Offshore Helideck Ops
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Abz
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here on the North Sea (& allowed by JAR) we have an en-route letdown procedure. I don't have the books in front of me but I am fairly sure the requirements are: at least 10 nm from land (as determined by wx radar), an expected weather of at least 600' cloudbase and 4km vis. If we are not clear of cloud by 500' we must give up and go IFR.
By night its 1200' and 5km for reasons I have never understood! ( - what's the difference between day and night when you're in a cloud?).
If I have got the figures wrong, no doubt some other N Sea chaps will let me know
By night its 1200' and 5km for reasons I have never understood! ( - what's the difference between day and night when you're in a cloud?).
If I have got the figures wrong, no doubt some other N Sea chaps will let me know
Peter,
Are you talking about an "enroute off-shore let-down" or about an approach procedure ?
If I understand well, you just need to transition from IMC inbound cruise at 2000 feet to a formal VFR in order to avoid full IF procedure, and you would like to make this procedure official with local authorities, as for instance a determined special VFR helicopter corridor from this "point in space".
Are you talking about an "enroute off-shore let-down" or about an approach procedure ?
If I understand well, you just need to transition from IMC inbound cruise at 2000 feet to a formal VFR in order to avoid full IF procedure, and you would like to make this procedure official with local authorities, as for instance a determined special VFR helicopter corridor from this "point in space".
Peter,
I have had to face a similar problem in an African country where helicopters were allowed to operate VFR only.
This, beeing not compatible with an offshore scope of operation, we had to offer local CAA officials a trip to Aberdeen to make them believe helicopters could safely fly in clouds at night and, when adapting speed, in reduced visibility.
Back home, they worked out an "helicopter SID and STAR" , separated from "planked-wing" procedures, and allowing us to offshore depart and arrive at transition altitude in their controlled area.
The next stage would have been to make official a lower altitude than transition altitude (2600') over off-shore sectors and eventually drifting to "reduced visibility helicopter lanes" to get completly rid of IFR procedures (not very confortable in stormy conditions with "adapted" fuel reserves and a "virtual" divertion)
But this scheme sadly never evolved, because controllers becoming aware of off-shore helicopters equipment and crew experience, cleared for a "visual approach" most of the time when requested by a crew.
Reporting points on theses SID an STARS where determined on VOR/DME use.
But, as a matter of fact, helicopters are at ease in the shadow area between this cristal clear part of regulations and the darkness of unlawfull chaos (sometimes they even feel better in chaos !
)
I have had to face a similar problem in an African country where helicopters were allowed to operate VFR only.
This, beeing not compatible with an offshore scope of operation, we had to offer local CAA officials a trip to Aberdeen to make them believe helicopters could safely fly in clouds at night and, when adapting speed, in reduced visibility.
Back home, they worked out an "helicopter SID and STAR" , separated from "planked-wing" procedures, and allowing us to offshore depart and arrive at transition altitude in their controlled area.
The next stage would have been to make official a lower altitude than transition altitude (2600') over off-shore sectors and eventually drifting to "reduced visibility helicopter lanes" to get completly rid of IFR procedures (not very confortable in stormy conditions with "adapted" fuel reserves and a "virtual" divertion)
But this scheme sadly never evolved, because controllers becoming aware of off-shore helicopters equipment and crew experience, cleared for a "visual approach" most of the time when requested by a crew.
Reporting points on theses SID an STARS where determined on VOR/DME use.
But, as a matter of fact, helicopters are at ease in the shadow area between this cristal clear part of regulations and the darkness of unlawfull chaos (sometimes they even feel better in chaos !
)
New Zealand has published GPS NPA to offshore installations, though they are vaialable to "approved" operators only. The MAPts are offset 45 deg from the platform at 0.9nm. The OCHs are in the region of 250-290ft with vis. of 2000m required.
The operators also have NDB/ARA procedures in their Ops Manuals. With radar altimeter, the minima are even lower (vis. down to 1500m - 1000m under certain conditions)
The operators also have NDB/ARA procedures in their Ops Manuals. With radar altimeter, the minima are even lower (vis. down to 1500m - 1000m under certain conditions)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the U.S. Gulf, we don't normally do approaches over the water inbound, although we could. We have regular GPS approaches on land to our bases, with the MAP in a clear area, and VFR transition to the heliport at approach minima.
