GOM - yet another ditching
Devil 49....how many ditichings occurred this year due to engine failures while in cruise? How many twins ditched following an engine failure at any stage in flight? The numbers are interesting and put paid to the notion that twins are not worth the money (if it happens to be yer butt sitting in them). One 105 ditched a year or so ago...but it was overloaded for its "stay-up" weight limit. Wise loading (not a GOM practice) would have prevented that accident. (Ditching in the ocean equals accident in my book)
"Just a pilot"
If your argument is limited to cruise flight power failures, it has merit. Add mismanaged power, fuel,- heck, systems- and finally factor in "twin engine power reduncy invulnerability syndrome", which affects judgement (You've seen it or you haven't looked.) and things quickly get iffy. I've seen flyable aircraft in the water because a pilot mismanaged systems. My opinion, that's the reason singles are statistically safer- aside from cruise power failures, which shouldn't be more than an inconvenience, anyhow. It's a solo maneuver, for Pete's sake.
I'm not saying I don't want a twin. In the right operation, there's no substitute. But, you've gotta do the Cat A thing, and a whole bunch of other stuff to make it worthwhile, or it's increased risk. Cat A orientation type operations aren't always a reality, no matter how much we wish it to be. It's a customer world. He who pays the piper inevitably calls the tune.
You do GOMers a disservice. The big 3 at least are as professional as there is- how many touchdown autos do you do in recurrent? How many do you do with prospective employees? Routine in the GOM, and usually a half dozen or so, not counting power chops at typical platform height and zero airspeed.
Can you call your training/standards guy with a question and have a problem resolved, or support right down to the wire with your issue? Will your issue be a case discussed in the succeeding recurrent classes?
If you operate multiple types, how does your program train and field them? GOMers routinely fly 2 types and all the subvariants.
I did the GOM for 13 years, and saw some of the best wrenches and greatest pilots in the world on the line, well trained, well supported and doin' the job.
I'm not saying I don't want a twin. In the right operation, there's no substitute. But, you've gotta do the Cat A thing, and a whole bunch of other stuff to make it worthwhile, or it's increased risk. Cat A orientation type operations aren't always a reality, no matter how much we wish it to be. It's a customer world. He who pays the piper inevitably calls the tune.
You do GOMers a disservice. The big 3 at least are as professional as there is- how many touchdown autos do you do in recurrent? How many do you do with prospective employees? Routine in the GOM, and usually a half dozen or so, not counting power chops at typical platform height and zero airspeed.
Can you call your training/standards guy with a question and have a problem resolved, or support right down to the wire with your issue? Will your issue be a case discussed in the succeeding recurrent classes?
If you operate multiple types, how does your program train and field them? GOMers routinely fly 2 types and all the subvariants.
I did the GOM for 13 years, and saw some of the best wrenches and greatest pilots in the world on the line, well trained, well supported and doin' the job.
49....my gripe is not with the individual pilots....but rather more with the system....look at the problems the guys have doing IFR flights....getting clearances....the problems of lack of radar flight following...weather reporting.....that is why lots of scud running goes on when IFR would be safer. I agree wholeheartedly about the excellence of the pilots and mechanics...but the sad thing is they are granted the respect and treatment they deserve. Crawl yourself up into the crew shack on some of those platforms for your week away from home......
There are real problems in the Gulf that could be addressed that would greatly enhance safety.....afterall....helicopters kill more people in the GOM oil patch than any other cause. That is not the claim to fame I would like to have.
How many pilots die in the Gulf Of Mexico each year? How many have died on the North Sea since operations began there?
There are real problems in the Gulf that could be addressed that would greatly enhance safety.....afterall....helicopters kill more people in the GOM oil patch than any other cause. That is not the claim to fame I would like to have.
