Acceptable risks : Night offshore flying

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Now that winter is approaching, I'd be interested in views on night time offshore landings. According to the CAA statistics, close to 100% of fatal accidents involving CFIT offshore over the past 20+ years occur at night. Is this an acceptable risk for crew and offshore workers, or should night rig landings - or at least night landings on NUI's - be prohibited by the CAA. A lot of regulation has been brought in over the past few years, such as XBR seating, new life jackets etc, but it seems to me if we want to greatly reduce fatalities offshore, we should look at limiting night flights. Otherwise, statistically, fatalities at night will sadly continue.

[Fareastdriver]

Should offshore helicopters be prohibited from landing in the dark then you can shut down all the Northern oil fields in the British and Norwegian sectors during the winter.

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Hi fareastdriver, at the moment in winter a lot of the flying is done during daylight due to icing clearances being more restrictive at night - the oil companies accept and allow for this by manning up early morning and de-manning by about 15.00 local. It's not an impossible problem to work round, just involves the work schedules to be heavier in summer, lighter over winter.

[John Eacott]

As F.e.d says: we had months of rig shuttles on the Brent where we never flew a daytime flight with 0600/1800 shift change shuttles. Up to 10-12 landings an hour, too.

But it's now coming into summer and we have lots of lovely long sunny days, especially those where we have bushfires and smoke to contend with ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist the OT bit, but offshore night landings and operations aren't a new magic issue that hasn't been addressed before. If it is now becoming something of concern in the UK then maybe those in charge should be reviewing the check and training regime with a view to closing the error track.

Even look elsewhere for advice: Naval ops to small ships, offshore ops in other parts of the world, the techniques that saw the old and bold through safe ops for years, before the all singing and dancing glass cockpits and automated systems of today?

[[email protected]]

Is it the landings themselves that are the problem?

It doesn't look like it - it seems the CFIT element in positioning for the landings is the tricky bit.

Just use NVG and stop trying to use IF techniques mixed with visual transitions.

[Offshoreflyer0274]

I think NVG's have been considered, but there's too much lighting around the rigs to make it a reasonable solution. You're right, it's probably quite often disorientation while low level shuttling close into the rigs : not sure if it would be classed as the landing or not, but it's the approach/low level phase at night that's statistically the thing that causes fatalities outside of major mechanical failures eg gearboxes.

[Fareastdriver]

Familiarity breeds contempt. A crew may have done a multitude of night landings on a particular design of platform or rig and are used to what the sight picture is on the approach. Put them on an approach to a platform with a different lighting arrangement and the approaches are not so perfect anymore.

before the all singing and dancing glass cockpits and automated systems of today?

Fantastic. Plug in the FMS at V1 and take over at 200 ft. on the approach; simple. How many pilots are fully up to speed within a minute or so of taking over control especially if they have been scribbling or admiring the view for the last hour or so.

I know a pilot who splashed in short. No warning; only five minutes into the flight; simple approach in good weather; SPLASH!

[EESDL]

You will continue to fly at night until the cost based analysis says it is cheaper not to.
You will continue to fly to poorly-lit pads until the CAA enforce implementation of minimum standards.

[Prawn2king4]

No moon. No wind. No horizon. One rig. A fine blend of instrument and visual flying.


Agree with FED. Until the whole thing becomes automated, start hands on a long way out.


But ban night flying.....? MM mmmm, I think not.

[SASless]

Eacott....you drinking early again?

Even look elsewhere for advice: Naval ops to small ships, offshore ops in other parts of the world, the techniques that saw the old and bold through safe ops for years, before the all singing and dancing glass cockpits and automated systems of today?

Dear Boy that is pure tripe....look ELSEWHERE?

Do you really think the Yanks, Canucks, and Aussies could possibly know anything about Offshore flying in the Dark?

[Turkeyslapper]

"I think NVG's have been considered, but there's too much lighting around the rigs to make it a reasonable solution. You're right, it's probably quite often disorientation while low level shuttling close into the rigs"


From the one or landings to rigs I have done with the use of NVGs it is the lighting around the rigs that can make the use of NVGs much better - you really do get the best of both worlds - much better contrast with the water on goggles due to the large amount of ambient light around the rigs, lots of light which gives the ability to use peripheral cues "outside the goggles" as well. Later generation of NVG also handle high ambient light environments much better.


NVG aren't a silver bullet however IMHO certainly do have some really good advantages for offshore work - have any trials actually been performed in order to determine what they could do for the industry???

[SASless]

Having flown with NVG's and FLIR along with a Night Sun with FLIR Filter....that is the only way to fly in the Dark. It certainly beats hell out of the MK I Eyeball!

Current generation Goggles don't have near the Wash Out problems the earlier ones did. Combined with even fixed FLIR systems that only give a Look Ahead View....Goggles would be an improvement.

But....of course the CAA would have kittens over it and the Operators would not want to spend the money.....and the Oil Companies would see it as increasing the Safety costs.

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Thanks for the info about NVG's - I've no experience at with them, so may be worth looking at. I'm not sure what the answer is, but just find it interesting looking at stats that for all the efforts to reduce fatalities in the offshore world, the one thing which would ensure lives saved over the next 10 years would be to stop night offshore operations. If that's not a viable option - oil companies being reluctant to adjust their work so much being a reasonable assumption - then the next step in my mind would be stop night flights to small NUI's. If that's not likely then NVG's may help. My main concern really is that having flown about 20 years offshore, the one common situation that I know has scared, with close calls, or ended up killing offshore crews and workers is night time operations. It seems as an industry we haven't properly addressed the issue - either ensure the crews are flying night time regularly enough to be comfortable and current or look at restricting the operations.

[[email protected]]

Absolutely agree with Turkeyslapper and SASless - the NVG technology is significantly improved and it is quite straightforward to make an approach to a brightly lit site using them.

It may be that the reluctance to allow their use in non-military operations is in part due to having to keep the USA on-side since they provide the export licences for them.

I don't know how widespread the use of NVG in non-mil ops is in the US but there certainly does seem to have been some paranoia about NVG falling into the wrong hands.

Prawnking's no moon, no,wind, no horizon scenario is still made significantly more comfortable using NVG AND autopilot functions and the rig will provide all the cultural lighting you need.

[havick]

John eacott, didn't you write off a BK117 simply flying into Bankstown NVFR to a lit pad?

[John Eacott]

John eacott, didn't you write off a BK117 simply flying into Bankstown NVFR to a lit pad?

No.