Offshore, we do either an OSAP (Offshore Standard Approach Procedure) or a HEDA (Helicopter Enroute Descent Area) procedure, depending on the situation. HEDA's are points that have been checked & have no obstructions in a 4NM radius circle, and we can descend to 400' as long as there are no radar targets. This should get us into VMC, after which we proceed using offshore VFR minima, which is 300'/2mi for multiengine helicopters. These are used when there is no weather station available, which is most of the time in my area. OSAP's require weather, and are flown to 200'/.7mi to a target (300/1 at night). What you are contemplating is likely our HEDA, and has to be at least 5 mi offshore here.
Offshore, we do either an OSAP (Offshore Standard Approach Procedure) or a HEDA (Helicopter Enroute Descent Area) procedure, depending on the situation. HEDA's are points that have been checked & have no obstructions in a 4NM radius circle, and we can descend to 400' as long as there are no radar targets. This should get us into VMC, after which we proceed using offshore VFR minima, which is 300'/2mi for multiengine helicopters. These are used when there is no weather station available, which is most of the time in my area. OSAP's require weather, and are flown to 200'/.7mi to a target (300/1 at night). What you are contemplating is likely our HEDA, and has to be at least 5 mi offshore here.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offshore Approaches
I wonder if there are operators out there who allow the pilot not having the rig obstructions on his side to do rig approaches and take offs. This has always been a point of debate with my friends as I feel the pilot who has the obstructions on his side should always do take offs and landings for the simple reason that you get a better judgement of the approach and should you be unlucky enough to get a single engine the chances of a safe landing is much more.Most of the captains with me practice a 50% captain and 50% co pilot approach. We practice a straight in approach. Is there any JAA regulations to this?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the move!
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hallo there,
The question you have to ask yourself firstly is: "What if.........?" For example: If there is an engine failure on departure, which pilot will have the best view of all the obstructions? Furthermore, if the emergency occurs before the committed call, will the handling pilot have sufficient visual cues for the reject?
The pilot not having a clear view of all the obstructions on the approach and arrival path is certainly not in a position to assess the potential hazards associated with the facility (rig, ship, etc). Regardless of the cockpit gradient or experience levels, the pilot that will ensure the safest arrival/departure from a facility is to do the flying.
There are other instances where both pilots can do the approach/departure, like landing on a gas ship where the deck is situated in such way that the approach and departure paths are clear from either side.
Hope that answered your question and concern.
Cheers,
CJ
The question you have to ask yourself firstly is: "What if.........?" For example: If there is an engine failure on departure, which pilot will have the best view of all the obstructions? Furthermore, if the emergency occurs before the committed call, will the handling pilot have sufficient visual cues for the reject?
The pilot not having a clear view of all the obstructions on the approach and arrival path is certainly not in a position to assess the potential hazards associated with the facility (rig, ship, etc). Regardless of the cockpit gradient or experience levels, the pilot that will ensure the safest arrival/departure from a facility is to do the flying.
There are other instances where both pilots can do the approach/departure, like landing on a gas ship where the deck is situated in such way that the approach and departure paths are clear from either side.
Hope that answered your question and concern.
Cheers,
CJ
Why not design and use a GPS approach? I believe design criteria are available from organisations like CASA in Oz.
If it is a matter of money for equipment (TSO GPS) then perhaps you could justify cost of aquisition with the amount of extra flight time required for the ILS procedure.
Also - please dont take this the wrong way as it is hard to get the full picture from your question - but would it be better to have the approach to along a track abeam the island rather than directly at it? (even with a radar image)
If it is a matter of money for equipment (TSO GPS) then perhaps you could justify cost of aquisition with the amount of extra flight time required for the ILS procedure.
