Pilots suspended after North Sea helicopter lands on wrong platform
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Correct 100%.
Something serious goes wrong / suspend who did it / investigate what happened / assess how to stop it happening again / negligence or accidental? / take appropriate action against any guilty party / move on
This is how any company should react to a situation. The most important part should be prevention of a reoccurance, NOT punish at all costs.
I see no problem with the suspension of the crew, it actually shows leadership
Something serious goes wrong / suspend who did it / investigate what happened / assess how to stop it happening again / negligence or accidental? / take appropriate action against any guilty party / move on
This is how any company should react to a situation. The most important part should be prevention of a reoccurance, NOT punish at all costs.
I see no problem with the suspension of the crew, it actually shows leadership
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m surprised how many are making this out to be a big deal. How many commercial aircraft have landed at the wrong airport, hell how many have landed at the wrong runway, its not a big deal.
So the crew landed at the wrong rig, they owe the pax a beer each as a way of an apology.
quick question, Did they eventually land at the right rig or not?
there is a lot more that could go wrong.
Fats
So the crew landed at the wrong rig, they owe the pax a beer each as a way of an apology.
quick question, Did they eventually land at the right rig or not?
there is a lot more that could go wrong.
Fats
Earlier in this thread Double Bogey made a very good post.
Jayteeto, please explain what suspension of the crew proves? Do you know the background to this flight? What if it was the end of a long tiring day, at the end of a long tiring week. Offshore flying is not the walk in the park all you pampered onshore types enjoy sometimes.
Where I fly offshore there are a number of checks in place before landing to try and ensure the wrong rig landing doesnt occur. Thats not to say it wont. For instance we have 3-4 jack up or drill rigs with very very similar identifiers in our gps database but called differently in reality. which we use for navigation to said rig. Now, a garmin 530 gps which hasnt had the rig position updated correctly, or the rig has moved, requires the waypoint to be removed from the programmed route, before we are able to update the waypoint gps position, then re-enter it, before we can Nav to it. So, add in some bad weather cells, a very low time co-pilot, after 6 hrs of flying in tropical temps. See the point im trying to make.
Yes you could suspend or get rid of the crew who make a wrong rig landing, but what exactly does that do? Just Culture?
Jayteeto, please explain what suspension of the crew proves? Do you know the background to this flight? What if it was the end of a long tiring day, at the end of a long tiring week. Offshore flying is not the walk in the park all you pampered onshore types enjoy sometimes.
Where I fly offshore there are a number of checks in place before landing to try and ensure the wrong rig landing doesnt occur. Thats not to say it wont. For instance we have 3-4 jack up or drill rigs with very very similar identifiers in our gps database but called differently in reality. which we use for navigation to said rig. Now, a garmin 530 gps which hasnt had the rig position updated correctly, or the rig has moved, requires the waypoint to be removed from the programmed route, before we are able to update the waypoint gps position, then re-enter it, before we can Nav to it. So, add in some bad weather cells, a very low time co-pilot, after 6 hrs of flying in tropical temps. See the point im trying to make.
Yes you could suspend or get rid of the crew who make a wrong rig landing, but what exactly does that do? Just Culture?
1 pax in a S92. holy crap talk about overkill.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Big Deal?
Can't speak for all the big oil companies but one certain Dutch company we flew for in Malaysia would rather you blow the floats and ditch in the water versus landing on a rig unscheduled in the event of an emergency.
The potential loss of revenue, lives and damage to their reputation, should you screw up, far exceeded that of a helicopter ditching in the water with it's potentially "expendable" air frame, crew and occupants.
I didn't believe it until one of their resident senior aviation safety managers showed me both scenarios run through their internal risk matrix. Land as soon as possible took on an entirely different meaning..........slow, low and back to the airport. Not onto one of dozen or more platforms unannounced
Seriously..................................
The potential loss of revenue, lives and damage to their reputation, should you screw up, far exceeded that of a helicopter ditching in the water with it's potentially "expendable" air frame, crew and occupants.
I didn't believe it until one of their resident senior aviation safety managers showed me both scenarios run through their internal risk matrix. Land as soon as possible took on an entirely different meaning..........slow, low and back to the airport. Not onto one of dozen or more platforms unannounced
Seriously..................................
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
That's just typical here helimutt, you don't like what I say so just insult me.
Read my post again, it is not written about THIS incident, it is written about ANY incident in ANY industry.
Ridiculous "pampered" comments aside, I will explain myself anyway.
Any service provider, be it McDonald's or BOH, rely on maintaining a good reputation with a customer. A robust reaction to an incident shows leadership and good practice to any customer. Even if the company are 99.9% certain of the outcome of any enquiry, if they carry out a competent procedure, the customer is happier. If the crew have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear from this and should then be reinstated at the earliest opportunity.
I have been through this procedure recently and came out ok. I was treated as a professional and with respect by the company. It was stressful, but it looked fair internally and externally. I cannot stress how much better this makes the company look to the customer.
