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.