Can offshore helicopters become as safe as commercial airlines?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,093
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad to see that in forty odd years things have hardly changed. By 'things' I mean the driving forces. When I did my off shore stuff it was a case of which helicopter provider could come in with the best quote, that means cheapest. Load the helicopter up with good equipment and the basic operating cost increased which meant the contract price was higher and not competitive.
Move now to the non contract world where passengers are free to choose their carrier and if the pax are aware that one carrier provides a potentially safer service than another, (by virtue of equipment carried), then they vote with their feet and the cheap skate goes out of business through a lack of revenue, not so in the captive passenger load of a contracted offshore helicopter flight. Not much chance of mobilising the passenger element to strike a blow for safety I suppose?
On the subject of Shell, in Nigeria, in the very early seventies I remember they floated the idea of having two operators on site, the call would go out for a flight and the first one in the air got the job, fortunately Bristow said no bloody way.
My post is largely anecdotal in the midst of some very serious stuff but as I said earlier, it is sad to see that the basic mind set of the charterer has not changed over almost two generations and still governs and severely limits the options of the helicopter operator. It is unlikely that the passengers will take a stand, so it is hard to see how anything will change until it is proven that some modern equipment will actually reduce the cost of the operation, is that a possibility?
Move now to the non contract world where passengers are free to choose their carrier and if the pax are aware that one carrier provides a potentially safer service than another, (by virtue of equipment carried), then they vote with their feet and the cheap skate goes out of business through a lack of revenue, not so in the captive passenger load of a contracted offshore helicopter flight. Not much chance of mobilising the passenger element to strike a blow for safety I suppose?
On the subject of Shell, in Nigeria, in the very early seventies I remember they floated the idea of having two operators on site, the call would go out for a flight and the first one in the air got the job, fortunately Bristow said no bloody way.
My post is largely anecdotal in the midst of some very serious stuff but as I said earlier, it is sad to see that the basic mind set of the charterer has not changed over almost two generations and still governs and severely limits the options of the helicopter operator. It is unlikely that the passengers will take a stand, so it is hard to see how anything will change until it is proven that some modern equipment will actually reduce the cost of the operation, is that a possibility?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Let's see - what makes airlines so safe??? And I'll leave you to make your own comparisons.... (all this is based on the US airline model and not all comparisons are valid for the rest of the world)
To start - excellent weather reporting at all airports they use. And pretty good predictions.
Next - navigation aids at all airports (most have ILS, and the move is to make all approaches like an ILS). Very rare to have an airliner make a missed approach.
Then - certified, trained dispatchers to set up flights and make decisions on loads, etc. The pilots don't do weight and balance calculations (mostly).
Add- nearly continuous radar coverage, and certainly continuous ATC coverage.
- all large aircraft have significant performance on one engine, and the performance is scheduled for an engine-out situation for the entire flight. (the reliability of FW turbine engines is even better than RW turbines, so why are they bothered by this??? Must be a reason...)
- two pilots, even the small commuter aircraft.
- they have performance charts that are comprehensive and give them the information they need.
- they fly on a scheduled basis (that is, not when there is a full load of passengers)
- facilities that are regularly checked (most airports check the runway and taxiway lighting on a very regular basis, if not daily).
- dedicated fire crews are all airports above a certain size
- excellent knowledge of where any temporary or semi-permanent objects that might affect safety are (i.e. unlit cranes or towers within a certain distance from the runway / airport).
- nearly all pilots belong to a union - a union that believes in active participation in safety (ALPA's largest expense is putting pilots on all the various committees that regulate things like approaches, displays, etc., as well as having a rep on every accident that involves one of their members) (and I'm not slamming PHPA here - I think they're an important first step)
- and a whole host of other minor things that I hope others will bring up.
The point is that there is much more that contributes to safety in the airline business than is first evident. How much of this do we have to bring in to improve helicopter safety?
(having lit fuse, I will now retire to a safe distance and monitor following explosion)
To start - excellent weather reporting at all airports they use. And pretty good predictions.
Next - navigation aids at all airports (most have ILS, and the move is to make all approaches like an ILS). Very rare to have an airliner make a missed approach.
Then - certified, trained dispatchers to set up flights and make decisions on loads, etc. The pilots don't do weight and balance calculations (mostly).
Add- nearly continuous radar coverage, and certainly continuous ATC coverage.
- all large aircraft have significant performance on one engine, and the performance is scheduled for an engine-out situation for the entire flight. (the reliability of FW turbine engines is even better than RW turbines, so why are they bothered by this??? Must be a reason...)
