Showing posts with label S-92. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S-92. Show all posts

06 April 2009

S-92 failed 30 minute run dry test

According to the Globe and Mail, the S-92 failed a test to confirm the aircraft can run for 30 minutes without oil in the main gearbox.

Documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show that the S-92 failed a critical test of whether the aircraft can keep flying if the oil in its main gearbox leaks out, a key safety feature found in other makes of helicopter – including a model that was beaten out by the Sikorsky for the Canadian military contract. The delivery of the helicopters to the Department of National Defence has already been beset by a series of delays.

-srbp-

27 March 2009

Cougar S-92 timeline: TSB

The Transportation Safety Board released a time line for Cougar’s CHI91, the Sikorsky S-92 that crashed two weeks ago. Compare it to one published online at the time of the incident.  The TSB timeline is given in ZULU while the flightaware.com tracklog is converted from ZULU to Eastern Daylight.  Local time for the incident is ZULU – 3.5.

One of the questions the timeline raises is the search and rescue helicopter response time.  Not the Cormorant’s from 103 Squadron in Gander, mind you but Cougar’s own SAR helo.

If we take CHI91’s MAYDAY as minute zero, the figures get interesting.

Cougar should have an operations base monitoring the flight and its radio communications.  There would likely also be a  channel available so that the pilots can speak directly to the company’s maintenance and senior pilot team. 

With that said, Cougar Base at St. John’s airport should have been aware of the emergency no later than M+0, the same time that Gander received the MAYDAY.

The aircraft ditches at M+11.

At M+11 Cougar base advises that they will launch Cougar 61, the SAR helicopter.  The company had been operating as back-up to 103 and knew at that time that the air force SAR response was an additional one hour flying time away.

Cougar 61 does not launch until M+43.

Cougar 61 arrives on scene 18 minutes later. An aircraft 18 minutes flying time away takes 43 minutes to get airborne and that’s in a situation where the aircraft ought to have been ready as a matter of normal procedure and the despatchers knew from the outset that there was a potentially catastrophic problem with the aircraft.

We can say they knew it was potentially catastrophic because they know the importance of the main gearbox oil pressure to continued flight.  Heck, they would have known about the Broome incident that had led to the January Sikorsky directive.

This is one of many questions that the TSB investigation will undoubtedly address with typical thoroughness.

Nothing released by TSB on Thursday raised any issues with personal locator beacons or immersion suits.

-srbp-

26 March 2009

TSB concludes field phase, releases more crash details

Two weeks after the loss of CHI91 and 17 of the 18 souls on board, the Transportation Safety Board concluded the field phase of its investigation today by releasing some details of the crash.

Among the highlights:

  • The cause of the gearbox oil pressure loss has been determined to be an in-flight  break of a stud in the gearbox filter assembly as previously released.
  • The aircraft descended rapidly from 800 feet above sea level (ASL) in under a minute owing to an as-yet undetermined event. Estimated rate of descent is given as 1,000 feet per minute.
  • The aircraft struck the water upright (belly first) in a tail down attitude.  This is different from earlier reports that the aircraft may have struck nose first.  That conclusion was apparently based on an initial assessment of the fuselage, as recovered.  The new interpretation is based on an examination of the entire wreck plus flight data. Some comment the day the main portion of the aircraft was brought ashore suggested that the tail rotor assembly (rotor plus vertical fin) had broken from the tail boom.  The boom was broken from the main fuselage.
  • Two of the three flotation devices in the aircraft were recovered undeployed.  The only one to deploy appears to have been under the starboard pilot station (co-pilot position?).  The right forward floatation bag can be seen in a TSB photo of some of the wreckage released earlier this week.
  • The timeline is very similar to the one previously posted here. The MAYDAY call came at approximately 5500 ASL which is at about 0817 hours Eastern Daylight Time in the flightaware.com tracklog.
  • The aircraft experienced an unexplained loss of power while at 800 ASL.  This resulted in a lack of flight data from the aircraft’s onboard recorders.  The last two to three minutes of the flight have been reconstructed using other data, including  onshore radar records.
  • The pilot did indicate his intention to ditch from 800 ASL.
  • Force on the aircraft at impact is estimated at 20g.

More to follow.

-srbp-

24 March 2009

TSB releases S-92 photos

The Transportation Safety Board today released four pictures of the S-92 wreckage.

Transportation Safety Board s-92 Ph4

The photo at left depicts the upper deck of the fuselage.  TSB describes this as being from the right side of the aircraft.

