GOM - yet another ditching
Actually it was two accidents for the one Lightning Strike wasn't it?
There was the one where the aircraft got hit by lightning and then the one where the improperly repaired/inspected blade failed on a second aircraft resulting in the loss of all aboard.
The Oil Companies are all for aviation safety....right up to the point it costs them money....at which point they all begin to sharpen their pencils and begin calculating cost/benefit ratio's.
There was the one where the aircraft got hit by lightning and then the one where the improperly repaired/inspected blade failed on a second aircraft resulting in the loss of all aboard.
The Oil Companies are all for aviation safety....right up to the point it costs them money....at which point they all begin to sharpen their pencils and begin calculating cost/benefit ratio's.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story I heard was that the blade that was struck by lightning had a manufacturing defect that was not known until the accident. The leading edge scarf joint was out of allignment just enough that when the lightning stuck the blade it caused an arc from the scarf joint to the spar. The arc put a weak spot in the spar that subsequently caused its failure. Since that kind of defect in manufacturing would be difficult to determine in the field, the decision was made to withdraw any blades that had been stuck by lightning.
The blade in question had been sent back to Sikorsky for inspection....and despite that....the defect was not found. Thus, as you point out....very hard to find not only in the field but also at the builder's facility as well.
The fact almost every other dynamic component had been binned from the aircraft with the lightning strike should have been considered much more strongly than it was when it was decided to re-use the fatal blade. But...that is another story as they say.
The fact almost every other dynamic component had been binned from the aircraft with the lightning strike should have been considered much more strongly than it was when it was decided to re-use the fatal blade. But...that is another story as they say.
The S76 lightning strike I was referring to was not the BHL S76 fatal accident, this occurred later. The "accident" in the OGP stats was a straightforward lightning strike, after which the aircraft continued it's flight back to base. During the subsequent maintenance inspection the 'current path' resulted in most of the drivetrain being removed for inspection/repair at major cost.
VL,
We are talking the same two events.
Your contention is the first one (the lightning strike itself) should not have been classified as an "accident" the way I read your post.
Do you base your comment upon the definition of an "accident" under the CAA/JAR/EASA rules and definition they contain for what an "accident" is?
From the CAA Mandatory Reporting Scheme....CAP 382 of March this year
There was the one where the aircraft got hit by lightning and then the one where the improperly repaired/inspected blade failed on a second aircraft resulting in the loss of all aboard.
Your contention is the first one (the lightning strike itself) should not have been classified as an "accident" the way I read your post.
Do you base your comment upon the definition of an "accident" under the CAA/JAR/EASA rules and definition they contain for what an "accident" is?
An aviation accident is defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, in which a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.
Accident: An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes
place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:
a) a person suffers a fatal or serious injury as a result of:
i) being in or upon the aircraft;
ii) direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft; or
iii) direct exposure to jet blast;
except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew; or
b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:
i) adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft; and
ii) would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component; except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tyres, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or
c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible
place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:
a) a person suffers a fatal or serious injury as a result of:
i) being in or upon the aircraft;
ii) direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft; or
iii) direct exposure to jet blast;
except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew; or
b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:
i) adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft; and
ii) would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component; except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tyres, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or
c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible
Last edited by SASless; 1st Dec 2011 at 14:34.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OGP stats are clearly marked as defining accidents based on the state of occurrences definition of accidents, so the inherent slackness in the US is accepted and that suits some oil companies.
In practice what also happens is that many nations either don't acknowledge accidents when they occur or even issue reports. Thats why the better oil companies are quick to stage investigations themselves for the greater good.
In practice what also happens is that many nations either don't acknowledge accidents when they occur or even issue reports. Thats why the better oil companies are quick to stage investigations themselves for the greater good.
Seems the industry itself likes the "slackness".
I don't see much difference in the US method of defining an accident except the NTSB does break accidents into four categories.