- two pilots, even the small commuter aircraft.
- they have performance charts that are comprehensive and give them the information they need.
- they fly on a scheduled basis (that is, not when there is a full load of passengers)
- facilities that are regularly checked (most airports check the runway and taxiway lighting on a very regular basis, if not daily).
- dedicated fire crews are all airports above a certain size
- excellent knowledge of where any temporary or semi-permanent objects that might affect safety are (i.e. unlit cranes or towers within a certain distance from the runway / airport).
- nearly all pilots belong to a union - a union that believes in active participation in safety (ALPA's largest expense is putting pilots on all the various committees that regulate things like approaches, displays, etc., as well as having a rep on every accident that involves one of their members) (and I'm not slamming PHPA here - I think they're an important first step)
- and a whole host of other minor things that I hope others will bring up.
The point is that there is much more that contributes to safety in the airline business than is first evident. How much of this do we have to bring in to improve helicopter safety?
(having lit fuse, I will now retire to a safe distance and monitor following explosion)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sean
As I understand it the two largest operators in the GOM are unionised and yet they both have a sorry sting of accidents. I've heard suggestions that they are more cause than solution in some cases because of the control the seniority list has on where new pilots are posted - and the types (i.e. 206 capatains first then 76 co-pilots). So are unions really part of the safety equation in the 21st centuary?
As I understand it the two largest operators in the GOM are unionised and yet they both have a sorry sting of accidents. I've heard suggestions that they are more cause than solution in some cases because of the control the seniority list has on where new pilots are posted - and the types (i.e. 206 capatains first then 76 co-pilots). So are unions really part of the safety equation in the 21st centuary?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for cmwangs edification, and because it didn't come through in the first post, pilot experience and training is an integral part or Shell's 7/7=1 program.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/comm...hore/1369.html
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/comm...hore/1369.html
Sox,
Read Gann's book "Fate is the Hunter" and you will understand just how important "seniority numbers" are in the airline world. The only difference between the GOM and airline pilots is their equipment and seat they occupy are in fully instrumented IFR aircraft. The GOM thrives on Jetrangers and similar VFR aircraft although IFR aircraft are becoming more common.
Pilots bid for their job, aircraft, and bases based upon seniority....same as the airlines.
Read Gann's book "Fate is the Hunter" and you will understand just how important "seniority numbers" are in the airline world. The only difference between the GOM and airline pilots is their equipment and seat they occupy are in fully instrumented IFR aircraft. The GOM thrives on Jetrangers and similar VFR aircraft although IFR aircraft are becoming more common.
Pilots bid for their job, aircraft, and bases based upon seniority....same as the airlines.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Out of Africa
Age: 70
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawn asks
Tailspin pointed out
I think the reality is that we need to address all the issues raised by Shawn in comparing our Industry to the fixed wing world. As several ppruners have eloquently pointed out - the highest standards in the world are probably to be found in the North Sea with Operators in Norway, UK etc. and the reason for this is that the Oil Companies and Helicopter Operators along with the CAA's and HCA have already addressed the majority of the issues highlighted by Shawn.
In the rest of the world including the USA there is often vast resistance to any change of legislation or even compliance with existing legislation that in my experience comes mainly from the Oil Companies INCLUDING many of the Majors.
The arrogant tendency to suggest that API standards since they are acceptable in the GOM are good enough for the Arabian Gulf or Bight of Benin is something that I have encountered (and still encounter) many times.
I have on several occasions advised a Jack Up Operator that his helideck is too small (i.a.w. ICAO Annexe 14 or CAP 437) for a 212/412/S76 since it only has a true 'D' value of 14 meters or less only to be shown API paperwork indicating that the deck is cleared for S61N - is it any surprise that accident rates for locations using these standards (I use the term loosely!) are substantially higher? - and they are!
I am aware of several of the Majors (including Shell/XOM/Chevron) who still do not even approach minimum recommendations for firefighting facilities, Deck sizes, Deck & Radio Room and Dispatch Staff qualifications on many facilities owned or operated on their behalf. In many cases very well qualified and knowledgable Aviation Advisors are employed by them but they seem to quickly learn that if they wish to stay employed, they will turn a blind eye and not piss off the Big Boys in Drilling/Production/Construction/Logistics etc. etc.
Until the Majors really really put their monies where their mouths are, we are going to be continuing to try to push s
t uphill.
How much of this do we have to bring in to improve helicopter safety?