The engine exhaust port can be seen just above the centre of the yellow bar of the storage basket. 

The two long bands that meet in a “v” shape appear to be two of the helicopters four blades.

The portion underneath what appears to be an orange tarpauline (obscuring the aircraft registration number)  at the lower right of the picture appears to be part of the lower right fuselage, turned upside down and backwards.  The opening facing the camera would be part of the lower front window.

The orange tarp may actually be one of the aircraft’s flotation bladders.  One is located under each side of the cockpit area.

-srbp- 

Sikorsky starts fix on gearbox problem

Via David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen;

STRATFORD, Conn., March 23, 2009 – Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. announced today that the majority of the worldwide S-92 helicopter fleet already has complied with the company’s notice to retrofit the aircraft’s gearbox oil bowl with steel mounting studs. The company expects to have close to 100 percent compliance by the end of this week. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp.

The company contacted all S-92 helicopter operators on March 20 after broken titanium studs were found during a helicopter crash investigation in Canada. The investigation is continuing, and no determination has been made that the broken studs contributed to the accident or if they resulted from it.  Sikorsky immediately notified the operators as a safety precaution, and the Federal Aviation Administration is expected to issue an Airworthiness Directive instructing the retrofit.

-srbp-

22 March 2009

Brit SAR S-92s grounded for repair

Britain’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency grounded four S-92s over the weekend used for search and rescue in order to replace bolts in the main gearbox filter housing, according to cnn.com.

The MCGA currently operates four S-92s under contract from Canadian Helicopters (CHC).

 

-srbp-

20 March 2009

S-92 crash investigation finds broken stud in gearbox assembly

The Transportation Safety Board team investigating the crash of a Sikorsky S-92 found a broken titanium bolt in the aircraft’s main gearbox filter bowl assembly.  (link includes picture of filter assembly)

The broken bolt would reportedly cause oil to leak from the gearbox.

In January 2009, Sikorsky alerted all operators of S-92s to the need to replace the titanium bolts with steel ones within 12 months or 1250 flying hours, whichever came first.

The crashed S-92 had not undergone that bolt replacement.

The United States Federal Aviation Administration is expected to issue an emergency airworthiness directive for the type, effectively grounding all S-92s worldwide until the the titanium bolts are replaced with steel ones.

Just a second, there update:  A spokesperson for the FAA said the agency hasn’t decided when, how and what type of directive it may issue. The bolt may have broken during the crash or during the recovery operation.

-srbp-

No safety issue with helicopter transport suits: offshore regulator

The text of a news release issued today by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board:

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) says it does not believe there is a safety issue with the suits currently in use for transporting offshore workers. There have been issues around comfort and convenience, but no safety issues have been identified. If a safety issue arises, it will be assessed and appropriate action taken.

The Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) introduced the current Standard for these suits in 1999, replacing a previous Standard issued in 1989. The suits currently used in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area are certified by Transport Canada as being in compliance with this Standard.

The CGSB has in place a committee to provide advice and input into this Standard. The C-NLOPB is represented on this committee, along with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NSOPB), the National Energy Board (NEB), the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Marine Institute, the oil and gas industry, the fishing industry and suit supplier representatives. In all, there are 28 members on the CGSB committee. Several of the committee members have identified concerns with the technical content of the current Standard, but importantly, no safety issues have been identified with the suits.

Committee members are currently in the process of developing a project agreement with the CGSB for the revision of the Standard during the 2009-10 fiscal year. The C-NLOPB has had discussions with both governments and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) on this issue. Consequently, we all agreed to contribute financially to the cost of developing a revised Standard, which would seek to address any concerns in the current Standard, and are in the process of conveying this message to the CGSB.

In response to the current helicopter tragedy, we have asked the Transportation Safety Board, the RCMP and the Medical Examiner’s office to advise us if their investigations reveal any evidence that the suits worn by the helicopter passengers, in any way, contributed to the injuries or fatalities that occurred as a result of the accident.

In addition, the C-NLOPB has asked CAPP to provide us with a list of any issues their offshore workers have raised concerning the current suits, and details on actions taken to address any such issues.

The C-NLOPB, the Provincial Government, the Federal Government, other regulatory agencies and the industry are committed to working with the Canadian General Standards Board to remedy any concerns with the Standard. For more information about the Standard, contact the CGSB or Transport Canada.

Looks like everything in yesterday’s provincial government scrum was already well underway. 

