S76 down in GOM
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I am not a helo pilot but I do train pax and aircrew in HUET and general aviation safety.
Could someone please clarify the following for me:
In other areas of the world where I have worked in the oil and gas industry, flights at night are generally undertaken only for urgent medivac. Are night transfer flights the norm in GOM or is it the requirment to land and depart the platform / vessell during daylight hours and the flight may then be completed at night?
Very sad whatever the cause
and it makes my job that little bit harder when I have to convince inexperienced flyers about the safety and reliability of overwater helicopter flights.
My sincere condolences to all involved and affected by this tragedy.
I am not a helo pilot but I do train pax and aircrew in HUET and general aviation safety.
Could someone please clarify the following for me:
In other areas of the world where I have worked in the oil and gas industry, flights at night are generally undertaken only for urgent medivac. Are night transfer flights the norm in GOM or is it the requirment to land and depart the platform / vessell during daylight hours and the flight may then be completed at night?
Very sad whatever the cause
and it makes my job that little bit harder when I have to convince inexperienced flyers about the safety and reliability of overwater helicopter flights.My sincere condolences to all involved and affected by this tragedy.
Flying into the water with an imperceptable ROD can and does happen.
S61 Penzance to Scillies late 1980's early 90's I believe. Goldfish bowl conditions over a glassy sea. Flew straight onto the water at cruise speed. Killed a few, too.
S61 Penzance to Scillies late 1980's early 90's I believe. Goldfish bowl conditions over a glassy sea. Flew straight onto the water at cruise speed. Killed a few, too.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: usually AUS
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the machines in the GOM are set up different to the rest of the offshore world i doubt them flying into the sea in the cruise would have been the cause.
It should have had a serviceable SPWS (Surface Proximity Warning System) which warns the pilots when they are decending through 1000' (depending on their company NOP's) and then another more urgent warning decending through 100'. I doubt given the type of operation and experience of the pilots that they both would have ignored such warnings.
On an offshore operation with two pilots, decending into the sea at night would be more likley to occur on approach to a moving vessel than in the cruise!? This is one of the reasons why this type of operation has two pilots.
Recently in the UK a 76 suffered a main blade failure from lightning damage.
This accident sounds very similar to that. Let's wait and see what the ATSB come up with before we jump on the blame the pilots bandwagon.
The poor bastards probably never had a chance RIP!!
It should have had a serviceable SPWS (Surface Proximity Warning System) which warns the pilots when they are decending through 1000' (depending on their company NOP's) and then another more urgent warning decending through 100'. I doubt given the type of operation and experience of the pilots that they both would have ignored such warnings.
On an offshore operation with two pilots, decending into the sea at night would be more likley to occur on approach to a moving vessel than in the cruise!? This is one of the reasons why this type of operation has two pilots.
Recently in the UK a 76 suffered a main blade failure from lightning damage.
This accident sounds very similar to that.
Let's wait and see what the ATSB come up with before we jump on the blame the pilots bandwagon. The poor bastards probably never had a chance RIP!!
Last edited by rotormat; 5th Apr 2004 at 08:18.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotormat, I don't know of any helicopters in the GOM that have GPWS installed. They aren't required by law, thus no one spends the money for them.
Islander, night flights in the GOM are rather common. Most of what we do are either medevacs or parts runs for broken drilling rigs, but flights just to take people out, or bring them in, because they didn't get done during the day aren't uncommon. This flight was supposedly to a drill ship under way moving from one end of the Gulf to another, to take personnel for the new customer so they would be on board at arrival. This isn't at all unusual. There are also many night flights to and from supertankers.
Islander, night flights in the GOM are rather common. Most of what we do are either medevacs or parts runs for broken drilling rigs, but flights just to take people out, or bring them in, because they didn't get done during the day aren't uncommon. This flight was supposedly to a drill ship under way moving from one end of the Gulf to another, to take personnel for the new customer so they would be on board at arrival. This isn't at all unusual. There are also many night flights to and from supertankers.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aussie offshore
Rotormat!
Are all offshore machines required by law to have GPWS as per Australian air reg's?
Not a requirement in Canada or the U.S( American dudes please confirm!).
If that's the case, awesome for you guys, and behind the times for us.
D.K
Are all offshore machines required by law to have GPWS as per Australian air reg's?
