Helicopter reported down in the GOM
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
You made a point earlier about twin engined helicopters. Some oil companies use them exclusively in the GOM now. That is surely a sign of being prepared to put money towards safety. External liferafts are increasingly a standard with certain oil companies as is HUMS, HOMP etc.
Brian
Several oil companies have already signed up for the SAR service from Cougar and full credit to bp for bringing that aircraft in to do a job no US operator could do.
Not all offshore customers are equal as many of you know, especially in the production management sector, which is probably the most cost focused anywhere. The last two cold water survival accidents (RLC & Air Log) both featured production management work.
On the issue of the slow response, I wonder if it there is an over-reliance on technology. See this presentation that discusses this problem from an oil company emergency perspective:
http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/downloa...xter_Shell.pdf
It certainly time that more lessons from the North Sea and other advanced regions are accepted in the US,
You made a point earlier about twin engined helicopters. Some oil companies use them exclusively in the GOM now. That is surely a sign of being prepared to put money towards safety. External liferafts are increasingly a standard with certain oil companies as is HUMS, HOMP etc.
Brian
Several oil companies have already signed up for the SAR service from Cougar and full credit to bp for bringing that aircraft in to do a job no US operator could do.
Not all offshore customers are equal as many of you know, especially in the production management sector, which is probably the most cost focused anywhere. The last two cold water survival accidents (RLC & Air Log) both featured production management work.
On the issue of the slow response, I wonder if it there is an over-reliance on technology. See this presentation that discusses this problem from an oil company emergency perspective:
http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/downloa...xter_Shell.pdf
It certainly time that more lessons from the North Sea and other advanced regions are accepted in the US,
Thread Starter
I would suggest our FAA learn some lessons from the CAA however I would be terrified they would learn the wrong ones.
Our FAA does need to find the cojones to force safety changes that would effectively (cost, resuts, and ease of implementation) improve the safety environment in the GOM.
That being said....it would take a major change to the FAA in order for that to happen. The FAA is airplane-centric and helicopters and helicopter folks are not given the emphasis they should within the FAA itself. The path to advancement within the FAA falls to the airplane side of the house and not to the helicopter side.
FAR's are written around airplanes, airplane operations, and often ignore the differences between airplanes and helicopter operations.
Insurance companies are the most effective way of achieving change in my view. If your insurance rates sky rocket in the absence of some of the more commonsense improvements then it becomes a matter of cost and as we know...minimum cost is the cornerstone of modern business.
Large corporations being self insured prevents that from being effective in all cases as well.
Our FAA does need to find the cojones to force safety changes that would effectively (cost, resuts, and ease of implementation) improve the safety environment in the GOM.
That being said....it would take a major change to the FAA in order for that to happen. The FAA is airplane-centric and helicopters and helicopter folks are not given the emphasis they should within the FAA itself. The path to advancement within the FAA falls to the airplane side of the house and not to the helicopter side.
FAR's are written around airplanes, airplane operations, and often ignore the differences between airplanes and helicopter operations.
Insurance companies are the most effective way of achieving change in my view. If your insurance rates sky rocket in the absence of some of the more commonsense improvements then it becomes a matter of cost and as we know...minimum cost is the cornerstone of modern business.
Large corporations being self insured prevents that from being effective in all cases as well.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just responding to Ned-Air2 Air about Unions:
The US helicopter pilots who are unionized are organized under the Railway Labour Act.This was enacted essentially to maintain continuity of an essential service even during times of industrial dispute. When the airlines started unionizing, they were put under the RLA as were the helicopter and shipping companies. What this means is that all these transportation companies are consideresd essential services for the US economy and therefore there is a 'no strike' clause in the contracts they sign. In other words, for the duration of the contract (typically 3 years), the Union agrees not to strike and the company agrees not to lockout.Disputes are resolved through arbitration or mediation.So there you have it.
I will agree that ,like ALPA and BALPA, unions should have a very strong voice in safety matters. But ,for that to happen,the management must agree to partner with the unions and accept their role in this issue. Unfortunately, in the US in general, and, in helicopter companies here in particular, Union is still a five letter word.
