Quick question for GOMERS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick question for GOMERS
Well actually more than one question but would be grateful for some instant feedback on the following:-
Underwater Escape Training - Do you guys have to do it (ie FAA mandate), do you do it anyway?
Simulator Training - Do you guys have to do it (ie FAA mandate), do you do it anyway?
Constant-wear lifevests and PLBs - Do you guys wear them
Emergency Breathing Systems? yes/no
Single engine choppers - still doing it I guess? But what percentage and is that increasing or decreasing?
What's the minimum experience levels to get a job as pilot? co pilot?
Thanks
G
Underwater Escape Training - Do you guys have to do it (ie FAA mandate), do you do it anyway?
Simulator Training - Do you guys have to do it (ie FAA mandate), do you do it anyway?
Constant-wear lifevests and PLBs - Do you guys wear them
Emergency Breathing Systems? yes/no
Single engine choppers - still doing it I guess? But what percentage and is that increasing or decreasing?
What's the minimum experience levels to get a job as pilot? co pilot?
Thanks
G
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoffersincornwall,
I can't speak for the other operators, but mine includes helicopter underwater egress training (HUET) in the initial training curriculum for new hires. Refresher training is required at five year intervals, though some customers may require it more frequently. To my knowledge there is no FAA requirement yet for this training.
My company issues each pilot a constant wear Switlik lifevest with 406MHz EPIRB.
Emergency underwater breathing systems are not issued, but those individuals who choose to purchase one may receive training on it during HUET.
In-house simulators are in extensive use at both Air Logistics and PHI. These are not motion based, but do have full visuals. We generally use them for annual recurrent training. They're quite realistic and very economical, but the FAA requires that several specific maneuvers be performed on the actual aircraft. There are sims for both medium and small ships. Additionally, both companies contract with Flight Safety for certain other training.
Single-engine aircraft are still very much in use in the GoM. However, of late most companies have become somewhat more restrictive as to where and when they are permitted to operate. I'm afraid I can't hazard a guess at the percentages, but I have seen a trend toward more twins recently.
As stated above, a PIC position will generally require a minimum of 1000-1500 hours PIC in helicopters.
-Stan-
I can't speak for the other operators, but mine includes helicopter underwater egress training (HUET) in the initial training curriculum for new hires. Refresher training is required at five year intervals, though some customers may require it more frequently. To my knowledge there is no FAA requirement yet for this training.
My company issues each pilot a constant wear Switlik lifevest with 406MHz EPIRB.
Emergency underwater breathing systems are not issued, but those individuals who choose to purchase one may receive training on it during HUET.
In-house simulators are in extensive use at both Air Logistics and PHI. These are not motion based, but do have full visuals. We generally use them for annual recurrent training. They're quite realistic and very economical, but the FAA requires that several specific maneuvers be performed on the actual aircraft. There are sims for both medium and small ships. Additionally, both companies contract with Flight Safety for certain other training.
Single-engine aircraft are still very much in use in the GoM. However, of late most companies have become somewhat more restrictive as to where and when they are permitted to operate. I'm afraid I can't hazard a guess at the percentages, but I have seen a trend toward more twins recently.
As stated above, a PIC position will generally require a minimum of 1000-1500 hours PIC in helicopters.
-Stan-
Last edited by slgrossman; 6th Apr 2006 at 23:08.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
many thanks guys
Thats just the kind of feedback I need. Does anyone have any idea about provision of HUET training for the self-loading freight?
Safety seems to becoming an issue that is at last receiving some attention (and budget!). Is this because of the oil company pressure or FAA pressure?
What areas of safety do you see growing in importance in recent years/months?
Thanks
G
Safety seems to becoming an issue that is at last receiving some attention (and budget!). Is this because of the oil company pressure or FAA pressure?
What areas of safety do you see growing in importance in recent years/months?
Thanks
G
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more question to add.
I have another question to add to this. For the GOM pilots here, do you where a helmet when flying, or do you know of any pilots that do? Im not trying to go back into the argument for or against helmets, I just want to know if there are any pilots in the gulf wearing them.
Thank you, and stay safe
Thank you, and stay safe
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
afghanmerc,
Many of us wore helmets in the military in helicopters without air-conditioning, but then again we were young and the helmet was a revered symbol of the profession. Not many of the guys here in the GoM would be willing to put up with them now. Additionally, my company's standard response is that the passengers might complain if the pilots wore them without providing the same protection for the pax.
Geoffersincornwall,
Some of the larger oil companies require underwater egress training, but it's hit or miss with the others.
As I see it the greatest safety related improvement in the time I've been here has been the implementation by several operators of what we at my company call "enhanced operational control." This is a greater level of control exercised by base managers over operations in less than ideal conditions. True, it usurps some of the pilot in command's autonomy and authority, but we now have much clearer guidelines for operation. This is not to say that all pressures are magically eliminated, but our managers are much more likely to back us up nowadays when we take the prudent course of action.
The FAA in many cases sets minimum standards which allow operations that are legal but not necessarily safe. A number of oil companies have taken the lead in attempting to require safer flight operations. I doubt it's out of altruism, but rather due to the enormous potential liability they face in transporting their employees. Many corporations with "deep pockets" have found out the hard way that the cost of an accident is tremendously expensive and far reaching. In our litigious society the safe way almost always turns out to also be the most profitable way.