I don't see much difference in the US method of defining an accident except the NTSB does break accidents into four categories.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I wrote, just a few days when I posted that exact link:
The big difference is that aircraft that ditch in the GOM are not counted as having had an accident as though sinking is a normal part of a flight!
There is a strong US lobby (certain GOM operators, their trade bodies, Bell and the less progressive oil companies) that are happy that cheap, low power, single engine helicopters (mostly 206s) fly two thirds of GOM flight hours and sectors. They will always use the weak US definitions of accidents to make their rates look better.
SASless you said
No. The S76 lightning strike I was referring to had no connection to the S76 blade that failed i.e. different aircraft, different blades.
The point I was making was that accidents that are clearly accidents in the GOM are not captured in the OGP statistics. This is mainly because these particular accidents occur when the aircraft isn't carrying passengers, even though the oil company has chartered the aircraft and pays for the positioning which under "normal" rules is still CAT. They use the fact that the positioning occurs under a different FAR regulation so discount it as a recordable event, even when the pilot perishes.
Shell and other OGP members seem happy to play this game.
Actually it was two accidents for the one Lightning Strike wasn't it?
The point I was making was that accidents that are clearly accidents in the GOM are not captured in the OGP statistics. This is mainly because these particular accidents occur when the aircraft isn't carrying passengers, even though the oil company has chartered the aircraft and pays for the positioning which under "normal" rules is still CAT. They use the fact that the positioning occurs under a different FAR regulation so discount it as a recordable event, even when the pilot perishes.
Shell and other OGP members seem happy to play this game.
Are either of these two aircraft and the related incidents connected to the event you are referring to by chance?
S-76 rotor blades put under scrutiny | Aviation International News
July 16 crash of a Bristow Sikorsky S-76A+ (G-BJVX)
The rotor blade was manufactured in March 1981. In 1999, while fitted to another S-76A (G-BHBF), it was damaged in a lightning strike.
S-76 rotor blades put under scrutiny | Aviation International News
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
************************************************************ ********************
** Notice created 12/2/2011 Notice 1 **
************************************************************ ********************
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 435PH Make/Model: B407 Description: Bell 407
Date: 12/01/2011 Time: 1800
Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown
LOCATION
City: BATON ROUGE State: LA Country: US
DESCRIPTION
N435PH BELL407 ROTORCRAFT AUTO-ROTATED INTO THE WATER AND ROLLED OVER, GULF OF MEXICO, LA
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: 1
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Landing Operation: OTHER
FAA FSDO: BATON ROUGE, LA (SW03) Entry date: 12/02/2011
** Notice created 12/2/2011 Notice 1 **
************************************************************ ********************
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 435PH Make/Model: B407 Description: Bell 407
Date: 12/01/2011 Time: 1800
Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown
LOCATION
City: BATON ROUGE State: LA Country: US
DESCRIPTION
N435PH BELL407 ROTORCRAFT AUTO-ROTATED INTO THE WATER AND ROLLED OVER, GULF OF MEXICO, LA
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk: 1
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Landing Operation: OTHER
FAA FSDO: BATON ROUGE, LA (SW03) Entry date: 12/02/2011
Are either of these two aircraft and the related incidents connected to the event you are referring to by chance?
No, I will try and find the actual event if I can
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB Identification: CEN12IA096
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Incident occurred Thursday, December 01, 2011 in Gulf Of Mexico, GM
Aircraft: BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON CANADA 407, registration: N435PH
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On December 1, 2011, about 1005 central standard time, a Bell 407 helicopter, N435PH, was successfully autorotated to the water following a loss of engine power while in cruise flight over the Gulf of Mexico. The helicopter was not damaged during the on water landing. The commercial pilot, and sole passenger, were not injured. The helicopter was registered to and operated by PHI, Inc., under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 as a non-scheduled air-taxi flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan had been filed. The flight originated from platform EC278-C, and was en route to platform EC261, both in the Gulf Of Mexico.
