Hot refueling offshore Newfoundland a hot topic!

[Fixed Wing Jockey]

The CNLOPB (Canada Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board) has recently instructed the operators to immediately cease all hot refueling on offshore installations (Jet A1 fuelling with engines running). As a passenger, and helideck team member, I am curious as to the opinion of the aircrews on the risks involved in refuelling with engines on, rotors turning vs shutdown? Is this warranted?:confused:

[SFIM]

In Malaysia / Thailand offshore hot refuelling is not allowed, I think the issue is guaranteeing that the helideck crew have had suitable training.
In my opinion the risk of going unserviceable on subsequent start offshore is greater than the likelihood of a problem with the hot refuelling itself.
Also other issues become a factor like wind limits on start / shutdown and whether or not tiedowns should be used can complicate the situation.

[TiPwEiGhT]

So what do you do when the winds are above shut down limits?

[SFIM]

That's the problem mr weight, if you know the wind is a problem before you go then you have to modify the route / payload to avoid a shutdown.
If it only becomes a problem once airborne you will have to avoid a shutdown and possibly will have to return to base without completing the route.
Either way it's the customer that's inconvenienced rather than the helicopter operator.

[Fareastdriver]

I did rotors running refuels with gas turbine driven helicopters for forty three years both onshore and offshore and during that time I never knew or even heard about anybody have a jet fuel fire rotors turning.

[[email protected]]

A couple of years ago it became an issue with SAR helos getting refuels on rigs, only because the refuellers couldn't cope with basic safety strategies such as being cleared into and out of the disc by the rearcrew - they just did their own thing, wandering around the TR and running the hoses under the helo without clearance.

Fundamentally, as FED says, there is nothing intrinsically dangerous with rotors running refuels on rigs, either gravity or pressure refuels - just a small amount of training and professionalism required.

[albatross]

The crews we work with are fully trained and very good.
Pax off.
Refuel.
Pax on.
Why this has suddenly come up is beyond me.
If rig winds /P, R, H are out of limits for shut down then RR refueling is still allowed.

[HughMartin]

I am aware of only one incident involving a fire during a rotors running refuel offshore on the North Sea. It was early 80's and involved a hose bursting while refuelling a S61. There was a brief fire caused by fuel from the ruptured hose spraying into the engine exhaust but it was quickly extinguished. The oil company concerned immediately banned all rotors running refuels but eventually returned to allowing them when it created so much inconvenience and reduction in payloads. It was subsequently discovered that the hose was well past its sell-by date.

As to Crab's assertion of lack of helideck crew "professionalism", I think that is just down to not understanding the difference between military and civilian procedures. On the North Sea, the civilian standard does not require a specific clearance for each ground crew member to enter the disk area. Once the anti collision light is extinguished after landing then ground crew can move around the deck as necessary to fulfill their duties. There are occasional lapses in standards, getting too close to the tail rotor for instance, which should be picked up on very quickly, if not by the HLO, by the helicopter crew member supervising the turn round. This would normally always be followed up by a safety report which would be fed back through the helideck operator's SMS.

[212man]

The CNLOPB (Canada Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board) has recently instructed the operators to immediately cease all hot refueling on offshore installations (Jet A1 fuelling with engines running).

Did they explain their rationale? Seems like an ill-thought-out proposal for operations in that part of the world, which may require a u-turn in the future!

[Niner Lima Charlie]

For the benefit of all you young helo pilots (the ones still in nappies), back in olden times (1960 - 1970) in the GOM we self refueled our copters on unmanned oil rigs with rotors turning. These were all single-pilot flown helicopters.

Friction down the collective and cyclic at idle and climb out. The US Army taught us to do that in primary flight training, solo flights into confined areas. Climb out and walk around the LZ. Don't shut down the Hiller or Hughes, let it idle.

Self refueling on the oil platforms was often required due to high winds that prevented a normal shut down, even with a rotor brake. Fuel requirements were enough to destination (might only be 5 miles away), then to a fuel platform (might be the destination platform), plus 20 minutes. The onshore base might be over an hour away. Even some of the onshore fuel sites were unmanned.

Refueling the Bell 47 series with AVGAS while the stabilizer bar spun just above your head, was a bit exciting. The BH-206A got light on the front skids without the pilot. The BH-204 with the big sausage floats liked to roll side-to-side in the wind. But with all the hundreds of self refuelings accomplished everyday, 7 days a week, for many years....and not one incident that I recall.

Add to that the many times I had to self refuel when flying in remote areas of Alaska or the jungles. Don't want to shut down in this very remote site. What if it fails to restart? No radio contact. Might be stuck here for a long time. At least with piston airplanes I could hand prop the airplane even with a dead battery, but not a turbine helicopter.

[RyRy]

The board may revisit the issue once an S92 gets stuck offshore lol.

[[email protected]]

Hugh - the anti -colls don't get turned off on a mil helo and the issue was with the helideck crew totally ignoring the aircrewman and doing their own thing, including getting too close to the tail rotor - the incidents were passed back up the chain and some re-briefing took place by the company involved.

