Heli ditch North Sea G-REDL: NOT condolences [Archive]

sk76driver

1st Apr 2009, 15:23

Breaking News

4:15pm UK, Wednesday April 01, 2009

Eight people have been killed and another eight are missing after a helicopter ditched in the sea off the north east Scottish coast, Sky sources say.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Apr/Week1/15253702.jpg Helicopter came down off Scottish coast

The Bond Super Puma aircraft, with 14 passengers and two crew, was returning from an oil platform, just before 2pm, when it went down 35 miles from Aberdeenshire.
Eight bodies have been found and the search continues for eight other people, sources say.
The incident comes about six weeks after another Bond Super Puma with 18 people on board ditched in the North Sea.
Aberdeen Coastguard was co-ordinating the latest search and rescue operation, which included two RAF helicopters and a Nimrod marine patrol aircraft.
Helicopter operator Bond confirmed one of its helicopters was involved in today's crash.
BP said the aircraft was operating on behalf of the oil giant and it was returning to shore from the Miller oil field.
The Coastguard has confirmed the helicopter was a Super Puma AS 33L Mk II which was an earlier model of the one which ditched on February 18.
A Maritime and Coastguard Agency (http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home) (MCA) spokesman said: "A supply vessel called Normand Aurora, which was quite close by, has put their fast response boat into the water and is looking for survivors."
An MCA statement said: "Aberdeen Coastguard have begun broadcasting a mayday signal into the area.
"RNLI lifeboats from Peterhead and Fraserburgh are heading for the scene now."
In the previous incident, the aircraft had gone down as it approached a production platform owned by BP. Everyone survived the accident.
An interim report into the February incident from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said the helicopter had run into a bank of fog as it prepared to land.
It added the commander, Michael Tweedie, had been unable to identify the helideck of the BP platform.

chester2005

1st Apr 2009, 15:26

Godspeed to any lost

I was having a good day until this

Chester:(

rotorknight

1st Apr 2009, 15:36

unfortunately I have to write this again in such a short period,but my thoughts are with those that are affected by this tragedy.

This turns out to be a very bad year in our line of work:(

chequePilot

1st Apr 2009, 15:54

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7977095.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7977095.stm)

What a sad day for all. We hope and pray for the best outcome.

Postman Plod

1st Apr 2009, 16:05

I don't post here, but I am more than aware, having been reading some of the news reports on this, that the press are using PPRuNe as one of their primary sources for reporting gossip and speculation. In other words, what is being posted in here, and on the main thread, is being DIRECTLY reported as NEWS. Whether it is FACT or not doesn't matter! :mad:

Flight Safety

1st Apr 2009, 16:06

Sky News now reporting 10 fatalities, with search continuing for the other 6.

Helicopter: North Sea Oil Platform Aircraft Goes Down Off Scottish Coast | UK News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Helicopter-North-Sea-Oil-Platform-Aircraft-Goes-Down-Off-Scottish-Coast/Article/200904115253638?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Regio n_0&lid=ARTICLE_15253638_Helicopter%3A_North_Sea_Oil_Platform_Ai rcraft_Goes_Down_Off_Scottish_Coast)

Also from this link:

The Coastguard has confirmed the helicopter was a Super Puma AS 33L Mk II which was an earlier model of the one which ditched on February 18.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of the deceased.

UKpaxman

1st Apr 2009, 16:27

Latest official news from Grampian Police

Current News & Appeals (http://www.grampian.police.uk/NewsItems.aspx?id=6&nid=1928&pid=30;33;13)

heli-cal

1st Apr 2009, 16:58

BBC Radio 4 have announced that there is a BP Emergency Phone Number, which is 01224 836 479.

Ned-Air2Air

1st Apr 2009, 17:21

Very sad to see another offshore accident and our thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends and workmates of those who didnt make it back today :(

Lets hope this is the end in the run of three that bad luck always seems to come in. First the other Bond machine, then Cougar and now Bond again. Fingers crossed that this is the end of it for some time.

Ned :(:(:(

fisbangwollop

1st Apr 2009, 17:49

Just getting the news on BBC Scotland....8 dead and 8 missing, very very sad indeed, my thoughts with all tonight.

SASless

1st Apr 2009, 17:57

Sky News Report (time 6:12 PM)

Reports eight bodies recovered, two more located, and others unfound at this time.

Also reported the aircraft crash was observed by a Support Boat.

G-CPTN

1st Apr 2009, 18:05

The Miller field reached the end of its economic oil and gas producing life in 2007 when Cessation of Production (CoP) approval was received from the UK government. Preparations are currently underway to decommission the Miller platform but the oil and gas pipelines will be preserved for future opportunities.
BP NSI | Miller (http://www.bpnsi.com/index.asp?id=7369643D312669643D313130)

slyguy

1st Apr 2009, 18:19

A very sad day for the north sea, condolences to all involved

I do hope that the search for the remaining is not being hampered by the fact that none of the passengers are wearing PLB due to recent legislation.

RIP

DOUBLE BOGEY

1st Apr 2009, 18:40

Its obviously a very bad catastrophic incident that will clearly take some time to unravel.

In the meanwhile could we please not start posting names this time to at least provide some respite for the families involved.

Head up for the next flight and keep professional!!!

Bad couple of months for the Offshore sector.

Feel sorry for the Boys in Red!!! Keep your chins up high.

DB

Aser

1st Apr 2009, 20:53

Just a technical question,
Are the life rafts in the Super Puma family, external and auto-deployable ?

Aser

Magjam

1st Apr 2009, 21:20

Just a technical question,
Are the life rafts in the Super Puma family, external and auto-deployable ?

Aser

They are external, one in each sponson, not auto-deployable but can be deployed manually from two locations around the sponson (on top and below, so you can deploy them even if helo is capsized). Also there is a manual deployment handle behind the co-pilot seat.

Magjam

ChopperIMC

1st Apr 2009, 21:46

Aser:

None of the current A/C situations (ditchings) we have had today: S-92A, AS-332 L2 & EC-225 have any auto-deployment of the life rafts. When the rafts are armed, the only way to deploy them is to activate them through int. (in the cockpit) or ext. handling by handles. They will NOT activate by themselves in an armed mode. The float-system by the other hand will inflate by their water-detection sensors if armed.

ChopperIMC

darrenphughes

1st Apr 2009, 21:46

Why was the title of this thread changed to say "NOT condolences"? This is a very sad day for many people. Why would you not want to see condolences added to this? Or am I missing something?

Senior Pilot

1st Apr 2009, 21:56

darrenphughes,

Anyone who is not touched by this tragedy is in the minority. There were, however, a number of posts which would be better in a separate thread.

If you wish to start a new thread for condolences, please do so. Meanwhile, this thread will remain for posts immediately relevant to the North Sea crash.

bolkow

1st Apr 2009, 22:01

This is so sad, and so soon after the last incident. My thoughts are with everyone affected.
Including cougar helicopters and G-JSAR's unexpected landing on a beach this is as far as I am aware 4 super puma's incidents of varying degrees of severity. I cannot help but wonder about the types integrity.

DeltaFree

1st Apr 2009, 22:09

Two life rafts were spotted but were capsized, so the press reports say. Aren't these double sided? You just pull the canopy to whichever side is uppermost. If so I guess there were no canopies pulled up. Though not auto deployable these dinghies have been deployed. Does this mean someone deployed them? Or is it possible that the descent into the sea, described as rapid by the shipborne witnesses, could have ripped off the sponsons and somehow released the dinghies?

Hoping beyond hope for some good news. Thoughts go to families, relatives and friends, and also to anyone continuing to fly out there after this tragic accident.

coning angel

1st Apr 2009, 22:41

What makes this so sad, is that approximately 5 minutes beforehand, they would have called operations frequency and reported 20 minutes to go and reported as 'serviceable'.
This is such a tragic event.
There are many bits and pieces of information passing about right now, including the mayday call heard by a few other aircraft on frequency.
I hope those poor souls didnt suffer.:sad:

British-bulldog

2nd Apr 2009, 00:46

Hope they find some one alive.

HeliComparator

2nd Apr 2009, 01:37

slyguy

Unfortunately it seems this accident was non-survivable with or without PLBs

Aser - auto-deployable liferafts would be a very bad idea - the first malfunction causing them to deploy in flight would most likely bring the helicopter down. This is why there are no deployment handles inside the cabin - its on the outside just behind the cabin door.

Since there is a long cable going from the sponson to the cockpit handle, any deformation of the fuselage could easily pull on this cable and activate the liferaft inflation. If, as it seems, this impact was hard, that is probably why the liferafts inflated. There is no "upside down" - as Deltafree says, they are reversible.

bolkow

Although there have been some ditchings with everyone surviving (JSAR and REDU at least), I think this is the first catastrophic failure of the L2 on the N Sea. Bearing in mind its been in extensive use in the N Sea for 15+ years, it has a good, but not perfect, safety record. At this stage we have no idea of the cause - it could for example be a maintenance error, but far too early to know.

HC

SASless

2nd Apr 2009, 02:04

Has any aircraft on the North Sea or anywhere else had a perfect safety record?

subsonicsubic

2nd Apr 2009, 03:21

Agreed SASless. Given its service life, utilization and the environment it operates in, I would class this as a reliable aircraft.

SSS

Variable Load

2nd Apr 2009, 03:30

OK, a quick survey of L2s used in an offshore role produced this list. Corrections welcome!

Aircraft still in service:

BHL/Norsk - 2
BHS (CHC) - 3
Bond - 6
CHC - 16
MHS - 3
SFC Vietnam - 4
Sonair - 4
Turkmenistan - 2 (offshore??)

TOTAL 40

Losses to date:

BHS (CHC) - 1 (02/08)
BHL - 1 (11/06)
Bond - 1 (04/09)
MHS - 2 (11/06, 01/07)

TOTAL 5

L2driver

2nd Apr 2009, 04:07

Southern SFC Vietnam has 4 L2's: VN-8608, 8610, 8614, 8616. Operated the L2 since 1995 with no accidents.

Variable Load

2nd Apr 2009, 04:22

Thanks. The database I referred to stated that 8616 was with Eurocopter in Singapore still, hence it's exclusion.

I will edit my listing.

VL

albatross05

2nd Apr 2009, 05:36

SASless

If you only want aircraft/operator combinations that are bigger than the North Sea ops , and have been around longer , and have perfect safety records then two I can think of are the C130/RAAF and the 707/747/QANTAS fleets . Perfect safety records are achievable even over a fifty year period .

Finn47

2nd Apr 2009, 07:14

Finnair has been operating jets since 1960 and never crashed one.

heli1

2nd Apr 2009, 07:40

Variable Load ...I think of those 5 losses only MHS had a fatal ..am I right ??

212man

2nd Apr 2009, 08:07

Both MHS's had fatalities. One was a hydraulic fire, the other was CFIT during an ARA

Greeny9

2nd Apr 2009, 08:15

Bolkow,

'Including cougar helicopters and G-JSAR's unexpected landing on a beach this is as far as I am aware 4 super puma's incidents of varying degrees of severity. I cannot help but wonder about the types integrity'.

The Cougar aircraft was a S-92

sarboy

2nd Apr 2009, 08:20

Initials MC not on the Miller flight that got into the aircraft yesterday.

Not on the crew anyway..

Variable Load

2nd Apr 2009, 08:44

Variable Load ...I think of those 5 losses only MHS had a fatal ..am I right ??

Both MHS's had fatalities. One was a hydraulic fire, the other was CFIT during an ARA

I didn't really want to go down this route, but seeing as you asked - 212man is correct about the MHS accidents. The BHS accident involved 5 fatalities I believe.

VL

Michael Birbeck

2nd Apr 2009, 09:19

Helicopter crash: Bleak hope of any survivors - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/5091858/Helicopter-crash-Bleak-hope-of-any-survivors.html)

Tonka Toy

2nd Apr 2009, 09:31

Two things, Firstly, may I ask, what is slyguy on about pax not wearing PLB's on the rig flights anymore due to 'legislation'. If not WHY not?
Secondly I was a little alarmed to hear the telly 'expert' declare most offshore pilots are highly trained ex military pilots. What proportion of Bond pilots are ex military, I didn't think it was that many. Feeling very sorry for the Brothers Bond at the mo.:sad:

Low Flier

2nd Apr 2009, 09:38

It's not the actual safety record of the type that matters so much as the bears' perception of that safety record.

Remember that the bears completely lost confidence in the Chinook after three serious accidents, one of which was in the Brit sector. Once that confidence has been lost it became impossible to restore.

The bears, en masse, can actually be quite tribal and a crowd mentality can take over. The Chinook became uneconomic in the Brit sector of the North Sea, even on otherwise economic sectors, not because the type was intrinsically unsafe, but because the bears collectively refused to fly in the type because of their perception that the type was unsafe.

These two recent accidents will have to handled with the greatest of delicacy, a delicacy which was spectacularly absent from Bond management in the first two or three days after the Etap ditching. If there's anything the bears hate more than being told half-truths, it's being told nothing at all.

Bond management has done itself no favours by issuing a statement in the recent case, after the media already knew of the Mayday transmission, with Bond's Bill Munro being quoted as saying that:
he had no information to suggest a mechanical failure on the aircraft

It will matter little to the bears that the two recent accidents were totally different in nature and had no common cause(s), if that turn out to be the result of the two investigations. It won't even matter to the bears that the two aircraft were different variants. To most bears a "Puma" is a Puma is a Puma. To most bears a "crash" is a crash is a crash.

I hope that Bond senior management is discreetly hiring the best HR and PR consultants in the business to put together a cunning plan to mould the bears' perceptions in a positive way. I'm quite certain that BP has already done so.

The last thing anybody needs is a widespread loss of passenger confidence in Pumas (of any variant), or in Bond, or in helicopters flying to/from/between BP installation, or any permutation thereof.

Merely protesting that the Puma is "safe" simply will not work, even though probably true.

HeliCraig

2nd Apr 2009, 09:46

Firstly, may I ask, what is slyguy on about pax not wearing PLB's on the rig flights anymore due to 'legislation'

There was an issue with the PLB's conflicting with the larger, stronger ELT's during the other incident six weeks ago. Basically, the PLB's were masking the ELTs signal... it is explained better here (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/362787-super-puma-down-central-north-sea-23.html#post4803555).

Until a solution could be found I am led to believe there use was suspended. Not sure if it was done through legislation though.

leading edge

2nd Apr 2009, 09:48

Low Flier

What are bears?

If you mean passengers, why don't you use the term?

Spannergoanna

2nd Apr 2009, 09:54

Bond management has done itself no favours by issuing a statement in the recent case, after the media already knew of the Mayday transmission, with Bond's Bill Munro being quoted as saying that:
Quote:
he had no information to suggest a mechanical failure on the aircraft

Which Mayday would that be, i see no reports of one?

Special 25

2nd Apr 2009, 10:13

In response to RotorFix - I personally haven't seen any reduction in safety standards on the North Sea - Investment in new aircraft, investment in training and simulators. Investment in Courses (CRM / Safety Programs) etc, Investment in new personnel.

