North Sea incident today (12th June 09)
Heli-phile,
I had decided to stay out of this thread (and the one on the Gold Coast accident) but your remarks have intrigued me. Would it be possible for you to explain this:
Jim
I had decided to stay out of this thread (and the one on the Gold Coast accident) but your remarks have intrigued me. Would it be possible for you to explain this:
Flying profiles are what we are paid for and trained for.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North of Antartica
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW I'm a Man of Intrigue!!
Not sure what to add to last?.
Are you "intrigued' by my stance on excessive 'flaming' of posters or my stance on the folly of SE operations over urban areas??
Give us a clue??
Are you "intrigued' by my stance on excessive 'flaming' of posters or my stance on the folly of SE operations over urban areas??
Give us a clue??
Heli-phile,
With respect to this thread, your comment "flying profiles are what we are paid for and trained for": I assume it was in respect to this thread, offshore operations and engine failures.
Just intrigued as to what you meant?
Jim
With respect to this thread, your comment "flying profiles are what we are paid for and trained for": I assume it was in respect to this thread, offshore operations and engine failures.
Just intrigued as to what you meant?
Jim
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North of Antartica
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi jiml
As commercial pilots, we are trained to handle non normal events. when these occur we fall back on our training. In this case proceedures were followed and no doubt the appropriate (performance) profile was flown to a safe landing.
We should never be complacent with any non normal situation on the other hand we should not get upset if some people consider us merely doing our job.
I hope that is what you were meaning?
We should never be complacent with any non normal situation on the other hand we should not get upset if some people consider us merely doing our job.
I hope that is what you were meaning?
Last edited by Heli-phile; 16th Jun 2009 at 07:08.
Mars has it right when he says
DB has it wrong when he says
Which is a bit worrying since he wants to design new offshore ways of operating! (or maybe he just didn't want to worry the many passengers who have latched onto this forum!). Doesn't look like heliphile understands either.
The industry does tend to gloss over the fact that we operate PC2 offshore and I suspect that if you ask a group of pilots many of them haven't really thought about ditching (or worse) following an engine failure during takeoff and landing offshore. Fortunately suffering an engine failure during the critical few seconds of takeoff or landing offshore is an extremely remote event (never happened in the history of the N Sea) but it could happen. Of course there are many other far more probable ways of falling into the sea as we have recently seen. IMHO the industry has not been good at training for engine failures during takeoff / landing offshore, though with increased use of simulators this is improving.
Just to re-iterate however, this was not an engine failure event!
For Oldlag, we 225 pilots can check the chip detectors and replace them and sign the CRS, but unfortunately the maintenance manual also requires the fixed mag plugs and oil filter to be checkded following a chip, and a stab made at identifying the source of the chip. In the present climate, we would always send out an engineer.
HC
Any one who dismisses the consequence of an engine failure (on a rig take-off or landing) lightly, clearly does not understand the issues.
Loss of an engine in flight for any pilot with a current Certificate of Test (LPC) should not be a problem!!!!
The industry does tend to gloss over the fact that we operate PC2 offshore and I suspect that if you ask a group of pilots many of them haven't really thought about ditching (or worse) following an engine failure during takeoff and landing offshore. Fortunately suffering an engine failure during the critical few seconds of takeoff or landing offshore is an extremely remote event (never happened in the history of the N Sea) but it could happen. Of course there are many other far more probable ways of falling into the sea as we have recently seen. IMHO the industry has not been good at training for engine failures during takeoff / landing offshore, though with increased use of simulators this is improving.
Just to re-iterate however, this was not an engine failure event!
For Oldlag, we 225 pilots can check the chip detectors and replace them and sign the CRS, but unfortunately the maintenance manual also requires the fixed mag plugs and oil filter to be checkded following a chip, and a stab made at identifying the source of the chip. In the present climate, we would always send out an engineer.
HC
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never happened in the history of the N Sea
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: at the edge
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fkelly
I think that HC means that there has never been a ditching as a result of an engine failure during the critical few seconds during and after take off.
There have certainly been a few failures, I had one in an S61 just after rotation but it didn't result in a ditching thanks to cool temperatures and a 25 knot wind.
I think that HC means that there has never been a ditching as a result of an engine failure during the critical few seconds during and after take off.
There have certainly been a few failures, I had one in an S61 just after rotation but it didn't result in a ditching thanks to cool temperatures and a 25 knot wind.
Maybe no ditchings but some that were too close for comfort.
In the old Bond days they had a 105 offshore that lost a turbine and caught fire, pilot was told not to land back on but ignored the "good advice" and stuck it back on the helideck.
They also has a 365C offshore that lost an engine just after takeoff. The second engine didn't wind up to max due to an internal FCU problem. He found himself with insufficient power to land back on and eventually made a run on landing at North Denes. It was after this one that they brought in the max NG checks
In the old Bond days they had a 105 offshore that lost a turbine and caught fire, pilot was told not to land back on but ignored the "good advice" and stuck it back on the helideck.
