-10-2020 10:22pm

arccosh wrote: »

I think CHC would reject a military expert from certain countries (alot in fact) who have CHC or Bond helicopters in place or are actively bidding for SAR contracts in said countries, claiming from a commercially damaging perspective.

I saw US Coastguard mentioned above, I was thinking the same, but CHC could counter as they provide an SAR service in the oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico (similar to what is in place in the North Sea, but I think Bond heli has that) which could be construde that the USCG have an interest in providing a service for, if they wanted to dodge away from it..... similar to above discounts the likes of the RAF etc...

Only thing that comes to mind would be USAF Combat SAR based in Mildenhall in the UK.... they are a completly seperate entity who have no commercial interest in anything to do with what CHC provide. They were recently used to recover the body of the downed F-15 pilot who crashed in the North Sea a couple of months back.

Could be career limiting for anyone who does testify, and would like to fly civvie helos after the military though.

That said CHC could easily counter that as trying to compare apples with oranges in the way of setup, procedures, and way of working.

As mentioned already, anything to do with offshore work, SAR, and helo support, it will be very very hard to find someone completely independent from CHC...

My heart goes out to the families in this situation... everyone knows the reason, but thanks to corporate arse covering, it may never be legally shown.

Hopefully the Minister will receive the according advice.

10-10-2020 10:29pm

The overall tragedy of all this is that there are potentially any number of future such tragedies awaiting to happen if this is not resolved,; this makes me very saddened.

arccosh · 11-10-2020 8:36am

There is also the elephant in the room of Honeywell.

If they manage to get around the CHC issue, Honeywell are another company who you will find it very hard not to find them present in a lot of aircraft avionic suites. Anyone who testifies, unless retired, could find pressure coming down via supply chain, aquisition, or legal elements of their organisation if they use Honeywell....

It would be interesting to see if Bond helicopters have gotten avionic upgrades since the crash and who with. It would be a good indicator of what is happening in the background, and glean some information that you wouldn't necessarily get from CHC as they'll be tigh lipped about anything like that as it could be taken as an admission of fault.

11-10-2020 3:20pm

I think whoever reviews, it will have to be, maybe, a retired person who has no business left to conduct with any companies, and who has not had any influential ties with them recently or for most of their career.

Stovepipe · 11-10-2020 8:47pm

Plenty of other options for qualified heli pilots other than CHC. Agusta and other manufacturers took a lot of rotary pilots who left the AC and I know a few who joined the airlines and fly fixed-wing,so the notion that CHC might put a stopper on someone's career is simply wrong.

ForestFire · 11-10-2020 8:59pm

At this stage why not just publish the report and deal with any followup litigation, if someone really think they have a case and not just blocking its release to have it suppressed.

This puts the onus on them to provide the independant evidence to back up their claim?? (which seems to be impossible to find)

Just because the process allows for a review stage, doses not mean in exceptional circumstances you cannot deviate? They could maybe sue on not follow due process rather than the contents itself I guess? But does peoples safety and lives eventually overrule due process, where every avenue has been persued?

If needed, sure just get some politician to release it in the dial under specical privileges, or whatever its called...

Dwarf.Shortage · 11-10-2020 9:27pm

ForestFire wrote: »

At this stage why not just publish the report and deal with any followup litigation, if someone really think they have a case and not just blocking its release to have it suppressed.

This puts the onus on them to provide the independant evidence to back up their claim?? (which seems to be impossible to find)

Just because the process allows for a review stage, doses not mean in exceptional circumstances you cannot deviate? They could maybe sue on not follow due process rather than the contents itself I guess? But does peoples safety and lives eventually overrule due process, where every avenue has been persued?

If needed, sure just get some politician to release it in the dial under specical privileges, or whatever its called...

Because that's the absolute opposite of good practice

ForestFire · 11-10-2020 10:35pm

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

Because that's the absolute opposite of good practice

In normal circumstances yes I agree, but if (As per the rest of my post) the review proves to be impossible, is good practice to abandon the report completely?

Not saying we at at this stage yet, but if and when we are, what happens then, how long do we wait to see if the impasse can be overcome?

11-10-2020 11:31pm

I'm guessing RTÉ Investigates may do an update special on the current state of affairs to bring to the attention of the wider public the reasons behind the prolonged delay in publishing a final report. Within the bounds of the law, of course.

