GOM - yet another ditching
"Just a pilot"
Twins are not safer than singles.
Engine failures in the GOM are not routinely fatal, nor are they anywhere else, generally.
If you don't believe this, you need to look at some studies. I'm not digging it up, but the US Army did a study decades ago that showed forced landings following complete loss of power, did not meet "Class A" standards 90 (95?) per cent of the time. Class A, as I recall, is fatal or aircraft destroyed.
Compare that to helo accidents in general- 90 per cent are pilot error. Yes, some of those errors involve power problems poorly handled.
Contrast that with evidence that twins crash more than singles. The OGP study I cited earlier in this thread has shown this for years. Off the top of my head, 46 (47?) of the 69 EMS crashes in the states in the last 4 years, were twins. I've flown'em, in the GOM, something like 25,000 landings and 4000 hours, in the old tech- 355F series, the 412, a very little time in the 222, a single trip in a Puma- and what I've observed many times in the 105 (never had the pleasure, or the curse, of a 'Kow assignment)- these aircraft are NOT user friendly. Oh well "better training," "they're used more hazardously"... perhaps true. Perhaps the ECs and 4th gen twins are better, and perhaps computerization just adds a new failure mode. If you believe twins are better, show some evidence to back it. Not legislation, resulting from the urge to claim accomplishment in resolving a"problem."- show statistics. Not "It's more expensive so it must be better," that's pure bias. Not policies. Evidence.
I'll also point out that the airlines are routinely reducing the number of engines... Which brings another point up- the one thing that is inarguably true is that two pilot crews ARE safer.
Well?
Engine failures in the GOM are not routinely fatal, nor are they anywhere else, generally.
If you don't believe this, you need to look at some studies. I'm not digging it up, but the US Army did a study decades ago that showed forced landings following complete loss of power, did not meet "Class A" standards 90 (95?) per cent of the time. Class A, as I recall, is fatal or aircraft destroyed.
Compare that to helo accidents in general- 90 per cent are pilot error. Yes, some of those errors involve power problems poorly handled.
Contrast that with evidence that twins crash more than singles. The OGP study I cited earlier in this thread has shown this for years. Off the top of my head, 46 (47?) of the 69 EMS crashes in the states in the last 4 years, were twins. I've flown'em, in the GOM, something like 25,000 landings and 4000 hours, in the old tech- 355F series, the 412, a very little time in the 222, a single trip in a Puma- and what I've observed many times in the 105 (never had the pleasure, or the curse, of a 'Kow assignment)- these aircraft are NOT user friendly. Oh well "better training," "they're used more hazardously"... perhaps true. Perhaps the ECs and 4th gen twins are better, and perhaps computerization just adds a new failure mode. If you believe twins are better, show some evidence to back it. Not legislation, resulting from the urge to claim accomplishment in resolving a"problem."- show statistics. Not "It's more expensive so it must be better," that's pure bias. Not policies. Evidence.
I'll also point out that the airlines are routinely reducing the number of engines... Which brings another point up- the one thing that is inarguably true is that two pilot crews ARE safer.
Well?
Last edited by Devil 49; 9th May 2005 at 01:10.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, it seems to sum up the GOM operations:
Twin engine, perceived difficulty of operation, paperwork, c of g calculations, slow turnarounds, passenger weights, performance calculated, single engine accountability, beach +30 fuel etc etc
Single engine, easy to operate, no paperwork, passengers not weighed, no performance calculations, field fuel only, fast turnarounds, cheaper operation.
The perception that twin engine is no good for field ops is driving the use of single engine, poorly equipped aircraft. There are some Gomex aircraft that don't even have a VSI. That means limited panel from the start and not all pilots have an instrument ticket. What chance when one encounters inadvertant IMC?
There are some responsible oil companies and helicopter operators who are trying to do it safely. Its a shame that it is they and not the regulators who seem to have to drive the safety improvements. Safty is a VERY hard sell in the GOM, many companies just want cheap.
HH
Twin engine, perceived difficulty of operation, paperwork, c of g calculations, slow turnarounds, passenger weights, performance calculated, single engine accountability, beach +30 fuel etc etc
Single engine, easy to operate, no paperwork, passengers not weighed, no performance calculations, field fuel only, fast turnarounds, cheaper operation.
