Offshore flying changes to happen??
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.
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.
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.
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
Think it might be cheaper getting a couple of hundred of them instead of a brand new fleet of very long, thin helicopters
Rotorswede, where is that you are operating with that limitation?
That sounds as if it has come from Parliament
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
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
Subsequent research clarified that the average breath hold time in water temperatures experienced in the North Sea, Canada, etc was about 9 seconds
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:
Jim
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.put into force a partial solution which is not ideal but gives incentive for an expeditious provision for re-equipment.
Jim
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.
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.
VL - While true, you'd be amazed at how many things are decided before the contracts start...