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

smurfjed · 01-04-2017 12:28PM

@Flazio, lighthouses are designed for ships on the surface, not descending aircraft, therefore its debatable if the light would be of any use with a 300ft cloud base.

Irish Steve · 01-04-2017 12:32PM

smurfjed wrote: »

@Irishsteve, your explantation above doesn't explain "WHY" the aircraft was so low at such a far distance from their landing site.

I'm well aware of that, and how ever much we don't like it, we won't get any sort of explanation for that until the data from the FDR has been analysed and evaluated, and even then, the "why" may not be clear, or may not be released by the AAIU, and I'm not about to speculate on the actions of the crew, for all the reasons that have been well rehearsed previously.

elastico · 01-04-2017 12:34PM

smurfjed wrote: »

@Flazio, lighthouses are designed for ships on the surface, not descending aircraft, therefore its debatable if the light would be of any use with a 300ft cloud base.

And bear in mind that they were planning to land beside a lighthouse anyway, so when they saw a beam as they came through a cloud base of 300-500ft they would not have been at all surprised.

The fact it was at 282 ft instead of 42 ft (blacksod) could have been a bit problematic though.

01-04-2017 12:37PM

smurfjed wrote: »

@Flazio, lighthouses are designed for ships on the surface, not descending aircraft, therefore its debatable if the light would be of any use with a 300ft cloud base.

It is also had an operational AIS, so would/should have been superimposed on their radar screen, even if missing from the map database.

Gaoth Laidir · 01-04-2017 12:49PM

IE 222 wrote: »

How likely is it that someone could misread the altitude thinking they were at 2200ft.

Absolutely zero chance of that.

Gaoth Laidir · 01-04-2017 12:55PM

The AAIU should be publishing their 30-day interim report in April 11th so hopefully a lot of dots will be joined up by then.

de biz · 01-04-2017 12:58PM

MissTheDome wrote: »

Bolted up in the bed at 12.30. Sounded like it was landing in the garden... checked the garden, there was nothing but thick fog.. went back to bed very uneasy. We are used to it on the island, but Christ, it woke my father .. neighbours.. everyone. Possibly the rescue one with the casualty?

We look across this stretch of water every day. No one understands the line between life and death better than the emergency services. Our thoughts are on every wave out there. God help them.

Can you confirm your geographical location (approximate) MissTheDome at the time of your observation of foggy conditions?

Trying to find out if Blacksod was fogged in at that point.

Also does anyone know if the Sligo heli had landed at Blacksod BEFORE they set out to transfer the injured fisherman?

If so is there any AIS tracking still visible showing their approach path.

elastico · 01-04-2017 12:59PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

I'm well aware of that, and how ever much we don't like it, we won't get any sort of explanation for that until the data from the FDR has been analysed and evaluated, and even then, the "why" may not be clear, or may not be released by the AAIU, and I'm not about to speculate on the actions of the crew, for all the reasons that have been well rehearsed previously.

Surely they are obliged to release all the facts available to them so that procedural steps can be taken to try prevent a similar accident ever happening again?

In addition to this when it comes down to insurance and who ultimately pays for what etc. I would suspect a lot of interested parties (CHC / ICG / Insurance company / Sikorski etc.) are all very eager to get all the information asap?

IE 222 · 01-04-2017 01:02PM

elastico wrote: »

While such a flight plan may be plausible it doesn't look at all like the actual plan they were working to on night in question.

Fact is that Approx. 11 minutes prior to reaching blackrock they confirmed they were in decent having gone through 4000ft. Stated objective at that time was to refuel at blacksod.

11 minutes later they were down to 220 ft on what seems a perfectly normal rate of decent.

At what height would the ground proximity warning sound in regards to the sea. Can it tell the difference if it's in normal or mission flight.

Would travelling at 92knts at 220ft in decent be normal flight.

Is it known if the 9knt speed recorded was before reaching blackrock.

IE 222 · 01-04-2017 01:05PM

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Absolutely zero chance of that.

How is there zero chance. Im not trying to challenge you but want to known how it's impossible for it to happen.

irishgeo · 01-04-2017 01:11PM

de biz wrote: »

Can you confirm your geographical location (approximate) MissTheDome at the time of your observation of foggy conditions?

Trying to find out if Blacksod was fogged in at that point.

Also does anyone know if the Sligo heli had landed at Blacksod BEFORE they set out to transfer the injured fisherman?

If so is there any AIS tracking still visible showing their approach path.

Why would the Sligo helicopter need to refuel at Blacksod. It would have only taken off with a full tank.

Gaoth Laidir · 01-04-2017 01:13PM

IE 222 wrote: »

How is there zero chance. Im not trying to challenge you but want to known how it's impossible for it to happen.

