Originally Posted by
JimL
Aser,
Consider the case where an operator works entirely on the continent of Europe operating an AW139 and flying passengers in, and between, continental States. On one occasion in three years, flying is across a small body of water such as the estuary of the Rhine, Gironde or the Gulf of Corinth - would you expect that helicopter to be float equipped for that flight? A risk assessment would put the probability of some failure requiring the helicopter to ditch on the specific part of that one flight at something less than 1 in 1,000,000,000 (1 x 10-9). The exposure to the ditching event is infinitesimally small.
I don't see the need for floats in this scenario.But yes if you are talking about repetitive flights, not just once a year.
On the other hand, and as discussed on another thread, a helicopter engaged in offshore operations in the North Sea spends its whole working life (with few exceptions) over the water in a hostile environment - which includes being exposed to an engine failure without accountability for a proportion of the take-off and landing events. The exposure to a ditching event for the North Sea Fleet is reasonably foreseeable (in fact we have just had one).
By hostile environment I consider a rolled helicopter without floats regardless of water temperature, if you think about non-HUET trained people.
During the recent work in the ICAO HTSG, the placing of that arbitrary line was considered - particularly in the light of the recent revision to FAR/JAR/CS 29. The group considered that the fitting of floats for ‘offshore operations’ should apply - without exception (a new Standard); the fitting of floats for PC3 should remain at the gliding distance to the land; for PC1 and 2, the 10 minute rule should apply for flights over a hostile environment; but for flights over a non-hostile environment, the State should be given freedom to set the limit taking into consideration the certification status of the helicopter and the reliability of the engines.
Here starts the problem, when we start looking just the engine reliability.
If your particular operation is over water for a large proportion of the time (as I think it is); the risk assessment undertaken by the operator would establish: (a) the probability that the environment would become transiently hostile for some flights; and (b) even if that did not interfere with normal operations, whether it would be reasonable to expect a large number of (non-trained) passengers to be able to evacuate the helicopter if it ditched without floats fitted.
I'm lucky to be flying with floats, because the operator it isn't required to do it. (I wouldn't do it in any other way)
I understand the ICAO rules are general.. but I don't see it right when you are flying 60nm over water but at less than 10 minutes from land (land that you not always could use to land) every day 10 times a day, 365 days a year with people on board without the training to evacuate, without wearing a life jacket (it's under the seat), just because we are looking at engine reliability, not thinking about tail rotors,CFIT,flight control problems, impending transmission failures etc.
The risk assessment undertaken by the operator... the CAA has to provide means ensure the risk assessment is done, not give it for granted.
We should assume from your remarks, that the operator fulfilled our expectations.
This wasn't a thread about me, but the oil industry and wearing life jackets in flight.
Thanks.