Of course, the provincial government would have known that before calling reporters together. After all, it’s not like the provincial government isn’t directly involved in these issues. Makes you wonder why the Premier volunteered not one but twice that they weren’t.

-srbp-

“We don’t have a regulatory role”

The provincial government has no regulatory role in the offshore?

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The provincial government has no other role in the crash of a helicopter travelling to the White Rose oil field?

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Conflict of interest is just the start of it.

Oil company update:  When the de facto head of the provincial government’s oil company calls for a review of offshore survival suits, the guy who speaks for the association of oil companies operating in the province agrees that it’s a good idea.

Already underway update:  Turns out that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers was already working with the federal standards agency on the review of survival suit regulations. In an interview with CBC Radio on Friday, CAPP spokesperson Paul Barnes said they’d expressed their support for the review when they got a letter from the standards agency on February 24.

Now that news make you wonder why the Premier would call for a review that was already underway.

And why would he leave the impression there were concerns when the review appears to have been started as part of the regular review and update process?

Did anyone think to ask those questions yesterday?  Like when the Premier said that someone made him aware of the issue.

Who made you aware? seemed like a fairly obvious, logical sensible question.

 

-srbp-

19 March 2009

S-92 nosed in

Lead Transportation Safety Board investigator Mike Cunningham told news media today that a preliminary review of evidence collected of the Cougar S-92 crash suggests the aircraft experienced a major problem at about 800 feet above sea level.

"There was something that happened very suddenly and abruptly after the aircraft got down to 800 feet and levelled out," Cunningham said. "After that the helicopter went into the water and it was a fairly significant rate of descent, which resulted in a pretty bad impact with the water. That's why we have the extent of damage to the wreckage that we have."

This is generally consistent with information available to date, including a log of indicated air speed and altitude for the flight.

Cunningham is quoted in other news media (link above to CBC) as saying it appears the aircraft struck the water nose first.  This is based on an assessment of the damage to the recovered portions of the aircraft.  The cockpit portion is reportedly heavily damaged. There is also a suggestion from some of the comments that while the main portion of the fuselage is in one piece, it is damaged considerably as well.  This may have hindered the passengers from escaping. 

These comments today – which are based on a preliminary examination of evidence – suggest strongly that the aircraft inverted immediately on or very quickly after impact.  This would explain a number of details including the apparent absence of signals from personal electronic locator beacons worn by each of the 18 souls on the aircraft. The locators do not work underwater.

In an initial news conference (either the first or second) the search and rescue spokesperson reported that aircraft on the scene had reported beacons from the aircraft itself (it is equipped with three) and from the two bodies of two people observed in the water by the first aircraft on the scene.

Both were recovered by the first search and rescue helicopter on the scene.  The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board mandates that offshore operators (oil companies) keep one helicopter within 30 minutes of St. John’s to provide search and rescue coverage.  Contrary to some media reports, this meets the recommendation of the Ocean Ranger Royal commission.

The cost of the helicopter operations  - including the search and rescue service provided to meet the Ocean Ranger commission recommendations - is borne entirely by the oil companies operating offshore, including the provincial government’s oil company which has an interest in White Rose and which will have an interest in Hebron, once it is built.  Canadian Press reported last week that the operators have tried to shift the search and rescue cost entirely to the federal government.

Misinformation on both safety and search and rescue issues has fuelled a frenzy of media speculation and political opportunism (two links) since the crash last week.

This misinformation persists despite information from many sources, including some apparently knowledgeable comments on CBC’s website that the current issue immersion suit was developed and improved in part from testing offshore Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

-srbp-

Helicopter recovered, move to hangar for investigation

675A0062(2)The Transportation Safety Board investigation has recovered CHI91 from the ocean floor. 

The Telegram front page on Thursday included additional photographs of the Atlantic Osprey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

675A0083The team moved the large case contained the parts through St. John’s last night from the coast guard’s port facilities to a  hangar at St. John’s airport.

They moved the crate late at night (after midnight) to avoid heavy traffic.

17 March 2009

Canadian Press fact check, please

 Canadian Press should know that 103 Search and Rescue Squadron in Gander has three – not two – CH-149 Cormorant helicopters.

It’s on the squadron website.

-srbp-

S-92 track log

From flightaware.com, the track log for CHI91.

Times shown are Eastern Daylight Savings time.  To convert to local (Newfoundland and Labrador) time add one hour thirty minutes.