I had a tail rotor strike on a tree when landing at a completely dark, unlit area outside a hangar late at night when positioning for a fire call. The trees were cut down by Bankstown Airport a few days later, certainly shouldn't have been there! My BK was back up and running and spent many years of fun flying.

I'm always comfortable sharing experiences to help others avoid mistakes, but there's no point in trying to infer the accident was worse than it was. It certainly has no bearing on offshore flying.

[Thomas coupling]

Cut my teeth night flying over the sea.
Probably 60 - 70% of all my naval flying was totally negative external visual references. One quickly learns to worship the Rad Alt, relies heavily on the co-pilot for another. One became fatigued quite quickly - burning holes in the instruments. Watching every twitch and rate change of all the needles. 40 feet above certain death - and far away from "mother".
Then the time came to 'recover' and land on this light shadow moving against a darker shadow, watching and waiting for the 'lull' picking your moment when you literally throw 9 tonnes of thrashing metal at a space no bigger than a squash court.
Deck lights come on, smiling people emerging from the darkness, aircrew nervously laughing - just another normal night op......................

The innocence of youth. :uhoh:

In answer to the OP: I guess it's down to training and discipline. Oh - and how much you value your life, I suppose!

[Geoffersincornwall]

Oh yes I remember those times very well but my real night horrors were whilst on the Fulmar doing night shuttles around the field in all weathers in a 105DB with no rad alt and single pilot.

I've said it before on Prune but if the helicopter was equipped with a dial called a 'skill meter' then there were plenty of times when it was knocking on the top stops. Landing an S76 at night in pouring rain on some of the southern North Sea decks was a real test.

In terms of risk management you have a dilemma, to maintain a 24 hour capability for medevac etc. you actually need people who are current and 3 deck landings at night every 90 days doesn't really do it. You select people for night standby and train them every month then one night one of the captains goes sick and you have to draft in a ninety-day man (or woman) then you have racked up the risk. The costs of keeping everyone on a 30 day requirement would be astronomical unless you lease a decommissioned rig and put it 10 miles off Aberdeen and maybe others where they can be accessed within minutes rather than hours.

G :ok:

[[email protected]]

I think there are plenty of us on these pages who have scared themselves fartless doing 'mortal' or 'reversionary' night flying in the past whether it is overland with dust or overwater with no references.

We are in the 21st century now and such high skill-level events should not be required in the offshore or corporate (see other threads) sectors - if only because the training/licensing system doesn't produce the guaranteed high quality output required to meet those events.

NVG opens up the world of night flying and makes it so much safer and less-stressful - every pilot who has flown using them will agree, I have no doubt.

Just move on.

[SASless]

Odd.....everyone with real life experience with NVG's swears by them.

Am I missing something?

Are there some Training Kingdom's at risk if that Technology is brought into use and there is an Experience Requirement to be a Trainer?

[[email protected]]

I suspect so Sasless, every mil pilot in UK is trained on NVG as part of their BASIC training and regards it as normal night flying, just as in the US.

The regulatory authority just can't seem to understand this and adapt the rules and regs to meet the new capability. EASA does seem to be massively on the back foot for this.

[SASless]

We seem to be winning the battle over here as NVG's are becoming far more common as the Operators and Customers realize the benefit they provide....primarily in the EMS business where so much of the flying is at night and far too often in very dark places in marginal weather.

If all I ever did was fly from Airport to Airport with fully instrumented Runways and all sorts of Light and Surface Reference aids.....then perhaps using NVG's would not be as useful as they are.

But when it gets really...really Dark....and the lights are scarce NVG's are magic kit. I used to land back to a fully lit Helipad....the usual perimeter in ground lights....but also lit up like daytime due to giant arrays of Flood Lights that were beamed onto the Pad for Security while the aircraft was parked awaiting a Scramble Call.

Unless you looked square into one of the Flood Light arrays it was not a problem and then only momentarily until you looked away....not much different than if you looked at them using the Naked Eye.

I can no reason why ordinary Platform, Rig, or Vessel lighting would be a problem for NVG Operations.

[Geoffersincornwall]

If NVG's became the norm then we stand to lose the ability to operate without.

I've never experienced NVG's having come from a generation that preceded their arrival in the UK military. I did however spend much of my anti-submarine career flogging around the oggin in the pitch black at 200' and below and to and from very poorly lit (like near zero) decks on moving vessels. The key was always training and recency - plus a good deal of respect for this unforgiving environment thrown in.

I already see CV's that detail night flying with and without NVG's. What do we do when we see a candidate with nothing under the 'non-NVG night' column? I suggest it is a skill we do not wish to lose, for whatever reason. If NVG's are not available we may become prisoners of the dark.

I'm all for NVG's because they provide an excellent degree of safety but I am apprehensive about losing the basic night flying skills.

G. :ok:

[SASless]

Last time I checked...training can be done goggled or with the Mk I Eyeballs or even with the Mk i's improved with spectacles.

What does happen when NVG's are not used is One realizes just how much One can not see in the Dark.

We did a Training flight down on the south end of our playground where the Trainer wore Goggles and the Learner had his flipped up out of the way but ready to go when flipped down.

We set up a track towards an abandoned Recycling Building with a very large and tall but unlit brick smoke stack....due to there being no electrical power being supplied to the derelict site. At a height well below the top of the Stack and it smack dab at 12 O'Clock to the nose of the aircraft....and at a somewhat uncomfortable distance from impact....the Learner was asked to confirm everything was Peaches and upon doing so....was instructed to lower his Goggles and offer a Second Opinion.

It is scary what you cannot see if you can see it.

Once you use Goggles you will quickly grasp Night Flying is much easier if you can see. It makes thinking in the dark far more easy.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Like I say - NVG's are great and their routine use would make life safer but if I was flying around at night overland I wouldn't be doing it below the height of the highest obstacle on my route. That's the kind of consideration that might go out the window if we get too familiar with the NVG version of daylight.

Out of interest do you NVG specialists have a work around for NVG failure? Do you have a flight plan 'B' that revises the altitudes and/or the route if the kit fails?

G.

[SASless]

You miss the point dear Boy....the teaching point was you can see obstacles with NVG's that One would not see without the benefit of Goggles.

No one flies around below obstacles at night...least ways not for long anyway.

Yes...Googles do fail....rarely but they do.

When the do One merely reverts to use of Dinosaur techniques based upon the Human Eye and either NVFR or IMC/IFR flight depending upon the external visual reference.

I have flown over lots of ground which at on an overcast night was just as dark as flying over the Oggin where there was no horizon, no ground lighting, and due to the Overcast....no celestial lighting to matter.

