Well there's one small step towards a piece of sorely needed resolution. Shame they had to use the small window of time they had to pull the recorder out of the sea, but he will be brought to rest soon.

The article says they are still working to locate the final two crew members. It sounds like the airframe may have split at the cockpit bulkhead. If the tail transition remained attached to the cabin, they might be able to follow the signal from the #2 CVFDR to their location.

https://twitter.com/patmcgrath/statu...19942908452864

https://twitter.com/11SchillRob/stat...20029084684290

Short video of the press conference
https://twitter.com/EdCartyPA/status/845427398078279680

Short video - black box recovered
https://twitter.com/EdCartyPA/status/845349048215375873

RTE news said they are working through the night at the recovery site.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...-116-1.3023993

Firstly, tragic and hopefully the cause is determined in a timely fashion.

A previous post suggested no NVD being used .... is that standard for the Irish guys n gals? Are they just not equipped with them? Elected not to use them?

In this day and age.....not to have NVG's for SAR Ops in dirty weather really makes One wonder. Night flying without them really just isn't Night flying it is flying in the Dark?

To my speculative thinking there can only be one of three grossly simplistic explanations, each of which ultimately will be explained by many pages of a final accident report:
1. They thought they were somewhere other than where they were;
2. They knew where they were but were unaware of their own true height, or the true height of the obstacle they hit;
3. They knew where they were but something suddenly went seriously wrong with the helicopter requiring an immediately landing.
Experience of a crew doesn't necessarily protect from some types of human factors reasons that lead to accidents.

I do contemplate why all those rescue assets were dispatched in the first place, at night and in bad weather, in response to a fisherman who had, what appears to be, a non-life threatening or otherwise medical non-time critical laceration injury to his thumb.

Is that really correct that the injury being rescued was a just a badly lacerated thumb? Assuming so, how could this warrant the enormous cost of R118 attending?

But even more importantly, how on earth could the equally enormous cost of a second S-92 also being despatched to provide top cover begin to be justified? Apart from the cost, the awful tragedy of R116 demonstrates the massively greater potential price of sending aircraft out on difficult missions, particularly on bad weather nights.

If this indeed was the reason for this SAR mission I can't imagine the guilt that fisherman or those who made the request must be feeling now.

I really do not think focusing on the otigin of the task is helpful or relevant. The Coastguard have a mission capability and a contract with the Irish Government, to launch when requested. If you have never worked SAR or HEMS, the line between "Serious Injuries" and minor is not ever clear.A lacerated hand, with exposed bone and sinew, bleeding profusely, is a serious injury and if the vessel is 2 days out in a difficult sea the situation is much clearer.

However, the mission of this helicopter was to support the first helicopter and in that respect their mission is essential and valid under the assumed operating criteria.

Finally I am sure the fisherman himself played no part in the decision to launch SAR assets. Better we stick to the circumstances of accident rather than start blaming the reason it was flying.

Otherwise we would have to blame the Tenerife 747 Accident on the passengers cos the B*****ds went on holidays instead of working.

Well said.

I was told some time ago that their transition to NVG would take place in 2014. Did that not happen?

DB - :ok::ok:

Ditto...! :ok::ok:

DB
It probably won't surprise you to know that I've never been involved in SAR missions, so could you expand on what the role of top cover is, and what determines the necessity of its use - presumably not all SAR flights require another helicopter as back up?

Hi Rotorspeed, my experience is MIL/HEMS/OFFSHORE/POLICE with very limited SAR Experience. However, CRAB could be considered our resident SAR Expert. Maybe he would be better placed to answer your question.

Otto. Only 1 CVFDR fitted to these machines.

Totally agree. And R116 most likely acted also as a back up for R118 during those bad weather conditions...

Rotor speed, Knowledge and Experience are 2 different things. I have the knowledge of the reason why top cover is required but little experience of it. Hence my deferral to Crab, who has both.

Alternatively, you could read the rest of the thread, which already contains the information on 'top cover' that you seek.

