North Sea Helicopter ditching 10th May 2012

[lowfat]

Press and Journal - Article - Bond cleared of blame for helicopter ditching (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2813812)

Helicopter manufacturer Eurocopter has cleared operator Bond of any blame for a ditching incident in the North Sea last month.
The aviation giant – which built the Super Puma which had to make an emergency landing on the sea off Aberdeen last month – said Bond was not responsible for the accident.
Two crew and 12 passengers had to be rescued in what was the third serious incident involving a Bond Super Puma in three years.
Eurocopter said the skill of the Bond pilots and the design of the aircraft saved their lives.

[212man]

Apart from putting the M'ARMS download interval up to 4 hrs, there are some rather odd other constraints

That in itself seems pretty odd! Will you be carrying an M'ARMS laptop with you to do a download at a convenient stop during the flight? :confused:

I agree the other criteria are nonsensical.......

[HeliComparator]

4 hrs is better than the 3 hrs it was! Fortunately none of our aircraft are affected. 4 hrs is sufficient to do the average NNS trip out of Aberdeen, not up to the Basin though. I suppose those affected have to carry a laptop, download it offshore and hope for green traffic light, else stuck offshore!

On the P&J article I would prefer to wait for the AAIB report before forming an opinion. Bond and EC have a commercial relationship and so the view of EC could not be considered to be impartial. Whilst Bond and EC will be primarily concerned about where the blame lies, and clearly the primary fault is with the shaft manufacture, and clearly all credit to the crew for pulling off a safe ditching, the AAIB will hopefully be more impartial and may identify ways that the fault could have been picked up earlier (or maybe not) which may allow us all to learn how to prevent a recurrence. It might or might not show that operators who downloaded their HUMS data more frequently would have caught the problem.

[lowfat]

You really make me laugh...

You profess wait and and see for a unbiased report and snipe with your last comment about the frequency of the HUMS download. In fact most if not all of your comments on this subject are thinly disguised cheap shots. Take your own advise stop posting PR and wait for the official report.

Its like Son of SHELL MANAGEMENT.

[Bravo73]

You really make me laugh...

You profess wait and and see for a unbiased report and snipe with your last comment about the frequency of the HUMS download. In fact most if not all of your comments on this subject are thinly disguised cheap shots. Take your own advise stop posting PR and wait for the official report.

Its like Son of SHELL MANAGEMENT.

+1 from me.

[HeliComparator]

lowfat - I can understand that if you work for Bond you are deperate for some absolution. But for the rest of us, learning any lessons is more important than trying to hide them in case they are damning.

If it is any consolation, if I had to put money on it my best guess would be that with the thresholds set as they were, even if RRTR download had been carried out I doubt an amber or red traffic light would have been generated. And anyone who knows about the practicalities of HUMS knows that it is not feasible for engineering to manually trawl through every parameter of every transmission element looking for some unusual trend.

However that is only my guess. If I were Bond I would be nervous about crowing about absolution until it is "official" just in case it turned out to be incorrect. In aviation it is seemly to be open to the possibility of having made a mistake and hence open to learning from it and applying a fix. To have as your first priority a desire to prove lack of blame is I suppose understandable from a commercial point of view but not from an aviation safety point of view.

Despite your feelings about me I do hope that Bond are proven to be absolved, but so far that can only be a hope.

[lowfat]

Even with this sanctimonious reply you are forgetting

"There but for the grace of God, go I"

As you appear to blow the trumpet of Bristows all the time lets learn the lessons of the Bristow Nigeria Ditching in December 2009.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/398622-puma-ditching-nigeria.html

Oh sorry that s right..

It has none

there is no report ..... It would appear to have been swept under the carpet.....

Notice you didn't post on that thread with your expert analysis.

Taxi for Helicomparetor!

[SASless]

Whatever did happen to the report on the Nigeria ditching....and all the video that was taken...especially the part where the Co-Pilot was talking of what happened?

Can you enlighten us HC? Surely there was some sort of NCAA investigation and a Investigative Report issued....wasn't there?


My post in the Nigeria Puma Ditching thread......

Still no official word on the latest Accident in Nigeria?

But then as there has been no Press Releases providing any details of the Two Bell 412's that were lost either....this should come as no surprise.

One 412 went down at night during a very questionable set of circumstances while on a "Casevac" flight killing all aboard.

The second 412 crashed at the Mobil QIT....under really odd circumstances killing the only occupant aboard....the pilot.