12-10-2020 7:17am

Part IV of ICAO Annex 13, the Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation , deals with Reporting.

1.4 CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT FINAL REPORT

1.4.1 In accordance with Annex 13, the State conducting the investigation shall send a copy of the draft Final Report to the State which instituted the investigation and to all States that participated in the investigation, inviting their significant and substantiated comments on the report. The State conducting the investigation should also send copies of the draft Final Report to the operator and the organizations responsible for type design and final assembly of the aircraft, through the State of the Operator, the State of Design and the State of Manufacture, respectively, in order to enable the operator and such organizations to submit comments on the draft Final Report.

1.4.3 If the State conducting the investigation receives comments within sixty days of the date of the transmittal letter, it shall either amend the draft Final Report to include the substance of the comments received or, if desired by the State that provided the comments, append the comments to the Final Report. Usually, comments to be appended to the Final Report are restricted to non-editorial, specific technical aspects of the Final Report upon which no agreement could be reached.

Presumably the review is looking at the validity of comments received?

arccosh · 12-10-2020 9:49am

Stovepipe wrote: »

Plenty of other options for qualified heli pilots other than CHC. Agusta and other manufacturers took a lot of rotary pilots who left the AC and I know a few who joined the airlines and fly fixed-wing,so the notion that CHC might put a stopper on someone's career is simply wrong.

Niche markets work in weird and mysterious ways.... aviation, especially helo ops is actually a small world.

Yes they would be able to get a job elsewhere, but testifying against one of the biggest commercial helicopter operations in the world, along with one of the biggest avionics suppliers would, lets say, not be exactly a career enhancing move for someone with some time left in their career.

MoeJay · 12-10-2020 10:05am

Deleted User wrote: »

Part IV of ICAO Annex 13, the Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation , deals with Reporting.

Presumably the review is looking at the validity of comments received?

You will find nothing in Annex 13 that provides for a review like this. The relevant legislation is SI 460 of 2009 which is considerably broader in scope.

12-10-2020 10:46am

MoeJay wrote: »

You will find nothing in Annex 13 that provides for a review like this. The relevant legislation is SI 460 of 2009 which is considerably broader in scope.

Thanks for this information, most helpful.

I see that the Minister has the power to order a Public Enquiry

Holding of public inquiry

18. (1) Where it appears to the Minister that it is expedient to hold a public inquiry into an occurrence, the Minister may, whether or not any other investigation under these Regulations is taking or has taken place, by order, direct a public inquiry to be held.

(2) If the Minister directs a public inquiry to be held, any other investigation under these Regulations, or re-examination being conducted by a review board, relating to the occurrence, shall be discontinued.

However, the next para (3) is virtually a copy of the paragraph covering members/appointees of the review group, so we would end up in the same position. Given that the AAIU has a (well deserved) world-wide reputation, it doesn’t seem to me to reflect well on the current review process which is, of course, nothing to do with AAIU.

(3) Where the Minister directs a public inquiry to be held, he or she shall appoint a competent person, who shall be either a barrister or solicitor of at least 10 years standing or a person who, in the Minister’s opinion, possesses aeronautical or engineering knowledge or other special knowledge or experience of air navigation or aviation, to constitute a court of inquiry (in these Regulations referred to as a “court”) to hold the inquiry. The Minister may appoint not less than two persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, possess legal, aeronautical, engineering or other special knowledge or experience of air navigation, to act as technical assessors to assist the court in conducting the inquiry.

(4) Except to the extent to which the court is of the opinion that, in the interests of justice or in the public interest, any part of the evidence or any argument relating to the evidence should be heard in private, the public inquiry shall be open to the public and, subject to this Regulation, shall be conducted in such manner and under such conditions as the court may think most effective for ascertaining the causes and circumstances of the occurrence and enabling the court to make its report under this Regulation.

So where to now?

Stovepipe · 12-10-2020 8:44pm

arccosh wrote: »

Niche markets work in weird and mysterious ways.... aviation, especially helo ops is actually a small world.

Yes they would be able to get a job elsewhere, but testifying against one of the biggest commercial helicopter operations in the world, along with one of the biggest avionics suppliers would, lets say, not be exactly a career enhancing move for someone with some time left in their career.

