GOM - yet another ditching
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that some of you need to have your annual sarcasm meter calibration done. I am not defending the way things are, I'm just pointing out the excuses of the oil companies, who are making obscene profits, and of the politicians who have been bought by them.
I am definitely not happy that things are unlikely to change, I'm just pointing out the facts.
ATPMBA, it depends on the model. The A model would likely have to ditch if it didn't have enough fuel to return to the beach, but those generally are required to carry beach +30 min fuel. The A++ likely can't hover, but can successfully make a platform landing if is is operating with one-way fuel. Departing the beach at MGW, the aircraft will be well below that after an hour or more of flight, and properly done, the platform landing shouldn't be that dramatic, probably less exciting than a rejected takeoff. It's about the same for a 412.
I am definitely not happy that things are unlikely to change, I'm just pointing out the facts.
ATPMBA, it depends on the model. The A model would likely have to ditch if it didn't have enough fuel to return to the beach, but those generally are required to carry beach +30 min fuel. The A++ likely can't hover, but can successfully make a platform landing if is is operating with one-way fuel. Departing the beach at MGW, the aircraft will be well below that after an hour or more of flight, and properly done, the platform landing shouldn't be that dramatic, probably less exciting than a rejected takeoff. It's about the same for a 412.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How its done in Oz...
Apart from one small area on the Northwest coast, all Australian Offshore Ops are undertaken with Performance Cat 1 or 2 multi engine, multi crew IFR helicopters. {That one small operation is between close monopods within 10 nm of shore with SAR Multi’s and a fast boat available].
• All Offshore flights have beach return fuel on departure.
• All onshore departures AUW is less than:
1. MTOW
2. OEI at LSALT [including diversion to Alt Fuel]
3. WAT Chart
• Offshore departures is limited [RTOW] down to normally the OGE weight.
As I have said before…an Oil Platform with any performance limiting failure onboard is not the place to be. Far better on your floats beside it. [Remember heli ops is the most dangerous part of offshore ops, its not smart to take a “bomb” onto a platform and endanger another 100+ workers.]
• All Offshore flights have beach return fuel on departure.
• All onshore departures AUW is less than:
1. MTOW
2. OEI at LSALT [including diversion to Alt Fuel]
3. WAT Chart
• Offshore departures is limited [RTOW] down to normally the OGE weight.
As I have said before…an Oil Platform with any performance limiting failure onboard is not the place to be. Far better on your floats beside it. [Remember heli ops is the most dangerous part of offshore ops, its not smart to take a “bomb” onto a platform and endanger another 100+ workers.]
As an offshore employee I have to agree with the last point made by Red Wine - we have it tough enough out here without taking onboard potential emergencies, although we regularly practise drills for dealing with helicopter emergencies on the helideck.
Back on thread, I've just turned down a position in GoM, mainly due to the comparison between flight safety standards there and the rest of the World. No thanks.
Back on thread, I've just turned down a position in GoM, mainly due to the comparison between flight safety standards there and the rest of the World. No thanks.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ireland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
What it ultimately boils down to (IMHO)is the regulators and the influences on them. In the states any changes in regs have to be justified to all lobbies. And in terms of safety you need to have the balls to stand up and make the rules even when you cant statisically justify them to the nth degree.
Eg.....There is ATC at small fields all accross the U.S. and none in Fourchon. Why... no one will pay for it. Crazy I say... there are a bozillion aircraft operating from there. You shouldnt need ten mid airs to see the logic that it is required.
The FAA refuses to put in place sensible regs for EMS either.
The helicopter companies are always under pressure from the small start ups and until the FAA makes it harder for those guys and their standards the situ will continue. Fullstop.
And the north sea shouldnt get too smug either. In the GOM under IFR in IMC you need a full IFR clearance for a non radar environment all the way to the deck. The seperation required really slows things down. This is not the case in the north sea.
What it ultimately boils down to (IMHO)is the regulators and the influences on them. In the states any changes in regs have to be justified to all lobbies. And in terms of safety you need to have the balls to stand up and make the rules even when you cant statisically justify them to the nth degree.
Eg.....There is ATC at small fields all accross the U.S. and none in Fourchon. Why... no one will pay for it. Crazy I say... there are a bozillion aircraft operating from there. You shouldnt need ten mid airs to see the logic that it is required.
The FAA refuses to put in place sensible regs for EMS either.
