Heli 'collides with gas rig' 11-Mar-08 [Archive]

SASless

12th Mar 2008, 17:59

Steves,

Now there's a good chap.....bounce into yer Chief Pilot's office and pass on what you think about this little bitty doesn't amount to nothing event.

After you get the bleeding stopped.....tell us what you think then eh, mate!

Now if folks had been doing the ol' there but the grace of the almighty go I remarks, you would be exactly right. That ain't what happened as I see it.

The playpen I hang out in....one does not stick yer tail rotor....or any other part of the boss's machine into things that leave dings, dents, scratches, or slag heaps. If you do....you have diddled the pooch in public....which is not good for company-client relationships.

Lets hear how it came to be the crane got into the way.....and see if there is a way to learn from this so it might not happen again.

malabo

12th Mar 2008, 18:33

I'm with SASless on this - you hit your tail into something, anything, and it is a big deal. Most pilots here would automatically get sacked. You guys better not drink in any of the bars here and complain you should have had a tailcamera to see the obstacle, you'll be laughed out of town.

So Stevie says it is only a little scrape of paint on a fairing, and Helimutt says the photos are "boring". So I guess they just swapped passengers and flew it back to base did they? Where is the aircraft now?

Let's have a look at those "boring" pictures.....

zalt

12th Mar 2008, 19:30

Ditto

Results may be minor but that doesn't mean its a minor event

NRDK

12th Mar 2008, 19:34

There was a scrape of a tail fairing, 2 feet clear of the enclosed fenestron. Absolutely no danger to anyone on board. Also, it happened, at the maximum, 3 seconds prior to an uneventful landing!

Steve mc -wow! Did you mean to write that? Are you actually a pilot if, so were you 'The Pilot'? :eek: Pretty sure the pax & client won't see it your way, nor the bosses at CHC. Hopefully lessons are learnt and the repeats are just as lucky (when they happen again as sadly will be the case one day).

atcomarkingtime

12th Mar 2008, 21:27

Poor old XD...get well soon and hope to hear you flying again soon....enjoy the boat ride home!!!:)

killabeez

12th Mar 2008, 21:53

Hehehehe, the above comment made me smile, :)

Nice to know somebody still loves the old bugger !

atcomarkingtime

12th Mar 2008, 22:01

Me loving XD? Nah....just enjoy controlling her from the lem-inde-lem-inde-tha-lem-inde-lem-inde-lem.....the joys!!!! The drivers must get sick of calling us up!!!!!:)

malabo

12th Mar 2008, 22:34

Helimutt,

"Photos not for public consumption", er why not?

"Lucky it was an AS365 instead of an S76": we call that "Dutch Logic" with no offense meant to the Dutch. Maybe if you want to bounce the tail off objects then it is better to have an intermediate gear box, and a higher tail-rotor. Not only that, but this obstacle of proximity was well known! You can't even claim ignorance.

From a claimed "scratch on the fairing" to "waiting to hoist it onto a boat for the ride home". Some scratch.

"Lessons will be learned" hmm, where to start....

You North Sea guys crack me up.

212man

12th Mar 2008, 23:02

Sorry, must having been having a senior moment when I wrote my last post, coupled with a large dose of naivety. Thanks for putting me back on the straight and narrow. I'd obviously forgotten what an accepted practice it is to stick your tail into solid objects during the last few moments of a landing offshore. I guess knowing the crane is an obstacle just goes to confirm what a standard practice this must be these days.

I must be getting old as I find myself saying "it was never like that in my day" :ugh::ugh::ugh:

(Just to confirm: I'm not having a go at the pilot - I'm having a go at those who believe it's a non-event, Dauphin or not!)

SASless

12th Mar 2008, 23:20

Now hang on a mo' 212man.....famous intercom comment heard in Eket one night.....BRRRRRRRRRPPPPPH! (A very loud and long expensive metallic grinding sound from the aft end of the aircraft heard) followed by...... " Errrrr...... Nigel, I think that was the wind sock!"

Thus it was the Engineer staff got to rebuild a 212 on top of one of the platforms as a change of pace from their normal daily chores.

