Sea King
Tourist
Thank you for replying. Could you clarify a couple of points?
NVG - How does the “limited” capability the SK7 now has compare with what the SKAEW2 had? As DOR(sea) were offered a properly designed fit, but declined, the implication is that the Mk7 was not expected to be as capable as the Mk2 in that respect, but that is just my interpretation. If I’ve got it right, then there must have been a change of mind, probably as a result of the accident.
Radar – You are probably right that I am confused but I was only quoting the Board of Inquiry report, which says the Mk7 cannot be deemed “radar equipped” because the radar must be turned off within a certain distance from the ship. So, neither had a working radar. The report implies this switching off was unnecessary in the Mk2 and the ship’s procedures still reflected the Mk2 use, not the Mk7. If the ship people had known of this change, am I right in thinking an obvious outcome would be new deconfliction procedures? If it were confirmed that this risk had been spotted, a contract let to assess and mitigate, only to be cancelled, then I think the Board should have mentioned it. The same could be said for the refusal to fit NVG.
Although unfamiliar with the details I can see the large gaps in the BOI report. They make certain criticisms (HISL, NVG, Interoperability) but there isn’t any hint of answers being sought. Is a BOI expected to seek answers to their own questions? If they don’t then who is?