The helicopter companies are always under pressure from the small start ups and until the FAA makes it harder for those guys and their standards the situ will continue. Fullstop.
And the north sea shouldnt get too smug either. In the GOM under IFR in IMC you need a full IFR clearance for a non radar environment all the way to the deck. The seperation required really slows things down. This is not the case in the north sea.
Question....
Workload of twins vice singles while well checking or otherwise engaging in "rat killing" in the field....as I see it...you start two engines up....vice one....push levers up to fly...or roll throttles up to fly....start your lilypad hopping...rolling throttles/pushing-pulling levers up and down as needed....till you either shut down to refuel or hot refuel....all that I see clearly.
What I do not see is the "excessive workload" involved....am I missing something here? Other than the full startup checklist...the workload is the same with the exception of an extra lever or throttle that is moved simultaneously with the other.
Pretty lame reasoning for refusing a twin over a single in my book.
Workload of twins vice singles while well checking or otherwise engaging in "rat killing" in the field....as I see it...you start two engines up....vice one....push levers up to fly...or roll throttles up to fly....start your lilypad hopping...rolling throttles/pushing-pulling levers up and down as needed....till you either shut down to refuel or hot refuel....all that I see clearly.
What I do not see is the "excessive workload" involved....am I missing something here? Other than the full startup checklist...the workload is the same with the exception of an extra lever or throttle that is moved simultaneously with the other.
Pretty lame reasoning for refusing a twin over a single in my book.
"Just a pilot"
SASless, if you won't buy "workload" as a reason to operate S/E in the GOM, how about (Gasp!) safety? I've lost the link, but there was a study done a couple years ago in, I think the UK, that showed that single-pilot twins had a poorer safety record than singles? The GOM has many factors that make it dissimilar to the UK and the North Sea, but they all should act in favor of the present mode- S/E.
There's an an accepted, analgous heresy on the fixed wing side of aviation- again, "light" single-pilot twins have a poor safety record. The commonalities in the two, fixed and rotary single-pilot twins, and accident rates is this, in my opinion: They're not very user-friendly.
Logically, there really should be a safety advantage to even limited power redundancy- that's common sense. That wished for safety advantage is especially tempting when one's working in region of increased risk- limited forced landing areas, for example.
This results in the real world pilot being: in an aircraft that's designed using big-iron ergonomic principles, e.g. overhead throttles; operating it in a more hazardous situation; in an aircraft that's more likely to have issues because of systems complexity; and the crowning touch in the safety hallucination- the pilot thinks the aircraft is SAFER!
Evidence? Look here:
http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/366.pdf
A quick glance thru yields:
Accidents per 100k hours- Single engine (turbine) 4.73, light twins 5.26.
Per 100k stages flown- S/E (T) 1.31, light twins 2.1.
Pretty much as I recall the '99(?) report.
I flew the GOM SE and twin, and they *fly* the same. The workload in a twin is higher- systems management.
There's an an accepted, analgous heresy on the fixed wing side of aviation- again, "light" single-pilot twins have a poor safety record. The commonalities in the two, fixed and rotary single-pilot twins, and accident rates is this, in my opinion: They're not very user-friendly.
Logically, there really should be a safety advantage to even limited power redundancy- that's common sense. That wished for safety advantage is especially tempting when one's working in region of increased risk- limited forced landing areas, for example.
This results in the real world pilot being: in an aircraft that's designed using big-iron ergonomic principles, e.g. overhead throttles; operating it in a more hazardous situation; in an aircraft that's more likely to have issues because of systems complexity; and the crowning touch in the safety hallucination- the pilot thinks the aircraft is SAFER!
Evidence? Look here:
http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/366.pdf
A quick glance thru yields:
Accidents per 100k hours- Single engine (turbine) 4.73, light twins 5.26.
Per 100k stages flown- S/E (T) 1.31, light twins 2.1.
Pretty much as I recall the '99(?) report.
I flew the GOM SE and twin, and they *fly* the same. The workload in a twin is higher- systems management.
Last edited by Devil 49; 2nd May 2005 at 21:53.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATPMBA :
According to the performance charts : with a gross weight of 10,500 lbs On a 30 degree C / 86 F day, 500 PA, 30 min OEI power should result in a +100 FPM ROC.
