Rig Support Vessel In Trouble

[30mRad]

Found this on the BBC News News Website.

Sort of thing you'd have a Nimrod over the top to coordinate rescue efforts, provide SAR cover to said rescue efforts, and act as Re-bro......:ugh::ugh:

By all accounts the swell is 9m :eek: so individuals will have to be lifted off one-by-one.

Wonder if those at the top will be regretting binning Nimord MR2 and MRA4, more so if this develops into a tragedy.

BBC News - Oil unit anchor chains fail in stormy North Sea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-12366273)

[Mad_Mark]

That is NOT a rig 'support' vessel, it is a large (having flown past it a few times I'll even say very large) production ship :eek:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Big Tudor]

At 260m long with a beam of 40m, Gryphon Alpha is a hell of a lot bigger than a rig support vessel. It is what is known as FPSO, floating production, storage and offloading vessel. Basically an oil rig on a ship.

Hope the outcome is successful for all concerned.

[Slfsfu]

Rigs drill for oil; Platforms/FPSO's produce, process and transport it - Don't worry, after 40 years of UKCS Oil & Gas operations, the BBC continue to make this mistake!! (everything is an "oil rig")

9m sea is rough but she (and all platforms) are designed for 30m (aka "100 year storm"). Though, as you say, an interesting winch ride.

I'm sure she'll be fine, there is redundancy in the mooring

[30mRad]

I bow to those with far more extensive knowledge and training in boat (pronounced bow-at) recognition. In my previous job we never got close enought to grey funnel stuff to recognise it! Either way, hope all ok.

[diginagain]

There's an aircraft currently on task. The conditions of my license preclude discussing c/s, but there'll be enough guys down the back to help out.

[sonas]

Aye thats magic! ;)

[diginagain]

Something along those lines!

[Bannock]

How many ASRs and Dinghy pairs has it got ?

[Dave Angel]

Aye thats magic! ;)

Good for them if thats the case, glad they were airborne :ok:

Be difficult to hold a SAR standby though when you need 24hrs notice to fly ;)

[diginagain]

How many ASRs and Dinghy pairs has it got ?
Hardly relevant in this instance, since the vessel will have lifeboats with a capacity of 200% of the POB, plus the same capacity in liferafts, should it be unable to downman by primary means ie helicopter.

But your point is well made.

[30mRad]

My understanding is that said aircraft was not airborne but tasked to get airborne to support at the request of the RCC. Not quite the same as scrambling SAR 1 at RS60. Would be v different if it was Piper Alpha 2.

[Mad_Mark]

Strange but I thought we had been told that there would be a C130 on perm SAR standby after the Nimrod was taken out of service. If the C130 was deemed good enough to replace the Nimrod for the SAR role then why wasn't that aircraft used? :hmm:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[30mRad]

Not sure we have enough C130s for current operational tasks let alone SAR stand-by. My understanding was the C130 carrys out that role in the Falklands, but would only be tasked for SAR cover for trails, not your usual routine on stand-by stuff. Perhaps a Herc mate can confirm?

[Green Flash]

How many ASRs and Dinghy pairs has it got ?

Hmmm, would be interesting to discuss how easy it would be to climb into the aforementioned with a 9m swell going. And a blowing a hooley. At night. In the North Sea. In February. Might be better to drop flares? Happy to be corrected and I am not for one second suggesting that we should't try to help, just wondering how easy it would be. I suppose the fact that all the oilies have been in the dunker might help (allthough did these guys actually go out with the ship?):confused:

[Fareastdriver]

I suppose the fact that all the oilies have been in the dunker might help

The FPSO stays out there all the time. The crew has to do the dunker because they are rotated by helicopter.

[davejb]

Two points:

The RS60 SAR - not that long ago SAR got airborne in rather less than that.... SAR standby, for Nim crews, had already been somewhat reduced from what it had been in the past, with crews in the mess and so forth for the duration after a morning on the Sqn. (This is not a criticism or anything like that of the crews, I might add). The SAR fry up breakfast was particularly welcome after a long, uninterrupted kip in the mess. (Hearts were shattered if the hooter went and messed the breakfast ritual up).

114 POB - where the Nimrod would have really come into its own is if they'd all had to abandon ship, and the race to winch everyone to safety had required multiple helos, nearby shipping to be conned in, flight deconfliction of the helos, and so forth. Luckily not needed this time, but there is a worrying feeling in my bones, at least, that it's a matter of when rather than if.

