Blade strike GOM (incl pics)

[CYHeli]

I was sent these photos recently and the story goes of a B206 and B407 that met on a deck while one had blades turning...
I don't know the truth of the story or of how long ago it happened (or didn't).
Can anyone fill in the gaps?

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z275/colundy/Aviation/206X407_5.jpg

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z275/colundy/Aviation/206X407_4.jpg

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z275/colundy/Aviation/206X407_3.jpg

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z275/colundy/Aviation/206X407_2.jpg

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z275/colundy/Aviation/206X407_1.jpg

Debris.

[international hog driver]

Ohhh that’s going to be expensive :{

[Teefor Gage]

I understand it happened less than a week ago. 206 on deck with blades tied down, 407 came in to land alongside and ..... hey presto! Luckily for the 407 it managed to complete its landing with little more than mashed up blades and dented pride......
2 heli's on a 40 foot deck doesn't leave a lot of room........ mind you, those newly shortened blades on the 407 should make it a bit easier next time.....:}

[TFour]

It worries me that people with such poor judgement and rotten situational awareness fly in the same skies that I do, what a bumnut!!!!!!

[gulliBell]

Don't suppose he'll be doing that again...

And for the 407, it will be more than a new set of blades as that's a sudden stoppage. I suppose the 206L will just need a new blade, mast, grip, straps, exhaust stack and some cosmetic work on the cowlings. Like someone above said, expensive.

Let's see the pics of them being lifted off the deck and put on a barge.

[Devil 49]

Been a while, but the deck markings indicate a 40' landing surface, yes? Does this refer to the longest side?
The images make the deck look a lot smaller than 40'.
Wonder what made the pilot lose his disk edge, the difference between the usual 10' clearance and a strike is considerable.
I've put many a small ship on a 40' deck with somebody else already there. I've aborted a bunch, to.

[Mars]

Why just blame the pilot?


The ICAO Standard for helidecks is 1D - according to an FAA AC:The D of the Bell 407 is 41.8ft;

The width of the Bell L3 skids are 7.7ft.

The proposed new Standard for (small) helidecks is 1RDThe RD of the Bell 407 is 35ftEven with this proposed new Standard the obstacle free area will still have to be 1D

Who was dumb enough to program him to go there?

Who is to blame? In order: the regulator; the operator; the oil company; and finally the pilot.

What happened to the proposal to introduce Safety Management Systems!

Mars

[SASless]

Mars,

Please refrain from using logic, reason, and facts when posting here! It only confuses the argument.

The GOM is in the land of Nod when it comes to safety.....so long as the Company Man gets his daily newspaper then everything is good to go.

[jetflite]

Looking at the 2nd pic...looks like to 407 had a bit of room to spare on the left (port) side.. why not use that up ?:confused:

[traumajunkie]

Can't claim to have ever been near anything that flash, and I don't know at what point in the landing the strike occurred, but given the rather sudden reduction in disc area & RPM, I'm a bit impressed the 407's right-side up and on the deck at all :ooh:.

[BlenderPilot]

I heard from inside sources that the 206's blade was untied and it rotated into the 407's rotor disk as it landed, sounds very possible to me. I know a lot of people have said the blade is tied, but if it had been before, don't you assume the impact that cut the blade off would have at least ripped the tie downs????!!!!!!

BTW that plattform looks really crummy!! Reminds me of the movie Waterworld, but it is tipical of the nickel and dime offshore ops that that helicopter company supports.

[Gomer Pylot]

The markings indicate that the deck is square. If it weren't, the markings should be 12/40x30, or whatever the other edge is. Looks like a former Shell platform, sold who knows how many times since the original owner got rid of it. Small companies are now sucking whatever they can get out of the formation, and not spending a dollar they don't have to, on anything. Paint is expensive, don't you know.

[gwelo shamwari]

Not a surprise considering the company involved.

Its safety record and operating practices have long been know to be the worst in the biz.

Just terrified that I am flying around in the same sky as them.

TGZ

[NickLappos]

I have seen the commonly used hook tie-downs come off as the blade bounces in wind or down wash. Then the blade could swing unimpeeded.

Saw that happen once at Houston as I hovered an S-76 into a pad, I stopped short and watched the blade swing into my path. A real wake-up call.