Also - please dont take this the wrong way as it is hard to get the full picture from your question - but would it be better to have the approach to along a track abeam the island rather than directly at it? (even with a radar image)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IME, over here it's up to the captain. The company doesn't require any particular procedure, as long as it's done safely. Most captains I know do have the pilot with the obstructions on his side fly the approach, & that's my usual procedure, but nothing is written in stone, nor should anything be. That's what a captain gets paid for - judgement.
GLSNightPilot....agree with you one million percent....it still amazes me that some of our legislators think they can bring about absoluet air safety by creating a new law or rule every time something goes wrong.
Lets not get legislated out of our command.....
good thread
generally I agree with the initial idea but there are some times when you just have to do a cross cockpit landing...not nice , particularly if it is the S76.
Peter
Lets not get legislated out of our command.....
good thread
generally I agree with the initial idea but there are some times when you just have to do a cross cockpit landing...not nice , particularly if it is the S76.
Peter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
JAR-OPS 3, at amendment 2, had text added to permit offshore letdowns. This was done for two reasons:
Alleviation from the requirement to specify an alternate when returning IFR from offshore
Alleviation from the requirement to specify an alternate
The text in the first quote is the alleviation that you require. Offshore letdown procedures are contained in Operations Manuals of offshore operators.
JAR-OPS 3, at amendment 2, had text added to permit offshore letdowns. This was done for two reasons:
- To facilitate offshore let-down procedures that had been in existence for many years on the North Sea (and elsewhere);
- To facilitate the use of coastal heliports (alleviation from the requirement to nominate an alternate/carry alternate fuel - when operating in accordance with guidance in the advisory material).
JAR-OPS 3.365 Minimum flight altitudes
(See IEM OPS 3.250)
The pilot flying shall not descend below specified minimum altitudes except when necessary for take-off or landing, or when descending in accordance with procedures approved by the Authority.
Amdt. 2, 01.01.02
(See IEM OPS 3.250)
The pilot flying shall not descend below specified minimum altitudes except when necessary for take-off or landing, or when descending in accordance with procedures approved by the Authority.
Amdt. 2, 01.01.02
JAR-OPS 3.365 Selection of heliports
...
(c)For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules or when flying VFR and navigating by means other than by reference to visual landmarks, the commander shall specify at least one alternate in the operational flight plan unless:
(1) The destination is a coastal heliport (See AMC OPS 3.295(c)(1) and IEM OPS 3.295(c)(1)); or
...
...
(c)For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules or when flying VFR and navigating by means other than by reference to visual landmarks, the commander shall specify at least one alternate in the operational flight plan unless:
(1) The destination is a coastal heliport (See AMC OPS 3.295(c)(1) and IEM OPS 3.295(c)(1)); or
...
AMC OPS 3.295(c)(1)
Selection of Heliports
See JAR-OPS 3.295(c)(1)
1 Any alleviation from the requirement to select an alternate heliport for a flight to a coastal heliport under IFR is applicable only to helicopters routing from offshore, and should be based on an individual safety case assessment.
2 The following should be taken into account:
2.1. Suitability of the weather based on the landing forecast for the destination;
2.2. The fuel required to meet the IFR requirements of JAR-OPS 3.255 less alternate fuel;
2.3. Where the destination coastal heliport is not directly on the coast it should be:
a. Within a distance that, with the fuel specified in 2.2. above, the helicopter can, at any time after crossing the coastline, return to the coast, descend safely and carry out a visual approach and landing with VFR fuel reserves intact, and
b. Geographically sited so that the helicopter can, within the Rules of the Air, and within the landing forecast:
(i) proceed inbound from the coast at 500 ft AGL and carry out a visual approach and landing; or
(ii) proceed inbound from the coast on an agreed route and carry out a visual approach and landing.
2.4. Procedures for coastal heliports should be based on a landing forecast no worse than:
a. By Day. A cloud base of DH/MDH + 400ft, and a visibility of 4km, or, if descent over the sea is intended, a cloud base of 600ft and a visibility of 4km.
b. By Night. A cloud base of 1 000ft and a visibility of 5km.