(having lit fuse, I will now retire to a safe distance and monitor following explosion)
(having lit fuse, I will now retire to a safe distance and monitor following explosion)
Tailspin pointed out
HSAC made several valient attempts in going to the FAA in 2005, visiting with congressional leaders only to be undermind by a handful of smaller oil companies within API that cut our legs off. Shell, ExxonMobil and other majors put their money where their mouths are. Look for the answers with the institutions that control change in this country.
In the rest of the world including the USA there is often vast resistance to any change of legislation or even compliance with existing legislation that in my experience comes mainly from the Oil Companies INCLUDING many of the Majors.
The arrogant tendency to suggest that API standards since they are acceptable in the GOM are good enough for the Arabian Gulf or Bight of Benin is something that I have encountered (and still encounter) many times.
I have on several occasions advised a Jack Up Operator that his helideck is too small (i.a.w. ICAO Annexe 14 or CAP 437) for a 212/412/S76 since it only has a true 'D' value of 14 meters or less only to be shown API paperwork indicating that the deck is cleared for S61N - is it any surprise that accident rates for locations using these standards (I use the term loosely!) are substantially higher? - and they are!
I am aware of several of the Majors (including Shell/XOM/Chevron) who still do not even approach minimum recommendations for firefighting facilities, Deck sizes, Deck & Radio Room and Dispatch Staff qualifications on many facilities owned or operated on their behalf. In many cases very well qualified and knowledgable Aviation Advisors are employed by them but they seem to quickly learn that if they wish to stay employed, they will turn a blind eye and not piss off the Big Boys in Drilling/Production/Construction/Logistics etc. etc.
Until the Majors really really put their monies where their mouths are, we are going to be continuing to try to push s
t uphill.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
A bit or arse covering there? 'Seniority' - as in length of service - does not assure wisdom, skill or even experience (in hours or range of circumstances encountered). One reason that CRM had to be invented was to overcome the cockpit gradient created by seniority thinking.
The GOM problem, stated below, is that putting a single newbie straight in as PIC of a 206 is a receipe for disaster. Thats ones reason Exxon Mobile are flying 2 crew in a 206 - to allow safe, rapid building of experience. A 2,000 hour offshore pilot should be many times better than a 200 hour offshore pilot. But is a 20,000 hour pilot 10 times as safe as a 2,000 hour pilot - no.
Thats why as part of 7/7 (yes unfortunate but it was conceived before 2005) Shell are moving from quantity to quality in partnership with forward thinking schools like the Bristow Academy:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/comm...ore/16815.html
A bit or arse covering there? 'Seniority' - as in length of service - does not assure wisdom, skill or even experience (in hours or range of circumstances encountered). One reason that CRM had to be invented was to overcome the cockpit gradient created by seniority thinking.
The GOM problem, stated below, is that putting a single newbie straight in as PIC of a 206 is a receipe for disaster. Thats ones reason Exxon Mobile are flying 2 crew in a 206 - to allow safe, rapid building of experience. A 2,000 hour offshore pilot should be many times better than a 200 hour offshore pilot. But is a 20,000 hour pilot 10 times as safe as a 2,000 hour pilot - no.
Thats why as part of 7/7 (yes unfortunate but it was conceived before 2005) Shell are moving from quantity to quality in partnership with forward thinking schools like the Bristow Academy:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/comm...ore/16815.html
Last edited by zalt; 15th Jun 2008 at 16:48.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: EUROPE
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Can offshore helicopters become as safe as commercial airlines? "
Probably .......when the charterer (oil and gas companies) stick their heads above the parapet , smell the coffee and stop whining about operating costs for newer types !
If you want to make it safer you need to operate types that are up to date with technology and innovation.
Things need to evolve and unfortunately operators are somewhat tied by the
charterers who are happy to operate "old aircraft" on the cheap ..... you pays your money and takes your choice ......
Dont forget the big oil and gas boys dont make any profits do they ?????
Probably .......when the charterer (oil and gas companies) stick their heads above the parapet , smell the coffee and stop whining about operating costs for newer types !
If you want to make it safer you need to operate types that are up to date with technology and innovation.
Things need to evolve and unfortunately operators are somewhat tied by the
charterers who are happy to operate "old aircraft" on the cheap ..... you pays your money and takes your choice ......
Dont forget the big oil and gas boys dont make any profits do they ?????
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,155
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
"If you want to make it safer you need to operate types that are up to date with technology and innovation"
Yes, that does help to a point, but how does one of the companies I mentioned above whose safety record is better than the airlines do it with 30-year-old 212s?
