Scattercat - Well said:ok:

Malabo - I expect there are lots of people (Irish Govt, Irish CG, CHC and Sikorsky) who are nervously waiting for any interim report.

ISTR the CG were looking at NVD when they still had the S61 so it is a disgrace that it wasn't specified in the S-92 contract.

Crew on tragic Rescue 116 never got emergency warning it was about to crash due to technical glitch

Again, the Mirror....

I couldn't agree more... 👍

In 1998 I was operating an S61 SAR-cab out of Shannon with DF as my copilot. We were called out in the middle of a dark and horrid night to a Inishmore, one of the Aran Islands in Galway Bay. There was a man with chest injuries in need of immediate hospitalisation so we planned and conducted a low level landfall in weather that was absolutely on the limits. The run in towards the landing site beside the harbour was extremely difficult and was made even more difficult because the nearby lighthouse was still operating. Its fingers of light rotated beneath us creating a painful optical illusion that very nearly had me abandoning the approach. Thanks to the coolness of my colleagues we completed the mission without incident but ever since then I have often wondered about NVGs. Would they have made the mission safer? Would they have delivered the goods in close proximity of the lighthouse? Perhaps someone with actual NVG experience can enlighten me.

G.

An small but significant point, the AAIU have complete responsibility for the investigation, which would include the regulatory environment. The IAA being the regulator.

yes, possibly not in those days with 1st or 2nd gen tubes where a bright light could completely close down the goggles, but with modern tubes most definitely safer.

Strapping in
 

Does anyone know what the current policy in CHC Ireland (and other SAR operators) is with regard to the rear crew being strapped into a seat for approach, take off and landing?

Well good morning and welcome to 2017.

Fagin's Goat - it depends on the operator and the circumstances. If you're at an airfield with ATC to give clearances then the rearcrew may well strap in but if you're off airfield and/or it's a sloping ground/confined area landing then the rearcrew will be on their harnesses providing clearances. If it was me approachimg Blacksod at night, I'd be on my harness in the door. But I'd also have my goggles down.

Isn't it more disgraceful that CHC didn't provide it for their crews if it's now considered a safety-of-flight issue?

The ICG is the functional requirements owner ( i.e. the parameters of the SAR operations ), not the technical or safety requirements owner. Compliance with applicable certification, maintenance and safety standards is the only relevant metric for the tender.

The contract also failed to specify the installation of a cyclic control or windscreen, but I don't think we criticise the ICG over that oversight.

We had 3rd gen tubes in 1986, so you'd think the civilian world would at least have them, or better, by 1998.

Whilst I'm not a fanboi of CHC, I disagree with this sentiment. The operator provides an aircraft as per a contract specification, and crews operate the aircraft in accordance with their training and operating procedures laid down by the operator, the regulator, and the client. Operating procedures take into account the aircraft configuration, role equipment, operating environment and many other things.

You might say many "if only" things...if only the doctor knew from the outset the minor nature of the injury they may not have launched until daylight, "if only" the FMS navigation database had the correct height of the blacksod lighthouse, "if only" they had NVG. The thing is, you plan according to the operational situation; no point wishing you had something you don't have, just deal with the cards you've been dealt with.

I am with guliBell on this. The aircraft and equipment is specified in the contract, and that is what is provided. If the task is not safe without NVG then the crew will not launch. That is the standard of service provision specified in the contract.

Agreed. In the example of the neighbouring UK SAR Helicopter Service, there is now a contract with a requirement for a low light capability "in low light conditions down to 2 mlux."

That only came about after 44 years of dodgy contracts.

If anyone has to take a kicking over the late arrival of NVG then it should be the coastguard authorities and governments who have sat on their hands over technical specs for civilian SAR on both these islands for too long.

The £15k a head is only the start, and with specialist cockpit requirements, ITAR restrictions and monster training costs, no contractor could possibly do this on their own.

And Crab, it's not the generation of tubes that prevents "blooming" rather it is whether they have "auto gating" or not. E.G. 2nd gen tubes with auto gating are better in urban or well lit situations. 3rd gen work further into the IR spectrum so would be better in V dark regions. Of course if you have the cash the 3rd gen with auto gating is where you want to be.

