Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

SAR S-92 Missing Ireland

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

SAR S-92 Missing Ireland

Old 29th Mar 2017, 06:53
  #601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,637
Scattercat - Well said

Malabo - I expect there are lots of people (Irish Govt, Irish CG, CHC and Sikorsky) who are nervously waiting for any interim report.

ISTR the CG were looking at NVD when they still had the S61 so it is a disgrace that it wasn't specified in the S-92 contract.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 07:10
  #602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,317
Crew on tragic Rescue 116 never got emergency warning it was about to crash due to technical glitch

Again, the Mirror....
Duchess_Driver is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 07:11
  #603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Baltic Sea
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Scattercat View Post
This issue of crews having some information on the patient's condition and possibly being influenced to "push the limits" misses the point. All aviation is a risk v gain decision & SAR / EMS is often at the extremis of those decisions. Higher risks & higher gains. As someone who has done a fair bit of both, I believe that I (we) can only make an informed decision when I have all of the relevant information. I don't need to know every clinical detail anymore than the tasking agency needs to know all of the operational aspects, but without some information I only have half of the equation. What is required though, is the culture of being able to maintain a professional decision making process, regardless of the emotive, "this 2 year old child will die if you don't go" influence. I have made "no-go" decisions and people have perished as I'm sure many here will have had to. I have also made plenty of "go" decisions that have pushed myself and my crew close to the limits & people have been saved.
Accidents will happen & when they do, it is right & proper that we analyse what could have been done better, but we should be doing that anyway. The argument that R118 & R116 shouldn't have been tasked for an injury that may or may not have been life-threatening misses the point. It could be argued that this accident would still have occurred if the mission was to save a boatload of cute children. Let's focus on the cause of this tragic accident and work on ways to mitigate those risks that are inherent in our line of work.
I will say it one last time .... in my opinion, NVD's are a "must" technology for this type of work. Having done plenty with & plenty without, I wouldn't want to go back to doing what the crew of R116 were doing without the aid of NVD.
I couldn't agree more... 👍
Search&Rescue is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 08:12
  #604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 71
Posts: 1,305
In 1998 I was operating an S61 SAR-cab out of Shannon with DF as my copilot. We were called out in the middle of a dark and horrid night to a Inishmore, one of the Aran Islands in Galway Bay. There was a man with chest injuries in need of immediate hospitalisation so we planned and conducted a low level landfall in weather that was absolutely on the limits. The run in towards the landing site beside the harbour was extremely difficult and was made even more difficult because the nearby lighthouse was still operating. Its fingers of light rotated beneath us creating a painful optical illusion that very nearly had me abandoning the approach. Thanks to the coolness of my colleagues we completed the mission without incident but ever since then I have often wondered about NVGs. Would they have made the mission safer? Would they have delivered the goods in close proximity of the lighthouse? Perhaps someone with actual NVG experience can enlighten me.

G.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 08:16
  #605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 50
Posts: 220
Originally Posted by malabo View Post

Thankfully, the IAA has the experience of the UK AAIB assisting it
An small but significant point, the AAIU have complete responsibility for the investigation, which would include the regulatory environment. The IAA being the regulator.
tu154 is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 08:22
  #606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,637
Would they have made the mission safer? Would they have delivered the goods in close proximity of the lighthouse?
yes, possibly not in those days with 1st or 2nd gen tubes where a bright light could completely close down the goggles, but with modern tubes most definitely safer.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 08:50
  #607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Strapping in

Does anyone know what the current policy in CHC Ireland (and other SAR operators) is with regard to the rear crew being strapped into a seat for approach, take off and landing?
fagin's goat is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 10:51
  #608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by malabo View Post
Well, the IAA and operator disagree with all of you. No NVD, yet a cloud break at night at a rocky shoreline and driving in the dark at a few hundred feet looking for a helipad was risk-assessed as acceptable even for a routine refuelling stop.
Well good morning and welcome to 2017.

Fagin's Goat - it depends on the operator and the circumstances. If you're at an airfield with ATC to give clearances then the rearcrew may well strap in but if you're off airfield and/or it's a sloping ground/confined area landing then the rearcrew will be on their harnesses providing clearances. If it was me approachimg Blacksod at night, I'd be on my harness in the door. But I'd also have my goggles down.
The SAR RC is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 11:23
  #609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,012
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
ISTR the CG were looking at NVD when they still had the S61 so it is a disgrace that it wasn't specified in the S-92 contract.
Isn't it more disgraceful that CHC didn't provide it for their crews if it's now considered a safety-of-flight issue?

