Cougar & Bond - What Now ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cougar & Bond - What Now ?
Had a question come up today with some friends I was chatting with and thought I would post it here for members comments.
In the case of two tragedies like this, the Cougar S92 and now Bonds Puma, what sort of repercussions happen to those companies.
Does the oil company turn around and say no to using that operator again, or do they keep using them with a raft of changes to the ops manual or what. Do the oil companies cancel contracts with operators ?
Obviously this isnt the first loss on offshore ops and wont be the last so was wondering what actually happens once all the media attention has gone away.
Ned
In the case of two tragedies like this, the Cougar S92 and now Bonds Puma, what sort of repercussions happen to those companies.
Does the oil company turn around and say no to using that operator again, or do they keep using them with a raft of changes to the ops manual or what. Do the oil companies cancel contracts with operators ?
Obviously this isnt the first loss on offshore ops and wont be the last so was wondering what actually happens once all the media attention has gone away.
Ned
chester
I guess you have never seen a contract between an oil company and an operator? They are normally very 1-sided and typically the oil company can terminate the contract whenever they feel like it, with as little as 30 days notice.
HC
I guess you have never seen a contract between an oil company and an operator? They are normally very 1-sided and typically the oil company can terminate the contract whenever they feel like it, with as little as 30 days notice.
HC
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 67
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
60 days is typical in my little world.
This is going to be a very interesting question to answer for the customer.
How are they now going to select their contractors, on the basis of short-term accident rate (in which case Bond tragically have increased exponentially in a short time) or on long-term safety record.
Its about time the Oil and gas companies did their due diligence properly and let contracts on the basis of a true Risk Management Strategy rather than strictly on price.
Ned - I think your Editor feels quite strongly about this !!
(No direct criticism of any oil and gas company, air operator, national aviation authority, citizen of any country or member of the law enforcement community intended or implied !!)
This is going to be a very interesting question to answer for the customer.
How are they now going to select their contractors, on the basis of short-term accident rate (in which case Bond tragically have increased exponentially in a short time) or on long-term safety record.
Its about time the Oil and gas companies did their due diligence properly and let contracts on the basis of a true Risk Management Strategy rather than strictly on price.
Ned - I think your Editor feels quite strongly about this !!
(No direct criticism of any oil and gas company, air operator, national aviation authority, citizen of any country or member of the law enforcement community intended or implied !!)
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: at the edge
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's look at a few things here and then consider what has happened in the past.
Both of the companies concerned would easily pass any safety audit in terms of their systems, SMS etc.
Neither helicopter company would have systemic issues contributing to either of these fatal accidents. The oil company just wouldn't contract companies that they thought would in any way impact their safety.
(Any training or fleet management issue which may or may not pertain to the EC225 ditching could and will be easily rectified)
Both of the companies have excellent records.
Empirically, unless either operator has a history of audit failures (they don't) request for improvement from the oil company (unlikely to be anything significant) then the contract will likely stay with the incumbent until normal tender time.
Both of the companies concerned would easily pass any safety audit in terms of their systems, SMS etc.
Neither helicopter company would have systemic issues contributing to either of these fatal accidents. The oil company just wouldn't contract companies that they thought would in any way impact their safety.
(Any training or fleet management issue which may or may not pertain to the EC225 ditching could and will be easily rectified)
Both of the companies have excellent records.
Empirically, unless either operator has a history of audit failures (they don't) request for improvement from the oil company (unlikely to be anything significant) then the contract will likely stay with the incumbent until normal tender time.
I will be cold and heartless here....trying to live up to my newfound reputation.
These three accidents are nothing new to the offshore helicopter industry.
They have happened before and they will happen again.
Today it is Cougar and Bond and next time it will be other operators.
None of the operators want these things to happen....no one does.
We have to accept the fact that helicopters are very complex machines that have the potential of incurring faults that will cause horrible results.
We fly in some very inhospitable areas where survival is not a sure thing if you survive contact with the surface....in fact that is usually when the most risk occurs.
For an oil company to terminate a contract as a result of a crash or even crashes.....barring proven negligence or a defective aircraft design they are not making a reasonable or logical decision.
Other operators than Bond and Cougar have had bad runs of luck or whatever you want to call it and did not lose their contracts thus why should these two operators. In fact, these two operators are probably better choices for two reasons. They are looking at their operations and trying to find every way to improve them they can.....and it is some else's turn at bat.
The key is to figure out how to improve the safety of operations as we find out the causes of these tragedies.
These three accidents are nothing new to the offshore helicopter industry.
They have happened before and they will happen again.
Today it is Cougar and Bond and next time it will be other operators.
None of the operators want these things to happen....no one does.
