GOM - yet another ditching
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomer,
When you put it like that I can only agree with you! Unfortunately, the larger oil companies that are willing to spend the necessary cash to improve the safety of their own operations don't necessarily cause their lesser cousins to follow suit. However, some of them do try to improve the situation by lobbying the regulators to apply changes, including the mandating of certain equipment fits to enhance safety etc. (for example: TCAS is only really useful if the rest of the pack have suitable transponders fitted - and switched on!!)
But it is not only the oil companies that can bring about the changes. As long as there are operators willing to operate to lower standards and pilots willing to accept them, there will always be customers who will use them as a means of saving money. Change any one of the components of this equation and things should improve - i.e. pilots could actually improve things by not accepting to fly in a helicopter, single or twin, which does not have suitable equipment fit to optimise the safety of its operation..... but I guess that is hardly likely to happen as some guys are just willing to fly anything for the sake of earning a crust.
If you want some general statistics for helicopter operations wordlwide, you can find stats for 2000-2003 on the publications page of the OGP website - Click Here It may be a UK website, but the data is global!!
Enter the word helicopter in the search box and enter - you can download the .pdf reports free of charge
The breakdown of info is by helicopter general type rather than manufacturer type, but may make useful reading for some.
When you put it like that I can only agree with you! Unfortunately, the larger oil companies that are willing to spend the necessary cash to improve the safety of their own operations don't necessarily cause their lesser cousins to follow suit. However, some of them do try to improve the situation by lobbying the regulators to apply changes, including the mandating of certain equipment fits to enhance safety etc. (for example: TCAS is only really useful if the rest of the pack have suitable transponders fitted - and switched on!!)
But it is not only the oil companies that can bring about the changes. As long as there are operators willing to operate to lower standards and pilots willing to accept them, there will always be customers who will use them as a means of saving money. Change any one of the components of this equation and things should improve - i.e. pilots could actually improve things by not accepting to fly in a helicopter, single or twin, which does not have suitable equipment fit to optimise the safety of its operation..... but I guess that is hardly likely to happen as some guys are just willing to fly anything for the sake of earning a crust.
If you want some general statistics for helicopter operations wordlwide, you can find stats for 2000-2003 on the publications page of the OGP website - Click Here It may be a UK website, but the data is global!!
Enter the word helicopter in the search box and enter - you can download the .pdf reports free of charge
The breakdown of info is by helicopter general type rather than manufacturer type, but may make useful reading for some.
Gomer hits the nail squarely on the head....if we cannot have the twins...can we have some of the other things....ATC, common frequencies, SAR....etc?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel, yes, there have been several midair collisions between helicopters in the GOM, all of them fatal. I have personally had many 'near misses', but none since using a TAWS. Transponders are required when flying in the GOM, because we are regularly crossing the ADIZ. It's still possible for a transponder to fail, of course, but every helicopter operating out there has to have one installed and turned on. Otherwise, a pair of F16s will soon be flying in formation with it, or at least trying to.
Flyer43, it's a vicious cycle. Some customers go with the lowest bidder, and some operators bid low by virtue of providing lower safety and maintenance standards, in order to get the business from the cheap customers. They reinforce each other. And there will always be pilots willing to fly for them, just as there are pilots willing to fly for very little money just to build time. If you read this and the other forums, that can't even be iln question. As long as the small operators are not unionized, there is no way to prevent it, and the US labor laws make it very difficult to unionize companies.
Flyer43, it's a vicious cycle. Some customers go with the lowest bidder, and some operators bid low by virtue of providing lower safety and maintenance standards, in order to get the business from the cheap customers. They reinforce each other. And there will always be pilots willing to fly for them, just as there are pilots willing to fly for very little money just to build time. If you read this and the other forums, that can't even be iln question. As long as the small operators are not unionized, there is no way to prevent it, and the US labor laws make it very difficult to unionize companies.
TheFlyingSquirrel:
My dear boy! For a time we were averaging one mid-air per year in the GOM, a horrible, atrocious rate. A friend of mine who was flying his speed-hobbled 407 got rammed from his 5 o'clock position by a Twinstar whose pilot had his head down, likely fiddling with his...umm, something. Sadly, the Twinstar pilot died. My friend's 407 got mightily chopped up (nose gone- including pedals!, tail boom gone), but miraculously (is there any other word?) he managed to get it down on the water safely.
