Performance class two enhanced (offshore)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North America
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to Variable Load’s question…
On 1st November Shell Management wrote…
Anxiously awaiting Shell Management’s report.
So SM, back to the PC2e debate. How many of Shell's contractors are using PC2e offshore?
Please produce a list:
Bristow:
Caverton:
CHC:
Others:
I'm sure it will make interesting reading.
Please produce a list:
Bristow:
Caverton:
CHC:
Others:
I'm sure it will make interesting reading.
It should be all, with the exception of certain aircraft like the Mil 8 and contracts that pre-date 2005, provided that appropriate procedures are in the RFM.
Shell OUs have invested massively in new machines partly, with more to come, for this heightened performance for PC1/PC2e and of course the improved certification standards.
I will verify and report back.
Shell OUs have invested massively in new machines partly, with more to come, for this heightened performance for PC1/PC2e and of course the improved certification standards.
I will verify and report back.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I've made the postion clear.
It is regrettable that certain major improvements are being held up by amoral lobby by opeartors (you know who you are) and weak willed ignorant regulators (you probably don't know what safety is).
Still, the Netherlands is leading the way!
It is regrettable that certain major improvements are being held up by amoral lobby by opeartors (you know who you are) and weak willed ignorant regulators (you probably don't know what safety is).
Still, the Netherlands is leading the way!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North America
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM,
Do you really think those operators lobbying against PC2e are amoral? Do you totally discount the possibility that they sincerely believe PC2e might result in an overall reduction in safety due to the reasons stated earlier in this thread? If so, I suggest that you should be lobbying not for PC2e, but for PC1. PC1 requires the use of Category A Certified procedures, procedures that are substantiated by flight test rather than computer modeling.
HT
Do you really think those operators lobbying against PC2e are amoral? Do you totally discount the possibility that they sincerely believe PC2e might result in an overall reduction in safety due to the reasons stated earlier in this thread? If so, I suggest that you should be lobbying not for PC2e, but for PC1. PC1 requires the use of Category A Certified procedures, procedures that are substantiated by flight test rather than computer modeling.
HT
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a consultation on the NPA. The operators accepted it then. Now they want to bring out various sprious arguments. If not amoral - what? Incompetance? Lazyness?
The lack of response confirms what I contended about the lazy response last year.
The lack of an answer just confirms the lack of proactive culture.
The lack of response confirms what I contended about the lazy response last year.
The lack of an answer just confirms the lack of proactive culture.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North America
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a consultation on the NPA. The operators accepted it then. Now they want to bring out various sprious arguments. If not amoral - what? Incompetance? Lazyness?
Sorry for the cheap shot, but I just couldn’t resist.
Category PC2 with exposure
Hi guys,
Am tracking down information on Category PC2 with exposure. In particular, which helicopter models are capable/certified? If that is the right term.
It appears as though it will become a requirement in Australia within the next 2 to 5 years, and I understand EASA has been using it for some time. I guess JimL will be all over it!
Am tracking down information on Category PC2 with exposure. In particular, which helicopter models are capable/certified? If that is the right term.
It appears as though it will become a requirement in Australia within the next 2 to 5 years, and I understand EASA has been using it for some time. I guess JimL will be all over it!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: bora scirocco
Age: 50
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, B412, BK117, EC135, EC145, EC155, AW139, Bell 429, S76C+, EC225, ...generally all twins in last 20 years can operate PC2...(I m not sure for Bell 427
)
Also, some of them operate PC1.
)Also, some of them operate PC1.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onshore maybe. The question relates to their operation from elevated offshore helidecks. This is a special case due to deck impacts and lack of safe rejection area.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North America
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC2e was a hot topic back in 2010 (there were 87 posts). Not so hot in 2011 (there were 4 posts). Implementation was originally targeted for 1 January 2010. Anyone know what the current status is?
Here's my personal precis:
Eurocopter decided they couldn't compete commercially with the requirements associated with PC2e.
They lobbied the N Sea operators.
The N Sea operators danced to their tune and seem to have collectively killed off the requirement.
So it looks like we're heading down a route called PC2d - defined exposure. So no safety improvement, just a defined period where the crew will not know what to do (do we ditch or do we fly away?) and lives could be lost.
Eurocopter decided they couldn't compete commercially with the requirements associated with PC2e.
They lobbied the N Sea operators.
The N Sea operators danced to their tune and seem to have collectively killed off the requirement.
So it looks like we're heading down a route called PC2d - defined exposure. So no safety improvement, just a defined period where the crew will not know what to do (do we ditch or do we fly away?) and lives could be lost.
Good precis! Maybe someone should tell Michael O'Leary about the concept - imagine all those small regional airports he could use with a few seconds of exposure before and after V1!!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North America
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Variable Load, thanks for the update.
Does anyone know if EASA is in the process of removing the PC2e language from the regulation and replacing it with new PC2d language, and if so, what the interim operating rules are.
HT
Does anyone know if EASA is in the process of removing the PC2e language from the regulation and replacing it with new PC2d language, and if so, what the interim operating rules are.
HT
VL, that is a valid point only if your world of possible dangerous outcomes is blinkered to the case of an engine failure during the few seconds of takeoff or landing when safe OEI flight is not assured - and even with PC2E there is no engine failure accountability except possibly for an idealised perfect offshore installation which unfortunately doesn't exist.
In the real world there are many more dangerous outcomes as demonstrated by the fact that engine failure during exposure time has never happened in the entire history of the N Sea, whilst we have found plenty of other ways to crash. If you take a look at overall safety, operating with low fuel states to achieve PC2e mass could result in an overall reduction in safety and that is why the UK operators (not EC) preferred not to implement PC2E. However PC 2DLE is a reasonable compromise that raises crew awareness of exposure and ensures that the aircraft are not operated with an unduly long exposure time.
In the real world there are many more dangerous outcomes as demonstrated by the fact that engine failure during exposure time has never happened in the entire history of the N Sea, whilst we have found plenty of other ways to crash. If you take a look at overall safety, operating with low fuel states to achieve PC2e mass could result in an overall reduction in safety and that is why the UK operators (not EC) preferred not to implement PC2E. However PC 2DLE is a reasonable compromise that raises crew awareness of exposure and ensures that the aircraft are not operated with an unduly long exposure time.
