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 20th Apr 2017, 22:10
  #1341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by DOUBLE BOGEY View Post
Cnpc, for a start, the moving map, the paper map and the EGPWS do not matter once you are 200 feet in the dark over the sea.

All the matters is the RADAR, followed by RADALT. FLIR would help. NVG they did not have.

So you ask me the question. I answer. I would have the PF flying AND fully controlling the helicopter. I would have the RADAR image on the PF and PNF MFD.

It the Radar was correctly tuned. PF sees target. PF announces target and makes a correction to the trajectory. PNF concurs. The simplest, quickest smartest way to operate a third genearation helicopter at night. In addition the Commander would be PNF and the Co-0pilor PF.

I absolutely vehemently disagree that the PNF should have any control of the aircrafts trajectory UNLESS the PF becomes disorientated. It's f****ing madness to have the aircraft and AP modes being controlled by two people. PNF pre-selects, PF checks and Authorises. Once the mode is engaged PF drives the helicopter by knobs or trim switches, or if warranted, flys through. PF totally responsible for the aircrafts trajectory, coupled or uncoupled. PNF monitoring the trajectory and the FMA indications.

It's gobsmacking what people have just posted about automation. Surely even the most mentally deficient can understand that pissing about with silly over complex INAPPROPRIATE AUTOMATION SOPS almost certainly was the last hole in this Swiss cheese.

Geoffers, all I can say is you are not taking your guys in the right direction. Please re think it through. If you PF is miselecting then more training required. But you cannot have the Helicopter trajectory shared between two people.
Thanks, DB. You make your points well.

I wasn't so much challenging what you had said prior, because my own comments can be taken as a crew error view as well. I was actually asking what you would do, in the right seat, when the guy in the back says there is an island directly ahead. Is it too late by then, or is there some act of command and aviating that could have saved those people. When they have arrived at that awful point, when procedure and systems have failed them, and they are at 200 feet with an island directly ahead.

The bit about BLKMO comes from the accident report. They consider that drawing to be an arrival, and for some reason they seem to say that BLKMO is not the helipad. That it actually may be over the ocean.
cncpc is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2017, 23:09
  #1342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 71
Posts: 1,305
SAS & DB - You misquote me, I never said that the PM is in charge of the trajectory. I said the PIC is in charge of the whole caboodle and to have the best chance of managing the operation he delegates the flying to the P2. The PF calls the trajectory and the AP modes and the PM (PIC) selects them. He has the brain-space to observe what is happening and veto anything he doesn't like.

With the spectrum of abilities we see on a daily basis, you really don't want the guy on instruments taking his attention away to do the AP selections. Remember that the AP panel is in the middle of the interseat console on the 139.

You may be using your own skills as a reference for the rest of the pilot population. If you read the piece on the end of the link I posted earlier you will see that less than 50% of those we see can be considered to be 'competent'.

G
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2017, 23:16
  #1343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EU
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by cncpc View Post

The bit about BLKMO comes from the accident report. They consider that drawing to be an arrival, and for some reason they seem to say that BLKMO is not the helipad. That it actually may be over the ocean.
Could that be referring to a waypoint near Blackrock.

On the Newstalk clip I posted, the expert seemed to infer it was a waypoint (at 10m20s).
Red5ive is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2017, 23:19
  #1344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EU
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by BigFrank View Post
On RTE Radio Good Morning Ireland programme this morning (= Today on BBC Radio 4) there was a discussion of the accident.

Two separate elements were discussed:

i) The failure to follow appropriate protocols in releasing transcripts from the cockpit. This was the "official" basis for the interview, it seems.

ii) However, at the end of the interview, the President of the Irish Airline Pilots Association appeared to make some trenchant criticisms of the reliability of the information being provided by the systems to the crew.

Criticisms which the interviewer, pressed for time by an editor no doubt, failed to pursue.

Morning Ireland - RTÉ Radio 1


The item is number 9 or 10 in the running list when you scroll down.
mp3
http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/au...61053_232_.mp3
Red5ive is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2017, 23:30
  #1345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 53
Posts: 4,520
Originally Posted by Geoffersincornwall View Post
SAS & DB - You misquote me, I never said that the PM is in charge of the trajectory. I said the PIC is in charge of the whole caboodle and to have the best chance of managing the operation he delegates the flying to the P2. The PF calls the trajectory and the AP modes and the PM (PIC) selects them. He has the brain-space to observe what is happening and veto anything he doesn't like.

