OGP Requirements
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Greater Dubach Metro Area
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OGP Requirements
Since OGP and our friends at Shell have set about to make offshore helicopter transport safer, what do you fellows think? The way I understand it, this requires JAROPS compliance in addition to certification to the latest FAR/JAR ammendments. Through 2009, the aircraft must meet the 1990 ammendments; 2010 and beyond require the 2000 amendment standard.
How fast will this be adopted and to what extent in the offshore industry? Will we soon see only AW139s flying offshore? Seems a bit unrealistic!
How fast will this be adopted and to what extent in the offshore industry? Will we soon see only AW139s flying offshore? Seems a bit unrealistic!
Last edited by andTompkins; 27th Feb 2007 at 20:25. Reason: I wanted to ...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think safety is expensive..................
The OGP guys are just reflecting the huge costs associated with having fatal accidents.
It has never ceased to amaze me that whilst the civilised world recognises that fare paying passengers get the tops when it comes to safety (what the US calls Part 121) and that corportate bods can pretty well do what they like (but often choose to do it same as Part 121) there is this incredibly anomolous category used in the US called Part 135 - or 'On Call Charter'.
This is where your boss can go and hire the crabbiest old heap if SH***T and tell you to go and fly in it. If 135 ops were simply designed so that the person hiring the helicopter had to fly in it then a lot more people would use airline (Part 121) standards - just like the big wheels in their corporate jets do.
The best thing the FAA could do is to get their heads out of their collective backsides and take a look at the effect this type of operation has on standards. Plus it's immoral to stick your employees into a chartered machine that does not meet the same standards as an airline insofar as these are practical to apply. If the customer says he wants different (better) standards then we had all better pay attention - he pays your wages!!
It has never ceased to amaze me that whilst the civilised world recognises that fare paying passengers get the tops when it comes to safety (what the US calls Part 121) and that corportate bods can pretty well do what they like (but often choose to do it same as Part 121) there is this incredibly anomolous category used in the US called Part 135 - or 'On Call Charter'.
This is where your boss can go and hire the crabbiest old heap if SH***T and tell you to go and fly in it. If 135 ops were simply designed so that the person hiring the helicopter had to fly in it then a lot more people would use airline (Part 121) standards - just like the big wheels in their corporate jets do.
The best thing the FAA could do is to get their heads out of their collective backsides and take a look at the effect this type of operation has on standards. Plus it's immoral to stick your employees into a chartered machine that does not meet the same standards as an airline insofar as these are practical to apply. If the customer says he wants different (better) standards then we had all better pay attention - he pays your wages!!
