Pilots suspended after North Sea helicopter lands on wrong platform

[Ian Corrigible]

Pilots suspended after North Sea helicopter lands on wrong platform
STV (http://news.stv.tv/north/289680-inquiry-after-north-sea-s92-helicopter-lands-on-wrong-oil-platform/) 26 August 2014
Two pilots have been suspended after they landed a helicopter on the wrong North Sea oil platform.

The Bond S-92 left Aberdeen on Friday evening, heading for the Buzzard platform 60 miles north of Aberdeen. But instead, the helicopter landed on the Ensco 120 rig, around nine nautical miles away from Buzzard.

Bond confirmed two employees have been removed from the flight roster while an investigation is under way.

The S-92 was carrying one passenger when it landed on Ensco 120 at around 7pm. It is understood the rig was in full operation when the helicopter arrived.

I/C

[212man]

Deleted following MM's comments below - my initial google search showed what must have been the initial exploratory semi-sub, not the platform!

[MoodyMan]

Buzzard is actually a complex of 3 bridge linked fixed platforms. There may have been a jack up rig over the top of the wellhead platform.

[HeliComparator]

It does seem a little careless but then again no doubt there will be list of contributory factors all coming together.

There are of course a few permanent ones that we are so used to they barely impinge, such as pilots having to change destination mid flight (you can imagine the outcry if airline chappies had to do that!), the name on the side of the rig often obscured or faded, or confusing (block number instead of name), the name on the deck, in any case only visible very late in the approach, covered in ****ehawk****e, and names of installations ridiculously similar.

So yes a bit careless but hardly worthy of front page P&J. The oil companies like to get hysterical when this happens but as soon as you suggest improving the name signs they are suddenly no longer interested. Yes it is theoretically a bit of a safety hazard but pretty minor in the great scheme of things.

I speak as someone who did once land on the wrong rig, early 80s, me copilot on the S61, off to land on a semisub under tow, the days of Decca. We broke cloud at the expected place and there was the rig under tow, 100 miles out from Abz or whatever. We called them up, "they" answered with deck clearance so we duly landed. Then a different voice came on the radio... Yes, it was the wrong rig under tow, the correct rig under tow was a few miles away also in the middle of no-where. Fortunately in those days no-one was that bothered but it did seem SO UNFAIR!

[Bravo73]

Buzzard:

http://www.offshore-technology.com/uploads/newsarticle/731318/images/148714/large/buzzard%20l.jpg

However, if the Ensco 120 is still drilling in the Golden Eagle field, then there are arguably certain visual similarities:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3874/14398971935_2735c3d026_m.jpg

(That photo was taken in May 2014: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22673279@N08/14398971935).

[Fareastdriver]

How can this possibly happen? A crew delivering one passenger to a platform land on a jackup nine miles away.

It is pretty obvious why it happened, the North sea culture is so subordinate to automation that the crew have lost the ability to assess when things are going wrong. You program the autopilot/FMS and when you arrive at where it says you are you land, no arguments, it's company policy.

The crew are being hung out to dry. Landing at the wrong rig? Easy; I was demonstrated that on my second line training trip in the North Sea. Never ever did it myself.

Conjecture would suggest that the L2 at Sumburgh was initiated by the crew overtly relying on the automatic systems in the aircraft. Have we come to the stage where company policies and training system are being directed to automation rather than basic piloting skills and airmanship?

[HeliComparator]

FED, folk have been landing on the wrong rig ever since the N Sea was invented. And now it is suddenly the fault of new fangled automation? Yea, right!

Your hidden agenda is leaking out!

[Boudreaux Bob]

GPS is such a useless tool.....and not accurate at all is it?:(

[diginagain]

Looking out of the window to verify where you're going seems to have gone out of fashion. If you can't read the helideck markings for guano, you might at least let the rig crew know.

[chopper2004]

Probe after copter lands on wrong rig | Energy Voice (http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/probe-copter-lands-wrong-rig/)

[Fareastdriver]

And now it is suddenly the fault of new fangled automation? Yea, right!

Yea, right! How did they end up nine miles from their destination The only landings on the wrong deck that I have heard about have been in the same field complex.

[HeliComparator]

The only landings on the wrong deck that I have heard about have been in the same field complex.

Clearly then you haven't heard of many. And anyway, 9 miles is within an "inter field" distance is it not?

[HeliComparator]

Looking out of the window to verify where you're going seems to have gone out of fashion. If you can't read the helideck markings for guano, you might at least let the rig crew know.

But as I said, and as you would know if had an overview, this is nothing new so nothing has "gone out of fashion". In fact I suspect it happens less frequently these days now that it has become a sacking offence. And on the guano thing, once you have filed a few ASRs and nothing at all has happened, you tend to lose interest in trying to "fix it".

Do you two guys have any idea at all what you are talking about or do you just like criticising others for the sake of it?

[diginagain]

Do you two guys have any idea at all what you are talking about or do you just like criticising others for the sake of it? A little bit of both, thanks.

Edited to add; there's a Bond S-92 pilot of long-standing acquaintance who, when we were going through flying training in 1982 picked-up the nickname "Blind Pew". I wonder....

At least they didn't make a balls-up of the approach - the P&J would have had a field-day.

[John Eacott]

At least they escaped the old tradition of being sent home with an indelible reminder of the errors of their ways :p

http://i.imgur.com/EYzcsyM.jpg

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee449/Rex_Kramer/WIXvc-3_zpsbd337b66.jpg (http://s1228.photobucket.com/user/Rex_Kramer/media/WIXvc-3_zpsbd337b66.jpg.html)

[Fareastdriver]

Do you two guys have any idea at all what you are talking about or do you just like criticising others for the sake of it?

Same here, lot & lots & lots in five continents. As far as automation is concerned I was monitoring coupled ILSs in 1962. That was before I flew piston helicopters with wooden blades.

That wouldn't be before you were born, would it?

[HeliComparator]

Same here, lot & lots & lots in five continents. As far as automation is concerned I was monitoring coupled ILSs in 1962. That was before I flew piston helicopters with wooden blades.

That wouldn't be before you were born, would it?

No, it wouldn't. Although it's interesting to note that you think being very old gives you some superiority in this matter. Anyway the difference between you and me is that I am not still living in 1962.

[HeliComparator]

GPS is such a useless tool.....and not accurate at all is it?:(

It would be interesting to know Bond's current SOPs. For Bristow it has been mandatory for some time to have the next destination in the GPS and to cross check it on short finals.

Of course semisubs are not in the database and have to be added by the pilots as user waypoints, so there might (or might not) be an issue with providing pilots with up to date location information. Oh that reminds me, one to add to my initial list of issues - airports that move! What would airline pilots think of that I wonder?

Edit: Oops, it was headed for the Buzzard so my "user waypoint" point is pointless - in this particular case at any rate.

[cpt]

I wonder how many offshore pilots have never landed on the wrong deck during their carrier ? .... as HC has said above, many contributory factors put together, make this mistake understable to those who really know the job. It's a bit like a gear up landing on fixed wings (and helicopters sometimes!)
The last barrier being the name reading on the hull or deck, it is not always visible or clear depending the approach configuration and the time of of the day (was it 7pm in this case ?)

[parabellum]

HeliComparator:


(you can imagine the outcry if airline chappies had to do that!),
En-route change? too easy. Try it at 200' in a B747 overshooting from JFK in a snowstorm and heading off to a place you have never even seen before!
(and dealing with US ATC and 400 pax at the same time).


You seem to have a bit of a hang up over fixed-wing flying? Jealous maybe?


And before you ask, yes back in the sixties I flew the WS55-III to rigs with no working nav aids at all!
(Just to add, landing on the wrong rig or platform in those days would simply cost a lot of beer, no inquiry).

