Can offshore helicopters become as safe as commercial airlines?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can offshore helicopters become as safe as commercial airlines?
Report from Rotorhub of an excellent RAeS conference this wek at Hamilton Place. Comments? Does everyone agree this is possible?
Offshore helicopter safety has improved by an order of magnitude in the last decade, but can it become as safe as airline transport. Mark Stevens Director Air Safety at Shell Aircraft International seems to think so. Presenting a paper at the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Maritime Operations of Rotorcraft conference on Wednesday, Stevens referred to air safety performance figures that put offshore transport in third place with 4.5 fatal per one million flying hours compared to 2.0 for commuter airlines and 0.6 for average commercial airlines.
Examining how safety has improved in fixed wing operations over the last 30, Stevens points out that Damage tolerant design; system redundancy; improved reliability/crashworthiness, Safety Management Systems, Flight data monitoring have all played their part. Yet such systems have only really started appearing on helicopter in the last 10 years.
An examination of more than 2,000 helicopter accidents carried out by Shell revealed that most accidents could have been prevented had that aircraft met new FAR 29 airworthiness standards. Others could have been prevented through the installation of HUMS or EGPWS and TCAS.
As this new technology is introduced, it’s clear that safety standards will improve yet further, but the risks are going up too, offshore operations are being extended further out to sea in more extreme environments placing more pressure on pilot and machine.
Tony Osborne - Rotorhub.com Editorial Team
Offshore helicopter safety has improved by an order of magnitude in the last decade, but can it become as safe as airline transport. Mark Stevens Director Air Safety at Shell Aircraft International seems to think so. Presenting a paper at the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Maritime Operations of Rotorcraft conference on Wednesday, Stevens referred to air safety performance figures that put offshore transport in third place with 4.5 fatal per one million flying hours compared to 2.0 for commuter airlines and 0.6 for average commercial airlines.
Examining how safety has improved in fixed wing operations over the last 30, Stevens points out that Damage tolerant design; system redundancy; improved reliability/crashworthiness, Safety Management Systems, Flight data monitoring have all played their part. Yet such systems have only really started appearing on helicopter in the last 10 years.
An examination of more than 2,000 helicopter accidents carried out by Shell revealed that most accidents could have been prevented had that aircraft met new FAR 29 airworthiness standards. Others could have been prevented through the installation of HUMS or EGPWS and TCAS.
As this new technology is introduced, it’s clear that safety standards will improve yet further, but the risks are going up too, offshore operations are being extended further out to sea in more extreme environments placing more pressure on pilot and machine.
Tony Osborne - Rotorhub.com Editorial Team
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety.
The one item missing from your list of installed systems is a properly trained crew - and that which demands yearly recurrent simulator sessions.
All the safety systems in the world commanded by a weak crew remains at zero.
There, in my opinion is the answer.
All the safety systems in the world commanded by a weak crew remains at zero.
There, in my opinion is the answer.
Nick, I think your standpoint is admirable, but until 'new' aircraft are brought into play in the offshore world, the idea of total IFR, GPS 'auto flight to a hover' capability are just not feasible. The aircraft would require much improved hover capability at the weights we carry offshore and with present aircraft operated around the world, some days this just wouldn't allow the customers required payloads.
Unfortunately, not every operator is prepared to invest in the newer technology due to the one thing that affects them all the most, COST!
We're flying 15 yr old S76's offshore with 12 pob. You know how much fun that can be on a hot day with nil wind. I guess that's where the pilot 'skill' comes into it.
I would think the lead time on a new aircraft these days, say a 76 C++ or an EC155 etc, has to be at least 18 months if you ordered one today, and that's a modern day helicopter now. Is there an easy fix?
Unfortunately, not every operator is prepared to invest in the newer technology due to the one thing that affects them all the most, COST!
We're flying 15 yr old S76's offshore with 12 pob. You know how much fun that can be on a hot day with nil wind. I guess that's where the pilot 'skill' comes into it.