I accept that this has been during a boom time over the last 5 years, and my concerns are that the current economic climate seem to have the oil companies squeezing the helicopter operators, who in turn want to cut back on pilots and engineers. The last few years and immediate situation I see as having been quite positive, it is the imminent future that I worry about.

Heliman74

2nd Apr 2009, 10:13

I must say that I am very concerned about the safety level and the trend of safety level at the moment, especially within CHC. CHC has cut the safety margins to the bone, and just pure luck has saved their ass so far. Ie for more than 5 years now, local management...

I feel this is a post by a competitor to CHC, now knowing that the Media read these forums, hoping to try and cause problems. Not very nice really. Can I suggest that if you have "issues" like this, then please, please, start another thread. This is one, I believe, is not the place.

Judging by the slow-down in posts by some of the known north sea regulars, information available, and knowledge of the media watching, people are being a little more reserved in their posts.

From the BBC website:
"BP has announced it will temporarily stop using Bond helicopters and Bond has grounded its Super Puma fleet."

PR stunt? Response to the negative feelings from their passengers? I hope it is resolved soon. We all need to work and have families to support.

Low Flier

2nd Apr 2009, 10:26

Spannergoanna,

it is understood a Mayday message was issued from the helicopter before it hit the water. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7978093.stm)

nightjar1

2nd Apr 2009, 10:38

>>Rotorfix (http://www.pprune.org/members/215048-rotorfix) <<

You SURE you have your facts right ?

rotorknight

2nd Apr 2009, 10:49

From the BBC website:
"BP has announced it will temporarily stop using Bond helicopters and Bond has grounded its Super Puma fleet."

PR stunt? Response to the negative feelings from their passengers? I hope it is resolved soon. We all need to work and have families to support.

The same happens across the pond,where some clients do not fly the puma at the moment:confused::confused:(this seems a bit strange to me that this did not happen after the 92 tragedy,but then again who am I):hmm:

Low Flier

2nd Apr 2009, 10:55

Leading Edge,

The term 'bears' was coined in the mid-1970s, originally during the jacket and module installation of the Piper and Claymore fields when there were hundreds of bears being shuttled by the venerable green BEAS 212s between the various floatels and other units such as laybarges, derrick barges, and jet barges.

The origin of the term was derived from at least three things. Mostly it was the ubiquitous fleece garments which everyone wore offshore, known as 'woolly bears'. This was reinforced as a result of a very popular Burt Reynolds chase film which referred to police helicopters as "bears in the air". Finally it was as result of the typically large, bulky, and often gruff personal bearing of many of the construction workers and drillers.

I know, and don't care, that it is politically incorrect to stereotypically characterise a large group of people,especially customers, with a single nickname. The term "bears" works because it is a very identifiable type of passenger, quite unlike any other group of civil airliner passengers that I can think of.

In the context of the topic of this thread, it is legitimate to use the term because bear behaviour in such matters is quite identifiable and even predictable.

maxwelg2

2nd Apr 2009, 10:59

What are bears?

If you mean passengers, why don't you use the term?

"Bears" is indeed a slang term for offshore workers i.e. PAX, also known as North Sea Tigers.

As an offshore worker and PAX now based in Canada, I can tell you that the latest incident has done nothing to re-assure the Grand Banks Tigers in their trust of helo transportation, even though Cougar has officially concluded their S-92a testing. Currently the joint offshore operators task force has not completed their own internal investigation and approved regular offshore transfer flights. I can see the same requirement being present for the North Sea operators before the bears will trust flying in the Pumas again, no matter what variant is selected. The operators need to improve their information sharing and make all passengers aware of the true risk of flying helos.

Wrt. the PAX not wearing personal PLBs due to interference with the ELTs, why was this not picked up during type approving? Is this one of the reasons why the PLB and EPRIB frequencies were recently changed?

The current economic climate should not be having an impact on the maintenance and safety standard of this industry, and if it comes out from the reports that this is actually the case then you may find a lot of dissention in the ranks, both from the pilots and their precious cargo.

BALLSOUT

2nd Apr 2009, 11:03

It was my understanding that the reason the chinukes stoped flying the north sea was because the CAA pulled their certification. No longer allowed on the british civil register?

Brian Abraham

2nd Apr 2009, 11:15

albatross05, QF don't have a perfect safety record, 747 over run at BKK case in point.

Droopy

2nd Apr 2009, 11:15

So was there a mayday or not?

ericferret

2nd Apr 2009, 11:22

I believe the only type on the UK North sea never to have got it's feet wet or hurt anybody was the SA 365C and maybe the Whirlwind!!!!!!!

philbky

2nd Apr 2009, 11:23

I'd be interested in people's thoughts on something that occurred to me yesterday afternoon when watching the Sky coverage.

There are regularly a number of oil rig support flights in the air at any given time. Families and colleagues are aware of the flight numbers their loved ones/friends are using.

At no time in the first couple of hours did Sky give either a flight number or departure/arrival point for the downed aircraft. Worse, when it did give specifics, it only mentioned Bond and, later, BP.

Surely giving a flight number and a departure/arrival point would remove worry from dozens of people especially those, like me, hundreds of miles from the scene.

My son in law, after years on the rigs, is now shore based but has to take ad hoc short trips for various purposes to a variety of rigs and regularly flies on the Bond Super Pumas.

With airliner crashes the information is "out", sometimes within minutes of the first report and whilst this no consolation for friends and families involved it removes worry and doubt from the majority - and presumably reduces the load on calls to the emergency contact number which was up within an hour of the first report.

There would be an outcry if an aircraft of a major airline went down and nothing other than the type and operator was broadcast for an extended period.

Shearwater

2nd Apr 2009, 11:37

There are regularly a number of oil rig support flights in the air at any given time. Families and colleagues are aware of the flight numbers their loved ones/friends are using.

At no time in the first couple of hours did Sky give either a flight number or departure/arrival point for the downed aircraft. Worse, when it did give specifics, it only mentioned Bond and, later, BP.

Surely giving a flight number and a departure/arrival point would remove worry from dozens of people especially those, like me, hundreds of miles from the scene.

I am currently offshore & have been travelling in helicopters for about 25 years (British Airways, BIH & Bristows)
We are never aware of the flight numbers - we are given a check-in time to be at the heliport by & simply get onto the helicopter we are directed to.

Icer3

2nd Apr 2009, 11:40

BALLSOUT,

Chinook did not have UK Type Certification removed as a result of the Sumburgh accident - the particular dash of front main rotor gearbox that caused the accident (-6 if I remember) was removed from service and reverted to previous dash.

Basic airworthiness standards for all UK aircraft are now (from Sept 2003) the responsibility of EASA in Cologne, not CAA, and many AAIB recommendations are now directed to EASA as the resposible Authority. EASA is also in the process of taking responsibility for other areas of aviation regulation from National Authorities as we speak.

So, we look forward to good cooperation between AAIB, the local Authority (CAA) and EASA in identifying and playing their part in solving the cause of this truly tragic event.

Special 25

2nd Apr 2009, 11:44

The media (whilst often considered the enemy and certainly the subject of many a derogatory comment on here) actually have quite a good working relationship with the likes of Grampian Police and the MCA.

I know we all think they scour PPrune looking for evidence to fill their articles, but the fact is they knew the information regarding this disaster (and the basic facts of the Etap accident) long before it was published. The flight numbers, destination, origin and number of immediate fatalities was known pretty much within minutes of the accident, but the press held onto that information as the authorities asked them to.

How they chose to report the information they are allowed to release is a different matter and certainly open to debate !! Particularly with respect to the Etap accident which I thought was covered very badly - I have to say, with respect to this latest tragedy, they so far have managed to remain professional and long may it last.

SASless

2nd Apr 2009, 11:51

Two of the five losses were CFIT accidents....and can not blame the aircraft for that as they were perfectly sound aircraft until the pilots flew the thing into the water.

So you are dealing with three fatal accidents.

How many million flight hours is that for the fleet?

As to the passengers deciding to fly or not fly a particular type, model, build of aircraft.....then that is their choice.

If I was the travel coordinator I would book them passage on a work boat to and from the rig in lieu of flying them. Please to remember one set of workers cannot leave until their replacement arrives and the ride home is on their time off.

Overnight you would hear the complaining about the helicopter disappear and the whining would be about having to ride the boat out and be faced with a crane basket ride up to the rig.

Education programs about the safety of flying and the immediate release of as much information as can be done would go along way towards improving this perceived fear of particular aircraft being used. Perhaps providing tours of the helicopter maintenance shops would give them a better idea of how our industry works.

For someone to actually state there was no indication of a mechanical problem....challenges credulity!

Especially when there were folks who saw the aircraft hit the water in the manner it did. Perhaps he should have said he had no certain information about the cause at this tiime and would be releasing a statement as soon as there was enough to be able to provide a reliable summary.

Well Honey

2nd Apr 2009, 11:55

When Bolko refers to cougar helicopters, I'm assuming he's refering to the military variant of the Super Puma MkII, which is called a Cougar helicopter, and is operated in large numbers by numerous armed forces!

The MayDay call may have come from a vessel which witnessed the crash and was picked up by the coastguard who in turn scrambled all SAR assets available. My point here is that at this stage absolutely nothing is confirmed, and absolutely nothing will be confirmed for some time until preliminary results from the AAIB are published. Given that the wreckage still remains at the bottom of the sea and people are still very upset by the accident, at least wait until you have something concrete to talk about.

I was extremely frustrated by the utter cr@p that was bandied around over the ETAP accident! I know this is a rumour network but it is also meant for professional pilots and people working in avaitaion everywhere. We all know that the media know nothing and talk absolute p!$h, but hey, its there job to report, educate, speculate and talk p!$h as they are reporting a story to the general public who are largely ignorant of aviation matters. They don't need encouragement from people here who should know better! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Given the strict security checks surrounding every single person who travels offshore and the relatively small numbers who travel offshore (when compared to general commercial fixed wing transport), through the Vantage system, it is very easy and quick for the oil companies and police to contact the families involved directly. Vantage is a computer system which records a lot of information about each person travelling offshore, and is used by all oil and helicopter companies.Though its little comfort for relatives of others offshore at the time, no news is good news! The offshore bongo drums sound very rapidly and once news spread most people would contact home fairly sharpish to reassure relatives. My friends did.

helimutt

2nd Apr 2009, 11:59

I was told there was a Mayday call. :sad:

quichemech

2nd Apr 2009, 12:30

Well Honey.

"Cougar Helicopters."

See the thread about the poor soles who also lost their lives off shore Canada.

LastMinute

2nd Apr 2009, 12:45

quichemech: Well Honey was referring to bolkow's post here which suggested that the Cougar accident involved a Super Puma. Of the four incidents bolkow cited, only two actually involved an AS332L2.

philbky

2nd Apr 2009, 12:55

We are never aware of the flight numbers - we are given a check-in time to be at the heliport by & simply get onto the helicopter we are directed to.

My daughter was always aware of the flight my son in law was on.

Vantage is a computer system which records a lot of information about each person travelling offshore, and is used by all oil and helicopter companies.Though its little comfort for relatives of others offshore at the time, no news is good news! The offshore bongo drums sound very rapidly and once news spread most people would contact home fairly sharpish to reassure relatives. My friends did.

Vantage works for immediate relatives but there would be no need for the ""bongo drums" if the media gave more details.

Compare the way the media handle casualties in the armed forces. When they occur, the media give the location and the unit, invariably followed by "relatives have been made aware", i.e. the news only gets into the public domain after the relatives have been told..

An accident to an oil rig support helicopter is far more immediate and public to people in the UK than a specific loss of life in Afghanistan and without agreement from the media, a news blackout until relatives were informed would be difficult..

No-one should have to wait for Vantage to operate (which can take some time) or to have to operate on a "no news is good news" basis so I can see no reason for the flight details being witheld for so long.

Michael Birbeck

2nd Apr 2009, 13:13

I mentioned the media conspiracy theory that seems to permeate many of the threads on PPRUNE with a journalist/pilot friend of mine who works for a well known aviation journal (no names, no pack drill). He pointed out that any reputable journalist would have done exactly what he did reference this Puma down event, namely ring the Grampian police and the UK Coast Guard's press offices directly for the immediate facts of this ditching/crash. As a PPRUNE tyro I am impressed by the depth of knowledge available amongst the contributors and the good moderation that is evident here but still wonder at those who see bad intent at every corner. Am I being naive?

jock04

2nd Apr 2009, 13:14

From Sasless:

As to the passengers deciding to fly or not fly a particular type, model, build of aircraft.....then that is their choice.
If I was the travel coordinator I would book them passage on a work boat to and from the rig in lieu of flying them. Please to remember one set of workers cannot leave until their replacement arrives and the ride home is on their time off.
Overnight you would hear the complaining about the helicopter disappear and the whining would be about having to ride the boat out and be faced with a crane basket ride up to the rig.
ss:

If bullying pax aboard an aircraft they have concerns about is your idea of the way forward, many people would be glad you're not a travel co-ordinator! Sharing of information, and education, are the keys to pax confidence.

Shearwater - I've spent many years as travel co-ordinator/radio op. offshore. As information technology became more widely available, many of the guys would ask me their flight number the night before going home, to help those arranging to collect them from the heliport, work out which train or fixed wing they were likely to catch, etc etc. I know that's only relevant to inbound travel, but it's a fact none the less.

Through my job, I got to know many L2 pilots & winch crew, ground staff et al, along with hundreds of offshore workers. Of the pilots who became friends more than acquaintances, I'm still wary of making contact for information, as you just don't know if you're placing a call that would be entirely inappropriate & unwelcome. Living where I do, there is no North Sea grapevine. I would sooner eat my own arm than trust Sky News for accurate information. I hope there is understanding that, for many of us, this forum is one of the best places to find relevant info about people we care deeply about.

flyer43

2nd Apr 2009, 13:42

If bullying pax aboard an aircraft they have concerns about is your idea of the way forward, many people would be glad you're not a travel co-ordinator! Sharing of information, and education, are the keys to pax confidence.

Not sure how you translate SASless' comments into bullying passengers, he was simply stating fact. It is indeed up to passengers whether they accept to go on a particular helicopter flight. If they feel uncomfortable about it they can say so and, to the best of my knowledge, would never be bullied, coerced or whatever to get on board the helicopter. There would no doubt be the "subtle" pressure of possibly losing their job offshore if they didn't fly out, but they would never be forced to get on the helicopter.
Like SAS, I'm sure that the moaning would transfer from helicopters to boats and basket rides.

After any incident or major accident, the helicopter operator concerned normally sends out a team to the installation(s) directly connected with the situation and give a formal briefing about what happened and what is being done, has been done, about it in order to prevent recurrence. An open question session follows.
However, it is very difficult to share information with anybody until you have something tangible and substantiated to share.

Brown and Alcock

2nd Apr 2009, 13:42

Just a thought.

I watched this tragedy unfold yesterday in the media and on this site.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those involved and I will post this on the condolences site.

I know journalists are apparently the bane of the earth and, generally, I would agree. However, yesterday they had this well covered from the minute the aircraft went down. They were wll informed and well briefed by the major incident teams. There was nothing on this site that was of any real use that wasn't already in the public domain - vis the number of links to Sky, BBC and STV bulletins.

