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

Irish Steve

Fair enough, I was trying to keep it simple, not forgetting it at all

Negative_G

Irish Steve wrote: »

Fair enough, I was trying to keep it simple, not forgetting it at all

Not meaning to have a go but the purpose of a Top Cover aircraft in this day and age is much more than just as a comms relay.

Irish Steve

Negative_G wrote: »

Not meaning to have a go but the purpose of a Top Cover aircraft in this day and age is much more than just as a comms relay.

Indeed, but that's the issue that's underlying some of this, a proper Top cover aircraft would have to be a sensible size and have appropriate crewing if it were to be able to carry flares, and other rescue equipment, which means that something like a light piston twin is not going to be suitable, the Aer Corp Casa aircraft is probably the smallest size that would be suitable, which would have been a significant additional cost for the SAR operator to have available in order to ensure that top cover was available without recourse to other service operators.

TomOnBoard

Jeez, this thread is the ultimate example of Groundhog Day!!

Tumbleweed for months... Then, every time we get a material development, all the old hostilities awaken...And all the old arguments are given a haircut and a new set of clothes.

Lets just await the report. Anyone seeking revision under the law is, prima facie, acting within the law. So they have a right to do so! If you disagree with them for doing so, then use the democratic processes to change the law.

Negative_G

Irish Steve wrote: »

Indeed, but that's the issue that's underlying some of this, a proper Top cover aircraft would have to be a sensible size and have appropriate crewing if it were to be able to carry flares, and other rescue equipment, which means that something like a light piston twin is not going to be suitable, the Aer Corp Casa aircraft is probably the smallest size that would be suitable, which would have been a significant additional cost for the SAR operator to have available in order to ensure that top cover was available without recourse to other service operators.

I agree with you. So what are the options?

Do we invest another 100-150million (rough estimate) on top of a new CHC SAR contract for FW top cover.

Or is it invested to the defence forces and the SLA is changed to ensure top cover is always available as opposed to the current situation?

I suppose the issue is, if the Government invest circa 100 million to cover this cost through a contract, once the contract expires, everything js pulled up and moved out. If you invested the same amount into state assets, at least it could be used for other roles in addition upon contract expiration.

For example, the purchase of another CASA 295 would represent a much greater return of investment for the tax payer than having an additional 60-100 million for someone like CHC only for it to disappear into the ether after 10 years.

In summary, and very simply.

100m (On top of 500m) invested in CHC or equivalent could ensure a FW asset for the period of a contract. Which historically is 10 years in duration.

100m invested in the Air Corps to acquire another Casa 295 would provide the state, subject to SLA arrangements, a full time FW asset (in addition to the two already purchased). However this aircraft could then also participate in Maritime Patrols, Customs & Excise patrols, air ambulance, logistical movements, para ops, etc etc.

I would be interested to know the breakdown of CHC missions over the last 5-10 years which required, by their own SOPS, the presence of a top cover aircraft. I suspect it represents a tiny percentage which was why CHC were happy and ameanable to the "as available" conditionn which formed part of the contract.

Let's not forget that the Government is currently paying a private firm from the UK €7million euro, to perform Air Ambulance duties at night time only. Interestingly, I believe this company only do off island missions. So if a liver becomes available in Kerry and needs to get to Dublin. They don't even get a call.

€7 million is more than enough to acquire a small/medium jet or prop aircraft like KA200.

The DoD would rather pay it to a private firm than attempt to make it work and retain the associated assets and personnel.

Coil Kilcrea

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Jeez, this thread is the ultimate example of Groundhog Day!!

Tumbleweed for months... Then, every time we get a material development, all the old hostilities awaken...And all the old arguments are given a haircut and a new set of clothes.

Lets just await the report. Anyone seeking revision under the law is, prima facie, acting within the law. So they have a right to do so! If you disagree with them for doing so, then use the democratic processes to change the law.

Oops ..... my entire fault for making a bags of trying to explain top cover. Apologies to all.

Coil Kilcrea

Irish Steve wrote: »

Fair enough, I was trying to keep it simple, not forgetting it at all

And you did a great job. Thanks Steve.

Negative_G

Coil Kilcrea wrote: »

Oops ..... my entire fault for making a bags of trying to explain top cover. Apologies to all.

No need for apologies. You made a statement which was incorrect. I just wanted to clarify it.