Now we have a Tiger going for a swim.....and despite there being no one injured and at least one video tape in existence.....still no report telling of the circumstances.

Makes one wonder why the zipped lips!

Bristow using Polygraphs and Voice Analysers to seek out "Leakers"?

Beware the key stroke monitoring programs on the company router perhaps....but when at home on leave....one should be able to spread a bit of word to the rest of us.

[HeliComparator]

lowfat - since you just want to be abusive and are not interested in any facts or opinions except your own - especially if they might be truthful, maybe you should go back to moo moo land and give the moaning mooing a break. Do you think trying to create a smokescreen with an old nigerian accident in some way takes the heat off you? Shame on you for not being interested in the truth.

SAS - good question about the Nigerian 332 ditching. Of course we know what happened (though not necessarily exactly why), but I have never seen a report. There would not be a report from AAIB because it would be the Nigerian equivalent investigation board. I presume there must be such a thing but personally I have never come across a report of an aviation accident in Nigeria. A quick Google reveals nothing so I guess it must be well hidden!

[Fareastdriver]

have never come across a report of an aviation accident in Nigeria

Same for a few other countries as well.

[Grey Area]

I have been following this thread with interest, mainly as I have a few mates flying out of Aberdeen with Bond (CHC and Bristow also). I have spoken with a few and evidently they seem to follow the thread but keep their parochial thoughts to themselves for fear of the sort of flaming that they might get. Yet they are as entitled to comment as anyone else.

So I shall say it for them:

My main observation is that as professional pilots there seems to be a lot of unprofessional sniping.

HC, many know who you are, and what you are likely to know, so stop pretending to be an innocent, the press release was from EC not Bond and yet you still imply that Bond might be crowing. I am also told that your company is stretching out to 5 hours while your two opposition rest at 4 hours between downloads. Perhaps you should put your own house in order and not expose your pax to greater risk than the opposition for commercial gain?

The truth is 2 professional pilots did a damn good job and prevented a tricky situation becoming a fatal accident, well done chaps! GAPAN award nomination perhaps?

Chin chin....

[SASless]

Any suggestion however slight the crew made anything but an excellent display of airmanship and professional excellence has been hammered swiftly.

The thrust of the discussion is what factors may have played a role in a need for such professional actions by the crew. I raised the question about there being any differences between the operators in their procedures, policies, and protocols that might have allowed for Bond to be more vulnerable to this happening.

It certainly isn't to suggest Bond runs a sloppy shop....far from it. Much as in the BV-234 crash.....who would have guessed such a cause would occur.

When these things happen....it is a good exercise to take a moment and think over how one does business....even the fortunate operators who were not involved.



Helicopters are designed and built by humans....wno also write the specifications, standards, and testing pro forma. Even in the best of efforts....bad things can happen.

The important thing is to look over what we are doing now and then....take a fresh look....and make sure complacency has not set a trap for us.

[roundwego]

Grey Area

I can also confirm you are factually incorrect regarding your allegation about the time scale between HUMS inspections.

With reference to the "press release", it is unheard of for a manufacturer to issue a statement absolving an operator from blame in the way presented in the press. I would put money on the bet that it was Bond that , for very good reason and for very understandable reasons, have persuaded ECF to put some statement in writing indicating that there is no evidence to indicate Bond is to blame for the recent unfortunate ditching. I suspect it was Bond that was the driving force behind this and it would have been Bond (or their PR consultants) that gave the statement to the press and asked the press to publish it. Any other operator in Bond's position would do the same to try and take the pressure off them. I don't blame Bond for this action at all.

[HeliComparator]

Grey Area

Nice to know that I am so famous! I suspect that if you know who I am, you are not just another passenger but someone with "inside knowledge". So perhaps it is you who is playing the innocent? OK you don't say you are a passenger, but you are hoping to imply that.

As has been said by others, it is unusual to see the manufacturer publicly absolving an operator of blame before an accident report is out, and my suspicion is that is it the consequence of commercial goings-on between the two parties. It may well end up being found to be true, but as I keep saying, too early to say, and I certainly won't be taking the P&J's word for it! If you really imagine that the press release was done without at the very least, the full consent of Bond, you are in la la land!

The AD does not apply to any of our aircraft in Aberdeen. Despite that, we have implemented the manufacturer's recommended HUMS download interval of 5 hrs. So have other operators with aircraft not affected by the AD. In truth, since we download the data on every return to base, it would be very few flights, possibly only those up to the Shetland Basin with multi stops and a detour to the Shetlands, that might exceed 5 hrs flight time in normal times before the event.