So get off your high horse and think why the company did this. I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FLIGHT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. That is what any enquiry will do.
Well done from me, Leadership, you can't beat it.
Read my post again, it is not written about THIS incident, it is written about ANY incident in ANY industry.
Ridiculous "pampered" comments aside, I will explain myself anyway.
Any service provider, be it McDonald's or BOH, rely on maintaining a good reputation with a customer. A robust reaction to an incident shows leadership and good practice to any customer. Even if the company are 99.9% certain of the outcome of any enquiry, if they carry out a competent procedure, the customer is happier. If the crew have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear from this and should then be reinstated at the earliest opportunity.
I have been through this procedure recently and came out ok. I was treated as a professional and with respect by the company. It was stressful, but it looked fair internally and externally. I cannot stress how much better this makes the company look to the customer.
So get off your high horse and think why the company did this. I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FLIGHT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. That is what any enquiry will do.
Well done from me, Leadership, you can't beat it.
JT2 of course there should be some internal inquiry, however it should be kept out of the public eye. By pronouncing to the media "we've suspended the pilots" there is an inevitable implication to the uninitiated that they are solely to blame. "Pilot error". You may think it looks good, but only to the uninitiated. In effect the good name of the crew is, at least temporarily, being sacrificed to make the company look better (or so they think!).
So if it is decided to keep the crew off the roster for a bit, fine but no need to pronounce it. There is no need to keep the crew off the roster for fear of a repeat in this particular case because at this moment they are probably the least likely to land on the wrong rig. There may be a need to keep them off the roster due to the stress and pressure of nearly having brought the world to an end by landing on the wrong rig, but that is a self-fulfilling feature of making such a big deal out of a pretty minor event.
To the initiated the company looks as stupid as my company did when it sacked a guy following a near-collision with the sea (many years ago). I happened to be involved with a meeting between our boss and the client. Our boss's debrief to the client was pretty much along the lines of "he nearly crashed, but we have now sacked him so end of problem". The look on the client's face revealed to me that the "blame the pilot" rather than "find out why" attitude impressed him as little as it did me.
So if it is decided to keep the crew off the roster for a bit, fine but no need to pronounce it. There is no need to keep the crew off the roster for fear of a repeat in this particular case because at this moment they are probably the least likely to land on the wrong rig. There may be a need to keep them off the roster due to the stress and pressure of nearly having brought the world to an end by landing on the wrong rig, but that is a self-fulfilling feature of making such a big deal out of a pretty minor event.
To the initiated the company looks as stupid as my company did when it sacked a guy following a near-collision with the sea (many years ago). I happened to be involved with a meeting between our boss and the client. Our boss's debrief to the client was pretty much along the lines of "he nearly crashed, but we have now sacked him so end of problem". The look on the client's face revealed to me that the "blame the pilot" rather than "find out why" attitude impressed him as little as it did me.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Great post Helicomparitor! Why does the Company not say " clearly something went wrong but we have some faith in our crew and we will work with them to prevent a reoccurrence....if possible" (which we all know is actually not given the crappy visual environment).
Storm in a tea cup! Best wishes to this crew.
Storm in a tea cup! Best wishes to this crew.
Glad I am in China flying like it used to be!
when it sacked a guy following a near-collision with the sea (many years ago).
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: between sun and sand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not promote the pilots, like in other well paid jobs
one should fly again immediately and of course as much as possible after whatever little mistake. Lets fly to the wrong rig again, just for training to see where it went wrong.
The big danger is to develop anxieties with this sort of ancient 'stand in the corner' guilt-building culture. Anxiety can be a serious blocker, especially for situational awareness.
The bold and thick chaps perhaps won't bother, but the sensitive and - usually - more talented pilots might receive the personal damage.
A bit contra productive, if not dangerous at at the end.
one should fly again immediately and of course as much as possible after whatever little mistake. Lets fly to the wrong rig again, just for training to see where it went wrong.
The big danger is to develop anxieties with this sort of ancient 'stand in the corner' guilt-building culture. Anxiety can be a serious blocker, especially for situational awareness.
The bold and thick chaps perhaps won't bother, but the sensitive and - usually - more talented pilots might receive the personal damage.
A bit contra productive, if not dangerous at at the end.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same managers that would order an early and extended Happy Hour with the poor unfortunates forking out for much beer would, in todays environment probably have made an immediate press release along the following lines;
"The initial investigation into this incident confirms that, at no time, were the passengers, crew or aircraft in any danger. The navigation anomaly is the subject of continued investigation and if any action is necessary it will be taken. When the investigation is complete appropriate details will be made available to the aviation based press as information and guidance for other operators".
Personally I think that is what should have happened, turning a minor incident into a drama and the crew into pariahs isn't good management, isn't clever and shouldn't happen in the aviation industry. The meeting between the operator and the client remains, for ever, confidential.
