Risk Assessment in operation
"In any case I am getting too old to get out - seized back and overweight means that once I'm in, a fork-lift truck has to be used to get me out"
Must be those crashworthy seats!
Must be those crashworthy seats!
Have afternoon an awkward sedation meeting about an accident with an injured customer...
The real problem with this fu.. risk assessment is:
There are theorizers about us pilots, passing each psychological test, writing thousends of pages, talking artful, but not able to fly or to use their brains with common sense and they are the first and ever again involved in accidents and incidents and that will be so at all times.
Dazzlers! Kick them out!
I prefer the old style. Soft flushed cockpit managers we do not need in helicopter ops.
Sorry i'm pissed today
The real problem with this fu.. risk assessment is:
There are theorizers about us pilots, passing each psychological test, writing thousends of pages, talking artful, but not able to fly or to use their brains with common sense and they are the first and ever again involved in accidents and incidents and that will be so at all times.
Dazzlers! Kick them out!
I prefer the old style. Soft flushed cockpit managers we do not need in helicopter ops.
Sorry i'm pissed today
Last edited by tecpilot; 9th May 2007 at 09:43.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with risk assessment is what some folks may find safe (worlds best practice risk matrix or gut instinct & experience determined), other folks may not find the same activity safe at all. Some of these folks wear the safe activity as a badge
of honour and poo poo the folks that use a different approach......
of honour and poo poo the folks that use a different approach......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my Hammock or at the Pub!
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Razer, for your "first" post you have mastered cut and paste and the use of colour extremely well..... I am impressed. Interesting how you chose red to illustrate SAFE. ("Hang on I'll just pull to the red line, red is safe......DOH!)
Your point is exactly what the industry is trying to define when it comes to risk assessment vs risk management. What seems safe to you and your operation may not necessarily seem safe to others (based on equipment, your training, experience, recency, currency, weather, manipulative skill, financial resources, engineering & spare parts availability, moon state, tactical situation, air parity etc).
The concept I was discussing was plain and simple, think about your activities as for every action their is a consequence.....
Not interested in poo pooing-Just interested in sustainable long term operations.
Your point is exactly what the industry is trying to define when it comes to risk assessment vs risk management. What seems safe to you and your operation may not necessarily seem safe to others (based on equipment, your training, experience, recency, currency, weather, manipulative skill, financial resources, engineering & spare parts availability, moon state, tactical situation, air parity etc).
The concept I was discussing was plain and simple, think about your activities as for every action their is a consequence.....
Not interested in poo pooing-Just interested in sustainable long term operations.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careful with the paradigms there Max,
I'm not so sure this 'sharp' young fella has even soloed yet.
you'll bounce him clean off of his elevated pad onto his nose into the dirt beyond!
I'm not so sure this 'sharp' young fella has even soloed yet.
you'll bounce him clean off of his elevated pad onto his nose into the dirt beyond!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conceptual Risk is different for everyone!
It depends on so many factors, that it is a little rich to sit at one's computer and 'poo-poo' the actions in the picture without knowing the exact extent of the factors (pilot experience, cost and rewards of other methods of operation, stability of platform, wind direction and strength etc..etc..
Risk = Probability of Loss X Severity of Loss / Rewards
As most of those factors are subjective, it is futile here to argue the relative riskiness of this operation.
Here's some bedtime reading: http://www.risktaking.co.uk/concepts.htm
cl12pv2s
Are we sure this is a 'he'. I thought is was a lass.
It depends on so many factors, that it is a little rich to sit at one's computer and 'poo-poo' the actions in the picture without knowing the exact extent of the factors (pilot experience, cost and rewards of other methods of operation, stability of platform, wind direction and strength etc..etc..
Risk = Probability of Loss X Severity of Loss / Rewards
As most of those factors are subjective, it is futile here to argue the relative riskiness of this operation.
