Irish SAR discussion

BoatMad

TomOnBoard wrote: »

You're not answering my question. All this is an attempt at deflecting from my question which is quite simple and has nothing to do with Nimrods, fast jets, Aer Corps or whatever else could have been brought to bear in either another day, a better world or in yesteryear.

Your point about the Aer Corps declining 'coz it's helicopters are less capable doesn't make sense as I believe only the cASAs were in the frame. So no, I don't believe I'm missing points at all; I'm finding it very difficult to relate your response to my question.

Apologies

What I was long windedly trying to say , was that top cover should be provided by an aircraft considerably faster then the rescue asset

in order to maximise SAR response , Helis are placed around our coast , Hence to provide what you require would need two aircraft in each location , or a decision to delay a launch , simply to wait to a slow top cover aircraft to catch up

thats why its cant be done in the Ireland context

( It brings us to a side bar, that it is utterly ridiculous that ireland cannot muster a small contingent of fast multi role interceptor jets )

TomOnBoard

BoatMad wrote: »

All decisions on Helicopter and Lifeboat assets are initially decided on by MRCC Malin or Valentia , The decision to launch is not taken primarily on an assessment of the medical situation , but more on the decision that the MMRC has been asked to help

That's quite different from what is said on the IRCG website:

"Provision of Medical Link Calls

The Coast Guard also provides Ireland's 24/7 Radio Medical Advice Service whereby vessels making calls on either VHF or MF radio, or telephone call requiring medical advice or assistance are provided with a radio/telephone link to Medico Cork in Cork University Hospital or to foreign Medico Centres. If medical advice requires the casualty to be taken off the vessel then the MRCC/MRSC providing the link will arrange for the casualty to be transported from the vessel to a hospital. IRCG Responders or aircrew dealing with patients in remote locations can be linked live through a Coordination centre on marine communications to Medico Cork or any foreign Medico Centre."

BoatMad

Well that's interesting and perhaps something that should be looked at. Although this is according to the Dept:
The Coast Guard also provides Ireland's 24/7 Radio Medical Advice Service whereby vessels making calls on either VHF or MF radio, or telephone call requiring medical advice or assistance are provided with a radio/telephone link to Medico Cork in Cork University Hospital or to foreign Medico Centres. If medical advice requires the casualty to be taken off the vessel then the MRCC/MRSC providing the link will arrange for the casualty to be transported from the vessel to a hospital. IRCG Responders or aircrew dealing with patients in remote locations can be linked live through a Coordination centre on marine communications to Medico Cork or any foreign Medico Centre.

Yes this is as I said , CUH is the initial go to, but as I said while CUH can contribute to the decision to launch , they have no say in whether the SAR asset is launched or not.

This discussion is irrelevant in the context of SAR 116s fatal accident . irrespective of the reasons , a SAR helicopter should be able to fly across the country and land in near IMC conditions . I am personally quite confident I understand why in this case they did do so. But until the final report I will not place any deductions here . ( There are other ancillary issues the the main report needs to examine , but the core reason is clear )


Again just go be clear, MMRC will decide on the basic decision to launch, in a medical situation they will typically seek expert knowledge to determine if the casualty can be " evacuated ", because there are many situations where the evac is potentially more dangerous to the casualty then not.

There are many reasons other then medical why a SAR helicopter may be launched also

Reati

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The idea that every injury, no mater how not serious, should be met with a helicopter evacuation is ridiculous. Triage is not a dirty word. Assessing the appropriateness of a potentially risky tasking is not ridiculous.
.

No one said that. The injury in this case was triaged iirc.

BoatMad

The idea that every injury, no mater how not serious, should be met with a helicopter evacuation is ridiculous. Triage is not a dirty word. Assessing the appropriateness of a potentially risky tasking is not ridiculous.

This debate is a length of string . The system as it stands is that the primarily decision too use any given SAR asset ( not just Helis ) is taken by the MMRC,

This is a global protocol agreed under the worldwide GMDSS rules.

Medical expertise is an adjunct to that.

