Flying at Night
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horror Box,
I see the problem but that is, surely, where the experience of the Captain comes into play. If the visual cues are not good enough for the Captain to judge if the approach and landing is viable, from either seat, then throw it away.
I see the problem but that is, surely, where the experience of the Captain comes into play. If the visual cues are not good enough for the Captain to judge if the approach and landing is viable, from either seat, then throw it away.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the problem but that is, surely, where the experience of the Captain comes into play. If the visual cues are not good enough for the Captain to judge if the approach and landing is viable, from either seat, then throw it away.
Thread Starter
I'd agree with Horror Box. Not flown the 92 but certainly the S-61 and AS332 have limited viz across the cockpit. Obviously 50% of the night time landings would be mine, of the other 50% I'd say I would have 'satisfactory' visual cues only about half of them - So (not scientific I know) but I guess we'd have to throw away about a quarter of all landings, and I often feel when landing offshore that I would like to throw at least that many - Not to mention my own cock-ups !!
In summary, even as an experienced Captain, I am placing a lot of faith in a potentially new, perfectly well trained but inexperienced co-pilot. Whilst I may be able to assess ground speed and rates of descent to see when it has really gone pear-shaped, when they are looking good, that still only gives me a guide that he or she has got it in hand and is making a safe approach to the deck - They could be headed for a crane for all I know, I'm unlikely to be able to see it.
In summary, even as an experienced Captain, I am placing a lot of faith in a potentially new, perfectly well trained but inexperienced co-pilot. Whilst I may be able to assess ground speed and rates of descent to see when it has really gone pear-shaped, when they are looking good, that still only gives me a guide that he or she has got it in hand and is making a safe approach to the deck - They could be headed for a crane for all I know, I'm unlikely to be able to see it.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I think you missed the fact that I was talking about difficult approaches in difficult conditions.
Allowing the Co Pilot to land in normal conditions where the various hazards and obstacles can, initially, be view from the approach gives me no cause for concern. Trying to do such an approach and landing at night with a howling cross wind, precipitation and a moving deck would give me concerns!
I found the S61 quite good for cross cockpit, but then I'm quite tall so I could look well across the seat!
Judgment, as always, is a quality that we must all hone as without practice there will be no experience.
Allowing the Co Pilot to land in normal conditions where the various hazards and obstacles can, initially, be view from the approach gives me no cause for concern. Trying to do such an approach and landing at night with a howling cross wind, precipitation and a moving deck would give me concerns!
I found the S61 quite good for cross cockpit, but then I'm quite tall so I could look well across the seat!
Judgment, as always, is a quality that we must all hone as without practice there will be no experience.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W2P, how many of those 2000 landings were at night? It's an entirely different world in the dark. I did 2000 offshore landings in 2 months once, but they were all in the daytime. I have a couple of thousand or so in the dark, and I can assure you that it's far more difficult at night. Easy enough to say throw it away, but you either do the job or quit. I'm currently flying night EMS approaches to unprepared scenes, single pilot, and IMO it's far easier to do this than to do 2 pilot rig approaches at night. YMMV.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomer,
A large amount of those deck landings (40% or so) were at night to moving single spot ships flying single pilot operations and often having to use cross cockpit references in bad weather, so I think I'm up to speed on that one.
I have also flown as a SAR commander in both Scotland in the highlands and other places around Europe also using unprepared, unlit landing sites often in mountainous terrain and not using NVG or night sun.
I am well aware of the 'press on itis' that our professional pride causes us. But I have also had to throw away approaches or, in the case of SAR ops, opt for a more difficult approach and hover based upon tighter limits as the co-pilot expressed that the situation was out of his comfort zone. Fair call on them but the pressing needs of SAR required lateral thinking.
The responsibility for the aircraft, passengers and crew lies solely on the shoulders of the aircraft Captain. If the weather factors preclude a safely conducted landing then chuck it away. Better than swimming back to the board of inquiry.
W2P
PS, fixed wing flying is a doddle compared to SAR ops and the auto land thingy is great, the runways don't move, pitch or roll and are, generally, very long. Not really a snag and if the cross wind is out of limits, don't land. The book they throw if it goes wrong is very, very heavy.
A large amount of those deck landings (40% or so) were at night to moving single spot ships flying single pilot operations and often having to use cross cockpit references in bad weather, so I think I'm up to speed on that one.
