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 2nd Apr 2017, 12:43
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HeliComparator
I thought we were? If it transpires that it was crew error, would you rather it was blamed on that specific crew, or that they were the victims of the culture, custom and practice of SAR?
HC

You're trolling. If you've never done SAR it's unlikely that you'll ever appreciate how crews carry out their dynamic risk assessments. The 'blame' options you refer to are rarely so binary.

What was asked of this crew should have been well within the capabilities of an experienced SAR crew. How they ended up hitting that rock with what we have to assume was a serviceable radar is beyond me. Maybe some CVR clues will feature in a preliminary report.
The SAR RC is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 13:09
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps they did see land on the radar, and it didn't raise any questions because if they thought they were at Blacksod they would be expecting to see land on the radar.

In the cold light of day I'm sure we could discuss at length the shape of the coast etc, but at that time of the morning they may not have been quite so assiduous.

Edited to add: as stated in the post above, the CVR will hopefully shed some light.
obnoxio f*ckwit is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 13:27
  #683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Belfast
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This morning Navy divers succeded in attaching a lifting harness to the fuselage of Rescue 116, they hope to have it raised to the surface this Evening ,it will be a slow process due to the weather on scene with force 5 to 6 wind
Thunderbirdsix is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 14:35
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by obnoxio f*ckwit
Perhaps they did see land on the radar, and it didn't raise any questions because if they thought they were at Blacksod they would be expecting to see land on the radar.
Yes, you may be right. Before anyone asks, they must have at least thought they had a serviceable radar. To attempt an approach at night into Blacksod in poor weather without NVD, a moving map display or a radar would not be a smart move.
The SAR RC is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 15:14
  #685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by The SAR RC
HC

You're trolling. If you've never done SAR it's unlikely that you'll ever appreciate how crews carry out their dynamic risk assessments. The 'blame' options you refer to are rarely so binary.

What was asked of this crew should have been well within the capabilities of an experienced SAR crew. How they ended up hitting that rock with what we have to assume was a serviceable radar is beyond me. Maybe some CVR clues will feature in a preliminary report.
Presumably by "trolling" you mean having a different opinion from you? In which case you are correct. An "institution" (if SAR can be called that) that sticks its fingers in its ears to any input that is not from "one of the boys" is, as in any other branch of almost anything, doomed to fail to progress. Sometimes external input is irellevant or plain wrong, but sometimes it is valuable.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 15:23
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitchaa
I have it on good information that there was no mix up between Blacksod and Blackrock and that the flight over/beyond/around blackrock was standard approach to Blacksod.

Someone touched on it earlier, the original flight track looks like it may have planned to go straight to the fishing vessel, they then decided to refuel at Blacksod and in doing so looped back, approached Blackrock from the West in order to use it for approach to Blacksod.

All makes sense to me, what doesn't make sense is an experienced crew simply getting mixed up between Blacksod and Blackrock or the locations being entered wrong in the FMS.

Touching on the update released. I wonder if they did get a HUMS download from the actual accident flight or whether they are referring to the flight previous. I have a feeling the S92 system is the same as the Airbus system where the card session needs closing (by way of Engines powering down) For example, I'm certain if a HUMS card is removed from the card slot mid flight, there wouldn't be any data on it. They were not able to download the EC225 or indeed the AS332L2 accident data, only the data from the flight previous. I would also imagine that if they did manage to somehow get the HUMS data downloaded, there would be huge jumps in the data from the impact with blackrock to the loss of the tail and the time it took to strike the water, all that would have been recorded on the graphs.

Certainly pointing towards a CFIT from their update though.
I'm not sure that the HUMS data is that relevant if the FDR shows that the helicopter's flight path was as expected for the control inputs.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 15:38
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HeliComparator
I'm not sure that the HUMS data is that relevant if the FDR shows that the helicopter's flight path was as expected for the control inputs.
I was actually thinking the same thing regarding the HUMS data. Plus the question is the HUMS data received from the accident flight or from the previous flight, I have doubts....... something smells here.....
pumaboy is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 16:34
  #688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitchaa
I have it on good information that there was no mix up between Blacksod and Blackrock and that the flight over/beyond/around blackrock was standard approach to Blacksod.
Standard altitude?
pfm1000 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 16:44
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am told that 92 HUMS data is downloadable regardless, unlike the reported shortfall of other HUMS systems. Also, the 92 HUMS is said to have hundreds of parameters, including those normally part of the crash recorder data stream, so much of the aircraft activity besides system health is probably available as duplicate data.
One question: Is it standard practice to have no formal instrument approach like LPV or GPS to standard refuel heliports in Ireland or elsewhere? Do aircraft normally fly ad hoc instrument procedures in near zero zero conditions (other than overwater SAR rescue approaches)? And more to the point, will they in the future?
rjsquirrel is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 17:28
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitchaa
Admittedly I've never used the new S92 SGBA HUMS system although was experienced with the old EuroHUMS and MPGS/M'arms.