2.5. The descent to establish visual contact with the surface should take place over the sea or as part of the instrument approach;
2.6. Routings and procedures for coastal heliports nominated as such should be included in the Operations Manual Part C - Route and Heliport Instructions and Information;
2.7. The MEL should reflect the requirement for Airborne Radar and Radio Altimeter for this type of operation;
2.8. Operational limitations for each coastal heliport should be acceptable to the Authority.
Amdt. 2, 01.01.02
Selection of Heliports
See JAR-OPS 3.295(c)(1)
1 Any alleviation from the requirement to select an alternate heliport for a flight to a coastal heliport under IFR is applicable only to helicopters routing from offshore, and should be based on an individual safety case assessment.
2 The following should be taken into account:
2.1. Suitability of the weather based on the landing forecast for the destination;
2.2. The fuel required to meet the IFR requirements of JAR-OPS 3.255 less alternate fuel;
2.3. Where the destination coastal heliport is not directly on the coast it should be:
a. Within a distance that, with the fuel specified in 2.2. above, the helicopter can, at any time after crossing the coastline, return to the coast, descend safely and carry out a visual approach and landing with VFR fuel reserves intact, and
b. Geographically sited so that the helicopter can, within the Rules of the Air, and within the landing forecast:
(i) proceed inbound from the coast at 500 ft AGL and carry out a visual approach and landing; or
(ii) proceed inbound from the coast on an agreed route and carry out a visual approach and landing.
2.4. Procedures for coastal heliports should be based on a landing forecast no worse than:
a. By Day. A cloud base of DH/MDH + 400ft, and a visibility of 4km, or, if descent over the sea is intended, a cloud base of 600ft and a visibility of 4km.
b. By Night. A cloud base of 1 000ft and a visibility of 5km.
2.5. The descent to establish visual contact with the surface should take place over the sea or as part of the instrument approach;
2.6. Routings and procedures for coastal heliports nominated as such should be included in the Operations Manual Part C - Route and Heliport Instructions and Information;
2.7. The MEL should reflect the requirement for Airborne Radar and Radio Altimeter for this type of operation;
2.8. Operational limitations for each coastal heliport should be acceptable to the Authority.
Amdt. 2, 01.01.02
Hi MARS
Pingle silot is one example (thanks Twisted Rigging) although this is almost a thing of the past with most oil companies world wide now requiring two pilots.
I agree that 99 % of the approaches should be flown by the pilot with the obstacles on his side. I just don’t want to have it written in cement that I must always have this pilot do it. I just hate it when a regulation or rule is imposed where good judgement is what is required.
I am going to send this thread to a good buddy of mine. I seem to recall we hacked this subject to death in Bombay many years ago and again in Brunei with a check/training pilot. Anyone out there recall flying onto the Sagar Samrat ? The deck was so small and awkward that the offside pilot (as PF) could see the deck edge which was where he had to place the gear footprint whilst the PNF (closest to the obstacles) kept an eagle eye on those obstacles. He could not see the deck edge.
I do recall the odd time when I was the offside pilot with a partner in the other seat who’s experience was not up to par. I felt more comfortable doing the approach myself….so did he.
Of course the S76 is just the worst machine for a cross cockpit approach/landing however the 61 is not too bad , the 212 gives good visibility and the AS355 is single pilot anyhow. (if you hadn’t guessed , these are the 4 multi engine types I have…)
Another factor is the type of structure that you are landing on. We had “double” platforms in Thailand that had obstructions both sides and the overshoot sometimes favoured a PF who had the lesser obstacles on his side…..many variables……
I can think of a number of accidents flown by the pilot who had the obstructions on his side and he still ran into them !!!….now to be fair , there were probably other extenuating circumstances…and perhaps that is subject matter for another thread.
This type of discussion is all very , very good value…..
Pingle silot is one example (thanks Twisted Rigging) although this is almost a thing of the past with most oil companies world wide now requiring two pilots.
I agree that 99 % of the approaches should be flown by the pilot with the obstacles on his side. I just don’t want to have it written in cement that I must always have this pilot do it. I just hate it when a regulation or rule is imposed where good judgement is what is required.