Training, management with a safety culture and most important - picking good crews in the first place. And just to go further against the grain - not a psychometric test in sight.
My point is that it can be done, including daily night flights (if you see what I mean), and as one with my other foot very firmly in the IT world, all the whizzbang technology in the world is no good if it isn't operated properly.
phil
Yes, that does help to a point, but how does one of the companies I mentioned above whose safety record is better than the airlines do it with 30-year-old 212s?
Training, management with a safety culture and most important - picking good crews in the first place. And just to go further against the grain - not a psychometric test in sight.
My point is that it can be done, including daily night flights (if you see what I mean), and as one with my other foot very firmly in the IT world, all the whizzbang technology in the world is no good if it isn't operated properly.
phil
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for zalt and FlyingHead, your Europhile bigotry notwithstanding, the accident rate in the North Sea (flown by your vaulted better aircraft and better crews) is actually a bit worse than the safety record of the Gulf of Mexico (with their American cowboy pilots and dreaded single engine aircraft). I am always amused at the ease with which those who do not know instead assign wonderfullness to themselves, and blame the other guy.
One of the reasons why the GoM flies several times the number of hours is because it is bigger, has more machines, and has lower rates. Typical sad story, just like that for pilot training, where European standards raise cost and do not lower accident rates.
One of the reasons why the GoM flies several times the number of hours is because it is bigger, has more machines, and has lower rates. Typical sad story, just like that for pilot training, where European standards raise cost and do not lower accident rates.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety
Skiddriver,
'Edification'? To what point do I need to be edified? The initial entry into this thread had to deal with the question of safety practices.
Whether or not Shell is the vanguard is inconsequential - they are to be congratulated. This is an industry wide situation, and it is to that my comments are directed.
Shell's requirements in terms of crew standards is indeed commendable. It is a pity there remains companies who fail to follow their lead - therein lies the safety ratios needed to pull us forward alongside the airlines.
'Edification'? To what point do I need to be edified? The initial entry into this thread had to deal with the question of safety practices.
Whether or not Shell is the vanguard is inconsequential - they are to be congratulated. This is an industry wide situation, and it is to that my comments are directed.
Shell's requirements in terms of crew standards is indeed commendable. It is a pity there remains companies who fail to follow their lead - therein lies the safety ratios needed to pull us forward alongside the airlines.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not certain how I managed to tweak your nose, but I was pointing out that while the first post did not include a mention of properly trained crew, as you pointed out in the second post, it is part of Shell's aviation safety improvement proposal.
To recap, the first post says that Mark Stevens from Shell gave a brief. You pointed out that the description of the briefing in the first post did not contain a mention of a properly trained crew which you feel is truly important. I pointed out that Shell's 7/7=1 includes a properly trained crew as one of the safety mitigations.
So I was merely trying to say that Shell agrees with you.
And thanks for the congratulations, we do our best.
To recap, the first post says that Mark Stevens from Shell gave a brief. You pointed out that the description of the briefing in the first post did not contain a mention of a properly trained crew which you feel is truly important. I pointed out that Shell's 7/7=1 includes a properly trained crew as one of the safety mitigations.
So I was merely trying to say that Shell agrees with you.
And thanks for the congratulations, we do our best.
Last edited by skiddriver; 15th Jun 2008 at 19:47.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Out of Africa
Age: 70
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To rjsquirrell
How is life on the planet ZOB?
Try 2004 accident stats GOM when 19 helicopters came into contact with objects "on to or adjacent to helidecks" as against ZERO for the rest of the World (The bit that USA News doesn't cover)
Don't tell us you voted for George last time?
p.s. vaulted???
p.s. cmwangs ask someone in Shell how they operate to the "Offshore Platform" out of Warri which shakes like a bstard if Pilots don't wind back NR - it is a miracle that it has not ecologically reverted to a diving "point of interest" to use TOM Toms' vernacular in the B of B!
Try 2004 accident stats GOM when 19 helicopters came into contact with objects "on to or adjacent to helidecks" as against ZERO for the rest of the World (The bit that USA News doesn't cover)
Don't tell us you voted for George last time?
p.s. vaulted???
p.s. cmwangs ask someone in Shell how they operate to the "Offshore Platform" out of Warri which shakes like a b
stard if Pilots don't wind back NR - it is a miracle that it has not ecologically reverted to a diving "point of interest" to use TOM Toms' vernacular in the B of B!
