Batboy
BATBOY, I am a North Sea pilot flying L2s at the moment.
The Incident as you have described, taken at face value, it is quite possibly the worst ever example of CREW/PAX liason I have ever heard.
I suspect that what happened to the helicopter after the "O" ring was changed was some kind of engine surge or "POP" stalling associated with disruption of the mass airflow through the engine which is unusual when the engine is under high load. (Normally happens when we lower the lever and the nose comes up slithgly as we start a descent).
The crew appear to have acted quite correctly in electing to return to the platform and have the incident investigated by the Engineer. If as you say a "PAN" call was made, then the crew would have felt at the time that more than "Pop" stalling was occurring as most Puma pilots are fully familiar with this problem.
What leaves me speechless is the apparent lack of explanation following the incident, and then the airtest, to try to convince you guys that all is safe and well. The crew of course being at that time in hands of the engineer who ordered the airtest.
As regards the wider points of your questions...when and how to do we assess the serviceability of the helicopter.
Well the short answer, is that as pilots, we are not authorised to declare a helicopter serviceable. We can only place the machine unserviceable.
If we were offshore the normal process, following a snag, is to contact our engineering departments and in the first instance, fully explain the nature of the problem. Engineering have a number of approved and acceptable protocols available to them based on the nature of the snag.
These may range from:
1. Flying back without PAX.
2. Remaining grounded until and engineer arrives to either further assess, or indeed fix the snag.
3. In cases where the snag is covered by the terms and conditions of the Helicopter Minimum Equipment Lists (MEL) - (The MEL is a list of helicopter systems and items that may be unserviceable for a flight, or a series of flights prior to the defect being rectified. The MEL is recomended by the manufacturer and approved by the CAA).
4. In cases where the snag is not convered by the MEL, and situation warrants such action, the Engineers can seek further guidance and if necessary approval from the manfacturer and the CAA to fly it back to base. This would only ever be granted for flight without PAX.
BATBOY, having said all the above, it does not matter a jot if the Engineers, the Manufacturer and the CAA all agree and approve the flight (either by MEL or otherwise), the ultimate final decision on whether to actually fly...rests with the helicopoter Commander.
So you see, the helicopter Commander really should not play any part in the decision to assess the serviceability of the machine, BUT definitley has the authority and right to refuse the flight if authorisation is granted.
This principle holds true for all daily operations with helicopters that may be carrying defects that are acceptable within the MEL. The Commander must formally accept the helicopter with its snags in his pre-flight signature and ALWAYS has the right to refuse to do so.
I hope what I have explained to you gives you some reassurance of the depth and nature of the decisions that are taken to determine the serviceability of a machine when it is away from base and removed the impression you were given during you experience, that we just "wing it" sometimes.
Finally, the issue of liaison with the PAX. There are differing points of view and I have to say, no real clearly defined policy for how we deal with you pesky PAX when we are about to "carry on" after a snag has occured.
My view, is that if I were a PAX, I would want to know everything!!. I also realise that we are not flying lager silling f***wits to Ibiza and that you guys possess more than the average standard of engineering knowledge which in most cases, surpasses my own.
Therefore I try not to bull**** the PAX. I give them the facts of what has happened, what we have done about it and then actually afford them the same priveledges that I have as the AC Commander. I simply say, "Thats the situation, are you happy with it and do you want me to take you home now".
The ability of the Commander to deliver a sound, unbiased, confident brief varies widley and is highly subjective to the Commanders age, experience and qualities as an orator.
My advice to you for the future, is that if faced with a similar situation, accept that the crew and the engineers will be doing everything in their power to get you home safely. However, in doing so accept that they may forget the equally important part of the job, keeping you informed and happy. So get thePAX together, elect a spokesman, and ask to speak to the crew/engineers before the flight takes place.
In that meeting gently ask them what has happened, what has been done about it and any other questions you may have. You should find even the most shy and reticent crew/engineers will respond if the questions are put to them in a posiitve manner.
BATBOY, do not automatically accept that we as crew and engineers are infallable. If I was the Commander I would welcome any questions that you felt you needed to ask.
This thing that we do, aviating, it is not without risk. Events have just dramatically and graphically demonstrated this to us again. However, all of us involved, Pilots, Engineers, Managers and Regulators are trying our utmost to reduce those risks to almost zero. Somethimes, as an industry we fall short of the mark!!
Hope this helped.