Our Flight Rules are based upon Weather and not whether despite there being nothing to see in the way of ground lights or celestial light....reversion to un-aided flight could easily put into a situation that would require use of Instruments to fly although while using Goggles it was quite easy to fly by visual contact with the surface.

That is one of those Carriages and Horses things as was mentioned before.

Goggles are an assist....but do come with some risks as well.

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Thanks for all the replies - really interesting views about NVG. Some seem to think they would help a lot, but I know some of the SAR guys who use them switch them off when doing a night rig landing at about 0.5nm and 500 RA from a rig due to excessive brightness from the rig lighting. I suppose if that's the case, then there's no real advantage, as its this final phase when things can go wrong - until .75 mm at night it's manadatory in our part A to be 4axis (or 3 if that's the max the AFCS can give) coupled, only decoupling when stable and within .75 mm.

Maybe an full NVG trial for the offshore world would be a sensible approach.

[Fareastdriver]

only decoupling when stable and within .75 mm.

Personally. I don't think that gives you enough time to get up to speed for flying the aircraft manually.

In the distant past on 332s I would declare 'autopilots are for weenys' at the take off point. I would then fly the leg autopilot out, albeit in daylight, and land it offshore. I once demonstrated to an incredulous co-pilot how it could fly normally with my hands in the air. I have also been known to do offshore shuttles with it out as well.

decommissioned rig and put it 10 miles off Aberdeen

I once did a night shuttle when the Millar was being built. Because of a crane rig on the Western side of the platform the landing was a left hand seat job. After hovering in space for some time I told the co-pilot to go around so we could have a talk about it. (or words to that effect)

It transpired that his total offshore night flying experience had been to a stacked rig in Aberdeen harbour. On this basis he had been signed off as fully competent for night operations in the North Sea.

Luckily I was ex single pilot on the Puma and also the S76 so I could carry on with the shuttle doing his landings cross-cockpit.

[[email protected]]

Geoffers, as part of the pre-flight planning there are certain safeguards;

Firstly an Obstacle Plane Value (OPV) is established, above which all obstacles are supposed to be marked on the relevant maps or in the Digital Vertical Obstruction File (DVOF) for those using electronic mapping systems.

Next, a Minimum Operating Height (MOH) is established for the type of NVG you are doing.

Then, mark your map with obstacles out to a suitable distance from your desired track, especially highlighting those that are above the level you are flying at.

For each leg you will calculate a Minimum safe Height (MSH) which you will climb to if you are unsure of your position, have a goggle malfunction or can't see an obstacle that is above you by a certain minimum distance.

You will also calculate a Reversionary Altitude (RA) which you can climb to with a total navigation or NVG failure which will ensure you are above 500' for that route.

All mil pilots have to carry out reversionary (normal) night flying on a regular basis to ensure the basic skills are not lost - specifically making an approach to a lit site/ NATO T or similar.

For SAR work, the mil generally flew above the OPV and used lookout and normal map reading techniques to avoid obstacles, knowing that you were above the highest normal pylons ie above 250'. If forced down by bad weather then the navigation skills became much more important and speed was reduced commensurate with height - even down to the hover taxi and the use of white light with NVG was the norm.

[cyclic]

The autopilot functions of an aircraft like the 225 make night flying a lot safer. The protection functions in the 225 autopilot minimise the risk of getting your feet wet if you get it wrong. To take value from the above, you have to use the autopilot or it is of no help. The "I used to fly the whole trip manually" attitude and I can do better than the autopilot is a thing of the past. In recent years offshore we have seen at least two accidents where had the autopilot been used correctly, there would have been a different outcome. There will precious little currency for any crew this season due to the low flying rate. All the more important to use all the help you can get.

[Bravo73]

The "I used to fly the whole trip manually" attitude and I can do better than the autopilot is a thing of the past.

Thankfully.

[[email protected]]

Absolutely - a 4-axis autopilot with a good rad alt hold is the minimum that should be mandated for night overwater work.

Add a TAS hold and a decent nav kit driving the aircraft in the right direction and, of course, NVG and you have a safe and managable setup.

If you have some transition modes as well you can get yourself to a comfortable position to hand-fly the remainder of the approach.

But, as already hinted at, you need to know how to use the autopilot modes and not get lost in them.

[SASless]

Seems some of us embrace Technology and want to use it to our best advantage.....and I endorse that notion strongly.

I was Old Skool.....but loved being able to punch buttons and watch George do his thing for me....and when NVG's turned darkness into light (even if a bit green) Night flying was changed forever for me.

All that being said....we do have to be able to hand fly the machine because at some time in our Lives that will save our Lives.

We see that very well demonstrated when we read Accident Reports of Pilots just plain ol' losing control of an airplane when the AutoHelm goes for a Run Ashore.

I shall never say I can out fly George.....but I am also George's Supervisor and QC Inspector. I will fire his ass when he gets to messing up which then forces me to prove I can fly as well as he can and better than he was when I tied the Can to his Tail.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Amen to that SAS but unfortunately it is the minority of pilots that have both the skill and knowledge to operate the automation effectively. The majority need more training and practice than they currently receive.

After hearing at a recent conference that 50% of a major airline's pilot applicants fail their selection process (EASA CPL/IR's remember) it seems to indicate that whatever we are doing we need to find a way of doing it better.

We are being overtaken by a technology-rich future that is swamping our ability to cope and deliver a pilot with good handling skills too. For many the step up to flat screens, and their digits and text, from the good old round dials is proving a challenge that maybe too big.

G
PS - Thanks to CRAB for that fulsome explanation of the NVG protocols in the UK Mil

[cyclic]

The 225 has everything required but the next development from Airbus will add more in terms of positioning, IAS etc. The IAS hold works down to 30kts so with a North Sea breeze you can be at a fast walk at the latter stages and still be 4 axis. The later 225s have ground speed hold as well which is the next step in safer approaches. In 4 axis it runs on rails, no requirement for a rad alt hold, the bar alt being extremely accurate although you could use cruise height as there is no "fly-up" fear like the L2.

The 225 is the safest aircraft out there by a country mile, it's a shame it got such a bad rep after shaft-gate but guess what.....it's worth compared to other heavies is now being realised, full fuel, full payload, highest range and the best/safest automation on the market. And you get your own door!

[[email protected]]

Except that a bar alt hold can be fooled by pressure changes - hi to lo = overread - as you fly towards a depression.

For anything below 500' I would want rad alt hold engaged over the sea at night.

[RVDT]

Interestingly the US Navy will not carry "passengers" to and from ships outside daylight hours or after 60 minutes before sunset.