Nigel Osborn

13th Mar 2008, 03:57

SASLESS

That was definitely not me!!:ok:

212man

13th Mar 2008, 04:15

SAS, I wasn't saying it didn't happen "in my day", I was saying it was never viewed as being a minor incident, hardly worthy of note!

sox6

13th Mar 2008, 08:03

Lessons will be learned...
.... will they be shared too?

SASless

13th Mar 2008, 14:28

Indeed you are correct 212man. As I recall the story....the non-handling pilot ultimately got the sack (for other well deserved reasons not related to the incident) and the handling pilot remained the Chief Pilot.

Then there was the young North Sea pilot who was in country to obtain his "command time" who went out on an air test with an engineer....cut down a set of powerlines while low leveling...put the engineer into hospital and wrote off a 212. He found himself transferred to Trinidad to finish his "command time".

I guess the Managing Director in Nigeria at that time had empathy for those who had blade strikes.....as he had a few himself. (I have a lovely photograph of a Bristow Safety Poster...remember the one that showed a cartoonish Wessex with lots of hard hats and papers being ingested....this particular poster had been edited to say "Please don't feed our birds trees!")

But in general....I agree....blade strikes of any kind were considered less than professional. The outcomes had much different endings depending upon one's position on the Totem Pole.

212man

13th Mar 2008, 15:24

I'm voting Malabo should lead the campaign for common sense (shortened to CDF) !

Teefor Gage

13th Mar 2008, 19:55

Thanks guys, I've learned so much from this thread! It seems that we should all be flying helis with Fenestrons so that we can park them in tighter spots!!

It's almost unbelievable that anybody on Rotorheads could play down the fact that this helicopter actually contacted anything during the landing on a rig. We can all get it wrong, and for most of us Lady Luck has been on our side, but to pass this situation off as "a non-event" ................ words fail me!

roundwego

14th Mar 2008, 14:22

Now if it had smashed into the crane, spun wildly out of control and then fallen over the side into the sea, killing all onboard, then that would be different. But it didn't.

Unfortunately, the safety culture in some organisations is such that until a tragedy occurs, problems are not taken seriously.

In this event, it sounds that there, but the grace of god, could have been a serious accident with multiple fatalities. Had that occurred, there would have been a full AAIB investigation and, no doubt, good recommendations made and actions taken to reduce the risk of a similar occurrence happening again.

Because luck was on their side, I suspect the investigation will be much lower key, the simple "pilot error" inference will be assumed and not a lot will change.

In my view, any incident which COULD have resulted in a serious accident should be investigated in the same manner as if a serious accident HAD occurred.

How many times do you see in the CAA Safety Digests statements like "Acceptable risk assuming the occurrence rate remains low" at the bottom of a report which COULD have turned out very nasty under slightly different circumstances and only LUCK has prevented it.

JimL

14th Mar 2008, 14:36

Roundwego,

I totally agree with you - this was not a trivial event and all the facts should be aired as soon as possible.

We should use all such experiences to ensure that we learn the lessons and avoid similar occurences in the future.

So that the circumstances can be fully understood, there should be an assurance that no blame will be attributed - always providing of course that the pilots are willing to provide a complete picture.

Jim

SASless

14th Mar 2008, 15:13

Reading back over the thread....it would appear the consensus is the event in question was not a minor event....the outcome was fortuitous...and the pilot community can/should learn from what happened.

I saw not a single finger being pointed at the pilot involved in the event but a whole lot of concern that some were of the mindset this was no big deal.

Each of us knows the dangers of landing to decks as we do it all the time. We also know that the chances of having a blade strike are real.

The key is in admitting to one's self, the importance of maintaining a positive safety culture both by management and by crew and engineers.

A current thread notes an engineering failure that resulted in the death of a pilot flying an R-22, and this thread talks of an incident that could very easily have resulted in the loss of an aircraft and the people inside the aircraft.

Our own personal interests are served if we use both to learn from and hopefully prevent something similar from happening again.

212man

14th Mar 2008, 16:00

helimutt: shame on you! You do not need to "smash into a crane" (is that meant to simulate journo-speak or something?) to then "spin wildly out of control and fall over the side". I made mention in my first post to the BIH S-61 and the Brent Spar. No one suggested they "smashed into the crane" but they sure as hell span wildly and fell off the edge - read the AAIB report and see how much of a non-event you consider tail rotor to crane contact is.

