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

Irish Steve

The new information is about the involvement of the HSA and Gardai in an additional workplace safety investigation, and given the restrictions on the AAIU, and the apparent lack of adequate response from CHC to repeated reports of issues with several areas outlined earlier , that could well be a significant game changer.

The rest of the article is very much a summary in line with my comments above.

TomOnBoard

Irish Steve wrote: »

The new information is about the involvement of the HSE and Gardai in an additional workplace safety investigation, and given the restrictions on the AAIU, and the apparent lack of adequate response from CHC to repeated reports of issues with several areas outlined earlier , that could well be a significant game changer.

The rest of the article is very much a summary in line with my comments above.

HSA not HSE.

Irish Steve

TomOnBoard wrote: »

HSA not HSE.

edited to correct, sorry, spent too much of the last 3 days interacting with the HSE, momentary brain fade.

ED E

Irish Steve wrote: »

The IAA have commented that their charts are designed for use in VFR conditions, where it is a requirement for the pilot to be able to see the terrain, so the inaccuracies do not affect the ability of the pilot to continue to operate.

Do pilots agree with this? Is it not the same as saying you're flying VFR, you can see the ground, so forget installing your altimeter you dont need it?


My (minor) experience is with GIS not aviation but the charts produced seem on the face of it to be pretty poor.

Roger_007

I watched the Prime Time programme and the Mod's summing up is accurate.
I really fail to understand why RTE are airing this topic at this time. Would it not be better to wait until the final report of the AAIU is published.

I also fail to understand why so much emphasis is being attached to the mapping deficiencies in the EGPWS database. The preliminary report said that the manual for this system stated: “The MK XXII is a Situational Awareness tool, and an alerting and warning device. It is not to be used for navigation of the aircraft.”
The AAIU preliminary report also stated that neither the commander or co-pilot were using the EGPWS on their visual displays at the time of the accident. The Prime Time report also told us that the EGPWS mapping deficiencies were raised at meetings at which at least two of the crew of R116 were present, so they would have been aware of those issues.

It is important to establish the cause of this accident, with all contributory factors, so that such an occurrence can be prevented in future. It does not help if programmes such as Prime Time try to preempt the results of the AAIU investigation.

irishgeo

Roger_007 wrote: »

I watched the Prime Time programme and the Mod's summing up is accurate.
I really fail to understand why RTE are airing this topic at this time. Would it not be better to wait until the final report of the AAIU is published.

I also fail to understand why so much emphasis is being attached to the mapping deficiencies in the EGPWS database. The preliminary report said that the manual for this system stated: “The MK XXII is a Situational Awareness tool, and an alerting and warning device. It is not to be used for navigation of the aircraft.”
The AAIU preliminary report also stated that neither the commander or co-pilot were using the EGPWS on their visual displays at the time of the accident. The Prime Time report also told us that the EGPWS mapping deficiencies were raised at meetings at which at least two of the crew of R116 were present, so they would have been aware of those issues.

It is important to establish the cause of this accident, with all contributory factors, so that such an occurrence can be prevented in future. It does not help if programmes such as Prime Time try to preempt the results of the AAIU investigation.

They could have been using the iPad map which means they weren't using EGPWS.

Charmeleon

Roger_007 wrote: »

I watched the Prime Time programme and the Mod's summing up is accurate.
I really fail to understand why RTE are airing this topic at this time. Would it not be better to wait until the final report of the AAIU is published.

I also fail to understand why so much emphasis is being attached to the mapping deficiencies in the EGPWS database. The preliminary report said that the manual for this system stated: “The MK XXII is a Situational Awareness tool, and an alerting and warning device. It is not to be used for navigation of the aircraft.”
The AAIU preliminary report also stated that neither the commander or co-pilot were using the EGPWS on their visual displays at the time of the accident. The Prime Time report also told us that the EGPWS mapping deficiencies were raised at meetings at which at least two of the crew of R116 were present, so they would have been aware of those issues.

It is important to establish the cause of this accident, with all contributory factors, so that such an occurrence can be prevented in future. It does not help if programmes such as Prime Time try to preempt the results of the AAIU investigation.

I only got part of it, it seemed like they had an actor playing the part of a CHC staff member who was concerned about how long some of these issues were known.
Waiting for the AAIU Report before doing anything is easy to say when you aren’t relying on poor maps and an EGPWS that might not save you if they are wrong.

lintdrummer

Roger_007 wrote: »

The AAIU preliminary report also stated that neither the commander or co-pilot were using the EGPWS on their visual displays at the time of the accident.

irishgeo wrote: »

They could have been using the iPad map which means they weren't using EGPWS.

