Super Puma down central North Sea Feb 2009
Woolf - I only said allegedly because there seemed to be no clear explanation for why the lift was conducted as it was (from a first hand observer). It may well have been an aircraft unserviceability issue but whatever happened it really didn't make anyone look slick or professional.
As I have banged on about on other threads, simply stating you have a capability isn't enough, you have to practise it regularly to maintain competence. It would appear from the reoprts from those on scene that something was lacking from the Jigsaw response.
Bouncebounce - no but then a 40' hover would have been very exciting in a big sea state. If your answer is that they would have increased the hover height then why not do the same on a calm night to try and dissipate the downwash a bit.
As I have banged on about on other threads, simply stating you have a capability isn't enough, you have to practise it regularly to maintain competence. It would appear from the reoprts from those on scene that something was lacking from the Jigsaw response.
Bouncebounce - no but then a 40' hover would have been very exciting in a big sea state. If your answer is that they would have increased the hover height then why not do the same on a calm night to try and dissipate the downwash a bit.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I gather the survivors were in their dinghies for well over an hour before the helo turned up - just as well it was a nice night and not sea state 6 in a gale!!"
Rumour going around that there was a rescue craft from a conventional st/by vessel first on the scene but was not used...any news on that??
Rumour going around that there was a rescue craft from a conventional st/by vessel first on the scene but was not used...any news on that??
Crab:
Many of your posts have a distinct ‘Guilty until proven innocent’ approach where you quote ‘alleged’ pieces of information, draw your own conclusions and expect others to prove you wrong. In absence of a reply your allegations stand.
Conveniently in this case and especially in light of the ongoing investigation I would guess the crew in question will not make a statement on a public rumour network to refute or confirm your ‘alleged’ claims (and they probably wouldn’t want to in any case). It’s easy to score goals if the other team doesn’t turn up.
As you quite rightly point out this is a rumour network, and I hope that people reading these posts treat it as such. It’s easy to miss an ‘alleged’ or an ‘appears to be’ especially if it comes from an experienced and knowledgeable source such as yourself.
Woolf
Many of your posts have a distinct ‘Guilty until proven innocent’ approach where you quote ‘alleged’ pieces of information, draw your own conclusions and expect others to prove you wrong. In absence of a reply your allegations stand.
Conveniently in this case and especially in light of the ongoing investigation I would guess the crew in question will not make a statement on a public rumour network to refute or confirm your ‘alleged’ claims (and they probably wouldn’t want to in any case). It’s easy to score goals if the other team doesn’t turn up.
As you quite rightly point out this is a rumour network, and I hope that people reading these posts treat it as such. It’s easy to miss an ‘alleged’ or an ‘appears to be’ especially if it comes from an experienced and knowledgeable source such as yourself.
Woolf
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Woolf my sentiments exactly. You beat me to publishing. AAIB initial report due tonight, don't expect any clarification at this point, just a statement of facts.
I know this is a rumour network but at this point the Helicopter Crews hands are tied. It's not pretty seeing defenceless aircrew being criticised.
I know this is a rumour network but at this point the Helicopter Crews hands are tied. It's not pretty seeing defenceless aircrew being criticised.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
toolowtoofast
Once again it would seem the infallible twin engine revered by all has let us down!
If this was a single we would be hearing from the "wouldn't happen in a twin" crowd wouldn't we!?
Glad they all made it out. HUET paid for again.
If this was a single we would be hearing from the "wouldn't happen in a twin" crowd wouldn't we!?
Glad they all made it out. HUET paid for again.
Woolf - you might notice from my posts on various threads that there is rarely any 'smoke without fire' - I won't print some of the comments that I have heard regarding this incident and the attitude of some within Jigsaw regarding their perceived vs actual capability.
I don't care if my remarks put some noses out of joint but I do hope they make people ask the right questions regarding SAR - people that end up in the water deserve the best capability to effect a safe and efficient rescue, not the cheapest.
I don't care if my remarks put some noses out of joint but I do hope they make people ask the right questions regarding SAR - people that end up in the water deserve the best capability to effect a safe and efficient rescue, not the cheapest.
Just finished reading the report, and it depicts a situation I'm sure most of us can recognise.
On a technical note - and I'm sure HC can help with this - could the lack of a 100 ft call be attributed to filtering due to rate of descent? I can't find a reference in the MK XXII product spec, but I do know that convential AVADs will recognise high Rates of Decsent associated with deck edge crossing and suppress the calls. At 200 ft the RoD was only 1000 ft/min (only in the context of this question) but perhaps by 100 ft it had reached a significantly higher value?
Regardless, even at 1000 ft/min it takes 6 seconds to impact from 100 ft, factor in surprise, recognition, pilot response and then aircraft response, and at best you'll have another Fulmar 76, and at worst, no difference to the actual outcome.
On a technical note - and I'm sure HC can help with this - could the lack of a 100 ft call be attributed to filtering due to rate of descent? I can't find a reference in the MK XXII product spec, but I do know that convential AVADs will recognise high Rates of Decsent associated with deck edge crossing and suppress the calls. At 200 ft the RoD was only 1000 ft/min (only in the context of this question) but perhaps by 100 ft it had reached a significantly higher value?
Regardless, even at 1000 ft/min it takes 6 seconds to impact from 100 ft, factor in surprise, recognition, pilot response and then aircraft response, and at best you'll have another Fulmar 76, and at worst, no difference to the actual outcome.
