I think referring to the SIC in this case as "ballast" is uncharitable and undeserved. This individual didn't preform as an SIC, and his lack of offshore experience is telling. But, the post attributed to him may not be his. Even if it was, it was intended for a non-technical audience- a war story.
My impression after reading it is that there was a lot left out. I wondered if the author understood the issues in his story. My second impression was that not only was this guy not a functioning member of the crew. He wasn't even a good switch-flipper, although that took a good bit of empathy in the reading to infer. My eyes would have been out, out, out was I in that seat, lest the water come up and smite me, which it did.
I remember my first offshore days too well. While the GoM isn't the vicious environment I hear attributed to the North Sea, it has all the offshore traps. For instance, I remember well the first time I saw "flying platforms" in a poor horizon situation.
I also remember how tough it was as a new SIC to challenge an experienced PIC, and I inferred that in the SIC's story too. It's the biggest part of the job and the greatest benefit of real CRM.
Ballast? No. Inexperienced, poorly trained, and perhaps not suitable for multi-crew operations- I can't say, I never trained or evaluated pilots for that. He was in over his head in a situation that was largely the company's creation. PHI failed this crew, before and after the event. I'm very unimpressed with the "new PHI".
Last edited by Devil 49; 3rd Nov 2006 at 18:19.