All the talk about NVG's is well and good but I'm more concerned about the comments that , 1. there may not have been a moving map display in the cockpit and 2. the rock they hit might not have been in the data base even if they had #1. Is there any definitive information on either of these things? Both seem unimaginably sad and unfortunate to me if there is truth to either one. Did I miss something?

Can anyone explain why there is a suspicion that Blackrock is not in the terrain database.

It was stated officially a few days ago. I can't remember the source.

From this news article above. Perhaps I misunderstood and this was simply someone putting out an unlikely but possible scenario which I mistook for something more.....

Sir, you display a significant lack of knowledge about how our industry works.

I'm sorry if this sounds a stupid question and maybe off topic, but why is that an offshore Vessel with a more suitable crane and ROV equipment that is capable of lifting the wreck from the seabed is not being used as these vessels have done these jobs before and it is not likely these is a shortage of these vessels , if this was the North Sea the wreck would have been lifted as it now 3 weeks since the accident and there is still 2 crew members missing. I'm thinking more for the families waiting for there loved ones to be brought home and laid to rest.

pumaboy
The ILV Granuaile is more than adequate for the task. However the seabed topography and tidal stream around this rock coupled with 3mr+ swell due to spring tides do not help.

And I've searched all I can and have not found an official statement, I've found 3rd hand quotes of anonymous sources. I'm trying to find a technical resource that would support it. If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.

Perhaps someone, perhaps an actual pilot, could look at the terrain database for the area.
Sorry just POd about all this "He says , she says" BS.

Pumaboy makes a fair point. In 2009 a dive support vessel recovered a Superpuma from 100 meters of water in the Millar field in the North Sea in under 2 days. But they were not using navy divers breathing air, with a bottom time of 10 mins. They were using teams of commercial saturation divers which gave them the capability to keep the divers working at depth around the clock continuously until the task was completed. While the Grainneuail is more than capable of lifting 7 tonnes from the seabed she is not equipped to support saturation divers. I think Pumaboy is correct in his assertion that the wreck would be recovered by now in the North Sea (which btw isn't exactly renowned for calm weather or slack tides). You have to wonder if naval service divers and the Grainneuail are the right choice for this particular task, given the depth and the restrictions of their capabilities, and the fact that time is a factor where families are concerned.

It was mentioned in RTE's Primetime program on March 23rd. Watch it back here.

https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/20...4-prime-time/#

Go back to the RTE Primetime report a few pages back. They said they didn't say anything they couldn't verify.

Does anyone here have the current IAA-published VFR Aeronautical chart for the west of Ireland? If so, does it show Blackrock as a lighthouse or a lighthouse on a 300ft obstacle?
I know this may be a low-tech approach compared to EGPWS, NVG etc but just wondering.
Thanks.

The ILV “Granuaile” has previously worked with Irish Navy, CoastGuard, Marine Institute etc on other vessel recovery operations. Ship has dynamic positioning which helps it stay on scene longer.

If you look back at RTEs Pat McGrath twitter look how many times hey had to pull divers because they tides were dangerous. Some local fishermen have mentioned 6m swells.

On the five day Atlantic forecast, doesn't look good till Saturday with what looks like a bit of storm following the next day.
http://www.met.ie/forecasts/5day-ireland.asp (click wave on the right)

The big bad north sea eh? First, this is the Atlantic. Big boys' waves. Second, the bottom of the NS is general flat soft and predictable. Third, most of the aircraft needing recovered from the NS have not hit anything hard either above or below the water.

For what it's worth, I put Blackrock as a user waypoint in the Garmin 500W nav trainer and flew at it at 30kts and 200' from 3nm out and didn't get a terrain warning as I flew over the waypoint. I say, for what it's worth, because the nav system in the S92 would be far more advanced and up-to-date than a 500W.

So I've watched the Primetime piece. I now understand why the suspicion exists that Blackrock wasn't in the database. However that report is still a "has learned" statement with no who or even how it was learned. A statement attributed to a manufacturer or user would be more credible.

GulliBell - thanks for that. That is the kind of thing I would expect a reputable source to do.

Yes, they are.

Blackrock 282' and lighthouse symbol.
Blacksod Pier 43' and lighthouse symbol.

However, I would challenge the use of the word "current VFR".... the last chart issued was some time ago.

There are a number of workshops going on at this time to clarify/redesign the IAA VFR chart as it is notoriously cluttered.