Alt3.
The US helicopter pilots who are unionized are organized under the Railway Labour Act.This was enacted essentially to maintain continuity of an essential service even during times of industrial dispute. When the airlines started unionizing, they were put under the RLA as were the helicopter and shipping companies. What this means is that all these transportation companies are consideresd essential services for the US economy and therefore there is a 'no strike' clause in the contracts they sign. In other words, for the duration of the contract (typically 3 years), the Union agrees not to strike and the company agrees not to lockout.Disputes are resolved through arbitration or mediation.So there you have it.
I will agree that ,like ALPA and BALPA, unions should have a very strong voice in safety matters. But ,for that to happen,the management must agree to partner with the unions and accept their role in this issue. Unfortunately, in the US in general, and, in helicopter companies here in particular, Union is still a five letter word.
Alt3.
Oh boy!
Shell, Cougar helicopter has but ONE S-92 based out of GAO way in the Eastern Gulf Region (perhaps with a back-up S61N), far too little to cover any significant area, especially if not part of an integrated system.
I believe BP is paying for this service, but BP has a scheduled service to their major proiducing locations off-shore.
Shell, if the cost of human life is appreciated by the Oil Companies, why are they allowing conditions in air transportation in the Gulf of Mexico (I am not privy to details concerning marine transportation, by my guess would be the same) to lag back to the sixties or seventies?
The answer is........Unions.
Not the Pilots unions beware, but offshore oil workers unions.
simply put, in the Gulf there are none while in the North Sea those unions are very very strong considering they are in Europe.
The BV-234 virtually disappeared from the passenger transportation scene after the tragic accident in the North Sea, were the Oil Companies involved? Yes, but only to the extent that their unionized workers REFUSED to even sit in one of the Vertols.
When your average offshore oil worker eats nutria and celebrates on Bud Lite you see where the advantages for the Oil Companies lay, otherwise how do you explain that OGP was supposedly behind a redesign requirement for the S-76D fuselage but yet is absolutely absent from the safety aspect of offshore air transportation in the GOM?
So in the end the answer to our questions that arise identical every time there is a crash involving the loss of human life, that answer is also always the same: money and mentality.
And sadly this applies to the HEMS industry of this great Country of "ours" as well.
Shell, Cougar helicopter has but ONE S-92 based out of GAO way in the Eastern Gulf Region (perhaps with a back-up S61N), far too little to cover any significant area, especially if not part of an integrated system.
I believe BP is paying for this service, but BP has a scheduled service to their major proiducing locations off-shore.
Shell, if the cost of human life is appreciated by the Oil Companies, why are they allowing conditions in air transportation in the Gulf of Mexico (I am not privy to details concerning marine transportation, by my guess would be the same) to lag back to the sixties or seventies?
The answer is........Unions.
Not the Pilots unions beware, but offshore oil workers unions.
simply put, in the Gulf there are none while in the North Sea those unions are very very strong considering they are in Europe.
The BV-234 virtually disappeared from the passenger transportation scene after the tragic accident in the North Sea, were the Oil Companies involved? Yes, but only to the extent that their unionized workers REFUSED to even sit in one of the Vertols.
When your average offshore oil worker eats nutria and celebrates on Bud Lite you see where the advantages for the Oil Companies lay, otherwise how do you explain that OGP was supposedly behind a redesign requirement for the S-76D fuselage but yet is absolutely absent from the safety aspect of offshore air transportation in the GOM?
So in the end the answer to our questions that arise identical every time there is a crash involving the loss of human life, that answer is also always the same: money and mentality.
And sadly this applies to the HEMS industry of this great Country of "ours" as well.
Thread Starter
The USCG operates HH-65 Dolphins (150nm range/ 4 Hour endurance) from Corpus Christi, Houston, New Orleans, and Mobile.
The HH-60's operate out of Mobile....which is at the far eastern end of the oil patch thus quite removed from the area of most operations.
That does not consider any Cutter based aircraft that might be in the oil patch.
The USCG relies upon surface vessels for its SAR function to a greater degree than they do helicopters.
The helicopters are assisted by three different types of airplanes primarily Falcons and Hercs.
