Originally Posted by HeliComparator (Post 9726722)

I thought we were? If it transpires that it was crew error, would you rather it was blamed on that specific crew, or that they were the victims of the culture, custom and practice of SAR?

Originally Posted by obnoxio f*ckwit (Post 9727259)

Perhaps they did see land on the radar, and it didn't raise any questions because if they thought they were at Blacksod they would be expecting to see land on the radar.

Originally Posted by The SAR RC (Post 9727238)

HC

You're trolling. If you've never done SAR it's unlikely that you'll ever appreciate how crews carry out their dynamic risk assessments. The 'blame' options you refer to are rarely so binary.

What was asked of this crew should have been well within the capabilities of an experienced SAR crew. How they ended up hitting that rock with what we have to assume was a serviceable radar is beyond me. Maybe some CVR clues will feature in a preliminary report.

Originally Posted by Mitchaa (Post 9727340)

I have it on good information that there was no mix up between Blacksod and Blackrock and that the flight over/beyond/around blackrock was standard approach to Blacksod.

Someone touched on it earlier, the original flight track looks like it may have planned to go straight to the fishing vessel, they then decided to refuel at Blacksod and in doing so looped back, approached Blackrock from the West in order to use it for approach to Blacksod.

All makes sense to me, what doesn't make sense is an experienced crew simply getting mixed up between Blacksod and Blackrock or the locations being entered wrong in the FMS.

Touching on the update released. I wonder if they did get a HUMS download from the actual accident flight or whether they are referring to the flight previous. I have a feeling the S92 system is the same as the Airbus system where the card session needs closing (by way of Engines powering down) For example, I'm certain if a HUMS card is removed from the card slot mid flight, there wouldn't be any data on it. They were not able to download the EC225 or indeed the AS332L2 accident data, only the data from the flight previous. I would also imagine that if they did manage to somehow get the HUMS data downloaded, there would be huge jumps in the data from the impact with blackrock to the loss of the tail and the time it took to strike the water, all that would have been recorded on the graphs.

Certainly pointing towards a CFIT from their update though.

Originally Posted by HeliComparator (Post 9727343)

I'm not sure that the HUMS data is that relevant if the FDR shows that the helicopter's flight path was as expected for the control inputs.

Originally Posted by Mitchaa (Post 9727340)

I have it on good information that there was no mix up between Blacksod and Blackrock and that the flight over/beyond/around blackrock was standard approach to Blacksod.

Originally Posted by Mitchaa (Post 9727422)

Admittedly I've never used the new S92 SGBA HUMS system although was experienced with the old EuroHUMS and MPGS/M'arms.

Quite a lot of reports of late flights out of Aberdeen recently due to HUMS test flight requirements due to no data captures though (S92). I presume it was similar to the Airbus systems where no closure of the card meant no download.

Regardless, they may or may not be reporting the status from the accident flight, whether they have the card or not and whether it's in any fit state to be downloaded. They haven't lifted the wreckage yet, only cut the pilot free, so unless the diving team retrieved the card along with the body then I presume it would still be with the wreckage.

Pfm1000, that's the golden question. Along with airspeed if the last data track recordings are accurate.

Originally Posted by rjsquirrel (Post 9727411)

I am told that 92 HUMS data is downloadable regardless, unlike the reported shortfall of other HUMS systems. Also, the 92 HUMS is said to have hundreds of parameters, including those normally part of the crash recorder data stream, so much of the aircraft activity besides system health is probably available as duplicate data.

Originally Posted by HeliComparator (Post 9727449)

Coincidentally an ex-colleague engineer pitched up at the gliding club on Friday and I took him for a flight in my glider. We discussed the vulnerability of having a near-all-S92 fleet, and one of the things he volunteered was the flakiness of the S92 HUMS system. Lots of delayed morning departures because an air test was required because the system had failed to acquire the necessary parameters during the previous day's flying. So I wouldn't crow about it too much. It may be capable of recording lots of stuff but that is only useful if it actually does record it!

Originally Posted by Apate (Post 9727457)

Must be a Bristow problem, as that's not something the other two operators are experiencing :E

Originally Posted by Apate (Post 9727499)

HC

Seriously though, the other two operators are not having issues with S92 HUMS downloads. They are both doing things correctly and thoroughly, so if Bristow are having issues it is obviously an internal problem.

Of course you are free to discount my statement, as we all know Bristow and the 225 are the only "gods" in town :ugh: