Hot refueling offshore Newfoundland a hot topic!
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nailed it. Had one at my previous base. He had a hell of a time wrapping his head around the concept that we're not always able to land or takeoff perfectly into wind when offshore. I think he eventually got the point when he was politely reminded that these are oil rigs... not aircraft carriers.
Crab says;
I'm sorry, but you're the visitor to their helipad and facilities. When you land and use their facilities, YOU need to conform to THEIR procedures, not the other way round - that is how any Safety Process works. Offshore helipad SOP's are well established and operational personnel are highly trained - they also handle helicopters on a regular basis as it is the only way in and out of there.
One of the big differences is that in addition to the training for the crews working the decks, all the passengers are highly trained (including HUET trained) and familiar with helicopter operations as it is their normal commute and the normal work cycle. This environment is highly regulated, organized and trained, with an excellent safety record - but they still fail to meet YOUR demanding standards? There is certainly a responsibility for an operator to assist in deck operations with a helicopter type that is unfamiliar to the heli-deck crew, but beyond that, YOU must operate under their procedural, operational and safety protocols unless you have previously established an alternate process.
I'm glad to see that it isn't just civil flight and SAR operations that fail your critical review, but now it is also includes offshore oil installations - you really need to get out more into the real world!
And (back to the original topic), there is no evidence that properly conducted rotor running or hot refuels offer any greater risk than any other alternative.
And if you disagree, please feel free to post your evidence, unless (and I'm just guessing here) it is based upon a Risk Assessment conducted by someone with no understanding of the real world, or experience to make anything other than a paper analysis of potential risk.
A couple of years ago it became an issue with SAR helos getting refuels on rigs, only because the refuellers couldn't cope with basic safety strategies such as being cleared into and out of the disc by the rearcrew - they just did their own thing, wandering around the TR and running the hoses under the helo without clearance.
Hugh - the anti -colls don't get turned off on a mil helo and the issue was with the helideck crew totally ignoring the aircrewman and doing their own thing, including getting too close to the tail rotor - the incidents were passed back up the chain and some re-briefing took place by the company involved.
One of the big differences is that in addition to the training for the crews working the decks, all the passengers are highly trained (including HUET trained) and familiar with helicopter operations as it is their normal commute and the normal work cycle. This environment is highly regulated, organized and trained, with an excellent safety record - but they still fail to meet YOUR demanding standards? There is certainly a responsibility for an operator to assist in deck operations with a helicopter type that is unfamiliar to the heli-deck crew, but beyond that, YOU must operate under their procedural, operational and safety protocols unless you have previously established an alternate process.
I'm glad to see that it isn't just civil flight and SAR operations that fail your critical review, but now it is also includes offshore oil installations - you really need to get out more into the real world!
And (back to the original topic), there is no evidence that properly conducted rotor running or hot refuels offer any greater risk than any other alternative.
And if you disagree, please feel free to post your evidence, unless (and I'm just guessing here) it is based upon a Risk Assessment conducted by someone with no understanding of the real world, or experience to make anything other than a paper analysis of potential risk.
Jeez guys - can't we all play nice?
We are supposed to be professionals.
Discussions not arguments should be our goal.
Good point about the rig procedures having priority. "When in Rome".
They are published and not complicated.
Even a quick briefing as to requirements over the radio would have helped.
In any case one of the SAR crew could exit the aircraft and brief with the deck crew before anyone approaches the "whirling machine of death".
I doubt the anti-cols are hotwired on.
So many good, interesting posts degenerate into a "Big Dogs pissing on Tall Trees" events. The dogs are left to bark, growl and snap at each other. Everyone else gives up and leaves.
We are supposed to be professionals.
Discussions not arguments should be our goal.
Good point about the rig procedures having priority. "When in Rome".
They are published and not complicated.
Even a quick briefing as to requirements over the radio would have helped.
In any case one of the SAR crew could exit the aircraft and brief with the deck crew before anyone approaches the "whirling machine of death".
I doubt the anti-cols are hotwired on.
So many good, interesting posts degenerate into a "Big Dogs pissing on Tall Trees" events. The dogs are left to bark, growl and snap at each other. Everyone else gives up and leaves.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
Maybe not in an RAF or AAC aircraft in normal operation. As an Army QHI it took me a while to get used to the RN DLQ lighting requirements as they were completely unfamiliar and different to what I was used to.
IIRC, Anti-col went off as we landed for eye protection to the deck crew.
Communication as to the intent of the aircraft was done with flashing/steady/bright/dim nav lights.
Its all about SOP i suppose.
Maybe not in an RAF or AAC aircraft in normal operation. As an Army QHI it took me a while to get used to the RN DLQ lighting requirements as they were completely unfamiliar and different to what I was used to.
IIRC, Anti-col went off as we landed for eye protection to the deck crew.
Communication as to the intent of the aircraft was done with flashing/steady/bright/dim nav lights.
Its all about SOP i suppose.
In any case one of the SAR crew could exit the aircraft and brief with the deck crew before anyone approaches the "whirling machine of death".
SAR helos didn't have access to the rig SOPS - it was an emergency SAROP after all.
Ralph, you are right about the light procedures for DLs but that is very specific and detailed in Br766d - we are talking about a rig operation here.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 60
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CARS 723.38 (2) restricts fueling with engines running if passengers are on board. No restriction on refueling with engines running without passengers. CNLOPB will make up its own industry rules though, that may be more restrictive than what the regulations are (like EBS for all East Coast offshore operations).
As is already well described in several posts to this thread, the new CNLOPB restriction would seem to increase overall risk rather than decrease it. It is a pretty sophisticated organization, so I'd want to see what they actually wrote, and not PPRUNE speculation. Can someone post the CNLOPB instruction?
As is already well described in several posts to this thread, the new CNLOPB restriction would seem to increase overall risk rather than decrease it. It is a pretty sophisticated organization, so I'd want to see what they actually wrote, and not PPRUNE speculation. Can someone post the CNLOPB instruction?
The fact that it is guideline and not regulation by TC does not apply to the CNLOPB, their regulation is directed at the offshore operators in their mind. The Safety Director, ex-CF Director of Flight Safety, is flexing his muscle about something he has no experience about. Without asking the impact or risk, he simply backed himself into a corner by sending a cease and desist letter to all those concerned.