With the spectrum of abilities we see on a daily basis, you really don't want the guy on instruments taking his attention away to do the AP selections. Remember that the AP panel is in the middle of the interseat console on the 139.

You may be using your own skills as a reference for the rest of the pilot population. If you read the piece on the end of the link I posted earlier you will see that less than 50% of those we see can be considered to be 'competent'.

G
No, no, no. PF controls flight path - PM monitors.
212man is online now  
Old 20th Apr 2017, 23:34
  #1346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by Red5ive View Post
Could that be referring to a waypoint near Blackrock.

On the Newstalk clip I posted the expert seemed to infer it was a waypoint (at 10m20s).
In the scenario I subscribe to and which is sort of generally accepted, that route was originally drawn up as a service/transit route between the two helipads. Support for that seemed to be that these waypoints had a pink circle under them, and numbers believed to be either the elevation of the pads or the the obstacle height of the lighthouse.

The wording in the report may be just poor wording, but it could mean that the waypoint is not co-located with the helipad, or even the island. Just near it, i.e. over open water. If that is the case, it opens another hole in the cheese. Nobody knows what page 2 says in that APBSS thing. It may have heights associated with each waypoint, or it may tell you that there is a 310 foot lighthouse "near" the waypoint.

Support for it being the helipad comes from the fact if you fly to BLKMO at 200 feet in cloud or darkness, you will hit the rock perfectly in line with the helipad. Whatever the case, its confusing enough that even the investigators cannot describe it in an unambiguous way.
cncpc is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2017, 23:51
  #1347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 71
Posts: 1,305
212 - That's what I said - PF controls trajectory and calls the AP modes. My advice is that the PF is the copilot whilst the PIC remains as PM and can exercise his PIC responsibilities more effectively. This closely follows the principles of a 'monitored approach' favoured by many when the chips are down and the weather marginal.

G.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 00:11
  #1348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 105
Red5ive...

That newstalk interview was painful. The "expert" obviously isn't keeping in touch with this thread.

E.g. he says they couldn't see the light because they were too high and the light had a roof.
cncpc is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 00:27
  #1349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
You may be using your own skills as a reference for the rest of the pilot population. If you read the piece on the end of the link I posted earlier you will see that less than 50% of those we see can be considered to be 'competent'.


Let me get this straight....If I am the "Driver", "Handling Pilot", "Pilot Handling", "the Guy with his Mitts on the Sticks".....are you suggesting I have to rely upon the other guy up front to mash a button to select a Mode....turn a Heading Knob....or reset a Bug?

Is that what you are saying?

All this while the Autopilot System is controlling the machine for me in response to my inputs?
SASless is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 00:35
  #1350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EU
Posts: 75
What a ridiculous statement for a regulator to make!

The Irish Aviation Authority declined to comment when asked if it was responsible for approving operator route guides and other databases.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...wyer-1.3055789
Red5ive is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 00:41
  #1351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 63
Posts: 3
I would think it was much more likely that they couldn't directly see the light because the cliffs above them at their 200 foot flight level cut off the beam. I note that the aircraft would have been presenting a port side nav light towards the lighthouse. Is it possible that the aircraft navigation lights and anti collision beacon reflecting against low clouds could potentially mask the lighthouse red and white lights? I am making the assumption that they would be illuminated flying at low level on an intended approach.

Rereading the report, it looks like the crew didn't look at the page two notes of the approach pattern and were completely unaware that they were below MSA approaching Black Rock. That document and the way the route was presented is absolutely damning as the initiator of all that followed.

Many thanks to the contributors over the last few pages for your insightful and thought provoking posts. Much appreciated.
G0ULI is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 01:25
  #1352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Tipperary
Posts: 24
Appbs

Originally Posted by G0ULI View Post
I would think it was much more likely that they couldn't directly see the light because the cliffs above them at their 200 foot flight level cut off the beam. I note that the aircraft would have been presenting a port side nav light towards the lighthouse. Is it possible that the aircraft navigation lights and anti collision beacon reflecting against low clouds could potentially mask the lighthouse red and white lights? I am making the assumption that they would be illuminated flying at low level on an intended approach.

