Talk:2017 Irish Coast Guard Rescue 116 crash

Military history/political scandal cats

Hi Guliolopez. For the reason I put in those two categories, first here's a quick bit of historical background:

Air Sea Rescue was originally an Air Corps competency until it was controversially transferred to a new civilian agency (IMES) in the early 1990s and then even more controversially immediately outsourced to Celtic Helicopters, owned by Ciaran Haughey, a son of the then Taoiseach Charles Haughey (years later it would turn out he had also a direct stake in the company). Despite numerous changes in government, starting with the fall of Haughey senior from power in early 1992, Celtic Helicopters was able to hold on to the very profitable concession for the rest of the 1990s and well into the 2000s. This despite various service shortfalls & cost overruns over the years (which were of course more often than not covered out of the Air Corps eternally overstretched resources).

Adding to the mess was the early 2000s fiasco with the Air Corps attempt to buy some helicopters for the SAR (back up, including top cover, for the Coast Guard) & general utility roles. The Air Corps wanted to buy the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk on which the U.S. Government had offered good terms via a government to government sale. Unfortunately, and somewhat ironically, Sikorsky desperately wanted launch customers for it's then new S-92. It lobbied and convinced the then Minster for Defence Micheal Smith that a deal for the S-92 complete with major offsets would be politically very beneficial for the government. He in turn convinced the Taoiseach (Bertie Ahern, a even more dubious character than Haughey if that was possible) & the rest of the cabinet that a S-92 deal would be a win-win situation (for the government at least, the needs of the Air Corps and the State didn't enter much into their calculations if at all). So, despite horrified opposition from the Air Corps, the Defence Forces in general and his own department, including adverse legal advice, Smith announced in January of 2002 that the Air Corps would be getting three S-92s for the SAR role with an option for two more for the utility role. However Smith and company didn't count on Eurocopter and the French government interfering with their plans. Eurocopter had also been in the running for the contract with it's AS532 Cougar. Realising immediately that the contract award was a stitch up, Eurocopter threated legal action against the state over it. Here the legal advice that Smith had so blithely ignored came back to haunt him and the government. To put it simply, if the case ever got to court the government didn't have a leg to stand on. What was even worse was that the French government quickly threw it's considerable weight behind Eurocopter, among other things openly condemning Ireland, an EU member for buying non-EU equipment when an EU alternative was readily available. The legal and political fallout got so bad that in 2002 the contract was cancelled outright under the guise of 'cutbacks'. Needless to say the cancellation fees to Sikorsky alone were stiff.

In 2010, after much ongoing scandal, the coast guard helicopter contract was given to CHC Helicopter by the then coalition government (Celtic Helicopters would eventually be liquidated in late 2012). Unfortunately this was not without controversy either, to put it mildly. Not only did CHC have a pre-existing relationship with Celtic Helicopters & Ciaran Haughey, but also CHC is apparently connected with at least one, ahem!, patron of the then and current Taoiseach Enda Kenny (who incidentally is also concurrently serving as Minister of Defence among other things). Not to mention that not only had been severe 'irregularities' in the bidding process but the new contract was/is even more costly to the taxpayer than the one with Celtic Helicopters had been. Also, rightly or wrongly, CHC quickly gained something of a reputation for being only slightly less prone to cut corners in the pursuit of profit than Celtic Helicopters had been. Despite this in 2012, the existing contract was increased and extended to 2022, in effect doubling CHC's existing contract. The 5 (second hand, commercial standard) S-92s were introduced in this year, as per the original 2010 contract (originally it was planned to buy one new example and four secondhand examples).

Another direct historical connection with the Air Corps is that when the Air Sea Rescue service was transferred what was then IMES, a number of Air Corps personnel transferred or were seconded to the new agency in order to provide continuity, including I believe Captain Dara Fitzpatrick and her equally unfortunate colleague, Winchman Ciaran Smith.

So as you can see, even the historical background to this event seemed to support my applying the 'Military history of Ireland' and 'Political scandals in the Republic of Ireland' categories to the article.

