SAR S-92 Missing Ireland

[puntosaurus]

Aha ! From CAP 999

Search and Rescue is a State activity and therefore not regulated under EU law;
it is consequently regulated by National Aviation Authorities (NAAs). In the UK,
operation of civil helicopters for SAR is considered to be for the purposes of
Public Transport (PT) and therefore subject to Article 12 of the Air Navigation
Order (ANO) 2009 requiring a national Air Operator's Certificate (AOC).

So let's see what the Irish regulatory hounds can dig up from their version.

PS If the Irish version has that same definition, I think I would consider it OK for technical crew members to do what you want. The radar, FLIR, and hover trim are aircraft/role equipment, and what could be better assistance to the flight crew than warning them about imminent terrain or using the hover trim to finesse the winching operation.

[cncpc]

Is there a possibility that one of the back crew members was in the door and eyeballed the rock and that led to the turn suggestion, or do we know for a fact that something on the FLIR gear led to this?

Or are both strapped in and looking at screens at this stage?

[jimf671]

I don't know what an Irish SAR APP says but I do know that the way things are run there makes interoperability with SAR partners that little bit more difficult. This is the sort of thing that held back UK CivSAR for 40 years and finally got sorted just in the final weeks before the current contract started in 2015.

Another matter that might be relevant is the tasking responsibility and how that dovetails into the regulatory regime. It appears to still be the case that tasking is the responsibility of the Irish Coastguard and not the IAA at ARCC Shannon. (MoU 2010?)

In the UK context, when ARCC task an aircraft it is not longer CAT but becomes SAR flight and different rules of flight apply.

Does that distinction exist in Irish SAR Ops? How is it triggered? Was R116's top cover task SAR flight? Were they CAT or were they free to operate under a SAR regulatory regime?

[G0ULI]

It is precisely these discussions about regulations, individual crew members responsibilities and operating procedures that convinces me that SAR should be conducted by the military. It is a flight crew on board the aircraft that need to act together as a unified team. How they divide up the tasks to get the job done safely should be up to individual crews, not some regulatory body determining strict limits on what each crew member is allowed to do. Mixing and matching crew members all trained to the same standards in their own management limited role benefits only management and bean counters. It does not enhance flight safety or result in crews that operate with complete trust in one another and knowledge of each others strengths and weaknesses. Would this accident have happened if the aircraft was being operated by the military? I am inclined to think not.

[switch_on_lofty]

Gouli: In military ops crew roles are defined. There isn't mixing and matching of roles, for instance a Seaking Observer/Radar Op can't do the co-pilots or winchman's job just because someone is more senior or less experienced.
Mil aviators are just as used to working with different crew members as civ ones. Obviously the smaller the community the more you get to know people but it's really a lot more standard than you've inferred here.
I believe that the map shown could be interpreted as an IFR let down / company route when it's not intended as such but maritime helicopter operators are used to letting down in such situations over water, using the radar as the primary tool. In my experience this has been done by a trained radar operator who monitors the descent and other PM duties as normal. Not sure I'd feel that comfortable with a pilot with no training on radars (as has been inferred by some) doing that function.

[jeepys]

Gouli,

When did you last fly SAR?

Of course the military don't crash, do they!

[SASless]

The Military had Radar Operators in the Cabin due to the fact they had a huge ol' Radar on top of the aircraft for various uses other than SAR. The SAR thing was not the original primary mission of the Sea King.

I am sure Crab, Al-bert, Mars, and others well versed in the many Roles the Sea King was tasked with in its military roles can explain to us.

In the Civil 61/92 SAR machines there is no Radar Operator in the Cabin due to there being no need for one as the Radar display is in the Cockpit.

Rather than debating what could be.....perhaps sticking to what is....will be of better use in the discussion of the causes of this tragic accident.

[G0ULI]

Okay, point taken. I spent most of my working career in small dedicated groups where we all had overlapping areas of expertise and no one got upset if someone commented and/or took over because you were cocking it up for some reason. It was expected that you all looked out for each other. Times have clearly changed and the corporate model rules.

[Search&Rescue]

Originally Posted by G0ULI

It is precisely these discussions about regulations, individual crew members responsibilities and operating procedures that convinces me that SAR should be conducted by the military. It is a flight crew on board the aircraft that need to act together as a unified team. How they divide up the tasks to get the job done safely should be up to individual crews, not some regulatory body determining strict limits on what each crew member is allowed to do. Mixing and matching crew members all trained to the same standards in their own management limited role benefits only management and bean counters. It does not enhance flight safety or result in crews that operate with complete trust in one another and knowledge of each others strengths and weaknesses. Would this accident have happened if the aircraft was being operated by the military? I am inclined to think not.

Unbelievable comment! You gotta to be kidding us...

[SASless]

A "For What It Is Worth" comment.....how does the US Coast Guard or US Air Force crewing, crew duties, and aircraft equipment compare to the RAF SAR/ICG/UK SAR Operations?