EGPWS is not normally used for navigation by pilots. As the name suggests it is a 'warning system'. If at any given moment the system detects a closure rate with terrain in it's database it will give an aural and visual warning to the crew. It can't/wouldn't be switched off.
I'm not familiar with the Sikorsky so I can only speak from an Airbus perespective here. For us there is an option to display terrain on the ND for increased crew awareness. This imagery is generated from a database of terrain, not by a radar. I assume this is what the AAIU were referring to in Roger's quote above. However, in this case it would not have displayed any terrain because Blackrock was not in the database.

Nekarsulm

Prime Time is a curious beast at the best of times.
They consider themselves "Ireland's flagship investigative program" and sometimes they are.
But equally, sometimes they run a program that pushes a particular leftist liberal agenda, and have studio guests suited to their chosen predetermined findings.
Often you wouldn't know the difference unless you had particular knowledge of the subject, and this undermines their credibility on all subjects.

plodder

lintdrummer wrote: »

EGPWS is not normally used for navigation by pilots. As the name suggests it is a 'warning system'. If at any given moment the system detects a closure rate with terrain in it's database it will give an aural and visual warning to the crew. It can't/wouldn't be switched off.

There is a "low altitude" switch which was on, and that degrades the capabilities of the system, presumably to avoid a lot of false warnings when at low altitude.

Negative_G

plodder wrote: »

There is a "low altitude" switch which was on, and that degrades the capabilities of the system, presumably to avoid a lot of false warnings when at low altitude.

Degrades is probably the wrong word for it. The system still works as it should but it will restrict the amount of aural warnings based on the fact that they were planning to operate at low level.

Im not sure why prime time went to the bother of putting in an FOI. I realise that CHC are contracted to provide the service but they are a private entity and not a state body. It was my understanding that FOI's can only be sought directly from state bodies.

tretorn

Who supplied the iPads that werent approved for navigation purposes.

Are other helicopter pilots using these ipads.

Charmeleon

iPads are unsuitable for night navigation anyway, the minimum selectable brightness is still going to reduce your night vision.

TomOnBoard

Charmeleon wrote: »

iPads are unsuitable for night navigation anyway, the minimum selectable brightness is still going to reduce your night vision.

While the native iPad brightness level might be too bright, would properly-designed apps tailored for pilots/night flying not have internal app- controls/features that would overcome this issue, using low-light optimised colour schemes etc.? Otherwise, how could such apps be marketed as usable?

In any event, the usage of the mini iPad was reported as being in a testing phase (during which issues such as brightness, readability, usability etc. would be assessed) as distinct from in fully-live operation. Perhaps after testing, they would have been abandoned or app(s) amended or ultimately brought into full use. So, I'm unclear on what point Prime Time was making other than telling us something was being assessed, which implies that while it is being assessed, those resources, maps, and other technologies/ resources that have previously been used would still be available / in place / being used in tandem with the tech. that was in testing mode. Or were they saying that undue reliance was placed on a device that was still in testing/assessment mode?

Like others here, I'm a bit dubious of the information value that PT brought to the table with the programme. Most if not all was previously reported. However, the fact that questions had been raised by crews within CHC many times and responses appeared to have lacked urgency may be the most telling issue that was raised, and this impacts ongoing operations as well as having a possible effect in the circumstances of the fatal crash. These questions and pace of responses would also appear to be part of the HSA/Gardai investigation reported in the Irish Times.

Negative_G

Charmeleon wrote: »

iPads are unsuitable for night navigation anyway, the minimum selectable brightness is still going to reduce your night vision.

There are various apps designed for aviation use that have specific night modes which will in no way degrade night vision.

Where there may be an issue is with the use of NVG but CHC arent approved to use them in Ireland.

dog_pig

Nekarsulm wrote: »

But equally, sometimes they run a program that pushes a particular leftist liberal agenda

What makes you feel the need to shoehorn Americanisms into a discussion about Irish society?

ectoraige

Negative_G wrote: »

Where there may be an issue is with the use of NVG but CHC arent approved to use them in Ireland.

Just wondering, who would have to licence them, the IAA?

Charmeleon

Negative_G wrote: »

There are various apps designed for aviation use that have specific night modes which will in no way degrade night vision.

Where there may be an issue is with the use of NVG but CHC arent approved to use them in Ireland.

