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

kippy · 01-04-2017 02:22PM

IE 222 wrote: »

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

Not necessarily.
In that we don't know what they were trying to do or what other factors were at play.

Irish Steve · 01-04-2017 02:31PM

IE 222 wrote: »

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

Travelling at that speed would certainly be unusual if they were just about to land, there is a very clear set of charts in one of the S92 brochures that shows the way that the automation can be used to fly a profile for an approach to something like a ship, or a landing point, and it would not do it at that sort of speed, so it would not make sense for manual procedures to be significant different.

The critical unanswered question is why they were at the height they were in the vicinity of Blackrock, and the other critical question is if they were at that height because of crew actions, or as a result of other as yet unexplained circumstances.

plodder · 01-04-2017 02:37PM

Calina wrote: »

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.

Hopefully, once the remaining crewmembers and (if necessary) the wreckage are recovered, most of this fuss will die down, and the demand for instant explanation will dissipate. Then the investigators can take however long they need to get to the bottom of it.

TomOnBoard · 01-04-2017 02:44PM

An Gearoidin still steaming around the Granuaile South of Blackrock.

elastico · 01-04-2017 02:47PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

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

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=lIUhjRSW&id=95D253E3E59E3C3AAC7386499FDE38C997843248&q=blacksod&simid=608032083357665056&selectedIndex=15&ajaxhist=0

Gadgetman496 · 01-04-2017 02:52PM

elastico wrote: »

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=lIUhjRSW&id=95D253E3E59E3C3AAC7386499FDE38C997843248&q=blacksod&simid=608032083357665056&selectedIndex=15&ajaxhist=0

Yep, I was mixing it up with the one at Blackrock elastico

Mebuntu · 01-04-2017 02:52PM

Hopefully, once the remaining crewmembers and (if necessary) the wreckage are recovered, most of this fuss will die down, and the demand for instant explanation will dissipate. Then the investigators can take however long they need to get to the bottom of it.

There is one aspect that can't wait too long. It is essential to discover urgently if there was a fault with the helicopter for the sake of other S92 crews.

Irish Steve · 01-04-2017 02:59PM

Mebuntu wrote: »

There is one aspect that can't wait too long. It is essential to discover urgently if there was a fault with the helicopter for the sake of other S92 crews.

And I can assure you that if the AAIU find any evidence that a failure on the airframe or systems was a contributory factor in this accident, they will ensure that everyone in the industry that needs to know will get that information as rapidly as possible.

elastico · 01-04-2017 03:00PM

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Yep, I was mixing it up with the one at Blackrock elastico

I hate to state the obvious but it seems awful easy mix up the two. Made the mistake a few times myself.

elastico · 01-04-2017 03:05PM

Picture shows the sheer size of a helipad for an S92 compared to the fart of a helipad in the foreground that accommodates a regular helicopter.

Gadgetman496 · 01-04-2017 03:05PM

elastico wrote: »

I hate to state the obvious but it seems awful easy mix up the two. Made the mistake a few times myself.

I think we should both stick to driving cars elastico

elastico · 01-04-2017 03:23PM

IE 222 wrote: »

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

Good point. Maybe that system calculates average speed over a number of seconds / minutes and it was going slower at that moment in time.

Same as putting on the brakes in the car, average speed may be 30 mph as it goes from 60 to 0 over 50 metres or whatever.

smurfjed · 01-04-2017 03:27PM

they will ensure that everyone in the industry that needs to know will get that information as rapidly as possible

Unless its already covered by this AD.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/dd5bca50e045e6af862580d80060b81e/$FILE/2017-02-51.pdf

IE 222 · 01-04-2017 03:33PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

Travelling at that speed would certainly be unusual if they were just about to land, there is a very clear set of charts in one of the S92 brochures that shows the way that the automation can be used to fly a profile for an approach to something like a ship, or a landing point, and it would not do it at that sort of speed, so it would not make sense for manual procedures to be significant different.

The critical unanswered question is why they were at the height they were in the vicinity of Blackrock, and the other critical question is if they were at that height because of crew actions, or as a result of other as yet unexplained circumstances.

Yes this is what I would believe as well. So for me anyway the speed they were travelling at would suggest there was no confusion between Blackrock and Blacksod.

I agree the height is the main focus and will answer the mystery once it's established as to why they got so low. But I can't understand why they would want to be that low so far out even with the cloud base as low as it was.

elastico · 01-04-2017 03:46PM

IE 222 wrote: »

Yes this is what I would believe as well. So for me anyway the speed they were travelling atwould suggest there was no confusion between Blackrock and Blacksod.

I agree the height is the main focus and will answer the mystery once it's established as to why they got so low. But I can't understand why they would want to be that low so far out even with the cloud base as low as it was.

It depends though if the 90kN was the actual speed at the point of impact or the average speed over a period of time prior to that.

Gadgetman496 · 01-04-2017 03:48PM

Joseph O'Connor's tribute to the crew of R116 on the Late Late Show last night.

Irish Steve · 01-04-2017 03:58PM

smurfjed wrote: »

Unless its already covered by this AD.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/dd5bca50e045e6af862580d80060b81e/$FILE/2017-02-51.pdf

I think that this was covered by an EASA AD, and 116 had been inspected, but the scary aspect of this AD is that as a result of new findings, it now has to be performed every 10 hours in service, and takes 16 man hours to perform the procedure. With the SAR workload, that could be 2 inspections a week, and significant downtime while they do the inspection, which is not good.

