SAR S-92 Missing Ireland
HC, not every airfield is Aberdeen - or has an ILS. Of those that do some have higher minimums than 200'. I have landed at many hospitals but not one has an ILS approach. Any competent IR rated pilot can safely fly an ILS solo or monitor the helicopter doing so.
SAR operations often involve letting down to a vessel or cliffs in the pitch dark using auto-pilot SAR modes, search radar, FLIR and NVG as a combined 4 crew operation. Once the SAR Op is complete we still have to return to base or the hospital and, if the weather is below 'normal' limits, this will also involve a pre-determined and practiced Poor Visibility Approach again using SAR modes, search radar, FLIR and NVG.
We all maintain IFR approach currency but SAR night/low-vis approaches are much more difficult and carry higher risk. Therefore these are practiced more often and hence SAR crews who operate in the low-level environment prefer to practice in this environment, or, as you put it 'wazz around at 200 feet'
SAR operations often involve letting down to a vessel or cliffs in the pitch dark using auto-pilot SAR modes, search radar, FLIR and NVG as a combined 4 crew operation. Once the SAR Op is complete we still have to return to base or the hospital and, if the weather is below 'normal' limits, this will also involve a pre-determined and practiced Poor Visibility Approach again using SAR modes, search radar, FLIR and NVG.
We all maintain IFR approach currency but SAR night/low-vis approaches are much more difficult and carry higher risk. Therefore these are practiced more often and hence SAR crews who operate in the low-level environment prefer to practice in this environment, or, as you put it 'wazz around at 200 feet'
But when there is an ILS, why not take the safer option and do an ILS? (There was at the base I'm talking about).
Yes, the "SAR stuff" is more difficult and carries higher risk, and thus needs more training and practice time. But not 100% of the training and practice time.
"Any competent IR pilot ... ILS" etc - to be competent, you need to practice. Your dismissal of this point is exactly the problem I'm referring to.
The plan that was reported as being in place a couple of years ago was that full NVG was being introduced and would be operational across the fleet at some time during early 2016. Maybe somebody could confirm whether that plan was indeed completed.
(That doesn't mean there was no NVG before that. For instance, when this aircraft was at Sumburgh at Oscar Charlie, it was not flown on NVG though I believe goggles were available up the back for searching, as happened with Bristow on UK GAP-North until recently.)
Old days on the North Sea were pretty much done as low as required to maintain contact with the surface in the day.....and low enough at night to avoid ice in the Winter.
But then it was single pilot for a lot of us too.
Times change and technology improves!
But then it was single pilot for a lot of us too.
Times change and technology improves!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Which navigation suite is installed in the S92? My SkyDemon does not show up Blackrock or the larger Duvillaun More island at all. Is it possible that it doesn't show up in the S92 too? ("An Fód Dubh" is Blacksod)
SkyDemon
Ordance Survey
SkyDemon
Ordance Survey
Last edited by Ber Nooly; 17th Mar 2017 at 23:05.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SE England
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC - I understand your point and largely agree with you in relation to a predisposition for 'self-contained' let downs, flying around in marginal VMC, etc. on SAR but I'm not sure it's particularly relevant to this incident.
The average let down on SAR is usually as safe or even safer (especially at night) than the average ARA to an oil rig in my opinion, having done both.
With the advantages of NVG, FLIR, AIS and another couple of pairs of eyes and ears on the aircraft tuned in to what's going on, SA and indeed the visual sight picture are often significantly improved.
Of course, there are the awful, dark, foggy, stormy, [insert further terrifying adjectives here] approaches, scraping in to the significantly reduced mimima that SAR is granted which obviously - necessarily - expose the aircraft and crew to increased risk but these are the expection rather than the rule.
I think any implication that the crew here were pushing the limits or operating at an increased level of risk seems misplaced - an overwater letdown on what (as far as I can see) wasn't a particularly awful night weather wise is bread and butter for a qualified crew and a necessary part of the job.
The average let down on SAR is usually as safe or even safer (especially at night) than the average ARA to an oil rig in my opinion, having done both.
With the advantages of NVG, FLIR, AIS and another couple of pairs of eyes and ears on the aircraft tuned in to what's going on, SA and indeed the visual sight picture are often significantly improved.
Of course, there are the awful, dark, foggy, stormy, [insert further terrifying adjectives here] approaches, scraping in to the significantly reduced mimima that SAR is granted which obviously - necessarily - expose the aircraft and crew to increased risk but these are the expection rather than the rule.
I think any implication that the crew here were pushing the limits or operating at an increased level of risk seems misplaced - an overwater letdown on what (as far as I can see) wasn't a particularly awful night weather wise is bread and butter for a qualified crew and a necessary part of the job.
Times change and, mostly, expectations of safety improve. This is why N Sea aviators no longer go VFR when the conditions are too bad for IFR.
HC - I understand your point and largely agree with you in relation to a predisposition for 'self-contained' let downs, flying around in marginal VMC, etc. on SAR but I'm not sure it's particularly relevant to this incident.
The average let down on SAR is usually as safe or even safer (especially at night) than the average ARA to an oil rig in my opinion, having done both.
With the advantages of NVG, FLIR, AIS and another couple of pairs of eyes and ears on the aircraft tuned in to what's going on, SA and indeed the visual sight picture are often significantly improved.
Of course, there are the awful, dark, foggy, stormy, [insert further terrifying adjectives here] approaches, scraping in to the significantly reduced mimima that SAR is granted which obviously - necessarily - expose the aircraft and crew to increased risk but these are the expection rather than the rule.