I use a few astronomy apps that use full black on the display and red text and I had to hack my iPad to be able to lower the brightness below stock.

Negative_G

ectoraige wrote: »

Just wondering, who would have to licence them, the IAA?

Yes, they would require authorisation from the IAA in order to operate with NVG.

smurfjed

For the purpose of discussion only, this is a screen print of the JeppFD application for aircraft navigation, the APP has its own night screen and independent screen darkening. Its very easy to use in a glass cockpit at nighttime.

Brennus335

smurfjed wrote: »

For the purpose of discussion only, this is a screen print of the JeppFD application for aircraft navigation, the APP has its own night screen and independent screen darkening. Its very easy to use in a glass cockpit at nighttime.

We use LIDO on a Surface tablet. Brightness is a major issue. Even in night mode with brightness at 0%, it's still too bright in a dark flight deck. Very distracting, so much so that sometimes I have to turn it off.

smurfjed

I thought that the surface had a 12 inch screen, isn't that kinda big?

Brennus335

smurfjed wrote: »

I thought that the surface had a 12 inch screen, isn't that kinda big?

It's a 10.8 inch screen.

Growler!!!

Was that not sorted in one of the updates recently? The brightness settings are "Darkest, Dark, Suggested, Bright and Brightest" and then in the Lido app the charts can be shown in Day and Night mode.

I've never had an issue with the "EPOS" as it's called but I do still tend to use the Toughbook as it's mostly indestructible.

Bren, are you on the "Twin"?

tretorn

Is there any reason why they were flying so low over the sea.

Would you not stay up as high as possible until coming into land.

How is the ground warning system so important when they were no where near ground, they were out over the ocean.

None of this makes sense to me.

Surely also if you knew there was a problem with the maps and a problem with the beacons and lifejackets you would make sure you knew where you were going.

Does anyone consult paper maps anymore.

Gaoth Laidir

tretorn wrote: »

Is there any reason why they were flying so low over the sea.

Would you not stay up as high as possible until coming into land.

How is the ground warning system so important when they were no where near ground, they were out over the ocean.

None of this makes sense to me.

Surely also if you knew there was a problem with the maps and a problem with the beacons and lifejackets you would make sure you knew where you were going.

Does anyone consult paper maps anymore.

I'd suggest you go back and have a read of the 3676 posts before yours.

TomOnBoard

Katie Hannon hosted the "Saturday With..." programme today and fleshed out some of the issues that she had experienced over the past few month in putting together her report for Thursday's Prime Time. She was very critical of official (Govt. Department) responses to many questions that she asked around "Who is actually in charge of/ responsible for the regulation and safety of our Search & Rescue services". Regina Doherty was on and frankly she could not give straight answers to questions Katie told her panel that she had raised with various Depts and for which she did not get answers.

Katie's difficulties in getting answers from Government did not come across to me on Thursday night, but I found it troubling that she could not get clear answers around the whole regulation of the CHC contract.

When asked why maps that had been issued in the Summer contained further dangerous inaccuracies, Regina hid behind the 'can't comment due to ongoing investigation' argument. However, Katie left her in no doubt that ducking and diving like that wouldn't wash, because maps issuing in the Summer wouldn't form any part of the 'ongoing investigation' into the loss of R116. Issues around those recently- issued maps need answers now as they contain dangerous inaccuracies.

Only the final report can tell us whether these questions and issues have any relevance to the actual loss of R116 and its crew. However, it is deeply troubling that so much 'fog' appears to exist around officialdom's ownership of the service and an apparent lack of taking responsibility for it on an ongoing basis.

The segment of the programme dealing with R116 is towards the end IIRC

https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=b9%5F21261685%5F11988%5F28%2D10%2D2017%5F

Gaoth Laidir

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Katie Hannon hosted the "Saturday With..." programme today and fleshed out some of the issues that she had experienced over the past few month in putting together her report for Thursday's Prime Time. She was very critical of official (Govt. Department) responses to many questions that she asked around "Who is actually in charge of/ responsible for the regulation and safety of our Search & Rescue services". Regina Doherty was on and frankly she could not give straight answers to questions Katie told her panel that she had raised with various Depts and for which she did not get answers.

Katie's difficulties in getting answers from Government did not come across to me on Thursday night, but I found it troubling that she could not get clear answers around the whole regulation of the CHC contract.