Couldn't agree more. A proper DSV has dynamic position so it can 'hover' in a fixed position close to a hazard (rock, platform etc.) and withstand significant weather (wind, waves, current etc.) due to powerful engines and bow/azimuth thrusters. The dive bell is 'heave compensated' so the divers are immune to the heave of the vessel due to the waves. And the saturation divers can stay on the bottom for hours. The vessel would have the job done is a day or two.

The Granuaille is equipped with dynamic positioning, that is why she is on station. However the conditions on the seabed are atrocious. The tide barrels through the gap between Blackrock and Parrot rock where the wreckage is located. The senior officer of the navy dive team likened it to 'diving on a flagpole in a gale'. The divers have great difficulty staying in place. Saturation divers would equally quickly become exhausted under those conditions. If they lift the fuselage off the seabed it would immediately swing sideways in the strong current and anything that fell out would be swept away. That is why the plan was to tilt the fuselage sideways using airbags but without actually lifting it clear of the seabed, in order to search underneath it. However due to the conditions mentioned, they are now considering that a straight lift may be their only option.

Rescue 116 wreckage may be lifted in search for crew

To put it simply, if the task here were a search of a ships hull, blowing up a mine or assaulting a beach at night there would be nobody better than the navy divers because that is what they are trained for, equipped for, and do regularly. Heavy lifting in deep water is clearly not their forte(which is no reflection on them). Commercial divers carry out multiple heavy lifts from deep water, per shift in all sorts of weather and tides. Its what they do day in, day out. Its their bread and butter. In fact they wouldn't even consider this a 'heavy' lift. Yes the navy will figure it out and probably achieve it but nowhere near as quickly or efficiently as the guys who do this type of task daily. Its not about North Sea vs Atlantic, military vs civilian, big boys waves vs little boys waves or anything else, its about using the correct tool for the job. As langball correctly pointed out, when a saturation diving bell is lowered to the seabed there is a 'heave compensation' system to mitigate against swell. Yes sat divers are somewhat subject to the effects of tide but nowhere near what a surface diver is. In 40 meters of water the surface diver has 40 meters plus of umbilical chord out, with the tide acting on the full length of it which acts like a parachute dragging him off the job and making work impossible. The saturation diver only has the distance from the bell to the job of umbilical out which might only be a few meters. The vessel can be moved to orientate the bell relative to the work so that his umbilical is in line with the tide if need be so he isn't getting dragged off. Crucially though, Diving from the surface with no decompression gives the navy divers only 10 minutes from the time they leave surface to the time they leave bottom. By the time they get to job, orientate themselves and figure out whats what, they must leave almost immediately. It is considerably more dangerous and difficult. Saturation divers can stay on the job indefinitely and even go back to the bell for a rest if they get tired. Surface diving is far more weather and tide sensitive for multiple reasons. There is a reason commercial divers and DSV's are used to recover downed helicopters in the UK. And there is a reason almost all work with any degree of technicality, carried out deeper than about 16 meters is done using saturation. As pumaboy said time is of the essence here.

Maclovin, The incident you refer to earlier in 2009 was actually about 10 miles off the coast rather than at the Miller, I think if my memory is correct the vessel involved in recovery was the same that was only a couple of miles away and witnessed the incident as it happened? Not much issue with swell, current and fairly shallow waters so was a much easier job.

I appreciate your honest response, and I concur. I am from the software side of industry, not the flying side.

So can you explain why an operator wouldn't provide NVG for crews in NVG-compatible helicopters? Why would it be beholden on the Coastguard to tell them to do it?

Certification requirements? Training? Surely it can't be cost given that these are $20 million aircraft flown by crews on six-figure salaries, the cost of NVG would be negligible in return for the benefits.

The cost isn't negligible. Capital cost for hardware acquisition, cost for crew initial and recurrent NVG training, cost of on-going maintenance of the NVG hardware, cost of updating all the operational documents and obtaining required approvals, etc etc...these aren't costs that an operator would pay for out of their own generosity if it's not a specification of the contract. The client gets what they pay for, and usually not much more. That's simple business economics.

What he said.^
 

What he said...^^.

Totally different to North Sea. Sea state + weather + vertical coastline (sea surge)+ rocky seabed