Not-with-standing, they must have been doing something right because you don't operate in that harsh offshore environment for 30+ years without a single accident relying on pure luck alone
You'd make a good manager
Gulli, that was the exact excuse management made for not complying with rules and regs, we've never had an accident, but it was only through pure luck and some skillful flying that avoided any crunched metal, all major incidents occurred in benign circumstances. Personally I had absolute faith in our maintenance, top notch. There were some major lapses in maintenance of course, it happens in all systems, such as powder found coming out from the elastomerics on the four main blades, bearings had not been installed during a rebuild, errors/incidents occurred, but in the system that prevailed you never heard of what went on unless you were personally involved. Perhaps you can tell of your interview you mentioned in a post here a short time ago, I have an idea, but not with any surety.
You'll remember the take off charts where you extracted whether you could meet cat A or B, the figures were bollox and not one pilot was aware over the years that was so, until changed at the behest of one pilot after years of agitation. Figures were such that in some areas where you thought you had cat A capability if put to the test you were going to find yourself in deep do do.
How did you go about ensuring you had an alternate for offshore operations as required by the CASA supplement in the flight manual and the Ops Manual? I could go on.
You'll remember the following, why didn't you comply?