Irish Steve, with the greatest of intentions made some points which, in my opinion, ignored some of the basic principles of top cover.

plodder

Irish Examiner: Review of 116 crash report conflicts with safety standards, say pilots

I don't really get the issue people have with this review. Sure, it remains to be seen whether Ross was right to accede to it, but it's been part of the legislative framework since 2009.

The media seem to still think that CHC are the party that requested it. I don't think there is any report that says a family member requested it, though it could have been requested by more than one interested party possibly.

mr.anonymous

plodder wrote: »

Irish Examiner: Review of 116 crash report conflicts with safety standards, say pilots

I don't really get the issue people have with this review. Sure, it remains to be seen whether Ross was right to accede to it, but it's been part of the legislative framework since 2009.

The media seem to still think that CHC are the party that requested it. I don't think there is any report that says a family member requested it, though it could have been requested by more than one interested party possibly.

The same person who said about the interim report publishing the CVR transcripts up to the accident point:
"There is absolutely no justification for – or benefit from – publishing specifically the last two minutes of this flight, other than feeding a thirst for sensationalism.”

The review could have been requested by any party - the operator, the map data provider, the life jacket manufacturer, even the IAA.

It's worth waiting and allowing the process to run its course.

Markcheese

Negative_G wrote: »

€7 million is more than enough to acquire a small/medium jet or prop aircraft like KA200.

The DoD would rather pay it to a private firm than attempt to make it work and retain the associated assets and personnel.

But buying the aircraft isn't the issue ...its Flight crew maintenance,air traffic control and everything else ...
Some of that could be solved by basing assets at airports that are operated 24 / 7 .. ie not baldonnal ...

Negative_G

Markcheese wrote: »

But buying the aircraft isn't the issue ...its Flight crew maintenance,air traffic control and everything else ...
Some of that could be solved by basing assets at airports that are operated 24 / 7 .. ie not baldonnal ...

I've already highlighted the staffing issues.

Resources and the allocation of resources is an issue.

€7 million would go a long way towards retaining people from the fields you mentioned.

2011abc

Without trying to have this descend into a right wing vs left wing melee I have to say I was amazed watching a couple of military aviation documentaries recently to see how much the air forces of UK and USA have become dependent on 'private contractors '.It seemed everybody except the pilots were civilians ( and even many instructors are privateers also) Seems following this thread we are the exact same .OK so few want a return to 1970s style UK car manufacturing union /politics but by God it seems we've swung too far in the opposite direction .Our service men and women are expected to work at hourly rates a 14 year old would laugh at yet multi million euro contracts are awarded with nothing to show for it after a few years .Do the bean counters really get their sums right or is this stuff done the same way as planning permission with 'brown envelopes'?

Nijmegen

2011abc wrote: »

Without trying to have this descend into a right wing vs left wing melee I have to say I was amazed watching a couple of military aviation documentaries recently to see how much the air forces of UK and USA have become dependent on 'private contractors '.It seemed everybody except the pilots were civilians ( and even many instructors are privateers also) Seems following this thread we are the exact same .OK so few want a return to 1970s style UK car manufacturing union /politics but by God it seems we've swung too far in the opposite direction .Our service men and women are expected to work at hourly rates a 14 year old would laugh at yet multi million euro contracts are awarded with nothing to show for it after a few years .Do the bean counters really get their sums right or is this stuff done the same way as planning permission with 'brown envelopes'?

The outsourcing of specialist services by government to the private sector is entirely justifiable and delivers value to taxpayers in a number of areas. The total cost of ownership in the public sector when you layer in bureaucracy, defined benefit pension schemes and union capture is a significant overhead versus a contract with a start and an end date so long as you have strong controls for quality of service delivery.

This accident aside, I don't believe that there have been major complaints for example about the service provision of the Rescue helicopters. Internal gripes I'm sure about how they operate, but then you go into the Gardai or the Defence Forces for example and you'll find plenty of internal gripes about how things are done there too. Same with any complicated operating machine.

Negative_G

Nijmegen wrote: »

The outsourcing of specialist services by government to the private sector is entirely justifiable and delivers value to taxpayers in a number of areas. The total cost of ownership in the public sector when you layer in bureaucracy, defined benefit pension schemes and union capture is a significant overhead versus a contract with a start and an end date so long as you have strong controls for quality of service delivery.

This accident aside, I don't believe that there have been major complaints for example about the service provision of the Rescue helicopters. Internal gripes I'm sure about how they operate, but then you go into the Gardai or the Defence Forces for example and you'll find plenty of internal gripes about how things are done there too. Same with any complicated operating machine.