I would really question theh value of the chatter that follows every accident these days - particularly on this Professional Pilot's forum. I know this has been raised already and the post removed.

16 souls were lost yesterday afternoon. Spare a thought for those involved. Let the dust settle before you start your own ad hoc and, sometimes ill informed, speculation as to cause. The work 'vapid' was used yesterday by someone and until yesterday I didn't even know there was such a word - but, the writer may have been correct.

The facts so far.

Mayday - as yet unconfirmed whether this came from A/C or oil support vessel.
Rescue - was launched immediately by RIB.
The A/C appears to have broken up on contact with the sea. This does not appear to be a controlled ditching. It may not have been survivable according to eye witnesses.
Super Puma - Bond have temp grounded all Puma as a precuation. The accident earlier this year appears to be wholly unrelated save that it involved same operator and same type. This is not surpising when you consider number of flights flown per day out of ABZand the Numbers of Puma in use.

In the past I have lost some good friends and colleagues in similar circumstances and whilst knowing what happened and when is helpful in the long run I would like to see thread slike this moderated to remove much of the speculative, repetitive and fundamentally useless chit chat.

No doubt this post will also be removed!

lvgra

2nd Apr 2009, 13:42

BHS aircraft still in service (after the lost of Feb/o8): 2

BHS had 5 fatalities

jock04

2nd Apr 2009, 14:21

Flyer43
Sasless's post seemed cold & indifferent to the views of his pax.

"I'm a bit worried about flying in these L2's now"

"OK, lose 2 days of your leave & take a boat"

hardly a masterpiece of diplomacy! I'm not suggesting for a second that a flight be delayed every time someone gets nervous, I am suggesting that maybe a better flow of information would help alleviate those nerves.

Ref debriefings after incidents: I recall one flight I was on suffering a cracked windscreen & having to complete it's journey at 80kts. We were indeed debriefed at the heliport, and most would agree it was time & effort well spent. In that case, I think informing the pax involved was enough.

Another occassion, one of the flights I admin'ed, an S61, had a tail rotor incident as it arrived over the runway at ABZ. (about 10 years ago?)
Pax were debriefed on arrival, but a lot of the guys offshore had reservations about flying in 61's after that & there was little done to reassure them.
They may be called bears & tigers, but they're not cattle! I hope there will be clear & full disclosure when the incident has been fully investigated.

OneManBand

2nd Apr 2009, 14:57

For those of you like myself who were conerned, the names have now been released.

Current News & Appeals (http://www.grampian.police.uk/NewsItems.aspx?id=6&nid=1930&pid=30;33;13)

OMB

VeeAny

2nd Apr 2009, 15:24

Names of Crew in my post on the condolences thread, can't work out how to link to from the Mac though.

Paul Burnham and Richard Menzies were the crew may they RIP.

Ian Corrigible

2nd Apr 2009, 16:46

How many million flight hours is that for the fleet?
About 3.8 million FH.

I/C

Banksman

2nd Apr 2009, 17:09

So are the CAA now going to ground 332L2 fleet as had quite a few incidents in last few years like in Malaysia,Holland,Norway and now UK?:hmm:

Icer3

2nd Apr 2009, 20:00

I believe any such action would be taken by EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) as the responsible organisation, although CAA(UK) may still have some local powers to deal with local situations.

ericferret

2nd Apr 2009, 20:15

Ground them as they did the Boeing 777 post Heathrow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you look historically at crashes sadly flight crew error (and I'm not talking about this accident) is a common cause. Do we ground all aircraft flown by pilots!!!!!!!!!!!

Most North sea accidents for technical reasons have been one off accidents. Having just reread the accident report on the Chinook G-BWFC it is obvious just how thin the safety margin can be even when everyone thinks all the boxs have been ticked.

Complex machinery will always throw up the unexpected.

NorthSeaTiger

2nd Apr 2009, 20:26

the press conference stated none of the men had been on the 225.

NST

Tonka Toy

2nd Apr 2009, 23:22

Thanks Helicraig,

Out of interest I understand that fixed wing CG policy is not to initiate your PLB unless seperated from other crew members, saves, on clutter and battery power. Obviously, setting it off if alone even if in doubt. Wristband PLB's have always been a nightmare, I had just assumed they were a well stowed PLB that you had to want to set off and that wasn'y prone to accidents.:sad:

Camper Van Basten

3rd Apr 2009, 00:49

'Brown and Alcock' said ...
The facts so far.

Mayday - as yet unconfirmed whether this came from A/C or oil support vessel.
Rescue - was launched immediately by RIB.
The A/C appears to have broken up on contact with the sea. This does not appear to be a controlled ditching. It may not have been survivable according to eye witnesses.
Super Puma - Bond have temp grounded all Puma as a precuation. The accident earlier this year appears to be wholly unrelated save that it involved same operator and same type. This is not surpising when you consider number of flights flown per day out of ABZand the Numbers of Puma in use.

We can hardly call these facts, "unconfirmed", "appears", "same type"???

It was not the same type. And the harsh reality is this, whilst BP have relieved Bond of their contractual obligations for the time being, BP employees are still being moved to and from the North sea on L2 machines, albeit L2's painted in a different colour.

The two incidents involved different AC types, and vastly different circumstances.

People like us working in the business understand the differences, but Joe Public - watching the 'expert' media coverage - only see Red aircraft in the water.

:=

HeliComparator

3rd Apr 2009, 01:05

CvB

If you want to be picky, the L2 and the 225 are the same type, they are just different variants - at least for the purposes of pilot licencing.

HC

SASless

3rd Apr 2009, 01:57

Quote the rest of my post Jock.....the part where I talk about inviting folks into the hanger to see how we do business and work to break down the them and us attitude and the other suggestions I had for improving the situation overall.

If you wish to take the measure of a post....take a full measure.

But...if you don't like riding the helicopter to work there is an alternative means of transport....the boat. It is because the boat is the lesser choice is why the helicopters are in use instead of there being crew boats.

Variable Load

3rd Apr 2009, 03:20

Originally Posted by SASless
How many million flight hours is that for the fleet?

About 3.8 million FH.

I/C

3.8 million hours, for a fleet of 45 machines, half of which are less than 10 years old? :confused:

Ian Corrigible

3rd Apr 2009, 05:30

No, that figure was for the full fleet of 700+ Super Pumas, since the previous posts were mixing L1s and L2s. Haven't seen a breakdown for L2 hours only.

I/C

TipCap

3rd Apr 2009, 06:46

Maybe I am being naïve but to me there are significant differences between the AS332L, AS332L2 and the EC225. Yes, they are all the same family and all initially derived from the SA330J Puma but the media say that they are the "same" aircraft. IMHO, they aren't.

Yes FCL lump types together and I have S76A, B, C on my licence but I have only ever flown the S76A (Allison engine version). Wouldn't know what to do in a C model

Mind you though, I still have the Ws55s3 on my licence :)

L2driver

3rd Apr 2009, 08:11

Yes I agree, there are considerable differences between AS332L/L1, AS332L2 and EC225. An L/L1 pilot wouldn't know what to do in an L2 and an L2 pilot wouldn't know how to operate the EC225.
Incidentally, my JAA ATPL(H) issued in Norway separates L/L1 and L2., I'm qualified on both.:)

outhouse

3rd Apr 2009, 11:05

Sorry to make a comparisons between this recent tragedy and the Canadian one. The openness and concern showed by company and authority in Canada verses the seemingly colder and less informative approach in the UK.
O

L2driver

3rd Apr 2009, 11:33

I don't know much about how the company and the authorities handled the Canadian accident but I do think it is quite fantastic at this time to state: "Bond spokesman Dick Mutch said: "This is not an aircraft issue" (Daily Record) I hope he has been misinterpreted.
In my opinion, and I am not going to speculate further, it has everything to do with the aircraft.
Regarding the discussion on grounding, please read this constructive comment by Kieran Daly:

North Sea helicopter disaster: 'Very unusual for fleet to be ordered out of sky after mystery accident'

ANALYSIS

http://news.scotsman.com/images/1pixel_spacer.gif

Published Date: 03 April 2009
By Kieran Daly
THE type of Super Puma that crashed on Wednesday is considered to have a very good safety record and is well thought of, both by the North Sea operating community and by the offshore workforce.
The problem is the regulators now have an accident where the initial indications tend to point to a mechanical failure: something seems to have happened very suddenly and shows signs of having ended in a catastrophic impact.

It is very unusual for the regulatory authorities to ground a fleet of aircraft because of an unexplained accident.

They normally take mandatory grounding action only when they have discovered a definite fault that may affect other aircraft. The reason for that is experience shows most accidents are one-off events, or at least have unique aspects to them.

That said, there are accidents where there is a generic fault with the aircraft. There was an accident off the Canadian coast earlier this month involving a Sikorsky S-92 helicopter. This is arguably the most modern civil helicopter flying today.

Even though it's the latest and greatest helicopter, one of these crashed, with a loss of 17 lives, as a result of a failure of a single metal fastener in the main gearbox. The entire fleet, including those in the North Sea, were grounded until the operators had incorporated the technical fix.

The difficulty for Bond and BP is their workforces become very concerned about flying in the aircraft. So, realistically, it's difficult for Bond to do anything except ground them, whether they think there is a safety issue or not.

The important thing to realise about helicopters generally is that they have unique vulnerabilities that don't exist in conventional, fixed-wing aircraft.

Because the engines and the rotors are separate from each other, you need a pretty complex mechanism to transfer power from the engines to the rotors.

That mechanism is vulnerable to failure, and if it fails then it almost certainly has very serious consequences. That is a major reason why they have a poorer safety record than fixed-wing aircraft.

However, over the past ten to 15 years the industry has made enormous advances by using Health and Usage Monitoring Systems.

This consists of a series of detectors placed all over the helicopter. They look for tiny changes in the vibration of the helicopter from one flight to the next, which may give an early indication of a serious problem before it can cause a disaster, and it brings huge safety benefits. However, this makes it doubly disturbing if you do have an accident that is caused by mechanical failure.

But it is important to mention that experience shows, in every accident, the initial indicators can be misleading, so we will have to wait and see what the cause was.

I think the CAA probably will not ground the aircraft, but you don't have to be an expert to realise that if you are Bond then it is difficult to avoid because of emotional and industrial-relations reasons as much as any safety reason.

• Kieran Daly is the executive editor of Flight, publisher of Flight International, Airline Business and Air Transport Intelligence magazines.

Flyt3est

3rd Apr 2009, 14:01

Good article there, however one point I would add is that the HUMS is like any other tool, it is only as good as the operator. My issue with HUMS has always been that there are several different flavours, dependant on aircraft type, and ultimately the HUMS data is analysed in detail rarely.. i.e. after an incident, otherwise the crews download the memory card, wait for the all clear from the groundstation and off you go. Whilst the "HUMS Guru's" at the likes of Bristow, CHC, Norsk etc are all very well trained and very capable guys, Their expertise can only be brought to bear on isloated incidents, simply due to workload, so it os entirely possible for a developing defect to be missed until it is too late, since HUMS sensors and more importantly vibration thresholds are programmed to look for a specific defect, within a specified frequency band.. anything outside of that, and its up to the HUMS Manager to spot using experience and a bit of system knowledge. I mentioned earlier the Dauphin incident, where a main ring gear in the MRGB cracked, this was a previously unheard of failure mode, but when the data was examined retrospectively, there it was.. for all to see. The upshot was that the monitoring system was updated to include the new failure mode, but only after a serious incident. (My use of "incident" rather than "Accident" is because I can't recall which aircraft was invloved.. French operator I think, but don't want to over dramatise)

Can anyone shed any light on the "Unsupervised Machine learning" HUMS technology that Smiths were working on? This was a system which used Neural networks and data cluster / mining techniques to constantly update its own thresholds. Did it ever evolve into a useable system? I ask because I have been out of North Sea ops for 3 or 4 years now, and I'm not up to speed with the very latest.

My point being monitoring is a good diagnostic tool, and it has contributed greatly to safety in offshore Helicopters.. Its just not fail-safe.

jock04

3rd Apr 2009, 14:30

Sasless,
I agree the rest of your post was more understanding, for want of a better word.
But that just made your opening gambit all the more confusing & indeed unpalatable.

In any case, probably best to move on.

John R81

3rd Apr 2009, 16:00

Times article

Desperate mayday emerges from doomed helicopter - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6030549.ece)

April 3, 2009
Desperate mayday emerges from doomed helicopter

Lindsay McIntosh

The final desperate message transmitted by the doomed Bond Offshore helicopter just moments before it plunged into the North Sea was revealed today.

The last seconds of the 14 passengers and two crew emerged as specialist recovery vehicles combed the seabed for the remains of the craft. The bodies of the eight men who have not yet been found are believed to be trapped inside the Super Puma which crashed off the coast of Aberdeenshire on its return from BP's Miller oilfield on Wednesday.

Before it dropped into the sea in "a hard landing", the captain managed to sound a mayday which was heard by all boats and helicopters in the area at the time. One pilot, who asked not to be named, said he heard: "Mayday, mayday - oh, f***". Then, there was only silence.

The pilot said: "Normally the crew would say 'mayday, mayday, mayday' and then provide any other information they could, including their position, what had gone wrong if they knew this and any action they intended to take."
He said that some of the pilots who were in the air when they heard the message have since been too distressed to fly. About 60 workers on the Miller platform have also been too upset to work and 19 of them have already been flown home.

Tributes to the men continued to come in today, but some family members said they were unhappy with the way they had heard the news of the tragedy. Brogan Taylor, 18, lost her father Leslie, 41. She said she learned about his death through a family friend. She called for a thorough inquiry to ensure no other families had to endure what she had.

Meanwhile, recovery vessel Vigilante, chartered by Air Accident investigators, arrived at the crash site this morning. It was carrying specialist sonar equipment to locate the wreckage and remove it from the seabed. A spokeswoman for the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), which has 13 staff working on the case, said investigations were continuing at the scene.
They will spend the next few days taking statements from those who heard or saw the accident, including those aboard the Normand Aurora, which was three miles from the scene of the crash. They will be helped by video footage taken by RAF rescue helicopters which has been handed over to Grampian Police. Investigators will also visit the Miller platform.

Yesterday, police named 15 of the men who died. Expro North Sea, PSN and Sparrows Offshore each employed one of them. The two crew were employed by Bond and 10 of the workers were KCA Deutag staff. The other passenger is thought to be from Latvia and another KCA Deutag employee, although his family are still being located.

Ian Morrison, 45, who works for KCA Deutag, returned to Aberdeen last night. He told today how he had intended to take the fatal flight home but stayed on the Miller platform for an extra 24 hours to cover a shift.

He said: "Some of the personnel, like drilling, are being down manned. There's a general consensus that there is no way the guys are going to be able to focus on their work.

"Morale on the platform has obviously been hit hard. In think there is just a general feeling of devastation, and I think people realise how easily it could have been them. A lot of guys felt there was no way they could go out and work again so quickly because so many of them had connections with the guys."

He said he had previously flown on the helicopter which crashed and should have been on it on the night it crashed 14 miles northeast of Peterhead. He decided to stay on board the rig just over an hour before the helicopter began its journey back to Aberdeen.