Rereading the report, it looks like the crew didn't look at the page two notes of the approach pattern and were completely unaware that they were below MSA approaching Black Rock. That document and the way the route was presented is absolutely damning as the initiator of all that followed.

Many thanks to the contributors over the last few pages for your insightful and thought provoking posts. Much appreciated.
Absolutely agree,,"that document" initiated a series of events that led to complacency and ultimately a tragic outcome
smcc63 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 03:25
  #1353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
For what it is worth, I believe Goffers is more correct in the crew set up. In our SAR Cab, the PIC is the PM(PNF) and the co-pilot is the pilot flying. However, in reality using the 4 axis autopilot, the PF is monitoring the flight path and the system to make sure it doesn't throw a wobbly and the PIC/PM is the person who is monitoring the radar for clearances, if needed, telling the PF that he is about to turn the heading bug (and does alter the heading) (to avoid something or track somewhere), keep SA on the job, put in the search pattern, activate it etc, control the SAR modes (APP1,2 MOT etc). In effect, the PIC is controlling the flight path and keeping a better SA to complete the job with the PF is sitting there scanning to make sure what the PM says is going to happen is happening in a safe manner. The PF is doing nothing but scan. With NVG, they also scan (minimally) outside.


DB, if you want me as the PIC to be the PF and control the aircraft, while keep SA on everything, sneak a peek at the radar to make sure nothing is happening, then you are giving the PIC about 90% of the workload in this shitty environment. I personally think that is too much, and, while this was not a factor in this accident, now put in an inexperienced (but competent) co-pilot.
Preparing to receive........
sunnywa is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 04:09
  #1354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,049
Originally Posted by sunnywa View Post
...if you want me as the PIC to be the PF and control the aircraft, while keep SA on everything, sneak a peek at the radar to make sure nothing is happening, then you are giving the PIC about 90% of the workload in this shitty environment. I personally think that is too much, and, while this was not a factor in this accident, now put in an inexperienced (but competent) co-pilot.
Preparing to receive........
How do the SAR pilots flying AW139 in Australia manage to do it all single-pilot? They do single pilot IFR and at night, don't they?
gulliBell is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 05:16
  #1355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by smcc63 View Post
Absolutely agree,,"that document" initiated a series of events that led to complacency and ultimately a tragic outcome
Not sure it led to complacency. For now, it is at the core of issues as most see it here. The investigation may identify what issues led to this failing to provide a safe procedure when it was selected in combination with APP1. All is well if there is a 400 foot ceiling.

Nothing unusual about the IAA refusing to answer questions. Pretty standard. Same with CHC. Lawsuits are surely coming from the families. There is a Brit lawyer from a big firm already on it.

I know what purports to be an IFR approach like that might be has to be regulator approved and published through the regulator in most first world countries. I can't imagine this was formally approved.
cncpc is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 05:17
  #1356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
Night overwater SAR is a two pilot plus two crew job in Aust. Overland can be 1 pilot spifr.
sunnywa is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 06:20
  #1357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 46
"My advice is that the PF is the copilot whilst the PIC remains as PM and can exercise his PIC responsibilities more effectively. This closely follows the principles of a 'monitored approach' favoured by many when the chips are down and the weather marginal."

Geoffers, I absolutely agree with you here.
louisnewmark is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 06:26
  #1358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by sunnywa View Post
Night overwater SAR is a two pilot plus two crew job in Aust. Overland can be 1 pilot spifr.
Oh really?! I didn't get the memo. Maybe that's the case where you work but you obviously don't know what's going on in the rest of the country. Co-pilot on RAAF SAR??
Mark Six is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 06:45
  #1359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 71
Posts: 1,305
BTW, the Epic system allows one pilot to monitor Radar on his MFD and TAWS on his HSI whilst the other has TAWS on his MFD and radar on the HSI. Radar image needs to be optimised for the altitude (tilt) and sea conditions (gain) and that means that changes may be needed to the IAS/Altitude change. These changes have to be carried out by the PM.

This is essentially what the 139 FCOM says and that was the product of a lot of experienced offshore people at the factory and validated by those in industry.

Ultimately you have to write your SOP's and stand by them..... or not!

G.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2017, 08:05
  #1360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 917
Unless it's changed in the last few years, the RAAF SAR helicopter has a co-pilot.
Nigel Osborn is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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