[Tailspin Tommy]

1. Helideck 40 foot wide.
2. 206L parked as close to the edge as possible to permit another aircraft to land. Nice job, but bad policy. One helicopter per helipad will stop rotorblade interface such as in this case.
3. 407 with 35 foot rotor diameter attempts to slide in next to the 206L, best guess 1 to 1.5 foot margin between 407 rotor tip and 206 mast.

Accident cause easy to determine. Excuse me, but the FAA has adopted a feckless approach to the issues and will not call this an accident! Only an incident, right guys?

Contributing factors? Too many to talk about:

Corporate safety policy of AOC - I'll be polite; lacking.
Corporate oversight of daily operations - missing
Pressure or approval by customer to land 2 aircraft in the same space - priceless!
FAA allowing this company to continnue operating without demanding changes in operating practices, (The rest of you don't have room to snicker.. you've done or are still pulling the sames stunts)
American Petroleum Institute acceptance of this practice as well as their lack of safe practices which permit non complaint helidecks to an international standard (ICAO Anx 14, Vol 2), not to mention basic common-sense recommendations such as painting a helidck and keeping the deck clear of equipment (other helicopters, tool boxes, sunbathers, etc). Oh yeah, I forgot, you said it was going to cost over $2 BN to upgrade all the decks. !) Bull... 2) The sheep are jumping off the cliff, as you save a coulpe of dollars for your membership.
Small, wildcat companies that operate on dime, can spell safety, but have to look up the word.
The rest of you fill in the rest of the list.The GOM needs to catch up with the rest of the world when it comes to helicopter operations and safe practices. At the very least adopt OGP standards.

The same causes of accidents have been happening for over 45 years in the Gulf. We are conditioning new pilots to accept the existing standards (as they are), which will perpetuate the same attitudes that will continue to rack up more accidents..oops. Sorry "ïncidents". Ya gotta kill people to be an accident, don't you.

[GoodGrief]

I stand to be corrected, but
A 206 is 7,8 feet wide at the skids, so if parked to the very right it will reach (round up) 8 feet into the pad.
Tie blades.
A 407 is (round) 9 feet wide on the skids.
The mast sits in the middle of those 9 feet-> 4,5.
The blade is 17,5 feet long.
So if parked to the very left the blade will reach 22 feet into the pad.
Add 8 for the 206 and you have used 30 feet of space, so there should be 10 feet or 3 meters of space between the two aircraft.
Well, if you don't tie the 206 down and allow 18,5 feet of blade to reach into the pad you will fall 4,3 feet short.:uhoh:

[Gomer Pylot]

On a 40 foot deck, there is plenty of room to land a 407 (shorter blades than a 206) beside a 206 with the blades tied down, parked with the skids 3' from the edge of the deck. I've done it thousands of times in a 206, and never came close to the other aircraft. If you can't control the aircraft well enough to keep it from hitting another on that deck, you shouldn't be flying helicopters in the GOM. It's done every day, and it's not unsafe if the pilots have average competence. If you can't hold a 206 or a 407 within 3 feet of a spot, you simply don't have the skills necessary for a commercial pilot. Hiring low-time pilots with zero offshore experience, and no experience at all other than CFI time in the traffic pattern, will lead to things like this, though. There are good reasons flight training in the US is much cheaper than anywhere else, and the main one is that the training is done by CFIs with no other experience, and less than 500 hours total time. They work as a CFI until they get enough time to get a real job, where they finally learn to fly, or don't. The system has a long history, and won't change any time soon.

One thing you need to learn very quickly is that the blades on the 206 have to be securely tied, and you have to keep an eye on it as you land. If the blades come loose, you're screwed. You have to trust the other pilot to do a competent job of tying the blades.

[inthegreen]

...but perhaps in addition to tying down the main rotor, have a secondary strap securing the tail rotor to the vertical stab. Not only will it save the T/R trunnion from damage, it will keep the main rotor from rotating should the tie downs come loose.
The obvious preferred solution is having the pad to oneself, however.

Looking at the photos again, it is truly amazing the 407 was able to land upright.

[Mars]

Gomer Pylot:

Your response cannot go uncommented because it epitomises the problem that exists in the GOM. The discussion on this thread exists not because of speculation about what could happen with non-compliant helidecks, but in the light of two recent accidents that have already occurred.

