Originally Posted by
Undecided
There is not much to disagree with in your post but there in lies the problem. Nothing wrong with the S76 but it is older technology replacing newer technology and on a commercial operation that relies on quick rotors running passenger changes why would you chose a helicopter with a lower disc height?
And why would you chose a SP operation where, as you recommend, the safest thing to do is ‘you only fly when the weather is good enough’? I can’t see the operator increasing their weather limits above and beyond the national limits as this is a scheduled service. The reality it this a coastal area whether the weather changes very quickly and there are few of us that have operated in that area on a regular basis that haven’t been caught out by the rapidly changing weather all year round. I have read the detailed AAIB report on the Starspeed S92 incident and it appears that the Accountable Manager, on that occasion at least, didn’t fully adhere to the rules and getting the job done was more important than strict adherence to regulation. One assumes that the pilots on this operation will be faced with some difficult decisions. I don’t envy them.
Surely a fundamental of Safety Management is that the risk should be as low as reasonably practical? The previous operator on this service achieved this by MP operations in a modern helicopter and strict adherence to the rules. Perhaps someone with a PHD in Aviation Safety Management can explain to me how an older technology helicopter operated SP can be deemed to be the same or lessor risk?
In a perfect world I'd always use properly trained Multi crew ops with a machine which is suitable. There is nothing wrong with an S76C++ and I wouldn't call it outdated by any stretch. Older tech? maybe. Reliable ? Yes. Refuelling can always be done with no-one else on the pad, or shut-down, as per offshore ops, and then you need strict loading of pax. It's been done for decades with no passenger accidents being hit by blades that I'm aware of?? Could you point me to any? (I'm not talking about crew incidents where they became complacent)
There is the issue of exit if you ditch offshore, one of the reasons the S76 died a death offshore in the North Sea was the passenger emergency exit size restriction. Im sure we all know of 30+ year old airframes still flying regularly so I don't believe age of aircraft is part of this debate. If every old aircraft was dangerous, they wouldn't be allowed to fly.
My personal view is that this operation has so many requirements to operate at a profit, that a new airframe just wouldn't be part of that equation. You can prob buy 5 s76c++ for less than the cost of a new airframe like the 169 etc. The first people I'd speak to if I had to cost this op would be the engineers. Then ask the pilots opinion. Then see what ticks the boxes. Good luck to Starspeed but I get the feeling this Penzance thing is a poisoned chalice.