When asked why maps that had been issued in the Summer contained further dangerous inaccuracies, Regina hid behind the 'can't comment due to ongoing investigation' argument. However, Katie left her in no doubt that ducking and diving like that wouldn't wash, because maps issuing in the Summer wouldn't form any part of the 'ongoing investigation' into the loss of R116. Issues around those recently- issued maps need answers now as they contain dangerous inaccuracies.

Only the final report can tell us whether these questions and issues have any relevance to the actual loss of R116 and its crew. However, it is deeply troubling that so much 'fog' appears to exist around officialdom's ownership of the service and an apparent lack of taking responsibility for it on an ongoing basis.

The segment of the programme dealing with R116 is towards the end IIRC

https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=b9%5F21261685%5F11988%5F28%2D10%2D2017%5F

To be fair, last I checked, Katie Hannon doesn't work for the AAIU. RTE have no devign right to carry out their own investigation. If the Daily Mail was asking the same questions would people be still up in arms?

TomOnBoard

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

To be fair, last I checked, Katie Hannon doesn't work for the AAIU. RTE have no devign right to carry out their own investigation. If the Daily Mail was asking the same questions would people be still up in arms?

To be equally fair, no-one ever suggested that Katie Hannon works for the AAIU. While some of her questions may result from the R116 tragedy, others appear to be highly relevant to ongoing operations. Are you saying that RTE, Daily Mail or whomever doesn't have the right to ask "who is in charge" and to receive a truthful answer that is not wrapped up in defensive obfuscation? I truly hope that the 'national broadcaster' does have that right to ask such a question on behalf of Joe and Mary Public who will never get the opportunity!

plodder

Negative_G wrote: »

Degrades is probably the wrong word for it. The system still works as it should but it will restrict the amount of aural warnings based on the fact that they were planning to operate at low level.

I wouldn't get hung up on the word. The interim report spells out exactly what the limitations are in that mode and I'd say the final report will have a lot to say about that whole question.

Gaoth Laidir

TomOnBoard wrote: »

To be equally fair, no-one ever suggested that Katie Hannon works for the AAIU. While some of her questions may result from the R116 tragedy, others appear to be highly relevant to ongoing operations. Are you saying that RTE, Daily Mail or whomever doesn't have the right to ask "who is in charge" and to receive a truthful answer that is not wrapped up in defensive obfuscation? I truly hope that the 'national broadcaster' does have that right to ask such a question on behalf of Joe and Mary Public who will never get the opportunity!

I'm pretty sure all her answers will come out in the final report. If not, then is the time to ask them. No one will be able to hide behind the "still under investigation" shield then.

Roger_007

I'm still trying to figure out why RTE decided to throw in their tuppenceworth in advance of the AAIU final report being published. The issues raised had already been flagged in the preliminary report and will no doubt be fleshed out in the final report. Are they, as a previous poster suggested, trying to throw up a smokescreen in the public mind. If they are, they are doing everyone a disservice. The most important thing is to establish the cause(s) of the accident so that something similar doesn't happen again.

rustynutz

Roger_007 wrote: »

I'm still trying to figure out why RTE decided to throw in their tuppenceworth in advance of the AAIU final report being published. The issues raised had already been flagged in the preliminary report and will no doubt be fleshed out in the final report. Are they, as a previous poster suggested, trying to throw up a smokescreen in the public mind. If they are, they are doing everyone a disservice. The most important thing is to establish the cause(s) of the accident so that something similar doesn't happen again.

Id say the reason someone within the SAR went to RTE because SAR crews appear to still be at risk because of the unreliable maps. Not much point waiting 12 months for a report if another crew is lost in the meantime

qhe0i9zvfgdou8

Roger_007 wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out why RTE decided to throw in their tuppenceworth in advance of the AAIU final report being published. The issues raised had already been flagged in the preliminary report and will no doubt be fleshed out in the final report.

Maybe because nothing has changed since the preliminary report was published. Surely when the issues with the maps and life jackets were flagged something should have been done immediately. Instead we have crews flying every day with the same maps and life jackets. If I was one of those crew members I'd want something done now.

Negative_G

plodder wrote: »

I wouldn't get hung up on the word. The interim report spells out exactly what the limitations are in that mode and I'd say the final report will have a lot to say about that whole question.

I'm not getting hung up no the word.

I just think it is important for those reading that may not be familiar with EGPWS modes that the mode selection made is routinely used.

The EGPWS still functions absolutely perfectly. All that happens is that certain warnings are inhibited to prevent spurious and distracting warnings.