I would think the lead time on a new aircraft these days, say a 76 C++ or an EC155 etc, has to be at least 18 months if you ordered one today, and that's a modern day helicopter now. Is there an easy fix?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,149
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
All very valid points, but one thing still remains - 747s, etc don't land on oil rigs and they are also better suited performance-wise for their job! As long as we are landing in such places you won't ever get down to those safety figures overall, although there are companies that have achieved better than the airlines already without Shell's help. That's not to say we shouldn't be trying though!
Proper training, of course, offsets a lot of this disadvantage, as does a proper safety culture
Phil
Proper training, of course, offsets a lot of this disadvantage, as does a proper safety culture
Phil
I viewed Nick's presentation and find that I agree with him.
The techology exists, the concept has been proven by the Flagler Demo.
It would seem oil companies and IFR operators would quickly embrace the situation if they were truly interested in "safety" and put people ahead of "costs".
The major difference between helicopters and airplanes is during instrument operations the airplane lands at airports equipped with all sorts of aids to flight and use standard procedures. Helicopters on the other hand do just the opposite. A couple of bright lights, some dim deck lights, and a windsock really do not compare to rabbits, lead in lights, runway lights, vasi's, and all the rest of the gear that awaits an airplane at the end of an IFR flight.
It stands to reason then that if the rigs and accident scenes do not have the gear we need to bring our own. Add FLIR, NVG's, IR Filters on night suns, and lots of strong lighting and perhaps our safety record will improve noticeably.
The techology exists, the concept has been proven by the Flagler Demo.
It would seem oil companies and IFR operators would quickly embrace the situation if they were truly interested in "safety" and put people ahead of "costs".
The major difference between helicopters and airplanes is during instrument operations the airplane lands at airports equipped with all sorts of aids to flight and use standard procedures. Helicopters on the other hand do just the opposite. A couple of bright lights, some dim deck lights, and a windsock really do not compare to rabbits, lead in lights, runway lights, vasi's, and all the rest of the gear that awaits an airplane at the end of an IFR flight.
It stands to reason then that if the rigs and accident scenes do not have the gear we need to bring our own. Add FLIR, NVG's, IR Filters on night suns, and lots of strong lighting and perhaps our safety record will improve noticeably.
windowseatplease, my thought is because the offshore winds can be much greater than those found onshore on the same day, and of varying directions, you would be flying an ILS type approach to a rig then having the circling manoeuvre at the bottom in bad viz/poor weather/completely out of wind on some days. This would put you at increased risk.
The ARA is used so that you can use any direction, ie go overhead and descending outbound before turning back in getting to minima safely (200', 80kts), or straight in with an en route letdown, to minima so pretty much fool proof. Using the Wx radar and DME and RNAV you don't even need the NDB. (most of which I believe dont always work anyway).
Can you imagine calibrating all of those ILS approaches offshore on a regular basis? A logistical nightmare, especially when the equipment would be rig based, and prone to slight misalignments (rigs are metal and subject to movement and expansion/contraction) A small movement at the rig would cause a big discrepancy over the length of the approach path?? Don't know but just throwing ideas in here now. Aircraft doing calibration flights regularly adding to the airspace traffic.
The ARA is used so that you can use any direction, ie go overhead and descending outbound before turning back in getting to minima safely (200', 80kts), or straight in with an en route letdown, to minima so pretty much fool proof. Using the Wx radar and DME and RNAV you don't even need the NDB. (most of which I believe dont always work anyway).
Can you imagine calibrating all of those ILS approaches offshore on a regular basis? A logistical nightmare, especially when the equipment would be rig based, and prone to slight misalignments (rigs are metal and subject to movement and expansion/contraction) A small movement at the rig would cause a big discrepancy over the length of the approach path?? Don't know but just throwing ideas in here now. Aircraft doing calibration flights regularly adding to the airspace traffic.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major difference between helicopters and airplanes is during instrument operations the airplane lands at airports equipped with all sorts of aids to flight and use standard procedures. Helicopters on the other hand do just the opposite. A couple of bright lights, some dim deck lights, and a windsock really do not compare to rabbits, lead in lights, runway lights, vasi's, and all the rest of the gear that awaits an airplane at the end of an IFR flight.
