Offshore Platform PBN/RNP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offshore Platform PBN/RNP
We are looking for a launch customer to participate in a pilot program for Offshore Helicopter RNP in the Western Australian Region.
Please send a message if you would like to be involved.
Please send a message if you would like to be involved.
Joke"
Now I know who will win the "Gobbledygook and buzzword"award for 2011.
Why use 4 small words when 10 big ones will do.
What exactly are you attempting to do?
"End Joke
Now I know who will win the "Gobbledygook and buzzword"award for 2011.
Why use 4 small words when 10 big ones will do.
What exactly are you attempting to do?
"End Joke
Last edited by albatross; 15th Mar 2011 at 18:22. Reason: Wanted to
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh boy....bring back my old days of being a door gunner....dealing with the guys that had doors...
by a 'pilot' program, I dont mean pilots, I mean a launch or primary customer.
there isnt a lot of info on the site, as this is a business, and one cant post all the secrets!
The profile shown is for an offshore platform, all of the different lines are what we have to use in a design with the numerous variable...and the difference you see is the performance MDA, where the aircraft operator knows the real time climb with loading and temps, and therefore knows if they have a 4% climb grad, then this is my MDA, if I have 12%, this is my MDA...its a realtime MDA....
okay here goes:
Example:
Karratha to Goodwyn offshore platform:
Using the current NDB approach to Goodwyn, you have a 500' MDA
With the proposed GPS procedure, you have a 350' MDA, and if one goes with a performance MDA (as shown on the profile on the website) one can get to a possible 250'MDA (working on 200'MDA)
With the GPS platform approach, there would be no navigation using weather radar, and the procedure would get minimums and vis below a 300' ceiling, similar situation on approach to Karratha.
From Goodwyn to Karratha:
The current NDB approach has an MDA of 880'.
The GPS approach has an MDA of 550' (note ClassA thru C) with a Class A or H, specific, it could be 250' MDA.
Benefits:
Safety. The procedures put the aircraft at the helipad, and the missed approach is in the box, with no chance of hitting the derrick.
Access. The procedures, with lower min and vis, will allow much more availability of the platform and return. Once the crew is at Karratha, they are on the clock, the Goodwyn crew is still at the clock, any weather delays add significant labor costs. Equipment deliveries and repairs can be 24/7 and potentially save significant downtime costs.
Repeatability. The procedure is set, track miles are known. This can help with costs when fuel prices rise/fall, the costs much more of a known factor.
Environmental Issues. The fuel savings of the procedures will mean carbon savings in the regulatory exchange. The aircraft can also avoid noise sensitive areas.
So....hopefully, that is a little better...
by a 'pilot' program, I dont mean pilots, I mean a launch or primary customer.
there isnt a lot of info on the site, as this is a business, and one cant post all the secrets!
The profile shown is for an offshore platform, all of the different lines are what we have to use in a design with the numerous variable...and the difference you see is the performance MDA, where the aircraft operator knows the real time climb with loading and temps, and therefore knows if they have a 4% climb grad, then this is my MDA, if I have 12%, this is my MDA...its a realtime MDA....
okay here goes:
Example:
Karratha to Goodwyn offshore platform:
Using the current NDB approach to Goodwyn, you have a 500' MDA
With the proposed GPS procedure, you have a 350' MDA, and if one goes with a performance MDA (as shown on the profile on the website) one can get to a possible 250'MDA (working on 200'MDA)
With the GPS platform approach, there would be no navigation using weather radar, and the procedure would get minimums and vis below a 300' ceiling, similar situation on approach to Karratha.
From Goodwyn to Karratha:
The current NDB approach has an MDA of 880'.
The GPS approach has an MDA of 550' (note ClassA thru C) with a Class A or H, specific, it could be 250' MDA.
Benefits:
Safety. The procedures put the aircraft at the helipad, and the missed approach is in the box, with no chance of hitting the derrick.
Access. The procedures, with lower min and vis, will allow much more availability of the platform and return. Once the crew is at Karratha, they are on the clock, the Goodwyn crew is still at the clock, any weather delays add significant labor costs. Equipment deliveries and repairs can be 24/7 and potentially save significant downtime costs.