"The initial investigation into this incident confirms that, at no time, were the passengers, crew or aircraft in any danger. The navigation anomaly is the subject of continued investigation and if any action is necessary it will be taken. When the investigation is complete appropriate details will be made available to the aviation based press as information and guidance for other operators".
Personally I think that is what should have happened, turning a minor incident into a drama and the crew into pariahs isn't good management, isn't clever and shouldn't happen in the aviation industry. The meeting between the operator and the client remains, for ever, confidential.
Considering how little effort many offshore structure have made to identify themselves from the air, I am shocked that such incidents are not much more common.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TM, sounds like anytime I watch the news and there's an aircraft incident and they bring in their "experts." Makes me wonder I bother watching the news at all.
It's a helicopter, it's designed to land in the middle of no where, that's what makes it useful. Does the north sea not have a guard freq for emergencies?
It's a helicopter, it's designed to land in the middle of no where, that's what makes it useful. Does the north sea not have a guard freq for emergencies?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lost and Legless somewhere in LaLaLand
Age: 77
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Bond has a Just Culture, they should also have trained event investigators to determine the actual cause of the landing on the wrong deck. Many companies now use the Flowchart Analysis of Investigation Results (FAIR) system to aid them to make a correct decision. In this case it seems that the crew carried out their intended action (landing on a rig offshore) but the consequences of their action were unintended (they landed on a rig which was not the one planned). If they didn't deliberately break the rules but didn't select the correct actions they would be deemed to have made a mistake. Under the FAIR system an Event Review Group including at least 3 of the pilots peers who should e of the same rank and similar experience levels. Any decision to take disciplinary action should take account of whether this will make any contribution to safety learning and improvement, or just discourage others from reporting errors. The trouble is that so many oil companies these days talk about having a just culture themselves, but want to see the crew disciplined for any mistakes they make. The helicopter operators are then deliberately pressured into treating the crew unfairly. It was just such a situation that caused Bristow to cave in to pressure some years ago, but the sacrificial lamb in that case was the Head of Flight Operations 
I made a genuine mistake a few years back, was suspended until the reason was investigated, was called in for an interview with my operations manager who decided that the blame lay equally with the company and myself and after flying a revenue line check flight, I resumed normal flying duties.
As many have said, this has happened before and it will happen again and I'm still amazed with all the new advancements in technology, there is nothing in the cockpit to enable the crew to instantly see on which rig/platform/ship they are landing. He1aviator pointed out that most ships are fitted with an AIS. If OGP mandated that all offshore installations or vessels working in the offshore oil and gas industry were fitted with AIS, it surely be possible to integrate this into the aircraft avionics somehow?
I made a genuine mistake a few years back, was suspended until the reason was investigated, was called in for an interview with my operations manager who decided that the blame lay equally with the company and myself and after flying a revenue line check flight, I resumed normal flying duties.
As many have said, this has happened before and it will happen again and I'm still amazed with all the new advancements in technology, there is nothing in the cockpit to enable the crew to instantly see on which rig/platform/ship they are landing. He1aviator pointed out that most ships are fitted with an AIS. If OGP mandated that all offshore installations or vessels working in the offshore oil and gas industry were fitted with AIS, it surely be possible to integrate this into the aircraft avionics somehow?
As far as I know all offshore installations and oil industry vessels are already fitted with AIS. So every floating rust bucket can see every other one. Just the helicopter crew that cannot! So yes, if the oil companies really were concerned about wrong deck landings, they would specify airborne AIS. It does exist, I've flown a helicopter with airborne AIS display (ironically it was a Bond L2!). They don't, because in the great scheme of things it is just something for the oil companies to be outraged about rather than a real safety issue.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure Busdriver02, I am not on the NS.
But the oil and gas industry has now developed a hyper sensitivity to anything with the word helicopter in it. The 2 words which strike fear into them are Gearbox and Pilot(s)
Just today, management was having a discussion about potential helicopter accidents (as we continually seem to do). Today's scenario was a crash on the deck which takes out not just those in the helicopter but some of the offshore workers as well. How far do you go with this stuff?
The problem is that the UK sector of the NS accident rate since 2009 has generated this paranoia which is spreading industry wide. I can try to reduce the hysteria, but the stats tell otherwise at the moment.
Next, they will want 3 crew, just in case 2 crew make a mistake and an extra gearbox.
But the oil and gas industry has now developed a hyper sensitivity to anything with the word helicopter in it. The 2 words which strike fear into them are Gearbox and Pilot(s)
Just today, management was having a discussion about potential helicopter accidents (as we continually seem to do). Today's scenario was a crash on the deck which takes out not just those in the helicopter but some of the offshore workers as well. How far do you go with this stuff?
The problem is that the UK sector of the NS accident rate since 2009 has generated this paranoia which is spreading industry wide. I can try to reduce the hysteria, but the stats tell otherwise at the moment.
Next, they will want 3 crew, just in case 2 crew make a mistake and an extra gearbox.