Can you imagine calibrating all of those ILS approaches offshore on a regular basis? A logistical nightmare, especially when the equipment would be rig based, and prone to slight misalignments (rigs are metal and subject to movement and expansion/contraction) A small movement at the rig would cause a big discrepancy over the length of the approach path?? Don't know but just throwing ideas in here now. Aircraft doing calibration flights regularly adding to the airspace traffic.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Am ideal thread to pontificate in...
Why don't we have differential GPS (or WAAS in those areas covered) approaches to oil rigs?
Should be difficult to set up - each rig could have approaches set up every 45° of azimuth without major problems - the visual portion at the bottom shouldn't be difficult to transition to. 8 different possible approach paths to get you down to within 0.5 miles of the rig.
What's stopping us from at least trying this?
And the reason for advocating this is that it would instill the sort of heavily disciplined routine that is standard in the airline industry. (I'm not saying that most helicopter pilots aren't disciplined, but nowhere near as disciplined as the airline industry.)
When 25% of helicopter pilots who have autopilots don't use the autopilot, it says a whole lot about the differences between the RW world and the airlines.
It's nice to see some operators adopting the airlines Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) techniques. It can only help us make things safer.
The question is - why isn't everyone offshore adopting it? Why don't the oil companies demand it?
Why don't we have differential GPS (or WAAS in those areas covered) approaches to oil rigs?
Should be difficult to set up - each rig could have approaches set up every 45° of azimuth without major problems - the visual portion at the bottom shouldn't be difficult to transition to. 8 different possible approach paths to get you down to within 0.5 miles of the rig.
What's stopping us from at least trying this?
And the reason for advocating this is that it would instill the sort of heavily disciplined routine that is standard in the airline industry. (I'm not saying that most helicopter pilots aren't disciplined, but nowhere near as disciplined as the airline industry.)
When 25% of helicopter pilots who have autopilots don't use the autopilot, it says a whole lot about the differences between the RW world and the airlines.
It's nice to see some operators adopting the airlines Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) techniques. It can only help us make things safer.
The question is - why isn't everyone offshore adopting it? Why don't the oil companies demand it?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as Shell (and the other oil companies) is involved in it, safety won't increase much. There is tremendous financial pressure on the local people to keep costs down, and to make the fewest number of flights possible, thus each aircraft has to carry the maximum amount of weight. Dispatchers simply won't allow dropping passengers and cargo unless forced to. The oil companies are making obscene profits, but it's never, ever enough, there is always pressure for more. Every airline flight is IFR, every time. Reducing the payload of every offshore flight and requiring them to all be IFR is not going to happen. In the GOM, a large percentage of the flights are done in single-engine, single-pilot aircraft, none of which are IFR capable. If Shell and the other companies really want to bring offshore flight safety up to the level of the airlines, they have to put their money where their mouths are, and force it to happen. Get rid of the crappy, poorly-designed offshore platforms, and install helidecks that are actually safe to land on. Require all IFR, multi-pilot helicopters. Get working weather observation equipment on all the platforms. Get reliable ATC communications offshore. ADS-B might be it, but that's still to be seen. It would require a huge investment in infrastructure and aircraft, and I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Money talks and b***t walks.
Shawn, all of our LPC/OPC's etc have to be handflown without use of the autopilot! If we dont hand fly regularly it makes it more difficult when we do the tests. Even though the ops manual says use AP whenever poss!!!
The oil companies won't cough up!!! It's all down to the beancounters. I would have thought anything to do with safety would be exempt from cost cutting measures.
www.refabs.com
This works well, fly over this deck every week, but the companies are loathe to pay for it.
Here is one of my own gripes:-
We launch offshore knowing the wx is marginal, (i'm beginning to think pressure is on the offshore bods to get us out there so exaggerate wx sometimes???) given to us by standby boat staff looking out of the window. They give horiz viz (easily worked out) but they also give cloud heights which bear no resemblance to the real world. Ok, so we fly for 25 minutes out there, get to the other end, cloud base at 100', viz poor, fly an ARA, no rig seen, decide it's not even worth flying another attempt it's so bad, head back to airport. 1 hour cost to the customer?? $000's surely?
Ok, so what would a cloud height radar cost? I'm sure it would pay for itself very quickly, after even just one week I expect. They don't see it like this though. It's an outlay and not gonna happen.
