SAR S-92 Missing Ireland
[QUOTE=jeepys;11013142]"Just learned today that the co-pilot was in fact the Chief Pilot. Wonder what, if any, human factors may have played a role. Have seen the problems in the past of two captains, two check and trainers, chief pilot as co-pilot flying ]
That’s incorrect . The co pilot on the night was not the chief pilot of the Dublin base and never was. The PIC however was a former chief pilot of a different base and at the time the roster writer for all pilot rosters in Ireland .
As for CRM issues the only indication that there may have been a n issue is a quote from the 30 day interim report stating all comms from the crew where mission focused. I’ve never been in a SAR job where all comms revolved around the mission . Especially at that time of night.
Also the familiars did not initiate the review of the draft report CHC did.
That’s incorrect . The co pilot on the night was not the chief pilot of the Dublin base and never was. The PIC however was a former chief pilot of a different base and at the time the roster writer for all pilot rosters in Ireland .
As for CRM issues the only indication that there may have been a n issue is a quote from the 30 day interim report stating all comms from the crew where mission focused. I’ve never been in a SAR job where all comms revolved around the mission . Especially at that time of night.
Also the familiars did not initiate the review of the draft report CHC did.
And given they couldn't see where they were going suggests they shouldn't have been there in the first place. If you don't have the required visual reference for VMC you are IMC and follow the IFR procedures.
[QUOTE=Franks Town;11013848]
Is the CP of a base just a badge of honor thing or is it a regulatory position holder?
"Just learned today that the co-pilot was in fact the Chief Pilot. Wonder what, if any, human factors may have played a role. Have seen the problems in the past of two captains, two check and trainers, chief pilot as co-pilot flying ]
That’s incorrect . The co pilot on the night was not the chief pilot of the Dublin base and never was. The PIC however was a former chief pilot of a different base and at the time the roster writer for all pilot rosters in Ireland .
As for CRM issues the only indication that there may have been a n issue is a quote from the 30 day interim report stating all comms from the crew where mission focused. I’ve never been in a SAR job where all comms revolved around the mission . Especially at that time of night.
Also the familiars did not initiate the review of the draft report CHC did.
That’s incorrect . The co pilot on the night was not the chief pilot of the Dublin base and never was. The PIC however was a former chief pilot of a different base and at the time the roster writer for all pilot rosters in Ireland .
As for CRM issues the only indication that there may have been a n issue is a quote from the 30 day interim report stating all comms from the crew where mission focused. I’ve never been in a SAR job where all comms revolved around the mission . Especially at that time of night.
Also the familiars did not initiate the review of the draft report CHC did.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Had they been wearing NVG, even in that weather, they would have seen it.
Does anyone know if they are using NVG now?
Also if they are or have attempted to use NVG who delivered the training course and was there a competition? In a previous post it was mentioned how a sar captain was recruited from UKSAR for just such a function and promptly left again. Why so?
A chum of mine was working for them for quite a few years on S61 and then S92 - an ex mil NVG instructor who wasn't selected to train crews because he wasn't Irish, they wanted to keep it in-house despite not having the experience to do so.
This was over 10 years ago and since then they haven't managed to introduce what is very basic technology by modern standards. I don't know if it is the Irish CG, the IAA or CHC who have dragged their heels but someone has questions to answer sending crews out for night SAR without NVG.
I hope they have them now.
This was over 10 years ago and since then they haven't managed to introduce what is very basic technology by modern standards. I don't know if it is the Irish CG, the IAA or CHC who have dragged their heels but someone has questions to answer sending crews out for night SAR without NVG.
I hope they have them now.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
A chum of mine was working for them for quite a few years on S61 and then S92 - an ex mil NVG instructor who wasn't selected to train crews because he wasn't Irish, they wanted to keep it in-house despite not having the experience to do so.
This was over 10 years ago and since then they haven't managed to introduce what is very basic technology by modern standards. I don't know if it is the Irish CG, the IAA or CHC who have dragged their heels but someone has questions to answer sending crews out for night SAR without NVG.
I hope they have them now.
This was over 10 years ago and since then they haven't managed to introduce what is very basic technology by modern standards. I don't know if it is the Irish CG, the IAA or CHC who have dragged their heels but someone has questions to answer sending crews out for night SAR without NVG.
I hope they have them now.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
... ... who wasn't selected to train crews because he wasn't Irish, ... ... ..
Last edited by jimf671; 23rd Mar 2021 at 13:31.
Had they been wearing NVG, even in that weather, they would have seen it
Pilots wearing NVGs may be able to see through some areas of low density particles such as thin fog, light rain, low density smoke, dust and pollution (Joint Aviation Authorities 2003). Flying in these conditions may reduce the usable energy available to the NVG and decrease the quality of the image (RTCA 2001b). These conditions will affect the contrast of the image. The risk that low density particles pose to an operation can be reduced by training pilots to recognise changes in the NVG image, ensuring thorough weather briefings before flight with an emphasis on NVG effects, ensuring pilots are aware of weather patterns in the flying area, and ensuring pilots occasionally scan the outside scene unaided (RTCA 2001b).
Over and out, waiting for the report.
Megan, it certainly wouldn't have been a great goggle picture in those conditions but even in very low light levels they are far better than the human eye and, with a visibility of 1 km, they most certainly would have seen the rock and definitely seen the lighthouse beam.