Last edited by Troglodita; 15th Jun 2008 at 20:34. Reason: query
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Troglodita:
OGP statistics 2006:
Gulf of Mexico
406,000 Hrs
1,248,000 Flts
1.48 Accidents per 100K Hrs
.48 Accidents per 100K sorties
.25 Fatalities per 100K Hrs
.48 Fatalities per 1M occupants
North Sea
138,000 Hrs
198,000 Flts
1.45 Accidents per 100K Hrs
1.01 Accidents per 100K sorties
.72 Fatalities per 100K Hrs
3.54 Fatalities per 1M occupants
OGP statistics 2006:
Gulf of Mexico
406,000 Hrs
1,248,000 Flts
1.48 Accidents per 100K Hrs
.48 Accidents per 100K sorties
.25 Fatalities per 100K Hrs
.48 Fatalities per 1M occupants
North Sea
138,000 Hrs
198,000 Flts
1.45 Accidents per 100K Hrs
1.01 Accidents per 100K sorties
.72 Fatalities per 100K Hrs
3.54 Fatalities per 1M occupants
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rjsquirrel
Have a look at the HSAC website for 2007 - this shows one little key feature of the stats that they use (which are used in the OGP data) - not every aircraft loss in the Gulf gets counted as such. There were 7 accidents and 3 additional GOM ditchings not recorded as accidents. Call me picky but there is a big difference between 7 and 10.
Now of course the OGP members who fly in the GOM go a long with this little fraud because it suits them.
Funnily enougth one of the two accident in the North Sea in 2006 would conceivably have been a non-accident in US terms (helicopter simply landed at sea, everyone recovered uninjured - hell even the aircraft was on dry land again the same day without outside help).
However the good bit about Europeans, to me as a Canadian, is they don't spend most of their time pathalogically readjusting their safety records to justify why they have their heads in the sand.
Have a look at the HSAC website for 2007 - this shows one little key feature of the stats that they use (which are used in the OGP data) - not every aircraft loss in the Gulf gets counted as such. There were 7 accidents and 3 additional GOM ditchings not recorded as accidents. Call me picky but there is a big difference between 7 and 10.
Now of course the OGP members who fly in the GOM go a long with this little fraud because it suits them.
Funnily enougth one of the two accident in the North Sea in 2006 would conceivably have been a non-accident in US terms (helicopter simply landed at sea, everyone recovered uninjured - hell even the aircraft was on dry land again the same day without outside help).
However the good bit about Europeans, to me as a Canadian, is they don't spend most of their time pathalogically readjusting their safety records to justify why they have their heads in the sand.
RJ,
Your stats are skewed....average pax load for the North Sea is in the teens vice two's and three's for the average GOM 206. I would suggest you are comparing apples and oranges here.
Trog,
Which platform might that be that has the shivers?
Is the burnt out rig still there with all the sphagetti like drill pipe laying on it?
That must have been a real sight to see....proper blow out with the drill string shot skywards and then falling back onto the rig!
Then there is the sunken jack-up down towards between Eket and PHC that flopped over following a blow out. The heli-deck is now on about a 60 degree angle to the horizion.
Your stats are skewed....average pax load for the North Sea is in the teens vice two's and three's for the average GOM 206. I would suggest you are comparing apples and oranges here.
Trog,
Which platform might that be that has the shivers?
Is the burnt out rig still there with all the sphagetti like drill pipe laying on it?
That must have been a real sight to see....proper blow out with the drill string shot skywards and then falling back onto the rig!
Then there is the sunken jack-up down towards between Eket and PHC that flopped over following a blow out. The heli-deck is now on about a 60 degree angle to the horizion.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concur with zalt. It's not only the "safe water landings" that get hidden. Aircraft running into each other and obstacles on GoM platforms with never a mention in the NTSB/FAA records are also not counted, as long as it is only main or tail rotor damage.
I was working on getting money to upgrade our helidecks, and had a senior HSE manager tell me that the GoM had no recent history of helideck design related incidents. It's maddening.
I was working on getting money to upgrade our helidecks, and had a senior HSE manager tell me that the GoM had no recent history of helideck design related incidents. It's maddening.
Originally Posted by SASless
Is the burnt out rig still there with all the sphagetti like drill pipe laying on it?
That must have been a real sight to see....proper blow out with the drill string shot skywards and then falling back onto the rig!
That must have been a real sight to see....proper blow out with the drill string shot skywards and then falling back onto the rig!
That's the very one.....the "JuJu Rig" as it is known by the locals.
There was a lot more vegetation growing on it the last time I saw it.
There was a lot more vegetation growing on it the last time I saw it.