The oil companies won't cough up!!! It's all down to the beancounters. I would have thought anything to do with safety would be exempt from cost cutting measures.
www.refabs.com
This works well, fly over this deck every week, but the companies are loathe to pay for it.
Here is one of my own gripes:-
We launch offshore knowing the wx is marginal, (i'm beginning to think pressure is on the offshore bods to get us out there so exaggerate wx sometimes???) given to us by standby boat staff looking out of the window. They give horiz viz (easily worked out) but they also give cloud heights which bear no resemblance to the real world. Ok, so we fly for 25 minutes out there, get to the other end, cloud base at 100', viz poor, fly an ARA, no rig seen, decide it's not even worth flying another attempt it's so bad, head back to airport. 1 hour cost to the customer?? $000's surely?
Ok, so what would a cloud height radar cost? I'm sure it would pay for itself very quickly, after even just one week I expect. They don't see it like this though. It's an outlay and not gonna happen.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick gets my support on this one. Training ad infinitum on poorly designed or outdated technology can only achieve a part of the safety level we should all be demanding. The coupling of improved and innovative technology with better training methods is the ultimate solution. Safety isn't free, though, and as long as pilots are willing to shy away from solutions that engineer down the level of risk, the corporations won't put up a penny.
I was one of the GA/Corporate pilots Nick invited to evaluate the performance of the differential GPS approach system and give feedback on the instrument cues at the Flagler Demo. There were plenty of test pilots lined up to shoot approaches, but Nick wanted to include perspectives from a wider range of experience levels. I can assure anyone with doubts that the proof of concept was resoundingly successful and am surprised the system hasn't been implemented. The approaches to the test helipad proved the concept would greatly improve safety allowing operators to have full instrument approaches to virtually any location. To add one more layer of safety, the engineers even had a programmed yaw that would slew the nose to the left so you could see the pad better as it came into a hover.
The on airport approaches, in my book, were overshadowed by the approaches to the helipad at the Flagler hospital - a hover hole at best with obstacles on all sides. The system was flawless other than a little wag when it switched from low to high sensitivity on the initial approach; something that would be smoothed out if the program went beyond the test phase.
I was one of the GA/Corporate pilots Nick invited to evaluate the performance of the differential GPS approach system and give feedback on the instrument cues at the Flagler Demo. There were plenty of test pilots lined up to shoot approaches, but Nick wanted to include perspectives from a wider range of experience levels. I can assure anyone with doubts that the proof of concept was resoundingly successful and am surprised the system hasn't been implemented. The approaches to the test helipad proved the concept would greatly improve safety allowing operators to have full instrument approaches to virtually any location. To add one more layer of safety, the engineers even had a programmed yaw that would slew the nose to the left so you could see the pad better as it came into a hover.
The on airport approaches, in my book, were overshadowed by the approaches to the helipad at the Flagler hospital - a hover hole at best with obstacles on all sides. The system was flawless other than a little wag when it switched from low to high sensitivity on the initial approach; something that would be smoothed out if the program went beyond the test phase.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't disagree with the fact that improved technology will increase safety, decrease cockpit workload, and will subsequently decrease training requirements. However, I'm certain that the technology won't make it into the aircraft until the regulators step in. As long as companies are allowed to fly with 1963 technology, they will. Obviously if you can prove that adding the technology is cheaper than paying liability then a smart company will go that way. Realistically, that proof won't be available because nobody has yet spent the money to install the technology. Instead companies will provide glossy brochures with projected statistics, that may or may not be accurate.
The amazing technology that most are agreeing should be in the cockpits could have been developed and fielded years ago. Most of it has been to some extent.
The 1963 medical technology analogy is only partly valid. Another reason (other than "Quality of Care") for the amount of new technology in medicine is that it uses less manpower and is maintainable (both are true to an extent for the helicopter industry). The side of the argument that seems to work in favour of this discussion does not completely apply because the legal involvement in the medical field is directing their every move. To avoid liability they bring in new equipment. Much of it is just to make it look like they're doing all they can, but it is also due to a real improvement in patient care. Of course, the helicopter industry hasn't been developing this way to the same extent.