The HH-60's operate out of Mobile....which is at the far eastern end of the oil patch thus quite removed from the area of most operations.
That does not consider any Cutter based aircraft that might be in the oil patch.
The USCG relies upon surface vessels for its SAR function to a greater degree than they do helicopters.
The helicopters are assisted by three different types of airplanes primarily Falcons and Hercs.
tottigol rhetorically asked:
Tottigol, the oil companies absolutely do "appreciate" the cost of human life. It's just that...this may be uncomfortable to speak about...they put a definable price on it. We might not like it, but it is what it is.
In other words, if it was the intention of "the oil companies" that not one single life would be lost in the Gulf of Mexico (or anywhere else), then you'd see safety really, truly become the Number One priority.
But let's be honest: A certain number of deaths (or losses) are acceptable. When that number gets too high, of if the number can be attributed to a particular and/or specific cause, then "something" will be done.
But it's hard to find a real common thread in all of the fatal accidents in the GOM. You can call for two engines, or full-IFR capability, or immersion suits, or...whatever. But it's still not going to prevent all of the accidents. The Risk Management departments of the oil companies know this.
It's far too early to even begin speculating about what went wrong with N180AL. He got the floats out but quite obviously hit the water with enough lateral speed to rip them right off the ship (so something very bad was happening to be sure). We can, and probably should look at the response times and procedures.
But there is no magic wand that can be waved and suddenly make the GOM "safe." It is not the North Sea; in fact it is quite different and demands a different set of operating criterea.
I know that it seems like the GOM accident rate is "just too high" lately. And perhaps it is. But we must look at the big picture. And requiring twin-engine, Cat-A and IFR-capable helicopters with passengers in "poopy suits" for every little "field ship" job just isn't going to work, no matter how much we might want it to.
Shell, if the cost of human life is appreciated by the Oil Companies, why are they allowing conditions in air transportation in the Gulf of Mexico (I am not privy to details concerning marine transportation, by my guess would be the same) to lag back to the sixties or seventies?
In other words, if it was the intention of "the oil companies" that not one single life would be lost in the Gulf of Mexico (or anywhere else), then you'd see safety really, truly become the Number One priority.
But let's be honest: A certain number of deaths (or losses) are acceptable. When that number gets too high, of if the number can be attributed to a particular and/or specific cause, then "something" will be done.
But it's hard to find a real common thread in all of the fatal accidents in the GOM. You can call for two engines, or full-IFR capability, or immersion suits, or...whatever. But it's still not going to prevent all of the accidents. The Risk Management departments of the oil companies know this.
It's far too early to even begin speculating about what went wrong with N180AL. He got the floats out but quite obviously hit the water with enough lateral speed to rip them right off the ship (so something very bad was happening to be sure). We can, and probably should look at the response times and procedures.
But there is no magic wand that can be waved and suddenly make the GOM "safe." It is not the North Sea; in fact it is quite different and demands a different set of operating criterea.
I know that it seems like the GOM accident rate is "just too high" lately. And perhaps it is. But we must look at the big picture. And requiring twin-engine, Cat-A and IFR-capable helicopters with passengers in "poopy suits" for every little "field ship" job just isn't going to work, no matter how much we might want it to.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here and there...
Age: 58
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But let's be honest: A certain number of deaths (or losses) are acceptable.
Or is this some form of ego trip where the guys sit in the pubs after work patting themselves on the back for working in the most dangerous sector of the oil patch and living to talk about it today?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have two questions concerning that last accident:
Have they found out what caused the failure of both engines in that last accident and what is the reason that SAR has been launched with such a long delay?
Have they found out what caused the failure of both engines in that last accident and what is the reason that SAR has been launched with such a long delay?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: US
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PHi and Bristow 'Holding Hands' in opposing US government bid to improve GOM safety:
Helicopter companies fight new law?
Helicopter companies fight new law?
LAFAYETTE — Two large helicopter companies that serve the offshore industry are fighting a new state law that would require personal location devices for oil-and-gas workers being transported to platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
PHI and Bristow argue in a federal lawsuit filed last week in Lafayette that the law is an improper and unnecessary intrusion by the state into the realm of aviation regulation, which is generally handled by the federal government.