Thats the way the cookie crumbles and personally Id prefer to launch and be wasted then decide not to launch and have a fatal situation develop unexpectedly

we are fortunate to have one of the best SAR systems on the planet here in Ireland

BoatMad

Reati wrote: »

No one said that. The injury in this case was triaged iirc.

Yes but the point is the medical expertise does not have the ability to stand down a launch

The doctor may decide the injury is not life threatening , MMRC may still decide to recover the casualty irrespective ( and often does )

ProfessorPlum

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes this is as I said , CUH is the initial go to, but as I said while CUH can contribute to the decision to launch , they have no say in whether the SAR asset is launched or not.

This discussion is irrelevant in the context of SAR 116s fatal accident . irrespective of the reasons , a SAR helicopter should be able to fly across the country and land in near IMC conditions . I am personally quite confident I understand why in this case they did do so. But until the final report I will not place any deductions here . ( There are other ancillary issues the the main report needs to examine , but the core reason is clear )


Again just go be clear, MMRC will decide on the basic decision to launch, in a medical situation they will typically seek expert knowledge to determine if the casualty can be " evacuated ", because there are many situations where the evac is potentially more dangerous to the casualty then not.

There are many reasons other then medical why a SAR helicopter may be launched also

But that's not quite what you said.

I said I was under the impression that there was a medical input into the decision to evacuate. The Dept page seems to back that up. That doesn't appear to be what happened in this instance, which as I said, surprised me.

And as I also said as my first point, the decision to task has nothing to do with why this accident happened, so I'm not sure why you bring that up again.

TomOnBoard

Reati wrote: »

No one said that. The injury in this case was triaged iirc.

Nope!

The AAIU report clearly shows that both Sligo and Dublin were contacted by Malin BEFORE a call as made to Cork.

BoatMad

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

But that's not quite what you said.

I said I was under the impression that there was a medical input into the decision to evacuate. The Dept page seems to back that up. That doesn't appear to be what happened in this instance, which as I said, surprised me.

And as I also said as my first point, the decision to task has nothing to do with why this accident happened, so I'm not sure why you bring that up again.

you are fundamentally mis-reading this line

"If medical advice requires the casualty to be taken off the vessel then the MRCC/MRSC providing the link will arrange for the casualty to be transported from the vessel to a hospital"

what thats means is that medical advice can advise MMRC that evac is a requirement , However MMRC can decide , even if the medical advise does not suggest an evac is necessary , to evac the person ( by using any declared asset)

to put it simply , the medics can say " yes he needs to be evec-ed " , but the only reason that they could prevent an evac, would be to inform MMRC that a certain form of evac would be injurious to the casuality. ( so for example , MMRC might task a lifeboat instead , where for example a serious back injury would prevent heli evac)

even so MMRC may send a Heli to shadow a vessel or for lots of reasons etc

ProfessorPlum

BoatMad wrote: »

This debate is a length of string . The system as it stands is that the primarily decision too use any given SAR asset ( not just Helis ) is taken by the MMRC,

This is a global protocol agreed under the worldwide GMDSS rules.

Medical expertise is an adjunct to that.

Thats the way the cookie crumbles and personally Id prefer to launch and be wasted then decide not to launch and have a fatal situation develop unexpectedly

we are fortunate to have one of the best SAR systems on the planet here in Ireland

Personally I'd prefer to launch when necessary and for good reason. If the medical expertise says that an evacuation is unnecessary or can be delayed until conditions are more favourable, I'd like to think that MMRC have a very good reason to go against that advice. Because as we saw here, fatal situations develop unexpectedly.

TomOnBoard

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes but the point is the medical expertise does not have the ability to stand down a launch

The doctor may decide the injury is not life threatening , MMRC may still decide to recover the casualty irrespective ( and often does )

Sir/Madam, you are changing your points every time something which you rely on as a fact is challenged. You mention reports that are secret but use their conclusion to support your case. You introduce notions such as our need as a nation to have access to fast intercept jets to deal with the issue of Top Cover provision. I regret that I can't keep up with you , although it is quite enjoyable watching your manoeuvrings.

So as they say on that thing on the telly, I wish you luck, but I'm afraid I'm out!

