Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Offshore flying changes to happen??

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Offshore flying changes to happen??

Old 18th Mar 2014, 19:33
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,658
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Offshore flying changes to happen??

So I was just chatting to an offshore worker and he's been in meetings re changes for offshore regs. They are saying 14 pax for a Puma and all seated near an exit/window and pax to be a certain max weight. I just said I cant see it being workable anytime soon.
helimutt is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2014, 19:54
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder where the operators expect the additional airframes and crews to come from ?
tyreschredder is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2014, 20:00
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
A better question.....who is going to pay for all these new aircraft and how quickly can they be built, certified, and put into service? Can existing aircraft be Modified with larger exits cheaper than buying whole Fleets of new aircraft?

Good news....if a really strict enforcement of the weight limit is made....that alone will cut down on the population of off shore oil workers who travel by air.

The Wide Bodies will have to go by Boat perhaps.
SASless is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2014, 20:08
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SE England
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
People seem to be forgetting the full seating capacity will be available again once a certain kind of breathing apparatus is used.

Think it might be cheaper getting a couple of hundred of them instead of a brand new fleet of very long, thin helicopters
FC80 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2014, 07:51
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,217
Received 315 Likes on 175 Posts
Rotorswede, where is that you are operating with that limitation?
212man is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2014, 09:10
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
And who pays for the double flights?!!
NorthSouth is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2014, 09:45
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 71
Posts: 4,132
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 12 Posts
That sounds as if it has come from Parliament

phil
paco is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2014, 10:53
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,217
Received 315 Likes on 175 Posts
That sounds as if it has come from Parliament
From CAP1145, but it comes into effect on the 1st June (in the UK sector) so hence my question to Rotorswede about where they are applying it already.
212man is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 08:26
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 440
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Oil & gas out of Malta, on CHC UK AOC
That's a novel idea, considering the contract hasn't started yet!
Variable Load is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 08:40
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
Before this thread gets out of hand it might be useful to examine the logic of what is being proposed.

One of the tenets of CAP 1145 is that the protection of passengers against known threats should be improved. One of these threats came to light (more than a decade ago) when the 332-like helicopter capsize evacuation trials took place in Canada (references in the CAP). This trial established that evacuation time from a capsized helicopter could exceed the breath hold time of some of the occupants. Subsequent research clarified that the average breath hold time in water temperatures experienced in the North Sea, Canada, etc was about 9 seconds.

The oil companies acted upon these reports and, to increase the breath hold time above the evacuation time, issued their passengers with re-breathing devices (which could contain an air reserve). These re-breathing devices required the passenger to fit the device before water entry and fill the 'lung' by breathing into it before submersion. Such devices could be classified as Category B devices under the guidance contained in CAP 1034. Category B devices are effective in cases where the aircraft is ditched (as opposed to crashed - known euphemistically as water entry).

However, closer examination of the data appears to show that the incident of fatalities in 'ditching'/'water entry' incidents/accidents are associated with water entry and not ditching (it is probably the case that there has never been a fatality associated with a ditching). Whilst breath hold with respect to ditching appeared now to have been addressed, the complexity of fitting the re-breathing devices and a requirement to fit after a water impact - i.e. under the water - required a more robust device. This water entry standard (which is probably associated with a device containing gas under pressure) is described in CAP 1034 as a Category A device.

The objective set by the CAA in CAP 1145 was that, from the date specified, all passengers should be in a situation where breath hold time exceeded evacuation time for a capsized helicopter under water entry conditions. This translates, in prescriptive terms, to the necessity for passengers to be equipped with a Category A EBS. Up to the time that this situation obtains, no passenger must be in a seat where the time to evacuate will exceed the breath hold time under water entry conditions.

In another element of the same thread, and in order to maximise the time-to-capsize under ditching conditions; from the date specified, a helicopter will not be permitted to operate over sea conditions that exceed the limit of the ditching approval and no 'normal' operations will be permitted in conditions exceeding Sea State 6 (significant wave height of 6 metres).

Now fill your boots.

Jim
JimL is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 09:00
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,217
Received 315 Likes on 175 Posts
Subsequent research clarified that the average breath hold time in water temperatures experienced in the North Sea, Canada, etc was about 9 seconds
Are you suggesting that folowing an unexpected 'water entry' a passenger will unbuckle, push out their window, egress and then be on the surface in less than 9 seconds? If not, then why differentiate between seats or the need to have a Class A EBS?
212man is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 09:21
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
212man,

Firstly, I do not speak or think for the CAA (as you know) - my intention was to clarify the conditions under which the changes are being proposed (from my reading of the CAP).

It would appear that from a specified date, all passengers will have to be equipped with a Category A device.

With respect to your question: there will be no distinction in the future, however, up to the time that the final requirement comes into force, there appeared to be the need for an interim solution.

It looks like there were two alternatives:
wait until Category A devices are ubiquitous and leave yourself hostage to others; or,

put into force a partial solution which is not ideal but gives incentive for an expeditious provision for re-equipment.
I'm not sure what my decision would have been under those circumstances but, knowing the pressure that the CAA are under at this time, I am not surprised by theirs.

Jim
JimL is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 17:05
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: nowhere special
Posts: 464
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
VL - While true, you'd be amazed at how many things are decided before the contracts start...

Also, while 1145 might be a UK CAA reg, please be aware that the OICs (who pay for it all) have toi be seen doing right by their pax. Therefore, on a global level, some IOCs are talking about implementing 1145 in the short term until the EBS becomes available as has already been alluded to.
nowherespecial is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 17:34
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,217
Received 315 Likes on 175 Posts
VL - While true, you'd be amazed at how many things are decided before the contracts start...
I suspect VL is well aware of what things are decided before a contract starts ....
212man is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.