The law, intended to make it easier to find workers after a crash in the Gulf, was passed by the Legislature this year and is scheduled to take effect in January.
The new safety regulation was dubbed “Jacob’s Law,” named after 26-year-old Jacob Matt, of Jennings, an offshore worker whose body was not found until four days after a 2008 helicopter crash off Sabine Pass near the Texas-Louisiana border.
The legislation was sponsored by state Rep. John Guinn, R-Jennings, who said Tuesday that he pushed the safety requirement at the behest of Matt’s family and other offshore workers in his south Louisiana district.
He said the personal location devices could help search crews find downed workers in time to save their lives.
“If it happens 1 mile offshore, you’re kind of looking for a piece of black pepper in a barnyard,” Guinn said.
He said that “with the technology available today, it’s a shame we don’t already have this implemented.”
PHI Chief Administrative Officer Richard Rovinelli said the Lafayette-based helicopter company is not opposed to new safety equipment but that any new regulations should be developed in collaboration with the offshore transportation industry and federal aviation officials.
“We recognize the state was trying to do the right thing,” Rovinelli said.
He said PHI has made safety a priority and already uses satellite-based flight tracking of helicopters and stocks the helicopters with life rafts equipped with location devices.
The legal challenge by PHI and Bristow centers on the argument that the state should not be entering the federal realm of aviation regulation.
But attorneys for the companies also argue in court filings that the safety regulation could tarnish the image of the offshore transportation business by leading customers to believe the law was needed to address an unsafe operation.
The attorneys further argue that if the companies do not employ personal location devices in other states that customers outside of Louisiana might perceive “an indifference towards the safety of non-Louisiana passengers.”
PHI and Bristow argue in a federal lawsuit filed last week in Lafayette that the law is an improper and unnecessary intrusion by the state into the realm of aviation regulation, which is generally handled by the federal government.
The law, intended to make it easier to find workers after a crash in the Gulf, was passed by the Legislature this year and is scheduled to take effect in January.
The new safety regulation was dubbed “Jacob’s Law,” named after 26-year-old Jacob Matt, of Jennings, an offshore worker whose body was not found until four days after a 2008 helicopter crash off Sabine Pass near the Texas-Louisiana border.
The legislation was sponsored by state Rep. John Guinn, R-Jennings, who said Tuesday that he pushed the safety requirement at the behest of Matt’s family and other offshore workers in his south Louisiana district.
He said the personal location devices could help search crews find downed workers in time to save their lives.
“If it happens 1 mile offshore, you’re kind of looking for a piece of black pepper in a barnyard,” Guinn said.
He said that “with the technology available today, it’s a shame we don’t already have this implemented.”
PHI Chief Administrative Officer Richard Rovinelli said the Lafayette-based helicopter company is not opposed to new safety equipment but that any new regulations should be developed in collaboration with the offshore transportation industry and federal aviation officials.
“We recognize the state was trying to do the right thing,” Rovinelli said.
He said PHI has made safety a priority and already uses satellite-based flight tracking of helicopters and stocks the helicopters with life rafts equipped with location devices.
The legal challenge by PHI and Bristow centers on the argument that the state should not be entering the federal realm of aviation regulation.
But attorneys for the companies also argue in court filings that the safety regulation could tarnish the image of the offshore transportation business by leading customers to believe the law was needed to address an unsafe operation.
The attorneys further argue that if the companies do not employ personal location devices in other states that customers outside of Louisiana might perceive “an indifference towards the safety of non-Louisiana passengers.”
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ghosts of Air Log and Suggins still walks the corridors of ARA and LFT.
You would think that they would learn!
Air Log one pax dead DFW08FA053
PHI deep water swim DFW07LA011
You would think that they would learn!
Air Log one pax dead DFW08FA053
PHI deep water swim DFW07LA011
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So do all passengers that fly in Canada and the North Sea all carry their own PLB's?
Do Canadian Provincesor local British councils have the power to set aviation rules and regulations?
Curious as to how that all works.