We have to accept the fact that helicopters are very complex machines that have the potential of incurring faults that will cause horrible results.
We fly in some very inhospitable areas where survival is not a sure thing if you survive contact with the surface....in fact that is usually when the most risk occurs.
For an oil company to terminate a contract as a result of a crash or even crashes.....barring proven negligence or a defective aircraft design they are not making a reasonable or logical decision.
Other operators than Bond and Cougar have had bad runs of luck or whatever you want to call it and did not lose their contracts thus why should these two operators. In fact, these two operators are probably better choices for two reasons. They are looking at their operations and trying to find every way to improve them they can.....and it is some else's turn at bat.
The key is to figure out how to improve the safety of operations as we find out the causes of these tragedies.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short-term accident statistics seem to have little relevance when oil companies are awarding contracts. Bristow (who have been pushing the Target Zero accident approach for some time) have just lost Mauretania to MHS who have a less than enviable accident record. I think cost is more relevant to these companies.
Kind makes you question the 'If you think safety is expensive - then wait till you have an accident' theory.
Kind makes you question the 'If you think safety is expensive - then wait till you have an accident' theory.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: hong kong
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hull loss..mmmm?
All companies, fixed and rotor have a built in hull loss element to their business models before insurance premiums are reshaped. The cliche regarding the expense of an accident, only kicks in when this threshold has been reached and it is also country dependent. Indonesia is a great example here and so is PNG. But as the fat of safety is picked back to the bone and cost and super regulation get closer together in CAA land, where will it all end?Philippine operators in the Peterhead lane?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The loss of the airfarme is only one aspect of the insurance question. What about the crew, passengers, families, operator reputation etc. The true costs of accidents goes much further.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As noted above the oil operators contracts allow termination on any number of grounds, with little warning.
The 'losses' are going to be largely covered by insurance, that is why it's bought.
Loss of reputation and/or share price does have a real effect and usually one you cannot insure against.
With the oil operators refuse to use them? Of course not. I seem to recall the Jigsaw contract was given to a company that had no aircraft and virtually no personnel - which you might think makes many procurement prerequisites impossible to fulfill.
Only if there was a systemic problem with the company are the oil operators likely to pull out. With the more responsible oil companies that should be addressed much earlier than any incident.
The amazing thing is how static insurance premiums can be in the face of deteriorating accident / incident rates (unlike motoring for instance).
The 'losses' are going to be largely covered by insurance, that is why it's bought.
Loss of reputation and/or share price does have a real effect and usually one you cannot insure against.
With the oil operators refuse to use them? Of course not. I seem to recall the Jigsaw contract was given to a company that had no aircraft and virtually no personnel - which you might think makes many procurement prerequisites impossible to fulfill.
Only if there was a systemic problem with the company are the oil operators likely to pull out. With the more responsible oil companies that should be addressed much earlier than any incident.
The amazing thing is how static insurance premiums can be in the face of deteriorating accident / incident rates (unlike motoring for instance).
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a reasonably hypothetical question Ned.
All of the helicopter providers undergo stringent auditing to win and maintain these contracts.
If all the boxes are ticked then the companies are operating as per the manufacturers specs and recommendations, also those of the relevant regulatory authority.
The boot may well be on the other foot in the event of an unexplained accident and if the contract be cancelled, that "Breach of contract" could well come into play for the provider.
The oil companies and helicopter providers 'Assure' themselves with that established audit protocol, but as Paco points out the "Insurance" is another thing entirely, for hull and third party.
All of the helicopter providers undergo stringent auditing to win and maintain these contracts.
If all the boxes are ticked then the companies are operating as per the manufacturers specs and recommendations, also those of the relevant regulatory authority.
The boot may well be on the other foot in the event of an unexplained accident and if the contract be cancelled, that "Breach of contract" could well come into play for the provider.
The oil companies and helicopter providers 'Assure' themselves with that established audit protocol, but as Paco points out the "Insurance" is another thing entirely, for hull and third party.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the opportunity to visit Cougar's facilities in St. John's in 2006. Maybe a little off topic here but I just wanted to add; one of the finest and most professional organizations I have ever had the pleasure of spending time with.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North of East, South of West
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interesting discussion, another viewpoint is what weight is to contractor preference of Helicopter Type when a new/renewal contract is negotiated,
And does the contractor therefore have to shoulder some responsibilty?
And does the contractor therefore have to shoulder some responsibilty?
I'm sorry - was someone suggesting that these contracts do not go to the company who undercuts competition - regardless of 'like-for-like' comparisons?
Where the buck stops!
It may come as a surprise to some observers of the offshore oil support aviation industry to find that the relationship between the oil company ( client) and aviation provider is completely different to that which occurs when we fly on a scheduled airline.
