Night offshore landings: a new approach?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Helicoparitor and Special 25,
Some clarification/capitulation needed,
THE SIGHT PICTURE
Is the view afforded to the Crew when they are on the Ideal Glidepath. The Ideal Glidepath (and therefore the sight picture) extends upward and downwind from the Helideck at an angle that in the opinion of the Crew that night, based on their training and familiarity, is the approach/descent slope they should ideally to follow.
Without fancy glideslope indicators we are only left with "Deck Ovality" as JimL calls it to guide us regardless of the actual shape of the deck.
The MDH, is a horizontal line, drawn from abeam the helideck, back to infinity at an agreed Increment above deck height.
THE POINT INSPACE I CALL THE CTB
Is the point at which MDH intersects the Ideal Glidepath or sight picture.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT
HeliComapritors idea of "Final Descent Point" (FDP) is abolutley SPOT ON and again says exactly what it means.
I REALLY LIKE IT
So from now on I hearby offcially give up on the CTB and swap it (If helicomparitor is ameniable) to the FDP.
So can we all agree for the sake of progression that DBs "CTB" from now on is referred to as the "FDP" and is defined as:
The point in space where the MDH intersects the Ideal Glidepath, as determined by the crew on the night based on their training and familiarisation and drawing reference from the "Ovality" of the helideck lighting.
Helicomparitor. I would like to amend my submission and presentations using your new FDP would you please PM and say its OK as it was your Idea. Thanks.
Some clarification/capitulation needed,
THE SIGHT PICTURE
Is the view afforded to the Crew when they are on the Ideal Glidepath. The Ideal Glidepath (and therefore the sight picture) extends upward and downwind from the Helideck at an angle that in the opinion of the Crew that night, based on their training and familiarity, is the approach/descent slope they should ideally to follow.
Without fancy glideslope indicators we are only left with "Deck Ovality" as JimL calls it to guide us regardless of the actual shape of the deck.
The MDH, is a horizontal line, drawn from abeam the helideck, back to infinity at an agreed Increment above deck height.
THE POINT INSPACE I CALL THE CTB
Is the point at which MDH intersects the Ideal Glidepath or sight picture.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT
HeliComapritors idea of "Final Descent Point" (FDP) is abolutley SPOT ON and again says exactly what it means.
I REALLY LIKE IT
So from now on I hearby offcially give up on the CTB and swap it (If helicomparitor is ameniable) to the FDP.
So can we all agree for the sake of progression that DBs "CTB" from now on is referred to as the "FDP" and is defined as:
The point in space where the MDH intersects the Ideal Glidepath, as determined by the crew on the night based on their training and familiarisation and drawing reference from the "Ovality" of the helideck lighting.
Helicomparitor. I would like to amend my submission and presentations using your new FDP would you please PM and say its OK as it was your Idea. Thanks.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offshore night approaches and landings.
I would like a copy of your presentation. I am new to this; do you have my email address as a result of this post or do I have to send it to you by some other means?
DB,
Your concept is not complicated or hard to understand.....quite the contrary in my view....and something that is entirely correct in its design and purpose.
Even on an ILS procedure there is mention of when one may descend below landing minimums predicated upon having certain visual cues in the form of landing aides, lights, and landing thresh hold.....you are doing much the same here with you procedure.
The FDP terminology or anything like that works fine. It is your concept that is the exact right answer no matter what the wording is.
Your concept is not complicated or hard to understand.....quite the contrary in my view....and something that is entirely correct in its design and purpose.
Even on an ILS procedure there is mention of when one may descend below landing minimums predicated upon having certain visual cues in the form of landing aides, lights, and landing thresh hold.....you are doing much the same here with you procedure.
The FDP terminology or anything like that works fine. It is your concept that is the exact right answer no matter what the wording is.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presentation
DB,
Thanks for sending me your presentation.
Your profile works for me. And I think HC's term FDP is spot on. Without denigrating your idea in any way, it is very straight forward to the point of being really quite simple. But there again, most of the best ideas around are 'quite simple'. Makes you wonder why its taken us all so long to come up with the best solution.
Well done!!
bondu
Thanks for sending me your presentation.
Your profile works for me. And I think HC's term FDP is spot on. Without denigrating your idea in any way, it is very straight forward to the point of being really quite simple. But there again, most of the best ideas around are 'quite simple'. Makes you wonder why its taken us all so long to come up with the best solution.
Well done!!
bondu
Great discussion and I think DB has described what all sensible pilots would try do most of the time. The idea of mandating a specific profile and therefore the ability of identifying misalignment easily is good.
DB, how do you deal with the situation where visualisation of the helideck is restricted due to wind direction/approach path/obstructions until almost alongside?
DB, how do you deal with the situation where visualisation of the helideck is restricted due to wind direction/approach path/obstructions until almost alongside?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nigeria
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gave up on page 1. What a load of cr#p. Shell goes on for ages about all the helicopter industry can do to be better.
Airlines don't fly to rigs. They fly to airports.
If the OIL COMPANIES could at least follow their own rules, or perhaps the standards of an airport, then they could compare helicopters to airlines. Until then pi$$ off.
Hasn't this gone on long enough??
OK, enough rant.
----------------------------------------------
FDP sounds a lot like VDP. No?
I'll send you an e-mail to get a copy of the profile.
