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 15th Apr 2017, 17:11
  #1001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 179
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger
I spend much of my life floating around at or below safety altitude (Navaid calibration and procedure validation). I'm struggling to understand why anyone would knowingly design a letdown which incorporates the only highpoint within a number of miles.
No one did.
cncpc is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 17:11
  #1002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi probably out of my league here but been following the thread..this was so tragic and I'm like every one else just wondering how? From my limited experience ppl fixed wing .I have to ask the question if the chart provided as shown in the report shows the spot elevation as 282 at blckmo had the crew access to this prior or during the flight or just totally misread it?..it was there to be seen but maybe they had no access to it? Seems very strange ...also I think some else already mentioned it looks to me like it was intended only for the lighthouse to lighthouse route guide and It was never intended to be used outside the range that it covers
Dublinboy is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 17:16
  #1003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 464
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GKaplan
I suppose an alert "Height, Height" doesn't do as well phonetically!
what's wrong with 'CHECK HEIGHT' 'CHECK HEIGHT' for radalt bug? Always grabbed my attention!
Al-bert is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 17:32
  #1004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.... what Woolf said

Originally Posted by Woolf
Although there are a number of quite significant contributory factors, I think the main point here is that regardless of whether a published procedure is followed or not, any low-level flight over water in IMC, at night or in marginal conditions MUST use the radar as the PRIMARY navigation aid. If a radar return cannot be positively, visually identified it MUST NOT be overflown. Besides islands there are plenty of moving marine obstacles that can easily reach 300ft or more which would not be on any map, chart or in any database. Whether radar guidance is achieved from front or back seats is a matter of procedure but it would be a designated crewmember’s responsibility to monitor and constantly verbally update the obstacle situation as seen on the radar. Although I know nothing of CHC’s procedures I would assume that this is SOP, especially for SAR.

Everyone makes mistakes, I’ve made plenty and seen very capable colleagues do the same. Most of the time some procedure, mechanism or technology prevents a tragic outcome, sadly not so on this occasion. I’m sure there is much to learn here.
For donkey's years we did exactly what Woolf describes but in two-crew cockpits (non SAR) using much more primitive equipment - because it worked.
oleary is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 17:34
  #1005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere by the Baltic Sea
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Woolf
Although there are a number of quite significant contributory factors, I think the main point here is that regardless of whether a published procedure is followed or not, any low-level flight over water in IMC, at night or in marginal conditions MUST use the radar as the PRIMARY navigation aid. If a radar return cannot be positively, visually identified it MUST NOT be overflown. Besides islands there are plenty of moving marine obstacles that can easily reach 300ft or more which would not be on any map, chart or in any database. Whether radar guidance is achieved from front or back seats is a matter of procedure but it would be a designated crewmember’s responsibility to monitor and constantly verbally update the obstacle situation as seen on the radar. Although I know nothing of CHC’s procedures I would assume that this is SOP, especially for SAR.

Everyone makes mistakes, I’ve made plenty and seen very capable colleagues do the same. Most of the time some procedure, mechanism or technology prevents a tragic outcome, sadly not so on this occasion. I’m sure there is much to learn here.
Well said Woolf!
Search&Rescue is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 18:08
  #1006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Al-bert
GKaplan

what's wrong with 'CHECK HEIGHT' 'CHECK HEIGHT' for radalt bug? Always grabbed my attention!
Nothing wrong with "CHECK HEIGHT".

Just answering gulliBell's question about the S92
GKaplan is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 19:00
  #1007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: South Coast, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regarding section 3.5.8 of the report, Operator's Route Guide, I would suggest two things:

APBSS, as shown, is a two-way route between Black Rock and Blacksod helipads because leg 5, BLKSD -> BKSDB is shown as an outbound leg from Blacksod, and legs 2/6 & 1/7 (BKSDB <-> BKSDA & BKSDA <-> BLKMO) are shown as two-way legs to and from Black Rock.

Also that footnote 16 on the same page, APBSS: The Operator informed the Investigation that APBSS stands for 'Approach Blacksod South' is very much worthy of further scrutiny.
catch21 is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 19:57
  #1008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Knutsford
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Way points and rocks

Notwithstanding all the factors involved here, my intuition says that it's not sensible to set large obstacles as way points in an otherwise empty sea. I recall a Greek ferry disaster where prominent rocks near a port where used as a waypoint, the autopilot performing a fantastic job of guiding the vessel to that very point (with equally tragic consequences).
Twenty2B is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 20:00
  #1009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why would the operator provide their S92 crews with a route between two helipads, one of which is unsuitable for an S92, and then call the route 'Approach Blacksod South'. It seems to me it was most definitely intended as an approach route to Blacksod.
MagentaL is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 20:24
  #1010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by catch21
Regarding section 3.5.8 of the report, Operator's Route Guide, I would suggest two things:

APBSS, as shown, is a two-way route between Black Rock and Blacksod helipads because leg 5, BLKSD -> BKSDB is shown as an outbound leg from Blacksod, and legs 2/6 & 1/7 (BKSDB <-> BKSDA & BKSDA <-> BLKMO) are shown as two-way legs to and from Black Rock.

Also that footnote 16 on the same page, APBSS: The Operator informed the Investigation that APBSS stands for 'Approach Blacksod South' is very much worthy of further scrutiny.
To my mind that 'Operator's Route Guide' illustrated in the report looks very much like a VFR approach/departure chart. Not an instrument let-down procedure. Any thoughts?

Last edited by llamaman; 15th Apr 2017 at 20:41.
llamaman is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 20:26
  #1011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 466 Likes on 190 Posts
Greek Ferries run at the same height as those Rocks......Helicopters oddly enough are supposed to operate well above the Rocks. Point taken but Instrument Approaches ashore seem to work fine if that basic rule is followed.