How many pilots die in the Gulf Of Mexico each year? How many have died on the North Sea since operations began there?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with SASLess, as a active pilot in the GOM, for some 27 years. I have seen a lot of improvement in the industry, but, why are we still flying single-eng. helicopter in weather conditions that create sea states in excess of what the floats systems were designed to land in. I know the floats are only designed to get you in the life raft. The FAA allow flight over the water, using the water as a safe landing area with floats. Most of the winter the sea state is such that no safe landing can be made with the equipment thats available. We are only now putting rafts outside of the aircraft. We still have aircraft with the rafts located in the aircraft behind the pilot. We all know how long a 206 will float in the upright position, with a sea state of 3 to 4 feet. About 5 minutes if you lucky, and you remember to pop your floats. They need to be water activated, like the Bell's twins. My company does an outstanding job with training for such events. I believe that only twin engine aircraft should be used over water, that is in excess of the floats systems capabilities of the single engine aircraft. There are now a varity of light twins available for this work, I know it will increased operating costs, but I do not believed the oil companies will go broke, with the price of oil hitting 50 dollars a barrel.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GOM - Yet Another Ditching
Report created 4/28/2005 Record 1
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 5743B Make/Model: B06 Description: 206A/B/L, 406, TH-206 JETRANGER, LONG
Date: 04/26/2005 Time: 1710
Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: Minor
LOCATION
City: LAFAYETTE State: LA Country: US
DESCRIPTION
AN AIR LOG BELL 206 ROTORCRAFT AUTO ROTATED INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF THE COAST OF LA
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: LCH METAR 261653Z 32009KT 10SM FEW036 25/16 A2977
OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Unknown Operation: Air Taxi (On Demand)
Departed: Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:
FAA FSDO: BATON ROUGE, LA (SW03) Entry date: 04/27/2005
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 5743B Make/Model: B06 Description: 206A/B/L, 406, TH-206 JETRANGER, LONG
Date: 04/26/2005 Time: 1710
Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: Minor
LOCATION
City: LAFAYETTE State: LA Country: US
DESCRIPTION
AN AIR LOG BELL 206 ROTORCRAFT AUTO ROTATED INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF THE COAST OF LA
INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
WEATHER: LCH METAR 261653Z 32009KT 10SM FEW036 25/16 A2977
OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Unknown Operation: Air Taxi (On Demand)
Departed: Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:
FAA FSDO: BATON ROUGE, LA (SW03) Entry date: 04/27/2005
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mars
I saw it on the FAA website and I was going to post it but couldn't be bothered!!. Its just routine now really, isn't it.
Sad state of affairs but that's the nature of the GOM ops.
Still, Airlog has other issues right now!
HH
I saw it on the FAA website and I was going to post it but couldn't be bothered!!. Its just routine now really, isn't it.
Sad state of affairs but that's the nature of the GOM ops.
Still, Airlog has other issues right now!
HH
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hippo.
I agree, aren’t we becoming to casual about our colleagues in the Gulf?
I hope Air Log and all those companies, both helicopter operators and oil mobs alike have the guts sued out of them, for not providing the safest occupational work place.
Any smart young lawyer here want to start a test case?
I can’t believe with all our hungry legal folk around, that no one has yet taken up the challenge.
I hope Air Log and all those companies, both helicopter operators and oil mobs alike have the guts sued out of them, for not providing the safest occupational work place.
Any smart young lawyer here want to start a test case?
I can’t believe with all our hungry legal folk around, that no one has yet taken up the challenge.
Answer this one question guys....
Why do the passengers, customers, pilots, and operators accept these kinds of risks? Why does the FAA not change the rules and actually enforce them in the Gulf?
What is the right answer to the situation?
The Gulf has a pilot's union but the offshore workers are not. The North Sea has a very strong union mentality that sets a very high priority on safety....as do the governmental agencies having oversight over the offshore industry in the North Sea. I would suggest the GOMERS could learn something from that.....and make safety more of an issue, also the FAA, OSHA, and other safety groups should be more proactive.
It must be nice to know you are in a twin engine, IFR equipped helicopter when you start plodding offshore in cold weather over rough seas.....doing it in a VFR only Jetranger seems a bit daft to me.
Why do the passengers, customers, pilots, and operators accept these kinds of risks? Why does the FAA not change the rules and actually enforce them in the Gulf?
What is the right answer to the situation?
The Gulf has a pilot's union but the offshore workers are not. The North Sea has a very strong union mentality that sets a very high priority on safety....as do the governmental agencies having oversight over the offshore industry in the North Sea. I would suggest the GOMERS could learn something from that.....and make safety more of an issue, also the FAA, OSHA, and other safety groups should be more proactive.
It must be nice to know you are in a twin engine, IFR equipped helicopter when you start plodding offshore in cold weather over rough seas.....doing it in a VFR only Jetranger seems a bit daft to me.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find myself in agreement with SASless on this issue.
Several of the major oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico have already begun the transition to using only twin-engine / IFR capable aircraft. Liability is probably the driving factor, and there's still a ways to go. Nonetheless, if you're flying for one of the "big boys" things have gotten a lot better over the past few years.
GoM helicopter operators have instituted some policies specific to small ships and we now have enhanced operational control from management, both of which help mitigate the risk. However, if the customers can afford to operate the better equipped aircraft - and all indications are that they can quite easily - it seems pretty short-sighted of them to accept the additional risk in order to try to save what amounts to a "drop in the bucket."