I'm with T4 (et al) on this ; I'm just aghast that any right minded professional offshore pilot considers it a non-event (or minor event) to stick your tail into a crane!

206Fan

15th Mar 2008, 19:54

Photos temporarily removed in case there's a problem with the Insurers & investigation...

SASless

15th Mar 2008, 21:29

Wee more than a few scratches and dents.....it does say something for a Fenstron tail.

John Eacott

15th Mar 2008, 22:49

Someone has to say it:

It'll buff out :p

On a more serious note, the second photo shows quite a chafe mark from the fenestron tips, so there must have been quite a flexing of the tail structure. Also, I wonder what position the crane was at the time: it looks well parked in the last photo?

tistisnot

15th Mar 2008, 23:01

Please, please tell me they were landing on the helideck and not trying to re-position .......

332mistress

15th Mar 2008, 23:47

tistisnot

They weren't - read the initial news report before making irrelevant posts - 5 pax on board!

332M

206Fan

16th Mar 2008, 12:15

Photos temporarily removed in case there's a problem with the Insurers & investigation...

manfromuncle

16th Mar 2008, 13:00

If anyone's interested, the 1991 'Brent spa' accident report is here

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/2-1991%20G-BEWL.pdf

I don't fly offshore, but found it quite interesting reading.

Greeny9

16th Mar 2008, 23:38

Why are people comparing Brent Spa to Leman 27AD?
There is no comparison!

Sorry 212! Spoils your article in the Daily Bollox!!!!!!!!!

212man

17th Mar 2008, 01:12

Nice to see things degenerating in the usual manner!

I think one or two of us here were trying to politely point out that sticking your tail into a crane whilst landing, is not something to be taken lightly. It is only the fact that people are so adament that it's a non-event that has prolonged the thread. Reference to the Spar was to try and educate those who were ignorant of the event, or remind those with short memories, of what the true potential of this incident was. Looking at the witness marks in the fenestron shroud just highlights how close to a different outcome this latest incident was.

Let's wait and see if the AAIB feel there are parallels to be drawn.

helicfii

17th Mar 2008, 01:50

Due to the fact that this thread has considerably diverged, I do believe that a chicken sandwich should now be discussed. :D

SASless

17th Mar 2008, 03:53

OK....time for a question for the odd few that see this as no big deal.

Having looked at the score marks made by the fenstron blades....what would it take for you to accept the proposition that this is in fact a very big deal although with a favorable outcome?

Can anyone fail to see just how close this came to being a situation very likely to have resulted in serious injuries and/death?

The thought of suddenly losing torque control at a time one is pulling a lot of power in the final stage of landing....scares me. If you have ever ridden out one of those events one remains converted to avoiding that however possible.

If I had been the handling pilot when this had happened....I would consider myself one very lucky guy to have it turn out the way it did.

212man sees it right.

malabo

17th Mar 2008, 17:25

Davy07, me boy. Don't you know that in the internet world anything done cannot be undone? Here's your pictures back.

In what twisted world does a pilot fear getting sacked from posting pictures, but doing millions of dollars damage and putting his crew and passenger lives at risk has no consequence at all?

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o129/karmutzen/Davy07-photo2.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o129/karmutzen/Davy07-photo1.jpg

Teefor Gage

17th Mar 2008, 17:52

Words Fail Me.......

Thanks for the pics Malabo. It certainly shows just what a non-event it was!!
As 212 and various others have said, particularly JimL, to pass this one over as a narrow escape etc, is wasting very good learning points that should fall out of the incident investigation. No apportionment of blame, just simple facts and how to avoid getting into the situation in the future.

OK, so words didn't fail me, but the sentiment still goes........

206Fan

17th Mar 2008, 18:35

Malabo..

The engineer who took the photos i had posted asked me to kindly remove them which i done for him.. The two shots you have showing are different from the ones i linked from another forum!

Dave

Bootneck

17th Mar 2008, 21:30

In Nov 1980 a newly transferred pilot from 76s managed to cut half way through the hand rail on the Sedco 707's drill tower with a 61 tail rotor; classically he had forgotten he was flying a larger aircraft and used the 76 landing circle. The only indication of damage was a high frequency buzz through the yaw pedals.

