It certainly goes a long way towards answering the many questions we had.

As mentioned above

https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/pr...3379/10794966/

Duration = 24 minutes

(might need an Irish proxy)

It was available to me in UK.

This is an excellent documentary that reports several apparently disturbing issues surrounding this crash.

Indeed, I was surprised to see that neither Department of Tranport nor Irish Aviation Authority would take responsiblity to oversee safety in Irish SAR.

Am I missing something, the primetime report showed on the 1;250,000 map clearly indicated Blackrock as 282ft! The crew were using unapproved iPads? I wonder if they'd used paper charts & radar the outcome would have been very different. I'm sure the AAIU report will clear all of this up, we'll finally know for fact what the crew did and of course did not brief.

At that altitude over water the radar should always be the primary tool anyway. Mapping systems are generally 'not to be used for primary navigation'.
It doesn't help with the IAA not taking a leading role in the SAR approach.

Bringing the iPads looks like a symptom of distrust in on board systems.

@14.42 in the Prime Time report there is an image of a Safety Meeting report. In the last sentence, the fact that Bristow crew's have a good moving map system is mentioned.

Attachment 3457

Have to say, if the crew knew of concerns on accuracy of charts and mapping systems it's even more surprising they chose a 10nm approach path at 200ft at night. Minimising low altitude transit would seem to be even more prudent to me. Radar may have supposed to be the primary navigation at such a time but clearly that had big risks too.

Saw that but point still stands, what was wrong with their 1;250,000 Map? from what I can see from the report, nothing as it had the correct spot height for Blackrock!

It was probably still sealed in the map case. The iPad is King these days.

Embrace technology ...... or not.

The map probably sits on a computer somewhere waiting to be printed. Why not offer the map in digital format so that it can be found on the Ipad - like the approach charts -available clear, crisp and highly zoomable for detail.

If Google can produce street names, why can HMG not overlay their map and quickly discover which islands are missing. The tedious updating system would become much quicker, though the state would no doubt need still to produce AIP style coordinates of heights, obstacles, lighthouses etc. Which makes one immediately question how the EGPWS terrain database might differ from the map. Good old adage ..... Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Oh, and you could place all the company's manuals there as well - saving 30 lbs of paper stuffed in a bag. How nice if the OEM's played ball and produced a decent digital flight manual; speedily accessed using .pdf search function.

Philistines .......

All very good till the batteries go flat!!

You need an USB charger upgrade for your aircraft. :p

The Digital Vertical Obstruction File (DVOF) is produced by OS for UK and available (at a cost) but I doubt if Eire is covered by it.

The technology is out there but someone has to pay for the data.

Well, in modern helicopters thatˋs included
Holder for Tablet PC
NOTE Due to the restricted field of view the Tablet PC provision should be placed in the stow position if no tablet PC is installed
Power can be applied to the USB port on the side of the instrument panel when Non-essential bus is powered. A switch is located in the overhead console....

Thanks Flying Bull .... ignore the cynics and detractors ..... some crew and some regulators - unbelievers! Follow the chord, kill the heretic

The question has never been answered and the CVR transcript does not appear to reveal why a descent to such a low level was made so far from the target HLS given the SAR AFCS has preset programmes to descend from 2400’ to preset hover height as low as 50’? This was used in anger so often and trained for almost daily at the UKSAR bases where the airframe in question served for 6 years. Were lessons such as this from UKSAR ignored? Is there a ‘we know what we’re doing’ or ‘we know better’ attitude given apparent screen setup, use of and navigation by rearcrew almost non existent until too late a stage contrary to known best practise in UKSAR given that was the ideal place to draw relevant experience from? CRM questions arise from the transcript but also what about SOP’s for provision of top cover and appropriate fuelling, again a practise UKSAR conducted successfully post RAF Nimrod retirement. It appears the mapping issue is clouding what actually may be the real hazards involved in low level IMC offshore operations and best practises.

I think they call it "legacy practices".....

A friend of mine went from UKSAR to ICG on 61 then 92 - the 'we know better' attitude was apparently difficult to overcome - typical was the reluctance to push for NVG.

212, I understand your desire for best practice but for whatever reason the crew elected to transit at 200' probably on the presumption that the lighthouse was at 47' - crucial in their decision making / risk assessment as no-one challenged it. Offshore radar procedures are quite simple - never overfly the blob unless you are visual or at MSA otherwise turn to avoid. EGPWS is useless as a last barrier of defence without the correct mapping data.