If the irony is taken out of Tailspin Charlie's post, it can be seen that it contains those changes which may be required to reduce the present high level of accidents in the GOM. The one element that was not specifically mentioned (but was implicit) was the issue of culture - e.g. that Goodgrief's and Gomer's posts are concerned with arithmetic and skill rather than a change of attitude towards safety.

If, as Gomer implies, the level of experience in the GOM is likely to fall, then it becomes more important that the tolerances, inherent in international standard compliant decks and procedures, are applied.

TT briefly introduces cost of compliance; although this deck was not compliant (40ft deck 42ft D), it was mitigated by a 1D obstacle clear area. With the 206 on the deck, this safety margin was totally eroded. Now compare the cost of that accident with that of not having the 206 on the deck - appears to me to be a no-brainer. (If forgot to mention that in the previous accident - also with a non-compliant deck - the helicopter was a total write-off.)

Mars

[Tailspin Tommy]

Gomer,
You mentioned one of the challenges to risk mitigation in the GOM; low-time pilots with limited or no experience in the oil patch. A good point. A prudent company would recognize that risk and make chanegs to reduce the exposure through policy adjustment. I.e. don't land two helicopters on a deck. I flew in the GOM for over 14 years without problems, can hover as good as the next guy, but not everyone is a good as you and many others. But, just because we can hover on a dime in a 30 knot crosswind while eating a sandwich, doesn't mean we should have to do that.

Old guys like me are retiring and heading for the golf course, being replaced by low-time pilots. Nothing wrong with that. We were all in that position at one time. There needs to be an industry cultural change in how helicopters operate in the GOM, or we will continue to maintain our high level of accidents. The air operators have made a lot of improvements over the last 15 years, but those companies not in the top three in the Gulf operate on a shoe-string in order to compete for the smaller oil company business. A much more difficult exercise in cultural change.

The culture of reducing operational risks is an ongoing process in every facet of any industry, especially aviation. There is a two tier system of safety in the GOM, or two levels of safety practices. HSAC has identified the problems, root causes, and mitigating processes to increase the opportunity for you and the rest to go home alive after a work hitch. But, HSAc can only recommend. API refuses to spend money to improve helidck requirements, and the FAA washes their hands of it all.

These types of accients will continue unless a drastic change in the safety culture of GOM aviation takes place. We've had all the lip service over these many years. It is time to raise the standards to catch up with Europe, Australia, and the former Soviet Union to name a few.

[gulliBell]

Not being a GOMER at all, but having plenty of offshore time elsewhere, I make the following points:

Is it possible to park the 206 in the middle of the deck, and when someone else wants to land, just fly it off whilst the other does its own thing? Wouldn't that be extra revenue time, the repositioning of the aircraft for landing traffic?

Or were both aircraft going to be shutdown at the same time?

Or was the 206 pilot off duty?

I guess if the 407 had landed and shutdown first, there would not be enough room for the 206 to land?

I know on some decks I have operated off that if a 412 has landed first then there is not enough room for a 212 to land, but if the 212 went in first and shutdown then there is plenty of room for a 412. And as many times as I've tied down a 212, occassionaly for whatever reason the next morning I've found the blade come adrift. I would not want to share a deck with a another helicopter, tied down or otherwise, if the rotor disc arcs infringe on each other.

All my offshore time has been with oil companies who own their own helicopters, so the commercial aspects I'm familiar with are probably far different to what they would be in the GOM, where the operators are out to make a dollar. I think this would be an interesting topic; exploring any significant operational differences between oil companies operating their own aircraft and having contractors.

[FH1100 Pilot]

It's all a balance or compromise, Gulli.

The 206 pilot was most assuredly *on* duty; there is no such thing as an off-duty 206 during daylight hours in the GOM. If he was shut down, it was because he was waiting on his customer to finish work downstairs. Presumably (as opposed to assumably) the 407 pilot was just landing for fuel, as that is a fuel-stop platform for that operator.

It is true that the 206 pilot could have parked right in the middle. But without FM radio commo with the platform, the 407 pilot would have had to "buzz" the place to get the 206 pilot's attention, then circle while the 206 cranked up and moved. Yes, the 206's flight time would have most likely been billable, as would be the extra circling time for the 407. But you also have one more cycle on the 206 engine as well as the risk of another take-off and landing.