If the regulations demanded the new technology, it would have been used. If you don't believe me, look at bicycle helmet laws, airbag equipment requirements, daytime running lights, seatbelt use laws, seatbelt equipment requirements, etc.
Matthew.
The amazing technology that most are agreeing should be in the cockpits could have been developed and fielded years ago. Most of it has been to some extent.
The 1963 medical technology analogy is only partly valid. Another reason (other than "Quality of Care") for the amount of new technology in medicine is that it uses less manpower and is maintainable (both are true to an extent for the helicopter industry). The side of the argument that seems to work in favour of this discussion does not completely apply because the legal involvement in the medical field is directing their every move. To avoid liability they bring in new equipment. Much of it is just to make it look like they're doing all they can, but it is also due to a real improvement in patient care. Of course, the helicopter industry hasn't been developing this way to the same extent.
If the regulations demanded the new technology, it would have been used. If you don't believe me, look at bicycle helmet laws, airbag equipment requirements, daytime running lights, seatbelt use laws, seatbelt equipment requirements, etc.
Matthew.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How are most navigation systems set up in the civi world?
On the Pavehawk, software drives the integration of the various parts (INS,GPS,Doppler blend)so we have a self contained approach ability. Given a set of coords, I can define approach angle and whatnot, so that the indications in the cockpit look like an ILS but I can fly the approach to any point in space. Given how stingy the USAF is with providing money for helos, this can't really be super expensive. If pilot unions decided this was worth it, how hard to get would it really be?
On the Pavehawk, software drives the integration of the various parts (INS,GPS,Doppler blend)so we have a self contained approach ability. Given a set of coords, I can define approach angle and whatnot, so that the indications in the cockpit look like an ILS but I can fly the approach to any point in space. Given how stingy the USAF is with providing money for helos, this can't really be super expensive. If pilot unions decided this was worth it, how hard to get would it really be?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point about the crap offshore installations - especially in GOM is well founded. I believe Shell theoretically would like to raise the GOM standard to match the norm in most of the the third world (!) but unfortunately / conveniently (?) they can't unless the other operators agree (the FAA are no part of the equation...).
Its funny how the manufacturers home in on selling new technology... or extra gadgets at least.
From an operator's perspective SMS is probably more important but noticably there is now thinking that SMS will only work in organizations that have a good safety culture. See this facinating article:
http://www.flightsafety.org/asw/may0...y08_p12-17.pdf
Its funny how the manufacturers home in on selling new technology... or extra gadgets at least.
From an operator's perspective SMS is probably more important but noticably there is now thinking that SMS will only work in organizations that have a good safety culture. See this facinating article:
http://www.flightsafety.org/asw/may0...y08_p12-17.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like they said, it is a question of perspective. I agree that all the SMS, Safety culture and new standard and equipment have improve the safety record in the offshore industry. But on the other hand their research generally include the whole world, which in my point of view is not standard. If we just compare the GOM and The North Sea, they are at the opposite. One operate as single engine aircraft, single pilot, in marginal condition where the other operate twin engine two pilots in IFR conditions. The North Sea can be see as closer to the airline industry where the GOM is more like a bush operation where minimum standard apply which cause an increase of the average accident ratio for the offshore industry. So if they want to compare the airline with the offshore they should look at an operation who is similar again like the NS.
That my perspective
FH
That my perspective
FH
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety.
Like I said -
All the systems in the world will be zero unless they are managed by properly trained and maintained crews. Assume a ramp filled with the latest and greatest, the fact remains.
Whether or not Shell coughs up, GOM or wherever, whatever it is that is in place demands acceptable pilot standards. Which all leads back to us and acceptable professional attitudes.
The Customer can demand, the Helicopter Company can promise, FAA, JAA, MOT can all procrastinate - the bottom line is: It is up to us to accept or deny and behave accordingly.
Can we be as safe as the airlines? Yes we can.
Money spent talks - B***T walks.
All the systems in the world will be zero unless they are managed by properly trained and maintained crews. Assume a ramp filled with the latest and greatest, the fact remains.
Whether or not Shell coughs up, GOM or wherever, whatever it is that is in place demands acceptable pilot standards. Which all leads back to us and acceptable professional attitudes.
