Bladestrike:
My understanding is that the the Brits, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Danes and the Irish (all of those with offshore operations in the North Sea plus the Irish) apply the Standards of JAR-OPS 3. Therefore in the context of this thread, they all apply Peformance Class 2 (as expressed in JAR-OPS 3 - i.e. with exposure).
SASLess:
I'm really surprised at you dumping on a safety discussion when your campaign for improvement in safety standards is well known.
The OPG statistics show that there is a similar accident rate for the (offshore) oil industry (with a few blips here and there) worldwide. The important thing about these statistics is that they only measure that which is undertaken. There are no engine failures for singles in the North Sea as none are operated there. Why, because the environment is hostile. Engine failures in the North Sea are a reasonably foreseeable event - mitigated by the operational rules.
It would appear to me that the message that comes loud and clear from the OGP statistics is that, where equipment and standards - appropriate to the environment - are: contracted by the oil companies; or are prescribed by regulations; or are as the result of SOPs facilitated by protocols, the accident rate is ALARP.
the real accident rates are the same all over the world for post engine failure accidents.
Yes for the reasons stated above.
When quoting from my PM you omitted the second part of the sentence:
the Bo105 that fluttered into the sea having had an engine failure; and the Bell 407 that was flying in conditions where an engine failure would almost inevitably lead to a catastrophy
It is clear that the accident record for the GOM this year so far does not make for pleasant reading.
I for one applaud the Canadian operators and pilots for understanding that hostile environments should be treated with respect.
I shall now dismount from my high horse.