Shell Southern North Sea Contract 2012
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you ever considered the possibilty that Shell want the EC155 because it is far cheaper than the AW139 and because the PC2E requirements have changed there is no problem with using it now?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NL
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reassuring to read the evidence for the depth of technical knowledge held by some posters, today.
The EC155B1 complimentary flight manual, section 7.5, page 2, has two tables. 1.2.1 is for standard tanks; 1.2.2 is for crash-worthy tanks.
Crash-worthy tanks were one of several special options fitted to all Bristow B1s, at the request of Shell, that mostly added weight. In this case it also reduced fuel capacity by approx. 41kgs. Some options, but not all, were later fitted to some other operator's B1s (such as external liferaft release). However, Bristow's 155s are probably unique as a result.
Another option that Shell required was eventually dropped before delivery. EC designed a mod for crash-worthy floors, but they were cancelled to prevent an extended delivery delay, and also as the final design was going to be very heavy. I expect the risk assessment was that fitting them would lose a passenger on every flight, so requiring more flights, leading to an overall increased exposure to incidents happening...
EDIT: For anyone who doesn't believe that Bristow's 155B1s have these tanks installed, just ask a CHC refueller at EHKD what's the most fuel they've ever been able to get in one, compared with everyone else's fleets. So much for comments such as "Crash-worthy tanks are not installed on any 155 flying commercial as per today" - total BS!
The EC155B1 complimentary flight manual, section 7.5, page 2, has two tables. 1.2.1 is for standard tanks; 1.2.2 is for crash-worthy tanks.
Crash-worthy tanks were one of several special options fitted to all Bristow B1s, at the request of Shell, that mostly added weight. In this case it also reduced fuel capacity by approx. 41kgs. Some options, but not all, were later fitted to some other operator's B1s (such as external liferaft release). However, Bristow's 155s are probably unique as a result.
Another option that Shell required was eventually dropped before delivery. EC designed a mod for crash-worthy floors, but they were cancelled to prevent an extended delivery delay, and also as the final design was going to be very heavy. I expect the risk assessment was that fitting them would lose a passenger on every flight, so requiring more flights, leading to an overall increased exposure to incidents happening...
EDIT: For anyone who doesn't believe that Bristow's 155B1s have these tanks installed, just ask a CHC refueller at EHKD what's the most fuel they've ever been able to get in one, compared with everyone else's fleets. So much for comments such as "Crash-worthy tanks are not installed on any 155 flying commercial as per today" - total BS!
Last edited by mazdadriver; 8th May 2012 at 15:20.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crashworthy floor was not compatible with size of the team necessary to intervene in a blowout on a NUI.
The EC155 also has the advantage of a fenestron tail rotor.
The EC155 also has the advantage of a fenestron tail rotor.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC designed a mod for crash-worthy floors, but they were cancelled to prevent an extended delivery delay, and also as the final design was going to be very heavy.
I don't mind a choice for economics but please be honest about it. I get so tired of listening to all the PC safety nonsense that is then quickly disregarded as soon as it starts hurting the bottom line.
I'd rather deal with a consistent rogue than a company that keeps changing their tune. At least with the known rogue I can take a calculated risk or decide to decline it.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does tend to make one rather cynical I agree. Which is why when I read drivel like this:
I shake my head at the naivety of some in this industry.
Do you really think O&G companies work with companies that do not meet the required standards? I guess not.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crashworthy floor was not compatible with size of the team necessary to intervene in a blowout on a NUI.
The EC155 also has the advantage of a fenestron tail rotor.
The EC155 also has the advantage of a fenestron tail rotor.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: RotorTown
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if NHV´s aircraft will be equipped with FDM recoders. Anyone know ?
CHC Netherlands spent a lot of time and money putting this into their aircraft the last 2 years, because the "customers demanded it" ... so let´s see if money talks and bull**** walks
and what´s this about PC2 with exposure time coming back into the dutch sector, I´ve missed it completely, please tell me more
CHC Netherlands spent a lot of time and money putting this into their aircraft the last 2 years, because the "customers demanded it" ... so let´s see if money talks and bull**** walks
and what´s this about PC2 with exposure time coming back into the dutch sector, I´ve missed it completely, please tell me more
Last edited by Swinging Rotor; 14th Apr 2012 at 08:51. Reason: typo
Yaaawn