I have also flown as a SAR commander in both Scotland in the highlands and other places around Europe also using unprepared, unlit landing sites often in mountainous terrain and not using NVG or night sun.
I am well aware of the 'press on itis' that our professional pride causes us. But I have also had to throw away approaches or, in the case of SAR ops, opt for a more difficult approach and hover based upon tighter limits as the co-pilot expressed that the situation was out of his comfort zone. Fair call on them but the pressing needs of SAR required lateral thinking.
The responsibility for the aircraft, passengers and crew lies solely on the shoulders of the aircraft Captain. If the weather factors preclude a safely conducted landing then chuck it away. Better than swimming back to the board of inquiry.
W2P
PS, fixed wing flying is a doddle compared to SAR ops and the auto land thingy is great, the runways don't move, pitch or roll and are, generally, very long. Not really a snag and if the cross wind is out of limits, don't land. The book they throw if it goes wrong is very, very heavy.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we have diverged a little from the original debate into a bit of a dick swinging contest, and whilst I still agree with a great deal W2P has to say, I do think that reality these days can be a bit different, and CRM must be that much better when flying at night. In the old days when I flew Lynx, it really wasnt much of a problem to land x-cockpit, and actually it was also possible in a (but difficult) Puma, but definitely not in an S92, difficult in a 76, and I am guessing also very challenging in a 139. Here is where the problem begins. In an aircraft with good vis, it is a lot easier for the NHP to spot when things are going wrong. As we all know, it can go wrong very quickly, especially with disorientation, and it can happen anywhere, including very close to the deck. It can also take some time for the pilot to recognise this, and in certain circumstances, that can be the fatal factor. Now, if the captain cant see what is going on, the co-pilot (or other way round) is slow to recognise the problem then things get a lot worse, very quickly. I have experienced disorientation myself at night, during an approach, so I know how quickly the picture can go from perfect to completely wrong. The worst one was on relatively short finals to a deck, marginal (certainly not bad) weather, with fairly good viz. I have done 1000's night decks/CA's/mountains. I was lucky enough to spot it fairly quickly and didnt press on, and went around. This is definitely not always the case. I have never been disorientated the same way during the day, in any conditions.
The simple law of averages will lead you to the conclusion that after x number of SD occurrences sooner or later one will go wrong. Can you train for this? Yes - maybe to a certain degree. Will it happen again? Yes definitely. Will it cause another crash? Yes very likely. How do we avoid it in future? Improved technology (approach systems), better CRM procedures, SD training, better cockpit design, better deck design, finally - dont fly at night. All cost money - fact. Which is the cheapest? I dont know, but if nothing is done I suspect we will see more aircraft crash whilst flying to decks at night.
The simple law of averages will lead you to the conclusion that after x number of SD occurrences sooner or later one will go wrong. Can you train for this? Yes - maybe to a certain degree. Will it happen again? Yes definitely. Will it cause another crash? Yes very likely. How do we avoid it in future? Improved technology (approach systems), better CRM procedures, SD training, better cockpit design, better deck design, finally - dont fly at night. All cost money - fact. Which is the cheapest? I dont know, but if nothing is done I suspect we will see more aircraft crash whilst flying to decks at night.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horror Box,
I totally agree, I think the perspective has gone away from landing at night to landing in atrocious conditions. If that's thread creep then sorry, I am probably guilty as charged.
Night ops in benign or marginal weather is no problem. Things only start to get my neck hairs up when the weather deteriorates to such a degree that aircraft physical limitations are being put to the test. Would I let the Co-Pilot land in those conditions when I couldn't judge the landing site suitability, hazards or movement? Probably not, but that's a personal thing.
No dick waving intended, I think we just got a little cross wired in our discussion.
W2P
I totally agree, I think the perspective has gone away from landing at night to landing in atrocious conditions. If that's thread creep then sorry, I am probably guilty as charged.
Night ops in benign or marginal weather is no problem. Things only start to get my neck hairs up when the weather deteriorates to such a degree that aircraft physical limitations are being put to the test. Would I let the Co-Pilot land in those conditions when I couldn't judge the landing site suitability, hazards or movement? Probably not, but that's a personal thing.
No dick waving intended, I think we just got a little cross wired in our discussion.
W2P
Thread Starter
OK, so we're back on thread !!
Hats off to Gomer flying EMS at night - Not something I think we do much in the UK and probably for good reason. I guess in well lit areas it probably doesn't pose too much of a problem, but most of those areas have a hospital within a short enough drive anyway !! Anyway, fly safe.