Maybe they know something?

I think the question needs to be asked as to "why" you have to fly at night.

Regular crew changes? Those things are changing as well as the rosters change with the current oil price and folk are being let go.

Fleein' a tea boy neep who disnae even work half a year back to e's hame in Ayberdeen tae be wi e's quine for denner?

As to NVG's I think you may find that is not really the way forward and there are limits as to how far you can take it.
Issues being that as you are pretty much relying solely on the device it needs to meet a whole truckload of standards which they will struggle with.
Plus it is a portable device which brings another can of worms. No doubt it works but how do you "certify" it and what are the rules going to be.
It ain't VFR, Night VFR or IFR as you know it. We are talking about Transport Category aircraft and regular pax ops here not the military.

Enhanced and/or Synthetic vision which is part of the aircraft seems to be the way forward and systems are already certified in the plank world
with lower minima approved.

For the whole time to date of offshore night operations possibly hasn't changed in 30 years. A poxy little ring of lights out the window somewhere?

We know it has knobs on it. Thats why we are speaking about it here and it has been proven to be.

[[email protected]]

Trouble is, those enhanced/synthetic vision systems are OK for aiming at several thousand feet of runway with no obstacles where the transition from instrument/synthetic flight just involves flaring to land ahead but in a helo manoeuvring to a rig?

You still have the problem of going to visual flying to complete the landing which is why NVG are the better option - do you want to be looking in at the screen when you need to be looking outside?

Setting a minimum illumination level (the Met office already provide the data for this) and specifying a minimum generation of NVG tubes would go a long way to standardising things for the purposes of certification.

[handysnaks]

I guess that these aircraft do not have NVG compatible lighting....

[cyclic]

Except that a bar alt hold can be fooled by pressure changes - hi to lo = overread - as you fly towards a depression.

Given a local QNH and a bar alt to rad alt comparison this isn't a problem. The biggest reason that rad alt isn't used is that most crew change aircraft only have one so a failure would not be good. I can assure you that you wouldn't notice the difference on a 225. In fact, the bar alt is nice and smooth with an accuracy that is more than sufficient for our operations.

[EESDL]

I heard some fine chap was investigating introduction of a HUD for offshore cabs and was making some progress........right up until he lost his job!
Disappointing to see that the technology is still being hawked at Helitech and little progress made - some amongst you will be imagining a HUD with a cumbersome external projector - and you'd be about 40-years out ;-)

[cyclic]

$50 a barrel EESDL. The cheapest aircraft are very popular again....

[Fareastdriver]

The North Sea got its act together in 1975. Over the years I daresay there has been about ten landings a night during weekdays, less at weekends. That's about 1,500/year over 40 years which adds up to 60,000 landings.

How many accidents can be attributed to it being dark as opposed to incorrect procedures or techniques and especially pilot's skill. One or two??
They would probably be be as a result of disorientation and if a pilot is going to get disoriented he will get disoriented no matter how much gubbins you put in front of or on him/she.

I have not flown with modern NVG but my suspicion would be that they, somewhere, sometime, are going to miss something that is going to lead to a major incident.

Eyeballs may have their drawbacks but technically they are light years ahead of goggles.

[[email protected]]

Errrr - not in the dark they aren't - your eyeballs only have peripheral night vision unaided (can't use the cones, only the rods) with NVG in front of them you are using cones (albeit only the green ones) to focus on the phosphor screen.

Perhaps if some people just took the word of those that have used modern NVG and accepted that they pretty much turn night into day then some progress might be made.

Anything that might be missed on NVG is so many times less than you would miss with the unaided eye that it really isn't worth considering.

Google some footage on NVG flying and move into the 21st century.

[Bravo73]

The biggest reason that rad alt isn't used is that most crew change aircraft only have one so a failure would not be good.

A servicable RadAlt is obligatory for night approaches (as you're well aware). RadAlt U/S = Go Around and/or RTB.

Other modern aircraft types are more than happy to make night approaches coupled to the RadAlt which is, arguably, safer than a slightly antiquated baralt/RadAlt matching technique, using ALTA.

[Delta Torque]

Modern NVGs are much more suited for landing in brightly lit areas, more so than the early versions of ANPVS5 and ANVIS 6, which did not operate in a high light environment. ANVIS 9, with ITT or L3 tubes, the current range of NL94 AU, with Phototonics tubes, these are all significant improvements.


NVGs are not without their issues, of course, and overwater operations are a particular problem, in that the water provides an extremely low contrast environment. Transit on ALT hold, and goggle up for the approach, the best of both worlds!


Non US NVG are freely available over the counter in Australia, now. Green or the new Greyscales. Expensive, but the purchaser doesn't have to wait two years for US State Dept approval.


NVGs should be the norm for night ops. Nice to see what you are about to hit! :-)

[John Eacott]

The North Sea got its act together in 1975. Over the years I daresay there has been about ten landings a night during weekdays, less at weekends. That's about 1,500/year over 40 years which adds up to 60,000 landings.

How many accidents can be attributed to it being dark as opposed to incorrect procedures or techniques and especially pilot's skill. One or two??
They would probably be be as a result of disorientation and if a pilot is going to get disoriented he will get disoriented no matter how much gubbins you put in front of or on him/she.

I have not flown with modern NVG but my suspicion would be that they, somewhere, sometime, are going to miss something that is going to lead to a major incident.

Eyeballs may have their drawbacks but technically they are light years ahead of goggles.

A quick look at my annual logbook summaries show 287 night Brent landings in 1977 and 278 in 1978, as one of 8 or so pilots on site: we managed, but the concept of NVG use would be a great addition to improve the lot of the current offshore pilot.

But (and a big but) if night landings are now seen as a major safety issue, why wasn't this the case 35 years ago? Culture, training, expectations?

Has there been a change and if so, what is it and how should it be addressed.
Automation seems to have reached a degree of perfection that nothing should go awry, yet here we are discussing exactly such a situation.

I still have that niggling concern that airmanship and basic skills are taking a backseat to systems management, and there has to be a proper melding of the two.

[Bravo73]

Question - can NVGs be worn with a headset?

Not many NS crews currently wear helmets.

[Delta Torque]

No, NVGs are usually helmet mounted. There is a bit of weight involved, and they are initially quite uncomfortable to wear, but the benefits soon outweigh the discomfort.


As a previous poster mentioned, the aircraft cockpit lighting needs to be NVG compatible, or NVG 'friendly', and this is a potential expense to operators, though most modern helicopters come out of the factory with compatible cockpit lighting, these days.

