Gomer Pylot,
No-one was suggesting a OEI HOGE requirement - it was only being used to show that some aircraft already have that capability and could therefore achieve PC1 at max weight; mainly to counter Nick's contention that PC1 was not possible with reasonable payloads. Having it as a requirement was not being suggested - as you will have seen from my first post.
ICAO and European regulations permit one way fuel (or rather offshore alternates) but only on the basis of an OEI HIGE landing capability - and only when the weather is at or above certain limits. The safety case is based upon a series of checks at PNR which establish, by contact with the rig, that the weather is above limits - PNR must be within 30 minutes of the rig thus reducing the probability of a weather deterioration.
When you indicate that you have the ability to land on the rig can we assume that you do not even have the OEI HIGE capability? Exactly how do you work out your landing mass to achieve this?
Your last statement makes me feel quite uncomfortable; if you are only carrying one-way-fuel and there is a chance of finding your destination below landing limits what exactly is your escape strategy based upon? If the weather in the GOM is like most offshore patches, don't the rigs all sit in the same weather pattern - unless there is a known and clearly defined front?
Notwithstanding all of this, PC2 could provide deck-edge clearance and a landing profile that retains all options until a decision point. The problem is that the drop down for most aircraft will be more than the height of the rigs in the GOM; on the plus side, ditching and surviving in the GOM is less of a problem than it would be in the North Sea or North Atlantic and does fall within the definition of a safe-forced-landing.
Last edited by JimL; 14th Aug 2004 at 06:41.