BoatMad

To give you a real case of how this all pans out

During the winter , off Courtown , during daylight , but in a stinker of a blow, A call was received from a member of the public , saying that , they thought the saw the head of a person offshore north of Courtown, and that person was waving their hands

MMRC tasked Rescue 116 , Arklow all weather lifeboat and Courtown inshore lifeboat . A multi hour search by all assets was undertaken , no person was found and in the meantime no missing person report was made.

The considered opinion was the cliff walker mistook an errant marker buoy , which have small flags , that had broken loose in the stormy conditions

Arguably this is a considerable deployment of assets on what turned out to be a trivial issue

It should be noted that hoax calls , cause more deployments that any trivial real ones

BoatMad

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Personally I'd prefer to launch when necessary and for good reason. If the medical expertise says that an evacuation is unnecessary or can be delayed until conditions are more favourable, I'd like to think that MMRC have a very good reason to go against that advice. Because as we saw here, fatal situations develop unexpectedly.

the fatal decision that developed here had no bearing on the SAR issue. A CFIT should not happen under the circumstances experienced by ( or demanded of ) Rescue 116. Its important not to mix this up.

You cannot determine SAR launch policy simply because a CFIT occurred

ProfessorPlum

BoatMad wrote: »

To give you a real case of how this all pans out

During the winter , off Courtown , during daylight , but in a stinker of a blow, A call was received from a member of the public , saying that , they thought the saw the head of a person offshore north of Courtown, and that person was waving their hands

MMRC tasked Rescue 116 , Arklow all weather lifeboat and Courtown inshore lifeboat . A multi hour search by all assets was undertaken , no person was found and in the meantime no missing person report was made.

The considered opinion was the cliff walker mistook an errant marker buoy , which have small flags , that had broken loose in the stormy conditions

Arguably this is a considerable deployment of assets on what turned out to be a trivial issue

It should be noted that hoax calls , cause more deployments that any trivial real ones

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

ProfessorPlum

BoatMad wrote: »

the fatal decision that developed here had no bearing on the SAR issue. A CFIT should not happen under the circumstances experienced by ( or demanded of ) Rescue 116. Its important not to mix this up.

You cannot determine SAR launch policy simply because a CFIT occurred

Oh God. I've made that distinction twice already for you. Do I really have to say it again????

Negative_G

BoatMad wrote: »

I cant really divulge anymore , till I establish if it was ever made public

it should be remembered that at the time , the Aer Corps essentially had limited night flying ability etc

With respect, it was either made public or not. It isn't hard to figure out.

There is plenty of commentary in the media from the time that is available online. I'd either ask that you prove this report does indeed exist (a media reference would suffice) or else withdraw your statement.

To my knowledge, no such report as you claim exists and I certainly don't recall any reference to it over the decade since the AC were relieved of SAR duty.

BoatMad

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Sir/Madam, you are changing your points every time something which you rely on as a fact is challenged. You mention reports that are secret but use their conclusion to support your case. You introduce notions such as our need as a nation to have access to fast intercept jets to deal with the issue of Top Cover provision. I regret that I can't keep up with you , although it is quite enjoyable watching your manoeuvrings.

So as they say on that thing on the telly, I wish you luck, but I'm afraid I'm out!

I have addressed your specific point in regards dual aircraft leaving together , you seem too be incapable of reading those lines

The fact is using slow Helis as fast cover is a situation that developed because of the Historical reliance on UK RAF SAR to do so and with their withdrawal , we are thrust back into our own resources

Such resources are clearly inadequate to provide adequate fast response top cover , Im not arguing against that , thats why I mentioned the need for fast jets


as to the report, I apologise for mentioning it , I was heavily involved with a branch of the SAR services in Ireland and I have access to information that I cannot ascertain at this point in front of a keyboard is in the public domain, and I should not have mentioned its existence at all.

The point however remains, The state decided to remove the SAR function from the Aer Corp and contract it out to a dedicated private SAR service. This was done in conjunction with the UK as it was supposed to be a joint CHC operation. However the bribery scandal in the UK through a spanner in the works etc

BoatMad

Negative_G wrote: »

With respect, it was either made public or not. It isn't hard to figure out.

