Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)

[Wasser]

JFZ90

For offshore platforms, companies normally work to an Individual Risk criteria of one fatality in a thousand years. Risks greater than this have to be evaluated and measures taken to reduce the risk to ALARP.

Workers are grouped by their exposure to risk averaged over a year. Individual Risk figures are then derived from, amongst other criteria, a hazard anaylsis of the work area and number of people in that area.

However as a result of the Texas City Refinery incident, which killed 15 and injured over 100 people, BP were fined by an american court for this method of calculating Individual Risk. Those killed had been in or around temporary accommodation, located close to process plant. The Judge ruled that the Individual Risk should have been calculated on the risk to those in the temporary accommodation at that time and not averaged over one year. I assume by this he meant that had the risk had been calculated by this method, the risk would have been above the acceptable limit and measures would have been taken to reduce the risk, ie move the temporary accommodation away from the hazardous plant.

Findings from the enquiry into the incident can be found here and have lessons for all.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1545068.ece

Because of better platform safety design, one of the greatest contributers to Individual Risks to offshore workers is now helicopter transport, which is why the wearing of survival suits, rebreather sets, PLBs when travelling offshore are mandatory by most companies.

Regards the engineers/technician debate, surely it’s the ability of the individual to perform their role that’s important? As a Chief Technician at Kinloss, I saw the best and worst of Engineers - an ex‑technician converted to an Engineer (how can that happen) on NAEDIT who looked after his technicians and backed them to the hilt when right, apossed to a highly qualified Engineer at NLS who didn’t have a clue about man-management and whose decision making policy was to say “yes” to those above, regardless of the situation .