Nick:
I for one applaud your aspiration for data/information sharing - which goes way beyond my consideration for operators' fleets; yours is a much more far reaching vision. At the moment, trend analysis and not just alert event monitoring would be a welcome addition to some systems. (There is a similar debate going on with regard to FOQA/HOMP/FDM information – to share lessons learnt.)
Regarding the possible obsolescence of older machines as new ones come around - it is about time.
but how do you see it being achieved – just by economics?
You are quite right to take a swipe at the regulators for their original proposal for Class 1 from rigs in 2010. Since 1995, there have been substantial moves to legitimise Performance Class 2 - with exposure - for offshore operations. My understanding is that debate on the 2010 requirement for Performance Class 1 for rigs has already opened and a solution is being sought that is both ‘technically feasible’ and ‘economically justifiable’. I’m sure that any proposal will have to be justified to the “men in grey suits” with
reasonable statistics about exposure times and probabilities
based on data for engine reliability. I also hope that sanity reigns and the results will take account of the distinction between North Sea (hostile) and GOM (non-hostile - in most cases) operations.
I have no idea what went on at Aberdeen or who was expressing such views However:
Examination of the historical data to establish the probability of sea state 6 in the northern North Sea might yield some interesting facts – notwithstanding that, my understanding is that you are offering the S92 with such a ditching approval. In doing so you are probably satisfying FAR 29.801(d):
Or it could be that it didn't cost too much to do.