[HeliComparator]

En-route change? too easy. Try it at 200' in a B747 overshooting from JFK in a snowstorm and heading off to a place you have never even seen before!
(and dealing with US ATC and 400 pax at the same time).


You seem to have a bit of a hang up over fixed-wing flying? Jealous maybe?


And before you ask, yes back in the sixties I flew the WS55-III to rigs with no working nav aids at all!
(Just to add, landing on the wrong rig or platform in those days would simply cost a lot of beer, no inquiry).


Helicopters have to divert too. No big deal. But imagine being within 10 mins or so of your destination only to be told that the pax would quite like to land at a different destination also about 10 mins away, and then another, and then another, each within 5 mins flying time.

If I were jealous of FW flying I would have taken it up, well presuming you don't mean the real fw flying aka gliding that I do? No, my point was that in heli-world we put with difficulties that other branches of aviation wouldn't accept.

No working navaids? But surely you had the ball of string to wind back in again to find "home"?

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

I cannot believe some of the criticism of the crew OR that. Their management choose to suspend them.

Wrong rig landings usually occur from a mindset that starts early in the flight or planning.

While it seems incredulous, giving the very poor labelling of rigs, very short visual acquisition time during landing available to the PF and the myriad of distractions to the crew during landing its a wonder we do not have more of them.

I feel very sorry for this crew and wish them best luck. Have been there......almost on several occasions over the past few decades and only saved by radio call from the destination rig.

Big flipping deal. No one died. No one got injured just the poor crews pride. Come on Bond grow a pair and accept that the offshore crews have a difficult task to do and sometimes they make mistakes.

DB

[Boudreaux Bob]

HC,

I would imagine using an offset Waypoint routine from a known point in the Database would be out of the question would it?

We will never get away from finger error but double checking entries before punching "Direct" would help I assume.

Landing on the wrong Deck is not the same as landing on the wrong Airport as Airports usually stay pretty much in the same place. Granted Platforms don't wander about very often either.

Rigs, Boats, Barges, and Ships are a slightly different matter.


Ah yes.....400 Pesky peeved Pax.....gets rather crowded in a 74's Cockpit then I would assume!

[diginagain]

And on the guano thing, once you have filed a few ASRs and nothing at all has happened, you tend to lose interest in trying to "fix it".
Takes but a second of your time to mention the issue to the HLO and the RO, or, if you're taking a workparty to a normally unmanned installation, the guys you're carrying. Takes ten minutes to pressure-wash a helideck until it's squeeky-clean.

[he1iaviator]

There is technology available these days to enable ships to identify each other by electronic means. The marine version of the aviation transponder is called AIS and it is fitted on nearly all vessels. If an AIS receiver was installed in all offshore helicopter cockpits, and integrated with the radar display, a positive identification of the installation could be achieved electronically before every landing. Problem solved.
An AIS (receiver) should be an OGP equipment standard.

[tistisnot]

Do you not think the customer paying for two possibly 80K+ pilots might not expect a little better prior planning as you mention, more situational awareness, and less complacency? They certainly seem to be the party describing these WDL's as unacceptable.

Another piece of machinery possibly .... but which code, which name - ICAO, IATA, maritime or FMS ..... plenty of scope there for error as well. Rig plate photos showing the actual markings are a help - as ever the Mk 1 eye-ball still acts as the final defence at present .... markings, helideck crew in position etc?

[tottigol]

This may well be a case of "everything went well under disguise".
I thought there were more than merely visual procedures in place to prevent this from happening, what about radio contact with the destination.
Weather permitting, a notorious customer requires a full 360 degress flight around the structure before landing.
Weather not permitting, if shooting an ARA, the destination has to be matched by the radar target.
Did the crew actually get a green deck or permission to land before landing?
I think there were likely other people sleeping at the wheel rather than just the pilots.

This could have been a potentially disastrous error had the structure been flaring or venting or some of the other stuff they do offshore when they do not want helos around.

[Fareastdriver]

Their destination, Buzzard, was 30 n.m. from Peterhead which is probably where they coasted out. It was a clear day so depending on their height they could well have seen their destination at that point. The jackup, where they landed instead of a platform, was nine miles from their destination. Should that have been laterally offset that would mean that they departed offshore with an 18 degrees track error, if it was in line it would have been a 4 minute timing error. Dinosaurs like me were taught that on leaving an en-route point you checked that you were on the right track and the next ETA was as expected. I suppose nowadays the autopilot or FMS are so infallible there is no point in looking out.

There's a saying that an offshore pilot has either landed on the wrong rig or is going to. That's a myth. The only time when it is possibly excusable is during a multi platform shuttle where they fly leg 12 instead of leg 11 which was when it was demonstrated to me. I cannot remember more than one or two occasions where somebody has landed on the wrong installation having departed from a land base and they then got their arse severely kicked.
Since my particular episode I not have only ensured that it was the right helideck but also that the deck crew were present. I have had enough experience of getting deck clearance whilst the deck crew were being mustered.

I'm sorry that this old fogy has to comment like this. Homo Sapiens in it's present form is only 55,000 years old. We dinosaurs lasted for 135 million years. It was not our fault that a chunk of high speed rock decided to create the Caribbean.

[Brutal]

It would be nice if we could wait for the conclusion of the investigation rather than hanging these guys out to dry without knowing the facts first? :ugh:
and no, I don't work for Bond, but I am a professional doing the same job, and although I have never had the misfortune of landing on the wrong rig,I have nearly done that...Line training newbie, ****e weather, no name visible on deck due to some guano,coupled with mist, no name on side, other platform(nui) so close, looks the same and just beyond first target, last minute change by client to go to first nui then to second(when bus stopping was allowed) struggling co-jo...short finals, deck clearance given (by other rig HLO) not being able to see us etc...bang, very short finals, *ollocks, going around...
No doubt there would be some on here that would be calling for my head not knowing the circumstances, facts or how difficult it can be line training, etc. Now I don't know the facts of this case, I am not saying the weather was crap or they were training etc we don't know the reasons yet so give the guys a break.
I count myself as a good aviator, conciencious and professional and never take any risks, BUT, for those calling for their heads, we ALL are capable of mistakes, just think carefully back in your careers when you did something wrong and "just " got away with it!!!!!

[Bravo73]

Their destination, Buzzard, was 30 n.m. from Peterhead which is probably where they coasted out. It was a clear day so depending on their height they could well have seen their destination at that point. The jackup, where they landed instead of a platform, was nine miles from their destination. Should that have been laterally offset that would mean that they departed offshore with an 18 degrees track error, if it was in line it would have been a 4 minute timing error. Dinosaurs like me were taught that on leaving an en-route point you checked that you were on the right track and the next ETA was as expected. I suppose nowadays the autopilot or FMS are so infallible there is no point in looking out.

Do you know that they were routing directly from ABZ to the Buzzard?

Or, are you just making yet more assumptions? :hmm:

[mad_jock]

I was trying to think in my foxed wing world what would be the best method of stopping a recurrence.

Yes we could change the SOP's etc etc which is what the NAA will want.

But realistically.

Public humiliation in front of their peers.

Followed by a weekend washing aircraft would be far more effective ensuring nobody will do it again.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

TISTISNOT

The one time I nearly did it we planned to land at X, lots of considerations for X and then at the last minute changed to destination Y a few miles away, rush rush slightly fatigued. Outbound lots of changes and information. Brain still geared to landing on X. Made approach to X. Both me and P2 convinced we were OK until HLO......er aren't you coming to us at Y you seem to approaching X. Opps!