The perception that twin engine is no good for field ops is driving the use of single engine, poorly equipped aircraft. There are some Gomex aircraft that don't even have a VSI. That means limited panel from the start and not all pilots have an instrument ticket. What chance when one encounters inadvertant IMC?
There are some responsible oil companies and helicopter operators who are trying to do it safely. Its a shame that it is they and not the regulators who seem to have to drive the safety improvements. Safty is a VERY hard sell in the GOM, many companies just want cheap.
HH
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hippolite,
You've attempted to paint the Gulf of Mexico with a very broad brush. I think the result is an inaccurate picture of what actually goes on here.
Certainly there are cowboy pilots and shoddy operators, but they are not representative of what we do here in this day and age.
For the majority of crew change trips a well equipped, appropriately sized twin is the preferred aircraft. However, for operations within a field (i.e. up to a dozen or more satellite platforms within perhaps a five mile circle) the ideal aircraft from both a utility and safety perspective is a small single-engine, single-pilot ship such as the Bell 206.
Federal aviation regulations require that all aircraft, single or twin, either compute weight and balance or use an approved loading schedule which ensures the aircraft will remain within its limitations. Documentation is required for all flights. Passengers' names and weights are recorded for each leg. Performance calculations are normally simple as they are predicated on OAT (our high power demand operations typically occur within a couple hundred feet of sea level).
There are still many small ships operating in the GoM which are minimally instrumented, but customers are increasingly requiring better capability in the aircraft they contract. My company has required an instrument rating of all newly hired pilots for quite some time. They recently made it a retroactive requirement that all pilots who did not have the rating go out and obtain it.
Additionally, the major helicopter operators have put in place policies requiring base managers to become much more involved in the weather and fuel decisions their pilots make to dispatch or to continue a flight. This has relieved individual pilots of much of the pressure they might have felt in the past.
The bottom line is; yes there are "bottom feeders" whose only interest is in doing the job at minimal cost. Fortunately, where I work we don't see so much of that. In the UK a very conservative civil aviation authority mandates safety. In the US it's quite often liability concerns and lawyers. Eventually, both probably achieve the same end, but which is better ... I guess that's open to debate.
-Stan-
You've attempted to paint the Gulf of Mexico with a very broad brush. I think the result is an inaccurate picture of what actually goes on here.
Certainly there are cowboy pilots and shoddy operators, but they are not representative of what we do here in this day and age.
For the majority of crew change trips a well equipped, appropriately sized twin is the preferred aircraft. However, for operations within a field (i.e. up to a dozen or more satellite platforms within perhaps a five mile circle) the ideal aircraft from both a utility and safety perspective is a small single-engine, single-pilot ship such as the Bell 206.
Federal aviation regulations require that all aircraft, single or twin, either compute weight and balance or use an approved loading schedule which ensures the aircraft will remain within its limitations. Documentation is required for all flights. Passengers' names and weights are recorded for each leg. Performance calculations are normally simple as they are predicated on OAT (our high power demand operations typically occur within a couple hundred feet of sea level).
There are still many small ships operating in the GoM which are minimally instrumented, but customers are increasingly requiring better capability in the aircraft they contract. My company has required an instrument rating of all newly hired pilots for quite some time. They recently made it a retroactive requirement that all pilots who did not have the rating go out and obtain it.
Additionally, the major helicopter operators have put in place policies requiring base managers to become much more involved in the weather and fuel decisions their pilots make to dispatch or to continue a flight. This has relieved individual pilots of much of the pressure they might have felt in the past.
The bottom line is; yes there are "bottom feeders" whose only interest is in doing the job at minimal cost. Fortunately, where I work we don't see so much of that. In the UK a very conservative civil aviation authority mandates safety. In the US it's quite often liability concerns and lawyers. Eventually, both probably achieve the same end, but which is better ... I guess that's open to debate.
-Stan-
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: at the edge
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL
I agree that Hippolite has maybe painted the GOM with a broad brush but makes a valid point that contributors to this thread have implied that twin operation are complicated and it has been implied that there is minimal paperwork for SE operations. I am sure that the truth lies in the middle ground somewhere.
Regarding equipment, I believe that the company you work for has many Bell 407s and Bell 206L aircraft which don't have a VSI. Sure, you can mandate a current instrument rating but it is still not enough when the aircraft are not equipped with what most pilots would term basic instrumentation.