I think any implication that the crew here were pushing the limits or operating at an increased level of risk seems misplaced - an overwater letdown on what (as far as I can see) wasn't a particularly awful night weather wise is bread and butter for a qualified crew and a necessary part of the job.
The average let down on SAR is usually as safe or even safer (especially at night) than the average ARA to an oil rig in my opinion, having done both.
With the advantages of NVG, FLIR, AIS and another couple of pairs of eyes and ears on the aircraft tuned in to what's going on, SA and indeed the visual sight picture are often significantly improved.
Of course, there are the awful, dark, foggy, stormy, [insert further terrifying adjectives here] approaches, scraping in to the significantly reduced mimima that SAR is granted which obviously - necessarily - expose the aircraft and crew to increased risk but these are the expection rather than the rule.
I think any implication that the crew here were pushing the limits or operating at an increased level of risk seems misplaced - an overwater letdown on what (as far as I can see) wasn't a particularly awful night weather wise is bread and butter for a qualified crew and a necessary part of the job.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is the 1 am synop report for Belmullet, 30 m northeast of Blackrock. Overcast @ 300 ft, visibility 3 km.
AAXX 14011 03976 47130 /2210 10106 20099 30242 40254 55003 7818/ 88///
333 88/03==
Visibility: 3 km
Wind: 220 (SE) @ 10 m/s (19 kts)
Temp 10.6 °C, Dewpoint 9.9 °C
Sea level pressure: 1025.4 hPa
Pressure trend past 3 hours: almost no change
Weather: rain showers
Cloud: Overcast with base at 300 ft
At Mace Head, 80 km to the southeast, conditions were similar, with cloud Overcast at 400 ft, lowering to 200 ft by 2 am.
AAXX 14011 03976 47130 /2210 10106 20099 30242 40254 55003 7818/ 88///
333 88/03==
Visibility: 3 km
Wind: 220 (SE) @ 10 m/s (19 kts)
Temp 10.6 °C, Dewpoint 9.9 °C
Sea level pressure: 1025.4 hPa
Pressure trend past 3 hours: almost no change
Weather: rain showers
Cloud: Overcast with base at 300 ft
At Mace Head, 80 km to the southeast, conditions were similar, with cloud Overcast at 400 ft, lowering to 200 ft by 2 am.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the source of that second Ordnance survey map? I ask because Black Rock is clearly shown on that map you have posted yet as per my last post, it or it's lighthouse doesn't appear at all on OSI mapping at 1:50,000 which seems to be very much an anomaly as far as I can see.
So you've found an aviation mapping system that doesn't show Black Rock and a report of cloud base around the top of the lighthouse.
Makes me shudder.
Makes me shudder.
Yes, very unpleasant conditions but well within the remit of a well-trained SAR crew - which these guys and gal were.
No - it's not Oil and Gas and it's very disappointing that HC chooses to tar all SAR crews with the same brush based on what went on in the N Sea many years ago - not mil or CG SAR btw! Move on and accept that just because it's not Oil and Gas doesn't make it dangerous, gash, unprofessional or 'just tooling around at 200''.
Have some respect that a professional crew somehow ended up dying in the course of their duties for reasons we can only speculate on - dissing the profession based on personal gripes really doesn't help anyone.
No - it's not Oil and Gas and it's very disappointing that HC chooses to tar all SAR crews with the same brush based on what went on in the N Sea many years ago - not mil or CG SAR btw! Move on and accept that just because it's not Oil and Gas doesn't make it dangerous, gash, unprofessional or 'just tooling around at 200''.
Have some respect that a professional crew somehow ended up dying in the course of their duties for reasons we can only speculate on - dissing the profession based on personal gripes really doesn't help anyone.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SE England
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC - it's a fine line to tread IMO. I totally agree that pointlessly pushing on VFR when the weather is marginal and IFR is the easier and safer option is very much an anachronism and should be avoided.
'Minimising risk' at one end of the spectrum to the extent that training is not regularly carried out close to operational limits and/or in weather close to operational limits will start to increase risk at the other end of the spectrum though. If crews are not current or comfortable doing that, then when that horrible approach right down to SAR mins comes along you are piling on extra stress and taking away capacity when it's needed most.
Radar would be showing the island clearly if the unit was working properly and tuned per SOP.
Perhaps Crab can tell us.....would Procedure require an Offset from the Target in a case like this if Blackrock Lifht House was the intended ( even if mistakenly) point of landing.....or would it be a straight head on approach?
Guest
Posts: n/a
What's the source of that second Ordnance survey map? I ask because Black Rock is clearly shown on that map you have posted yet as per my last post, it or it's lighthouse doesn't appear at all on OSI mapping at 1:50,000 which seems to be very much an anomaly as far as I can see.
Both are clearly shown on the paper 1:500,000 and 1:250,000 flight charts, but the crew would probably not have been using these I'm sure.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The crew routed to that location it appears from the Track....otherwise that would be a HUGE coincidence.
Radar would be showing the island clearly if the unit was working properly and tuned per SOP.
Perhaps Crab can tell us.....would Procedure require an Offset from the Target in a case like this if Blackrock Lifht House was the intended ( even if mistakenly) point of landing.....or would it be a straight head on approach?
Radar would be showing the island clearly if the unit was working properly and tuned per SOP.
Perhaps Crab can tell us.....would Procedure require an Offset from the Target in a case like this if Blackrock Lifht House was the intended ( even if mistakenly) point of landing.....or would it be a straight head on approach?
Using an offset or target on the nose?