That's the kind of thing that happens when repetition, dynamics, fatigue and change management conspire to shaft you.

The crew will have had something conspire to screw them up one way or the other.

No doubt the desk jockeys will get their pound of leash out of the crew.

What the f***k happened to the no blame culture in offshore operations?

[mad_jock]

its not no blame culture any more in the fixed wing world its "Just culture"

[Keke Napep]

I thought most companies (like Bristow), these days have a just culture, which is very different from a no-blame culture. Even with a supposedly just culture, I've heard that certain Bristow Nigeria managers have said 'nobody puts a serviceable helicopter in the water on my watch and gets away with it' and 'the next crew to land on the wrong deck will be sacked' :ugh:

I'm sure that Bond will be operating a just culture model and if that's the case, even if the crew are found to be in some way to blame, as long as it was not malicious, they will not be sacked (though they may have their Captaincy removed for a period of time and/or be subject to additional training).

As has been said, people should wait for the result of the investigation which I'm sure is already underway, before throwing stones at the crew.

[Boudreaux Bob]

KN,

I suppose it is "Just" so long as it is a published policy and is followed through on when said event occurs. After all, fair warning had been given.

That beats the old policy of Secret Handshakes and Management supporting Management even when Management knew Management was wrong.

What's the odds of this particular Crew ever making the same kind of mistake again if they only endure a week long suspension and a Hats On-No Tea interview with the Boss Fellah and being told to go back to Work?

What is more important is everyone else who was not in that Cockpit learning a lesson from what happened. We might laugh at the poor guy's but deep down we should fully understand it could be us next time unless we pay better attention to what we are doing.

[parabellum]

Ah yes.....400 Pesky peeved Pax.....gets rather crowded in a 74's Cockpit then I would assume!


Passengers get very snotty if you don't talk to them very soon after a GA, when you would much rather be doing more important things, they write nasty letters to management etc., say they were 'ignored', 'no one told us anything', 'we were all frightened', 'never fly your airline again' etc. etc. :)


(Sorry for the side track guys and gals).

[terminus mos]

The problem is that the modern safety culture wants HAZOBS which are conducted before a campaign. In these sessions, the oil company SMEs are expected to put barriers in place to show that Hazard A or B is managed to ALARP.

Landing on an unmanned helideck is seen as a big sin "what happens if the helicopter lands on the deck and the crane is moving or it crashes and there is no helideck crew"

The oil company aviation adviser, busily trying to defend himself, the pilots and the helicopter company against an ever increasing number of self appointed armchair experts dreaming up ever more ridiculous scenarios has to trot out the usual barriers, FMS, flight planning, positive ID on final approach, etc.

The facilitators (paid by the word probably) then try to encourage the group to think of even more ridiculous scenarios to justify why landing on the wrong deck is a sin just short of murder. No one to man the fire monitors for the helicopter coming in to land if it's on fire, or the wheels won't come down etc. they don't realise that helicopters don't land offshore with known problems unless there is no alternative.

So the facilitators wind up the non experts who want to be experts because they once flew a model helicopter and before you know it, everyone is an expert and landing on the wrong helideck is immortalised as a sin, it self perpetuates over a few HAZOBS and we are where we are.

That's why the crew is suspended. As HC says, no big deal, a red face and bruised pride but it's not the sin it is made out to be. But because of the number of instant experts, even the strongest oil company Aviation Advisor finds it hard to reduce the hysteria.

[tistisnot]

But surely your SMS or safety case considers exactly the same - and puts your own barriers in place before the nasty aviation advisor has to point it out ..... you just won't escape it in this modern era whether you like it or not

[Lonewolf_50]

(Just to add, landing on the wrong rig or platform in those days would simply cost a lot of beer, no inquiry).
I think parabellum has put his finger on what's wrong with the aviation industry in the year 2014.

[Piltdown Man]

I hope than when the word "suspended" is used by the company it really means just placed off roster to enable interviews to take place. And with any luck, the investigation will go along the line of why did this crew believe they were in the correct place? Did the company's method foresee this possibility? Were the company's SOPs a help or a hindrance? Who else saw that this was going pear shaped? What systems are in place to prevent this from happening? Did the rig see their approach? Unless we can see things from this crew's perspective, we will learn little. And the hang'em high brigade can do us all a favour and remain in their mud huts - they have no place in the modern world. I also do hope these guys go straight back to work, should they wish to do so. Suspension, demoting, fining, "retraining" will do nothing to prevent reoccurrence - it only pleases myopic idiots and Daily Mail readers.

PM

[jayteeto]

Correct 100%.
Something serious goes wrong / suspend who did it / investigate what happened / assess how to stop it happening again / negligence or accidental? / take appropriate action against any guilty party / move on
This is how any company should react to a situation. The most important part should be prevention of a reoccurance, NOT punish at all costs.
I see no problem with the suspension of the crew, it actually shows leadership

[HeliComparator]

Thanks TM, good to see that someone "from the dark side" understands the big picture and is on the side of common sense!

[fatmanmedia]

I’m surprised how many are making this out to be a big deal. How many commercial aircraft have landed at the wrong airport, hell how many have landed at the wrong runway, its not a big deal.

So the crew landed at the wrong rig, they owe the pax a beer each as a way of an apology.

quick question, Did they eventually land at the right rig or not?

there is a lot more that could go wrong.

Fats

[helimutt]

Earlier in this thread Double Bogey made a very good post.

Jayteeto, please explain what suspension of the crew proves? Do you know the background to this flight? What if it was the end of a long tiring day, at the end of a long tiring week. Offshore flying is not the walk in the park all you pampered onshore types enjoy sometimes.:E;)

Where I fly offshore there are a number of checks in place before landing to try and ensure the wrong rig landing doesnt occur. Thats not to say it wont. For instance we have 3-4 jack up or drill rigs with very very similar identifiers in our gps database but called differently in reality. which we use for navigation to said rig. Now, a garmin 530 gps which hasnt had the rig position updated correctly, or the rig has moved, requires the waypoint to be removed from the programmed route, before we are able to update the waypoint gps position, then re-enter it, before we can Nav to it. So, add in some bad weather cells, a very low time co-pilot, after 6 hrs of flying in tropical temps. See the point im trying to make.

Yes you could suspend or get rid of the crew who make a wrong rig landing, but what exactly does that do? Just Culture?

[Boudreaux Bob]

quick question, Did they eventually land at the right rig or not?

Landing at the right place two times out of three is not a bad average do you think?:uhoh:

[helofixer]

1 pax in a S92. holy crap talk about overkill.

[diginagain]

1 pax in a S92. holy crap talk about overkill. It happens more often than you might think. If that pax is needed urgently, he gets to pick his own window. The flight might also have dropped other pax at another installation prior to visiting the jack-up.

[RL77CHC]

Can't speak for all the big oil companies but one certain Dutch company we flew for in Malaysia would rather you blow the floats and ditch in the water versus landing on a rig unscheduled in the event of an emergency.

The potential loss of revenue, lives and damage to their reputation, should you screw up, far exceeded that of a helicopter ditching in the water with it's potentially "expendable" air frame, crew and occupants.

I didn't believe it until one of their resident senior aviation safety managers showed me both scenarios run through their internal risk matrix. Land as soon as possible took on an entirely different meaning..........slow, low and back to the airport. Not onto one of dozen or more platforms unannounced:=

Seriously..................................

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Glad I am in China flying like it used to be!