It is also acknowledged that now, companies have put into place adverse weather policies and procedures, but it was only after a very bad weather related accident in 2003. It should have happened sooner.
Your statement that a well equipped appropriately sized twin is used for crew change operations is also true, but shouldn't you add that its often flown with one way fuel and at max all up weight with no performance calculations, no reject area at the heliport therefore making its "twin" status questionable at best?
Things are, from what you have said, improving in the GOM, lets hope that they continue to improve...they still have some way to go to match other places where helicopters are operated.
I agree that Hippolite has maybe painted the GOM with a broad brush but makes a valid point that contributors to this thread have implied that twin operation are complicated and it has been implied that there is minimal paperwork for SE operations. I am sure that the truth lies in the middle ground somewhere.
Regarding equipment, I believe that the company you work for has many Bell 407s and Bell 206L aircraft which don't have a VSI. Sure, you can mandate a current instrument rating but it is still not enough when the aircraft are not equipped with what most pilots would term basic instrumentation.
It is also acknowledged that now, companies have put into place adverse weather policies and procedures, but it was only after a very bad weather related accident in 2003. It should have happened sooner.
Your statement that a well equipped appropriately sized twin is used for crew change operations is also true, but shouldn't you add that its often flown with one way fuel and at max all up weight with no performance calculations, no reject area at the heliport therefore making its "twin" status questionable at best?
Things are, from what you have said, improving in the GOM, lets hope that they continue to improve...they still have some way to go to match other places where helicopters are operated.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The GOM operators follow the same regulations that the rest of the US follows. VSI indicators are not required in any VFR aircraft in the US. Whether that's good or bad, it is the law. Most helicopters in the GOM are actually better equipped than the average US helicopter. As GLSNightPilot said, US, European, and Oz regulations are different, and always will be. Throwing rocks at the regulatory agencies of other countries is senseless. In the US, it's perfectly legal to fly a single-engine helicopter at night, across cities, with no IFR instrumentation at all. There is no regulatory difference between onshore and offshore, except for the requirement for flotation gear. We have an entirely different philosophy than European countries on this and many other issues. That won't change. If you want changes, then you'll have to come over here and enforce your will, and I predict that will be resisted strongly.
Personally, I support stronger regulation and enforcement, but I'm also realistic about the probability of that happening, and mandating all twin-engine aircraft is not the best way to increase safety. Factors other than engine failure are what are killing us, and our passengers. Having all twins is fine, but better instrumentation, training, maintenance, weather information, and traffic information are all cheaper and more effective. Shorter working hours and more pilots are also likely to increase safety more than more engines. The amount of money that will go into safety is severely limited, and I want it to go toward the most effective fixes. More engines is not it.
Personally, I support stronger regulation and enforcement, but I'm also realistic about the probability of that happening, and mandating all twin-engine aircraft is not the best way to increase safety. Factors other than engine failure are what are killing us, and our passengers. Having all twins is fine, but better instrumentation, training, maintenance, weather information, and traffic information are all cheaper and more effective. Shorter working hours and more pilots are also likely to increase safety more than more engines. The amount of money that will go into safety is severely limited, and I want it to go toward the most effective fixes. More engines is not it.
"In the US, it's perfectly legal to fly a single-engine helicopter at night, across cities, with no IFR instrumentation at all"
Then the FAA get all shirty when BA decide to fly a 4 engine aircraft on 3, back home; there's consistency!
Going back to the original debate about twins, is it really going to cause any problem for the pilot to operate a 427 rather than a 407/206, or a 355 rather than a 350/120? We've operated 355s on high intensity operations without any problems (they took over from a 206).
The defence of lack of VSIs because it's not a legal requirement is novel. Lots of things may not be legal requirements, but it doesn't mean they are probably more than desirable. I imagine in 'gold fish bowl' conditions it would be highly desirable to have all the instruments you can, even if technically VFR. By not fitting such gear seems to imply that the owners are aiming at the lowest standard they can get away with, rather than the highest standard practical (there obviously comes a point where kit for the sake of kit is not helping anyone.) It seems less than diligent on the part of the FAA too; it (insert particular item) may not be a requirement now, but perhaps it ought to be.