TCAS (not TCAD for cryin' out loud) is the single most important safety device to ever come down the pike. But PHI "couldn't afford" to equip all its ships with them. Too expensive! (Tell me "safety" isn't about dollars...go ahead, tell me!)
I know one pilot who had given his wife instructions that if he was ever killed in a mid-air between his non-TCAS-equipped ship and another that she should sue and sue and sue until PHI had no money left to buy anything. And you know what, I don't blame him a bit.
In that non-radar environment where there are so many aircraft flying at the same dang altitudes (read: "low"), the value of TCAS is inestimable...incalculable. Yet the operators resist installing it.
Yeah, what does one mid-air cost?
Has there ever bee a mid-air low level in the Gom between two helis?
TCAS (not TCAD for cryin' out loud) is the single most important safety device to ever come down the pike. But PHI "couldn't afford" to equip all its ships with them. Too expensive! (Tell me "safety" isn't about dollars...go ahead, tell me!)
I know one pilot who had given his wife instructions that if he was ever killed in a mid-air between his non-TCAS-equipped ship and another that she should sue and sue and sue until PHI had no money left to buy anything. And you know what, I don't blame him a bit.
In that non-radar environment where there are so many aircraft flying at the same dang altitudes (read: "low"), the value of TCAS is inestimable...incalculable. Yet the operators resist installing it.
Yeah, what does one mid-air cost?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPrune Fan
I belive that PHI has ALL its aircraft equiped with the BFG Skywatch system or better in the case of the larger twins.
Now....that VSI might be a nice addition in a 407 or 206L3
HH
I belive that PHI has ALL its aircraft equiped with the BFG Skywatch system or better in the case of the larger twins.
Now....that VSI might be a nice addition in a 407 or 206L3
HH
If my alcohol ravaged brain does not defeat me...was there not two mid-airs in one day...seems it was about twenty years ago. I do know PHI lost two Jetrangers to tranny mount failures in one day many many years ago.
The traffic problem could be improved if the GOM adopted a method similar to the North Sea....a single common frequency for distinct areas thus all aircraft operating in that sector are on the same frequency. There would have to be more of them....due to the sheer number of aircraft and it would require two radio's in each aircraft....
The answer to the question...how much does an accident cost vice the cost of TCAS....is simple. One can purchase insurance for the accident....it takes capital investment to purchase TCAS....which is much more costly....and thus harms the bonus pool for the managers. (....or could the cost be passed along to the customer some way?)
The traffic problem could be improved if the GOM adopted a method similar to the North Sea....a single common frequency for distinct areas thus all aircraft operating in that sector are on the same frequency. There would have to be more of them....due to the sheer number of aircraft and it would require two radio's in each aircraft....
The answer to the question...how much does an accident cost vice the cost of TCAS....is simple. One can purchase insurance for the accident....it takes capital investment to purchase TCAS....which is much more costly....and thus harms the bonus pool for the managers. (....or could the cost be passed along to the customer some way?)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB Identification: DFW05IA119
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Incident occurred Friday, May 13, 2005 in S.Timbalier 265, GM
Aircraft: Eurocopter France EC120B, registration: N588SC
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On May 13, 2005, about 1425 central daylight time, a Eurocopter France EC120B single-engine turbine powered helicopter, N588SC, registered to CFS Air LLC., of Danbury Connecticut, and operated by ERA Helicopters LLC., of Saint Charles, Louisiana, remained undamaged during a forced autorotation landing into open ocean water near offshore platform South Timbelier ST 265, located in the Gulf of Mexico. The commercial pilot and passenger were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand air taxi flight. The flight originated from ST 265 and was destined for Port Fourchon (9LA) near Fourchon, Louisiana.
According to the pilot, while approximately 14 miles south of Port Fourchon and while 500 feet above the water, he observed the engine low oil pressure light illuminate and shortly thereafter the engine lost power. The pilot elected to turn into the wind, inflate the floats, and perform an autorotation to the water. After a successful autorotation the pilot and passenger disembarked the helicopter without injury and were rescued. At the time of the incident the pilot reported the fuel gauges indicated approximately 24 gallons of fuel.
The pilot further reported that the helicopter remained upright until the recovery at which time the helicopter rolled inverted, but remained afloat.
The helicopter was recovered, and on May 16, 2005 was examined by investigators from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), American Eurocopter, and Turbomeca USA. The engine was removed and transported to Turbomeca USA for further examination.