The difference being the Defence Forces are exempt from union membership and the working time directive so they in particular are in no way comparable to any other public or private sector body, especially not the Gardai.

But that's for another thread.

Gadgetman496

Rescue 116 crew leave beautiful message in the sky in memory of colleagues who died in tragic crash.





https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/rescue-116-crew-leave-beautiful-17924001


-

Beersmith

Back in the news http://www.rte.ie/news/connacht/2020/0908/1163879-r166-review/

Beersmith

Beersmith wrote: »

Back in the news http://www.rte.ie/news/connacht/2020/0908/1163879-r166-review/

Almost looks like they are trying to figure out precisely how to carry out the review, it being their first ever one into a completed AAIU report.

cml387

Deleted User wrote: »

Almost looks like they are trying to figure out precisely how to carry out the review, it being their first ever one into a completed AAIU report.

For a review to make any sense, senior accident investigators should be brought in from outside to review the evidence.
The invesigation into the Viscount crash was reviwed twice as I remember.

smurfjed

What exactly is there to review?

Roger_007

smurfjed wrote: »

What exactly is there to review?

The stated reason is that someone feels that the report reflects badly on the reputation of some party referred to in the report.
While it is not the objective of an AAIU investigation to apportion blame to any person involved in an incident, it is often inevitable that the facts reported will point to errors or omissions that would imply the responsibility of some particular individual(s).
The AAIU have a delicate balance to achieve in reporting the facts of an incident without directly laying blame but their number one job is to ensure as far as possible that all the factors which led to the incident are made known so that a similar incident can be prevented from occurring again. Sometimes the sensitivity of individuals must take second place to the greater good.
I would hope that this review is not just a delaying tactic in the hope that it can be strung out interminably to prevent the report ever being published. That would set an unfortunate precedent.

Steve

Is there a final report from AAIU yet?

Irish Steve

As far as the AAIU are concerned, they have completed their final report, but one of the parties that are involved have exercised their right to have it reviewed. It would appear that the exact format of that review is causing some problems, and it has not made much if any progress on that task.

cml387

cml387 wrote: »

For a review to make any sense, senior accident investigators should be brought in from outside to review the evidence.
The invesigation into the Viscount crash was reviwed twice as I remember.

The Viscount crash happened on my 10th birthday, was a big topic at the time and interested me ever since. My Dad has known one of the crew. My old instructor Captain Darby Kennedy reckoned it was a trim tab fatigued by flapping in the wind they manner in which they were parked etc - he was a qualified mechanic too and knew these airplanes. Pre-smartphone days I printed off that second review and read it right through to keep me amused on a flight to Tenerife.

skallywag

smurfjed wrote: »

What exactly is there to review?

I believe that a family member of the crew was not happy with some of the content, and this is the reason for the delay.

sparrowcar

skallywag wrote: »

I believe that a family member of the crew was not happy with some of the content, and this is the reason for the delay.

I'm sure we can all understand that if it is the case.

skallywag

sparrowcar wrote: »

I'm sure we can all understand that if it is the case.

Absolutely.

As pointed out by several others, the report is not there to 'allocate blame', but at the same some findings could clearly be difficult to swallow for those who were close to the families, particularly if actions taken or decisions made are reported to be contributory factors to the accident.

Beersmith

I really don't see why any family member should be consulted at all. They aren't aviation experts. Its not as if its a gossip document about their personal life or something. Surely it could only possibly be critical of their possible choices etc

skallywag

I do see your point.

Perhaps the fact this is a such a 'high-profile' case where some crew were particularly well known to the general public may have extended some extra courtesy to the families. Or perhaps the families always have such a right in the event of an accident, I genuinely do not know the answer to that one, perhaps some of the more knowledgeable folk on here do.

I do see how the families may potentially be at odds with such a report though. E.g. imagine something along the lines of 'X made a decision to do Y, which was then a key ultimate factor in Z happening' etc. Such a statement would not need to be present, but the facts themselves could possibly be aligned to read that way. One could then imagine that the family could possibly argue something along the lines of 'But that implies that X caused the accident (which may be completely correct, or not, of course), and I do not agree with you because doing Y was something that was 'standard practice' according to a lot of other experts who I have spoken to' etc.

I am not trying to speculate here at all by the way, just trying to offer up some reasoning as to why this may be the situation at the moment.