"Those guys were all my crew and I should have been on that chopper as well," he said. "I was asked about an hour and a half before the flight took off if I would be prepared to stay on for another shift.

"My name was at one point on that list, and I feel extremely fortunate I was asked to stay. I remember thinking it would be good to get back home, but for some reason I thought I would stay and do the extra work."

Mr Morrison said he had already received some counselling but was finding it hard to sleep.

keithl

3rd Apr 2009, 17:13

I have not posted here for months, but that really cannot pass!

I hope the "pilot who asked not to be named" is discovered and outed and appropriately dealt with. Would he want his own final "desperate calls" to be published to the world?

All right, lots of people heard the mayday - but it was a fellow pilot who broke the code.

outhouse

3rd Apr 2009, 17:36

Please don’t get carried away. A Mayday is a call to the outside word for help, it informs and starts a process of assistance it is also a way of informing the word of your problem and what you are doing to try and resolve it.
It is not a desperate call to be honoured as a last communication, let the world know, it may help some other poor sod in the future.
O

doyll

3rd Apr 2009, 18:13

so because the press says it was a pilot they quoted it's now a fact it was a pilot who leaked it?? Yeah, right!!

Low Flier

3rd Apr 2009, 18:35

A Mayday call is a broadcast. You really can't expect to censor a broadcast. Not afterwards, anyway.

As for the Anglo-Saxon expletive at the end: it's not the first time that word has been transcribed from the final moments of a CVR or ATC recording and it certainly will happen again.

Please, let's not get pansy about the reality of what actually happens in fatalities. Please let's not bowdlerise reality, other than with a few indicative asterisks for the usual four letter words which almost invariably occur in such immediacies.

Please let's not confuse or blur reality with some kind of imagery of fragrant Ophelia floating down the Don covered with rose petals, instead of facing the bloody nasty reality of what has occurred.

There is a religious incantation thread elsewhere for that queazy stuff.

Brom

3rd Apr 2009, 19:00

It serves no purpose to 'Leak' the mayday call to the press, it would no doubt have been mentioned in the inquest and AAIB report that will follow in the course of time. However, has the 'Feckwit' pilot who asked not to be named (if I find out who it was I'll name and shame them on this site) considered the impact of their actions on the families concerned? I doubt it. The families would, as I said, have learned of this at the inquest. In the meantime I would ask the feckwit pilot concerned to think before engaging mouth and don't add to the grief of those who grieve.

Low Flier

3rd Apr 2009, 19:41

'Leak' the mayday call

"Leak" a broadcast to the Press? Oh Puhleeze!

don't add to the grief of those who grieve

Reality does not "add" to the grief of those who grieve. They are already grieving over reality. That is what the grieving process is.

Blocking out reality, such as by trying to block out the reality of a short and expressive broadcast, does not block out grief. Such blocking does not shorten the grieving process at all.

Troglodita

3rd Apr 2009, 20:27

KeithL,

I hope the "pilot who asked not to be named" is discovered and outed and appropriately dealt with. Would he want his own final "desperate calls" to be published to the world?

All right, lots of people heard the mayday - but it was a fellow pilot who broke the code.

Personally I find the "leaked" Mayday call which I note that you do not discount as false as extremely illuminating and also quite horrific at the same time.

I have also avoided commenting for several weeks on the previous Bond ditching (as a long time close friend of the Captain involved since 1971) and the Cougar crash but feel that the apparent leak about the Mayday call (if true) is possibly the most relevant comment amongst all the sanctimonious drivel that precedes almost any accident discussion on this forum.
IMHO - I wouldn't give a **** if my final Mayday call was made public if it indicated that something catastrophic beyond my ability to control was taking place and I didn't even have the time to communicate the nature of the problem. If nothing else transpires - it gives the AAIB the impetus to dig until they find out what broke.

Are we pilots trying to survive in this World that we have chosen to inhabit or a bunch of Freemason-like individuals with some kind of mindset where we consider anyone who dares speak to the press a fellow pilot who broke the code.

Trog

deltayankee

3rd Apr 2009, 20:28

A Mayday call is a broadcast

Don't agree. It is a radio transmission but it is not a "broadcast" in the sense of BBC Radio but, officially at least, limited only to people who need to know. It is effectively a private communication that should be shared perhaps with the police, the AAIB and other interested parties. But there is no public interest in telling it to the tabloids. It does not add to our understanding of the causes of the accident. It would be enough to say that the mayday call was cut off.

outhouse

3rd Apr 2009, 21:31

I will make one comment and then depart this rather odd discussion.
Back in 1972 I made a mayday call; I expected the whole world to be informed and was looking for help.
Seems some now would expect a rather different response a humble and respectful attitude, only those in the know to be informed and we would not want to upset the relations so would keep it secret.
In my case this attitude would have been less than helpful, I and my crew made it, but only because my mayday was open knowledge. A fishing boat had picked up a news broadcast on its radio giving the estimated position I had given. A good end result, never did confirm the reason for the transmission failure but the Pacific is rather deep so never will.
O
:\

SASless

3rd Apr 2009, 22:30

Any radio transmission made to all stations which a Mayday call certainly is....is not protected speech.

I do not feel announcing the content of a Mayday call is inherently evil, wrong, or worthy of criticism.

As some have said....it provides some insight into the situation.

In a tight situation one morning I made three text book perfect Mayday calls....according to my flying buddy who was up that morning as well. I did not recall even making the calls..much less what the content was.

Under severe stress we say things that are driven by the circumstances.

Assuming the wording is correct then a very distinct message was relayed by the pilot making that Mayday call.

We all wish we could be as level headed as the PSA 727 pilot who died in the San Diego mid-air.....when he made his final radio call as the 727 was rolling inverted just prior to striking the ground......"Ma...I love you!"

I find this message to be very moving.....there's one of our brothers realizing what has happened and there is no hope left. Could very well have been me.

My thoughts and prayers are with the family and those lost.

Phil77

3rd Apr 2009, 22:31

...thanks for sharing outhouse.

I'm not sure if everybody else is concerned about the expletive used, or the general idea that the mayday call has been released by the press. I wouldn't care either if my last call made it to the public - definitely not if something can be learned from it.
I suggest the call indicates a severe situation the pilots could not handle, but not a disintegration of some sort, because the resulting g-forces most likely would lead to not being able to even voice the last word.

RIP.

FrustratedFormerFlie

3rd Apr 2009, 23:13

No fan of media dramatisation, and would usually condemn. but consider this. If you were the wife of one of the crew or pax, that truncated Mayday is the best proof yet that your husband was the victim of a shockingly sudden and catastrophic accident and death. There can be comfort in such a revelation of sudden and immediate end - on this occasion at least, though I wouldnt call it licence for all such releases of last words.

Flyt3est

3rd Apr 2009, 23:46

Yet another accident thread that descends into "everyone keep quiet blah blah, press vultures blah blah pilots code blah blah" What a load of self righteous BS.

Damn sure if I croaked, I doubt my brother or mum and Dad would be surfing pprune in the aftermath anyway...

And before anyone mentions grief, I have been in the position of facing the press following the death of a close one, and yes I kept my trap shut, but for no other reason than at the time I had no interest in TV, newspapers or anything else. I had no interest in reading newspaper reports or TV stories about the accident. My choice, I knew where the story would be discussed and chose to avoid it. I think most people are savvy enough to make the same choice, either you want to know or you don't.

This is supposed to be an aviation forum for open annonymous discussion is it not? I am amazed at how many people are Type Rated on "What is in public interest and what is not" The thread title is pretty specific.. Isn't it inviting comment specific to accident related information? You could always just ban such threads, that will save a lot of arguments.:oh:

And I thought we lived in a democracy with freedom of speech..:rolleyes:

Arnie Madsen

4th Apr 2009, 04:14

The last words "Oh F*** " actually tell us a lot about the way pilot saw his situation at the last moment. Quite revealing

It is a good thing he didn't use some of the words we all posted here such as
-Anglo-Saxon expletive
-pansy
-bowdlerise
-indicative asterisks
-immediacies
-fragrant Ophelia
-sanctimonious drivel
-Freemason-like individuals

Because we would all be phoning our English teachers trying to figure out the meaning. In an instant any pilot or media knows what Oh F*** implies. And it is not autorotation. .

dipperm0

4th Apr 2009, 05:50

Any idea the sea depth at the crash site ?

D0

Low Flier

4th Apr 2009, 06:19

I haven't got precise co-ords of the exact location, but looking at the boustrophedontical search pattern being sailed by the seabed search vessel Vigilant (http://www.shipais.com/showship.php?mmsi=244891000), it looks like it's about 040° 17nm from Peterhead.

The water depth there is approx 300' below Chart Datum, ie 300' plus the tidal height. This is well within the normal working parameters for work-class ROVs and is shallow enough for very high accuracy mapping of the debris field.

HeliEng

4th Apr 2009, 06:23

Can anyone advise what sort of altitude the aircraft would have been at at that point in the flight?

Thanks

Helieng

Droopy

4th Apr 2009, 07:57

Low flier, how long have you been patiently waiting for the chance to use "boustrophedontical"?

GKaplan

4th Apr 2009, 08:07

HeliEng,

standard inbound altitude would be 2000 feet.

HeliEng

4th Apr 2009, 08:17

GKaplan,

Thanks very much

mitchaa,

Are all recorded parameters monitored or only certain ones?

Low Flier

4th Apr 2009, 09:22

Droopy,

I used that Scrabble-winning word to tease Arnie Madsen.

For forum-members (edited to add that for some reason the forum censors its own name!) who didn't click on the link soon after I made that post, I should explain that the vessel was bimbling up and down on North/South headings at about 4 knots. That type of search pattern shows that the ship was still engaged in the first phase of the search and was almost certainly using multibeam swathe-sounding sonar and towing a side-scan sonar towfish. It's quite possible that they were also using a laser line-scan to produce near photo quality imagery to augment the high-res 500kHz side-scan data though I suspect tht they may not have had time to mobilise that very specialised bit of kit.

Since that post the vessel has clearly completed that phase and is currently underway to Peterhead to prepare for the ROV phase of the search and recovery op.

The data obtained in phase one will be used to determine the chronological priorities for the ROV phase. I don't know whether a decision has been made whether or not to use live divers to assist in the recovery. If I were a gambling man (I'm not!) I'd wager a McPoond that they will use divers because of the sensitivity of respectfully recovering the human remains and to assist in slinging complex-shaped, large, fragile and very important items of wreckage.

I'm not speculating here; merely sharing a little insight which results from having been very deeply involved in dozens of such grim operations.

I would expect the ensuing priorities to be as follows:
One: Respectful recovery of human remains
Two: CVR/DFDR and HUMS boxes
Three: Selected items of debris, to be prioritised by the AAIB Inspector

Flyt3est

4th Apr 2009, 10:00

Mitchaa

"An alert over a threshold will be reported by the line engineer on download "

You missed my point mate, HUMS is only useful IF the failure happens to be a parameter monitored by the HUMS and for which there is a threshold set. Thankfully failures which are not detectable by a HUMS threshold are reducing, but all the same, they are still there. Thats not a negative reflection on the engineers at any organization, merely a limitation of HUMS.

HeliEng

4th Apr 2009, 10:26

Fly3est,

Is that not what happened to the Chinook? The HUMS clues were there but they were not monitoring that parameter and/or were unsure of what that parameter "should" be doing?

Apologies if I'm incorrect, just what vaguely recalls from the memory :uhoh:

GenuineHoverBug

4th Apr 2009, 10:28

It might be of interest to some to have a look at the Norwegian AAIBs report on the fatal AS332L1 (LN-OPG) accident in 1997. Not that I have any reason to think there is any similarity whatsoever in what happened, but since HUMS has come up, this is a sobering reminder to all that think new equipment automatically makes a huge difference to the level of safety.

Appendix 2 to the report on page 27 shows the HUMS recordings for the relevant area. They indicate an increase in vibration levels for almost the last 100 hours before the accident. HUMS data is analysed in chapter 2.3.6 on page 105 of the main report and HUMS use in chapter 2.10 on page 151.

The english version of the report and appendices may be found here: Havarikommisjonen (http://www.aibn.no/default.asp?MARK_SEARCH=YES&SEARCH_ID=1&V_ITEM_ID=247)

piggi

4th Apr 2009, 11:32

Fly3est

If you refer to the tragic Chinook (234) accident in 86, there were no HUMS installed at the time. It was not "invented" yet. There were discussions as to if oil analysis did show a development or not. HUMS were first introduced in the north sea in 87 and 88. The HUMS was then installed on the Norwegian Chinooks for the duration of the operation until 95, and several cases proved it worked. XMSN's were pulled on HUMS indications alone (single gear tooth issue), cross shaft coupling bolts with missing heads detected twice and flights cancelled, also SOAP analysis trending with samples every 25 proved important and resulted in cancelled flight (impending gen drive shaft brg failure) HUMS is a great additional surveillance tool, but it does require continuous expert judgement and experience databases for comparisons. It is not and i believe it will never become a simple go - nogo box.

GenuineHoverBug

4th Apr 2009, 12:01

VHM, which could probably be described as a part of the "H" of the HUMS, is required at least in the UK and Norway.

And what is required is not just to fit the VHM, but to use it to monitor and discover problems in the gearbox/powertrain.

Variable Load

4th Apr 2009, 14:46

There were discussions as to if oil analysis did show a development or not.

The SOAP trends on 'FCs failed gearbox were increasing rapidly prior to the accident. In fact some of the metals were well above BAH's internal alert levels. The gearbox remained in service as the levels being recorded were still below that recommended by Boeing in the MM.

The aircraft was to be positioned from Shetland to Aberdeen the next day for a gearbox change. Tragically it never made it.

It is surprising how similar this was to the Norne Super Puma crash. In that monitoring tools were being used, they were saying something was wrong, but unfortunatley the wrong decisions were made.

VeeAny

4th Apr 2009, 16:06

It would appear the Vigilant has returned and the Bibby Topaz has now sailed to the recovery site.

Hopefully soon we will have more news Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions (http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?mmsi=372294000&centerx=-1.415417&centery=57.67295&zoom=10&type_color=0)

HeliEng

4th Apr 2009, 16:24

I see the AAIB have made a press statement, nothing earth shattering though.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Press%20Statement%204%20April%202009.pdf

SASless

4th Apr 2009, 16:27

mtoroshanga

4th Apr 2009, 16:30

I sugest that you research the capabilities of IHUMS before making comment. I have never worked for Bond but am sure that no-one there would release an aircraft with any doubtful IHUMS readings.Helicopter Services did so to their cost. If you do not know what you are talking about keep quite!!!!

GenuineHoverBug

4th Apr 2009, 17:19

How one would wish that life was that simple!

The IHUMS, at least in the 90's, has very few capabilities in itself. But it, and other similar monitoring devices, has a huge potential provided it's use is managed in an appropriate manner. That was missing in Helikopter Service prior to 1997.

Variable Load

4th Apr 2009, 22:11

The SOAP trends on 'FCs failed gearbox were increasing rapidly prior to the accident. In fact some of the metals were well above BAH's internal alert levels. The gearbox remained in service as the levels being recorded were still below that recommended by Boeing in the MM.
Rapidly getting worse?