Obviously Rotorspeed has little understanding of SAR environment. Top Cover is used to provide communications cover and safety back to the Helo undertaking the SAR mission or MEDIVAC as in this sad case. 150Nm+ from land and down at 100ft approx above sea level there is no ATC comms.
The history of Top Cover off west coast of Ireland goes back a long way back to the time of the Nimrod. Since its demise we have used Irish Air Corps assets - Casa and which ever fixed wing A/C was available.

I wasn't focusing, I was contemplating.
It was reported in the media - for what it's worth - that the injury to the fisherman was a laceration to the tip of a thumb, and the injury was relatively minor that didn't necessitate urgent transport to hospital.
From what I understand from the media report, the Captain of the fishing boat requested evacuation of the injured fisherman, rather than set sail for port, and it was on this basis that the SAR effort was scrambled.

Not coming from a SAR background, and for the enlightenment of others here like me, I'm curious to what extent the helicopter crew are involved in the initial decision making process to launch on a mission. Or are they told to go, and they just go? Presumably they are told of the nature of the injury of the patient. If they are told "not life threatening" is it open to the SAR crew to suggest, for example, as the safest option in the circumstances, for the Captain of the vessel to sail towards port and the helicopter will rendezvous with them at first light?

As I have said before the Auto Scaling feature of the Moving Map would make both Blackrock & Blacksod look almost identical during the last 5 NM approach.
Blackrock is not on the Terrain Database....I don't believe that for a second.
You also can't display TAWS & Radar on the same Screen, it's one or the other.
EGPWS inhibited during approach is also bull****. A rapid rising Terrain during approach will still give warning, given the steep angle of this rock it most likely won't be enough time. The Crew can however disable the Terrain Warning.
Not sure if it has an Obstacle Database? If it does then it's quite possible they have inhibited the Warning because the Lighthouse would annoy the Crap out of them. Maybe now you can start to see the plausibility.
If the MPFDR Data shows the Auto Pilot was engaged and NAV Mode selected during the Tear Drop then it's a forgone conclusion Blackrock was the destination selected on the FMS. Couple that with the Altitude Profile, and then you can tell if the destination was intended or not.

So your SAR machines are not NVIS equipped. I bet they will be very shortly.
Pretty sure the Flight Following will also get a Giddy Up.
Vertical Profile Radar could also be handy.

Apologies if this is a stupid question but if Blackrock was the destination in the FMS and Auto Pilot was engaged would AP have flown them in to contact with the island ?

It does what you tell it to. If you ask it to fly into something, it will obey.

Not sure how it works in SAR but when I worked for an Air Ambulance we were not told the patient status but simply asked "Can you respond to a call to XXXX?" We made our go/no go decision based upon operational factors such as Aircraft / crew status and weather.
This was because we did want to put undo pressure on the crew. After we accepted the flight the paramedics would get the patient status. We did not want something like "The patient is a cute 5 year old with serious injuries" to affect the decision to launch or not.
I am sure someone with actual knowledge as to SAR procedures will be able to better respond to your question.

Gullible, I can only tell you how HEMS works. The Medical agency is responsible for tasking the aircraft. Sometimes all the details are known and sometimes not. SAR, being a more senior service having been around longer than HEMS I am sure operates on a similar basis.

It's easy in hindsight to be critical of the urgency of any task. However, most emergency services are pre-disposed to launch rather than conduct unofficial triage to avoid the risks of ending up with a fatality after they have declined to respond.

As an EMS pilot I am not medically qualified to make those calls and so rely on the expertise and more crucially, the established protocols of the medical teams to make the launch decision. Sometimes it is overkill (excuse the pun). Most times it is not.

I am not interested in the medical details of this incident until in the air and I suspect prior to launch, neither were this crew. They would simply be responding to the tasking agencies call and get on with it. Fast reaction is the principle and too many opinions in the process would just slow the whole thing down.

I doubt the skipper of the boat would make a commercial decision over the welfare of his crew. Fishing boat crews are a tight knit group. They would have made the call to protect the persons interests. Also I would pay lip services to reports in the press.

Finally, don't forget SAR crews train regularly and I feel sure the conditions on the night would have not stopped them training. The risks are always there. However, if this was a training flight I doubt we would be saying training should be banned because of the risks.

