As a Search And Rescue operation, this is a state activity and not EASA.

IAIP-O-76

" ... the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has deemed that the requirements of the ‘Basic Regulation’ shall not apply to the conduct of Search and Rescue operations and that such operations are to be classified as a ‘State’ activity which is to be regulated by the National Aviation Authority."

" ... operations carried out for the purpose of Search and Rescue by a commercial operator shall be deemed to be for the purpose of Commercial Air Transport and therefore subject to the operator being the holder of an Irish National Search and Rescue Approval (SAR APP)."

Well let's see if any Irish regulatory hounds can inform us more, but by deeming Commercial SAR as CAT they are putting themselves under PART-OPS, and PART-OPS is as I described. I would hazard a guess that Irish National Search and Rescue Approval (SAR APP) is a process for ensuring that all the requisite PART-OPS approvals are in place.

The relevant Irish document does not appear to have escaped into the wild (and I know a few foot-soldiers in Ireland who would dearly like to understand more about this) but here is a definition from the UK's CAP 999.

"SAR Technical Crew
A member of the SAR crew (e.g. winch operator, winchman) other than flight crew who is assigned to a helicopter SAR flight for the purpose of operating specific aircraft and role equipment, assisting the flight crew during the mission and attending to any person in need of medical assistance."

Since the UK SAR contract spec, and state of regulatory development, is quite advanced we might expect that an Irish definition would be either similar or less advanced.

Anyway, nothing there about navigation or obstructions or, as Crab has pointed out, flying the aircraft using hover trim, often when the aircraft is as close as it should ever be to rocky obstructions.

Aha ! From CAP 999
So let's see what the Irish regulatory hounds can dig up from their version.

PS If the Irish version has that same definition, I think I would consider it OK for technical crew members to do what you want. The radar, FLIR, and hover trim are aircraft/role equipment, and what could be better assistance to the flight crew than warning them about imminent terrain or using the hover trim to finesse the winching operation.

Is there a possibility that one of the back crew members was in the door and eyeballed the rock and that led to the turn suggestion, or do we know for a fact that something on the FLIR gear led to this?

Or are both strapped in and looking at screens at this stage?

I don't know what an Irish SAR APP says but I do know that the way things are run there makes interoperability with SAR partners that little bit more difficult. This is the sort of thing that held back UK CivSAR for 40 years and finally got sorted just in the final weeks before the current contract started in 2015.

Another matter that might be relevant is the tasking responsibility and how that dovetails into the regulatory regime. It appears to still be the case that tasking is the responsibility of the Irish Coastguard and not the IAA at ARCC Shannon. (MoU 2010?)

In the UK context, when ARCC task an aircraft it is not longer CAT but becomes SAR flight and different rules of flight apply.

Does that distinction exist in Irish SAR Ops? How is it triggered? Was R116's top cover task SAR flight? Were they CAT or were they free to operate under a SAR regulatory regime?

It is precisely these discussions about regulations, individual crew members responsibilities and operating procedures that convinces me that SAR should be conducted by the military. It is a flight crew on board the aircraft that need to act together as a unified team. How they divide up the tasks to get the job done safely should be up to individual crews, not some regulatory body determining strict limits on what each crew member is allowed to do. Mixing and matching crew members all trained to the same standards in their own management limited role benefits only management and bean counters. It does not enhance flight safety or result in crews that operate with complete trust in one another and knowledge of each others strengths and weaknesses. Would this accident have happened if the aircraft was being operated by the military? I am inclined to think not.

Gouli: In military ops crew roles are defined. There isn't mixing and matching of roles, for instance a Seaking Observer/Radar Op can't do the co-pilots or winchman's job just because someone is more senior or less experienced.
Mil aviators are just as used to working with different crew members as civ ones. Obviously the smaller the community the more you get to know people but it's really a lot more standard than you've inferred here.
I believe that the map shown could be interpreted as an IFR let down / company route when it's not intended as such but maritime helicopter operators are used to letting down in such situations over water, using the radar as the primary tool. In my experience this has been done by a trained radar operator who monitors the descent and other PM duties as normal. Not sure I'd feel that comfortable with a pilot with no training on radars (as has been inferred by some) doing that function.

Gouli,

When did you last fly SAR?

Of course the military don't crash, do they!

The Military had Radar Operators in the Cabin due to the fact they had a huge ol' Radar on top of the aircraft for various uses other than SAR. The SAR thing was not the original primary mission of the Sea King.

I am sure Crab, Al-bert, Mars, and others well versed in the many Roles the Sea King was tasked with in its military roles can explain to us.

In the Civil 61/92 SAR machines there is no Radar Operator in the Cabin due to there being no need for one as the Radar display is in the Cockpit.

Rather than debating what could be.....perhaps sticking to what is....will be of better use in the discussion of the causes of this tragic accident.

Okay, point taken. I spent most of my working career in small dedicated groups where we all had overlapping areas of expertise and no one got upset if someone commented and/or took over because you were cocking it up for some reason. It was expected that you all looked out for each other. Times have clearly changed and the corporate model rules.

Unbelievable comment! You gotta to be kidding us...

A "For What It Is Worth" comment.....how does the US Coast Guard or US Air Force crewing, crew duties, and aircraft equipment compare to the RAF SAR/ICG/UK SAR Operations?

The JayHawks and PaveHawks are very similar to the 92's....and the old H-3's/CH-53's would have similarities to the SeaKings and S-61's.

If we did a genuine compare and contrast would we not see some blending of all the various cultures over time as Technology improved, Aircraft design and capability changed, and Operational Experience was gained?

Point being.....isn't there more than one right answer to most questions?

Perhaps if I were to suggest that SAR should not be a commercial operation subject to cost constraints that could limit crew training, that might be more acceptable?

Yes, I know the military have their problems too, but they would appear to have greater freedom to operate without having to account for every penny.

You do realise the the Aer Corps lost four crew and a Dauphin in 1999!

I am not sure how many training hours the Irish CG contract includes but with the UK civvy SAR contract there is a heap of hours for training. 50 per month to be precise.
Having a private operator run the country's SAR does not mean it's going to be sub standard because of penny pinching.

Gouli, are you saying the Irish Air Corps would do a better job?

I didn't know you were such a wit Gouli!

So, ...
 

..... the PF should be "playing with radar"? How do you do an ARA?

So, ...
 

..... how have we managed to use the same radar, for 50 years, with a two-pilot crew, in the same weather conditions, during O&G operations?

Because you never intended to overfly the rig; you used the lowest ( approx 2.5 nm) scale and you made a decision at 150' and 0.5 nm or 200' and 0.75nm having already made an offset to avoid the blob. If you got an automated AVAD (yes the boringly simple one) call-out, and not visual with the destination, it was further offset, pull power and climb to MSA. eGPWS was designed to avoid terrain and published obstacles for onshore work ...... database, loss of situational awareness, confirmation bias