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Incident occurred Friday, May 13, 2005 in S.Timbalier 265, GM
Aircraft: Eurocopter France EC120B, registration: N588SC
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On May 13, 2005, about 1425 central daylight time, a Eurocopter France EC120B single-engine turbine powered helicopter, N588SC, registered to CFS Air LLC., of Danbury Connecticut, and operated by ERA Helicopters LLC., of Saint Charles, Louisiana, remained undamaged during a forced autorotation landing into open ocean water near offshore platform South Timbelier ST 265, located in the Gulf of Mexico. The commercial pilot and passenger were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand air taxi flight. The flight originated from ST 265 and was destined for Port Fourchon (9LA) near Fourchon, Louisiana.
According to the pilot, while approximately 14 miles south of Port Fourchon and while 500 feet above the water, he observed the engine low oil pressure light illuminate and shortly thereafter the engine lost power. The pilot elected to turn into the wind, inflate the floats, and perform an autorotation to the water. After a successful autorotation the pilot and passenger disembarked the helicopter without injury and were rescued. At the time of the incident the pilot reported the fuel gauges indicated approximately 24 gallons of fuel.
The pilot further reported that the helicopter remained upright until the recovery at which time the helicopter rolled inverted, but remained afloat.
The helicopter was recovered, and on May 16, 2005 was examined by investigators from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), American Eurocopter, and Turbomeca USA. The engine was removed and transported to Turbomeca USA for further examination.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, let's see, since this thread has been going, how many have we had? How many have we had in the non GOM?
In this case, everything was fine, both got out with no problem.
In this case, can we demonstrate that a twin (say an EC135) MIGHT have been safer and not lead to a hull loss?
BUT, then again, they are so COMPLICATED to operate and can't do more than a few landings each day so they are no good for the GOM.
In this case, everything was fine, both got out with no problem.
In this case, can we demonstrate that a twin (say an EC135) MIGHT have been safer and not lead to a hull loss?
BUT, then again, they are so COMPLICATED to operate and can't do more than a few landings each day so they are no good for the GOM.
Hippo....
Something that has to be factored into the equation....Air Log had a rash of engine failures a few years back (seems that distinction rotates amongst the GOM outfits) due to contaminated fuel. That would possibly do in a twin as well as a single.
Try as you might....you will not be able to sway the jury I fear. After all, the deck weight of some of these twins is so much greater than a single....along with all that complexity to cope with.
Something that has to be factored into the equation....Air Log had a rash of engine failures a few years back (seems that distinction rotates amongst the GOM outfits) due to contaminated fuel. That would possibly do in a twin as well as a single.
Try as you might....you will not be able to sway the jury I fear. After all, the deck weight of some of these twins is so much greater than a single....along with all that complexity to cope with.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What stuns me is that the EC120 ditching in the posting by MARS has been classified as an incident, as are many of the ditchings which occur in the area. Provided that all occupants get out without too much bruising etc. and the aircraft is eventually recovered, this is the norm. If the aircraft is damaged by rolling over after everybody has evacuated, this does not make it an accident as the "flight" was completed as soon as the last person on board evacuated..........
"Just a pilot"
I'm not aware of any stats that support any safety advantage of single pilot twins. On the other hand, there are data that indicate a disadvantage. Perhaps- in spite of common sense interpretation of appearance- the world IS round, and s/p twins aren't safer.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devil 49
Where did comparisons with single-pilot twins come into the equation?
As for data supporting generic types, try the following - as posted earlier .....
If you want some general statistics for helicopter operations wordlwide, you can find stats for 2000-2003 on the publications page of the OGP website - http://www.ogp.org.uk/Publications/index.asp It may be a UK website, but the data is global!!
Enter the word helicopter in the search box and enter - you can download the .pdf reports free of charge
The breakdown of info is by helicopter general type rather than manufacturer type, but may make useful reading for some.
As for data supporting generic types, try the following - as posted earlier .....
If you want some general statistics for helicopter operations wordlwide, you can find stats for 2000-2003 on the publications page of the OGP website - http://www.ogp.org.uk/Publications/index.asp It may be a UK website, but the data is global!!
Enter the word helicopter in the search box and enter - you can download the .pdf reports free of charge
The breakdown of info is by helicopter general type rather than manufacturer type, but may make useful reading for some.
Maybe, as F43 mentions, IF the various 'incidents' suffered by S/E aircraft that were, in fact, power loss ditchings, were recorded more fully, the statistics might favour twins.