I am going to send this thread to a good buddy of mine. I seem to recall we hacked this subject to death in Bombay many years ago and again in Brunei with a check/training pilot. Anyone out there recall flying onto the Sagar Samrat ? The deck was so small and awkward that the offside pilot (as PF) could see the deck edge which was where he had to place the gear footprint whilst the PNF (closest to the obstacles) kept an eagle eye on those obstacles. He could not see the deck edge.
I do recall the odd time when I was the offside pilot with a partner in the other seat who’s experience was not up to par. I felt more comfortable doing the approach myself….so did he.
Of course the S76 is just the worst machine for a cross cockpit approach/landing however the 61 is not too bad , the 212 gives good visibility and the AS355 is single pilot anyhow. (if you hadn’t guessed , these are the 4 multi engine types I have…)
Another factor is the type of structure that you are landing on. We had “double” platforms in Thailand that had obstructions both sides and the overshoot sometimes favoured a PF who had the lesser obstacles on his side…..many variables……
I can think of a number of accidents flown by the pilot who had the obstructions on his side and he still ran into them !!!….now to be fair , there were probably other extenuating circumstances…and perhaps that is subject matter for another thread.
This type of discussion is all very , very good value…..
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter:
This goes back quite a few years; a company I worked for had a contract for offshore surveillance with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. We had an ops. spec. that would allow us to decend to 300 feet over the water. We had to be more than 5 miles from shore and verify our position with 2 independant means i.e. LORAN and RADAR .
It worked well.
This goes back quite a few years; a company I worked for had a contract for offshore surveillance with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. We had an ops. spec. that would allow us to decend to 300 feet over the water. We had to be more than 5 miles from shore and verify our position with 2 independant means i.e. LORAN and RADAR .
It worked well.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM.... Pingle silot ? At what time of the day and number of rums did you make this post? Yes, this debate is about as old as the chicken and the egg. If memory serves (and that is starting to go now as well) The check pilot in question was of the opinion that during a OEI overshoot just prior to COMMITED, that the pilot with the derrick on his side was in a better position to see the edge of the deck (the side the pnf is on) for the escape. That was where I disagreed. He would have no view of the water, which in my opinion was a far greater obstacle to avoid. I pointed out that in mountain flying (which the check has no experience in) you ALWAYS approach so that the escape route is on your (PF) side.
Now, having said that, I firmly believe that in normal day to day ops, the landing pilot SHOULD, not SHALL, be the one with the obstacles (ie. derrick, railings , crane etc.) on his side during the landing. This to preclude bashing the tail rotor or other bits into the rig during postioning for touchdown. You will notice I said SHOULD, as PM stated there are occasions when it is safer to do it the other way (very inexperienced co-pilot comes to mind). It is, has been, and always will be the Capt's ass on the line here. The whole idea of a CAPTAIN is to use his knowledge, experience and good judgement to bring everyone home safe, not create robots or worse yet "press the green button now....get a banana" approach. Ok, done ranting. And I haven't even had my first rum yet! Over to you.
Now, having said that, I firmly believe that in normal day to day ops, the landing pilot SHOULD, not SHALL, be the one with the obstacles (ie. derrick, railings , crane etc.) on his side during the landing. This to preclude bashing the tail rotor or other bits into the rig during postioning for touchdown. You will notice I said SHOULD, as PM stated there are occasions when it is safer to do it the other way (very inexperienced co-pilot comes to mind). It is, has been, and always will be the Capt's ass on the line here. The whole idea of a CAPTAIN is to use his knowledge, experience and good judgement to bring everyone home safe, not create robots or worse yet "press the green button now....get a banana" approach. Ok, done ranting. And I haven't even had my first rum yet! Over to you.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM
If I could discuss some of the facts and assumptions made in your email:
I sensed in the original post that the question had been asked because a Captain had exercised discretion and taken a cross cockpit landing. I saw the thread as an interesting discussion based on that assumption (that assumption could have been wrong and the thread is no less interesting for that).
(The use of his also implies her.)
Let’s get one issue out of the way - this is a thread about two pilot operations and the comments about single pilot are not therefore relevant - let’s leave them for another thread.