[jayteeto]

That's just typical here helimutt, you don't like what I say so just insult me.
Read my post again, it is not written about THIS incident, it is written about ANY incident in ANY industry.
Ridiculous "pampered" comments aside, I will explain myself anyway.
Any service provider, be it McDonald's or BOH, rely on maintaining a good reputation with a customer. A robust reaction to an incident shows leadership and good practice to any customer. Even if the company are 99.9% certain of the outcome of any enquiry, if they carry out a competent procedure, the customer is happier. If the crew have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear from this and should then be reinstated at the earliest opportunity.
I have been through this procedure recently and came out ok. I was treated as a professional and with respect by the company. It was stressful, but it looked fair internally and externally. I cannot stress how much better this makes the company look to the customer.
So get off your high horse and think why the company did this. I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FLIGHT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. That is what any enquiry will do.
Well done from me, Leadership, you can't beat it.

[HeliComparator]

JT2 of course there should be some internal inquiry, however it should be kept out of the public eye. By pronouncing to the media "we've suspended the pilots" there is an inevitable implication to the uninitiated that they are solely to blame. "Pilot error". You may think it looks good, but only to the uninitiated. In effect the good name of the crew is, at least temporarily, being sacrificed to make the company look better (or so they think!).

So if it is decided to keep the crew off the roster for a bit, fine but no need to pronounce it. There is no need to keep the crew off the roster for fear of a repeat in this particular case because at this moment they are probably the least likely to land on the wrong rig. There may be a need to keep them off the roster due to the stress and pressure of nearly having brought the world to an end by landing on the wrong rig, but that is a self-fulfilling feature of making such a big deal out of a pretty minor event.

To the initiated the company looks as stupid as my company did when it sacked a guy following a near-collision with the sea (many years ago). I happened to be involved with a meeting between our boss and the client. Our boss's debrief to the client was pretty much along the lines of "he nearly crashed, but we have now sacked him so end of problem". The look on the client's face revealed to me that the "blame the pilot" rather than "find out why" attitude impressed him as little as it did me.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Great post Helicomparitor! Why does the Company not say " clearly something went wrong but we have some faith in our crew and we will work with them to prevent a reoccurrence....if possible" (which we all know is actually not given the crappy visual environment).

Storm in a tea cup! Best wishes to this crew.

[Fareastdriver]

Glad I am in China flying like it used to be!

One of our Chinese captains and his FO got suspended for a month without pay for making an approach and then going around when they realised it was the wrong rig.

when it sacked a guy following a near-collision with the sea (many years ago).

The platform was then nicknamed after an American TV programme.

[rantanplane]

Why not promote the pilots, like in other well paid jobs :E

one should fly again immediately and of course as much as possible after whatever little mistake. Lets fly to the wrong rig again, just for training to see where it went wrong.

The big danger is to develop anxieties with this sort of ancient 'stand in the corner' guilt-building culture. Anxiety can be a serious blocker, especially for situational awareness.

The bold and thick chaps perhaps won't bother, but the sensitive and - usually - more talented pilots might receive the personal damage.
A bit contra productive, if not dangerous at at the end.

[parabellum]

The same managers that would order an early and extended Happy Hour with the poor unfortunates forking out for much beer would, in todays environment probably have made an immediate press release along the following lines;


"The initial investigation into this incident confirms that, at no time, were the passengers, crew or aircraft in any danger. The navigation anomaly is the subject of continued investigation and if any action is necessary it will be taken. When the investigation is complete appropriate details will be made available to the aviation based press as information and guidance for other operators".


Personally I think that is what should have happened, turning a minor incident into a drama and the crew into pariahs isn't good management, isn't clever and shouldn't happen in the aviation industry. The meeting between the operator and the client remains, for ever, confidential.

[jimf671]

Considering how little effort many offshore structure have made to identify themselves from the air, I am shocked that such incidents are not much more common.

[busdriver02]

TM, sounds like anytime I watch the news and there's an aircraft incident and they bring in their "experts." Makes me wonder I bother watching the news at all.

It's a helicopter, it's designed to land in the middle of no where, that's what makes it useful. Does the north sea not have a guard freq for emergencies?

[Phone Wind]

If Bond has a Just Culture, they should also have trained event investigators to determine the actual cause of the landing on the wrong deck. Many companies now use the Flowchart Analysis of Investigation Results (FAIR) system to aid them to make a correct decision. In this case it seems that the crew carried out their intended action (landing on a rig offshore) but the consequences of their action were unintended (they landed on a rig which was not the one planned). If they didn't deliberately break the rules but didn't select the correct actions they would be deemed to have made a mistake. Under the FAIR system an Event Review Group including at least 3 of the pilots peers who should e of the same rank and similar experience levels. Any decision to take disciplinary action should take account of whether this will make any contribution to safety learning and improvement, or just discourage others from reporting errors. The trouble is that so many oil companies these days talk about having a just culture themselves, but want to see the crew disciplined for any mistakes they make. The helicopter operators are then deliberately pressured into treating the crew unfairly. It was just such a situation that caused Bristow to cave in to pressure some years ago, but the sacrificial lamb in that case was the Head of Flight Operations :ugh:
I made a genuine mistake a few years back, was suspended until the reason was investigated, was called in for an interview with my operations manager who decided that the blame lay equally with the company and myself and after flying a revenue line check flight, I resumed normal flying duties.
As many have said, this has happened before and it will happen again and I'm still amazed with all the new advancements in technology, there is nothing in the cockpit to enable the crew to instantly see on which rig/platform/ship they are landing. He1aviator pointed out that most ships are fitted with an AIS. If OGP mandated that all offshore installations or vessels working in the offshore oil and gas industry were fitted with AIS, it surely be possible to integrate this into the aircraft avionics somehow?

[HeliComparator]

If OGP mandated that all offshore installations or vessels working in the offshore oil and gas industry were fitted with AIS, it surely be possible to integrate this into the aircraft avionics somehow?

As far as I know all offshore installations and oil industry vessels are already fitted with AIS. So every floating rust bucket can see every other one. Just the helicopter crew that cannot! So yes, if the oil companies really were concerned about wrong deck landings, they would specify airborne AIS. It does exist, I've flown a helicopter with airborne AIS display (ironically it was a Bond L2!). They don't, because in the great scheme of things it is just something for the oil companies to be outraged about rather than a real safety issue.

[terminus mos]

Not sure Busdriver02, I am not on the NS.

But the oil and gas industry has now developed a hyper sensitivity to anything with the word helicopter in it. The 2 words which strike fear into them are Gearbox and Pilot(s)

Just today, management was having a discussion about potential helicopter accidents (as we continually seem to do). Today's scenario was a crash on the deck which takes out not just those in the helicopter but some of the offshore workers as well. How far do you go with this stuff?

The problem is that the UK sector of the NS accident rate since 2009 has generated this paranoia which is spreading industry wide. I can try to reduce the hysteria, but the stats tell otherwise at the moment.

Next, they will want 3 crew, just in case 2 crew make a mistake and an extra gearbox.

[HeliComparator]

Not sure Busdriver02, I am not on the NS.

But the oil and gas industry has now developed a hyper sensitivity to anything with the word helicopter in it. The 2 words which strike fear into them are Gearbox and Pilot(s)

Just today, management was having a discussion about potential helicopter accidents (as we continually seem to do). Today's scenario was a crash on the deck which takes out not just those in the helicopter but some of the offshore workers as well. How far do you go with this stuff?

The problem is that the UK sector of the NS accident rate since 2009 has generated this paranoia which is spreading industry wide. I can try to reduce the hysteria, but the stats tell otherwise at the moment.

Next, they will want 3 crew, just in case 2 crew make a mistake and an extra gearbox.


I'm sure you are right, although if they stopped to consider the impact of a rusted up blowout valve, gas leaks, fires and explosions due to poor maintenance etc, their time might be better spent!