I went out the next day and managed to put a 61 on the extended keyhole deck of the rig, rather than winch the engineers and replacement crew down. The damage to the hand rail was amazing, the tail rotor blades had lost a few inches.

Above the noise of the aircraft I had a fascinating 'discussion' with the pilot concerned explaining how he was returning in the cabin with me and not, definitely not, returning in the aircraft he had just maimed.

VCO

17th Mar 2008, 23:58

I am the guywho posted the pictures in the HC forum, & I have posted to offer my profuse apologies for doing so.

I had thought that as the accident had already been in the public domain (news and press), that it was ok..very wrong. However, by the time I had removed the photos from the other thread, they had already been posted here.

I had also posted what I had thought to be some light hearted comments which, on re reading my thread, in the cold light of day were not so.
I had allowed my own frustrations to cloud my judgment in doing so, & I profusely apologise to all those I have offended..not least the two crew involved, and SM for using his photos without thinking to ask.

SASless

18th Mar 2008, 00:18

VCO,

Welcome to the forum. With you post count at exactly "1", tis easy to see you are new here.

The photo's and discussion they provoked have served a good purpose and perhaps that will help to soothe the wounds.

The very best thing that can result from an event such as what provoked the discussion is just that....healthy discussion about what happened and how best to ensure, if possible, that it not happen to those of us who learn from other's mistakes.

I also hope you understand that you are not the only one that has ever put in print what in retrospect might have been said most any other way than as submitted. We seem to take turns at that so please don't feel unique.

DECUFAULT

18th Mar 2008, 08:58

Looking at the photos..brown pants and very very lucky..:eek: A bit more than just a scrape...

Volant Brique

18th Mar 2008, 16:24

Steve mc stated, “there was a scrape of a tail fairing, 2 feet clear of the enclosed fenestron. Absolutely no danger to anyone on board. Also, it happened, at the maximum, 3 seconds prior to an uneventful landing!”

also

Helimutt says, “the photos are "boring".

I have now seen the photographs and have to make the following observation. With the amount of denting and distortion of this area of the tail section, it would have to have been a very significant ‘knock’.

I state this, because if anyone is fully aware as to the internal method of construction of this area of the tail section, with the numerous ribs, strings, formers and doubler plates within this complex shaped structure, it would have had to have been a substantial clout.

I sincerely hope that neither of the above posters were either directly or for that matter indirectly associated with this incidence, because their comments would indicate that they do not appreciate the significance of the damage and their ‘lightening’ of this matter is grossly worrying.

I witnessed a similar previous incident on a SA365N (before they changed the designation to AS365N) with if anything less visual damage. This had been caused by a ground handling incident. After a full rigging check indicated more distortion than at first appeared, the manufacturer then became involved. Their on-site investigation determined significant internal damage and required the whole tail boom assembly to be removed and returned to the factory for further testing and repair. The investigation also showed creasing towards the main body of the fuselage, where the tail boom assembly is attached. This area also required some significant repairing.

If one considers the length of the tail boom and the physical strength of the tip of this structure, any damage as shown by the photograph, shows that a tremendous lateral load must have been placed on the whole tail boom assembly.

As decufault posted above,
“Looking at the photos..brown pants and very very lucky.. A bit more than just a scrape...”

VB

airborne_artist

18th Mar 2008, 16:52

Was the damage repaired in-situ, or did the aircraft get back to the beach on a barge/ship?

206Fan

18th Mar 2008, 17:56

Was transported back to shore by boat!

griffothefog

19th Mar 2008, 04:21

When I was young and foolish and carried my balls around in a wheel barrow,(circa 1986) I had several goes at trying to write old XD off..:eek:
God she's one tough old bird.......... but nice try fellas:D

Volant Brique

20th Mar 2008, 13:21

As stevemc stated here, “it is only a little scrape of paint on a fairing”, and Helimutt says “the photos are "boring"…..

I have to therefore assume that the helicopter must by now be back flying ……

Is this the case? Or how long will it be before it is?

VB

check

21st Mar 2008, 08:43

Heard it was a complete tail boom change.

Volant Brique

21st Mar 2008, 16:20

helimutt

Your original posting stated
“the photos are "boring””

You are now posting
“OK, so the photos were nothing like seeing the a/c up close and personal.”