Which brings us up to the present day. Both the Air Corps involvement in the incident, which amounted to it's absence from the area of operations due to shortages of personnel and equipment without which Rescue 116 would have not been even flying on that mission at all, and the gathering political fallout relating to that and the fact that the Air Corps and the rest of the Defence Forces and in particular the Naval Service were unable to rapidly respond to the accident, again due to a dire lack of resources, appears to me to be plenty of reason on it's own in applying the above two categories, even without the complicated historical background. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I am familiar with the history of the IRCG. And the background to the contract. Not least having contributed to the Irish Coast Guard article over the last decade or so - including on the nature of the contract.[1] However, and while the accident report, recommendations and outcomes could perhaps eventually include reference to contributing factors, it constitutes original research (or at the very least your own synthesis and interpretation) to draw connections at this stage. Categories should reflect the content of the article. Where article content is supported by reference to reliable sources. No reliable source (for obvious reasons) has second-guessed the outcome of the investigation. Or used the term "political scandal". Or similar. I would strongly couch against presupposing the outcomes of the AAIU's investigations - and presupposing conspiracy, scandal, or "fault" at this stage. Both for your own well-being. And that of this project's norms. Guliolopez (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I wasn't planning on putting most if any of the historical background I outlined above directly into the article for the moment. I was just trying to show why I thought those two categories were suitable for the article in the first place. I understand though your concern about adding the 'Political scandal' cat in before events have had a chance to unfold further. However, given the direct involvement of the Air Corps & the rest of the Defence Forces in the incident and it's aftermath (i.e. initial SAR and then Search & Recovery operations), would it be ok with you for me to restore the 'Military history of Ireland' category to the article? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note and understanding (on not adding the article to a "political scandal" category - when the article body doesn't refer to a political scandal). In a similar vein, hopefully it will be clear why an article would ideally not be added to a "historical events" category - when the article doesn't refer to a "historical" (past tense) event. But a very much ongoing/present-tense/still-unfolding subject. Guliolopez (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll hold off with that cat for the moment. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Article on Blackrock Island (Mayo)

For anyone who is interested I have created an article in draft on Blackrock Island (Mayo) at Draft:Blackrock Island (Mayo). Contributions welcome, especially those not related to this unfortunate crash.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This article has been accepted and moved from draft and I have linked this article to it at the appropriate place.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

removed entry for On 3 April

The following revision was undone.

On 3 April, the sister of winch man Ciáran Smith said of the latest developments "we need those boys home now". The search operation continues, with the assistance of local fishermen.

Reasons: 1) No citation. Despite indicate citations are required. Some missing citations from users not logging in have been added. 2) It doesn't read correctly to me. The current state of the search is worthy of an entry but I don't think this is it

I'm happy if someone neutral determines or even original poster chooses to re-instates.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The relevant citation is likely to be : https://www.rte.ie/news/connacht/2017/0403/864884-coast-guard-helicopter-rescue-116/ This has been updated at times, even within one hour of this post.

I think we should be saying that the "Fishing community banding together to supplement the official search ...." (I am not putthing this well). There is definitely a notable community search and resource input. I am unsure of the best way to put this. It may also be prudent to wait a few hours until the situation stabises.

These are my thoughts but I respect others.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think a key element is it is felt the local knowledge of seafarers may be useful in determining likey drifts (from this and some earlier cited and uncited references) which is while support from other localaties is being sought.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest an entry like below would be better. Places more emphasis on Coastguard search, less on the we need those boys home now (I've actually omitted this ... but I wont personally object to it's inclusion) ... and more on the reasoning for appealing to local fisherman.

On 3 April. The Irish Coastguard indicated to the families of the missing crewmen not to give up hope as they would continue searching for the missing crewmen. The families of the missing crewman also appealed for fishermen in the areas where wreckage had been found to join in the search in a co-ordinated way as their local knowledge would be invaluable.

Notes: As a little background to the reasoning behind the local fisherman request it seems they *may* have directed to official search more quickly to a possible main wreckage site with their local knowledge:

• thanks to local fishermen from military
• RTE PRime Time 23/03/2017: (23/07/2017) at circa 2:50 indicates how local knowledge may have been useful in locating main wreckage. { This is only available a few more days }

Please feel free to improve adapt use or not use these suggestions. I may publish the above or similar after a few hours if no contrary comments here and no obvious developments and if no one has chosen to publish first ((including publisher of removed content)).

I also haven't manage to capture the support and cooperation from the local community and seafarers to the coastguard.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Have now introduced content based upon what said would do above as no indication/talk to do otherwise. Feel free to correct/improve or discuss as appropriate.

Can I gently request people adding content to this article add suitable citations.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of 773816541

I view this as insensitive vandalism. As IP unregistered used with no assocate talk, citations or reasoning I've backed it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

11:01, 6 April 2017‎ Removal of reference churnalistic misreporting.

I am minded it be may this edit may be reverted, improved or conflicting removed.

• We likely should be improving a reference NOT removing it. WP:RSBREAKING goes with the replacements of sources.
• The specific example of misreporting has not been discussed on the talk page.
• There has been some changes to wording ... I am not now sure these are more or less accurate than what was before.
• A key point is the use of 11:34 in terms of last communication vs 11:45. The former may indeed be reasonable (or it could be a typo).