Offshore oil operations are chartered flights. i.e. the aviation services provider undertakes to transport people and cargo for the client at the clients request only.
This explains why the clients have ( sometimes) extensive aviation departments providing advisors and auditors to oversee operations conducted on their behalf.
The true test of which party is ultimately responsible will be the courts.In many cases the oil companies ( some of whom are headquartered in the USA) are the final defendents of legal actions brought by injured parties,hence their highly intrusive intervention in the day-to-day operations of their chartered aviation providers.
Given the propensity of US courts to sometimes award substantial monetary payments to victims of offshore helicopter accidents it is no wonder that contracts between aviation providers and oil companies reflect this reality.
Offshore oil operations are chartered flights. i.e. the aviation services provider undertakes to transport people and cargo for the client at the clients request only.
This explains why the clients have ( sometimes) extensive aviation departments providing advisors and auditors to oversee operations conducted on their behalf.
The true test of which party is ultimately responsible will be the courts.In many cases the oil companies ( some of whom are headquartered in the USA) are the final defendents of legal actions brought by injured parties,hence their highly intrusive intervention in the day-to-day operations of their chartered aviation providers.
Given the propensity of US courts to sometimes award substantial monetary payments to victims of offshore helicopter accidents it is no wonder that contracts between aviation providers and oil companies reflect this reality.
Whoa....hold on here!
We have been told the oil companies only consideration is "safety" and not mere "costs".....you cannot have it both ways.
Is it "safety no matter the cost" or safety at the "minimum cost"?
BP sets high standards.....look at the very positive improvements they have forced on the Gulf of Mexico operators....and at the same time paid for those improvements.
We have been told the oil companies only consideration is "safety" and not mere "costs".....you cannot have it both ways.
Is it "safety no matter the cost" or safety at the "minimum cost"?
BP sets high standards.....look at the very positive improvements they have forced on the Gulf of Mexico operators....and at the same time paid for those improvements.
So its been Cougar with a 92 and this week Bond with an L2, last month it was PHI and a 76 that in good weather rolled back the power and descended into a swamp for whatever reason.
I saw it when CHC had a 76 go swimming off Angola and again later when Heli Union tried to remodel the deck with a Dauphane……
Its happened before and will again, every operator has had a run of “un-luck” but more often than not is luck and the use of well trained people in the front that the oil companies have not had more people go swimming.
Personally I have for close to the last 9 years in one way or another had my job rely on the oil industry and yes mostly the contracts are very one sided in favor of the oil companies.
In all that time I have only come across one auditor who was not really just ticking boxes to qualify the safety of each and every particular organization he visited.
Why? You ask, well this individual started out in the cockpit and had a wide and varied experience before he went the safety route.
Thorough yes, but more importantly he knew within 5 mins of meeting a guy if they had the right level of competency. Accurate about 98% of the time.
There is a difference between audited safety and actual competency, which I would hazard to guess that most readers here agree that sometimes the crews shake their collective heads when a event happens and it turns out benign….. out of pure luck.
It will happen again, and we will all be saddened by the loss, but in the mean time “we” will be the last line of defense in the swiss cheese and numerous events both self induced and unexplained will happen and many will never be know about.
Fly safe out there
I saw it when CHC had a 76 go swimming off Angola and again later when Heli Union tried to remodel the deck with a Dauphane……
Its happened before and will again, every operator has had a run of “un-luck” but more often than not is luck and the use of well trained people in the front that the oil companies have not had more people go swimming.
Personally I have for close to the last 9 years in one way or another had my job rely on the oil industry and yes mostly the contracts are very one sided in favor of the oil companies.
In all that time I have only come across one auditor who was not really just ticking boxes to qualify the safety of each and every particular organization he visited.
Why? You ask, well this individual started out in the cockpit and had a wide and varied experience before he went the safety route.
Thorough yes, but more importantly he knew within 5 mins of meeting a guy if they had the right level of competency. Accurate about 98% of the time.
There is a difference between audited safety and actual competency, which I would hazard to guess that most readers here agree that sometimes the crews shake their collective heads when a event happens and it turns out benign….. out of pure luck.
It will happen again, and we will all be saddened by the loss, but in the mean time “we” will be the last line of defense in the swiss cheese and numerous events both self induced and unexplained will happen and many will never be know about.
Fly safe out there
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 67
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My experience of the oil company 'extensive aviation department' is that the people in it, if they have any aviation experience at all is completely the wrong type of experience for that operation.
Even though they may demand certain types operated a certain way, ultimately its the corporate departments who let the contracts and their priority is 'value for money'.
Even though they may demand certain types operated a certain way, ultimately its the corporate departments who let the contracts and their priority is 'value for money'.