I am sure they will be lessons learned from this but I doubt it would alter launch criteria or the need for top cover as I for one, do not believe they are relevant. Or to put it another way, doing so rather accepts the likelihood of such events and by preventing the flight you avoid the event.

There will be a root cause to this accident just like all the others before this one. Finding it and evaluating that root cause to reduce or even eradicate that risk is far better than mitigating the risks by preventing such flights from occurring.

Apologies Albatross, I missed your post. I think you describe the principles and reasons behind an EMS launch better than I did.

I have been following this thread since the beginning as I was genuinely saddened to hear of the loss of R116. Condolences to all involved.

I have the utmost respect for the SAR community, these guys do fantastic work.

Here is more info on the fisherman's injury. The decision to launch is not made by the IRCG but by medical staff at Cork University Hospital based on the information given to them. Doctors will generally err on the side of caution if they are to be held responsible. The accuracy of the information they receive from the fishing boat is another factor. It seems the helicopter crews don't have much of a say in the decision.

Miscommunication over severity of fisherman's injury responsible for last journey of R116

While somewhat tangential, for information I was a coastguard for four years, operational lifeboat crew with the RNLI for ten years, and a launching authority for the RNLI for a further two years. The coastguard requested the lifeboat to launch with full disclosure of the material facts. The decision was based on the nature of the problem as well as weather, etc. Not once in my 16 years SAR experience (handling approx 100 calls per year) was the offer declined, in fact in many cases the response was strengthened with a "both boats" launch to provide what could be regarded as the equivalent of "top cover".

The initial call from the IRCG co-ordinator would have been along the lines of "We have a wet job (offshore task) for you. An injured crewman on board a fishing vessel approx 100nm (or whatever) west of Blacksod at co-ordinates (L&L). The injury is to his hand and the ship's Captain is requesting that he be taken to hospital."

It is then up to the SAR crew to obtain as much information as possible regarding position, type of vessel, time the accident occurred, more details of the injury and patient, weather at the scene, etc, etc. Most experienced co-ordinators would already have this information available.

The crew then decide whether or not to accept the task. Unless the vessel is out of range or the weather is such that it would prevent the flight from operating (bearing in mind that there are usually no prescribed minimum weather limits for SAR flights) the task would normally be accepted.

If, however, conditions are marginal, out of range and/or the winchman paramedic feels that the injury is not life-threatening and can wait, then the crew can delay or decline the task.

I have done this on a number of occassions when the combination is poor weather/long range and a non-life threatening injury. However I always make sure that as much information as is available is collected and the whole crew are happy with the decision. It is our bums that are strapped to the seats but equally we have to live with the decision.

IRCG
It goes back a lot further than that - I was doing top cover in a Shackleton for both Whirlwinds and Wessex to the West of Ireland before the Nimrod came into service. However, I didn't realise the warm fuzzy glow it gives you until I was the one in the Wessex a few years later. Later still, the assets deployed off Cork for the Air India Accident meant that while I was out there in a Chinook for 6 hours we had at various times 2 x Nimrods, 2 x USAF C-130s and others. Admittedly they were also assisting in the search, and sending us to look at anything significant (anyone remember the cabbage patch doll?), but if anything had happened to us - and the further you go from land the more every strange noise, turbulence, change in Ts or Ps gets the heart rate going - they're there for us as well. Bobbing in the oggin is much better in a large multi seat dinghy courtesy of a Lindholm container (unless it hits you on the head!).

Same again

Thanks for the good info! Just curious: What is your recommendation concerning radar usage? I mean tilt; do you have kind of "standard setting" when using GMAP mode?

What Shackman said, (X 22 yrs):ok::ok::ok:

S&R I would recommend a Seaking search radar and a competent RADOP...but, nostalgia isn't what it used to be!