-Stan-
Many of us wore helmets in the military in helicopters without air-conditioning, but then again we were young and the helmet was a revered symbol of the profession. Not many of the guys here in the GoM would be willing to put up with them now. Additionally, my company's standard response is that the passengers might complain if the pilots wore them without providing the same protection for the pax.
Geoffersincornwall,
Some of the larger oil companies require underwater egress training, but it's hit or miss with the others.
As I see it the greatest safety related improvement in the time I've been here has been the implementation by several operators of what we at my company call "enhanced operational control." This is a greater level of control exercised by base managers over operations in less than ideal conditions. True, it usurps some of the pilot in command's autonomy and authority, but we now have much clearer guidelines for operation. This is not to say that all pressures are magically eliminated, but our managers are much more likely to back us up nowadays when we take the prudent course of action.
The FAA in many cases sets minimum standards which allow operations that are legal but not necessarily safe. A number of oil companies have taken the lead in attempting to require safer flight operations. I doubt it's out of altruism, but rather due to the enormous potential liability they face in transporting their employees. Many corporations with "deep pockets" have found out the hard way that the cost of an accident is tremendously expensive and far reaching. In our litigious society the safe way almost always turns out to also be the most profitable way.
-Stan-
Last edited by slgrossman; 8th Apr 2006 at 01:05.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only pilots in the GOM who wear helmets are those flying government contracts, AFAIK. The MMS requires the use of helmets on contract aircraft, but nobody wears them otherwise. GOM helicopter operations are slowly but surely headed in the direction of airline operations, in most areas, and the use of helmets is never going to be common. In 25 years, I've never seen anyone wear a helmet who wasn't required to do so by a government contract, and even then it was often avoided. I used to fill in on MMS contracts, and tried to wear the one helmet provided. It didn't fit, and I couldn't hear the radios properly while wearing it because of that, not to mention the discomfort, nor the safety issues with an ill-fitting helmet. Nobody I know of has ever had a helmet provided purely for personal use; they go with the aircraft, because of the expense. Maybe that has changed recently, but I haven't heard of it.
HUET training is hit or miss. There is no FAA requirement for it, and only a few major oil companies require it, for their employees and/or for aircrew on their contracts. Those companies are causing the training to be done for others, though, because pilots can be put on any contract at any time, and thus need to be qualified for many companies, especially majors. Some smaller oil companies follow along, and many service companies require training for their employees for the same reason helicopter companies do, because their employees will almost certainly be required, sooner or later, to work for the majors which require it.
Simulator training is not required by the FAA. It is used by a few operators, mostly because they are cheaper to operate than helicopters, and they are cool to show off to clients. Some oil companies are requiring real simulator training with FSI, both initial and recurrent, and I think that's a plus. That doesn't apply to most of the helicopter operators, though. The bottom-feeders aren't about to pay for any training, and that term applies to both oil and helicopter companies.
Inflatable vests are commonly worn by both pilots and passengers, although not technically needed most of the time. They are only required when more than 50 miles from a landing area, and it's not that often you're 50 miles from some platform. Still, most companies require their use all the time while offshore. Nobody provides breathing apparatuses, AFAIK, but a (very) few pilots buy their own. They're rather bulky, and make getting in and out of cramped cockpits more difficult (is there any cockpit which isn't cramped, including the S92?). I'm not necessarily against them, just stating facts.
AFAIK 1000 is still the magic number for hours, at least for the majors, but I would not be at all surprised to see that change, because everyone is scrambling to find enough qualified pilots.
HUET training is hit or miss. There is no FAA requirement for it, and only a few major oil companies require it, for their employees and/or for aircrew on their contracts. Those companies are causing the training to be done for others, though, because pilots can be put on any contract at any time, and thus need to be qualified for many companies, especially majors. Some smaller oil companies follow along, and many service companies require training for their employees for the same reason helicopter companies do, because their employees will almost certainly be required, sooner or later, to work for the majors which require it.
Simulator training is not required by the FAA. It is used by a few operators, mostly because they are cheaper to operate than helicopters, and they are cool to show off to clients. Some oil companies are requiring real simulator training with FSI, both initial and recurrent, and I think that's a plus. That doesn't apply to most of the helicopter operators, though. The bottom-feeders aren't about to pay for any training, and that term applies to both oil and helicopter companies.
Inflatable vests are commonly worn by both pilots and passengers, although not technically needed most of the time. They are only required when more than 50 miles from a landing area, and it's not that often you're 50 miles from some platform. Still, most companies require their use all the time while offshore. Nobody provides breathing apparatuses, AFAIK, but a (very) few pilots buy their own. They're rather bulky, and make getting in and out of cramped cockpits more difficult (is there any cockpit which isn't cramped, including the S92?). I'm not necessarily against them, just stating facts.
AFAIK 1000 is still the magic number for hours, at least for the majors, but I would not be at all surprised to see that change, because everyone is scrambling to find enough qualified pilots.
Last edited by GLSNightPilot; 10th Apr 2006 at 21:03.
