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

smurfjed · 16-04-2017 08:27AM

Who is ultimately responsible will be the key.

Ultimately it will be the Captain who was responsible regardless of the holes in the process and procedures.

Means Of Escape · 16-04-2017 08:59AM

smurfjed wrote: »

Ultimately it will be the Captain who was responsible regardless of the holes in the process and procedures.

Which will be found not to be best practice despite concerns for so called stress on the airframe on a robust craft etc etc

smurfjed · 16-04-2017 09:24AM

I believe that the estate of the pilots who crashed in Cork were sued, as was the estate of the Aer Corp instructor in the PC-9 crash, so I would expect this to follow the same pattern. As the aircraft and avionics were from the USA, i would expect a civil case to be filed there as well.
This unfortunate event is far from over.

homerjay2005 · 16-04-2017 10:18AM

TheChizler wrote: »

It's not within the AAIU's remit to assign blame. The report deals with facts only.

correct, but it wont stop 99% of other people apportioning "blame".

the best word here i guess should be "cause" than blame. theres not going to be one single cause, there will be multiple factors that lead to it and so far it is -

technology deficit and over reliance on that technology.
questionable operating processes.
low cloud cover, poor night/weather so they couldnt see what was ahead.
lack of familiarity with the region and/or confusion of their exact path.
they didnt perhaps communicate with each other quickly or clearly enough and if they did, theres a big chance they would have avoided the island and this would have been a near miss as opposed to a tragedy.

homerjay2005 · 16-04-2017 11:02AM

smurfjed wrote: »

Good point, i would say that the required number of helicopters is down to CHC as per contract, as probably is the requirement to provide top cover. But AFAIK there is no SAR provider that used fixed wing aircraft to provide top cover.
So regardless of the present contract, we have now unfortunately discovered that there might be a better way of providing top cover, so in my eyes, the government has to get involved as changes will cost money. The same goes for NVG, someone will have to assess if they are required and most likely the government will have to pay for buying them and initial training, unless of course there was a requirement for them to be used 6 months after the contract started (posted by another person).

i dont think NVG would have avoided this accident. they had 12 or 13 seconds to avoid the island and they didnt .

as somebody pointed out, if you were driving at 120km/h and had 12 or 13 seconds to react to an obstacle before you, theres a really good chance youd be able to react and make the necessary adjustments to avoid that obstacle.

ProfessorPlum · 16-04-2017 11:19AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i dont think NVG would have avoided this accident. they had 12 or 13 seconds to avoid the island and they didnt .

as somebody pointed out, if you were driving at 120km/h and had 12 or 13 seconds to react to an obstacle before you, theres a really good chance youd be able to react and make the necessary adjustments to avoid that obstacle.

I think that's a bit simplistic. We've no indication of the urgency of the situation until the instruction from the rear crew, 2 seconds before impact. From the transcript, its dufficukt to know if the rear crew realised how imminent any the danger was until almost the last seconds too. The unhurried nature of confirming the turn, checking the heading selections etc, would suggest that there was no suspicion of imminent danger. "You want to come right guys" doesnt give me the impression that there was.
Also bear in mind they were doing 75kts 100 odd feet below the level of the terrain. I don't do helis, but I guess this equates to a fairly low energy state in an S92. How much climb or turn they'd be able to safely get out of it I don't know.

Cloudio9 · 16-04-2017 11:26AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i dont think NVG would have avoided this accident. they had 12 or 13 seconds to avoid the island and they didnt .

as somebody pointed out, if you were driving at 120km/h and had 12 or 13 seconds to react to an obstacle before you, theres a really good chance youd be able to react and make the necessary adjustments to avoid that obstacle.

I suspect if the pilots had NVG there would have been quicker reaction time. We can see from the cvr that several seconds elapse before the warning from the rearis processed. Part of that time is the guys in the front reconciling what they can't see with what the rear crew can see.

homerjay2005 · 16-04-2017 11:32AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

How much climb or turn they'd be able to safely get out of it I don't know.

well given that they clipped only the top of a building, means they were only metres from safety - 1 or 2 seconds of evasive action is all we are talking about here.

they tried to climb as opposed to go right, as the rear crew had asked.

ProfessorPlum · 16-04-2017 11:47AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

well given that they clipped only the top of a building, means they were only metres from safety - 1 or 2 seconds of evasive action is all we are talking about here.

they tried to climb as opposed to go right, as the rear crew had asked.

