Not being a GOMER at all, but having plenty of offshore time elsewhere, I make the following points:

Is it possible to park the 206 in the middle of the deck, and when someone else wants to land, just fly it off whilst the other does its own thing? Wouldn't that be extra revenue time, the repositioning of the aircraft for landing traffic?

Or were both aircraft going to be shutdown at the same time?

Or was the 206 pilot off duty?

I guess if the 407 had landed and shutdown first, there would not be enough room for the 206 to land?

I know on some decks I have operated off that if a 412 has landed first then there is not enough room for a 212 to land, but if the 212 went in first and shutdown then there is plenty of room for a 412. And as many times as I've tied down a 212, occassionaly for whatever reason the next morning I've found the blade come adrift. I would not want to share a deck with a another helicopter, tied down or otherwise, if the rotor disc arcs infringe on each other.

All my offshore time has been with oil companies who own their own helicopters, so the commercial aspects I'm familiar with are probably far different to what they would be in the GOM, where the operators are out to make a dollar. I think this would be an interesting topic; exploring any significant operational differences between oil companies operating their own aircraft and having contractors.

It's all a balance or compromise, Gulli.

The 206 pilot was most assuredly *on* duty; there is no such thing as an off-duty 206 during daylight hours in the GOM. If he was shut down, it was because he was waiting on his customer to finish work downstairs. Presumably (as opposed to assumably) the 407 pilot was just landing for fuel, as that is a fuel-stop platform for that operator.

It is true that the 206 pilot could have parked right in the middle. But without FM radio commo with the platform, the 407 pilot would have had to "buzz" the place to get the 206 pilot's attention, then circle while the 206 cranked up and moved. Yes, the 206's flight time would have most likely been billable, as would be the extra circling time for the 407. But you also have one more cycle on the 206 engine as well as the risk of another take-off and landing.

Buzzing the platform is "iffy" sometimes. If the platform is noisy and everyone is inside the living quarters with the t.v. on, they might not hear the ship that wants to land. I've circled and circled and circled, waiting for the other pilot to trudge upstairs to move. It's no fun when the customers onboard *my* ship have a tight or full schedule that day and don't feel happy about "wasting" time waiting for someone else.

Plus its friggin' hot in the GOM these days, and if I were the 206 pilot, sitting comfortably in the air conditioned quarters below watching the aforementioned t.v., I would personally rather not have to go up and crank if there was an acceptable alternative. And in the GOM, it has always been acceptable to land two helicopters on a single deck if there is sufficient room. (The actual amount of room needed from MR blade tip to obstruction will be specified in the Ops Manual.) After all, we're supposed to be professionals out there, not private pilots. We're not allowed to use that "sudden gust of wind blew the helicopter" excuse for hitting something. ("Sudden gust of wind, eh? Oh, really? I thought that's what we had CYCLIC STICKS for...")

Chevron USA owns their own aircraft and does have a "one-ship-per-heliport" policy. Further, they require that the one-and-only helicopter park right in the center of the deck, ensuring that a dead battery or other non-starting malady will require parts to come out on a boat rather than in another helicopter. Odd, but they think it's safer/better and who are we to argue?

No accident is ever good. Safety considerations aside, this one is bad for other reasons too. The market for LongRanger L-4's and 407's is tight right now. Nobody has any helicopters sitting around idle. RLC is going to have to scramble to replace the ships on those contracts (repairing both is obviously going to take some time) - not to mention looking pretty dumb to their respective customers.

The culture in the GOM isn't going to change soon, no matter what those on the other side of the pond may think, or how much they pontificate. The US cares not at all about ICAO or any rules or regulations anyone in Europe or elsewhere may have. The oil companies care about short-term profits, and nothing else. If people die, well, that's what insurance is for, and the cost is easily absorbed, being more than made up for through savings from not actually having safety policies. Actually, there are many safety policies, they are just ignored by field personnel, with the implicit agreement from management. Thus the refinery explosions in BP facilities, chemical releases from plants everywhere (in Texas, all monitoring is done solely by the companies, the state doesn't even bother). You Brits can feel superior all you want, but the British management of the companies doing this are fully complicit in all of it. If it doesn't happen in the UK, then who cares?

I would like to say a word on behalf of all the oil companies I've flown for, British and others. Without exception, they all stick absolutely rigidly to each and every safety rule - to the letter.






















Until it becomes inconvenient.

Farmer 1....


Never a truer word spoken on this forum

Farmer 1 - I thought the North Sea would be a "tightly" run operation. The CAA not the watch dog I thought? I know what you say is certainly true for a oil company owned and operated operation here.

Anyone remember the Queensland accident many moons ago, involving a B222 and a Long Ranger

The poor old 222 pilot was quietly having a coffee some distance away from the helipad, when the LongRanger landed and hit the 222 blade, with at least (IIRC) one fatal amongst the LongRanger pax.

It cost the 222 pilot >$40k in legal fees when he was charged (with manslaughter, I think) before the Queensland police withdrew the charges. I believe the pad was regularly used for 2-3 helicopters as a normal operation, on the basis that the blades were secured fore and aft on the machines that had shut down. The 222 pilot was well and truly hung out to dry on the accident

Yes, I think you're right, Brian, at least in principle. What tends to happen is that the various companies, always wanting to show the world how safety-minded they are, introduce their own safety rules. When they eventually realise a rule is actually costing them money, they quietly bin it. If circumstances change, and obeying that rule can be seen to be a bit less uneconomic, it is reintroduced sharpish. So long as it looks good, all is well.

The rules tend to be written by someone far removed from the sharp end, who will never directly feel the effects of them.

While not always agreeing with what the CAA says and does, I was always grateful that there was some kind of authority back there who laid down rules to which we could refer and quote, should the need arise.

And it did.

I can't imagine anyone suggesting a landing like the one that originated this thread, for instance.