It will stay aloft [zero ROC] under similar environmental conditions on max cont OEI at a weight of 10,000 lbs.
According to the performance charts : with a gross weight of 10,500 lbs On a 30 degree C / 86 F day, 500 PA, 30 min OEI power should result in a +100 FPM ROC.
It will stay aloft [zero ROC] under similar environmental conditions on max cont OEI at a weight of 10,000 lbs.
Devil 49
As for workload: totally disagree.
As for the stats, I am sure you know the Lies, lies, statsitics....saying. The raw stats you rpovide as "proof" that singles may be safer than light twins ignores allsorts of variables. In this case, it ignores those accidents casued by night/weather CFIT rather than "engine failures". As it turns out, only twins are allowed to operate close to such risks (night/wx), thus singles are not going to have this risk exposure featured greatly in their statistics.
Indeed, as has been stated time and again on rotorheads, our greatest threat is CFIT. As twins are more exposed to CFIT, then accident rates are slewed.
The simple fact remains, no matter what statistics you throw down (excluding twins that do not stay up in the OEI cruise): twins are twice as likely to suffer an engine failure, BUT the consequence is negligable.
As risk equals frequency times consequence you have a simple outcome.
Single engine: frequency is low. Consequence is generally catastrophic over adverse terrain such as water, mountains, night, IFR. Thus risk is moderate for these ops.
Multi engine (and I will consider PC2 here that are exposed on take and landing briefly, giving, according to Nick Lappos,a 0.017% exposure): frequency is twice a single, but still low. Consequence is negligable. thus risk is negligable.
Even during that brief exposure time, you will assume less risk than a single because you still have one donk to give you increased RRPM as you cushion on.
Every time one of our colleagues loses his/her life from engine failure, I am sure it is a comfort to them to know that the statistics can be used to proove it was safer than having another donk.
But I am not comforted.
As for workload: totally disagree.
As for the stats, I am sure you know the Lies, lies, statsitics....saying. The raw stats you rpovide as "proof" that singles may be safer than light twins ignores allsorts of variables. In this case, it ignores those accidents casued by night/weather CFIT rather than "engine failures". As it turns out, only twins are allowed to operate close to such risks (night/wx), thus singles are not going to have this risk exposure featured greatly in their statistics.
Indeed, as has been stated time and again on rotorheads, our greatest threat is CFIT. As twins are more exposed to CFIT, then accident rates are slewed.
The simple fact remains, no matter what statistics you throw down (excluding twins that do not stay up in the OEI cruise): twins are twice as likely to suffer an engine failure, BUT the consequence is negligable.
As risk equals frequency times consequence you have a simple outcome.
Single engine: frequency is low. Consequence is generally catastrophic over adverse terrain such as water, mountains, night, IFR. Thus risk is moderate for these ops.
Multi engine (and I will consider PC2 here that are exposed on take and landing briefly, giving, according to Nick Lappos,a 0.017% exposure): frequency is twice a single, but still low. Consequence is negligable. thus risk is negligable.
Even during that brief exposure time, you will assume less risk than a single because you still have one donk to give you increased RRPM as you cushion on.
Every time one of our colleagues loses his/her life from engine failure, I am sure it is a comfort to them to know that the statistics can be used to proove it was safer than having another donk.
But I am not comforted.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the U.S., helicopters operating under FAR part-135 do not have to actually calculate the gross weight and c.g. for every takeoff *IF* an approved loading schedule is available, adhered to and the numbers are "checked" prior to departure. Load 'em up, initial the little box that says the c.g. and gross weight have been checked, and off you go. "With 200 pounds of fuel I can take 1050 in payload. Four 250 pounders is 1,000 and they got about, err...let's call it 50 in the boot. (Maybe they're not all really 250.) They're loaded in the proper seats...good to go!"
For twin-engine aircraft operating under part-135, the pilot must calculate his *actual* gross weight and center of gravity for EVERY takeoff. Which means that the single-pilot will do a LOT of button-pushing on the computer/calculator and writing on the manifest when he's doing forty takeoffs per day and doesn't have the luxury of doing it on his own personal schedule. (Some operators had slightly different procedures for this. At mine, we had to calculate the actual numbers.)