As to offshore, agreed, i've flown on some really great nights. Nice still air, not too many other aircraft about, ATC giving you whatever you want. Trouble is, as nights set in, so does the winter weather. Some people I've discussed this with have suggested different limits for public transport night flying, ie 10km viz and cloud base 1000 ft, but I can see us unable to fly on so many nights it would make it unworkable.
I'd personally like to see a ban on offshore deck operations at night - Permitting the transit of aircraft to and from offshore during darkness, but actual landings and take-offs prohibited due to the fact I just don't feel that the safety margins are there. There seems to be quite a bit of support for the idea that flying offshore at night isn't really safe enough, but there doesn't seem to be much feedback from the other camp. Are there pilots who feel it can be done with the level of safety we have managed to achieve with daylight flying ?? Last time this thread was raised, I seem to remember there were quite a few pilots who seemed to enjoy the challenge of a night deck, but then that thread really did become a testosterone fueled debate !!
Hats off to Gomer flying EMS at night - Not something I think we do much in the UK and probably for good reason. I guess in well lit areas it probably doesn't pose too much of a problem, but most of those areas have a hospital within a short enough drive anyway !! Anyway, fly safe.
As to offshore, agreed, i've flown on some really great nights. Nice still air, not too many other aircraft about, ATC giving you whatever you want. Trouble is, as nights set in, so does the winter weather. Some people I've discussed this with have suggested different limits for public transport night flying, ie 10km viz and cloud base 1000 ft, but I can see us unable to fly on so many nights it would make it unworkable.
I'd personally like to see a ban on offshore deck operations at night - Permitting the transit of aircraft to and from offshore during darkness, but actual landings and take-offs prohibited due to the fact I just don't feel that the safety margins are there. There seems to be quite a bit of support for the idea that flying offshore at night isn't really safe enough, but there doesn't seem to be much feedback from the other camp. Are there pilots who feel it can be done with the level of safety we have managed to achieve with daylight flying ?? Last time this thread was raised, I seem to remember there were quite a few pilots who seemed to enjoy the challenge of a night deck, but then that thread really did become a testosterone fueled debate !!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good points there 25. I enjoy flying nights and 99% of the time feel in my comfort zone. The problem comes in that 1%. I do a lot of night decks, so as winter moves on become more comfortable (complacent??). I 100% agree with you on the statement about margins though. Whilst most of us are happy at night 99% of the time, what about that time when something goes wrong as you are departing into the black. Daytime - no problem, but a dark night, even a fairly small problem can be enough to tip the balance, especially if maybe you are a bit heavy, no wind, and the radios are busy. We have all been there. Add some more regular distraction, and the margins are very thin indeed. So if we can agree on this, and get the customers to agree, or at least understand, where do we go from here? I think the idea about increasing the minima for night flying is a good way of starting to increase the margin. 10k / 1000' - maybe. at least heading in the right direction. Shuttling at night with over 10 stops, in marginal weather is a good example of where perhaps more control with the use of minima and or number of stops (not necessarily no. of hours) could be effective. Fatigue is certainly a big factor here, and serves to greatly reduce the ability of pilots. I still catch myself thinking on occasion, on dark, stormy nights, we really are in the sh1t if it goes pear here!
Good debate though - keep it coming.
Good debate though - keep it coming.
Flying at Night
I assume the accident statistics are accurate, and was thinking that some decades ago, the same could have probably been said within the fixed wing community.
So, what could the Helicopter Industry do to drive the safety performance to equality for day and night?
The fixed wing people have used:
I'd offer that this is a solvable problem awaiting action.
John Dixson
So, what could the Helicopter Industry do to drive the safety performance to equality for day and night?
The fixed wing people have used:
- Technology
- Crew Training/Certification
I'd offer that this is a solvable problem awaiting action.
John Dixson
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, what could the Helicopter Industry do to drive the safety performance to equality for day and night?
The fixed wing people have used:
Technology
Crew Training/Certification
to great success.
The fixed wing people have used:
Technology
Crew Training/Certification
to great success.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few nuts to be cracked here, but the cross-cockpit thingie is a fairly major one I should think. If you're headed to a fixed platform with significant structure (which would be most of 'em) and it's blowing substantially, at the current state of the art there's really only one seat who can safely land with sufficient cues and able to clear obstacles (regardless of pilot height... "Hello love, I'm not really this tall, I'm just sitting on my wallet..."), unless somebody starts redesigning offshore platforms. By the time the copilot is good enough at conning the captain in for a landing including closure rates and obstacles, the copilot is probably good enough to be making the landing.