What would be an acceptable offset from the hard bits?

How would you choose where to locate that Offset Point?
SASless is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 20:26
  #1012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,569
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by cncpc
As a starting point, what do you infer the "route" to be?
I don't know what the route was, because the CVR transcript of the approach brief wasn't in the report.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 20:40
  #1013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,569
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by GKaplan
Barometric altitude bug: when the a/c descends below the preset altitude you get a "MINIMUMS, MINIMUMS" aural alert. I suppose that makes sense as the minimums used for normal instrument approaches are altitudes (DA, MDA).

When the a/c descends below the RADALT bug, you get an "ALTITUDE, ALTITUDE" aural alert.
This is the behaviour in the S92? What I'm familiar with, in a non-SAR Honeywell cockpit, when you arrive at, descend below, or climb above a preset altitude you just get a single beep and a visual warning. When you descend below a bugged radalt height you just get a light on the analog radalt display with no aural warning, or when you descend towards a set DH, which is referenced to the radalt (and not barometric altitude), you get MINIMA MINIMA aural warning, and a visual warning.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 20:41
  #1014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having read all the posts and the accident report, two things seem to point towards a crew that were perhaps a bit too relaxed and complacent. Mention is made that there was very little conversation being carried on in the aircraft other than for operational reasons and secondly the pilot taking four seconds to question the instructions from the rear crew member warning of an obstruction ahead, then using the autopilot heading change to alter course.

I appreciate that scud running at 200 feet in the dark is no place to be suddenly taking manual control and flying a violent evasive manoeuvre without warning.

But I am struck by how laid back the crew were, especially considering that neither pilot had operated into that area for some time and there is no mention in the report of briefing for possible hazards on the approach or a missed approach procedure. That would surely have been mentioned even at this early stage of the investigation.

Do we end up with a fully fitted out SAR helicopter involved in CFIT due to complacency, or is there some deeper fault with the system that goes beyond having maps that showed different and insufficient details of hazards depending on the scale selected.
G0ULI is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 20:44
  #1015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,569
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by llamaman
To my mind that 'Operator's Route Guide' illustrated in the report looks very much like a VFR approach/departure chart. Not an IMC let-down procedure. Any thoughts?
Why would it appear in the Operator S92 flight documents as a VFR approach/departure procedure if the S92 is too big to operate from Blackrock helipad? It might be a weird depiction of an IMC let-down procedure, depends on what the accompanying notes on page 2 says.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 20:59
  #1016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,569
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by G0ULI
...and secondly the pilot taking four seconds to question the instructions from the rear crew member warning of an obstruction ahead, then using the autopilot heading change to alter course.
This is the classic characterisation of a "magenta pilot" (refer to a few pages earlier in that AA training video).

Originally Posted by G0ULI
I appreciate that scud running at 200 feet in the dark is no place to be suddenly taking manual control and flying a violent evasive manoeuvre without warning.
.
A manually flown, immediate and affirmative evasive manoeuvre was required by either pilot in this instance the moment the rear crew obstacle warning was understood. Instead of 6+ seconds flying straight and level on an autopilot HDG coupled mode at a rock. The CRM evident in issuing the warning, and then responding to it, was too complacent. I think in Human Factors training they call this a "laissez faire" type crew.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 21:00
  #1017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Co. Kildare
Age: 74
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The more I look at the Operator's Route Guide, it looks like it may have been "adapted" from a CIL plate for supply/maintainence purposes.
The rocks bearing 280 degrees 1.32km, from Blackrock Lighthouse, are known as Carrickaduff, the northwesterly (145mrs long, height unknown) one is the bulkier of the two.
IRCG SMC WHITEY is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 21:13
  #1018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 179
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by llamaman
To my mind that 'Operator's Route Guide' illustrated in the report looks very much like a VFR approach/departure chart. Not an instrument let-down procedure. Any thoughts?
Those are my thoughts. Other than it is based on an aircraft departing the Black Rock helipad.

Just above, someone in the know of the history suggests it does come from a previous operators procedure in supply maintenance flights. There was a poster on here who used to fly the B-105 into Black Rock, perhaps he can shed some light.

There was a post above challenging the point to point mostly VFR nature of this route because if an S92 can't go there, why is it in the guide for that aircraft? I've never seen a route guide that was aircraft specific, rather than company specific, but...could be.
cncpc is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 21:14
  #1019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Asia/Oz
Posts: 219
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Several posters keep insisting the Route Guide was some kind of woefully inadequate IMC letdown procedure or instrument approach plate. I believe you're giving it a status it doesn't deserve, and then criticising the designer, management, etc based on your own misinterpretation of its purpose. The IMC letdown had already been achieved prior to commencing the route shown on the diagram. No doubt the company has night/IMC overwater letdown procedures which presumably is what the crew followed prior to routing towards Blackrock. According to the report,

"The Commander's stated intent was to complete the APP1 procedure prior to turning east towards waypoint BLKMO to commence the arrival route to Blacksod Lighthouse."
The APP1 procedure was the descent to 200'.

Last edited by Mark Six; 15th Apr 2017 at 22:38.
Mark Six is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2017, 21:22
  #1020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 466 Likes on 190 Posts
We also have pondered why being at 200 feet AGL with 10 Miles to run to Blacksod, with no NVG's in very marginal weather at Night was thought safer than utilizing the full capabilities of the aircraft to complete a pre-planned, surveyed, trained, and checked IMC procedure.

That...is a very fair question to ask Management.
SASless 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.