TomOnBoard

Estelle Gifted University wrote: »

Maybe because nothing has changed since the preliminary report was published. Surely when the issues with the maps and life jackets were flagged something should have been done immediately. Instead we have crews flying every day with the same maps and life jackets. If I was one of those crew members I'd want something done now.

I understood that the lifejackets being worn by winch crews were found to be OK, but that the ones worn by pilots were not. These pilot-worn lifejackets were withdrawn from service by CHC 'immediately' according to the report. (See: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rescue-116-crash-concerns-raised-about-coast-guard-life-jackets-in-2011-report-36263357.html)

However, the testing that established this was not conducted until some 8 weeks after the crash, and only as a result of insistence by staff that such testing should be done.

The main points at issue (independent of the ongoing AAIU investigation) in Katie Hannon's reports concerned:

a) the allegation that impact of the beacon location issues on the safety/usability of the pilot LJs were known for some time and had been communicated by crews up through the CHC chain of command over the past 5 years;
b) the allegation that maps issued AFTER the fatal crash, during the Summer, contained material inaccuracies;
c) the statement made by KH (on the Saturday with... programme) that, despite numerous communications with Govt Depts she could not establish who exactly in Govt is in charge of the SAR operation in Ireland and which Dept is responsible for oversight and regulation of the CHC operation.

On top of these points was the report in the Irish Times on Thursday/ Friday that, as a result of the locator beacon issue, "The Health and Safety Authority is now working with An Garda Síochána on a joint investigation that will result in a file being forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions" (See: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rescue-116-hsa-investigation-opens-possibility-of-prosecutions-1.3270581)

There is clearly a school of thought that further questioning/reporting by the Media on the Rescue116 tragedy should await the final AAIU report. Another school believes that robust questioning is required to ensure that, while the AAIU investigation proceeds, any/all safety related issues should be explored and any deficiencies that are found should be put right immediately and should not await the AAIU report. I am a member of the second school.

And I also want to know exactly which Dept in the Government hierarchy is responsible for ongoing monitoring/regulation of CHC itself, who can ask questions around the effectiveness of internal procedures whereby safety- related issues that had allegedly been raised for 5 years had apparently not been addressed.

plodder

Negative_G wrote: »

I'm not getting hung up no the word.

I just think it is important for those reading that may not be familiar with EGPWS modes that the mode selection made is routinely used.

The EGPWS still functions absolutely perfectly. All that happens is that certain warnings are inhibited to prevent spurious and distracting warnings.

Two points. On the system itself and this mode, it's not clear to me why the look-ahead warnings are inhibited. If the system is able to detect a large rock that the aircraft is heading towards at speed, then surely it is better to warn about that, than not.

On the use of the low alt mode, I would expect that it is routinely used when at low speed and actively engaged in rescue activities, but I think a big open question is about its use on approaches to landing locations at speed. That's what I'd expect the report to have a lot to say about.

Negative_G

plodder wrote: »

Two points. On the system itself and this mode, it's not clear to me why the look-ahead warnings are inhibited. If the system is able to detect a large rock that the aircraft is heading towards at speed, then surely it is better to warn about that, than not.

On the use of the low alt mode, I would expect that it is routinely used when at low speed and actively engaged in rescue activities, but I think a big open question is about its use on approaches to landing locations at speed. That's what I'd expect the report to have a lot to say about.

Without getting too technical, the low level inhibit mode is designed to be used when operating in a low level environment like you say and it serves an absolute purpose in that instance as it prevents spurious warnings.

It is generally, and maybe when we get to see CHC SOP's in the final report, not utilised when flying on instruments, low level, at night.

There are many questions. It's use and mode selection will be a big concern to the investigators.

Also, to add, from what we know so far, Blackrock Island did not exist on their database so even if the EGPWS had been working in its normal mode, it wouldn't have generated any warnings. The only other system which could have idenfied it would be a weather radar but that would have had many variables such as the radar range, the sweep angle, rate of sweep, tilt angle, how fast they were travelling and weather the WX radar was on and 'painting'.

Negative_G

TomOnBoard wrote: »

And I also want to know exactly which Dept in the Government hierarchy is responsible for ongoing monitoring/regulation of CHC itself, who can ask questions around the effectiveness of internal procedures whereby safety- related issues that had allegedly been raised for 5 years had apparently not been addressed.

One would assume that the Dept of Transport would be the government authority, although after the most recent Prime Time report there is certainly questions over lack of ownership and oversight.