This data, which appears to come from Gander air traffic control centre,  must be taken as preliminary and may be inaccurate.  The Transportation Safety Board investigation will use data from several sources, including the onboard flight data recorders, to develop a complete and accurate picture of the flight.

-srbp-

TSB S-92 summary: the media briefings thus far

Since taking over the Cougar S-92 crash, the Transportation Safety Board has been providing more details on the incident through regular media briefings.

Over the weekend, TSB officials described some of the debris recovered initially. It included:

  • a sponson (one of the large structures on the side of the aircraft)
  • the rear cargo door
  • an interior bulkhead (likely the bulkhead separating the passenger compartment from the rear cargo area)
  • one of the emergency escape doors
  • both parts of a forward access door.  The top section latch was in the open position was in the open position;  the bottom half was latched.

The fuselage is sitting on the bottom in approximately 178 metres of water.  The tail boom has separated from the fuselage but remains near the main part of the aircraft. The fuselage is resting on one side.

gandmimagewronghelo As of Tuesday 17 Mar 09, all bodies had been recovered from the aircraft. The recovery process is indicated in the image, at left from the Globe and Mail.  The image uses a drawing of the wrong helicopter type.  It is labelled S-92 but the aircraft pictured is a PUMA.

The aircraft appears to have suffered a hard impact, significantly harder than first assumed. As a TSB official described it:

"It's been broken up somewhat," he said.

"It's cracked up quite a bit. The cockpit area in particular has been quite damaged."

However, he noted, the helicopter's cabin structure, from where the bodies are being recovered, is "somewhat together."

Unedited video of the TSB news conferences are available at cbc.ca/nl.

-srbp-

Final seven recovered

The remains of all sixteen of the missing from Cougar 91 have been recovered and returned to St. John’s.

Only one person on board the flight survived.  He remains in hospital but is reportedly making a steady recovery.

-srbp-

16 March 2009

Do they have anything of value to contribute?

Please. Someone. Explain this:

[St. John.s city councillor Tom] Hann admitted he didn’t know enough about search and rescue to say whether or not a faster response would have made a difference to the outcome of last week’s crash.

“I can’t answer that question,” he said. “That’s an issue for the experts. But the only issue that I see is that, you know, I think it’s needed. Everybody says it is needed, but nothing has been done.”

The guy says he doesn’t know enough to anything of consequence at all and yet he makes a proposal to do something to deal with a situation about which he admits his own fundamental ignorance.

On top of that, he claims the idea of having a search and rescue unit in St. John’s is an issue best left to “experts” but at the same time, he wants to push this idea because “everybody” says it is needed.

So who are the experts he’s talking about?

Here’s a thought:  maybe Tom can get together with Scott Simms and discuss relocating the search and rescue unit in Scott’s riding to St. John’s.

-srbp-

 

Tom, don’t expect to get a job with Sikorsky sales update:  Just listening to Tom Hann on a night-time talk show doing an excellent job of demonstrating what he doesn’t know.  Tom is familiar with these subjects since  - as Tom put it  - “I’ve flown the Cormorant.”  Flown one or flown in one? 

Anyway.

Newsflash, Tom -  Both the Cormorant (EH-101) and the S-92 are built to fly search and rescue as well as transport and other missions. Next time you get a chance to talk to anyone federally you might ask about the new navy helicopter, the Cyclone, which is…wait for it…the S-92 in another guise.  When it comes in service, it will be providing SAR back-up for the Cormorants.

Makes you wonder where Tom stood on the cancellation of the EH-101s in 1993?  It’s a bit like listening to Scott Simms asking where the Cormorant back-up was while the entire squadron from Gander conducted a squadron full deployment exercise last week. 

The back up was provided by Cougar. Here’s some video of a Cougar SAR training mission. You’ll find a few other vids of this from different angles.

Once this is all over, Rick Burt and the people at Cougar need to take Tom and his friends up for a spin and introduce them to the superlative staff flying SAR missions for the company.

15 March 2009

When tragedy becomes abuse

Not surprisingly, an e-mail showed up on Thursday ranting about what the writer – a former journalist – called “asshole questions.”

It wasn’t surprising because more than a few people have been appalled since Thursday last week at an entire line of innuendo drawn by one reporter at a news conference on the Cougar helicopter crash and then turned into a self-referential pile of garbage that evening on a VOCM call-in show.