They also has a 365C offshore that lost an engine just after takeoff. The second engine didn't wind up to max due to an internal FCU problem. He found himself with insufficient power to land back on and eventually made a run on landing at North Denes. It was after this one that they brought in the max NG checks
NST - yes, operator specific. We receive annual training and then a company authorisation from the Q&S department for some tasks requiring a CRS, such as refitting of seats, checking/refitting self-sealing chip detectors etc
ericferret / fkelly, as I said there has not been an engine failure during the critical period of takeoff or landing in the history of the North Sea. The events you refer to (and others) were during the other 99.99% of the time
HC
ericferret / fkelly, as I said there has not been an engine failure during the critical period of takeoff or landing in the history of the North Sea. The events you refer to (and others) were during the other 99.99% of the time
HC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Space
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The standard answer from a "tabloid reporter" only interested in generating scandal. I would like to think that Pprune was more of a "quality paper", where the journos would report only stuff they had validated. Looking at your previous posts you seem to like to pick up on any potential scandal and post it, without any knowledge of the issues. This does nothing to enhance safety, improve the image of the industry, or keep the passengers who read this forum from a constant state of worry
HC
HC
As I said the name of the forum does include the word rumour so to think that every single thing posted on it is 100% gospel would be somewhat off the mark....I'm sure this is the case with other forums.
The passengers were worried, perhaps they would be less worried if they knew the exact reason as it doesn't sound overly serious.
As for being a journo, that's a million miles off the mark.
Quesiton : How important are QFE and QNH to a pilot landing on a helideck and do the helicopters have their own devices for such readings.
GJM
I was not suggesting you were a journo, just that your justification for spreading false and damaging rumour was that of a tabloid journo. Yes the forum includes "rumour" but it also includes the word "pilot's".
Anyway, you have asked a reasonable question which, although off topic, warrants an answer. The answer is one or other is quite important for a bad weather or night approach (one can be derived from the other) since it allows checking of the radalt. For nice day landing, not very important. Although the aircraft's own altimeters measure pressure, that would be the pressure at the current altitude, not the sea-level or deck level pressure which is what is needed.
HC
I was not suggesting you were a journo, just that your justification for spreading false and damaging rumour was that of a tabloid journo. Yes the forum includes "rumour" but it also includes the word "pilot's".
Anyway, you have asked a reasonable question which, although off topic, warrants an answer. The answer is one or other is quite important for a bad weather or night approach (one can be derived from the other) since it allows checking of the radalt. For nice day landing, not very important. Although the aircraft's own altimeters measure pressure, that would be the pressure at the current altitude, not the sea-level or deck level pressure which is what is needed.
HC
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately suffering an engine failure during the critical few seconds of takeoff or landing offshore is an extremely remote event (never happened in the history of the N Sea) but it could happen.
The point that HC is trying to make is not that "there have ben very few, if any" engine failures, but that there have been none during the 'period of exposure' for PC2 operations. Any failures that occur and have successful outcomes were, by definition, not in an 'exposure' period.
I'm not wishing to put words in HC's mouth, but I think that's his point.
I'm not wishing to put words in HC's mouth, but I think that's his point.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As we well know HC has no hesitation in putting his argument. The comment I was making was in light of his "it's an extremely remote event". Statistically it may well be, but the inference I was making in light of that statement was what are the chances of one individual having two engine failures during take off, one of those being at the most critical point on a rig take off. I can only fully endorse HC's comment
But then HC has little respect for my opinions.
The industry does tend to gloss over the fact that we operate PC2 offshore and I suspect that if you ask a group of pilots many of them haven't really thought about ditching (or worse) following an engine failure during takeoff and landing offshore.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Space
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC,
Thanks for the response, yes question was off topic but didn't wan't to clutter your forum by starting another thread.
Reason I asked was I was once covering heli-ops on an offshore installation and I noticed the QNH or QFE was not showing, so I called the radio op that had been on shift about it and they said not a problem they don't need it.
So once have comms with the pilot, pass him all the details bar either the QNH and QFE and sure as eggs is eggs, he asks for it so now I have to be the village idiot or waffle crap.....
So I explained it was out of service currently, anyway he made a bit of a hoo haa about it and said he would land since the weather was not to bad but had it been poor weather I got the impression he would have knocked it on the head.
Thanks for the response, yes question was off topic but didn't wan't to clutter your forum by starting another thread.
Reason I asked was I was once covering heli-ops on an offshore installation and I noticed the QNH or QFE was not showing, so I called the radio op that had been on shift about it and they said not a problem they don't need it.
So once have comms with the pilot, pass him all the details bar either the QNH and QFE and sure as eggs is eggs, he asks for it so now I have to be the village idiot or waffle crap.....
So I explained it was out of service currently, anyway he made a bit of a hoo haa about it and said he would land since the weather was not to bad but had it been poor weather I got the impression he would have knocked it on the head.