Where did you get the idea that they clipped the top of the building? I suggest you read the report. What's the turning circle of an S92 at 75-80 kts? There's no indication of an increase in altitude from the FDR data, so they didn't in fact climb. I think you're looking at it in a very simplistic way, without all the facts.

homerjay2005 · 16-04-2017 12:15PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that they clipped the top of the building?.

"impacted with terrain" then, do you really need to be so pedantic?

Cianmcliam · 16-04-2017 12:17PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

"impacted with terrain" then, do you really need to be so pedantic?

Well if it was claimed that they were only metres from clearing the island then it is important, the tail section showed significant crushing and the stabiliser had torn off at the root before the helicopter passed over the building, so we don't know where along the cliff edge it impacted or how close it was to avoiding terrain.

robyntmorton · 16-04-2017 12:18PM

There is really a massive difference between the two, and accuracy of language in these situations is important. The only reference to bits of the helicopter hitting the buildings was from falling debris, as opposed to the main structure impacting a building.

homerjay2005 · 16-04-2017 12:26PM

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Well if it was claimed that they were only metres from clearing the island then it is important, the tail section showed significant crushing and the stabiliser had torn off at the root before the helicopter passed over the building, so we don't know where along the cliff edge it impacted or how close it was to avoiding terrain.

the fact that the debris hit the roof of the outhouse, is a clear indication that they were very close to clearing the island. they would have hit it, close to its highest point.

ProfessorPlum · 16-04-2017 12:30PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

"impacted with terrain" then, do you really need to be so pedantic?

There's nothing pedantic about it. The damage to the building has been judged to have been consistant with being hit by falling debris, implying that the impact happened before the buildings. You seem to be of the impression that '1 or 2 seconds of evasive action would have saved the day, yet it's based on the heli having 'clipped a building' - in fact the crash seems to have happened before the building. Maybe even 1 or 2 seconds before.

homerjay2005 · 16-04-2017 12:35PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

There's nothing pedantic about it. The damage to the building has been judged to have been consistant with being hit by falling debris, implying that the impact happened before the buildings. You seem to be of the impression that '1 or 2 seconds of evasive action would have saved the day, yet it's based on the heli having 'clipped a building' - in fact the crash seems to have happened before the building. Maybe even 1 or 2 seconds before.

there was 13 seconds to make evasive action, which was at the time to make a heading to the right. it took 11 seconds to make this evasive action, which was to climb, as is shown in the report.

what ever they hit, is irrelevent but my point stands, a few metres is all we are talking about here given the fact that the helicopter continued to climb for a couple of seconds after impact.

robyntmorton · 16-04-2017 12:36PM

The truth of the matter is that we have no idea how near or far from clearing the island the helicopter was. All we know is that it impacted the island, and "departed from controlled flight" to use the parlance of the report.

We will likely know more from the final report about where exactly they hit, the control settings at the time, and what the helicopter did after impact, if, after the catastrophic damage, the readings recorded by the FDR are accurate.

Until then, anything about how near or far from safety the helicopter was is just speculation.

ProfessorPlum · 16-04-2017 12:39PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

there was 13 seconds to make evasive action, which was at the time to make a heading to the right. it took 11 seconds to make this evasive action, which was to climb, as is shown in the report.

what ever they hit, is irrelevent but my point stands, a few metres is all we are talking about here given the fact that the helicopter continued to climb for a couple of seconds after impact.

Your point doesn't stand. For all the reasons you've been given, and more. I'll leave it there.

homerjay2005 · 16-04-2017 12:42PM

robyntmorton wrote: »

Until then, anything about how near or far from safety the helicopter was is just speculation.

it certainly is not speculation to state that in a pitched up state, there was no impact to the front of the helicopter at moment of impact. all the damage was at the rear which means we are talking metres, if not even feet from being clear of terrain.

They continued to climb in the aftermath of the impact for a brief time and they landed in the water, south east of the island after they exited a controlled flight.

robyntmorton · 16-04-2017 12:51PM

We still don't know whether that continued climb after impact was as a result of control inputs, rebounding (tail first) off the rock, or both, nor does it tell us where it impacted.

If you throw a ball at an inclined up surface, its rebound will take it upwards. Similar applies here, though the movement of mass, and the spinning main rotor adds more changes of acceleration, which again, will be investigated by the AAIU.

At this point though, I believe you are just spoiling for an argument, and will leave it at this point.

Reati · 16-04-2017 12:56PM

Cloudio9 wrote: »

I suspect if the pilots had NVG there would have been quicker reaction time.