Very many, if not most, accidents are multifactorial in that they involve some element of crew performance or practice that contributed to the outcome. To a family member it would be naturally very hard to accept that their loved one could inadvertently have contributed in any way to the deaths of others, moreso for the sake of younger generations growing up. If there was any possibility to save "reputation" of those dear to them, then it is totally understandable that no stone would be left unturned.

If the Hudson scenario had not played out on the saving of all lives, and Sully/copilot had not survived, then the family members would also likely have reacted by wanting the pilots' reputations saved. The report in that case would have stated that x or y wasn't done and that they could technically have landed successfully at a nearby available runway; but without Sully & co surviving to describe exactly how things were in reality that prevented it being humanly possible for them to achieve it at that instance.

The family who want the report double-checked may have been advised by a knowledgeable friend that the accident could not have been realistically prevented under the particular type of circumstance that played out, and to appeal for a review.

NH2013

I don't believe it was a family member in this case, and was it infact the IAA that took issue with it and how their regulatory oversight was criticised in the report.

This is where the issue arises in running the review as typically it would be up to the IAA themselves to organise such a review, but there's now a significant conflict of interest there.

That is certainly what I understand anyways from what I've heard.

I also believe that this the first time an AAIU report has actually ever been formally called into question, typically their reports are always accepted as published first time.

NH2013

NH2013 wrote: »

I don't believe it was a family member in this case, and was it infact the IAA that took issue with it and how their regulatory oversight was criticised in the report.

This is where the issue arises in running the review as typically it would be up to the IAA themselves to organise such a review, but there's now a significant conflict of interest there.

That is certainly what I understand anyways from what I've heard.

Aha! Interesting!

skallywag

NH2013 wrote: »

I don't believe it was a family member in this case, and was it infact the IAA that took issue with it and how their regulatory oversight was criticised in the report.

Good point, and perhaps it is also a factor.

It is certainly the case though that family members of the crew have taken issue with the report.

smurfjed

The purpose of these reports is to analyse the facts based on the information available, if those facts point to a failure in a procedure or process, then this information needs to be disseminated to other operators to prevent a reoccurrence.

Unfortunately in this world of ours, if there is any indication of a failure on the part of a human, you can expect his/her estate to be sued. This has previously happened in the Cork crash and the Aer Corp crash.

irishgeo

NH2013 wrote: »

I don't believe it was a family member in this case, and was it infact the IAA that took issue with it and how their regulatory oversight was criticised in the report.

This is where the issue arises in running the review as typically it would be up to the IAA themselves to organise such a review, but there's now a significant conflict of interest there.

That is certainly what I understand anyways from what I've heard.

I also believe that this the first time an AAIU report has actually ever been formally called into question, typically their reports are always accepted as published first time.

Can't we just get another country accident investigation team to do the review? Crash investigators are often invited in to other countries to investigate crashes.

Turbulent Bill

smurfjed wrote: »

The purpose of these reports is to analyse the facts based on the information available, if those facts point to a failure in a procedure or process, then this information needs to be disseminated to other operators to prevent a reoccurrence.

Exactly. Often the immediate cause of an accident is just a symptom of a more systemic issue, such as a process gap. It's much more important to understand that than the final action involved in a crash.

Stovepipe

When you think of the number of organisations and groups connected to this event, by default, there's no wonder it's a convoluted affair. You have CHC, the families, the IAA, Sikorsky, the manufacturers of all the subsystems, the Ordnance Survey and as a consequence, the Air Corps and the State. A lot of the arms of the State are involved so naturally some people have kept a very close eye on this event since the tragedy itself. The potential results have wider implications. This has so much in common to the crash of DH 248 and it shook the daylights out of the Air Corps and created quite a stir in Irish aviation's upper circles and this has the potential to do the same.

Dwarf.Shortage

Stovepipe wrote: »

When you think of the number of organisations and groups connected to this event, by default, there's no wonder it's a convoluted affair. You have CHC, the families, the IAA, Sikorsky, the manufacturers of all the subsystems, the Ordnance Survey and as a consequence, the Air Corps and the State. A lot of the arms of the State are involved so naturally some people have kept a very close eye on this event since the tragedy itself. The potential results have wider implications. This has so much in common to the crash of DH 248 and it shook the daylights out of the Air Corps and created quite a stir in Irish aviation's upper circles and this has the potential to do the same.

Would every crash not have the same, or very similar, set of stakeholders?

Every aircraft that ever came down had an owner, an operator, suppliers of subsystems, the crew had families etc.