The Customer can demand, the Helicopter Company can promise, FAA, JAA, MOT can all procrastinate - the bottom line is: It is up to us to accept or deny and behave accordingly.
Can we be as safe as the airlines? Yes we can.
Money spent talks - B***T walks.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Two pennies worth;
As one who has flown in the GOM in the mid-70s to late 80s, landing on API-approved non-standardized helidecks (sometimes over 160 times a day), and being able to flee to the fixed-wing side of the business, and having worked in 30-some countries, I believe that change will not happen in the GOM or other similarly regulated locations unless legilation is ceated to require all of the points mentioned in this thread; Shell's 7/7=1 program, Nick's excellent points, and the others who mention the need for training specific to the tasks, etc, etc.
For those that feel it is the fault of the oils companies and their obscene profits (I take it that you mean greed) for past accident rates,to you need to stop reading those 1960 copies of Workers Unite and put the blame on the business culture of the industry of the country we live in.
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 puttheir money where their mouths are. Look for the answers with the institutions that control change in this country. It's the same people who believe in Robin Hood's approach. Taxing oil companies will raise theprice of gas for those of us who are becoming more burdened everyday with rising prices. Quit complaining and help us with the solution.
As one who has flown in the GOM in the mid-70s to late 80s, landing on API-approved non-standardized helidecks (sometimes over 160 times a day), and being able to flee to the fixed-wing side of the business, and having worked in 30-some countries, I believe that change will not happen in the GOM or other similarly regulated locations unless legilation is ceated to require all of the points mentioned in this thread; Shell's 7/7=1 program, Nick's excellent points, and the others who mention the need for training specific to the tasks, etc, etc.
For those that feel it is the fault of the oils companies and their obscene profits (I take it that you mean greed) for past accident rates,to you need to stop reading those 1960 copies of Workers Unite and put the blame on the business culture of the industry of the country we live in.
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 puttheir money where their mouths are. Look for the answers with the institutions that control change in this country. It's the same people who believe in Robin Hood's approach. Taxing oil companies will raise theprice of gas for those of us who are becoming more burdened everyday with rising prices. Quit complaining and help us with the solution.
Like almost any system, its the weakest link in the chain that causes the accident. So its important not to get fixated on some areas and ignore others. cmwangs is absolutely right, simulator training is very important and especially in multi-pilot operations where CRM is paramount. You try assessing CRM during a flight test where you (the examiner) are the second pilot. It just doesn't work.
Simulator training is also very important for modern aircraft with complex systems. The clever systems that Nick proposes are all very well but they do break down and its necessary to understand what you have lost and how to operate using "abnormal procedures". Typically these modes are hard to simulate in the actual aircraft. Without simulators, the first time you see the abnormal indications, modes etc is in anger (and by S's Law always on a wild winter night!).
Regarding the other stuff Nick mentions, ACAS is of course especially useful in a non-controlled environment (hopefully less useful inside controlled airspace if ATC are doing their job) but ACAS I is only any use in VMC. To be any use in IMC you need ACAS II - of course Nick doesn't mention this because ACAS II for helicopters was invented in Europe!
EGPWS is pretty useless for offshore (that being in the title of this thread) and whilst offshore flights typically start from onshore, they are often from airfields very near the coast without much terrain factor. We have recently picked up a new EC225 with EGPWS and even though it has the new v26 software version which is much better for offshore than the old v24, there are still plenty of "cry wolf" nuisance warnings. Ironically its better than v24 because it copies the philosophy of AVAD (which is probably a much better concept for offshore than EGPWS) - for example there is a "check height" call triggered from radalt bugs, a "suspend" button on the cyclic etc. And - joy- we even get the voice speaking English not American!
Crashworthiness is obviously a good thing but it does nothing to stop you crashing in the first place. For accidents that are in the band between "never surviveable" and "injury free", it cuts the death and serious injury count. But care has to be taken to ensure that secondary factors such as escapability are not worsened by crashworthiness design. There is no point in surviving a crash landing/ditching offshore only to drown!