Do Canadian Provincesor local British councils have the power to set aviation rules and regulations?
Curious as to how that all works.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The oil companies provide them to meet their legal safety case obligations to enable a timely rescue. A radio beacon is a lot more effective as a search and locate tool than a dye pack, christmas tree light bulb and whistle, especially at night (which is when Bristow's last GOM death occurred 3 years ago).
Nice to see PHI and Bristow are really pushing the IHST agenda on this - NOT:
2theadvocate.com | News | State officials delay enforcing ?Jacob?s Law? — Baton Rouge, LA
So they have cheerfully managed to delay the enforcement of state law to require equipment that at least one of them is using elsewhere in the world.
I wonder what the supposed FAA initiative is?
For more on the RLC accident 2 years ago see:
Inadvertent Encounter | Flight Safety Foundation
Nice to see PHI and Bristow are really pushing the IHST agenda on this - NOT:
2theadvocate.com | News | State officials delay enforcing ?Jacob?s Law? — Baton Rouge, LA
So they have cheerfully managed to delay the enforcement of state law to require equipment that at least one of them is using elsewhere in the world.
I wonder what the supposed FAA initiative is?
For more on the RLC accident 2 years ago see:
Inadvertent Encounter | Flight Safety Foundation
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: At home
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would really recommend some further reading on this site and other forums with regard to the problems some types of PLBs (including some of the ones selected and foisted on the industry so far by O & G companies) cause for the reliable detection and safe rescue of persons in the water.
This jogs my mind into thinking:
a)May be this is why Bristow and PHI maybe against these specific devices.
b)Does anyone know if they maybe advocating other alternative more suitable devices
UCLogic
This jogs my mind into thinking:
a)May be this is why Bristow and PHI maybe against these specific devices.
b)Does anyone know if they maybe advocating other alternative more suitable devices
UCLogic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seem to be options that do work and getting ordered by these companies at the same time they are making legal challenges in the US:
Mobilarm to supply VHF Locator Beacons to Bristow Helicopters Australia
PHI fly BHP in the GOM.
Mobilarm to supply VHF Locator Beacons to Bristow Helicopters Australia
Mobilarm has announced that it has secured a significant new contract to supply its VHF Locator Beacons to Bristow Helicopters Australia (part of the Bristow Group) as the sole contractor to BHP Billiton Petroleum for offshore personnel transfers by helicopter in Australia. In the initial order, Mobilarm will supply 50 of its innovative V100 VHF beacons for integration into the RFD Beaufort MK28 lifejackets to be worn by all BHP Billiton Petroleum personnel during transfers to offshore platforms in the Western Australian North West region.
In many European countries, including the United Kingdom, the use of Personal Locator Beacons (PLB) is mandatory for all offshore helicopter transfers, with approximately 5,000 PLBs in use throughout the offshore oil and gas industry per day. Although mandatory use is not stipulated in Australia, BHP is keen to ensure the highest standards of safety are achieved and has become the first Australian company to insist on the use of marine-based PLBs for its employees transferring to offshore platforms by helicopter.
The Mobilarm beacon purchase comes as a result of a major test of emergency response systems conducted by BHP Petroleum off Exmouth, Western Australia earlier this year as reported in the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA) September newsletter. The two emergency response exercises, both involving offshore helicopter-based scenarios, were designed to test various aspects of the Operator’s emergency response and marine capability including recovery and response times and the use of PLB technology.
The goal of both scenarios was to test response times against the Operator’s Search and Rescue Performance Standards and to assess the search and rescue competencies of participants, equipment, systems and processes. Subsequent to the exercise, an Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) Search and Rescue Working Group has been formed to investigate a consortium approach with other Exmouth Sub-basin Operators, furthering the establishment of a standby emergency rescue and recovery vessel and opportunities for mutual support in emergency events.
“BHP’s initiative to implement marine based PLBs represents a significant development in personnel safety for offshore helicopter transfers in Australia,” comments Lindsay Lyon, CEO of the Perth, Western Australia based Mobilarm. “While the aircraft is legally required to carry 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transponders (ELT), like 406 MHz EPIRBs, these devices only provide the location of the downed aircraft, not the individual escaped personnel. The significant advantage of the Mobilarm V100 VHF Locator Beacon over ELT and EPIRBs is its unique ability to alert local rescue assets directly and provide those already closest to the incident with the location and tracking data of each and every crash survivor.”
