SAR S-92 Missing Ireland
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 23
From: UK and MALTA
Originally Posted by [email protected]
DB, you are pre-empting the investigation with a guilty charge based on limited information - not really fair?
Not my place to criticise the crew but I believe we should not be afraid to sense the obvious here.
Take away the FLIR, the Rear Crew, the assumed additional expertise of the SAR crew and you have a Offshore ARA in its basic form.
A waypoint, a Radar Target (or several) and a vertical profile (CDFA). Backed up with a sensible Altitude/RADALT Bug response philosophy. Nothing else really needed and this is done every day by the O&G pilots.
I strongly re-emphasise that the merits of the CDFA (not utilised in this approach) would have saved them. However, I keep forgetting, this is Rotorheads and we don't really like silly, new rules that take away are ability to do exactly what we want when we want to do it.
I started on this thread pushing back against Helicomparitor. Now I am beginning to think, having read and seen all the data, his original point may indeed by valid.
DB
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 5
From: Europe
DB
Have to say I think your summary was refreshingly clear, rationale and objective. Regretfully for the crew, I totally agree with you. We should use this to remind us all that we could be capable of multiple errors that could have devastating consequences. And that if we hide from the harsh truth of the vital importance of our own actions and judgement as pilots, we risk not taking enough personal responsibility for the safety of our aircraft.
Have to say I think your summary was refreshingly clear, rationale and objective. Regretfully for the crew, I totally agree with you. We should use this to remind us all that we could be capable of multiple errors that could have devastating consequences. And that if we hide from the harsh truth of the vital importance of our own actions and judgement as pilots, we risk not taking enough personal responsibility for the safety of our aircraft.
Joined: Mar 2005
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,563
Likes: 952
From: Aus
like it or hate it, this crew seriously underperformed
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere by the Baltic Sea
CRAB, this is not a court room. Its a discussion forum. From the information available, what I have posted is my personal opinion of how a perfectly serviceable all weather helicopter flying, what should be, a simple task of letting down over the ocean, flew straight into a obstacle 10 x the dimensions (not height) of the average O&G installation.
Not my place to criticise the crew but I believe we should not be afraid to sense the obvious here.
Take away the FLIR, the Rear Crew, the assumed additional expertise of the SAR crew and you have a Offshore ARA in its basic form.
A waypoint, a Radar Target (or several) and a vertical profile (CDFA). Backed up with a sensible Altitude/RADALT Bug response philosophy. Nothing else really needed and this is done every day by the O&G pilots.
I strongly re-emphasise that the merits of the CDFA (not utilised in this approach) would have saved them. However, I keep forgetting, this is Rotorheads and we don't really like silly, new rules that take away are ability to do exactly what we want when we want to do it.
I started on this thread pushing back against Helicomparitor. Now I am beginning to think, having read and seen all the data, his original point may indeed by valid.
DB
Not my place to criticise the crew but I believe we should not be afraid to sense the obvious here.
Take away the FLIR, the Rear Crew, the assumed additional expertise of the SAR crew and you have a Offshore ARA in its basic form.
A waypoint, a Radar Target (or several) and a vertical profile (CDFA). Backed up with a sensible Altitude/RADALT Bug response philosophy. Nothing else really needed and this is done every day by the O&G pilots.
I strongly re-emphasise that the merits of the CDFA (not utilised in this approach) would have saved them. However, I keep forgetting, this is Rotorheads and we don't really like silly, new rules that take away are ability to do exactly what we want when we want to do it.
I started on this thread pushing back against Helicomparitor. Now I am beginning to think, having read and seen all the data, his original point may indeed by valid.
DB
I am just curious and always willing to learn more... Could you please describe an ad-hoc CDFA the crew could have done instead of a traditional ARA and continued safely to Blacksod.
Last edited by Search&Rescue; 28th April 2017 at 12:33.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 71
From: Wanaka, NZ
I'm open to reading the views of everybody here. As somebody who works for a Part 145 training organization who's job it is to access crew competency, and without knowing the wider background of all the circumstances, I don't see anything redeeming for this flight crew in the transcript of that CVR. Both on what was said, and what was not said. Instead, if the same sortie had been flown in the simulator on their annual competency check, it would probably be an automatic fail for the PIC. Which by definition, is an under-performing crew. But to be fair I would need to hear the transcript of the whole of the flight to make any definitive assessment, and also without the benefit of observing what went on, I remain open minded on that question.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 71
From: Wanaka, NZ
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Some of us lived long enough to move on to other endeavors!