Commercially contracted civilian SAR: you get what you contract for and it is up to the operator to set SOP's and standards to operate successfully and safely with what has been specified. If top cover is provided then you don't need any long range comms (like the fishboat must have had to call for SAR), though I find that lack of capability odd. NVG is a complete and complex (expensive) program, takes time and money.
An instrument approach to either of the two west coast refueling stations would be another cost that can be saved by expecting the aircraft to cloud break on their own some distance away and drive in low-level while avoiding obstacles in the dark and weather. The commercial ARA letdowns for open ocean oil platforms have a number of restrictions and guidelines in the interest of safety, they were never meant for a shore landing. In the commercial world if no IP you'd have another established procedure to come down safely to a specific point, if nothing seen the gear up and back to your alternate.

RTE noting that recovery of the body in cockpit byou ROV was unsuccessful. No other bodies noted in the wreckage. Searches have taken place as far north as Downpatrick Head. Very sad.

At this point I wonder will they elect to lift the cockpit wreckage by the crane they have on site.

SAR Radar/FLIR approaches normally start from an MSA of 1500'. Initially down to 200' using the AP Transition Down function. During the RFA the Pilot Monitoring is adjusting the radar to give the best possible returns and giving a verbal picture and headings to the pilot flying. The FLIR operator is observing the track ahead and confirming these headings are clear. Once at 200' and inbound to the final approach point the search radar is fine-tuned. Final approach checks are now carried out before engaging the Transition Down to Hover function that will automatically descend the aircraft to the minimum height set.

Unlike an offshore O&G type of ARA, there is no defined Mapt as the aircraft is now at the minimum height (say 50') with a groundspeed at whatever the operator sets (normally 10 kts or vessel speed plus 10 knots). A missed approach procedure will have been pre-briefed in the event that there is no visual contact at minimum range. This involves changing the heading to a safe one using the AP and engaging the Tansition Up function that sets a pre-determined height and speed. The climb-out flight path is cleared using the search radar, FLIR and/or NVG.

[quoteThe initial call from the IRCG co-ordinator would have been along the lines of "We have a wet job (offshore task) for you. An injured crewman on board a fishing vessel approx 100nm (or whatever) west of Blacksod at co-ordinates (L&L). The injury is to his hand and the ship's Captain is requesting that he be taken to hospital."

It is then up to the SAR crew to obtain as much information as possible regarding position, type of vessel, time the accident occurred, more details of the injury and patient, weather at the scene, etc, etc. Most experienced co-ordinators would already have this information available.

The crew then decide whether or not to accept the task. Unless the vessel is out of range or the weather is such that it would prevent the flight from operating (bearing in mind that there are usually no prescribed minimum weather limits for SAR flights) the task would normally be accepted.

If, however, conditions are marginal, out of range and/or the winchman paramedic feels that the injury is not life-threatening and can wait, then the crew can delay or decline the task.

I have done this on a number of occassions when the combination is poor weather/long range and a non-life threatening injury. However I always make sure that as much information as is available is collected and the whole crew are happy with the decision. It is our bums that are strapped to the seats but equally we have to live with the decision. ][/quote]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, are you saying the winchman/paramedic makes the go/no go call? My understanding was that a Medical Doctor decided on the need for urgent hospital transfer, the request for transfer was the made to the CG, with fly/no fly being the Pilots decision?

Given the information from Bayerische in post 571, which confirms that the thumb injury was quite modest, the patient even only needing road ambulance from Blacksod, it is clear a review of the injury assessment and SAR dispatch process should follow - and I'm sure will. One can see the difficulty of getting accurate information from particularly small vessels with poor English spoken though. I guess ideally there would be a satellite link to send images and medical info across. Anyone know what technology is used now - and could be used in future?

Granuaile back at Blackrock, working through the night.

Sea 10 C. Wind 5 kts.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ry:54/zoom:11#

The media report in The Irish Times I read said the Captain of the UK registered fishing boat declared a "PAN PAN MEDICO" on VHF radio relayed by the Irish Coast Guard which allowed him to talk directly to a doctor at the hospital. The doctor advised the Irish Coast Guard based on the information received from the Captain. They must have understood the thumb to have been severed to warrant evacuation by helicopter. But it wasn't severed, and thus it was open for the fishing boat to proceed to port.

It turns out this same fisherman was injured, and evacuated by helicopter from another boat, in the North Sea nine months ago. Fishing is obviously a dangerous profession.