Not a requirement in Canada or the U.S( American dudes please confirm!).
If that's the case, awesome for you guys, and behind the times for us.
D.K
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: usually AUS
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not 100% but will check and get back to you on the SPWS (Also known as AVAD- Automatice Voice Alerting Device) legislation in AUS and the UK. Certainly it is the standard equipment for all machines operating offshore in the UK and AUS. Could be a client requirement, but then our clients are your clients so i doubt it i imagine it must be legislation or they wouldn't do it.
There just as tight over here and we only get the minimum equipment to do the job!
Just so you understand the GWPS we use works through our RADALT's (Radio Altimeters). We definatly have to have this for offshore in AUS and these are in all offshore helicopters in the UK and AUS.
I thought we worked to FAA reg's for most things to keep us aligned with ICAO. Must not in this case?
There just as tight over here and we only get the minimum equipment to do the job!
Just so you understand the GWPS we use works through our RADALT's (Radio Altimeters). We definatly have to have this for offshore in AUS and these are in all offshore helicopters in the UK and AUS.
I thought we worked to FAA reg's for most things to keep us aligned with ICAO. Must not in this case?
Last edited by rotormat; 5th Apr 2004 at 08:16.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotormat:
That was a humorous remark - right.
I think you have confused some on this thread - the equipment you mention is a standard RADALT with an AVAD: two settings are available; that which is set by the pilot; and the factory preset warning (in the UK set to 100'). The first gives "check height" and the second "100 feet" (or whatever is the factory preset).
I thought we worked to FAA reg's for most things to keep us aligned with ICAO. Must not in this case?
I think you have confused some on this thread - the equipment you mention is a standard RADALT with an AVAD: two settings are available; that which is set by the pilot; and the factory preset warning (in the UK set to 100'). The first gives "check height" and the second "100 feet" (or whatever is the factory preset).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotormat
I am afraid that your inexperience on international industry requirements shows by your assumption that all aircraft are equipped equally.
In the USA, there is no AVAD requirement legistlatively,. Customers can want it, but it is not certified by the FAA so not as easy as you might think.
There are many discrepancies between the FARs, CARs and ICAO.
Aircraft in the GOM still fly with one way fuel to some places....try getting that approved in UK or Australia. The world is not a level playing field in terms of equipment and even customer requirements I'm afraid.
I am afraid that your inexperience on international industry requirements shows by your assumption that all aircraft are equipped equally.
In the USA, there is no AVAD requirement legistlatively,. Customers can want it, but it is not certified by the FAA so not as easy as you might think.
There are many discrepancies between the FARs, CARs and ICAO.
Aircraft in the GOM still fly with one way fuel to some places....try getting that approved in UK or Australia. The world is not a level playing field in terms of equipment and even customer requirements I'm afraid.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: usually AUS
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reply to Mars
"I think you have confused some on this thread - the equipment you mention is a standard RADALT with an AVAD: two settings are available; that which is set by the pilot; and the factory preset warning (in the UK set to 100'). The first gives "check height" and the second "100 feet" (or whatever is the factory preset)."
Mars the AVAD system we have works through the RADALTS. The "check height" aural warning occurs when the helicopter decends through the lowest RADALT bug setting (set by either pilot from 0 to 2500' on our radalts) the 100' aural warning works when the helicopter decends through 100' on the radalts.
The AVAD system can be u/s and the RADALT's will still work normally. You may or not get the check height or 100' aural warnings depending on the problem with the AVAD system.
In AUS you can go DAY VFR OFFSHORE with either Radalts or AVAD U/S. NVFR or IFR depends on clients and other considerations.
Anyway back to the original thread issue, is there any news on the ATSB investigation?
Mars the AVAD system we have works through the RADALTS. The "check height" aural warning occurs when the helicopter decends through the lowest RADALT bug setting (set by either pilot from 0 to 2500' on our radalts) the 100' aural warning works when the helicopter decends through 100' on the radalts.
The AVAD system can be u/s and the RADALT's will still work normally. You may or not get the check height or 100' aural warnings depending on the problem with the AVAD system.
In AUS you can go DAY VFR OFFSHORE with either Radalts or AVAD U/S. NVFR or IFR depends on clients and other considerations.