....people have challenged the big players before. Wasn't it Honeywell that lost the case about F16 artificial horizons? I stand to be corrected but if no-one challenged them,they'd run roughshod over you, regardless of potential careers.

RadioRetro · 12-03-2021 5:36pm

Fourth interim statement issued by the AAIU...

http://www.aaiu.ie/node/1513

markpb · 12-03-2021 5:56pm

More hold music:

On 9 March 2020, the AAIU was advised by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, that a Review Board had been established and the Investigation advised all interested parties of the Departmental contact details for information relating to the re-examination.

The work of the Review Board is ongoing. The AAIU’s Final Report regarding the accident will not be published until the work of the Review Board is complete.

sparrowcar · 12-03-2021 6:08pm

Can't imagine a delay this long would happen or be tolerated in other developed countries. It doesn't paint the AAIU or IAA in good light at all.

Roger_007 · 12-03-2021 6:56pm

I think it’s very unfair on the relatives of the deceased that this report is delayed for so long. I do not know who requested the review, or if more than one party requested it, but surely it is better if these kind of reports are published sooner rather than later to enable the families of the deceased to move on with their lives and put this tragic event behind them.

smurfjed · 12-03-2021 7:18pm

And to allow them to sue if just cause exists.

plodder · 13-03-2021 9:36am

sparrowcar wrote: »

Can't imagine a delay this long would happen or be tolerated in other developed countries. It doesn't paint the AAIU or IAA in good light at all.

The review was ordered by the Minister at the time. I don't think either of those bodies have any role in it at all.

irishgeo · 13-03-2021 10:14am

plodder wrote: »

The review was ordered by the Minister at the time. I don't think either of those bodies have any role in it at all.

he was only following the law because a party who got the final report requested a review.

plodder · 13-03-2021 10:25am

irishgeo wrote: »

he was only following the law because a party who got the final report requested a review.

Yes, but he didn't have to grant the review. First time one has ever been granted afaik.

sparrowcar · 13-03-2021 10:55am

plodder wrote: »

The review was ordered by the Minister at the time. I don't think either of those bodies have any role in it at all.

A wouldn't have thought a review would be warranted if there was faith in the initial report.

Negative_G · 13-03-2021 11:13am

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think it’s very unfair on the relatives of the deceased that this report is delayed for so long. I do not know who requested the review, or if more than one party requested it, but surely it is better if these kind of reports are published sooner rather than later to enable the families of the deceased to move on with their lives and put this tragic event behind them.

Certain entities will do anything to delay this report.

Especially when there's a €500million + contract to be awarded, just over the horizon.

skallywag · 13-03-2021 3:15pm

smurfjed wrote: »

And to allow them to sue if just cause exists.

Sue who exactly? Or is this just a kneejerk Irish answer?

I find your comment very unhelpful.

smurfjed · 13-03-2021 3:33pm

Or is this just a kneejerk Irish answer?

Nope it’s a knee jerk aviation answer.

A recent precedent from the helicopter world.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51618161

And an Irish one
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/tragic-cadet-vindicated-as-he-is-cleared-over-air-corps-crash-30048896.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-16991291

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/parents-of-boy-killed-in-2018-air-crash-sue-for-psychiatric-shock-and-loss-1.4378028

Is that more helpful for you?

AlekSmart · 13-03-2021 5:10pm

plodder wrote: »

Yes, but he didn't have to grant the review. First time one has ever been granted afaik.

Given that the report has been compiled by a Public Body,and involves issues of Public Safety,I find it odd that a "Review" is even catered for.

It appears to create a doubt around the profiency of the AAIB itself,and prehaps the greater Irish Transport Administration sector itself.

That said,I would suggest that the list of "Interested Parties" mentioned should actually be Public from the outset.

Allowing for a situation whereby a single individual/entity can effectively delay proceedings,apparently indefinitely,does not inspire confidence in the Authorities concerned.

13-03-2021 5:32pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Given that the report has been compiled by a Public Body,and involves issues of Public Safety,I find it odd that a "Review" is even catered for.

It appears to create a doubt around the profiency of the AAIB itself,and prehaps the greater Irish Transport Administration sector itself.

That said,I would suggest that the list of "Interested Parties" mentioned should actually be Public from the outset.

Allowing for a situation whereby a single individual/entity can effectively delay proceedings,apparently indefinitely,does not inspire confidence in the Authorities concerned.

