SAR S-92 Missing Ireland
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
From: Edge of the Atlantic
Have any of you thought about the family reading this forum? Yes fully understand the technical aspect of it and learning points that have arisen. However, who should have done this and who should have done that doesn't help the relatives and friends.Think it's time to put a sock in it.
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
From: Location, location - is very important when buying a house.
Sonas, I do not agree with your statement, but I will defend the right for you to say it. No disrespect intended.
This is a forum site. Enough said......or not.
This is a forum site. Enough said......or not.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 5
From: Europe
The associated notes to the APBSS chart are clearly going to be critical - what did they say, and were they read. Given that these were standard notes presumably available to all flight crew and others across a four base IRCG SAR operation over the last 5 years, and are also considered likely to be legacy notes created many years ago and therefore used by quite a few other pilots, I assume there are quite a few reading this thread who know exactly what these notes say. And what they were intended for. Anyone care to comment?
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 23
From: UK and MALTA
Sonas, This is a website forum for Professional pilots to discuss whatever issues they see fit. No-one wants to upset relatives but we do a serious job of work and some, not all, of this forum is provided by pilots and crew who never want this kind of accident to happen again. Sure the official reports and investigations run their course but that should not inhibit us from talking about the issues and provoking each others thoughts with one aim in mind. To help us not to make the same mistakes as others, no mater if they are perceived or not.
You have you opinion and it is right and proper you should air it freely.
Gods forbid If I am ever a subject of one of these threads feel free to tear my performance apart. If it helps someone else then maybe some good comes of it!
You have you opinion and it is right and proper you should air it freely.
Gods forbid If I am ever a subject of one of these threads feel free to tear my performance apart. If it helps someone else then maybe some good comes of it!
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
From: home and abroad
Having flown stuff that now sits in museums, I was slowly introduced to increasing levels of automation. So far, the automation is still "dumb" in that it does everything you tell it to, very smoothly but with a profound lack of SA. You as the pilot will have to provide the SA.
Which is why I hardly ever use NAV mode. The AP will happily fly me into a rock of a thunderstorm blindly following the signals it is designed to follow. Whenever there might be a need to adjust track for avoidance purpuses, HDG is my preferred mode as it only takes a simple turn of the knob or a flick to the coolie hat to move into the desired direction, usually away from potential trouble. Especially low level I want to have full and immediate control over where we are going. And when there is doubt, there is no doubt: Go around and try again. Better to arrive a bit late in this life than much too early in the next one..
Which is why I hardly ever use NAV mode. The AP will happily fly me into a rock of a thunderstorm blindly following the signals it is designed to follow. Whenever there might be a need to adjust track for avoidance purpuses, HDG is my preferred mode as it only takes a simple turn of the knob or a flick to the coolie hat to move into the desired direction, usually away from potential trouble. Especially low level I want to have full and immediate control over where we are going. And when there is doubt, there is no doubt: Go around and try again. Better to arrive a bit late in this life than much too early in the next one..
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere by the Baltic Sea
PIC is PM, CO-pilot is PF. Absolutley agree. Geoffers, I take your point for an AC with the AP mode selection panel on the inter console. Ergonomically that may make sense for PF to call for and PM to push the button. On AC where the PF has the AP controls in front of him. The situation is changed, for the better in my view.
However I see no merit in the PM changing the trajectory, i.e. Turning an active heading bug. This is PFs role 100 % with PM monitoring.
On an AC where the RADAR image can be displayed on an MFD in front of PF, with no loss of primary flight display, it's the quickest reaction to target avoidance.
Bear in mind, in these modern AC the AP is doing the actual flying. The PF ideally controlling the AP in response to his SA, whether visual IMC or negotiating a RADAR target.
Sunnywa, you state as PIC you should not be monitoring 90% absolutley agree with you. YOU SHOULD BE MONITORING 100% and another 50% capacity in addition for constant contingency planning. If the PIC cannot cope with this workload he's in the wrong job.
However I see no merit in the PM changing the trajectory, i.e. Turning an active heading bug. This is PFs role 100 % with PM monitoring.
On an AC where the RADAR image can be displayed on an MFD in front of PF, with no loss of primary flight display, it's the quickest reaction to target avoidance.
Bear in mind, in these modern AC the AP is doing the actual flying. The PF ideally controlling the AP in response to his SA, whether visual IMC or negotiating a RADAR target.