Downtime is coming and you have to "clean up the field" (i.e. bring all the guys from the outlying platforms back to the main quarters). They've waited until the VERY LAST MINUTE before launching you, to let the guys get as much time working as possible. You've told the foreman what time you need to start the cleanup to get done by downtime, but there are ALWAYS changes in the plan...guys running late, the infamous "swing-by's" ("Oh, we need to swing by Delta on our way back to Fox") which you didn't plan for and cannot really refuse...
You just cannot do anything expeditiously in a twin. Even fueling requires more time, because instead of taking on a quick 25 gallons I have to wait for 50 to get uploaded by that slow-ass pump.
Even without rushing (which none of us ever do), operating a twin as a "field ship" in the GOM is a lot more work than a single. It's not a matter of, as one guy who's obviously never flown a twin stated, simply a matter of pushing two throttles up instead of one (how naive is that?). I for one am not convinced that a BO105 is *that* much safer than a 206. At least, I never felt so. In fact, I'm with Devil49, it is a hallucination to say that twins are always "safer" than singles.
But pilots will convince themselves of anything. Two of anything are better than one, so twins *must* be "safer" than singles! That just stands to reason, Rotordog! An engine-failure is the ONLY thing that matters...the ONLY criteria we look at. Why can't you see that? Are ye daft, laddie? Well, are ye?
Okay, okay...BO105...bad example. No power. No Cat-A capability most of the time (especially with that dad-blamed rear-facing seat option). So sh*tcan the Bolkow! Get a brandy-new EC-135 or -145. Oops! Now we're too heavy to land on some of the smaller platforms out in the GOM. So we have a choice: either beef up the platform (yeah, riiiiight) or only go there by boat - which exposes the oilfield worker to a whole 'nother level of risk when he swings on and off the field boat via the rope or must get lifted onto the platform via the crane/basket.
Or...let's just tell that oil company to abandon that platform...shut it in! and not use it because the "safe" helicopter we need to use is now too heavy to land on it. Maybe some of you guys aren't aware of it, but there are a bunch of platforms in the GOM that have heliports rated for only 4,000 pounds. Did I land on some in my BO105 at 5,000 pounds? You betcha! Shhh, don't tell the boss. He'll tell me I was being unsafe.
Get real, people.
The point of this drivel is that "safety" is a nebulous term, the meaning of which varies depending on just who you're talking to and what numbers you're examining. Does a twin always prevent a ditching? Well, no, obviously. Is a ditching always a catastrophe? Well, no, obviously. "Risk" is another one of those relative terms. Is the mere possibility of a ditching so horrifically objectionable that it must be avoided at all cost? Umm, your mileage may vary there, pardner.
As I pointed out, if we stopped all helicopter flying in the GOM, then the rig/platform hands would have to do all of their business by boat. We've most certainly eliminated the aviation risk, but have we made their lives safer? All we've done is substitute one risk for another. And since it's simply not possible to do all GOM flying in twins, maybe...just maybe flying them around in a 206 or EC120 is "safer" and "less risky" than not flying them at all.
I'd like to live in a perfect world, but I don't. I'm for reducing risk as much as the next guy, but those who criticize GOM ops (and the FAA that allows them) should come over and take a look at what we really do before spouting off about this or that. It's easy to make indignant, breathless claims that all GOM pilots simply deserve the increased safety of twin-engine aircraft, but it's really not practical. Or logical. Or correct, for that matter.
For twin-engine aircraft operating under part-135, the pilot must calculate his *actual* gross weight and center of gravity for EVERY takeoff. Which means that the single-pilot will do a LOT of button-pushing on the computer/calculator and writing on the manifest when he's doing forty takeoffs per day and doesn't have the luxury of doing it on his own personal schedule. (Some operators had slightly different procedures for this. At mine, we had to calculate the actual numbers.)
Downtime is coming and you have to "clean up the field" (i.e. bring all the guys from the outlying platforms back to the main quarters). They've waited until the VERY LAST MINUTE before launching you, to let the guys get as much time working as possible. You've told the foreman what time you need to start the cleanup to get done by downtime, but there are ALWAYS changes in the plan...guys running late, the infamous "swing-by's" ("Oh, we need to swing by Delta on our way back to Fox") which you didn't plan for and cannot really refuse...
You just cannot do anything expeditiously in a twin. Even fueling requires more time, because instead of taking on a quick 25 gallons I have to wait for 50 to get uploaded by that slow-ass pump.
