Airwave45
HC, read your point.
I'm not a fan of the press, too much power, too little responsibility.
Just a bear.
Have a bit of p1 time, but way more slf time, so have a wee bit of insight to both sides (currently non grafting)
No p1 on anything H (or p2 on anything H)
But what I'm trying to get across to the boys n girls up front is that the pax are genuinely, seriously, scared to get into any of the 330 variants.
If you don't seriously address those concerns, an alternate will be found.
I refer you back to sassles, proper ground up introspection is required.
Not on here (too public)
But really, when your frequency of unplanned arrivals on heavy / medium twins is equal to the GoM with singles/single pilot ops....(i've done the research, it is)
You really, really should be looking closely at what you do.
then Pitts:
Question. At what point is a Super Puma seen as a family of helicopters or individual models??
Recent events seem to blur things where I think it would be fair to say many seem to like to quote X number of flight hours of the Super Puma fleet as a whole when looking for statistics to promote a positive view on the model (s) and then instantly wish to differentiate individual models when one or another goes in. Just an observation.
There has also been comments around if the UK side of the North Sea is as safe or are individual operators / industry as a whole doing all it can safety wise. Given the community isn't that big in the grand scheme what are the pilots that complain doing about it? Maybe they are putting their hands up for huge change and its being ignored? (although that doesn't seem to be reflected here).
HC suggests that poor exploitation of HUMS is to blame for the crash of G-REDL and the two recent 225's that ditched, yet in order for the 225 to fly in the interim we have further reliance on HUMS...even more incredible is that there has been a complete change of view from Eurocopter regarding onboard HUMS data from the AAIB recommendations from the G-REDL crash to recent events with the 225.
The point is its all very well moaning about a faceless "industry" but thats just made up of individuals whom for the most part seemed to just rely on the fact that Eurocopter has a bunch of clever people and the rest should but out.
The problem with this entire incident, hysteria, FB bull$hit, and endless stats being thrown about is that manipulating the numbers to support a preconceived idea is one of the easiest jobs out there. I am curious what snapshot of the GOM and NS would produce comparable stats. I would say limited in time (specific years) and excluding ares of the NS that didn't have a statistic to add.
I don't have the necessary hours in the day to go back and quote every post that needs addressing, but I can add some examples.
Someone stated that his son worked offshore, and that his perception of an unsafe operator was reinforced by aircraft that were late or cancelled because of a technical fault (so different from the airlines that they use to get to the heliport). Bollocks!! That shows an operator that is willing to cancel, and lose the revenue, rather than say nothing and just get the job done. When BA delays a flight for 4 hours, or you get in a 777 and the ticket said 340, what do you think was going on? They just didn't tell you.
Airwave45:
I am lost, as a group you want the bears to accept that the current level of attrition is ok.
As a bear, i'm letting you know, we disagree.
Noone says that an accident is ok, but lets get
REAL about the "attrition".
OF the 5 332 variant hull losses that have everyone riled up about (not 330, that's even more barely related variants) one was not related to type AT ALL. CFIT is crew/training/etc. The Bond incident had a clear cause, not related to specific design. One is unknown. The 225 bevel incidents wouldn't even be in discussion of the EmLub hadn't been a factor. EC, the operator, etc would know but the hysterical media would not.
The Boeing 777 has had a fatal accident every second month for the last 2 months. It's true, check the statistics. A quick wiki search provided 9 737 airline crashes, several hundred fatalities, from 2010 to 2013, but I doubt anyone is refusing to buy a ticket on RyanAir (or whatever low budget 'airline' is operating the 737 beside them on the airport).
My point? What I just wrote is "fact" but no sane person would use stats like those to make real life decisions. This knee-jerk hysteria around the Puma/Super Puma/225 family of aircraft is a collective
game with the same rules.
I have had many nervous offshore passengers over the years, and I have always tried allay their fears as best I could, but I always wonder if they actually look at themselves when they ask the questions they do.
Flying a 212 offshore, we had a minor technical fault (bad gauge, don't remember which one). Rather than defer the defect and carry on (legal), or just ignore it (not legal but in real life and years ago it would have happened), I elected to shut down and get it fixed now. Walking back to the passenger lounge I explained why we had shut down and that we would be ready to go in a short time. One older gentlemen asked me many more questions, and wanted to know several times if it would be safe. I assured him it would be, and that I would only accept the aircraft when I was fully satisfied. He stated "I don't want to die" and I answered "neither do I". He seemed satisfied and we shortly completed the flight.
My question is: Do you really think that we are so much more willing than you to die out there?