Here's some bedtime reading: http://www.risktaking.co.uk/concepts.htm
cl12pv2s
if you look at the hose and his relaxed hip-slumped pose it's clear that he having a wee into the tank
In the interest of the debate, I offer up this extract:
"Aviation is remarkable for the giant technological leaps it has made over the last century. This progress would not have been possible without parallel achievements in the control and reduction of aviation’s safety hazards. Given the many ways that aviation can result in injury or harm, those involved with aviation have been preoccupied with preventing accidents since the earliest days of flying. Through the disciplined application of best safety management practices, the frequency and severity of aviation occurrences have declined significantly.
CONCEPT OF SAFETY
f) the control of accidental loss (of persons and property, and damage to the environment).
Safety is increasingly viewed as the management of risk.
"Aviation is remarkable for the giant technological leaps it has made over the last century. This progress would not have been possible without parallel achievements in the control and reduction of aviation’s safety hazards. Given the many ways that aviation can result in injury or harm, those involved with aviation have been preoccupied with preventing accidents since the earliest days of flying. Through the disciplined application of best safety management practices, the frequency and severity of aviation occurrences have declined significantly.
CONCEPT OF SAFETY
In order to understand safety management, it is necessary to consider what is meant by “safety”. Depending on one’s perspective, the concept of aviation safety may have different connotations, such as:
a) zero accidents (or serious incidents), a view widely held by the travelling public;
b) the freedom from danger or risks, i.e. those factors which cause or are likely to cause harm;
c) the attitude towards unsafe acts and conditions by employees (reflecting a “safe” corporate culture);
d) the degree to which the inherent risks in aviation are “acceptable”;
e) the process of hazard identification and risk management; and
f) the control of accidental loss (of persons and property, and damage to the environment).
While the elimination of accidents (and serious incidents) would be desirable, a one hundred per cent safety rate is an unachievable goal. Failures and errors will occur, in spite of the best efforts to avoid them. No human activity or human-made system can be guaranteed to be absolutely safe, i.e. free from risk. Safety is a relative notion whereby inherent risks are acceptable in a “safe” system.
Safety is increasingly viewed as the management of risk.
Safety is considered to have the following meaning:
Safety is the state in which the risk of harm to persons or of property damage is reduced to, and maintained at or below, an acceptable level through a continuing process of hazard identification and risk management."
Jim
Here is another quote from the same source:
"Analysis of accident data all too often reveals that the situation prior to the accident was “ripe for an accident”. Safety-minded persons may even have been saying that it was just a matter of time before these circumstances led to an accident. When the accident occurs, often healthy, qualified, experienced, motivated and well-equipped personnel were found to have committed errors that triggered the accident. They (and their colleagues) may have committed these errors or unsafe practices many times before without adverse consequences. In addition, some of the unsafe conditions in which they were operating may have been present for years, again without causing an accident. In other words, an element of chance is present."
"Analysis of accident data all too often reveals that the situation prior to the accident was “ripe for an accident”. Safety-minded persons may even have been saying that it was just a matter of time before these circumstances led to an accident. When the accident occurs, often healthy, qualified, experienced, motivated and well-equipped personnel were found to have committed errors that triggered the accident. They (and their colleagues) may have committed these errors or unsafe practices many times before without adverse consequences. In addition, some of the unsafe conditions in which they were operating may have been present for years, again without causing an accident. In other words, an element of chance is present."
Jim
Don't you just love hard and fast simple rules?
Hard and fast rules are really for the "simple" among us.
Perhaps it is the advantage of an education learned flying in the Bush....not some farmers corn field but "Bush" meaning it is you, the aircraft, a few drums of fuel, a hand pump, and bung wrench. (scratch the bung wrench....it always seems to get left behind at the Base Camp), allows one to experience the wonders of thumbing a virtual finger at the "baby sitter" mentality of modern aviation. (particularly in the UK).
No 200 foot longlines, no one skid touching passenger drops, no cruising at naught feet in a hover looking for a way down off a mountain, no cargo carrying by only eye balling the load, heck...I even had some guys that would climb down a tree if need be. I pity the folks that think themselves real helicopter pilots who have never hand pumped fuel, rolled fuel drums, rigged and hooked up their own sling loads, or changed a part without an engineer. You have not lived until you walk up a mountain lugging a new battery to find the helicopter starting on the first try on the old battery.