-Stan-
Several of the major oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico have already begun the transition to using only twin-engine / IFR capable aircraft. Liability is probably the driving factor, and there's still a ways to go. Nonetheless, if you're flying for one of the "big boys" things have gotten a lot better over the past few years.
GoM helicopter operators have instituted some policies specific to small ships and we now have enhanced operational control from management, both of which help mitigate the risk. However, if the customers can afford to operate the better equipped aircraft - and all indications are that they can quite easily - it seems pretty short-sighted of them to accept the additional risk in order to try to save what amounts to a "drop in the bucket."
-Stan-
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adding more restrictive regulations would cost companies money, reduce profits, and weaken the world economy. Anything that is 'anti-bidness' is verboten in the US. There is no use in wringing one's hands or wasting time fretting about it. It will not happen during this administration, no matter how many deaths occur. 'Tort reform' has made it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to sue large corporations successfully, and the FAA, by law, must consider the economic impact of any regulation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with all that has been said so far and particularly that this will not be resolved by a change in regulations. With quarterly profits declared in the last week from each of the big three in the order of $6 Billion, I cannot agree with Gomer about the knock-on effect of re-equipment.
This appears to be a uniquely GOM issue with no parallel in the other oil provinces. That the present policy is defended by the very pilots who operate there appears to indicate that it will take a great deal of effort to inculcate in them an appropriate safety culture.
I well remember the comment to the oil company when a BO105 ditched following an engine failure that "they were prevented from operating with OEI cruise performance by the FAA". This was one reason why that particular oil company immediately initiated moves to introduce a more modern light twin fleet for inshore operations and insert the requirement for a minimum performance standard into their contract.
Slgrossman is correct that the liability line has now crossed the re-equipment line for the majors, making the investment decision for the accountants a simple matter. The work that has been done on that calculation is a tribute to a number of responsible members of the very oil companies that we continue to criticise.
That this thread has taken several days to reach 5 posts indicates that this is less of an issue to most pilots than say "VAT on flight training" and belies the claim that this is a professional forum; either that or we have become inured to a situation that exposes passengers to unacceptable risk.
This appears to be a uniquely GOM issue with no parallel in the other oil provinces. That the present policy is defended by the very pilots who operate there appears to indicate that it will take a great deal of effort to inculcate in them an appropriate safety culture.
I well remember the comment to the oil company when a BO105 ditched following an engine failure that "they were prevented from operating with OEI cruise performance by the FAA". This was one reason why that particular oil company immediately initiated moves to introduce a more modern light twin fleet for inshore operations and insert the requirement for a minimum performance standard into their contract.
Slgrossman is correct that the liability line has now crossed the re-equipment line for the majors, making the investment decision for the accountants a simple matter. The work that has been done on that calculation is a tribute to a number of responsible members of the very oil companies that we continue to criticise.
That this thread has taken several days to reach 5 posts indicates that this is less of an issue to most pilots than say "VAT on flight training" and belies the claim that this is a professional forum; either that or we have become inured to a situation that exposes passengers to unacceptable risk.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I find this debate amazing. I have been researching the GOM lately and although certainly not an expert, I find the attitude of the US firms incredible. The way cost is driven before safety issues is unbelievable. Pilots making regular transitions over large stretches of water, whether warm not, deserve to fly in twin aircraft. It is obvious that Gomer Pilot has had economics brainwashed into him since a nipper and will take the stance of profit before people first. The North Sea guys, although flying in a more extreme enviroment most of the year woudn't do the majority of the work in singles. The difference is, is that the management and clients wouldn't expect them to do it either ! This is one example of the CAA being a superior body to the FAA.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Marsh
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft that went in the water was registered to Island Operators, long know as one of the lowest bottom feeders in the GOM. I have no idea what kind of deal Airlog and Island have going as to why Airlog was operating the aircraft. Just to give you an idea of how cheap this oil company is, when PHI had a contract with Island, the pilot had to take his own food offshore with him.
"Just a pilot"
I hope the discussion in this thread does not equate more engines with increasing safety- it isn't so, and it's been pretty well demonstrated. Besides, an operator's safety culture, maintenance program and pilot training are much more important in the safety equation. Issues in any of those areas are magnified with aircraft complexity.