The Mobilarm V100 is an adaptable Maritime Survivor Locating Device. The pocket-sized unit can be attached to clothing or seamlessly integrated into lifejackets to provide individual alerting capability in a man overboard event. The device is automatically water-activated if the wearer falls overboard, sending out a man overboard distress alert and real time GPS coordinates of the casualty’s current position via VHF DSC. The signal is also transmitted in a synthesized voice on VHF channel 16, making recovery by the casualty’s parent vessel, Fast Rescue Craft or any other marine assets in the vicinity, extremely efficient. Since the probability of survival at sea is directly related to the length of time in the water, alerting nearby vessels or other marine assets immediately will bring about a faster and more effective rescue.
In many European countries, including the United Kingdom, the use of Personal Locator Beacons (PLB) is mandatory for all offshore helicopter transfers, with approximately 5,000 PLBs in use throughout the offshore oil and gas industry per day. Although mandatory use is not stipulated in Australia, BHP is keen to ensure the highest standards of safety are achieved and has become the first Australian company to insist on the use of marine-based PLBs for its employees transferring to offshore platforms by helicopter.
The Mobilarm beacon purchase comes as a result of a major test of emergency response systems conducted by BHP Petroleum off Exmouth, Western Australia earlier this year as reported in the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA) September newsletter. The two emergency response exercises, both involving offshore helicopter-based scenarios, were designed to test various aspects of the Operator’s emergency response and marine capability including recovery and response times and the use of PLB technology.
The goal of both scenarios was to test response times against the Operator’s Search and Rescue Performance Standards and to assess the search and rescue competencies of participants, equipment, systems and processes. Subsequent to the exercise, an Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) Search and Rescue Working Group has been formed to investigate a consortium approach with other Exmouth Sub-basin Operators, furthering the establishment of a standby emergency rescue and recovery vessel and opportunities for mutual support in emergency events.
“BHP’s initiative to implement marine based PLBs represents a significant development in personnel safety for offshore helicopter transfers in Australia,” comments Lindsay Lyon, CEO of the Perth, Western Australia based Mobilarm. “While the aircraft is legally required to carry 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transponders (ELT), like 406 MHz EPIRBs, these devices only provide the location of the downed aircraft, not the individual escaped personnel. The significant advantage of the Mobilarm V100 VHF Locator Beacon over ELT and EPIRBs is its unique ability to alert local rescue assets directly and provide those already closest to the incident with the location and tracking data of each and every crash survivor.”
The Mobilarm V100 is an adaptable Maritime Survivor Locating Device. The pocket-sized unit can be attached to clothing or seamlessly integrated into lifejackets to provide individual alerting capability in a man overboard event. The device is automatically water-activated if the wearer falls overboard, sending out a man overboard distress alert and real time GPS coordinates of the casualty’s current position via VHF DSC. The signal is also transmitted in a synthesized voice on VHF channel 16, making recovery by the casualty’s parent vessel, Fast Rescue Craft or any other marine assets in the vicinity, extremely efficient. Since the probability of survival at sea is directly related to the length of time in the water, alerting nearby vessels or other marine assets immediately will bring about a faster and more effective rescue.
It's so sad... just 18nm out...
What about HEED's in the GOM?? I'm just back from HUET training in a warm swimming pool and being inverted with cold water shock I know I'd need the heed...
R.I.P.
What about HEED's in the GOM?? I'm just back from HUET training in a warm swimming pool and being inverted with cold water shock I know I'd need the heed...
R.I.P.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So - PLB's are required by customers (oil companies) for all passengers in Canada, the North Sea, and by BHP in Australia. There is the common thread. Its a customer requirement and you can bet they pay for them.
