R116 Accident AAIU report discussions

Two very noticable things in that article in the way they highlight legal teams involved.

As others have said I always thought Air Accident Reports were just statement of facts.

They never directly apportion fault or blame or determine liability, but if that facts point out dificiencies by any of the parties then it who is to blame is kinda obvious.

So was this review a review of the facts or the way the facts were portrayed in the report ?

I'm in two minds about it. On one hand, it's hard to see how two teams of competing lawyers can actually improve a draft report like this. On the other hand, if only one party to the enquiry has legal representation, then you could imagine a report being made a lot worse, with blame being shifted on to those who aren't represented. So, it's not hard to feel sympathy for the families believing they need to be involved.

Probably an exercise in wording to take the sting out of what is usually a thorough analysis by the AAIU.

I'd wonder how will this affect the reputation of CHC and their renewal bid for the SAR contract?

A review was requested so it went to an independent review board, which seems to have concluded now.

The preliminary report won't have had as much detail. There's other factors that will only have been properly investigated by the time the final report is written.

There'll be a lot in it I'd imagine. Aeronautical databases and information, especially about obstacles like Blacksod. CHC's safety. Safety and survival equipment that contributed to two crew not being found.

"There'll be a lot in it I'd imagine. Aeronautical databases and information, especially about obstacles like Blacksod. CHC's safety."

Suspect you may be close to it there. Wasn't the story at the time that they were flying 'blind' using a 3D navigation system that shows up the shape of the ground in front. And that the Blackrock they crashed into wasn't in the navigation database? Despite being a pretty high & large rocky island with a lighthouse plonked on it.

So who supplied the navigation system, what data was on it and who was responsible for supplying the data?? Some commercial entity or the state? Whose responsibility was it to upgrade it or report errors in the data?

And to what extent the pilots might have been partially to blame for not being aware of the limitations of the system.

Those seemed to be the questions knocking about at the time in various media reports.

Do people not know who the family of one of the crew actually is?

what their previous role was?

forgiving fees?

Just to point out that the mod note from the previous thread holds, as do any threadbans.

The 10,000 posts thing is now old news, but this is the replacement thread. The ban on posts which mean "I Told You So" will be enforced without mercy - and on the current forum software, three infractions means a siteban for a month - so remember this.

Additionally, there is no longer a split between news and discussion threads as there was in the short term after the incident so that instruction can be ignored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Irish_Coast_Guard_Rescue_116_crash

The Air Accident Investigation Unit circulated a 333 page draft version of the final report into the crash in November 2019. The report was delayed, prompting a review - the first in the 25 year history of the AAIU

What are the 'normal charts published by the Ordnance Survey'? If you refer to sheet 22 of the OSi Discovery Series, Blackrock island is shown but not in a satisfactory way. As it's too far off the coast, it's portrayed in a small inset map and furthermore with no indication of it's quite substantial height. We are obliged not to speculate but the fact as per that map anyway, is that it is inadequately mapped by the state on this particular publication. Which brings you back to a key question - who supplied the 3D data for the navigation system and who was responsible for correcting errors and omissions in it?

The Ordnance Survey maps the island and those maps are the basis for all VFR charts,as the IAA are required to use the OS for sourcing it's maps. That's an ICAO requirement,even before you get into IFR and EASA. As for correcting errors,that tends to be reliant on the end user spotting errors and then sending that gen back to the OS or the IAA. If an operator buys in third-party nav data to upgrade their flight management systems,then they have a way to send back gen about errors to the creator of that data. Back in the day of manual Jeppesen charts and plates for IFR,you had a method of sending found errors back and it was usually corrected very quickly.

The thing is,blaming the State is a get out of jail card for all parties;the aircrew don't get blamed, the operator doesn't and the AAIU can't assign blame. It is tradition in this part of the world that the dead aircrew don't get blamed, as they are not are around to explain themselves. Look at the Mull of Kintyre Chinook case.

There was a mention of the crash in the Sunday Independent (https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-air-traffic-control-in-crisis-staff-claim-as-they-call-for-transport-minister-eamon-ryan-to-investigate-40865030.html)a few weeks back, in short - the IAA being the regulatory body and the provider of services is an issue. My reading of the article is the IAA called for the review, but it isn't clear.

I'm hearing there may be something about this report on PrimeTime tonight.

No idea how true that is.

Edit to add it may be about the split of the IAA as referenced above.

The interim report has the CVR readout with timescale to the second, if anyone cares to download and read it. The original documents are in the public domain so you don't need to rely on journal.ie.

Final AAIU report due out tomorrow according to Prime Time (4 years, 8 months after the accident).