Offshore union raises concerns on helicopter safety

[Cyclic Hotline]

OFFSHORE UNION RAISES CONCERNS OF WORKERS OVER HELICOPTER SAFETY

CAROLINE BRODIE 09:00 - 30 November 2005

An Offshore workers' union has raised the issue of helicopter safety after members expressed concerns about technical problems troubling the CHC Scotia fleet and causing delays.

The company said yesterday it had been hit by a number of "various, unrelated technical issues" recently but moved to reassure workers that safety had not been compromised.

Jake Malloy, general secretary of the Oil Industry Liaison Committee, said he had received several calls from workers expressing concerns about the number of technical faults occurring on helicopters since CHC Scotia was awarded the five-year contract to support Marathon Oil UK's Brae facilities a few months ago.

He said that initially he put it down to "bedding in" problems. But last week, when he received a call from a worker who said he was refusing to board a CHC Scotia aircraft to get back onshore from the Brae field, Mr Malloy decided to take action and raise the issue with both the helicopter company and Marathon.

He said he had since received assurances from both companies that the matter was being looked into.

Mr Malloy said it was "highly irregular" for staff to refuse to board aircraft as it could potentially lead to disciplinary action.

He added: "It is a very significant step to take.

"You would have to have real concerns to do that."

Yesterday a spokesman for CHC could not say exactly how many incidents there had been but said all had involved "minor technical components not directly related to passenger safety".

He said aircraft were always stringently checked over when any technical problem arose and reviews carried out to try and ensure there was no recurrence of the problem.

He added that the company placed the highest priority on passenger safety and always took a precautionary approach.

One such technical fault affected a flight to Brae on Wednesday and it returned to Aberdeen shortly after take-off as a precaution. The problem related to the Super Puma Mk II's autopilot system.

The CHC spokesman said the Super Puma Mk II was well-established in offshore transportation services and one of the most common in use in North Sea operations.

A spokesman for Marathon Oil UK confirmed it had received a number of comments from workers who were on board the Super Puma which turned back to Aberdeen last Wednesday as well as a number of concerns regarding flight delays and cancellations.

He said safety concerns were treated seriously by the company and that CHC Scotia had been asked to provide a detailed response to these concerns as a matter of urgency.

The spokesman added: "The findings will be shared with all field personnel at the earliest opportunity."

[cyclic]

Are we seeing the result of taking on the cheapest bidder? Something has to give to pay for that pension, roster and pay rise:ok:

[coalface]

No. You are seeing the result of a significantly more complex helicopter type which is inherently safer due to its duplicated digital autopilot/Flight data/display systems etc which will inevitably produce more "faults". This combined with the latest safety culture of no fault/no fly, means more flights will be delayed/returned to base.

[Leaky Valve]

Coalface,

I don't understand the safety culture of NO fault/no fly; or am I missing something?

LV

[coalface]

Thanks Leaky Valve for pointing out my reverse logic typing. What I intended to say was any fault/no fly. MELs now prohibit carrying many minor snags which we used to carry with no problem. Although the MEL doesn't strictly speaking apply in flight, it comes back into effect when we land on an offshore installation even although we stay rotors running. This means we can end up grounded on a rig without being able to return to a maintenance base unless we go throught ridiculous beaurocratic hoops. The days of Commanders decision making have gone. Most will now take the easy option and RTB if a minor snag occurs on the outward journey.

[Snarlie]

With the current levels of supervision, auditing and micro regulation by the CAA, it is unlikely that any operator would be able to make significant savings on maintenance costs in order to reduce a tender for a contract.

Furthermore, anyone who has tried to satisfy the CAA with a customised Minimum Equipment List for a specific type will vouch for the fact that fewer and fewer anomalies may be accepted on departure and this will inevitably lead to delays and curtailed flights.

A Super Puma turning back with a relatively minor autopilot glitch will inevitably be reported as `Stricken `copter limps to safety after nightmare for 19 passengers`- it`s the way yo tell`em!

[PETE ZAHUTT]

Interesting thread

The Offshore workers concerns cannot be ignored and will probably be fully answered in due course

No doubt - if the chaps who fly the heli's had any concerns at all about reliability then they wouldn't even start up the machines to fly the offshore workers. The engineering support available is to the expected regulatory standards , if not higher - it has to be doesn't it !!!!!!!!!!!!

Do the offshore platforms which are as old , or even older than the majority of helicopters in service at the moment have an untarnished operational reliability record .. I think not.

Most of the unscheduled and extra flights that take place are to ferry workers to fix and maintain unserviceable plant/equipment on platforms which is the norm , unless the aircraft are tasked on purely scheduled passenger crew change flights running constantly from the platform to the beach.