There is plenty of commentary in the media from the time that is available online. I'd either ask that you prove this report does indeed exist (a media reference would suffice) or else withdraw your statement.

To my knowledge, no such report as you claim exists and I certainly don't recall any reference to it over the decade since the AC were relieved of SAR duty.

you accept that the SAR services in Ireland were contracted out , the Aer Corp at the time made a proposal that they should provide it ( with new equipment )

The situation at the time was tied in with a joint Irish/UK decision to use a standard asset system around our coasts , in this case the S92A, as the UK were also removing the RAF from SAR duty.

hence this is why we are where we are today.

As I said , Im sorry i mentioned the report

I refer you to this article , which gives some background into the decision , there was considerable disquiet in Gov circles at the time
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sos-call-for-air-corps-search-and-rescue-1.1128606

TomOnBoard

Ah yes, when I tried to let ya down gently, and after all logic and debate fail your cause, throw out the ould insult. Thankfully, that's usually an oddity around here. Now where did they put that 'Ignore' button?

BoatMad

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Ah yes, when I tried to let ya down gently, and after all logic and debate fail your cause, throw out the ould insult. Thankfully, that's usually an oddity around here. Now where did they put that 'Ignore' button?

I answered your direct question , what part of " aircraft strategically placed around our coast " , dont you understand . Its simply not possible to stage two aircraft together when they are physically many miles apart


Sheesh

tricky D

Tenger wrote: »

and maybe post photos if they like.

faoiarvok

Bray Air Display 2010

Storm 10

Great pics on Rescue 115 Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/SAR115/

L1011

tricky D wrote: »

The S61 has an odd character - being profoundly ugly yet also somehow not. Pity that EI-SAR couldn't have been preserved as as an example considering it making the extremely rare 50 years

AlekSmart

BoatMad wrote: »

you accept that the SAR services in Ireland were contracted out , the Aer Corp at the time made a proposal that they should provide it ( with new equipment )

The situation at the time was tied in with a joint Irish/UK decision to use a standard asset system around our coasts , in this case the S92A, as the UK were also removing the RAF from SAR duty.

hence this is why we are where we are today.

As I said , Im sorry i mentioned the report

I refer you to this article , which gives some background into the decision , there was considerable disquiet in Gov circles at the time
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sos-call-for-air-corps-search-and-rescue-1.1128606

That linked Irish Times article makes for sobering reading.

There is,lurking in the background,the rather unsettling reality that,once the State in the guise of the IAC,were removed from the provision of SAR services,commerciality immediately became a factor to be considered.

That mix is always going to become caustic at some point in the proceedings.

"Considerable Disquiet" would be the least I would expect from my Public Representatives in this case.

Negative_G

AlekSmart wrote: »

That linked Irish Times article makes for sobering reading.

There is,lurking in the background,the rather unsettling reality that,once the State in the guise of the IAC,were removed from the provision of SAR services,commerciality immediately became a factor to be considered.

That mix is always going to become caustic at some point in the proceedings.

"Considerable Disquiet" would be the least I would expect from my Public Representatives in this case.

The "blu flu" referred to in that article was essentially the final nail in the coffin of AC SAR. Greed.

The AC were never properly equipped for the role and as the article alludes to, it was often run on a shoe string.

While nobody can put the price on a lifesaving service, CHC should be examined to see if it is providing the tax payer with value for money.

It will probably never revert to the AC but it is interesting to consider what €500m would have done had it been invested wisely. That and the previous contract are worth close to €1 Billion.

Calina

Negative_G wrote: »

 While nobody can put the price on a lifesaving service, CHC should be examined to see if it is providing the tax payer with value for money.

I think the point I would make in that context is that this is something which should normally be done on an ongoing basis and not as an emotional reaction to the loss of a helicopter and a heated discussion by non-experts over whether a particular call should happen or not.

Negative_G

Calina wrote: »

I think the point I would make in that context is that this is something which should normally be done on an ongoing basis and not as an emotional reaction to the loss of a helicopter and a heated discussion by non-experts over whether a particular call should happen or not.