Even without rushing (which none of us ever do), operating a twin as a "field ship" in the GOM is a lot more work than a single. It's not a matter of, as one guy who's obviously never flown a twin stated, simply a matter of pushing two throttles up instead of one (how naive is that?). I for one am not convinced that a BO105 is *that* much safer than a 206. At least, I never felt so. In fact, I'm with Devil49, it is a hallucination to say that twins are always "safer" than singles.
But pilots will convince themselves of anything. Two of anything are better than one, so twins *must* be "safer" than singles! That just stands to reason, Rotordog! An engine-failure is the ONLY thing that matters...the ONLY criteria we look at. Why can't you see that? Are ye daft, laddie? Well, are ye?
Okay, okay...BO105...bad example. No power. No Cat-A capability most of the time (especially with that dad-blamed rear-facing seat option). So sh*tcan the Bolkow! Get a brandy-new EC-135 or -145. Oops! Now we're too heavy to land on some of the smaller platforms out in the GOM. So we have a choice: either beef up the platform (yeah, riiiiight) or only go there by boat - which exposes the oilfield worker to a whole 'nother level of risk when he swings on and off the field boat via the rope or must get lifted onto the platform via the crane/basket.
Or...let's just tell that oil company to abandon that platform...shut it in! and not use it because the "safe" helicopter we need to use is now too heavy to land on it. Maybe some of you guys aren't aware of it, but there are a bunch of platforms in the GOM that have heliports rated for only 4,000 pounds. Did I land on some in my BO105 at 5,000 pounds? You betcha! Shhh, don't tell the boss. He'll tell me I was being unsafe.
Get real, people.
The point of this drivel is that "safety" is a nebulous term, the meaning of which varies depending on just who you're talking to and what numbers you're examining. Does a twin always prevent a ditching? Well, no, obviously. Is a ditching always a catastrophe? Well, no, obviously. "Risk" is another one of those relative terms. Is the mere possibility of a ditching so horrifically objectionable that it must be avoided at all cost? Umm, your mileage may vary there, pardner.
As I pointed out, if we stopped all helicopter flying in the GOM, then the rig/platform hands would have to do all of their business by boat. We've most certainly eliminated the aviation risk, but have we made their lives safer? All we've done is substitute one risk for another. And since it's simply not possible to do all GOM flying in twins, maybe...just maybe flying them around in a 206 or EC120 is "safer" and "less risky" than not flying them at all.
I'd like to live in a perfect world, but I don't. I'm for reducing risk as much as the next guy, but those who criticize GOM ops (and the FAA that allows them) should come over and take a look at what we really do before spouting off about this or that. It's easy to make indignant, breathless claims that all GOM pilots simply deserve the increased safety of twin-engine aircraft, but it's really not practical. Or logical. Or correct, for that matter.
"Even without rushing (which none of us ever do), operating a twin as a "field ship" in the GOM is a lot more work than a single. It's not a matter of, as one guy who's obviously never flown a twin stated, simply a matter of pushing two throttles up instead of one (how naive is that?)"
I take your point, but you will find that that "guy" actually has a considerable range of twin engine experience. Perhaps a degree of 'devil's advocacy' was involved!
I take your point, but you will find that that "guy" actually has a considerable range of twin engine experience. Perhaps a degree of 'devil's advocacy' was involved!
"Just a pilot"
Helmet Fire- I aplologise if I gave the impression that the OGP stats were proof of my contention. My intent is to provide evidence that what appears to be logical isn't always indicative of reality.
I will respectfully disagree with your contention that a twin is not more work. Actual control manipulation, yes- twin and single are identical. My experience of 13 years in the GOM, evenly split between one and two motor machines, is that the intellectual challenge of managing the systems in a multi is a significant increase in work- more complicated procedures re: fuel, electrical, power train, MUST yield more head work. Compare checklists between a 350 and a 355...
Fundamentally, I believe the most dangerous part of the helo is the pilot and most accidents involve perfectly good helicopters. Increase pilot workload unnecessarily, and you unjustifiably increase error probability. The increased workload has to be weighed against the increased risk- IFR, for example. An IFR flight is more complicated than VFR. In IMC, IFR is inarguably safer, or at least more reliable, than a VFR attempt- in spite of the extra workload. Advocating twins as the answer to the infrequent ditching in the GOM is similar to requiring all GOM flights be IFR and IMC. Pilot error is greater hazard than the occasional power loss, even if it does result in you getting wet in a single engine.