As was pointed out above, with a runway in front, the captain pretty much has the choice of making the landing virtually always.
Instrumentation and approaches, the technology is certainly there, but what do you do if the captain doesn't trust the copilot to make the actual landing but yet due to conditions can't make it him or herself?
I fly offshore at night on the odd medevac, but not so much as once did in a previous life... but in that life, the ship took up the heading you wanted so the wind was where you wanted it.
For the sake of arguments, let's say that this is a nut that should be cracked (there are plenty who would go the other way... and I may be one of them). Regardless of any value judgment of should or shouldn't... it seems apparent to me simply by the existence of this thread that this nut WILL be cracked, so might as well get on with it.
I would think the next step would be to precisely define the problem and the flight regimes that need to be addressed. Once that's been done, then you look to the hows.
What you fellows need is a performance technologist... happily... somewhere around here is a piece of paper that probably says I are one. What a performance technologist will normally do is engage experts on the subject matter to precisely define the scope of the problem, then from there determine the needs that have shortfalls (it is not necessary that the technologist be a subject matter expert him or herself... often it's better if not, actually... keeps 'em out of the weeds...). From there develop objectives and potential solutions, be those solutions engineering solutions (hardware), job aids (checklists or other such), administrative (regulation or policy... "no cojos without X program offshore at night" or whatever), or training (development and implementation of new techniques and procedures). It's really not that difficult, but it is a structured way of viewing and solving complex operational problems. Pretty much most militaries and companies worth their salt use it these days.
As just one example, we can probably all say that cruising at altitude offshore isn't really much of an issue these days... but some point or points during the letdown/approach/transition/touchdown phases... is/are. Then start breaking the problem into manageable chunks... pretty soon it becomes fairly obvious where the weaknesses are that need to be addressed. Then it simply becomes a matter of how, selling it to the boss... and getting the money!
As was pointed out above, with a runway in front, the captain pretty much has the choice of making the landing virtually always.
Instrumentation and approaches, the technology is certainly there, but what do you do if the captain doesn't trust the copilot to make the actual landing but yet due to conditions can't make it him or herself?
I fly offshore at night on the odd medevac, but not so much as once did in a previous life... but in that life, the ship took up the heading you wanted so the wind was where you wanted it.
For the sake of arguments, let's say that this is a nut that should be cracked (there are plenty who would go the other way... and I may be one of them). Regardless of any value judgment of should or shouldn't... it seems apparent to me simply by the existence of this thread that this nut WILL be cracked, so might as well get on with it.
I would think the next step would be to precisely define the problem and the flight regimes that need to be addressed. Once that's been done, then you look to the hows.
What you fellows need is a performance technologist... happily... somewhere around here is a piece of paper that probably says I are one. What a performance technologist will normally do is engage experts on the subject matter to precisely define the scope of the problem, then from there determine the needs that have shortfalls (it is not necessary that the technologist be a subject matter expert him or herself... often it's better if not, actually... keeps 'em out of the weeds...). From there develop objectives and potential solutions, be those solutions engineering solutions (hardware), job aids (checklists or other such), administrative (regulation or policy... "no cojos without X program offshore at night" or whatever), or training (development and implementation of new techniques and procedures). It's really not that difficult, but it is a structured way of viewing and solving complex operational problems. Pretty much most militaries and companies worth their salt use it these days.
As just one example, we can probably all say that cruising at altitude offshore isn't really much of an issue these days... but some point or points during the letdown/approach/transition/touchdown phases... is/are. Then start breaking the problem into manageable chunks... pretty soon it becomes fairly obvious where the weaknesses are that need to be addressed. Then it simply becomes a matter of how, selling it to the boss... and getting the money!
Thread Starter
Wow, I knew I should have taken that management course when it was offered to me - I've been bamboozled by science !!!
All I know is, I need to convince the oil companies that flying by night is not the same as flying by day. That no matter how good my co-pilot is, that is not relevant, because even if its my landing, I as an experienced Captain with thousands of North Sea hours, can't guaranty the safety of passengers by night with anywhere near the confidence that I can by day.
