Burning Oil Platform Evacuation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: *o*
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burning Oil Platform Evacuation
It's welcoming to hear of evacuation plans and safety systems that go right.
I guess a lot was learnt from the "Piper Alpha" tragedy.
Shell's Tern Alpha rig evacuation story - from the Shetland Times 17th March
http://www.shetlandtoday.co.uk/Shetl...ontentID=18703
I guess a lot was learnt from the "Piper Alpha" tragedy.
Shell's Tern Alpha rig evacuation story - from the Shetland Times 17th March
http://www.shetlandtoday.co.uk/Shetl...ontentID=18703
Glad to hear the system works....and all went well.
One question about part of the article which states:
Why would OC have so much fuel during the operation? Not being critical...just curious what the situation was?
One question about part of the article which states:
The Norwegian chopper was able to lift most people, taking up to 18 people each time from the platform helideck as the fire burned about 200 feet below.
Oscar Charlie was able to take up to ten at a time due to being loaded with extra fuel for the flight home.
Oscar Charlie was able to take up to ten at a time due to being loaded with extra fuel for the flight home.
Last edited by SASless; 4th Apr 2006 at 15:33.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
I wouldn't believe too much what you read in the papers. Have a look at this link from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4865630.stm
It's little wonder the vessel was taking on water if a pump had been dropped on it by a Nimrod. It's a miracle that it's still afloat!! But full marks to the Nimrod crew for hitting their target!!! 
I wouldn't believe too much what you read in the papers. Have a look at this link from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4865630.stm
The six crewmen of the Russa Taign had been using a pump dropped by the coastguard's Nimrod to try to clear water from the fish room.
SASless, with 4 different machines involved in the rescue you of all people should know the payload/power capabilities of each, LN-OMM the Norwegian B214ST will quite easily lift 18 people with full fuel,( seen them lift 18 with full fuel over 35oC), BONDS 332 L2 would have a good payload too, but the poor old S61 and Seaking you have range or payload not both, when CHC get the S92 they should be able to carry much larger survivor loads and still have good range and power margines. But it was good to see all went well and the cordination between, all operators/services worked well.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft were able to refuel on the other platforms just miles away when needed. That's the good thing about downmanning platforms in the basin, plenty of landing pads nearby. They were shuttling the offshore guys to them anyway! The fire on the Tern was related to a gas compressor that blew. The reason the downman was called for was that initially the deluge system was not putting out the small fire that insued, though it wasn't getting worse. Eventually, whilst the guys and gals were getting transferred off, the fire was extinguished, and shortly afterwards they were all transferred back, causing havoc to the routine crew change flights!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS mate im sorry to say but that was an inappropriate quote from a paper that didnt have permission to quote the name of the captain, please edit your post to remove the name.
As ever what the press say isnt always the full truth, and I wont tell what happened as I wasn't on shift that day. But as with any SAR job there are other issues which at first glance are not so obvious. That and your average reporter doesnt know the issues aircrew deal with so lets please not judge based on a press cutting.
Si
As ever what the press say isnt always the full truth, and I wont tell what happened as I wasn't on shift that day. But as with any SAR job there are other issues which at first glance are not so obvious. That and your average reporter doesnt know the issues aircrew deal with so lets please not judge based on a press cutting.
Si
Last edited by bigglesbutler; 4th Apr 2006 at 13:26.
BigglesB...
[QUOTE]Why would OC have so much fuel during the operation? Not being critical...just curious what the situation was?[/QUOTE]
I remember days when 61's shuttled with 18-19 pax...thus with the proximity of other platforms and fuel...I was curious why 10 was the number on this flight.
I am fully aware the news usually get most of the facts wrong if not all of them wrong.
I can also understand the 10 pax limit might have been the final lift after which the aircraft would have headed for the barn.
As I clearly stated....I was not being critical....but merely curious about the load being lifted by the 61.
In light of the on-going argument about the shift to the 92 for SAR....it seemed a logical question to ask.
If I innocently trod on some sore toes, please accept my apologies for there was no evil intent in my question.
Not being English....I sure didn't understand the News Media had to obtain one's permission to print one's name in the newspaper or use it on the BBC. Since I did not have your permission or the permission of the person named in the article taken from the public domain....I did as you asked and removed the Captain's name.
The original question remains however.
[QUOTE]Why would OC have so much fuel during the operation? Not being critical...just curious what the situation was?[/QUOTE]
I remember days when 61's shuttled with 18-19 pax...thus with the proximity of other platforms and fuel...I was curious why 10 was the number on this flight.
I am fully aware the news usually get most of the facts wrong if not all of them wrong.
I can also understand the 10 pax limit might have been the final lift after which the aircraft would have headed for the barn.
As I clearly stated....I was not being critical....but merely curious about the load being lifted by the 61.
In light of the on-going argument about the shift to the 92 for SAR....it seemed a logical question to ask.
If I innocently trod on some sore toes, please accept my apologies for there was no evil intent in my question.
Not being English....I sure didn't understand the News Media had to obtain one's permission to print one's name in the newspaper or use it on the BBC. Since I did not have your permission or the permission of the person named in the article taken from the public domain....I did as you asked and removed the Captain's name.
The original question remains however.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS I am sorry if I can across hard nosed, I just dont think it right to publish peoples names without their consent. Not sure about any legality but the captain in question was not happy with the paper publishing his name without consent or even interviewing him, and quite rightly so I think.
As for being critical of the question about 10 pax, you are right a simple honest question and that isnt the problem at all
. And as in my first post I wasnt on shift that day so dont know all the fine details. Suffice to say it would have been a combination of WX, SAR/CAT minimum and fuel/weight etc etc. It wasnt a case of OC needing fuel for the ride home, as all the helis had in field fuel, I believe. The reasons were the usual things one takes into account for offshore flying. One thing to bear in mind with OC is she has a lot of extra kit on board so is heavier than a normal line 61, at least she legally and safely did the job.
With regards to the 92, yes if all the bugs are sorted it will be a great machine for SAR. But that is an ongoing subject that I dont want to get into until we get more information.
Thanks
Si
As for being critical of the question about 10 pax, you are right a simple honest question and that isnt the problem at all
. And as in my first post I wasnt on shift that day so dont know all the fine details. Suffice to say it would have been a combination of WX, SAR/CAT minimum and fuel/weight etc etc. It wasnt a case of OC needing fuel for the ride home, as all the helis had in field fuel, I believe. The reasons were the usual things one takes into account for offshore flying. One thing to bear in mind with OC is she has a lot of extra kit on board so is heavier than a normal line 61, at least she legally and safely did the job.With regards to the 92, yes if all the bugs are sorted it will be a great machine for SAR. But that is an ongoing subject that I dont want to get into until we get more information.
Thanks
Si