Do I prefer twins? No question, yes. But that depends on the specific operation- Operated improperly, a twin is more dangerous, for what gain? The facts you cited appear to be twins preferred inappropriately. How do the number of engines decease the risk of CFIT?
I will respectfully disagree with your contention that a twin is not more work. Actual control manipulation, yes- twin and single are identical. My experience of 13 years in the GOM, evenly split between one and two motor machines, is that the intellectual challenge of managing the systems in a multi is a significant increase in work- more complicated procedures re: fuel, electrical, power train, MUST yield more head work. Compare checklists between a 350 and a 355...
Fundamentally, I believe the most dangerous part of the helo is the pilot and most accidents involve perfectly good helicopters. Increase pilot workload unnecessarily, and you unjustifiably increase error probability. The increased workload has to be weighed against the increased risk- IFR, for example. An IFR flight is more complicated than VFR. In IMC, IFR is inarguably safer, or at least more reliable, than a VFR attempt- in spite of the extra workload. Advocating twins as the answer to the infrequent ditching in the GOM is similar to requiring all GOM flights be IFR and IMC. Pilot error is greater hazard than the occasional power loss, even if it does result in you getting wet in a single engine.
Do I prefer twins? No question, yes. But that depends on the specific operation- Operated improperly, a twin is more dangerous, for what gain? The facts you cited appear to be twins preferred inappropriately. How do the number of engines decease the risk of CFIT?
Last edited by Devil 49; 3rd May 2005 at 16:36.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
There's lots of oil left in the GoM and at $50.00 a barrel it's well worth the expense of going after it. However, as the saying goes, "it takes money to make money." Some of the major oil companies which are in a favorable financial position are now divesting themselves of their older close-in properties and constructing newer technologically advanced facilities in deep water which consolidate and automate the production and transportation of oil and gas to a much greater degree. With modern technology a single platform can now service dozens of individual wells. These facilities can be serviced efficiently by larger aircraft without the need for a "field ship."
The 30-40 year-old fields of multiple individual wells are gradually being left to the smaller operators. The facilities are in many cases run down and use older technology and techniques which produce oil and gas much less efficiently. To bring these fields up to modern standards would be economically unfeasible. Thus, while these fields can still be made to turn a profit, it often requires cutting corners - something the majors have found to be fiscally detrimental (read unacceptable liability) in the long run. The majors are in effect transferring the risk to the smaller operators whose pockets are not quite so deep. However, as long as the smaller operators can continue to squeeze a few dollars out of the old properties they will perpetuate the higher risk operations.
I don't disagree that the single-engine small ships are the preferable aircraft for field work, but hopefully, field work is becoming a thing of the past. For you see, no matter how statistically safe the aircraft, 50-75 landings in a day exposes a pilot to a relatively high level of risk. If you eliminate the need to make that many landings each day by consolidating your facilities you've obviously reduced that risk. I don't see it changing overnight, but I suspect that as operating costs rise, even by cutting corners, the older facilities will eventually (for instance when the price of oil drops) become unfeasible and will be abandoned. The GoM will then be in a position where operators are driven by economics to multi-engine multi-pilot aircraft with all the attendant safety enhancements.
-Stan-
There's lots of oil left in the GoM and at $50.00 a barrel it's well worth the expense of going after it. However, as the saying goes, "it takes money to make money." Some of the major oil companies which are in a favorable financial position are now divesting themselves of their older close-in properties and constructing newer technologically advanced facilities in deep water which consolidate and automate the production and transportation of oil and gas to a much greater degree. With modern technology a single platform can now service dozens of individual wells. These facilities can be serviced efficiently by larger aircraft without the need for a "field ship."
The 30-40 year-old fields of multiple individual wells are gradually being left to the smaller operators. The facilities are in many cases run down and use older technology and techniques which produce oil and gas much less efficiently. To bring these fields up to modern standards would be economically unfeasible. Thus, while these fields can still be made to turn a profit, it often requires cutting corners - something the majors have found to be fiscally detrimental (read unacceptable liability) in the long run. The majors are in effect transferring the risk to the smaller operators whose pockets are not quite so deep. However, as long as the smaller operators can continue to squeeze a few dollars out of the old properties they will perpetuate the higher risk operations.