That being said, the IAA stepped in and stopped CHC conducting inter-hospital transfers as they were unhappy that they were mixing SAR & HEMS crew duty periods.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/number-of-missions-by-coast-guard-helicopter-crews-to-be-reduced-1.3208414

plodder

30/01/2018: AAIU Statement, Investigation of accident involving R116, Blackrock Co. Mayo, 14 March 2017

TomOnBoard

"The AAIU Investigation into the accident involving the loss of R116 and its four crew members at Blackrock, Co. Mayo on 14 March 2017 is still in the process of gathering factual and background information and is making steady progress. The AAIU again extends its condolences to the families and friends of those who lost their lives in this accident. International Convention, and associated National and European legislation, require that, if a final report cannot be made publicly available within 12 months of the date of the accident, an interim statement detailing the progress of the investigation and any safety issues raised, will be made publicly available.

The AAIU wishes to advise that due to the depth and breadth of this Investigation, it will not be possible to issue a final report within 12 months of the date of the accident and therefore an interim statement will be published. The Investigation is endeavouring to issue this interim statement before the anniversary; however, it is not possible to say at this time when the interim statement will be published. "

So, the reason for not being able to deliver the Report is 'due to the depth and breadth of this Investigation". But surely all such aircraft accident investigations would have envisaged such breadth and depth, yet report within the year? Does this statement imply that this Investigation is wider and deeper than would have been expected?

Negative_G

I appreciate that there was significant difficulty regarding the recovery of the crew and some of the wreckage but one would imagine that given the high profile nature of this accident and the media fallout that it is undesirable that it is going to take over twelve months to publish a report.

The cynic in me thinks that this particular case requires very careful selection of the facts as there will be a substantial amount of financial compensation to be paid as a result. The thing is, who will foot the bill, and the while the purpose of the accident report is not to attribute blame to one party, it will unfortunately from a legal perspective.

faoiarvok

TomOnBoard wrote: »

So, the reason for not being able to deliver the Report is 'due to the depth and breadth of this Investigation". But surely all such aircraft accident investigations would have envisaged such breadth and depth, yet report within the year? Does this statement imply that this Investigation is wider and deeper than would have been expected?

The majority of incident/accident investigations do not involve the total loss of an aircraft and its occupants, and have a lot more readily accessible evidence.

Take a look at Aviation Safety Network's database of 2016 incidents. Some of these incidents (up to a year or more before R116) involving fatalities or total hull loss of an aircraft still have not had a final report issued. Of those that have, there are plenty that were not released within a year. It's really not that unusual.

The Rape of Lucretia

TomOnBoard wrote: »

So, the reason for not being able to deliver the Report is 'due to the depth and breadth of this Investigation". But surely all such aircraft accident investigations would have envisaged such breadth and depth, yet report within the year? Does this statement imply that this Investigation is wider and deeper than would have been expected?

Or is it just PR wafflese speak for 'the report will be late'.

cml387

It can't be "late" as the AAIU never gave a deadline for issuing a report.

ironclaw

I remember reading the report into the crash of Concorde AF 4590. It crashed on the 25th of July 2000. The preliminary report was released on the 31st of August 2000 and another one in December of that year. The final report wasn't until the 16th of January 2002. Any report I've studied has been at least 18 months to 2 years after the incident.

Stovepipe

The AAIU is a small unit, nor more than about 12 people all told, which is tiny for any Govt department, considering the level of work involved. All of the people involved are flat out, dealing with R116 and other accidents and given the amount of political and media coverage of the event, they were right to put out the statement.

smurfjed

It can't be "late" as the AAIU never gave a deadline for issuing a report.

The aviation investigation process defined by ICAO gives deadlines, that was probably the reason the statement was issued.

Stovepipe

that's why all of the international AAIUs publish interim reports; if there are fatalities, then it brings a load of different agencies into the mix, then any investigation just grows from being a simple investigation into a much bigger deal, involving private and public sensitivities and Government, the military, the police, the fire services, health services and so on. Most AAIUs deal with small-scale stuff as their daily lot but now and then big ones come along that demand more of their time and resources.

EchoIndia

Negative_G wrote: »

The cynic in me thinks that this particular case requires very careful selection of the facts as there will be a substantial amount of financial compensation to be paid as a result. The thing is, who will foot the bill, and the while the purpose of the accident report is not to attribute blame to one party, it will unfortunately from a legal perspective.

It's easy to be cynical and go for the "conspiracy" theory. Where is the evidence that the AAIU does or would operate in the manner suggested?