The reason that PHI and Bristow are fighting the proposed state law is simple and unfortunately overlooked in the thread. It's not being fought because its not a good idea, it is - it's being fought because of the legal precedent that it would set. Allowing states to set regulations for aircraft operating in their states would be a nightmare. For example - lets say you are in your 76 flying out of Texas and when you get offshore the customer tells you he needs to send a man in to a base in Louisiana. Do you refuse? Do you risk being stopped by a state inspector upon landing in Louisiana and not having the state mandated widget? We're talking PLB's not widgets - you say. One thing that is universal. Give a government entity power over one thing and soon its tenticles will grow.
Another example - since the law would mandate PLB's for persons flying offshore from Louisiana, would that require airlines who fly from New Orleans to say Cancun Mexico have a PLB for all passengers? The scenarios are endless.
Anyway. Having local governments set aviation regulations is not the answer. Its all on the oil companies. If they want it - its will be done.
The reason that PHI and Bristow are fighting the proposed state law is simple and unfortunately overlooked in the thread. It's not being fought because its not a good idea, it is - it's being fought because of the legal precedent that it would set. Allowing states to set regulations for aircraft operating in their states would be a nightmare. For example - lets say you are in your 76 flying out of Texas and when you get offshore the customer tells you he needs to send a man in to a base in Louisiana. Do you refuse? Do you risk being stopped by a state inspector upon landing in Louisiana and not having the state mandated widget? We're talking PLB's not widgets - you say. One thing that is universal. Give a government entity power over one thing and soon its tenticles will grow.
Another example - since the law would mandate PLB's for persons flying offshore from Louisiana, would that require airlines who fly from New Orleans to say Cancun Mexico have a PLB for all passengers? The scenarios are endless.
Anyway. Having local governments set aviation regulations is not the answer. Its all on the oil companies. If they want it - its will be done.
Wasn't there some problem with PLB's with the EC 225 ditching in the North Sea contributing to issues with locating people?
A PLB only needs to have it's antenna a few inches underwater and it doesn't work.
I see the Mobilarm uses a different technology but again if several are transmitting at once? It seems to use Marine VHF DSC. I seem to remember DCS being very slow to be adopted in the US.
Article here
A PLB only needs to have it's antenna a few inches underwater and it doesn't work.
I see the Mobilarm uses a different technology but again if several are transmitting at once? It seems to use Marine VHF DSC. I seem to remember DCS being very slow to be adopted in the US.
Four portable locator beacons were carried in the helicopter, but these could not be used to their maximum effectiveness because other locator beacons being worn by the passengers in the form of special wrist watches suppressed the signals from more powerful beacons. The beacons were also "unlikely to be orientated and positioned optimally to maximise their broadcast signal," said the AAIB.
The AAIB has concluded that the wrist-worn beacons 'inhibited' the operations of the more powerful emergency beacons, ultimately slowing the recovery operation.
The AAIB has concluded that the wrist-worn beacons 'inhibited' the operations of the more powerful emergency beacons, ultimately slowing the recovery operation.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The text of the state law, passed back in June is here:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdat...asp?did=722316
It does also include a requirement for a PFD, not currently required in practice by FAA for helicopters in the GOM.
Its no different in concept from the sort of survivability rules in Alaska.
It seems the UK has resolved its problems:
Selected Press Release - Oil & Gas UK
As already noted, on the Turkish accident thread, most fixed ELTs in the GOM fail to go off anyway.
Clearly some one has changed their tune from 2005:
Aviation Today :: An Offshore Lifeline
Just a thought, isn't more likely their will be multiple beacons after a ship sinks?
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdat...asp?did=722316
It does also include a requirement for a PFD, not currently required in practice by FAA for helicopters in the GOM.
Its no different in concept from the sort of survivability rules in Alaska.
It seems the UK has resolved its problems:
Selected Press Release - Oil & Gas UK
Personal locator beacons to be back in use from Monday, 8 February 2010
Oil & Gas UK can today (4 February 2010) confirm that personal locator beacons will be progressively reintroduced on North Sea helicopter flights from Monday, 8 February 2010.
The reintroduction will take place on 3 consecutive weekends, with the Aberdeen hub being the first to receive the equipment on Monday, 8 February, followed by the Southern North Sea helicopter hubs and Scatsa in Shetland. The beacon reintroduced on these hubs is the Sea Marshall AU9-HT, which has been approved by the CAA and tested extensively for inadvertent operation and interference with helicopter systems.