Presuming you mean AAIU there. Indeed I would love to know what exactly has been implemented to help ensure a similar accident doesn't happen in the future here.

skallywag · 13-03-2021 5:47pm

smurfjed wrote: »

Is that more helpful for you?

No. It certainly is not.

I frankly cannot see how who-sues-who is in anyway relevant to the discussion, considering that the report has not even been released.

If one of the crew members turns out to have made a decision(s) which strongly contributed to the accident, would you also also think that the families of the other crew members should be suing them?

Roger_007 · 13-03-2021 6:02pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Given that the report has been compiled by a Public Body,and involves issues of Public Safety,I find it odd that a "Review" is even catered for.

It appears to create a doubt around the profiency of the AAIB itself,and prehaps the greater Irish Transport Administration sector itself.

That said,I would suggest that the list of "Interested Parties" mentioned should actually be Public from the outset.

Allowing for a situation whereby a single individual/entity can effectively delay proceedings,apparently indefinitely,does not inspire confidence in the Authorities concerned.

I would agree that by conceding to a request for a review, which is a very rare occurrence, that the competence of the AAIU is being questioned.
The AAIU report should only contain findings of fact and recommendations if warranted. It does not contain matters of opinion. Therefore it would seem that someone doesn’t like one or more of the facts. This should not be a reason not to publish the report or order a review.
The preliminary report gave us detailed facts about the control inputs and movements of the aircraft in the final stages of its flight. What the final report has to do is to reveal what decisions were taken by the flight crew and what criteria/information those decisions were based on. The CVR will have contained all the relevant information on that.
It is very difficult, therefore, to imagine what there could be to review unless someone thinks that the AAIU have got some of their facts wrong which, if true, would have serious consequences for the credibility and reputation of the AAIU.

13-03-2021 6:47pm

Roger_007 wrote: »

I would agree that by conceding to a request for a review, which is a very rare occurrence, that the competence of the AAIU is being questioned.
The AAIU report should only contain findings of fact and recommendations if warranted. It does not contain matters of opinion. Therefore it would seem that someone doesn’t like one or more of the facts. This should not be a reason not to publish the report or order a review.
The preliminary report gave us detailed facts about the control inputs and movements of the aircraft in the final stages of its flight. What the final report has to do is to reveal what decisions were taken by the flight crew and what criteria/information those decisions were based on. The CVR will have contained all the relevant information on that.
It is very difficult, therefore, to imagine what there could be to review unless someone thinks that the AAIU have got some of their facts wrong which, if true, would have serious consequences for the credibility and reputation of the AAIU.

I would agree that the report should be published, and then findings contested if a party finds treason to do so. It should be transparent.

faoiarvok · 13-03-2021 7:19pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would love to know what exactly has been implemented to help ensure a similar accident doesn't happen in the future here.

The AAIU considers one Safety Recommendation made in the Interim Report closed, which I’m guessing means satisfactorily completed, and another still open.

http://www.aaiu.ie/node/1069

smurfjed · 13-03-2021 7:41pm

I frankly cannot see how who-sues-who is in anyway relevant to the discussion

if any party wishes to contest the report, or attribute blame, it will end up in a court of law.

Stovepipe · 14-03-2021 12:23am

It has always been the case that any party in an accident can contest any accident report. That's why the draft report is circulated to the interested parties in the first place.An aggrieved party can be heard, if they don't like what's in the report. All AAIU reports specifically avoid attributing blame and such reports are not liked by our Learned Friends, who like to have a clear path to pointing the finger. My suspicion is that a party has found something in the report that might lead people to believe that that party were negligent in an aspect of their duty. It must be of sufficient gravity that the Minister feels the need to have a Review.

Psychlops · 14-03-2021 12:49am

11:03PM tonight she lifted from Dublin & never returned, RIP RESCUE116, EI-ICR, "Banrion Na Speire/Queen Of the Skies".

14-03-2021 9:42am

faoiarvok wrote: »

The AAIU considers one Safety Recommendation made in the Interim Report closed, which I’m guessing means satisfactorily completed, and another still open.

http://www.aaiu.ie/node/1069

Thanks, I had missed reading that. All I can think is that their operations must be relatively curtailed until the technical issues are sorted out in a process that reminds me somewhat of the 737 Max issue.