Like many ex-mil people, I have used NVG in ridiculously low light levels - sometimes referred to as 'Red Illum' - and they still work and you would always want them instead of the naked eye.
I have also used them extensively over the sea and coast in similar and far worse weather to the accident crew and, only if you completely enter cloud, do you not need your goggles.
When worn correctly, you are able to look under the goggles to see your instruments, including MFDs with map, weather and radar information and then lookout through the goggles - best of both worlds and exactly how they should have been operating that night.
You can read all you like in a report but the only way to really appreciate NVG is to use them.
Like many ex-mil people, I have used NVG in ridiculously low light levels - sometimes referred to as 'Red Illum' - and they still work and you would always want them instead of the naked eye.
I have also used them extensively over the sea and coast in similar and far worse weather to the accident crew and, only if you completely enter cloud, do you not need your goggles.
When worn correctly, you are able to look under the goggles to see your instruments, including MFDs with map, weather and radar information and then lookout through the goggles - best of both worlds and exactly how they should have been operating that night.
You can read all you like in a report but the only way to really appreciate NVG is to use them.
Back to be a pest crab, and hopefully learn some thing about these new age gizmos.
The aircraft was fitted with a Wescam MX-15i EO/IR Camera System. Would NVG's provide greater capability, and in what way? Would use of the Wescam provide adequate warning given the forecast weather, if not, why not?
Thanks crab.
The aircraft was fitted with a Wescam MX-15i EO/IR Camera System. Would NVG's provide greater capability, and in what way? Would use of the Wescam provide adequate warning given the forecast weather, if not, why not?
Thanks crab.
No problem Megan - in that scenario you would hopefully have the camera facing forward and being monitored - I would have to re-read the report but ISTR that is where the rearcrew warning about the rock came from, they were monitoring the IR picture in the cabin.
The IR picture in rain suffers because of thermal washout - it relies on the thermal contrast of emissions between different surfaces - the rock and the sea for example - to detect shapes and this is affected by rain and cloud.
NVG is different, it need light to amplify and produce an image on the screen in the goggles, so as long is there is some light, you will get a picture even if it is very speckly and low contrast.
This crew had radar, which it would seem they didn't have optimised for the scenario, IR which I think did detect the rock very late but didn't have NVG which in the described conditions would have forced them to lookout because they were wearing them and detected the rock and light house.
The IR picture in rain suffers because of thermal washout - it relies on the thermal contrast of emissions between different surfaces - the rock and the sea for example - to detect shapes and this is affected by rain and cloud.
NVG is different, it need light to amplify and produce an image on the screen in the goggles, so as long is there is some light, you will get a picture even if it is very speckly and low contrast.
This crew had radar, which it would seem they didn't have optimised for the scenario, IR which I think did detect the rock very late but didn't have NVG which in the described conditions would have forced them to lookout because they were wearing them and detected the rock and light house.
Megan, to elaborate further - the sensor on the IR element of the camera is cooled to around -200 deg C and is very sensitive to received emissions in the appropriate band.
The level of radiated emission of an object is the total of what it transmits, what it reflects and what passes through it which is why it is too simplistic to talk about the temperature of an object.
If the total emissivity of foreground and background objects is the same then you can't tell one from the other - this is called thermal crossover and can really hamper searches.
Rain and the moisture in clouds attenuate the amount of radiation travelling from the object to the sensor so degrading the picture by reducing contrast.
Hope that helps.
The level of radiated emission of an object is the total of what it transmits, what it reflects and what passes through it which is why it is too simplistic to talk about the temperature of an object.
If the total emissivity of foreground and background objects is the same then you can't tell one from the other - this is called thermal crossover and can really hamper searches.
Rain and the moisture in clouds attenuate the amount of radiation travelling from the object to the sensor so degrading the picture by reducing contrast.
Hope that helps.
Back to be a pest crab, and hopefully learn some thing about these new age gizmos.
The aircraft was fitted with a Wescam MX-15i EO/IR Camera System. Would NVG's provide greater capability, and in what way? Would use of the Wescam provide adequate warning given the forecast weather, if not, why not?
Thanks crab.
The aircraft was fitted with a Wescam MX-15i EO/IR Camera System. Would NVG's provide greater capability, and in what way? Would use of the Wescam provide adequate warning given the forecast weather, if not, why not?
Thanks crab.
Good points Scattercat 
I'd add further, that from a human factors perspective, we build a much better picture (situational awareness) from what we see directly with our eyes, as opposed to what and how we interpret images or information on a screen. Hence, even in these poor visibility conditions, viewed through NVG's they would have received and processed a much clearer and quicker picture of their situation. Low level, low visibility flying requires the use of all available inputs from Mk 1 eyeballs, navigation instruments, radar & of course, other crewmembers.
How about the old ARA rule of thumb “Don’t overfly at less than 1500’ any radar target you have not positively identified.”
The problem wasn't only that they didn't detect the threat until very late but that the reaction was so slow - it was done like a routine turn at a WP - the PF acknowledges that a turn is required, then asks the PNF to adjust the heading bug, then the heading bug gets moved and finally the aircraft starts to turn.
Use the automation by all means but be prepared to take immediate action when it is - as it was in this case - required.
then asks the PNF to adjust the heading bug, then the heading bug gets moved and finally the aircraft starts to turn.