You won't get 'proper' VMC at night over the water with a 300' cloudbase but the SAR AOC will permit exactly that configuration because it has to in order to get jobs done.

The whole point of a SAR helicopter with a complex AFCS and its own radar is that it can safely letdown IMC below 1000' - but ONLY over water.

They were using the helicopter for what it was designed for but ended up at 200' too early in the procedure for the obstacle environment. Had the rock not been there, they would have flown in at 200' using the AFCS modes with the Rad alt coupled all the way to Blacksod - not VMC, not IFR but technically, because they had no NVG, still IMC.

Does Eire have in its Civil Aviation Law and Regulations any provision that allows a pilot to "break the rules" in order to save and/or protect life?

New Zealand does.

Just a point of speculation, but if the aircraft had been a hundred yards or so left or right of the course they tracked, there is a distinct possibility that they would have passed Black Rock in complete ignorance of the danger it represented.

Would a report even have been submitted, or would some later incident have been needed to highlight the problems uncovered by this investigation? I have a deep suspicion that there are a whole load of undiscovered gotchas just waiting out there to catch out the unwary.

Despite all the planning and preparation possible, flight safety is built on the misfortunes of those who preceded us into the air. I can't see that changing any time soon.

xny556

Sad to say, unthinking (or intentional) heroism has no place in corporate culture. You do it by the book. The rules are in place to guarantee the best possibility of a successful outcome without unduly risking the rescuers.

Break the rules and get away with it, you might be hailed as a hero and get a medal, if public acclaim prevents you from getting the sack first. Failure is not an option unless strictly within the rules!

Been there, done that. Got the scars to prove it.

Gouli,

Heroism has no place in the corporate culture as some will take risks in pursuit of heroism which can end in a nice story if all goes well or end in disaster if not.
The crew have to decide whether taking a risk is worth it. Would you break the rules if someone's life depended on it, quite possibly, but would you do the same if it was just a broken arm, I would hope not.
With all that said there were no rules broken here.

That is a bit harsh.....but had the Aircraft not hit the Rock and been destroyed....there would be no report and we would not be having this discussion.

Had the evasive maneuver been successful....there would probably have been an Incident Report of some kind and in all likelihood some soul searching by the Crew about how close they came to disaster.

We cannot think about what might have been.....as that is too late now.

Seeing a very honest inquiry into this tragedy that results in some serious Lessons Learned that work towards preventing similar events in the future is what matters now.

Otherwise....four very good People died for no good outcome.

We owe it to them to see that Review takes place.

Sasless - :ok:

Seconded :ok:

All air medical legs with crew are part 135
 

Not true anymore. All flight with medical crew on board are considered part 135.

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...ter-operations

What provoked the change?

The many fatal crashes I noted in my post!

There were other changes that the FAA and EMS industry had to adopt after the NTSB and Media exposed the unsafe practices and patent violations of Part 135 by many EMS Operators.

Read the text you quoted....it clearly used the past tense.....but you missed that I guess!

So does anyone have the detail of the Irish regulatory framework for SAR helicopters?

Where are the definitions of SAR flight, the triggers for implementation, the revised minima and so on?

IAA (Rules of the Air) Order, 2004.

Sec.17
Nothing in this Order shall be construed as preventing a departure from a provision of this Order including the Rules in the Schedule to this Order to such extent as may be necessary to avoid immediate danger.

No doubt in the OMA of the only AOC holder conducting SAR in Ireland.

I don't think they have any obligation to make anything public, but stand to be corrected.

[QUOTE=SASless;9749960]
"Was the aircraft VMC or IMC?
Was the operation (Ofshore of Blackrock to Blacksod) being done VMC or IMC?
What were the conditions when R-118 made an approach and landing to refuel at Blacksod?"

Belmullet Automatic Weather Station: 10 miles North of Blacksod,

1323 Vis 3.9 km Cloud 180m 8/8 Mist

1400 Vis 2.5 km Cloud 120m 8/8 Rain showers

1401 Vis 3.0 km Cloud 90m 8/8 Rain showers

1402 Vis 7.0 km Cloud 90m 3/8-900m 8/8 Rain

1403 Vis 4.7 km Cloud 1000m 8/8 Mist

Elevation at Belmullet given as being 16.4 Feet.

Even at the best Visibility reported....of 7.0 km....I would have to assume there was no other surface lighting visible to the crew of 116 other than that of Blackrock.....assuming it was clear of Cloud.

Other than vessels, if there were any, no other surface lighting visible at a best viz of 7 km., or even higher ground near Blacksod light, certainly not Blacksod light. High ground intervenes.

Isn't it inconceivable that they could see the light and still hit the rock?

Can anyone venture an opinion of what happens to a stratified layer over ocean when a rock intrudes to 300 feet, and there are 20 knot gusting winds coming up the sides of the rock. The orographic effect needs a higher rise than that to be significant, or...? More of a mariner than aviator question, but can the weather be different in the area of the rock than it is a mile away over flat ocean?

How much cloud depth, i.e. ceiling lower than the light itself, will result in the light not being visible?

The light wouldn't be visible unless you were looking outside and saw it. They weren't expecting to see a lighthouse, and presumably the only person looking outside was the FLIR operator, who just happened to notice the rock, but with no mention of a lighthouse being planted on top of it. The cloud could be a pea-souper fog down to surface level and you should still be able to see the lighthouse light from a mile away through the fog and pitch blackness of the night.

A lighthouse doesn't shine through fog. That's why they are located with foghorns.

I've done enough flying around at night in the gloop in the vicinity of lighthouses to have a reasonable hunch that they should have seen the lighthouse light from about 1nm, if they were looking for it.

CNPC said "A lighthouse doesn't shine through fog."


Perhaps not in Canada but the loom of a light even in the worst conditions can be seen at night from a considerable distance .


PS - but only if someone is looking out of the window................