Quite a lot of reports of late flights out of Aberdeen recently due to HUMS test flight requirements due to no data captures though (S92). I presume it was similar to the Airbus systems where no closure of the card meant no download.

Regardless, they may or may not be reporting the status from the accident flight, whether they have the card or not and whether it's in any fit state to be downloaded. They haven't lifted the wreckage yet, only cut the pilot free, so unless the diving team retrieved the card along with the body then I presume it would still be with the wreckage.

Pfm1000, that's the golden question. Along with airspeed if the last data track recordings are accurate.
As the divers have only been down at minute intervals due to bad weather and have only retrieved the Second Pilot my guess is that the HUMS card is still with in the cockpit, and would imagines it is not easy to retrieve with mechanical equipment, so I would imagine the HUMS card will be recovered along with the remaining wreckage.
pumaboy is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 17:39
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
I am thinking the S-92 Hums tracks 420 items..... or has the capability to do so.
SASless is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 17:40
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by rjsquirrel
I am told that 92 HUMS data is downloadable regardless, unlike the reported shortfall of other HUMS systems. Also, the 92 HUMS is said to have hundreds of parameters, including those normally part of the crash recorder data stream, so much of the aircraft activity besides system health is probably available as duplicate data.
Coincidentally an ex-colleague engineer pitched up at the gliding club on Friday and I took him for a flight in my glider. We discussed the vulnerability of having a near-all-S92 fleet, and one of the things he volunteered was the flakiness of the S92 HUMS system. Lots of delayed morning departures because an air test was required because the system had failed to acquire the necessary parameters during the previous day's flying. So I wouldn't crow about it too much. It may be capable of recording lots of stuff but that is only useful if it actually does record it!
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 17:48
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: N of 49th parallel
Posts: 197
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HeliComparator
Coincidentally an ex-colleague engineer pitched up at the gliding club on Friday and I took him for a flight in my glider. We discussed the vulnerability of having a near-all-S92 fleet, and one of the things he volunteered was the flakiness of the S92 HUMS system. Lots of delayed morning departures because an air test was required because the system had failed to acquire the necessary parameters during the previous day's flying. So I wouldn't crow about it too much. It may be capable of recording lots of stuff but that is only useful if it actually does record it!
Must be a Bristow problem, as that's not something the other two operators are experiencing
Apate is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 17:56
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by Apate
Must be a Bristow problem, as that's not something the other two operators are experiencing
Yea right! Where have I heard that before? (OK, it was from AH and it's previous incarnations!)

Anyway, do the other operators bother that much about HUMS data? (Ouch!)
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 17:57
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
HC....just once I would like to see you leave off the gratuitous bull**** and simply discuss a technical issue in a professional manner?

At some point you must get over your Butt Hurt over the grounding of the 225 after the two catastrophic Main Gear Box failures.

Put on your Big Boy Y-fronts and get over it!
SASless is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 18:21
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: N of 49th parallel
Posts: 197
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HC

Seriously though, the other two operators are not having issues with S92 HUMS downloads. They are both doing things correctly and thoroughly, so if Bristow are having issues it is obviously an internal problem.

Of course you are free to discount my statement, as we all know Bristow and the 225 are the only "gods" in town
Apate is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 18:39
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EU
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
R116 wreckage lifted. Still no trace of two missing crew members.
https://twitter.com/patmcgrath/statu...04734651019264
Red5ive is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 18:50
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lets hope they find the 2 remaining crew members quickly so they can be laid to rest.
pumaboy is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 19:00
  #699 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mitchaa
I'm really struggling to think why a standard approach to Blacksod would be via Blackrock, as you say you think happened. If it was good VFR you'd not need the Blackrock light as you'd have Blacksod. And if you were IFR why choose a rock to pass over that was 300ft higher than anything else within several miles? It's not as if it had a VOR or NDB on it. Seems a bit of a stretch to think it was perhaps because you could identify it on radar better than anywhere closer. And then surely backed up GPS would be more reliable anyway? Ideas - anyone?
rotorspeed is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 19:29
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,082
Received 32 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by Apate
HC

Seriously though, the other two operators are not having issues with S92 HUMS downloads. They are both doing things correctly and thoroughly, so if Bristow are having issues it is obviously an internal problem.

Of course you are free to discount my statement, as we all know Bristow and the 225 are the only "gods" in town
Ok well I thought I had heard this rumour before, but as I said it was recently volunteered to me by a young engineer with no particular axe to grind. Maybe it is a false rumour and/or maybe it is, inexplicably, a Bristow-only issue. Unfortunately (?) I am no longer close enough to the coal face to have a first-hand opinion.
HeliComparator is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.