[SASless]

NVGs should be the norm for night ops. Nice to see what you are about to hit! :-)

At some point I would revert to no NVG's Mode as I would certainly have my Eyes closed just prior to impact with whatever I was going to hit.

Of course...with NVG's you could see that you were going to hit the thing and perhaps avoid all the fun and games completely.

Now I do want to know how if we got it all together in 1975....what has happened since then that caused us to lose the bubble and have more CFIT Accidents than we had back in the Good Old Days?

Are Pilots less capable today?

If so....why?

[Delta Torque]

My speculation would be a mix of mission creep, in the context of a gradual lowering of pilot experience.

[mickjoebill]

A few months ago Canon launched a full colour hd video camera, the ME20 camera with an iso of 4million. US$30k At iso 1 million image is not too noisy.

It would turn a landing light into a nitesun.

Too bulky at moment for helmet mounting, although it may be possible to remote some of the processing. Sony A7sII consumer camera has an iso within a few stops of the Canon so this tech is in a growth stage.

Some car manufacturers are designing a sytem that from the drivers perspective appears to see through the body of the vehicle. Land Rover are testing the idea so the off road driver can see the road 1meter directly in front of the wheels that is obscured from the driver by the bonnett and dash.
Cruise ships have installed hd monitors on walls of interior cabins screening live images from side of ship with geat success.

So "glass cockpit" in the future may have a different connotation.

Mickjoebill

[Bravo73]

No, NVGs are usually helmet mounted.

Thought not. Trying to convince all NS crews to wear helmets is going to be as big an obstacle to the widespread introduction of NVGs as any other.

[Delta Torque]

Oh, your neck stops hurting after awhile. :-)

[Turkeyslapper]

"Plus it is a portable device which brings another can of worms. No doubt it works but how do you "certify" it and what are the rules going to be.
It ain't VFR, Night VFR or IFR as you know it. We are talking about Transport Category aircraft and regular pax ops here not the military."

It doesn't have to be rocket science! There are a lot of legacy opinions and stuff which needs to be worked through with the relevant authorities, yes however its worth it - we had some really tenacious guys here in oz who kept banging away until we finally moved into the 21 st century. Downunder (and many other places around the world) NVG is commonly used on Civil SAR/HEMs ops and they are even permitted for Marine Pilot Transfer ops out to ships - although not sure if anyone uses them in that application yet.


We can operate NVFR or IFR category using goggles - having shot an approach to minima's not that long ago, having NVGs donned gave me a massive increase in situational awareness off the non precision approach in a low light environment! There are massive amounts of flexibility benefits which goggles give for all sorts of operations and they only become apparent once you start using the things! Operated to rigs, winched off boats etc with/without NVG - to me a no brainer and is one of the rare times where one would say - once you try black (nights) you would definitely go back (to NVG);)

[[email protected]]

Thought not. Trying to convince all NS crews to wear helmets is going to be as big an obstacle to the widespread introduction of NVGs as any other. They protect your head, protect your hearing and allow you to use NVG - the downside is???????

Don't tell me the NS crews are a bunch of techno-fearing Luddites.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Crab;

Back in the 90's there was a move to make NS pilots wear helmets, a study was run and the findings were that as NS pilots flew far more hours annually than their on-shore or military counterparts (at that time pilots with my employer were running at a rolling 790+hours on their 365 day totals) that there was greater risk to health caused by the increased weight on the head being affected by vibration and therefore causing spinal damage high up in the neck.

There was also mumbling about how the pax would feel seeing the pilots with an apparently enhanced form of protection denied to the customers. Personally I would not have wanted to wear a helmet for those lengths of time, sometimes the grow bag/lifejacket combination was bloody uncomfortable enough for 8 airborne hours in warm weather.

SND

[SASless]

Odd......knowing many pilots who put in 1000-1400 hour Years wearing helmets and body armor....not one complaint about Neck injuries. Piles, bad backs from Bell Helicopter Seats, and drinking habits but no neck injuries.

Adding a balance weight to the battery pack so the NVG's are balanced and no bending strain is generated goes a long way towards eliminating pressure on the Neck. After all, we do not pull the G's in Public Transport work as do Fighter Pilots wearing the things.

[Bravo73]

They protect your head, protect your hearing and allow you to use NVG - the downside is???????

Comfort, cost and culture are three reasons off the top of my head. (Pun intended!)


Don't tell me the NS crews are a bunch of techno-fearing Luddites.

As you can see from the comments in the thread above, some are but most aren't.

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Cyclic, I agree with almost all your posts except Baralt use - in the 139 we must use radalt. I think the baralt use is s throwback to having some over torques in the 332 when it went into "fly up" mode.
Fareastdriver - I think that the culture has changed now and the realization has come about that with a properly managed and functioning modern AFCS system the aircraft is safer flown with full use of the system - indeed its mandatory at night. The accident rate has now changed with fewer mechanical issues to a higher percentage of CFIT due to mishandling. The overall fatality rate in the UK offshore world is identical now to that of 20 years ago (CAA stats). I think the use of AFCS in bad weather or at night is a great move, but agree it brings in issues that revolve around hand flying skills. At night the final sector of the approach (for us .75nm maximum) needs to be hand flown to fly the sight picture to the deck, it is this part which i feel is still an issue that needs to be addressed - although as I've said I'm not sure how. Most offshore pilots I know would agree this is the most challenging thing we do, but also one we don't do regularly due to summer months, flights occurring often in the day in winter due to icing etc. I did about 10-15 night landings last winter, which is within the recency rules, but I'd question if that is enough for crews to be as competent as they need to be. My fear is that we will, as an industry, carry on as we are until another night time offshore fatal accident occurs, and then suddenly regulations will change. Why not try to change things before this occurs? Looking at statistics another crash will happen at some point if we continue as we are.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

SAS;

Shoot at me and I'll go for every bit of protection going! In the meantime I'll opt for as much comfort as possible, and with modern active headsets much of the hearing protection argument is going away.

SND

[Fareastdriver]

We Triassic Luddites are not knocking modern technology. What is worrying is the dependence on that technology. It appears that SOPs are being written not by the people who are going to fly to them but by accountants and lawyers. The is leading to a deterioration in the skill level of the profession as a whole.

It would take very little for there to be so much equipment available that a offshore aircraft could virtually do the whole thing by itself. When that happens you can pay the crew the same as call centres; because that is all they will have to do.

[serf]

Visual acuity unaided at night is 20-200, with NVG this is improved to 20-40, you choose..
20-200 is also the legal definition of blindness, I believe.