[bondu]

Helicomparator,

Touche! :E

bondu

[diginagain]

I'm sure that those of you worried about guano-encrusted, inadequately-marked exploding installations will have presented evidence supporting your disquiet to the Oil & Gas UK Helicopter Safety Steering Group by now?

[Boudreaux Bob]

Back in the 70's we had to carry onshore diversion fuel for the entire trip as landing on a Deck OEI or with a Tail Rotor problem was deemed far too hazardous and a flight back ashore was seen to be the preferred answer as the Platform or Rig was not to be put at risk for any reason.

What has changed?

[jayteeto]

Are the crew still suspended?

[helimutt]

Jayteeto, I certainly wasn't insulting you! Why would I? I don't even know you. Dear me some people take things so personally. You obviously missed the little emoticons I'd placed in the text. :p

Others who have since posted have said it way better than I ever could. Why was there a public statement about the pilots being suspended? Should have been exactly as Parabellum stated.
That would have been a much better initial position of the company. Instead they look for scapegoats.

Interesting that someone stated a wrong rig landing is more expensive to the company than a ditching? Can you show me that presentation please?

Your 100 miles offshore, there's a clear deck in 1 mile, you have the tail rotor about to let go (you think anyway) so you continue to shore? You ditch? Or precautionary land on the first piece of architecture you can find in a hurry because the 12 guys behind you probably don't want to go feet wet. Interesting scenario.

[pilot and apprentice]

Back in the 70's we had to carry onshore diversion fuel for the entire trip as landing on a Deck OEI or with a Tail Rotor problem was deemed far too hazardous and a flight back ashore was seen to be the preferred answer as the Platform or Rig was not to be put at risk for any reason.

What has changed?

Nothing, same same

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Having once landed on the Fulmar with a shagged damper I was surprised how many "red lights" were on in the cockpit and how the pax could hear the "aural warning system" when they were in row 6. The OIM took exception to " No warnings in the cockpit, your blokes are telling porkies" and launched an immediate investigation. Result-two pissed off pilots and a bunch of bears who told little stories to get out of their trip with pay.

When the bears have the licence to pull the levers, programme the FMS and do all the other crap you do at the sharp end of a 332, 225,192 etc I will listen to them, until then, do your jobs and let the pilots do theirs. I stopped flying off-shore at the end of the nineties and it was bad then, God help the OS pilots now, I thought corporate could be hard, but the oil companies always were a safety disgrace, and encouraged an unfair, guilt based system,no matter what the OM says (and that Dutch crowd). So these guys landed on the wrong rig, so what? it happened so many times in the '80's and '90's and no-one got hurt, but learned lessons. Go have another bevy in the Spiders Web and get a f£££ing grip. Last time my aircraft went wrong was because someone told me the wind was light from an untrue direction, the vis was 8k (it was about 1500m) and the sea state was light, swell was about 30' so look at yourselves next time you want to go home, YOUR LIES KILL. (and before DB or any other apologist complains, I have been informed that dishonest wx reporting still goes on)

Oil companies and stupid OS safety crap sicken me, get real and give the real picture or maybe the pilots will at long las tell what a bunch of lying sh+te wait at the hell-deck stairs

SND

[SuperF]

Surely the way to fix the unread ability of the deck/side markings, is for all pilots to agree on a set standard. Now I'm sure that there already is a standard, they seem to have standards for everything else, so you simply fly out to said rig, approach, sorry deck markings are not up to standard, turn around and fly home.

I would love to see the HR person that will stand down a pilot for WANTING to comply with company standards. Get yourself a really good lawyer, and get enough money out of them, that you then decide if you want to go back to work.

I know it sounds silly, but if all the pilots in said company, said, gee that could have been us, and they have been stood down for what reason? Then maybe they should all stand together.

It won't take too many workers, not getting on the home flight after a shift for them to suddenly make everything spik and span!

They have their standards for a reason, fly to them, remember it's no longer the 80's or 90's when you made a mistake, discussed it with the boys over a beer and everyone learned from it.

[diginagain]

SND - you'll be delighted to know that the North Sea has a network of automated weather-reporting systems these days, and the Met Office-trained observers submitting manual observations sign-off each report with their names. You can even talk to the ERRV crew and ask for a second-opinion.

If, for whatever reason the standards set-out in CAP437 aren't being met, the Helideck Certification Agency would like to hear about it, I'm sure...

[pilot and apprentice]

Outside the North Sea he, SND, is absolutely correct.....

"But Captain, if I tell you the weather you won't land" Yes, I heard that over the radio, this decade.

And SuperF, again, outside the NS, submit all the reports you want. Without an incident, no action. Turn back because you didn't like the markings, get sacked or demoted for "failing to fulfill the client promise".

When in doubt, we know damn well we will wear the blame.

[SuperF]

That's why I said for ALL pilots to agree, and get a good lawyer.

[rotarycat]

What ever happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions?
Not saying this crew is not doing that but they are being defended here by almost everyone in the the industry for making a fairly basic error. And, that is nice but we, as pilots, have a responsibility to a lot of people, starting with our passengers.
I'm only an offshore amateur with 8yrs in various fields but really?
If you have landed on the wrong rig for whatever reason put up your hand and take responsibility, don't hide behind 'alleged' inadequate procedures.
If you can't positively identify the landing platform then don't land. Seems pretty simple to me.

[HeliComparator]

What ever happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions?
Not saying this crew is not doing that but they are being defended here by almost everyone in the the industry for making a fairly basic error. And, that is nice but we, as pilots, have a responsibility to a lot of people, starting with our passengers.
I'm only an offshore amateur with 8yrs in various fields but really?
If you have landed on the wrong rig for whatever reason put up your hand and take responsibility, don't hide behind 'alleged' inadequate procedures.
If you can't positively identify the landing platform then don't land. Seems pretty simple to me.

Of course they should take responsibility for their own actions, and I am sure they are, and feeling pretty stupid and annoyed at their failures.

However, having personally been involved in or seen the detailed reports on a few wrong deck landings, it is never as simple as "the pilots just landed on the wrong deck". There are always multiple contributory factors that have come together a la Swiss cheese model, usually including the very powerful human factors perception that when you are looking at a deck, you radio it, and it seems to answer, it must surely be the right deck.

The bottom line is that humans make mistakes. If you are going to base your whole safety case on "pilots mustn't make mistakes" you are doomed to inevitably be disappointed. What is needed are procedures and other controls in place that help to make the process human error tolerant. It is the failure to make the system optimally error tolerant that we are discussing, eg the practical difficulty of reading the installation name from some directions etc. and of course the failure of the oil cos to invest in some fairly elementary tech to add safeguards eg deck traffic lights.

[rotarycat]

Fair comment HC.
The last line of defence is positively identifying the deck visually. All the stuff you mention should happen before that. In my opinion.

[John Eacott]

I'm reminded of the number of RPTs that made approaches from the south to Essendon Airport in error, thinking they were lined up for Tullamarine 5nm to the NW. Only by including all parties in an investigation was the resolution achieved, lead in strobes on the Tullamarine runway.

HC's idea of traffic lights is but one possible aid to solving the offshore deck recognition issue; but castigation of and ostracising the very members of the workforce who should be helping resolve the problem doesn't seem a very good way to go.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Flying in support of a small Dutch owned offshore operation, we did the "report" routine on Helideck problems. All nice and official from out CP to their designated representative and despite repeated reports, complaints, memo's, letters, of course no changes or improvements.

Then one day, we refused to land at a few of the sites that had been complained on for a Year.

Immediately, we saw things like Wind Socks, Paint, and lots of activity appear.

Taking such action works but it takes the full faith and support of the Helicopter Operator Management and building a firm inescapable case that the Oil Company, Rig Owner cannot deny.

