Heli ditch North Sea G-REDL: NOT condolences
Both MHS's had fatalities. One was a hydraulic fire, the other was CFIT during an ARA
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bolkow,
'Including cougar helicopters and G-JSAR's unexpected landing on a beach this is as far as I am aware 4 super puma's incidents of varying degrees of severity. I cannot help but wonder about the types integrity'.
The Cougar aircraft was a S-92
'Including cougar helicopters and G-JSAR's unexpected landing on a beach this is as far as I am aware 4 super puma's incidents of varying degrees of severity. I cannot help but wonder about the types integrity'.
The Cougar aircraft was a S-92
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North of England, UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Replying to bkflyingfreak
Initials MC not on the Miller flight that got into the aircraft yesterday.
Not on the crew anyway..
Not on the crew anyway..
Last edited by sarboy; 2nd Apr 2009 at 08:49. Reason: Accuracy
Variable Load ...I think of those 5 losses only MHS had a fatal ..am I right ??
Both MHS's had fatalities. One was a hydraulic fire, the other was CFIT during an ARA
VL
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two things, Firstly, may I ask, what is slyguy on about pax not wearing PLB's on the rig flights anymore due to 'legislation'. If not WHY not?
Secondly I was a little alarmed to hear the telly 'expert' declare most offshore pilots are highly trained ex military pilots. What proportion of Bond pilots are ex military, I didn't think it was that many. Feeling very sorry for the Brothers Bond at the mo.
Secondly I was a little alarmed to hear the telly 'expert' declare most offshore pilots are highly trained ex military pilots. What proportion of Bond pilots are ex military, I didn't think it was that many. Feeling very sorry for the Brothers Bond at the mo.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not the actual safety record of the type that matters so much as the bears' perception of that safety record.
Remember that the bears completely lost confidence in the Chinook after three serious accidents, one of which was in the Brit sector. Once that confidence has been lost it became impossible to restore.
The bears, en masse, can actually be quite tribal and a crowd mentality can take over. The Chinook became uneconomic in the Brit sector of the North Sea, even on otherwise economic sectors, not because the type was intrinsically unsafe, but because the bears collectively refused to fly in the type because of their perception that the type was unsafe.
These two recent accidents will have to handled with the greatest of delicacy, a delicacy which was spectacularly absent from Bond management in the first two or three days after the Etap ditching. If there's anything the bears hate more than being told half-truths, it's being told nothing at all.
Bond management has done itself no favours by issuing a statement in the recent case, after the media already knew of the Mayday transmission, with Bond's Bill Munro being quoted as saying that:
It will matter little to the bears that the two recent accidents were totally different in nature and had no common cause(s), if that turn out to be the result of the two investigations. It won't even matter to the bears that the two aircraft were different variants. To most bears a "Puma" is a Puma is a Puma. To most bears a "crash" is a crash is a crash.
I hope that Bond senior management is discreetly hiring the best HR and PR consultants in the business to put together a cunning plan to mould the bears' perceptions in a positive way. I'm quite certain that BP has already done so.
The last thing anybody needs is a widespread loss of passenger confidence in Pumas (of any variant), or in Bond, or in helicopters flying to/from/between BP installation, or any permutation thereof.
Merely protesting that the Puma is "safe" simply will not work, even though probably true.
Remember that the bears completely lost confidence in the Chinook after three serious accidents, one of which was in the Brit sector. Once that confidence has been lost it became impossible to restore.
The bears, en masse, can actually be quite tribal and a crowd mentality can take over. The Chinook became uneconomic in the Brit sector of the North Sea, even on otherwise economic sectors, not because the type was intrinsically unsafe, but because the bears collectively refused to fly in the type because of their perception that the type was unsafe.
These two recent accidents will have to handled with the greatest of delicacy, a delicacy which was spectacularly absent from Bond management in the first two or three days after the Etap ditching. If there's anything the bears hate more than being told half-truths, it's being told nothing at all.
Bond management has done itself no favours by issuing a statement in the recent case, after the media already knew of the Mayday transmission, with Bond's Bill Munro being quoted as saying that:
he had no information to suggest a mechanical failure on the aircraft
I hope that Bond senior management is discreetly hiring the best HR and PR consultants in the business to put together a cunning plan to mould the bears' perceptions in a positive way. I'm quite certain that BP has already done so.
The last thing anybody needs is a widespread loss of passenger confidence in Pumas (of any variant), or in Bond, or in helicopters flying to/from/between BP installation, or any permutation thereof.
Merely protesting that the Puma is "safe" simply will not work, even though probably true.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Warwick
Age: 42
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, may I ask, what is slyguy on about pax not wearing PLB's on the rig flights anymore due to 'legislation'
Until a solution could be found I am led to believe there use was suspended. Not sure if it was done through legislation though.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bond management has done itself no favours by issuing a statement in the recent case, after the media already knew of the Mayday transmission, with Bond's Bill Munro being quoted as saying that:
Quote:
he had no information to suggest a mechanical failure on the aircraft
Which Mayday would that be, i see no reports of one?
