PPRuNe Forums


Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th May 2017, 17:51   #1681 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Belfast
Posts: 89
Royal Navy Crewman airlifted to Hospital from Submarine

Great result by Rescue 118 who carried out the rescue while Rescue 115 flew top cover


Irish Coast Guard helicopter airlifts injured sailor from British Navy submarine | BreakingNews.ie
Thunderbirdsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th May 2017, 19:40   #1682 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 45
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluSdUp View Post
...
I was just out fishing and a Norwegian SeaKing passed over my row boat.
The best SAR crew in the world the RNoAF , soon getting new and modern equipment.
I am going to miss that distinct sound.

Anyway, I hope they keep a healthy combination of old , trusted procedures and new and helpful ones. I am trust they will.
...
I am sure 330 SKV have the expertise to make the most of their new aircraft with all its latest technology.
dClbydalpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2017, 22:53   #1683 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Salisbury UK
Posts: 73
Just a personal note. If there is to be a memorial service I would be much obliged if someone would PM me details as I may miss any announcement as I'm no longer in the ROI. I worked with a couple of the crew some years ago and would very much like to pay my respects.
Jemy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2017, 04:00   #1684 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 444
Irish S-92 Accident Report Paints Picture of Confusion | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News

AIN on-line article by Mark Huber misleadingly titled "Irish S-92 Accident Report Paints Picture of Confusion". There was no confusion. Every crew member thought the aircraft flightpath was following the absolute correct procedure, nothing was challenged. Even the rear crew penultimate suggestion to "come right" was met with deliberate and paced response from both pilots.
malabo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2017, 11:05   #1685 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by malabo View Post
Irish S-92 Accident Report Paints Picture of Confusion | Business Aviation News: Aviation International News

AIN on-line article by Mark Huber misleadingly titled "Irish S-92 Accident Report Paints Picture of Confusion". There was no confusion. Every crew member thought the aircraft flightpath was following the absolute correct procedure, nothing was challenged. Even the rear crew penultimate suggestion to "come right" was met with deliberate and paced response from both pilots.
I think the confusion is exactly HOW they thought they were absolutely correct...
helicrazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2017, 12:09   #1686 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 1,084
A lot of pilots here, presumably with various degrees of experience in various roles, have read the CVR transcript and have arrived at various understandings of what was meant by what was said. This is the problem. I recall very early in the discussion here, it was reported, I think in the context of what is good CRM, that an ex-military pilot was overheard to say, when I press the mic I just want everybody to understand what I say.
I think @helicrazi has made an astute observation that confusion is exactly how they thought they were absolutely correct.
gulliBell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2017, 12:46   #1687 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 69
Posts: 1,046
Is there a difference between "Why" and "How" when it comes to the "confused" situational awareness?
SASless is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2017, 14:54   #1688 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 82
How do you overcome the "incorrect certainty" about a situation?

Potentially, an experienced pilot says something like "nothing higher than 30' here" (after misreading a 300' spot height)

I've been in many situations where something like this has been accepted as fact, and everything is predicated/explained based on an "incorrect certainty" (many not in aviation)

It might seem a farcical/extreme example but I can easily imagine the "certainty" of there being "nothing higher than 30'" resulting in a comment to "write up the faulty rad alt" when it trips unexpectedly for e.g.

Sure in hindsight it's obvious, but at the time, it can be anything but.

In a two crew situation, I feel it's not viable to check/question every statement.

Trying to explain myself:

After start, for a mission requiring 100% fuel. Add in nighttime and a little perceived time pressure.

"We have full fuel right?"
"I topped it to the bottom of the filler, dribbled it in until another drop wouldn't fit, waited for it to settle, dribbled a few drops more till it over flowed. It's full!"

The fuel status might now be beyond doubt, and any anomalies explained away as indication problems.

A fuel leak, or fueling WEX, and now sitting in WXE, are mentally discounted (especially if WXE is coincidentally filled to 90%)

How do we combat this type of error?
Twist & Shout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th May 2017, 15:59   #1689 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 45
Posts: 147
I think it's important to make a distinction between confusion and incorrect SA.

Confusion is a lack of understanding or lack of confidence in the information presented. This crew showed no sign of questioning that accompanies confusion. Compare this with the transcript of AF447, where everyone is trying to grasp what is going on.

