Thanks js0987 for the clarification and positive feedback
After reading through some of Steve76's previous posts I appreciate that he may be inadvertently comparing NL PAX to GOM PAX, or even New Zealand PAX where I believe he was once based/originated from, however that may be highlighting a GOM PAX offshore certification issue completely unrelated to this thread. As you suggested, perhaps a new thread should be set up to assist in discussing that issue. Without knowing all the relevant facts of helo ops up here in NL and the ongoing safety inquiry it is not possible IMHO for anybody to make such statements.
Wrt. PAX being able to fit through a S-92 window, that most definitely should be one of the revised aspects of all HUET training where this type of A/C is operated, same applies for all other A/C. The NL BST and BST-R HUET does have modified windows that are meant to emulate the S-92 size, but don't quote me on the size comparison being exact or realistic. What I can say is that myself at a strapping 240 lbs can fit through the provided gap easily, even with the big clumpy E-452 flight suit boots. I recall offshore "bears" from my North Sea days that would never fit through a Tiger or Super Puma window, and we used to all avoid the middle seat at the back as everybody knew your survival chances from that spot were certainly reduced. So what's changed, well for one thing PAX confidence in helos, particularly the S92a. That's a human nature reaction and sadly only time with no further accidents will bring that confidence back. The latest scrutiny of the MGB housing mounting feet cracks, and still no official report from TSB confirming the root cause failure mode of flight 491 is definitely not helping things...
One of the other issues that Robert mentioned was the HUET exercise only being performed with 2 PAX at a time as earlier BST courses highlighted inboard PAX having issues with the window-adjacent PAX restricting their egress. So do we now go down to a no aux fuel tank configuration and/or seat reduction to remove inboard seat positions? I'm sure the operators won't be keen on that option, more flights = more risk = more cost = what's the benefit of using a S-92 now? Is the 19-seat configuration approved based on yet another extremely remote statistic?
Interesting times ahead...
Safe flying
Max
Last edited by maxwelg2; 7th Nov 2009 at 21:51.