Take AVADs in larger a/c such as the S-76 for example. In the UK in 1986 (I think) an S-61 full of passengers flew into flat calm sea in the cruise whilst VFR, but in heavy haze, resulting in several fatalities. Subsequently the CAA mandated AVAD for aircraft operating over water. A relatively simple, cheap and effective way to prevent a repeat performance. Indeed, it probably saved a 76 a year or so later. Has anything been mandated following the CFIT last year of a 76 at night in the GoM? So not all our regulations are 'anal' and not everything is tied up in how many engines we have; most rules are a result of experience and reacting to events that have taken place. In some cases, even proactively such as HOMP.
Having said that, I think it is also important to realise that unlike some 'oil patches' in the world where there may only be one, two or three operators, in the GoM there are loads of them, several of which most people outside the region won't have heard of, and it is wrong to tar all of them with the same brush.
Then the FAA get all shirty when BA decide to fly a 4 engine aircraft on 3, back home; there's consistency!
Going back to the original debate about twins, is it really going to cause any problem for the pilot to operate a 427 rather than a 407/206, or a 355 rather than a 350/120? We've operated 355s on high intensity operations without any problems (they took over from a 206).
The defence of lack of VSIs because it's not a legal requirement is novel. Lots of things may not be legal requirements, but it doesn't mean they are probably more than desirable. I imagine in 'gold fish bowl' conditions it would be highly desirable to have all the instruments you can, even if technically VFR. By not fitting such gear seems to imply that the owners are aiming at the lowest standard they can get away with, rather than the highest standard practical (there obviously comes a point where kit for the sake of kit is not helping anyone.) It seems less than diligent on the part of the FAA too; it (insert particular item) may not be a requirement now, but perhaps it ought to be.
Take AVADs in larger a/c such as the S-76 for example. In the UK in 1986 (I think) an S-61 full of passengers flew into flat calm sea in the cruise whilst VFR, but in heavy haze, resulting in several fatalities. Subsequently the CAA mandated AVAD for aircraft operating over water. A relatively simple, cheap and effective way to prevent a repeat performance. Indeed, it probably saved a 76 a year or so later. Has anything been mandated following the CFIT last year of a 76 at night in the GoM? So not all our regulations are 'anal' and not everything is tied up in how many engines we have; most rules are a result of experience and reacting to events that have taken place. In some cases, even proactively such as HOMP.
Having said that, I think it is also important to realise that unlike some 'oil patches' in the world where there may only be one, two or three operators, in the GoM there are loads of them, several of which most people outside the region won't have heard of, and it is wrong to tar all of them with the same brush.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US, it's perfectly legal to fly a single-engine helicopter at night, across cities, with no IFR instrumentation at all
We have an entirely different philosophy than European countries on this and many other issues. That won't change. If you want changes, then you'll have to come over here and enforce your will, and I predict that will be resisted strongly.
As for speed and efficiency in offshore operations. I spent many years operating with a Bell 212 conducting long shuttles. The paperwork was designed to help streamline the whole operation, plus we had offshore radio stations with recorders that helped to keep the score as well. Extra life jackets were available at all locations so that there was a minimal delay between landing, deplaning and reloading more animated freight. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be doing the same job in a single of any sort, even if the inter platform payloads warented their use.
212man makes a very valid point regarding the difference between legal and sensible.
Previous comments I and many others this side of the pond have been taken as mud slinging between the FAA and CAA requirements. It's nothing of the sort, this is only about using your common sense and providing a safe and efficient service for your clients..
Nigerian In Law
"Which brings another point up- the one thing that is inarguably true is that two pilot crews ARE safer."
Devil 49,
Any statistics to support this ? I'm interested because I always thought the push for two crew was originated by the oil companies.
Cheers,
NEO
Devil 49,
Any statistics to support this ? I'm interested because I always thought the push for two crew was originated by the oil companies.
Cheers,
NEO
"Just a pilot"
The OGP study shows that the multis operated with two-pilot crews have a significant safety advantage over all other equipment. Off the top of my head, that's the only source of stats that comes to mind. There are apples and oranges issues in the numbers, for instance- flight profiles, ie- my impression is that all the two-pilot crews in the study are IFR crews, whereas you can't say that of all the twins. So, perhaps it's the IFR capability that's significant? That makes sense to me, too. I think some reasonable assumption follow:
IFR crews are generally better trained and prepared at each dispatch;
IFR flights face serious magnifiers of hazard;
And two pilot crews address the greatest hazard to any fligth- pilot failure of all sorts.