I'm not saying I don't prefer multis- I've got sufficient time in them and in the GOM to know there's considerable advantages. But they come with considerable cost and twins are not appropriate in some circumstances. More complex aircraft present more complex pilot challenges, even assuming safety culture and maintenance issues are satisfactorily dealt with. Consider you're offshore and have to pull one offline... Did you consider this in your fuel planning? Or- Is having a beach landing option a dispatch requirement? If you answered "no" to either of these, and there's nowhere you can safely put the aircraft single-engine- that second engine is an illusory safety enhancement. Yes, there are circumstances where a forced landing to the water in a single is safer than dealing with OEI twin work, not to mention the other system complexities in multis, more complex systems also equal increased probability of failure.
Increasing the pilot crewing has a demonstrated safety advantage. Well?
If I was operating a multi, anywhere:
I'd have a cat-A capable twin, that I could operate cat-A as appropriate and with company support;
My multi would be as simple to operate and robust as a single without sacrificing twin redundancies (seperate fuel tanks, electrical, fail-safe power-train, etc.);
Throttles on the collective and arranged as in a 222;
I'd be dispatched only when I had some place to go OEI;
Proficient technical help on-site dedicated to the on-site aircraft only;
No time critical dispatch interfering with maximized good multi-practice;
And an autopilot or an SIC, even in a VFR assignment.
Strikes from this hurried list are arguments for single engine operation.
I'm not saying I don't prefer multis- I've got sufficient time in them and in the GOM to know there's considerable advantages. But they come with considerable cost and twins are not appropriate in some circumstances. More complex aircraft present more complex pilot challenges, even assuming safety culture and maintenance issues are satisfactorily dealt with. Consider you're offshore and have to pull one offline... Did you consider this in your fuel planning? Or- Is having a beach landing option a dispatch requirement? If you answered "no" to either of these, and there's nowhere you can safely put the aircraft single-engine- that second engine is an illusory safety enhancement. Yes, there are circumstances where a forced landing to the water in a single is safer than dealing with OEI twin work, not to mention the other system complexities in multis, more complex systems also equal increased probability of failure.
Increasing the pilot crewing has a demonstrated safety advantage. Well?
If I was operating a multi, anywhere:
I'd have a cat-A capable twin, that I could operate cat-A as appropriate and with company support;
My multi would be as simple to operate and robust as a single without sacrificing twin redundancies (seperate fuel tanks, electrical, fail-safe power-train, etc.);
Throttles on the collective and arranged as in a 222;
I'd be dispatched only when I had some place to go OEI;
Proficient technical help on-site dedicated to the on-site aircraft only;
No time critical dispatch interfering with maximized good multi-practice;
And an autopilot or an SIC, even in a VFR assignment.
Strikes from this hurried list are arguments for single engine operation.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, guys, guys...it's not about absolute safety. It's about the COST of safety. Anyone who does not know this hasn't been around very long.
Mars started this thread with a report of a 206 that autorotated to the water. Evidently nobody got killed or even hurt (maybe they didn't even get wet). This event is supposedly meant to incite us in high dudgeon?
SASless wonders why "pilots, and operators accept these kinds of risks?"
The Flying Squirrel splutters, "the attitude of the US firms incredible. The way cost is driven before safety issues is unbelievable. Pilots making regular transitions over large stretches of water, whether warm not, deserve to fly in twin aircraft."
We do?
slgrossman agrees. "Several of the major oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico have already begun the transition to using only twin-engine / IFR capable aircraft. Liability is probably the driving factor, and there's still a ways to go. Nonetheless, if you're flying for one of the "big boys" things have gotten a lot better over the past few years."
"Better" meaning, I guess, fewer single-engine helicopters.
I suppose there are those who feel that no fare-paying passenger should ever be flown over water in anything but a fully CAT-A capable, twin-engine, two-pilot, IFR helicopter. Yes, that should do it, eh what? That would be the ultimate in safety...the gold standard...the minimum duty of care that we owe to those passengers, hmm?
...And then I think about the "field ship" jobs I've had, bouncing from small platform to small platform...forty, fifty, or as many as 100 landings per day...as I ferried around the various things (men and equipment, tools and supplies, newspapers, lunch...) that keep the field running. Oh, how I would love to do that in a Super Puma...NOT! I didn't even like doing it in a BO105 on the few jobs that used to have them as field ships. The extra workload of operating the twin was simply not worth the effort in my humble opinion, given the fact that the old 105 had marginal single-engine capability at best (and negative single-engine capability at gross!). I kept thinking to myself, "This is safer than a 206? How come I'm working so much harder?"
