Hi MARS
Pingle silot is one example (thanks Twisted Rigging) although this is almost a thing of the past with most oil companies world wide now requiring two pilots.
I agree that 99 % of the approaches should be flown by the pilot with the obstacles on his side. I just don’t want to have it written in cement that I must always have this pilot do it. I just hate it when a regulation or rule is imposed where good judgement is what is required.
I am going to send this thread to a good buddy of mine. I seem to recall we hacked this subject to death in Bombay many years ago and again in Brunei with a check/training pilot. Anyone out there recall flying onto the Sagar Samrat ? The deck was so small and awkward that the offside pilot (as PF) could see the deck edge which was where he had to place the gear footprint whilst the PNF (closest to the obstacles) kept an eagle eye on those obstacles. He could not see the deck edge.
I do recall the odd time when I was the offside pilot with a partner in the other seat who’s experience was not up to par. I felt more comfortable doing the approach myself….so did he.
Of course the S76 is just the worst machine for a cross cockpit approach/landing however the 61 is not too bad , the 212 gives good visibility and the AS355 is single pilot anyhow. (if you hadn’t guessed , these are the 4 multi engine types I have…)
Another factor is the type of structure that you are landing on. We had “double” platforms in Thailand that had obstructions both sides and the overshoot sometimes favoured a PF who had the lesser obstacles on his side…..many variables……
I can think of a number of accidents flown by the pilot who had the obstructions on his side and he still ran into them !!!….now to be fair , there were probably other extenuating circumstances…and perhaps that is subject matter for another thread.
This type of discussion is all very , very good value…..