Coalface is quite right , it is a damn sight easier to turnround in flight and get to shore base if the situation allows it , parked up on a platform with a tech fault is not the ideal place to be logistically , it's the worst place to be !

Rules/Regulations and Red Tape is the cause of many delays , this is what the guys in the back do not understand unless it is explained to them.

Oh and the ageing and "highly utilised" fleets of all the NS/SNS operators should be mentioned - whilst all completely safe. (High utilisation because of badly planned forecast requirements from the companies chartering the machines)

How many of us drive around in car's 20 years old , would you buy a new car or a second hand car these days to invest in for a number years hard driving ?

Any more oil companies fancy forking out for some new shiny helicopters then and the extra resources to support their
aviation requirements ??? ( it will cost more $$$ though ..sorry)

[Teefor Gage]

This means we can end up grounded on a rig without being able to return to a maintenance base unless we go throught ridiculous beaurocratic hoops. The days of Commanders decision making have gone. Most will now take the easy option and RTB if a minor snag occurs on the outward journey.

Looking back, I think that most of us can say that, at some stage in our careers, we completed a return flight with a snag which should have rendered the aircraft unserviceable had the defect reporting process been followed correctly. This could obviously have left a helicopter, its crew and the disgruntled passengers stranded on an offshore installation, waiting for the necessary repairs to be arranged.
But "what if" that defect had caused an incident, or, worse still, an accident during the return flight. How would you have felt as the commander of the aircraft having made that decision.
"What if" the same commander had discovered the same defect during start up before departure from base. 99/100 would most likely shut down, write up the defect and return to the crewroom for another cup of coffee.
Go home itis is a "wonderful" thing. It makes your sense of reasoning go awry. You want to get back to your home, your family and friends, or that very inviting cold beer etc........

Recent toughening up of legislation has placed more pressure on pilots to make the correct decision. Maybe that's why more flights are being delayed or returning to base, and maybe it's not before time as luck has to run out some time........

[Helibelly]

I Just love the way that an oil rig worker becomes an aviation expert with no training in the matter. It never ceases to amaze me how when ever there is the slightest problem with an aircraft be it eng or flt safety related the press and every other joe on the block knows what the problem is and how dangerous it is! I'd like to see the look on the face of a few oil company managers if on approach to a rig the pilot said the rig was not safe to operate.
As for flying with snags, well that's what the MEL is for.

[Blind]

One of the tech RTB's a Marathon pax complained about was a lightening strike last week.

A/C flew fine but blade and MRH suffered damage, not quite sure how that was CHC's fault, maybe lightening looks at the paint job before deciding which chopper to zap!!

[NickLappos]

One question I have to ask is how does a passenger get to know the precise maintenance state of the helo? Why does he? The MEL is precise, and the state of the helo is crisply UP or DOWN, there is no shade of gray. Imagine the Monty Python skit where the patient starts hyperventilating about the slight malfunction of the thing that goes "Ping"

One has to judge that pax as really worried, because he turned down a trip home, a truly big decision.

[diginagain]

Speaking as an offshore employee, and former pilot, most of my colleagues have indeed little inkling of the complexity of helicopters, their maintenance requirements nor the legislation regarding their operation.

If an employee felt strongly enough to refuse to fly, it is unlikely that they'd ever work offshore again. Very few would bother raising an issue with OILC, which is regarded by many as being quite a belligerent outfit; despite being formed with the intention of representing offshore employees post Piper Alpha, these days they seem more interested in the Arthur Scargill approach to employment relations.

If, however, Amicus were to make enquiries on behalf of its members, it would be done without resorting to lambasting the helicopter operator in the P&J.

We would much prefer to RTB, either to the beach or the installation, rather than face an uncertain journey. We place a great deal of faith in the capabilty and integrity of those who provide our transport to and from work.

As an aside, I'm certain that should you feel that there was a structural integrity issue with an installation, you'd be raising the matter with BHAB, wouldn't you? Yes, many of the installations are getting on, but they must still meet with recognised standards with regard to structural safety.

Just my two-penn'orth.

[Buitenzorg]

I apologize in advance for the tone of this post, but it’s a subject that has considerably exercised me of late.

What we are seeing here is the result of rig pig “intelligence”.
:E

Small problem after take-off, be as safe as possible and RTB to get it fixed? This is a :mad: safety problem this is!!!

Rig pig say: me like, see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, press on regardless! :ok: Unless we hit turbulence in which case I’ll file a complaint! :yuk:

To paraphrase Mr. Lawrence Sanders in “Sullivan’s Sting”:
“It was in his first year as offshore pilot that he realized, with the force of a religious conversion, just how stupid most offshore workers were. They were just dumb, dumb, dumb, and nothing since then had changed his conviction that most rig personnel had air between their ears.”
:E :E :E

There, got it off my chest.