So I ask: Should all field ships be outlawed? Should we tell the GOM oil companies, "Sorry guys, we don't care HOW your fields are constructed and laid-out, NO MORE SOUP FOR YOU! I mean, NO MORE SINGLE-ENGINE HELICOPTERS FOR YOU!" Mars says it best: "This appears to be a uniquely GOM issue with no parallel in the other oil provinces." Exactly, Mars, EXACTLY! The GOM is not like any other place on earth. To understand why things are the way they are, one must learn about the very nature of GOM operations. (And evidently, slgrossman hasn't flown a single-engine helicopter in a long, long while.)
Do not tell me that every helicopter in the GOM should be a twin. Twins are not necessarily "better." They are not necessarily "safer." Yes, with a single there is always the risk that a power failure will result in a ditching. Depending on the time of year (and sea-state and phase of the moon) that ditching may or may not be successful. The oil companies look at the hard numbers of what the unsuccessful ditchings might cost them and they decide whether to accept those risks or not. And you know what? Maybe these risks aren't as high as some people (Mars, SASless, slgrossman, The Flying Squirrel to name a few) perceive them to be.
Aha! That gets back to the question: Who defines risk? And how is risk defined? Many, many pilots believe the risks to be acceptable. In fact, they vote with their feet every morning, launching at sunrise in their 206's, 407's and 120's and heading offshore with a full load of people and things. Are they, and the people riding with them and the people who dispatched them and the people who own the companies that employ them all deluded?
Mars started this thread with a report of a 206 that autorotated to the water. Evidently nobody got killed or even hurt (maybe they didn't even get wet). This event is supposedly meant to incite us in high dudgeon?
SASless wonders why "pilots, and operators accept these kinds of risks?"
The Flying Squirrel splutters, "the attitude of the US firms incredible. The way cost is driven before safety issues is unbelievable. Pilots making regular transitions over large stretches of water, whether warm not, deserve to fly in twin aircraft."
We do?
slgrossman agrees. "Several of the major oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico have already begun the transition to using only twin-engine / IFR capable aircraft. Liability is probably the driving factor, and there's still a ways to go. Nonetheless, if you're flying for one of the "big boys" things have gotten a lot better over the past few years."
"Better" meaning, I guess, fewer single-engine helicopters.
I suppose there are those who feel that no fare-paying passenger should ever be flown over water in anything but a fully CAT-A capable, twin-engine, two-pilot, IFR helicopter. Yes, that should do it, eh what? That would be the ultimate in safety...the gold standard...the minimum duty of care that we owe to those passengers, hmm?
...And then I think about the "field ship" jobs I've had, bouncing from small platform to small platform...forty, fifty, or as many as 100 landings per day...as I ferried around the various things (men and equipment, tools and supplies, newspapers, lunch...) that keep the field running. Oh, how I would love to do that in a Super Puma...NOT! I didn't even like doing it in a BO105 on the few jobs that used to have them as field ships. The extra workload of operating the twin was simply not worth the effort in my humble opinion, given the fact that the old 105 had marginal single-engine capability at best (and negative single-engine capability at gross!). I kept thinking to myself, "This is safer than a 206? How come I'm working so much harder?"
So I ask: Should all field ships be outlawed? Should we tell the GOM oil companies, "Sorry guys, we don't care HOW your fields are constructed and laid-out, NO MORE SOUP FOR YOU! I mean, NO MORE SINGLE-ENGINE HELICOPTERS FOR YOU!" Mars says it best: "This appears to be a uniquely GOM issue with no parallel in the other oil provinces." Exactly, Mars, EXACTLY! The GOM is not like any other place on earth. To understand why things are the way they are, one must learn about the very nature of GOM operations. (And evidently, slgrossman hasn't flown a single-engine helicopter in a long, long while.)
Do not tell me that every helicopter in the GOM should be a twin. Twins are not necessarily "better." They are not necessarily "safer." Yes, with a single there is always the risk that a power failure will result in a ditching. Depending on the time of year (and sea-state and phase of the moon) that ditching may or may not be successful. The oil companies look at the hard numbers of what the unsuccessful ditchings might cost them and they decide whether to accept those risks or not. And you know what? Maybe these risks aren't as high as some people (Mars, SASless, slgrossman, The Flying Squirrel to name a few) perceive them to be.
Aha! That gets back to the question: Who defines risk? And how is risk defined? Many, many pilots believe the risks to be acceptable. In fact, they vote with their feet every morning, launching at sunrise in their 206's, 407's and 120's and heading offshore with a full load of people and things. Are they, and the people riding with them and the people who dispatched them and the people who own the companies that employ them all deluded?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RotorDog,
While it has, in fact, been quite some time since I last flew a single-engine single-pilot aircraft, I think I'm still able to see things from that perspective. Contrary to your assertion, I don't advocate the elimination of small ships. As you correctly pointed out the increased workload of operating a twin (even a light one) in certain jobs offsets any increased safety provided by the second engine.