Note: It is likely a preliminary report by Irish AAIU in the next 10 days will provide a Primary for this.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

While I am 75% sure the 12:34am time of the communication is likely accurate unfortunately I have not located a reference for this. There is also a claim The failure to arrive at Blacksod rather that missing of radar may have initiated the emergency declaration, the wording is adjusted to allow for this. I have 'softened' the event to hopefully remove disputable and unverified sources to a point which is adequate until publication of the AAUI preliminary report which may yield better primary and secondary references. I have restored the removed reference as at least it is mentioning the sources it used and seems in general OK. I do however welcome replacement with better sources and specifics of what was misreported, put effort on the article is probably better directed to waiting for the AAUI report.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Considerations to request semi-protection on this article

A significant (but not all) proportion of content changes to this article made to this article by unregistered users have failed to back up with use of the talk page or citations, and have ignored their own talk pages. ie disruptive editing. And have left work to be done in their wake. A temporary 2 week ban until the AAUI initial report is published and stablished may be useful. .. edit semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

AAIU Preliminary Report 13 April 2017

The AAIU Preliminary Report [[2]] has been published on 13/14 April 2017.

In my opinion

• this is a significant WP:PRIMARY source and best practice will require WP:SECONDARY for WP:ANALYSIS.
• WP:SECONDARY will obviously occur and good analysis may take time editors need to be aware of WP:RSBREAKING considerations. A Thought. Editors may do well to compare WP:SECONDARY for accuracy against WP:PRIMARY

Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added the link to AAIU preliminary report as an external link. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:83.54.241.150 edit(s) undone

Undone at least one edit as felt edit not longer matched the associated citation in terms of Naval divers. 83.54.241.150's version may well be correct but it's not clear to me where information is coming from due to lack of information in edit summaries. The edit also left the article strangely format. Left note on user talk page. User talk:83.54.241.150. Will look at earlier edit and may undo or fix link ROV to to its wiki page it citation matches.

Accept totally Marine Institute Ireland/ROV & Staff may not be totally accredited and other content also may need up for review. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Believe The initial edit from 83.54.241.150 should likely stand but with \[\[Remotely operated underwater vehicle|ROV\]\] Holland I or \[\[Remotely operated underwater vehicle\]\] (ROV) Holland I replacing Holland One ROV. Not make change initially in case need to redo initial edit.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Similar Marine Institute edits made by 213.233.147.144. Added content not matching citations. I've chose ti Wiki-Link the Acronyms and add citations on this occasion. .... but I couldn't see a specific case of it being a fishing vessel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The page has just been left a mess by another shared IP edit. If I revert it I might be under WP:EW so need to leave this to someone else. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been sorted by someone. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Development

It may be the article requires a restructure at some point, a key milestone being the preliminary report which likely deserves its own section. As bodies of the missing have not been recovered and the have likely not been declared legally dead discretion and sensitivity is best applied in article wording as families may still be without closure.

The co-ordinated sweep in response to the families appeal (and a subsequent diver only by 179 divers not yet mentioned) again is probably set to its own section, and might at some point be a candidate for an article/story in it's own right. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Increasing fatalities to 4

Believe this is now 'reasonable' as memorial services were held (while I have no information as to missing crew members being legally dead Declared death in absentia#Ireland I believe a memorial service or a AAUI acknowledgement be examples of reasonable authorativeness. NB: The AAIU note of 10/04/2017 might just be sufficient.

WP:BLP applies to recently deceased so really important updates are right. I've just undone 795218591 for failing to discuss/cite, and also because missing was not updated to zero at the same time which seems appropriate for consistency.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the missing to fatalities but gave reasoning on edit summaries as memorial services have been held.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Paramedics (TV show)

Rescue 116 responded to an accident in early 2017 (the year of the crash) within a field which can be seen in Series 3 Episode 1 of the TV show "Paramedics". It can be seen at the 19:06 mark on https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/764/141112/0/Paramedics . The helicopter was unable to land due to electrical cables and livestock in the way, which would have made it unsafe to land.

You can see the actual Rescue 116 helicopter itself there, but sadly since it's on a TV show a screenshot can't be uploaded due to Wikipedia Commons licensing rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• In the context of WP:UNDUE especially within the context of the ongoing investigations, and in the context that removal of the memorial services from this article were seen as not significant, and with total respect of this tribute and the many others given, and perhaps also with the concern of tribute section expanding considerably, can I respectfully suggest the recently introduced Tribute section is removed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Article on Rescue 111 crash (1999)

I've created a draft article for the only other Irish Coast Guard fatal aviation accident: Rescue 111 in Tramore eighteen years earlier: Draft:1999 Irish Marine Emergency Service Rescue 111 crash. If any of the contributors here would like to help over there it would be greatly appreciated. Shayno (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://aaiu.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Final-Report.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)