Dave

[shawshank]

114 POB - where the Nimrod would have really come into its own is if they'd all had to abandon ship, and the race to winch everyone to safety had required multiple helos, nearby shipping to be conned in, flight deconfliction of the helos, and so forth. Luckily not needed this time, but there is a worrying feeling in my bones, at least, that it's a matter of when rather than if.

Davejb, no need to have a feeling in your bones, had there been a need to con nearby ships in and deconflict helos then the military asset that was on-scene was more than capable of covering all those tasks. They also managed to scramble in just over an hour from receiving orders to do so. :D:ok:

[Shell Management]

It is a good thing that the oil industry fund their own SAR assests to supplement the UK's Search Austerity Rescue service.:ok:

[Finnpog]

Can we now start a sweepstake for how long it will take a Grown Up or politico to spin a story to the media about how the world is as safe, if not safer, than before and that we have sufficient assets on hand.

Credit to the gang who are up there being busy.

[Shell Management]

The offshore world is much safer after Shell invented safety cases to use of offshore installations.:ok:

[RumPunch]

Amazingly one day of Oil Production from the North Sea could fund a fleet of Nimrod type aircraft for a few years. Not bad investment really to cover your own arse just in case, and while there take a small fee from the Fisheries protection to do tasking to keep current, Hell with Terrorism and Submarines let the UK Gov sort that out as they appear to have a plan and let the French sort it out for us. We have had no ASW aircraft at Kinloss for over 2 months now so this crap on the US and French helping out is complete arse biscuits.

[Guernsey Girl II]

Perhaps if the Flight Deck hadn't spent so long demanding a tanker on 5680 everyone else could get a word in :ok:

[grousehunter]

Good old *aywacs to the rescue.;) I take it the boys were one their way home and a crew was found to fly this task or do we actually have crews on SAR standby now? I was in the mess today but didn't see the Ops 1 crew there. Or yesterday. Or the day before. Hmmmmm Strange........

Oh and Really Annoyed - please chill out! Your very cross!

[Tourist]

Some posters seem to think that this incident shows the requirement for Nimrod.

Not that I disagree that we should have Nimrod, but I would suggest that this incident shows the opposite.

ie.
Incident happened.
There was no Nimrod.
Things were fine anyway.

[Vim_Fuego]

Having being involved in yesterdays mission and having had experience of this kind of mission on Nims I can honestly say that the product we pushed off the aircraft yesterday was no different from my previous life. Even if we could have carried stores and dropped a dinghy in that sea state it would have been difficult for even a fit man (or women) to have gained benefit from being dropped one.

With the amount of positions and radios we carry we are suited to this role. We held the air and surface picture in a robust fashion and calmly ran the scenario. The helo guys were their usual professional selves making our role easier to fulfill. If their lives had become difficult we always where they were and who could have helped at all times.

[Ivan Rogov]

Quite right tourist :rolleyes:

I have nearly crashed my car a few times but got away with it, never needed the airbag or seatbelt what a waste of money they were! Come to think of it fire extingishers are a waste of time/money too, I've never needed one (well not for a fire :})

The response to this incident seems to have gone well :ok: but was it flexible enough to cover the worst case scenarios when all the holes line up?

I'm struggling to think of another European country that has worse FW SAR cover now, I'm sure the spin doctors/beancounters will say that the UK is leading the world with it's more efficient approache to SAR etc. :yuk:

Edit: Vim just seen your post, BZ all round! I agree that for the situation that happened yesterday the platform was probably better than MPA, but it lacks flexibility. There aren't many countries looking to use it for FW SAR.

[shawshank]

I am just curious as to what fixed wing aircraft the RAF have that could carryout such a mission.

Kreuger - there are enough clues in the thread, think of a magical aircraft from Waddo. Looks like a modified B707 with no windows (except up front).

The response to this incident seems to have gone well http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif but was it flexible enough to cover the worst case scenarios when all the holes line up?

Yes. The major difference is dropping stores....and how many times has that actually been done in anger before

[Ivan Rogov]

Shawshank, that is not the only major difference for SAR. The time for BS briefs on the mighty mushrooms capabilities to do everything are over, they have to do it all now anyway :D

[Willard Whyte]

Kreuger, they don't hold SAR standby.

There was a P-sortie aircraft out and about, it was recalled whilst a crew was scraped together, the jet was turned and launched off on the mission.

Thankfully it happened early enough on p.o.e.t.s day that not everyone had p'd o.e.

[davejb]

Cheers to various posters for the info.
I don't think all those (me included) necessarily thing this is a 'we should have had Nimrod' moment, an E3 has the manpower and kit to do a good job (imo) so it'd be foolish to claim this was somehow inferior to the job a Nimrod would have done.

