|
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. |
|
Originally Posted by Scattercat
(Post 9722410)
This issue of crews having some information on the patient's condition and possibly being influenced to "push the limits" misses the point. All aviation is a risk v gain decision & SAR / EMS is often at the extremis of those decisions. Higher risks & higher gains. As someone who has done a fair bit of both, I believe that I (we) can only make an informed decision when I have all of the relevant information. I don't need to know every clinical detail anymore than the tasking agency needs to know all of the operational aspects, but without some information I only have half of the equation. What is required though, is the culture of being able to maintain a professional decision making process, regardless of the emotive, "this 2 year old child will die if you don't go" influence. I have made "no-go" decisions and people have perished as I'm sure many here will have had to. I have also made plenty of "go" decisions that have pushed myself and my crew close to the limits & people have been saved.
Accidents will happen & when they do, it is right & proper that we analyse what could have been done better, but we should be doing that anyway. The argument that R118 & R116 shouldn't have been tasked for an injury that may or may not have been life-threatening misses the point. It could be argued that this accident would still have occurred if the mission was to save a boatload of cute children. Let's focus on the cause of this tragic accident and work on ways to mitigate those risks that are inherent in our line of work. I will say it one last time .... in my opinion, NVD's are a "must" technology for this type of work. Having done plenty with & plenty without, I wouldn't want to go back to doing what the crew of R116 were doing without the aid of NVD. |
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. |
Originally Posted by malabo
(Post 9722430)
Thankfully, the IAA has the experience of the UK AAIB assisting it |
Would they have made the mission safer? Would they have delivered the goods in close proximity of the lighthouse? |
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?
|
Originally Posted by malabo
(Post 9722430)
Well, the IAA and operator disagree with all of you. No NVD, yet a cloud break at night at a rocky shoreline and driving in the dark at a few hundred feet looking for a helipad was risk-assessed as acceptable even for a routine refuelling stop.
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. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 9722443)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 9722516)
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.
|
Originally Posted by El Bunto
(Post 9722715)
Isn't it more disgraceful that CHC didn't provide it for their crews if it's now considered a safety-of-flight issue?..
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. |
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 9722736)
We had 3rd gen tubes in 1986, so you'd think the civilian world would at least have them, or better, by 1998.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by dClbydalpha
(Post 9723249)
Can anyone explain why there is a suspicion that Blackrock is not in the terrain database.
|
Originally Posted by Duchess_Driver
(Post 9722452)
Crew on tragic Rescue 116 never got emergency warning it was about to crash due to technical glitch
Again, the Mirror.... |
Originally Posted by El Bunto
(Post 9722715)
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. |
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.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.