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Serf, how do the NVG's cope with the lighting around a rig? I've never used them so don't know, but that appears to be an issue - ie you can use them approaching the rig but within about 1/2nm the rig lighting becomes too bright with NVG's to be of much benefit. I don't know if that's a general issue or an issue with a particular type of NVG?

[cyclic]

I think the baralt use is s throwback to having some over torques in the 332 when it went into "fly up" mode.

It is, although the fly-up is easily caught if you have your hand on the collective below 500'!

[cyclic]

I assume the shiny new Helioffshore organisation is looking into all of this?

[Offshoreflyer0274]

I'm not aware of anything getting looked into. As far as I can see the issue has been dealt with as far as it's going to be by establishing 3 landings/take offs within 90 days, stabilized approaches by regulating AFCS useage and operators now all (at least I think all, I'm not sure about NHV) establishing some gated approach at about .75 mm. I don't think this is sufficient to establish a safe night time offshore enviroment though, and think regulations will change again after the next accident at night. I'm just trying to get a discussion going to see if changes can be made - and also what those changes should be - before another accident or fatality occurs.

[[email protected]]

Offshore - as mentioned by others previously, the modern NVGs have much better capability with variable gain to prevent them closing down in brighter lights.

As long as you are not staring directly into the flare then a hand-flown NVG approach will be straightforward - you do need to scan laterally however since depth perception and rate of closure assessment are more difficult using NVG but still waaaayyy better than the unaided eye.

Surely you can hand fly the cyclic from 0.75 nm but still utilise rad alt hold (on manoeuvre if you have the capability) or wind down on it so you retain height protection until the last moment.

The correct challenge and response between the pilots will also help - eg responding to rad alt height warnings/audios (if you have them) and calling check heights.

[cyclic]

Surely you can hand fly the cyclic from 0.75 nm but still utilise rad alt hold (on manoeuvre if you have the capability) or wind down on it so you retain height protection until the last moment.

Mixed mode flying is one of the issues that we try to avoid although retaining height protection is priority. With a 225 the segment between decision and landing at the bottom of an ARA is easily within the capability of the autopilot and therefore you can remain 4 axis until very short final to the deck. This is also the segment most open to mistakes. By having an upper mode engaged you also get free protection from the ultimate cock up. The new (ish) night VGA is flown 4 axis and experience has shown that most crews do not feel the need to manually fly until inside the last 0.2 miles, even less in a strong headwind even though decision is still at 0.75 With follow up trim, if you do very little apart from keeping it moving, the stabilised approach is now a much calmer affair.

As for height, speed, ROD and deviation calls then this is very much SOP, not just at night but during all approaches. TAWS & EGWPS give all the audio you need along with a much more sophisticated bug setting regime.

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Thanks for the info crab.

[Gomer Pylot]

I was doubtful about NVGs until I actually started using them. Then I wouldn't consider going out at night without them. Most HEMS operations in the US use NVGs for night flights. I don't use them all the time, often flying with them flipped up, but that's in cruise flight at altitude. Down low, they're essential. They can be used in situations with high ambient light, such as lighted pads in cities with all sorts of lights. I don't usually use them in those places because there is so much light that it's easy to land unaided, with more peripheral vision cues. But current generation NVGs are not affected by bright lights, to any major extent. They can bloom slightly when looking directly at a very bright light, but they're still usable. It takes some training to be proficient, like any other maneuver, but it's not that difficult. I see no reason at all that they couldn't be used on offshore rigs. I've done many hundreds of night offshore landings over the years unaided, and I would hate to go back to doing that without goggles.

Regulatory oversight is problematic. The FAA really has no clue about NVGs, and their regulations and enforcement make little sense. It's obvious none of their inspectors have ever used NVGs seriously, only a few flights in a training situation. Regulatory agencies in other countries probably have even less experience. Current FAA regulation actually makes operations less safe than they could be, and that may be the case elsewhere when (not if, when) NVGs are adopted there. They're coming, technology cannot be denied forever, and they're a very good thing.

[Saint Evil]

So back to the original subject.

Having used nvg in the mob, I wouldn't be without them overland or operating at low level in the coastal environment, but as a rig runner they have limited utility, apart from the dark bits inbetween landings, but these are generally flown IFR anyway.

We use either an instrument approach or a visual gate approach to get the helideck at night. Both are highly procedural and tightly controlled and monitored. As north sea crews can lack night continuity, especially as night flying starts the risks have been largely mitigated by this procedural approach.

There is now no space for cowboys, mishandling etc in the modern north sea. Not saying it won't happen but much less likely.

It's like saying you'll never hit anything if low flying on goggles. The risks are reduced but not eradicated.

NVGs would be nice but mostly for interest rather than a great leap forward in safety.

[tistisnot]

As you mentioned the CAA, I presume UK as you are in England - if so having read their report there was only one fatal CFIT 1973-2012 ...... G-BLUN where lack of adequate procedures and practising them in a suitable flight simulator were contributory causes. So yes, not nearly - but clearly 100 percent of fatal accidents at night were CFIT(W)!

The only other CFIT(W) reported G-REDU was very fortunately not fatal, but a classic example for CRM courses on how not to approach at night. So I just think you are exaggerating the situation. The report did not highlight any concern; but we have surely frightened the customers enough to make many restrict their night activity.

I am sure larger operators have improved procedures and training for 2 crew ops. I believe the 90 day requirement adequate - and many of today's flight simulators provide much improved night visuals for OEI training to complement this. If a pilot is OGP current for night shuttling, his exposure to that task will no doubt quickly and happily maintain proficiency.

I understand your concern for NUI's however. Sure NVG may help to reduce the chance of striking the structure at night, but I just think line aircraft simply need a better AFCS etc to complete the profile during that final 0.2 nm at night as someone suggested - whether it be from a VMC 500' sight picture approach, or straight in from an ARA at 300' or whatever. DGPS might perhaps help, then we can ditch the NDB's and cost of (not) maintaining them .....

(Comments are simply referring to UK CAA report - I know there have been other night CFIT(W) offshore.)

[[email protected]]

So, short finals to the rig in the dark and there is a big bang (or maybe just a whimper) as one of the donks gives up - would you rather fly your go-around on instruments without being able to see the horizon, the rig or the surface OR would you like to fly a go-around just as you would by day except using NVG?

[tistisnot]

Instruments for sure ..... you are going home, not landing on the rig ?! You have two reliable artificial horizons!

[Fareastdriver]

without being able to see the horizon, the rig or the surface

If you're on any sort of finals to a rig and you lose sight of it you are going around anyway as per the procedure and back to the bar..