We need to ask if flying by night will ever really be safe enough for public air transport ?? I think there is some figure for the 'acceptable accident rate' acknowledging the fact that there will always be accidents, but that with the correct proceedures in place, they should fall somewhere in the 1 accident in 10 million flying hours (or something like that), and I think we've seen over the last two years that while daylight flying accounts for the majority of hours flown, night flights account for the vast majority of accidents and fatalities.
Can this be improved with technology - Probably improved, yes.
Will training and CRM help ? - I doubt it, only because I think this is at a pretty high standard already.
Will policy help ? - Well I'd certainly welcome a reduction in deck shuttles, only because statistically, flying to 1 or maybe 2 decks then back home is clearly going to reduce the risk period offshore.
Is flying at night really that necessary ? - I would argue "Not really". As I said early on, even in the darkest weeks of winter, the whole of the North Sea would still get 8 - 9 usable daylight hours offshore. In terms of emergencies offshore, we now have Jigsaw and SAR units available with the equipment, crews and training to do just this.
We're talking of flying fare paying passengers here. Public Air Transport, and so I want to be able to say that my passengers have the same level of safety whenever they fly with me. I've taken my children on jump seat rides to show them what I do for a living, but I wouldn't dream of taking them at night - Not that I could take a jump-seat at night, the company doesn't allow it - Not safe enough !!!
All I know is, I need to convince the oil companies that flying by night is not the same as flying by day. That no matter how good my co-pilot is, that is not relevant, because even if its my landing, I as an experienced Captain with thousands of North Sea hours, can't guaranty the safety of passengers by night with anywhere near the confidence that I can by day.
We need to ask if flying by night will ever really be safe enough for public air transport ?? I think there is some figure for the 'acceptable accident rate' acknowledging the fact that there will always be accidents, but that with the correct proceedures in place, they should fall somewhere in the 1 accident in 10 million flying hours (or something like that), and I think we've seen over the last two years that while daylight flying accounts for the majority of hours flown, night flights account for the vast majority of accidents and fatalities.
Can this be improved with technology - Probably improved, yes.
Will training and CRM help ? - I doubt it, only because I think this is at a pretty high standard already.
Will policy help ? - Well I'd certainly welcome a reduction in deck shuttles, only because statistically, flying to 1 or maybe 2 decks then back home is clearly going to reduce the risk period offshore.
Is flying at night really that necessary ? - I would argue "Not really". As I said early on, even in the darkest weeks of winter, the whole of the North Sea would still get 8 - 9 usable daylight hours offshore. In terms of emergencies offshore, we now have Jigsaw and SAR units available with the equipment, crews and training to do just this.
We're talking of flying fare paying passengers here. Public Air Transport, and so I want to be able to say that my passengers have the same level of safety whenever they fly with me. I've taken my children on jump seat rides to show them what I do for a living, but I wouldn't dream of taking them at night - Not that I could take a jump-seat at night, the company doesn't allow it - Not safe enough !!!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK.
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Not flying at night is a non-starter IMO. We would be hugely limiting ourselves, and our usefulness to the customer".
Hey Horror box, why non-starter?? If all offshore helicopter operators agreed to stop flying at night due to safety,what will the customers do??? Stop flying to rigs???
Number one issue is safety,and as special 25 said, and I agree, I can't offer the same level off safety at night as in the daytime...S76 off an NUI at max gross,night,ltd viz
Not a good outcome if things go wrong... Gas rigs on the S.North sea can be de-manned just 2 hours earlier and stay in daylight...would that really be a problem for them considering the safety risks? There is really no need or justification for it anymore.....Just because "we have always done it," doesn't mean it's right or cannot be changed...
Fly safe
PH
Hey Horror box, why non-starter?? If all offshore helicopter operators agreed to stop flying at night due to safety,what will the customers do??? Stop flying to rigs???
Number one issue is safety,and as special 25 said, and I agree, I can't offer the same level off safety at night as in the daytime...S76 off an NUI at max gross,night,ltd viz
Not a good outcome if things go wrong... Gas rigs on the S.North sea can be de-manned just 2 hours earlier and stay in daylight...would that really be a problem for them considering the safety risks? There is really no need or justification for it anymore.....Just because "we have always done it," doesn't mean it's right or cannot be changed...Fly safe
PH
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Special 25-
Good for you. Somebody paid for the course and who was I to say no? I don't work in the latitudes you do, but even without a table of statistics in front of me I tend to agree with you. I can't imagine (outside a medevac) what risk v. gain model is satisfied by not waiting until first light or by making night transport a matter of routine. I foresee more ground incidents as well as flight incidents, but I'm probably just an old woman.