One Crew doing that is tempting Fate.

When the Operator does that for the Crew's....good things happen.

If this is not being done then I see it as a Management Failure.

[rotarycat]

John,
I didn't think I was castigating and ostracising anyone and that certainly wasn't my intent but I was suggesting that maybe we have to look at ourselves in our professional capacity and look out the window before we land. That's all.

[HeliComparator]

HC's idea of traffic lights ...

Not my idea, but one that has been around for years. Pity no-one can be bothered to implement it!

[diginagain]

Aldis lamps c/w red and green filters are available on many installations, certainly on the jack-ups and semis that I've been on. It may not be plugged-in and to hand immediately, as we tend to rely on people knowing what it is they're shooting an approach-to.

[HeliComparator]

... we tend to rely on people knowing what it is they're shooting an approach-to.

Then clearly you place false reliance on "people". Considering wrong deck landing have been occurring regularly for as long as offshore oil support has been in business, just what will it take to make you realise this?

It is this sort of attitude that prevents safety moving up to the next level. Shame on you

[Offshore Addict]

Dont know what Diginagain is on about regarding Aldis lamps. Been occupying Radio Rooms for a good few years now and never heard of them being allocated for helideck use. Just asked our HLO who muttered something about it not being 1944 and wandered out. I was recently on a new build and they did have "wave off" lights that could be triggered manually for whatever reason, they also activate automatically whenever a platform alarm kicks in. Never seen an Aldis lamp on my travels though.

People make errors, it happens. I have pulled my fair share of facepalm moments out here. Even saw a Phantom land at the wrong airfield before, both runways orientated 09/27 and just a few miles apart. These days crews and engineers at offshore helicopter companies must feel like they operate under a huge magnifying glass, it cant be easy. Personally, as long as the crew get me back to Aberdeen on the day I go off I am happy. If they want to take me somewhere else for a bit and cut my time at work I am all for it. Tenerife would be nice.

I'll bet the crew were annoyed though, missing out on all that food I bet they ordered .. ;)

[diginagain]

HC - as a result of recent events we've seen that pilots are as fallible, and as frangible, as the rest of us.

[HeliComparator]

HC - as a result of recent events we've seen that pilots are as fallible, and as frangible, as the rest of us.

Recent events? So the aviation events of the previous 90 years have passed you by?

[diginagain]

Offshore Addict - I'm surprised. Nothing as per SOLAS Ch.V a daylight signalling lamp, or other means to communicate by light during day and night using an energy source of electrical power not solely dependent upon the ship's power supply.

[obnoxio f*ckwit]

Nothing as small or antiquated as an Aldis-type lamp. Full intensity dual mode green/red deck lighting, to replace/add to the green perimeter lights.

Normal setting is red, when the HLO is happy that his deck is completely ready, he switches them to green.

Helicopter: "request deck availability"

HLO: "Deck available, lights green"

Helicopter: "check lights, we see red"

HLO: "definitely green"

Helicopter: "where are we then?"

Etc etc

Can't be that difficult.

[John Eacott]

John,
I didn't think I was castigating and ostracising anyone and that certainly wasn't my intent but I was suggesting that maybe we have to look at ourselves in our professional capacity and look out the window before we land. That's all.

rc,

My response was general in nature: it just happened to appear about the same time as, and followed your, post. Nothing aimed at you personally ;)

obnox,

Simple idea, isn't it? Maybe too simple for the Oil and Gas Industry :E All this discussion along with a proper peer-reviewed investigation into what actually happened may result in a solution that could put the ball firmly back into the hands of management to instigate that solution.

[JimL]

Work has been done over a projected period on something which is not quite as easy to provide as first imagined. The result of the work was published as a CAA paper in 2003 updated in 2008:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2008_01.pdf

Jim

[HeliComparator]

Work has been done over a projected period on something which is not quite as easy to provide as first imagined.

Jim

Not really the same thing though Jim. Or at least, it has fallen victim to being run by ideologists, vs designers who understand that everything (that works in practice) is a compromise. The need to ward of helicopters from long range due to a gas leak etc is a different requirement from a device to stop wrong deck landings.

What is in fact required is, for example, a means of turning the otherwise excellent CAA-promoted green deck circle lighting, to red until such time as the HLO gives deck clearance.

By trying to make this project all things to all people - always an impossible task and the death knell of any project - and looking for that elusive perfect solution, the net result is a stalling of the project and no actual implementation of a reasonably effective solution.

[JimL]

Well HC, as I remember, that was exactly what it was for:

The CAA's attention was initially drawn to the issue of helideck status signalling systems as a result of concerns within the industry over 'wrong-rig' landings and their associated safety hazards. A study of offshore platform identification signs, reported in CAA Paper 92006 (Reference [2]), established that there was little prospect of resolving the problem through improvements to the signage and recommended the specification of a new visual aid, the helideck status signalling system.
I understand what you are saying though but had not thought (nor had others) of your unique solution. Would that work by Day?

Jim

[griffothefog]

Sorry guys, but I put the blame firmly on the oil companies. We operate to many platforms off Denmark with next to no visible way of identifying the deck until very short finals due to poor markings, this situation has to be improved as we operate nightly in the winter a morning and evening shuttle service. Familiarity of the field is helpfull, but some of the working rigs as opposed to jack ups are virtually hidden underneath the production modules and many of the legs are not even lit :eek:
I am not for one minute defending a crew that doesn't follow their SOP's regarding indenting the platform before landing during the daytime, but come on, there has to be a better and safer solution especially at night in a congested field.
In their defence, the jack ups generally have a huge rig name on there Derrick, which is hard to miss :D
Anyone got anything constructive to add ???

[check]

A number of years ago in the Dutch sector an oil company put reflective signs on the side of the platforms. The signs were floodlit and along with the landing light day or night they were perfectly visible. Of course the signs are also for marine use and many have block numbers instead of the rig/platform name which did not help!

[HeliComparator]

Well HC, as I remember, that was exactly what it was for:


I understand what you are saying though but had not thought (nor had others) of your unique solution. Would that work by Day?

Jim

That was what it was for initially, but the scope was widened to include preventing helis from landing eg when there was a gas leak. As a result of trying to make the scope cover all eventualities, the result was that nothing happened.

However I will have to concede your point about the green circle not working in broad daylight, that is probably the case. But surely a bright omnidirectional light visible in daylight, or other clear visual indicator visible on short finals, is not that difficult to achieve? That it hasn't been achieved strongly suggests that, amongst other things, it is actually not that important.

It would be interesting to analyse all wrong deck landings, but I suspect that nearly all will have occurred following a visual approach. The increased levels of checks occuring during an ARA makes a wrong deck landing from an instrument approach seem very unlikely. With that in mind, a lot of the complexity of the CAA paper can be dispensed with. Just day and night. No need to be able to see it at 900m in a vis of 1400m etc, just before committal point in VMC would be fine. Too much gold plating!

[dommer]

As a WDL on an offshore installation obviously is considered as a condition which may be hazardous, I am very much in favour of the status lights as described in CAP 437:

Ch 2.3.5 : NOTE: The installation of ‘Status Lights’ systems (see Chapter 4, paragraph 3.6) is not considered to be a solution to all potential flight safety issues arising from hydrocarbon gas emissions; these lights are only a visual warning that the helideck is in an unsafe condition for helicopter operations.

