Why Things are Different from Field to Field
Sorry I’m a bit late on this thread but I’ve only just joined.
The intent of the PFEER, and other Regulations for Offshore Installations, is that you have to minimise the reasonably foreseeable risks to a level that is as low as is reasonably practicable (ALARP).
The identification of reasonably foreseeable risks is the easy part. Its reasonably foreseeable that a helicopter will ditch near a platform – it’s happened, and its reasonably foreseeable that a helicopter will have to shutdown on the deck in marginal weather – again it’s happened, although not as often as the previous scenario.
The difficult part is weighing up the probability and consequence of such events. That’s where, in my experience, you get the discussions and sometimes there are no absolutely correct answers.
One platform operator and its helicopter contractor could take the view that if the weather is such that the fast rescue craft can’t be launched or the wind over the helideck is such that shutting down or subsequently starting up a helicopter runs the risk of damage to the aircraft then no flying will take place.
Another installation operator and helicopter contractor could take the view that, in similar conditions, the probability of a ditching is so low that they continue to be ALARP due to the ability to use the Dacon Scoop.
Thus you will get diametrically opposite modes of operation in similar weather conditions: which is no great comfort if you are stuck offshore watching someone else’s crew change helicopter overfly you on the way to the beach!