The ICG is the functional requirements owner ( i.e. the parameters of the SAR operations ), not the technical or safety requirements owner. Compliance with applicable certification, maintenance and safety standards is the only relevant metric for the tender.

The contract also failed to specify the installation of a cyclic control or windscreen, but I don't think we criticise the ICG over that oversight.
El Bunto is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 11:45
  #610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,127
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
yes, possibly not in those days with 1st or 2nd gen tubes where a bright light could completely close down the goggles, but with modern tubes most definitely safer.
We had 3rd gen tubes in 1986, so you'd think the civilian world would at least have them, or better, by 1998.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 12:04
  #611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,127
Originally Posted by El Bunto View Post
Isn't it more disgraceful that CHC didn't provide it for their crews if it's now considered a safety-of-flight issue?..
Whilst I'm not a fanboi of CHC, I disagree with this sentiment. The operator provides an aircraft as per a contract specification, and crews operate the aircraft in accordance with their training and operating procedures laid down by the operator, the regulator, and the client. Operating procedures take into account the aircraft configuration, role equipment, operating environment and many other things.

You might say many "if only" things...if only the doctor knew from the outset the minor nature of the injury they may not have launched until daylight, "if only" the FMS navigation database had the correct height of the blacksod lighthouse, "if only" they had NVG. The thing is, you plan according to the operational situation; no point wishing you had something you don't have, just deal with the cards you've been dealt with.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 12:15
  #612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 59
Posts: 1,350
I am with guliBell on this. The aircraft and equipment is specified in the contract, and that is what is provided. If the task is not safe without NVG then the crew will not launch. That is the standard of service provision specified in the contract.
John R81 is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 12:41
  #613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,214
Agreed. In the example of the neighbouring UK SAR Helicopter Service, there is now a contract with a requirement for a low light capability "in low light conditions down to 2 mlux."

That only came about after 44 years of dodgy contracts.

If anyone has to take a kicking over the late arrival of NVG then it should be the coastguard authorities and governments who have sat on their hands over technical specs for civilian SAR on both these islands for too long.

The 15k a head is only the start, and with specialist cockpit requirements, ITAR restrictions and monster training costs, no contractor could possibly do this on their own.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 18:01
  #614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by gulliBell View Post
We had 3rd gen tubes in 1986, so you'd think the civilian world would at least have them, or better, by 1998.
And Crab, it's not the generation of tubes that prevents "blooming" rather it is whether they have "auto gating" or not. E.G. 2nd gen tubes with auto gating are better in urban or well lit situations. 3rd gen work further into the IR spectrum so would be better in V dark regions. Of course if you have the cash the 3rd gen with auto gating is where you want to be.
snakepit is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 19:03
  #615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: US
Posts: 114
All the talk about NVG's is well and good but I'm more concerned about the comments that , 1. there may not have been a moving map display in the cockpit and 2. the rock they hit might not have been in the data base even if they had #1. Is there any definitive information on either of these things? Both seem unimaginably sad and unfortunate to me if there is truth to either one. Did I miss something?
roscoe1 is online now  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 19:19
  #616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 47
Posts: 217
Can anyone explain why there is a suspicion that Blackrock is not in the terrain database.
dClbydalpha is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 19:26
  #617 (permalink)  
Registered User *
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EIR15
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by dClbydalpha View Post
Can anyone explain why there is a suspicion that Blackrock is not in the terrain database.
It was stated officially a few days ago. I can't remember the source.
Ber Nooly is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 19:50
  #618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: US
Posts: 114
From this news article above. Perhaps I misunderstood and this was simply someone putting out an unlikely but possible scenario which I mistook for something more.....
roscoe1 is online now  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 20:00
  #619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by El Bunto View Post
Isn't it more disgraceful that CHC didn't provide it for their crews if it's now considered a safety-of-flight issue?

The ICG is the functional requirements owner ( i.e. the parameters of the SAR operations ), not the technical or safety requirements owner. Compliance with applicable certification, maintenance and safety standards is the only relevant metric for the tender.

The contract also failed to specify the installation of a cyclic control or windscreen, but I don't think we criticise the ICG over that oversight.
Sir, you display a significant lack of knowledge about how our industry works.
oleary is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2017, 20:52
  #620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 45
Posts: 133
I'm sorry if this sounds a stupid question and maybe off topic, but why is that an offshore Vessel with a more suitable crane and ROV equipment that is capable of lifting the wreck from the seabed is not being used as these vessels have done these jobs before and it is not likely these is a shortage of these vessels , if this was the North Sea the wreck would have been lifted as it now 3 weeks since the accident and there is still 2 crew members missing. I'm thinking more for the families waiting for there loved ones to be brought home and laid to rest.
pumaboy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.