Super Puma down central North Sea Feb 2009

[gulliBell]

That being the case then, if as it turns out the PIC happens to be the one to remain on instruments until the 2IC lands visually, how many PIC's out there are entirely comfortable not looking outside, at least to some extent, to see what's going on whilst the 2IC is landing the aircraft in poor viz? Or in practice is there a scan of some sort going on here where the PIC is looking outside to monitor the approach, and cross referencing to the instruments?

Surely with the proximity of obstacles at the platform, and the risk of departure from optimal approach profile due to poor seeing conditions (depth perception and illusions), wouldn't it be more prudent for both pilots to be looking outside? As a NFP PIC in these circumstances I'd be very uncomfortable arriving at the platform without actually observing what's going on outside.

[Special 25]

Guillibell


I would point out that the North Sea at night in limited viz is a very difficult environment to operate in. As PIC, I am quite happy 'looking in' until the very last minute. Trying to take over visually too early with inadequate or limited visual references is a very testing experience. At those times, it is the crew member on instruments that will be the one to ensure the aircraft isn't sinking towards the water or losing airspeed. You certainly won't pick up those cues looking outside.

[Horror box]

I would point out that the North Sea at night in limited viz is a very difficult environment to operate in. As PIC, I am quite happy 'looking in' until the very last minute. Trying to take over visually too early with inadequate or limited visual references is a very testing experience. At those times, it is the crew member on instruments that will be the one to ensure the aircraft isn't sinking towards the water or losing airspeed. You certainly won't pick up those cues looking outside.

Totally agree. I am quite sure that most of us (myself included) who fly offshore at night have become SD due to trying to fly with visual references too early. Results of this can be varied usually we simply recognise straight away, and revert to instruments. What needs to be established is that it is not always entirely clear cut as to why or when you look up. Yes we fly to MAPT, but very often you are visual before, and we are all different and have differing abilities, and then the weather varies. So many variables make this a judgement call very often. Procedures differ from operator to operator, but the human condition is always involved. It is very difficult to make a 100% solid procedure here, especially when hand over of control may or may not be required. Recognition of the condition of SD is the key, but in practice very difficult, as it has a habit of creeping up on you. There is always the go-around option, and we hopefully all do this - no shame there. This is a simplistic view though. Throw in some more factors. There IS commercial pressure - FACT. There are cultural issues in the industry. this may be the simple perceived innocent comments from the customer, supposedly in jest about the operator. Weather reporting from the customer can be unreliable, we all know that. Add some fatigue, take away the nice daylight, put some loud noise in, have some unnecessary chatter in the background on 2 radios slowing down x-cockpit comms, add in a caution light, maybe something in the water with a light on. I could go on and on. My point being is that it is a very difficult environment, and there are constant distractions from all directions, many of which unpredictable and nothing the crew can do anything about. There is a lot going on in the cockpit. So whatever the cause of this was, blaming is not the answer. The crew are highly trained, and certainly did not plan to end up in the situation they did. None of us are risk takers. Those who are pointing fingers are showing a serious naivety of offshore operations. Statements about the lack of a warning and a mayday are frankly ridiculous. 500m from a rig at 300ft in fog, you dont have much time to brief the pax, put out a mayday, set 7700 then sort the aircraft out. Priority is always FTFA - fly the f###ing aircraft first, all else after. You may get to check the RADALT and call flare if you are lucky. There will be no single factor here. As with most accidents it will be a very long chain, and the poor crew are just a part in that chain, and unfortunately for them the most public part.

[bigglesbutler]

One point to add for those outside the north sea, is that the pilot flynig isn't always the Captain (PIC). If the rig (dependant on wind and other obstacles) is on the left then the Co-Pilot will do the talk down then actual landing with the captain flying the approach. This can be changed dependant on the experience of the crew, but would mean a more complicated hand over at the "bottom" (decision point).

I will echo HB about the fact we don't take chances or risks as we are taking people to work, not saving lives (i.e. SAR).

[Limpopo]

Bond have started flying their EC225s again today. Doesn't appear to be operating on a BP flight looking at their flight schedule on the web.

[mark one eyeball]

I flew the Super Puma when it first came on the North Sea in the early 80's.
Designed for 145kt cruising speed.....it took a long time for everyone concerned to realise that this helicopter, it's gearbox and transmission train was being overly stressed....many gearbox changes later they reduced its speed.