You don't fly on dark and stormy nights. They tried it on the Cormorant A once and it turned into a disaster. Offshore pilots can, when necessary do it, as the evacuation of the Hermod proved; but they are not paid to.

Maybe in the Klondike days of the seventies we did it.

Radalt???? XXXII.XXXIII,XXXIV on a semisub's pontoon leg was good enough.

[cyclic]

Vtoss and hit the go around button Crab. Heading hold in, sit back and relax :)
NVGs, we are taking people to work not trying to storm the rig!

[Delta Torque]

Arrr....it's nice to be able to see in the dark. A bit of a training and equipment cost, but it must be worth it. Why fly blind, when you can see?

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Tistisnot : I'll try and get hold of the data. We got this from our flight safety officer giving a brief using CAA stats a year or so ago. I'll try to find the exact data used.

[RVDT]

My money is still on EFVS being more the norm in the future.

NVG's work up to a point - but don't actually work without some light.

EFVS can be certified and it would be a better idea to mount the multi-spectral sensors on the aircraft for lots of reasons.

EFVS is common on a lot of private jets where "money no object" prevails.
Have a look at your local jet ramp someday.

ELBIT seem to have made some significant progress with EFVS and the Wearable HUD.

Skylens and LPV anyone ?

http://www.elbitsystems.com/elbitmain/pic/SKYLENS_WID_(638X253).jpg

http://www.elbitsystems.com/elbitmain/pic/ClearVision.jpg

Newer generation AH aircraft are already using ELBIT having dumped Thales.

I would bet that this is an available option on the new H160 and could easily integrate on the current H145.

NVG's actually go back to WW II.

[[email protected]]

You can already have your flight data presented in the NVG eyepiece - it's not a new concept.

Is it ever going to be fully dark in the vicinity of a rig? You can use NVG in rain when IR sensors are next to useless and you can see lights through mist and light fog/cloud - not with IR.

VToss and the GA button are fine but why do that on instruments alone when you could use a visual/IF balance?

It is interesting to see the reluctance of the offshore crews to embrace technology that could make their lives safer.....

[Fareastdriver]

It is interesting to see the reluctance of the offshore crews to embrace technology that could make their lives safer.....

We don't stick our necks out in the first place.

[RVDT]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Albert_Einstein_signature_1934.svg/585px-Albert_Einstein_signature_1934.svg.png

[cyclic]

It is interesting to see the reluctance of the offshore crews to embrace technology that could make their lives safer.....

That isn't true as most of us have embraced the new technology. If it isn't the right solution, it isn't the right solution. I have flown with NVGs for many hours and a few years back would have said that they would have been ideal for the older generation of aircraft where there is/was a lot less help from the aircraft. Now, I don't think they would be of great value compared to the inconvenience. The crews are used to flying procedures on instruments and it means that they can cope when conditions are poor. You have to fly new technology to realise how far we have come and what this means specifically to the offshore role.

[[email protected]]

Is it not the over-reliance on the automation that has eroded flying skills in the Airline fleet?

Is the same happening in the offshore world?

We had quite a competent autopilot on the Mk3A Sea King (not the Mk3) but I still wouldn't fly without NVG over the sea unless I was IMC.

I don't do your job so I can't criticise but, perhaps because I am old-fashioned, I like looking out of the cockpit window rather than staring at screens:)

[crunchingnumbers]

I have done my fair share of unaided deck landings at night which can be interesting to say the least, especially when trying to transition from things that seem to moving in weird sequences (the bow wake on a pitching/heaving/rolling ship for one) to pitch black ocean and sky.

Having flown with NVG's the last 4 years on EMS, I believe that the benefit of aided flight under NVG's is the single biggest safety improvement made for night flight period. It would have to be a very very dark night over the ocean for the NVG's not to provide some benefit and as for approaching a vessel, you would have numerous advantages for arrival, departure and transition with just a modicum of common sense on vessel lighting conditions.

As one poster mentioned the regulatory authorities need to get up to speed on the benefits of modern NVG reliability and use. But that's our job I suppose. Once you use NVG's, you forever wonder what you were doing out there in the dark of night before, as you flip them up and realize that the perfectly lighted panorama before you simply disappears into the void of near nothingness. Note: general rule is not to fly aided where you would't fly unaided or without appropriate skills, equipment and proficiency.

[Bravo73]

I don't do your job so I can't criticise but, perhaps because I am old-fashioned, I like looking out of the cockpit window rather than staring at screens:)

Never bother applying for a NS offshore job then. Some days, over 98% of the flight can be IMC. Departure airfield overcast 2-300ft, a couple of hours in the cruise IMC followed by getting visual again @ 2-300ft (depending on night or day) at 0.75nm. That's a long time to be staring at not much more than the screens.

[[email protected]]

You're not selling it very well Bravo73:)

However, I don't mind flying on instruments when I have to - done plenty of that - but in the context of NVFR I would much rather see the world through green tubes. A starlit night is quite a sight anyway but on NVG it really is spectacular.

[SASless]

Some Days....just how many are like that?

Funniest "Old Hand Advice" I was ever given on the North Sea by a leathery old Frenchman was "Never lose sight of the Water!", never minding I had not seen it since the Takeoff three hours before.

Those were the Glory Days of Single Pilot in a machine with only two axis SAS, monochrome radar, and Decca....no Rad Alts where Radar was on the MEL as being un-neccessary for flight.

Yes, we have progressed from those days.

Adding NVG's or something similar might just be a "Next Step".

[Bravo73]

Adding NVG's or something similar might just be a "Next Step".

It might well be.

But I suspect that the 'cost/risk analysis' that someone will inevitably do will mean that we will never see them during our careers.

[JohnDixson]

Some of the posts belie an attitude toward technology improvements that I've seen/listened to before. Anecdote that follows seems to apply, unfortunately, to some of these posts.

In Feb 1974 there was a UTTAS Briefing Visit to US Army units in Europe. The idea was to brief on the two competing UTTAS designs and get feedback. An Army Major gave the brief and then I and the Boeing Ch Pilot, Frank Duke, answered questions. First place we went to ( Wertheim? ) was illuminating. After the brief on the Army UTTAS requirements and the two designs, the audience erupted with questions. Most came from the CWO-3's and -4's the " old breed " with multiple Vietnam tours. There were many comments about the " new " design features they would be seeing, and the majority comment from the old guys was that they didn't need any of that " stuff ". So Frank and I spent a lot of time explaining why etc etc. It was obvious that none of the younger pilots got to speak. WOPA out in force, I guessed ( Warrant Officers Protective Assn. ). Sorry, Nick.