As others have said, the safety enhancement of the larger multi-engine aircraft comes not so much from the second engine, but from their increased size and payload which justifies incorporation of such safety enhancements as a copilot, weather radar, radar altimeters, improved communications, autopilots, etc.
When I said things had gotten BETTER I meant that the larger oil companies are less inclined to tolerate risk. Ten years ago no one had traffic alert systems. VFR aircraft had barely sufficient instrumentation for VFR flight. We flew the Bell 206 extensively, an aircraft which has marginal power and tail rotor authority margins when heavy. Navigation was by quirky Loran or dead reckoning. Rafts, if you can believe it, were optional!
We still fly some 206s, but many of their jobs have gone to 407s, a much more capable aircraft. Traffic alert is on the way to becoming universally installed throughout the fleet. We have much more restriction on the distance from rescue and the weather conditions in which we allow the small ships to operate. Customers have become much better educated on the risk - benefit equation, and are now much less inclined to pressure a pilot to exceed his or the aircraft's limitations. While it's still far from perfect it is decidedly BETTER.
Our IFR program has likewise experienced growth and improvement. The "grid" system of intersections has allowed us to take better advantage of the capabilities of GPS navigation. We are upgrading our fleets with new, more capable aircraft. We are operating our aircraft with much more consideration given to mission planning and performance. We have become firm believers in Crew Resource Management for our multi-pilot crews. Again, not perfect, but BETTER.
Much of the impetus for this has come from our larger customers who are no longer willing to accept the previous level of risk. And rightly so. Regulations should SUPPORT a conscientious safety culture rather than drive it.
-Stan-
While it has, in fact, been quite some time since I last flew a single-engine single-pilot aircraft, I think I'm still able to see things from that perspective. Contrary to your assertion, I don't advocate the elimination of small ships. As you correctly pointed out the increased workload of operating a twin (even a light one) in certain jobs offsets any increased safety provided by the second engine.
As others have said, the safety enhancement of the larger multi-engine aircraft comes not so much from the second engine, but from their increased size and payload which justifies incorporation of such safety enhancements as a copilot, weather radar, radar altimeters, improved communications, autopilots, etc.
When I said things had gotten BETTER I meant that the larger oil companies are less inclined to tolerate risk. Ten years ago no one had traffic alert systems. VFR aircraft had barely sufficient instrumentation for VFR flight. We flew the Bell 206 extensively, an aircraft which has marginal power and tail rotor authority margins when heavy. Navigation was by quirky Loran or dead reckoning. Rafts, if you can believe it, were optional!
We still fly some 206s, but many of their jobs have gone to 407s, a much more capable aircraft. Traffic alert is on the way to becoming universally installed throughout the fleet. We have much more restriction on the distance from rescue and the weather conditions in which we allow the small ships to operate. Customers have become much better educated on the risk - benefit equation, and are now much less inclined to pressure a pilot to exceed his or the aircraft's limitations. While it's still far from perfect it is decidedly BETTER.
Our IFR program has likewise experienced growth and improvement. The "grid" system of intersections has allowed us to take better advantage of the capabilities of GPS navigation. We are upgrading our fleets with new, more capable aircraft. We are operating our aircraft with much more consideration given to mission planning and performance. We have become firm believers in Crew Resource Management for our multi-pilot crews. Again, not perfect, but BETTER.
Much of the impetus for this has come from our larger customers who are no longer willing to accept the previous level of risk. And rightly so. Regulations should SUPPORT a conscientious safety culture rather than drive it.
-Stan-
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is, we get into what I call a twin-engine mindset whereby we get to believing that twins are simply "better." Want an example, you say? Done, sir!
On the one hand, slgrossman says (and I quoth):
Several of the major oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico have already begun the transition to using only twin-engine / IFR capable aircraft.
Then, on the very next hand he says:
Liability is probably the driving factor, and there's still a ways to go. Nonetheless, if you're flying for one of the "big boys" things have gotten a lot better over the past few years.
Linkage, man. Saying those two things, even though *you* might not have meant them to mean the same thing, get connected in people's minds. "Well yes, slgrossman is quite right! More operators *are* going to twin-engine aircraft and things *are* getting better!" Which misses the point a bit.