For Liverpool Bay, the Rhotheta RT-B77 (also CAA approved and tested) is currently being manufactured and will be rolled out as soon as the required quantities are available.
Robert Paterson, Oil & Gas UK’s health and safety director, explained: “As PLBs are still being manufactured, it is not feasible to reintroduce these across the entire industry at once, however we felt it important to start the roll out as soon as possible, and this means doing it by individual hubs.
“Not only have the technical difficulties with PLBs interfering with other transmitters been resolved, we have also adopted much more robust life-jacket mounted PLBs, which will drastically decrease the likelihood of inadvertent operation during a flight. In addition, we have prepared a training DVD on the correct use of the beacons which each worker has to watch before boarding the helicopter.”
Oil & Gas UK can today (4 February 2010) confirm that personal locator beacons will be progressively reintroduced on North Sea helicopter flights from Monday, 8 February 2010.
The reintroduction will take place on 3 consecutive weekends, with the Aberdeen hub being the first to receive the equipment on Monday, 8 February, followed by the Southern North Sea helicopter hubs and Scatsa in Shetland. The beacon reintroduced on these hubs is the Sea Marshall AU9-HT, which has been approved by the CAA and tested extensively for inadvertent operation and interference with helicopter systems.
For Liverpool Bay, the Rhotheta RT-B77 (also CAA approved and tested) is currently being manufactured and will be rolled out as soon as the required quantities are available.
Robert Paterson, Oil & Gas UK’s health and safety director, explained: “As PLBs are still being manufactured, it is not feasible to reintroduce these across the entire industry at once, however we felt it important to start the roll out as soon as possible, and this means doing it by individual hubs.
“Not only have the technical difficulties with PLBs interfering with other transmitters been resolved, we have also adopted much more robust life-jacket mounted PLBs, which will drastically decrease the likelihood of inadvertent operation during a flight. In addition, we have prepared a training DVD on the correct use of the beacons which each worker has to watch before boarding the helicopter.”
Clearly some one has changed their tune from 2005:
Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs) may be the newest safety-related device to generate attention of offshore helicopter operators, which want to back up the Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) on their helicopters. For instance, Bristow Aviation carries two ELTs in each helicopter and one mounted on the external airframe that automatically deploys upon impact. As yet, Bristow has no requirements for PLBs, but the technology is generating keen interest among several operators. McMurdo Pains Wessex Inc. a leading manufacturer of Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB), offers its FastFind Plus PLB with or without built-in GPS capability. Measuring less than 6-in. long and weighing 9 ounces, the FastFind Plus can fit easily into a life-vest. The device is 406 MHz compliant, which means it is more effective in deep water operations than early-model PLBs operating only on 121.5 MHz homing frequency.
FastFind offers both frequencies. The PLB also transmits the letter "P" distress signal, which tells rescuers that this is a PLB from a civil operator, not a military operator.
According to the NOAA SARSAT website, which lists all the rescues resulting from 406 MHz signals, there were several rescues of fishing and sailing vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. None involved helicopters or airplanes.
This statistic aside, offshore operators and the watchful petroleum industry may soon seriously consider FastFind Plus, said James Chandler, vice president OF McMurdo Pains Wessex, USA. The U.S. Coast Guard has ordered 14,500 units.
FastFind offers both frequencies. The PLB also transmits the letter "P" distress signal, which tells rescuers that this is a PLB from a civil operator, not a military operator.
According to the NOAA SARSAT website, which lists all the rescues resulting from 406 MHz signals, there were several rescues of fishing and sailing vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. None involved helicopters or airplanes.
This statistic aside, offshore operators and the watchful petroleum industry may soon seriously consider FastFind Plus, said James Chandler, vice president OF McMurdo Pains Wessex, USA. The U.S. Coast Guard has ordered 14,500 units.
Just a thought, isn't more likely their will be multiple beacons after a ship sinks?
Last edited by zalt; 29th Dec 2010 at 14:59. Reason: More data