Operators with aircraft affected by the AD had to download the data every 3 hours. That has recently been extended to 4 hrs. Therefore the three operators are all following the same rules and recommendations (of course) but there are differences because of their different fleets.

You talk of sniping, perhaps you could give an example because I think this thread has been very balanced. There are those who want to exonerate Bond before the facts are known, for personal reasons (they work for Bond!) and the rest of us who keep saying that it is too early to make a judgement. If failing to join the bandwagon of trying to exonerate Bond before the facts are known makes me a sniper, then so be it.

Since you know who I work for, it would be nice to be told who you work for, otherwise I surely couldn't guess!

[Scotsheli]

...dear chap. No one needs to stretch anything to 5 hours. Read the AD - propperly.

If you dont have an affected shaft, 5 hours it is. End of.

[212man]

Since you know who I work for, it would be nice to be told who you work for, otherwise I surely couldn't guess!

My guess would be the RN (or QinetiQ) :ok:

you are not just another passenger

I'm not sure test pilots would be classed as passengers, though I imagine there are some manoeuvres where they feel they are just along for the ride, sometimes!

[HeliComparator]

My guess would be the RN (or QinetiQ)

Certainly was, but is he still? Or has he moved on to that NSea resting place for ex military pilots?

[Grey Area]

Chaps

I have read both the AD and SIN. The AD is not great from an airworthiness authoring perspective, as HC pointed out above, and it only applies to a specific group of aircraft / gear boxes.

Scotsheli I suspect you mean the SIN which states:

"As a complement to the scheduled maintenance actions, the proposal is based on an analysis of the vibration data delivered by the health systems, preferably to be performed every 4 flying hours which may be extended to 5 flying hours for operational needs."

This is not the same as "If you dont have an affected shaft, 5 hours it is. End of."

With no definition of "operational needs" then the SIN would appear to be open to interpretation, not great practice in the world of airworthiness.

I had been led to believe that the "operational needs" element has been interpreted differently between operators, if I am incorrect then I apologise - this is a place for rumour not disinfomation.

[HeliComparator]

I would interpret it to be that if you have two flights totalling 5 hrs with intermediate return to a base where MARMS can be downloaded, that should be done. On the other hand if it is a single trip of between 4 and 5 hours that is OK because it is operationally difficult to download within 4 hrs.

In reality most trips from Abz are less than 4 hrs flight time.

[CharlieOneSix]

Special Bulletin S5/2012 issued today. Emergency lube worked okay but monitoring system gave incorrect indication of failure to the crew.

Safety Recommendation 2012-034: to review the design of the emergency lube system to ensure crew are provided with an accurate indication of its status when activated.

Air Accidents Investigation: S5/2012 - EC225 LP Super Puma, G-REDW (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s5_2012___ec225_lp_super_puma__g_redw.cfm)

[Brom]

just caught the end of a Grampian News interview with a well known Aberdeen aviation journalist. If I heard correctly there was no need to ditch the aircraft, the crew could have retuned to Aberdeen and the fault would have been traced by engineering.
As I said, I didn't hear the whole interview so I may have got it totally out of context. Anyone hear the whole item?

[SASless]

We need to discuss the difference between "Could" and "Should"....which is the key to this situation.

I would reluctantly say "could" but only after the fact and the investigation that showed the Emergency Lube System WAS working although every indication said it WAS NOT. (Unless i grossly confused what the Report had to say.)

Hind sight is wonderful....especially when it is not your precious Ass sitting in the Helicopter when these things happen.

[heli-cal]

I'm astonished that the system had never been tested on an actual, working helicopter prior to being granted certification!

That it worked on a ground test MGB rig is one thing, but as that MGB is one part of the whole, surely the testing should be done on a test helicopter in flight, where anomalies such as the false indication could be resolved.

As it stands, this crew were, in effect, the test pilots, and they should never have been placed in that situation.

I'm guessing that Eurocopter will be picking up the bill for this incident.

[Bravo73]

just caught the end of a Grampian News interview with a well known Aberdeen aviation journalist. If I heard correctly there was no need to ditch the aircraft, the crew could have retuned to Aberdeen and the fault would have been traced by engineering.
As I said, I didn't hear the whole interview so I may have got it totally out of context. Anyone hear the whole item?

It sounds like ignorance is bliss (or not, unfortunately).