I am convinced that this crew started the last phase of the flight with a clear, albeit incorrect, mental picture of what was ahead and how they would deal with it. Nothing in that aircraft, crew, training, procedure or technology was compelling enough to cause a re-assessment of that mental picture. In fact, it appears that most cues were readily incorporated into the existing SA. Until the moment that something untoward was seen on the electroptics.
dClbydalpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2017, 05:53   #1690 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 6,054
Yes, it's like making the ground fit the map in the early stages of getting lost and until something so obviously wrong appears, it is too easy to convince yourself all is well and just as you planned it.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2017, 13:50   #1691 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Devon
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dClbydalpha View Post
I think it's important to make a distinction between confusion and incorrect SA.

Confusion is a lack of understanding or lack of confidence in the information presented. This crew showed no sign of questioning that accompanies confusion. Compare this with the transcript of AF447, where everyone is trying to grasp what is going on.

I am convinced that this crew started the last phase of the flight with a clear, albeit incorrect, mental picture of what was ahead and how they would deal with it. Nothing in that aircraft, crew, training, procedure or technology was compelling enough to cause a re-assessment of that mental picture. In fact, it appears that most cues were readily incorporated into the existing SA. Until the moment that something untoward was seen on the electroptics.
This is on the money. Easy to remain confident in the SA now as generally it is very good. Unfortunately, mistakes are only really identified after they have caused major damage.
jimcarler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th May 2017, 20:04   #1692 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 69
Posts: 1,046
This gets back to my question about "How" and "Why".

"How" is the triggering event....and "Why" is what set it all up for the "How" to happen.....as I see it.
SASless is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2017, 02:17   #1693 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 61
Posts: 542
The how is easy, the aircraft was flying below MSA for the area.

The why, is because the crew hadn't got a clue they were below MSA due to inadequacies in the charts they were using.

They knew perfectly well where they were, the chart displayed just didn't show them to be in any danger. That led to confusion when an obstruction was identified ahead, because the chart would be expected to show anything large or tall enough to cause danger to the aircraft.

It really doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
G0ULI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2017, 02:22   #1694 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ULI View Post
The how is easy, the aircraft was flying below MSA for the area.

The why, is because the crew hadn't got a clue they were below MSA due to inadequacies in the charts they were using.

They knew perfectly well where they were, the chart displayed just didn't show them to be in any danger. That led to confusion when an obstruction was identified ahead, because the chart would be expected to show anything large or tall enough to cause danger to the aircraft.

It really doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
You're no fun.
helonorth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th May 2017, 08:47   #1695 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: England
Posts: 257
MSA

Gouli,
at 200ft you know you are below msa!
jeepys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 18:36   #1696 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: LISBO/DUFFY-ish
Age: 66
Posts: 68
(Posted in error)
jetfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2017, 06:27   #1697 (permalink)
Before "Ze Germans" get here
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ?
Posts: 316
FWIW:

Reconstruction shows R116 crew almost avoided disaster - Independent.ie
My names Turkish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2017, 20:37   #1698 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepys View Post
Gouli,
at 200ft you know you are below msa!


No you don't know if your (electronic) maps don't show any obstacles higher than 30ft. In hindsight obviously we know better.
It is sad to see how a combination of inexact information and certain logic in the equipment that by itself would not cause a big risk/problem (280ft high obstacle in open sea not shown in EGPWS database, not or only partly shown in moving map, depending on mode, EGPWS inhibition in low altitude mode, deactivated clutter suppression, in exactly this combination lining up for a perfect disaster) still makes such a scenario possible even in such a modern machine. Very enlightening regarding unwanted consequences of features.


Why they cruised at 200ft for such an extended period of time will probably remain a mystery, though.
henra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2017, 20:41   #1699 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,535
Has anybody on this thread got any information as to how the search for the two missing crew is going.
Fareastdriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2017, 21:25   #1700 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: England
Posts: 257
Henry,

I don't know what rules you work to but I have always known msa to be 1000 ft about highest object. At 200 ft you are therefore obviously below msa regardless of what your paper or electronic map says.

Offshore MSA is 1000ft or 1500ft in areas of wind turbines.
jeepys is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 00:19.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1