I would imagine the mustering bunch in Oz have done much of the same as well as the bush pilots working out in the middle of no where.
Have you ever drawn your own maps because there were none to be had as they had not been done by any government?
Ever fly for a solid week and never get within radio range of an ATC unit....over three countries?
All the rules are fine and dandy....but none of them beat plain old common sense. Risks taken haphazardly will kill you.....risks taken with due care and circumpsection may but at least it was despite of using your good sense to minimize the risks.
Blind obedience to the rules will shorten your career quicker than taking a calculated risk every now and then and knowing when to set on the porch and drink beer vice going flying.
Landing on trucks has been a common event for decades and I know not of a single aircraft damaged or a pilot or a crewmember being hurt as a result.
One guy's opinon......
Hard and fast rules are really for the "simple" among us.
Perhaps it is the advantage of an education learned flying in the Bush....not some farmers corn field but "Bush" meaning it is you, the aircraft, a few drums of fuel, a hand pump, and bung wrench. (scratch the bung wrench....it always seems to get left behind at the Base Camp), allows one to experience the wonders of thumbing a virtual finger at the "baby sitter" mentality of modern aviation. (particularly in the UK).
No 200 foot longlines, no one skid touching passenger drops, no cruising at naught feet in a hover looking for a way down off a mountain, no cargo carrying by only eye balling the load, heck...I even had some guys that would climb down a tree if need be. I pity the folks that think themselves real helicopter pilots who have never hand pumped fuel, rolled fuel drums, rigged and hooked up their own sling loads, or changed a part without an engineer. You have not lived until you walk up a mountain lugging a new battery to find the helicopter starting on the first try on the old battery.
I would imagine the mustering bunch in Oz have done much of the same as well as the bush pilots working out in the middle of no where.
Have you ever drawn your own maps because there were none to be had as they had not been done by any government?
Ever fly for a solid week and never get within radio range of an ATC unit....over three countries?
All the rules are fine and dandy....but none of them beat plain old common sense. Risks taken haphazardly will kill you.....risks taken with due care and circumpsection may but at least it was despite of using your good sense to minimize the risks.
Blind obedience to the rules will shorten your career quicker than taking a calculated risk every now and then and knowing when to set on the porch and drink beer vice going flying.
Landing on trucks has been a common event for decades and I know not of a single aircraft damaged or a pilot or a crewmember being hurt as a result.
One guy's opinon......
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Maitland
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said SASless,
The shame of it all is that we have been doing "risk assessments" as Pilots forever. Everytime we take off, we think "is this going to work, yeah, can't see a problem, away we go". That for me is a risk assessment. Everything I do in a helicopter is done that way. I'm always thinking ahead and deciding weather what I'm about to do is going to come out okay. If I decide it's not going to work, I don't go and do it.
Now all they want is for us to do the "risk assessment" in a formal manner, write it down. A pain in the arse, but that's what is required by some companies now.
Far as I'm conserned, the photo is a great one and looks safe enough to me. Even though it does look like he is saving the enviorment by not peeing on the ground.
You can't eliminate risk, only minimise it to an acceptable level (a level that is safe enough not to kill me).
As has been said, there are those who sit there shiny behind in an office chair and have never been out of the city or in a helicopter who think they know how we should do what we do.
IMHO "they" can take a flying jump up their own blott.
The shame of it all is that we have been doing "risk assessments" as Pilots forever. Everytime we take off, we think "is this going to work, yeah, can't see a problem, away we go". That for me is a risk assessment. Everything I do in a helicopter is done that way. I'm always thinking ahead and deciding weather what I'm about to do is going to come out okay. If I decide it's not going to work, I don't go and do it.
Now all they want is for us to do the "risk assessment" in a formal manner, write it down. A pain in the arse, but that's what is required by some companies now.
Far as I'm conserned, the photo is a great one and looks safe enough to me. Even though it does look like he is saving the enviorment by not peeing on the ground.