Buzzing the platform is "iffy" sometimes. If the platform is noisy and everyone is inside the living quarters with the t.v. on, they might not hear the ship that wants to land. I've circled and circled and circled, waiting for the other pilot to trudge upstairs to move. It's no fun when the customers onboard *my* ship have a tight or full schedule that day and don't feel happy about "wasting" time waiting for someone else.

Plus its friggin' hot in the GOM these days, and if I were the 206 pilot, sitting comfortably in the air conditioned quarters below watching the aforementioned t.v., I would personally rather not have to go up and crank if there was an acceptable alternative. And in the GOM, it has always been acceptable to land two helicopters on a single deck if there is sufficient room. (The actual amount of room needed from MR blade tip to obstruction will be specified in the Ops Manual.) After all, we're supposed to be professionals out there, not private pilots. We're not allowed to use that "sudden gust of wind blew the helicopter" excuse for hitting something. ("Sudden gust of wind, eh? Oh, really? I thought that's what we had CYCLIC STICKS for...")

Chevron USA owns their own aircraft and does have a "one-ship-per-heliport" policy. Further, they require that the one-and-only helicopter park right in the center of the deck, ensuring that a dead battery or other non-starting malady will require parts to come out on a boat rather than in another helicopter. Odd, but they think it's safer/better and who are we to argue?

No accident is ever good. Safety considerations aside, this one is bad for other reasons too. The market for LongRanger L-4's and 407's is tight right now. Nobody has any helicopters sitting around idle. RLC is going to have to scramble to replace the ships on those contracts (repairing both is obviously going to take some time) - not to mention looking pretty dumb to their respective customers.

[Gomer Pylot]

The culture in the GOM isn't going to change soon, no matter what those on the other side of the pond may think, or how much they pontificate. The US cares not at all about ICAO or any rules or regulations anyone in Europe or elsewhere may have. The oil companies care about short-term profits, and nothing else. If people die, well, that's what insurance is for, and the cost is easily absorbed, being more than made up for through savings from not actually having safety policies. Actually, there are many safety policies, they are just ignored by field personnel, with the implicit agreement from management. Thus the refinery explosions in BP facilities, chemical releases from plants everywhere (in Texas, all monitoring is done solely by the companies, the state doesn't even bother). You Brits can feel superior all you want, but the British management of the companies doing this are fully complicit in all of it. :ugh: If it doesn't happen in the UK, then who cares?

[Farmer 1]

I would like to say a word on behalf of all the oil companies I've flown for, British and others. Without exception, they all stick absolutely rigidly to each and every safety rule - to the letter.






















Until it becomes inconvenient.

[international hog driver]

Farmer 1....:ok:


Never a truer word spoken on this forum:D

:E

[Brian Abraham]

Farmer 1 - I thought the North Sea would be a "tightly" run operation. The CAA not the watch dog I thought? I know what you say is certainly true for a oil company owned and operated operation here.

[John Eacott]

Anyone remember the Queensland accident many moons ago, involving a B222 and a Long Ranger :rolleyes:

The poor old 222 pilot was quietly having a coffee some distance away from the helipad, when the LongRanger landed and hit the 222 blade, with at least (IIRC) one fatal amongst the LongRanger pax.

It cost the 222 pilot >$40k in legal fees when he was charged (with manslaughter, I think) before the Queensland police withdrew the charges. I believe the pad was regularly used for 2-3 helicopters as a normal operation, on the basis that the blades were secured fore and aft on the machines that had shut down. The 222 pilot was well and truly hung out to dry on the accident :sad:

[Farmer 1]

Farmer 1 - I thought the North Sea would be a "tightly" run operation. The CAA not the watch dog I thought? I know what you say is certainly true for a oil company owned and operated operation here.

Yes, I think you're right, Brian, at least in principle. What tends to happen is that the various companies, always wanting to show the world how safety-minded they are, introduce their own safety rules. When they eventually realise a rule is actually costing them money, they quietly bin it. If circumstances change, and obeying that rule can be seen to be a bit less uneconomic, it is reintroduced sharpish. So long as it looks good, all is well.

The rules tend to be written by someone far removed from the sharp end, who will never directly feel the effects of them.

While not always agreeing with what the CAA says and does, I was always grateful that there was some kind of authority back there who laid down rules to which we could refer and quote, should the need arise.

And it did.

I can't imagine anyone suggesting a landing like the one that originated this thread, for instance.