Pilot error, or just poor pilot performance, is the greatest threat to safety.
I can count on my fingers the number of inflight power failures I've had since '68. Systems failures, on the other hand, would be several dozens of occurences, and pilot mistakes of all types, thousands in my career. Look around, and I'll guess you'll see the same pattern. Twins address the least likely hazard, multiply the second, and geometrically amplify the third in my list.
What does work, apparently and in spite of the frequent clashes of personalities in the cockpit, is having two pilots addressing the challenges of safe flight.
IFR crews are generally better trained and prepared at each dispatch;
IFR flights face serious magnifiers of hazard;
And two pilot crews address the greatest hazard to any fligth- pilot failure of all sorts.
Pilot error, or just poor pilot performance, is the greatest threat to safety.
I can count on my fingers the number of inflight power failures I've had since '68. Systems failures, on the other hand, would be several dozens of occurences, and pilot mistakes of all types, thousands in my career. Look around, and I'll guess you'll see the same pattern. Twins address the least likely hazard, multiply the second, and geometrically amplify the third in my list.
What does work, apparently and in spite of the frequent clashes of personalities in the cockpit, is having two pilots addressing the challenges of safe flight.
Having a quiet day East of the Calabar river NEO?('
')
')
Last edited by 212man; 10th May 2005 at 15:27.
Gomer...
212man and I have done the "Rat Killing" shuttle flying in 212's, hopping from well head to well head, and you can see from his post that we share the belief that such work can be done with a twin as well as a single.
I agree with everything 212man said about this...it really is a philosophical view that requires examination as to whether twins are better than singles. Bob Suggs, et al, reduced helicopter flying to the lowest denominator by adhering to the Bell 47 mindset that PHI started with....just like the way the offshore boats evolved from Shrimp Boats. The GOM is its own worst enemy at times....small decks do not allow for "bigger" helicopters thus singles get forced upon us....answer would have been to have better foresight and build bigger...safer...decks.
212man and I have done the "Rat Killing" shuttle flying in 212's, hopping from well head to well head, and you can see from his post that we share the belief that such work can be done with a twin as well as a single.
I agree with everything 212man said about this...it really is a philosophical view that requires examination as to whether twins are better than singles. Bob Suggs, et al, reduced helicopter flying to the lowest denominator by adhering to the Bell 47 mindset that PHI started with....just like the way the offshore boats evolved from Shrimp Boats. The GOM is its own worst enemy at times....small decks do not allow for "bigger" helicopters thus singles get forced upon us....answer would have been to have better foresight and build bigger...safer...decks.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we can debate this until the cows come home, and it won't change anything. The regulations clearly allow singles, and thus they will continue to fly. The FAA will not change the requirements on this.
I'm willing to bet that the 'rat-killing shuttle' didn't involve a hundred takeoffs. I've flown fields where 200 per day was the norm. That won't happen in a 212. I'm not saying I enjoyed doing that, but it happens here, and it will continue as long as it's legal, which is likely to be well into the foreseeable future.
It's certainly true that there is a wide disparity of operators in the GOM, and it should also be noted that there are probably more helicopters flying out there every day than even exist in all of Europe. With that number flying, it's no surprise that there will be more incidents.
I'm willing to bet that the 'rat-killing shuttle' didn't involve a hundred takeoffs. I've flown fields where 200 per day was the norm. That won't happen in a 212. I'm not saying I enjoyed doing that, but it happens here, and it will continue as long as it's legal, which is likely to be well into the foreseeable future.
It's certainly true that there is a wide disparity of operators in the GOM, and it should also be noted that there are probably more helicopters flying out there every day than even exist in all of Europe. With that number flying, it's no surprise that there will be more incidents.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomer SASless, SL etc....
Ignoring deck size restrictions, why can't "deck hopping, rat killing 200 landings or you're a pussy" shuttles be done with a 212, 412, or any twin?
In the 80s, on the Southern North Sea, over 75 landings per day was the norm for an S61 and that included some longer transit legs. All close together platforms and double that would have been possible.
I'm not sure I see the issue here. Silly me!!
HH
Ignoring deck size restrictions, why can't "deck hopping, rat killing 200 landings or you're a pussy" shuttles be done with a 212, 412, or any twin?
In the 80s, on the Southern North Sea, over 75 landings per day was the norm for an S61 and that included some longer transit legs. All close together platforms and double that would have been possible.