Repeatability. The procedure is set, track miles are known. This can help with costs when fuel prices rise/fall, the costs much more of a known factor.
Environmental Issues. The fuel savings of the procedures will mean carbon savings in the regulatory exchange. The aircraft can also avoid noise sensitive areas.
So....hopefully, that is a little better...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania and High Wollemi
Posts: 439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS procedures design.
OPB
This capability has been around for a number of years in OZ.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...MWGN01-124.pdf
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...LGGN02-124.pdf
Do you have an Australian design approval???
This capability has been around for a number of years in OZ.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...MWGN01-124.pdf
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...LGGN02-124.pdf
Do you have an Australian design approval???
Last edited by catseye; 15th Mar 2011 at 23:28. Reason: added procedure link
Also, I understand that Sikorsky has successfully trialled a system they call Rig Approach which is with the FAA for certification.
It flies the aircraft fully coupled to an offset position at helideck height 50' and around 400m at 30 knots I think. If the pilot does nothing, the aircraft commences an automatic go around.It can be used day and night and in any weather.
It flies the aircraft fully coupled to an offset position at helideck height 50' and around 400m at 30 knots I think. If the pilot does nothing, the aircraft commences an automatic go around.It can be used day and night and in any weather.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The only people who may be interested in this in WA are CHC and Bristow.
98% of the flights out of places like KTA are done in clear blue sky so spending dough on more IFR type flight planning software etc won't be on the radar at all.
Also all the graphs and charts that people ever need are already in existance anyway.
Still you could always give the Chief Pilot a ring at CHC Australia 'cos it's his guys who are going to the Goodwin and the Rankin these days. I'm sure he'll be interested?
Good luck.
98% of the flights out of places like KTA are done in clear blue sky so spending dough on more IFR type flight planning software etc won't be on the radar at all.
Also all the graphs and charts that people ever need are already in existance anyway.
Still you could always give the Chief Pilot a ring at CHC Australia 'cos it's his guys who are going to the Goodwin and the Rankin these days. I'm sure he'll be interested?
Good luck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the interesting replies!
Woolf,
yes I have been involved in the concepts in the North Sea area. The issue with these procedures is the offset, which is where most CFIT incidents occur.
Concur. The significant difference is using the radar for obstacles, not navigation. Procedures are designed with an AAO or Assumed Adverse Obstacles to take into account moving and/or temporary obstacles.
catseye,
Concur, the capability has been available, but used little. What I am trying to do is use the procedures already created for fixed wing aircraft, and add the Class A/H for rotary wing. The govt focus has been on Class C/D aircraft for procedure design. And yes, I have significant design experience in AUS.
industry insider,
Yes, I am aware of the Rig Approach concept. This system requires a procedure design per rig...
floatsarmed,
Yes, there are many charts, but my experience has been they are far too generic, with high mins/vis, usually based on fixed wing aircraft, not helo ops.
Concur on KTA ops, the weather is fairly moderate, which is why this is a good place to begin, as the costs and regulatory approval will be minimal.
Having IFR procedures is very important in helo ops. The accident rates are far too high, and navigating with the weather radar creates too much crew workload.
With procedures, the rigs, approach, missed, holds are defined in the box, and will show on the display. The obstacles have been taken into account in the design, such as the 200' AAO.
Again, thanks for the response!
Woolf,
Have you had a look at the (JAR/EU-OPS) GPS assisted airborne radar approach currently used within the North Sea? This is along similar lines and minimas (200' / 3/4nm).
There was an attempt to get away from using radar as a means of navigation for these approaches (as you suggest). It has been recognised however that it is very difficult to control the offshore obstacle environment and radar is necessary to guarantee a clear flight path.
catseye,
This capability has been around for a number of years in OZ.
industry insider,
Also, I understand that Sikorsky has successfully trialled a system they call Rig Approach which is with the FAA for certifica
floatsarmed,
Also all the graphs and charts that people ever need are already in existance anyway.