Regarding the bits in Nick's presentation on navigation, I agree that IFR is much safer than VFR - most flights out to the Northern North Sea are IFR. However once outside the zone (at 10 nm from Aberdeen) its uncontrolled airspace so the advantages of IFR are lessened.
For offshore approaches, nobody could argue that using the weather radar as the sole means is best practice. We use gps as an additional range and bearing indicator. The UK CAA (with sponsorship from other bodies) are currently conducting a trial into gps-based offshore approaches. The idea is to use SBAS (the generic name for the USA's WAAS) - ie satellite based differential gps - to give lateral and vertical guidance (so-called LPV) for the approach. Current ideas are for a "fly by" approach, ie at the missed approach point you just fly straight ahead in the go-around. The vertical guidance would include a level sector and continue to guide in the go-around. Transitioning from the descent to the level sector is quite difficult manually, so this is probably only a good idea for fully coupled aircraft.
This is all very well but there are a couple of problems:
1) you still need the weather radar to avoid unknown obstacles eg rigs under tow, but the weather radar is not certified, designed nor tested as an obstacle avoidance system
2) The accident rate duing radar approaches up to decision range is pretty low ( I would have said non-existant but I think MHS had one last year?), so is there a problem to be fixed?
The problems typically start after decision range when you have to fly the visual manoeuvre to land.
HC
Simulator training is also very important for modern aircraft with complex systems. The clever systems that Nick proposes are all very well but they do break down and its necessary to understand what you have lost and how to operate using "abnormal procedures". Typically these modes are hard to simulate in the actual aircraft. Without simulators, the first time you see the abnormal indications, modes etc is in anger (and by S's Law always on a wild winter night!).
Regarding the other stuff Nick mentions, ACAS is of course especially useful in a non-controlled environment (hopefully less useful inside controlled airspace if ATC are doing their job) but ACAS I is only any use in VMC. To be any use in IMC you need ACAS II - of course Nick doesn't mention this because ACAS II for helicopters was invented in Europe!
EGPWS is pretty useless for offshore (that being in the title of this thread) and whilst offshore flights typically start from onshore, they are often from airfields very near the coast without much terrain factor. We have recently picked up a new EC225 with EGPWS and even though it has the new v26 software version which is much better for offshore than the old v24, there are still plenty of "cry wolf" nuisance warnings. Ironically its better than v24 because it copies the philosophy of AVAD (which is probably a much better concept for offshore than EGPWS) - for example there is a "check height" call triggered from radalt bugs, a "suspend" button on the cyclic etc. And - joy- we even get the voice speaking English not American!
Crashworthiness is obviously a good thing but it does nothing to stop you crashing in the first place. For accidents that are in the band between "never surviveable" and "injury free", it cuts the death and serious injury count. But care has to be taken to ensure that secondary factors such as escapability are not worsened by crashworthiness design. There is no point in surviving a crash landing/ditching offshore only to drown!
Regarding the bits in Nick's presentation on navigation, I agree that IFR is much safer than VFR - most flights out to the Northern North Sea are IFR. However once outside the zone (at 10 nm from Aberdeen) its uncontrolled airspace so the advantages of IFR are lessened.
For offshore approaches, nobody could argue that using the weather radar as the sole means is best practice. We use gps as an additional range and bearing indicator. The UK CAA (with sponsorship from other bodies) are currently conducting a trial into gps-based offshore approaches. The idea is to use SBAS (the generic name for the USA's WAAS) - ie satellite based differential gps - to give lateral and vertical guidance (so-called LPV) for the approach. Current ideas are for a "fly by" approach, ie at the missed approach point you just fly straight ahead in the go-around. The vertical guidance would include a level sector and continue to guide in the go-around. Transitioning from the descent to the level sector is quite difficult manually, so this is probably only a good idea for fully coupled aircraft.
This is all very well but there are a couple of problems:
1) you still need the weather radar to avoid unknown obstacles eg rigs under tow, but the weather radar is not certified, designed nor tested as an obstacle avoidance system
2) The accident rate duing radar approaches up to decision range is pretty low ( I would have said non-existant but I think MHS had one last year?), so is there a problem to be fixed?
The problems typically start after decision range when you have to fly the visual manoeuvre to land.
HC