Trouble is, nobody cares what you or I think just because we think it. It's my thought that since you originated this thread (and your previous one, I suppose) that you're probably of the opinion that you believe this is a bad idea and you maybe aren't sure how to convey that to people who see flying at night as adding something to the bottom line. There may be a couple oblique ways of getting at it. One might be the insurance angle. Maintaining a night medevac standby is one thing, blotting out the moon with dozens of machines is quite another to your average actuary, I should think. It may be that I don't understand how rigs operate in the N. Sea, as I seem to be getting the impression from a couple of these posts that they all experience a significant crew reduction at the end of the day, which is different from my experience, where the crew manning remains more or less constant around the clock, it's just different guys from time to time. It's also possible I misinterpret... it wouldn't be the first time.
From the technology angle, I quite imagine that the current state of the art is good enough to deposit the helicopter in a position to make a landing. However, it's that last bit that concerns me. It's a different situation than military flying on night vision where the ship is on board with the fact that you need the lights dim, it's a transition from utter darkness to an insane amount of lighting (and vice-versa) with all the opportunities for disorientation that can come from that. While I suppose an argument can be made that "but Gomer Pilot does it..." I submit his situation in EMS is different in terms of urgency, so I don't think any direct comparison can be made, though some schmuck will try it, of course.
Ultimately, the upper management of both the customer and the helicopter company need to get their arms around the risk assessment. Risk is always a function of severity and exposure time... if you can demonstrate that night offshore flying has a higher severity (and I think you can), you can justify a reduction in exposure time and THAT will positively affect the bottom line... you have to beat these people at their own game. There are plenty of risk assessment and CRM models available and plenty of people who are much more clued up on them than I will ever be.
Good for you. Somebody paid for the course and who was I to say no? I don't work in the latitudes you do, but even without a table of statistics in front of me I tend to agree with you. I can't imagine (outside a medevac) what risk v. gain model is satisfied by not waiting until first light or by making night transport a matter of routine. I foresee more ground incidents as well as flight incidents, but I'm probably just an old woman.
Trouble is, nobody cares what you or I think just because we think it. It's my thought that since you originated this thread (and your previous one, I suppose) that you're probably of the opinion that you believe this is a bad idea and you maybe aren't sure how to convey that to people who see flying at night as adding something to the bottom line. There may be a couple oblique ways of getting at it. One might be the insurance angle. Maintaining a night medevac standby is one thing, blotting out the moon with dozens of machines is quite another to your average actuary, I should think. It may be that I don't understand how rigs operate in the N. Sea, as I seem to be getting the impression from a couple of these posts that they all experience a significant crew reduction at the end of the day, which is different from my experience, where the crew manning remains more or less constant around the clock, it's just different guys from time to time. It's also possible I misinterpret... it wouldn't be the first time.
From the technology angle, I quite imagine that the current state of the art is good enough to deposit the helicopter in a position to make a landing. However, it's that last bit that concerns me. It's a different situation than military flying on night vision where the ship is on board with the fact that you need the lights dim, it's a transition from utter darkness to an insane amount of lighting (and vice-versa) with all the opportunities for disorientation that can come from that. While I suppose an argument can be made that "but Gomer Pilot does it..." I submit his situation in EMS is different in terms of urgency, so I don't think any direct comparison can be made, though some schmuck will try it, of course.
Ultimately, the upper management of both the customer and the helicopter company need to get their arms around the risk assessment. Risk is always a function of severity and exposure time... if you can demonstrate that night offshore flying has a higher severity (and I think you can), you can justify a reduction in exposure time and THAT will positively affect the bottom line... you have to beat these people at their own game. There are plenty of risk assessment and CRM models available and plenty of people who are much more clued up on them than I will ever be.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Offshore at Night
Flying at night is trickier than by day but that is our bread and butter during the Winter months. It takes alot more concentration and I am not sure the new green deck lights are better than
floodlit decks. The final parts of the approach need to be flown by numbers so that you do not arrive too fast and too high with constant calls from non handling pilot for height, groundspeed, etc. I tend to talk new do-pilots onto decks at night and have not had any problems even when unsighted. The more interested part of the flight is lifting off the front deck of a ship at night in bad visiblity, now that takes concentration.
Would it not be possible to have some sort of 360 degree angle of approach indicator. I realise that a pitching and rolling ship would require some sort of stabilization device.