98% of the flights out of places like KTA are done in clear blue sky so spending dough on more IFR type flight planning software etc won't be on the radar at all.
Having IFR procedures is very important in helo ops. The accident rates are far too high, and navigating with the weather radar creates too much crew workload.
With procedures, the rigs, approach, missed, holds are defined in the box, and will show on the display. The obstacles have been taken into account in the design, such as the 200' AAO.
Again, thanks for the response!
The obstacles have been taken into account in the design, such as the 200' AAO.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have...(I used to be a PM for diveops on installs, and recoveries such as Ensco64)
I would not castrate all of the procedures in an area with the parameters of towing around a jackdown..this would be handled as a NOTOM and review any procedures for conflicts, perhaps raise applicable MDA's...we could also provide a course for the towed platform that would not conflict with procedures...
There would be a blanket advisory placed over the area, 25nm, with shipping, advised that any vessel over 200' notify Air Services through the typical NOTAM channels for review...
and, of course, part of certification process to use the procedures, is to arm the helos to deal with non-compliance (one of the side benefits of GPS navigation)
I would not castrate all of the procedures in an area with the parameters of towing around a jackdown..this would be handled as a NOTOM and review any procedures for conflicts, perhaps raise applicable MDA's...we could also provide a course for the towed platform that would not conflict with procedures...
There would be a blanket advisory placed over the area, 25nm, with shipping, advised that any vessel over 200' notify Air Services through the typical NOTAM channels for review...
and, of course, part of certification process to use the procedures, is to arm the helos to deal with non-compliance (one of the side benefits of GPS navigation)
Flight Path,
Yes, I am aware that the Sikorsky "Rig Approach" system requires a procedure design for each rig. Actually its designed to be more platform rather than rig based.
Each platform requires a unique design because of the low minima and the fact that the system orients the aircraft for landing or automatic GA.
Yes, I am aware that the Sikorsky "Rig Approach" system requires a procedure design for each rig. Actually its designed to be more platform rather than rig based.
Each platform requires a unique design because of the low minima and the fact that the system orients the aircraft for landing or automatic GA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concur,
The specs for the Sikorsky system, to me, are somewhat veiled...
"the pilot enters the FAF, MAPt, MDA, performance, missed approach, and hold pattern" and the aircraft will fly to this...
Well,
Where does the pilot get this information? Enter the FAF...well where is that from? MDA...MAPt...Hold fix...who designs all of this?
Basically, the program appears to allow for an operator to enter IFR approach waypoints, which is technically, per ICAO and common sense...illegal.
While the system may be approved to fly this type of procedure, I doubt if it will be approved for an operator to input, and fly, IFR...
The specs for the Sikorsky system, to me, are somewhat veiled...
"the pilot enters the FAF, MAPt, MDA, performance, missed approach, and hold pattern" and the aircraft will fly to this...
Well,
Where does the pilot get this information? Enter the FAF...well where is that from? MDA...MAPt...Hold fix...who designs all of this?
Basically, the program appears to allow for an operator to enter IFR approach waypoints, which is technically, per ICAO and common sense...illegal.
While the system may be approved to fly this type of procedure, I doubt if it will be approved for an operator to input, and fly, IFR...
Well, if you think I'm going to descend in IMC to 200 ft offshore 'hoping' there are no obstacles in the way, you have another thought coming! The example I used was just one threat - there are plenty of large 'hard' things that populate the sea and are not notified.
Regarding the SAC Rig Approach procedure, I'm not sure that it does require a design for each platform. On the contrary, I believe it is simply a means of flying a modified OSAP or ARA but with greatly simplified pilot inputs and greatly improved automated functions. The pilot enters the destination rig into the FMS, then sets the inbound course on the Flight Director using the wind direction and obstacle environment as factors. The MDH is set along with the required offset and then the system computes the flight path to arrive at the FAF from the enroute phase, and comences the descents and decelerations as required to the MAPt - based on range/offset distance .It still requires the Radar for obstacle clearance, and indeed displays the required obstacle free sector on the Nav Display. It is still undergoing certification flight testing.