Sunnywa, you state as PIC you should not be monitoring 90% absolutley agree with you. YOU SHOULD BE MONITORING 100% and another 50% capacity in addition for constant contingency planning. If the PIC cannot cope with this workload he's in the wrong job.
fly 3 cue / 4 axis coupled with the SAR modes when the visibility is poor... they can reduce the groundspeed e.g. to10 kts, if downwind is less than 10 kts
if needed in order to change the course and avoid the obstacle. I consider an ARA as a quite simple/basic task... You just follow the SOP's and respect your minima! Btw. our company SAR ARA minima is 0,2 nm/100ft AGL (day/night).
Last edited by Search&Rescue; 21st April 2017 at 16:43.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 71
From: Wanaka, NZ
...For what it's worth (and of course I may be wrong), I think it's probable that the accident radar was set up and being operated correctly for the conditions, and that overflight of the radar return at BLKMO was deliberate in the belief that it represented low-lying rocks that were not a threat..
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 71
From: Wanaka, NZ
My opinion on which pilot should be monitoring and which should be flying during any particular stage of flight should entirely be the prerogative of the PIC, and not enshrined in SOP in any way. There's no way to sugar-coat it, but the PIC is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, and the final disposition of it.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 222
Likes: 11
My opinion on which pilot should be monitoring and which should be flying during any particular stage of flight should entirely be the prerogative of the PIC, and not enshrined in SOP in any way. There's no way to sugar-coat it, but the PIC is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, and the final disposition of it.
Surely the responsibility for safety of the aircraft/crew is that of the Captain? They should be empowered with the flexibility to achieve that in the most appropriate manner. The entire crew should be trained to a standard that best supports that.
Its called captaincy, airmanship and crew resource management.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere by the Baltic Sea
My opinion on which pilot should be monitoring and which should be flying during any particular stage of flight should entirely be the prerogative of the PIC, and not enshrined in SOP in any way. There's no way to sugar-coat it, but the PIC is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, and the final disposition of it.
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: Spain
Have any of you thought about the family reading this forum? Yes fully understand the technical aspect of it and learning points that have arisen. However, who should have done this and who should have done that doesn't help the relatives and friends.Think it's time to put a sock in it.
Putting shocks doesn't help at the long term. This is my opinion. And sorry for my English.
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: EU
No sign of missing R116 crew men after detailed search of Blackrock Island
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Pilot's prerogative.....why not?
Just remember there needs to be some SOP's that grant flexibility but also provide some structure so everyone is on the same page and each knows what the other is supposed to be doing with the idea of making sure nothing gets overlooked or there be confusion as to who is supposed to be doing a particular task.
Anyone remember that infamous BA Memorandum about Change of Duties during a Missed Approach.....the one written Tongue in Cheek but very clearly pointed out how confusing some things can be?
You 92 Drivers out there....two FMS control Pads....one for each Pilot...one by the Left Knee of the Right Seat Pilot and the other by the Right Knee of the Left Seat Pilot?
Is there not a Collective Switch that affords either pilot the ability to change Heading settings?
What about a Cyclic Button (Coolie Hat)....is there one of those?
Just how many ways are there of altering the "Heading" or "Course Flown" by a Pilot flying a 92?
Just remember there needs to be some SOP's that grant flexibility but also provide some structure so everyone is on the same page and each knows what the other is supposed to be doing with the idea of making sure nothing gets overlooked or there be confusion as to who is supposed to be doing a particular task.
Anyone remember that infamous BA Memorandum about Change of Duties during a Missed Approach.....the one written Tongue in Cheek but very clearly pointed out how confusing some things can be?
You 92 Drivers out there....two FMS control Pads....one for each Pilot...one by the Left Knee of the Right Seat Pilot and the other by the Right Knee of the Left Seat Pilot?
Is there not a Collective Switch that affords either pilot the ability to change Heading settings?
What about a Cyclic Button (Coolie Hat)....is there one of those?
Just how many ways are there of altering the "Heading" or "Course Flown" by a Pilot flying a 92?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 5
From: Europe
gullibell/llamaman
Good to see a bit of common sense amidst all this esoteric stuff on radar operation and crew responsibilities.
What stands out from all this is that we have the nonsense of a crew probably thinking they needed to descend to the highly risky height of 200ft at night to nominally be VFR according to SOPs (or maybe just did so because it was normal SAR technique) and then clout a 300ft rock - because of course it was night and they weren't VFR at all. There was full cloud cover and there was poor vis. All this debate about radar technique (which shouldn't have been essential if they were VFR) just proves that the risks of mis-interpretation and misuse were far greater than the risk of hitting anything descending in IMC with a normal profile, navigating with reference to GPS, planned by looking at VFR charts before they departed (which presumably didn't happen) to give maximum clearance to charted and known obstacles. And if they knew they weren't going to be VFR why on earth descend to 200ft? Just do a normal IMC let down profile, to keep as high as possible for as long as possible.