I hope Sikorsky are engaged in an urgent procedure to resolve this issue with a part redesign or upgrade, this is as close to grounding the fleet without actually doing so as the regulators could get, which is worrying.

If this issue did bring 116 down, which clearly remains unknown at this time, I would go as far as to say that it will result in the entire fleet being grounded until an acceptable resolution has been found. This is unfortunately dynamite of the worst possible sort.

Roadtoad · 01-04-2017 04:46PM

Is the Ocean Challenger tug equipped to support saturation diving, or will it be a ROV task or 10 minute human bottom time or other solution?

elastico · 01-04-2017 05:01PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

I think that this was covered by an EASA AD, and 116 had been inspected, but the scary aspect of this AD is that as a result of new findings, it now has to be performed every 10 hours in service, and takes 16 man hours to perform the procedure. With the SAR workload, that could be 2 inspections a week, and significant downtime while they do the inspection, which is not good.

I hope Sikorsky are engaged in an urgent procedure to resolve this issue with a part redesign or upgrade, this is as close to grounding the fleet without actually doing so as the regulators could get, which is worrying.

If this issue did bring 116 down, which clearly remains unknown at this time, I would go as far as to say that it will result in the entire fleet being grounded until an acceptable resolution has been found. This is unfortunately dynamite of the worst possible sort.

Flying at 220 ft instead of c. 3000 ft into a 280 ft obstacle appears to be the problem. I can't see how a mechanical fault could cause such a scenario.

IE 222 · 01-04-2017 05:17PM

Rescue 116 black box shows 'no mechanical anomalies'
http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0401/864358-search-teams-hoping-to-lift-wreckage-of-rescue-116/

cram1971 · 01-04-2017 05:18PM

I see dives have been suspended for the day on the RTE website.

I also just got an RTE Alert on my phone to say "An initial investigation of The Rescue 116 black box shows no mechanical anomalies, according to to AAIU.

Irish Steve · 01-04-2017 05:20PM

elastico wrote: »

Flying at 220 ft instead of c. 3000 ft into a 280 ft obstacle appears to be the problem. I can't see how a mechanical fault could cause such a scenario.

There are a number of very valid and plausible reasons why a mechanical fault could have caused this sort of scenario, without going into some of the speculation that has appeared in other places, we do not actually know one way or the other if the crew were still in control of the aircraft at the time of the initial collision with Blackrock. It is still that wide open at present. The initial AAIU comments made as I was typing this seem to rule out gross mechanical failure, so while my original comment above is valid, we are once again in the dark about the reasons.

TallGlass · 01-04-2017 05:21PM

'Initial analysis of the data retrieved from the Rescue 116 helicopter’s monitor system and flight recorder has revealed that no mechanical anomalies have been identified.'

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/no-mechanical-anomalies-identified-in-initial-analysis-of-data-retrieved-from-rescue-116-35585228.html

12gauge dave · 01-04-2017 05:28PM

When people say blackrock helipad is too small for an s92 to land are we talking marginally too small or way too small as in impossible to land a copter of that size.

cram1971 · 01-04-2017 05:29PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

There are a number of very valid and plausible reasons why a mechanical fault could have caused this sort of scenario, without going into some of the speculation that has appeared in other places, we do not actually know one way or the other if the crew were still in control of the aircraft at the time of the initial collision with Blackrock. It is still that wide open at present. The initial AAIU comments made as I was typing this seem to rule out gross mechanical failure, so while my original comment above is valid, we are once again in the dark about the reasons.

I would regularly see R116 fly below the level of the tops of the cliffs around Howth on return to base after a call out or training exercise. I suppose there could be good reason for this to being so close to the airport.

Gadgetman496 · 01-04-2017 05:36PM

12gauge dave wrote: »

When people say blackrock helipad is too small for an s92 to land are we talking marginally too small or way too small as in impossible to land a copter of that size.

Aside from the size of the craft itself (Length 56 ft 2 in (17.10 m) Height 15 ft 5 in (4.71 m)) the rotor blades have a diameter of 56 ft 4 in (17.17 m) so it would need a fair amount of clearance room to land safely.

Disc area is 2,492.3 ft² (231.54 m²)

EchoIndia · 01-04-2017 05:40PM

cram1971 wrote: »

I would regularly see R116 fly below the level of the tops of the cliffs around Howth on return to base after a call out or training exercise. I suppose there could be good reason for this to being so close to the airport.

They transit at low level so as to stay well below the DUB approach and departure paths.

cram1971 · 01-04-2017 05:42PM

EchoIndia wrote: »

They transit at low level so as to stay well below the DUB approach and departure paths.

i was thinking that but aircraft on approach or departure are never just a couple of hundred feet above sea level.

elastico · 01-04-2017 05:46PM

12gauge dave wrote: »

When people say blackrock helipad is too small for an s92 to land are we talking marginally too small or way too small as in impossible to land a copter of that size.

I posted a picture on the last page showing black sod lighthouse with an SAR helipad and a regular helipad beside it. The SAR helipad dwarfs it.

markpb · 01-04-2017 05:50PM

cram1971 wrote:

i was thinking that but aircraft on approach or departure are never just a couple of hundred feet above sea level.

Minimum separation rules between a helicopter and a heavy jet are probably significant.

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

Comments