This Crew had a lot of help in not surviving.
At some point it was bound to happen to a Crew.....it just happened to be this Crew this time.
Share the blame as there is plenty to go around!
This Crew had a lot of help in not surviving.
At some point it was bound to happen to a Crew.....it just happened to be this Crew this time.
Share the blame as there is plenty to go around!
Guest
Posts: n/a
CRAB, this is not a court room. Its a discussion forum. From the information available, what I have posted is my personal opinion of how a perfectly serviceable all weather helicopter flying, what should be, a simple task of letting down over the ocean, flew straight into a obstacle 10 x the dimensions (not height) of the average O&G installation.
Not my place to criticise the crew but I believe we should not be afraid to sense the obvious here.
Take away the FLIR, the Rear Crew, the assumed additional expertise of the SAR crew and you have a Offshore ARA in its basic form.
A waypoint, a Radar Target (or several) and a vertical profile (CDFA). Backed up with a sensible Altitude/RADALT Bug response philosophy. Nothing else really needed and this is done every day by the O&G pilots.
I strongly re-emphasise that the merits of the CDFA (not utilised in this approach) would have saved them. However, I keep forgetting, this is Rotorheads and we don't really like silly, new rules that take away are ability to do exactly what we want when we want to do it.
I started on this thread pushing back against Helicomparitor. Now I am beginning to think, having read and seen all the data, his original point may indeed by valid.
DB
Not my place to criticise the crew but I believe we should not be afraid to sense the obvious here.
Take away the FLIR, the Rear Crew, the assumed additional expertise of the SAR crew and you have a Offshore ARA in its basic form.
A waypoint, a Radar Target (or several) and a vertical profile (CDFA). Backed up with a sensible Altitude/RADALT Bug response philosophy. Nothing else really needed and this is done every day by the O&G pilots.
I strongly re-emphasise that the merits of the CDFA (not utilised in this approach) would have saved them. However, I keep forgetting, this is Rotorheads and we don't really like silly, new rules that take away are ability to do exactly what we want when we want to do it.
I started on this thread pushing back against Helicomparitor. Now I am beginning to think, having read and seen all the data, his original point may indeed by valid.
DB
From my own point of view as an onshore corporate person, descending to 200ft 10 miles short of the destination is a suckers move.
DB as a O&G man, you are presumably used to flying on well established routes to known obstacles over water often in !!!!ty weather.
For SAR people descending to 200ft over water in the middle of nowhere and creeping in marginal weather is their raison d'etre.
You can see how armed with what looks like a planned approach chart the SAR culture and SOPs could collide with what appears like commonsense to other groups. Nevertheless I do detect a certain discomfort from the SAR community on this thread about the overall plan for this approach.
Last edited by puntosaurus; 28th April 2017 at 14:06.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk
From an outsiders point of view, descending to 200 feet in limited visibility and proceeding at 75 knots does not constitute my definition of creeping towards a destination, especially in the knowledge that obstacles above the minimum safe altitude might be in the vicinity. The crew clearly cannot have had any idea what they were flying towards.
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
Yes, there were clearly some errors made by the crew but until we have the full picture, ie the full report, it is both unfair and unprofessional to put the blame directly on them when there is no information that can be offered in their defence - that will reside in the report as mitigating/causal factors.
We should not - armed with only some pieces of information, 20/20 hindsight and often no experience in the role - act as judge and jury.
Ask questions and consider the conditions, equipment and operating procedures by all means - we are all learning from that - but bluntly voicing what can only be an opinion (sometimes clouded by pre-conceptions and learned bias) is simply unhelpful and not very respectful.
We should not - armed with only some pieces of information, 20/20 hindsight and often no experience in the role - act as judge and jury.
Ask questions and consider the conditions, equipment and operating procedures by all means - we are all learning from that - but bluntly voicing what can only be an opinion (sometimes clouded by pre-conceptions and learned bias) is simply unhelpful and not very respectful.
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Crab is right on this one!
The Crew made some errors....yes!
WHY the Crew made the errors is what tells the tale.
Who else made errors that set the Crew up for failure is also part of the story.
Let's just hope we do not get a Readers Digest Version of the Story!
The Crew made some errors....yes!
WHY the Crew made the errors is what tells the tale.
Who else made errors that set the Crew up for failure is also part of the story.
Let's just hope we do not get a Readers Digest Version of the Story!