At the end of the day, I don't think anyone is advocating using an S-92 where a 206 currently operates. However, as the accidents/incidents, referred to here, clearly show, had a 427/355 been used in preference to a 206/407/120, then they would probably not have resulted in ditchings. It's not a difficult concept to grasp!
So we've seen the twin vs single debate going on, how about the turbine vs piston? Think how much money all those 407/120 operators could save by using R-44s
At the end of the day, I don't think anyone is advocating using an S-92 where a 206 currently operates. However, as the accidents/incidents, referred to here, clearly show, had a 427/355 been used in preference to a 206/407/120, then they would probably not have resulted in ditchings. It's not a difficult concept to grasp!
So we've seen the twin vs single debate going on, how about the turbine vs piston? Think how much money all those 407/120 operators could save by using R-44s
Careful now....the argument should be on how to convince our neighbors and fellow rotorheads to assimilate other cultures....and payscales. Bid up....not down...if you like your standard of living at some fraction of the highest wage....imagine how much happier you would be with the entire wage? Seems a lot of folks skip over that when they get the offer.
Air Dog Bell 206 doing training had an engine failure of some sort....Training Captain made a routine engine off landing to the water. Only difference was the engine was not working whereas it would have been during the practice.
A Bell 407 had an engine problem....found itself being transported by workboat.....some suggestion the tailboom got bent somewhere after takeoff and when it arrived at the dock....maybe someone in the GOM can add more to this.
Except for the circumstances....could have been two more ditchings to add to the list.
A Bell 407 had an engine problem....found itself being transported by workboat.....some suggestion the tailboom got bent somewhere after takeoff and when it arrived at the dock....maybe someone in the GOM can add more to this.
Except for the circumstances....could have been two more ditchings to add to the list.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
************************************************************ ********************
** Report created 8/19/2005 Record 1 **
************************************************************ ********************
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 167H Make/Model: B206 Description: BELL 206B HELICOPTER
Date: 08/18/2005 Time: 1405
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown
LOCATION
City: BATON ROUGE State: LA Country: US
DESCRIPTION
N167H, A BELL 206 ROTORCRAFT, CRASHED ON ATTEMPTED LANDING AT AN OIL
PLATFORM, THE TWO PERSONS ON BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED, WEST CAMERON
BLOCK 560 OFFSHORE, LA
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 2
# Crew: 2 Fat: 2 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: NOT REPORTED
OTHER DATA
Departed: Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:
FAA FSDO: BATON ROUGE, LA (SW03) Entry date: 08/19/2005
** Report created 8/19/2005 Record 1 **
************************************************************ ********************
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 167H Make/Model: B206 Description: BELL 206B HELICOPTER
Date: 08/18/2005 Time: 1405
Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown
LOCATION
City: BATON ROUGE State: LA Country: US
DESCRIPTION
N167H, A BELL 206 ROTORCRAFT, CRASHED ON ATTEMPTED LANDING AT AN OIL
PLATFORM, THE TWO PERSONS ON BOARD WERE FATALLY INJURED, WEST CAMERON
BLOCK 560 OFFSHORE, LA
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 2
# Crew: 2 Fat: 2 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: NOT REPORTED
OTHER DATA
Departed: Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:
FAA FSDO: BATON ROUGE, LA (SW03) Entry date: 08/19/2005
167H registration comes back to Air Logistics....an OLOG company.
Condolences to the families.
Condolences to the families.
PPRuNe Time
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offshore Logistics, Inc. Confirms Flight Accident
LAFAYETTE, La.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 19, 2005--Offshore Logistics, Inc. (NYSE: OLG) today regretfully reports an accident on August 18, 2005 that claimed the lives of two Air Logistics employees in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The aircraft, a single engine Bell helicopter, reportedly departed one production platform and was planning to land at a nearby platform when the accident occurred. The families of the employees involved have been notified and the Company is responding to the tragedy. In addition, the Company has notified the appropriate regulatory authorities, including the National Transportation Safety Board.
LAFAYETTE, La.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 19, 2005--Offshore Logistics, Inc. (NYSE: OLG) today regretfully reports an accident on August 18, 2005 that claimed the lives of two Air Logistics employees in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The aircraft, a single engine Bell helicopter, reportedly departed one production platform and was planning to land at a nearby platform when the accident occurred. The families of the employees involved have been notified and the Company is responding to the tragedy. In addition, the Company has notified the appropriate regulatory authorities, including the National Transportation Safety Board.
so very sad - condolences to those concerned