If the photographs were boring . . . . and nothing like seeing the a/c up close and personal . . . . having seen the photographs as posted, I tread to imagine how much worse the actual helicopter is!
When is it going to be back flying?
VB

Lt.Fubar

21st Mar 2008, 16:40

The rumor say 6 months.

Well the fan was disaligned at the impact, so all of the blades will have to be replaced, the whole fenestron gearbox checked, repaired, or replaced, the duct will have to be replaced, so is the whole skin. Than the drive train, whole tail section checked for cracks, bends, material strains. Don't know where the tail fan drive train goes in the EC155, so that parts will have to be checked also.

Too cut it short - the while tail will have to striped down, checked and every component repaired/replaced. The whole thing is very serious - many fast-spinning, precise-machined, very important parts out there ;)

Lt.Fubar

21st Mar 2008, 18:17

The fan blades ... not the main rotor blades :hmm:

Brilliant Stuff

21st Mar 2008, 19:11

Rumour at the coal face has it XD is going to be retired since it's financially not viable to repair. Also the Irish 365 is going to be retired before it's G-Check. After all the rules change from 2010 where you need to have cat "A" capability if I remember correctly. Though the problem is that there are no replacements in the pipeline.:ugh:

Time will tell what the truth will be.

Kind Regards to the pilot though. Top bloke :D.

sox6

21st Mar 2008, 19:32

After this and the AB139 introduction fiasco I hear Perenco are considering jumping ship.

atcomarkingtime

21st Mar 2008, 20:30

Well us guys on Anglia are glad we saw the pics...we were just initially told something had happened on the lem with the as65...and that was it....so to see the pics ... thanks...and we will have a wee whip round on the sector to try to buy some reverse parking sensors should she fly again!!!

helmet fire

21st Mar 2008, 21:39

Firstly a disclaimer: I know NOTHING about offshore oil/gas support!!

However, I have been interested in this incident as it is not an event that is simply confined to the oil/gas support industry, and I would even go so far as to say that it is not "unique", "isolated", nor "minor". But I do think it is testament to the shrouded tail rotor systems available. I have read the Brent Spar accident and I can draw the connection between the two in contributing factors. The very different outcomes are no reason to avoid comparison - I think they are the very reason FOR comparison.

I think it is well accepted safety practice to react to identified hazards in a stepped approach that begins with "engineer the problem out" and ends with "train to cope" (warnings and SOPS somewhere in the middle). Engineering this problem out is almost impossible short of having the helidecks always above all other obstacles - but this is not practical for most rigs/boats and is impractical for nearly all unprepared land based HLS. So the next avenue is the helicopter design and therefore trade off (there are no free lunches).

The fenestron and NOTAR are attempts to engineer this issue out - or at least minimise the likely consequences of an eventual probable strike by the aircraft type, but they come with power/weight/cost/maintenance penalties (see Nick Lappos for a great dissertation on this!). Incidents like these graphically explain the benefit side of the cost/benefit analysis of that design choice, and we pilots often need a graphic demonstration to prove such points. Our clients need it even more!

Therefore, whilst this incident had "minor" consequences for the human lives, it has so much potential to teach us something about our profession that it is a free lesson (in terms of lives, not aircraft lost). It is an absolute credit to an organisation that posts such pictures that we may all learn. :D
Perhaps we can appreciate that this type of incident is possible by almost any pilot almost anywhere in the world in almost any role.

Please overlook those who would gloat. It won't ever happen to them.....
Rather, post for those of us who want to learn.

Quick Start

21st Mar 2008, 23:31

The fenestron and gearbox was damaged. could have been very nasty.

SASless

22nd Mar 2008, 12:51

Helmet Fire,

As I read it....this was not an official company report or in any way supported or promoted by the operator. My impression is it was business as usual....hold the cards close to the vest standard mode.

It were individuals that got this into the public eye. For that....they should be admired by the rest of us as they probably have paid a price for having done so.

You are too right when you say how valuable this is for the advancement of safety awareness by the industry. It is a shame we cannot get the operators to invest in a common forum that would benefit all of them.

I firmly believe photographs of wreckage and it's contents, aired in a professional venue, combined with a documentation of the causes as is possible, would reinforce the importance of proper procedures both in engineering and in piloting. It would take the abstract out of reality.

