Ship Manager, most of the crews who are uncomfortable with the Dacon Scoop operate in the Southern North Sea. They understand the risks involved in flying. They are aware that something could go wrong at any time which could scupper their day.
Knowing those risks they fly offshore every day of their working life. Accepting that there are risks involved with the Dacon Scoop most will accept the task of flying to a single platform/rig in the type of conditions we are discussing here. They just ‘bite the bullet’ so to speak.
What they are more concerned with are the increased risks involved with flying multiple sectors within field i.e. Short Sector Shuttling. It’s not the distance offshore that is the issue. Every soul on board any flight is worthy of a rescue if needed. I would hope they are worthy of a rescue with a realistic outcome too.
What makes shuttling different is the number of take offs and landings and the environment, often in the pitch dark.
A minute of taking off or landing is accepted to be as safe (or risky) as forty minutes in the cruise, so I'm told. So a take off and landing is forty times riskier that the equivalent time in the cruise. If you do say fifteen sectors in one flight (as we do regularly), the take off and landings would offer the equivalent exposure to ten hours in the cruise.
Add to that, at low level you have less time to react to problems and you may well have less options open to you.
Some of the SNS decks are very low indeed and not all aircraft are capable of a guaranteed single engine fly away, when heavy, should problems occur close to landing or just after take off. Ones only option being to ditch. (I do accept that in windy conditions the outcome of an engine failure should be more favourable than in still air, due to better performance.)
Furthermore, we are lead to believe that engine failures cause, in round terms, about 50% of ditchings. So, even very powerful machines like the AB139, with good single engine performance, are not exempt from problems in this situation.
Of course the very nature of the environment means there are more places that the SBV can’t get to, to use the scoop. The more platforms the more areas of ‘no use’ so to speak, not being able to manoeuvre close in to the legs.
All that having been said the most compelling detraction to the Scoop is the fact that we see the SBV pitching and rolling in heavy seas throughout our working lives.
Most flight crews simply don’t believe that any human or team of humans can control, with the degree of accuracy required, a vessel (so large in comparison to a survivor) in such conditions, as not to put the survivors in grave danger.
Being run down in heavy seas by a trawling SBV is not my idea of a good night out. How on earth can the crew keep constant visual contact with the survivors to ensure they aren’t injured?
Please remember that the helicopter crews hold the SBV crews in the very highest esteem and this is no reflection on their experience or skills.
However in those conditions I would fancy my chances a whole lot more with a SAR helicopter hovering over me.
The truth is this may be a misnomer. The Dacon Scoop may be the best thing since sliced bread, but there are many who doubt it. Until those doubters are convinced why risk it? Someone needs to do some serious persuading. Maybe we should be shown the video.
As I pointed out some oil companies cease flying ops in these condition. Sounds like a good policy to me.
You say 5m seas are not really the problem in the SNS. I disagree. This is exactly the time the crews worry about putting guys out on the NUIs. You say that the scoop is quite tenable in 3 – 3.5m seas. What about 5m short period steep waves? Just like last week. Do the crews train such seas? I doubt it somehow (and hope, for their sakes, not!).
Can you define for me, maybe in percentage terms, “secure a good prospect of recovery”? I would not get in a helicopter if it only offered me a good prospect of flying!
Just to put the record straight, BALPA did not “put out guidance to their North Sea pilots not to fly if sea conditions were such that the rig stand-by vessels could not launch their FRCs, the inference being that mechanical rescue devices such as Dacon scoops did not offer a realistic chance of rescue.”
However, they do have a policy on the subject which they hope will one day be adopted by all those involved.
I’m confident BALPA would support any crew who made such a decision on the grounds of safety.
I guess someone got their knickers in a muddle over this one by inferring that BALPA was encouraging some kind of wild cat industrial action – this was not the case. By that I don’t mean you Ship Manager, unless of course you don’t manage ships that float but fly.
Safe watch.
Red
Last edited by RedWhite&Blue; 30th Jan 2008 at 08:28.
Reason: Spotted the first spelling mistake... I guess there are more.