Stovepipe

Not necessarily. Most Irish events, be they fatal or not, minor or major, don't involve so many arms of the State. It's usually the airline or operator, the manufacturer (quite often as little more than a courtesy if the aircraft is involved but not at fault) and maybe the IAA as operator of the airspace and the national radar and even a minor involvement of the Met Office for an aftercast of the weather. This event has cast a wider net.

smurfjed

Looking at this from a purely technical point of view, Why are any ‘arms of the state’ involved at all?

cml387

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

Would every crash not have the same, or very similar, set of stakeholders?

Every aircraft that ever came down had an owner, an operator, suppliers of subsystems, the crew had families etc.

As Stovepipe says, plus the fact it was such a high profile accident and there will be considerable media interest when the report comes out.

Stovepipe

@smurfjed, the State's airspace, an aircraft operating on behalf of the State, bearing the national flag, flown by people mostly trained in the State, paid for by the State's money, under a radar screen provided by the State, operated by the State's employees. They'd have to be involved. If this had been a minor accident, whereby a guy ran his Cessna into a hedge and injured only his pride, they'd still be involved. It's not like in America where accident investigation is devolved down to very local official level. Ireland's investigation system is designed to deliberately involve as many State agencies as possible, such as the Gardai, Fire Brigade, Health Service, IAA, Dept of Defence, Air Corps,etc,etc.

Stovepipe

Stovepipe wrote: »

Not necessarily. Most Irish events, be they fatal or not, minor or major, don't involve so many arms of the State. It's usually the airline or operator, the manufacturer (quite often as little more than a courtesy if the aircraft is involved but not at fault) and maybe the IAA as operator of the airspace and the national radar and even a minor involvement of the Met Office for an aftercast of the weather. This event has cast a wider net.

The IAA is also involved as it is not only the Air Navigation Services Provider (ANSP, or what we used to call Air Traffic Control back in simpler times) but also the Safety Regulator. This dual remit is unusual in Europe, albeit it used to be the norm 30 or so years ago. Most European countries have split these functions. It’s the FAA model, too.

Govt policy is to split the two functions and that is in train. I expect it is the safety regulatory side that is a party to the report, rather than the ANSP

Stovepipe

Stovepipe wrote: »

When you think of the number of organisations and groups connected to this event, by default, there's no wonder it's a convoluted affair. You have CHC, the families, the IAA, Sikorsky, the manufacturers of all the subsystems, the Ordnance Survey and as a consequence, the Air Corps and the State. A lot of the arms of the State are involved so naturally some people have kept a very close eye on this event since the tragedy itself. The potential results have wider implications. This has so much in common to the crash of DH 248 and it shook the daylights out of the Air Corps and created quite a stir in Irish aviation's upper circles and this has the potential to do the same.

I remember the night of DH248, was in the fog on the south coast with my mother when curiously she said a couple of hours before "some stupid little aircraft is going to take off in this fog". I was caught driving, had to slow to a crawl. Pressure on rescue missions can be great in these conditions.

Storm 10

Sister of a crewmember of Rescue 116 will be on the Late Late show tonight

Roger_007

Storm 10 wrote: »

Sister of a crewmember of Rescue 116 will be on the Late Late show tonight

Really good interview.
I was afraid that they would stray into the circumstances of the accident. That would have been wrong at the present stage of the investigation. I’m glad they didn’t go there.

TomOnBoard

Roger_007 wrote: »

Really good interview.
I was afraid that they would stray into the circumstances of the accident. That would have been wrong at the present stage of the investigation. I’m glad they didn’t go there.

A good interview by Tubbs.. well handled
.. no undue interference in the crash. Simply looked at the human aspect of how does one sister deal with the death of her sibling in a widely reported public service accident...

TomOnBoard

TomOnBoard wrote: »

A good interview by Tubbs.. well handled
.. no undue interference in the crash. Simply looked at the human aspect of how does one sister deal with the death of her sibling in a widely reported public service accident...

They were legally precluded from going there. Niamh is very le do headed and safe for RTÉ to interview, to remind the nation about the tragedy.

skallywag

I do not think that RTE were ever going to go anywhere near the details of the accident.

It will be interesting to see how the details eventually get treated by the media when the report is finally released.

skallywag

skallywag wrote: »

I do not think that RTE were ever going to go anywhere near the details of the accident.

It will be interesting to see how the details eventually get treated by the media when the report is finally released.

Ray Darcy tried to broach the subject with Niamh, but she just said "it's ongoing, Ray". When the report is finally out the media will no doubt be all over it for years to come, it will be the subject to of many documentaries, indeed decades to come.