HTCOne · 14-03-2021 8:50pm

sparrowcar wrote: »

Can't imagine a delay this long would happen or be tolerated in other developed countries. It doesn't paint the AAIU or IAA in good light at all.

Just curious why you think it paints the IAA in a bad light?

sparrowcar · 14-03-2021 9:41pm

HTCOne wrote: »

Just curious why you think it paints the IAA in a bad light?

The IAA’s role in relation to terrain and obstacle data provided in databases for search and rescue helicopters was piss poor and widely reported as a possible contributing factor in the crash.

But I'll take your point about them being independent "ish" to the AAIU.

HTCOne · 14-03-2021 9:48pm

sparrowcar wrote: »

The IAA’s role in relation to terrain and obstacle data provided in databases for search and rescue helicopters was piss poor and widely reported as a possible contributing factor in the crash.

But I'll take your point about them being independent "ish" to the AAIU.

Not disputing any contributory factors in the accident (who am I to do that), but I don’t see how the review process underway has anything to do with the IAA, who are in fact totally independent of the AAIU, as they are from the DAA or any other State enterprise.

sparrowcar · 14-03-2021 9:56pm

HTCOne wrote: »

Not disputing any contributory factors in the accident (who am I to do that), but I don’t see how the review process underway has anything to do with the IAA, who are in fact totally independent of the AAIU, as they are from the DAA or any other State enterprise.

Fair point.

dog_pig · 18-03-2021 6:20pm

Does anyone know when the aircrew would have transitioned from the S61-N to the S-92? I know it would have been post January 2012.

skallywag · 19-03-2021 8:22pm

Well they flew 61s prior to 2012 as you say, but I have no idea when that particular crew would have trained and been passed on the 92.

It seems the report has had two different objections, one from CHC and another from the family of one crew member.

donvito99 · 27-03-2021 6:24pm

How is it that any party is entitled to interfere in the AAIU's reporting? Is there not a Chicago Convention requirement of impartiality?

dog_pig · 27-03-2021 7:19pm

skallywag wrote: »

It seems the report has had two different objections, one from CHC and another from the family of one crew member.

I didn't realise that this was the case. Has this been reported anywhere?

smurfjed · 28-03-2021 4:45pm

I keep getting update emails about this thread but when I come online these posts have disappeared, what’s happening ???

L1011 · 28-03-2021 5:48pm

Only two posts have been deleted in 2021, one by the poster and one by me as it was a thread-banned user who will never be returning.

jmayo · 31-03-2021 6:05pm

Anyone see the comments by ECA chief Otjan de Bruijn about the way this report has been delayed ?

Captain Otjan de Bruijn, president of the European Cockpit Association (ECA), also questioned why Ireland had adopted a “rare procedure” where an aviation accident investigation can be re-examined before publication.

We are not aware of any other similar cases across Europe of a re-examination of the technical work of an independent technically qualified organisation by a body with limited expertise(none) in aviation accident investigations.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rescue-116-helicopter-crash-european-pilots-call-for-report-to-be-published-without-delay-xxrb5qqpn

Storm 10 · 31-03-2021 6:31pm

jmayo wrote: »

Anyone see the comments by ECA chief Otjan de Bruijn about the way this report has been delayed ?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rescue-116-helicopter-crash-european-pilots-call-for-report-to-be-published-without-delay-xxrb5qqpn

Can't read that full report the link is premium so must be registered and pay to read the newspaper

jmayo · 31-03-2021 7:03pm

Storm 10 wrote: »

Can't read that full report the link is premium so must be registered and pay to read the newspaper

Here is another link to story and comments.

https://afloat.ie/safety/coastguard/item/49839-european-cockpit-association-aalarmed-at-delay-in-publishing-rescue-116-final-report

Roger_007 · 31-03-2021 7:04pm

jmayo wrote: »

Anyone see the comments by ECA chief Otjan de Bruijn about the way this report has been delayed ?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rescue-116-helicopter-crash-european-pilots-call-for-report-to-be-published-without-delay-xxrb5qqpn

I’m afraid we are setting an unfortunate precedent. The report should have been published and then anyone who has any issue could take it up from there. We are now in a situation where someone can prevent publication of an official accident report simply by objecting to some of its contents. What is to stop anyone from objecting to whatever the review comes up with. This could go on for years with consequent damage to the reputation of the AAIU.

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

Comments