Safety training programs would be a very good venue for that.....how can you talk about safety...crashes...accidents...injuries...and deathes....and not be confronted by the stark reality and tragedy of aircraft losses.

Brilliant Stuff

22nd Mar 2008, 19:05

zalt

22nd Mar 2008, 19:59

Enlighten us then?
FSF
UKFSC
IATA STEADES
What are you talking about??

Brilliant Stuff

22nd Mar 2008, 21:19

It's been three years so all I remember is that it began with a W.

flyer43

22nd Mar 2008, 23:04

Brilliant Stuff - Are you perhaps referring to BASIS - originally developed by British Airways and used by commercial airlines to share accident and incident information - then taken up by helicopter operators for the same purpose. It doesn't begin with a Dubya though!!

Camp Freddie

23rd Mar 2008, 01:05

isnt it WINBASIS ?

SASless

23rd Mar 2008, 01:49

HELICOPTER OPERATORS

Bond Offshore Helicopters
Bristow Helicopters Ltd
Gulf Helicopter
Norsk Helikopter AS
Wiking Helicopter Service

Customer list from the WINBASIS web site......now located in Dubai.

flyer43

23rd Mar 2008, 08:47

OK - so WINBASIS does begin with a Dubya!! That's the more up-to-date iteration of BASIS.

sox6

23rd Mar 2008, 10:21

CHC use something called SQID - not compatible with WINBASIS.

SASless

23rd Mar 2008, 11:34

Sasless I know for a fact there is a forum for these kind matters but you can only access it if you work for the company but this forum is shared amongst all the airlines and offshore operators. This will allow you to look up incidents on a 747 or Puma.

So.....does CHC swap safety data information with BHL as they use different and incompatible reporting systems?:uhoh:

Fully Coupled

23rd Mar 2008, 13:54

The three FSO's in Aberdeen all freely exchange safety information. Bristow and Bond Offshore actually now use Sentinel which is the updated version of Winbasis. The incident would also be entered into the MOR system run by the CAA and no doubt the AAIB will be looking into it, so all the details will come out in the fullness of time.

Brilliant Stuff

23rd Mar 2008, 22:48

Yupp it was Winbasis.

sox6

24th Mar 2008, 09:00

CHC have been seeking a Flight Safety Officer in Aberdeen ... again, though this time its a full-time job.

Volant Brique

7th Apr 2008, 08:15

Is XD back flying yet? What is the latest information?
VB

ericferret

7th Apr 2008, 11:03

Not this week!!!!!!!!!!

dieseldo

18th Jun 2008, 08:37

Not this week either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sox6

11th Jul 2008, 07:02

I wonder why some people on this thread wanted to dismiss this.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/cms_resources/Aerospatiale%20SA365N%20Dauphin,%20G-BKXD%2007-08.pdf

What news on the review on shuttling?

JimL

11th Jul 2008, 08:08

Helicopter performance

The helicopter was operating close to its maximum operating weight when it approached the helideck on the accident flight. The commander believed that the helicopter’s performance at that weight was such that it would not be possible for it to hover OGE with the power available. Changes in airflow around and through the rotor disc of a helicopter hovering close to the surface in ground effect (IGE) lead to increased rotor blade efficiency. Less power is therefore required to hover at a given weight when compared to a higher, OGE hover. In situations where performance is limited, the helicopter needs to make a continuous and steady approach to a landing site, so that it gains the benefits of ground effect before losing the extra lift that is a function of forward airspeed.

I was quite surprised to see this commentary in the accident report. Notwithstanding which side was used with respect to the obstacle environment (and it would appear that the P2’s side might have been better - but it is the Commander's decision), there is an absolute requirement for AEO HOGE to be planned. This was contained in guidance up to the time of revision 5 (NPA-38), at which time it was brought into the rule material (note to AAIB; please ensure that you have an up-to-date copy of the regulations).

In addition, and as indicated (indirectly) by the accident investigator, taking the landing from the P2s side would also have added at least 10kts to the accountable wind (shown in the report as 12kts – 20kts), as the committal point - on that side - would have been achieved with at least 10kts more airspeed (one of the benefits of the dynamic over the offset procedure).