Airlines don't fly to rigs. They fly to airports.
If the OIL COMPANIES could at least follow their own rules, or perhaps the standards of an airport, then they could compare helicopters to airlines. Until then pi$$ off.
Hasn't this gone on long enough??
OK, enough rant.
----------------------------------------------
FDP sounds a lot like VDP. No?
I'll send you an e-mail to get a copy of the profile.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Roundwego,
You make a very good point and I think the way forward is as follows:
We need to make a very clear description of the "Acceptable Visual References" that provide the "FDP" along the MDH line.
This description in its simplest form would refer to the "Ovality" afforded by the deck lighting.
The situation you describe is by far much harder to cater for in a simple description but we have discussed it at some length and we think:
It must obviously must include sightof some, or all of the helideck lights. Otherwise you cannot make a plan to manouvre into position to land. If Ovality is lacking, due to obstructions and such like, then sufficient texture and references, coming off the surrounding structure, when combined with visual parts of the helideck, provide sufficient references to enable the Final Descent to be made by sole visual reference alone.
I am working on a better description for the updated version of the profiles but I rather suspect it needs some kind of expertise, both in language and the technical side, to tidy it up into something that is watertight (if that is possible).
Of course the very fact that we hopefully are 200 feet above the deck at this point should give us a far better chance of assimilating and interpreting the avialable references.
SWAMP 76
Not sure what prompted your tirade but "Shell Bashing" is not catered for on this Thread. Start one of your own!!!
"Things go well with Shell" (Apart from you - seemingly)
You make a very good point and I think the way forward is as follows:
We need to make a very clear description of the "Acceptable Visual References" that provide the "FDP" along the MDH line.
This description in its simplest form would refer to the "Ovality" afforded by the deck lighting.
The situation you describe is by far much harder to cater for in a simple description but we have discussed it at some length and we think:
It must obviously must include sightof some, or all of the helideck lights. Otherwise you cannot make a plan to manouvre into position to land. If Ovality is lacking, due to obstructions and such like, then sufficient texture and references, coming off the surrounding structure, when combined with visual parts of the helideck, provide sufficient references to enable the Final Descent to be made by sole visual reference alone.
I am working on a better description for the updated version of the profiles but I rather suspect it needs some kind of expertise, both in language and the technical side, to tidy it up into something that is watertight (if that is possible).
Of course the very fact that we hopefully are 200 feet above the deck at this point should give us a far better chance of assimilating and interpreting the avialable references.
SWAMP 76
Not sure what prompted your tirade but "Shell Bashing" is not catered for on this Thread. Start one of your own!!!
"Things go well with Shell" (Apart from you - seemingly)
Hi DB,
Thanks for the doc. I thinks it´s great, but
Wouldn´t be better to reach the MAPT at Vmin + wind ??
I feel Vy 80kts it´s too much to decelerate from 0.75nm to the FDP. Not that it can't be done but may be too much nose high to keep an eye on the deck...
We usually end up at 200' / 60kts / 1nm when doing night apps to ships.
Just a thought.
Regards
Aser
Thanks for the doc. I thinks it´s great, but
Wouldn´t be better to reach the MAPT at Vmin + wind ??
I feel Vy 80kts it´s too much to decelerate from 0.75nm to the FDP. Not that it can't be done but may be too much nose high to keep an eye on the deck...
We usually end up at 200' / 60kts / 1nm when doing night apps to ships.
Just a thought.
Regards
Aser
Last edited by Aser; 23rd Mar 2009 at 15:38.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 49
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB,
Any thoughts on roundwego's post about approaches other than a straight in clear deck? Buchan for example with a strong southerly can be quite "interesting" at times as you cant see the deck until you are almost past the rig?
T4
Any thoughts on roundwego's post about approaches other than a straight in clear deck? Buchan for example with a strong southerly can be quite "interesting" at times as you cant see the deck until you are almost past the rig?
T4
T4, I was also waiting for that but after I re-read the posts I think he was trying to give a response with this:
Regards
Aser
It must obviously must include sightof some, or all of the helideck lights. Otherwise you cannot make a plan to manouvre into position to land. If Ovality is lacking, due to obstructions and such like, then sufficient texture and references, coming off the surrounding structure, when combined with visual parts of the helideck, provide sufficient references to enable the Final Descent to be made by sole visual reference alone.
I am working on a better description for the updated version of the profiles but I rather suspect it needs some kind of expertise, both in language and the technical side, to tidy it up into something that is watertight (if that is possible).
Of course the very fact that we hopefully are 200 feet above the deck at this point should give us a far better chance of assimilating and interpreting the avialable references.
I am working on a better description for the updated version of the profiles but I rather suspect it needs some kind of expertise, both in language and the technical side, to tidy it up into something that is watertight (if that is possible).
Of course the very fact that we hopefully are 200 feet above the deck at this point should give us a far better chance of assimilating and interpreting the avialable references.
Aser
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UAE
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Me 2 plse ! Love a copy. Promise to provide my thoughts on it!
Great to hear people talk about standardization and simplification and mean it! Hopefully the end product won't go past any lawyers or non-pilots!
Me 2 plse ! Love a copy. Promise to provide my thoughts on it!
Great to hear people talk about standardization and simplification and mean it! Hopefully the end product won't go past any lawyers or non-pilots!