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
From: UK
Yep, I completely agree with Crab's last post. The crew made some errors - some fundamental, some minor, doubtless some as yet unreported - but certainly wouldn't have done so either deliberately or negligently. The issue that is much more important than listing those errors is, as SASless says, understanding WHY the crew made them but didn't realise.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
From: UK
Get off the moral outrage bus. From the Snowdonia thread:
Surely "bluntly voicing what can only be an opinion (sometimes clouded by pre-conceptions and learned bias)" was simply unhelpful and not very respectful on that thread, Crab?
And that was within the first two days of the accident. The hypocrisy would be staggering if it wasn't so predictable.
This accident, tragic as it is, also looks like a "CFIT in poor weather".
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Before they identified the people involved, I had in my mind (when they said businessman) someone in their mid-fifties with a PPL and his own helicopter as someone who might think taking that route with such a poor forecast and few options would be an acceptable course of action.
Sadly I seem to have been proven right and it looks (with a very small percentage of another cause) like another CFIT in poor weather in a private helicopter....How may more before people take notice and learn from others mistakes???
Sadly I seem to have been proven right and it looks (with a very small percentage of another cause) like another CFIT in poor weather in a private helicopter....How may more before people take notice and learn from others mistakes???
And that was within the first two days of the accident. The hypocrisy would be staggering if it wasn't so predictable.
This accident, tragic as it is, also looks like a "CFIT in poor weather".
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
Two things to consider - one is that I didn't declare the possible reason as a fact and secondly the S-92 crew deserve some professional respect.
yes it clearly is but the question is why?
This accident, tragic as it is, also looks like a "CFIT in poor weather".
Joined: Mar 2005
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,563
Likes: 952
From: Aus
Posts #1549 & #1550 
An appalling statement from a sim instructor if you don't mind me saying so gulliBell. No one has invented a new way of having an accident, and this one will be a repeat of others that have gone before. I do love the hubris being shown by some, the most dangerous to be partnered with.
Not only looks like, it was, and the devil is in the detail, of which we know nought at this stage.
I don't see anything redeeming for this flight crew in the transcript of that CVR. Both on what was said, and what was not said. Instead, if the same sortie had been flown in the simulator on their annual competency check, it would probably be an automatic fail for the PIC. Which by definition, is an under-performing crew
looks like a "CFIT in poor weather"
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 222
Likes: 11
It always amazes me how quickly (supposedly professional) pilots on this forum are so quick to engage in mud-slinging and massaging their own egos. This is not about casting blame, nor is it necessary about pin-pointing exactly the cause.
It's about learning from a terrible tragedy and trying to evolve in the right direction as the aviation community. Their families and colleagues would expect no less.
It's about learning from a terrible tragedy and trying to evolve in the right direction as the aviation community. Their families and colleagues would expect no less.
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
This is not about casting blame, nor is it necessary about pin-pointing exactly the cause.
It's about learning from a terrible tragedy and trying to evolve in the right direction as the aviation community. Their families and colleagues would expect no less
It's about learning from a terrible tragedy and trying to evolve in the right direction as the aviation community. Their families and colleagues would expect no less
In order to learn do we not have to first understand what happened and to do that we have to figure out the causes that led to the tragedy?
Every single one of us could wind up as the topic of discussion in a Thread such as this one..... as long as we go flying....that is the first thing we have to accept.
If you don't get that....then you must get yourself a copy of Ernie Gann's "Fate is the Hunter" and read it very carefully and contemplate what he talks about in that Classic.
“Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.”
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 23
From: UK and MALTA
Megan, I am saying I would NOT have succumbed to the same fate as this crew!
16k hours and 27 years over the ocean HAS taught me one or 2 things. The first, and most important, would be to have a damn good RADAR image at 200 feet AND to not fly over red blobs AND to crap my pants if the RADALT went off AND after it did, to react ASAP if a guy in the back with a A FLIR told me shortly thereafter to TURN.
A CDFA is an easily deployable procedure you can place over any target or waypoint. Before anyone try's to claim "SAR can't do this"......that's exactly what the TRANS DOWN program provides.
16k hours and 27 years over the ocean HAS taught me one or 2 things. The first, and most important, would be to have a damn good RADAR image at 200 feet AND to not fly over red blobs AND to crap my pants if the RADALT went off AND after it did, to react ASAP if a guy in the back with a A FLIR told me shortly thereafter to TURN.
A CDFA is an easily deployable procedure you can place over any target or waypoint. Before anyone try's to claim "SAR can't do this"......that's exactly what the TRANS DOWN program provides.