tottigol rhetorically asked:
Shell, if the cost of human life is appreciated by the Oil Companies, why are they allowing conditions in air transportation in the Gulf of Mexico (I am not privy to details concerning marine transportation, by my guess would be the same) to lag back to the sixties or seventies?
Tottigol, the oil companies absolutely do "appreciate" the cost of human life. It's just that...this may be uncomfortable to speak about...they put a definable price on it. We might not like it, but it is what it is.
In other words, if it was the intention of "the oil companies" that not one single life would be lost in the Gulf of Mexico (or anywhere else), then you'd see safety really, truly become the Number One priority.
But let's be honest: A certain number of deaths (or losses) are acceptable. When that number gets too high, of if the number can be attributed to a particular and/or specific cause, then "something" will be done.
But it's hard to find a real common thread in all of the fatal accidents in the GOM. You can call for two engines, or full-IFR capability, or immersion suits, or...whatever. But it's still not going to prevent all of the accidents. The Risk Management departments of the oil companies know this.
It's far too early to even begin speculating about what went wrong with N180AL. He got the floats out but quite obviously hit the water with enough lateral speed to rip them right off the ship (so something very bad was happening to be sure). We can, and probably should look at the response times and procedures.
But there is no magic wand that can be waved and suddenly make the GOM "safe." It is not the North Sea; in fact it is quite different and demands a different set of operating criterea.
I know that it seems like the GOM accident rate is "just too high" lately. And perhaps it is. But we must look at the big picture. And requiring twin-engine, Cat-A and IFR-capable helicopters with passengers in "poopy suits" for every little "field ship" job just isn't going to work, no matter how much we might want it to.