I can recall plotting the levels for Muir Parker, Engineering Director, for the subsequent inquest. The levels were getting worse, and of course 'rapidly' is somewhat subjective, but I think it is an accurate statement.

Flyt3est

5th Apr 2009, 04:07

Guys,

no I wasn't referring to the Chinook.. that was a little before my (and HUMS) time.. :O

The Norwegian report highlights my point adequately.:ok:

tonkaplonka

5th Apr 2009, 12:03

BBC NEWS | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Crash helicopter wreckage found (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7984332.stm)
Confirmation of finding the wreckage.

Droopystop

5th Apr 2009, 12:29

The Scottish edition of the Sunday Times is giving the L2 a bit of a kicking....

Times online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6036215.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1)

Special 25

5th Apr 2009, 12:34

According to the BBC Teletext Service, the wreckage of the Super Puma has been found 100m down on the sea bed by the vessel Bibby Topaz.

Lets hope calm seas aid a speedy recovery so that we can get some much needed information and answers, and also a chance for several families to be able to lay their loved ones to rest.

FrustratedFormerFlie

5th Apr 2009, 12:40

Text of Grampian Police Press Release shortly after 1300 Sunday

North Sea Helicopter Emergency: Grampian Police confirm further bodies recovered
Grampian Police, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and others continue to work on the recovery and identification of the victims from the Super Puma helicopter crash on Wednesday 1 April 2009.

As a result of the ongoing effort, 7 of the remaining 8 victims have been recovered by divers onto a vessel at the scene.

It is believed likely that two of those recovered are the Pilot and Co-Pilot, Paul Burnham and Richard Menzies.

The search operation for the last remaining body continues.

Families of all the victims have been informed of the current situation.

As before, Grampian Police and COPFS can reassure the families and friends of all the victims, and the wider public, that the detailed work to confirm all identities remains of the highest priority and is being pursued as quickly as possible.

NOTE TO EDITORS: Grampian Police are currently unable to provide any information where and when the bodies are being brought ashore. When this information becomes available a further release will follow.

LTNABZ

5th Apr 2009, 15:02

Oil workers boycott helicopter - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6036809.ece)

From The Sunday Times

April 5, 2009
Oil workers boycott helicopter

Calls are mounting for all Super Puma AS 332L2s to be grounded amid safety fears following crashes in the North Sea and Brazil

Mark Macaskill and Julia Belgutay

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } FEARS have been raised over the safety of the type of helicopter that crashed into the North Sea last week, killing 16 people, after it emerged that oil workers in South America staged a six month boycott of the aircraft last year.
Members of the Brazilian Oil Workers’ Federation (FUP) refused to board any Super Puma AS 332L2 from February following an accident in the South Atlantic, which happened in circumstances similar to last week’s crash.
The helicopter was forced to ditch into the ocean 68 miles off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, killing five of the 17 passengers and crew on board. The cause has still not been determined.
It followed two other fatal accidents involving the same type of aircraft in the South China Sea in January 2007 and November 2006.
The Brazilian offshore workers ended their boycott in September following a report on the crash from Petrobras, the state-owned oil company.
Aberdeen-based Bond Offshore Helicopters, which owned the Super Puma L2 which crashed into the sea about 14 miles off the Aberdeenshire coast on Wednesday, immediately suspended use of all L2s. Eurocopter, manufacturers of the aircraft, denied there was an issue with its safety.
Yesterday union leaders on both sides of the Atlantic called for all L2s to be grounded until the cause of the Scottish crash is known. “The best practice would be to ground this type of craft until after a full investigation of the accident,” said Jose Maria Rangel, co-ordinator for the Sindipetro union, which is affiliated with the FUP.
He added: “Of all the aircraft that Petrobras use, the Super Puma L2 is the one that has the most problems. Its cost/benefit ratio is terrible as it spends so much time on the ground with mechanical problems. After the accident last year union members boycotted it.
“After six months Petrobras presented us with a report that claimed evidence of mechanical problems with the craft was inconclusive. Workers started to use the Super Puma L2 again but feel less safe on this aircraft than others and even today there are times when workers will refuse to board it.”
Jake Molloy, general secretary of the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee, said: “We think it is appropriate to ground that particular model until we find out why it just fell out of the sky. It’s difficult \ to hold the position the model is safe seeing as they have just lost an aircraft.
“With three fatal crashes in recent years, that will raise further concern especially as the cause of the crash in Brazil still hasn’t been determined.”
Efforts to recover the wreckage of the Super Puma in the North Sea were continuing yesterday amid speculation that a “catastrophic” mechanical failure caused the accident. The bodies of eight men have not yet been recovered.
Officials from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch are keen to retrieve the aircraft’s black box which is likely to yield clues. A three-man team has been sent by Eurocopter, the French manufacturer of the Super Puma 332L2, to Aberdeen to assist the investigation.
The Queen sent a letter of condolence to the families of the victims. Gordon Brown, the prime minister, and Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, also expressed their sorrow.

206Fan

5th Apr 2009, 15:31

Black Box recovered aswel!

BBC NEWS | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Helicopter crash black box found (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7984332.stm)

All bodies recovered after crash

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45636000/jpg/_45636066_pilotscomposite.jpg
The bodies of Mr Menzies (left) and Mr Burnham were among those found

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

Those who died in North Sea crash (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7981608.stm)

All 16 bodies and the black box flight recorder have been recovered from a helicopter that crashed in the North Sea, killing everyone on board.
The wreckage of the Super Puma was located on the sea bed by the Bibby Topaz salvage vessel.
The helicopter crashed off the Aberdeenshire coast on Wednesday.
By Monday morning, all bodies are expected to have been brought ashore. Grampian Police said that families of victims had been kept informed.
Provide clues
On Sunday evening, investigators said they found the last remaining body.
Earlier, Grampian Police said they believed two of the recovered bodies were the pilot and co-pilot, Paul Burnham, 31, from Methlick in Aberdeenshire, and Richard Menzies, 24, of Droitwich Spa in Worcestershire.

The force also said it would be setting up an incident support centre at Aberdeen's Hilton Treetops Hotel on Monday to provide assistance to those affected by the tragedy.
The Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) said the cockpit voice and flight data recorder had been found and taken to its headquarters in Farnborough.
It was hoped the recorder - often referred to as the aircraft's black box - would provide clues to what caused the crash.
The AAIB said some helicopter wreckage had already been taken on board the Bibby Topaz, and efforts were ongoing to lift the remainder from the sea bed.
The helicopter was said to have been lying about 100m under the surface. It had been returning from BP's Miller oil platform when it crashed some 15 miles off Peterhead at 1400 BST on Wednesday.
It was operated by British firm Bond Offshore Helicopters. BP has said it had discontinued use of the helicopters for an unspecified period.
Diving teams had been working at the scene of the crash since Saturday afternoon trying to locate the wreckage and the cockpit voice and data recorder.
Prayers for the dead men were said at a special service at the St Nicholas Kirk in Aberdeen on Sunday morning.
'Learn lessons'
Rev Andrew Jolly, chaplain to the UK oil and gas industry, told the service: "We cannot begin to imagine the pain and sorrow their loved ones feel at their loss.
"The offshore world is a big industry but a small family. When any tragedy strikes, it is felt by all those who work offshore and onshore.
"This great city of Aberdeen has taken this industry to its heart and has stood in silence and shared its sorrow and pain over the years."
Rev Jolly also paid tribute to David Stephenson, who lost his life in a separate accident on the Well Servicer diving support vessel in the North Sea, also on Wednesday.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "The recovery of more bodies is sad, but hopefully it can provide some little comfort and solace for grieving families.
"We know that it's vital that the helicopter is found to try and find out what caused the crash and to learn lessons and seek to avoid further tragedies.
"I know the emergency services have been working extremely hard and doing their absolute best to make sure all the bodies are recovered and identified as quickly as possible."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45634000/jpg/_45634601_ship+photo+bibby+topaz.jpg The Bibby Topaz is above the wreckage of the Super Puma

Grampian Police said on Saturday night they had identified all eight of the bodies which had been recovered by that stage.
The bodies of Brian Barkley, 30, of Aberdeen; James Edwards, 33, of Liverpool; Vernon Elrick, 41, of Aberdeen; and Mihails Zuravskis, 39, from Latvia, were identified on Saturday. All four men were employed by KCA Deutag.
Raymond Doyle, 57, from Cumbernauld; Nairn Ferrier, 40, from Dundee; Warren Mitchell, 38, of Oldmeldrum, Aberdeenshire; and Stuart Wood, 27, from Aberdeen, had been formally identified the previous day.
Mr Doyle and Mr Ferrier also worked for KCA Deutag. Mr Wood was employed by Expro North Sea, while Mr Mitchell was employed by Weatherford UK.
Among the other men who died were four further KCA Deutag employees - Nolan Carl Goble, 34, of Norwich; Gareth Hughes, 53, of Angus; David Rae, 63, of Dumfries and Leslie Taylor, 41, of Kintore, Aberdeenshire.
James Costello, 24, from Aberdeen, who worked for contractor PSN, and Alex Dallas, 62, also from Aberdeen, who was employed by Sparrow Offshores Services, also died.

outhouse

5th Apr 2009, 17:46

Maybe I have been out of the loop during my travels over the last few days. Have the operators made any statement or held a press conference? Have they made any meaningful comment? Have the authorities given an informed comment? Can we expect an update soon?
Guess the system of no information still rules, I really wish the UK authorities would join the real world.
:sad:

PPRuNe Radar

5th Apr 2009, 18:28

Have the authorities given an informed comment? Can we expect an update soon?

Guess the system of no information still rules, I really wish the UK authorities would join the real world.

The AAIB have made regular press statements, giving factual information about what they know as it comes available, and what is being done in terms of the investigation. No statement has any causal details, because that would be second guessing at this early stage.

Indeed, how can you expect them to comment on the crash in any detail when they are still in the process of recovering the aircraft wreckage and flight recorders ? As has happened in previous accidents, an initial report will be made public when the evidence has been examined, but not before.

Are you saying that other countries would have recovered the wreckage in a more timely manner from an environment like the North Sea, and would have already published a report ?? Of course not.

pitchlink

5th Apr 2009, 18:54

Outhouse,

RADAR's comments are fair with regard to an official verdict. However, I believe the operator has still not retracted or re-assessed their view that there is no evidence of mechanical failure of the airframe. I await to be corrected on this by those closer to the incident.:ugh:

DOUBLE BOGEY

5th Apr 2009, 19:45

The issue in the case of this accident is there is no evidence at all until the relevant items have been recovered from the seabed and analysed.

The last ditching (225) we had 2 walking and talking crew to give at least a summary of what went on.

I think it is a little unfair to trash the Bond Manager who stated there was no evidence of mechanical failure. I think the VT was edited to remove the Question that prompted the response. What I beleive he meant is that there was nothing immediatley apparant to indicate what kind of mechanical failure had occurred, ie crew RT call, HUMs trace etc.

I think it is probably obvious that something mechanical and catastrophic has occurred and as a current L2 driver I am, like everyone else, desperatley keen to know what it was, but the only way we will know for sure is when the AAIB do their stuff.

I am very saddened not only by the fate of the crew and passengers but the individuals on this forum that yet AGAIN decided to post deeply sensitive information about the MAYDAY call. Just because the newspapers reported it why should the pain by deepened by (what is supposed to be aviators) on this forum repeating it for their own self gratification.

Callous, uncaring, inconsiderate, craven vultures that they are!!!

I only hope they will be called to account for their remarks when they visit the big hangar in the sky!!

DB

LastMinute

5th Apr 2009, 19:58

Have the authorities given an informed comment?
Guess the system of no information still rules, I really wish the UK authorities would join the real world.
AAIB press releases here (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/latest_news/index.cfm).
Grampian Police press releases here (http://www.grampian.police.uk/NewsItems.aspx?id=6&pid=30;33;13).
CAA press release here (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n).

maxwelg2

5th Apr 2009, 20:50

I was shocked to hear of this latest tragedy, I used to work on Miller back in '91 and remember one helo MGB failure with the same operator in '92 that had to crash-land on the un-commissioned helideck. Quite an unpleasant experience for the pilots and PAX, luckily they all came out of it OK.

I also see the media hounds have picked up the Brazil AS332L2 crash unknown cause issue from last February.

Question, why has there been no definitive conclusion on that particular failure after more than a year? Is it to do with the Brazilian regulators? Surely the operator must know by now what went wrong, why not share this data?

My main reason for asking is that I may have to fly in a AS332L2 as soon as next week over here in Canada. I'm running out of helos I can trust....information sharing is vital to secure confidence in PAX as well as pilots.

Porrohman

5th Apr 2009, 21:54

maxwelg2

5th Apr 2009, 23:21

Were there any reports of migrating birds in the area around the time of the accident? e.g. about 24,000 barnacle geese migrate from the Solway Firth to Svalbard via Norway at about this time of the year.

Porrohman, good point, these birds apparently fly anywhere from 2100 to 6600 feet, so a multiple bird strike is one possibility with an estimated 2000 feet inbound altitude.

We'll know more once the FDR/VDR is interrogated and the investigation team have a chance to make a preliminary examination of the recovered wreckage.

Here's to a quick answer so we can all move on...

P1V1T1

5th Apr 2009, 23:42

YEAH ! I hit a few flamingos at SHD . Do us all a favor leave it to the experts and stop speculating . I have to say that in the last few months i've seen a real dark side to this website .I think it should be canned

Why NOT condolences ! , could someone explain this ? We've all lost colleagues that day and a little !@#$ decides that we cant express our condolences .
Instead they want the facts so all the reporters have something to run with .

Not venting , would like an honest answer .

Senior Pilot

5th Apr 2009, 23:49

Why NOT condolences ! , could someone explain this ? We've all lost colleagues that day and a little !@#$ decides that we cant express our condolences .
Instead they want the facts so all the reporters have something to run with .

Not venting , would like an honest answer .

Maybe you missed Post No 47 (http://www.pprune.org/4831830-post47.html)?

There is a condolences thread (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/368357-bond-puma-01-apr-2009-condolences.html) should you wish to post there.

P1V1T1

6th Apr 2009, 00:12

SASless

6th Apr 2009, 01:13

I think having a dedicated thread for condolences following a tragedy like this one is quite proper. Folks can post their offers of condolence to the victim's families, post poems, photos, remembrances of good times shared and the like and if a victim's family cared to download and copy or print the postings they would all be in one thread.

Thank you for doing that SP....wise move in my view!

Senior Pilot

6th Apr 2009, 01:23

Thanks for the reply Senior but post 47 is a total contradiction .

"Anyone who is not touched by this tragedy is in the minority. There were, however, a number of posts which would be better in a separate thread"

Quote explained
"We dont care what you think we want the dirty gossip . Condolences are a waste of time ."

Senior i've followed this thread and was humbled when so many people offered their condolences. It made me proud to be a pilot .

Now since this thread has been changed it shows how many desk pilots are really out their . Best of luck guys , enjoy simulator X.

GET A LIFE

Apart from your crass rudeness, I will take exception to your rant. The Condolences thread was started 8 hours after the first post: we're not online all the time, otherwise it would have been earlier. This is not unusual for accidents with so much interest, Colin McCrae's accident springs to mind.