Anyway back to the original thread issue, is there any news on the ATSB investigation?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
***Latest Release ***
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
April 13, 2004
************************************************************
SECOND UPDATE ON NTSB INVESTIGATION INTO MARCH 23
CRASH OF HELICOPTER IN GULF OF MEXICO
************************************************************
The following is an update of the NTSB's investigation into the crash of
an ERA Aviation, Inc. Sikorsky S-76A++ twin-engine turbine powered helicopter
(N579EH) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, in the Gulf of Mexico.
The on-scene portion of the accident investigation concluded on Saturday,
April 3. Before the investigative team left, a sweeper ship dragged the debris
field for small parts of the wreckage that might still have been there. Those
parts (probably comprising about 1 percent of the aircraft) were delivered to
Lake Charles, Louisiana, where they were documented and secured with the rest of
the wreckage.
A number of pieces of wreckage have been forwarded to the Safety Board's
laboratory in Washington, D.C. for further examination. Among them are the
first 20 feet of the tail rotor drive shaft and two hangar bearings, the caution
advisory panel from the cockpit, the servo actuator valve for the landing gear,
the airspeed indicator, both altimeters and the radio select panel.
Other components were sent to their manufacturers for further examination
under NTSB supervision later this month. They are the engines and electrical
tachometer boxes to Turbomeca in Grand Prairie, Texas; the main, interim, and
tail gear boxes to Sikorsky in Shelton, Connecticut; and the symbol generator to
Sperry Aerospace (now Honeywell) in Phoenix, Arizona. The Global Positioning
System was sent to Free Flight Systems in Waco, Texas, where an attempt was made
to download the data; this attempt was unsuccessful, presumably because the
unit's submersion in salt water depleted the battery.
Radar data have been examined. The data indicate that the helicopter was
cruising at 1,800 feet when it started a descent at about 250 feet per minute to
1,100 feet. At that point radar contact was lost (radar coverage is limited at
lower altitudes that distance from the radar site), but the wreckage was found
about 40 miles from the last radar hit and about 15 miles from the last routine
radio call from the flight crew.
The Board's investigation into this crash continues.
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
April 13, 2004
************************************************************
SECOND UPDATE ON NTSB INVESTIGATION INTO MARCH 23
CRASH OF HELICOPTER IN GULF OF MEXICO
************************************************************
The following is an update of the NTSB's investigation into the crash of
an ERA Aviation, Inc. Sikorsky S-76A++ twin-engine turbine powered helicopter
(N579EH) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, in the Gulf of Mexico.
The on-scene portion of the accident investigation concluded on Saturday,
April 3. Before the investigative team left, a sweeper ship dragged the debris
field for small parts of the wreckage that might still have been there. Those
parts (probably comprising about 1 percent of the aircraft) were delivered to
Lake Charles, Louisiana, where they were documented and secured with the rest of
the wreckage.
A number of pieces of wreckage have been forwarded to the Safety Board's
laboratory in Washington, D.C. for further examination. Among them are the
first 20 feet of the tail rotor drive shaft and two hangar bearings, the caution
advisory panel from the cockpit, the servo actuator valve for the landing gear,
the airspeed indicator, both altimeters and the radio select panel.
Other components were sent to their manufacturers for further examination
under NTSB supervision later this month. They are the engines and electrical
tachometer boxes to Turbomeca in Grand Prairie, Texas; the main, interim, and
tail gear boxes to Sikorsky in Shelton, Connecticut; and the symbol generator to
Sperry Aerospace (now Honeywell) in Phoenix, Arizona. The Global Positioning
System was sent to Free Flight Systems in Waco, Texas, where an attempt was made
to download the data; this attempt was unsuccessful, presumably because the
unit's submersion in salt water depleted the battery.
Radar data have been examined. The data indicate that the helicopter was
cruising at 1,800 feet when it started a descent at about 250 feet per minute to
1,100 feet. At that point radar contact was lost (radar coverage is limited at
lower altitudes that distance from the radar site), but the wreckage was found
about 40 miles from the last radar hit and about 15 miles from the last routine
radio call from the flight crew.
The Board's investigation into this crash continues.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm?
Firstly, My condolences to all the families / friends of those recently departed.
250'/min....1000' in 4 mins.