You can't eliminate risk, only minimise it to an acceptable level (a level that is safe enough not to kill me).
As has been said, there are those who sit there shiny behind in an office chair and have never been out of the city or in a helicopter who think they know how we should do what we do.
IMHO "they" can take a flying jump up their own blott.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by McGowan
Far as I'm conserned, the photo is a great one and looks safe enough to me. Even though it does look like he is saving the enviorment by not peeing on the ground.
I too agree with SASless - Most pilots do carry out their own self assessment of risk prior to commiting to a flight, but there are many more out there who seem to have no concept of risk whatsoever.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Ground Running
You guys have never been fire bombing then.
Common practice in Aus during the fire season - and the Civil Aviation Orders allow it!
Common practice in Aus during the fire season - and the Civil Aviation Orders allow it!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Ground Running
Oogle,
Ground running isn't the main concern, it's the actual location the pilot chose to land, let alone ground run, when there was plenty of hard & flat terra firma around!!
Ground running isn't the main concern, it's the actual location the pilot chose to land, let alone ground run, when there was plenty of hard & flat terra firma around!!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here and there...
Age: 58
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to chuck in my sixpence worth....
If the guy chose to land on the readily available hard, flat ground that is so visibly plentiful in this picture, then the risk assesment chart would go bright red in a heartbeat.
WHY?, I hear you ask.
Beacause you now have a situation where a crew that is familiar with a particular task and more than likely TRAINED to do it that way suddenly has to change everything they are familiar with and work in a "foreign" environment.
Now, the suddenly available wide open spaces bring a HUGE risk to the fore where the helper for example stands a DEFINITE chance of wandering off and getting hit by that normally not clearly visible tail rotor, a situation that was not possible on the "dangerous" elevated platform they are familiar and dare I say it, safer with.
Naturally, just my opinion and subject to the expected nit-picking it will no doubt generate.
If the guy chose to land on the readily available hard, flat ground that is so visibly plentiful in this picture, then the risk assesment chart would go bright red in a heartbeat.
WHY?, I hear you ask.
Beacause you now have a situation where a crew that is familiar with a particular task and more than likely TRAINED to do it that way suddenly has to change everything they are familiar with and work in a "foreign" environment.
Now, the suddenly available wide open spaces bring a HUGE risk to the fore where the helper for example stands a DEFINITE chance of wandering off and getting hit by that normally not clearly visible tail rotor, a situation that was not possible on the "dangerous" elevated platform they are familiar and dare I say it, safer with.
Naturally, just my opinion and subject to the expected nit-picking it will no doubt generate.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would anybody choose to make a "pinnacle" landing on top of a very small, unstable platform
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Maitland
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyer43,
Just because you either wouldn't or couldn't land there does not make it unsafe. The Pilot on the day makes that decsion. He is there, knows what he is doing and has done it very well.
The vehicle is obviously purpose built for this operation. If the Pilot thought is wasn't safe, he wouldn't do it, if he thought it was beyond his capabilities, he wouldn't do it (if he went ahead anyway, his risk assessment would have been flawed and it would be a much different picture). People should not be slagged off at based on a photo.
I still stand by my opinion that it looks safe enough to me....................
Just because you either wouldn't or couldn't land there does not make it unsafe. The Pilot on the day makes that decsion. He is there, knows what he is doing and has done it very well.
The vehicle is obviously purpose built for this operation. If the Pilot thought is wasn't safe, he wouldn't do it, if he thought it was beyond his capabilities, he wouldn't do it (if he went ahead anyway, his risk assessment would have been flawed and it would be a much different picture). People should not be slagged off at based on a photo.
I still stand by my opinion that it looks safe enough to me....................
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Pilot thought is wasn't safe, he wouldn't do it, if he thought it was beyond his capabilities, he wouldn't do it
Video Clip
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here and there...
Age: 58
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At risk of offending a lot of people, I believe that was a really bad decision made under the influence of ego and the desire to try to either outdo a previous bad decision, or set the standard for future silliness.
The US taxpayers investment at work.