I'm not sure I see the issue here. Silly me!!
HH
Further to the S61 NS stuff, during the 70's we shuttled the bears to and from work in the Brent Field almost daily with 212's, average hop <2 minutes. Shift changes were 0600 and 1800, anything up to 4 x 212's moving 11-13 pax at a time. Worked well, and all loading was at ground idle.
Not a daytime flight hour logged mid winter, either
Not a daytime flight hour logged mid winter, either
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomer,
As previously mentioned by others, legal does not necessarily equate to safe. And neither does speed, or any other measure for that matter. If we want to get into the old "My Dad is bigger than yours" argument, I am sure that many of us out here could give as good as you want, but that would achieve very little.
Ignore your thoughts that this is still a CAA versus FAA rules issue and think a bit deeper on what some people are trying to say in this thread. Unfortunately, I suspect that pride and prejudice will get the better of you......
Proven reliability multi-engine helis, operated correctly, expose you to less risk than single engine helis......
The regulations clearly allow singles, and thus they will continue to fly. The FAA will not change the requirements on this.
I'm not saying I enjoyed doing that, but it happens here, and it will continue as long as it's legal, which is likely to be well into the foreseeable future.
Ignore your thoughts that this is still a CAA versus FAA rules issue and think a bit deeper on what some people are trying to say in this thread. Unfortunately, I suspect that pride and prejudice will get the better of you......
Proven reliability multi-engine helis, operated correctly, expose you to less risk than single engine helis......
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you're talking about more than 50 landings in a day, especially during the summer, fatigue induced pilot error is much more likely to be the cause of an incident than loss of an engine. The 212 is pretty simple, but going through even that simple checklist 50 or more times a day takes its toll. I don't believe there's a turbine helicopter that can do the field job with less stress on the pilot than a 206.
My currrent job involves crew changes over fairly long distances (80 miles or more) so I wouldn't be happy with anything less than my trusty S-76, but for field work the 206 certainly has its advantages, and not merely cost of operation.
-Stan-
My currrent job involves crew changes over fairly long distances (80 miles or more) so I wouldn't be happy with anything less than my trusty S-76, but for field work the 206 certainly has its advantages, and not merely cost of operation.
-Stan-
"Just a pilot"
(If you believe multis are the answer to all safety issues, I'd suggest you cover your ears and close your eyes right now.)
Not to mention, Stan, the fact that it's one of the safest, if not THE safest single-engine aircraft in the world, helo or airplane.
One can lead a horse to water...
Not to mention, Stan, the fact that it's one of the safest, if not THE safest single-engine aircraft in the world, helo or airplane.
One can lead a horse to water...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand what people are trying to say in this thread. I understand that it's a matter of safety, not regulation. I also understand that it's a matter of money, which I'm not convinced that the European posters do. As I've said before, I'm for using more twins, fewer takeoffs, and all that. But the oil companies will have to pay for that, and they're simply not willing to do so. Many of them are only interested in the cheapest transportation they can get, in the short term, and don't care about the long term. They save enough in monthly costs to pay for any lawsuits, which will be protracted in any case. Wishing does not make it so, and whining from the east side of the Atlantic will make no difference on what happens here. Even the majors have different operating philosophies, although that seems to be (very grudgingly) changing, albeit very slowly. But you have to remember that there are literally dozens of smaller oil companies operating in the GOM, along with many smaller helicopter operators, and these are all driven by short-term economics. As long as regulations permit using singles (and that will be at least through this century, IMO, and certainly through at least half of it) then singles will be used. If we are going to spend money on increasing safety, then we need to spend what little of it there is on the things which will really save lives, and not on the things outsiders believe, through their one true faith, will save us all. Twin engines are not a panacea, they're a red herring. We need better weather reporting, better flight following (real ATC, with common frequencies used by all operators), and better enforcement of regulations. We need TCAS, EGPWS, and better cockpit instrumentation. We need better regulation of crappy helipads, both offshore and onshore. We need realistic weather minimums. The major operators have conservative minimums, but the smaller ones just use the FAA regs, which only require clear of clouds. In short, there are many things which are killing us, and which could be fixed much more cheaply than junking hundreds of aircraft and buying hundreds of much more expensive aircraft. And requiring all twins would require, literally, the disposition of several hundred helicopters, just for the GOM. Ain't gonna happen.