NVG aren't some magic bullet as people have suggested in here.

Even if they had them they were flying by instruments so the NVGs wouldn't have been on. So they likely wouldn't have made a difference by the time they reacted to the rear crew. Turned them on and then understood the dangers ahead.

Hindsight and all it's impossible to say what or wouldn't have saved the fight. This thread has become very academic at this point.

Cloudio9 · 16-04-2017 01:25PM

Reati wrote: »

NVG aren't some magic bullet as people have suggested in here.

Even if they had them they were flying by instruments so the NVGs wouldn't have been on. So they likely wouldn't have made a difference by the time they reacted to the rear crew. Turned them on and then understood the dangers ahead.

Hindsight and all it's impossible to say what or wouldn't have saved the fight. This thread has become very academic at this point.

Not suggesting they are some magic bullet, just another layer of safety. However, if they have performed the cloud break procedure, surely at this stage of the flight, they are looking out the window as well as flying by instruments.

Gaoth Laidir · 16-04-2017 01:46PM

I think it's safe to say that if they were flying at a RA of 200 ft and there was no climb before impact then they hit the rock about 200 ft up,

Means Of Escape · 16-04-2017 02:24PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i dont think NVG would have avoided this accident. they had 12 or 13 seconds to avoid the island and they didnt .

as somebody pointed out, if you were driving at 120km/h and had 12 or 13 seconds to react to an obstacle before you, theres a really good chance youd be able to react and make the necessary adjustments to avoid that obstacle.

Sharp bank to the right as requested would have been more effective rather than a pull up given they didn't know the height of the obstacle ahead of them ?
Again they were at a major disadvantage to make either move due to the illogical altitude at the time (an island obstacle being the widest at its base)

rustyf81 · 16-04-2017 04:44PM

Tomorrow brings the start of another new week. I hope that this is the one that helps bring closure to the families of the two missing heros.

RadioRetro · 16-04-2017 05:18PM

A wreath laying ceremony for those lost in Rescue 116 was held today off Dunmore East in Waterford. The DE, Fethard, Kilmore Quay lifeboats and DE IRCG took part. Local radio station WLR FM estimates around 800 people turned up to watch. Attached pic from WLR FM.

smurfjed · 16-04-2017 07:15PM

NVG aren't some magic bullet as people have suggested in here.

Even if they had them they were flying by instruments so the NVGs wouldn't have been on

Why wouldn't they use them? 200 ft 80 KIAS, why wouldn't you use something that enhanced your situational awareness?

And you can use them as well as see the instruments.

Bristow’s S-92 SAR aircraft are certified for night vision goggles (NVG) and the “glass cockpit” is certified NVG compatible..... [font=Helvetica Neue, Arial, sans-serif]http://bristowgroup.com/uk-sar/sar-fleet/[/font]

Psychlops · 16-04-2017 07:30PM

smurfjed wrote: »

Why wouldn't they use them? 200 ft 80 KIAS, why wouldn't you use something that enhanced your situational awareness?

And you can use them as well as see the instruments.

I don't think the IRCG have NVG as of yet if you go by this article, the IAC are the sole agency that use NVG.

See here:
https://flyinginireland.com/2015/03/irish-coast-guard-enhancing-capabilities/

Psychlops · 16-04-2017 07:33PM

The Officer in this video says the IAC are the sole operators of the NVG in Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQn--FBxwAI

Means Of Escape · 16-04-2017 08:53PM

robyntmorton wrote: »

We still don't know whether that continued climb after impact was as a result of control inputs, rebounding (tail first) off the rock, or both, nor does it tell us where it impacted.

If you throw a ball at an inclined up surface, its rebound will take it upwards. Similar applies here, though the movement of mass, and the spinning main rotor adds more changes of acceleration, which again, will be investigated by the AAIU.

At this point though, I believe you are just spoiling for an argument, and will leave it at this point.

Forward momentum inhibited somewhat by contact of the tail rotor

Means Of Escape · 16-04-2017 08:58PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

well given that they clipped only the top of a building, means they were only metres from safety - 1 or 2 seconds of evasive action is all we are talking about here.

they tried to climb as opposed to go right, as the rear crew had asked.

SD on the part of the pilots receiving a command from the rear to turn from an obstacle in their path that neither expected
The delay in changing course is part of the brain attempting to deal with the alert that was totally unexpected and unverified by the craft systems and the pilots themselves

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

Comments