Anyhow, after the brief broke up, a very young WO-1 came up to Frank and I, looked over his shoulder, and said, " Look, I just want to pass along that I can use all the help I can get, and this new aircraft looks great ".

Kinda like your message, SAS?

[Fareastdriver]

Yes, we have progressed from those days.

It was good fun though, as we were immortal then. We would get crucified if we did it now.

[SASless]

Famous words from a very British mouth dripping with sarcasm....."GPS....that Yank DOD Thing? We might have to buy it (the Nigerian CAA had mandated all aircraft be fitted with it to operate in Nigeria.) but when it goes U/S we will not repair it.".

A few trips with it and nothing more was heard about the Yank DOD and it did get repaired....but they never bought the Nav Data update while I was there.

[tistisnot]

SAS, do we need "leathery old Frenchmen" and "very British mouth dripping with sarcasm" - how about "arrogant yanks who didn't fit AVAD and working CVR's"? It simply get's people going ..... just admit mistakes and move on.

And the onshore database will be for a few local airfields (which do not change often) and as yet we do not have nav databases with offshore information for GPS or TAWS / EGPWS - even though states publish information.

[SASless]

Nothing ever changes ashore does it....and how legal is it to operate a piece of nav gear with and out of date database?

Seems a mistake made there by thinking otherwise no matter what passport you carry.

[[email protected]]

The database information is out there - if you are prepared to pay for it (not unreasonable really)

tistisnot - does that mean you could fly (as in bump into inadvertently) into a rig without any warnings because it isn't in your database?

[tistisnot]

SAS, out of date database, legal so long as you check coordinates with published data for route. And as many authorities have still not accepted EFBs without mounting and power, the paper is still carried ...... and so local paper approach plates are to hand ..... and we want them to sanction EFVS etc as well ...... light years!

[Fareastdriver]

There is always the accountants.

I used to pick up brand new S76As from the Ro-Ro and after they had been fitted to NS standard air test them and take them up to Aberdeen. We had a contract on Rhode Island which terminated and the S61 and 76 involved came to the UK.

The 76 was fitted with Loran instead of Decca so the Decca was installed---------- and the DME was removed? Why? There is no requirement for DME, ranges can be given by Decca and if the DME went wrong it would cost money to fix it.

About a month later the Norwegian CAA mandated DME as the range indicator so all the aircraft had to be fitted with DME including this 76 but a different instrument because they had flogged the old one.

And so it will be with NVGs.

They will have to be certified. It is for Public Transport use and the rules are different from SAR, police and medical services. It is the same with winching. There are a different set of rules regarding that after an S61 arrived on the back of a supply boat that it was winching off so now one has to have the capability to complete the immediate winching operation and fly away despite an engine failure.

This will cost money, lots of it. EASA or the CAA will want to fly and see it in operation in various levels of darkness before they will issue a clearance and somebody will have to pay. The helicopter companies wont so it will be up to the customer to assess whether it would be worth the expense.

Enter the accountants.

They will run a cost evaluation comparing money forked out and money saved and the result, because there are so few occurrences where NVGs would have helped, would mean that it would be rejected unless you can prove that people are going to die without it.

It follows that nobody is going to pay for the Certification so for Public Transport, North Sea, it just wont come.

[Fareastdriver]

SASless, be fair. GPS was not available for civilian used until the mid eighties. The Nigerians may have used it but there was no guarantee that it would be available when you needed it. It wasn't until the turn of the century that Selective Availability was turned off and one could fix their position within the rotor disc. As an example; before then, Chinese airliners were tracking their airways with ADF and DME because they believed that the Americans could turn off the satellites in their area without warning. I had a GPS in my aircraft and their pilots would stare at it open-mouthed.

IIRC before LORAN, DECCA was the primary area navaid in Viet Nam so it must have been some use.

[SASless]

To be fair....you are pretty much spot on.

The unit we had was clearly marked "For VFR Use Only".

I trained on Decca in 1968 when in Army Flight School.

When I arrived in Vietnam where Decca had once been used....the only use we got out of the fit was the left over Plexiglass cover for the Decometers which made a handy note pad for writing down Artillery Fires Data using a Grease Pencil (wax pencil I think you call them).

All of the Decca equipment had been removed as it was pretty much useless in the configuration we had....the sticky tape on the scroll maps in the tropical heat held together about as well as a Pilot's Union at Contract time.

I recall flying around in Norwegian Waters where Flight Levels within the Ekofisk Field was predicated upon Height based upon their RadAlts which was a bit awkward as our aircraft had three BarAlts but no RadAlts.

Remember the Rwy 27 Decca Approach at Sumburgh?

Think about doing that at Night in bad weather....Single Pilot with no Autopilot....Map Change, Key Change, and Re-set the System...in some Snow and lots of static electricity to ensure you had to do at least a couple of re-sets.

Yes....we have progressed and I hope the current crop of Pilots continue to seek improvements that make their lives safer and easier.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

SAS;

If you found the Decca 27 approach into Sumburgh interesting you should have tried the Decca app into Beccles! It was wierd watching the needle travel around a fish hook shape while you flew a steady heading and descended at the right rate.

I flew S61s in the South China Sea and they had Omega. First rain of the day used to unlock the lot, then you were on heading and time and hope the rig appeared on the radar after an hour or so. (Oh and HF to "communicate" with radio op at base and the rigs for the return loads.)

Odd thing was with half the kit we seemed to have a lot less incidents, and those we did have stemmed either from mechanical failure, or mis-handling resulting in either over-torques or hitting bits of structure.

I recently compared a NS operator Ops Manual from CAP360 days with a JAR manual. I was amazed at how good SOP's and practises we learned the hard way were gone.

SND

[Fareastdriver]

I flew S61s in the South China Sea

Zhuhai Heliport. You were so lucky having clear take off areas over the sea than having factories and tower blocks at each end like Xili.

VFR captains at Sumburgh would use a 300 ft. cloudbase to legally fly to the Shetland Basin at 200ft. and return at the same. At night IIRC it was 500ft. and 300ft. I came back one night and was told to hold at Boddom because a Loganaire Trotter was trying to land in the crosswind. The Trotter eventually gave up and said goodbye. After a couple of minutes I asked for onward clearance; silence.

I knew the terrain from Boddom to the field backwards and as we were in contact with ground the I routed towards the field. The cloud cleared almost immediately and there was the airfield. It was noticeable that there was a series of lights going up the tower as the controller clattered back up the stairs.

We then got landing clearance.