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

Irish Steve

Looking at it in a little more detail, I think the 500 Ft VFR level dates back to the days of the OP/OE marker system, where the final approach started from 1500 Ft, and traffic on the approach was brought down to that level well before the coast, so to avoid TCAS alerts, the VFR traffic was not allowed above 500 Ft to ensure the separation from IFR traffic, which at times could well have been in cloud and not visible to the lower level VFR traffic.

The old markers have gone from the approach charts, though they are still listed as radio aids, and the Final Approach Fix and level is now 2500 Ft, so in theory, VFR traffic could operate up to 1500 Ft without a loss of separation, but the practicality of that is the prevailing cloud base over water, which quite often will be above 500 Ft, but not 1500 Ft, which would prevent the higher altitude being usable for VFR operations.

Gaoth Laidir

Irish Steve wrote: »

Looking at it in a little more detail, I think the 500 Ft VFR level dates back to the days of the OP/OE marker system, where the final approach started from 1500 Ft, and traffic on the approach was brought down to that level well before the coast, so to avoid TCAS alerts, the VFR traffic was not allowed above 500 Ft to ensure the separation from IFR traffic, which at times could well have been in cloud and not visible to the lower level VFR traffic.

The old markers have gone from the approach charts, though they are still listed as radio aids, and the Final Approach Fix and level is now 2500 Ft, so in theory, VFR traffic could operate up to 1500 Ft without a loss of separation, but the practicality of that is the prevailing cloud base over water, which quite often will be above 500 Ft, but not 1500 Ft, which would prevent the higher altitude being usable for VFR operations.

I've flown it twice, both times at 500 ft, and any other time I've heard someone on the radio they have always been given 500 ft.

BoatMad

TomOnBoard wrote: »

There's a fundamental tenet in a multi-threaded logical analysis, ie if one thread shows an absence of evidence that something exists, it cannot be presented as evidence that it does not exist. When all threads have been considered, and there is still an absence of evidence that the something exists, then a reasonable inference that it does not exist can be made.

(Jaysus my head hurts after that!!)

At this early stage of the investigation, Absence of evidence (of mech. failure) is not Evidence that such failure did not occur.

True , but Occam's razor applies nonetheless , it is reasonable to assume , given the information released , that the helicopter was not brought down by a mechanical failure per se. That's not to say such an assumption could be proven to be wrong, but the working assumption remains at this time , still valid

Steve

Assumptions and opinions are plentiful and like an itchy bum are not welcome.

How about we limit discussion to the known facts.

IE 222

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Eastern Airlines Flight 401

Yeah a faulty light bulb.

SNIP

Is radio contact usually made with Blacksod.

Please delete if this is seen as speculating to much.

kerry cow

<SNIP>

Gaoth Laidir

Sea conditions much better this morning. An Gearóidín is already in position and the three other vessels nearby.

prunudo

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Sea conditions much better this morning. An Gearóidín is already in position and the three other vessels nearby.

They're sitting north of Black rock now, wonder is that a glitch on marine traffic?

smurfjed

<SNIP> Inappropriate armchair speculation

I hate the term Pilot Error.

jackboy

BoatMad wrote: »

True , but Occam's razor applies nonetheless , it is reasonable to assume , given the information released , that the helicopter was not brought down by a mechanical failure per se. That's not to say such an assumption could be proven to be wrong, but the working assumption remains at this time , still valid

Assumptions have no place in an investigation. It's all about building facts until the cause is proven or not. Unfortunately sometimes the cause is never found.

...And Justice

smurfjed wrote: »

I hate the term Pilot Error.

Yep, but look at how ridiculous AF447 was, really simple stuff and night flying caused an A330 to plough into the water.

elastico

jackboy wrote: »

Assumptions have no place in an investigation. It's all about building facts until the cause is proven or not. Unfortunately sometimes the cause is never found.

Bear in mind this forum is not an official investigation.

Its a bit like a criminal and civil case. Criminal case relies on facts. Civil case relies on "balance of probabilities"

Cloudio9

Mods must be having a lie in.

Yup. There is a life outside of Boards, but we're back now

scuby

The boats have switched to the NE side of blackrock this morning, wonder why the change of location. Local boat An Gearoidin is fairly close to the island

Storm 10

RTE reporting that Navy divers have successfully attached harness lines on Rescue 116 which will allow the helicopter to be lifted to the surface, well done to all involved, please God they will find the missing crew members

de biz

This report from the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch into the loss of Super Puma G-WSNB provides an insight into the human factors involved in instrument flying.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-1-2016-g-wnsb-23-august-2013

Means Of Escape

smurfjed wrote: »

<SNIP> Inappropriate armchair speculation

I hate the term Pilot Error.

"Armchair speculation " has been correct in many respects since the beginning .

kerry cow

<snip>speculation rules still apply
Alot of resources and funds used in this recovery .
I presume if they are not found today the search will stand down and that will be the end of it .