For the fact that they were doing the procedure outlined by Irish Steve, which in itself demands close monitoring of descent rates, altitudes and timings, and also that it is pretty difficult to confuse 220 and 2220 ft altitude on a PFF altitude band.

smurfjed · 01-04-2017 01:13PM

Im not trying to challenge you but want to known how it's impossible for it to happen.

Thanks to the Radar Altimeter.

Negative_G · 01-04-2017 01:14PM

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Absolutely zero chance of that.

Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no.

Nobody here knows what happened leading up to the accident yet so with all due respect let's not go stating things as a matter of fact.

smurfjed · 01-04-2017 01:19PM

I'm getting confused between permitted speculation and not permitted speculation, either way I don't think that one can discuss "operational procedures" without it leading to questions that can only be answered by speculation.

Negative_G · 01-04-2017 01:23PM

smurfjed wrote: »

I'm getting confused between permitted speculation and not permitted speculation, either way I don't think that one can discuss "operational procedures" without it leading to questions that can only be answered by speculation.

The definition of speculation seems to change on a daily basis.

TomOnBoard · 01-04-2017 01:24PM

elastico wrote: »

Surely they are obliged to release all the facts available to them so that procedural steps can be taken to try prevent a similar accident ever happening again?

In addition to this when it comes down to insurance and who ultimately pays for what etc. I would suspect a lot of interested parties (CHC / ICG / Insurance company / Sikorski etc.) are all very eager to get all the information asap?

I am sure that the interim report protocols that are in place are focused on the need for all interested parties to know whatever facts have been established by the AAIU at the time the interim report is due. It would be very important that the AAIU would not provide any information precipitously to any interested party in advance of providing it to others to ensure that its independence would not be compromised.

Therefore as I see it, interim findings would issue to all interested parties at the same time, ideally before the due date but only when they can speak authoritatively. How much worse would it be if the AAIU issued findings that were un-necessarily vague or inaccurate because it acted too quickly. Of course, this consideration would surely be influenced by any earlier findings by the AAIU that pointed towards aircraft problems, whether mechanical/electrical or other that impacted the safety of any/all other similar aircraft currently in service. If such a potential problem had been identified by this week's Black Box analysis for instance, we would have heard all about it by now as other operators would have been advised of checks to be made or in a worst case scenario, the entire fleet would have been grounded.

I hope I'm expressing myself correctly.

Irish Steve · 01-04-2017 01:24PM

The S92 would have been fully capable of automatically flying the profile required for the cloud break descent, so while one of the pilots would have been monitoring the progress on instruments, it would not have been a difficult or overly demanding task when compared to a lot of the flying they would have been experienced with and capable of doing, and the other pilot would have been able to spend a high proportion of time looking out of the window for any change in what was visible externally. This would have been a very low risk standard procedure that they would have flown regularly, and with confidence, and that's why we very much need the extra information that will come from the FDR and CVR data, that should help to fill in the gaps that are there at the moment.

elastico · 01-04-2017 01:36PM

IE 222 wrote: »

At what height would the ground proximity warning sound in regards to the sea. Can it tell the difference if it's in normal or mission flight.

Would travelling at 92knts at 220ft in decent be normal flight.

Is it known if the 9knt speed recorded was before reaching blackrock.

Looks like it crashed into black rock at 92 knots.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/393913/411954.png

I don't know the answers to your other questions.

elastico · 01-04-2017 01:38PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I am sure that the interim report protocols that are in place are focused on the need for all interested parties to know whatever facts have been established by the AAIU at the time the interim report is due. It would be very important that the AAIU would not provide any information precipitously to any interested party in advance of providing it to others to ensure that its independence would not be compromised.

Therefore as I see it, interim findings would issue to all interested parties at the same time, ideally before the due date but only when they can speak authoritatively. How much worse would it be if the AAIU issued findings that were un-necessarily vague or inaccurate because it acted too quickly. Of course, this consideration would surely be influenced by any earlier findings by the AAIU that pointed towards aircraft problems, whether mechanical/electrical or other that impacted the safety of any/all other similar aircraft currently in service. If such a potential problem had been identified by this week's Black Box analysis for instance, we would have heard all about it by now as other operators would have been advised of checks to be made or in a worst case scenario, the entire fleet would have been grounded.

I hope I'm expressing myself correctly.

So if it was suspected to be a mechanical or electrical failure we'd have heard about it by now?

Calina · 01-04-2017 01:48PM

elastico wrote: »

So if it was suspected to be a mechanical or electrical failure we'd have heard about it by now?

I would not depend upon that. What people tend to forget in the pre-internet, and especially, pre-24 hour news cycle is that accident investigators tended to go off and do their job, and come back with a report sometime later often after some messy 3D jigsaw work and a deep dive into maintenance records and a lot of modelling with an interim report and you might not actually find out anything at all until that interim report comes out.

