Originally Posted by
holdatcharlie
..Much has been said about the shortcomings of this crews briefing.
...what could/should they have done to acquire more information about the let down and potential dangers on the run-in before they arrived?
...Both of which would have had access to local charts?
...Flying 'under the duvet' in the dark in an unfamiliar and inhospitable coastline I think I would want to be as prepared as I could be.
1. Nobody outside the investigation team has heard the crew briefing, so whether there were shortcomings in the brief nobody here can say.
2. Two points. One is a systematic process of continuous improvement, if there were deficiencies in the operational route guide (or anything else) they should have been identified and amended long ago. The operator QA systems are primarily responsible for this. The other aspect, we don't know anything of the pre-flight planning that was undertaken on this sortie. This is something that the investigation no doubt will review in time.
3. The published aeronautical charts, together with the route guide, should have been sufficient for planning purposes without reverting to other map sources. The WAC chart and operator route guide map both had Blackrock lighthouse spot height indicated.
4. Yes, exactly. Does the contracted "scramble" time to be airborne on this SAR contract give the crews enough time to flight plan before departure? If not, did they have enough resources on-board the aircraft to flight plan adequately during the one hour transit to the search area? I guess both of these questions will also be of interest to the investigation.