The US taxpayers investment at work.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is one of two threads that might have been used for this post (the original one - containing notification of the accident - appears to have gone missing).
It is posted to highlight two elements which might have flagged a concern to the pilot (one on power reserves and the other on LTE) and triggered a risk assessment (the sort that is done on the spot once doubts are present).
As a matter of interest, in other parts of the world when there is exposure (e.g. probability of deck-edge strike), AEO HOGE has be ensured.
Mars
NTSB Identification: DFW07LA109
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Friday, May 11, 2007 in E. Cameron 219, GM
Aircraft: Bell 206B, registration: N3RL
Injuries: 2 Minor, 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 May 11, 2007, about 1245 central daylight time, a single-engine Bell 206B helicopter, N3RL, was substantially damaged when it collided with water shortly after takeoff from East Cameron 219, located in the Gulf of Mexico. The commercial pilot and one passenger were not injured. The remaining two passengers sustained minor injuries. The helicopter was registered to and operated by Rotorcraft Leasing Company, LLC., of Broussard, Louisiana. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand air taxi flight. The cross-country flight was originating at the time of the accident.
According to the pilot, he lifted the helicopter to a three-to-five-foot hover and performed a final check of the "gauges." Reportedly, the torque was indicating 96 percent and all other gauges were within "normal" parameters. The pilot then attempted to transition into forward flight. The pilot reported that the helicopter "appeared to settle as it approached the deck edge and did not feel like it was in transitional lift." After the helicopter crossed the edge of the deck, it entered into an uncommanded descent and right rotation. The pilot's attempts to regain control were unsuccessful. The pilot deployed the helicopter's emergency floats prior to impacting the water. The pilot and passengers were able to egress the helicopter into a life raft unassisted.
A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector examined the helicopter once it was recovered. The inspector reported that the helicopter's fuselage sustained structural damage.
At 1253, the weather observation facility at LCH, which was located 45 miles north of the accident site, reported wind from 070 degrees at 5 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, clear of clouds, temperature 79 degrees Fahrenheit, dew point 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and a barometric pressure of 29.97 inches of Mercury.
It is posted to highlight two elements which might have flagged a concern to the pilot (one on power reserves and the other on LTE) and triggered a risk assessment (the sort that is done on the spot once doubts are present).
As a matter of interest, in other parts of the world when there is exposure (e.g. probability of deck-edge strike), AEO HOGE has be ensured.
Mars
NTSB Identification: DFW07LA109
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Friday, May 11, 2007 in E. Cameron 219, GM
Aircraft: Bell 206B, registration: N3RL
Injuries: 2 Minor, 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 May 11, 2007, about 1245 central daylight time, a single-engine Bell 206B helicopter, N3RL, was substantially damaged when it collided with water shortly after takeoff from East Cameron 219, located in the Gulf of Mexico. The commercial pilot and one passenger were not injured. The remaining two passengers sustained minor injuries. The helicopter was registered to and operated by Rotorcraft Leasing Company, LLC., of Broussard, Louisiana. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand air taxi flight. The cross-country flight was originating at the time of the accident.
According to the pilot, he lifted the helicopter to a three-to-five-foot hover and performed a final check of the "gauges." Reportedly, the torque was indicating 96 percent and all other gauges were within "normal" parameters. The pilot then attempted to transition into forward flight. The pilot reported that the helicopter "appeared to settle as it approached the deck edge and did not feel like it was in transitional lift." After the helicopter crossed the edge of the deck, it entered into an uncommanded descent and right rotation. The pilot's attempts to regain control were unsuccessful. The pilot deployed the helicopter's emergency floats prior to impacting the water. The pilot and passengers were able to egress the helicopter into a life raft unassisted.
A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector examined the helicopter once it was recovered. The inspector reported that the helicopter's fuselage sustained structural damage.
At 1253, the weather observation facility at LCH, which was located 45 miles north of the accident site, reported wind from 070 degrees at 5 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, clear of clouds, temperature 79 degrees Fahrenheit, dew point 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and a barometric pressure of 29.97 inches of Mercury.