Self-referential refers to the arrogant tendency of both the reporter and the call-in show host to talk about how hard this whole tragedy at sea has been for them. They didn’t lose anyone on the ill-fated Cougar helicopter flight nor did they know anyone personally, apparently.  Their grief came from having to cover the story.  The pair led off the Sunday evening edition with the same self-pity bull.

Then they turned to justifying their comments about search and rescue and what they seem to believe was the lack of search and rescue response “on Newfoundland ground.”  That’s the phrase the reporter in question likes to use. He used it, too, in that news conference not to establish the search and rescue response but to focus on the military search and rescue.

All that blather – as well as the call right afterwards from one of their former colleagues at the twice defunct newspaper The Independent - was a clue that the pair have been under some pressure  likely from their colleagues in the local journalist community for a string of not only what the e-mail correspondent aptly described but the commentary that flowed from the questions.

The details of this incident were known on the day of the crash. One of the details known from the outset is that a search and rescue helicopter was available at the time of the crash and responded to the scene.  According to the timeline produced in the Telegram from the rescue co-ordination centre in Halifax, the helicopter arrived on scene 72 minutes after the ditching and recovered the one survivor in the water.

One must wonder on what basis anyone would morph the simple facts as established clearly and unequivocally into some sort of line of inquiry about the CH-149s. 

The only obvious reason to do so would be if there was any indication that this had an impact on events, but that doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny. With the information presented at the third news conference on the day of the crash – the one at which the string of questions on the Cormorants started – it was pretty clear that none but the two bodies (one fatality and one survivor) identified were spotted by the very first aircraft on scene.  That PAL King Air arrived some 25 minutes after impact, more than 40 minutes before the first search and rescue helicopter  - from COUGAR search and rescue (SAR)  - arrived on the scene.

With that established – as it was from the outset - there is no legitimate reason to persist in the blatant misrepresentations that have taken place since Thursday.

Search and rescue aircraft were available immediately at the time of the crash.  The others – Cormorants belonging not to  coast guard but to the Department of National Defence – were on a training exercise. They were pulled off the exercise and despatched to the crash site.  They arrived on the scene 18 minutes after the COUGAR SAR flight. [Corrected:  original stated difference in time as 38 mins.  Cougar on scene 1110 hrs.  Cormorant on scene 1128 hrs local]

This entire thread cannot be blithely dismissed as part of the normal hard work done by responsible journalists.  Responsible journalists did their jobs on Thursday and they have done it since then on this story.  They asked hard questions but they asked relevant questions based on the information readily available. They didn’t get into the Cormorant angle, one suspects, because the unspeakable truth of this incident was evident to them all from the outset.

Responsible journalists didn’t use the questions and answers to create an entirely false impression, as it evidently has, in a group of people who have been misled in their grief.  One of those people, the mayor of a town hit hard by the tragedy, turned up on national radio repeating the false information he had received and trusted.

Even as hideous as all that is, the self-referential pair can’t be held responsible for another despicable crowd who have taken the false information – no search and rescue helicopters in Newfoundland at the time of the crash – and put it to some more demented purpose. Far too many people have taken this false information and turned it  into part of their political agenda. One of those callers turned up just now on the same call-in show spewing his particular brand of venom.  Not once did the host try and sort the fellow out.

People who know how news conferences work know how information can change in an unfolding event such as this one. They can note, for example, how some details change.  In the second newser, some locator beacons were detected initially.  In the third one, it sounds like none at all were detected.  The correct detail will emerge.

That’s not what we are looking at in the case of the thread about SAR response. The details were already clear from the outset.  Some people have misrepresented them, inexplicably and disgustingly.

This sort of misrepresentation amounts to an abuse. 

It tortures the families of the victims of the crash by suggesting a hope which is false. 

This attack – and that’s what it amounts to – tortures the men and women of the search and rescue services.  103 Search and Rescue Squadron flies twice the national average in SAR missions.  Hercules from 413 Squadron join them far out to sea.  They all train hard and fly hard and risk their lives in weather when the rest of us are huddled by a fire safe at home. They do it to save the souls whose lives are at risk in the harsh North Atlantic. When lives are lost, as in this case, they will inevitably search their souls to ensure that all that could be done was done.

This attack abuses the men and women of Cougar. The company has an exemplary safety record.  The company has such a record because every single employee is committed to safe service.  Over 48,000 accident free flying hours don’t happen without such a level of personal commitment. The company’s crews also fly search and rescue services every bit as good and every bit as dangerous as the work done by 103 and its sister squadrons.