Jim

VfrpilotPB/2

11th Jul 2008, 08:36

Sad thing is, with the attitude of "Well its only a little thing" sadly I have found in life that Little things normally turn to

Farking Big Things pretty dam quickly, and far from posters being lambasted for saying so, certain people should be counting their blessings,.......... and really thats not how to be professional, blessings are for Priests, but accuracy is for CPL H pilots.

Vfrpilotpb/2

verticalhold

11th Jul 2008, 12:01

JimL;

A quick scan of an old logbook shoes that you and I landed on the Alpha 11 times in one sortie in 1991, I've not bothered to count how many landings on that platform over a five year period, sadly it seems that the lessons learned on that operation over a considerable period of time have not been passed on.

With the benefit of hindsight a dynamic approach would have been better, I just wonder as well how much crew fatigue came into play. I always found that towards the end of a two week offshore stint I was utterly knackered.

VH

JimL

11th Jul 2008, 14:17

Now we have had a chance to read the accident report we can comment with rather more assurance on some of the issues.

The first thing to be said is that ‘manfromuncle’ was absolutely correct in referring to the ‘Brent Spa’ accident; the similarities are remarkable but, fortunately, the consequences were different. ‘Greeny9’, in castigating ‘manfromuncle’, was not familiar enough with the ‘Brent Spa’ to see those similarities (those of us who were around at the time of the Spa certainly could) and might now regret his outburst: Why are people comparing Brent Spa to Leman 27AD?
There is no comparison! Clearly, no lesson learnt there.

It is unlikely that performance was an issue here (perceived performance may have been, hence the decision leading to an unsafe dynamic approach); however, this remains an unknown because is it unlikely that mass calculations were carried out for this sector. The fact is that a helicopter with perceived poor performance was probably saved by its unique design.

Recent discussions have indicated that performing complex mass calculations would not be welcomed by North Sea pilots. That does not mean that calculations should not be done, merely that the procedures should be made less complicated (or automated).

Having previously pointed out that limitations in operating mass have to be observed (still air AEO HOGE, second segment climb and en-route performance), it might be useful to point out that there have, recently, been improvements to manufacturer’s documentation which now permit a single, and simple, calculation.

After what seems like years of discussions, Bell has put into the RFM a helideck PC2 WAT graph that includes all but the en-route performance (it also incorporates deck-edge clearance) – wind accountability is provided but bounded so that the other limits are not broached. Another graph provides drop-down so we have the ability (at least for one helicopter) to produce Pure PC2 and PC2e take-off and landing masses.

‘verticalhold’ asks whether fatigue was an element; certainly it had been a long duty day (albeit split) and it is well known that decisions can be effected by fatigue – whether fatigue cause by loss of sleep or by length of time on duty.

Finally, we need to address the question of whether the nomination of the handling pilot for the sortie dictates who takes the landing or take-off for each sector. My view is (and always has been) that each landing or take-off in a multi-sector sortie should be dealt with individually, and on its merits. A compromise (in my day) was that the paperwork was always completed by the nominated PNH (to reduce the hand-over problems) but the landing, or take-off, was allocated to the best and safest side (give or take a couple of degrees).

This accident has provided an ideal opportunity to air a number of these issues. Fortunately, we need not be too conservative in our opinions because there is no need to take the feelings of bereaved relatives into consideration.

Jim

sox6

12th Jul 2008, 09:00

The rumour over here is that Vancouver were not amused at what was being said on PPRuNe and ordered a quick internal investigation to offer up to AAIB fast in the hope that at least this incident would be 'cleared up' to keep First Reserve happy.

I repeat 'rumour' only.

SASless

12th Jul 2008, 13:00

As the crew survived....hopefully in time an honest, frank, lessons learned statement might be forthcoming by the crew.

Rather than heaping blame and insult on the crew, perhaps we should be glad the accident turned out the way it did and thus it can be used to improve policy, procedure, and perhaps even mindset about offshore shuttle operations.

This a perfect situation for being turned into something useful if CHC, the Crew, CAA, and AAIB can find a way to do so. If I were to be involved as a crew member I would certainly prefer to see such a thing rather than being held up for a game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey.

The beauty of this event is no one got hurt and only some sheet metal and cast iron got bent thus no great liability to admitting to what one's role in the matter was.