Wreckage appx 40nm from last radar contact
Cruise speed of SK-76 - 130kts (or better) (appx 2.1nm/min)
Last radar contact at 1100' ( appx 4mins 20sec to '0' alt)
Looks like there maybe more to this than simple CFIT(W)
Many of us offshore drivers will watch this one closely, anyone with up to date info....please keep us informed
250'/min....1000' in 4 mins.
Wreckage appx 40nm from last radar contact
Cruise speed of SK-76 - 130kts (or better) (appx 2.1nm/min)
Last radar contact at 1100' ( appx 4mins 20sec to '0' alt)
Looks like there maybe more to this than simple CFIT(W)
Many of us offshore drivers will watch this one closely, anyone with up to date info....please keep us informed
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Was the radar altimeter unserviceable?
If so, is there a MEL permitting it to be flown at night over water without the radar altimeter?
Could be an interesting development.
If so, is there a MEL permitting it to be flown at night over water without the radar altimeter?
Could be an interesting development.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR-OPS MEL Policy Document (the baseline document for all operational equipment) would have allowed the flight to launch with a RADALT unserviceable:
Cannot find an entry in the FAA MMEL (could signify that it is not permitted to be unserviceable; or, it is not considered - period).
(O) May be inoperative provided :
(a) It is not reasonably practical to repair or replace
the Radio Altimeter before the commencement
of flight,
(b)No more than 6 hours shall be flown over water
since the Radio Altimeter became unserviceable,
(c)Not more than 24 hours have elapsed since the
Radio Altimeter became unserviceable,
(d)The aircraft shall not fly overwater at an altitude of
less than 500 feet except for take-off and landing,
and
(e) The helicopter shall not descend below 500 feet on
approach to landing overwater unless the landing
site is clearly visible to the pilot.
(a) It is not reasonably practical to repair or replace
the Radio Altimeter before the commencement
of flight,
(b)No more than 6 hours shall be flown over water
since the Radio Altimeter became unserviceable,
(c)Not more than 24 hours have elapsed since the
Radio Altimeter became unserviceable,
(d)The aircraft shall not fly overwater at an altitude of
less than 500 feet except for take-off and landing,
and
(e) The helicopter shall not descend below 500 feet on
approach to landing overwater unless the landing
site is clearly visible to the pilot.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Each Part 135 operator will have a specific MEL for each aircraft model. I haven't seen Era's MEL for the S76, but it's likely that the radar altimeter can be MEL'd, as every one I've seen for other operators allows it, and a radar altimeter is not required to be installed. Generally the only restriction is that OSAPs (Offshore Standard Approach Procedures) in IMC must have the minimums raised depending on the distance of the approach platform from an altimeter source. The FAA is apparently more liberal than European and Canadian agencies, because there are few requirements for flying at night over water or anywhere else. FAR 91 requirements for night flight pretty much cover Part 135 operations, and they don't require much. Right or wrong (and I think wrong) you can go out in a standard Robinson in the middle of the night. Currently floats aren't even required.
I would also say that the descent described isn't unusual. Perhaps they descended because of a thin layer of clouds, and wanted to be under them. I also heard that they planned to refuel in the vicinity of the crash site, but cancelled the refuelling stop because enough fuel was aboard to reach the ship, which I'm sure had fuel available. Perhaps they descended, intending to land, then continued at the lower altitude. I wouldn't rush to presume that they continued the descent into the water. We hope the NTSB finds the cause of the accident quickly.
It's a real shame that there is such poor radar and comm coverage out there. The Congress has authorized money to install more facilities, but the current administration has refused to spend it. They obviously have other priorities, and our safety isn't even a blip on their radar.
I would also say that the descent described isn't unusual. Perhaps they descended because of a thin layer of clouds, and wanted to be under them. I also heard that they planned to refuel in the vicinity of the crash site, but cancelled the refuelling stop because enough fuel was aboard to reach the ship, which I'm sure had fuel available. Perhaps they descended, intending to land, then continued at the lower altitude. I wouldn't rush to presume that they continued the descent into the water. We hope the NTSB finds the cause of the accident quickly.
It's a real shame that there is such poor radar and comm coverage out there. The Congress has authorized money to install more facilities, but the current administration has refused to spend it. They obviously have other priorities, and our safety isn't even a blip on their radar.