Flown within it's meager limitations, a Bell 206B does fairly well in the GOM. Personally, always operating at <3000' DA, I never wished for more tail rotor. I did fly all the old Lorans and found them to be quite acceptable...let me qualify that...most of the time. GPS's are "better" of course, and far lighter than some of the old lorans, so that's a plus (...or, a minus when it comes to empty weight). Speaking of weight, it is true that with a raft and all the other accoutrements necessary for offshore flight, a lowly B-model becomes a three-passenger helicopter locally and a two-passenger if you actually want to go anywhere and if the guys are carrying anything more than a box of Kleenex.
So yes, 407's are "better" in that the oil companies can carry more crap and still allow us to have TCAD (why, WHY can't we have TCAS???). But mentioning the artificial limits put on how far singles can venture offshore is a red herring. Back in the days of yore, there weren't any rigs or platforms south of 28 degrees anyway, until...what was it...Bullwinkle? Which is just a hop, skip and a jump away from ST300 which for years and years and years had a 206 field ship. So in that regard things haven't gotten "better." They just haven't gotten worse.
So what has really changed in the GOM over the years? Oil companies and helicopter operators have become more risk-averse, okay, but they're still pretty much taking those same risks anyway. We're still out there in our new, modern, more-powerful(?) EC-120s, flying in 500' ceilings and three miles viz, and we're still out driving around in forty k-nots of wind. Just kinda gives you a warm-fuzzy, don't it?
On the one hand, slgrossman says (and I quoth):
Several of the major oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico have already begun the transition to using only twin-engine / IFR capable aircraft.
Then, on the very next hand he says:
Liability is probably the driving factor, and there's still a ways to go. Nonetheless, if you're flying for one of the "big boys" things have gotten a lot better over the past few years.
Linkage, man. Saying those two things, even though *you* might not have meant them to mean the same thing, get connected in people's minds. "Well yes, slgrossman is quite right! More operators *are* going to twin-engine aircraft and things *are* getting better!" Which misses the point a bit.
Flown within it's meager limitations, a Bell 206B does fairly well in the GOM. Personally, always operating at <3000' DA, I never wished for more tail rotor. I did fly all the old Lorans and found them to be quite acceptable...let me qualify that...most of the time. GPS's are "better" of course, and far lighter than some of the old lorans, so that's a plus (...or, a minus when it comes to empty weight). Speaking of weight, it is true that with a raft and all the other accoutrements necessary for offshore flight, a lowly B-model becomes a three-passenger helicopter locally and a two-passenger if you actually want to go anywhere and if the guys are carrying anything more than a box of Kleenex.
So yes, 407's are "better" in that the oil companies can carry more crap and still allow us to have TCAD (why, WHY can't we have TCAS???). But mentioning the artificial limits put on how far singles can venture offshore is a red herring. Back in the days of yore, there weren't any rigs or platforms south of 28 degrees anyway, until...what was it...Bullwinkle? Which is just a hop, skip and a jump away from ST300 which for years and years and years had a 206 field ship. So in that regard things haven't gotten "better." They just haven't gotten worse.
So what has really changed in the GOM over the years? Oil companies and helicopter operators have become more risk-averse, okay, but they're still pretty much taking those same risks anyway. We're still out there in our new, modern, more-powerful(?) EC-120s, flying in 500' ceilings and three miles viz, and we're still out driving around in forty k-nots of wind. Just kinda gives you a warm-fuzzy, don't it?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GoM safety vs North Sea
Rotordog (mainly!)
I operate a 332L Super Puma on the North Sea and have done now for 15 out of the last 18 years. 3 of the other years were spent flying single pilot IFR in a Bo105, based on an offshore platform in the northern North Sea, on a week on /week off routine, with the other two as an EMS pilot, again in Bo105s. So I have seen both sides of single pilot/ twin pilot operations. Yes, all of my North Sea time has been in twin engine machines. I did fly singles in the Army (Gazelles and Alouettes).
Now a question: how many ditchings/ accidents have occured in the North Sea during my 18 years? I think we have had FOUR in the UK sector. How many have we seen in the GoM THIS YEAR?
If you are a GoM pilot, I say to you and all GoMers, as SASLess did earlier on this thread,
WHY DO YOU ACCEPT THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS!
Do you put such a low value on your lives?
For f**k's sake, stop arguing about whether singles are better than twins or worrying about the poor oil companies' and heli operators' profit margins! They will NOT go out of business!
Start thinking about yourselves and your families and your passengers and their families. YOU have a duty of care for yourself, so why not start to do something about it!
bondu (totally bemused UK pilot!!)
North Sea Safety
I forgot to say, we North Sea guys are not totally happy with the current safety regime over here. We have a system called the Dacon scoop, which is supposedly capable of picking me out of the sea in sea states of 6 metres or more (thats 20 feet upwards for you guys!). The trials carried out some years ago, by specially trained Danish Navy divers, could only demonstrate a maximum capability of 4.8 metres! Currently, the maximum sea state for North Sea operations to cease is anything from 6 to 8 meters: determined, not by the CAA, Health and Safety or the helicopter operators, but by the OIL companies!!!