In my opinion (with some experience), all approaches (at least in the final stages) should be flown by the pilot with the obstructions on his side - as indicated by Chopper Jog. The only exception could be an occasion when a risk assessment indicates that an alternative would be less risky. (No rule required this is a matter of good judgement and CRM.)
Hopefully, most decks have a bum line or a marker where, if the pilot position is correct, best obstacle clearance is obtained (and maintained). A deck where a pilot has to eyeball the edge of the deck to ensure the wheels are on the deck is an unacceptable risk to the pilot, operator and the oil company. Even if this is the case, the PH can be conned to the safest position by the NHP whilst ensuring that clearance from obstructions is maintained.
No operator should allow a situation where a pilot in a two-pilot crew is not up to par - except in the case of sudden illness. Even if that is the judgement of the Captain, taking control and doing a cross cockpit landing does nothing to assist in the development of the other pilot, or improve the state of mind of either.
Whilst your comment about pilot view in the S61 v the S76 is true, a cross cockpit landing in either could pose an unnecessary risk.
I too can think of a number of accidents where a pilot ran into obstructions on his side - none of which would have been prevented by a cross cockpit landing.
For the question raised by gnow on straight-in approaches, no there is no JAA rule precluding it but I recommend a visit to the accident investigation web sites which are replete with example of approaches which ended with the pilot striking the tail, ADELT, tail rotor etc.
If you work for a JAR-OPS operator, you might read JAR-OPS 3, IEM OPS 3.517(b) - Procedures for continued operations to helidecks (pages 2-H-5 and on) which gives guidance on most of the issues of deck landing and take-off - not the least of which is the preservation of options that would be closed to the pilot on a straight-in approach. Remember that most of these landings are in Performance Class 2 with exposure.
An enjoyable and important thread!
Mars
If I could discuss some of the facts and assumptions made in your email:
I sensed in the original post that the question had been asked because a Captain had exercised discretion and taken a cross cockpit landing. I saw the thread as an interesting discussion based on that assumption (that assumption could have been wrong and the thread is no less interesting for that).
(The use of his also implies her.)
Let’s get one issue out of the way - this is a thread about two pilot operations and the comments about single pilot are not therefore relevant - let’s leave them for another thread.
In my opinion (with some experience), all approaches (at least in the final stages) should be flown by the pilot with the obstructions on his side - as indicated by Chopper Jog. The only exception could be an occasion when a risk assessment indicates that an alternative would be less risky. (No rule required this is a matter of good judgement and CRM.)
Hopefully, most decks have a bum line or a marker where, if the pilot position is correct, best obstacle clearance is obtained (and maintained). A deck where a pilot has to eyeball the edge of the deck to ensure the wheels are on the deck is an unacceptable risk to the pilot, operator and the oil company. Even if this is the case, the PH can be conned to the safest position by the NHP whilst ensuring that clearance from obstructions is maintained.
No operator should allow a situation where a pilot in a two-pilot crew is not up to par - except in the case of sudden illness. Even if that is the judgement of the Captain, taking control and doing a cross cockpit landing does nothing to assist in the development of the other pilot, or improve the state of mind of either.
Whilst your comment about pilot view in the S61 v the S76 is true, a cross cockpit landing in either could pose an unnecessary risk.
I too can think of a number of accidents where a pilot ran into obstructions on his side - none of which would have been prevented by a cross cockpit landing.
For the question raised by gnow on straight-in approaches, no there is no JAA rule precluding it but I recommend a visit to the accident investigation web sites which are replete with example of approaches which ended with the pilot striking the tail, ADELT, tail rotor etc.
If you work for a JAR-OPS operator, you might read JAR-OPS 3, IEM OPS 3.517(b) - Procedures for continued operations to helidecks (pages 2-H-5 and on) which gives guidance on most of the issues of deck landing and take-off - not the least of which is the preservation of options that would be closed to the pilot on a straight-in approach. Remember that most of these landings are in Performance Class 2 with exposure.
An enjoyable and important thread!
Mars
Last edited by Mars; 15th Aug 2003 at 02:06.