100% agreed.

As is evident with this thread. The vast majority of the public have little or no idea of the make up and costs associated with CHC.

There are those that will assume that the helicopters belong to the "Coast guard" and therefore the state, but unfortunately the reality is, if the CHC tender is not renewed they will take move on, taking with them everything that was paid for by the taxpayer.

In an ideal world I would rather the state own the expensive assets that they have essentially paid for. Some bean counter made the decision many years ago and we are now in a position where the only option is private contract.

When you consider each base costs the equivalent of just under €1m per month, and does not include the exisiting infrastructure, most of which is paid for by the taxpayer, fire services or ATC, it is an extremely lucrative contract.

TomOnBoard

Calina wrote: »

I think the point I would make in that context is that this is something which should normally be done on an ongoing basis and not as an emotional reaction to the loss of a helicopter and a heated discussion by non-experts over whether a particular call should happen or not.

Agreed! However as so often happens after an awful tragedy, ripples of scrutiny extend out from the circumstances of the tragedy itself to touching on other things that are seen to be related which then come under greater scrutiny. It's a natural reaction and can be seen after such events the world over.

As to the heated discussions by non- experts, I see that as the modern equivalent of the pub talk I grew up with, when the most complicated issues of the day were grist to the mill over a few scoops, everybody had an opinion on everything, and the most heated arguments changed nothing. Discussions on forums like this form virtual pub-talk, with no greater or lesser value but with a potentially huge audience and no shared cameraderie and no quiet times brought on by waiting for lovely pints to settle and for perspiration bubbles to form on the outside of the glass...

Ahhh! Pub talk. Alas for most of us a thing of the past. Now, We have Boards! Somewhere along the way, we lost more than the plot.

Calina

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Agreed! However as so often happens after an awful tragedy, ripples of scrutiny extend out from the circumstances of the tragedy itself to touching on other things that are seen to be related which then come under greater scrutiny. It's a natural reaction and can be seen after such events the world over.

As to the heated discussions by non- experts, I see that as the modern equivalent of the pub talk I grew up with, when the most complicated issues of the day were grist to the mill over a few scoops, everybody had an opinion on everything, and the most heated arguments changed nothing. Discussions on forums like this form virtual pub-talk, with no greater or lesser value but with a potentially huge audience and no shared cameraderie and no quiet times brought on by waiting for lovely pints to settle and for perspiration bubbles to form on the outside of the glass...

Ahhh! Pub talk. Alas for most of us a thing of the past. Now, We have Boards! Somewhere along the way, we lost more than the plot.

To be honest, I'm not sure - maybe it's a feature of the people I hung out with but pubtalk didn't tend to get as heated as some elements of this discussion and also, some of the MH370 discussions to pick another example.

One of the things I suppose is that I tend to assume that there are people out there who know more than I do and who are working on areas which would not have been obvious to me as being necessary because I am not expert in that area and so I assume I have room to learn from others. I think debates get heated when people make assumptions on the basis of a very low level of knowledge and are not willing to admit to themselves that they are starting from a very low level of knowledge. In that context you want to educate people but when their starting point is "I have an iPhone which pinpoints me why can't they find a helicopter (in this case) or a 777 (MH370)" When people have an overly simplistic view of things, it's almost impossible to find a point at which you can enhance their knowledge because they haven't even identified how little they know.

In that context, I am pretty sure that someone in DoT is responsible for that contract and reviews it on an ongoing basis on the grounds that there is almost certainly a service level agreement involved. If I found out there isn't, then there are two things which need to be resolved there - a) the ongoing reviews and b) the underlying question of why there wasn't.

I suppose in general the point I am trying to make is that very often, people are asking why X doesn't happen when X already successfully happens on an ongoing basis but most people don't care or are not interested most of the time.

In the context of this discussion, it's worth noting that TU Delft are about to start a distance course on air incident investigation. I have a bunch of other completely unrelated projects on the go at the moment but it is something I would consider doing if I had the money at a given point in time (it's about 750E afair).