What absolutely damages air accident investigations imv are leaks. I have no issue with controled release of information so long as everyone is involved in singing from the same hymn sheet and, for example, the investigation is not being hampered or damaged by unauthorised leaks. Leaks are there not to support the accident investigation but to make money for the news organisations. One accident investigation was really badly impacted by media leaks was the Germanwings crash in the Alps last year. I love the New York Times but they were wrong to publish information which had not been officially released and it probably hampered the investigation and led to a reduction on trust between the number of parties concerned.

So the fact that we have not really been given a plausible cause on which the investigation is basing its thinking does not trouble me. Very often it could be a few months to a few years before an explanation comes out.

IE 222 · 01-04-2017 02:02PM

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

For the fact that they were doing the procedure outlined by Irish Steve, which in itself demands close monitoring of descent rates, altitudes and timings, and also that it is pretty difficult to confuse 220 and 2220 ft altitude on a PFF altitude band.

Everyone is capable of making a mistake or been distracted by other events.

Gadgetman496 · 01-04-2017 02:07PM

elastico wrote: »

And bear in mind that they were planning to land beside a lighthouse anyway

When or where was it confirmed "that they were planning to land beside a lighthouse"

Gaoth Laidir · 01-04-2017 02:13PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

When or where was it confirmed "that they were planning to land beside a lighthouse"

Captain Duffy confirmed they would be landing at Blacksod helipad, which is beside Blacksod Lighthouse.

kippy · 01-04-2017 02:14PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

When or where was it confirmed "that they were planning to land beside a lighthouse"

The refueling point in Blacksod is beside the lighthouse there I believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksod_Lighthouse

They were on their way to the refueling point ergo they were planning to land beside a lighthouse.

kippy · 01-04-2017 02:18PM

Lots of shoreline/water searches today/over the past few days further north with search vessels working out of Killybegs. A lot of resources going towards this and hopefully the missing crew will be recovered to bring some closure to he families.

IE 222 · 01-04-2017 02:18PM

elastico wrote: »

Looks like it crashed into black rock at 92 knots.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/393913/411954.png

I don't know the answers to your other questions.

So travelling at that speed just before impact clearly rules out any suggestions that they where about to land?

Gadgetman496 · 01-04-2017 02:20PM

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Captain Duffy confirmed they would be landing at Blacksod helipad, which is beside Blacksod Lighthouse.

kippy wrote: »

The refueling point in Blacksod is beside the lighthouse there I believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksod_Lighthouse

They were on their way to the refueling point ergo they were planning to land beside a lighthouse.

Ah right, I was mixing it up with the Helipad beside the lighthouse on Blackrock which would not have been able to facilitate a craft of that size.

Irish Steve · 01-04-2017 02:20PM

I suppose the best way to cover the "speculation" issues is to outline that there are some procedures and process that are defined by things like the rules of the air, and other internationally agreed rules and regulations, and they lay down such boring details as how two aircraft that are at risk of collision will avoid each other, or how a faster aircraft will overtake a slower craft. Many aspects of how pilots fly are not open to variation or modification. There are some aspects that are at the discretion of the pilot, and can be varied at the discretion of the pilot.

The crew of 116 were highly experienced, and had long experience of the task they were performing. As they are not here to defend their actions, we have to respect that suggesting specific actions they may or may not have done and that may have influenced why the aircraft came down where it did is thin ice if they are outside of the standard structure that is common to all of the way that the aviation community works.

In the same vein, discussion about the techniques being used by the recovery teams and divers, while at times contentious, is reasonable, as they can speak for themselves, albeit that they have more important things to do at present than explain the exact "how and why" of the task they are performing.

In the absence of the specific details of the latter stages of the R116 flight, we can't determine exactly what the crew did, or when they did it, the limited details that are in the public domain allow us to draw some information about some aspects of the flight, based on our knowledge of things like the rules of the air, and as far as I am concerned, I have tried to remain within the constraints of the information we have available.

I have deliberately not discussed possible reasons why they were as low as they were where they were. We don't have enough information about what happened to 116, we can only hope that the additional information from the FDR and CVR will throw some new or additional light on that aspect of the flight, and once that information is in the public domain, it may be possible to discuss some aspects of that information with more freedom than we have at present.

TomOnBoard · 01-04-2017 02:21PM

elastico wrote: »

So if it was suspected to be a mechanical or electrical failure we'd have heard about it by now?

You say "suspected". I say "established".

Take the most recent occurrence in the UK of the S-92 Tail Rotor assembly issue. The accident occurred 28th December 2016. The UK's AAIB issued a Special Bulletin S/2017 on 11th January that resulted in fleet-wide S-92 inspections and revised maintenance procedures. An extreme example, but in that case, AAIB was clearly satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to issue the Special Bulletin.

Clearly, if something was suspected but not established, different protocols would apply, consistent with maximizing future safety without compromising investigation integrity.

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

Comments