Quote:
he had no information to suggest a mechanical failure on the aircraft
Which Mayday would that be, i see no reports of one?
In response to RotorFix - I personally haven't seen any reduction in safety standards on the North Sea - Investment in new aircraft, investment in training and simulators. Investment in Courses (CRM / Safety Programs) etc, Investment in new personnel.
I accept that this has been during a boom time over the last 5 years, and my concerns are that the current economic climate seem to have the oil companies squeezing the helicopter operators, who in turn want to cut back on pilots and engineers. The last few years and immediate situation I see as having been quite positive, it is the imminent future that I worry about.
I accept that this has been during a boom time over the last 5 years, and my concerns are that the current economic climate seem to have the oil companies squeezing the helicopter operators, who in turn want to cut back on pilots and engineers. The last few years and immediate situation I see as having been quite positive, it is the imminent future that I worry about.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: At home of course!
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say that I am very concerned about the safety level and the trend of safety level at the moment, especially within CHC. CHC has cut the safety margins to the bone, and just pure luck has saved their ass so far. Ie for more than 5 years now, local management...
Judging by the slow-down in posts by some of the known north sea regulars, information available, and knowledge of the media watching, people are being a little more reserved in their posts.
From the BBC website:
"BP has announced it will temporarily stop using Bond helicopters and Bond has grounded its Super Puma fleet."
PR stunt? Response to the negative feelings from their passengers? I hope it is resolved soon. We all need to work and have families to support.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: not where I want to be
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC website:
"BP has announced it will temporarily stop using Bond helicopters and Bond has grounded its Super Puma fleet."
PR stunt? Response to the negative feelings from their passengers? I hope it is resolved soon. We all need to work and have families to support.
"BP has announced it will temporarily stop using Bond helicopters and Bond has grounded its Super Puma fleet."
PR stunt? Response to the negative feelings from their passengers? I hope it is resolved soon. We all need to work and have families to support.
(this seems a bit strange to me that this did not happen after the 92 tragedy,but then again who am I)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leading Edge,
The term 'bears' was coined in the mid-1970s, originally during the jacket and module installation of the Piper and Claymore fields when there were hundreds of bears being shuttled by the venerable green BEAS 212s between the various floatels and other units such as laybarges, derrick barges, and jet barges.
The origin of the term was derived from at least three things. Mostly it was the ubiquitous fleece garments which everyone wore offshore, known as 'woolly bears'. This was reinforced as a result of a very popular Burt Reynolds chase film which referred to police helicopters as "bears in the air". Finally it was as result of the typically large, bulky, and often gruff personal bearing of many of the construction workers and drillers.
I know, and don't care, that it is politically incorrect to stereotypically characterise a large group of people,especially customers, with a single nickname. The term "bears" works because it is a very identifiable type of passenger, quite unlike any other group of civil airliner passengers that I can think of.
In the context of the topic of this thread, it is legitimate to use the term because bear behaviour in such matters is quite identifiable and even predictable.
The term 'bears' was coined in the mid-1970s, originally during the jacket and module installation of the Piper and Claymore fields when there were hundreds of bears being shuttled by the venerable green BEAS 212s between the various floatels and other units such as laybarges, derrick barges, and jet barges.
The origin of the term was derived from at least three things. Mostly it was the ubiquitous fleece garments which everyone wore offshore, known as 'woolly bears'. This was reinforced as a result of a very popular Burt Reynolds chase film which referred to police helicopters as "bears in the air". Finally it was as result of the typically large, bulky, and often gruff personal bearing of many of the construction workers and drillers.
I know, and don't care, that it is politically incorrect to stereotypically characterise a large group of people,especially customers, with a single nickname. The term "bears" works because it is a very identifiable type of passenger, quite unlike any other group of civil airliner passengers that I can think of.
In the context of the topic of this thread, it is legitimate to use the term because bear behaviour in such matters is quite identifiable and even predictable.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are bears?
If you mean passengers, why don't you use the term?
If you mean passengers, why don't you use the term?
As an offshore worker and PAX now based in Canada, I can tell you that the latest incident has done nothing to re-assure the Grand Banks Tigers in their trust of helo transportation, even though Cougar has officially concluded their S-92a testing. Currently the joint offshore operators task force has not completed their own internal investigation and approved regular offshore transfer flights. I can see the same requirement being present for the North Sea operators before the bears will trust flying in the Pumas again, no matter what variant is selected. The operators need to improve their information sharing and make all passengers aware of the true risk of flying helos.
Wrt. the PAX not wearing personal PLBs due to interference with the ELTs, why was this not picked up during type approving? Is this one of the reasons why the PLB and EPRIB frequencies were recently changed?
The current economic climate should not be having an impact on the maintenance and safety standard of this industry, and if it comes out from the reports that this is actually the case then you may find a lot of dissention in the ranks, both from the pilots and their precious cargo.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U K
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was my understanding that the reason the chinukes stoped flying the north sea was because the CAA pulled their certification. No longer allowed on the british civil register?