If you have followed this thread, etc, as you say, then why have you decided to make an issue after another 4 days? If you're after an argument, please take it somewhere else. This thread is not the place. Meanwhile, your condolences would be appreciated in the right thread.

malabo

6th Apr 2009, 03:53

maxwelg, there are no L2's in Canada -unless you have real interesting rumor information you can share. Of course, everything else you could fly instead of an L2 has also crashed at least once, so I hope you didn't have your heart set on a flying a helicopter type that has never crashed.

Never heard the Brazilian L2 had any mechanical problem, I wonder where that information is coming from. The Malaysians had a streak of poor maintenance decimating their 332 fleet but everything else has been pilot error of some sort, and to most of us proving the reliability of the L2. Our surprise at a mechanical issue downing this L2 is the reason we are all so interested in the cause of this latest crash. If we were all satisfied just waiting for the AAIB report we wouldn't bother reading this forum.

Compared to other events it has been quite a while since the crash to have absolutely no information. Such as, the eyewitnesses on the ship that watched it crash, why have we had nothing at all in the way of a description of what they saw? Enough divers looking at it and parts mapped or recovered, were any significant components any distance away from the main site? Not a word from Eurocopter, no even some sanctimonious suggestions from oil company aviation advisors, that are normally quick to suggest fixes to their operators before any facts are in.

VeeAny

6th Apr 2009, 06:34

Gents

For future reference, and being perhaps a little too close to this particular accident I can tell you two things.

Pauls family have seen the condolences thread and found some solace in it, I printed it off for his mum on Thursday evening along with some heartfelt PMs I'd received.

I know that Paul wouldn't mind speculation as we would often discuss at length the "what do you think scenarios", and even if the idle speculation that goes on post crash makes one person think about something differently then perhaps that speculation has served a purpose. Whether it is appropriate to do that speculating on PPrune is another matter and one which I cannot judge.

Whilst we may have some idea soon, what caused the crash when the AAIB start to release their factual accounts of what happened, we will then have to wait for their conclusions and this will obviously take some time.

I do think that when we (as a community) are put in this situation again (and we will be) that a condolences thread is a very appropriate thing to have and to be kept completely seperate from a thread like this, some of the families may read this one, no one is forcing them too, but a collection of memories and good wishes like in the other one is often likely to be seen by them at some point.

Fly Safe Guys

Gary

VeeAny

6th Apr 2009, 07:07

Media reporting that at last the final body from this crash has been found, at least now the families and friends of all the guys killed know that they will be able to say goodbye to them in their own way.

Camper Van Basten

6th Apr 2009, 08:30

BBC NEWS | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Ship brings back bodies to port (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7984915.stm)

Tail Rotor / gearbox (including blades), and horizontal stabilizer still very much intact and attached to the pylon. Small glimpse of the Main rotor head in the background with dome fairing and sleeves where they should be.

I think it's excellent that only 5 days after this horrific accident, all bodies are returned to their loved ones, and the wreckage and CVFDR are already in the hands of the AAIB.

Great effort by the recovery people, who've dealt with a very sensitive situation quickly and efficiently under the glare of the media.

HeliComparator

6th Apr 2009, 09:18

SP

Might I suggest a moderator-posting giving the "rules of engagement" following an accident - eg the separate condolences thread, that its OK to speculate on the cause, or whatever. Pref "frozen" so no-one can reply in disagreement. It could be made sticky for the duration of the aftermath of accidents. That way we would spend less time tediously bickering about what should and shouldn't be posted. Those that don't like it can find another forum instead.

HC

P1V1T1

6th Apr 2009, 09:22

Senior , I've hit breaking point with this site , reporters use it for factual information , I would think a more secure site should be discussed .
I appreciate your patience but I would prefer if some rules were set out.
It seems that these condolance threads are set up when people cant access the juicy gossip easily .

All accidents should have a condolence thread yes/no? this should be finalized .

Veeany im glad to hear that , thanks .

P1V1T1

6th Apr 2009, 09:24

I totally agree

NST

6th Apr 2009, 12:29

I have followed the thread with a bit of curiosity, as an offshore worker I think that is natural. As someone working as a current RO I have more involvement than most onboard regarding the flights. Having served in light blue I have worked closely with aircrew for most of my working life and am well aware of the professional and responsible attitude that all flyers take, I have seen nothing but that attitude and approach from the crews and operations people I have dealt with in my years Offshore.

Purely a personal point of view but I am happy to fly in the L2, all the guys I have spoken with lately are happy to fly as well, the attiutude I have seen is if the pilots are happy to sign for the cab and fly then so are we, after all you guys and the engineers are the experts on the airframe. Not the easiest of times right now for those of you flying the L2 but I thought that after some recent, and in my view unfair, negative media coverage it was appropriate that someone from your customer base spoke up, if only to say that your efforts are appreciated.

NorthSeaTiger

6th Apr 2009, 13:09

News reporting a Chc machine involved in an incident at the moment , any info ?

NST

Capt SFB

6th Apr 2009, 13:21

From BBC News:
A Super Puma helicopter has been involved in a "precautionary landing" while flying over the North Sea.

The helicopter, operated by CHC, landed on the Safe Caledonia after reporting a fuel problem on its way to Aberdeen from the Sedco 714 rig.

The company said it was a precautionary landing. There were 19 passengers and two crew on board.

The incident happened on Monday morning. The helicopter will be assessed by an engineer.

Capt SFB

victor papa

6th Apr 2009, 16:58

I was at EC Marignane on course when the 225 accident occured. No internet or anything, bit I knew immediately something was on when the EC personnel started sending us on smoke breaks and gathering together. At first, they would not answer the "what is going on" question. Very late in the afternoon once it was in the press we were told the 225 went down and it is under investigation.

A human error was very much on the cards, even on this thread, right from the beginning, yet the EC guys did not speculate until it was confirmed and even afterwards their discussions never included the operator or crew but only the aircraft.

I understand those flying the type needs answers asap, but what do you want EC, Bond and the authorities to say if nobody knows? I can just imagine the reaction at Marignane (after seeing the response to the 225) to this accident. Safety first, but if EC ground the 332L2 fleet after all the hours accumulated up to now, the offshore transport is very much at a standstill especially in certain areas where only L2's are operated as the mainstay aircraft with an impeccable safety record.

Having worked with the L2 I have my theories, but all require more than one failure and or mistake to result in such a tragic accident. We had a seemingly human factors 225 accident, a MGB failure on the 92 and who knows what happened here? I hope the boxes can tell the story and honestly do not believe any helicopter flying out there today is designed/flown/maintained/operated with the intention to fail.

The Governor

6th Apr 2009, 19:04

I've been reading this thread occasionally, however, not anymore.

It has descended into a petty, tit for tat, "I said, he said" squabble that would make my 3 year old look mature and erudite.

I know it's supposed to be all about the rumours but the puffed out chests and "I know more than you" attitude grinds me down. We're supposed to be professionals aren't we?

Thank you to the chaps posting their support for flying in the L2. Absolutely the best thing I have read on this thread.

Yours disappointedly,

Gov

victor papa

6th Apr 2009, 19:55

As things stand now, I would probably get into that l2 wondering, but knowing what she has achieved and her ability what is my alternative? Look at the hours and she survived the "newer" type on the block speciman relatively easily. Maintenance error and/or pilot(not an issue in my opinion here) is difficult to control and pin point at the earlystages in a investigation.

I remember a recent presentation by non EC personnel pointing out that engine failures occured on the 350 fleet over the last 4 million flight hours-the only casualties caused by incorrect follow of procedures(hyd come to mind). Presentation actrually by AW to justify single engine but they did not have sufficient hours on the 119.

I had a L2 LH ancil(-2 so well pre manufacturer recommendations) failure entereing final approach. There was a bang and slight yaw but after a second all the non LH mGB driven electric and hydraulic system took over and except for the fright from the bang and yaw-no loss of any hydraulics/MGB etc due to the redundance system.

This lies close to my heart as I swear by the L1/L2/225 and will still get in their first. Just want to know the true facts of what went wrong. As said before, I can guarantee you eC has got every possible component of a nother in the so called "torture chamber" trying to put the puzzle together!

Good luck to all the researchers, operators,aircrews and the pax!

maxwelg2

6th Apr 2009, 21:53

Aser

7th Apr 2009, 08:34

NorthSeaTiger News reporting a Chc machine involved in an incident at the moment , any info ?

NST

The latest incident involved a Eurocopter EC225 with a fuel leak.
North Sea Helicopter Forced To Land After Fuel Leak (from The Herald ) (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2500326.0.North_Sea_helicopter_forced_to_land_af ter_fuel_leak.php)

Regards
Aser

5711N0205W

7th Apr 2009, 11:35

From the article linked in the post above;

But BP has now said it will continue to use helicopters from other operators despite Bond restarting operations. A spokesman for Bond said: "Super Pumas are still licensed and certified by the authorities to fly."

That's quite a step to take if that is BP's ongoing position!

leading edge

7th Apr 2009, 11:49

5711N0205W

I thought that too. I may have read it wrong but it seems that BP won't use Bond....how long for I don't know.

The website shows almost no scheduled flights for the next few days.

Do we all think that this is a temporary "respect" issue or is Bond in real trouble with BP?

NorthSeaTiger

7th Apr 2009, 12:14

I was going to post "Looks like a full programme for Monday the 13th for BP"

but when I checked back on their flight programme it now has no scheduled flights. Are any of their other customers still flying with them ? How long will this last ?

I think what the oil companys need to do is start flying with Bond again to show confidence with them and try and get things back to some sort of normality (obviously things will never be the same again)

NST

T4 Risen

7th Apr 2009, 18:20

Am i correct in believing that BP actually Own some of the aircraft and assets that Bond Use?...when Bond came back onto the North sea a Few years ago it was with BP as there sole customer.......almost as if Bond was a sort of Air BP??? How does this sit if BP want to Pull the contract? would they also take the aircraft if i am correct about them owning them?
T4

ScotiaQ

7th Apr 2009, 18:36

A quick trawl on G-INFO will show aircraft are owned by International Aircraft Leasing or, in the case of G-REDU on lease from ERA.

IAL is a sister compnay to BOH

crud12001

7th Apr 2009, 18:55

how about the jigsaw(Super Puma) A/C? why do they still use the Bond A/c?

A bit cynical i know but............

victor papa

7th Apr 2009, 19:47

OK! So what is the question here? Is bOND the problem accordingly to BP or the 332L2? Sorry, just seem everybody talks around the core and it seems funny that BP crews are being flown in L2's in different colours as long as it is not BOND colours. Politics? Maintenance? Badluck? I will aWAIT ec AND AUTHORITY REPORT.

FrustratedFormerFlie

7th Apr 2009, 20:15

I'm with you Victor Papa. Now is the vacuum the speculators and journalists will want to fill - at the expense of the dignity of the families and the sound management of safe British rotary aviation.

Lets keep our heads down and our ideas for private conversations when we know exactly who we are speaking to. With full recovery of wreckage and, thankfully, victims, we can hopefully look forward to decisive findings in reasonably early course.

dipperm0

8th Apr 2009, 16:57

What is the problem ? The accident occurs 8 days ago. The officials got the wreck 3 days ago, and nothing....

Obviously, it is not a human error, thus are still in the pot either a major and sudden technical failure, either due to a maintenance problem or a manufacturer flaw, or something external to the aircraft.

I favor the last option. Hope the AAIB will not be muted.

D0

outhouse

8th Apr 2009, 17:25

Really sorry but, having experience in the accident investigation procedures though a number of years ago. Once you have the wreckage and the recorded data the cause is soon either obvious or not. This information is available to a limited audience. The UK system generally will not release any findings immediately unless an airworthiness issue is found. An interim report may be issued however when?
O
:eek:

victor papa

8th Apr 2009, 18:23

As said before I just want the facts asap on this specific issue as the L2 despite a few quirks(not including South American which was solved not by changing the aircraft) has prooven itself over and over. My problem is that I was at a briefing today where a different manufacturer(not Sikorsky or obv EC) made clear statements as to the build in errors and unreliability of the 332 and 225 range based on this accident. The 92 was forgotten. I know the investigation need time, but certain manufacturers climb onto these unfortunate accidents promising customers it has never and will never happen to them so bye1 now and get 1 for free. The fact that the cabin does not allow CPR/the aircraft does not have range/etc all of a sudden disappear as the mentality becomes as long as it is not an EC that falls out of the sky weekly. Mission readiness-what is that-scheduled downtime-what is that, at least we do not crash!

In my opinion the saddest and hightest invitation to murphy! It almost makes me feel that we will unfortunately be here again soon just wih a nes manufacturer name and yet more than that geniune unique sould lost.

Should there not be a monatorium on manufacturers using accidents like the last 3 until results are published before we just sell those not proven yet and 5 years down the line have to read the weekly update as to how many was lost in this 5 years ago it would not have happened aircraft.

Again, my full support to EC and the 332 and hope we can solve this to stop the misinformation and lying!!!!!!!!:ugh:

HeliComparator

8th Apr 2009, 18:23

dipperm0

Obviously, it is not a human error

So no humans involved in maintaining the aircraft, designing it, building it, defining the certification standards, defining the operations standards, defining the maintenance standards then? :confused:

I suggest that almost all accidents are human error, though the relevant humans are often not the flight crew.

HC

Horror box

8th Apr 2009, 18:34

I suggest that almost all accidents are human error, though the relevant humans are often not the flight crew.

Exactly. Pilot error vs Human error. A subtle, but very often overlooked difference.
I would suggest also that human error or human factors is a factor in nearly every case. Pilot error is used when there is a lack of evidence to prove anything else.

dipperm0

8th Apr 2009, 18:45

My applogize. You are all right. Instead of human error I should have wriiten Pilot error.

D0

malabo

9th Apr 2009, 06:12

cut-cut-cut

212man

9th Apr 2009, 07:17

Last edited by malabo : Today at 06:25. Reason: Had a comment on the condition of the tailrotor and head, but decided it wasn't really helpful or meaningful at this stage. Still waiting for something more from the AAIB - patience

Your edit shows great constraint. I'm sure you are not the first to have made the observations you did though!

5711N0205W

9th Apr 2009, 11:18

BP halts its helicopter flights deal with Bond - Press & Journal (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1162652/)

BP halts its helicopter flights deal with Bond

By Ryan Crighton

Published: 09/04/2009

More Pictures

BP will carry out a full investigation into every aspect of Bond Offshore Helicopters’ operations before letting its workers fly with the company again.

The move was announced a week after the crash which killed all 16 people on board a Super Puma heading back to shore from the North Sea.

Bond flight 85N was en route from BP’s Miller platform when it plunged into the sea within sight of the Buchan coast.

The accident was Bond’s second crash in six weeks and has left a huge questionmark over the safety of offshore helicopter operations.

BP temporarily suspended its contract with the Dyce-based firm hours after last Wednesday’s accident.

Last night, BP said the suspension would continue for another month while it carried out a “thorough review” of Bond’s maintenance, safety and training records and its systems.