[diginagain]

There, got it off my chest. I'm pleased for you.

As a matter of interest, back when I used to fly via Den Helder, I noticed that the aircrew and pax got on with each other really well, possibly because we all shared the same canteen; if a cab went 'tech', the pax learned what was up from the aircrew. Since the rig crewchange rota in the Dutch sector is two weeks on, two off, and the operation quite small, many 'rig-pigs' became familiar faces.

I know of a number of locally based pilots and offshore employees who socialised away from work, too, despite the 'apparent' gulf in intelligence between the two groups.

Or perhaps you were referring to some other species of offshore employees, Buitenzorg?


:ok:

[platinumpure]

I see you added the word "SOME" to your statements. Depending on what part of the world you are operating in, that could be reduced to "FEW".

However, you are correct they need respect the same as any corporate passenger, as they are our source of income afterall.

Still, "rig pigs" that is pretty amusing.

[Farmer 1]

“It was in his first year as offshore pilot that he realized, with the force of a religious conversion, just how stupid most offshore workers were. They were just dumb, dumb, dumb, and nothing since then had changed his conviction that most rig personnel had air between their ears.”
That's a terrible thing to say.

True, mind.

[offtrack]

After I've read some of the posts on this thread, it's not the intelligence of the rig workers I'm worried about....

Actually, I'm quite happy that our passengers, trough company and union requirements, states certain demands on the transportation standard.

Otherwise, I would probably be flying a B206, single pilot IFR, summer or winther, day or night, at half the salary I make now.

And how much fun would that be...

[Buitenzorg]

Diginagain
Or perhaps you were referring to some other species of offshore employees, Buitenzorg?
Yes, indeed. I fly in the Western Hemisphere, day VFR only, and personnel go out in the morning and return in the afternoon.

Zebedee
SOME of the people you carry have so many 'smarts' it would make your eyes water if only you were able to understand what their qualifications mean.
Indeed. I used to be one of them. MSc Geophysics, oil exploration seismologist for 9 years. But let’s be realistic… people with high qualifications aren’t the ones complaining to a union are they? The highly qualified people I’ve carried have directed their questions at me, and been satisfied with my answers. The ones doing the complaining have, for the most part, only learned to write their names after starting work, so they were able to sign in. High school graduates are the minority. This is the literal truth.
SOME of the people you carry have to make decisons that could, if they get it wrong, kill LOADS of people and cause A LOT of environmental damage.
No $hit Sherlock. That’s why on average once a week I have to be the first to call in yet another rig oil leak everyone on the rigs seem to have missed. Again, the literal truth.
YOUR OPINION is irrelevant.
Regulations as well as common sense would seem to disagree with you here. On board my aircraft I’m classified as Pilot-in-Command, which makes my opinion the MOST relevant of all.

Since coming to work here the complaints leveled at me have been about:
- dropping a passenger (in order not to exceed MTOW);
- dropping a passenger (to keep the CG witin limits);
- declining to carry Dangerous Goods (flammable and radio-active);
- delaying a flight because of bad weather;
- declining yet another (the seventh) unannounced sector because of low fuel.
NO complaints however were made because of perceived safety infractions. In other words, I have to battle these people in order to keep them safe.

In one case somebody complained directly to the Director General of the local aviation authority because I turned around for more fuel after the rig supervisors added more flights to their flight request while I was in flight – more than two months after the flight took place!

Of course I would have liked to explain the circumstances causing my decisions to the personnel involved, but at the time I’m in the cockpit with engines running, and after landing they’re in their cars and gone before the engine cool-down is half over. Days later I get to hear about complaints made to an engineer or ramp attendant. Fantastic displays of common sense, integrity and, yes, intelligence too, wouldn’t you say?

Edited to add:

The term “rig pig” originates in the GOM (not where I fly), and for years I too felt this was excessively derogatory, beyond banter somehow. But that was before having people threaten my livelihood because I refused to compromise their personal safety. I really hope that, as diginagain indicated, the breed of offshore workers in the North Sea is a different one, I wouldn’t wish this hassle on anyone.

So why stay? Well, my (aviation) company have treated me very fairly, if it ever came to a head they’d back me up, the machines are safe, the weather’s good and the beer is cold. Plenty more reasons to stay than leave.

[diginagain]

Buitenzorg.
OK, it's an international forum, so I guess you're expressing an opinion on offshore workers in GOM. Those of us who work in Europe might feel entitled to be offended by your generalisation. Those in GOM who are offended might like to take this up in person.