Regarding the SAC Rig Approach procedure, I'm not sure that it does require a design for each platform. On the contrary, I believe it is simply a means of flying a modified OSAP or ARA but with greatly simplified pilot inputs and greatly improved automated functions. The pilot enters the destination rig into the FMS, then sets the inbound course on the Flight Director using the wind direction and obstacle environment as factors. The MDH is set along with the required offset and then the system computes the flight path to arrive at the FAF from the enroute phase, and comences the descents and decelerations as required to the MAPt - based on range/offset distance .It still requires the Radar for obstacle clearance, and indeed displays the required obstacle free sector on the Nav Display. It is still undergoing certification flight testing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the 200' is above the helo deck...and the designs take into account the known obstacles, and some accounting for transitory obstacles. It is unlikely, unless you have a LATS system or a GBAS, that you will get to the 200' mins, but 250' is supported by the criteria and the MOS. and SOAP still has the offsets which cause the CFITs.
Where does all that data come from, the obstacles, MDA and required offsets, location of the hold pattern and obstacle clearance?
What about departures, and the land based destination?
One other issue, I believe this system can only be used when the platform is at least 200nm from land.
CASA/ASA arent going to let this system be used for the land based destinations.
Where does all that data come from, the obstacles, MDA and required offsets, location of the hold pattern and obstacle clearance?
What about departures, and the land based destination?
One other issue, I believe this system can only be used when the platform is at least 200nm from land.
CASA/ASA arent going to let this system be used for the land based destinations.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, and I say that not in ignorance of procedural design rules, but with practical experience of the offshore IFR operating environment. The obstacle situation is quite dynamic and does not lend itself to any procedure that does not have an adequate means of obstacle avoidance in real time. Although there are are several WAAS and EGNOS procedures being looked at that allow very low minimum decision ranges from the destination, they do not in themselves provide the obstacle clearance assurances during the approach or missed aproach themselves - only from the destination.
The JAR OPS-3 ARA procedure is not well documented, I feel, when compared to the US equivelant - the OSAP. The following link gives some further details of the history and concepts behind the latter, if you are not already aware of them:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2090-80B/$FILE/AC90-80B.pdf
You mention the SOAP Trials, so I assume you are familiar with this document?
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2010001.pdf
The JAR OPS-3 ARA procedure is not well documented, I feel, when compared to the US equivelant - the OSAP. The following link gives some further details of the history and concepts behind the latter, if you are not already aware of them:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2090-80B/$FILE/AC90-80B.pdf
You mention the SOAP Trials, so I assume you are familiar with this document?
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2010001.pdf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your statement is exactly why I have written most of the new procedure guidelines, which will likely be adopted by the operators in the North Sea, and be adopted as the new standard you see in the AUS MOS.
Here is the SOAP procedure overlaid on your current MOS procedure...
SOAP
Note the differences? Well...there are none and the same offset is where most CFIT incidents occur...
Lest you forget, my experience is from a helo ops perspective, not bastardizing a fixed wing criteria for the procedure design.
You want to fly more often, at night and inclement weather, and NOT drive into the rig or surf... I can show you how to do that with a level of automation, right now, with what you have...
or you can continue with navigating by offsets using the weather radar for navigation? Keep expounding on your current situation and safety record...
Here is the SOAP procedure overlaid on your current MOS procedure...
SOAP
Note the differences? Well...there are none and the same offset is where most CFIT incidents occur...
Lest you forget, my experience is from a helo ops perspective, not bastardizing a fixed wing criteria for the procedure design.
You want to fly more often, at night and inclement weather, and NOT drive into the rig or surf... I can show you how to do that with a level of automation, right now, with what you have...
or you can continue with navigating by offsets using the weather radar for navigation? Keep expounding on your current situation and safety record...
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 18th Mar 2011 at 01:03. Reason: add image
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
FlightpathOBN:
You mention 'most CFIT accidents' - can you provide specific examples of CFIT accidents for oil rig approaches? I'm not that familiar with them.
You mention 'most CFIT accidents' - can you provide specific examples of CFIT accidents for oil rig approaches? I'm not that familiar with them.