Since then - no problem but, as you know, familiarity can breed contempt and slack practices can gradually erode safety margins until a near miss (hopefully nothing worse) re-aligns those safety margins.

[Fareastdriver]

The board may revisit the issue

It probably started with;
"I don't refuel my car with the engine running so you're not going to do it with your helicopters.."

[Fixed Wing Jockey]

I understood that it is a written regulation that the board decided to enforce, one week before Chrustmas! On our facility, all refuelling has been done with all pax removed, ground wire attached, predetermined volume, hand signals for start and stop, depressurize line before disconnecting, pilot checks sample before and after for water. Helideck crew is HLO, refueler, 2 x fireman, 2 to connect/disconnect hose, plus 2-3 for baggage & cargo. Formal training for all.

[Outwest]

Refueling the Bell 47 series with AVGAS while the stabilizer bar spun just above your head, was a bit exciting.

That brings back memories for sure......I remember using my hat as a gauge to know how far I could raise my head enough to look into the tanks. Held my hat up by the brim a few inches higher than my noggin, when the stab bar started flicking the hat I knew that was high enough :eek:

[SK92A]

Totally irrational for the board to implement such a hap hazards recommendation.
If memory serves the first oil was discovered in 79 and then ramped up in 86 with the Exxon find. In 97 production began with literally tens of thousand of flight conducted with 99.9 percent all done with rotors turning with nary a incident! All this as done is introduce more risk. Why?
Payloads will be reduced! That means more flights and more exposure.
Shut downs on helidecks on the Grand Banks are inherently more risky. Given the wind and vessel motions.
Aircraft that will not start or experience a snag on start! Now the aircraft is exposed! Damage that may be seen or NOT seen?
Time pressure, given the limited daylight and needed to have the passengers back on the beach before nightfall will (may) lead the crew to rush or abbreviate a checklist. Even though not intentional we all want to get the job done.
What of the aircraft goes unserviceable after a shut down, the client and the board will want it back in service ASAP. This means a night flight to a already crowded helideck or possible night hoist with the mechanic. Risk, think so?

Someone needs to ask some serious questions, not of the client and not of the two professional helo company here. The questions need to be asked of the people whom made this decision at the board level. 🙉

[malabo]

CARS 723.38 (2) restricts fuelling with engines running if passengers are on board. No restriction on refuelling with engines running without passengers. CNLOPB will make up its own industry rules though, that may be more restrictive than what the regulations are (like EBS for all East Coast offshore operations).

As is already well described in several posts to this thread, the new CNLOPB restriction would seem to increase overall risk rather than decrease it. It is a pretty sophisticated organization, so I'd want to see what they actually wrote, and not PPRUNE speculation. Can someone post the CNLOPB instruction?

[Fogdog]

As stated in earlier threads, the potential risks / consequences of shutting down on the deck in Atlantic Canada arguably outweigh any perceived risks associated with hot refuelling. The abrupt announcement of this policy occurred without any advance warning, coordination, or prior consultation with the industry!!

Mind boggling and such a sad way to do business. But hey, why treat the oil companies with any respect, they only make a MINOR contribution to the NL economy. :ugh:

This is one of the many random shots from the Board these days, such as lashing out at a PIC who remained on deck for about an hour (with rotors turning) while waiting for suitable takeoff weather. The highly experienced Board advisor (with no offshore oil experience) 'educated' the offshore PIC about how he carelessly created a fire hazard by exposing the rig to dangers from hot exhaust for an hour. Wow.......

Yet another reminder of how you gotta be careful who you give authority to!! Will be interesting to see how much more crap the oil companies put up with before significant backlash......

The bull**** in this industry gets deeper by the year, mostly as a result of yet another office warrior who is looking to justify their position and 'make the operation more safe'. Well.......we're so 'safe' that we're dangerous! Rant over.....

[SK92A]

Fogdog,

You obviously know what is going on with the operator, client and board. The good part is what you are saying can be verified as true! Yes they did question the PIC, fortunately the company stood behind them, not that they had a choice they were as caught out as any one else when questioned. Most of us have run on deck for sometimes 50 to 90 minutes waiting for medevac, pax screw up, wind issues, turbulence, icing, vis etc.... And never questioned.....ever!
But now it seems that the two CNLOPB chaps in aviation want to direct the ship from the office...... Even though neither would now what seat should do the landing after been given deck heading and wind! Nuff said! They both should called upstairs.... But then again lies another mess!

[zalt]

This is one of the many random shots from the Board these days, such as lashing out at a PIC who remained on deck for about an hour (with rotors turning) while waiting for suitable takeoff weather. The highly experienced Board advisor (with no offshore oil experience) 'educated' the offshore PIC about how he carelessly created a fire hazard by exposing the rig to dangers from hot exhaust for an hour. Wow.......

Wow indeed.