Ch 4.3.6: A visual warning system should be installed if a condition can exist on an installation which may be hazardous for the helicopter or its occupants. The system (Status Lights) should be a flashing red light (or lights), visible to the pilot from any direction of approach and on any landing heading. The aeronautical meaning of a flashing red light is either “do not land, aerodrome not available for landing” or “move clear of landing area”. The system should be automatically initiated at the appropriate hazard level (e.g. impending gas release) as well as being capable of manual activation by the HLO. It should be visible at a range in excess of the distance at which the helicopter may be endangered or may be commencing a visual approach. CAA Paper 2008/01 provides a specification for a status light system which is summarised below:......etc.
Regards
Dommer

[tomotomp]

How about a red flag in the middle of the Helideck

[Boudreaux Bob]

http://www.airportlightingcompany.com/images/beacon4.jpg



Just how darned difficult is it to mount a commonly used Heliport Rotating Beacon but using Red Lenses to mark the Landing Decks?

Mount one of anyone of these in a safe location adjacent to the Deck and Bob's Yer Uncle.

Lights on....do not land.

No gold plating needed....just some wire, metal work, and done deal.

Any Pilot that cannot see one of these day or night needs to seek alternative employment.



Airport Lighting Company | Beacons (http://www.airportlightingcompany.com/Beacons.html)

[dommer]

Or this One:
L425EX
Explosion proof ATEX certified LED helideck status (wave-off) light meeting CAP437 requirements. Long life LEDs and light weight design, which incorporates stainless steel mounting facilities and low profile design (<250mm), makes product ideal for easy installation and long maintenance intervals
http://www.orga.nl/images_products/p_img.php?p_id=64
ORGA - Your products for: Offshore oil & gas - Helideck lighting - Status light systems (http://www.orga.nl/index.php?page=272&pl=55)
Best regards
Dommer

[Owen Shannon]

Apologies for a long first post.
With the development of technology, the situational awareness skills requiring heading, time and distance to enable 12 – 15 deck landings on a production run without the use of GPS or equivalent, appear to have gone.Takeoff briefings including, example “right turn to 120 degrees, Market Alpha 9 miles/5 minutes “, etc., don’t appear to be even given a thought.It’s all done for you as one of you suggested. Even long hauls from shore appear to lose the focus required such as may be the case here. And I agree with one post that suggest most WRLs occur in visual conditions.
We’ve all seen the attempts by both operators and companies to prevent WRLs, including flashing lights, name placards, HLO ‘have you in sight’ calls, cockpit procedures, etc.Huge amounts of money have been spent implementing these or reviewing SOPs.
Having several thousand helideck landings under my belt can I appeal to those of you keen to see improvements, for your comments re the following KISS method of helping prevent reoccurrences. It follows the lines of a couple of suggestions - John Eacott (long time John), Obnox, Helicom. It is also based on the principal of noticing something out of the norm on the decks... e.g., a towel, sunbathers (years ago), a straw hat, deck colour, etc.
During a WRL investigation I conducted (and I’ve investigated several) I ‘employed’ a team of highly professional, high time offshore pilots, to advise on my findings and recommendations.From one of these lads came an idea we all thought had merit, so much so in fact that we recommended the subject company take the lead in recommending the same to the industry.
The resultant suggestion was cheap to implement but would need the ‘buy-in’ of the oil companies, and goodness knows, as already suggested, it’s in their interest to do their part in WRL prevention.It appears (from this discussion) that any follow-up done by the subject company has not eventuated.
Every Helideck should have in their ‘crash box’ or some other storage area, a ‘Prohibited Landing’ marker… you know, the 4 meter square signal red panel with the yellow cross that is meant to cover the ‘H’ inside the TD/PM.We all know that these are scarcely used as they are ‘really’ for ‘certain operational or technical reasons an installation may wish to prevent helicopter operations’. Mmmmm, wouldn’t preventing a non-scheduled helicopter from landing meet this criteria?
Leaving these on a helideck when a helicopter is not expected may rot them away pretty quickly in the South East Asian heat and other locations (if a North Sea equivalent wind doesn’t dispatch them sooner) and they could present a hazard should a helicopter have no alternative but to make an emergency landing, as unlikely as that may seem.
Most installations have amongst their equipment, webbed straps of the ratchet tightening variation. With any luck they may have ones that are 3 or 4 (or more) inches wide (wider the better, 4” might be a minimum) and of an appropriate length that two of these could be fastened over the net, over the ‘H’ in the form of a cross in less than a minute. If they are not on board, they retail at less than $200 (size dependent) and could be obtained within a few days. Of course the authorities may wish to standardize such devises and fair enough however if they could keep the KISS principle in mind there is a chance a WRL prevention initiative could move ahead. A simple description of how they should be fastened (diagonally across the bisector of the H might work) and secured to appropriate existing fasteners. The inner ring of helicopter tie down points might be a good place to start. The suggestion is that these be installed by the helideck crew as soon as a helicopter leaves and removed before (just when to be determined) a scheduled helicopter arrives.
Would they be visible before the ‘committed’ or ‘landing’ call is made? Most likely (tests would tell) ... they’d be a lot easier to see than the deck name from certain approach angles. And how many times has the name on a placard been read but not registered as the wrong platform… it has happened. Trials would soon show the appropriate size but anything to begin with would be acceptable, any colour contrasting with the net included (Yellow, or red being initial preferences). The ‘H’ is one of the focal points during such landings and there’s a good chance they would be noticed and understood by our professional colleagues (who understand the meaning of a cross near or on any landing surface).
This could replace the ‘last barrier’ (name of the installation). I'd appreciate you comments.

[EESDL]

might even look forward to this month's Oil n Gas meeting - where they have been prevaricating over clear deck markings for how long??????
Maybe the CAA will make a better job of it...........

[Hedski]

New red v green deck lighting already being tested or installed in Norway. Simple yes or no that way.:D

[Bravo73]

Even long hauls from shore appear to lose the focus required such as may be the case here.

This wasn't the case in this situation.


<snip>With any luck they may have ones that are 3 or 4 (or more) inches wide (wider the better, 4” might be a minimum) and of an appropriate length that two of these could be fastened over the net, over the ‘H’ in the form of a cross in less than a minute. <snip>

re straps or coloured lights and the like: what about operations to and from NUIs?

[dommer]

The NUI babies I visit are all controlled from a mother station - that is why I am in favour of a red "Traffic light" as the last barriere!
regards
Dommer

[Owen Shannon]

Thanks to those responding to my original post.


The straps are suggested due to the past studies of lights appearing to be 'inappropriate' for a variety of reasons - see excellent 31 Aug posts.


My preference of course would be a means of turning the green lights to red. However, that is a major modification taking years to establish...


... meantime, straps are something that could happen almost immediately if someone was bold enough to act on a practical, cost effective, pilot supported proposal.

We'd like to hear any comments, especially if there are any flaws to the idea.

[Bravo73]

We'd like to hear any comments, especially if there are any flaws to the idea.

Yes, what if the deck is unmanned? (ie a NUI).

Then there wouldn't be anybody available to lay the straps once the helicopter has departed or to remove them just before it arrives.


The NUI babies I visit are all controlled from a mother station - that is why I am in favour of a red "Traffic light" as the last barriere!

The NUIs we operate to are all controlled from the shore. However, they already seem to have enough problems controlling and powering their wave off lights that I'm not convinced that an extra set of lights is necessarily the answer.

[jayteeto]

Could I repeat my question, what happened to the suspended crew?? Back at work yet?? Any punishment??

[Owen Shannon]

My experience has noted WRLs seem to be more consistent with landings on occupied installations. NUIs may need something more technical... if any of you can identify why this process would NOT work on occupied installations, we'd enjoy hearing from you.

