Coastguard airlift

[Vie sans frontieres]

A crew is only as strong as its weakest link. Every now and again one crew comes up short and another one takes up the reins. I think Culdrose ran out of hi-lines on a job a few years ago and Chivenor completed the task. Then last year the favour was returned. Tick VG Culdrose. It happens. It takes a bit of guts to admit you're not up to it, whether it's in the mountains or out to sea. Both environments can challenge even the most experienced of operators. However, if you're not up to it because of deficiencies in training, well, the public deserve better.

[SARCO]

Seems as though it might be a similar case to that of the Puma ditching (the non-fatal one) which was a 'SAR' captain's first shift who couldn't keep a hover within a few metres and a rearcrew who couldn't get two casualties into the cabin at once and had to return them to the water.


Give it a rest mate, all helo crews that were involved in the ETAP incident did a fantastic job that night in some pretty crap weather conditions. Instead of trying to tar this thread with your usual 'bravado' why not stop stirring and realise that once again you are not in full position of the facts.

We all like a bit of banter and freedom to speak our mind, but if you are not fully aware about what goes on in a particular incident then you should refrain from making uninformed comments, and by uninformed I mean 'heard on the grapevine'

Thanks

[HAL9000]

Tell us what went on then SARCO and end all the speculation.

[[email protected]]

The reason I bang on about stuff like this is simple - when organisations declare themselves as SAR capable, the public and their customers have a right to expect a certain standard of performance and an ability to complete the rescues safely and efficiently. If simple jobs like the two already mentioned are too difficult for the 'SAR' crews, what on earth will happen when there is something more challenging to deal with.

None of this is about bravado or point-scoring - it is about highlighting shortcomings in real SAR capability which have been brought about by cost-cutting, poor regulation, equipment shortcomings, lack of training or other commercial problems.

Calling yourself SAR capable and not being able to deliver is, frankly, criminal since other agencies might rely on you to do the job and not have to send a back-up unit just in case you're not up to it which might be too late for the poor sods in trouble.

I know there are some capable guys in Jigsaw so why are they not listened to? What is the point of employing SAR experience if you ignore what they are telling you because it might cost money.

SARCO - you will be able to use your extensive night, over-water heli experience then to highlight what a 'fantastic job' they did and how. My information comes from people involved on scene - does yours?

[Winch-control]

"I know there are some capable guys in Jigsaw so why are they not listened to? What is the point of employing SAR experience if you ignore what they are telling you because it might cost money."

Answer done already...Money, just needs denial.

[Spanish Waltzer]

hmmmmmmmmm the silence is deafening

There must be a number of ppruners who know the facts / answers to the various questions posed on this thread (and not just from crab).

One would have assumed they would want to set the record straight as all silence does is allow the rumour mills to continue to turn.

So just bringing this thread to the top again so that they dont miss their chance....

[Justintime80]

OFFshorebear Quote "To put all this in a nutshell, the Jigsaw helicopter and it's crew may have been quickest on-scene, been able to Triage and treat the injury, administer more potent analgesia to make the casualty more comfortable then allow the Coastguard aircraft to get him ashore to allow the BP aircraft to carry on with it's primary function of looking after the guys offshore rather than downgrading cover for the 3+ hours that bit would take for the run ashore and back"

Yep that's the way it I heard it happened as well.

I was also told there were Fairy's down the bottom of my garden and I believe that as well. Not

Justin

[Markcl10]

CG Helo

Might I suggest you look at the CG press notice on this incident. It all seems pretty clear here! Newsroom - Press Releases

INJURED FISHERMAN EVACUATED TO HOSPITAL BY COASTGUARD HELICOPTER

At twenty minutes past ten this morning Aberdeen coastguard were called by the crew of the fishing vessel Sunlight Ray reporting that the skipper had sustained a broken leg and needed assistance.

Coastguard helicopter from Sumburgh,Shetland Islands

The fishing vessel was fishing in a position 125 miles from Fraserburgh when the incident occurred.

Aberdeen Coastguard in the first instance secured medical advice for the crew by teleconnecting them with a duty doctor at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. The decision was made that the man would have to be evacuated.

As there is a BP rescue helicopter based on the Miller Platform callsign Bond 1 Aberdeen coastguard requested their assistance.

Crew from Bond 1 and the rig standby vessel Grampian Courageous assisted in boarding the fishing vessel to administer pain relieving medication.

The Coastguard Helicopter R102 from Sumburgh was requested to fly out to the oil field where they winched the man into the helicopter and then refuelled on the Piper Bravo platform

He was then flown direct to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary where he is receiving treatment for his broken leg.

Matthew Mace, Aberdeen Coastguard said:

This was a long day for the skipper of the fishing vessel who had to endure a lot of different experiences to enable him to be eventually flown to hospital for treatment to his broken leg.

