Epiphany, The idea that regulations, ICAO or otherwise, would have changed anything in this accident is interesting. I'm assuming a lot when I guess what happened here, but if the accident aircraft did indeed hit the rig over the production platform as he tried to land... I have to ask if a natural amount of apprehension of a potentially lethal hazard wasn't sufficient, why would a rule be more effective in preventing the attempt? My decision flow chart starts with personal survival, then preventing damage, then complying with laws, and doing the job is last.
No, I don't think the GoM operators "laugh as loud at each new fatality?" as they might chuckle at the idea that rules against mistakes are effective.
A poster remarks that his decision tree begins with "personal survival," and someone supposedly representing the management of a major oil company says quite offensively:
Quote:
Thats fairly unusual in the GOM.
Has everyone else ceased to take this character seriously? I'm a slow learner, but catching on quickly now.
I find making him a permanent fixture on my "Ignore" list saves a lot of aggravation.....and the threads far more enjoyable to read. I wonder if enough people put him on the ignore list he garners enough PPRuNe points to achieve a sanction?
Aw come on guys, he brightens up the threads with nonsensical rants which we would love to say in one way or another to the aviation auditors but never do - he has to be an ex-pilot/engineer from one of the two large operators .... just taking the pith for heavenīs sake. Leave him be! Donīt bite!
Devil - I did not state that rules prevent accidents but a correct attitude to rules certainly make for a safer pilot. Laughing at rules just because they are rules indicates a certain 'cowboy' attitude to me. No matter what your views on GOM operations are the fact remains that the accident rate is very high and seems to be caused by poor decision making and operational procedures i.e not observing rules.
It that were but true.....he would not be carrying on in the true Shell tradition as he does. He would find a way to pass his message that would poke the Shellies....and not the rest of us.
Hyperbole but "Befehl ist Befehl" is also a 'correct attitude to rules'. (I think they hung the individual that made those words famous.)
Rules are a necessary part of structure, but they are what they are- guidelines, not expected to cover every contingency. That's why the PIC has expressed authority and responsibility to deviate in the event of an emergency to the extent necessary. Rationally, that doesn't mean the rules are suspended if an emergency arises. It means the responsible authority recognizes the limitations of rulemaking to cover every situation possible. Poor decision making isn't necessarily anti-authoritarian, it's usually ignorance or the result of tunnel vision, neither of which are resolved by regulation.
Opining that "the (GoM) accident rate is very high and seems to be caused by poor decision making and operational procedures i.e not observing rules." is the purest speculation and irrelevant to this accident discussion, unless you believe that this pilot was instructed and expected to do exactly what was apparently attempted- landing under the rig. I would be very surprised to learn that that was true, as I know for a fact that a pilot was fired for doing this very thing, landing under a rig. It was an astounding incident then and would be now.
Opining that "the (GoM) accident rate is very high and seems to be caused by poor decision making and operational procedures i.e not observing rules." is the purest speculation and irrelevant to this accident discussion,
Maybe it is a malign, odiferous, debilitating and smog-like influence drifting South from Washington that causes GOM pilots to keep flying into the Gulf and its installations. Cometh Mitt all will be OK.