Fairly disappointing response times from SAR - Not sure what the Jigsaw proposed time scales were, but 1hr 45 mins to get the first surface vessel on site seems more than I would have hoped for. And that was a flat calm sea.
Not sure what sea survival times are at night in February but I dare say they aren't too good. The Cormorant Alpha disaster showed some casualties were able to exit the aircraft but died of hypothermia.
Not sure what sea survival times are at night in February but I dare say they aren't too good. The Cormorant Alpha disaster showed some casualties were able to exit the aircraft but died of hypothermia.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAR response times
The slow SAR response was one of my early reactions also. 1 hr for the first helo and 1hr 45 for first surface asset: if this is best response time in calm weather within 500m of a major installation, itself part of a cluster of other installations, then it is nothing to celebrate.
There was some debate as to whether this aircraft would have the new voice alert system, replacing the familiar female voice with some American chap who isn't quite as 'alarming'. The report talks about the missing "one hundred feet" call, but as far as I am aware, the new aircraft have the message "one hundred" - Can anyone confirm or deny this as there was opinion that the new calls can get missed easily in a busy cockpit.
Not that I think this has much bearing on this particular accident. Passing 100ft at 1,000 fpm at a 22' nose up attitude, I can't think the 100ft call was going to provide much advanced notice.
Not that I think this has much bearing on this particular accident. Passing 100ft at 1,000 fpm at a 22' nose up attitude, I can't think the 100ft call was going to provide much advanced notice.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that Jigsaw is intended to get persons to a 'place of safety' within 2 hours (the ARRC has been defined as a place of safety, the same as a full size standby vessel).
The 2 hours figure is pretty common across the NSea, survival in the water for up to 2 hours is the intention of the suits etc.
So on a flat calm night when the ARRC was able to make maximum speed and the survivors were all in one place this performance does not look good. (Particularly when compared with pre-Jigsaw - which would have been 5 to 15 minutes). Possibly the helicopter winching of the entire crew could have speeded things up - but that seems to be subject to another level of 'discussion'.
The 2 hours figure is pretty common across the NSea, survival in the water for up to 2 hours is the intention of the suits etc.
So on a flat calm night when the ARRC was able to make maximum speed and the survivors were all in one place this performance does not look good. (Particularly when compared with pre-Jigsaw - which would have been 5 to 15 minutes). Possibly the helicopter winching of the entire crew could have speeded things up - but that seems to be subject to another level of 'discussion'.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
if I were you I'd start editing some of your posts and removing the heresay,rumour and inuendo. Of course you won't but that's my suggestion, because rest assured there are several of us who will take great delight in ramming a few real facts down your throat when they become part of the public domain!
When's your 38 point, or is it 42 point now? Of course the civillian world is waiting with open arms to receive you into its fold as soon as you become free to join it, and with total anonimity no-one will link your cv with crab...............
if I were you I'd start editing some of your posts and removing the heresay,rumour and inuendo. Of course you won't but that's my suggestion, because rest assured there are several of us who will take great delight in ramming a few real facts down your throat when they become part of the public domain!
When's your 38 point, or is it 42 point now? Of course the civillian world is waiting with open arms to receive you into its fold as soon as you become free to join it, and with total anonimity no-one will link your cv with crab...............
Regarding the 100 call (and there is no "feet" in it), it's not obvious to me why it was not heard. The 100' call inhibit of AVAD is with ROD more than 5000'/min, not sure if that's carried over to v26 but surely not relevant here. It's worrying!
Followers of my earlier spats with NL will be aware that I was not a fan of EGPWS, but I did think that v26 (unlike v24) was an adequate substitute for AVAD. Hopefuly AAIB will provide the answer.
HC
Followers of my earlier spats with NL will be aware that I was not a fan of EGPWS, but I did think that v26 (unlike v24) was an adequate substitute for AVAD. Hopefuly AAIB will provide the answer.
HC
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent
I think it absolutely marvellous that the AAIB can put out a report like this within this timescale. I would hope that the rest of the world could take note and try to achieve the same standards.
Considering the crew and passengers survived unhurt....the aircraft was recovered intact (all pieces found), the CVR and Data recorders worked till after impact, thus making putting the Cheese Holes into alignment was pretty easy.
Let's see what the Operators and the CAA do now.....especially as DB seems to have fired up a lot of interest amongst pilots in improving a bad situation.
Let's hope the Operators and CAA also embrace the need for improvement.
Let's see what the Operators and the CAA do now.....especially as DB seems to have fired up a lot of interest amongst pilots in improving a bad situation.
Let's hope the Operators and CAA also embrace the need for improvement.
Deux Cent Vingt Cinq - I will be delighted if you can prove me wrong and demonstrate that the Jigsaw response on the night in question was as good as it could have been. There is no room in SAR for those who think training and practise are dirty (and expensive) words - I hope for the sake of the N Sea workers that some of the rumours I have heard are not true.
Prove me wrong and I will apologise unreservedly.
PS at 48 with 7 to do before pension, it is unlikely (but never say never) that you will ever see my CV
Prove me wrong and I will apologise unreservedly.
PS at 48 with 7 to do before pension, it is unlikely (but never say never) that you will ever see my CV
crab:
Maybe you can provide more detailed information from your sources in Jigsaw but I was very much under the impression that the Jigsaw training hours budget was very generous and certainly on par if not above industry standard?
There is no room in SAR for those who think training and practise are dirty (and expensive) words
Maybe you can provide more detailed information from your sources in Jigsaw but I was very much under the impression that the Jigsaw training hours budget was very generous and certainly on par if not above industry standard?