Equally, although dinghies have been drooped in anger, it isn't a task that comes up on the majority of SAR sorties so again, no problem.

I think my main concern is that the aircraft was available by pure luck, pretty much (as I read it, I am prepared to be corrected if there's such an aircraft always available for SAR) - ie we still lack a dedicated asset that can get airborne pdq when a major event surfaces... and a major event WILL pop up one fine day.

Don't worry about Really Annoyed - his posts are always in the same spleen venting style, I think Pprune must be some sort of therapy.

Dave

[D-State]

No it wasn't another aircraft was launched

[Tourist]

Ivan

"I have nearly crashed my car a few times but got away with it, never needed the airbag or seatbelt what a waste of money they were"

Poor example I think.

This is equivalent to actually rather than nearly crashing the car and not requiring those items.

If cars crashed all the time and the evidence showed no need for safety equipment, then we wouldn't all have them by law.

Bringing attention to an incident which required no Nimrod hardly helps the case for the requirement for Nimrod for SAR.

[Biggus]

...and if this incident had been at 3am on a Sunday morning?

[Willard Whyte]

Whatever, the point is SAR standby isn't held.

What is it with this place, Mrs WW says it's worse than mums net; I can well believe it.

Biggus - I've always opined that an E-3D crew should be held at standby, just as Hercs used to (they may still do, but that's irrelevant) have 6A and 6B crews. I mentioned as much a few years ago to be told 'there's far too much to be done on the squadron to let a crew go home on standby'.

[YellaRednGrey]

How about a big well done to the SAR hel crews who uplifted 77 crew (RAF 47, CG 30) from the Gryphon-A. They did a cracking job by landing on a pitching, rolling, heaving deck and dropped them all safely on nearby rigs. Thank you also to the Jigsaw crew who were coordinating the event admirably before the E3-D pitched up. :ok:

[Bluenose 50]

An excellent summary of the incident which recognises the contribution of all the assets involved. Praise also to the boys & girls at MRCC Aberdeen, ARCC and Aberdeen ATSU for making the plan work and let's also recognise that the OIM & the crew of Gryphon Alpha were equally calm and professional throughout the incident.

[Ivan Rogov]

Tourist, apologies if my analogy was poor (they were never my strong point) but I think you missed my point.
The point was that they coped with what actually happened (nearly a car crash, as it sounds like an evacuation), in hindsight everything looks great.
But what if things had started to go wrong (Car crash) and plan A wasn't good enough? You need plan B or C (Airbag, seatbelt). We regularly practiced the most elaborate SAR scenarios in the Sim to ensure we could cope, C2, Top cover, etc. could easily lead to low level search and ASR drop in minutes, even waiting 15 mins for a helo might be too long for a survivor in the water (especially as they might still have to search and locate them if you hadn't done it).
There are many ways the situation could have deteriorated yesterday, it didn't but that doesn't demonstrate that our FW SAR cover is sufficient, just that we coped with a relatively simple OEI evacuation. Please don't think I am trying to be a doom and gloom merchant, I am very glad it all went well :ok:

[Tourist]

Ivan, don't get me wrong, I think binning MPA is barking for the UK, just don't think you can illustrate that fact with incidents that didn't require MPA.

The way that they proved the need for seatbelts, for example, was to cite all the cases where people impacted dashboards/steering wheels etc, not by citing the close shaves.

[Ivan Rogov]

Tourist, are you suggesting we need to see proof before we provide something? I understand cost v fatalities is a consideration, but the total hindsight approach to risk management is not the answer... but then again you might get away with it :\

I'm not saying we need an MPA for FW SAR. But IMO the platforms and level of cover provided at the moment are not adequate to cover the FW SAR task adequately (A nice perk of owning an MPA fleet was that it could pick up SAR virtually free).
We now have a situation of no dedicated assets and no stated plan to fill or even address the gap in the future. Even the intention to buy something would be encouraging e.g. MCA to purchase 3 Aircraft for medium FW SAR (CN-235, Fokker 60 etc.)

Here's thought, allegedly Cameron has gone against the advice of his defence chiefs, SoS for defence and the DoT (I understand they were concerned with our ability to cover our internationally agreed commitment). Now if there is a fatality and it could be proved that a lack of or inadequate FW SAR cover contributed, could he be guilty of Corporate Manslaughter? Just because he is in a position of power shouldn't mean he can't be held to account just like a CEO, etc.