PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Helicopter crash off the coast of Newfoundland - 18 aboard, March 2009
Old 22nd May 2011, 17:43
  #1006 (permalink)  
C.C.C.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
As an aside, does anyone think that a rearcrewman might have noticed gearbox oil pouring down the side past the windows and alerted the pilots to the severity of the problem? The absence of a cabin attendant seems to be the norm in offshore ops (down to cost I suppose), but would a properly trained and experienced rearcrew in the cabin have a. helped the stressed front crew and b. been in a position to help the pax escape if he had been on a HUET system?
Firstly lets clear up some confusion. A rear crewperson would be found in your Sea Kings, and the civil SAR helicopter operators. A cabin attendant would be found in civil helicopters, like the Brunei Shell S92As. A cabin attendant would not normally receive the same amount of training & qualifications as a rear crewperson (e.g. no paramedic qualification).

Had this accident S92A been carry a cabin attendant he/she would have been sitting at the front of the cabin and probably would not have seen the MGB oil leaking externally. We brief our Northern North Sea offshore passengers to come forward and advise us of anything they wish to bring to our attention (in cruise flight). However given that the total loss of MGB oil occurred during this accident in 1:55 mins and the helicopter was in an emergency descent (where all passengers and crew should be securely seated) then a warning to the crew about the external oil leak was unlikely.

Let's remember the Kegworth B737 accident. Despite the fact that several of the passengers and 3 of the cabin attendants observed flames from the No 1 engine, this message was not passed to the crew (they shutdown the No 2 engine). This resulted in the recommendation for Training exercises for pilots and cabin crew should be introduced to improve co-ordination between technical and cabin crews in response to an emergency.

When you say HUET system I assume you mean an Emergency Underwater Breathing System (EUBA or STASS - the accident crew & passengers were HUET trained). Why would a Cabin Attendant have been provided with an EUBA/STASS when neither the crew or passengers were at the time of the accident? Whilst our NNS offshore passengers are provided with an EUBA/STASS the crew are not.

Not carrying a Cabin Attendant is down to a client requirement, combined with the fact that most helicopters used offshore are only certified for 19 passengers or less. The Chinooks used on the North Sea required a Cabin Attendant, similarly the SK61Ns when carrying more than 19 passengers needed a Cabin Attendant. Cabin Attendants/Pilots Assistants were also carried on some single pilot IFR operations, until legislation/client requirements required the operations to be 2 crew.
C.C.C. is offline