We are pleased that we were able to assist this man along with all the other people that were involved in his evacuation.


Posted By: Fred Caygill

For further details contact:
The Maritime & Coastguard Agency Press Office
023 8032 9401

[[email protected]]

It is what is not said in the press release that poses more questions than it answers: if the Bond winchman was winched to the vessel, surely it would say so rather than use the odd phrase

Crew from Bond 1 and the rig standby vessel Grampian Courageous assisted in boarding the fishing vessel to administer pain relieving medication

and they would have winched casualty and winchman off again.

It was suggested earlier in the thread that the Bond helo wanted the skipper transferred to the support vessel in order to winch him off that.

So do we believe that 2 helicopters were sent to do the job because it preserved the integrity of the N Sea SAR standby or do we think that 102 had to be used because the Jigsaw crew couldn't winch to the fishing vessel?

Hmmmmm

[Up Up Up]

I believe that Bond 1 did get the Winchman onboard at some point but were unable to SAFELY lift the casualty off. R102 was tasked to proceed at 1245UTC in case Bond 1 could not complete the mission.
R102 on scene at 1350 Winchman on vessel at 1402 stretcher lowered 1407. The Casualty was transferred from the vessels Neil Robertson stretcher into their own and both Casualty and Winchman were recovered to the Aircraft by Hi-line Stretcher Double Lift at 1435. Then taken to ARI via Piper Bravo for refuel.

[Vie sans frontieres]

So what did the Sumburgh winchman have in his box of tricks that the Bond winchman didn't? And what are we to make of Offshorebear deleting his earlier explanation of what happened?

[Moose Loadie]

The back-up of a crew who practice a little more often.

[Offshorebear]

Solely job preservation in the event of someone thinking it was company sensitive information

I still stand by my opinion that the situation was nothing more sinister than not wanting to downgrade the offshore SAR cover rather than any lack in the abilities of the Jigsaw crews although the more I read this does not seem to be the general consensus of opinion on here .............

[Vie sans frontieres]

Offshorebear

You presented your "opinion" as fact. Some people may well have believed you. Have you read the definition of 'sciolist' at the bottom of this page?

Unless the aircraft or a crewmember goes u/s half way through, nobody is going to hand over a job to one of their colleagues/competitors/rivals (however they may see other SAR bases) before they've seen the job through to its conclusion. It just doesn't happen. That's why so many people see through your argument. Jigsaw have done plenty of jobs where the casualty has come back onshore, thus reducing cover in the North Sea. So back to the original question, why not on this occasion?

[Offshorebear]

You presented your "opinion" as fact. Some people may well have believed you. Have you read the definition of 'sciolist' at the bottom of this page?

The 'fact' part was that I at least understand how the Jigsaw system works, my 'opinion' was what may have happened on this particular occasion.

Unless you were directly involved at the time then the term 'sciolist' could be levelled at any of us commenting on this particular issue.

[[email protected]]

The 'fact' part was that I at least understand how the Jigsaw system works

or in fact doesn't work based on a series of seemingly p*ss-poor performances by the N Sea SAR providers!!!

[crud12001]

or in fact doesn't work based on a series of seemingly p*ss-poor performances by the N Sea SAR providers!!!

Looking at the replies and various other comments are people not worried about the potential that Jigsaw could be found laking if really tested?

[[email protected]]

I think some people at the ARCCK are.

[Achilles426]

Has "Angel on a wire" and "SARGOD" nothing to add to this thread? Or have they left Jigsaw for pastures new?

[Offshorebear]

When Jigsaw was first envisaged it was sold to the troops as 'a better way of rescue & recovery' which, when you compare it to some of what was in place at the time was true, I mean when chosing between getting fished out the sea by a nice shiney state of the art helicopter instead of a potentialy 30 year old propeller driven with no thrusters standby vessel hanging a big net off the side then it was a bit of a no brainer what we'd rather have.

After a lot of consultation the initial proposal to solely having helicopters grew to the entire package with RSV's, ARRC's, MOB Alarms, Platform REWS and the Helicopters, the entire process was under the close scrutiny of the HSE, industry experts, offshore unions and the Offshore Safety Reps taking years to come to fruition before finally going 'live'.

Since it's inception there have been multiple issues with the system creating loads of concerns about various aspects.

Suffice to say as BP have spent 100's of millions of pounds delivering this I doubt rumours of problems on an internet forum will make them admit the system is lacking and go back to the old SBV system.

I am well aware that the SBV industry has moved with the times and there is a continous stream of new build state of the art vessels being built but even so, I still think what BP have is 'a better way of rescue and recovery'

Before anyone has a pop and reckons I am BP management in disguise trying to defend a seemingly 'flawed' system please be assured that I am just a bog standard offshore bear who's seen Jigsaw from the offshore perspective from the start to where we are now.