I don't disagree that the single-engine small ships are the preferable aircraft for field work, but hopefully, field work is becoming a thing of the past. For you see, no matter how statistically safe the aircraft, 50-75 landings in a day exposes a pilot to a relatively high level of risk. If you eliminate the need to make that many landings each day by consolidating your facilities you've obviously reduced that risk. I don't see it changing overnight, but I suspect that as operating costs rise, even by cutting corners, the older facilities will eventually (for instance when the price of oil drops) become unfeasible and will be abandoned. The GoM will then be in a position where operators are driven by economics to multi-engine multi-pilot aircraft with all the attendant safety enhancements.
-Stan-
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am truly amazed that we are having this conversation. The UK CAA and JAR-OPS 3 make it a requirement for twin engined helicopters for Offshore Public Transport. More meaningfully, US owned Oil Companies also make twins a requirement, along with rebreathers, survival suits and personal PLBs. Strange they don't make it a requirement in the US. From this it can be deduced that these august bodies consider twins to be safer.
Unfortunately standards within UK operators, owned by North American companies are not as high as they have been in the past. Maximum return on assets is all that matters. It will all end in tears.
Unfortunately standards within UK operators, owned by North American companies are not as high as they have been in the past. Maximum return on assets is all that matters. It will all end in tears.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless may have lots of twin time, but apparently none in Part 135 ops. I used to fly a 206B in a field where 100 takeoffs was a light day. When I flew that field, I didn't even have time to write passenger names, or takeoff or landing times - I just made a mark to count the landing, and the customer was charged 2 minutes per flight, unless the flight was out of the field, in which case the normal manifest requirements applied. It simply wouldn't have been possible with a twin, because the regulations require computing weight and balance for every flight. That would have taken longer than most of the flights. There is more to flying a twin than just increasing the throttles, at least for commercial operations.
Gomer.....
I am familiar with FAA Part 135...and other regulations...and have flown Part 135 in twins...at several places....been a training captain as well as a Chief Pilot...also instructed at a few factories on twins.
The question you need to ask....is why you let yourself be rushed to the point you could not do the paperwork....sometimes one must tell the customer and the boss...."NO!"
I am familiar with FAA Part 135...and other regulations...and have flown Part 135 in twins...at several places....been a training captain as well as a Chief Pilot...also instructed at a few factories on twins.
The question you need to ask....is why you let yourself be rushed to the point you could not do the paperwork....sometimes one must tell the customer and the boss...."NO!"
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that's not the point I was making. If you do everything without rushing, then a twin simply won't do the job here. The paperwork and other requirements take longer than the flights. In short, there are some jobs, even offshore, that are better performed by a single. As is often quoted here, "Horses for courses". It seems rather presumptuous for someone who doesn't, and hasn't, flown in an area to pontificate on how things should be done there, even if he has done everything else everywhere else.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In short, there are some jobs, even offshore, that are better performed by a single.
SASless has a very valid point, you have to know when to say "NO" and not give in to pressure from clients or company.
Last edited by flyer43; 8th May 2005 at 20:57.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point Gomer Pylot is trying to make is that given the specific operating environment, single-engine small ships are safer than twins for that particular job.
You can debate whether anyone should be allowed to do that job at all, but if you're intent on working in that environment you're better off in a 206.
-Stan-
You can debate whether anyone should be allowed to do that job at all, but if you're intent on working in that environment you're better off in a 206.
-Stan-
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Face it. Europe does things one way, and the US does them differently. As I understand it, in the UK one can't even fly a single over a city, nor at night. That level of regulation would never be permitted here. We don't try to regulate you, so you shouldn't try to regulate us.
In the scenario above, the helicopter is seldom as much as 1/4 mile from a platform, and a boat is usually in the field, or at least close by. People are not dying from engine failures in these fields, and the oil companies are not about to pay for 2 or 3 twins to do the job that one 206 is doing safely now. Ain't gonna happen. Pissing and moaning about it from the other side of the pond won't do any good at all, and neither will it help from here. Get over it.
In the scenario above, the helicopter is seldom as much as 1/4 mile from a platform, and a boat is usually in the field, or at least close by. People are not dying from engine failures in these fields, and the oil companies are not about to pay for 2 or 3 twins to do the job that one 206 is doing safely now. Ain't gonna happen. Pissing and moaning about it from the other side of the pond won't do any good at all, and neither will it help from here. Get over it.