I was once tasked to take 18 pax to the Magnus platform, 290 nm north of Aberdeen, but the sea state was over 8 metres. The oil company was informed that the sea state was out of limits. OK, they said, flight cancelled. The sea state remained high (above 8 metres) for two more days. On the third day, I was tasked to take freight only to the Magnus, as the sea state was still too high for passenger flights!! I politely, (well not so politely, actually) refused! Obviously, the oil company, BP, did not think my life was worth as much as a passeger\'s.
All passengers on North Sea flights now have some form of rebreather system. Although trials were carried some EIGHT years ago on STASS, no pilots on the North Sea have STASS or anything similar yet. There are no plans to bring STASS in at present.
We still have problems with fast jet conflictions over certain parts of the North Sea. Concerns that still have not been fully addressed, THIRTY years after helicopters started flying to the installations. Yet another study has been set up to discuss the issue, but it will take a mid air collision, killing upto twenty people, before anything is actually done.
But we will continue to chip away at the complacency of the operators, the oil companies and the CAA until we resolve these and other issues.
bondu
I operate a 332L Super Puma on the North Sea and have done now for 15 out of the last 18 years. 3 of the other years were spent flying single pilot IFR in a Bo105, based on an offshore platform in the northern North Sea, on a week on /week off routine, with the other two as an EMS pilot, again in Bo105s. So I have seen both sides of single pilot/ twin pilot operations. Yes, all of my North Sea time has been in twin engine machines. I did fly singles in the Army (Gazelles and Alouettes).
Now a question: how many ditchings/ accidents have occured in the North Sea during my 18 years? I think we have had FOUR in the UK sector. How many have we seen in the GoM THIS YEAR?
If you are a GoM pilot, I say to you and all GoMers, as SASLess did earlier on this thread,
WHY DO YOU ACCEPT THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS!
Do you put such a low value on your lives?
For f**k's sake, stop arguing about whether singles are better than twins or worrying about the poor oil companies' and heli operators' profit margins! They will NOT go out of business!
Start thinking about yourselves and your families and your passengers and their families. YOU have a duty of care for yourself, so why not start to do something about it!
bondu (totally bemused UK pilot!!)
North Sea Safety
I forgot to say, we North Sea guys are not totally happy with the current safety regime over here. We have a system called the Dacon scoop, which is supposedly capable of picking me out of the sea in sea states of 6 metres or more (thats 20 feet upwards for you guys!). The trials carried out some years ago, by specially trained Danish Navy divers, could only demonstrate a maximum capability of 4.8 metres! Currently, the maximum sea state for North Sea operations to cease is anything from 6 to 8 meters: determined, not by the CAA, Health and Safety or the helicopter operators, but by the OIL companies!!!
I was once tasked to take 18 pax to the Magnus platform, 290 nm north of Aberdeen, but the sea state was over 8 metres. The oil company was informed that the sea state was out of limits. OK, they said, flight cancelled. The sea state remained high (above 8 metres) for two more days. On the third day, I was tasked to take freight only to the Magnus, as the sea state was still too high for passenger flights!! I politely, (well not so politely, actually) refused! Obviously, the oil company, BP, did not think my life was worth as much as a passeger\'s.
All passengers on North Sea flights now have some form of rebreather system. Although trials were carried some EIGHT years ago on STASS, no pilots on the North Sea have STASS or anything similar yet. There are no plans to bring STASS in at present.
We still have problems with fast jet conflictions over certain parts of the North Sea. Concerns that still have not been fully addressed, THIRTY years after helicopters started flying to the installations. Yet another study has been set up to discuss the issue, but it will take a mid air collision, killing upto twenty people, before anything is actually done.
But we will continue to chip away at the complacency of the operators, the oil companies and the CAA until we resolve these and other issues.
bondu
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avon, CT, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are Twin Engines a solution?
Hypothetical question.
During the warm summer months in the GOM, let say a S-76 heads out to a distant platform and has an engine failure. It's only landing option would be to ditch or make a platform landing. Do they have enough power to hover or will it be a running landing? If they do a running landing is there enough room to stop?
During the warm summer months in the GOM, let say a S-76 heads out to a distant platform and has an engine failure. It's only landing option would be to ditch or make a platform landing. Do they have enough power to hover or will it be a running landing? If they do a running landing is there enough room to stop?