The JayHawks and PaveHawks are very similar to the 92's....and the old H-3's/CH-53's would have similarities to the SeaKings and S-61's.

If we did a genuine compare and contrast would we not see some blending of all the various cultures over time as Technology improved, Aircraft design and capability changed, and Operational Experience was gained?

Point being.....isn't there more than one right answer to most questions?

[G0ULI]

Perhaps if I were to suggest that SAR should not be a commercial operation subject to cost constraints that could limit crew training, that might be more acceptable?

Yes, I know the military have their problems too, but they would appear to have greater freedom to operate without having to account for every penny.

[Red5ive]

Originally Posted by G0ULI

Yes, I know the military have their problems too, but they would appear to have greater freedom to operate without having to account for every penny.

You do realise the the Aer Corps lost four crew and a Dauphin in 1999!

[jeepys]

I am not sure how many training hours the Irish CG contract includes but with the UK civvy SAR contract there is a heap of hours for training. 50 per month to be precise.
Having a private operator run the country's SAR does not mean it's going to be sub standard because of penny pinching.

Gouli, are you saying the Irish Air Corps would do a better job?

[jimf671]

Originally Posted by G0ULI

... the military have their problems too, but they would appear to have greater freedom to operate without having to account for every penny.

I didn't know you were such a wit Gouli!

[oleary]

So, ...

Originally Posted by [email protected]

yes, one of his primary duties is to monitor the handling pilot - instead we get him heads down playing with the radar!

..... the PF should be "playing with radar"? How do you do an ARA?

[oleary]

So, ...

Originally Posted by dervish

louisnewmark

The extensive debate and arguments over how radars work and are used tend to support any call for dedicated operators. Too much compromise evident in this accident. Just my opinion.

..... how have we managed to use the same radar, for 50 years, with a two-pilot crew, in the same weather conditions, during O&G operations?

[tistisnot]

Because you never intended to overfly the rig; you used the lowest ( approx 2.5 nm) scale and you made a decision at 150' and 0.5 nm or 200' and 0.75nm having already made an offset to avoid the blob. If you got an automated AVAD (yes the boringly simple one) call-out, and not visual with the destination, it was further offset, pull power and climb to MSA. eGPWS was designed to avoid terrain and published obstacles for onshore work ...... database, loss of situational awareness, confirmation bias

[Older and Wiser]

Well I can absolutely assure you that PART-OPS-SPA-HEMS can be interpreted to allow the technical crewmember to do all of things you need them to do, provided that the role is described in the operations manual and that the training and checking required for the role is also set out in Part D.

Punto I beleive you are conflating regulations. Operating equipment is different to being responsible for primary navigation. Primary Navigation is, under EASA, FAA & CASA, to the best of my knowledge, solely in the hands of a licensed Pilot.
All SAR Rearcrew are Technical crew and just like their HEMS Counterparts they can operate radios, FLIR and "assist" the pilot with navigation.
As such, as is the case on UK SAR Helicopters and MoD Falkland Contract SAR Helicopters, the Technical Crew cannot operate the RADAR and give positive navigation commands to the Pilots. However the latter 2 services operating the AW189 do have a view of the Radar Return on the Technical Crew Mission Computer but, because of the EASA Regs the OE cannot fit the controls of the radar in the Cabin so they only have sight of what the pilots have set up whether it is a good set up or bad.
Some pilots will listen to advice from Technical Crew who have many years of being Radar Operators on Military SAR on how to get the best from the radar - many others will not. Some Technical Crew in the Civilian world do not have that experience.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Are some of the posters really trying to punt, that despite two licensed trained pilots in a third generation cockpit, the answer lies in allowing the guy in the back to drive the helicopter by verbal commands to avoid, what was effectively a rock that had been in the same place for millions of years?

Despite RADAR, FLIR, MOVING MAP, FMS WAYPOINT, GPS SUPER ACCURACY, this crew flew into a 300 foot high rock in what was effectively, the middle of the Ocean. If the only way to stop tha happening is to have "A man in the back" god help us all!

[Search&Rescue]

Originally Posted by DOUBLE BOGEY

Are some of the posters really trying to punt, that despite two licensed trained pilots in a third generation cockpit, the answer lies in allowing the guy in the back to drive the helicopter by verbal commands to avoid, what was effectively a rock that had been in the same place for millions of years?

Despite RADAR, FLIR, MOVING MAP, FMS WAYPOINT, GPS SUPER ACCURACY, this crew flew into a 300 foot high rock in what was effectively, the middle of the Ocean. If the only way to stop tha happening is to have "A man in the back" god help us all!

Totally agree! Thanks DB!

But I have to add that NVG makes a huge difference! I have been flying my first 25 SAR years (A412, AS332L1, S76C++) without and last 2 years (AW139) with NVG and I can only confirm that it will be "a whole different ball game" concerning flight safety!