I remember many incidents and accidents then with this type and unfortunately the incidents and accidents continue.

Flying the AS332L was not always an enjoyable experience for me as we lost one quite early due to the inclined hinge pin coming loose and the inclined driveshaft cover opening up into the tail rotor, amazingly no-one was killed (G-TIGD).

In my view the Super Puma on the North Sea has had a great deal of luck.

I would not say that this helicopter has had a sound history of safety, look back and see for yourself how many serious incidents and accidents it has had.

Continued good luck for those who have to fly in it!

[Special 25]

Mark One Eyeball

I think that's slightly harsh. I accept you have your doubts and have seen the history of the Super Puma on the North Sea, but as an aircraft type, it really has an exceptionally good track record. I don't think I know of a single type that has entered service without some inherent faults that have been solved with engineering fixes over the following years.

Thats why I think the EC225 was always a good choice for the North Sea, being a further development of an existing proven design, with a solid design pedigree you can trace back to the original Puma in the 70's. The pilots certainly seem to love it and you don't hear many complaints especially when it comes to night flying or landing at Aberdeen in the fog !!

[Droopy]

Weren't the early gearbox problems due to the 332 being thrashed around everywhere at take-off rating [or some similarly high setting]?

[ShyTorque]

I understand the 332 on its introduction, used the same main rotor gearbox as the RAF's HC1 model. The HC1s were not fitted with a torquemeter and limited to 15.5 degrees Collective Pitch for takeoff and hover in temperate climates, with further restrictions in other phases of flight. We seldom had MRG problems (or engine problems with the old Turmo IIIC4, for that matter).

I was informed that the 332s were flying using the equivalent of 16 and 16.5 degrees CP. On hearing this I assumed that the gearboxes were modified to take extra power. We later heard that they weren't.... if that's true perhaps it's not surprising that there were some reliability issues.

[T4 Risen]

I also agree with HB about the added problems of flying ARA's at night in poor vis. The only part i do not agree with is the commercial pressure. I have never felt any commercial pressure to operate a flight. If i do not want to go then I dont go...that is my decision as a captain, and that is the decision they pay me to make. Yes i will explore ever avenue before deciding to delay/cancel a flight but will not be pushed to make a decision based on a commercial issue.

and with regard to the safety of the super puma.......yes it has had its fair share of incidents/accidents over the years and teething troubles at the begining are the same for every new aircraft entering a role. Look at the number of flights/hours flown since they first came into service on the north sea compared to the number of accidents incidents and i think you will find it a very safe machine..........if it wasnt i would not be too keen on strapping one to my butt each day and flogging around the north sea in all types of weather day or night!!!

[Horror box]

T4 - just to add to and clarify my point earlier about commercial pressure. I am certainly pleased that you do not feel the commercial pressure, but some do, and I must point out that I did not mean specifically the crew. Commercial pressure is probably felt more in the hangar and in the ops rooms than us stick monkeys. Fortunately I think these days the companies do a good job of protecting the flying crews, but I have seen many cases of commercial pressure manifesting itself in ops, even recently, especially now in financially difficult times. Incorrect lighting on decks or incorrect deck design as an example. We may be used to it, but we all know it is wrong, and commercial pressure is for management to get the job done anyway without making too much of a fuss. It doesn't normally present itself as a big issue, as we know/hope the oil company will sort it eventually, but as I said everything is a very long chain.

[T4 Risen]

fair point...

[rotorrookie]

[Hiduly Damper]

Sorry for a timely reminder here but some people are suggesting SAR crews will risk all beyond that of a transport pilot because lives are at risk. Returning home to our families is as important as anybody else.
While we will push further then CAT allows we will not risk our lives needlessly. If we can help we will push ourselves to the limit to do so. Beyond that your on your own. I personnaly have a wife and 2 kids to think about!

Well done to the crew and passengers of the 225. Regardless of reason for being there you made the job of the SAR crews on scene 100% easier.

[heli-cal]

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Looks like they made a real effort to "Load" that carefully onto the boat.

[skadi]

The belly of this unlucky heli with all the dents looks like the impact on the water was pretty hard? Or am i wrong?

skadi

[windowseatplease]

Errr, can someone explain the last picture??

[gulliBell]

No point trying to rebuild it now bet the insurance company was happy with the recovery effort might as well go buy a new one.

[eivissa]

Errr, can someone explain the last picture??

Looks like the rear part of the aircraft where the tailboom seems to have separated from the fuselage.