I may turn out to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this accident need never had happened if the crew had not been hamstrung with SOPs and just used their intelligence to perform a sensible let down procedure for what was after all just a refuel to a well established base. And if regulations didn't allow it they should be changed. They weren't searching for a life raft in the dark ocean for goodness sake.
I feel some posting here can't see the wood for the trees. I'm the first to admit, I've no SAR Experience so welcome any alternative views from those that do.
Good to see a bit of common sense amidst all this esoteric stuff on radar operation and crew responsibilities.
What stands out from all this is that we have the nonsense of a crew probably thinking they needed to descend to the highly risky height of 200ft at night to nominally be VFR according to SOPs (or maybe just did so because it was normal SAR technique) and then clout a 300ft rock - because of course it was night and they weren't VFR at all. There was full cloud cover and there was poor vis. All this debate about radar technique (which shouldn't have been essential if they were VFR) just proves that the risks of mis-interpretation and misuse were far greater than the risk of hitting anything descending in IMC with a normal profile, navigating with reference to GPS, planned by looking at VFR charts before they departed (which presumably didn't happen) to give maximum clearance to charted and known obstacles. And if they knew they weren't going to be VFR why on earth descend to 200ft? Just do a normal IMC let down profile, to keep as high as possible for as long as possible.
I may turn out to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this accident need never had happened if the crew had not been hamstrung with SOPs and just used their intelligence to perform a sensible let down procedure for what was after all just a refuel to a well established base. And if regulations didn't allow it they should be changed. They weren't searching for a life raft in the dark ocean for goodness sake.
I feel some posting here can't see the wood for the trees. I'm the first to admit, I've no SAR Experience so welcome any alternative views from those that do.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
rotorspeed
Have you ever flown in an operation that can deliver a different copilot every day? If so you will know and understand the value of SOP's. There will always be enough slack in the system to allow some discretion for the PIC, especially in the SAR world.
G
Have you ever flown in an operation that can deliver a different copilot every day? If so you will know and understand the value of SOP's. There will always be enough slack in the system to allow some discretion for the PIC, especially in the SAR world.
G
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: eire
More than 100 divers in sub-sea search for helicopter crew
Survey thought to be largest dive exercise of its type in efforts to find R116 winch crew missing for six weeks
More than 100 divers in sub-sea search for helicopter crew
Survey thought to be largest dive exercise of its type in efforts to find R116 winch crew missing for six weeks
More than 100 divers in sub-sea search for helicopter crew
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Norway
Pilot's prerogative.....why not?
Is there not a Collective Switch that affords either pilot the ability to change Heading settings?
What about a Cyclic Button (Coolie Hat)....is there one of those?
Just how many ways are there of altering the "Heading" or "Course Flown" by a Pilot flying a 92?
Is there not a Collective Switch that affords either pilot the ability to change Heading settings?
What about a Cyclic Button (Coolie Hat)....is there one of those?
Just how many ways are there of altering the "Heading" or "Course Flown" by a Pilot flying a 92?
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Norway
Example of S92 MFD NAV screen.
Radar 10NM range, GMAP2, manual gain, slightly tilted down, a/c height 500 feet, oil rig target at just under 2NM, about 15 degrees offset, active waypoint symbol overlapping the radar return.
Radar 10NM range, GMAP2, manual gain, slightly tilted down, a/c height 500 feet, oil rig target at just under 2NM, about 15 degrees offset, active waypoint symbol overlapping the radar return.
Joined: Mar 2005
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,563
Likes: 952
From: Aus
The RAAF SAR aircraft are single pilot capable, right?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 5
From: Europe
Geoffers
No I haven't! Don't get me wrong, I fully recognise the importance of SOPs, but I'm just trying to think of some reason as to why the flight crew opted for a much hazardous approach than necessary. It is obvious the risk of obstacles - and uncharted ones - is always going to be greater the lower you are, and the longer you're there. It's clear you've loads of experience - any ideas on why they did?
No I haven't! Don't get me wrong, I fully recognise the importance of SOPs, but I'm just trying to think of some reason as to why the flight crew opted for a much hazardous approach than necessary. It is obvious the risk of obstacles - and uncharted ones - is always going to be greater the lower you are, and the longer you're there. It's clear you've loads of experience - any ideas on why they did?