About 15 Bond flights left Aberdeen Heliport every day before the accident – but just seven flights from a scheduled 75 have taken off since.

Wood Group returned to the air with Bond on Friday, but a joint statement issued yesterday confirmed that BP wanted to inspect Bond’s set-up for itself before resuming its 10-year contract with the company.

It said: “Pending a report from the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) into the tragic 85N flight of April 1, BP and Bond have agreed that BP will conduct a thorough review of Bond operations.

“The review is being carried out as part of BP's response to the accident and to reassure BP and its North Sea workforce that Bond's systems and procedures meet the high safety standards required for offshore helicopter transportation.

“While this review is being carried out, BP will be making alternative arrangements for flying its passengers offshore to its North Sea installations. Bond's remuneration will be unaffected during this period.

“Bond, as with all North Sea operators, is regularly audited by the Civil Aviation Authority.”

A Bond spokesman said: “We understand BP's desire for reassurance and we are confident of a positive outcome. We are progressing positive discussions with our other clients about getting back to normal operations.”

BP is Bond’s biggest client in the North Sea, having started a decade-long contract in August 2004. Despite the current suspension, BP continues to use Bond helicopters as part of its Jigsaw safety scheme offshore.

Bond’s helicopter fleet in Aberdeen consists entirely of Super Pumas – the dominant make used by the North Sea oil and gas industry.

The one involved in last Wednesday’s accident was a Super Puma AS332 L2 type, while the one which went into the sea six weeks ago 125 miles east of Aberdeen was a Super Puma EC225.

In the earlier incident, a huge sea and air rescue operation saved the two pilots and all 18 passengers.

Jake Molloy, regional organiser for the RMT union in Aberdeen, said worried workers demanded the review.

He added: “I think this is BP reacting to the concerns expressed by their workers. The company is well aware of the issues being raised and this review is being done to reassure the workers.”

Meanwhile, at a briefing in Aberdeen yesterday, Grampian Police defended criticism from some families that they had not been properly informed of the disaster.

The force said the hours after the crash were “extremely complex” but that every effort was made to contact next of kin quickly.

Detective Chief Superintendent Simon Blake said: “We have to get information in from numerous sources and we have got to make sure the information we release is correct – there is no room for error.

“A huge effort was put in place to get information together, to verify it and to get it to the right people.”

Grampian Police are investigating the circumstances surrounding the deaths, while the AAIB is investigating the cause of the crash.

Bladestrike

9th Apr 2009, 12:20

"Quote:
maxwelg, there are no L2's in Canada -unless you have real interesting rumor information you can share. Of course, everything else you could fly instead of an L2 has also crashed at least once, so I hope you didn't have your heart set on a flying a helicopter type that has never crashed

Malabo, helo I'm referring to is operated by CHC from Halifax, haven't flew with them yet so I'll assume that it's a AS332L1. Cougar flew this variant from St. John's before the S-92a unit came on the scene, never had any additional concerns back then."

Sorry,couldn't get the quote thingy working.

CHC operates two AS332Ls out of Halifax, neither an L1 nor L2.

dipperm0

9th Apr 2009, 15:46

One more day, and still nothing from the AAIB.

I personaly dont like the B.P. reaction and decision: It tends to stress the origin of the accident on Bond shoulders while there is nothing to ascertain this. Do they have information ?

D0

Flyt3est

9th Apr 2009, 15:50

I would guess if there was anything definative on the CVFDR or the HUMS then they would surely know by now..??

Perhaps the cause is far from obvious..

you want what??

9th Apr 2009, 17:34

is there any way to keep jake molloy and jim ferguson quiet? they are just making things worse and im sick of hearing their "Expert" opinions. the BBC arent helping either with their reporting of every little thing that happens.

DOUBLE BOGEY

9th Apr 2009, 19:13

I think you should be cautious of trying to crtise Jake. His mandate from the outset was an imporvemnet in safety and terms and conditions for the offshore worker. He has been tirless and relentless in the pursuit of both.

It is therefore only natural that Jake would be involved in this issue as our clients are his Union members.

What is wrong with urging the highest possible level of safety for his members.

They are not experts in aviation, nor should they be, that is left to us and at face value we seem to be left somewhat wanting.

nodrama

9th Apr 2009, 19:30

Most posters on this site have been in the industry for quite some time....

so it follows that we all should know how the system works??

Aircraft crashes, investigation follows, and when all the facts have been collected and analysed, the AAIB releases it's report. If it's gonna take some time, they release an interim update. If something immeadiate to aircraft type safety is discovered, NAA and manufacturer release ASB, AD and if warranted, ground aircraft type. If error in practice is discovered, NAA jump all over operator like a kangaroo on speed.

We all want to know what the cause was but slagging the various companies, agencies and organisations because our personal inquisitiveness hasn't been satisfied won't speed up the process.

Oldlae

9th Apr 2009, 21:51

P3
Which ever way you look at it, JF's comments about the Tail Rotor could be pertinent, is he getting advice from someone in the industry?

212man

9th Apr 2009, 23:25

Jim Ferguson said: “The fact that the helicopters rotors appear to have suffered only slight damage indicated that they were not under power at the time of impact

It could equally suggest that the rear tail boom section 'broke free' DURING the impact. Jim publishing such a statement in the national press is far from helpful.

maxwelg2

10th Apr 2009, 00:04

CHC operates two AS332Ls out of Halifax, neither an L1 nor L2.

Thanks Bladestrike, couldn't get anything off the CHC website to confirm the current model used in YHZ.

Last known incident that I can see with this model was G-TIGF in Dutch sector back in January 2005, lightning strike that did some damage but didn't stop the flight.

IMHO BP's stance with Bond makes sense, nothing conclusive announced as yet on this tragic event, better to err on the side of caution. I flew most of my North Sea days to BP installations, and I must say they practice what they preach wrt. safety. Here's to hopefully a quick answer from the AAIB.

youngskywalker

10th Apr 2009, 08:59

Having been on the receiving end of Jim ferguson's pi*s poor knowledge/reporting and general drivel in the past I would dearly love to know what qualifies this man to spout on Television. I have no doubt whatsoever that he reads this site so maybe he can identify himself and enlighten us all?

DOUBLE BOGEY

10th Apr 2009, 09:14

JF has only reported what to the rest of us....is obvious. Thats what he gets paid to do. If you do not like it....find another profession cos we are in the publics eye, rightly so given the high stakes involved...and this will attract the attention of media "Experts".

It is easy to speculate what may have caused the accident but the truth is lying in the AAIB hangar and until it reveals itself any speculation by media "Experts" or anyone else is just that...SPECULATION.

Having got that of my chest, it is getting a little difficult to understand why we still have no indication what has caused this.

Must be patient I guess!!!!!

youngskywalker

10th Apr 2009, 10:06

I have no idea whether he reported anything sensible with regards the North Sea accident or not, I have no knowledge of helicopters (other than RC ones!) but in my incident a few years ago all he did was cause distress to my family and annoy the hell out of me with his insensitive and innacurate rubbish. There, i've got that off my chest too! :ok:

dipperm0

10th Apr 2009, 10:28

Agree with Double bogey.

That said, I put my feet in the Bond pilot's shoes and frankly speaking, being stopped from flying, may be fired or unemployed for an unknown period, with families in the background is something that is certainly difficult to sustain. My thoughts go to the Bond aircrew and technicians, who are still alive and need to carry on.

D0

heli-cal

10th Apr 2009, 13:56

Bond are still being paid, despite not servicing the BP contract, besides, the safety of people, and the aircraft in which they fly, has priority over any other factor!

fluffy5

10th Apr 2009, 14:22

Am I being dense here, or how did Bonds offshore start back into the offshore game after the CHC contract with them timed out stopping them coming back to fly.
Then after that which company revied Bonds offshore with huge cash stimulus, Oh ! thats right BP. Did'nt they buy all of their aircraft for them, years ago when this happened, I remember people saying BP is Bonds, the only oil company that runs it's contractors by the N:mad:ts.
So I think it ever doubtful that Bp will ever get rid of Bonds, lots of sabre rattling for the press, internal audits and a sacrificial lamb.

fluffy

staplefordheli

10th Apr 2009, 19:13

Breaking news on Sky News
Initial report released tonight Friday at 20-12

Failure of part in main gearbox cauisng "catstrophic failure" and detatchment of main rotor head assembly

T4 Risen

10th Apr 2009, 19:25

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-REDL%20-%20Initial%20AAIB%20Report.pdf

Here is the interim report....

What are the differences between the L and L2 MRh Gearbox?

T4

5711N0205W

10th Apr 2009, 19:25

Air Accidents Investigation: Super Puma accident - 1 April 2009 - Initial Report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/latest_news/super_puma_accident___1_april_2009___initial_report.cfm)

In common with similar helicopters operating in the North Sea, the helicopter was additionally equipped with a Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS), which comprises a system of sensors around the engines, airframe and drive train. Recorded information includes vibration levels together with gearbox chip detection from a series of magnetic plugs. The data accumulated during helicopter operations is transferred, usually on a daily basis, to the operator’s ground-based computer system.

The data is then subjected to mathematical processes that establish basic signatures and enable trends to be monitored for individual components. The HUMS data for the day’s operation, including the accident flight, has also been recovered. As the result of the discovery of a particle on the main rotor gearbox epicyclic module magnetic chip detector on 25 March a daily inspection of the epicyclic gearbox magnetic chip detector was initiated. Also, the HUMS data was downloaded and analysed each time the helicopter returned to its base at Aberdeen for the next 25 flying hours.

No further abnormalities were identified during this period.

Examination of the wreckage indicates that the accident occurred following a catastrophic failure of the main rotor gearbox (MGB). This resulted in the detachment of the main rotor head from the helicopter and was rapidly followed by main rotor blade strikes on the pylon and tail boom, which became severed from the fuselage. It is apparent that there was also a rupture in the right hand (No2) engine casing, in the plane of the second stage power turbine. This is currently believed to be a secondary feature.

Investigations are continuing in order to understand completely the accident
sequence.

The investigation has so far revealed that the MGB had suffered from a major failure within the epicyclic module. This is supported by HUMS data; however, this is not yet fully understood.

The examination of the MGB is continuing in conjunction with detailed analysis of the HUMS and other recorded information.

Based on the initial findings of the investigation the following three Safety Recommendations are made:

Safety Recommendation 2009-048
It is Recommended that Eurocopter issue an Alert Service Bulletin to require all operators of AS332L2 helicopters to implement a regime of additional inspections and enhanced monitoring to ensure the continued airworthiness of the main rotor gearbox epicyclic module.

Safety Recommendation 2009-049
It is Recommended that the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) evaluate the efficacy of the Eurocopter programme of additional inspections and enhanced monitoring and, when satisfied, make the Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin mandatory by issuing an Airworthiness Directive with immediate effect.

Safety Recommendation 2009-050
It is Recommended that Eurocopter improve the gearbox monitoring and warning systems on the AS332L2 helicopter so as to identify degradation and provide adequate alerts.

Special 25

10th Apr 2009, 19:45

Great job by the AAIB - To get the preliminary report out so fast and I certainly feel as a pilot they have given me everything they know.

Chilling reading - Just 13 seconds from calm serene flight - A beautiful day just approaching the coast - To total disaster with no chance of recovery. Absoloutely the stuff my nightmares are made of.

I don't know how similar or not the gearboxes are on different marks of Super Puma ? Can someone elaborate ? I seem to remember a 330J throwing out a gear cog in Asia once but I am not aware of any major gearbox failures on the 332 range since, so I don't doubt it is an incredibly well designed and engineered item. But 2 catastrophic gearbox failures in as many weeks - Unbelievable ??

rotorknight

10th Apr 2009, 19:52

Very scary reading material this initial report,
It makes me an unhappy camper rated in the 92 and the L2:(

P1V1T1

10th Apr 2009, 20:15

L, L2 , 225 gearbox , whats the difference guys?

P1V1T1

10th Apr 2009, 20:22

Found this on the EC225 thread

"The MGB of the EC 225 is reinforced to accommodate the more powerful engines and the aircraft's increased maximum weight. The casing and gears are made using ultra modern manufacturing materials and processes, which significantly improve the reliability of components"

G-CPTN

10th Apr 2009, 21:24

Apart from the obvious MGB failure,
It is apparent that there was also a rupture in the right hand (No2) engine casing, in the plane of the second stage power turbine. This is currently believed to be a secondary feature. Investigations are continuing in order to understand completely the accident sequence.
:confused:

Droopy

10th Apr 2009, 21:25

Special 25, are you thinking of Bristow 330J 9M-SSC December 1980? That was down to confusion over the acceptable amount of metal a gearbox could make.

HeliComparator

10th Apr 2009, 22:07

Very scary stuff. Its a great pity to see HUMS fail to spot this one coming. The procedure of finding a small metal particle on a chip detector then putting the component onto "close monitoring" is totally standard, but in this case not good enough.

Perhaps it will be a large crack such as was found in the bevel gear of a CHC 332L some years ago, totally un-spotted by HUMS. Since cracks don't release much debris (to be picked up by a chip detector etc) we rely on HUMS, but really HUMS has not evolved much since inception in 1990 or so. We need to get the Neural Network concept being trialled by GE, into service asap.

HUMS was a great invention and step forward, but for the last 20 years the industry has been resting on its HUMS laurels. Not good enough!

HC

Sir Niall Dementia

10th Apr 2009, 22:39

Double Bogey;

I agree with young skywalker. I too have been on the end of JFs speculation/inaccuracy/spin/sheer ignorance. We are not public figures and in the event of an accident deserve our privacy. JF, as was discussed in the last accident thread is not reliable as a reporter or witness I hope for your sake you are never the subject of one of his reports.

If JF would like to contact me direct I will back up my statements to him. I am no longer bound by a staff rule about no contact with the press. I doubt he will though, why check your facts when you can call your self an aviation writer?

As for this interim report I flew 2700 hrs on L1s and L2s and always felt confident in the machinery and our training. What happened here is the stuff of nightmares and beyond the comprehension of this pilot. The 332 engendered trust, I will be interested to see if this follows the type of original manafacture error in an MGB cocmponent in a BIH S61n back in 1997.

XV666

10th Apr 2009, 22:46

Hopefully not going too far OT, Upland Goose posted this back in February, on the McCrae thread Post No 194 (http://www.pprune.org/4723797-post194.html):

How about this for a scoop!

James Duncan Ferguson was born near Udny Station in Aberdeenshire in July, 1938. He was educated at Robert Gordon's School, Aberdeen and Gordonstoun School.
Service in the Clerical Branch of the Royal Navy followed, between 1957 and 1963, with a number of Fleet Air Arm related postings. Always keenly interested in military and civil aviation matters, he became a specialist writer on the Aberdeen oil-support operation from its ealriest days in the late 1960's. He is Scottish and European aviation correspondent for various British and US publications (Rotr & Wing) as well as a regular contributor to a wide range of specialist magazines. A crew member of the local life-boat and he also covers aviation and rescue matters for both press and radio. He is married to an art teacher, and has lived in Aberdeen since 1963.

Note: This may be a bit out of date - back of the "The Story of Aberdeen Airport 1934 - 1984"

I have met him a few times when I was a co-pilot in the S61N (1977) - a pleasant enough chap - a journalist nevertheless. He used to run a painting and decorating supplies shop in Rosemount Aberdeen - I think.