Yes, CNLOPB's 'expert' is ex-military with no civil offshore expertise, clearly following a trend some oil companies have gone. Enough said?

[RyRy]

Wow indeed.

Yes, CNLOPB's 'expert' is ex-military with no civil offshore expertise, clearly following a trend some oil companies have gone. Enough said?

Nailed it. Had one at my previous base. He had a hell of a time wrapping his head around the concept that we're not always able to land or takeoff perfectly into wind when offshore. I think he eventually got the point when he was politely reminded that these are oil rigs... not aircraft carriers.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Crab says;

A couple of years ago it became an issue with SAR helos getting refuels on rigs, only because the refuellers couldn't cope with basic safety strategies such as being cleared into and out of the disc by the rearcrew - they just did their own thing, wandering around the TR and running the hoses under the helo without clearance.

Hugh - the anti -colls don't get turned off on a mil helo and the issue was with the helideck crew totally ignoring the aircrewman and doing their own thing, including getting too close to the tail rotor - the incidents were passed back up the chain and some re-briefing took place by the company involved.

I'm sorry, but you're the visitor to their helipad and facilities. When you land and use their facilities, YOU need to conform to THEIR procedures, not the other way round - that is how any Safety Process works. Offshore helipad SOP's are well established and operational personnel are highly trained - they also handle helicopters on a regular basis as it is the only way in and out of there.

One of the big differences is that in addition to the training for the crews working the decks, all the passengers are highly trained (including HUET trained) and familiar with helicopter operations as it is their normal commute and the normal work cycle. This environment is highly regulated, organized and trained, with an excellent safety record - but they still fail to meet YOUR demanding standards? There is certainly a responsibility for an operator to assist in deck operations with a helicopter type that is unfamiliar to the heli-deck crew, but beyond that, YOU must operate under their procedural, operational and safety protocols unless you have previously established an alternate process.

I'm glad to see that it isn't just civil flight and SAR operations that fail your critical review, but now it is also includes offshore oil installations - you really need to get out more into the real world!

And (back to the original topic), there is no evidence that properly conducted rotor running or hot refuels offer any greater risk than any other alternative.

And if you disagree, please feel free to post your evidence, unless (and I'm just guessing here) it is based upon a Risk Assessment conducted by someone with no understanding of the real world, or experience to make anything other than a paper analysis of potential risk.

[albatross]

Jeez guys - can't we all play nice?
We are supposed to be professionals.
Discussions not arguments should be our goal.

Good point about the rig procedures having priority. "When in Rome".
They are published and not complicated.
Even a quick briefing as to requirements over the radio would have helped.
In any case one of the SAR crew could exit the aircraft and brief with the deck crew before anyone approaches the "whirling machine of death".
I doubt the anti-cols are hotwired on.

So many good, interesting posts degenerate into a "Big Dogs pissing on Tall Trees" events. The dogs are left to bark, growl and snap at each other. Everyone else gives up and leaves.

[ralphmalph]

Crab,

Maybe not in an RAF or AAC aircraft in normal operation. As an Army QHI it took me a while to get used to the RN DLQ lighting requirements as they were completely unfamiliar and different to what I was used to.

IIRC, Anti-col went off as we landed for eye protection to the deck crew.

Communication as to the intent of the aircraft was done with flashing/steady/bright/dim nav lights.

Its all about SOP i suppose.

[[email protected]]

In any case one of the SAR crew could exit the aircraft and brief with the deck crew before anyone approaches the "whirling machine of death". If you read my post you will see that is exactly what the SAR crewman tried to do but the refuellers ignored him completely and did their own thing - that was what was dangerous and the rig operators took the hit and rebriefed their crews.

SAR helos didn't have access to the rig SOPS - it was an emergency SAROP after all.

Ralph, you are right about the light procedures for DLs but that is very specific and detailed in Br766d - we are talking about a rig operation here.

[SARBlade]

CARS 723.38 (2) restricts fueling with engines running if passengers are on board. No restriction on refueling with engines running without passengers. CNLOPB will make up its own industry rules though, that may be more restrictive than what the regulations are (like EBS for all East Coast offshore operations).

As is already well described in several posts to this thread, the new CNLOPB restriction would seem to increase overall risk rather than decrease it. It is a pretty sophisticated organization, so I'd want to see what they actually wrote, and not PPRUNE speculation. Can someone post the CNLOPB instruction?The CNLOPB is stating that operators are not following the intent of their regulation to follow Transport Canada TP4414 - Guidelines Respecting Helicopter Facilities on Ships, Part III, para 17 (http://data.tc.gc.ca/archive/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp4414-part-iii-1128.htm)

The fact that it is guideline and not regulation by TC does not apply to the CNLOPB, their regulation is directed at the offshore operators in their mind. The Safety Director, ex-CF Director of Flight Safety, is flexing his muscle about something he has no experience about. Without asking the impact or risk, he simply backed himself into a corner by sending a cease and desist letter to all those concerned.