In a perfect world, and a sincere safety culture, that is what would happen....a good analysis and published lessons learned.

ericferret

7th Sep 2008, 19:40

XD has air under its wheels again and it isn't hanging on a crane this time!!!!!

SASless

8th Sep 2008, 00:46

Well for a while anyway!

Who was the genius that elected NOT to change the tail rotor gearbox prior to the air test following repairs.:ugh:

Seems the unchanged gearbox got smoking hot and showed ugly signs of not being serviceable and after it cooled down enough to be touched....was changed.:rolleyes:

I wonder if the tail rotor drive shaft was changed?

Would the Eurocopter (Aerospatiale) tech manual set forth a "sudden stoppage" inspection procedure? Surely, the damage incurred during this incident would have justified such an inspection and component changes for everything involved.

Or am I being over cautious here?

Anyone in the loop that can explain just how that decision was arrived at?

Lt. Fubar in post number 61 of this thread posted the following.....

Well the fan was disaligned at the impact, so all of the blades will have to be replaced, the whole fenestron gearbox checked, repaired, or replaced, the duct will have to be replaced, so is the whole skin. Than the drive train, whole tail section checked for cracks, bends, material strains. Don't know where the tail fan drive train goes in the EC155, so that parts will have to be checked also.

Too cut it short - the while tail will have to striped down, checked and every component repaired/replaced. The whole thing is very serious - many fast-spinning, precise-machined, very important parts out there

212man

8th Sep 2008, 06:55

it beggars belief!!:{

SASless

8th Sep 2008, 12:13

Hilico,

Luckily it seems there were no injuries and the damage confined to the aircraft's TR.

You have the makings of management at CHC it appears.....they arrived at the same conclusion after all the inspections were done.;)

Hilico

8th Sep 2008, 19:50

Hey, any time they want to give me a management position, with my years of experience in computer programming and local government, not to mention my 13 hours and 10 minutes PuT...

Actually the reason I started this thread is back in March I had just worked out how to surf the web on my new phone. I Googled the word 'helicopter' and this report was the first hit. Pure unbridled coincidence.

fkelly

8th Sep 2008, 21:52

I believe that the Huy engineers were also shocked that it wasn't changed.

Hang on, are we saying they had no input in the repair procedure? It was after all fixed at EGNJ

"Boss, you'd think they'd tell us to change the gearbox or at least ask EC advice on an MGB that hasn't moved in 6 months...still what do we know.."

unstable load

9th Sep 2008, 09:54

It may have been fixed at EGNJ, but the engineers can only do what they can, given the materials supplied and carrying out orders from above.

helimutt,
Then let's hope that the same "above" will remember the decision not to change the MGB when it comes to the time to allocate the blame and act accordingly. :sad:

I still would not like to be in the guy who signed it off's shoes until then.:=

XV666

9th Sep 2008, 23:45

Just to set the record straight:

The whole of the tail drive train was replaced.

The main gearbox did not overtemp.

A 15 minute hover check as required by the maintenance manual was carried out, and a decision to replace the gearbox was made following this.

All work carried out on this helicopter was done following a Eurocopter survey.

:ok:

SASless

10th Sep 2008, 00:58

Why was the gearbox changed?

What occurred in that fifteen minute hover check that prompted the change?

Whatever it was must have been convincing.....as fifteen minutes is not a very long time for "mortal" indications to exhibit themselves.

unstable load

10th Sep 2008, 12:14

Don't get me wrong here, the engineers at NJ do a great job considering everything else.

Oh, I have no doubt they do.

Still must be worrying unless you know for sure that management will back you when the fan starts distributing the "stuff".

SASless

10th Sep 2008, 13:12

Air Test first....then heavy hover?

Perhaps it is my improving grasp of my own mortality....but would it not be more prudent to do the hover check prior to the air test in sequence. Cast iron failures at a hover would seem to be the more advantagous situation for such things to occur.

If a tranny is left setting without any attempt at preservation per recommended pickling practices....would not there be some concern for the integrity of the gearbox?

If the gearbox was in a climate controlled environment and secured properly from moisture....perhaps it would not be such a concern. Shoved over into a corner of the hangar while the reconstruction work was on-going for a period of six months....is another thing in my view.

Was someone trying to do this repair on the cheap at the expense of good sound engineering practices?