These misrepresentations abuse the members of the public who are shocked by the tragedy and who share in the grief of those who have lost loved ones. They are misled into believing things which are not true.

In a time of tragedy, it is hard to imagine more monstrous abuses. The tortures will continue until someone decides to put an end to them. Maybe a wise editorial hand needs to rest on someone’s shoulder.

In the meantime,  all that the rest of us can do is hope that somewhere in the midst of their self-absorption, the perpetrators of the abuse can realize the harm they are doing.

-srbp-

Atlantic Osprey

Background information, including a photograph of the vessel and last reported position, via marinetraffic,com.

The position appears to be current and shows the vessel anchored after circling the crash site.

-srbp-

Partial list of crash victims released

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police released a partial list of names of victims of the Cougar S-92 crash. 

Raw video of the RCMP newser is available from cbc.ca/nl.

Of the 17 victims, 12 names were released.  The other five have not been released at the request of the families. There are available at cbc.ca/nl and at The Telegram website.

-srbp-

14 March 2009

“Hard landing”: Cougar S-92 crash chronology

Adapted from The Telegram:  [BP notes in square brackets.]

Here's a brief timeline of the events of March 12 when Cougar Helicopters flight 91 crashed into the ocean. [The tick tock on this incident was pretty well established by mid-afternoon on the day of the crash, based on official sources.  Initial timings were converted from ZULU to Atlantic time in error but the sequence and other details were known publicly.  Times below are Newfoundland Daylight Savings Time (Universal Time/ZULU less 3.5), presented in 24 hour format.]

0940 local- Mayday call from the Cougar Helicopters flight. [According to the COUGAR website this scheduled flight launched at 0900 with destination given as “SRF-HIB”.  That translates as Seas Rose FPSO and Hibernia.   According to a company spokesperson on Friday, the pilot had indication of “zero oil pressure” in the main rotor gearbox and immediately began a return to base.

MAYDAY is a call indicated an emergency with imminent or immediate threat to the aircraft.  The fact that the pilot declared a MAYDAY reflects the seriousness of the issue and also may reflect the tight safety protocols of the company.  Were the issue of less significance, the pilot would have likely declared PAN PAN PAN which denotes a major issue but not one carrying an imminent or immediate threat.]

0948 local  - Helicopter ditches in the Atlantic 55 kilometres east of St. John's. [Position given in the CAPORS report filed the day of the crash shows it as approximately that distance from St. John’s.]

1000 local - Transportation Safety Board notified.

1012 local - Provincial Airlines ice patrol plane arrived and saw the helicopter inverted in the water. [This is a significant point to bear in mind for all subsequent discussion. The PAL aircraft  - directed to the scene as part of the SAR effort – arrived within 25 mins of ditching and reported one or two life rafts deployed, two survival suits in the water and an inverted aircraft.  Local weather has been reported as winds 20 knots with two to three metre seas.

Globe and Mail: “Of the two [people] in the water, one was observed face down. They saw no sign of flares or smoke or anyone waving from the life rafts,” he [PAL chairman Thomas Collingwood] said. “What we've learned from our crew is that they definitely had a hard landing.”

This suggests very strongly that contrary to initial rumour, the aircraft did not remain upright in the water for very long if at all.  The NTSB investigation including an analysis of flight data recorders will give a much more accurate picture, however, the initial details reported by credible observers seems clear in its implications. This also bears on questions that have been raised about the personal location transponders which reportedly did not activate.]

1034 local - Canadian Forces C-130 Hercules airplane arrived at the scene. [ From 413 Transport and Rescue Squadron, 14 Wing Greenwood Nova Scotia.]

1110 local - Cougar 61 arrived on scene, and shortly after hoisted survivor Robert Decker out of the water. Cougar flight 91 was no longer in sight. [COUGAR provides search and rescue (SAR) services.  According to official comment reported in local media, COUGAR was already tasked to provide back-up to 103 Squadron Gander while the squadron conducted training exercises near Sydney, Nova Scotia.  Even if 103 had been in Gander on 12 Mar 09, its aircraft would have been 30 mins flying time to St. John’s plus the time from St. John’s to the crash location.  COUGAR SAR was closest and arrived on scene 72 mins after ditching, if this timeline is correct.]

1128 local - The first Cormorant [CH-149] rescue helicopter arrived at the crash scene.

[Telegram] Source: Joint Rescue Co-ordination Centre

-srbp-