In my old age I am begining to think that if it is not going to be possible due to strong winds, high seas, to remain upright in event of ditching or get dinghies deployed safely maybe we should not be flying. Drifting slightly off track what do others feel.
floodlit decks. The final parts of the approach need to be flown by numbers so that you do not arrive too fast and too high with constant calls from non handling pilot for height, groundspeed, etc. I tend to talk new do-pilots onto decks at night and have not had any problems even when unsighted. The more interested part of the flight is lifting off the front deck of a ship at night in bad visiblity, now that takes concentration.
Would it not be possible to have some sort of 360 degree angle of approach indicator. I realise that a pitching and rolling ship would require some sort of stabilization device.
In my old age I am begining to think that if it is not going to be possible due to strong winds, high seas, to remain upright in event of ditching or get dinghies deployed safely maybe we should not be flying. Drifting slightly off track what do others feel.
Last edited by OffshoreHeli; 27th Sep 2008 at 09:56.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outside of training, I cannot remember doing a cross deck landing in more than 30 years offshore flying. In that time the other pilot has had experience from brand new to captain, so broad range of experience. Yes night flying requires more time, slower approach, at least one good brief so both are in tune. Many, but not all by any means, give a short commentary on the way down i.e. "good sight picture, clear of obstacles, coming/crossing the deck edge." This works for me as I have a mental picture of the approach and the delivery gives me an idea of their state of mind. If I'm relaxed then there's a good chance the other guy is too.
I appreciate that this may not appeal to many, but it keeps my stress levels down.
I appreciate that this may not appeal to many, but it keeps my stress levels down.
Thread Starter
Check, I too like the constant commentary from the handling pilot whether I'm sighted or not. Just gives you a good idea as to how the approach is going and you can tell from their voice, how they are coping with it, whether all is well or if they are having difficulty.
The problem is (if you can call it that) I've never had to go around from a night time approach or had a major problem landing at night. But I'm aware that when it does happen, it'll happen quickly, I may not be aware that it has gone wrong until it has become too late.
I was interested in this report from Australia of a 332 that flew into the water at night whilst approaching a boat and entered vortex ring. Both successfully exited the ditched aircraft and were rescued
...... Both pilots were focussing their attention both inside and outside the cockpit rather than having one pilot assigned to look outside and fly the approach and the other to monitor the instruments; neither pilot had experience with visual illusions and both had a high comfort level with the operation being conducted. Both pilots were Training Captains .........
It just this feeling, it can happen to anyone. Will happen quickly and the onset of problems won't be immediately recognisable, as it would be with the visual cues available during the day.
I've been passed a few reports and websites regarding analysis of offshore accidents. It is certainly making for some very interesting reading - I'm trying to collate some facts and figures and will report back. The quick summary is that accidents used to be largely mechanical failures, but these seem to be reducing dramatically, I guess to due improvements in aircraft design. Also, flying sectors have reduced over the years and so, as we are flying less now you would expect less accidents. Combine these together and you get the situation we are in now where our safety record is really very good, but those accidents we have are proportionally more likely to be pilot error.
More to come !!
The problem is (if you can call it that) I've never had to go around from a night time approach or had a major problem landing at night. But I'm aware that when it does happen, it'll happen quickly, I may not be aware that it has gone wrong until it has become too late.
I was interested in this report from Australia of a 332 that flew into the water at night whilst approaching a boat and entered vortex ring. Both successfully exited the ditched aircraft and were rescued
...... Both pilots were focussing their attention both inside and outside the cockpit rather than having one pilot assigned to look outside and fly the approach and the other to monitor the instruments; neither pilot had experience with visual illusions and both had a high comfort level with the operation being conducted. Both pilots were Training Captains .........
It just this feeling, it can happen to anyone. Will happen quickly and the onset of problems won't be immediately recognisable, as it would be with the visual cues available during the day.
I've been passed a few reports and websites regarding analysis of offshore accidents. It is certainly making for some very interesting reading - I'm trying to collate some facts and figures and will report back. The quick summary is that accidents used to be largely mechanical failures, but these seem to be reducing dramatically, I guess to due improvements in aircraft design. Also, flying sectors have reduced over the years and so, as we are flying less now you would expect less accidents. Combine these together and you get the situation we are in now where our safety record is really very good, but those accidents we have are proportionally more likely to be pilot error.
More to come !!