[Peter-RB]

Well.. anyone who knows......Are they back at work....or suspend "Sine Die"

[helipiloto]

To me this whole thing has a much simpler explanation. The less you are willing to pay for labour, the less experience and skill you will get. No one is exempt from making mistakes, we are all human. But with acquired experience and skills, usually, the potential for mistakes reduces significantly. As pilots, acquiring these skills and experience take a long time and a lot of effort and, if you have any pride in yourself, you wouldn't sell yourself cheaply. Apparently Bond offer 85K gross salary as Captain to fly the state of the art machine nowadays and in one of the most complicated operations: North Sea CAT to offshore platforms. The results have not taken long to show.... Luckily no one was hurt this time.

In most cases the amount you are willing to pay for a product or service is directly proportional to the quality you'll receive in return.

[jayteeto]

85k isn't THAT bad!!

I am guessing that people have been warned off commenting about the outcome of the crew inquiry???

[Whirling Wizardry]

No-one has been told to keep quiet. The easiest and most-sensible choice is not to comment until all facts are clear and known. Maybe the crew in question or Snr management might be the best people to provide feedback. There are crew room rumours, but they are just that and quite rightly have remained within the company's walls until the investigation and it's outcomes are completed and published.

[Whirling Wizardry]

I think it's worth pointing out that £85k is a pretty good starting salary for a Captain and that the pay continues up into six figures as your seniority and experience increases.

Frankly though, pay has absolutely nothing to do with this and to question the professionalism of crews based on pay is crass and unjustified, or are you suggesting that how good a pilot you are is directly related to how much you get paid?

[jayteeto]

Bit naughty of me there, I thought the comment might get a response. The reason I keep asking is to find out if the crew are still grounded. I said weeks back, that a grounding plus a quick inquiry, bollocking and return to duty would show positive robust leadership. If it is being dragged out this long...... Well, I retract that statement.

[jayteeto]

Totally agree on the pay versus ability comment WW

[Whirling Wizardry]

Things are progressing. With regard to detail, that's for the company to deal with right now. I'm sure it will all come out in the open soon.

[helipiloto]

Unfortunately, we pilots are our own worst enemy. In today‘s economy I‘ll agree, 85k is a good salary. And if you are someone with around 2 or 3 thousand hours and pretty recent to the NS (i.e. a couple of years) and the right type rating on your licence then yes, 85k is pretty good. Or if you are ex-army or ex-navy with lots of experience in other types of operations (but not the NS) and are looking for a way into the civilian job market then yes, 85k is not bad at all. But if you are someone with 10+ years NS offshore experience, and 2000+ hours on the specific type flown you are doing all your fellow colleague pilots a very small favor by accepting such pay conditions. I also understand that everyone has their own particular life situation and circumstances and one must look after themselves and his/her loved ones. Companies know this and they search for the most desperate pilot in need of a job with the most experience posible.
It is what we all do every day, look for a bargain. But when you get it, be prepared for the worst because you will have a lot more chances of things possibly going wrong.

[TeeS]

I have to be a little careful here but let's just say two of our most senior pilots were crewed together recently. Not a complicated flight, only a choice of two landings places 'A' and 'B'. 90 times out of 100, place 'A' is the destination, every so often it's place 'B'. Both pilots are reasonably well paid, widely experienced in a multitude of roles and on a variety of helicopter types. Chatting about the unfortunate crew involved in landing on the wrong deck, the conversation turned to just how easy it would be to land at the wrong place, "you know, so used to going to 'A', put A in the GPS, pilot monitoring is so used to going to A, his cross check doesn't ring an alarm bell - landing site crew don't notice the request for clearance to land was for place 'A' rather than 'B' - there but for the grace....." Anyhow, flight completed without mishap; however, a significant sigh of relief that no landing was made at the wrong place and a very real awareness that they were very capable of embarrassing themselves in the same way.

Moral of the story, none really except to say, if you think pay, position, salary, experience etc has any relationship to the likelyhood of cocking up then you need to go back to CRM module 1 lesson 1 and have a re-think. Humans cock up because we are human, training and sops help but can never eradicate the problem, traffic light system would help too but who out there has never accidentally driven through a red traffic light?!

Cheers

TeeS

[Bravo73]

But if you are someone with 10+ years NS offshore experience, and 2000+ hours on the specific type flown you are doing all your fellow colleague pilots a very small favor by accepting such pay conditions.

Who says that 10 year NS Captains are accepting £85k?

[Whirling Wizardry]

Totally agree B73. I seem to recall mentioning Snr Captains salaries being six figures. It all depends on your experience and qualifications; the more you have, the more pay you can ask for. However, it still doesn't make you a better pilot than your co-pilot, it just means you probably have more experience. And let's not confuse experience with competence.

[Hummingfrog]

I had the experience of thinking I had landed on the wrong deck:{ there were 2 Sedco 71x's next to each other. We landed facing out to sea. No sign of HLO. Had we landed on wrong one. I swore I had read name on helideck, it was a sweaty 2ish mins before HLO appeared. It was the right one but it wasn't a pleasent feeling.:{

HF

[Fareastdriver]

It all depends on your experience and qualifications; the more you have, the more pay you can ask for. However, it still doesn't make you a better pilot than your co-pilot,

You are always a better pilot than your co-pilot. I have spent more of my life than I would like to remember as a co-pilot and I have always listened and learned from the Captain of the aircraft.

The co-pilots who think they are better than their captain are the ones who eventually turn out as lousy captains, if they make it.

[212man]

I can also recall, as I suspect FED can, a tall ex RMP senior line training captain, on hearing of a wrong deck landing, saying loudly in the flight planning room that he would resign if he ever he did the same. Cue a few weekends later and a management trip to play golf. Wrong golf course -
does that count?

[Whirling Wizardry]

"You are always a better pilot than your co-pilot. I have spent more of my life than I would like to remember as a co-pilot and I have always listened and learned from the Captain of the aircraft." - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Who said anything about co-pilots thinking they are better pilots than the captain? My point was that quoted hours of experience doesn't necessarily make you a better pilot, it just means you've had more time airborne. We shouldn't confuse experience with competence.

What about the situation where you have 2 captains crewed together, which of them is the better pilot? The one acting as captain for that sortie? Following day, both pilots crewed together again but the previous day's co-pilot is now the captain, are they now the better pilot?

I've held captaincy for many years and the best thing I think any captain can do is not go into a flight with the belief that they are the better pilot, they are simply charged with the overall conduct and safety of the flight, building an air of self-belief that you are the better pilot based purely on your rank is wrong, IHMO at least.

[Fareastdriver]

You have to be fair to them; they had to plan that trip to that golf course in a bit of a rush. The reason being that the initial golf course was socked in with fog when they arrived; unbeknown to them because they hadn't checked the weather before they left.

The oil company executives, having been in the back of a S61 for ninety minutes or so were given coffee and biscuits at Aberdeen whilst they sorted out another golf course. They went for one, ninety miles in a different direction than the first, got clearance, checked the weather this time and off they went.

They landed at their planned golf course in the middle of the monthly medal tournament to discover they had phoned up the wrong golf course.

It was probably the first step towards losing a contract with a long time, almost traditional customer.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

Oh, what a fun day that was. Wry smiles throughout the planning room as I recall.

A certain quite notorious N.Sea Cmdr had recently lost his deposit running for Parliament, only to subsequently be placed Capt. LHS for 6 months by the same ex RMP for being facetious on the radio to Lossie Radar en route to the Beatrice during a Line Check (I was his co-joe), then came the golf course fiasco.

Not long after that our exalted GM Scotland KO'd his Missus in the hospitality tent on another golf course during a PR gig with a different oil major.

Fun and games; bet we could all write books......... :ok:

NEO

[griffothefog]

Arr punchy little Welshmen, my mum from the Rhonda would be proud... :E