I rest my case !

UG

shortfinals

10th Apr 2009, 23:22

The AAIB says it was a catastrophic main gearbox failure: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-REDL%20-%20Initial%20AAIB%20Report.pdf

Not fully understood yet, but the epicyclic gear was where the problem originated. No way out of that one. The main rotor separated before impact.

What can you say? There was nothing they could do.

3 o'clock

11th Apr 2009, 01:20

Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted the report, but if HUMS and normal inspections didn’t pick up a problem with the transmission prior to this disaster how can transmissions of a similar age be deemed safe by simply inspecting them now?

SASless

11th Apr 2009, 01:27

Proves HUMs ain't perfect by far.:(

Impress to inflate

11th Apr 2009, 01:32

I to have been on the end of JF's poor writings. I posted a thread a while ago about the man and it was removed !!

He is nothing more than a spotter and his writings should be ignored or taken with a pinch of salt.

His facts on my case and the pictures used on the front page of the P&J were wrong to the point of slander.

If the bearded git wants to pm me, I will have it out with him and point out the real facts of my case and the a/c in case. I still keep the article in my log book as a laugh at poor journalism.

ITI

rapman

11th Apr 2009, 01:44

Very well done to the AAIB for producing an interim report so soon:D.

It is comforting to hear the facts from the experts and not the "Rhubarb of the Speculators" as to the events of this tragic accident.

Flyt3est

11th Apr 2009, 02:18

3 O'CLOCK

Sadly, in answer to your question, the only way forward is for the HUMS manufacturer to analyse the data, look for tell tale signs and then set a threshold based on that.

HC

How would you like to see things improve, bearing in the mind the following..

1. The strongest recommendation a HUMS manufacturer can make, upon discovery of a "suspect" vibe signal is close monitoring. And HUMS managers at Line level do not have HUMS OEM levels of experience on the system.

2. Thresholds are set, as you know, usually at a component average signal level + 2 or 3 x Standard Deviation.

3. Not all components are monitored, and one can't simply "switch on a few more sensors".

Don't get wrong, I'm in favour of improvement, but its a huge technological challenge, since the correct thing to do would be to not just cover this one component, but carry out a thorough update of all systems, on all aircraft.. The perfect world we hope to reach is actually do-able, but who is going to pay? As with all technolgy.. Possibility is just a question of money.

I'm not being dismissive, merely being a realist.

Sadly, this is NOT the first time this has happened with the same Aircraft manufacturer.. Only difference was the last time around nobody got killed, a new HUMS threshold was set, and it never made the papers.. I hasten to add, same manufacturer, different aircraft type completely.

FT

drop lead

11th Apr 2009, 02:28

As P1V1T1 asked a few posts back, are the MGB's different between the various 332 models?
I would guess they are?.....but, are they different enough to cope with the higher power demands of up-rated power plants and gross weights?
I beleive "chip lights" on MGB's are not un common on 332 L, L1's, how common are they on L2's/225's?

Variable Load

11th Apr 2009, 03:06

Perhaps HC can comment on the L2/225 MGB similarities? Is the 225 MGB more or less and L2 MGB with the addition of the glycol injection system?

The only thing I can add of any certainty is that the input modules on the two variants are the same.

VL

SARCO

11th Apr 2009, 05:02

I am not a pilot, nor do I work offshore, but as my moniker suggests I have more than a passing interest in the events in the North Sea over the past few months.

Having read the initial AAIB report this morning I would just like to say that those of you involved in Offshore Operations out in the North Sea have nothing but my utmost respect.

Stay safe

WAH

11th Apr 2009, 05:40

The investigation has so far revealed that the MGB had suffered from a major failure within the epicyclic module. This is supported by HUMS data; however, this is not yet fully understood.

The examination of the MGB is continuing in conjunction with detailed analysis of the HUMS and other recorded information.

So HUMS done exactly what it was supposed to be doing in respects to alerting the engineer that there was something abnormal. Let's not beat around the bush here, if this is the case, then it is not the system at fault but the user. Surely?

So that is where the attention should be focused.

Someone said before that all 3 Aberdeen bases have dedicated HUMS departments, if this is the case, what were these guys doing about it?
If they had reported it to EC and their advice back was 25FH close monitoring and chip det inspections then the buck surely lies with EC. However, if the fault had not been reported to EC, then someone at Bond is clearly in a world of sh*t.

Flytest....

You are incorrect, the strongest reccomendation EC/Hums engineer can make is to ground that particular aircraft and replace the gearbox. It has happened before so why not in this case? I know components are changed all the time in relation to hums data and advice given by the Hums dept and manufacturer so why not in this case? They have mountains of data from other operators all over the world so they have data trends from the whole fleet of their aircraft to analyse. If 1 steps out of line against the others it should be thoroughly investigated.

All gears and bearings within the MGB are monitored by HUMS and it is clear to see by the release of this report that HUMS did pick this up. I suspect this release is to make sure all other AOC around the world checks their HUMS MGB data.

Now with a HUMS alert, it is unlikely that the manufacturer would advise a MGB replacement but it is possible. However, taking that aside, i see the advice given here was to close monitor for 25FH and check the chip detectors? A pretty basic and standard action, well what good is that going to do if their is a crack developing down 1 of the gears?

Why did the HUMS guys/EC not ask for a boroscope inspection of the internal gearing? Why did they not take a SOAP (oil) sample from the GB for further analysis? There is far more they can do than just the basic 25FH close monitor and chip det inspection.

Hums did exactly what it was supposed to do, it appears the advice given by EC/Hums dept was not good enough however.

I read that Norwegian article a few pages back, some scary similarities to that.

16 people are dead here and HUMS picked up on it beforehand. No matter what way you look at it, there was prior warning.

There is clearly nothing wrong with the HUMS system. I suspect the press will have a field day with that above fact if i am being brutally honest.

Very scary stuff. Its a great pity to see HUMS fail to spot this one coming. The procedure of finding a small metal particle on a chip detector then putting the component onto "close monitoring" is totally standard, but in this case not good enough.

Perhaps it will be a large crack such as was found in the bevel gear of a CHC 332L some years ago, totally un-spotted by HUMS. Since cracks don't release much debris (to be picked up by a chip detector etc) we rely on HUMS, but really HUMS has not evolved much since inception in 1990 or so. We need to get the Neural Network concept being trialled by GE, into service asap.

HUMS was a great invention and step forward, but for the last 20 years the industry has been resting on its HUMS laurels. Not good enough!

As above, HUMS did pick this up. It is incorrect to state that the system did not otherwise this investigation would not be focusing centrally around HUMS. It was the advice given that was not satisfactory. An internal boroscope inspection would undoubtedly have found a crack in a gear or a missing tooth to big to be picked up by the mag probe. If the trend is saying there is something wrong then it should be treated as such. I hope to god that this particular problem was reported to EC beforehand by Bond HUMS

This aint Jim Beam

11th Apr 2009, 05:46

Unfortunately when it comes to HUMs limits the intial values set by the manufacturer can be miles out and only through operational experience will accurate limit values be found.

That doesnt mean testing to destruction but a gradual increase in limits from very low intial values. The idea is that the limits are accurate when components coming back to the shop for failing vibe levels are actually buggered not 90% expensive false alarms.
Only then can you have faith in HUMs.
B412 BHVMS is a good example, Bell had lots of knowledge of vibration levels from the Canadian Griffon HUMs system but as it was military technology they werent allowed to use it for setting civilian values.
SO we all went through a few years, still going a little bit, of pulling stuff off that was pefectly fine.
HUMs is only one tool and its not to be followed with blind faith.
Its all about the interpretation.

I also totally disagree with the above posters comments regarding the HUMs guys and their decisions.
Before we start blame storming maybe we should collect all the facts.

WAH

11th Apr 2009, 05:50

Unfortunately when it comes to HUMs limits the intial values set by the manufacturer can be miles out and only through operational experience will accurate limit values be found.

That doesnt mean testing to destruction but a gradual increase in limits from very low intial values. The idea is that the limits are accurate components coming back to the shop for failing vibe levels are actually buggered not 90% expensive false alarms.
Only then can you have faith in HUMs.
B412 BHVMS is a good example, Bell had lots of knowledge of vibration levels from the Canadian Griffon HUMs system but as it was military technology they werent allowed to use it for setting civilian values.
SO we all went through a few years, still going a little bit, of pulling stuff off that was pefectly fine.
HUMs is only one tool and its not to be followed with blind faith.
Its all about the interpretation.

All very well for a new aircraft type (if it had be a 225 M'arms) but the L2 has been around a long time so all thresholds should be set accurately.

Again it appears the MGB was in alert so that to me tells me that the thresholds were set correctly

This aint Jim Beam

11th Apr 2009, 05:57

Yeah good point WAH.
I do think its all about the way you interpret the data, not every tiny increase in vibration is worthy of a component replacment.
HUMs is not the be-all and end-all people think.

WAH

11th Apr 2009, 06:12

I also totally disagree with the above posters comments regarding the HUMs guys and their decisions.
Before we start blame storming maybe we should collect all the facts.

I apologise and i agree, but i am only going on what has been reported.

I perhaps should wait until all the facts are reported on before making judgement. I just feel that with prior warning to this,then the families of the deceased are not going to be taking this lightly.

I do not think i have stated anything factually incorrect, this is an open forum where we are discussing what happened.

Hums is not the be all and end all, perhaps not, but in this case, it's the only tool available for detection of MGB faults. The pilot would not have spotted it on his walk round, nor would the engineer have spotted it on his pre flight inspection.

I'll let others have their say now, i've made my point.

coalface

11th Apr 2009, 07:39

Back off guys - some of you are jumping to premature conclusions again.

Although there was a chip detected some 25 hours before the event, and enhanced HUMS monitoring set up, there is nothing in the report to indicate that this is conected to the catastrophic failure. It may be but equally it may not.

Let's wait until the experts come up with the goods.

mtoroshanga

11th Apr 2009, 07:40

The IHUMS information is only as good as the interpretation thereof. It is obvious that while a chip can increase vibration levels a crack may show nothing until it has changed the characteristics of the involved component.
In the case of the 330J in Borneo there was no IHUMS involved. That gearbox has a magnetic plug not a chip detector so the pilot had no warning of an increase in debris. A Soap sample has been taken just before the failure and did not trigger any warning although there were chips of scale floating in the sample. They do not show in the analysis.
The mechanics of that failure were that a barrel roller in one of the epicyclic gear bearing was shedding chips and did so until the reduction in diameter released the roller which went upwards them came down between the planetery gears and the ring gear resulting in the ring gear cracking and departing.resulting in the accident.

Jetboxer

11th Apr 2009, 08:08

WAH,

I read the quote, below, from the report slightly differently to you (I believe).

The investigation has so far revealed that the MGB had suffered from a major failure within the epicyclic module. This is supported by HUMS data; however, this is not yet fully understood.

I believe the HUMS data that the report is referring to is that from moments prior to the failure. Data from the accident flight. Data recovered from the wreckage. Not information available prior to the flight.

If this is the case, there has been no evidence, yet, of any HUMS trend alerting the engineering staff to any abnormalities.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

TeeS

11th Apr 2009, 08:14

Wah - the report states -

"The HUMS data for the day’s operation, including the accident flight, has also been recovered"

This information would not have been available to any HUMS team prior to the accident and it may well be that the 'supporting evidence' was from this period!

How about editing your comments to remove the slanders?

TeeS

HeliComparator

11th Apr 2009, 08:15

Flyt3est et al

The point is that its having to set thresholds that is the problem - no-one knows where the threshold should be until after the disaster. Indeed some failure modes can cause some parameters to decrease, not increase.

This is the relevance of the Neural Networking analysis trial being carried out by the CAA & GE (was Smiths). I will have to do my homework to find out just where we are with that one, but the concept is that the output data from the HUMS is fed into a neural network - a piece of software that mimics the human brain in the way it works. You teach it what a normal, healthy gearbox looks like, then it will identify a bad gearbox without having to be told thresholds etc. I would liken it to how a doctor could look at a person's face and see that they were ill. If you tried to describe mathmatically what he was seeing, it would be very difficult, but because he has learned what a healthy person looks like, he knows what an unhealthy person looks like.

I read an interim report on the technique, it seems to be very sucessful.

Regarding the design of the 332L / L2 and 225, the gearboxes are very similar in layout and design. I think the 332L and L2 are identical, with just some increased case hardening of the gears for the L2. For the 225, the external casing of the epicyclic stages looks completely different, presumably this being to make the casing stronger to deal with the greatly increased torque (cruise power on a 225 is more than both engines of a 332L running at max contingency). I am not sure how different the internals are, obviously they are beefed up somehow. Bearing in mind the above, its interesting to note that the ASB / AD relates to the L2 and 225, but not to the L.

They L2 has a manual chip detector for the epicyclic stages, the 225 has a remote-reading electrical one. We have had very few transmission chip problems with the 225 compared to the 332L, the 225's weak spot seems to be the mast bearing - we have had to change some heads due to chip detection there.

Regarding the engine turbine burst, this cannot be surprising since the overspeed shutdown mechanism specifically disables overspeed shutdown on the second engine, once the first has detected an overspeed. It was designed on the premise that an overspeed would be caused by disconnection of the engine drive shaft or freewheel, not a complete disconnection of the head from the transmission affecting both engines. I never liked this concept because I thought that double engine failure was prefereable to uncontained rise in N2 or Nr.

The 225 has inherent overspeed shutdown for both engines - its blade shedding concept which sheds the N2 blades in a controlled way (they are contained within the engine shielding) at around 135%N2, so this burst would not have occurred on the 225, but once the head is lost, that would be rather academic.

HC

WAH

11th Apr 2009, 08:31

TeeS

I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the quote.

I read it as the epicyclic was already under close monitoring and had been a week prior to the accident. However i do conceed that this may be totally unrelated to why the gearbox failed. I find it unlikely, but it is possible. I say that, as any sort of defect would be picked up by the system in some way shape or form. If a gear crack is developing, HUMS will pick up on this, the noise signature would change, the amount of energy in the data would change, the meshing tones and frequencies would change. Gearboxes dont just fail out of the blue, something has to cause it too. (i.e something has developed over x amount of time)

If it was indicating the same fault that downed this AC beforehand then i stand by my comment that HUMS was doing what it was supposed to be doing. If it was something totally unrelated then HUMS needs developing further.

Jetboxer....The aircraft was under 25FH close monitoring and daily chip det inspections so engineering were aware of a potential MGB defect prior to flight. (We do not know if its related though) That is factual now.

My conclusion, all i can gather from this is that EC/HUMS dpt were aware of a potential problem and in hindsight they should have ordered a boroscope inspection. (Yes it's easy to say that now, but they are the experts) I do not think any individual is to blame, nor am i pointing the finger. I do realise that a boroscope inspection everytime a MGB exceedance is generated is totally unrealistic, but in this case if that advice was passed on to engineering i would like to think that this accident would never have happened.

I dont know if im being too harsh here or not, apologies if i am offending anyone. I suppose i am just thinking out loud.