Please excuse me for linking back to a previous post in this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/7194922-post179.html

[finalchecksplease]

Brom,

Just follow this link if you want to see the STV clip Pilot ditched helicopter in North Sea due to 'false warning' light | Aberdeen & North | News | STV (http://news.stv.tv/north/195296-pilot-ditched-helicopter-into-north-sea-because-of-false-warning-light/)

Regards,

Finalchecksplease

[thechopper]

The expert has to make another comment:yuk:

[The Sultan]

Heli

At least it worked on the bench. The S-92 failed miserably in an oil out test at exactly the same time it failed in the real world event. The difference is that
Sikorsky misled the operators and passengers about their "safety features" while Eurocopter's system worked and the only issue was a false alert which caused a few people to get wet and a round of drinks later.

Big difference.

The Sultan

[Bravo73]

"the only issue was a false alert"

The 'only issue'? Are you for real?

The gearbox suffered from a catastrophic failure of a major component (the main shaft). That is slightly more than a 'false alert'.

[cyclic]

Let us not forget, the crew were still around 20mins flying time to land at Vy. Even if the emergency lube was working correctly as the AAIB had stated, the main shaft was effectively unsupported and the resulting damage in the gearbox could have caused considerable other problems. The Emergency Lube wasn't designed around this kind of scenario where the gearbox oil was still contained. Looking on the bright side, EC's malfunctioning system may have been a blessing in disguise.

Strange that EC were unavailable for comment this evening...

[SASless]

Reading anything Sultan posts is a sheer waste of time folks.:=

[212man]

The 'only issue'? Are you for real?

The gearbox suffered from a catastrophic failure of a major component (the main shaft). That is slightly more than a 'false alert'.

B73, re-read what he said

Eurocopter's system worked and the only issue was a false alert

Not agreeing or disagreeing with him, just pointing out what he actually said....

[Bravo73]

I did read what he said, 212. And it appears that he was just trying to score some anti-Sikorsky points (yet again).

But he is also as poorly informed as that other 'expert', Jim Ferguson. The emlub system might have been working as designed but it wasn't designed to deal with a failure of this type. The major issue here was the failure of the main shaft - when the weld failed, it effectively sheared in two. No amount of glycol was going to stop the lower section thrashing the rest of the gearbox apart.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Sadly Jim Ferguson has been the media's gob on a stick of choice for about three decades. Accuracy, knowledge, and being trusted by anyone from the operators have never been any of his virtues.

What he once wrote about me (and said on tv) was so inaccurate as to be laughable.

If he'd like to take me up on this how about the car park of the Spiders web one Friday night. I'll give him the correction that I know so many pilots and the families of pilots he has effectively libelled over the years would dearly like him to have:E

As for the crew of this one the definition of "Land Immediately" in the FM doesn't brook many arguments. I bet it made a good CRM exercise, well done them.

SND

[VeeAny]

Just watched the video of the JF interview.

I have thought it for many years, but that man is truly an idiot.

Well done to the crew.

[HeliHenri]

The pilots of an offshore helicopter forced to ditch in the North sea have begun court proceedings against the aircraft's manufacturer.

Pilots set to launch legal action after offshore Super Puma ditching | Aberdeen & North | News (http://news.stv.tv/north/1321388-pilots-set-to-launch-legal-action-after-offshore-super-puma-ditching/)

[heli1]

So what's this legal action all about...Did they ditch safely ?.....Yes, Did the helicopter roll over ?....No,Were they injured ?...probably not...Were they safely rescued?.....Yes...Were they traumatised?..Probably....Are the lawyers going to make loads of money?ABSOLUTELY,

[Wizzard]

I checked the link and then checked the Court of Session reports; this case was entered on 21/05/15. Strangely on the same day several cases were filed by individuals against Bond Offshore using the same law firm as the Airbus case! Do I detect a bit of ambulance chasing? ;)

[roundwego]

It's a brave pilot that risks his future employment chances by getting the reputation of being a litigious money chaser. If a pilot has suffered injury, loss of earnings or similar then fair enough but when he/she knows that the a controlled ditching is a predictable event for which he/she is trained for and the ditching was "by the book" without them getting too wet, a court case like this could, in my opinion, be held against them by a potential future employer.

[The Sultan]

Heli1

Do not see much of a case against Bond, however the gross incompetence of Airbus in designing the emergency lube fault switch with the wiring backwards is as they say "priceless."

The Sultan

[roundwego]

Sultan, what are you talking about ?