According to the pilot, while en route to EC261 the engine chip light illuminated. The flight was abeam platform EC278-B at the time, and the pilot elected to divert for a precautionary landing. While on the base leg to EC278-B, the pilot heard a loud whining noise followed by a loud popping noise and the helicopter began to yaw. The pilot entered an autorotation, called mayday, inflated the floats, and performed a successful water landing. The pilot and passenger were able to exit the helicopter unassisted into a life raft and were picked up within 10 minutes. The helicopter remained upright for approximately 20 minutes before overturning.
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Incident occurred Thursday, December 01, 2011 in Gulf Of Mexico, GM
Aircraft: BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON CANADA 407, registration: N435PH
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On December 1, 2011, about 1005 central standard time, a Bell 407 helicopter, N435PH, was successfully autorotated to the water following a loss of engine power while in cruise flight over the Gulf of Mexico. The helicopter was not damaged during the on water landing. The commercial pilot, and sole passenger, were not injured. The helicopter was registered to and operated by PHI, Inc., under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 as a non-scheduled air-taxi flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan had been filed. The flight originated from platform EC278-C, and was en route to platform EC261, both in the Gulf Of Mexico.
According to the pilot, while en route to EC261 the engine chip light illuminated. The flight was abeam platform EC278-B at the time, and the pilot elected to divert for a precautionary landing. While on the base leg to EC278-B, the pilot heard a loud whining noise followed by a loud popping noise and the helicopter began to yaw. The pilot entered an autorotation, called mayday, inflated the floats, and performed a successful water landing. The pilot and passenger were able to exit the helicopter unassisted into a life raft and were picked up within 10 minutes. The helicopter remained upright for approximately 20 minutes before overturning.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB Identification: CEN12IA096
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Incident occurred Thursday, December 01, 2011 in Gulf Of Mexico, GM
Aircraft: BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON CANADA 407, registration: N435PH
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Incident occurred Thursday, December 01, 2011 in Gulf Of Mexico, GM
Aircraft: BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON CANADA 407, registration: N435PH
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
forced landing - no big deal....
another reason not to bother having a pointless spare engine
the consequences need to be much worse than this to justify the unreliability of two engines.... mathematically speaking
the consequences need to be much worse than this to justify the unreliability of two engines.... mathematically speaking
SM....you living in a glass house and chucking rocks again! Shame on you!
I am not often with SM but I am this time. This ditching was luckily uneventful but it could have been different.
How the GOM claims to want to improve safety but continues to tolerate ditchings from simple engine problems is baffling.
How the GOM claims to want to improve safety but continues to tolerate ditchings from simple engine problems is baffling.
Beaudreaux done it this way since the very first days using Bell 47's....and Boudreaux don't like change especially if it costs him money. As long as the customers want to do it cheap, and the operators will do it cheap, then cheap is the way it shall be done.
Why just think how much the price of gasoline would go up if all the helicopters in the GOM were twin engined and able to fly around on just one engine?
On the other hand....it is awfully green to fly singles....far smaller carbon footprint and that should make any Greener happy! After all....humans are of a lesser importance than the enviornment.
The way to change this single engine mentality in the GOM is to have the EPA raise the Penalties for polluting the water with all that Jet Fuel and Oils the helicopters put into the water when they ditch, roll over, and sink.
Why just think how much the price of gasoline would go up if all the helicopters in the GOM were twin engined and able to fly around on just one engine?
On the other hand....it is awfully green to fly singles....far smaller carbon footprint and that should make any Greener happy! After all....humans are of a lesser importance than the enviornment.
The way to change this single engine mentality in the GOM is to have the EPA raise the Penalties for polluting the water with all that Jet Fuel and Oils the helicopters put into the water when they ditch, roll over, and sink.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of twin engines, statistics and safety, the helicopter community has been kicking this around for decades. We are now informed that twin engine commercial airlines can soon take the north pole route. As much as five hours away from a safe landing field on one engine. Was is Disraeli or Mark Twain that said there are lies, damn lies and statistics? Welcome Aboard!