Storm 10

Wonder if they have Rescue 116 recovered , Granuaile and Ocean Challenger have moved well away from Blackrock and Rescue 118 is hovering over Granuaile

elastico

As speculation is not allowed am I right in saying all of the below is pretty much factual.

1/ Shortly after leaving Dublin tracking showed R116 proceeded pretty much in a straight line all the way to blackrock lighthouse and helipad

2/ Tracking does not show it at any point in its journey proceeding in straight line towards blacksod lighthouse and helipad

3/ At 0035 approx. crew told ATC they were beginning decent into blacksod and had gone through 4000ft. Despite telling ATC they were proceeding into blacksod tracking shows the helicopter continued on its path toward blackrock, as it had been since Dublin

4/ At approx. 00.46 it overflew blackrock lighthouse and proceeded to do a uturn.

5/ In an around this time its altitude was approx. 220 ft

6/ Its last tracked speed was 9knts just before colliding with blackrock lighthouse / island

7/ The tail section ended up in the vicinity of the island and the rest of the craft in the water.

8/ AAIU reported "no mechanical anomalies"

elastico

smurfjed wrote: »

<SNIP> Inappropriate armchair speculation

Perhaps you should consider making complaints about RTE and Independent.ie

RTE:

The Air Accident Investigation Unit has said there was no indication of any mechanical problems in the seconds before the impact.
It is thought the inquiry into the cause of the crash on is now likely to focus on operational issues.
This will take in a number of separate headings, as investigators analyse the flight recorder for any indications of what went wrong.
Investigators are likely to look at things like human behaviour, navigational equipment and procedural issues, in an effort to identify they exact reasons why Rescue 116 crashed.


Independent.ie


There was no indication of any danger moments before the Sikorsky S92 vanished, with the crew's final transmission: "Shortly landing at Blacksod."
The inquiry into the cause of the crash on March 14 is now likely to focus on operational issues.

Samaris

I only have this from the other thread, and not from a primary source, but there's some talk that Blackrock island wasn't on their maps? Which seems downright odd given it's 290-odd feet with a lighthouse on it.

ScrewYou

elastico wrote: »

As speculation is not allowed am I right in saying all of the below is pretty much factual.

1/ Shortly after leaving tracking Dublin R116 proceeded pretty much in a straight line all the way to blackrock lighthouse and helipad

2/ Tracking does not show it at any point in its journey proceeding in straight line towards blacksod lighthouse and helipad

3/ At 0035 approx. crew told ATC they were beginning decent into blacksod and had gone through 4000ft. Despite telling ATC they were proceeding into blacksod tracking shows the helicopter continued on its path toward blackrock, as it had been since Dublin

4/ At approx. 00.46 it overflew blackrock lighthouse and proceeded to do a uturn.

5/ In an around this time its altitude was approx. 220 ft

6/ Its last tracked speed was 9knts just before colliding with blackrock lighthouse / island

7/ The tail section ended up in the vicinity of the island and the rest of the craft in the water.

8/ AAIU reported "no mechanical anomalies"

All correct.

ScrewYou

...And Justice wrote: »

Yep, but look at how ridiculous AF447 was, really simple stuff and night flying caused an A330 to plough into the water.

All simple stuff in hindsight.
But I suggest you Google the Swiss cheese model of human factors.

smurfjed

human behaviour, navigational equipment and procedural issues, in an effort to identify they exact reasons why Rescue 116 crashed.

Nothing wrong with that, they are using the term human behaviour rather than pilot error.

elastico

Irish Steve wrote: »

I am not going to speculate on the nature of the event that resulted in the end of the flight 116 into water, and also resulted in only one member of the crew being found at this stage, other than to say that anyone that is implying that it was as a result of actions by the crew has very little understanding of the way that Search and rescue operates, and a lack of understanding of how disciplined and experienced the operating crews of SAR helicopters are

Do you still stand by this?

DellyBelly

Gutted to hear that mechanical fault has been ruled out. I really hoped for the family of the pilot that it wouldn't be considered human error but it looks that way according to the papers today. Hope the rest of the crew is found soon

ScrewYou

elastico wrote: »

Do you still stand by this?

Can't find a previous post by him (maybe deleted now?), in which he stated categorically in bold that there was no way it was CFIT due to the training and experience of Coast Guard pilots and there must've been some type of mechanical failure.

He was pulled up at the time for such a ridiculous statement.

Alas.....

elastico

ScrewYou wrote: »

Can't find a previous post by him (maybe deleted now?), in which he stated categorically in bold that there was no way it was CFIT due to the training and experience of Coast Guard pilots and they're must've been some type of mechanical failure.

He was pulled up at the time for such a ridiculous statement.

Alas.....

Only this morning my screenshot confirming 9Knots approach to Black Rock was swiftly deleted.

Negative_G

ScrewYou wrote: »

Can't find a previous post by him (maybe deleted now?), in which he stated categorically in bold that there was no way it was CFIT due to the training and experience of Coast Guard pilots and there must've been some type of mechanical failure.

He was pulled up at the time for such a ridiculous statement.

Alas.....

Careful now or you'll receive an infraction.