NVD or NOT?
 

Cant find any information that they refitted theire S92s to fly with NVD...
FLIR is standard but no one has confirmed they actually had NVD?
NVD is a big help and increased safety in an operation like this.

SAS Offset

cncpc No

Which is why I asked the question back in post #93. I would be surprised if they were not using NVD on this type of mission, but maybe someone closer to this could answer.

Could you expand on that no?

CNCPC early marks of NVG would 'flare out' with bright lights, later models cope. By the time one was close enough to a light house for it to become a problem one would be 'off' goggles and using white light or even a combination of the two techniques. I don't know what civilian crews might do. It might be completely different with FLIR, which we didn't have in my time in the mil.

cncpc - yes a bright light will tend to shut down the goggles if you look straight at it. However, the light isn't pointing at you all the time, it is rotating, and you can look away if required.

If the cloudbase as reported was at 300' and the rock is 300' high, the lighthouse will have been in cloud anyway, significantly attenuating the strength of the beam.

SAS - in answer to an earlier question, yes, SAR crews will have a working knowledge of the lighthouse idents in their local area.

If that is aimed at my point then I think you miss it a bit. I am not saying that they should have sought a refuelling airfield with ILS. I am not even referring specifically to the accident in this thread since obviously we have no idea what the cause was. I am questioning the concept of having to use "SAR limits" to provide "top cover" or for other activities that are not directly about saving lives and that perhaps, if the weather requires that, it might be better simply to dispense with the top cover in the light of modern communications. My feeling is that when top cover or other such things are tasked, no-one is really thinking that it may be a higher risk than normal aviation and properly considering whether the increased risk is justified. From the crews' point of view it's just "what they do" and are accustomed to the increased level of risk so they don't notice it.

Whilst we are covering the usual speculation, HC makes a valid point.
Top Cover at what cost?

tistisnot - I would love to but just note who started this anti-SAR crusade, again! and on a thread most unsuited to it.

I think I have tried to provide useful information for those not versed in SAR and I will continue to do so without further engaging with HC.

Coincidences.
 

Captain Duffy was from a village called Blackrock, in Co. Louth.

Captain FitzPatrick will be laid to rest this morning in a cemetery on the R116 road in south Dublin.

RIP to all

what terrible irony....RIP all the crew.


Julie that is an argument based on 20/20 hindsight - there is significant risk to the rescue crew going out to the fishing vessel since they are out there by themselves with often patchy comms. In order to mitigate some of that risk, top cover provides comms relay and, in the case of it being provided by another SAR helicopter, a means of rescuing the rescuers or completing the rescue in the event of failure of systems on the primary rescue aircraft.

Therefore, it is highly efficient to utilise a second SAR aircraft for top-cover on a long -range job in the Atlantic.

The primary rescue isn't complete until the casualties are safe back on land and there are many things that can go wrong during that process. The aircraft can develop a fault requiring turnback, the conditions on scene can be so bad that the rescue just isn't possible or the aircraft reaches its time on scene and has to depart in order to make land, the winch could be damaged delivering the winchman or the winchman could be injured in the process of getting on the deck. For all of those reasons and many more - top cover by a SAR helo is very desireable and , as part of the overall mission, operating to the same limits and procedures (all trained for) is more than appropriate.

Thanks for the enhanced explanation. This debate is not a 20:20 hindsight one since we don't know why the accident happened, and as far as I'm concerned we are talking generalisations.

With the advent of satellite phones, surely the Comms thing isn't much of an issue these days? If top cover is provided by FW, most of your remaining points aren't relevant. If provided by SAR heli then they do mostly seem to be "nice to have"s. How often does a heli have to rtb mid-mission due to a technical issue? If time on scene exceeds endurance then surely this also applies to the top cover heli? The case for taking the enhanced risk with the second crews lives doesn't immediately seem easily justified to me, unless there are actual statistics showing the need, which I somehow doubt.

It is all a matter of opinion and acceptable level of risk, but I wonder if anyone considers just how necessary a second heli is vs the risk when tasking, or whether they just do what they have always done because that's how it's always been done.

Interesting article Malabo, with some good insights to the kit they have. Curious to see them using V/S mode to maintain Altitude?

From another Irish forum, not sure how accurate, but apparently the actual terminology for one CHC heli supporting another is 'mutual support' rather than 'top-cover'. Which makes more sense; two aircraft with the same capabilities supporting each other and unfortunately thereby experiencing the same problems and challenges.

Very few SAR contracts, actually none that I've found, appear to require the contractor to implement fixed-wing top-cover ( manned or unmanned ). And no contractor is going to do so voluntarily without an increase in the contract award, so often the crews find no option but mutual support.

Mutual SAR is a tried and tested method of providing just that; SAR support for a helicopter on a long range SAR mission away from the likelihood of support if trouble is encountered.

Quite why HC is so determined to highjack this thread with questionable assertions against known experts is disappointing, and I trust that such sidetracks will cease.

The availability of NVD is a common question being asked. The Irish CG were going through an introduction process, but I am unsure how far into the program things had progressed.

It is quite likely that NVD was not in use.

Why would you "trust" that? The heli in question was providing "top cover" - terminology I picked up from the SAR folk on here - and so in what way is it irrelevant to discuss the risk balance of that concept? That all the SAR brigade gang up against any hint of outside comment or any outsider with the temerity to have an opinion just shows how insular and arrogant they (the ones on here) have become.

Apate - unless someone from CHC or Irish CG can answer that question we will have to wait and see.

However, although NVD would help once below the weather, they are of no use during the letdown process other than to spot when you are VMC below.

Even without NVD, the letdown process can still be performed, it is designed to be used in very low visibility day or night - hence the use of radar for clearances. Once established in the hover at the bottom, the AP is used in conjunction with the radar and any visual cues that may be available to close with the target, be that the land or a vessel/structure.

One safety element that would be briefed during the letdown would be the escape route in the even of malfunction - this could be to continue straight ahead and trans up if you aren't pointing at any obstacles or it could be a pre-briefed turn onto a specific heading.

Either way I find it difficult to believe that a crew would trans down pointing at the only obstacle for miles but, if they didn't know it was there (for whatever reasons), that might be what happened.

HC - We just prefer to deal with 'informed opinion' rather than wild-assed guessing from those with an axe to grind.

Remember, we have established that families read these pages and I for one won't help you criticise their loved ones professionalism.

Just a reader on the thread, but couldn't let this pass without comment. Insular and arrogant heh? HC, you come across as the most opinionated, insular, arrogant, strident, know it all on this forum. Yes, I know you have experience, but how about a little humility. You're just one among equals.